ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, December 5, 2002

¿

0920

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

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

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

¿

0925

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

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

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

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Gary Lunn

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

¿

0930

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

¿

0935

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

¿

0940

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

¿

0945

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

¿

0950

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

¿

0955

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

À

1000

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

À

1005

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

À

1010

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

À

1015

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Charles Caccia

À

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

À

1025

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Julian Reed

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Charles Caccia

À

1030

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Julian Reed

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Julian Reed

À

1035

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Charles Caccia

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mrs. Karen Redman

À

1040

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Julian Reed

À

1045

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Charles Caccia

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

À

1050

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

À

1055

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Á

1100

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Julian Reed

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Á

1105

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Á

1110

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

Á

1115

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. Gary Lunn

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Á

1125

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Á

1130

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Á

1135

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Á

1140

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 008

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, December 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0920)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): This seems to be the perfect moment to start, since everybody seems to have adjusted. We have an interesting bundle of motions to make our way through. Good morning to you all.

    There's a bunch of amendments we were given yesterday afternoon by the government, which have now been given a page number at the bottom and distributed this morning. I trust you have your set of amendments with the page number here in front of you. If not, please so indicate. This is no minor feat, because it required a lot of work after we adjourned yesterday. We'll try now to proceed with this bundle wherever we can, except for those amendments that are numbered G-23, which we'll set aside for later, because it's a complex item.

    I will ask Heather Smith to give us some input as to procedure here, so that we can rationalize and do this in an efficient manner, rather than one by one, and proceed by subject matter. Would you like to give us some indication as to how you think we could proceed?

    Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Perhaps we could deal with all the motions that relate to “assessments of environmental effects” and “environmental assessment”.

    The Chair: For the newcomers, who I'm welcoming, this is dealing with this list entitled, “Provisions where the government supports replacement of “assessments of environmental effects” with “environmental assessment””. It's a two-page memo that has already been given to you.

    Please proceed.

    Ms. Heather Smith: I was going to suggest that maybe we could call all the motions as a package. There are a couple of places where there are issues of concern for members, and perhaps the legislative clerk could draw those to their attention. It might be better to have an individual vote on those particular matters, so that people are aware of what's happening in those sections, and the other ones could just be passed in a group.

    The Chair: So we will first examine the possibility of passing as a group those amendments where there are no line conflicts. Is that what you are saying, in essence?

    Ms. Heather Smith: Yes.

    The Chair: I would, then, ask Susan to read that list to us, so that at least we have an indication as to how we might be able to proceed.

    Madam Kraft Sloan and Mr. Lunn.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The information may already be in the package, but when I look at the chart, there are two new motions required for clause 5 of Bill C-9, whereas our package starts with clause 6. So I'm wondering where those motions are. As I understood it, the clause 33 motion was missing as well, but again, it may be in this package.

    The Chair: Ms. Smith, would you like to answer?

    Ms. Heather Smith: The motions for clause 5 aren't ready yet. I don't have instructions to table them yet, but they will be tabled. And the motion for clause 33 I mentioned yesterday is a transitional clause in the bill, and after discussion with the legislative drafters, we determined that it probably will avoid confusion if we leave that expression in the transitional clause, because there is a regulatory scheme under the Environmental Assessment Act right now for port authorities, and the way the current act is written, they're doing an assessment of environmental effects. So in order to avoid confusion for them in the transition, we didn't make the change there, but it only affects the bill, it will not affect the act.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm wondering why you need special direction to draft these motions for clause 5? Are they not exactly the same as, say, the new motion for clause 6?

¿  (0925)  

    Mr. Robert Connelly (Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Those particular clauses have reference to crown corporations. We're still looking at the implications of that issue at the moment. We'll be in a better situation to bring that back to you, probably, next week.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would still like the opportunity to look at the issue in clause 33. I'm hoping this clause remains open, Mr. Chair, so we can make a decision on that.

    The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): For clarification, the package we're going to deal with will have all the motions dealing with “assessment of environmental effects”, which will change it to “environmental assessment”, and G-23 will be separate? Is that correct?

    A voice: Yes.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: It will be separate, but everything else will be one. Thank you.

    Ms. Heather Smith: I'd also like to point out that in the package of motions tabled yesterday, there's G-23, which doesn't relate to “assessment of environmental effects”, and motion G-10a. They would not be part of the package you vote on for “assessment of environmental effects”. There's one other motion in that package, G-32a, which does not relate to “assessment of environmental effects”.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you.

    Ms. Heather Smith: In addition, there are three other motions the government supports that would complete the package of making the change between “assessment of environmental effects” and “environmental assessment”, NDP-51, NDP-55, and NDP-56. So they could be added to the package.

    There are three other motions that we initially indicated would be okay, and those are motions NDP-52, NDP-53, and NDP-54. When I examined those with legislative drafters, we had various concerns about each of them. In NDP-52 there was a mistake in the English version, and it also removes cross references and is related to another motion by the NDP, which is NDP-8. We had a problem including that one as part of the package, since it was doing something other than what we had thought.

    The Chair: Could you tell us about G-17b and G-22a, what the impact is of those two amendments that are being brought forward, whether they agree with the governmental assessment or deal with more than that?

¿  (0930)  

    Ms. Heather Smith: G-17 should be replaced by G-17a.

    The Chair: Fine.

    And G-17b replaces what?

    Ms. Heather Smith: G-17b is a new motion, it doesn't replace another motion. This is the motion that's needed to bring in a provision of the act that is not included in the bill, but the section is open, so that provision of the act could be brought in. It's section 41 of the act that needed to be changed in G-17b.

    The Chair: Is it only the environmental effects that it deals with?

    Ms. Heather Smith: Yes, that's the only change.

    The Chair: Fine, thank you.

    On G-22a, is it only affecting environmental assessment or is it broadening that?

    Ms. Heather Smith: That's one that should not be included in the package. That's a separate issue. That's meant to address two other motions.

    The Chair: All right. Can you, then, give us the numbers of the motions that could be called now in order to dispose of the change of “assessment of environmental effects” to “environmental assessment”, so that we deal with them efficiently in one swoop.

    Ms. Heather Smith: G-4a, G-4b, G-4c, G-4d, G-5a, G-5b, G-17a, G-17b, G-28a, G-29a, G-30, NDP-51, NDP-55, NDP-56.

    The Chair: All right. These are all government amendments that follow the decision of this committee when it was raised, I believe, by Mr. Comartin that the term “assessment of environmental effects” ought to be replaced with “environmental assessment”.

    The list has been read. Are you ready for the question?

    (Amendments agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you. So that takes care of that bundle.

    Next, Ms. Smith, what is your recommendation as to an efficient handling of the bundles?

¿  (0935)  

    Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chair, I might just put a question back to you. The rest of the motions in this package deal largely with G-23, which concerns the registry. I wonder whether you wish to proceed with that or continue from where we left off yesterday?

