EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 13, 1996

.1535

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): I'd like to call this session to order and welcome the members of Parliament, the senators, and the participants who are here.

After we conclude our round table there will be an opportunity for everyone here to have a chance to talk to each other. If someone says something interesting you'd like to follow up with a little bit later, you can have that individual conversation.

I'd like to welcome the audience here in the room and the audience viewing the program. This afternoon and tomorrow we will hold a televised parliamentary forum on jobs, the environment and sustainable development. This forum is hosted by the Subcommittee on Environmental Awareness for Sustainability, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

The members of the subcommittee include Monique Guay and Gérard Asselin of the Bloc, Paul Forseth of the Reform Party, Jean Payne and John Finlay of the Liberal Party, and I am the chair.

The purpose of the forum is to heighten parliamentarians' awareness of sustainability and to provide them with some practical examples of where environmental sustainability actually works, in our communities, business, industry and government.

[Translation]

I would like to welcome all participants, members of Parliament and senators.

[English]

I would invite participants and members to introduce themselves.

I'll start first. My name is Karen Kraft Sloan, and I'm the member of Parliament from York - Simcoe and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): I'm John Godfrey, parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation and Francophonie and an interested bystander. I'm a former member of the board of Pollution Probe.

Mr. Christopher Henderson (Chief Executive Officer, Delphi Group): My name is Christopher Henderson, and I'm the CEO of the Delphi Group.

Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): My name is Roy Cullen. I'm the member of Parliament from Etobicoke North, and I've had an interest in this topic over the years, working in the private and public sectors in the forestry sector.

Mr. Caccia (Davenport): I'm Charles Caccia from Toronto.

Ms Ann Davis (Partner, Environmental Services, KPMG): I'm Ann Davis. I'm the partner in charge of the environmental practice at KPMG.

Dr. Nola-Kate Seymoar (International Institute for Sustainable Development): I'mDr. Nola-Kate Seymoar. I'm deputy to the president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. We're located in Winnipeg - or Winterpeg, actually.

Mr. Jon Grant (Chairman, Canada Lands Corporation): I'm Jon Grant. I wear about three hats: I'm the past chairman and CEO of Quaker Oats; I'm the past chair of the Ontario round table on the environment and the economy; and I'm currently the chair of Canada Lands Corporation.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I'm Jean Payne, a member of Parliament from St. John's, Newfoundland.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): My name is Paul Forseth. I'm the member of Parliament for New Westminster - Burnaby, and I'm the Reform Party environmental critic on the standing committee on the environment.

[Translation]

Mr. Harvey Mead (President, Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature, and member of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy): I am Harvey Mead, President of the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature and member of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

[English]

Mr. Henry Lickers (Director, Department of Environment, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne): I'm Henry Lickers. I'm the director of the Department of the Environment for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne.

Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I'm Julian Reed, the member for Halton - Peel, and personally very deeply involved in the business of sustainable development.

Ms Miriam Wyman (Women and Sustainability Network): I'm Miriam Wyman. I'm from Toronto, and I am former coordinator of the Women and Sustainability Network.

Professor Jack Mintz (Economist, Technical Committee on Business Taxation, Department of Finance): I'm Jack Mintz, currently with about three different positions. As two of the most relevant ones, I am normally with the faculty of management, University of Toronto, but currently I'm the Clifford Clark visiting economist at the Department of Finance in Ottawa.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Good afternoon. My name is Gérard Asselin. I am the member of Parliament for the riding of Charlevoix and I represent the Bloc québécois, the Official Opposition, on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I am pleased to welcome you here this afternoon on behalf of the Official Opposition. I can tell you that all members of the committee and the sub-committee worked together to ensure the success of this forum.

[English]

Professor Nigel Roome (Environment and Business, Faculty of Administrative Studies, York University): I'm Nigel Roome. I hold the Erivan K. Haub chair in business and environment at the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto.

[Translation]

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): My name is Peter Adams, federal member of Parliament for the riding of Peterborough. I am also the Chair of the Liberal caucus of Ontario.

Mr. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface): Good afternoon. My name is Ron Duhamel

[English]

and I am the member of Parliament for St. Boniface in Manitoba.

.1540

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

We have quite an illustrious round table this afternoon. This is going to be a very informal discussion. We will, however, start off with presentations from our three lead presenters, and they will talk about sustainable development from their own perspective and how it contributes to the job agenda.

After they give their presentation, we will go to a speakers list, and I will take your name down and ask that you limit your comments to three to five minutes. I know that's hardly enough time to talk about sustainable development, but the idea here is that we have an overview, that we have some understanding of different people's ideas and perspectives on the field. It's a way for us to better understand what is out there.

I should also mention to you that because it is a televised forum, we will have tapes as a resource from this particular project that we can send out to our schools, our communities. If anyone is interested, we can certainly talk about that at a later time.

Right now, I would like to introduce our three lead speakers: Jon Grant, who has already introduced himself as the former CEO of Quaker Oats, and currently a member of the Canadian Polar Commission and the chairman of the Canada Lands Corporation; Henry Lickers, who is a member of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, in Quebec; and Miriam Wyman, who was with the Women and Sustainability Network in Toronto.

Mr. Grant: Thank you very much, madame la présidente.

I'd like to take the ten minutes allocated to me and try to cover as much ground as I can, and possibly dwell on about three points.

Let me start with suggesting to you that everything you hear about the environment these days and the fact that it has declined in terms of the public consciousness is only what I call a momentary aberration to what, in the long term, is a continuing consumer concern.

Jobs and the economy obviously come to the top of the list in any survey that's done, but if you ask people what's down the road in five or ten years time, the environment and concern about the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat in fact becomes the most important issue people have. So I would suggest right off that it's not going to go away and in fact will likely again increase very substantially.

The other point I want to make on the same subject is that the environment is one of the things we have in this world that is a challenge without borders. That is, everything travels around this world: we breathe the same air, and in many cases drink the same water. So it's a non-national issue.

Let me take, for example, what's happening in the Arctic today. I define the Arctic as a sink. You know how they talk about environmental sinks; the Arctic is an environmental sink without a drain. Basically the circulation of the air currents, and to a large degree the water circulation in the oceans, means that many of the contaminants that come out of, for instance, countries like Russia or even mid-U.S. end up circulating the Arctic. So the last pristine environment we have as a country, of which we have control in some way or another of 25% of that mass, is in fact coming under some real pressures on the environment.

You know, we spend so much time in this country worrying about ourselves in the south that we ignore not only the human risk of environmental degradation in the Arctic but also the long-term world problem of this increasing.

My own view is that the environment has been captured much more by some private sector companies than it has - let me suggest to you - by the federal government, who have yet to find a way to appoint an environmental or sustainable development commissioner, or whatever the marvellous title.

.1545

When I took over as chair of the Ontario round table, one of the objectives we had was to try to encourage corporations not only to become much more concerned about their environmental stewardship but also report that activity in their annual reports. Today we've gone from virtually none ten years ago to a number of companies now that have a separate section in their annual reports that talk about not only their environmental stewardship but where they've come from, what happened last year, and what they expect to do next year - marvellous - companies like Avenor, Noranda, Dofasco, Consumers Gas, and I could go on to name a number of others.

So what I'm suggesting here is that the private sector, certainly in the leading companies' field, has really picked up on environmental stewardship because it makes sense in terms of their business. Companies that are concerned about conservation, both in resources and the other utilizations, for instance in hydro or water, are more concerned about efficiency and productivity, tend to produce in a more efficient manner and are more competitive not only in Canada but internationally.

The circle is basically complete when you talk about environmental stewardship. Companies that practise it in a real way have an employee group that's more satisfied with the environment they work in - that is, the work environment. They go home and tell their neighbours and their children who they work for. They're proud of it.

At Quaker a number of years ago, when we were involved in this for the first time, the studies we did not only found that the employees were more productive and more turned on about what was happening within their company, but our suppliers and our customers also became much more attuned to what Quaker was doing. It was a win-win situation.

So one of the things you can do, I think, is tie in this afternoon and tomorrow the concept of environmental stewardship, or sustainable development, or however you want to define sustainability, with the idea that in fact it does produce a workforce that is much more turned on about the company they work for, a company that is more competitive nationally but also internationally. That's the pay-off.

The pay-off in a community, in many cases, is that people become much more conscious about the things they do locally. Do you know, for instance, that $24 billion will have to be spent in this country in the next ten years to upgrade water and sewage systems? If you reduce the amount of water you consume by 50%, something on the level of Europe, you could virtually save not only the $24 billion, but more importantly, you reduce the amount of effluent that is going to have to be dealt with in the overflows as you go through the system.

So again, I take it from a larger base into the community side and suggest that it is an important part of how we live.

The next part, and this is the important one, is that we're the only animals in the world that think beyond their own generation - we hope. Sometimes we wonder. But for those of us who are parents and grandparents, the question we have to ask ourselves when we talk about environmental stewardship and sustainable development is, are you leaving your world to the next generation the same as when you got it? The answer in many cases is no.

A lot of the impetus, although it can come from the community and come from businesses in terms of job development, must also come from you people who are deputies in this government, both at the federal level and of course people in the provincial governments as well. You have to lead the way. You have to give some direction and some hope to people.

People today are looking for something to believe in. But one of the things they can start to have a focus on is the idea that we can build a better environment, a more productive society, a cleaner life in the future. We're not doing that. So we're leaving people with these huge gaps.

Young people today are coming out of school having a great deal of time finding a job, and yet we do a very poor job both in the public high schools and even universities in trying to teach sustainable development. With the exception of Nigel's university, there are only one or two in the country that teach sustainable development as a core course in the professional schools. You're taking the next generation coming out of university not having any more focus on environmental stewardship and sustainable development than their predecessors had. So it becomes a real lack.

I want to conclude here with these points, and then we can come back and talk about them as we get into the discussion a little later.

.1550

We do have to respect, as human beings on this planet, the rights of future generations. Nothing is perfect, but I can't think of another issue today that governments and society in general - people or industry or whoever it is that we talk about - could grab ahold of and run with, and which will coalesce and bring together people of all walks of life, of all nationalities, in an idea that really is going to be the most important idea in the 21st century.

Thank you very much.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Grant.

Mr. Lickers, please.

Mr. Lickers: When I was first asked to come to talk about this, I was kind of chagrined. Why would a biologist come to talk to you about sustainable development?

I'll start off with a small story that may exemplify some of the things we've been thinking about as far as native people are concerned.

There were two old men sitting beside a river, and they were both fishing. As they began to talk, they realized that they came from very different backgrounds. One gentleman said he had gone through law school, had done a lot of work for various companies, and had worked very hard during his life. Finally, he was now 65 years old and could go fishing all the time if he wanted to. The other person said he was a native who had been living on the lake all his life and understood the lake very well. He had been fishing on that lake all his life.

It seems to me that those two people had been merrily running about while trying to figure out how they could get to those same resources, and each of them finally ended up in the same place trying to fish that lake.

