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, November 22, 2001

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Bonjour. Good morning. We'll resume our work and see how much progress we can make. We are beginning to see the end of the tunnel, and perhaps we can make good progress this morning.

We will continue our pilgrimage by opening the hymn book on page 295A, a motion in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan, who is having breakfast and therefore should not be disturbed.

We welcome also Mr. Wood in our midst. We certainly welcome your advice, and your suggestions and insights.

• 0910

(On clause 75—Agreements and permits under other Acts of Parliament)

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

I have an amendment on page 295A and it deals with clause 75. Essentially what this amendment does is it expands the definition of minister from “competent” minister to “federal” minister, and it requires that when a minister is involved in entering into, issuing, or making an agreement, permit, licence, order, etc., under another act of Parliament, they have to follow certain criteria. So under paragraph 75(a), before entering into or issuing or making one of these things, the minister has to ensure that the requirements of subclauses 74(2) to (6) are followed, and members can certainly glance through those subclauses, which are important criteria.

My amendment also adds (9), which is the subclause having to deal with a sunset of five years. And also under (b) it adds 74(8), which is the clause we amended yesterday that deals with the revocation or amending of an agreement.

The Chair: Subclauses 74(7) and (8).

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. My amendment adds 74(8), because 74(7) is already there, Mr. Chair.

It also adds other forms of approval, because, as we know, the Ministry of Fisheries doesn't issue only permits, but there are other types of letters of notification and interesting forms of approval that are provided.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have Mr. Bailey and Madam Redman.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): I have a question to the mover. As we have gone through, we have always been using the word “competent” minister rather than “federal” minister. I know “competent” minister means any of the ministers and yet now we have put the word “federal” in instead. Do you have a reason for that?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, because, for example, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs issues permits as well, so this would include that minister when it comes to species only, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have some trouble. You're using “competent” because you want to distinguish it from a minister of a provincial or—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm actually using “federal” to include more ministers than are captured by this particular act. “Competent” only refers to the ministers under this act.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, there are three ministers in charge of this act.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

The Chair: What this amendment does is it would add an additional minister depending on—

Mr. Roy Bailey: It could be any other minister.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chair: At the federal level.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, especially if they're issuing permits that affect a species.

The Chair: Mrs. Redman.

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

I would ask Mr. Near or Ms. Wherry to speak to this, but my opening comments would be that yesterday the committee passed amendments to clause 74 that put in place automatic prohibitions for critical habitat. The only exceptions to this rule are allowed if a competent minister issues a permit.

This proposed amendment for clause 75 now extends permission to grant exemptions to all other federal ministers. Clause 74 as amended ensures that the critical habitat decisions are made by the competent minister, and this is where the authority should lie, so other ministers do not have the responsibility for critical habitat protection.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice): I don't have anything further to add to that actually.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But, Mr. Chair, what this amendment would do would be to ensure that any other minister, for example, the Minister of Indian Affairs, who would issue a permit with regard to species, has to follow the criteria outlined in (a) and (b). Mr. Chair, if we take a look at, for example, 74(3) or 74(2), these are some very important criteria. These are very important criteria, and we would want to ensure that any other minister who is going to enter into a permitting activity would be following these criteria for the preservation of species and their habitat.

• 0915

The Chair: Mr. Herron, please, and Mr. Knutson, following.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): Mr. Chair, the amendment that Ms. Kraft Sloan is advocating essentially has two aspects that I'd like to advocate. One is that it's related to the competent minister, so it's clearly ensuring that the same tool kit we have for the Minister of Environment is utilized for the competent ministers, whether it's Fisheries, Heritage, etc.

The second aspect of this that I'd like to inform all members, including, I'd say through you, Mr. Chair, to my dear friends in the Bloc, is that this would be exclusively in the purview of the federal government, federal jurisdiction. We're not mowing the grass in provincial jurisdiction in any way, shape, or form. It's making sure the federal government has its house in order exclusively.

So the amendment is worthy of support for two reasons. One is that it ensures that the whole federal tool kit is the same regardless of the competent minister in play. The second aspect is to ensure the federal house is in order and we're not treading on provincial jurisdiction.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a comment and a question to the officials.

My understanding, just by way of an example, of what Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment would do is if, for example, I'm applying for a communications licence to Industry Canada and I want permission to put up a communications tower, this amendment would require Industry Canada to take into account endangered species' habitat protection before they issue that licence to put up a communications tower. Isn't that a better system than having two ministers involved in, say, an application to put up a communications tower?

Ms. Ruth Wherry (Director, Species at Risk, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada): I'll try to take part of it and then maybe David can help out.

If I understand correctly what was carried yesterday, an agreement or permit is required under the new 74(1) before anybody can do anything that adversely affects the critical habitat—anybody, regardless if it's this communications activity or not. So by putting in this new one in 75, it's now saying any federal minister, before they can issue a permit or licence, has to meet this criteria before it can affect critical habitat. But the new 74(1) is already doing that because it's saying before you can authorize an activity...

What 75 would do the way it is now is it would put a new requirement for federal ministers other than competent ministers, to have new requirements that they have to meet under Bill C-5.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let's go to my example with the communications tower in rural wherever. I don't know what Industry Canada does now. I don't know if they pay a lot of attention to critical habitat and endangered species legislation. I expect, through no fault of their own, they don't particularly. They're concerned with the height of the tower, whether it's going to cause interference to other communications towers and whether it's going to cause danger to an airport or something. But this probably isn't part of their decision-making, so what this proposed clause would say is, by the way, if you're going to build a communications tower where critical habitat is involved, then you would have to take due diligence to make sure you take into account endangered species.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Again, as you carried 74(1.1) yesterday, the way I understand it is that company would be in contravention of the prohibition of adversely affecting critical habitat unless they had a permit from a competent minister anyway. So this is like putting almost a requirement for the federal minister, the industry minister, let's say, to have to give a permit for the same thing the new 74(1) requires, a competent minister to give a permit to do so. It's like you're putting the onus also on another federal minister, whereas the new one you carried yesterday would make the person in contravention anyway unless they had an agreement from a competent minister.

• 0920

Mr. Gar Knutson: Ignore the technical details of the language just for a second and let's agree on the concept, that the concept's worthwhile, and then we can find language to get there. Doesn't it make sense that if I'm applying for a licence for a communications tower I only have to get one permit? I don't have to get two permits, one from Industry Canada and one from Environment Canada. We want the whole Government of Canada to take responsibility to do their part in endangered species, whether it's the Minister of Defence, who would be involved with this in terms of army bases or war training activities—they do that in rural areas. We could think of lots of them, but communications towers I think are as good an example as any.

Doesn't it make sense that they only have to go to one place to get a permit, that they can get it from one person, and that this permit also include a look at whether critical habitat is involved?

The Chair: Mr. Near, then Mr. Herron.

Mr. David Near: To use your example, an industry tower, for example, under Industry Canada, a communications tower with Industry Canada would be subject to an environmental assessment. In the permit that would be issued, they would have the authority under the Environmental Assessment Act to attach conditions to the permit upon reviewing species at risk characteristics as they do. So to use your example, if it's a project that's assessed under CEAA, it's available now.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. John Herron: Can I pass this time?

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to use Mr. Near's example, what we'd be doing is ensuring that if a permit or licence was issued under another act of Parliament, there would be certain criteria that are being followed. That would also encapsulate ministers, other than competent ministers, who are issuing permits under another act, for example, in the example that you've been going through, to ensure they are going to be following the criteria under 74(2) to (6) and (9), which are very important, as well as following criteria laid down in 74(7) and 74(8).

I think all this does, as has already been said, is to ensure that other federal ministers are required to use the same sorts of tool kits and the same sets of criteria when dealing with endangered species as the competent ministers.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: I want to see if I understand some of the language here. I'm concerned in terms of a subsequent prosecution, and this seems to have the effect of allowing the industry minister to actually exempt one from the application of the prohibitions, and I don't know if that's the intention behind the amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's my understanding that this deals with other acts of Parliament that allow these sorts of activities to take place, to ensure they have to meet the criteria laid out in (a) and (b).

Mr. David Near: So, for example, if the industry minister issues this permit and decides that the criteria in his or her opinion has been met, I would suggest that we couldn't prosecute successfully if in fact that didn't turn out to be the case.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Essentially, the way I see this coming down is that the crux of the argument I think the officials are advocating is that given what passed in 74 and the provisions that are in play there we almost don't need 75 any more. Here's my “yeah, but”. We have to wait two years, because what's passed in 74 refers to the action plan. Now that we have to wait two years, it makes it relevant for the competent minister to take extra care.

• 0925

So I understand the sentiment of it, and the argument makes sense. Because of what passed in clause 74, one can make the argument that we don't need clause 75, given that we have a two-year gap in play. That's why it's paramount that we have the extra-care provision Madam Kraft Sloan is advocating.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if I understood him correctly, Mr. Near said that it would be the federal minister involved in granting the permit who would make decisions around the criteria in subclauses 74(2) to (6), and that it's very likely the minister is not going to make as good a decision as the environment minister, or another competent minister, about whether the criteria are met.

However, the criteria are laid out, and they set a fairly reasonable level of care that has to be taken when issuing a permit.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: I know this committee has raised some concerns in the past in terms of ministers other than the Minister of the Environment making decisions with respect to the environment, so I'm simply reminding the committee of that. In this case, the Minister of Industry would be making the decision to potentially exempt someone from the application of the prohibitions.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, but what I'm saying here is that now we're instructing the Minister of Industry that he has to use environmental criteria when he's issuing a permit. And I think that's a good thing. This is dealing with issuing permits, licences, orders, etc., under other acts of Parliament. Now you're saying that when they do this, they have to use environmental criteria that respect species and their critical habitat, and work toward the preservation and protection of that.

The Chair: Mr. Near, isn't that the intent, in the amendment, of inserting “subsection (8)”? Isn't the whole intent of subclause 74(8) to ensure that the minister of another department that is not contemplated in this act would comply with this act? Isn't that the essence of this amendment?

Mr. David Near: My understanding of subclause 74(8) is that it's an authorization to amend an agreement or permit...

Ms. Ruth Wherry: But by a competent minister.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are you referring to paragraph 75(a) of the amendment, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That paragraph outlines the criteria of subclauses 74(2) to (6).

I mean, subclauses 74(2) and (3) clearly tell you how you're supposed to issue these permits. What are the criteria?

Mr. David Near: I see we're talking about permits, but subclause 74(8) of the current bill speaks about the ability to “amend an agreement or a permit”—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, I mean paragraph 75(a).

Mr. David Near: I thought you said “eight”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The amendment to paragraph 75(a) says:

before it is entered into, issued or made, ensure that the requirements of subsections 74(2) to (6) and (9) are met;

If you look at subclause 74(2) in the bill, it says:

(a) the activity is scientific research relating to the conservation of the species and conducted by qualified persons;

(b) the activity benefits the species or is required to enhance its chance of survival in the wild; or

affecting the species is incidental to the carrying out of the activity.

(3) The agreement may be entered into, or the permit issued, only if the competent minister is of the opinion that

(a) all reasonable alternatives to the activity that would reduce the impact on the species have been considered and the best alternatives have been adopted;

(b) all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact of the activity on the species or its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals; and

(c) the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.