    The Chair: Except for G-30 and G-32. We should treat them independently, is that what you're saying? Fine, we will do that. Then we could resume where we stopped yesterday.

    (On clause 30)

    Then let's open our book to page 167, a motion by the Alliance, CA-22. Mr. Lunn.

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

    I moved this motion yesterday, and I'll just repeat my comments very briefly. The intent is to allow for variance of requirements for projects located outside Canada based on unique circumstances. We want to make sure we remove the ability to create different regulatory regimes for crown corporations inside Canada. We don't see any reason, just because they're crown corporations, that they should be able to have separate regulatory regimes while they're inside Canada. We understand the necessity for projects outside Canada, but with the ones inside, we do not believe there should be a separate regulatory regime.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madam Redman.

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

    We're not opposed to this amendment, but we wonder, for greater clarity, if Mr. Lunn would be amenable to adding the words “and outside any federal lands”. This refers to projects offshore that would occur beyond Canada's 12 mile territorial limit, but are still within Canada's exclusive economic zone. It would just cover that off.

¿  (0940)  

    Mr. Gary Lunn: We would agree to that, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Lunn accepts your friendly amendment.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We come to page 168, NDP-50. Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, I have a question, and I guess it would be to Mr. Connelly. There is reference to crown projects in foreign lands, and I don't think it's clear--at least it's not clear to me--which projects would be involved. Perhaps we could get some indication of where they see this being applicable.

    The Chair: Mr. Connelly, a brief comment, please.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Comartin, are you talking about the discussion on CA-22 with respect to its saying “federal lands”, or is it just a generic question?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It's more of a generic question.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: Okay.

    I'm not an expert on the work of all the crown corporations, but there are a few that have some projects that might be involved outside Canada. One that comes to mind would be the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I think I explained on the day the amendment of the term federal authority was changed that I thought EDC would still be excluded, because of a previous change to their act. That seems to be incorrect, and I did want an opportunity to clarify that, so I'll take that opportunity here. The change to the definition of federal authority as it exists right now would also include EDC. There's a potential that other current crown corporations that deal with projects outside Canada could be affected by this too. Those are two that come to mind.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): For clarification, would this involve things like CIDA projects, nuclear projects in other countries, and so on?

    Mr. Robert Connelly: CIDA projects are already covered under the current act, because they have always been considered a federal authority. With the change to the definition of federal authority made earlier by this committee, the implication would be to bring all crown corporations under the act. That would mean that any time there is a project outside Canada and that crown corporation has an involvement, either as a proponent or as a funder, they would potentially be subject to the act as well.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Comartin, do you have any further questions?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I wanted to follow up, because this is one of the ones that bothered me. Does it apply to military sites in other lands? We've had a couple of incidents in the last few years of potential toxic sites. Would it apply to that type of situation?

    Mr. Robert Connelly: It does apply to National Defence activities, except where it is determined that there is an emergency because of a war. There is that broad exclusion in the act. Another department that potentially has some projects abroad would be Veterans Affairs, with some of the monuments and cemeteries outside Canada. Those are examples of federal authorities that do or could have projects outside Canada that would be subject to this act.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Could I ask for this to be stood down? I just want to consider the implications of the last answer.

    The Chair: Okay.

    NDP-51 on page 170 is done.

    G-29, Madam Redman.

¿  (0945)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, this amendment ensures French-English concordance; it adds a concept of person to the English version of the paragraph to make it consistent with the French version.

    The Chair: All those in favour?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Page 172, NDP-52, a motion in the name of Mr. Comartin. Mr. Comartin, you have the floor.

    Ms. Heather Smith: G-29a covers off what Mr. Comartin was getting at in NDP-52, at least in so far as “assessment of environmental effects” and “environmental assessment” are concerned, but Mr. Comartin was also was moving cross-references.

    The Chair: But you were earlier saying, Ms. Smith, NDP-52 is an amendment of concern.

    Ms. Heather Smith: Yes, it's consequential to NDP-8

    The Chair: That was withdrawn. So is this, then. Thank you.

    So we move to NDP-53, also one of concern.

    Ms. Heather Smith: There is a little problem in the English version of that motion. It says “shall conduct environmental assessment”. It should be “environmental assessments”. We picked that up in government motion G-29a to correct it.

    The Chair: So that is withdrawn. Thank you.

    Then we have NDP-54, also of concern.

    Ms. Heather Smith: This one relates to regulation powers for prescribed authorities. It takes out cross-references back to provisions in section 9.1, but there is no corresponding motion relating to section 9.1 that would explain why you would want to take the cross-references out with NDP-54. Again, in G-29a we put environmental assessment in, but we left the cross-references back in the text.

    The Chair: That too is withdrawn. Thank you.

    On page 175, CA-23. Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is to prevent what we believe would be a regulatory nightmare, with all projects on reserve land allowing for different regulatory regimes for different bands councils, depending on “their preference, circumstance, location and capacity”. We just think, if you allow a different regulatory regime for every band council, it would just be untenable, it would not be manageable, so we're trying to correct this.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: We don't support this amendment, Mr. Chair. It fails to recognize the support this clause has from aboriginal and first nations people, and they strongly support this. I would ask the committee to recall Michael Cox of the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, who, when he was a witness before this committee, said regulations under section 10 will provide a tremendous opportunity.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chair, it is similar to CA-3, on which we had a long debate, so I'm prepared to call the question.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: G-30, page 176, Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: The proposed amendment to the English version responds to the concerns of aboriginal groups about the use of the term class when referring to band councils. The revised paragraph will refer to categories of bands, and this is supported by aboriginal groups.

    The Chair: The G-30a you have in the package and the G-30, are they the same?

    Ms. Heather Smith: The package had G-30a; there's a G-30 and a G-30a.

    The Chair: Yes, there is a difference.

    Ms. Heather Smith: G-30a replaces G-30, sorry.

    The Chair: So G-30 is withdrawn. Thank you.

    Would you like to move G-30a?

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, I would so move G-30a, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We have now G-31, page 178, Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: The proposed amendment is consequential to changes that were made in section 10 to ensure that requirements from band councils apply to projects where they have the corresponding decision-making authority. This new paragraph will create a trigger for projects where band councils exercise a power, duty, or function under another act, such as issuing a permit.

    The Chair: Mr. Connelly.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, there's one question I think Madam Smith has for the legislative clerk.

    Ms. Heather Smith: I think we've got a mistake in our books with the text of the motion before us. I wondered if you could read out the text of the motion. I believe you have the correct copy and we don't.

    The Chair: The motion is that Bill C-9, in clause 30, be amended by adding after line 45 on page 28, the following;

(l.001) prescribing, for the purposes of paragraph 10(1)(c), provisions of any Act of Parliament or any instrument made under an Act of Parliament that confer powers, duties or functions on a band council.

¿  (0955)  

    Ms. Heather Smith: We don't have a problem with that.

    The Chair: Those in favour of G-31, please so indicate.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Now we come to G-32, which I'm told is consequential to G-23, is that correct? So we have to stand it for a while.