As native people, when we look at the world, we know that, yes, we have to look back to seven generations in the past. Going back seven generations gives us the knowledge we need in order to make the decisions we see as important today. But we also say that we have to look seven generations into the future, to those faces unborn, to those coming from the soil, because those are the children who will inherit the impacts of things we have done.

So sustainable development becomes the way in which you balance your needs for today in this generation with the generations that are to come, because those generations that are to come will be the ones that will judge us. Under the Haudenosaunee we have some very simple tools that we use in order to be able to understand this type of transfer. One of them is called the Great Law of Peace. ``Great Law of Peace'' sounds very grandiose when you say it that way, because of the way it translates out from the Haudenosaunee words. But there is always a second translation for each of our words, so it can be translated as ``the way to be nice''. I think that's probably the way my mother used to tell us to play nicely in the garden.

What we have found nowadays with sustainable development is that we have to come up with processes under which we can play nicely together. No longer can one person be a bully or hold the sandbox for himself, because we now see that the resources are becoming so scarce that we're now feeling the edge of that sandbox.

From a native point of view, I'd like to talk a little bit about that concept of sustainability. We look at sustainable development as encompassing shells of responsibility at an individual level. As a Haudenosaunee man living within my community, I have a responsibility to my community in order to generate a responsible job, a responsible activity that takes into account my responsibility to the earth, to my family, to my friends, to my nation, and to people around me. At Akwesasne, I helped to generate our department of the environment, and I have worked there for twenty years looking at environmental impacts and issues within the Great Lakes. We've also looked at how we can help our reserve.

As a family, my family looks at the world. My wife, my children, my mother and my father, and the elders in my community help my family in order for it to be able to sustain itself. And my responsibility to the community is to have in my family those children that I need. Our people say that Haudenosaunee should only have three children in a family: one each to replace the mother and father, and then one for the cruel winter.

.1555

A community looks to the structure around it. It looks to its knowledge, its resources, its political will, and its diversity; and in that diversity it develops organizations and guilds or things that can sustain that community.

At Akwesasne we have the eastern Ontario model forest, which is a much bigger union of industry, the Ontario government, and Akwesasne. We have the St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences, again looking to create jobs. Across Canada we have the naturalized knowledge system, which is looking at five communities in Canada to see how we can work.

The community of Akwesasne itself has gone through a lot of turmoil as our traditional economies have collapsed. We're at a stage now where we're looking to see how to revitalize those economies using the knowledge we have from our people and the sciences our people also have learned from the western society, through aquaculture, fisheries, and various other things.

A nation has a responsibility to its people to make sure the sustainability of resources, diversity, knowledge, and political will are distributed region to region. Communities can take care of themselves, but certain things are lacking within communities. They must be able to transfer this information region to region, transfer goods and services or resources between them, and to do that in an equitable way.

We say the confederacy was established to be nice, and this is the way nations can work together. The Haudenosaunee have presented to the United Nations our concept of how to rejuvenate and restore the Haudenosaunee homelands of 21 different communities in Canada and the United States.

Lastly, we have a spiritual realm that encompasses all of this. In that realm we're looking for everyone who is a thinker, everyone who can come forward with philosophies and ideas about how to do sustainable development or sustainability.

Again, we now come right back to the basic individual. It becomes the individual's responsibility to the earth to carry these things out, in order to sustain themselves and their families for seven generations to come.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Lickers.

Miriam Wyman, please.

Ms Wyman: Thank you. I want first of all to thank you for including me in this event. I especially want to applaud Karen Kraft Sloan and her committee for taking this initiative. Many of us have long recognized how important it is and how difficult it is to keep sustainable development on the political agenda.

From 1990 to 1992 non-governmental organizations, government, business, and industry came together in ways unprecedented in this country. Canada's role at the Earth Summit set an international standard for involving members of business, industry, youth, native people, and non-governmental organizations, a standard it has not sustained.

We came home flush with excitement and eager to continue the multisectoral policy dialogues that had characterized our two years of work on the Earth Summit. The projet de société was established as a large, multisectoral partnership of people throughout Canada willing to think, talk, and find ways to move this country in the direction of greater sustainability. Leadership came forward and major institutions came forward with resources.

After two years of very hard work and a number of notable successes the government changed and the institutional and political commitment to the projet de société faded. Two recent events were held which pretty much wrapped up the projet de société. Some of you were participants in the March meeting in Montreal on jobs, economy, and sustainable livelihoods. The second is a project which remains to see the light of day, and that's a community sustainability tool kit a number of us were working on. It should be available both in print and electronically sometime soon.

Canada's national round table on environment and the economy, which we all know became a model around the world for ways to bring people together to consider contentious issues, is drastically diminished. Some of us wonder whether in fact it continues to see its major role as being in sustainable development.

There was a small piece in The Globe on the weekend indicating that the environment ministers of the G-7 countries would like a new Earth Summit to mark the fifth anniversary of the Earth Summit. I'm curious about what Canada's report card to such a meeting would be like.

.1600

There are a lot of important commitments on paper, all there to guide policy, strategies, and actions, and it seems to me that the movement that's taking place is happening on the ground and is not being well supported, if it's being supported at all, by policy changes that clearly convey a commitment to sustainability. This is one of a number of things that are making me feel quite cranky and irritable about sustainable development these days, and when I stopped to think about all of the positive things that I ought to be saying, I decided that what I was really going to do was express to you my crankiness about some of these issues.

I see that there is a great deal of activity on the part of individuals, small groups, and sometimes communities, but that these efforts are not being well supported or encouraged. They seem, in fact, to be blocked at almost every step.

I don't have a problem with so-called ordinary people taking the lead; that's how successful movements have always taken hold, and I don't think this one is any different in that regard. However, I have a big problem with policies that obstruct, with leadership that doesn't lead, and with pushing responsibility down to the lower rungs, which does not solve the larger problems. Actions on the ground and policies have to be mutually reinforcing. When they are, both work better and shifts - or sea changes, as the current word has it - become possible. That's not happening.

Henry Lickers spoke about what sustainability is, so I don't need to say anything more about definitions of sustainability. I think we all share very similar visions.

My work for the last 20 years has focused on public involvement in environmental decision-making. For me, this is environmental education writ large. I work with people who are finding ways to influence decisions that affect them, their lives, their communities, and their environments, and I find, every time, that when people are involved, plans are better and there is greater support for the outcomes.

I'm identified today as representing the Women and Sustainability Network. The network - I'll talk a bit about its evolution in a couple of minutes - is one of the many casualties of changes in commitments to non-government organizations, and to women in particular, since the Earth Summit.

Much of my work deals with women's involvement in environmental activity, primarily because women continue to be the heart and the backbone of the environmental movement and seem to understand very well that sustainability is economics, environment, and society, all together, and that it's about health and well-being, about security, about freedom from fear and freedom from violence.

What I really think we should be doing this afternoon is watching the NFB's documentary about Marilyn Waring, the New Zealand economist who looks at all of the ways in which women's work is not counted in national accounts.

I guess it's appropriate to note two things at this point. The first is that unpaid work undertaken to maintain households and families is, for the first time, part of the Canadian census that's currently under way. The flip side of that is that Studio D, the centre of feminist film-making in Canada, with films acclaimed around the world for illuminating women's perspectives, including the film about Marilyn Waring, no longer exists.

Another example of my crankiness is this tension between things that are happening related to sustainable development and things that are not happening. A lot of Canadian women are engaged in creating sustainability. Some are very well known. They are women like Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who was the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, and Leone Pippard, who established the St. Lawrence marine park and headed the education task force of the national round table on the environment and the economy and has been working very hard to create a national communications program similar to ParticipAction in support of sustainable development.

It's unfortunate that the federal government has yet to recognize the importance of this national program that would link the many, many efforts welling up throughout the country, efforts that really represent a social movement toward greater sustainability.

There are women like Ursula Franklin, who once said that we should treat the environment the way we treat the Americans and the environment would be in much better shape.

There are thousands who are not so well known: women who organize around the spraying of pesticides in local parks and school yards, women who take on major waste-handlers and force them to acknowledge responsibility for accepting millions of gallons of hazardous waste and push them to become more responsible and accountable corporate citizens, women in remote areas and native communities who establish beyond a doubt that their communities were too often dumping grounds for urban waste.

.1605

Women's grassroots efforts have been based largely on concerns about health, safety, skyrocketing rates of cancer and respiratory illness, and the sense that these have environmental connections. These efforts succeed against enormous odds: indifference, completely inadequate resources, cuts to welfare, cuts to training programs, cuts to social services, cuts to education and childcare, increases in transit fares alongside decreased service. All of this retrenchment says to me we are belying the commitment made by Canada in such international fora as the Earth Summit, the Social Development Summit, and the Beijing women's conference held just last fall.

Some days it's really hard to stay focused. What would it be like if these efforts took place in a context of support and encouragement? I hope I live long enough to find out.

Following the Earth Summit, my partner and I managed to secure funding to ask women what sustainability means to us; to identify women's criteria for sustainability and to find out what kind of network would best support women's efforts towards sustainability. We talked with communications professionals, women involved in international ``development'' - I use that word advisably, because I think we have much to learn from so-called ``underdeveloped'' women - first nations women, urban and rural women, and men, since there seemed to be significant differences between what women and men were saying about sustainability. I want to tell you about some of those differences.

In talking about the roadblocks to sustainability, we found men included the economy, current political systems, the reductionist nature of technology, the need for research to define clearly limits and carrying capacities, and activities in such traditional categories as mining and forestry. The emphasis seemed very much to be on control of people, of systems, and of technologies.

Women spoke very clearly about the small number of women in decision-making roles as a key obstacle to sustainability. Women tend to focus on community and on family life. They feel the urgency of the present situation and are well aware of the need to take a long-term view. Women also recognize the need to act in the face of uncertainty and without definitive information.

It seems to us these differences spring from differences in self-definition. Men tend to define themselves by their public or work selves while women see themselves as having an identity at work as well as in family and community. These differences seem to attest to the importance of ensuring gender-balanced debate, and I would add multicultural debate, in order to move toward a more common vision of sustainability and the best means to achieve it.

No one in our study equated sustainability with economic growth. The focus was on sustained sufficiency, development of people, skills, and capacities. Undoing unsustainability was the most essential step in the transition to sustainability.

Sustainability is much more than environmental management. It involves trade, finance, environment, health, education, work, culture, and most importantly people. We need to invent new forms of communication and new kinds of organizations and institutions that can bring together the range of interests that must work together to achieve sustainability. Policies for sustainability have to inform action towards sustainability, and local action has to inform policy. When policies and actions are in step the transition will be under way.

Summaries of the report are on the table and the large report is available on request if people want it.