I don't think this is an unacceptable thing to ask the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Indian Affairs to do when they're issuing a permit, because this bill is about the protection of endangered species.

Mr. David Near: I wasn't passing judgment on whether or not that's an unreasonable thing to request; it's more that the ultimate decision-maker in deciding will be the Minister of Industry as opposed to the Minister of the Environment. I'm simply pointing this out to members of the committee.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But it's not the Minister of the Environment who's the only competent minister. There are two other ministers. I'm suggesting here that when you're entering into agreements, permits, licences, etc., under other acts of Parliament, a federal minister has to abide by these criteria, which I think are good criteria for the preservation of species.

• 0930

The Chair: Mr. Knutson and Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Prior to yesterday, the way clause 75 is written, my understanding of it is it requires the competent ministers to take extra care when issuing a permit, but it doesn't require ministers other than the competent ministers to take extra care. Do I have that right?

Mr. David Near: Yes, and that's because under the old scheme it was only the competent minister who could issue a permit that would exempt you from a prohibition. So clause 75 was in large measure put in so the fisheries minister could use the Fisheries Act to issue permits, as opposed to using SARA. So it made sense that if a competent minister was going to excuse someone from the application of a prohibition, that they meet the same criteria outlined for the SARA permits in clause 74.

Mr. Gar Knutson: There was no prohibition, prior to yesterday, against critical habitat. The prohibition was only on the residence. Do I have that right? In clauses 32 and 34 it's about destruction of residence; it's not about critical habitat.

Mr. David Near: It was the general prohibition, yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, the general prohibition didn't cover habitat. It covered residence and there was a prohibition against killing.

Mr. David Near: Yes, possession, critical habitat in clause 58. Those were the ones.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): I am trying to assess the scope of this amendment. Would a project falling under an act other than one for which the Department of the Environment is responsible, but for which the Department of Industry, say, would be responsible, need to meet the criteria set out in the federal legislation on the environment before us?

If such is not the case, would it automatically trigger the safety net? Let us take, for example, a telecommunications project or anything similar that would require ministerial approval before a permit is issued. This project would have to meet the requirements of the Department of Industry legislation. If, under provincial legislation, this project would not satisfy the intent of the federal legislation, would this automatically trigger the safety net?

Mr. Simon Nadeau (Head, Endangered Species Recovery, Environment Canada): In view of the amendments which have been passed over the last couple of days, if the provincial minister were to ask the federal minister to trigger the safety net, the competent minister would have no other choice but to comply. However, if the provincial minister does not make the request, the decision would be left to the discretion of the minister, subject to a number of criteria set out in the applicable sections.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: We have to conclude this discussion now.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want to radiate some points that have already been stated around the table. Number one, this activity is going to be delayed in subclause 74(1) until the action plan is completed. It only refers to critical habitat. It doesn't refer to species or the residence of the species. You still have a situation with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is issuing permits that affect critical habitat in the north.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 0935

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have the support of the group in taking a look at a friendly amendment to this particular bill. In the very first part of clause 75, I would like to include, reading in the first part:

to engage in an activity affecting an individual of a listed wildlife

The reason for that is we could—

The Chair: Which line are you referring to, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Lines 28, 29.

The Chair: We just passed an amendment that covers these lines, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay. It'll be introduced.

The Chair: You can do it perhaps on another round.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes. I can do that later.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

(Clause 75 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 76—Adding terms and conditions)

The Chair: There is a government amendment on page 300.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We're dealing with the amendment on page 300. Again, as a friendly amendment, in acknowledgement of an issue Mr. Laliberte raised, we would be willing to say “may also revoke or amend” as a substitute for the word “vary”.

I'm happy to go through the rationale behind this if anybody would like to hear it, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We'd be delighted to hear you.

Mrs. Karen Redman: This enables the competent minister to vary or repeal any term or condition in a permit or a licence that authorizes a person to engage in an activity that affects the species, any part of its critical habitat, or the residence of individuals that is entered into or issued under another act of Parliament.

This amendment is proposed to provide the competent minister with the authority to revoke any term or condition instead of repealing a term or condition. And it's consistent with the amendment proposed in case a situation arises where the competent minister may need to revoke a term or condition of a permit or licence.

The Chair: Beautifully interpreted. Thank you very much.

Mr. Laliberte, briefly please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I would like a clarification in following through clause 75. Clause 76 deals with a competent minister. Does that mean a competent minister in other acts as well could revoke and amend, or is it only in this act?

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: “Competent minister” is a defined term. In the act it's only the three ministers.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 76 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 77 agreed to)

(On clause 78—Agreements and permits under other provincial and territorial Acts)

The Chair: We have an amendment on page 305.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this amendment would add the sunset provision into clause 78. Clause 78 deals with agreements and permits under other provincial and territorial acts. So if I can refresh the members' memories on subclause 74(9), it reads as follows:

No agreement may be entered into for a term longer than five years and no permit may be issued for a term longer than three years.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask Ms. Wherry if she wants to comment on it.

• 0940

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I guess in some cases the terms of agreements or permits under other acts of Parliament may be longer than five years or three years. That would be the only thing, for example, under the Fisheries Act or National Parks Act. Those would be the only comments I would make on it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have a question, Mr. Near. Who puts the time limit on? Who puts the constraints on? Is that the federal government, a provincial government, or a local group? Who does that? Let's say they've met the criteria, it's no longer necessary to declared something, and we've reached the plan. Who makes that decision? Is it a joint decision, or is it made by one minister?

Mr. David Near: This provision deals with the length of a permit or an agreement, which would presumably be the responsibility of the minister to negotiate with the applicant. But usually they're for set terms, and it would be the competent minister who would decide.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We will now move to page 306.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Essentially, what we're doing here is ensuring that clause 78 actually applies to the safety net provisions. Subclause 34(2) covers when the GIC is applying safety net provisions on provincial lands with regard to prohibition, and subclause 61(1) covers where the GIC is applying the critical habitat safety net provisions. Here we have a situation where we have other acts of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and we're essentially just asking that this be limited to areas where the federal government is already acting through this legislation in the safety net provisions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask Ms. Wherry if she would like to comment on this amendment.

Mr. David Near: If I may respond, I would seek some further clarification as to what it actually means. I don't actually understand what it means, because when you trigger the safety net with respect to clause 34, then you're dealing with the prohibitions in clauses 32 and 33; when you trigger the safety net in clause 61, you're dealing with critical habitat, so I'm not sure what's left.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is for a case where the federal government is acting in provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. David Near: In actual fact, when we trigger the safety net, we're simply asserting federal jurisdiction. It's not a case of actually assuming any provincial jurisdiction.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, you're asserting federal jurisdiction in provincial areas because the province hasn't done their job. The way it is currently written, it would recognize provincial permits in federal areas, in federal jurisdiction, because there is no containment of this. Earlier you were arguing that you didn't want the industry minister making decisions about whether criteria had been met under subclauses 74(2) to 74(6), and this one allows provincial authorities to grant permits and licences in areas under federal jurisdiction.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: I just don't see it that way; that's just a clarification I see.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have a question that just may clear this up. My understanding is that when this bill—and most of you have been here longer than this bill and I have—is enacted, it will result in an agreement that is federal and provincial together, so the permit automatically includes the provincial government, does it not? But the licensing and the permit will come from the federal government.

Mr. David Near: I'm not quite sure as—

• 0945

Mr. Roy Bailey: You don't have to go through the federal government and the provincial government to get a permit.

Mr. David Near: You might actually need a number of permits, depending on what you're doing.

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's right. Obviously I don't understand this amendment. I want to clarify it.

The Chair: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

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

This restricts it to areas where the federal government is already involved with the province through this act. Subclause 78(1) is a major change from regulatory practice in this country because it allows provincial permits to act in federal jurisdiction.

The Chair: Thank you. Perhaps this clarifies the issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Am I to understand, Mr. Near, that this amendment in actual fact legalizes within the ambit of section 78 the use of the safety net? Am I right in this? It seems to me this opens the scope even more and establishes a requirement under this clause to trigger the safety net. Is my understanding correct? I am trying to interpret the effect of this amendment on provincial legislation. Is this really necessary?

[English]

Mr. David Near: The intention of clause 78, which actually is not that unusual, is for the federal government to accept provincial permits or licences as being equivalent to their own if they meet certain criteria, as set out in clause 78. The policy behind that is to avoid duplication and redundancy of permits.

If the intention—and I don't know if it's reflected in the amendment—is to restrict when that can be done, the safety net would essentially have to be triggered before a provincial permit could be considered by the federal government to be equivalent to what would be issued under SARA, meeting the same conditions.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Is that already in place?

The Chair: You may ask Mr. Near the question.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'd just like to ask a question. All around me when I'm home there are movements and permits going on all over the place, and a wild rush for the gas and oil industry, and so on. For example, if an oil company wants to go into the PFRA...they have to get a permit.

If it's land that has been restricted and so on under this act, for the final permit itself—they'd have to go through the lower one because that's provincial jurisdiction—is it not already implied throughout the act that they would have to go to the one minister?

Mr. David Near: The thinking behind clause 78, in your example, especially given the recent amendments, is that if the provincial government, in issuing their permit for that project, took into account all the things they considered, it would be equivalent to a SARA-type permit.

On another example, if the Minister of Industry, when issuing his permit at a federal level, took into account the same matters, it would be equivalent to the Minister of the Environment issuing a permit.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay.

The Chair: All right.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I do not know if I can do that, but could I ask, through you, what the government's position is on this specific amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We feel this is not a necessary amendment. All along we have questioned the intent and whether it improved the bill. In our view it's better with the amendment not included.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 0950

(Clause 78 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 79—Notification of minister)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: In keeping with what we have previously done and what this committee has accepted, we propose to add the word “adversely” so that it reads, “writing of the project if it is likely to adversely affect”. I think it gives more body to the act and certainly to this clause.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

This amendment has some potentially significant impacts. I would ask Ms. Heather Smith, who is an expert in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, if she could speak to the implications and ramifications of including this amendment in the species at risk legislation.

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

The stage that's contemplated in this particular provision in the bill is early in the environmental assessment process, when somebody first knows they have to do an environmental assessment. At that point, you don't know whether a project is going to have a positive or a negative effect on the environment, or on a listed wildlife species.

So the intent of this provision is merely to get the competent minister involved early in the assessment process so that competent minister and officials can participate actively in the process and bring their expertise to the assessment. Then they can determine whether a listed wildlife species is going to be adversely affected.

We want to cast the net as broadly as possible at this point, to get the competent minister notified whenever a listed species is going to be somehow touched by a project, and leave the decision until later.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I can understand the explanation, but we see in subclause 79(2), “The person must identify the adverse effects”. Maybe it's redundant to do it in the first place, but obviously if you're going to perform and make a report on what adversely affects the species, I don't see any reason why you can't have it at the beginning of this clause 79.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We will move to page 308.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair.

This clause, as we all know, deals with project review under CEAA. My amendment essentially adds paragraph 79(1)(b):

in the case of a project outside Canada, a listed wildlife species or a wildlife species that appears on the Red List of Threatened Animals or the Red List of Threatened Plants published by the World Conservation Union.

