ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 0913

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. I'm calling to order this assembly of long-term thinkers. I hope we can start now. We have a quorum.

You may recall that yesterday afternoon we adjourned on page 93, where you will find a motion in the name of the member for Fundy—Royal. In the meantime, Mr. Herron has prepared the full text to amend subclause 29(1), if I understand it correctly, but it reads as if it is a complete replacement of subclause 29(1), unlike the amendment on page 93, which started on line three. But that is just an observation of no great significance or impact. Perhaps it would be helpful if Mr. Herron would guide us through his amendment—

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): Yes.

The Chair: —keeping in mind that we have two new members on the committee, who we welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin, welcome to our committee.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: And Mr. Price, welcome to the committee.

Mr. Herron.

• 0915

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

The provisions of clause 29 refer to the provisions in the bill for emergency listing. What we've tried to to is adopt a very similar language to what was utilized in Bill C-65. Essentially, what it does is say that “If the competent Minister”—I originally had it the minister, but I changed it, because we have different ministers in play, whether it's DIAND or fisheries, etc.—“is of the opinion that or within 20 days after COSEWIC determines that there is an imminent threat to the survival of a wildlife species, the competent Minister shall, on emergency basis, make a regulation amending the List of Wildlife Species at Risk and list the species.”

Obviously this provision would not be utilized in most circumstances, but this is where the imminent threat to the species is at stake. Therefore I move this motion PC/DR-17.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, would you say that your amendment this morning would replace amendments on pages 94, 95, and 96?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. It would replace all of them except 95.

The Chair: I don't know whether you can say that, Mr. Herron, because 95 should be incorporated in what you're moving now on page 93. It is covering the same lines, you see?

Mr. John Herron: Right. Could I ask the legislative clerk for a suggestion about how I would approach that?

The Chair: You would have to rephrase the motion you presented this morning so that it incorporates what you have on page 95.

Mr. John Herron: Right.

The Chair: And then you'll have no problem.

Mr. John Herron: A suggestion we might have is that instead of incorporating it within the amendment itself we would do it as a stand-alone item afterwards, as a separate subsection.

The Chair: Yes, but you still have the problem of covering the same lines. Your amendment this morning would cover line one to line eight, is that correct?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. Instead of starting at line three, as we had it originally, we'll start at line one. That's right.

The Chair: And then your amendment on page 95 covers... No, you're on line 11. Yes, you're into line 11, I'm sorry.

Mr. John Herron: Is it acceptable?

The Chair: Yes.

The clerk would like to know from you whether you would want to have... When we come to 95 we'll ask him that question. Let's keep it simple now.

Do you have any other questions?

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): No, I just wanted to know what the effect was.

The Chair: So is it okay with you?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes.

• 0920

The Chair: We are in agreement from a technical point of view. Your motion is in order. Would you like to explain it, please?

Mr. John Herron: Essentially what it does is amend the process we have in place for listing, which was adopted yesterday through the Knutson amendment. From a listing perspective it takes more than a limited time: I think we're looking at six months now for a species to be listed. There are certain circumstances on an emergency basis when the imminent threat of survival of a species comes into play. We need to ensure that we have a very rapid provision in place so that the competent minister, whether it's fisheries or parks or environment, has the capacity to list in a rapid manner to ensure the preservation of the species itself.

The amendment we have reflects very closely the language we had in place on Bill C-65. Essentially it means that the competent minister can list, as opposed to going through the GIC process.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Mills, Mr. Bailey, and Madame Redman.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I have problems with the 20 days. Realistically, I can't imagine that a minister would be able to examine the socio-economic factors and all of the other factors we keep talking about, collect that information, and make that decision within 20 days. That just seems a really unrealistic period of time.

The Chair: Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Herron?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. I'd like to say to my colleague that this is with the list itself, about the imminent threat of a species, whether it exists, whether it has a chance of survival or not. Still, the list is totally different from the recovery strategy, because that's where the socio-economic implications have to come into play. The list becomes a trigger, but in developing the recovery plan is the process where the socio-economic implications have to come into play. And there may be some situations where they say they're not going to engage because of the socio-economic implications. But the list is the first trigger to start the process.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): My thoughts are somewhat along the line of those of my colleague here.

It would seem to me that by putting 20 days in when you're referring to some catastrophic event, 20 days is less than three weeks, and I just can't grab that one. I'm trying to think of some catastrophic event that would force the minister into that.

Mr. John Herron: If this is a question for a better time, I'm all ears.

The Chair: Ms. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Herron is all ears.

Mrs. Karen Redman: And that's good to hear. Good for hearing too.

Further to the comments of Mr. Mills and Mr. Bailey, not only is the 20 days problematic, but I would tell you that the amendment we passed yesterday, which was on page 83, had a system in place where the GIC was the body that created the legal list. If you look at the amendment before us that Mr. Herron has supplied today, not only do they cut out the total involvement of the GIC where social and economic impacts may be involved, but you are also suggesting that we actually change the legal list. So despite the fact this is an emergency procedure, it's a permanent change on the legal list that has cut out the very step we accepted as an amendment yesterday.

There will be no consultation nor public accountability with this process, and the government doesn't support this.

I don't know if Ms. Wherry or Monsieur Nadeau would like to comment on this.

Mr. Simon Nadeau (Head, Endangered Species Recovery, Environment Canada): Yes. I think one of the problematic elements of this amendment is actually that COSEWIC would decide that an emergency listing is necessary, and the GIC would not have the flexibility of thinking about it; it would have to just do it.

If COSEWIC decides about emergency listing, then it would be exposed to tremendous lobbying from those who would potentially be affected by prohibition. So essentially, COSEWIC would not be able to do its work in an independent manner; it would be lobbied by all these outside groups.

• 0925

The Chair: That is a red herring, because if COSEWIC would not get lobbied, the political system would get lobbied. The lobby would take place regardless of who was in charge of the decision-making. At least COSEWIC would be inspired by the scientific perspective.

Ms. Karen Redman: Just before I give up the floor, I think that's the point exactly, because the public demands accountability, and it rightfully looks to politically elected officials, not members of COSEWIC who are scientists.

The Chair: I'm not so sure about that; otherwise we wouldn't have had these discussions for six months.

Mr. Knutson and Mr. Herron.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): “If the competent minister is of the opinion that” is language for absolute discretion. I'm not sure why you're saying COSEWIC makes the decision.

This is the amendment we're looking at, right? I'd just like to point out—and if my learned friends from the civil service have a different view on what it means—my understanding is that's a drafter's way of saying the minister has absolute discretion. It's a subjective test. I'm wrong again?

Ms. Ruth Wherry (Director, Species at Risk, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada): There's an “or” between “the competent minister is of the opinion that” and “within 20 days after COSEWIC...”.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

Mr. John Herron: I get some space here.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I apologize for not picking up on the “ or”.

Can I ask a question? Because this bill is drafted around a regime of cooperation and goodwill—sort of making sure everybody's onside—and consultation, my understanding is when a species is actually legally listed, not a lot happens right off the bat. If it's a Migratory Birds Convention Act bird, there's a prohibition against killing; if it's a fish, there's a prohibition against killing; if it's on federal lands, there's a prohibition... That's a fairly narrow group. But for the vast majority of other species, the route is very much a cooperative regime. This is more to Mr. Mills' point.

Am I wrong in that? Can you explain what actually happens right off the bat, once you get legal listing?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: There's also the mandatory requirement to prepare recovery strategies for all species listed. Whether prohibitions come in automatically or not, there is a mandatory requirement there.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Am I correct in understanding that if an animal is too specialized, too far gone, and going to die off in nature anyway, our recovery strategy will be to do nothing?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I'll defer to Simon on that. I suppose it's a possibility, but I doubt very much that that would happen as a general rule...

Mr. Gar Knutson: It would happen in rare circumstances.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Very rare circumstances.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Still, there's no requirement for anything to happen.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: There's still a requirement to do a recovery strategy, even for species where the decision is made that the recovery of them is probably not feasible. You still have to do a recovery strategy saying that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So we can incorporate the socio-economic in all that...

Ms. Ruth Wherry: You can't do that in the recovery strategy. You determine the biological goals for recovering the species in the recovery strategy.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If you were beside a growing subdivision in Scarborough, or outside Ottawa, you would take that into account in your recovery strategy.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes, that would be taken into account in the development of the goal and the objectives, if it were known.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice Canada): It's important to remember that this is an emergency listing provision. Generally speaking, when you're talking about an emergency, the GIC would make that type of decision. Just to echo what has already been said, the 20 days would be virtually impossible.

• 0930

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: On what we're trying to do with the amendment, we'll see if we can maybe get some compromise. This is a very important clause in the bill. This is about the imminent threat to a particular species. So we can get fixated on the 20 days and chat about that, because I may have some other solutions.

It says “If the competent minister is of the opinion”, so information has to be presented to that competent minister for him or her to make that particular decision on whether the species is at risk or not. It isn't just made overnight. They obviously make a very measured decision on that part of it.