Our findings were reinforced by The Canadian Women's Budget. I don't know how many of you are familiar with this document. It was produced in 1993 by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. They took an alternative approach to security, one that requires a reordering of government priorities and a rewriting of government policies. They say they favour full employment over bread lines, fair trade over free trade, child care over child poverty, corporate taxes over corporate profits, and peace over war.

Social, economic, and environmental security for all citizens is our goal, but we need a government committed to these priorities, a government that will work toward social justice and equality in the distribution of society's resources.

.1610

In 1994 the Sustainable Development Research Institute at the University of British Columbia held a preparatory conference for the Beijing World Conference on Women. This event drew over 600 women, who worked in policy circles to address what they saw as major obstacles to sustainability. IISD supported this conference by creating an electronic resource guide, Women and Sustainable Development: Canadian Perspectives, and a flyer for it is also on the table over there. By the way, it's available in Windows and MacIntosh versions from IISD.

Last fall, to coincide with the women's conference in Beijing, Mother Jones published a special issue focusing on women of the world. I don't know how many of you saw it, but it's here for reference.

Soon after that, Friends of the Earth Canada published a special issue of their newsletter Earth Words on women and environment, and copies of that are on the table beside you as well.

I certainly don't know all of what will be next, but I do know that Friends of the Earth Canada and Ginergy Books are collaborating on a book dealing with women's health and environment, which is looking at the connections. I'm going to be helping to coordinate that.

The women's movement taught us that the personal is political and that women are not genetically better suited than men to cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, and caring for children. We have to work together to save the world.

The environment movement taught us that we have to think globally and act locally. The Earth Summit taught me this is no longer enough. We have to understand the implications of our everyday actions on people and events in other places. I think we're engaged in an evolutionary process that is changing the very nature of participation, and globalization is very much a part of that. It's taking a long time and we have a very long way to go, but it seems to me that what we also must learn is how to think locally and act globally.

I don't have easy advice on how this fits with jobs. What I do feel, though, is that there is lots of room for fundamental discussion about what sustainability means, that there's a tremendous need to talk about the differences that we have in our perspectives on sustainability, and that it's crucial for us to make room around our tables for thinking and acting from many different perspectives.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much. I hope this afternoon we'll have the opportunity to do that.

I'd also like to mention the fact that Gar Knutson, the member of Parliament for Elgin - Norfolk, has joined us, and John Finlay, the member of Parliament for Oxford, and Stan Dromisky, from Thunder Bay - Atikokan, have joined us as well.

I also wanted to mention that we have some students in our audience today: Shannon Armstrong from A.Y. Jackson Secondary School; Jessica Hillary from West Carleton Secondary School; Cindy Hough from Queen's University; Daniel Merritt, a SchoolNet support teacher from École secondaire publique Louis Riel. These students will be giving a demonstration on Environment Canada's Green Lane after we complete the round table, and I encourage other members participating in the round table to join this demonstration. It will be given by Rosaline Frith and Jean Séguin from Environment Canada.

I would also like to mention that Gary Gallon has joined us. Gary, you can tell us who you're with.

Mr. Gary Gallon (Canadian Institute for Business and Environment): I'm with the Canadian Institute for Business and Environment.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): From Montreal.

Mr. Gallon: From Montreal.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): We will begin our round table discussion. We've heard some differing views on this particular topic. We're looking at comments and responses of about three to five minutes. I know that's hard to do.

Paul, do you want to be a lead on that?

Mr. Forseth: It was interesting to hear Jon Grant, and maybe Mr. Gallon can also respond.

In British Columbia we have a provincial election. Another survey was done recently about what issues are of concern to the population. Very interestingly, the environment came up. It surprised even the political commentators that people still want governments to deal with environmental issues. In spite of all the changing agendas, the environment is there. It comes back as an item when we want to talk about politics and the law. So you were certainly right in your opening comments.

.1615

I would like to perhaps get you to respond to a rather simple notion, but it may take a long time to answer. How can we continue to improve the way we live - we want jobs and an economy - but still not ruin the natural world? I think your words were somewhat on the optimistic side when you said that business and trade need not be in conflict with protecting our world. So from a business perspective, can you perhaps expand on this idea, your hope, your optimism that we can have economic growth and that growth need not be damaging to our world? They need not be in conflict - in other words one or the other - but that's sometimes the way environmental questions are reflected in the media. Can we have true sustainable development, or is it just a nice idea that we're really just fooling ourselves with and that's not going to happen?

Mr. Grant: I'll start with that.

I'm going to give you one interesting example that applies to both coasts of this country. At the present time, because of a shortage of pulp in some areas on the west coast and on the east coast, we're moving on the west coast into the Yukon, and into Labrador on the east coast. The trees they're taking out are about 200 years old, and they're about 12 inches in diameter. The question I'll ask you right off before I try to answer yours is: Is that sustainable development in anybody's book? Is it sustainable development in terms of the environments concerned? Is it sustainable employment - one shot, they're gone and they're back on unemployment again? Thirdly, is it sustainable for a society, for a community, that has a town or a village nearby? On all three counts, those two situations are not sustainable.

There is a point I'd like to make just to sort of summarize. There are a couple of things that are important. First, we must continue to learn to live off the interest in this country, and also account fully and as best we can for the resources that we use.

Now, it sounds Pollyanna, but in many cases the meeting companies are much more efficient and are much more able to handle some of these things than perhaps are the companies that don't measure up. The question always is one of becoming more efficient, of becoming more productive, of becoming more conservation-minded, but you will not survive in this world because of all the competition coming from other countries. You then have to take the position of asking those questions, however, every time there is a product brought into this country that does not live up to what we would set as a standard for ourselves in an environmentally acceptable kind of way. You can't on the one hand say that we live in this marvellous country and can walk around and design all these sorts of ideals in sustainable development, yet on the other hand bring products in that are in effect degrading environments in other parts of the world.

It's not an easy issue. I don't like the words ``sustainable development''. I find the expression is an oxymoron. It goes one way and then the other way, and it confuses everybody. I like the words ``environmental stewardship'', because it seems to me that this is what we are as human beings - we're stewards for the next generation.

I think we can be more efficient and more conservation-minded, and I think we can grow with less resources - 50% less water, 50% less electricity. I'm talking too long, but you know the point. The point is that if we're smart, we can do it. Other countries, in many ways and in many industries, are doing it better than we are, but you're not going to get there if you cut down 200-year-old trees and you can't sustain either that or employment by growing the damn things again or by keeping in place the society of the town that was supposed to be set up in that area to do it. That's madness. That is not sustainability. So we have to come off those points of view and start to think about some of the things that we can do.

That's a long way of answering your question, and I'm not sure I did a very good job.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Professor Roome, please.

Prof. Roome: I think that if one is talking about sustainability and environmental protection and management, it's very important to make a distinction between the two. I think we find ourselves in extremely difficult situations when we conflate the two things together.

What I think of is the case that we've seen around the globe in developed economies: a significant change in corporate behaviour over the last 15 years. This was particularly stimulated by the Brundtland Commission report in the lead-up to the Earth Summit, but that move has mainly been in terms of environmental management and environmental protection, and we see a number of varieties of approaches that are being adopted.

.1620

We hear about approaches called ``eco-efficiency'' being pioneered by the Business Council for Sustainable Development and companies such as Dow Chemical. We see the development of movements around industrial ecology and industrial ecological thinking. We see the development of total-quality environmental management. We see now, particularly in Canada, the move toward environmental management systems, based on work done by the British Standards Institute and then by the Canadian Standards Association, and now taken up by the International Standards Organization. We are soon to see launched a draft international environmental management system, 14001.

I think companies are doing extremely well in adopting those as benchmarks and models of behaviour. But there is discussion in academic circles and there is also discussion in corporate circles about what this has to do with sustainability, because the agenda for sustainability is much broader than environmental management. The agenda for sustainability is about justice and respect for people. It is about the equitable distribution of opportunities of access to resources for this generation and future generations. It includes both economic well-being and environmental well-being. Environmental management captures some of that, but it doesn't capture it all.

This places me in a very difficult position when I try to teach students of business about environmental management and sustainability, because I can teach them the currency of today, which is environmental management. I can teach them ISO 14001. It prepares them for tomorrow, next week, or next year. But most of my students are under thirty. Most of them aren't thinking about Henry's seven generations, I'm afraid. Very few of them are even thinking about the fact that they're going to be in the workforce, in some guise or another, until 2031, when most of them will retire, if they can retire at 65 - I know that is sometimes in doubt - or 2035.

The world of 2035 in Canada, in western Europe, and in North America is going to be very different. The business world as we know it is going to be immensely changed. We have to try to think, if we are going to think about sustainability, of what that world is going to be like. I would suggest to you it's going to be much more knowledge-based. It's going to be much more leader-full, it's going to be much more virtual. The boundaries we know and we think are important to our institutions are going to begin to crumble and break down. People will be in and out of work. The owners of capital will be in and out of companies. Companies will much more rapidly come and go and decline, change, and transform.

I think it's of fundamental importance for us to ensure that in that virtual future where boundaries are much less important than they are, something keeps solid. The only thing I can see that's going to be solid is going to be principles, ethics, and values, about justice, respect, caring, and sharing, and the things Henry touched on very significantly in his own perspective, and I think Miriam echoed as well. I think we have a responsibility in professional education and in professional organizations to bring back values, responsibility, and ethics, because they've been lost during the last 150 years, since we began the modern organization in west Yorkshire in the industrializing towns of the U.K.

We have made tremendous progress in the last few years, but if we're looking to sustainability, it truly is an agenda for the next millennium. It's going to be a painful but very profound one for change and for the reintroduction of principles into the way we do our business.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Roome.

Mr. Adams, please.

Mr. Adams: Madam Chair, as a member of the committee, I want to thank our speakers, Jon Grant, Henry Lickers, and Miriam Wyman, and all the other people around the table and the other people in the room. We have a very interesting group of people here. I also want to thank you,Madam Chair, for your initiative in developing these forums.

I have a more general statement. It ties in with what Nigel Roome just said.

.1625

I think most people in the room are familiar with the analogy between the public health revolution, which is largely responsible for us all being here and for us as a species being here in such large numbers on the planet of a couple of hundred years ago, and what's going on now in the environment and sustainable development. The analogy goes thus.

There were concerns about people dying, about babies dying, and as a result of those concerns a sort of science developed, whether it was traditional science or more modern science, and people related lack of hygiene and certain creatures, like bacteria, with the fact that people were dying. That science floated around - and, by the way, was objected to by many people at the time.

Then, as that science became more accepted, a technology developed. It had to do particularly with things like sewer systems. The technology appeared and it was available. Still there were objections: it was a very expensive thing to do.

Then the leaders of the day - I'm sure the politicians, Ms Wyman, were the last - gradually accepted that there was a relationship between lack of hygiene and the fact that people were dying. They accepted that there was a technology, even though it was expensive, and it should be implemented.

