ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

0910

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

0915

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly (Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

0920

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

0925

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

0930

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

0935

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

0940

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

0945

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

0950

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Brian Masse

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

0955

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency)

The Chair

1000

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

1005

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

1010

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

1015

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

1020

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

1025

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

1030

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Brian Masse

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

1035

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1040

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

1045

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

1050

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1055

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1100

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

1120

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

1125

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1130

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1135

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1140

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Brian Masse

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1145

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1150

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 010

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning.

The clipping before you, entitled “Energy for a Greenhouse Planet”, is from Science magazine. It is only one page from a six-page article. It struck me as being so well written it is worth circulating and adding to your reading burden.

You will notice in the first paragraph a reference to Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist. It says it all so well in one sentence.

I would then like to draw your attention to the third column in the article, because it is also so concisely and dramatically put, beginning with the words, “Primary power consumption today is approximately 12 terawatts, of which 85% is fossil-fueled”. This gives us, in one sentence, the idea or definition of the issue. In the same long paragraph the writer paints a scenario of what will be required by mid-century, estimated at anywhere from 15 to 30 terawatts, etc.

There is no point in my reading it out, but it is something you may want to read in its fullness, by going to the website to pick up the remaining pages. I didn't have the time to do it all, and it would have used too many trees.

The other article circulated is from Sunday's New York Times. It gives us the flavour of an editorial in the United States on the issue of climate change and how they see it. I would like to draw your attention to the second-last paragraph, where reference is made to another effort in Congress to increase fuel economy standards, and to two bills moving through the Senate, which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, etc. It's important to see that south of the border initiatives are being taken with and by industry, or by regulating industry, which are likely to be very close to achieving the Kyoto objectives. We will achieve them too by joining the international community. The Americans will probably do the same—but by staying out of the international community. I suspect this will be the conclusion in a few years.

This is the end of my introduction. But I thought you might be interested in seeing what is emerging and what is being proposed. The article from Science magazine is fantastic.

We almost have a quorum, but not quite.

(On clause 5)

¿ (0915)

The Chair: The clerk is informing us that we should go back to page 27 to deal with the first amendment in the name of Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'm not going to move it.

The Chair: Thank you. It is withdrawn.

Shall clause 5 as amended carry?

Mr. Robert Connelly (Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): No.

The Chair: Not yet? Do you have something there?

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment): Mr. Chair, what clause are you moving?

The Chair: We're moving clause 5.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask that clause 5 remain open--

The Chair: Be stood?

Mrs. Karen Redman: --because the government may be coming forward with an amendment or an interpretation that could impact crown corporations. I ask that the clause remain open, so we can entertain that amendment when it's tabled, which could be as early as this afternoon.

¿ (0920)

Mr. John Herron: I think we should afford the parliamentary secretary the flexibility to keep the clause open and bring that amendment. However, I consider that to be setting a precedent, and later on, when we're doing other bills, we won't get too much grief when the members want to bring an amendment forth that could enhance the bill, even if it is at the eleventh hour. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I understand the government is bringing forward an amendment on crowns. As you know, this committee passed a very important definition on the exclusion and inclusion of crowns. For a variety of reasons, I'm quite concerned about this crowns amendment, and I should bring members' attention to this.

The parliamentary secretary said this was going to be tabled this afternoon, so will members of this committee have access to this amendment before we come into committee, so we can have a proper analysis of it before we begin to look at it in committee?

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We are very cognizant of the timing, and it is our intention to brief members individually or collectively on this amendment, so it can be dealt with at our scheduled meeting on Wednesday.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just want to have access to the amendment, so I can undertake my own analysis of it.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we should give Ms. Redman the flexibility and leave clause 5 open. But I would ask, if it is available later today, could you fax it to our offices as early as possible? That way we could have the evening to look at it before committee tomorrow.

The Chair: Madam Redman has probably heard the interventions, and of course it would be desirable to have early notice of whatever amendment may be coming down the pipe. But let me tell you that when we clean up everything, we clean up everything, and then we go ahead and we conclude the exercise. We are not going to hold this hanging in suspended animation once we have cleaned up the balance of the bill before us. But for the time being, we'll stand clause 5.

(Clause 5 allowed to stand)

The Chair: We will then move to the next amendment, one by Mr. Herron on page 29. Mr. Herron, I'm told that because the committee adopted G-4b, your amendment PC-4 cannot be moved.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

That would seem to clean up the amendment we stood yesterday in the name of Mr. Herron, and that brings us then to where we stopped yesterday afternoon, at page 83.2 and KS-10a.

(On clause 13)

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, you have the floor.

¿ (0925)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, before we begin, I would like to note that there is a drafting error. Instead of reading “(iv)” it should read “(v)”. That means this is a new subparagraph that would follow subparagraph 21(a)(iv).

The second drafting error would be the final “and” because subparagraph 21(a)(v) would be the final subparagraph in that sequence.

The Chair: So the word “and” on the third line is deleted and (iv) is replaced by (v).

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Essentially this would require the responsible authority to look at alternative means of carrying out a particular project as opposed to just assessing a particular project in order to mitigate adverse environmental effects.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We don't support this proposed amendment because it could have the effect of reducing the number of review panels under the act. Subparagraph 21(a)(iv) is intended as a safeguard to ensure that the responsible authority and the minister consider whether the comprehensive study process is up to the task of assessing the project. To require the information about a potential alternative means of carrying out the project is more appropriate to the actual assessment, not to the minister's decision on the assessment track.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: : I have two questions with respect to the parliamentary secretary's point on reducing the number of review panels under the act. Do you know how many review panels we've actually had ever, and how many of those would have been reduced?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, the changes in this bill could, because of the new process in place and how the minister decides what track a project will go on, actually lead to more comprehensive reviews rather than fewer.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to understand from the government's point of view, Mr. Chair, why this would result in fewer panel reviews. I'm hearing comprehensive reviews and panel reviews, and I'm not entirely sure what it is we're talking about here.

The Chair: Madam Redman, is there an answer?

Mrs. Karen Redman: “Panel” is the right word, but I would ask Mr. Connelly to comment on this.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I have a few comments, Mr. Chairman. I think the concern with respect to influencing the number of panels is more associated with the deletion of the reference to current subparagraph 21(a)(iv), which is “the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues related to the project”.

I would like to point out, however, that one of the concerns here is that section 16 of the current act already requires that alternative means of carrying out a project be considered for any comprehensive study or panel review. Our concern is that at this stage in the new process of making a decision on track, it is premature in our view to get into that level of detail in that early tracking decision. Alternative means are required under the law to be done, and we feel it is more appropriate that they be done a little bit later on, after the track decision is made.

¿ (0930)

Mr. John Herron: I would bring to the attention of the committee that we're talking about a report. Nothing is premature. We have a list of four other options. If they are making a report to the minister, why wouldn't you want to have alternative means be an item for consideration? It's not making a determination about which track you are going to take yet. A report is being made to the minister that includes “the scope of the project, and the factors to be considered in its assessment” and “public concerns in relation to the project”. I don't think it's making any final determination. We're talking about a report and a recommendation. Why would you want to deny yourself the flexibility of adding an option of alternative means? It's a report. It's not limiting panel reviews; it's a report to the minister about options.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to support what Mr. Herron has just said. What Mr. Connelly had just identified was that there is this possibility under section 16 to take alternative means into consideration. The reality there is that it's only a possibility. This amendment would require the responsible authority to report on the potential for alternative means. If we are truly entering into a planning process that takes environmental and other factors into consideration, then we have to take a look at alternative means for carrying out a project. It's fundamental to understanding what environmental assessment is all about.

Mr. Connelly said it's too early to start getting into detailed information. Well, through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Connelly, I would like to have a better understanding of this statement because we're coming to the section of the act where the minister or whoever it is has to determine whether you're going to undertake a comp study or go to a panel review. I would assert, Mr. Chair, that under the old act at least you could get into a comp study and have an understanding of whether you should trigger a panel review. Where is this information going to come from?