I would like to remind the committee that this is an emergency list. If you go to clause 30 in the bill, there's a provision that this emergency must be reviewed within that calendar year. Again, it's only for emergencies.

I'd also like to add—and I apologize for this, but it may provide even further space or comfort to some folks—as (2.1) to the amendment I have before you that:

A regulation made under subsection 29(1) ceases to have effect unless it is approved by the Governor in Council within 60 days after it is made.

This gets the minister to hit the ground running. Yes, it is listed. That process and all the prohibitions will actually come into play. The Governor in Council will have 60 days to sort out this emergency about whether they go along with his or her colleague. If they go forward with that, it will still have to be reviewed after a year. But the purpose of this is that if we wait for the Governor in Council to do an emergency list, we could lose months upon months, and the prohibition might need to come into play earlier.

The Chair: You have added a (2.1) to your text. It would be helpful if you repeated it, because we don't like this kind of improvisation on the spot. Possibly try to avoid it in the future, but go ahead now.

Mr. John Herron: It would read:

A regulation made under subsection 29(1) ceases to have effect unless it is approved by the Governor in Council within 60 days after it is made.

So the competent minister makes the emergency call, and the Governor in Council still has the final call about whether that stays on the list. There is the provision in clause 30 that mandates a review of the emergency list.

Again the issue comes down to this: if we wait for the Governor in Council to make an emergency list, we can potentially lose a species, because of the length of time it takes for that process to happen sometimes. That's the intent of what I'm trying to do—and find a compromise.

The Chair: Could I ask Mr. Near whether, in the text before us in the bill on line 1 of subclause 29(1), the minister referred to is the Minister of the Environment?

Mr. David Near: Yes. “Minister” is defined as the Minister of the Environment. The thinking there is that for an emergency, it would be best funnelled through one minister.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, you will have to decide whether you want the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to be in charge, if he's under pressure from industry not to... This is the problem with your insertion of the word “competent”.

Anyway, we will continue the discussion on your amendment, as it stands, with Madam Kraft-Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I have a question of the officials. How many emergency listings to date have been done by COSEWIC?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: One.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: One. So we're not talking about a huge flurry of activity then. How many years was that over?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: COSEWIC didn't have that possibility until a few years ago. It was not in its terms of reference.

• 0935

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Within how many years has there been that one emergency listing?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Three years.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You know, that's not too bad.

Mr. Bob Mills: What was it?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: The Oregon spotted frog in British Columbia.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, even if we increase it 300%, it's one a year.

That's certainly a consideration, is it not, Mr. Herron?

Mr. John Herron: Again, I don't think it's that arduous from a cabinet perspective.

To Mr. Near, there are provisions in CEPA for a minister to make an interim measure before it goes to Governor in Council. So this is not unprecedented. In fact, we already have it within a piece of legislation we passed here at this very committee not so long ago. There's already a provision for a minister to make an emergency call before it goes to Governor in Council. It's not precedent-setting by any means.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

I just want to reiterate the need for political accountability. I do appreciate the fact that Mr. Herron's trying to find a middle ground, but I have to tell you, I find this very confusing. I wonder how the people on the land would find this type of emergency procedure, with the 20 days and then the 60 days built in.

I would also point out that consultation with other governments is certainly required when a provincially listed species is being considered. So to go initially the GIC route, as the amendment said yesterday, allows for that kind of consultation as well as consultation with other government departments. That's the kind of context within which we would hope to continue building cooperation with our territorial and provincial partners.

As such, I think this amendment, despite Mr. Herron's good intent, does nothing but confuse the issue.

The Chair: Madame Scherrer, Monsieur Bigras—

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Bigras had asked for the floor some time before me.

[English]

If he wants to go first...

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions.

Aside from the 20-day period, I am wondering about several things. Firstly, I wonder whether we aren't changing the spirit in which we took a certain number of decisions yesterday. I think that when we go from the minister to the Governor in Council, there is an important handicap.

As for the emergency basis, Ms. Kraft Sloan asked a good question in this regard earlier when she asked how many times this had been used and what were the application parameters for these emergency measures. This should not become the norm. I would, thus, like to know what the criteria are and should this emergency status be invoked, what mechanism has been put in place to consult the provinces, for instance. When a species is or is not on a provincial list, it is not necessarily on the federal list. I would like to know what mechanism has been put in place for situations where an emergency is determined by the minister.

[English]

Ms. Ruth Wherry: It hasn't happened yet, for one thing. The minister hasn't made an emergency listing, because we don't yet have the authority at the federal level to do that under this proposed legislation.

With reference the so-called provincial species, having it at the GIC stage enables that kind of intergovernmental consideration or whatever to be accounted for. Normally, when there is some kind of an intergovernmental aspect to this, it is the GIC authority that is used as opposed to straight ministerial.

Mr. John Herron: I apologize for the ad lib here, but the GIC aspect is back in there. The GIC still gets to make that call.

The Chair: Are you referring to your addition?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am especially curious about the normal process of listing a species. We take it for granted that in an emergency situation or a normal situation, what is happening with the species is assessed before it is identified as endangered.

In the normal process, at the end of a report, when a species is identified as being endangered how much time normally elapses? Is it not possible for the COSEWIC to ask that the species be immediately put on the list, whether it has reached a state of emergency or not? When a species is determined to be endangered, according to the process, is the species not automatically listed? If yes, what could there be—?

• 0940

We take it for granted that there will be an assessment before any conclusion is drawn. This isn't decided all of a sudden on Monday morning. Interested parties don't begin to study the status of a species and suddenly declare that they think it is endangered. There must be a series of parameters to be considered and there has to be some time to carry out the study properly.

From the time when the species is identified, what is the difference between the normal registration process and an emergency process that might take 20 days or possibly 30? I don't see how we could accelerate the process.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I'm not sure how to answer your question. The normal process of the COSEWIC is to develop a situation report that is approved by the subcommittee responsible for that species, which then prepares the detailed information necessary for COSEPAC to come to a conclusion on the specie's status.

Afterwards, the voting members examine the issue and come to a conclusion. It takes some time to develop the situation report. Once this is submitted to the general assembly, there is a vote.

Here in article 29 it states that the emergency basis only applies to species that are threatened with extinction and whose survival is jeopardized. In other words, that step is only taken if we realize that doing nothing would lead to the disappearance of the species. So this concerns is a small proportion of endangered species as a whole.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: How much time elapses between your conclusion and the vote to determine that a species is endangered, whether this is being done under an emergency procedure or not, and the moment when that species is listed? It is an automatic process.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I believe this is what we discussed at clause 27 yesterday.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes, but what is the timeframe? No timeframe is specified in clause 27. There are up to 90 days provided to decide whether or not it stays there, but once the COSEWIC has made its decision on the basis of reports and studies, that that species is—

Is the emergency procedure necessary? That is what I am wondering about. Once a vote has been held and a determination made about the situation, is there an automatic, or quasi-automatic process... The emergency procedure is not necessary. It is probably the intervention that is urgently needed.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Clause 29 allows the minister, even without a situation report, to state that yes, in light of available information—

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: On the basis of only a few criteria.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: —the species is threatened with extinction.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Very well.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Scherrer.

[English]

Madam Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Herron to conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to defer to Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: In the spirit of trying to be helpful, and in an attempt to satisfy those who think the 20 days here is unworkable, I move that we change the 20 days to 90 days.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm amenable to this. My objective here is to give the capacity to move in rapid fashion—i.e., in an emergency, just as the clause says. If 90 days is still in that envelope of being urgent, that's okay, but I do want to reiterate to the committee how the bill works. This provincial part is not in play.

One, I've added an amendment that ensures the GIC has the ultimate say, even on an emergency basis, within 60 days. So clearly, in your provincial issues, it will be taking the place. However, the more important aspect of this is that the bill does not apply to provincial lands unless, according to clause 34, the GIC says it does.

So we're talking about provisions with respect to federal lands, aquatic species, and migratory birds. You need to go into the next clause.

It's true.

A voice: No.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Perhaps I can direct a question to Mr. Herron.

• 0945

You raised the point before about the competent minister, which enters into the equation. Previous to this there was a relationship where the environment minister was defined as the minister. Who the competent minister is changes the whole nature of this. Now here's a new relationship COSEWIC has with two other ministers, those of heritage and fisheries, and I think you should take that into consideration.

The Chair: Are you addressing Mr. Herron?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There's an issue with competent ministers you have raised here. I'm looking at the COSEWIC responsibilities and functions. COSEWIC has a relationship with a minister, who is the environment minister as defined under this act.

Mr. John Herron: Strike it out. That's fine too.

Subclause 34(2) is where provincial consideration comes in, so we can't use the argument with respect to consulting the provinces because subclause 34(2) means they have to go through the GIC process for consultation for provincial laws. This is only for federal lands, federal jurisdiction, aquatic species, and parks, and I think Ms. Wherry might agree with that particular issue if I were to ask her.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, in light of what you have said in the last four minutes, I take it that you are deleting “competent” and accepting 60 days instead of 20 days. Is that correct?