The public health revolution took place, not because those leaders accepted it but because every individual became convinced that hygiene and associated things were critical in their life. So in their most intimate - and I say this to all of us here - private moments people started behaving differently, as we do today. As a result of that - it's a simplification - world population has doubled, redoubled, and redoubled again, and we are here.

I suggest to you that the concerns are there. The science, traditional and otherwise, is there. The technology, we can hear from various groups, is there. Some of the leaders - no doubt the politicians are going to be last - are aware of these problems, but my thought is this point about ourselves as individuals: in our intimate private moments we don't behave as though sustainable development is an essential feature of our lives. It is those private moments that count.

By the way, the best indicator of that is that here we are in a society that has all of those things and the awareness, which we know exists, but where our consumption levels as individuals are still going up. And these are the people in this room, who are quite committed.

I would ask either the speakers or others - and I'll be asking similar questions in the later forums - what else we have to do to convince ourselves so that absolutely in private we will adopt sustainable development as an essential - I think most people believe this - part of our way of life.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Mead, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Mead: I found it very interesting that you invited us to speak to elected people who had studied a questionnaire. In thinking about my contribution to the round table, my concern was the activity of each member of Parliament in his or her riding. Jon Grant said in his remarks that sustainable development is a win-win situation.

I would like to mention a few caveats. They may have something to do with my greying hair and the fact that I have spent 30 years working in this field. I would like to emphasize what I would call the harmful effects of sustainable development.

Peter Adams just said that science is there. Whether science is there or not, it often happens that decisions are not made on the basis of our knowledge, or, worse yet, on the basis of major problems such as climate change. Science will never be able to show us what we must do before we have to take some action.

Second, every action has a reaction. You asked us to provide some concrete examples. Accordingly, I have three concrete examples for each of the upcoming round tables.

.1630

The first relates to waste management.

In Quebec, we have a pulp and paper plant, Daishowa Inc., which, five or six years ago, had to deal with an American decision requiring Canadian suppliers to have 30 to 40% recycled fibres. Canadian companies were required to install de-inking plants, as they're known.

Daishowa spent $30 million in order to receive, de-ink, recover and recycle paper. However, it did not increase its market. Its market stayed the same. At the same time, it had to close down its forest operations on the north shore, along the St. Lawrence River. Hundreds of jobs were lost in small rural communities that depended much more on their few jobs than do large cities, which can absorb more changes.

Thus, some jobs are lost and others are created. Elected representatives have a problem when the lost jobs are in their riding. The reaction of their constituents will be different than when jobs are created.

Second, let's talk about energy efficiency. We think we can improve energy efficiency in our homes, at work, throughout society generally. We have known that for 20 years. If we achieve this, there will be a drop in demand, a drop in sales and a drop in jobs in a number of sectors in Quebec. We have some unions whose members depend on construction work. For example, dams are very important for some unions and for the private sector as well.

So we have to become more efficient. However, unionized workers in some ridings will tell their MPs that they will lose their jobs if the government introduces an energy efficiency program. There might be some jobs available in renovation work that would offset these job losses, but the jobs might be located in other ridings.

My third and final example has to do with pollution prevention. In Quebec, the management of hog manure is a priority issue at the moment. We have a large surplus, and many manure composting projects and projects on waste material from pulp and paper plants. These two priorities could be combined. But think about it: if we manage to eliminate waste from pulp and paper plants or farms, the sales of chemical fertilizers will suffer.

The ridings in which chemical fertilizers are made may be located outside Quebec. Then all federal members of Parliament will be involved, not just the MP for Charlevoix.

I would like to close by referring to what Jon Grant said. The estimated cost of the work required for sewer infrastructure and drinking water system is $24 billion. Unless Jon Grant has changed groups, he represents industries' interest in the environment. If Jon Grant manages to remove this need to invest $24 billion, Gary Gallon will start calling you, because he needs the jobs that would be created by that $24 billion.

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Mead.

Mr. Reed, please.

Mr. Reed: I might be one of a very few people at this round table who have actually put the last dollar of their line of credit into a sustainable enterprise, because I believe that a green enterprise can be sustainable in the long term.

.1635

The process has been an exciting curve of discovery for me, and I have found that going through the approvals process to get a project under way has exposed a regulatory overburden that is almost insurmountable and involves every level of government. I think the reason for this is that ministries operate in their own tunnels, and they have their own priorities. One ministry that might be concerned with air quality does not express the same priorities as one that may be concerned with the availability of motor fuel or whatever. It seems to me that each ministry then competes; one competes with the other for the attention of policy makers.

I was interested in the comment made by John on water use. There are some new subdivisions going in where I live. I wonder how many of them ever presented a plan for separating grey water from sewage water and using it for watering gardens, or a plan for the installation of cisterns to capture rain water. Those things are not happening, yet the technology is old technology.

So my little contribution is that government needs to catch up with the good things that many industries are doing. We're way behind, so I would offer two fundamental suggestions. One is that government must identify those enterprises that are sustainable or represent good stewardship, to use John's phrase. Having done that, secondly and insofar as it is possible, get out of the way.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Mead.

I have Gary Gallon, which makes for an interesting segue.

Mr. Gallon: Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here today with you, and to see so many good friends around the table.

``Sustainable development'' has as many definitions as there are weeks in the year. Every time we sit down at the table, we have at least a new twist to the definition. I've brought with me here today, to table with the committee, a history of the development of sustainable development. That history basically starts in 1971 with our own Canadian, Maurice Strong, who worked to set up the United Nations Stockholm conference on the human environment.

Where are we in Canada today, in 1996, on sustainable development? Canada is starting to lag behind other countries in achieving that. It's lagging behind Japan, Germany, France. There are a number of countries now becoming more involved in developing strong programs, effective environmental initiatives.

What Canada needs to do now, after having jumped ahead from 1970 to 1995, is to take a new look at where it is as being the green country, the country of environment. What we can do now is move on about seven different points. On many of these, this federal government has begun to take some initiatives.

The first is to do green procurement, to actually procure and undertake activities that include environmental and energy-efficient initiatives.

The second is to move more quickly on voluntary environmental initiatives, and not regulations - but with a mix of regulations. These initiatives would have good timetables, and substantial targets for which the timetables should set the timing. These would also outline a serious of consequences in order to ensure that there is peer group review amongst the companies and amongst the players, and to ensure an increased improvement in the environment in Canada and in achieving sustainable development in reality.

The third thing is a strong CEPA. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is under review. It's had the participation of most of us around this table. We look forward to that Canadian Environmental Protection Act coming out with strength.

The fourth thing is to support international environmental agreements - IEAs, as they are sometimes called. They seem to be driving the world movement towards sustainability: the CITES agreement; the Basel Convention; the World Trade Organization and its environment group; and now, of course, we have our own NAFTA environment commission, the Commission on Environmental Cooperation.

.1640

The fifth thing is to work on technology development. This technology should be process technology related to pollution prevention, in-house processes, and energy conservation and product efficiency. Remember that misplaced product is really pollution. If Jon spills this coffee on the floor, that product no longer is valuable to him. To get it off the floor costs us a bit of time and energy. The same happens with any chemical that goes out of a plant. So keep it in the plant. Use it as a product.

Finally, renewable energy, energy efficiency: This is the wave of the future as we take a look at our finite resources of fossil fuels, conventional and easily accessible crude oil. These fossil fuels are important products for our chemical industry and our energy industry, so it's important to buttress them with renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The environment industry is in the business of evolution: first, pollution control in the 1970s; in the 1980s, pollution prevention. Now, in the 1990s, that environment industry, at $11 billion a year, is a part of process change, plant operation facilitation, sustainable development, and environmental management.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Gallon.

Gérard Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: I would like to start by pointing out that some other people have joined us. Since our proceedings are being televised, those who found them interesting probably decided to continue watching.

As I said before, my name is Gérard Asselin. I am the member of Parliament for Charlevoix and I represent the Bloc québécois, the Official Opposition, on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Both the government and the Official Opposition have done everything they could to ensure the success of this forum.

Once again, I would like to extend a most cordial welcome to all the witnesses who accepted the sub-committee's invitation to appear today.

I would also like to thank the staff of the House of Commons who, in the next few days, will help make this forum a success.

I would also like to congratulate all the speakers, all those who took the trouble to do some research and present us with information and briefs of benefit to us and all our constituents.

Today's forum is an excellent way of making people aware of the issues. First, we have to make people understand the importance of the environment. The forum is also designed to be an educational tool. Increasingly school boards and schools are being asked to offer environmental education programs at the primary and secondary levels.

Of course, we know as well that education goes on in the work place. People have to be educated to preserve our environment. The environment is everyone's business. I hope this forum will be an excellent way of informing and training people about environmental issues.

In my view, this is also the perfect time for us, as elected representatives, to take a stand. We have around the table a number of members of Parliament representing all political parties and the various regions of Canada.

We must be concerned about protecting the environment, the air, the water and the earth. Our health depends on the quality of the environment. If the quality of the environment is poor, some day, we will have health problems. They will be attributable first to poor air quality. We breathe the air around us, and often it is polluted by various gases, fumes and carbon monoxide. Poor air quality leads to acid rain which destroys our maple trees and our crops.

As was mentioned earlier, our forests, our trees are the biggest air filter we have. We should show concern for the environment by planting trees on our property and by forcing both the federal and provincial government to ban clear cutting. Those who engage in this practice or who have done so in the past should be forced to plant trees.

.1645

It is a well known fact that drinking water is our main source of life. Increasingly, we have to deal with waste water. Municipalities are investing heavily in this area nowadays. How many Quebec municipalities dump all their waste water into the St. Lawrence River? How many tons of salt, sand and chemicals were in the snow that was dumped into the St. Lawrence? The St. Lawrence River was once recognized - and still is, because there's still room for a great deal of improvement - as one of the biggest open septic tanks in the world. We must be concerned about the quality of our water. We must eliminate snow dumps in order to protect our lakes and rivers.

In closing, I would just like to say a word about the earth. I spoke earlier about sanitary landfill. There must be very strict standards to force municipalities to use as landfill all their waste that cannot be recycled. Today, almost everything can be recycled. We know that rain water is filtered by the earth; there are many underground springs. We must also eliminate dangerous products that we have a tendency to spread around on the earth.

I would like to assure everyone here that the Bloc québécois offers its full cooperation in matters relating to environmental protection and will spare no effort to enforce the government's action plan and its environmental program.

Yesterday, the environment was someone else's business. Today, we must remember that the environment is our business, and that we cannot shirk our responsibilities in this regard whether the initiative comes from the federal, provincial or municipal level of government.

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

I'll read off the next three speakers, but before I do that I want to let the audience know that probably in another fifteen minutes or so we'll take three questions from the floor. We seem to be doing reasonably well with our time, so if we can get that sorted out with Norm Radford, the clerk, we'd like to entertain three questions or comments from the floor.

Next on my list is Jack Mintz, then Jean Payne and Chris Henderson.