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, let me ask you this question: would your anxiety be reduced if the words “the potential for” were to be deleted in the proposed amendment, so that it would start with the words, “alternative means”, thus increasing the focus of the additional dimension being added to the reports to the minister?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess to respond to your question, I don't think the suggestion would reduce my anxiety.

Madam Kraft Sloan has raised a number of points, and I do think she's right that this does deserve a little bit more explanation. I would be glad to provide it. In Bill C-9 we are introducing a new concept of making an early decision in the process as to which track our project review will follow. In other words, will it continue on the comprehensive study track or will a decision be made to go directly to a panel review?

In order to take that decision, this particular section requires the responsible authority to provide an early report to the Minister of the Environment in order to assist the minister in making that determination. Our concern is we don't want to create a situation where you have to complete the assessment before you make that recommendation.

Our concern is that the more information you require at that stage, particularly with respect to alternative means, the more detailed level of assessment you are going to have to take before you make that decision. The whole concept here is to make that decision early rather than later.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is why the idea of the deletion of the bump-up to the panel review is such a faulty concept. I would suggest that it will be even more problematic in practice. How are you to make the decisions ahead of time as to whether you go forward with a comprehensive study, or whether you go ahead with a panel review when, indeed, you had the opportunity in the current act to undertake a comprehensive study and then decide you can go on up to a panel review?

So I have a great deal of concern about this. It just shows the level of concern and the problems that are going to be attached both to the concept and practice of this. I would be more than willing to entertain a friendly subamendment from the chair. Or if the chair is not able to do this because of his position, I would entertain a friendly subamendment from anyone else to remove “potential”, so that we would just take a look at “alternative means of carrying out the project”.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just again direct the committee's attention to paragraph 16(2)(a) in the act, which requires the consideration of alternative means of carrying out the project during every comprehensive study, mediation, and review panel. Subsection (2) reads:

In addition to the factors set out in subsection (1), every comprehensive study of a project and every mediation or assessment by a review panel shall include a consideration of the following factors:

And if you look under paragraph (b), it says:

alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means;

So it is mandatory and it is included in that subsection, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it says “shall” consider, so one could make a very strong argument that this is indeed discretionary. If the parliamentary secretary views this as mandatory, then there's absolutely no harm in having a mandatory section here, saying you would have to report on this information or to provide it in a report.

I think it is discretionary, because we all know what happens when “considerations”... It is in the opinion of the minister, or the minister “shall” consider. These are discretionary considerations.

In this particular amendment, it would make it mandatory. Mr. Chair, if the parliamentary secretary believes it's mandatory, then there's absolutely no harm whatsoever in having this mandatory section in here.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: How do you do paragraph 21(a)(iv) without considering other measures? How would you do paragraph 21(a)(iv), “the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project” without turning to alternative measures?

The Chair: That's a good question.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chair, in response to Mr. Herron's question, the concept here is really to try to determine early on what the most appropriate track to follow is going to be, and to provide some greater certainty in the review process than has occurred up to the present time. To the present time, we've had a number of instances where a project has taken two to three years to go through the comprehensive study process. Then the minister must make a decision: are we going to subject this to a further panel review or not?

To be honest with you, this has created a lot of uncertainty for industry, because it does not know what is going to happen at that point. I suppose in part because of that it has been very difficult after a conference of study to make a decision to go on to a panel review. The track record shows this has never happened.

What we are trying to do here, Mr. Herron, is to have a level of information available on the nature of the project in order to determine early on what track to follow. I think the problem with the words “potential for alternative means...to mitigate adverse environmental effects”, is that you then have to look at all the environmental effects of all of those alternative means at that very early stage of the process. All we're saying is that will happen, but it will be later on when the full assessment is in fact undertaken. But it will not happen at this early stage.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Mr. Herron, are you ready with your motion on page 85?

Please note that Mr. Herron's motion is identical to Madam Kraft Sloan's motion on page 85.1.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, throughout a comprehensive study there can still be very severe levels of concern amongst the public that at the end of the study, or when it has been finished, there will be enough interest and uncertainty in the project that a panel review should be considered.

I understand the concept. For the sake of certainty, you don't want to be able to have panel reviews at the end of every process, because that provides uncertainty to industry. They don't know what's going to happen at the end of the track. But I would like to remind members of the committee that there have been a total of nine panel reviews since the act came into existence. So it is not as if panel reviews are utilized all the time after a comprehensive study. It has happened nine times.

So my view would be to leave the flexibility to the ministers to order a panel review, if they think it's necessary. Right now, once it's a comprehensive study, it stays on that track and it will never go to a panel review.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This proposed amendment basically puts the bill back to the way it currently is. Deciding on the new track provides greater certainty. It is very important to industry that we follow the revised comprehensive study process in Bill C-9.

There are two opportunities in the revised process for public participation. It is backed up by participation funding, along with new powers for the Minister of the Environment, which provide refinement and greater certainty. Because of this, we cannot support the proposed amendment.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan and Monsieur Masse.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's indeed a very sad day when we hear, on the environment and sustainable development committee, that we are putting forward one of the most significant amendments to Bill C-9 at the request of industry. I will read to you the first statement here in the preamble:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada seeks to achieve sustainable development by conserving and enhancing environmental quality and by encouraging and promoting economic development that conserves and enhances environmental quality;

I can't tell you how concerned I am about this particular motion, and I can't tell you how concerned I am that because industry requested it, that is the rationale. That really tells us a lot, especially when this conflicts with the government's identification of panel review as the core strength of this act.

The government has said that panel reviews are the core strength of this act, and now we have a situation where we are going to have a determination made, before one gets into the comprehensive study, that a determination will be made whether you go the comprehensive study or panel review track. How often will that panel review track be triggered? I tell you not very often. Indeed, it will only be when the proponents want a panel review. Clearly, if industry is asking for the removal of the bump-up, how many times do you think the proponent is going to request a panel review or want a panel review?

This is a very sad day for environmental assessment in this country. This is a planning tool, as we've heard time and time again. The problem is, you don't know what the outcome is going to be. That's why you're conducting an environmental assessment. You're bringing all these people together with all kinds of different expertise so you can make a determination on whether this project should go ahead, whether it requires mitigation, or what have you. So here we have a situation where the government is going to get out its crystal ball and say, “Yup, this is a comprehensive study project”.

It's important to understand that a panel review is comprised of independent individuals who will make some determinations here. Even though it has only been triggered once, which is a pathetic state of affairs in many respects, at least we can be assured that those comp studies will be done reasonably well.

So in this situation a determination will be made ahead of time, and we hope the government's crystal ball will be working very well. Who will care about the comp study then, because there'll be no other check and balance on this system at the end? I find this a rather insidious change to the current regime. Because industry wants it, we're going to do it.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Redman.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Public participation doesn't ensure accountability or integrity, and I think the way the act is worded now takes some of that out of the actual process. When we talk about the public being involved, we're also talking about other stakeholders, be they business, community groups, or organizations, so it's not just citizens here who are asking for this type of accountability. Having this measure eliminated will certainly improve confidence in the bill itself.

I'm curious to know why there's so much concern or uncertainty by industry. We have eight panels in total. How many came from comprehensive reviews, and how many assessments have been done in total?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, I can partially respond to the question of Mr. Masse by indicating that we've had a total of 11 panels with projects that have been referred to the panel stage under the act since 1995. My recollection is that there are about 70, plus or minus a few, comprehensive studies that have been initiated in the same period of time.

What I can't tell you is how many of the 11 panels were actually comprehensive study projects. I don't have the data here. I will provide it to you, by the way. I'll get it for tomorrow. What I can tell you is that we have never completed the full comprehensive study process and then afterwards referred the project to a panel.

I think in some instances they're projects that are listed on the comprehensive study regulation. I'll get the number of them for you. I do not know how many, but I can assure you that there have been no projects following comprehensive study in full completion that have then gone on to panel review.