Currently, CEAA deals with projects outside of Canada, and this amendment just brings this in line with what CEAA already does. The red list is an internationally accepted list of threatened plants and threatened animals. Under paragraph (a) it removes critical habitat. So it just brings it in proper line.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

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

I wonder if we could have Ms. Smith speak to this and the international impacts.

The Chair: Ms. Smith.

Ms. Heather Smith: I guess the primary concern in this one is that you would be asking “competent ministers”, so federal ministers who are competent within Canada, to provide expertise about matters outside of Canada. I guess there's a real question whether they'd have any relevant expertise to bring to these kinds of assessments.

• 0955

As you rightly noted, assessments are required for projects outside Canada. It's the responsibility of the department that has to do the assessment to get the relevant expertise. But it's questionable whether there'd be any relevant expertise within Canada for those projects.

The Chair: Doesn't Environment Canada have an international section?

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes.

The Chair: Well, wouldn't that be the competent section that would advise the minister?

Ms. Heather Smith: They're mostly responsible for negotiating international agreements.

The Chair: Yes, and they're also informed about what the international community thinks. The competency's there, unless you think your colleagues are not competent.

Ms. Heather Smith: They're competent for negotiating international agreements. But what's contemplated here is that you would consult the ministers for their expertise on the biology, the scientific effects on species, and that's very much rooted in the receiving environment.

The Chair: In establishing or demonstrating their competence, don't ministers turn to their officials?

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes, they do.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Heather Smith: But again, it's questionable whether the officials within Canada would have competence to advise on the receiving environments in foreign countries. They wouldn't have any relevant expertise.

That's not to say expertise wouldn't be brought to the assessment. There'd be a requirement under CEAA to go and get it. But these domestic ministers don't have it.

The Chair: Not even your own minister, who is the chair of the UNEP agency in Nairobi, which is the international agency in charge of environmental protection?

Ms. Heather Smith: I think the Canadian minister would look to officials in other countries—

The Chair: Exactly.

Ms. Heather Smith: —where the other environments are, to get the expertise, not within Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, CEAA requires reviews of projects outside of Canada. I think it's the ministers in Canada who are making decisions about those projects, not the minister of Yugoslavia, the minister of China, the minister of Zambia, or what have you. It is a minister in Canada who's making decisions about those projects outside of Canada.

It appears that ministers are competent and able to make decisions on projects outside of Canada as long as they don't involve species.

Is that right, Mr. Comartin?

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Herron, I should notify you that if this amendment carries, we cannot...

Mr. Herron, you have the floor.

Mr. John Herron: I don't see why this amendment is that controversial. If you look at this from two perspectives, if there's a species on the list that is endangered or threatened in an international jurisdiction, and we're going to do a project that would adversely affect that particular species, why would we not want to inform the minister?

The second thing is if CIDA were doing a project overseas that would adversely affect a species that's been noted to be at risk, why would we not want to notify the minister?

The Chair: All right. Are you ready?

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I can understand us understanding what's going on in other nations of the world, but I somehow read into this amendment that we're extending into international projects. I think there will be communications, but obviously there are species at risk in international projects going on elsewhere that we don't have in Canada. We have them listed in the back. Keep it simple and keep it Canadian.

The Chair: To conclude, Madam Kraft Sloan.

• 1000

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Bailey, this section is actually a fairly important section, and it would bring this act in line with what is already happening because there is a requirement under CEAA to asses projects outside the country that have federal involvement or federal triggers. This would just ensure that as those projects are assessed outside the country, we would take into consideration the internationally accepted list of threatened animals and plants. We are already assessing those projects. It's not extending our list to include international species. We still have our own endangered species list. It just brings it in line with what is already being done under CEAA.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

Madam Redman, briefly please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Further to the comments that have just been made, the definitions of “environment” and “environmental effect” are very broad under CEAA, so my colleague is quite right. However, the habitat section is a new requirement.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We go to page 309.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think that's already been dealt with. That's why I voted for Mr. Bailey.

The Chair: Then we go to page 310.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Essentially, Mr. Chair, this ensures the activities of CEAA are linked to the requirements of subclause 74(3), which requires care be taken when you're dealing with a listed endangered species.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask Ms. Smith to speak to this one as well.

The Chair: Ms. Smith.

Ms. Heather Smith: There are three aspects to this amendment. The first is the removal of the word “adverse” in the first line, and I think in the context of environmental assessment it would be appropriate to remove that word, because in an environmental assessment you are required to identify all the effects of the project and then decide later whether they're adverse or not.

The second is the removal of the word “critical” from habitat. I believe you've discussed at some length elsewhere whether the term “critical habitat” should be there. That's the term used in the act, so the government's position is that it should remain.

The third aspect of the amendment is that the requirements of subclause 74(3) be met. In light of the changes the committee has made to clause 75 this morning, it's probably not appropriate to make that reference here, because now, for any permit under any act of Parliament that triggers environmental assessment, if in the course of the assessment it's discovered there's an effect on a listed species, then as part of the permitting process, clause 75 would have to be respected.

I believe there was an attempt to strengthen the words that were already in subclause 79(2), which were “that measures are taken to avoid or lessen those effects and to monitor them”. There are ways that language could be strengthened without a reference to subclause 74(3) that would be more consistent with the language used elsewhere in the Species at Risk Act but also language that's used in CEAA. So there are some words that could be added.

• 1005

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the official can share those words with the committee, please.

Ms. Heather Smith: Going back to the original text of subclause 79(2) the suggestion would be to say “the person must identify the effects of the project”—taking out the word “adverse” in the first line—“and if the project is carried out, must ensure that”, then add, “all feasible measures are taken to avoid, eliminate or reduce the adverse effects”.

These changes are suggested because the phraseology there is really meant to describe the mitigation function in environmental assessments, but what the amendment as proposed would do in the context of listed species is limit the types of mitigation measures, or what is considered to be mitigation for the purposes of assessment. It would eliminate from the idea of mitigation the concept of compensation, for example. So you'd have to actually address the effect on the species.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could I just have a couple of minutes to look at this, please?

The Chair: Could you provide the table with a copy of the text you were just reading from, Ms. Smith?

While we suspend the discussion for a moment on this—because there will be a text emerging that will take some time to copy and to distribute, I suppose—Mr. Comartin has an amendment on the next page that stands alone. The two amendments are not—

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): It won't be necessary, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: It won't be necessary?

Mr. Joe Comartin: —if this goes through. However, it does stand alone, because it has some overlap—

The Chair: And he will be moving it for you?

Mr. Joe Comartin: —and Mr. Herron is going to be moving it for me if Madam Kraft Sloan's does not go through.

The Chair: Okay.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the concern I have with the government's suggested wording is that it doesn't capture the idea of alternatives. I would be willing to add “critical habitat” back in if that gives people some measure of comfort , but I really feel strongly that a reference to subclause 74(3) is important, regardless of whatever changes we've made to clauses 75 and 74, because, as we all know, these changes are... They're not like wisps of smoke floating in the night, and it would be nice to be able to capture enough consistency throughout the legislation to support things we've already done and said.

The Chair: Thank you. So your amendment is modified by inserting the word “critical” on the second line before “habitat”, and the rest remains. Is that it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any comments or questions? If not, are you ready for the vote?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, I think you have the floor now.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm going to have to leave, Mr. Chair. Mr. Herron is going to move my motion.

Mr. John Herron: You can move it and I'll...

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'll move it and Mr. Herron will speak to it.

The Chair: That's a division of labour, is it?

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I guess, to be forthright, I'd prefer Madam Kraft Sloan's chiming in also to help support the amendment.

• 1010

The language is slightly different from what she advocated but essentially follows the same gist. So she could assist this new coalition we're trying to have with respect to the amendment—Karen?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. You know what, Mr. Herron? I'm just cobbling together another alternative here. Even though alternatives are missing in that alternative, I think the government has put forward an amendment as a possibility.

Mr. John Herron: With that new news, is it possible we could set this aside for a moment and come back to it?

The Chair: Yes, we could. The next item is quite a demanding one, clause 80. It will require a good discussion; you have a number of amendments yourself, Mr. Herron. I don't want to hold this one up too long.

Madam Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Am I to understand that despite the fact that Mr. Comartin moved this and is not able to speak to it, we're now going to contemplate changing it? Is that my understanding—and that this will be a substantive change?

The Chair: I'm waiting for white smoke here to emerge from this—

Mrs. Karen Redman: I thought it was black smoke, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I don't think it should be delayed any further. If the parliamentary secretary wanted to go forward with a vote on it, I'd welcome doing that.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, just to be very clear, the government is prepared and ready to deal with this bill in its entirety today and would be more than happy to do so. I guess it's the fact that it's Mr. Comartin's motion; if we're going to substantively change it... That was my only question.

The Chair: There was for a moment an indication, but there is no indication now to modify it. So we are on this amendment and will proceed with the vote.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 79 agreed to)

(On clause 80—Emergency order)

The Chair: Again our researchers have, for the purposes of a good discussion and facilitation of the procedure, grouped the amendments. You will find them on page 8 of the paper dated November 15. The order is indicated there. Madam Kraft Sloan has the floor.

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

My first amendment, on page 312, essentially replaces the GIC with the competent minister in making emergency orders. They still remain discretionary.

My second amendment, on page 314, essentially requires the minister to make an order if he or she is of the opinion that there is an imminent threat. It also adds “if COSEWIC determines that there is an imminent threat”, and it adds habitat considerations as well.

My next amendment, on page 317, is in line with the earlier amendment, which as originally drafted said the minister makes a recommendation. I had changed that. Then it's the GIC that makes the order, but in my first amendment it was the minister making the order. This just brings the text of subclause 80(3) in line, with the minister making the order. It adds a time qualifier as well: because we're dealing with emergencies, Mr. Chair, we want to do it in a timely way.

• 1015

The final amendment, on page 320, makes it mandatory that where there is an imminent threat to habitat the emergency order has to come into effect.

The Chair: It's very helpful to go over each individual amendment, but could you summarize the overall philosophical thrust and the basis of your four amendments. I would also invite Mr. Herron and Mr. Mills to do the same.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Actually, what the package does—because we're dealing with an emergency, an imminent threat to an endangered species—is put the onus on the Minister of the Environment as opposed to going through a lengthy cabinet process and involving COSEWIC in some of those determinations as well. It is indeed based on science; it's done in a timely fashion; and critical habitat is protected as well, Mr. Chair.

So the philosophical thrust is essentially saying that if there is an emergency, let's get on with it and have the Minister of the Environment move forward—or “the competent minister”.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Herron, please.

Mr. John Herron: The crux of this clause is that we're dealing with emergencies. By definition, an intrinsic aspect of the idea of emergency is that rapid action is required—because it's an emergency. Given that that is the environment we're dealing with, why would we not want to have a more rapid decision-making process than going to the GIC? I know we've had this debate before throughout the bill, but I think this case is fundamentally different because it relates to circumstances where we need to have extraordinary action.