Prof. Mintz: Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I very much appreciate having the opportunity to talk about environmental policy. In fact I would like to go back to Mr. Forseth's question, which I think hit the nail on the head, and that is the whole question of the relationship between economics and environmental policy.

In many situations, actually, I think economists give environmentalists a bad rap because economists often like to think policies undertaken by markets are perfect, therefore there's really no need for some of the interventionist-type policies that are recommended.

I think environmentalists sometimes give economists a bad rap because they may get wrapped up in certain very important questions associated with sustainability, such as clean air, clean water and waste minimization, but often forget about some of the other economic goals involved.

What I would like to do is take the position that actually environmental policy is good economic policy and that there really isn't a trade-off between the two. The reason for that is that economists do worry about the pricing of goods and services in an economy, in that the right pricing will lead to the best allocation of resources and the most jobs to be created. I think that's a view one takes as an economist in terms of policy in general.

In terms of environmental issues, what many economists would do - and I have a number of friends at the University of Chicago who would also take this position - is argue that actually the big problem with environmental policy is that often people do not take into account the costs they might impose on other individuals, or firms might impose on other firms, by not incorporating the environmental costs as part of their pricing policy. That, to me, is really the critical issue.

.1650

In fact, in many situations one might argue - to take as an example, some firms emitting sulphur into the air or polluting water - that it might hurt certain industries like the fishing industry or agricultural industries that might depend on the resources that are available. Therefore, if one ended up with the right pricing, one would then clearly achieve a proper allocation of resources where those industries that have been hurt in the past because of this mispricing will be better off. But of course those industries that have not incorporated these costs in their pricing would be worse off.

That really is the difficulty. At a particular point in time, as a result of mispricing in the environment or taking environment considerations, some industries will actually overproduce, those that are harming the environment, while those that have been affected will be underproducing in the economy. If you want to change that, just like we want to change any policy altogether, that might mean a reallocation of resources away from some industries to others.

That doesn't mean one necessarily gets a job loss. Generally, one can get job gains. For example, in the waste management practices in work that we've done at the University of Toronto, we've shown that by switching some of the incentives from let's say the more capital-intensive non-renewable resource industries to say renewable or recycling industries, one can actually generate jobs. In part, this is due to the labour intensity of certain types of processes associated with recycling, but it's also partly due to the efficiency gains one gets in the economy due to better pricing.

If jobs really aren't the issue, then what is the issue? I would suggest that the issue is leadership. But it's a very difficult problem, and I don't think one can actually accuse individuals or governments of completely failing, because it takes a considerable amount of effort to overcome these problems.

One set of problems is associated with international coordination. On questions, for example, associated with air and water quality, the atmosphere, such as global warming questions, it takes a lot of countries to agree to undertake those policies that would clearly achieve a much better allocation of resources in order to prevent the kind of problems that would occur as a result of not dealing with the issues.

Of course, that kind of international coordination makes it very difficult for a singular government, such as Canada, which, although a G-7 country, is still one of the smaller countries in the world, to actually have to deal with the problem on its own. That coordination is best achieved through the international forums, as we've seen with the World Bank and United Nations types of organizations that have tried to achieve such international coordination.

The other issue of leadership often comes into federal-provincial questions. For example, on the waste management issue the big problem with waste is, again, mispricing. People product too much waste because they don't have to pay the price of disposing that waste, a comment that was made earlier on.

How does one achieve better pricing? To a large extent it would have to be done at the local level by municipalities, but there are some significant difficulties with their pricing policies because of the problems of trying to coordinate with other municipalities around their jurisdiction as well as trying to deal with the political issues of let's say requiring households to pay for the cost of their waste disposal.

As a result of the problems at the local levels, it requires maybe provincial action to try to get municipalities to try to improve their pricing policies. In some issues, such as in the hazardous waste area, interprovincial issues become involved as well. That raises the question of the role of the federal government in the waste management area. Again, leadership is the issue and the question is how people can get together to properly deal with the environmental issues at hand.

.1655

The third set of issues is related to future generations. For example, if future generations could vote today, I wonder if they would vote for the same kinds of policies that current generations vote for in terms of the pricing of non-renewable resources and the policies that are taken therefrom.

Future generations don't have a vote today and their preferences are not part of the political decision, so it takes leadership to make sure they are not forgotten. As we've seen, many governments have become more concerned about the future in terms of deficit control issues and liabilities left for future generations, and of course the environmental area is another issue of liability that we leave to future generations. We need to think about those future generations in order to achieve the proper pricing today for environmental policies.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

We've been doing well with our time, but I think we're getting a little bit behind, so I would encourage people to keep their comments within the time line.

Jean Payne.

Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I welcome all of our speakers here.

I want to touch on the eco-system as it relates to environment or vice versa. I come from an area of the country that has probably been hit by the worst ecological disaster that has ever been visited upon this country - that I am aware of, at least. When you talk about waste management you're probably talking more about chemicals than anything else, but I want to refer to another type of waste management.

We have now entered a time when our fisheries... There's a moratorium on our east coast fisheries and there probably will be one on our west coast. As a young girl growing up in rural Newfoundland, I remember going to the wharves and seeing millions upon millions of small codfish in the water. They were there largely because of the offal that was being dumped over the wharves, and the same thing was going on in all of the harbours throughout the ocean. The offal was feeding the fish.

We are now trying to do that same work in a small codfish hatchery, and when you look at the product that's produced in the hatchery, it bears no resemblance at all, either in numbers, looks, size or anything else, to what I saw as a young girl.

Have we learned from our past mistakes or are we making the same mistakes over and over again? We are still using the technology that destroyed our fishery. As far as I can see we are making no effort to change that, and we are still bowing to the wishes of large corporations. Yes, there are a lot of people in Newfoundland who are out of work. These people have been saying for years that there should have been a moratorium on the fishery, yet we were listening to the large corporations say they need the money.

I'd like comments from anybody in the room who has thoughts on that.

Madam Chair, I could go on for a long time about this, but in the interest of the time I won't.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you for your brief comments.

Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me state my assumptions about why we're here, and then offer a few words for your consideration.

I assume this forum is about an exploration of sustainable development and the wins. Let me toss four out for your consideration.

Obviously, we want to win and make sure the environment, our eco-systems and biodiversity are protected. We want to win by creating sustainable jobs. We want to win by reducing government expenditures, and we want to win by meeting our international environmental agreements.

.1700

My mom always told me to act rather than do, that actions speak louder than words. Given that it is the day after mothers' day, let me give you three opportunities for action that I think the Parliament of Canada and Canadians at large should consider.

We all talk about using energy. Let me tell you why energy costs the most and is used the worst in Canada. It's in the 318 remote communities that are off the hydro grid in this country. Most of them happen to be first nations communities that come under the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Energy there costs about 35¢ per kilowatt hour, but here it is about 7¢. You would think that when energy is that expensive you would use it a bit more dearly, investing in things that use it more efficiently, and that it would be on a commercially feasible basis. But in those communities we have an overuse of energy generation of around 30% to 40%, which increases the cost by the same ratio, and we overuse energy by the same margin. That's something this committee could do something about. I think we should look at it.

Jon Grant and Harvey Mead referred to water. It's not $24 billion to build, it's about $78 billion. Recent work that our company did for the national round table, which Harvey will see shortly, shows that the bill is $78 billion and climbing in terms of our infrastructure. The good news, however, is that you can do a lot about it. For example, there's a city on one side of the Ottawa River that uses110 litres of water per person per day. They charge for water, although not at full cost. But on the other side of the river they don't charge; it comes out of the tax rate. They use about 310 litres per day. There's a reason - price and economics does work in many cases.

The issue is how Canada makes the transition to a full-cost user-pay price regime for water. I think some of the work coming out of the national round table merits consideration and action. I'll be proposing specific actions for the federal government.

Health is something Canadians hold dearly. I was commenting earlier about public health and mentioned that we went to public health because of environmental and human health reasons. Two silly examples... It's the hockey season, the play-off season. When Zamboni machines clean the ice, they emit a nitric oxide derivative that sits on the ice. It causes heart attacks or heart palpitations in about six to eight mostly young Ontario men, and at about the same ratio across the country. We're treating them in hospitals at the range of about $80,000 per heart attack. It makes sense to make a better Zamboni machine, but we're not doing that.

Why is it important for sustainable development? Let me give you a hard example. I can't answer for Newfoundland because I don't know about it, but I can answer for downtown Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

Government expenditures on disability insurance have gone up astronomically in the last decade. Of the increase, 50% is due to respiratory illness in people 50 years and older, and they mostly live in those large cities. We're spending even more on the treatment of those people in the health care system. That's a lot of public money. The solution may be better technology for cars, better emission controls or public transit. It may be something in the social welfare system. I think one of the things the Prime Minister's council on health should look at is how to tie the environment envelope to the health envelope. You can't do it because it's a provincial responsibility, but you give transfer payments.

Those are my petitions for your consideration. I think you have done a lot by passing the legislation concerning the Commissioner of Sustainable Development and departmental sustainable development plans. Push it. I think you'll see a lot of action on sustainable development if you push departments to push the envelope. Thanks.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

We'll hear from three more participants and then take some questions from the floor. Roy Cullen, Ann Davis and Dr. Nola-Kate Seymoar.

Mr. Cullen: Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Over the next couple of days I hope we make some progress on this issue or at least heighten awareness of the issue of sustainable development.

I think most reasonable people will subscribe to the notion of sustainable development. It seems to me it's about preserving the trees that produce the fruit. The terminology may have lost its spark because of overuse or misunderstanding, but I think it's still a very commendable thing to work on. I tend to agree with Mr. Grant that environmental stewardship may be a better term. In my mind, what we're talking about here is really the pace and the scope and the dynamics of change.

.1705

I'd like to come back to Mr. Mead's comment - actually, it's a very specific case that I don't want to get into in detail, the Daishowa recycled mill near Quebec - only because I think it represents something that's fairly typical and what we're struggling with, and that is the balance of environmental issues versus economic or competitiveness issues.

That particular recycled mill - and it's representative of the industry in general - may have survived, ironically, if it had been built in Boston or if the enhancements had been made in a mill in Boston. The reason for that is because our strength in the forest sector has largely been a result of our proximity to our raw materials.

When we talk about recycled content and newsprint, as a nation we supply about one-third of the newsprint around the world markets. If we have the most aggressive collection programs in Canada, we'll be able to collect maybe 7% or 8% of the content we produce in newsprint we market around the world. So the end result of that is if we try to regulate the industry here into recycled content, which may be a very laudable environmental tack to take, we essentially begin to put our industry in a position of competitive disadvantage. The reality is it will make more sense to put recycled mills in the U.S. northeast and in California, because then you're close to the market and you're close to the raw material.

So my comment on that is, ironically, Daishowa, or the company you mentioned, may have tried to do it in Canada to be corporately responsible. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I know it's an issue for the industry at large.