    We would call now G-32a, which is the last one in the package. Perhaps Madam Redman could introduce it.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, it's amending clause 30 by adding after line 28 on page 29, “prescribing, for the purposes of subsection 18(3), circumstances in which responsible authorities shall give the public an opportunity to participate in screening”.

À  (1000)  

    The Chair: Those in favour please so indicate.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin's motion, NDP-57, is all by itself, as far as I can make out. Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I was still working on 50, trying to resolve it. Could we go back to 50? We've already got resolution on items (a), (c), and (d) in the package we had this morning.

    The Chair: You want to back to NDP-50, which is on page 168.

    Mr. Comartin has the floor.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, given the complexity of this and the implications, I'm going to withdraw item (b), so that will resolve NDP-50.

    The Chair: Thank you. It is withdrawn.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I would ask for NDP-57 and NDP-58 to be stood down for a few minutes while I prepare my comments on them.

    The Chair: All right.

    We will come back shortly. We will stand clauses 30 and 31.

    (On clause 32)

    The Chair: We come to Mr. Herron, on page 186, PC-23.

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Chair, I don't think this amendment will have an extraordinarily large impact on the act itself. This amendment would have a modest impact, but we have it in place for two reasons. The first is that I believe we need to have a duty for federal authorities and regulatory authorities to comply, along with the regime indicating what happens when they don't comply. Otherwise, you're left with the act the way we have it now, namely, an expectation from the public that the government will enforce the act internally, but no system to ensure that it happens. I call it an accountability clause, and I move the motion.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: We do not support the proposed amendment. It's really not clear how such provisions would actually be enforced, and within the act, there's already an overlay on other federal acts that include enforcement mechanisms, such as those which exist in the Fisheries Act. The incentive for proponents to comply with the act actually dwells in the link between the environmental assessment process and decisions made about federal funding, transfers of federal land, or regulatory permits necessary for a project to proceed. Bill C-9 also includes several measures to improve compliance, including prohibition orders enforced through an injunction and a quality assurance program. I would also remind the committee that the Commissioner of the Environment routinely audits the performance of departments, and citizens have also used the right to seek a judicial review by the Federal Court of decisions under the act about specific projects.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Redman.

    Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, we had the same issue with Bill C-5, where we just putting in a simple statement that those responsible for administering and using this act ensure compliance. It's just a simple statement to reinforce something that should be obvious. The problem, as we know and as has been pointed out, is that there are no provisions for penalties if you don't act on the obligations under this act. So I think it's important, at the very least, just to say you have to comply with the act. It seems something that would not be necessary in a piece of legislation, but the reality is that we need to reinforce this message often.

À  (1005)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Herron.

    Mr. John Herron: I just want to bring to the room's attention that all the wording of the amendment says is “ensure that proponents and federal authorities, including responsible authorities, comply with the provisions of this Act and its regulations”, so they in fact follow the law. I think the best illustration of why a very simple modest amendment of this nature is required is that the parliamentary secretary raised this particular issue pertaining to the Fisheries Act. We know as a fact that it's incredibly rare for the Department of Fisheries to implement sections 33 and 34 of the Fisheries Act in a myriad of different situations. We know there's widespread non-compliance with sections 33 and 34 of the Fisheries Act, so we're putting in a provision that says, just follow the law.

    The Chair: I invite members to make very short interventions. We have several now. Mr. Lunn, Mr. Bailey, Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Redman.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: I would urge members to support this. There are no enforcement mechanisms, as has already been stated, and I see absolutely no harm in putting this in the act to remind the authorities to comply. It's a good amendment.

    The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: I'm not against it as such, but I'd ask something of the experts here. I was dealing this morning and late last night with the PFRA Act, and I don't see anything in that act that says they must comply. The act is there, and that act comes over another act. What about the narcotics act? Do we have it in there that you must comply with the HDA act of each province? I'm not against mentioning that, but are we starting something new here?

    The Chair: Be brief, please.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: I guess we all assume that if you pass law, you will follow it. Do we need to state that? I'll leave that for members to answer, but I did want to point out that this change would be in the general objects for the agency under the act, and it would put the agency in an awkward position, because it would be saying that the agency shall ensure that proponents and federal authorities comply, but we don't have the tools to do that. The tools that exist are there through injunctive powers in the transboundary section, for example, or the new prohibition orders, the quality assurance program, the auditing by the commissioner, and of course, the courts. We lack tools to do that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Connelly.

    We have now Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Redman, Monsieur Bigras, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Comartin.

À  (1010)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This further reinforces the concerns brought forward by many witnesses to our committee hearings, and it's a very sad state when the agency does not have the tools required to ensure that its own regulations and act are enforced. I think, in many respects, including this provision would encourage the government to ensure that the agency has those particular tools. We know that letters of advice are a more common approach to dealing with the Fisheries Act. These letters of advice tell proponents how they can avoid triggering the act. There are huge concerns out in the community, and while it's a sad day when we suggest that parliamentarians need to add a provision in a piece of legislation to say you should enforce this and comply with this, at least it gives us a step in a direction that encourages this climate.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I would just underscore what Mr. Connelly said. It says, “ensure”, and how does one ensure when one does not have the tools? Therefore, we don't support this amendment.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Connelly told us he assumed the legislation would apply. Clearly then, there are no guarantees. As I see it, the amendment is highly relevant to the extent that it closes some of the current loopholes in the act.

    We need all the guarantees we can get to eliminate loopholes. This amendment provides them and ensures that the act will be applied.

    I can't see why the parliamentary secretary and the agency would not want guarantees that their own act will be applied. That goes without saying.

    I for one intend to vote in favour of Mr. Herron's motion.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chair, in my view, a motion like this is simply redundant. The law is the law, and when a law is passed, it is expected it will be complied with. To add another clause to say “ensure that it's complied with,” in my view, simply adds more mud to an already complicated bill, and I would support not voting for it on that basis.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'll just indicate that I have a similar motion coming, I think in NDP-58, and I'll be supporting this motion.

    The Chair: Madam Redman and Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: To be fair about the debate that has ensued, we don't have the legislative tools to enforce something when there is no sanction against non-compliance. So I go back to the fact that you're asking the agency to ensure. We've outlined the incentives for complying with the act, but there is no sanction if that is not followed, and that's why we feel this is unworkable.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think the government has put forward a very good reason as to why we would want to support this amendment, simply that, as I said before, it would act to leverage the required tools, and it would be a wonderful thing if the agency could have these tools at their disposal to actually make sure their own legislation would be complied with. Further, if what Mr. Reed has said is correct, that it is redundant, then it doesn't hurt to pass it.

    The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: We go then to the next page, also a motion by Mr. Herron, PC-24.

    Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I know you are aware that there is a very similar amendment in your name as L-6. There is one of the same ilk in CA-24.

    I need to point out one typo. The amendment as it reads in relation to proposed subsection (1.2) has “The Minister may refer to the review referred to in subsection (1)”. That should be subsection (1.1).