I should perhaps take the opportunity, if I can, to point out that also as part of this package in Bill C-9, I think we have made improvements to the comprehensive study process by adding, as Madam Redman indicated, participant funding to that part of the process. We've also added the requirement to publish early scope decisions for the scope of projects and assessments. The Minister of the Environment will have some increased authority to establish some conditions, which wasn't the case before. It is an enhancement of the process.

While we cannot guarantee it, because the decision will have to be made earlier in the process than in the past as to whether the project will continue on the comprehensive study level or be undertaken at a panel review, the feeling right at the moment within the agency in analyzing and trying to gaze at a crystal ball is this is probably going to lead to more panel reviews than less.

The reason behind it is because you have to take the decision at a time when you know less about the environmental impacts of the project. There will be, I suppose, more uncertainty associated with the effects and hence a stronger likelihood that we may see more panels. It's a view internally within the agency. I cannot guarantee it will occur in practice, but that's our feeling at the present time.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Brian Masse: Sorry, Mr. Chair, how many assessments have taken place since 1995?

Mr. Robert Connelly: There have been roughly about 6,000 a year overall.

Mr. Brian Masse: On your earlier comments about how this makes industry nervous with regard to uncertainty, wouldn't they seem to be pretty good odds for whether or not you're going to go to a panel? You've only had 11 out of 6,000 per year over since 1995. They would be pretty good odds to me. I think I would have some general comfort.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I take your point, Mr. Masse. The track record indicates that we have never gone beyond the comprehensive study stage after its completion to panel review. The potential is always there under the current act. It has indeed created some uncertainty about the process.

Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I only want to add my comments to this. I think the single track is preferable for a few reasons. If a decision has to be made early on, and Mr. Connelly made this point, then everybody knows where they stand.

If you have a comp study and some people are opposed to the project, they can spend the whole time trying to get a panel review, as opposed to actually doing a really good job on the comprehensive study. I think you'd be more likely to get more panel reviews when the decision has to be made early on because it's a single track. I think it provides not only greater certainty for industry, but also greater certainty for all the people who are concerned about the project. They know where they stand up front.

Again, there'd be a greater likelihood of panel reviews. They obviously can try to do whatever they can to ensure that they get a panel review at the front end. If they don't, then they can sit down and ensure that they get the best results out of a comprehensive study, as opposed to spending all their efforts trying to switch it over to a panel review throughout the comprehensive study process. I think certainty is the preferable way to go.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. Herron, do you want to conclude?

Mr. John Herron: So the answer is zero. The number of times we have done a comprehensive study and have referred it to a panel review is zero. That's not very uncertain; we've never done it.

The second point is that there's a difference between eliminating uncertainly and just having it at mere convenience, and I think that's what we're heading toward. But I think the most salient point of this issue is that there were comprehensive studies. That track had been taken, we understand, about six or seven times, where the comprehensive study wasn't finished, but then, because of public concern, we moved it to a panel review.

So are we saying now that it was a poor decision we made, that those seven times we moved it to a panel review it was a poor decision, and we should not have made that decision to send it to a panel review? The logic behind it is that it was in the comprehensive study track, and then, because of information and public concern, we chose to move it to a panel review a handful of times. By taking away that tool, we've eliminated an option that we've used a couple of times.

So either it was a poor decision to move it to a panel review over those six or seven times, or it's an even worse decision to deny us the flexibility to have that option. You can't have it both ways.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Kraft Sloan, and then we'll conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I believe the question Mr. Herron was asking you is, are you still beating your wife, or your husband, or whatever the case may be? Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Say the government decides to undertake a comprehensive study of a particular project, and as they near completion there's a realization on the part of just about everybody out there that there is no way this comprehensive study has the ability to meet public concern. I'm not talking about in a frivolous or a vexatious manner, as so many people around this committee like to identify; I'm talking about a huge, huge outcry on the part of the public, and it's quite clear to just about anybody who cares to examine the material or the record that this comprehensive study does not have the ability to meet this huge public concern. Is that the end of the process? What happens then?

The Chair: I don't know, but I'm puzzled by the fact that under “Decision final”, on line 22, the verb used is “may” and not “shall”. So it's permissive. In a way, it could go both ways. The minister may or may not. Isn't that so? Isn't that an open-ended clause?

Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Just to clarify how the process is supposed to work, if a project is on a comprehensive study list, then the minister must go into this process of determining whether the project should continue to follow a comprehensive study method of assessment or go to panel review. So there's a mandatory choice for the minister to make if it's on the comprehensive study list, and the minister can choose either way. But the effects of the amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are that once the minister makes that decision, he can't revisit that decision again, but he can choose either to send the project to panel review or that the project continue with a comprehensive study.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Connelly.

À (1000)

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might respond to Mr. Herron and Madam Kraft Sloan's comments about the decision, just to point out that I think the decisions that were made were in fact good decisions, to refer projects to panel reviews.

Mr. John Herron: You don't have that option any more, ever again.

Mr. Robert Connelly: We do, and it's earlier in the process--

Mr. John Herron: But not later.

Mr. Robert Connelly: In fact, I think part of the process here is going to help us understand the public concerns better, because there will be a requirement, for any project in the comprehensive study list, for consultation with the public before this report is brought forward to the minister. So the minister will have a better understanding as to what the public concern is, earlier on in the process, and hence, we hope, will be able to make a more informed decision about the nature of that concern and whether a panel review should occur.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, when we had the earlier debate about whether to include alternative means to carry out a project, Mr. Connelly, or one of the witnesses, told us at that time that we can't go about gathering all this detailed information or we would find ourselves into an assessment. So I'm finding this information somewhat contradictory. On one hand we're being told that we can't add the idea of looking at an alternative approach to the project because that's too much information, too detailed, and we're going to be into the assessment. On the other hand, Mr. Chair, what I'm hearing right now is that we're to have all this great input from the public so the minister will know what the public's concern is before we make a decision. I'm having trouble trying to deal with these contradictory pieces of information.

I suggest that we will not have the proper information available to the government in order for the government to make a decision at the outset, whether it's a comprehensive study or a panel review. The problem here is that when we get into the environmental assessment and this information starts to come out, and the public has a huge, huge, huge concern, nothing else can be done about it.

The Chair: Are there any further interventions? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Do we go to G-13 on page 86?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, the English version of proposed section 21.2 should refer to the “federal environmental assessment coordinator”, not the “environmental assessment coordinator”. We are simply correcting a drafting error.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 14)

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, this is your motion on page 86-1.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is linked to my motion KS-11, which, in the name of John Herron, was defeated. Our motions were identical, so I'm withdrawing this motion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Masse, would you like to move NDP-29 on page 87?

Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, Mr. Chair, we'd like to move the motion.

À (1005)

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Brian Masse: I'm not going to speak to it.

The Chair: Are there any comments? Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The proposed amendment adds explicit reference to the significance of cumulative environmental effects as being part of environmental effects. We don't support this amendment. We feel it's unnecessary because under section 16 all assessments must consider environmental effects of projects, including any cumulative environmental effects. We wonder why this section would single out cumulative environmental effects and not other important environmental effects, such as how it might affect a species or indeed species at risk. It could be perceived as limiting the need to consider other types of effects, and because of that we don't feel this reference in the section is appropriate.

Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, I think it's to be more explicit. I don't think it's going to eliminate or isolate it. If it's interpreted in that way, it's not the intent of the motion. I don't think anyone going through it is going to have that analysis of it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, when the government supports a particular amendment, it's okay to duplicate. If the government is against a particular amendment that duplicates, I use duplication as a rationale for being against it.

I'm still having difficulty trying to understand. What is the harm in restating different kinds of things throughout a particular act?

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a general statement in the interest of simplicity.

To me, to include redundant statements in legislation really lessens its impact. If something is to go into a bill and it's a clause that applies generally throughout the bill, restating it throughout the bill doesn't enhance the quality of the bill one iota.