Coming back to Mr. Grant's question or comment - and I talk about the forest industry because it's an industry I'm most familiar with - I think what's happening in B.C. is with respect not so much to the shortage of pulp; there is a glut of pulp. It's a shortage of logs and trees.

Because of decisions made in British Columbia to set aside more land for other uses, be that wilderness areas or recreational areas, or whatever, the allowable cut is coming down. So to sustain their industry or their mills in their communities, many of which are largely dependent on the forest sector or the mining industry or both, companies are going farther afield to Alaska, to the Yukon, to Alberta to get logs to feed their mills so they can maintain the communities.

I think it's a valid question to put to the governments of Alberta, the Yukon, and Alaska perhaps - is that a sustainable activity on their behalf in those jurisdictions? But what B.C. has clearly done is made some trade-offs in the sense of the forest industry versus wilderness areas, recreation, or other uses of the land base, and that's what's pushing that sort of activity.

So coming back to some general points, in the calculus Jon Grant talked about looking after the future generations. I think we also need to be mindful of the calculus of today's generations against future generations. I wouldn't pretend to know what that calculus is, but many of the decisions we make and the pace at which we go do have an impact on jobs today.

The forest industry won't have any impact directly in the jobs in Etobicoke North - I know that, or I'm pretty sure of that - and as a general issue that we need to be careful about, when we regulate in environmental matters we have a tendency, I think, to piecemeal so that there's an incrementality to it. I wonder, if we put these regulatory regimes in place or we keep adding to them incrementally, who's standing back and saying what does this do to us in terms of our competitive positioning and the cost we're putting on industry.

The other thing, I think, that can creep up on us is this environmental improvements at the margin - in other words, the best available technology argument. Is it worth a company spending $8 million so they can reduce the effluent risk by 0.001%? I think that's an issue we need to deal with.

.1710

I will say that I do support the notion that there are ways we can take environmental technologies and lever them in the world marketplace. There are examples in the forest industry itself with what we call closed-loop or effluent-free technologies, where we could clean up our own act on an even more accelerated basis and have a technology we could market worldwide. So there are opportunities there, but I think we need to be careful about how we proceed.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen.

Ann Davis, please.

Ms Davis: Thank you.

I'd like to refer to a few comments that were made earlier and also to some of the material that was sent out in preparation for this discussion.

In the material sent out, a statement was made that change is only possible if individuals alter their behaviour as consumers and act in ways that are more environmentally friendly. I think that goes to the spirit of what Peter Adams mentioned earlier about how can we cause change an individual's behaviour in their private moments. You can argue with the way the statement is made in the material, but I think fundamentally and substantively it's what has to happen if sustainable development is going to become a reality.

I think our challenge though is to find the means and the incentives to cause individual behaviour change. Much of what has been said today relates to some of the means of measuring the change, some of the means for affording change and perhaps some specific ideas on regulatory reform. But at the end of the day I think we have to examine very closely how we can cause people's individual behaviour to change.

The firm I work with and our environmental group developed an environmental management survey. As Nigel said earlier, environmental management isn't the whole picture of sustainable development. But I think it is one picture that deserves to be looked at.

We surveyed 1,587 organizations very recently. We also did a survey in 1994 and this is an update of that survey. One of the questions we asked all these organizations was what are the motivating factors, what causes you to take action on environmental issues? We were trying to find where the drivers for behaviour change were.

Unfortunately - perhaps it is not surprising to me but somewhat disappointing - the top two answers continue to be compliance with regulations and board of director liability concerns. This was not surprising but I will say it was disappointing.

Organizations - and perhaps this is the same for individuals - continue to respond to the threat side or the fear side of the equation as opposed to the opportunity side. That's not to say that's true for all organizations. Jon Grant referred to a number that are...I think he used the term ``more progressive'' organizations, which do see the opportunity side. But the reality we seem to be facing is that the threats seem to be more real out there than the opportunities.

How we start to shift that equation or get people to move on that scale, from simply responding to the threats to taking advantage of the opportunities, may be in part to create those opportunities or to allow the market to provide the incentives, not to get into over-regulation. Reference was made earlier to the overburden of regulation, and I would support that comment. It's not necessarily more regulation but a different kind of regulation to allow the marketplace to provide the incentives or, to use those eloquent words that were used earlier, get out of the way of the market.

In my experience, organizations that are responding to incentives in the marketplace are those in the natural resource sectors, perhaps because the environment is so much closer to them or because they can see it more clearly within their business cycle. For other organizations, perhaps the environment is a little further away. It's longer term in terms of an impact. I think that may be true for individuals as well - to get people to have the incentive to think about future generations instead of our own.

On a personal level, this week I'm having a water meter put on my house in Toronto, which has not had a water meter ever before. The incentive to cause me to do that was that the City of Toronto said it would pay for a new water line up to my property line if I would put in a meter on so I would at least start to pay on a per-use basis. I believed that was the right thing to do. I also think it might be cheaper for me actually. That caused me though to change my behaviour. Otherwise I might well have gone along merrily using flat-rate water for as long as the city was prepared to let me do so, even though I work in the area of the environment and probably am more personally committed.

.1715

So we have to find those ways. The Zamboni was another reference. We have to find the economic incentives. I'm afraid that is the reality. Otherwise people's behaviour just will not change.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Ms Davis.

Dr. Seymoar.

Dr. Seymoar: I have to say that I love sustainable development. The reason I do is that I'm a practical problem-solver. Nine years ago I worked in Newfoundland as the executive director at the commission of inquiry on unemployment insurance. Our issue areas were the Atlantic provinces, the manufacturers and Ontario.

We thought we were brilliant in coming at that issue by bringing in not only the economics of unemployment insurance but also the social community aspect. We thought that was a breakthrough. We didn't factor in the environment. If we had, perhaps the fishery would not be in the state it is and certainly neither would unemployment insurance nor the community development programs.

So for me integration of those three things - the economy, the environment and social well-being - is what makes this a really robust idea. That's why we ought to take it into account.

The institution I work for tries to take these great theories and academic research and bring them into practical decision-making. So for parliamentarians we have a one-flight read. It's called ``Making Budgets Green''. This is the one that will take only a flight to read. At least it will if you're from Winterpeg. It's backed up by a very thick book for all the officials who need to know the background research. I think that's also called ``Making Budgets Green''.

At any rate, it is a set of case examples of budget-neutral or fiscal-neutral things you can do that will be good for the environment and for the economy and for people in the long run and the places where they've done it. It's just full of examples of where it's been tried out. We debate carbon taxes in Canada as though they've never been tried anywhere. There are taxes on different kinds of energy production. There are all sorts of examples of places that have been doing things right that we can learn from.

The second short read is called ``Employment and Sustainable Development - Opportunities for Canada'', which again is full of terrific examples from all across the country of ways of creating or sustaining employment that are better and longer term.

I want to make two other points. One is that I think it's time we stopped talking about jobs as though they're our own history. I'm a grandmother. I look at my four-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter and think that Katie's never going to be in the position of having one job for a lifetime in the same industry. Quite frankly, her parents won't and most of us won't either.

With regard to the work we've been doing, if we start to think more broadly in terms of sustainable livelihoods for households, we're going to be able to move beyond the idea of one job, of a career that starts at 20 or whenever you graduate and ends when you're 65. We just have to get out of that kind of thinking.

The third thing that is important goes back to two areas. One is that we have to get the principles right. I agree with Nigel that everything else is changing. We come back fundamentally to the principles and how we identify and then use them as a template to measure whether or not policies or programs are moving in the right direction.

The last thing I see is an emergence of civil society. I hate to tell you this, but government is becoming less and less important. Civil society is saying to heck with government and that they're going to take on and take over.

.1720

I was at a meeting where we were talking about environmental citizenship, which is a Canadian program started by Environment Canada and which is now going international. UNEP is about to launch it. We're sitting around with a group of Canadians, all of us having started the program about six or seven years ago. Environment Canada has withdrawn its official backing of the thing and they're into calling it something else and doing the same kind of stuff. There was a lot of moaning around the table about how awful that was and suddenly we asked ourselves why. None of us was going to stop doing it. This program is very strong in the community college movement in Canada. It's very strong in all sorts of ways. If government wants to be relevant, then they'd better get back in the game.

We have to recognize there's less money in government. That gives you less influence and means also that private sector and community-based organizations are going to have more and more power and impact.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

We have six more people on the speakers list but we'll have just a short break. I think there were a couple of questions from the floor. So perhaps those individuals want to come up to the microphone. Please identify yourselves.

Mr. Steve Hart (Individual Presentation): I'm Steve Hart, president of the Canadian Environment Industry Association. Madam Chair, I'd like to make three comments and then throw three challenges to the political system.

The first comment is to congratulate you sincerely on having this meeting. I know it's been your drive and enthusiasm that's made it happen. I'd like to say that the environment and what we're dealing with here probably inadvertently is one of the unifying issues that all spheres of the political spectrum can look at and agree on. Maybe this example could be carried forward into other spheres as well.

I'd like to make two or three comments. One, I believe the industry we represent now is an industry in evolution probably even more so than our industrial sectors. Those of us who started 10 or 15 years ago in dealing with end of pipe, end of stack, are going to be out of business 10 years from now if we depend on that solely.

The evolution of our business is towards the whole mix of new smart regulations. We call them technology-pulling regulations, objective-based, mixed with voluntary action and economic instruments. I think that's the way forward. Those of our companies that can help the traditional industry sectors adapt are the ones that are going to be here in the future.

I believe that unless people - corporations, companies such as ours - start making real money out of the solutions, there will be no solutions. There has to be an economic impetus if you want the solutions. We can help with that.

Now the three challenges. The word ``harmonization'', I know, if I may be so bold, is a kind of four-letter word right now in federal-provincial relations, especially after the shoot-out at Haines Junction. But we believe it is only through leadership - and I'll use the word ``leadership'' that Jack Mintz used so often - of the political system at both the federal and provincial levels that we can get out of this mess we're in.

I'll give you one example. One of our companies had to have the same piece of equipment passed in four different provinces, four different times, to do the same job. That is a total waste of resources. That's a challenge to government.

Another challenge is to get the government effort, which is enormous and which right now is largely uncoordinated, coordinated in the question of international marketing of our services. With that they could make a real impact in helping the industry move forward.

Lastly, a wonderful little book was written about 15 years ago - I might be out of date on this - called The Future Health of Canadians. From that came a major thesis that said the whole health industry in Canada was back-end forward or whatever the term is. Basically that meant we have a medical system that is set up to cure sick people rather than prevent people from becoming sick. Out of that came the anti-alcohol program, the anti-smoking program, the seat-belt program, ParticipAction, and all those things we now take for granted. I challenge the political system and the federal government in particular to do a similar thing for the environment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Mr. Stephen Hazell (Individual Presentation): My name is Stephen Hazell. I'm general counsel and director of environmental assessment with Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., based in Ottawa.