Mr. John Herron: We're okay with—

The Chair: We have to move on, you see. We are not at the horse market.

Mr. John Herron: Yes. I would like to go with 60 days.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fine.

Mr. John Herron: We're striking out “competent” and we're adding proposed subclause 29(2.1). I'm prepared to have the vote if that's...

The Chair: For subclause 29(1), as it is before us in the bill and which does not determine any time limit, you're sure that it should not be any faster than 60 days? We are removing ourselves from the element of emergency the longer the period becomes, obviously. You had an element of urgency with 20 days; then we swung to 90 and now to 60, but we have to think it through because...

Mr. John Herron: If I think it through the way we just had it, 20 days shows the emergency, 60 days gives the opportunity for GIC to make a determination, and it gets reviewed in the year anyway. This is a provision that's going to be only rarely utilized, so I don't see why we wouldn't just keep 20 days. This is what I'm going to move. If Gar Knutson wants to make a subamendment, he's welcome to, but I'm moving 20 days and keeping my 60-day component, then as the...

The Chair: Would you like to read your motion now so everybody can understand?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. Proposed subclause 29(1) reads as follows:

If the Minister is of the opinion that or within 20 days after COSEWIC determines that there is an imminent threat to the survival of a wildlife species, the Minister shall on an emergency basis make a regulation amending the List of Wildlife Species at Risk and list the species.

We add in proposed subclause 29(2.1)—

The Chair: Perhaps that should be subclause 29(1.1).

Mr. John Herron: Thank you. Subclause 29(1.1) reads:

A regulation made under subsection 29(1) ceases to have effect unless it is approved by the Governor in Council within 60 days after it is made.

The Chair: You have heard the amendment by Mr. Herron. Are you ready for the question?

The Clerk of the Committee: What about Mr. Knutson's subamendment?

The Chair: It is now settled as the way it has been read—

The Clerk: No, he may wish to...

The Chair: Do you want your subamendment put? I thought it was a friendly suggestion.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It was. I would change his 60 days to 120 days. People may be laughing, but there's a lot of discomfort expressed by the officials at the prospect of forcing cabinet to act in a hurry. Let's put the emergency order in place and give it to cabinet, since the government wants to give cabinet time to do these things.

The Chair: It's for an emergency.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The emergency part of it is in place. The 120 days would give them time to leave it in place.

Anyway, this probably isn't being helpful. I'm just trying to give suggestions so we have enough votes to pass some version of this. If it's the judgment of the chair, I'm prepared to vote too.

The Chair: Do we have a subamendment before us?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

• 0950

The Chair: Then we have the amendment by Mr. Herron as he read it a few moments ago.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. John Herron: Darn. Oh well.

The Chair: It is against the rules to comment on a vote, Mr. Herron.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Herron: I'm not moving page 95 or page 96.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, I'm calling 95. What is your wish?

Mr. John Herron: Page 95? Okay.

The committee passed this particular amendment yesterday. We truly believe that in a graduated approach to protecting species at risk, the first thing we need to do to get buy-in from landowners is inform them. The committee in its wisdom had a resounding seven to six vote yesterday, and we're going to try to pass it again. I hate doing the creative writing, but if you remember, we passed “to the extent known” yesterday, as well as “shall notify all directly affected landowners”, so I would suspect we should use that exact language.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We took out “private”.

The Chairman: Would you like to read it?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. “To the extent known, the Minister shall notify all directly affected landowners”. That's the amendment I would move.

Now, I heard a position I would like to throw out to the committee. In addition to affected landowners, we may want to include lessees as well, because that's very commonplace with respect to woodlots.

The Chair: We have not reached the stage of collective writing of amendments.

You have to make the decision.

Mr. John Herron: That's right. I would like to see if we can add “and lessees”. So the amendment would read, “To the extent known, the Minister shall notify all directly affected landowners and lessees of affected...”.

The Chair: Simply “lessees” would be fine.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I can appreciate the intent of the motion, but let me tell you from past experience, if you're going to make an attempt to directly notify, you're going to have to send an army of people to the land titles office, and they may work for weeks to see who's the direct landowner. I understand the intent, but to put it in the language that it is in now, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I would say it's legally impossible.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

• 0955

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

Another way to look at this... I'm happy to wait until I have everybody's attention, because this is a very important issue.

I would reiterate that I believe it's with nothing but good intent that Mr. Herron is putting forward this particular aspect of the bill. However, we could call this the Canada Post amendment, because in essence, if we don't inform everybody, it is going to be very difficult to make this piece of legislation stand when we actually come to the point where we have to look at prosecution and people can argue that they were not informed.

Our fear is the fact that it will undermine the exact intent of this bill, which is to work cooperatively with Canadians. Certainly there will be a regime of education, notification, but it's not appropriate that it go in the articles of this bill. It is best left to regulation. The government has said all along this is the whole intent of this piece of legislation, and by including this we may, down the road, see what we actually have is a bill that is missing some teeth and will not, at the end of the day, protect endangered species.

The Chair: Mr. Mills and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Bob Mills: I'll repeat what I said yesterday—and I'd like to hear from Mr. Near, as well. It seems to me—again, I come back to that group of landowners we're talking to—we would be able to point out in the bill that we are going to do everything we can to inform them we've just classified an endangered species, and one is on their land. The onus is on the government, and yes, they have to try. If it's in here, they're going to try even harder. But the point is there has to be something in writing that we're going to try to inform them. To leave it out and take our chances is, I think, wrong, and I wouldn't want to try to defend that to those landowners and lessees.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have to agree with Mr. Bailey, because it's going to be very difficult to contact all these people directly. Madam Redman has brought up some very good points around that as well. But I do feel very strongly about notifying landowners, and I had suggested yesterday we could work on some wording and put this aside.

I was wondering if there would be a possibility of putting into the clause something around the development of a notification process that would include representatives from groups that would be affected, so there would be a clear statement that the government would work on a notification process that's acceptable to people. You can choose any means possible—mail, newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, word of mouth, people working in the community—but people have different approaches to different kinds of media and ways of access. I'm very concerned about public access and I'm concerned about landowners knowing exactly what's going on, but there are different approaches for different individuals, and trying to get everybody is an issue.

If we said something about developing a process of notification, the officials could work on this with Mr. Mills and Mr. Herron. And Mr. Savoy, I know, would be very supportive of this. I would even be willing to help in this process. We could then go back and amend the other motion so it would be similar.

The Chair: Well, any wording that would increase the cost of the legislation would be a priori out of order, so you can fiddle around as long as you like, but it seems to me we can only deal with the text before us at the time we are approaching that particular subject. We can't now start a subcommittee to reword this approach.

We had a good discussion already yesterday. Mr. Mills has expressed a view. A different and almost opposite view has been expressed elsewhere. But we can't go on forever on this item, so I'm going to call the clause very soon.

• 1000

I have Mr. Bigras, then Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Without reopening the long debate we had yesterday, I would like to put a question to the officials. In light of what we passed yesterday, since there were similar measures in what we passed, would a notice automatically be sent whether or not we pass this amendment? Is there a connection there, or not? If this amendment were not passed, would landowners automatically be notified because of what we passed yesterday? That is my question.

[English]

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I would say the effect of what was adopted yesterday for any species that's listed is that if you did an emergency listing, it would still be a species that got listed, so I think you're raising a good point.

Mr. David Near: The logistics of it are going to be almost impossible. You're asking for a regulation to be passed within 20 days of an outside body's indicating that something is in need of listing, and then you're asking for the GIC... Basically, you're introducing a sunset clause. You're still doing a sunset clause, aren't you, on the GIC?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: No. With the point you were raising about what was accepted yesterday going through a listing process, I'm not sure if it's a direct correlation, that if you add one through emergency listing, the one accepted yesterday to clause 27 on this similar wording would then apply to those species too.

The Chair: The suggestion has been made that we consider this item on page 95 in conjunction with what we discussed yesterday on page 90 by way of an amendment that instead would read as follows. Mr. Herron, may I have your attention, because it incorporates some of the interventions, including Madam Kraft Sloan's:

To the extent possible or to the extent known, the Minister shall develop a notification system and place it in the regulations.

I invite your comments.

Madam Redman.

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

I sense a great coalescence of concern around this issue and a lot of goodwill. I would ask you if it's possible to stand down this amendment, which would allow Mr. Herron a chance to craft something that captures the spirit of what a lot of our colleagues have said around this table.

Also, with unanimous consent, if we could include the wording on page 90 that was dealt with yesterday, we could then... Because as Ms. Wherry points out, the amendment dealt with on page 90 is exactly the issue on page 95, and once an emergency listing was made, it actually would be affected under the amendment on page 90. We could perhaps revisit that next Wednesday when the members are in attendance.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, are you in agreement?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I agree. Just to be clear, I may not necessarily draft the language myself, because we may need some help from your friends on this. Subject to what they bring back, I would provide unanimous consent to go back to what we passed the other day and reopen it, so that the bill is consistent in the process. Let's stand this down right now, and we'll huddle, get some language together, and come back and do battle on Wednesday.