The Chair: Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, I don't think so. I think when you reinforce things through any type of document, whether it is a simple statement, an article, a political position, or whatever it might be, it is important. Through legislation, adverse environmental effects, including cumulative effects, I think are important with regard to this bill. There are so many connections.

I think it isn't about redundancy. It's about reinforcing the intent of the legislation to protect the environment for different social and economic reasons.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any final comments?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, there's a rule of thumb in education where you repeat something three times in the hope that the point gets across. Redundancy often serves its function.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: I hope everyone has noticed that Mr. Reed looks 20 years younger this morning.

Mr. Julian Reed: Give a gold star to the chair.

The Chair: We've come to page 88, amendment CA-11.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chair, I'll move this motion.

If you look on page 15 of the bill, lines 11 to 20 are the lines I'm deleting. It basically reads: “Before issuing an environmental assessment decision statement, the Minister shall, if the Minister is of the opinion”--and I emphasize of the opinion--“that additional information is necessary”.

Basically, this section is allowing the minister to politicize the review process after a comprehensive study is completed. I think this is inappropriate. Once a decision has been made, the decision should be released. The final decision should be based on science, not on the minister's desk. It works both ways.

Again, I don't think we should be giving the minister a final veto over any decision. If a decision is made, it's made and should be released. It shouldn't be giving the minister the final veto on a decision.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Are there any comments?

Madam Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we do not support the proposed amendment. It would remove the minister's authority to require more information or require action to address public concerns at the end of a comprehensive study. The powers were actually added to the comprehensive study process to compensate for the removal of the minister's authority under the current act to refer a project to a review panel at the end of a comprehensive study.

This proposed amendment would remove an essential tool for maintaining the quality of comprehensive studies and the ability to ensure public concerns are addressed. This inclusion is seen, in our view, as an improvement and one that was welcomed by environmental groups as well as industry. As such, we feel it removes an essential tool necessary to ensure the quality of comprehensive studies and we therefore do not support it.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 14 agreed to)

(On clause 15)

The Chair: We come to page 89, amendment NDP-30. Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the amendment.

The Chair: Are there any comments? Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, this amendment would restore the automatic referral to a review panel in the case of a failed mediation and will result in duplicate reports. The review panel report would be in addition to the mediator's report under section 30. The mediation provisions in this act have never been used. This proposed amendment would return to an approach where failure at mediation would automatically result in a project being referred to a review panel.

Quite frankly, this approach has not worked over the past seven years. The bill before us makes changes that are intended to encourage the use of mediation and to follow that track, and there are greater incentives within the bill to go down that track. Because the bill before us refers to the conclusion and not the termination of mediation, the mediator is required to prepare a report under section 32. Using this report and other relevant information, for example information gathered during the screening, the responsible authority will complete the assessment and then be able to choose a course of action as required under section 37.

The amendment before us would result in duplicate reports for a single project, one from the mediator and a second one from the review panel. As such, we feel it's counterproductive to the improvements that are contained in the bill.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, I think the intent, what the amendment entails, is that we would have more certainty just in terms of due process. After a failed mediation there would be a particular avenue and specific terms that were going to take place. The reports could accumulate and be reviewed under the actual review panel.

Again, it can contribute to that document and process in itself, so I think the motion is appropriate and would only benefit and provide more certainty, whereas there has been criticism by industry about the uncertainty.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(On clause 18)

The Chair: We will now move to page 93, NDP amendment 31. Mr. Masse, do you want to move it?

À (1015)

Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.

The Chair: Go ahead. Would you like to comment on it?

Mr. Brian Masse: No.

The Chair: Madam Redman, would you like to comment on the amendment, please?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We do not support the proposed amendment. It requires support from other departments for any mitigation measure, and this could be used by responsible authorities to require the departments to provide resources and assist in the implementation of mitigation measures beyond the scope of their interest or expertise.

For example, Environment Canada may request the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to include mitigation measures for a project in order to protect migratory birds under the Fisheries Act, where a permit is required for a project to proceed. The expertise related to migratory birds clearly rests with Environment Canada, so it's reasonable to expect that Environment Canada would provide support to ensure the mitigation measures are properly implemented.

The amendment before us would allow the responsible authority to arbitrarily use this clause to require assistance and resources from other departments. Because of that, we do not support this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We're on page 94.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: I move the amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any comments? Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The proposed amendment duplicates requirements in proposed new subsection 55(2) to publish a course of action on decisions. The proposed text is similar to the requirements that are found in paragraph 37(3)(a) of the current act, and we do not oppose the proposed change. We can support this one.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 19)

The Chair: We then go to page 96, a motion in the name of Mr. Comartin. Amendment NDP-33 was taken care of by the motion in the name of Mr. Herron, so there is no need to put this forward.

So we move briskly to page 101, NDP-35, which is similar to PC-17, I believe.

Mr. Gary Lunn: PC-17 is withdrawn.

À (1020)

The Chair: We'll go to G-16.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, G-16, the proposed amendment on page 103, is intended to ensure French-English concurrence in relation to the term “adaptive management”.

The Chair: The motion G-16 has been moved and explained.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll go back to clause 19 when Mr. Masse returns. In the meantime, we could call the next amendment by the government, G-16a, on page 103.1.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Has G-16a not passed?

The Chair: No, a moment ago we passed G-16. Now we have G-16a...oh, no, G-16a is in that bundle, and this was already passed. It's in the bundle of assessment of environmental effects.

I'm told it needs to be moved.

(On clause 20)

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would move that motion. If you bear with me while I find it, I would be happy to speak to it.

The Chair: With the return of Mr. Masse, we can go back, please, to clause 19 and a motion on page 101.

Mr. Julian Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary moved G-16a.

The Chair: I'm not so sure she moved.

Mr. Julian Reed: Yes, she did.

The Chair: She did?

Mr. Julian Reed: I wonder if we could just dispose of that.

The Chair: All right. We'll dispose of it. She moved it. We have to deal with it.

So we are still on G-16a because the motion was moved. Can we have a brief intervention, please?

Mrs. Karen Redman: This is an introduction of a new section, which was opened, but it is in addition. It is in the bundle along with G-23 because it has to do with the assessment of environmental effects. It's 103.1, if people can find that in their page file.

I would ask Ms. Smith if she would like to comment on it. The motion has been moved.

Ms. Heather Smith: I'll comment briefly.

This particular motion, G-16a, is related to G-17a, which was the replacement to NDP-37. As Madam Redman already told the committee, it's the one place where we had to make a change to the act to follow through on the change from assessment of environmental effects to environmental assessment.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you.

All right. We will stick to clause 20. We don't put forward the amendment on page 104 because it is in conflict. It has been amalgamated with G-17, and the amendment on page 105 is where we carry on.

Madam Redman, would you like to move it?

Mrs. Karen Redman: No.

The Chair: It has been replaced by G-17, which was carried. So there's no need to put forward 105, I'm told.

Now we come to 105.1, which was already carried because it's part of the package, so that's done.

So we come to NDP-38 on page 106, please. Mr. Masse, would you like to move it?

Mr. Brian Masse: I move the motion.

The Chair: Thank you. Any comments?

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment is redundant in that it states that cooperative review panels must meet the requirements of the act. Certainly any project, once it is triggered, must be assessed in accordance with the act and its regulations. Section 41 specifies that it must be covered by joint review panels. For example, the factors outlined in subsections 16(1) and 16(2) must be considered. The general language of the proposed amendment could draw confusion when contrasted with specific requirements of section 41. Again, I would reiterate that joint projects have to meet the legal requirements for both jurisdictions and that criteria exist for those.

So we do not support this proposed amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

May I seek your indulgence to be so kind as to turn back to clause 19 so that we can complete the amendments on that clause.

In the name of Mr. Comartin, on page 101, NDP-35.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: I move the motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Madam Redman, do you have any comments?

Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. It's withdrawn.

The Chair: Oh, it's withdrawn.

Does the member have consent to withdraw it? I suppose he does.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Now we go to page 102. There is a line conflict with G-16. That was carried. So there's no need to put one forward under P-36.