My amendment has two aspects to it. One is that the minister, not cabinet, should be accountable for issuing and repealing emergency orders on the basis of advice from COSEWIC. Instead of repealing them or issuing them, the minister is clearly getting coached by the entity most fit to provide that advice, that being COSEWIC. This is a concept proposed by a coalition of environmentalists and industry alike—not SARWG in this case; it's the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and Nature Saskatchewan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron. Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I think I would ask the committee to exercise some caution as you look at the theme here. My understanding is you are building an act based on cooperation, including that of a large number of individuals. Quite frankly I don't think the competent minister, whoever that may be, would want to take on this authority all to himself. I recognize we could be dealing with an emergency, but to give a competent minister, COSEWIC, or anyone else a singular authority to act in this bill is not a very good idea on the basis of what we hope to achieve throughout the bill if it's going to fly. If you see that singular responsibility left in, I'm afraid my colleagues couldn't support these amendments.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I accept the argument Mr. Bailey is trying to advocate; they want to ensure there is a balance of advice before a decision is taken. But what I would say to Mr. Bailey, through you Mr. Chair, is that one, it's an emergency. It's extraordinary and a minister is not capable to arbitrarily determine when that emergency is. It's being done on the advice of science. This has been the Reform and the Canadian Alliance perspective. If it's sound science backing up a decision, why would you want to go in that particular direction? The minister's only doing this on the advice of COSEWIC, and that's the intent of my amendment.

• 1020

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, Madam Redman, and Madam Kraft Sloan.

[Translation]

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

I am looking at sub-paragraph (ii)on page 39. Is there any process requiring the federal government, the central government, to consult with provinces before making an emergency order? This is my first question.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: There is no requirement in the case of...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: You say there is no requirement. So this would mean that, without even having to go through the governor in council, the minister would be able to use these emergency powers without having to consult the provinces. In my view, this is more of a political decision, a decision that should be taken by the government as a whole. This is what I think.

Under such circumstances, Mr. Chairman, and in view of the fact that some provinces have their own legislation, it would be much better for the decision to issue an emergency order to be made by the governor in council rather than by the competent minister, since this is a decision of a political nature.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

Clearly I would concur with Monsieur Bigras that because emergency orders have a social and economic implication, it's very appropriate that the GIC be involved in order to consider the broadest range of impacts on any ruling they would have.

As far as some of Mr. Herron's points, again we feel that it's most appropriate that GIC be involved in this. His amendment requires the minister to act only on the advice of COSEWIC. We would not want to limit the discretion of a minister in an emergency order by making a recommendation by COSEWIC the trigger for his assessment, if indeed action needed to be taken.

There's also an inherent problem again with conferring on COSEWIC the capacity to trigger directly any emergency order. COSEWIC should be dealing with science, and those other larger issues should be left to the minister and the GIC.

I would ask the committee also to turn its attention to page 37 in the English under “Emergency Orders”. In the bill at subclause 80(1) it reads:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the competent minister, make an emergency order”

and under subclause 80(2):

The competent minister must make the recommendation if he or she is of the opinion

So we felt we had covered off those aspects, and because of some of the reasons raised by our colleagues, Mr. Bailey and Monsieur Bigras, we too would not support these amendments.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Laliberte.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In reference to the COSEWIC trigger, Mr. Chair, we're talking about the imminent threat to the survival or recovery of a species. I'm not so sure whether an imminent threat to the survival of a species has socio-economic consideration. A species is either imminently at threat or it's not, and those are biological grounds. The parliamentary secretary has just made note, Mr. Chair, that “the competent minister must make the recommendation”, but the reality is that it has to go back to GIC. It's still discretionary on the part of GIC, and my amendment is still discretionary about the minister. The minister may make the emergency order.

• 1025

In Bill C-65, Mr. Chair, emergency orders were triggered by COSEWIC, and they were mandatory. In this legislation the emergency orders are triggered by cabinet, and they're discretionary. I think we have to decide whether we want to step in to save a species upon an imminent threat or we don't.

The Chair: This amendment is pretty straightforward, and it is an amendment of a purely political nature. Are you ready for the vote?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to respond to Mr. Bigras's concern on the provincial issues. I think amendment 321 by Mr. Herron addresses that issue with clause 81. It mentions “equivalent measures” under another act of Parliament, and Mr. Herron is trying to amend it to include provincial action. That might directly address Mr. Bigras's concern on this amendment.

The Chair: The answer to the question is yes.

Speaking as chair, I would say that we should proceed on amendments page by page rather than by groups, unless there's a conflict of lines, because I don't see any meeting of opinion that would indicate we should refer to one group over the other. Mr. Mills' amendments are in a league all by themselves, so they will have to be taken separately.

Are you ready for a vote on page 312, the amendment by Madam Kraft Sloan?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The amendment on page 313, one in the name of Mr. Herron, cannot be put, and we'll understand the reasons why.

All right, Mr. Herron, you can have another kick at the cat.

Mr. John Herron: The argument we just put forward speaks to the issue that this is about issuing and repealing emergency orders. We're saying we need to have some political accountability to do so. It should be the minister who makes that call. We're not just going to do this arbitrarily; it's going to be based on sound science, that of COSEWIC. This is an issue that is supported by some industry and by some environmental groups as well.

I would say to my friend in the Bloc, through you Mr. Chair, that I don't see how this clause 80 would interfere in the context of a pre-existing federal law. If I'm wrong, the officials are welcome to chime in, but I would seek his support if possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Madam Redman.

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

The government would continue to have a concern with the fact that this amendment would now eliminate the GIC and the provision for the competent minister's recommendation, which is the government's opportunity to consider a wide range of factors. We would not support this amendment for that reason.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

• 1030

Mr. Roy Bailey: I would say very much the same. This GIC is more than just...now it's an historical thing. For us to start fooling around with this so we... I think we have to leave it there because it's wide-ranging. It involves more people. It pulls the whole government into a decision, not just one person, so I don't think we can remove it.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I am not opposed to having an emergency process in legislation. However, we must not forget that whenever we use an emergency procedure, this inevitably sets aside the normal process. Therefore, whenever an emergency situation leads us to set aside normal processes, the decision needs to be political and to be made by the governor in council. Otherwise, there will inevitably be issues of conflict. In my view, this would go against the spirit of cooperation on which the government wanted to construct this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

We'll have Madam Kraft Sloan to conclude, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, Mr. Chair, I'd like to emphasize the fact that this deals with emergencies. If anyone has ever visited an emergency room in a hospital in this country, there isn't a lot of consultation that goes on. It's based on science. If you're in an emergency room, it's based on medical science. We're talking about the fact that we're facing an imminent threat to the survival of a species.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: This is true. Maybe there would not be so many emergency situations.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Either people are in support of doing something to protect species or their position is just to let them die off.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll go to page 314, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to be amending this amendment to read:

The competent minister must make a recommendation if he or she is of the opinion that, or if COSEWIC determines that, there is an imminent threat to a listed species or its habitat.

Essentially what this is, Mr. Chair, is a COSEWIC trigger, COSEWIC being the scientific body that is looking at the biological necessity and needs of species. It provides that the minister must make a recommendation if he or she is of this opinion and also if COSEWIC determines this. It's a COSEWIC trigger for a recommendation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm going to use an illustration about why it's better, from a GIC perspective, to let the minister make this decision instead of sending it to cabinet. Why it's better is because we're talking about emergencies. Here's probably the most extreme example one could actually use.

On September 11 terrorists chose to use planes and turn them into guided missiles, taking down two buildings in New York and crashing into the Pentagon. Cabinet didn't meet until almost a week later. Now, obviously they consulted, and the phones were ringing back and forth between ministers. But on the most extreme issue we've ever had, cabinet didn't even meet in that regard.

• 1035

Maybe the debate should be on whether it should have but didn't, but sometimes it's difficult getting people together in an emergency context. By no means am I making the comparison between an emergency order on endangered species and the heinous crime that took place on September 11. What it illustrates is that sometimes quick action is required in a different context from the one in the cabinet room itself.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, I'm not so sure you chose a good example—

Mr. John Herron: Neither am I.

The Chair: —for an analogy with this amendment, quite frankly, but let's move on.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: It is not even worth responding to such examples, which are irrelevant. The government always... On the contrary, Cabinet met very soon afterwards, at least according to the Prime Minister. In my view, this is not a relevant illustration.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

I think we've fleshed out quite nicely the need for the GIC, so I'm not going to go there again. I'd also like to point out that by inserting the word “or” we are again putting the onus on COSEWIC, because it's no longer a question of whether it's in the opinion of the minister or whether the GIC is involved. Clearly, the government isn't very clear on the need for the involvement of the GIC, but we are then making COSEWIC the trigger for this. We would again underline that COSEWIC is a scientific body, and those are the facts they need to be dealing with, not the political aspects.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to remind committee members that I have amended this amendment because the original amendment was defeated. The original amendment talked about the minister making the decision for the emergency order. This amendment deals with the minister making the recommendation, which is in the legislation. We're not talking about GIC making a recommendation or not making a recommendation; we're talking about the minister making a recommendation, which is already in the legislation. I would first of all like to draw that to members' attention.

Secondly, there's this discussion about socio-economic considerations when you're making the emergency order. May I again remind members that the GIC will be making that decision, and it's a discretionary decision. We are talking about the recommendation the minister must make to the GIC, and there is only one trigger in this current legislation, which is the minister; it's about the minister's opinion.

The only thing my amendment does is add a COSEWIC trigger for the recommendation, so let's be very clear about what it is we're talking about, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: That aspect has been discussed by several members.

Are there any further interventions on this amendment?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to know from the officials why the COSEWIC trigger for making a recommendation was in Bill C-65 but was removed from this bill.

The Chair: That is not an easy request, but if Mr. Near wishes to comment, he may.

Mr. David Near: This was one of the remnants of the Bill C-65 experience, and it was a policy decision to do that. I don't recall when it was added to Bill C-65, whether it was the committee or the government, so I'm afraid I can't assist you on that.

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

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: It's the same argument, the same debate, and the same issue. We're trying to do things in an expeditious fashion. We think the minister should have the flexibility to make that call, based on science, only in circumstances where there's an emergency, as opposed to going through cabinet and then maybe, eventually, it might... And to the argument that we shouldn't politicize the issue, I just say when we send it to cabinet, that's what it does. I want to base it on science. Let the minister make the call.

• 1040

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if there is an issue around the GIC not having control over these decisions, perhaps we could follow what is done under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act around emergency orders.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act allows the minister to make the emergency order. Isn't that strange? But we don't want it when it comes to species.

There's a clause in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that says the Governor in Council may at any time vary or repeal an order made by the competent minister. So it's okay for CEPA, but it's not okay for an endangered species.

Mr. John Herron: We're not rewriting the rule book here. It's not precedent setting. That's a very good intervention Mrs. Kraft Sloan has made.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What I could do, Mr. Chair, is offer a friendly amendment to what Mr. Herron is putting forward by adding that the Governor in Council may...well, we'd have to...

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can you give me two seconds? We'll just have to find the right place to insert this. We could make it two points. We could have a (2.1), Mr. Chair—that's Mr. Herron's—and then we could have a (2.2), which is the way it is in CEPA, that the Governor in Council may at any time vary or repeal an order made under (2.1).