À  (1015)  

    The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: With all due respect to Mr. Herron, and I understand what he's attempting to do with his motion, I believe it may be somewhat contradictory and may be deemed inadmissible, because he is suggesting that the review should be undertaken by Parliament every five years, and then it's referring to the House of Commons committees, whereas the motion L-6 in your name, Mr. Chair, is consistent in the requirement for the parliamentary committees to undertake this review.

    Mr. John Herron: If that's correct, for the sake of expediency, maybe we can just move on to the chair's motion L-6. I'll withdraw mine.

    The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, in light of these motions calling for the review, I wonder if we are being correct in setting a time limit as such. I'm not against the five or the seven, that's not my point, my point is that a review be held at the discretion of the minister, as he may want to do it in advance of that. I think we should have language in there that allows the minister to do just that. All we have to do is put that in and then put the minimum.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As a point of order, Mr. Chair, we don't even have an amendment that we're discussing right now, because Mr. Herron has withdrawn his amendment.

    The Chair: He's addressing the general idea. May I draw to Mr. Bailey's attention that Mr. Lunn's motion does say within a certain number of years. So there is a flexibility there.

    So now we come to CA-24. Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: I notice that my motion is almost identical to L-6, the motion in your name, with the exception that mine calls for the review to be undertaken by the minister and yours calls for the review to be undertaken by the committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. I think it would be preferable if it were the committees, so I will withdraw mine in favour of L-6. I think it should be seven years, and I'm quite open to putting a friendly amendment to L-6, but we'll wait until that one comes up.

    The Chair: Thank you. CA-24 is withdrawn.

    We come now to L-6, and I will ask one of the vice-chairs to take the chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): You look quite at home over there, sir.

    We are at amendment L-6 in the name of the member from Davenport. You now have the floor.

    Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

    Mr. Chair and colleagues, the purpose of this amendment is already spelled out in print. I would only add that there are a number of acts of Parliament that require a parliamentary review, rather than a ministerial review. I seek your indulgence, and I will read only half of them, because it's a considerably long list. We have the Access to Information Act; the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act; the Canada Evidence Act; the Copyright Act; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; the Criminal Code of Canada; the Customs Act; the Employment Equity Act; the Energy Monitoring Act; the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act; the Hazardous Products Act; the Immigration Act; the Indian Act; the Lobbyists Registration Act; the National Defence Act; the Oceans Act; the Official Languages Act; the Patent Act; the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act; the Privacy Act; the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act; the Referendum Act; the Security Offences Act; the Young Offenders Act.

    It seems, therefore, reasonable, also in view of the fact that we live in times of greater parliamentary involvement, that we ought to have in this bill a clause to ensure that there is a thorough parliamentary review, broad in scope. So I submit the amendment for your consideration.

À  (1020)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I have the parliamentary secretary and Ms. Kraft Sloan so far.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I think there's a problem in going with a five-year review. I would point out to this committee other significant pieces of environmental legislation that do have that same timetable. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act review will be March 2006, the Species at Risk Act review, potentially, will be around the year 2008, and CEAA, with a five-year review, could be April 2008. Perhaps it would be prudent to look at a longer timeline, like the seven years.

    I would also point out that this is a very technical bill. Generally speaking, I think people have been very pleased with the thorough, exhaustive nature of this review that has been carried out on behalf of the minster by the agency. There was a great deal of consultation, and this is a large review task for this committee to take on. We would argue that despite the examples Mr. Caccia is using, perhaps going that way again, given the significant changes in this bill, might be the way to go. we would support a seven-year review rather than a five-year review, and our preference would be that it be done by the minister, not the committee. Clearly, this committee is having its impact now, and I would just wonder if this committee would have the ability to do the broad consultations the agency was able to do in this five-year review.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): Ms. Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We've had a number of witnesses suggesting that the consultation was not broad, but was very narrow, because it was an in-house review and the scope of the consultation was identified by the department and the agency itself. The fact is that when the parliamentary standing committee does a review, it is a very broad review, particularly when we look at the review we did on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That was an incredibly broad and full review, it was an open and transparent process, where people were able to come before the parliamentary committee and follow the proceedings very carefully as well. People were able to raise issues other than issues that were scoped out by the parliamentary standing committee. We essentially said to people, what do you see as the strengths and the weaknesses in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? We did not scope down and limit what was available for the review process.

    I think, when we take a look at the problems of the review process and we take a look at the resulting Bill C-9, we are dealing with a bill that amends a parent statute, and in amending that parent statute, we are limited to very few items of real concern. For example, as members on this committee know, we have been told many times we cannot open the scoping section of this act, and yet industry and environmental groups alike tell us one of the biggest problems with environmental assessment is scoping. There are other issues, such as the self-assessment approach, so that federal authorities are responsible for assessing environmental effects of projects. This was not dealt with. This is a conflict of interest situation. There are other issues.

    One could argue that in many respects, public participation in environmental decision-making hasn't been as meaningful as it should be in this bill. I can enumerate a number of concerns. As our chair has pointed out, there are many acts of Parliament that require parliamentary review, and I think it's important to have cross-statute consistency. We have legislation, like CEPA and the endangered species legislation, that has required parliamentary review, and if timing is an issue, maybe we can do it in four years instead of five.

À  (1025)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I have Mr. Reed and Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Julian Reed: I have a couple of feelings about reviews generally that concern me. By ordering committee reviews on nearly every piece of legislation that comes through this House, we're changing the whole nature of the work committees do. It's not that I oppose review by committee per se, but it seems to me that a minister has the power to refer a review to committee if he or she so chooses. For instance, we've undertaken a very extensive review here. Hopefully, we're going to get through it before Christmas. The problem is that it precludes work a committee of this type, the environment and sustainable development committee, should otherwise be doing. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of this, but I suggest that if we're going to accumulate a whole series of pieces of legislation that are going to be ordered to committee for review, sooner or later committees will be doing nothing else but reviewing legislation, rather than tackling the urgent subjects of the day.

    However, having said that, I'd like to make a friendly amendment to this amendment. Mr. Lunn has suggested a seven-year period for bringing a bill up for review, and that may help to relieve some of the pressure on committees. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move that “five” in proposed subsection 32.1(1) be changed to read “seven”.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): There are two routes we can take. If it's accepted by the mover of the motion as a friendly amendment, we can go down that track. Otherwise, Mr. Reed is entitled to move that as a subamendment, and we can have debate on the subamendment.

    Mr. Caccia.

    Mr. Charles Caccia: I appreciate the chronology as given to us by the parliamentary secretary. However, this bill will be proclaimed, at best, in the course of 2003, and so the review would occur in the following five years, maybe around 2006, 2007, 2008. Under normal circumstances, I would think, Mr. Reed, a friendly amendment very reasonable, but the reason I'm not very inclined to go that route is that we have not been able to examine key aspects of this bill--Madam Kraft Sloan indicated one earlier, and there are many--because of the limited scope. So the act will need a review sooner even than five years, let alone seven. Therefore, there is an element of urgency to carry out the unfinished business we could not deal with because of the rules of procedure. For these reasons, I'm not in a position, quite frankly, although I appreciate the gesture, to accept a friendly amendment.