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 22)

The Chair: The next motion is G-18 on page 107.

Madam Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: This amendment is a technical rewrite of the French version of proposed subsection 46(1). The intent is to clarify the conditions that relate to the use of the minister's power to appoint review panels to assess projects that may have significant adverse environmental effects across provincial boundaries.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mr. Masse, NDP-39 cannot be put because there is a line conflict.

À (1030)

Mr. Brian Masse: It's withdrawn.

(Clause 22 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 23)

The Chair: The first amendment is on page 109.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: I move the motion.

The Chair: Are there any comments?

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment would allow the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Foreign Affairs to refer a project to a mediator or a panel review. It's a joint decision, therefore, by both ministers. This would be replaced with the authority of either minister in this case. This could remove the Minister of Environment from his traditional role of appointing members of panels and fixing their terms. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has a clear role in international issues. As such, it would be preferred that both ministers work together, rather than independently. So I would ask Mr. Masse why they're choosing to use the word “or”.

Mr. Brian Masse: With regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the world environmental issues that are upcoming, especially with the recent agreements we're looking at, we feel that a greater responsibility is required. It's not meant to pit one minister against the other. It's to actually increase the level of responsibility and commitment of Canada with regard to environmental matters. I think that having the Minister of Foreign Affairs participate in this process will enhance our reputation internationally. More importantly, it will also enhance the ability for the review of environmental issues in general and will only give confidence to the process. I don't think it takes away from one minister, by any means. But when special circumstances come up, the minister would at least have an avenue available to him to be able to invoke this.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, the word “and” reflects the current reality, and we would prefer that continue as it is. Therefore, we oppose this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think the flexibility is still there with the word “or”. Obviously, cabinet can make the determination as to who is the quarterback in that circumstance. But I'd like to remind members of the committee that rarely do we have an international forum that's not led by Foreign Affairs. If we go to Johannesburg or Kyoto itself, Foreign Affairs quarterbacks the delegation. I think it would be helpful to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs engaged in issues where his department basically has been leading the bureaucracy. It's never the environment ministry that leads, for example, a Johannesburg delegation. It's Foreign Affairs.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Page 110, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: I withdraw NDP-41 and NDP-42.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clause 23 agreed to)

(Clause 24 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 25)

The Chair: We are landing happily on G-22a, page 124.2. I understand this was rewritten in response to NDP-46 and KS-17.

Madam Redman, please.

À (1035)

Mrs. Karen Redman: I move this amendment to reinstate the paper-based registry, which was an undertaking the minister made when we was here.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan, do you want to withdraw your motion KS-17 or do you want to move it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm withdrawing it, Mr. Chair.

(Clause 25 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 26)

The Chair: Would you like to move G-23?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you mean G-23a on page 137.1?

I have a point of order.

The Chair: It's not in my book. On a point of order, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much. Before this amendment is moved, there are some technical procedural issues to which I would like some answers, if possible. I wanted to apprise members of the history of this particular motion G-23a.

The Chair: It's not before us, so you can do that when it is moved. We have nothing before us right now.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well if it's... Fine, go ahead.

The Chair: Madam Redman, would you like to move it?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, it is--

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is related to KS-18, and I only wanted to address how my motion has been integrated with this.

The Chair: You can make that point.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We may avoid some procedural issues later if we simply wait for the movement of this, because there are procedural issues that have to be addressed before we can get into the--

The Chair: Then please address the procedural issues.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

So that members are aware, there were--I don't know--two, three motions that were passed by other members. The government said they would integrate those amendments into G-23a, which is the government amendment dealing with the registry.

My motion KS-18 was passed by committee, and when it was integrated into G-23a there were a number of changes made to that motion. Some of those changes were very good changes that I support, but in a particular respect, which is still outstanding, there is a substantive change about which I have a great deal of concern, since it does not reflect the content nor the spirit of my motion.

I need to have some guidance from the table as to what happens now because this committee passed KS-18 and the government gave us assurances that it would be integrated into G-23a. One can examine the record on this. If the committee passed a motion on the basis of that understanding, then the content of that motion and the spirit of that motion should be reflected in this integration. Mr. Chair, it is not reflected in 23a, so I need to have some guidance as to how to proceed.

À (1040)

The Chair: Yes, fine. A motion has been distributed, a new G-23a, and Madam Redman is prepared to give us some guidance.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the fact that officials and Ms. Kraft Sloan have worked long and hard on trying to forge the spirit of the motion that clearly—my colleague is right—was passed by this committee. I believe the clerk is currently distributing a revised version, and this would be, specifically I think, the area of Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment. It will appear, when you get your copy, on the very first page, and it's proposed paragraph 55.1(3).

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not asking for a content response; I'm asking for a procedural response.

If we take a look at a situation where a committee has passed an amendment and another party integrates that into a larger amendment that is not the same, what procedural possibilities do we have to examine as a committee? I need some guidance from a procedural point of view, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Perhaps I could respond through you, Mr. Chair. We're hoping this captures the content of that motion, and if it's agreeable, that would resolve it. If not, then I would suggest you're absolutely right to look for a procedural resolution.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have a point of order on the floor, Mr. Chair, and I need to understand what happens with procedure before we get into a content discussion.

The Chair: All right.

The procedural point is a very important one. The clerk informs me that the committee has adopted amendment KS-18. The amendment that is now being proposed with this new amendment G-23a is in conflict with amendment KS-18. Therefore, it cannot be put unless there is unanimous consent.

I will ask the committee whether there is unanimous consent to this effect. If there isn't, I'm told that the essence of amendment G-23a can be put at report stage. Is that correct?

Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of amendment G-23a?

À (1045)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Could we have a little guidance on this? If we don't put amendment G-23a, then do we revert back to amendment G-23?

The Chair: No, it's the same thing. The same line conflict applies.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. I wanted to understand the procedural option so committee members can make a full decision.

The Chair: This has been explained.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

The Chair: There is a line of conflict. Unless there is unanimous consent, amendment G-23 cannot be put.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. There are other possibilities here. Amendment G-23a could be put without my amendment in it and my amendment stands.

The Chair: The line conflict still exists.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's because of the line conflict. Because mine passed, it conflicts with amendment G-23a. All right.

Is there a way of breaking up amendment G-23a so that mine stands and amendment G-23a passes as well?

The Chair: Not unless there is unanimous consent.

Mr. Gary Lunn: You have to give unanimous consent first.

The Chair: Excuse me, one at a time. Are you the chair?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I like your seat.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Unanimous consent, as I understand, Mr. Chair, is to allow amendment G-23a to go forward.

The Chair: It allows it to be introduced.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then what happens with amendment KS-18?

The Chair: They will have to be, as you can hear, amalgamated so that the two would merge into one.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then we don't lose amendment KS-18.

The Chair: Yes. We would definitely not lose amendment KS-18. That is your answer.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. My concern is there are elements in amendment G-23a that I support. I also want to ensure that amendment KS-18, which was passed by this committee, is retained.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If that is going to be the result of this unanimous decision, then I will support it.

The Chair: I will repeat my understanding of the rules to the effect that if amendment G-23a is introduced by unanimous consent, the substance of amendment KS-18 will be retained in its entirety by way of a merger of the two motions.

Is that correct?

I am told that there may be language adjustments or changes required. They would have to be made to the satisfaction of Mrs. Kraft Sloan because this committee has adopted amendment KS-18. Therefore, the substance of the amendment is in place.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want to be really clear about this because the devil is always in the details. Under section 55.3, where the government attempted to integrate my amendment KS-18, there are problems with the wording. Section 55.3, as it is currently worded in amendment G-23a, will disappear and my amendment KS-18 will be replaced.

A voice: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, it won't. Then we have a conflict.

You see, these are the kinds of questions that I'm asking and trying to get an answer on.

The Chair: And why can it not be? Why not?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Because you're going to have a conflict.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): We could, if you want, remove the line conflict from the new amendment and just retain Mrs. Kraft Sloan's amendment, or better would be to try to find some kind of compromise. That would be my preference, but perhaps it's not possible. I don't know.