The Chair: All right, fine. That is helpful.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: That is more or less of what I mean. I think that we have to stand the clause and obtain a legal opinion concerning the repercussions of what we passed yesterday to see whether it is really necessary to adopt this clause. If there is a mechanism that triggers the sending of a notice to the landowner, the amendment may not be necessary. I am not saying that that is the case, but it is not up to me to judge. It is up to the person who tabled it. The debate does seem to be changing, however.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Will you take all this into consideration and come back, Madam Redman, with a text on Tuesday?

• 1005

Mrs. Karen Redman: Absolutely. Would you like it Tuesday or Wednesday, given that some of the regular members may not be here Tuesday?

The Chair: Tuesday would be fine, while memories are still fresh. The sooner the better.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. So we stand down clause 29, and we move to page 97.

(Clause 29 allowed to stand)

(On clause 30—Review)

The Chair: Mr. Mills, would you like to introduce your motion?

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes. After (a), (b), and (c), this would add paragraph (d) and again provide some accountability and some timelines. That's the intent of that motion.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

COSEWIC recommendations in the registry—it's not really their job. I guess as a government we don't have a problem with this. Clause 123 in the bill is where it deals with things going in the public registry. We have no problem with this amendment, we're just wondering why you chose to put it in clause 30, as opposed to the wording that's in clause 123.

Mr. Bob Mills: I guess it's simply so that it's very clear and you don't have to flip to another clause in order to find it.

The Chair: Ms. Wherry.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I think the issue Madam Redman is trying to raise here is that the way this motion is worded, COSEWIC must put the recommendation in the public registry. It's usually the minister or the government that's responsible for putting things in the public registry. So it's just a matter of rewording it so that it says something like “the recommendation must be included in the public registry”, as opposed to “COSEWIC must put it in the registry”.

The Chair: Yes, because of the way the clause is written.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, in response to Madam Redman's concern about why this clause fits here, there are a number of instances throughout this bill where a particular activity or document or procedure is noted and then there's a requirement to put it in the public registry. So it's certainly not out of line for that reason.

Second, I have some concern that not everything is actually covered. I haven't looked at this in great detail, but it may be that what Mr. Mills wants put into the public registry may actually not be covered under this clause. As you see, it is not a blanket clause. I do think we have to be careful about that. I think Madam Wherry's suggestion is a good one. So I would certainly be very supportive of it.

The Chair: So how do we rephrase the amendment, Mr. Mills, in order to take into account the construction of the clause, so that the burden is not on COSEWIC to carry out the task that you are defining on page 97?

Mr. Bob Mills: We're just working on a change here, Mr. Chair.

• 1010

If we could change that to be subclause (2) instead of paragraph (d), it would then read:

Within 30 days the recommendations shall be included in the public registry.

That gets what I want.

The Chair: All right. So you are modifying your text so that it reads simply, “(2) Within 30 days—

Mr. Bob Mills: —“the recommendation shall be included in the public registry.”

The Chair: All right. Is that clear to everybody?

Madam Wherry.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I would just ask whether it would be clear that it's not COSEWIC that has to do that.

The Chair: This is what, Ms. Wherry, we were hoping would be achieved.

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chair, I might recommend to Mr. Mills that he stand this one down and wait until he takes a second look at clause 123, which will be coming up very shortly. You may want to put a provision in clause 123 that recommends that it include any emergency listings as part of the registry publication. We're trying to rush it and we're mixing the COSEWIC with it. There's a registry process in clause 123, and you may want to amend something in there alluding to the emergencies.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, I admire your optimism in hurrying the arrival of clause 123. But you're offering good advice to Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: The other way to fix this so it's not COSEWIC—the point Ms. Wherry raises—would be to make this subclause 29(4).

The Chair: And that would remove the burden from COSEWIC?

Mr. Bob Mills: That would then put it back to the minister.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bob Mills: That doesn't fix it?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: No. Clause 30 is referring to the status report that must be done within a year after the emergency listing, so it's two separate things. If you look at clause 25, for example, it says:

A copy of the assessment and the reasons must also be included in the public registry.

So the new wording you're suggesting as subsection 30(2) would seem to follow that, which simply says the recommendation must be included in the registry. That would seem to be fairly consistent in that it's not COSEWIC that has to do it, it's a requirement in this bill for the minister.

Mr. Bob Mills: So you don't have a problem with the original?

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: As one small technical point, we should follow the language about a copy of the recommendation, as opposed to the actual recommendation, going to the publc registry.

Mr. Bob Mills: I don't have any problem with that, Mr. Chair: “a copy of the recommendation shall be included”.

• 1015

Mr. Gar Knutson: Two copies. Just kidding.

The Chair: So we're still on clause 30, but we are not clear whether the burden is off COSEWIC's shoulders the way it is written now. Could we clarify that point?

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, our experts feel that it's okay to...

The Chair: If it is a subclause (2), why not insert the words “The Minister shall, within 30 days”, etc.?

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, that totally clarifies it.

The Chair: All right. Would you like to read it for the benefit of the committee, please?

Mr. Bob Mills: So this then becomes subclause (2): “The Minister shall, within 30 days, include a copy of the recommendations in the public registry”.

The Chair: Do you include “in the public registry”? No. What is the appropriate terminology?

Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: I'm trying to work out perhaps a more suitable clause, something along the lines of your original clause that said, “Within 30 days after making the recommendation mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c)”, the minister must include a copy of that recommendation in the public registry.

Mr. Bob Mills: That sounds clear. Can you just repeat that, Mr. Near?

Mr. David Near: It's “Within 30 days after making the recommendation mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c),” which I think are the ones you're trying to get at, “the Minister must include a copy of that recommendation in the public registry.”

The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Douglas.

Ms. Kirsten Douglas (Committee Researcher): Shouldn't you say “after COSEWIC has made the recommendation mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c)”?

Mr. David Near: Yes, we could to make it clearer.

Ms. Kirsten Douglas: Just to make it clearer.

The Chair: Could we have the next version?

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Near, are you happy with that? You're frowning.

Mr. David Near: It's just that I don't think we need to say COSEWIC because that's what (b) and (c) talk about. But if you want to...

Mr. Bob Mills: So it should read then “Within 30 days after making the recommendation in (b) or (c), the Minister must include a copy in the public registry”?

Mr. David Near: Of that recommendation.

Mr. Bob Mills: Of that recommendation in the public registry?

Mr. David Near: Yes.

The Chair: We've heard the amendment in its final version, hopefully. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 30 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 31—Recommendation to amend List)

The Chair: Mr. Herron, you have an amendment, PC/DR-20, on clause 31.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This still refers to the emergency listing aspect. What happens is after a species is emergency-listed, there's a requirement by COSEWIC to do a reclassification. We're saying simply that once this reclassification is done, “the Minister shall amend the List” as reclassified, as opposed to “may amend the List”. Again, it comes down to the issue of whether it's a matter of science or a political choice. If the scientists have done this reclassification, on an emergency basis I might add here, why wouldn't they do it from a “shall” perspective?

So that's my amendment.

• 1020

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes away ministerial discretion and I could not support it.

The Chair: Any further comments? Madam Redman and Mr. Mills.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I will defer to Mr. Mills.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I have a comment. I started out saying that the listing process should be all science and no politics. I've changed that position to say that I can understand now why you would want some political opportunity there, because the politician is going to consider the socio-economic, all of the other impacts that it might have, whereas the scientists would not be looking at those things.

So I think this is just too restrictive in taking that right out of the hands of the politician, and I go back to my original thinking. I think we have to leave this position so that other factors can be considered.

Mr. John Herron: I would just add that maybe it's always best to go with your first impression.

However, the socio-economic implications are taken in place in the recovery strategy. And in some cases you may not even choose to recover. There's permitting that can be done for socio-economic consideration in clause 74. This is about the list and only the list itself. That's why I don't see this as being as contentious, because I'm concerned about socio-economic implications as well, but there are direct places for that in terms of recovery strategies and in permitting in clause 74.

The Chair: Yes, Madam Redman.

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

Further to the rationale and the comments of Mr. Mills, it's an issue of accountability as well. And the minister, to be accountable for listing, must take into account the full range of options and not just merely rubber-stamp it. This would take that discretion away, and also, we would contend, the accountability.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I agree with Madam Redman. If at this point in time we move to the “shall” clause, we may be stepping on the toes of other cooperating agencies as well. It doesn't leave the minister much time for a consultation or anything else. It's a must. It goes from this to this and you must. You may be stepping on the toes of a region, the provincial government, or a number of other things, so I think we have to be a little flexible here.

The Chair: I am troubled, and I'm taking a little discretion here for a moment, because the word “socio-economic” is popping up so frequently this morning, already an hour ago and again now. At the environment committee, since we are not the finance committee, one should be careful with that term.