À  (1030)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): So the friendly amendment has not been accepted. Before I recognize Ms. Kraft Sloan, Mr. Reed, do you want to move that as a subamendment?

    Mr. Julian Reed: Yes, I would like to do that. Are we moving it or debating?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): We have a subamendment now on the floor, and I'll still recognize the existing speaking order of Ms. Kraft Sloan on the issue at hand, but on the subamendment as well. Then I have Mr. Reed and Mr. Lunn.

    Ms. Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd like to speak to both the subamendment and the broader motion on the floor, Mr. Caccia's amendment to the bill.

    On the issue of the technical nature of this piece of legislation and the members' inability to conduct such a review, there is no more technical piece of legislation than the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This is a bill that manages toxic substances, and it is a highly technical piece of legislation, far more technical than even this particular bill. Further, I don't know about you, but I have been putting many hours and days into this bill, and it's a very difficult bill to follow, simply because it amends a parent statute. I am deeply concerned about a government amendment that we just passed. Unfortunately, I didn't do my homework on that particular piece. I'm going to go back and re-examine it, and I'm going to raise it in a second report. But I point this out to suggest that even though I have spent countless hours, days, and months and have an assistant who has spent the better part of his summer and fall on this legislation, it is a very difficult piece of legislation to follow. So I would suggest that if members of Parliament had been involved in a review process, we would have had a better opportunity to follow the intricacies of this particular piece of legislation, as well as dealing with all the concerns, all the crucial concerns. We are merely tinkering with a very important statute.

    The second point I'd like to make with regard to that is that there is nothing to stop the government from having a parallel review. The government, indeed, can undertake its own review on the statute as the parliamentarians follow that review.

    As to the fact that this is wasting the time of parliamentarians when we have other things to do, what more important things do we have to do than look into very important legislation? We will have the opportunity to deal with Kyoto. But how many opportunities did the opposition have to involve themselves in this process? I, as a government member, have not had the opportunity to involve myself in the review. Maybe I could have made a submission among the many hundreds of submissions that were perhaps made across Canada and filed a little letter or something like that, but what true meaningful participation was there? I haven't had that, as a government member, and I have better access to the minister--perhaps--than opposition members do.

    So let's discuss accountability and access, but more importantly, it was the government that approved the review mechanisms in the other statutes we have talked about. So all of a sudden now the government is afraid that a parliamentary committee would undertake a review of a very important piece of legislation, which is indeed in an evolving field? There is the issue of strategic environmental assessment . As the chair has pointed out, where is that issue going to be in the next two years, let alone in the next seven years? Will Canada have to hang its head in shame because we are so drastically behind the rest of the world in an evolving field? A planning process, as this act has been suggested to be, is not a static process, it is a dynamic process, it evolves, and we have not had the opportunity to have a proper review. So I would not be supportive of the amendment by Mr. Reed.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I think Mr. Reed still has the floor, if he wants it, before I go to Gary.

    Mr. Julian Reed: I appreciate the fact that Ms. Kraft Sloan and her assistant spend all their waking hours on this bill, and I'm just trying to give her a little breathing space, so she can a bit of a holiday. The subamendment says “within” seven years, so there's a flexibility there. If it's deemed essential to have it before seven years, the wording is there to allow that to happen.

À  (1035)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I have Mr. Lunn and Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: I was going to make a similar point. I had a very similar motion with seven years, and I think that's a balance. I don't think we should have a piece of legislation where there is no review. Also, I was going to point out it is “within”, so if we decide it should be done sooner rather than later, if there's a reason to do it, then we can, and if we don't see a need to do that, we don't have to, whereas here we would be required to. I think seven years would be quite a reasonable balance and would support that subamendment.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I have Mr. Bailey and Mr. Caccia.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: I understand where our chairman is coming from, and I also understand that we are living in a society, particularly with this type of science, that is complex and ever-changing, but I think there's one point we have forgotten, and it's along the line of Mr. Reed. In any of the acts the chairman has mentioned, if the government in power, the minister, sees there is an emergency need to correct something that is obviously missed, we very quickly move to amend the act and it is looked after. That in itself, ladies and gentlemen, is a review of the act. We would be called, then, to look at that particular portion. I think we're overlooking that.

    So I fail to get caught up on the timing. The seven years I can support, but in doing so, I know, if there's a problem that arises within that time, we will be meeting here and looking at a portion of the act.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I have Mr. Caccia to conclude, I believe, and we're in debate at the moment on the subamendment.

    Mr. Charles Caccia: I will make an intervention, then, later, Mr. Chair, if the subamendment doesn't carry, because I would like to draw to the committee's attention something that has escaped me as well, that in the case both of the the Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act the review by committee motion was put forward by the government itself. So what we are endeavouring to do here is very much in line with government past practices.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): Only a few months ago, I might add.

    I have no one else on my list, so I'm going to call the question on Mr. Reed's subamendment changing five years to seven.

    (Submendment agreed to)

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): On the main motion, Mr. Caccia, I'll give you the floor first on the point if you wish. No?

    Then we'll go to Ms. Redman and Mr. Comartin.

    Ms. Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: The Species at Risk Act does have a five-year review, but I would point out that this is a groundbreaking, brand new piece of legislation, and we are in a somewhat different circumstance.

    I think it is a point well taken that there are many pressing issues, water quality, air quality, Kyoto--the list goes on and on--this committee could examine, and as important and effective as reviews can be, this committee, whether it's a seven- or a five-year rotation, may well do nothing but review existing legislation and not be able to examine other issues.

    As to whether it's by the committee or the minister, I would remind the committee of what, for instance, the Mining Association of Canada's Justyna Laurie-Lean pointed out:

    

The degree to which the government took into consideration what the stakeholders and the groups around the country said has been exemplary in the case of CEAA.

This has not been the case with other legislation. Certainly, members are entitled to their own view, but I think this has been a good process. I think, in the main, we heard that the groups that were involved felt it had been very thorough.

    And I scratch my head just a little bit at the suggestion that there be parallel reviews going on. If they didn't feed into each other, I would question the effectiveness of the time and the cost that would go into that kind of review.

À  (1040)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I actually have a question. I'm concerned about allowing the review potentially to be conducted by a Senate committee alone, and so I'm wondering if Ms. Smith could give us an indication as to whether that's mandatory when one is drafting a review clause or we can exclude the Senate committee.