The question I would like to see the speakers answer - those who are non-parliamentarians - is to suggest how individual parliamentarians can promote sustainable development. I think this has to be an important question for those members of Parliament who are in the room today. That's an important question that should be addressed over the next couple of days.

.1725

On that point I have a couple of suggestions. First - and most people in the room will be aware of it, although it hasn't really been touched on that much, except by Chris, and Jon Grant touched on it briefly - are the amendments to the Auditor General Act, which came into force earlier this year. These are very strong tools that members of Parliament have in their possession.

There is a commissioner for environment and sustainable development, who I hope will be appointed fairly soon. There are requirements in the act that sustainable development strategies be produced by departments. Departments have to report to Parliament on those strategies. There is reporting in the estimates. These are very strong tools, if you want to take advantage of them.

I would reiterate that although the commissioner reports through the Auditor General, the Auditor General ultimately reports to Parliament. He doesn't report to the government; he reports to Parliament. So I think this is your institution, to make the most of.

I would just suggest that's one way in which individual parliamentarians can make a difference, and I would invite the other speakers to perhaps suggest other ways. Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much. Our sessions tomorrow will certainly focus on more practical applications of those things.

We're running just a little bit behind time, but I'm really pleased we've had such a good conversation around this table, with a lot of participation.

As I said, I have six more people on my list. I think everyone has been covered at least once, and I'd like to turn now to John Godfrey.

Mr. Godfrey: I'd like to connect a remark made very early in the proceedings by Miriam Wyman with the last remark, which was a challenge to individual members of Parliament to do something as individuals.

I guess I was a little surprised to hear Miriam Wyman suggest that when we talked about sustainable development, we were not talking about economic growth. I am one of those who thinks we are talking about economic growth, and I would reiterate what Nola-Kate Seymoar said, that there is clearly the virtuous circle of economic growth, environmental sensitivity, and social advancement.

I don't think you even have to change the measures or the cost structure. I think you could use the good old-fashioned GNP, unaltered by the Auditor General, to come up with that conclusion, because new growth theory in economics certainly stresses the importance of ideas-based growth.

That brings me to the second point. In my part of Toronto, which is Don Valley West, we have a classic old-fashioned industrial park, the Leaside industrial area, established during the Second World War. It was essentially producing war materials. It is full of ghastly things as well as some good things, and is where the old-style manufacturing is leaving.

The new thrust of what we're going to be doing is precisely that kind of economic growth. On the fringes of it we're creating something called the new media village, which is truly an ideas-based set of companies that are going to specializing in Internet, CD-ROM, and all the rest of it. But on the inside we're specializing in companies that are not simply recycling but doing things like... One company, Sandman Eco, which is producing absolutely wonderful cruet for the glass business, is taking the total mix of glass that comes in through the recycling system.

I believe that those are not simply going to be a wash in economic terms, but I think they're going to be a positive, strong contribution to traditional economic growth. So I wouldn't want us to feel that there was some contradiction in terms between economic growth and sustainable development.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, John. Next we have Stan Dromisky.

Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

I would like to look at this whole problem from a global perspective, and when I look at it, I would like you to visualize this globe with me. On it are millions and millions of kernels of corn. I'd like to use the popcorn analogy, because that's the way I think we've been viewing this whole problem regarding the problems in our environment. The solutions have been popping up like popcorn here and there. Every time one pops, that means we're working on a solution towards solving some problem related to the environment.

However, what makes the popcorn pop? It's heat. And who generates the heat? Those are knowledgeable people, people who are concerned about what's happening in their environment. They generate enough heat so that decisions are made, whether they be made on the economic or political level.

.1730

The point I'm making here is that a decision has been made, and action is taking place. Whether it be a change in someone's behaviour or whether it's a change in environment, it makes no difference. Action of a positive nature is taking place.

If we take a look at this globe, we find that the vast majority of the kernels that have popped are clustered in certain areas of the globe. Why is it that so many of them have popped open, let's say, in North America? Why have so many of them popped open in Europe? Why is it that there are so few of them in South America, Central America, Africa, and other parts of the world?

I think you will take a look and you will see that there's a direct relationship, a very positive, strong relationship, between action being taken and in general the degree and level of education of the communities involved. The higher the levels of education within those communities, the more positive will be the response to the environmental problems.

So this leads to something that to me is very critical. It's not going to happen on an ad hoc basis. This educational thrust is not going to take place in the boardrooms. It's not going to take place only, let's say, at a committee level, in a standing committee of the House of Commons. It is going to be a joint venture of all parties concerned. It is going to be truly in the true concept of community, a community effort.

Changes must take place, whether they be political, economic, whatever, that are related to the educational foundation that is being built, to the research that is going on, the information that is piling up, so that we can make rational decisions pertaining to the environment in which we live.

We have an individual who is highly educated. He chains himself to an oak tree, and we say, fantastic. But while he chains himself to an oak tree, there are a hundred thousand acres of pristine forest someplace else being destroyed that very same day.

Our concern has to be far greater than just that particular oak tree on our street. It has to be far greater than just what's happening in my backyard, because, you see, my backyard today stretches all the way to Africa. It stretches all the way to South America.

I think we have to educate ourselves to the point where we say, how much longer can we tolerate my neighbours polluting my environment, destroying my way of life eventually, and affecting the life of my children, my great-grandchildren, and so forth? That could come only through community efforts.

I could have a lot of recommendations, Madam Chair, but those will come tomorrow. Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Lickers.

Mr. Lickers: It's interesting. Having listened, I just wanted to say a couple of things.

First, what is this concept of retirement? I don't know who... Everybody retires from life. Among the native people there is no concept of retirement. This seems to me to be some way in which a person gets out of doing those things that are responsible to this community. I know that in our area, for example, when somebody gets older they no longer have to heave the bales around the way the younger people do.

It seems that I've listened to that, somebody down there saying that you change jobs as you go through life, that we can no longer look for a standard thing. Well, for once the native lifestyle has now come into vogue, in that we always get fired every week, so we're -

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lickers: - working from job to job. Our elders... I haven't yet seen Ernie Benedict orJake Swamp retire, and they're still travelling the world teaching and trying to make people understand. So maybe that's one of the concepts under sustainable development we have to get out of.

The other thing is that I don't think we - I'm going to put it nicely - deserve to use the concepts of stewardship. These concepts are concepts that say yes, we would do the job well. We haven't, and I think we should put them away. We should strive to do them. We should strive to be these things. And as a reward, once the seventh generation tells us that we've done that, I think we then can pick up those concepts. But I don't think we can do it now.

.1735

Lastly, I say to you that, yes, there is a reason people in Europe and other places have some of these things that are the reason they're looking. It's not education, though; it's the concept that they have to live on that land. They have no place to run to.

Among native people we see that as we've lived on the land for a long period of time, that land becomes very precious to us, and we want to see nothing happen to it.

Yet I'd like to suggest that maybe there are regulations that should be brought in, a few simple ones, that could maybe help us. Maybe a corporation should make their CEOs and corporate leaders live in the community for at least 50 years, going through various levels of their own governments, and preferably downwind, downstream of their own plants.

I think a city should not be allowed to take its water upstream from its own outfall. It should be completely and immediately adjacent to the downstream outfall, so the city would take water right from where its own outfall comes in.

Lastly, I'd say that along with native people in their way of looking at the world, sustainable development is also a humourous and joyful thing. Today, looking around the table...we're a pretty solemn-looking bunch -

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lickers: - speaking here. I haven't heard too much laughing. That worries me, because I know that as soon as I see my grandfather and my people in my area get very serious about something, then I know that, boy, I've done something awfully wrong.

So I would say again that when we're talking about sustainable development, we should look for those things that are joyous to us and joy in our hearts that we see. Those, I would like to tell you, are the words that come from my children, come from our children, come from our elders, our women and from the people in our community.

In closing, I would like to thank your children, your spouses, and your men and women in your community for sacrificing and allowing you to come here. It's not us we should thank for being here, it's them, because they're the ones who have made the sacrifice for us so that we could be here.

I know I'll take back to my children and my spouse the blessings you can give for their sacrifice so that I could be here.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Henry, I appreciate that.

It has been a long afternoon, an enjoyable afternoon, and I appreciate everyone's patience, because I know this is a crowd that really likes to talk a lot. Anyway, we have to be disciplined for a little bit longer, and then you have that opportunity to have some joyous conversation, in an unfettered manner, with each other.

I'm going to close the list, because we are now over schedule. However, I guess we shouldn't worry so much about schedules as having an opportunity to share good and wise thoughts around the table. I have John Finlay.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly want to thank everyone who has attended today and spoken so well, so eloquently and with so much creativity. It will take a number of hours to sort it all out.

Madam Chair, I want to refer to something. I did do my homework, and I read the biographical notes that were prepared. I notice that Dr. Rees is not here or has not been able to speak, but something in his biographical notes echoed in my mind. I just want to read it and make three conclusions from it.

There was a book, many years ago, and a famous Canadian prime minister was one of the members of the Club of Rome, which published The Limits to Growth.

Dr. Rees says that his present emphasis is on development and application of the ``ecological footprint'' and ``appropriated carrying capacity'' concepts, which provide land-based indicators of sustainability and unsustainability. The eco-footprint analysis shows that to support just the present world population sustainably at North American material standards would require the equivalent of at least two additional planet Earths, using prevailing technology.

Madam Chair, I think that's a fairly profound statement. For me it draws the following conclusions and questions. The first is that we must stabilize world population. China has tried it by regulation. Canada has achieved it; that is, our population goes up, but I think most of the growth is due to immigration. That has given us an important place in the world. But it's not going up because we have an increasing birth rate. I suggest the main reason for that is affluence. As soon as the developing countries achieve more of the world's affluence, the birth rate will go down.

.1740

Second, we of the developed world must moderate our expectations, waste less and use less energy. We must care for our neighbours on this planet, and allow them more of the earth's resources, not only because we should be a caring society, but in order to survive. If we don't do that, we will become submerged, or we will suffocate in our own waste.

The third thing is that we must improve our technology, as Julian Reed and others have suggested, and stop doing stupid things, as Jon Grant pointed out.

I've been to the Arctic a little in the last year and a half, and every road in the Arctic leads to a dump. Every dump has waste in it that is contaminant, toxic and poisoning the environment.

Jon Grant mentioned ``the sink of the Arctic''. It is going to cost us, I suppose, three times as much to clean it up as it cost us to put it there in the first place.

So I think there are my three conclusions, Madam Chair.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Finlay.

Charles Caccia, please.

Mr. Caccia: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to say briefly that this was a very useful and informative afternoon, and that one cannot add much more to what Stan and John have just said.

My impression is that we are heading for a considerable mess if we don't watch it, and some reasons have just been given by John in his overview outside Canada.

The OECD indicators are not very encouraging about trends, in terms of pollution of air, soil and water. In terms of redistribution of wealth, overseas development aid is going down in terms of the importance of equity as one of the three elements of sustainable development. In terms of the gap between declarations and implementation, the gap is getting wider and wider.