If socio-economic considerations are taken into account, you would, for the sake of the fishing communities on the east coast, fish the cod until it doesn't exist any more, as we did until 1992. We have the moratorium on cod because of socio-economic considerations. Remember that.

Socio-economic consideration pushed aside the recommendations by Leslie Harris at Memorial University when two years earlier he indicated that a moratorium needed to be imposed. The cabinet in 1992, for socio-economic considerations, overruled the then Minister of Fisheries, who wanted the moratorium to be invoked. The result was that two years later the moratorium had to be invoked because there was nothing left except 45,000 tonnes a year out of a harvest in preceding decades that was as high as 600,000 tonnes.

The same could be said with forestry. You could carry out, for socio-economic reasons, some very extensive clear-cuts because you want to keep everybody employed and everybody happy. And you eliminate very valuable forest, as we did up in the Ottawa Valley with the white pine, which is now a rarity up that valley.

I'm saying this to alert you to the fact that socio-economic consideration can be extremely dangerous when it comes to this particular bill. End of my little sermon. Thank you.

• 1025

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, because this is about emergency listing, I had pointed out to the committee that in the past three years there was only one situation where COSEWIC had identified an emergency. And even if that goes up 300%, Mr. Chair, that's only one a year. So we're not talking about a situation that's happening on a monthly basis. This is a rather unusual situation. It is indeed an emergency situation.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So I would like the members to consider that.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 31 agreed to)

(On clause 32—Killing, harming, etc., listed wildlife species)

The Chair: Mr. Mills, you have an amendment on clause 32.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, we're doing some extensive consultation on this one. I wonder if it would be possible to stand clause 32 down until next Thursday. This involves the mens rea, that whole issue, and we're trying to get our minds around the whole thing, if we could. The reason I asked for the long time extension, Mr. Chair, is, as you know, my difficulties on Tuesday.

The Chair: Yes.

Do we have the consent of the other two movers of the same clause?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm more than willing to agree to that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, are you in agreement?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. Karen's amendment is better.

The Chair: No. There is a suggestion by Mr. Mills to stand it in order to allow some behind-the-scene negotiations.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I agree.

The Chair: There you are. So we are standing page 99. We're standing the whole clause, so we're standing page 100 and page 101.

Mr. Bob Mills: That will be all of clause 32.

The Chair: That will be all of clause 32, as Mr. Mills says.

(Clause 32 allowed to stand)

The Chair: This then takes us to clause 33 on page 102.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, because my other amendments in clause 32 are very similar to clause 33, I would ask that clause 33 be stood down as well.

(Clause 33 allowed to stand)

The Chair: As you must have noticed, clause 34 is a pretty extensive one. We have one hour left for this meeting, because I intend to adjourn around 11:30 today. I understand also that Mr. Mills would not be here on Tuesday, because of other important public business.

• 1030

I would suggest at this stage, in the light of commitments and so on, that we have a good discussion, and possibly a vote, on clause 34 next Wednesday, so that we devote probably the entire meeting that day to a review of the whole clause from the perspective of the various movers, and then proceed, hopefully—having had the benefit of that review—in a swift manner with amendments. So next Wednesday would be clause 34 day.

Is there agreement on that approach?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, just as a point of clarification, are we having the vote on clauses 32 and 33 on Thursday?

The Chair: That is what Mr. Mills suggested a moment ago.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thursday, that's what I understood.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine. Thank you.

The Chair: So next Wednesday is on clause 34, and Thursday on clause 32. Let us see whether we can start tackling today clause 35, which seems to be dominated by Mr. Herron in its entirety.

The Clerk: Kirsten said this is tied in with clause 34 or clause 35. They're tied together.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I wondered if it wasn't tied. Yes, that was my question as well. This allows us to carry on a theme approach on Wednesday and Thursday.

The Chair: We have to do that, Mr. Herron. I hope it's all right with you.

This takes us to Mr. Mills' amendment on page 141, which deals with clause 36. May I invite you to turn—

Ms. Susan Baldwin: No, we can't do that one either. I'm sorry.

The Chair: We can't?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: No, this is consequential to ones we've stood in clause 34.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's related.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: It should be done with clause 34.

The Chair: Well, we are beginning to bump into the web.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes.

The Chair: How about clause 37?

Mr. Bob Mills: Think how fast we'll go once we have those two days.

The Chair: Is clause 37 all right? Is it clean?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes.

The Chair: Does it stand by itself?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Policy-wise, you'd be best to ask the researcher. None of the amendments are related.

The Chair: It stands by itself, as far as I can judge.

Clause 37 seems to be fairly independent, fairly manageable at this stage. Therefore, I would invite Madame Kraft Sloan to introduce her motion on page 142.

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

This motion would amend clause 37 in line 10, on page 19, by adding “extirpated species” to the recovery strategy. It existed in the original language of Bill C-65, and I think it's important to add this category of listed species, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: For the benefit of new members, could you elaborate on the special use of “extirpated”?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It means that it still exists in captivity or in other countries in the wild. Therefore it should be reintroduced in Canada in the wild.

The Chair: All right.

Madame Redman, please.

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

This amendment would make the development of a recovery strategy for extirpated species mandatory. Experience would tell us that we're not always able to reintroduce some species. So it doesn't make sense to make a mandatory recovery strategy. We're really creating a legislative requirement for something that cannot be prepared.

I would ask Monsieur Nadeau if he could give us a concrete example of just such a situation.

• 1035

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes. There are actually very few species that have been recovered from the extirpated stage. The only one that comes to mind is the swift fox. But there are many species where we know, before developing a recovery strategy, that we wouldn't be in a position to recover the species. The first species that comes to mind is the Eskimo curlew. It's still considered as endangered by COSEWIC, but it hasn't been seen in about a decade.

Some species, like the black-footed ferret in Saskatchewan, which depends on another listed species, the black-tailed prairie dog... The black-footed ferret is a predator of the black-tailed prairie dog. We can't really recover the ferret without improving the status of the prairie dog. We have to work on that first. So we know that right now we can't recover the black-footed ferret. It's also endangered in the U.S.

The Karner blue, in Ontario, needs prairie lupine, and it's another species of concern. We have to work on the lupine before we can work on the Karner blue.

So we know, for several extirpated species, that right now we can't recover. A lot of things have to happen first. Developing a recovery strategy would not help these species right now.

The Chair: But in the end you would recover an extirpated species, provided you go through intermediate stages. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes.

So we want to have that possibility of developing it for these.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I think the committee members have often heard me talk about the discretionary nature of this legislation. In this case we have a double discretionary aspect to the bill. Clause 40 allows the minister discretion where “the competent minister must determine whether the recovery of the listed wildlife species is technically and biologically feasible” in the preparation of the recovery strategy. So the minister already has discretion as to whether it is possible to recover the species.

As Madam Wherry pointed out earlier, the recovery strategy is based on the biological objectives of the species. If it's known that it's not possible to recover, that is obviously a biological objective.

My concern is that with a “double discretion ”power here there will be extirpated species that are recoverable but will not fall into the net of this possibility. So this is removing a double discretion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to put the question directly to Mr. Nadeau and the parliamentary secretary. Given the out of clause 40—and I appreciate you don't want to waste resources on something that's not going to work, or you want to use the limited resources you have in the best way... Clause 40 is a pretty big out. What's the harm of putting “extirpated” in?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It would force us, as you're saying, to develop strategies where we know it wouldn't benefit the species. We would be using resources we could use on species where it's going to make a difference for them. That's the point.

Under subclause 41(2), we have to develop a strategy. We even have to look at critical habitat. That takes time and energy that could be spent on species where we will make a difference.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And is it a bad thing for an extirpated species if subclause 41(2) comes into play?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Is it a bad thing? If it's not feasible to recover, then we still have to spend energy developing the components of a recovery strategy which in the end is not likely to help a species too much.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, you're saying you have to do it under subclause 41(2). I just want to make sure I understand the logic here. I don't want to look silly any more than I already have.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: No, actually I'm wrong. I'm sorry; I'm wrong on that one.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So I'll go back to my original point.

Given that clause 40 gives the government or the people involved an out—it's explicit: it gives you an out to say “If it's not practical, we don't have to do it”...

Mr. Simon Nadeau: But it's an out where we have to spend energy and resources. Under clause 40 it's not “We know it's not feasible right up front.” It's “We have to develop a strategy.” It's in preparing the recovery strategy that we will come to that conclusion. We might know that conclusion ahead of time, but we would still have to go through these steps, which would take energy and time.

• 1040

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't have anything more.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, Madame Redman, Mr. Laliberte, and then Mr. Bailey.

Mr. John Herron: As always, Gar is one step ahead of me. I was going to refer to clause 40 there as well. It clearly has a massive out when it talks about recovery being technologically or biologically feasible.

For instance, you don't necessarily have to reintroduce an extirpated species if they're all subdivisions—we're probably not going to reintroduce cougars in eastern Canada—or not biologically feasible, meaning that you just can't do it.