    Ms. Heather Smith: I don't know the answer to that question, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Then I would ask if Mr. Caccia would consider removing the reference to the Senate committee. So it would only be a House of Commons committee that would be delegated to conduct the review.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I'll recognize Ms. Kraft Sloan. I think Mr. Caccia will have an opportunity to comment on Senate reform in a few moments.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: With regard to the idea that the endangered species act was a groundbreaking piece of legislation, so that we should have a five-year review, may I remind the committee members that with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we have a rolling five-year review. We certainly had toxic legislation, or bits and pieces of it, back in the eighties, and CEPA was meant to cover all of this under one particular act. The idea that the government would manage toxic substances is not a brand new idea, plus the fact that we have a rolling review in CEPA.

    If I can remind committee members--I know this is something you want to erase from your memory--with regard to the amendments on Bill C-5, the endangered species act, that the committee supported a rolling review of CEPA.

    I would like to point out that there is standing regulatory advisory committee that meets on a regular basis. These are some of the leading lights across this country, both in and out of government, with regard to environmental assessment. They are more than capable of carrying out any kind of review process to assist the agency.

    As to a parallel review, there was a review and preparation work that went on within the government prior to the CEPA review. We had a number of papers prepared for us on a variety of topics, which we utilized in our review. A parallel review would mean that the officials would come to committee and discuss their point of view with us. I don't think members have ever entertained a hearing on a piece of legislation where officials have not come before committee. A parallel review would indeed be well integrated with our committee work.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I have Mr. Reed, and with no other interventions, we'll have Mr. Caccia to conclude.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed: I wanted to comment on the question of the other place. It seems to me that the role of the Senate, if you consider it a valid role at all, is the place of sober second thought, a role that has been shown in the past to be of great value to the government. There's no reason why it should not continue.

À  (1045)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I request to put that on the floor, whether it's a friendly amendment or not.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Caccia. We'll find out with dispatch.

    Mr. Charles Caccia: So long as the Senate is part of Parliament, and out of respect for our colleagues in the other chamber, I think the reference to the Senate should remain.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): Are you withdrawing that friendly request?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't get to withdraw it.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Herron): The question is on the motion as amended.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: The next amendment is on page 186.1, G-32a. We overlooked it in the last few minutes.

    I'm told that not every member has that amendment. We will not proceed on G-32a until it is distributed to all members, and therefore we will stand it.

    Mr. Comartin, could we go back to what we stood a little while ago?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That would be NDP-57 on page 184, and yes, we could.

    The Chair: Then please go ahead.

    (On clause 31)

    Mr. Joe Comartin: The purpose and the effect of this amendment is to add additional responsibility to the terms of reference or object of the agency, and that's contained in paragraphs (e) and (f). I think (e) is consistent with a number of other amendments we've passed, and of course, it is review that's meant with “timely and meaningful public participation”, that concept of trying to make the act more accessible to the general public. Paragraph (f) is to specifically set out the responsibility of the agency to engage in meaningful consultation with the aboriginal people in the country. So I would move that amendment, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: I want clarification on this. If you give each and every one of the aboriginal nations a type of control in which they set certain guidelines and so on with environmental activities, and certainly oil drilling is an environmental activity, and that scope where you have an oil patch includes three different local native governments, it's becoming increasingly difficult in the exploration to deal with three sets of regulatory features while the same company is doing the exploration. I think--not necessarily now--we have to be cognizant of development that is all taking place within an area of 10 kilometres. It just happens to be at the core where three of these come together. We don't always have agreement between them on issues like this, and thus they too could suffer through not getting that common agreement and slowing down the exploration itself. I have some problems in not having, say, my neighbouring provinces of Alberta and Manitoba agree to the same formula for that particular topic, and yet within my province maybe having a dozen different formulas. That concerns me with the development within the province, as well as with the first nations people.

À  (1050)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: We certainly appreciate the intent of Mr. Comartin, although some of the wording is troubling. Adding “timely” to this clause is certainly consistent with the proposals in the amendments in Bill C-9, but “meaningful” could attract litigation, as this term means different things to different people. Also, with “throughout”, there certainly are projects where there won't be public interest. I'm thinking of minor projects, such as screenings, where there may not be public interest, and it may create an expectation that is neither needed nor warranted.

    The proposed amendment regarding consultation with aboriginal peoples refers to the implementation of the act, and there is a responsibility the agency shares with 30 departments, boards, and agencies. Some of the matters are entirely within the control and discretion of federal departments, and therefore not appropriate as the subject matter of consultations led by the agency. Also, the amendment proposed refers to aboriginal governments, and this is an undefined term. It is not used in other places in the context of CEAA. We would, however, be amenable if it were to read “The objectives of the agency are...to engage in consultation with aboriginal peoples on policy issues related to the act”. I don't know if that captures what Mr. Comartin is trying to achieve. We don't support the wording he has put forward.

    The Chair: So “meaningful” would be skipped?

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes. Paragraph (f) would be reworded to reflect that.

    The Chair: Would you mind repeating?

    Mrs. Karen Redman: “The objects of the agency are...to engage in consultation with aboriginal peoples on policy issues related to this Act”.

    I don't know if Ms. Smith has a comment or not.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I would be satisfied with that wording, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: All right. Apparently, a friendly amendment has been accepted to proposed paragraph 62(f) that would read, “to engage in consultations with aboriginal peoples on policy issues related to this Act”. Is that correct?

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes. I want to be very clear. Is Mr. Comartin, then, deleting proposed paragraph 62(e), which we find problematic?

À  (1055)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Can we split them?

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Sure. We'll give you (f) and get rid of (e).

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm giving you a change in (f), so you should give me (e).

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, we'll concede “timely” if we delete “meaningful” and “throughout”. I have given the brilliant rationale as to why we found those unworkable. So we have “to ensure an opportunity for timely public participation in the environmental assessment process”. Then (f) would read as we have reworded it.

    The Chair: What happens to items (a) and (b) of the motion?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: You need (a) and (b) just for structural purposes. I'm not really changing the meaning of the section.

    The Chair: I just want to know that (a) and (b) are accepted.

    Ms. Heather Smith: The (a) is part of the motion, and the (b) part of the motion has amendments.

    The Chair: As they follow. So (a) is a necessary bridge to proposed paragraphs 62(e) and (f). Is that clearly understood?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Now we NDP-59.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm going to be withdrawing that.

    The Chair: Then how about NDP-58?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That has actually been dealt with by Mr. Herron, and if necessary, I would withdraw it.

    The Chair: Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Is there some reason we're avoiding G-33, Mr. Chair? I would have thought that would be the next one.

    The Chair: Oh yes, we're avoiding it like the plague. And I was going to propose--

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I wouldn't advise that, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: --that we start now in an orderly fashion from the beginning of the book, and then we make our way to it until we hit G-23 and beyond, so that we recapture a thread from the beginning.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I'm puzzled why we're not doing G-33.

Á  (1100)  

    The Chair: Let me call clause 31.

    (Clause 31 as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: The reason we're avoiding G-23 is that some members do not have the entire set before them. So we have a handicap here. As an alternative to that, I would suggest we start from clause 2 and go through as far as time will commit today, and then we'll probably be able to deal with G-23 on Tuesday.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I'm talking about G-33, not G-23, right?