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: Assuming the language hasn't changed in Mr. Herron's motion on page 315, this would result in a subclause 80(1) where you'd have the GIC making an emergency order, and then you'd have a provision in subclause 80(2) where the competent minister makes an emergency order.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, you may want to conclude on the disposition of your amendment.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Near is entirely right. It would make the act inconsistent in that aspect. It does make it messy.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We move to page 316.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to help Mr. Near remember the issue of the COSEWIC trigger. It was in the original edition of the bill:

34.(1) The responsible minister must make an emergency order providing for the protection of a wildlife species within 60 days after COSEWIC designates or reclassifies the species as endangered or threatened on an emergency basis. The order may include provisions regulating or prohibiting activities that may adversely affect the species or the residences of its individuals.

This was in 1997, Mr. Chair. The only change the committee made was to change the word “may” to “must”, but it was already the COSEWIC trigger. In 1997 the government recognized that science was an important fundamental basis for making decisions around imminent threats to species.

The Chair: I don't think Mr. Near can be made responsible for that change.

We move to page 316.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

We keep talking about emergency situations. I think we have to understand that an emergency in regard to a species isn't something that happens within 30 seconds, or even 30 days. It's an ongoing thing, and then they declare it an emergency. I don't know who used the analogy. I don't think it's entirely appropriate.

• 1045

But this amendment states “based on the best available information and in consultation with COSEWIC”. All that does is make the best information available and allow for more clarity and accuracy. It still includes the former tone of the bill, and more accountability, too.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

I would ask Ms. Wherry to speak to this amendment.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: What I would say is that the minister should be able to make an opinion without having to consult with COSEWIC, especially when you consider we may be in an emergency situation.

But the emergency orders are not just for listing of species or whatever; the emergency orders are for protecting its habitat, and COSEWIC may not be the best group to consult at that point. For example, we could be at the recovery stage or beyond, and there may be people involved in the recovery team, etc., who would be more appropriate at that point to be talking to about habitat, as opposed to COSEWIC.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

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

With regard to an emergency order, the minister could always call a meeting of COSEWIC. Would this be possible? Does the minister have the power to call a meeting of COSEWIC? Provinces are members of COSEWIC. I put this forward in a spirit of cooperation. Would it not be better to have the scientific advice of provinces who already are members of COSEWIC? This would be desirable, unless you tell me that COSEWIC meets only once a month and that it cannot be convened on an emergency basis. But if COSEWIC could be consulted quickly by means of a conference call, in my view this would be desirable in the spirit of cooperation.

So I am quite supportive of this amendment, especially since it does not take anything away. It adds a step, without delaying indefinitely the emergency order.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Herron and Mr. Bailey.

Mr. John Herron: I have full intent of supporting Mr. Bailey's amendment. We had a very similar amendment a few moments ago. I know the Alliance and Reform have always taken the position that decisions should be based on science—maybe to a bit of a fault, because they don't embrace the precautionary principle as much as I'd like them to. And the best scientific tool kit we have is COSEWIC. That's why Mr. Bailey has included that, and I think it's a good amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll maybe try to make a friendly subamendment, which would be that the minister can make a recommendation if he or she is of the opinion, based on best available information “or in consultation with COSEWIC”.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, you can conclude this.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Laliberte, and also Ms. Wherry. She raised the very valuable point that consultation may not in fact be with COSEWIC. It may be some other group that has been appointed.

To make this a better amendment, I think we should add what Rick said, but include at the end “or other available sources” or “or other available groups”, whatever the wording would be—and somebody will have to help me there. That would put the onus completely upon the minister and give the source of his recommendation.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Could Ms. Wherry comment on that word change?

• 1050

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I want to make a similar point to what I was trying to make awhile ago. If it's an emergency situation, the minister should be able to form the opinion without having to consult, as long as there's not a requirement to have to consult before the minister can form the opinion.

For example, there are close to 30 members of COSEWIC. There must be the ability to bring together all these people from across the country, who may not even be in the country at the time, to consult with them before the minister can make a recommendation for an emergency situation. So I would just like to draw your attention to that point.

The Chair: All right. As far as I know, the amendment before us at this stage includes an acceptance by Mr. Bailey of the suggestion by Mr. Laliberte that the word “and” be replaced by “or”, but the text is unchanged beyond that. As far as I'm concerned it reads the same, except “and” is replaced by “or”.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just to clarify the intent of what I'm doing, the minister can call for an emergency order on the information that's available. If there's a major event that takes place and threatens an endangered species, the minister can do it right away.

Let's say a situation occurs where, within a monthly cycle of a COSEWIC meeting, COSEWIC comes up with information—that can go directly. So there are two streams of information. It doesn't layer and extend emergency orders timing. It can happen immediately from either source.

The Chair: All right. Can we conclude?

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: In all friendship, I have to oppose Mr. Laliberte's amendment because, in my view, the best information available to the minister comes from COSEWIC. COSEWIC works well. It has a good track record and, in my view, it must be consulted before an emergency order is made.

Mrs. Wherry says it could be difficult to bring together the members of COSEWIC in an emergency situation. I do not think this argument holds water because in an emergency situation COSEWIC will inevitably be forced to meet.

Therefore, in my opinion, COSEWIC needs to have a role in the whole process leading to an emergency order. This should be a requirement and not discretionary as Rick is proposing in his amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Bailey, you have the last word on the historical debate of “and” versus “or”.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think our intent with this is good. If we make it “or” it kind of defeats the purpose of the amendment and our thoughts. So I'm afraid if we go with “or” in the amendment, I will not be supporting the motion.

The Chair: The amendment remains as it is, if I understand you correctly.

Madam Kraft Sloan is next to conclude, briefly, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could we have a vote on a subamendment for “or”?

The Chair: We have a subamendment by Mr. Laliberte to include the word “or”. We will start with the subamendment right now.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: We will now move to the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Could we take the vote again? The result is not clear. Some people did not vote.

[English]

The Chair: Someone has abstained. The chair will vote in the negative.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1055

The Chair: We will move now, please, to page 317.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I will be amending my amendment to say:

(3) Before making a recommendation, the competent minister must consult every other competent minister, to the extent that time allows.

I think the officials have made the argument that when you're in an emergency situation you don't want to have to consult COSEWIC. So there should be considerations made on the amount of consultation time that is imposed, with regard to consultations with other competent ministers. Indeed, as Mr. Laliberte has pointed out, if there is an oil spill or an event that causes an environmental catastrophe, one has to get on with it. Putting in “to the extent that time allows”, given the state of the emergency, is an important amendment.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Are we on the amendment at page 317? Could I move a sub-amendment? I would add the words “as well as COSEWIC” after “must consult every other competent minister”.

[English]

The Chair: The amendment is to the effect that COSEWIC will be included in the consultations. Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. David Near.

Mr. David Near: Just for clarification, in my binder on page 317 it refers to “before making an emergency order”.

The Chair: The word “recommendation” replaces “emergency order” on line 1.

Mr. David Near: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just want to suggest I'm not going to take that as a friendly amendment, even though I'm sure Mr. Bigras means it to be very friendly. Perhaps if Mr. Bigras feels committed to that, we should vote on that as a subamendment.

The Chair: Yes. We'll vote on the subamendment first. The subamendment by Mr. Bigras will have the effect of inserting “as well as COSEWIC” or “including COSEWIC”.

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We will move now to page 318.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I withdraw.

The Chair: Next is page 319.

Mr. Bailey.

• 1100

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply states “the competent minister must consult the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council”. While that may seem a little redundant, I think it's necessary simply because it will provide some accountability to the naturalists, the environmentalists, and everybody else from whence the information was received. That includes the provincial representatives within the provinces.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

Are there any comments?

Madam Redman.

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

I wonder if Ms. Wherry or Mr. Near would like to talk about the fact that this would then include the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: There are maybe two points I would make there. Again, it would require time to consult with every provincial and territorial minister who is part of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, before being able to make the recommendation. Having the GIC make the order provides for any intergovernmental considerations that need to take place when the order is made. Therefore, there is no mandatory requirement here to have to consult with them all anyway.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just from what I've heard, it seems to beg for this, to the extent time allows. If we subamended that at the end, it would make sense. The provinces would be involved. There would be consultation, but if it were an extreme emergency, if time allowed, this consultation should take place.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: The point behind the amendment—and maybe the amendment could even be changed—as I want to impress upon this committee, is to let the provincial minister know somehow that this is... It doesn't state that. Somewhere within the act I think you would gain a little more importance and touch a little more on home base at the provincial level if you said the applicable or the provincial environment minister would be notified at the same time—whatever you want. But let's not act in a vacuum...this global thing up here, spacecraft Ottawa, you're lower than that, you're right down at the provincial level. That's the purpose of it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Ms. Wherry.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I'd just make one comment again. A specific emergency order may refer to an order with respect to a federal species, or it may refer to just a species or habitat that's in a certain part of the country. Why would there be a requirement to consult with all provincial and territorial ministers across the country? This would include a requirement for that to happen.

The Chair: That would be at the political level.

Are there any further comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: In answer to your question, Madam, I would say that the spirit of the bill is to aim for cooperation.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would agree with the amendment, “if time allows”. Because this is for an emergency situation, I'm still stuck on the timing aspect. I would add a subamendment, “if time allows”.

The Chair: A subamendment has been moved by Mr. Laliberte to insert the phrase “if time allows” in the amendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)

• 1105

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll go to the amendment on page 320.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, which page, page 320? Let me look at this for a second, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if this is still—

The Chair: The amendment is not moved.

(Clause 80 agreed to)

(On clause 81—Equivalent measures)

The Chair: On page 321, Mr. Herron...

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we've just gone through a big section, and I may be ruled out of order, but I'd like to bring to the attention of all the committee members an article that appears in the Ottawa Citizen this morning that really concerns me. Some comments have been attributed to Mr. Mills. It's unfortunate that Mr. Mills isn't here to respond, but I think it should go on the record so that he can give it some due thought.

The Chair: You may want to do that on Monday, Mr. Reed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Wait until Monday.

The Chair: Mr. Reed, there will be an opportunity on Monday.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's right.

Mr. Julian Reed: All right, I will do that, but I want to put it on the record so that he will know, and I'll send him the blues from this commentary so he can comment on it on Monday.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, on a connected point of order—

The Chair: We're not meeting to discuss clippings in the newspaper.

Mr. John Herron: No, but connected to the Monday issue, sir, we actually have made a tremendous amount of progress today—

The Chair: We are not discussing the Monday issue now. We have page 321 before us, and Mr. Herron, you have the floor.

• 1110

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, the intent of this amendment, the language in the amendment, is quite clear.

the...minister is not required to make an emergency order, if he or she is of the opinion that equivalent measures have been taken under another Act of Parliament or if it is agreed in writing that a provincial Act provides equivalent protection for the wildlife species.

In my view, this is the spirit of cooperation that we're trying to have with provincial governments. If the provinces have an equivalent act in place that protects species at risk, then the federal law need not apply.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairman, I would ask perhaps Ms. Wherry or Mr. Near to speak to this further, but the proposed amendment basically contradicts the entire spirit of this section. If a province has equivalent measures in place, an emergency order would not be required.

Mr. David Near: As one point of clarification, the wording I have on page 321 speaks of a minister making the emergency order. I'm assuming it's being changed to “recommendation”.