Since 1986 political leaders have made considerable and consistent declarations at every international fora you can think of, and in Rio in 1992 it seemed as if we had reached the millennium. There was not one political leader, except one - the President of the United States - who did not go to the podium to make a fantastic, beautiful and convincing declaration as to the magnificent importance of integrating the economy with the environment.

At this very moment that we are talking in this room, because of inertia and deeply engraved territorial interests, there are some departments working at loggerheads against other departments here in Ottawa. I wouldn't be surprised if that were not the same in the provincial capitals, and I wouldn't be surprised if that were not the same in many other capitals of the world.

And we have to ask ourselves, what is the difficulty we are facing? How is it we can conceptually understand sustainable development, we can define it, we can even offer an alternative, as Jon Grant did...? He offered the concept of environmental stewardship, which is a very attractive one. Also, it seems to leave the economy a bit off the table, and that worries me a bit. But how can we be so good at declaratory statements and the cerebral management of sustainable development, but then when it comes to the practical and political implementation of that concept we fall flat on our collective noses?

.1745

This is why watching the indicators is so important, because they tell us that. This is why we are so far away from implementing, or reaching the processes that Henry Lickers invoked at the very beginning this afternoon, those processes that are needed to play nicely together.

If we now look outside Canada, we see in Asia a tremendous economic push that is unbridled and has no consideration whatsoever for environmental protection, let alone integration of the economy of the environment. We see a lone China and its aims in energy production, which is going to cause enormous problems for the rest of the global family.

Take the climate change agenda alone - and not just Canada - where there is a comprehensive international agreement, with respect to which only very few countries are really implementing the commitment they made in various international meetings. If we had the same political leadership for the environment as we saw last week on Bill C-33 on sexual orientation, we would probably be in a much better condition. Actually I'm almost sure about that.

To conclude, maybe the philosophers are the ones who have the answers to some of these complex questions. I draw great comfort from what Kenneth Boulding has now caught in America. A few decades ago he said that we are to learn how to move from a cowboy economy to a spaceship economy.

I'm afraid that for a developing nation, Canada, since we are partially developing and partially developed, we are still groping to find a way, the path, from a cowboy economy to a spaceship economy.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia.

I have three more speakers on the list. I would ask you to keep your comments to about59 seconds. Miriam Wyman.

Ms Wyman: Thank you. I think I can probably do that.

I always start to feel better when I start hearing questions instead of statements. I feel as though we're moving in the right direction when the questions start to surface. I've been hearing some really interesting ones. I just want to flag a couple of those quickly.

Stephen Hazell's question about how individual parliamentarians can promote sustainable development is a really important one. There are probably lots of ways each of you can do that in your own places.

I still think there's a really important place for something that links the sustainable development efforts that are taking place all over this country, and in fact all over the world, so that we know that we're part of a collective movement of some sort that is moving us in the right direction.

In that connection, one of the really important questions that needs to get asked so that we can think about the answers is how will we know when we're getting there?

The women at Walpole Island had a number of really interesting answers to that question. It was around a lower infant mortality, lower cancer rates, no violence, no poverty, no hunger, when Dow Chemical shuts off its outflow pipes. Those kinds of things begin to challenge us with respect to how to answer those questions.

Another really big one is what's the relationship between sustainability and sovereignty? In an increasingly global situation sustainability for Canada can only exist in the context of global sustainability. So we can't insulate ourselves around this one. That's a pretty important question.

How do you we help obstructive policies get out of the way when they're in the way? More importantly, how do we create supportive policies so that in fact the policies and the good things that are happening in the ground reinforce each other in a positive and upwelling kind of way, rather than our walking all over each other and making every single little step so incredibly hard and painful?

How do we connect individual behaviour here to implications and impacts all over the world? This question about how our most intimate acts relate to sustainable development is a really important question.

I think individuals need to see larger things happening that are making them feel like their individual efforts are meaningful, rather than as though they are teeny drops in an enormous bucket. And if business, industry and government are not being helpful, why should we recycle our paper?

.1750

That's probably enough bigger questions for now. I would just add one more caution on trusting and higher levels of education. Those of us in the most developed parts of this planet seem to be the ones who have done the most harm. So I think there are some really important lessons to be learned in what we call the less developed parts of the world.

Finally, I would like to pick up on Henry's comment and suggest that we indeed thank all those who made it possible for us to be here.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Miriam.

Jon Grant.

Mr. Grant: I will be one minute. I'm going to pick up on Stan's point, and I'll leave you with a challenge.

At the Ontario round table and also at IDRC we've had calls from people from South Africa, Central America and South America asking if we can help them start up round tables. Now, round tables are seen to be dying on the vine in Canada, and maybe they've sort of covered the time of their effectiveness, and they're finished. But there are people and communities out there who think Canada has done a marvellous job on round tables.

We have expertise like that of Dr. Seymoar, Gary Gallon, Harvey Mead and Miriam Wyman, who know a lot about round tables. We've spent billions of dollars on foreign aid in this country, and a few people going to South Africa to help these people start something for themselves would be very effective.

I'd like to leave this with you maybe at the end of the day: as a standing committee with responsibility for what you might call domestic issues, a foreign responsibility to take on would not cost very much money and would have an enormously positive effect in those countries that are trying to help themselves and develop. So it's a cheap challenge, but a terrific pay-off.

A voice: Hear, hear.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Jon.

Mr. Mead, please.

Mr. Mead: There was some misunderstanding about what I said in French a while ago, and since French takes one and a half times as long to get the message across, I'm going to go in English.

Charles Caccia make reference to philosophers, the philosophers by formation. I would suggest that he not look there any more than anywhere else for any particular wisdom.

And he's concerned about the practical implications. I went through three negative examples, because I wanted to underline what I think are the difficulties elected representatives face in making decisions here.

Someone is going to be hurt almost every time someone is going to be helped, and we're going to be doing the things we have to do. I'm hoping that the kind of wisdom necessary to work out perhaps mid-term solutions will come out of that.

Daishowa didn't do it out of any virtuous intentions. They were forced to by the U.S. market, and that was the same all the way across Canada, Mr. Cullen. I was making an argument that was precisely yours, using outside interference.

The other two examples are cases where we would require Canadian, provincial - whatever - decisions that would have the same kinds of effects.

I have a last remark for Paul Forseth and John Godfrey. My best reading of what GNP and growth are is that they haven't grown in the last 20 years when environmental factors have been taken into account. That's why development is used rather than growth.

I'd agree with Henry Lickers: let's stay away from stewardship - development is hard enough - and see if we can't do something there.

Jon, Quebec announced a new agency that may make up for its dead round table - we'll be putting it in place over the next few years - at the eco-summit last week.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Mead.

If we follow what Paul Hawken has said in his Ecology of Commerce, it's not necessarily cradle to grave, but cradle to cradle. So when you talk about the death of the Quebec round table, maybe it's a new birth of something else.

Just before I make my final comments, I wanted to invite the two opposition critics to make some very short summaries. We are very sensitive of everyone's time.

Paul Forseth.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you very much. I suppose that we could say today, in summary, that certainly sustainable development means meeting needs of the present and not necessarily all our wants, without compromising the ability of the next generation, maybe all generations in fact, to meet their needs. In other words, it is to live so that they may live.

In view of what I've heard today as a member of the Reform Party, as a member of Parliament on the west coast and having one of Canada's mighty rivers, the Fraser, flowing right through my riding, I'm encouraged. I think we can use our resources more wisely. We can invest more wisely and bring the best of science to positively affect our behaviour as a society, so that when we cut a tree we provide housing and pay for education.

.1755

By the way, this is mining week in Canada, and mining can be good or bad. When we extract ore from the ground we can pay for medicare and make consumer products, and when we fish or farm we can sustain ourselves. So things can be done responsibly or poorly. When we explain it to children we say don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

The hope is to change, to improve society's behaviour and to use our knowledge much better. In other words, do right and live right, look at our spending choices and understand that market forces can be a powerful engine for good, observe how we interact with the planet, understand what the best practices are, and then do them so that we may thrive for generations.

In summary, today we've said that we can change, we can improve and we can be good stewards of our environment.

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Gérard.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: Earlier, I spoke at some length in giving an overall assessment of the presentations we heard. Today you are giving us, parliamentarians, an opportunity to show some concern for the environment, to enforce environmental programs and to urge the government to continue implementing its action plan.

Of course, I join the chair and my colleague from the Reform Party in saying that in matters relating to the environment and sustainable development, we must continue to promote awareness so that our families and our children live more healthy lives.

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mrs. Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

I would like to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, the clerk, the researcher and Environment Canada. This has been a tremendous project. It was a long one in the making, but I'm pleased to see that we've finally seen phase one of it.

In terms of some of the things that were said today, one is that sustainability is a process. We have to do a lot of rethinking. The idea of the virtual world we may be living in - whether we have jobs that are in transition or are changing careers, we need principles that allow us that stability, something we can always go back to. When I think of sustainability I think of an integration of ecological, equity and economic concerns - both intergenerational and intragenerational equity - and among the different species that share this earth.

I had to give a presentation on sustainable development on Thursday, and I suggested that one has to look to the past and to the future, and that comment was reiterated around this table.

I also suggested that the image of the pale blue dot... It's ironic that western science and technology was the catalyst to bring us together and understand that we are one interconnected whole, yet that very same technology and science may be causing the deterioration of that pale blue dot. With interconnectedness we have to think across departments in our government. This idea of linkage is very important, and it's linkages at different levels.

I heard people talk about community work, national work and international work, so it's thinking and it's acting. We know the problem exists and has existed for a long time. We have to act. This idea of switching to opportunity...

It's tiring to chase your children around with a broomstick all the time, and it's nice when you can give them a challenge or an opportunity and they come back to you pleased that they've been able to do that. If we can find opportunities for individuals, corporations, communities and countries... This whole idea of what the government's role is in these times of change...

We are doing some introspection. We have greening-of-the-government programs and we are trying to understand what we can do better inside government. I think the commissioner is going to help with that.

.1800

We also have to try to understand our relationship with the people in our country. Maybe the government's role isn't to give money to problems so much as it is to be a catalyst, to support people in local communities so that government can be relevant to people's lives. But it's not government alone that can do everything, and I think that's an assumption all of us agree is passé. A civil society is a society where individuals understand their commitments to community, to the natural environment, to each other and to their government.

Ethel Blondin-Andrew was speaking at the conference I was at on Thursday, and she said it is always better if people do it themselves. I think more than anything this speaks to us about what sustainable development is.

Miriam, I love questions too. We have a full day of workshops tomorrow, so I'm expecting to hear some really good questions.

Again, thank you for being here. We have interesting booths where you can ask some interesting questions, and have an opportunity to talk together. We have a small reception where we can have some fun and enjoy each other's company, because that's what this is all about. We'll have our Internet demonstration after that. Thank you again.

I adjourn this meeting.

Return to Committee Home Page