So I don't see the big issue here. Clause 40 is a massive out, and if it means you have to develop recovery strategies for extirpated species, then I don't see that being a bad thing.

The Chair: Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I was just going to reiterate the point that there are not unlimited resources, and you're creating a legislative requirement by putting it in this section of the act.

Clause 40 says:

In preparing the recovery strategy, the competent minister must determine whether the recovery

And further down:

The determination must be based on the best available information

So you're creating a legislative burden for something that, at the end of the day, you may not be able to use.

The Chair: Yet “Extirpated Species” is part of the title of this whole section.

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would speak in favour of this amendment. I think we're here for the species that are at risk, and if we can give a head start on our recovery options and our recovery intentions, it sets the whole motion in place. We're here for the benefit of the species on this planet and our country, and I think this would be a wise move, to start our processes early before we get into trouble.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: My concern is that a lot of the species that are just simply gone, you might say, are being brought back into selective habitat and by non-government organizations. You mentioned the swift fox, the ferret, and some of our birds as well.

Really, the only source we have at this time about the recovery methods is from these NGOs and their experimentation, which is available to the government, to the minister. So I have some trouble with the extirpated species there, because you're relying on the information being provided by the NGOs in their rehabilitating the species and putting it back out. One success story is the swift fox, or the kit fox.

So are we putting something in here that is not possible?

The Chair: Would you like to respond to that, Mr. Nadeau?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Recovery is possible for some extirpated species and not for others. So this new amendment would force us to go through the process even for these species where we know it's not going to be working.

Mr. John Herron: But how long does it take if you know it's not going to work?

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Extirpated species are just one step away from extinction. There has been discussion around the table about the limited resources around this table... I'm sorry, the limited resources in government.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And around the table.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm probably a good example of that right now.

• 1045

Extirpated species are one step away from extinction, and yes, I'm always concerned about the limited resources that Environment Canada or other government departments might have, but we have to understand that nature is also limited. How do you replace a species once it goes extinct? There's no possibility of doing that. No amount of money in the world can replace that species.

This was in the original bill, Bill C-65, and I would suggest that in 1997 the Government of Canada was going through a major budgetary-cutting process. There were far less financial resources in 1997 when this bill was originally drafted to include extirpated species.

So I have two questions: First, why was it okay in Bill C-65, in 1997, but not today; and secondly, how many species are we really talking about?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I'll try to answer the first part. I'm not actually sure of the number of extirpated species.

Comparing why it was okay in Bill C-65 is kind of a red herring discussion. It may be that some of the things in the bill reflect gaining more experience, more knowledge. That's the only comment I would make on that. Maybe there's just more knowledge and understanding about better ways to draft legislation now. I put that forward as a suggestion.

I think Simon can give the number of extirpated species.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It's about 16 species.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We're talking about 16 species. COSEWIC has already done their status report and their assessment, so it's really clear how technically or biologically feasible these species are in terms of recovery.

You know what? If I were an extirpated species—which I may well be very soon—I would not think the government, in its wisdom, had gained knowledge in redrafting this bill since 1965.

Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You will always live in the wild, though.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I will always live in the wild.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'd like to ask Ms. Wherry a question. By putting that word in, as Madam Kraft Sloan has suggested as the amendment, how could you prepare a statement for the recovery when in fact we may not know what the conditions of recovery would be? That's possible.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Excuse me, could you repeat that question?

Mr. Roy Bailey: With the amendment, how could you ask the minister to prepare the conditions of the recovery when even those who are attempting, and have had some success, couldn't do it, even in their selective breeding programs? If they can't do it, how could you ask the minister to do it?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: That's the point. To give some examples where we would have to try to figure out what we could possibly do, we'd have to bring the grizzly bear back on the prairies and bring the grey whale back in the Atlantic Ocean from the Pacific Ocean.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You're forgetting clause 40, though, and you're doing it deliberately.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes, but I'm saying, we know these would be virtually impossible to do, without going through the formal process of having to develop a strategy. So we are taking these resources away to where they could make a difference for species.

The Chair: My goodness.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Certainly my sense is that the recovery strategy becomes one page that says that for the following reasons it's not worth committing any resources, because this species is too far gone. I don't want to use the expression “red herring”, but let's be clear that clause 40 gives you a huge out.

It's not about introducing grizzly bears back on the prairies; it's about Parliament telling the government not to write off extirpated species. That's why we want to put in the legislation. We're telling you to pay attention to it, and where it's reasonable, develop a recovery strategy. If it's not reasonable, then you have clause 40, and you can take the hour's worth of resources to...

• 1050

The Chair: Recalling for a moment Bill C-65, I would not describe any reference to it as a red herring. The bill contained a number of measures that were very good. So I would not categorize them that way, particularly in this connection.

Mr. Mills and Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Bob Mills: I guess my concern with this is that we want legislation that will work, that is feasible. I'm just worried that this adds an extra cost, an extra detail, an extra problem. It even comes down to the very area of compensation. If we're going to introduce this...

For instance, why is this species not there? Well, it may not be there because the people exterminated it for economic reasons. I just think we might just be opening up a whole new thing. Bringing wolves, say, back to an area where they haven't been for 50 years would have pretty major implications for the people living there. They may not want whatever species to come back.

So I'm just afraid you're making something that may not work on the ground. That would be my concern with it.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The heading here is “Recovery of Endangered, Threatened and Extirpated Species”. What this amendment means is that the minister must prepare a recovery strategy. Subclause 37(3) gives him the power “may”; we switch it over.

To me, the essence of this bill is to address and nurture the recovery of our species. The sooner we do it, the sooner we get a head start. It may buffer or cushion economic or social events later. If we start the recovery strategy early, it could cushion these issues.

For the sake of recovering these species, let's do it. Let's start the recovery strategy now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I want to make a bit of an appeal—through you, Mr. Chair, to Bob—with regard to clause 40. The language is clear where something is technically not feasible. Reintroducing wolves near an area where there's a high population is something they wouldn't want to do. That's what clause 40 does; it actually pulls it out.

Speaking as a fiscal conservative—we share that aspect—sometimes the only time we deal with the environment is the 911 strategy, where we panic and have to throw millions of dollars and resources to try to pull something out of the fire. If we start encouraging early action, dealing with species in jeopardy or extirpated from a region, and if we make sure that we have healthy stocks of species where it is “technically and biologically feasible”, as clause 40 says, then it's worth the vote.

I mean, this part was in Bill C-65. I don't think we learned anything in the last little while with respect to whether or not a species is threatened or extirpated. I think it's just easier to manage.

So the flexibility is there, in clause 40. If you can comb through it, I think you might want to go there.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

This bill is about prevention. This bill is about stewardship. Extirpated species are listed. Clearly, as the Alliance members have pointed out, there are reasons why that has happened and perhaps reasons why they can't be reintroduced.

When you look at clause 40, it's really further upstream, if I can use that expression, or after the fact. I would draw the committee's attention to the fact that the determination in clause 40 is made on whether it is “technically and biologically feasible”. I would reiterate that this doesn't mean one scientist sitting in a room, dashing off one page. Instead, it's a calling together of people on the land and scientists who are going to craft a recovery strategy, one that indeed may never be used if they reach the conclusion that it is not feasible to do so.

• 1055

Monsieur Nadeau has given some concrete examples of that, but this happens after we've called together the recovery strategy team to say “No, this can't happen”.

The Chair: Final word, Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

If this bill is indeed about prevention, then let's prevent species from going extinct where we possibly can. We won't know that unless we give them a chance at a recovery strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm urged to notify you that should this amendment carry it will also consequentially affect and carry amendments 23 and 24.

(Amendment agreed to on division—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is not only the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, but also the parliamentary basketball team, through our leadership of Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, the proposed amendment amends clause 37 by adding a subclause (1.1). Basically the amendment gives the minister the possibility of taking interim protection measures between the moment when the species is placed on the list and the completion of the recovery program. I think it is important that the minister be given that possibility. The program is set up in clause 37, basically, but I think that the minister must be given, to the extent that this becomes necessary, the possibility of acting immediately rather than waiting for the recovery program to be put in place.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Are there any comments or questions? Ms. Redman.

[English]

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

I would ask staff to comment, but basically this amendment enables a competent minister to take interim measures that are required between listing and developing the recovery strategy. The amendment really doesn't provide any more authority than what already exists in the bill. The ability for interim measures already exists for emergency listing and order provisions.

The federal government doesn't have the authority to take these kinds of measures on non-federal species on provincial or private lands. I don't know if Ms. Wherry has anything to add to that.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: No. I think you've said it very well.

Mr. John Herron: That part of the argument is not applicable because under subclause 34(2) the Governor in Council has to make a conscious decision to make it apply to provincial lands. That provision's in the act, so the provincial argument gig doesn't fly. We're talking about federal lands. I think Mr. Bigras' amendment is a solid one. If we're going to argue about intervention in the provinces, we have to be clear about the full argument. That point only comes into play if the Governor in Council chooses to engage on provincial land, under subclause 34(2).