    Mr. Julian Reed: I've got it here as G-32a.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Everybody should have a copy. It was in the package that was distributed at the back this morning.

    Some hon. members: No, no.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Oh, it's not that one.

    Ms. Heather Smith: There were two motions numbered 32a by mistake. They have different page numbers.

    The Chair: Would you please turn back to page 9, where we have an NDP motion on clause 2 that was stood.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I've just spoken to the parliamentary secretary and Ms. Kraft Sloan. They agree with my assessment that we could deal with G-23. It's a very important section, and there are some proposed amendments we were about to start going through that may need to be dealt with or end up being withdrawn, depending on the outcome of G-23. If we could deal with that first, it may actually facilitate the work of the committee and somewhat shorten it.

    The Chair: Then we will follow Mr. Comartin's advice and go to page 126.

    Madam Redman, would you like to introduce G-23.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I'd be really pleased to. Ms. Smith took us through this step by step yesterday. I'm wondering how you propose to proceed. At the top it talks about the rewritten G-23, and it incorporates other motions, such as KS-18, with a line reference, CA-14, with a line reference, L-2, with a line reference, L-3, with a line reference, as well as, I believe, PC-21 and CA-18.

    The Chair: You are asking the committee, then, to read from page 137.1 to 137.12.

Á  (1105)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I would move that amendment as written, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Please summarize these pages for the benefit of the committee.

    Ms. Heather Smith: G-23 was originally introduced to follow through on the commitment Minister Anderson made when he appeared before you in June and promised he would re-integrate the paper-based registry that's in the current act with the electronic registry that was proposed in Bill C-9. So this text does that. It takes the provisions of the act and integrates them with the electronic registry provisions of the bill. The way it's put forward is generally with establishment of the registry. First it deals with the Internet site, and then it deals with the paper-based registry, which, in this particular legal text, is called the project files.

    In response to motions that were tabled with the committee on the registry provisions, both before and after G-23 was originally tabled, we went back and redrafted G-23 and created a monstrosity called G-23a.

    The Chair: Are there any comments or questions?

    Ms. Heather Smith: I can take you briefly through the motions that were integrated again, if you wish.

    The Chair: Fine.

    Ms. Kraft Sloan, on a point of order.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you. It actually may be easier if members ask any questions they have about own amendments, instead of going line by line, because this is indeed very complicated. I understood that members' motions would be integrated into this new motion, G-23. I had a motion, KS-20, and I'm wondering why this particular motion was not integrated. Essentially, the motion would have said registry items had to be posted before decisions were made by the agency within about 30 days.

Á  (1110)  

    Mr. Robert Connelly: For clarification, Mr. Chairman, included in this were the government motions, those that had been passed and those we supported, so that's the reason KS-20 was not there.

    Did you want me to explain our concerns with KS-20?

    The Chair: This is the question.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: We do have the ability to identify what records and information are to be included in the registry. We have the ability, as an agency, through regulation, to prescribe additional things if we so desire. Because what you include in the registry affects so many departments, it was felt that it would be appropriate for a Governor in Council decision on that. That takes care of proposed paragraph 55(1)(d) The same argument would apply to proposed pargraph 55(1)(f), which items may be removed from the registry. Again, that authority exists now, but through Governor in Council.

    With respect to proposed paragraph 55(1)(e), Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment would require that there would always be a 30 day period from the time of the notification of the commencement of the assessment to the time a decision can be taken. Our concern there once again deals with this problem we have of assessment of too many small projects. If that requirement exists for all projects, it could cause delays in some instances, and in some cases these involve seasonal projects and further delays there. It's not a concern with the desire to consult, but on many of these small projects time is quite important and often there is very little public interest. So to make an automatic requirement of 30 days in which everything would stop we think is perhaps too much of a burden on the small projects.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The second question I wanted to ask concerns the integration of KS-18 into the government motion. In my motion I indicated that there be public access to records in the registry and that the agency shall provide a printed copy of any such record on request. The government has taken my motion and changed “registry” to “Internet site”. The problem here is that all you have to do is print off the Internet site, which does not alleviate the problem enunciated by a number of witnesses that there are records and documents, maps and technical papers, that aren't necessarily included on the Internet. So while it alleviates the problem with regard to Internet access for people who don't have Internet access, in that they can get a hard copy, it does not alleviate the problem of having access to certain documents that are not on the Internet. I'm wondering why this change occurred, because this was not in the motion that was passed by committee.

    The Chair: Can you answer, please?

    Ms. Heather Smith: I think we made an error in understanding what your motion was. We didn't understand the reference at first to subsection 2, we thought you were referring to 55.1(2). But you're saying you were referring to subsection 55(2).

Á  (1115)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. Originally, registry meant electronic registry, but I was working on the assumption, having faith in the minister when he came before committee, that he would be changing the meaning of registry to include electronic and the other form. One has to believe that the minister is going to act on the kinds of commitments made. It was my intent that “registry” refer to both. So this needs to be amended, Mr. Chair, so that it fits with the exact amendment that was actually passed by this committee. Otherwise, we have a problem.

    The Chair: Madam Smith.

    Ms. Heather Smith: There is a technical issue if the amendment says the agency is required to ensure convenient public access to all records that would be in any part of the registry system, because the way the registry system is structured, the agency is responsible for ensuring that certain records are there, but other records are under the control of responsible authorities in the departments. So it would be pretty difficult for the agency to ensure convenient public access to all of those documents in both parts of the registry system.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then I would suggest that we stand this down until we find a proper solution, because I can't accept this the way it's written.

    This is why I had a great deal of concern, Mr. Chair, about the government taking amendments and integrating them into an omnibus amendment by the government. The reality is that the devil is in the details. If you go through this very carefully, there are things that are misinterpreted. I'm not suggesting that the agency did this on purpose, I think you were acting in good faith, but indeed, there was a misinterpretation here. So the problem is, with the devil being in the details, there are things this committee, in good faith, is going to be passing that you are going to misinterpret or we are going to miss. I did not articulate this--and I'm sorry that I didn't, but I was trying to speed up the work of this committee--but I have a great deal of difficulty when amendments are integrated from many different sources into a government omnibus amendment. There have been problems in the past with this kind of stuff, and quite clearly, there's an issue right now.

    The Chair: All right. On this issue, perhaps there is plenty of time between now and Tuesday morning to rectify the problem.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to state for the record that I am in no way blaming the agency. There was obviously a misinterpretation. The policy itself leads to very difficult results.

    The Chair: The intent was a very good one. This amendment has a lot of advantages. Evidently, there are certain technicalities that are difficult to deal with. Let's see whether we can correct this problem.

    How do we proceed if we stand G-23, because we have a number of amendments that hinge on it?

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Before we stand it down, and I agree with Ms. Kraft Sloan that we should do that, I wonder if there are other provisions members feel should be looked at.

    The Chair: We should analyse all the others that are incorporated to see that each member is satisfied, beginning with CA-14.