Mr. John Herron: Sure.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: That is not the law...

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Having made that adjustment, could we hear other comments?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Perhaps Ms. Wherry?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I guess I would only reiterate what you have already said, that if there is already protection provided by a province, it is highly unlikely that you would have needed an emergency order in the first place.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, but Mr. Nadeau said that in the case of the making of an emergency order, it was not necessary to consult the provinces. Does this apply specifically to the case of...

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes. The intent of this provision as presently drafted is that the minister responsible for Fisheries would use the Fisheries Act as opposed to the Species at Risk Act to accomplish the same thing as with an emergency order. That was the intent. It is true that if the provinces were already protecting the species or their habitats in a specific case where an emergency order was being envisaged, then it would not be necessary to make such an order. Therefore, this is not really appropriate here.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, would you like to move your amendment?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

It would replace line 22, page 39, with the following:

been taken under another Act of Parliament or under the laws or policies of any government in Canada to

It leaves room but identifies provincial laws, names provinces, and that's important for the cooperation of the bill.

The Chair: Madame Redman.

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

Again, we would make the same observation, that the whole spirit of this section is that, if species at risk are being protected at another level of government, the emergency order would not be invoked.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

(Amendment negatived)

• 1115

(Clause 81 agreed to)

(On clause 82—Recommendation to repeal)

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, you have an amendment on page 323.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's withdrawn. This issue was covered by Mr. Bigras' amendment, on page 143, that was passed. This amendment becomes unnecessary.

The Chair: Thank you. The next one is on page 325. Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: We're just moving so fast today.

The Chair: I'm informed that this amendment would be inconsistent with what has been done in preceding clauses.

Mr. John Herron: Consistent or inconsistent?

The Chair: Inconsistent.

Mr. John Herron: Inconsistent—now I remember we messed up CEPA that way. I will not move the amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, this does indeed tie in with the emergency order. If I am not mistaken, the debate we had earlier dealt with having consultations with regard to the making of an emergency order. We are now talking about...

The Chair: The amendment has been withdrawn.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: It has been withdrawn.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Very well.

[English]

The Chair: I'm reminded that Mr. Comartin has asked that this clause be stood—clause 82—and he also has an amendment being translated for clause 83. So we will put this aside for the meeting on Monday—both clauses 82 and 83—taking into account Mr. Comartin's request.

This would take us, then, to—

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just dwelling on Mr. Comartin's amendment on page 326—and I don't have a problem with dealing with this at a subsequent meeting—it would be our understanding that Monsieur Bigras' motion 143 would actually cover this off. I'm wondering if we could have that input.

The Chair: Well, but then we would have... Which one do you mean by Monsieur Bigras?

A voice: It's the one on page 143.

The Chair: It would be a more convenient discussion if we do them all together.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Are you putting that as a point of discussion for the next meeting?

The Chair: Yes, definitely. Well, Mr. Bigras' motion on page 143 was carried.

We will remind Mr. Comartin in his presence that this has been carried—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mrs. Karen Redman: ...have information, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: —so that this is done in his presence. We have made an annotation of that fact. Thank you very much.

So we are standing clauses 82 and 83.

• 1120

(Clauses 82 and 83 allowed to stand)

(Clause 84 agreed to)

(On clause 85—Enforcement officers)

The Chair: Shall clause 85 carry?

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This is not an amendment, Mr. Chairman, but with your permission I would just like some clarification on this before we...

For instance, in subclause 85(1) it says the “competent minister may designate any person or person of a class of persons to act as enforcement officers” and so on. Who will be given this task? I'm not sure who that would be and who is willing to take this on.

I just want clarification of that.

The Chair: Mr. Near, could you briefly answer?

Mr. David Near: Are we referring to subclause 85(1)? That's what you're—

The Chair: Yes, subclause 85(1).

Mr. David Near: That's a pretty standard clause in a lot of legislation. For something similar, such as CEPA, it's in as well.

Generally speaking, it would be a provincial conservation officer who would be designated as an enforcement officer for purposes of this act. That's the purpose behind it.

Mr. Roy Bailey: One more question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Environment Canada and the RCMP are, as you know, terribly underworked at the present time. You say you go to a provincial conservation officer. That's about all that's left, is that right? I mean, who else could you go to? You could go to the RCMP, or they could be designated, right? But the—

Mr. David Near: In the old days, actually, the RCMP used to have a special unit designated to enforcing migratory bird—

Mr. Roy Bailey: Do they still have that?

Mr. David Near: No. That went in 1986 or 1987.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes. That's the point. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Still on clause 85, you say that it would be the provincial officers, for example the wildlife conservation officers in the case of Quebec, who would be in charge of this. I would like an explanation. Are we creating enforcement officers with the bill. Could this lead to the creation of enforcement officers?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes, but the government of the province must be in agreement. Subclause 85(2) states that the province must agree.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Fine, but could a provincial officer work on federal lands?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes, a provincial officer could enforce the act on federal land as well.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Very well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

(Clause 85 agreed to)

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

With your indulgence and the committee's, just for a point of information, we have somebody—and I'm sorry I don't know the gentleman's name—who could speak to the concerns raised by Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Ray Lalonde (National Coordinator (Operations), Wildlife Division, Office of Enforcement, Environment Canada): My name is Ray Lalonde. I'm with the wildlife law enforcement section of Environment Canada.

As in the case of the other acts we have—the Migratory Birds Act, the Canada Wildlife Act and the endangered species legislation—we do appoint our own federal officers within Environment Canada, and I think the intent of this bill would be to do the same thing. We would also appoint the provincial conservation officers and territorial officers to enforce this legislation.

The Chair: How many officers does the Wildlife Service have at present?

Mr. Ray Lalonde: At present, I would say approximately 40.

The Chair: Is that for the whole of the country?

Mr. Ray Lalonde: Scattered around Canada, yes.

The Chair: Is that an adequate number?

Mr. Ray Lalonde: Never.

An hon. member: There's never enough money.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Perhaps that's a rhetorical question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Let's conclude.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: In those cases where wildlife conservation officers should not be enforcing the Act, what solutions do you have in mind in order to provide for the enforcement of the Act. In reality, wildlife conservation officers do not come under your responsibility. If the wildlife protection officers in a province did not enforce the Act, what possible recourse would you have? What possible intervention would you have in mind?

[English]

The Chair: This is a perfect question for budget time—

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No—

The Chair: —but we'll allow it for the purposes of this clause. I would appreciate a brief answer.

Mr. Near.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: It is not a budget question.

[English]

Mr. David Near: For example, if provincial conservation officers are appointed or designated to enforce a law in a particular province and for some reason that doesn't happen, there's nothing that precludes the federal government from using their own federal conservation officers to enforce the law.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

• 1125

[English]

Mr. Bailey, briefly.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have one more quick question. I'd like to ask the... Oh, he left the table. My question was this. How many officers does the honourable gentleman recognize will be needed in the future? Obviously 40 isn't enough now. Would it be 400?

Mr. Ray Lalonde: I don't know at this time, unless somebody else knows.

Mr. David Near: That is largely a policy question. It would not be fair for Mr. Lalonde to answer.

Mr. Roy Bailey: All right. Thank you.

The Chair: I'm sure, Mr. Bailey, you would support an increase in the budget to strengthen the Canadian Wildlife Service.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Absolutely.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: A little louder, Mr. Bailey.

The Chair: All right. We come to clause 86.

(Clauses 86 to 88 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 89—Liability for costs)

The Chair: Now we come to the amendment on page 327. Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have a friendly amendment here and I think I would ask for support on this. We would be replacing line 26 on page 45 with the following:

and who has been convicted of an offence under this Act in relation to that thing, are jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable

The liability of the costs should be reserved only for convictions. If evidence is taken but no conviction is established, the question then remains, should there really be any liability for costs for the innocent? It's a legal question, but I think it's very important here. This is an area in which you could get into some pretty difficult situations, particularly if you're dealing with intent.

The Chair: Madam Wherry.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Actually I just want to make the comment that the government can support this amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Would you say it again?

Mrs. Karen Redman: The government can support this amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Question.

The Chair: Thank you. Are you ready for the question then?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 89 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 90 to 95 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: On clause 96 we have an amendment coming from Mr. Comartin, so we will defer it to Monday. We can now deal with clause 97. Mr. Reed has an amendment.

(On clause 97—Contraventions—)

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tonks was carrying this amendment for me yesterday in my necessary absence. Would he care to carry on?

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I—

The Chair: Just a moment. There was a request yesterday, Mr. Tonks. Can you refresh our memory?

Mr. Alan Tonks: I believe Mr. Comartin had requested it be stood down, and I thought it had been pending Mr. Reed's return.

The Chair: And Mr. Mills' as well.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Oh, yes; that's right.

The Chair: We'll defer it until Monday then. Is that all right, Mr. Reed?

Mr. Alan Tonks: That's fine—not a problem.

Mr. Julian Reed: That's all right.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to)

• 1130

(On clause 100—Due diligence)

The Chair: We are now on page 328. We have two amendments on clause 100 that are identical, one by Mr. Mills and one by Mr. Herron. Having received his first, we'll give precedence to Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can really move on this at this time because, once again, we really don't believe a person can be guilty unless the act is intentionally committed. I would just move on from this. We believe in this, and I think it's been dealt with.

The Chair: It's not moved?

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's right.

The Chair: Well, then we'll go to Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm not going to move it.

The Chair: It's not moved. Thank you.

(Clauses 100 to 108 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 109—Terms and conditions in agreement)

The Chair: We're on page 330.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We looked at this, and we wish to remove subclause 109(2): “Any governmental or non-governmental organization may supervise compliance with the agreement”. We believe this must be left to enforcement authorities, and this again increases the cooperation where it's needed most, on the ground at the site.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I'd ask Mr. Near to speak to this, both to the intent and to the part of it that's being deleted.

Mr. David Near: The precedent for much of this clause came from the Young Offenders Act, just by way of background. In those instances, often non-governmental organizations such as the Elizabeth Fry or the John Howard Society supervise young offenders. That's the rationale for why “non-governmental organization” was left in, if you like, in the first place. I believe the wording is identical in CEPA as well.

Having said that, I notice the amendment seems to be coming from both sides, one with respect to a problem with the non-governmental organizations who might be on the left-hand side and one to non-governmental organizations who are on the right-hand side, just in general parameters. It would certainly be possible to remove the non-governmental organization aspect if that were the desire of the committee.

In closing, I might say that somebody has to supervise the agreement. It would be much preferable to have somebody there, because someone will have to advise the Attorney General, who will then go back to the court to say that the agreement has been complied with. Someone has to be responsible for supervising compliance with the agreement.

The Chair: Ms. Douglas, please.

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): I just wanted to add something so the members who might not be as familiar with the young offender processes can picture this as it would happen. The organization that does the supervising of an alternative measures agreement is not chosen by the accused person but is approved by the court. It's not just any group they can come up with; the court has to approve the placement.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have an identical amendment on page 331, Mr. Chair. What I wanted to say is, while in a youth justice issue the Elizabeth Fry Society may well be a very appropriate organization, are we sure we want the Pulp and Paper Association to monitor an alternative measures agreement in a pulp and paper situation?