The Chair: Can we now hear Madame Redman for a moment on the procedure?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I guess the only thing I would point out, which I hope is value added, is that were we not to entertain amendment G-23, that therefore would take away our ability to include the paper registry, which is something the minster committed to, something this committee certainly is supporting, and something certainly we heard from witnesses.

I think the ability to put amendment G-23 on the table and then discuss the substantive issue does not answer Ms. Kraft Sloan's very correct procedural questions, but it would at least allow us to deal with the paper registry. In terms of the essence of her motion, which from the government's point of view is somewhat unworkable, I would be happy to discuss that content for this committee if she were amenable to putting that motion on the floor.

À (1050)

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the problem is, we have to deal with this procedurally so that committee members really understand what is in front of them. That is the problem. You cannot make a substantive decision unless you understand how the procedure is going to affect your ability to look at the substantive options.

Secondly, there are other motions that we haven't come to yet that deal with this clause. If we accept amendment G-23a, those other motions will not be discussed. That is certainly not the practice of this particular committee. My concern is, as I articulated, if we agree unanimously to put forward amendment G-23a and somehow integrate amendment KS-18, which has been passed by this committee, the problem is that proposed subsection 55(3) will have to stand, which will then be in conflict with my amendment KS-18 from a substantive point of view.

Because we have to go back to another clause that the government has requested we stand down, then perhaps we can come back at this again tomorrow. I will sit down with the table staff and we will outline procedural possibilities.

One point I had raised, Mr. Chair, was that I absolutely agreed that it's really important to have both a paper and an electronic registry. This is why I said, why not split these? Why not split amendment G-23a, so that there wouldn't be a line conflict? You can pull out from amendment G-23a the things the minister has made a commitment to, with regard to, say, proposed subsection 55(1). Then my motion, amendment KS-18, which has already been passed by committee, can be reinserted, and we can take a look at some of these other motions that we haven't had the opportunity to discuss yet.

So we also have the possibility of splitting this amendment.

The Chair: This sounds like a rather reasonable and practical approach.

Mr. Connelly, do you think you can handle, between today and tomorrow, what was suggested a moment ago?

Ms. Heather Smith: Why don't we just take out proposed subsection 55(3)? The text Madam Kraft Sloan doesn't accept won't be there.

There will still be a problem, though, with how to integrate amendment KS-18 with proposed subsection 55(1), and it's not immediately evident how that would happen. We've tried and haven't found a way that was acceptable. But we can take out our attempt so that....

The Chair: Let's see whether Madame Kraft Sloan sees merit in removing proposed subsection 55(3), as you've suggested.

Ms. Heather Smith: That's proposed subsection 55(3).

The Chair: Yes.

What does she say about proposed subsection 55(1), then?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, because we have to still come back to committee to deal with a clause that the government has asked us to stand down, I think perhaps this is again another situation--

The Chair: We may, or we may not.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order about the same point.

The Chair: Certainly, but let's hear from Madame Kraft Sloan to conclude on proposed subsection 55(1).

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I also want to point out again, as I had suggested, that by merely removing proposed subsection 55(3), there are still other motions that have to be dealt with in the package.

The Chair: That was the point made by Madam Smith a moment ago as well, right? Fine.

Mr. John Herron: I was going to make exactly that point. If we give unanimous consent to allow amendment G-23aa to stand, all our subsequent motions dealing with this section just evaporate. They're gone, and there's no recourse to bring them back. That's the quagmire we're in. By giving unanimous consent to allow it to stand, it puts us in a very awkward position, because we lose all of these other ones that follow.

An hon. member: That's right.

Mr. Gary Lunn: [Editor's Note: inaudible]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Lunn, but our understanding is that we have included KS-18, CA-14, L-2, L-3, PC-21, and CA-18 in this amendment G-23aa.

Mr. Connelly and Madam Smith, I stand to be corrected.

À (1055)

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes.

The Chair: So we actually have quite an amalgamation or quite a package in it.

What detail in subsection 55(1) is not in your amendment? Is this where the problem is?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That is not in my amendment?

The Chair: In your amendment, yes. Is it subsection 55(1) that does not fully reflect amendment KS-18?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'll have to just take a look at it.

The Chair: I'm told that in subsection 55(3) there is the substance that would reflect what is still—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, subsection 55(3) does not reflect the substance of my amendment at all.

Ms. Heather Smith: That was our attempt, but if it is not satisfactory to Madame Kraft Sloan—

The Chair: So that is the only point of contention?

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes. So we could take that out.

The Chair: If that were taken out, would it then remove all of the objections?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, if we did this in subsection 55(3):

For the purpose of facilitating public access to records included in the Registry, in the case of a screening or comprehensive study, the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator and, in any other case, the Agency shall ensure that a printed copy of any such record is provided in a timely manner on request.

The Chair: So you are suggesting the deletion of “to an interested party”?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, that would reflect the substance of amendment KS-18.

The Chair: Now we're falling into the trap of dealing with the substance. Also, we are still on procedure.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, we are on procedure.

The Chair: Well, we are on both tracks right now.

Anyway, we have identified, at least procedurally, that there is a problem with subsection 55(3).

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. From a procedural point of view, I am letting the committee know what is acceptable in keeping amendment KS-18 integrated with the content and spirit by which the committee passed it.

The Chair: Can we at this point have unanimous consent to introduce amendment G-23aa?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would ask the committee to consider that amendment G-23 is a complex motion, no doubt about it.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Redman: To Mr. Lunn's concern and anyone else who has a motion as part of this, I would suggest that at the section where it's pertinent, they would seek to bring in amendments, friendly or otherwise, if they felt the spirit of their motion had not been captured. So we could then move forward with a substantive piece on this. We've all had this motion, complex as it is, for several days.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if we make the changes to subsection 55(3) that I suggested, which is just to delete “to any interested party”, it would put amendment KS-18 in exactly the same content and spirit with regard to what the committee passed. I can accept what's going on here.

The government always has the option of removing this in report stage. Indeed, this committee is subjected to this on an early and often basis.

Mr. John Herron: We shouldn't be encouraging that process, though.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, we shouldn't be encouraging the process. But, you know, if the government…

Á (1100)

The Chair: I don't like that language.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You don't like that language? Well, there is a reality here that we face, whether you like the language or not.

The Chair: The question is still whether there is unanimous consent to introduce amendment G-23aa.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: To answer your question, no, not right now—nor from myself. Maybe tomorrow, but definitely not today.

The Chair: Fine. Maybe then we should just postpone examination of this particular clause until tomorrow to give Mr. Lunn some time to think it over. We will still require consent tomorrow, no doubt.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I respectfully request a five- to ten-minute break. We could then chat about this and maybe come back, achieve unanimous consent, and move forward?

The Chair: For how many minutes?

Mrs. Karen Redman: How about eight minutes, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: That's a deal. Thank you.

This meeting is suspended for 10 minutes.

Á (1101)

Á (1117)

The Chair: Perhaps the way out of this labyrinth is to first proceed systematically with the PC and Alliance motions on this clause. When that is done, and if the members are satisfied, I will put forward the question as to whether there is unanimous consent to bring forward the new amendment G-23aa.

With that in mind, please turn to page 146, amendment CA-17.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was approached by the government on KS-18, and there was an agreement to delete “to any interested party”. That would be a way of dealing with KS-18. I just wanted to comment, for the record.

The Chair: Thank you. That is very helpful.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In terms of dealing with KS-18, just for the record, I am willing to accept the deletion of “to any interested party”.

The Chair: That's an interesting point, but it's just a point of information.

Could we please move to page 146 and the motion in the name of Mr. Lunn, CA-17?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I moved this motion and spoke to it before. It's similar to CA-11, although it deals with a different section. Basically, I'm trying to delete “does not allow the minister to politicize the review process once the study is completed”.