    Mr. Lunn.

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

    I spoke with Ms. Smith, and my intention was to make sure notice was within 14 days. I believe they've done that.

    The Chair: Also, Mr. Herron, who has left, indicated before leaving that he is satisfied with the incorporation of PC-21. As to L-2, I'm quite happy with that arrangement. It is not exactly what was intended in L-2, but we count our blessings. With L-3, it's the same.

    So the next one to inquire about would be CA-18. Mr. Lunn.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Gary Lunn: It was to allow flexibility for more frequent updating. It was to ensure that it was not going to exceed three months.

    Ms. Heather Smith: That's what we tried to put into the motion.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Wonderful. You're amazing.

    The Chair: Mr. Lunn is happy. We are therefore left with the issue of KS-18.

    Ms. Heather Smith: We will take it back and redraft.

    The Chair: That is the only one that needs to be resolved between now and Tuesday. Fine.

    Mr. Lunn, would you mind going to page 144, so the committee can deal with your amendment there, CA-15?

    (On clause 26)

    Mr. Gary Lunn: We may as well do CA-16 at the same time. I guess you're calling my amendments down because I'm in such an agreeable mood, Mr. Chair.

    The intent is to provide the registry with the authority necessary for the addition of section 16(3), which is amendment CA-16. These amendments are all to do with providing the scoping information in advance of assessment decisions, to resolve the difficulty currently in the act whereby the proponents and the public are required to submit information without first knowing the scope of the environmental review.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: We do not support these motions and would ask Mr. Lunn if he would not agree with our assessment that the spirit of these is captured in new G-23 by incorporating L-2 and L-3.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Gary Lunn: You're telling me you have incorporated these two in G-23a?

    Mrs. Karen Redman: The spirit of them, not them exactly.

    Ms. Heather Smith: If you have a look at motion CA-15, for example, you can find the substance of that reflected, on page 137.2, in proposed paragraph 55.1(2)(b.1).

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Okay. And CA-16 is covered in proposed paragraph 55.1 (2)(i). But you've only gone part way. What I called for, and Mr. Caccia called for in L-3, was that in all the projects we find out what the scope is, but you're covering only the projects where the minister decides there should public participation. Is that correct? So you're sort of going half way.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: There are a couple of changes. I thinks that's a variation of Mr. Caccia's motion. As for your two motions, Mr. Lunn, I believe the difference is that we have left off the reference to the reasons for the determination. Our view was that with most projects, you would identify what the scope of the project is. I think your motion would also ask that the reasons for that determination be placed there.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: Again, our thinking was that in the case of small projects, if it's something like a culvert, the reasons are perhaps obvious. I do appreciate that with larger projects, it's not so obvious.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Why couldn't we include the reasons? The case of a culvert is obvious, so it would simply be for the obvious reasons. Why wouldn't we include that? I'm one who is big on openness and transparency. With the witnesses we had over all of our hearings, the wheels came off the wagon in almost all cases because of a lack of transparency, a lack of ability to get information. That's where people were frustrated, in their inability to participate, their inability to get information. I just think openness and transparency protect everybody. So why would we not include the reasons for determinations? They may be obvious in small projects, but I just don't know if that's a valid reason. Is there another reason you would not want to include them?

    The Chair: That is a question that ought to be determined by the committee by way of a vote, unless you have a very good technical reason to give.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: We believe the motions to now have a requirement to identify the scope of the project and the factors to be assessed in situations where there is public involvement, what is now in G-23, are going to assist in transparency quite considerably.

    The more the requirements on the registry, the greater the workload. If your project is a dock, do you have to give a reason it's a dock? I think that's what this would require. In most instances it's self-evident, and the determination by the responsible authority would be placed on the Internet registry for people to see and contest, if they so differed in their view.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Gary Lunn: My point is that the reason you don't want to include it is that with smaller projects, it would be self-evident. That's basically what you're stating to me. I would argue the contrary. In those projects it would be simple to include the reasons for determination. More importantly, with complex projects, it's critical to have those reasons for determination. I think, in that case, CA-16 has not been fully dealt with in G-23a, and I'd like to let that motion stand.

    We can withdraw CA-15, because it's dealt with, and CA-16 we should let stand, because G-23 does not include the reasons for determination. Again, it's only for projects where the minister believes there should be public participation, whereas my motion would deal with all the projects. I thus move CA-16.

    The Chair: Madam Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: In addition to what Mr. Connelly has supplied, everything that goes into the registry needs to be translated. I know you're talking about simple projects and it does indeed say every project with its reasons. The estimation is that it could eat up as much as 10% of the new funding available for the revised process in having to put in the 6,000 projects and all the reasons. There's very little value added, in our view, on balance, with the amount of money and time that would be spent in listing every project.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: With all due respect, I'm hearing, well, we don't want to give the reasons for determinations because they're self-evident and it would be too expensive. With those simple projects, I don't think there would be much of a cost at all. If the reasons are that simple, it would be that simple to post them as well. What really needs to happen is to ensure that we get all the reasons for the more complex projects. This would cover that. So I do not accept that explanation.

    The Chair: Are you ready for the question on CA-16?

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (On clause 32)

    The Chair: Now we have G-32a, which is also G-33. Would you like to move it, Madam Redman?

Á  (1135)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, I will move it, and Mr. Connelly's happy to give an explanation.

    Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chair, in Bill C-9 we had a number of changes to introduce the concept of a federal environmental assessment coordinator throughout the process. Subsequently, some departments pointed out to us that it would also be desirable to leave that possibility open in situations where you have a panel review, and they asked us to at least have the possibility that the agency could also serve as the coordinator of the government response to that panel review. What this does is keep open that option.

    The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 32 as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Everything at this stage is contingent on G-23, where things need to be resolved between now and Tuesday. Therefore, the wisest thing for us to do would be to adjourn, unless the committee wants to continue to sit.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: My understanding is that although we're all busy, perhaps Mr. Comartin's time is at an absolute premium. I just want to ensure that we're not going to continue to stand down motions. I'm wondering if he is in a position to say which motions he will not be putting, so that when we do resume, we can go through expeditiously. Are you going to be here next time?

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It has to be a maybe. I have a funeral coming up on Tuesday morning, so it depends on whether I can get there or not. That depends on the vote on Kyoto on Monday night. But, Mr. Chair, there will be someone else here to indicate which I am going to be withdrawing and to deal with the balance of them.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I was going to suggest that he could even get the information to the chair and put it in writing, so that we can move forward.

    The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, is it possible to meet on Monday afternoon, so Mr. Comartin could go back on Monday evening for his funeral?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: That actually would be better for me.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We could meet on Monday afternoon at 3:30, or even at 1 o'clock or something.

    The Chair: I see no problem in starting to organize it for Monday. Monsieur Bigras is agreeable. We will have to find out about Mr. Herron. Some people should approach Mr. Herron and convince him to be here. So if all comes together, we will meet on Monday afternoon.

    Meeting adjourned.