• 1100

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I guess I would ask what he means by “interim measures that he or she considers necessary to protect the wildlife species”. You're referring to subclause 34(2), which includes the prohibitions against killing or harming a species or its residence. But if you're talking about interim measures to include measures like habitat to protect the species, then I certainly would let David Near speak to whether or not we would even have the authority or jurisdiction to go beyond that, even if we put in our safety net provisions on critical habitat, unless it were very clear critical habitat and it said you couldn't destroy it.

Mr. David Near: There is some risk, in terms of what “any interim measure” means. It suggests you can do anything—both prohibit and regulate. So even with the presence of subclause 34(2), assuming it's triggered, this would suggest you could regulate a provincial species. I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

The Chair: Now we have Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Recognizing the amendment is trying to fill in a gap between listing and recovery, maybe the officials can explain what that gap can be. Can it be months, years, days, hours? What's happening within that gap?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Once a species is listed, or even before a species is legally listed, as soon as COSEWIC assess it there's provision in the bill for stewardship and conservation agreements, etc. There's also a provision in the bill for emergency orders that can be taken to protect habitat or the species. Then, of course, there are always things you can do regardless of legislation.

For example, under the accord between the federal government and the provinces in their plans to act, there are already recovery strategies and plans well under way, and species aren't even legally listed yet. So there are all kinds of things you can do.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: There's also the other federal legislation that exists: the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Fisheries Act, etc., that we can use.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: You didn't answer my question about when the recovery strategy is actually in place. You're speaking in favour of the amendment because that's what he's saying: any interim measures the minister may take. His amendment reconfirms what you just told me.

But the question was that from the time it says a recovery strategy is in place, when is that recovery package to be in place—not all these little steps to get there? He's trying to fill in the gap. You've just stated that it...

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I think I was stating that there are all kinds of things that can be done between the time a species is listed and when a recovery strategy is completed. I was just stating there are all kinds of things that can be done through stewardship, other legislation, or an emergency order.

Again, I would ask what he means by “interim measures”, and depending on what he means, as to whether or not we would say the federal government has the jurisdiction, what it can do in the sense of interim measures.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, did you want to answer?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that according to the very spirit of the bill, in any case, the federal government can always step in. Throughout the interventions and witnesses' testimony, you confirmed that; for instance, in a province where there is no recovery plan, the federal government could very well intervene at any time.

My question is the following: You say that even if this amendment were not passed, there are already measures under which the minister could intervene before the recovery program is implemented. I would like you to confirm that to me and I would like to know what those measures are in the bill that would allow the minister to take action.

[English]

Mr. David Near: If we're talking about prohibitions, where there's a possible gap in the application of prohibitions, it's important to remember that when a species is listed, the immediate result is that aquatic species, migratory birds, and federal lands are covered by the general prohibition.

• 1105

We haven't dealt with subclause 34(2) yet, but the current provision is that a prohibition may kick in when the GIC makes an order so that it kicks in for non-federal species. There's a possibility, if you like, of a gap in a prohibition for provincial species until that order is made. However, that gap has been anticipated in urgent situations by the creation of an emergency order, whereby if the minister is of the opinion that it's required, an emergency order can be made to cover those species by a general prohibition as well.

I hope that's of some assistance in terms of gaps.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a minor point. I know Mr. Near is not trying to mislead the committee, but it's not migratory birds per se, it's migratory birds covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which is a much narrower version. We'll come to that discussion later.

I'd just like to point out this subclause is discretionary. It's not mandatory language. It uses the word “may”. I know the government and other members of the committee were arguing that we want the minister to have discretion. I don't think this clause would do any harm, and it might do some good, so I think we should support it.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would like to reiterate that much of what it covers is already in the bill, but because of the wording that Monsieur Bigras has chosen, we don't have a problem with it.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: The federal spirit is there in any case: we might as well give it all of the power.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: We keep telling everybody that, but the whips hate it.

(Clause 37 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 38—Commitments to be considered)

The Chair: We're on clause 38, the amendment on page 146.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The first part of this amendment essentially addresses an oversight, and what I mean by that is the clause as it is currently written links recovery strategies to the precautionary principle. I felt it was a housekeeping need to add “action plan or management plan”, Mr. Chair.

The new clause would read “In preparing a recovery strategy, action plan or management plan”. As well, this clause emphasizes the biological interests of species by the deletion of “cost-effective”. I would like to point out to the committee that the national accord for the protection of species at risk does not contain the cost-effective qualifier. As all of the members around the table know, the accord has been signed not only by the federal minister, but by all the provincial wildlife ministers as well.

The Chair: Are you referring to the Charlottetown accord?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. In the national accord for the protection of species at risk, it says we recognize lack of full certainty must not be used as a reason to delay measures to avoid or minimize threats to species at risk. In the preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity, it does not contain the words “cost-effective” either. So in many respects, the latter part of this amendment just brings this clause into line with something the provinces and the federal government have already signed on to.

• 1110

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Would you mind reading your amendment, please?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The new clause 38 would read:

In preparing a recovery strategy, action plan or management plan, the competent minister must consider the commitment of the Government of Canada to conserving biological diversity and to the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the listed wildlife species, measures to prevent the

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

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

In 1992 the Government of Canada committed to the Rio Convention and their definition of the precautionary principle. That's what's reflected in the writing of Bill C-5, and it's not the government's wish to stray from this definition. Therefore, we would not support removing the reference to cost-effectiveness in this clause, as this amendment would do.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The concern I have is to bring it in line with the national accord, which was signed by the federal and provincial governments, and this has to do with the protection of species at risk. It is a national accord around the protection of species at risk, which this bill is part of.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: My brief comment would be that I think we have to have “cost-effective” in there.

As far as the precautionary principle and so on is concerned, that's in the bill throughout. But we have to have “cost-effective”. Philosophically, I can't not include some consideration of that cost, and I think the government would agree with that in terms of... I mean, that's reality.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I can understand perhaps that people may have concern around the use of the word “cost-effective”, just as I do. I would, however, be amenable to a friendly amendment that would delete “cost-effective”, if the rest of the amendment—

Mr. Bob Mills: Insert.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry. I would be willing to insert “cost-effective” if Mr. Mills were willing to support the inclusion of “action plan or management plan”.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, I would add a subamendment to put “cost-effective” back in.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I can amend the motion without a vote.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, go ahead.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But what I'm saying is you would be supportive of the amendment, which would then only add “action plan or management plan” to clause 38.

And I do apologize, Mr. Chairman, to Madam Redman. I was in a side conversation and I didn't hear if she was supportive of adding “action plan or management plan”.

The Chair: It was not spelled out in her intervention, but one could... She better answer that question.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Maybe I could just make a comment. The reason it was limited to recovery strategy is that at that point you're determining the scientific feasibility of recovery and how to go about it, etc., and it is at that strategy stage, when you're thinking of that, you would want to employ this principle. At the action plan and management stage, you're actually going about doing the actions.

It's at the strategy stage that it would make sense to have the precautionary principle in.

The Chair: Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I know we've had many wonderful theoretical discussions around the precautionary principle, but the current work I've been engaged in on a personal level is the implementation of the precautionary principle. I think it's really important we actually implement the precautionary principle, and I think our actions certainly speak louder than our words.

• 1115

The Chair: All right. If I understand correctly, this is where we are with this amendment: because of Mr. Mills' receptivity to leaving in “action plan or management plan”, Madame Kraft Sloan has agreed to insert the word “cost-effective”, which I presume would come on the second-last line of the amendment after the word “species” and before the word “measures”. Is that correct?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. Actually, Mr. Chair, the legal clerk has suggested a simpler way. The amendment would only read “In preparing a recovery strategy, action plan or management plan,” so the rest of the section would not be affected.

The Chair: All right. The rest of clause 38 would remain as in the bill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Exactly.

The Chair: The amendment is very short now; it is reduced to a bare two lines.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

I wonder if we could ask Monsieur Nadeau to comment on this new amendment.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I'm not sure whether it's a valid concern or not, but I'll say it anyway.

Now that we have to aim for the conservation of biological diversity within the context of an action plan for a targeted species at risk, my concern is that it would limit our ability to benefit listed species at risk. We'd have to conserve all species, whereas sometimes some species are at risk because of what other species, invasive species, are doing to them. Our activities under an action plan might reduce biological diversity in terms of diversity of species because some species should not be in these ecosystems: they're alien invasive species. I'm just concerned about that. I know that the general principle of conserving biological diversity is what this act is about, but this should only apply so long as it doesn't hamper our ability to benefit targeted species, the ones that are at risk.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What effect does that have on a recovery strategy if you're looking to conserve biological diversity?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: The strategy is at the much broader level. It's not at the specific action level that we say we're going to do this thing there.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, any of the invasive species in my riding of York North have acted to severely limit biological diversity. Any of the alien species and invasive species have acted in detriment to biological diversity. It's like suggesting that we want to encourage the plague bacterium as part of biological diversity. If species are invasive and are having a negative impact on the local ecosystem, they are certainly bad.