If you turn to page 22, which I will read for clarity... I'm not sure this actually makes sense now without CA-11. That's what I'm struggling with, Mr. Chair. Without CA-11, I don't think CA-17 works. You already deleted my wonderful CA-11. Am I correct in that?

Á (1120)

Ms. Heather Smith: It's my understanding that CA-17 is consequential to CA-11.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's why I'm pausing, exactly. I think CA-17 is consequential to CA-11, and the committee defeated my wonderful CA-11, so I think it's already a done deal.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We will move to the next page, PC-21.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: This amendment would oblige the responsible authority to explain and/or justify his decision to have a follow-up program or not. This would ensure that the reason for refusing a project or going ahead with a project would appear in the public registry. I so move.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We're not opposed to this amendment, which is consistent with requirements of the bill.

The Chair: Would you like to say something, Ms. Smith?

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes, I want to point out that we did attempt to integrate PC-21 into G-23aa. It was in paragraph 55.1(2)(q.1).

The Chair: Let me stop right there. If it is integrated and that integration is to Mr. Herron's satisfaction, when we will come to seeking unanimous consent, we will then bring it in and things will be resolved. This is why we are going through in this fashion.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Thank you.

Then we could call KS-19 on page 147.1.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move this motion. Essentially what this motion does is add three paragraphs: (s), (t), and (u). There is a requirement that all scientific, technical or planning documents be included; an index of registry documents, including notice of changes, alterations or deletions; and reports relating to the assessment, including technical or scientific reports.

I think we have heard enough witnesses on this particular matter. As we've often heard, the devil is in the details. I think these matters are self-evident, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We cannot support this amendment. It's just a voluminous task to take these huge reports and put them all on. Also, I would point out that anything as part of the official registry would have to be in both official languages.

The registry already accounts for over 20%, approximately $12 million, of the new funding for the revised process. The cost of translating all the documents would far exceed the government's commitment of $51 million in new funding for the revised process.

It also could cause delays, and many technical documents are not easily nor affordably posted on the Internet. I would remind the committee of Martha Kostuch's testimony on April 11, when she stated “I think it's very good to have what they're proposing electronically, in the timing they're proposing...” Could she have accessed the same documents through the Internet? No. It would have been impossible to have those maps available electronically. There is formatting information that is just very difficult to put on the registry.

The Canadian Environmental Network also recognized this problem in their submission, which states:

The electronic registry can include notification and a list of documents but, in its initial stages, need not include the text for all documents listed.

For this reason we have tried to incorporate as much as we could of the current system of paper-based registries in G-23 in addition to the electronic registry.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think, first of all, we should support this amendment. I think greater transparency is always great. I also want to state for the record that I'm absolutely amazed that every time the government comes up with something they don't want--maybe not every time--one of their arguments, and I've heard it used in many other committees and this one now, is that they can't afford it. They can't afford translation. I find it so hypocritical that we live in a bilingual country, we have two official languages, and to say that they can't afford to translate the documents is just....

I know there have to be armies of people within the public service who do this. I look at how money is spent. We won't get into that. That's a long political debate, which is probably not germane to this discussion.

But that argument just doesn't wash. They have to come up with something a little bit better than that to convince me that this is not a good amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, and then Mr. Masse and Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. John Herron: If we're going to deny technical information, then what's the purpose of having a registry itself? The registry is the promise of providing technical information to interested parties so that they can make a conclusion on whether there's a problem or not. I think Mr. Lunn's on the right track. I'll be supporting Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting this motion as well. I've been sitting on a focus group with the government and different parties with regard to the Internet and information. I think it's the way things are evolving. There will be new technologies and, more importantly, more efforts to put forth that information in formats that are going to be more accessible, and one of them is the Internet. I think it's a weak argument to say there are no more funds for this. If that's the case, then it's an even greater argument to finally start funding the Ministry of the Environment to an acceptable level for Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, Martha Kostuch's concerns obviously related to the Internet. But she was making a plea in terms of having access to paper documents in the project file. As you know, the minister came before our committee and made a commitment that registry would indeed be both electronically based and paper based. As well, as you know, the government has an amendment, G-23a , on the table. My amendment was drafted after the minister's commitment and after looking at G-23. It was assumed that government amendments would pass, particularly in light of the fact that opposition members are very supportive of making sure that registry is both electronically and paper based. This issue of not getting technical documents on the Internet is well taken, but it's being dealt with, and I figured it would be dealt with, having seen these other amendments coming forward. The reality is that very important information is available in these technical documents, and the reason Madam Kostuch put forward her concern was because she was afraid of not being able to get access to those documents. If the government is committed to public participation, then it is committed to public participation.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask Mr. Connelly to make a comment on this proposed amendment.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I just wanted to clarify one point. With the merging of the two, the electronic and the old paper registry, we now have a reference in G-23aa to an Internet site and project files. The point is that all such information will be available. I believe it was the commitment of Minister Anderson to ensure that technical scientific documents would be available. They may not always be available on the Internet site. That's the difference. Some information will be available on the Internet site and some will be available in the project files. Obviously, if it's available on the electronic or Internet site, it'll be there. If it's not, it'll indicate how it may be made available and where one can obtain it. I just wanted to clarify that distinction. We're not limiting access here in any way. We're just indicating that not all of it will be available electronically.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, to conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If that's the case, then we can support this amendment.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Would you please turn to amendment CA-18 on page 148?

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, what this amendment says is:

A responsible authority shall ensure that the statement referred to in paragraph (2)(c) is included in the Registry every three months or within any other reasonable frequency period, but providing that period is not more than three months, to which the authority agrees with the Agency.

The intent is to allow flexibility for more frequent updating, but also to establish a base below which the government could not go in providing information through the registry. I'll leave it there. The intent is to ensure that it does not exceed three months.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments? Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would just point out that we felt the intent of this was captured in G-23a.

Mr. John Herron: If it's a good idea, then we should go for it.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Please turn to page 148.1, KS-20.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is a very important amendment because it requires a timeline, in that information is to be included in the registry and the inclusion has to occur 30 days before any decision is taken by a responsibility authority, the minister, or the agency. Timelines ensure accountability, and they are a very important part of the democratic process because of that.

The problem we have heard from a number of witnesses.... There was a trapper who bankrupted himself, lost his life savings, just because he wanted to get information about a project that was going to affect his community and his traplines. If the government is going to identify public participation as one of the key pillars of this new legislation, then I think it's very important that this amendment be supported.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any comment? Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, we do not support the proposed amendment. The 30-day timeline is for 5,500 projects and is burdensome. I would also like to point out that there are seasonal things that draw little public interest that may be unduly delayed. We could think of the construction of a small dock as an example of that. The current mechanism through regulation is reasonable because there are so many departments affected and implicated. There are around thirty, and because of that we don't support this amendment.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Connelly, I wanted to ask if there are any timelines or time constraints in this bill that require triggering the opportunities for public participation.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, there are no timelines in the bill itself, but there is ability to develop regulations and guidelines under the act in that respect.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that because there are no timelines in place for this information to be provided in a timely manner, it has created a number of problems we heard about as committee members. In fact, again through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Connelly, I would like to know if indeed information could be supplied to people after an EA is completed or perhaps even after the project is completed. Is that a possibility the way the act is currently written?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chair, the concept in the bill is to encourage public involvement, and where consultation is occurring, then that information should be available to those who are interested in participating in the process. Whether that happens in all cases, I don't know. I am aware of the situation Mrs. Kraft Sloan referred to, and it was obviously not an acceptable situation. But the whole idea is that where consultation does occur, those documents are required to be made available to those who are interested in participating. That should occur, obviously, before any decision is taken.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That is not always the case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I don't think I need to remind the members of a certain fact, but I will anyway. Ontario has really led this country in growth over the last number of years under the Progressive Conservative government of Michael Harris and Ernie Eves. I know that--stick with me one second--under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, introduced by the NDP and administered by the Tories, they have permitting and authorization clauses in their act set for 30 days. I don't think business has ground to a halt in Ontario. I don't know why the Liberal government wants to be more regressive in their legislation than the progressive document that was tabled by my friends in the NDP and that has been administered by us Tories provincially here in Ontario.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, those regulations existed in the current act. The act has been in place for seven years now, and indeed we're still faced with those problems. So I don't think we have a lot of confidence that this can be dealt with through regulation. I think it can only be dealt with through the legislation. I move this motion and I ask you to call this to a vote.