Mr. Gar Knutson: They're bad—purple loosestrife, for example.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: They're bad, and they don't act to increase biological diversity in the long term.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 39—Cooperation with others)

The Chair: Shall clause 39 carry?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that a former member of this committee had wanted to present some amendments. However, because of her appointment as parliamentary secretary and the fact that her appointment was to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, her schedule has certainly been more than hectic lately. As a result, she was unable to get those amendments in. It's a bit of an oversight, and I should probably take some blame for that as well.

I'm wondering if we could stand clause 39 down just for now. We can deal with it on Tuesday if you like, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: All right. We'll stand clause 39 out of courtesy to the member.

(Clause 39 allowed to stand)

(On clause 40—Determination of feasibility)

The Chair: We're on clause 40, page 147 of the amendment package.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: What I have done here is add “socially and economically feasible”. My argument for that would be that again, we must make it very clear that those things are considered. This would help us build support for the bill when we're communicating among people.

• 1120

The reality of the world is that you've got to consider those things. By simply stating them, you're making it very clear that those are part of it. Again, many people won't read this entire bill, but they will zero in on one little section or another. I feel that by adding this we only strengthen the clause and make it more easily communicated.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, on my sheet there's a note from, I take it, the clerk, saying it's consequential, the clause 32 or—

The Clerk: This is on page 156.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Page 156. So which is the main motion?

The Chair: We are considering this as the main motion, but we could debate it if you want.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Page 156 looks bigger.

The Chair: It certainly looks bigger.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm in the chair's hands, as always.

The Chair: That's dangerous, but it certainly seems at first glance that Mr. Mills' motion on page 156 no doubt casts a broader net.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I seek Mr. Mills' guidance on this one. Which one do you want to do first?

The Chair: I don't see a conflict. I don't see why they should be connected. We can deal with this, and then when we come to page 156—

Mr. Bob Mills: My argument would simply be that when you state it, you state it. I don't see a problem stating something twice because again, as I repeat, not everyone is going to read every section of this bill. I believe those are two important statements that should be part of this, and I think we've agreed to that.

The Chair: Mr. Mills has introduced motion CA-31 on page 147 to amend clause 40. Could we have any comments or questions?

Madam Redman.

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

With regard to the amendment on page 147, when it adds “socially and economically feasible”, this is at the recovery stage, where decisions relating to the bill as it's presented are based on biological and technical factors. Socio-economic factors come into play in the action plan. We would see this amendment as inconsistent because it's introducing those factors at a stage hitherto not arrived at, and we would not support putting it in at this time.

The Chair: Mr. Herron and Mr. Laliberte, you may speak briefly, please.

Mr. John Herron: I think that there's no harm done here by actually adding these particular words to it. Madam Redman is right with respect to the action plan component, but that still doesn't mean that this aspect isn't shaped during the recovery plan part as well. I don't think it does any harm, to use Gar's term, and it does some good by getting some buy-in from some people who feel a little trepidation about the legislation. I support it.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just trying to read clause 40 and get the intent of taking “technically and biologically feasible” and adding “socially and economically”. I don't know; maybe “morally” is missing in there. You can broaden the scope because of our responsibility with this, and I just want to flush out this socio-economic argument. There's “morally” that's missing here too, and if you want to bring that into the debate, I just want to—

The Chair: What about “aesthetically” too? And there are a few more.

Mr. Bob Mills: I think “morally” was dealt with earlier.

The Chair: Madam Redman and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, just as part of the process, I wonder if Monsieur Nadeau could, for the sake of illustration for the committee, just sketch out the differences between the recovery strategy and other aspects.

• 1125

Mr. Simon Nadeau: What we call the recovery plan is made up of the recovery strategy and the action plan. The strategy is actually very much a scientific document that establishes the recovery goal, the population numbers and distribution that need to be implemented to get the species off the list, or at least downlisted to a lower level of risk, and also the general approaches to get there. It would be very difficult to evaluate the socioeconomic considerations in relation to that document. That's why it was put within the context of action plans, where specific actions are defined.

These specific actions are actually going to be also taking into consideration the possible socioeconomic consequences by involving landowners, land users, and other people who would help us to design actions that get us recovering the species while impacting people in a minimal way. We figured it would be more appropriate to look at the socio-economics when we tailored these specific actions—when they're going to be done, where they're going to be done, and who's going to do it.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

In many respects—and I'm probably going to repeat a lot of what Mr. Nadeau has said—the recovery strategy is the scientific underpinning of the action plan. This is the scientific work that is done to understand from a biological, scientific point of view what we have to do to recover the species. As Madam Wherry said earlier, there's some overarching plans that are put into place.

Take a look at clause 56 on page 26, and put in your mind the recovery strategy, which is the scientific work—I'm doing this very loosely here. This is the scientific underpinning for the work that must be carried out in the action plan. The action plan itself is where the real work is being done. Clause 56 says “The competent minister must monitor the implementation of an action plan and assess and report on its implementation and its socio-economic impact”. So it's really clear that any measures taken to protect species, to delist them, or reduce their classification are going to be subject to a very extensive socio-economic impact assessment.

So, Mr. Mills, I support your arguments, but I'm not so sure this is the correct place.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I would like to ask Mr. Nadeau, if I hear him correctly—and I want to put this in layman's terms now—would the addition of “socially and economically” in some way hinder the terminology “technically” and “biologically?”

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It's adding another kind of obligation, another type of information that would have to be looked into.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Would it hinder us?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: If we were to—

Mr. Roy Bailey: It's debatable.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Well, the key word I'm arguing here is “early”. The early use of these words in this bill in the planning process, just the very beginning, means something for the species and its chance for a recovery plan. If you've included it and you've made it clear that not only are you considering, in this whole recovery, the biological and technical aspects, but you also are aware there will be social and economic impacts from what you do. You're indicating that right up front.

Now, how much work you put into that... you know, obviously the biological is the most important, as Madam Kraft Sloan says. That is what you're doing. But you're indicating to the guy out there that you are considering these other factors. To me that's why you would put it here and repeat it in further clauses. We know it's there, but we're here. We're going through this clause by clause. I'm saying by putting that in, you're not doing any harm, and you are signalling that those will be factors to be considered. That's why I would argue pretty aggressively that I think it should be included at this point.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 40 agreed to)

The Chair: This would be a good moment to adjourn, because what is ahead of us is complex.

• 1130

Mr. Gar Knutson: Before we adjourn, in regard to the schedule for next week, you mentioned that Mr. Mills is away on Tuesday, but we're meeting on Tuesday. We're doing some stuff on Thursday, but not on Wednesday.

The Chair: On Wednesday we are going to deal with clause 34, because Mr. Mills will be back. On Tuesday we will deal with amendments that we have stood today—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Other than clause 34.

The Chair: —other than clause 34.

Madame Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I want to go back to the fact that we stood down a clause earlier. I'm seeking clarification. I'm assuming that the thrust of Mrs. Kraft Sloan's intervention was that she had some additional amendments that she would like to bring as a member of this committee and that we're not actually entertaining amendments from people who are not members of this committee.

The Chair: As I understand it, a former member of this committee, who is now a parliamentary secretary, has indicated her wish to have an amendment put forward. It would have to be put forward in the name of a member of this committee, on the clause that was stood, namely clause 39, and then we'll take it from there, if it is ever presented.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Chair: It is a form of courtesy that I thought we should extend to anyone who has sufficient interest in this bill.

The clerk is making an important point that the report stage in the House is open to all members, except, of course, for those amendments or areas that have not been dealt with in committee. So remember that.

Mr. Bob Mills: To clarify your answer to Mr. Knutson, we're going to do clause 34 on Wednesday and clause 32 on Thursday. Is that correct?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think clauses 32, 33, 34, and 35 are going to be done on Thursday. That is what I had asked the chair earlier.

The Chair: No, we agreed to do clause 34 on Wednesday, and on Tuesday we will do the amendments that were stood.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I thought clauses 32 and 33 were going to be done on Thursday.

The Chair: Yes, you are quite right, except for clauses 32 and 33, which we will deal with after we deal with clause 34.

No, that doesn't make sense.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I didn't think so.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We can reverse the order, then.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Couldn't we do clause 32 on Wednesday?

Mr. Bob Mills: I need that time. So they could be on Thursday. I don't get back until early Wednesday morning.

The Chair: We will sit in the afternoon.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, it's just that I won't have time to do what I need to do to be prepared for clause 32. That's why I asked that it be extended to Thursday. I thought we agreed to that.

The Chair: We can start with clause 32, if you like, but I thought we should devote the whole session to clause 34 because it is so complex.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, on Wednesday.

The Chair: On Wednesday.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's fine. Clause 32 will be on Thursday.

The Chair: On Wednesday we will do clause 34. On Thursday we will do the preceding clauses that were stood.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

The Chair: On Tuesday we will just merrily proceed on our way, on clause 31 and others.

Thank you for your cooperation. The meeting is adjourned.