Thank you.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There was a specific case referred to as one of the arguments in favour of this amendment. I was equally concerned with the case that was put forward to this committee by the gentleman concerned, so I did some in-depth investigation. I was quickly able to come to the conclusion that his problem was not rooted in the issue that resulted in this amendment. It has far broader implications than the simple act of obtaining records.

The Chair: Mr. Masse.

Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, with regard to this, the government has already advocated for more certainty, and there are 30 more days in terms of this process. People will all be able to understand. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a situation where you're going to declare that we want more certainty so industry, business, and everybody else can understand the rules of process and all those things and at the same time set up a system where it's going to be arbitrary through the whole process. This is fundamental to making sure that government practices are done in a fluid manner and, more importantly, that they are transparent to people so they understand the rules.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I just want to add that the reality is that public participation is impossible unless you can have access to the documents. If the documents can be provided anytime officials want after the project begins, you cannot have public participation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: This concludes the examination of clause 26 and the amendment before us...except for the new G-23aa, correct?

Now that you have seen how the landscape is shaping up in a way and keeping in mind the text that has been put before you and the statement made by Madam Kraft Sloan about the fact that on proposed new subsection 55.3(1) there is willingness to delete “to an interested party” on the fourth line, I will ask whether there is unanimous consent to introduce the new G-23aa.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is just on a point of order. Given that we've just passed the timelines amendment, which is KS-20, I would suggest there's a very easy way to integrate this amendment into G-23aa, which is to add--

The Chair: That's not a point of order. We're now into--

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It is a point of order because we have to have a discussion about whether we're going to reintroduce G-23a.

Mr. John Herron: I think she's on to something here.

The Chair: It would have to be integrated.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair--

Mr. John Herron: It may be conditional as to whether we say yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, could I have your indulgence for a minute on this issue?

As Mr. Herron pointed out, all you need is one individual to deny unanimous consent.

The Chair: Yes, we know that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm trying to offer a solution with regard to the integration of an amendment that the committee has passed. It does have to do with a point of order in process. It will help committee members be better informed in their decisions as to whether they accept unanimous consent or not.

I was going to make a suggestion, Mr. Chair, if I may go on. Amendment KS-20, which was passed with regard to timelines, could be worded as such. It would follow the printed copy of proposed section 55.4: All records must be included in the registry at least 30 days before any action is taken by a responsible authority, the minister, or the agency.

I believe it reflects both the content and the spirit of the amendment passed by committee. This would be a very easy way to integrate this motion into amendment G-23a.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to introduce amendment G-23a?

Mr. John Herron: As Karen described it?

The Chair: It was only a clarification on a procedure as to how she sees it.

Mr. John Herron: No, I don't think so.

Let's do it Karen's way then.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It depends on how it's integrated. If the government is willing to integrate it in this way, then perhaps there is unanimous consent and we can move on.

The Chair: Then we need a reply from Madam Redman.

Mr. John Herron: There you go.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I would be more than happy to move amendment G-23a with the wording that was presented today. We would be more than open for friendly amendments in order to incorporate the wording.

Mr. John Herron: They will give it to you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

There has been an agreement that amendment KS-18 be integrated into amendment G-23a. This is not as a friendly amendment. There was an agreement, as I read into the record before we started after our break, that said that I was approached by the parliamentary secretary for section 55(3) to read as follows:

That was the agreement. This is not a friendly amendment. I want that for clarification.

The second point is the committee has passed amendment KS-20, which has to do with timelines. A way must be found, if amendment G-23a passes, to integrate it.

As a result, I've made a very simple suggestion, not a friendly amendment. Members want to be assured that what they see is what they get and what they agree to through unanimous consent is what they think they're going to get. The suggestion for an integration of amendment G-23a is the addition of section 55.4, which reflects amendment KS-20, which was passed by the committee.

I think if there's consent there will probably be unanimous consent to reintroduce amendment G-23a in that format. I can't speak for all members.

The Chair: We have to hear from Mr. Herron and Mr. Lunn as to whether they concur or not.

Mr. Gary Lunn: All this has been put to the parliamentary secretary. Of course, she continues not to give us her consent.

Secondly, they defeated amendment CA-18, although they claim they've included it in amendment G-23a. If they included it in amendment G-23a and then voted against it, it raises the question of which way are they going here? They voted against my amendment, but they claim they're really in favour of it.

I think, Mr. Chair, in light of all of this, we know there are other amendments coming forward, or we're told there could be other amendments coming forward as early as tomorrow, that would put us in the same situation of wanting to rewrite some amendments that have already been passed. In light of all of that, I think we should move on, not give consent to this, and deal with it in the House.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, not in the House; here.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, do you have any comments?

Mr. John Herron: I think Ms. Kraft Sloan has given us an option to consider. If the parliamentary secretary is willing to agree to that option in Hansard, I could be amenable to opening it up, but it would have to be in that process.

I have some trepidation, given the fact that members opposite just voted against an amendment that they now claim to support.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Perhaps there is a solution to this problem. It's 11:50. If the government can come back with a redraft to G-23a, with all of the concerns the committee has expressed, and agreed to, I might add, Mr. Chair, if we can see these issues identified and redrafted, and perhaps Mr. Lunn's motion could be pointed out, then we can proceed tomorrow with a redrafted G-23a.

Á (1150)

The Chair: From the chair's point of view, the amendments that have been adopted that impinge upon the new G-23aa need to appear in the new G-23aa, so as to provide the assurance needed to obtain unanimous consent. I don't see any other approach that would work.

Evidently, in order to proceed in a rational, lucid, and acceptable manner, KS-18, KS-20, and other amendments that have been passed have to be reflected in the new G-23, and you have 24 hours to do that.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: While this may alleviate some of the concerns of Ms. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Herron, it does not speak to Mr. Lunn's issue. While I'm sure the officials will be more than happy to go back and grapple with this again, if Mr. Lunn is not amenable to unanimous consent to entertain this, under any conditions, I question why we're asking officials to go through this exercise.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm not trying at all to be a thorn in the side, as I've probably just been portrayed. I've been trying to move this bill through committee very quickly all the way through. I'm raising very legitimate concerns. So come back with something and we'll look at it.

When you say there may be another amendment, it's the principle we're talking about. You want to draft it so crown corporations can do their own regulations within three years, which completely flies in the face of my amendment that had already passed. So the fact that you'd even consider doing that when we've already passed an amendment raises flags of concern on this one. That's just being absolutely open and honest.

When an amendment I had that you already supposedly incorporated in G-23a is defeated, the red flag starts popping up on the opposition side to say, “They can't have it both ways”.

Am I open to moving this through and trying to get it passed? Absolutely. I would love to see a new G-23a that resolves all of these issues, so we can move on. But I am raising legitimate concerns.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to support what Mr. Lunn has said, simply because—

The Chair: Surprise, surprise.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I know.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Exactly, and don't go near the bedfellows stuff, Mr. Lunn.

Having said all of that, these are motions that were supported and passed by committee. I think we have to attend to the democratic process in committee.

The other issue Mr. Lunn has now raised is on crowns. An amendment was passed by committee about a motion on crowns, and I'm very concerned we're going to see another amendment that opens a clause that was essentially closed by this committee, which may start watering down a particular amendment that was put forward. So I hope we have an opportunity in advance to take a look at that amendment. These are legitimate concerns.

The Chair: We've heard all the statements, so now it is up to the government to make up its mind. We will resume tomorrow at 3:30, and we hope we can all look forward to a good, fair, and clear solution.

Thank you for your assistance. The meeting is adjourned.