Mr. Roy Bailey: They would be an enforcement body.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, but they would be a non-governmental organization.

• 1135

They're an NGO. NGOs are not just those crazy people who riot in Quebec City. NGOs are some very upstanding, law-abiding citizens who represent industry associations as well. We should always remember that, Mr. Bailey.

The Chair: Madam Redman, please.

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

I just want to underline some of the comments of Mr. Near's. It would be very hard for the government to support the deletion of as much as is in the amendment before us. But perhaps what is in the bill could be left as is with the exception of “or non-governmental”. If that would satisfy both the intent of this amendment and perhaps that of my colleague, Mrs. Kraft Sloan, that's something we could consider—if that lends clarity to this section and assuages some fears.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, we would support that, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If you want to leave “or non-governmental” out, that's fine with me.

I do have some concerns—and other colleagues from the same province have articulated this as well—that the Province of Ontario might be in a position to supervise some of these things. I guess we have to live with those. I'd be fine with taking “or non-governmental” out.

The Chair: How would your amendment be modified, then, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I would beg then, with respect to our motion, to get the wording from Ms. Redman, and then we could proceed from there. What were the changes again?

Mrs. Karen Redman: It would be that clause 109 would read the way it is written in the bill; the only deletion would appear in subclause 109(2), where there would be the deletion of “or non-governmental”. The rest of the clause would remain as is. I believe that's on lines 23 to 24.

The Chair: We are in agreement that your amendment will be transformed into having the simple effect of deleting the words “or non-governmental” on lines 23 and 24 of page 55. Is that right?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 109 as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 110 agreed to)

(On clause 111—Filing in court for purpose of public access)

The Chair: On clause 111 we'll hear Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, deals with clause 111, with line 42 on page 55. We want to replace that by the following:

be filed with the same court by the person responsible for supervising compliance with the agreement immediately after

This simply identifies who is responsible for filing the report, number one. Secondly, we think it makes sense for the enforcement officer to be supervising compliance. I think there's some value to that, and that's why the amendment was put forward.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

I would ask Mr. Near to speak to this.

• 1140

Mr. David Near: Just briefly, the process would be that the Attorney General would be responsible for actually filing the report with the court. The Attorney General would receive it from the governmental organization that is supervising it. The responsibility to file it with the court is actually that of the Attorney General.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, could I ask something?

The thought here is that the person responsible for supervising the compliance... We recognize that the filing in that is done at the top level provincially or federally, but the enforcement officer should be the one who is supervising the rule that has been made. He should know about the filing, and so on. We're saying that if I were there, if I made the arrest, and then my report went in and were filed, it would then be best for me, if I'm available, to be the one who supervises the compliance.

Mr. David Near: I would just explain that the procedure is that the Attorney General is responsible for filing. If there were an issue in court as to what's in the report, the officer would be called to testify. But you don't usually ask the police officer to be responsible for making filings with the court, and this is a purely procedural aspect.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

The government could support this if “person” were changed to “Attorney General”, because in our view it lends far more clarity to the intent of Mr. Bailey's motion.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'll support that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: This would replace “person responsible” with just “person”?

Mr. David Near: I would think it would replace “the court” by “the Attorney General”.

The Chair: For supervising? So it would replace both words? “Person responsible”?

Mrs. Karen Redman: In the spirit of trying to be helpful, Mr. Chair, I wonder if “the Attorney General” would replace “by the person responsible for supervising compliance with the agreement”, which is how the amendment reads now. Replace that phrase by “the Attorney General”.

The Chair: Do you understand, Mr. Bailey, that the text would read “be filed with the same court by the Attorney General for supervising” etc.?

A voice: The “supervising” part is out.

The Chair: Therefore, “for supervising” is out, and the rest of that line in the proposed amendment is also deleted, so subclause 111(2) on line 42 of page 55 would read:

be filed with the same court by the Attorney General immediately after

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 111 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 112 to 114 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 115—Disclosure of information by peace officer or enforcement officer)

The Chair: We come now to page 333 and an amendment in the name of Bob Mills.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Above all, I'm sure that all members of this committee want to protect, where possible, the privacy of an individual. It's for that reason we would like to amend clause 115 by replacing lines 28 to 41 on page 57 with the following:

115. Where it is necessary in the conduct of an investigation of an offence, a peace officer or enforcement officer may disclose to a department or agency of a government in Canada any information in a record relating to an offence alleged to have been committed by a person, including the original or a copy of any fingerprints or photographs of the person.

• 1145

It is too broad the way it is. We want to limit this to a department or agency of government in Canada, under the strictest of privacy laws.

The Chair: Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can support this motion, but I'd ask Mr. Near to speak to it.

Mr. David Near: Briefly, as some background, this same provision shows up in CEPA, and in large measure we transposed it from CEPA. However, subsequent to some of the drafting sessions we had, the government has amended the Criminal Code, and in fact if we remove this, it's closer to that recent amendment. That's why the government has indicated they could support this proposal.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I just want to make a point of observation. It's very interesting that in one case a little while ago we raised the CEPA mechanism, the emergency orders, saying that was an appropriate way to go and it made a lot of sense. Here we are using CEPA as a rationale for actually doing it on the other end of things. I withdrew some amendments because it would have made the bill and the approach inconsistent. I know those are sometimes public policy arguments, but they're extremely inconsistent. So I'd like to make that point, for consistency's sake.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We don't have something on inconsistency; I don't—

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: In the spirit of flexibility and cooperation—

Mr. John Herron: It's better to say that.

The Chair: Are there any other observations?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 115 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 116 to 122 inclusive agreed to)

On clause 123—Documents to be in public registry

The Chair: On page 334 we have an amendment in the name of Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, this amendment actually extends to a list of items to be included in the public registry, to ensure greater access to information by the public. In my view, we should have a public right to know about what these three items actually are. They'll be added as paragraphs 123(i), (j), and (k).

We think in the public registry we should also print, in the interest of transparency, all ministerial reports, including listing decisions; any agreements with respect to the delegation of authority; and any other reports and agreements accessible through the Access to Information Act.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, while we do support the provision of ministerial reports being in the public registry, delegation agreements must already be included as well according to subclause 8(3). But we do not want to include the requirement to post any other reports and agreements through the Access to Information Act. This would be a huge administrative burden. It comes down to where we're going to spend our resources, and we feel this would divert them from an expenditure that may be more effective in protecting species.

I don't know if Ms. Wherry would also like to comment on this.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: No.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Okay.

Mr. John Herron: So you support paragraphs 123(i) and (j), but not paragraph 123(k). Is that right?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the mover would remove the paragraph 123(k) from the list. I can understand Madame Redman's point. We'd be taking on a huge expense, and I might add, in many cases a needless expense.

• 1150

Mr. John Herron: In a conversation I've just had with Mr. Near, he is advocating that paragraph 123(j) is already included.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: So if paragraph 123(k) is intrusive and the government will give up paragraph 123(i), that's fine.

So you'll vote for paragraph 123(i)?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Weren't you listening, Mr. Herron? Yes.

Mr. John Herron: All right, I'll accept that friendly amendment. I am not moving the paragraphs 123(j) and (k) aspect of the amendment on page 334, amendment PCDR63.

The Chair: In other words, you are retaining part (a) of your amendment and paragraph 123(i) of part (b).

Mr. John Herron: That's right.

The Chair: So paragraphs 123(j) and (k) are dropped.

Mr. John Herron: That's right.

The Chair: Is that understood?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 123 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was just going to ask if it would be possible to stand this clause down until Monday, but I guess it has already been carried.

(Clause 124 agreed to)

(On clause 125—Regulations)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, looking at this particular clause in its entirety, I'm afraid I have to vote against it on the basis that I don't believe there should be fees or charges for section 74 agreements or permits, and so on. I find that rather a difficult thing to be found in the bill, particularly after the fact that it's a “may” clause for the government to use in compensation. I find this an obnoxious thing to be in the bill, period. It may be necessary, but I want to vote that this clause be removed from the bill.

The Chair: So you will vote against it?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any other comments?

(Clause 125 agreed to on division)

(On clause 126—Annual Report to Parliament)

The Chair: We have on page 335 an amendment by Mr. Mills.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I say anything, I'd like you to take a look at the amendment on page 335. Because in the past we have eliminated “socio-economic impact”, I want that removed up front. So what then, in effect, takes place is that it will read:

(b) the preparation, implementation and the total costs to the government of Canada of

What we want to know is the cost to the taxpayers of the action taken, the project. We want to limit the recovery strategies, action plans, and so on, if that's going to be limited by costs. We think this is music to the ears of the players, so that they can see the costs involved.

Despite what you may be running through your mind at the present time, that the high cost or the money put into the project may have a negative effect, I want to suggest to you that when people can see the advantage of the protection that's before their very eyes, they will be more appreciative of the fact of what's going on, and the cost-effectiveness will not become a negative thing in their way of thinking. That's why we'd like to move this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions?

Madame Redman.

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

• 1155

I think Mr. Bailey has put his finger on the objection we would have, which is diverting resources to figure out the total costs.

I would ask Mr. Nadeau to comment on what kind of challenge that could be.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: There is a requirement to evaluate the socio-economic costs and benefits of implementing action plans on a five-year basis. It's already a requirement in the act. Actually, clause 126 deals with the annual report.

It would be very difficult to do that on an annual basis, because a lot of the measures that will be carried out through strategy plans and management plans will span several years. It will take a lot of time and resources to evaluate these impacts, and while we try to do it on a five-year basis, once the plan concludes it has to be redone and evaluated.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I guess I didn't make myself clear. We're talking about the overall planning—the costs and so on.

You have a project—you could have a huge project...and not at any specific time. Let's say you have a plan to see if you can restore the western bluebird. At the end of that time, you'd give an account and approximate cost of that project.

I don't think that is beyond the realm and I don't think it would be an expensive procedure. I think it would be terribly advantageous to the people involved. It's to the advantage of the act and to the advantage of promoting the environment.

Could I ask a question of Mr. Nadeau?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Roy Bailey: In the example I gave you, would that be a huge undertaking? This whole thing is going to have various projects, right?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Right.

Mr. Roy Bailey: If you have a satisfactory conclusion, and there's no time on it, at the end of five years you could say the numbers had increased with the cooperation of so and so, and give the approximate cost. It's a government action, and I see nothing wrong with a government action carrying with it some type of price tag.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Actually, I didn't understand the reference to socio-economic impact was removed. So you're only keeping—

Mr. Roy Bailey: We don't want to get into trying to figure that out. That's a horrendous job, and we don't want to touch that. We've dropped it before, right?

I just want to take a given project, for example, a marine project. You could surely give a cost for a project like that. That's what we're asking for.

The Chair: If I may be permitted a comment here, when it comes to economics and the environment, the introduction of the concept of costs in reports and review would, first, be an added burden to the administration, and not a minor one, and second, would create, politically, the impression that there are only costs—and no benefits—to be derived. Therefore, I would caution the members of the committee about embarking on this approach, which would somehow cast a different light on the whole exercise of protecting species.

Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clauses 126 and 127 agreed to)

(On clause 128—Reports on status of wildlife species)

The Chair: We are now on page 336.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

The impact of this amendment would be to reduce the length of time from five to three years for the preparation of a general report on the status of wildlife species, and also to reduce from five to three years each subsequent period. In the clause following, clause 129, there's a requirement for a five-year review.

• 1200

If the report on the status of wildlife species is going to take five years to prepare, then it might be questionable that the committee looking into the five-year review would actually have this information available. So I think it's important, particularly in respect of a five-year review, that this information is available in enough time that members are able to go through the material and use it as part of their review, which will be a very important part of that review.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The five-year timeline for the preparation of the general status report is actually a commitment under the accord for the protection of species at risk and therefore is something we have signed, as well as many provinces. To reduce the timeframe would make it very difficult for the federal government to prepare this kind of report without the contribution of the provinces and territories.

I would ask Monsieur Nadeau to speak to this.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: In this section, the requirement is to produce a report every five years on the general status of all wildlife species, not just the species that are listed and assessed by COSEWIC, so we're talking several thousand species. For most of them, actually, there isn't a lot of new information added every year, so doing it every three years would not produce reports that would vary a lot from each other. Five years would be more appropriate, and that's why that period was chosen to appear in the accord.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, have we not discussed this previously? I thought we had agreed previously the five-year term was proper.

I'm not sure if I get the connection between Madam Kraft Sloan's two amendments here, but we feel five years is good, because it makes sure the bill is in...you know, recovery, review, and so on. But to change one to three and leave the other, I don't quite understand. Could she explain?

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Bailey, the point I was making is that in clause 129 there is a five-year review of the bill by a parliamentary committee or a committee of the Senate. If the status report on wildlife species is not completed for five years, it's not likely that report would readily be available for the review purposes of the act in clause 129.

I would also like to point out that in the original Bill C-65, three years was what was required. And Bill C-65 came into the House after the accord was signed. If people are concerned that three years is too short, even though it was in the original Bill C-65, which came into the House after the accord was signed, I'd be willing to amend this to four years and then at the end of each subsequent five-year period.

I just want to make sure this material is available for the committee when they do their five-year review. It's not just a report coming to the committee. There's a lot of other preparatory work that goes into a five-year review. There are a lot of papers and things that are developed and written for the use of the committee. So there's a lot of work done prior to a five-year review, as this committee well knows, when under the chairmanship of our current chair we did the CEPA review.

The Chair: So you have a change in the amendment from three to four years on the first line and a change on the second line from three to five years.

Thank you.

We have Mr. Herron and Madam Redman.

Mr. John Herron: No.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairman, I would just point to some of Mr. Bailey's comments. There will be an annual report done that will come to Parliament.

I would ask Monsieur Nadeau and perhaps Ms. Wherry if they'd like to comment on these changes as well.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I have two things to add. You cannot really produce such a report without the cooperation and participation of provinces, museums, and others who actually have all of these data. It has to be pulled together so we need all these partners. There has been a report produced already in the year 2000 following this commitment under the accord. Because it has to be produced every five years, the next one will be ready in time before this act has to be reviewed.

• 1205

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan, would you conclude?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Laliberte has a comment to add.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: As I understand the change in the member's amendment, all it does is stagger this report—the general report to be provided in four years' time. It will give us one year before the review of the act. It's just staggering it, and then there will always be a stagger with the general report coming a year before the five-year act review. It's only the timing. It doesn't change the whole intent.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would also like to point out for members, particularly members in the opposition, that the requirement for this general report is to have it tabled in the House of Parliament within the first 15 days it is sitting after the completion of the report. This gives members of the opposition as well as the government side an opportunity to fully go through a general report on the culmination of a series of annual reports allowing for a better comprehensive understanding of what's been going on so members can participate in a very democratic way in the five-year review, whether they're part of the committee or not.

Through the chair to Mr. Bailey, I know your members are concerned about some of the costs and impacts associated with the implementation of this act. Here's an opportunity for you to have adequate time to go through this.

Mr. Bigras, I know you will have some provincial concerns to see how the province has been involved in this process. It will also give you adequate time, because otherwise we will be receiving an annual report that appears on our laps without an opportunity to properly go through it, or to have papers about it or discussions of it with your constituents, with the province, etc.; we'll be right into a review. We may not actually even see the report before the review is commencing.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I understand Mrs. Kraft Sloan's arguments, but what matters is precisely that the report take into account the very best information possible.

Mr. Nadeau, could we have some assurances that we will have the cooperation of the provinces and information flowing from them if the timeframe is shortened? I agree with you that we must have this information early on, but it must also be correct. For it to be correct, it must be compiled in partnership with the provinces. If we have reports that have been rushed, we will make mistakes on the basis of faulty premises.

Therefore, Mr. Nadeau, what would the best timeframe be so as to ensure that the provinces are able to do their work and to communicate the best information possible?

The Chair: A short answer, please.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: The timeframe as presently set out in the act is five years. That is what is prescribed by the accord. Since we produced a report in respect of this commitment last year, in the year 2000, with the five-year period, we will be producing the next report in time for the parliamentary review of the Act.

[English]

The Chair: Merci. Now to Madame Kraft Sloan to conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if there was a report in 2000, it means a foundation has been worked on with the provinces. All I'm doing is asking for a one-year reduction in the timeline, which will give Parliament an opportunity to adequately go through the report before the mandated five-year review.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 128 agreed to)

• 1210

(On clause 129—Parliamentary review of Act)

The Chair: We will conclude the discussion for today with clause 129 and the amendment by Madame Kraft Sloan, and then I will make a brief announcement.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have an amendment on clause 129 on page 337. All it does is require a subsequent five-year review of the legislation. There's a five-year review after the section comes into effect; I'm asking for a five-year review every five years.

The Chair: Are there any comments or questions?

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask Ms. Wherry to make a comment on this suggestion.

The Chair: Ms. Wherry, your comments, please.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: We could use all our resources and Parliament's time constantly reviewing legislation every five years—that's the only comment I can make. My only comment to this is that we maintain that one five-year review is sufficient.

Mr. John Herron: May I ask a question? Why do we review CEPA every five years?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: The only thing I would say again is that it's a decision one must make as to whether you want to require priority for resources to go into reviewing legislation all the time or implementing legislation.

Mr. John Herron: Are you saying CEPA is a bad decision?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I'm not commenting on CEPA. I'm making a comment with respect to reviewing legislation, period.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I appreciate that Ms. Wherry responded to a question from the parliamentary secretary, but this is clearly an issue for parliamentarians. If we want to put a parliamentary review every five years into the legislation, it's our issue. It isn't the officials' issue.

We could do a review through the estimates process. If we review the estimates every year, is it a waste of resources? No, we do it because we want to; it's part of doing our job. I appreciate that reasonable people can differ on this point, but this is not an issue on which to take guidance from the officials. And I don't in any way mean this to be disrespectful, because the officials were only responding to a question. This is our issue.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The subsequent review makes a lot of sense with endangered species because of the changing of the environment, the changing of the reality of the impact of our habitat and our encroachment on these species. I can also understand the subsequent review on CEPA because of the new concoctions of chemicals coming into our society.

We cannot assume what the earth is going to be like in ten years' time. If a five-year review takes place five years from now and parliamentarians decide to pull the subsequent reviews, it's their prerogative. But I'd like to leave it open, because it is a good gesture with a new bill in this country, creating a new initiative to save our species. Let's give a subsequent review and keep the doors open for strengthening or adjusting it.

The Chair: Is there any further comment?

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you. I agree with Mr. Laliberte. We're not talking about a huge volume so thick that nobody can read it, which is going to be put up on the shelf to collect dust. We're talking about a general overall statement Canadians can see to make sure the bill has the recovery, what's been improved, what renewable resources will need attention in the future, and so on. To me it's merely a general overall assessment of progress made.

I'm not looking at pages and pages of figures and data. I'm looking at an overall assessment of where we've made gains, where we've lost, what we must do to regain that, and so on. That's what I think is in this amendment. If the mover of the amendment can agree with me that what I'm thinking is what she is thinking, then I want to support this.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

• 1215

Mr. John Herron: I think having a mandatory review, as arduous as it is, and as someone who has suffered through the CEPA process...I can say this has actually been quicker than CEPA. It was different. For our pesticide legislation, the framework of that act is 30 years old. How did it get to be 30 years old? It wasn't our priority during the nine years when we were in government, I suppose. It wasn't a priority.

This illustrates the point that if there's not a requirement to actually review a bill, bills get outdated, particularly on an environmental issue. There's a convergence of scrutiny when you review a bill. At that time, the public domain would have a chance to be able to see whether the bill protects species at risk or not. There would be a convergence of public opinion on whether the bill works or not at that point.

I think it makes sense, and I don't know why a parliamentarian would want to deny themself the capacity to actually see if our laws work or not. That's what we get hired to do, to help write laws that work.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan to conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I wanted to build on Mr. Laliberte's comments. An eminent Canadian ecologist who was the recent recipient of the Herzberg gold medal prize, Dr. David Schindler, has given the boreal forest 50 years. We look at the deterioration of our natural environment, and things are going to start happening faster and faster. After we finish the five-year review, in 2006 or 2007, whenever this bill comes into force, and then we have another five-year review in 2012, will we have ten years left for the boreal forest?

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, would you mind repeating your question so that Madame Kraft Sloan can answer it? You seem to want a reply before the vote.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'd be quite willing to support this, but I have a question. My concept of what we're asking for here is that we get a positive negative of where we've succeeded in this legislation, where we have fallen back, where we need to put more emphasis, and congratulate ourselves on where we've done well. I think with this overall assessment in five years, and particularly with the positive part of it, you will gain more and more support for the issues, which is intent of the motion. That's my understanding of this. If I'm correct in that, I can support it, and I would have everybody in this committee support it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's the intent, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John Herron: It's done, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 129 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We made good progress this morning.

I would like to make the following proposition about next week, for two reasons. One is that representations have been made to me about a certain dinner on Monday evening. Then representations have been made to me by Mr. Herron, who has faithfully attended all these meetings but who cannot be here on Monday.

The second reason is that having the unwarranted reputation of being a reasonable person, which I must sustain if at all possible, it might be desirable to reconvene Tuesday morning. And if we don't complete Tuesday morning, we would reconvene Tuesday afternoon, and thereby not lose members Monday afternoon or Monday evening who have been faithfully attending and who have commitments they made some time ago, I'm told.

I'm asking whether there is a consensus that we cancel what was planned for Monday and that we reconvene Tuesday morning, and if we do not finish by noon, that we reconvene Tuesday afternoon to complete the work.

Madame Redman.

• 1220

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that I'm more than prepared to be here. I have made arrangements to be here Monday afternoon. It was my understanding that we were trying to do this in a timely fashion.

The Chair: Is there any other dissenting voice?

Mr. Roy Bailey: We've summed up those who could not be here; perhaps we should indicate those who can be here and see what would happen. Perhaps there's more than Mr. Herron who can't be here. I don't know.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the basis of this bill is cooperation, and we want to be able to recognize the contribution Mr. Herron has made to this legislation, and also indeed to other private member's legislation on endangered species.

So while I am fully prepared to meet on Monday and go until even the wee hours of the morning, I understand what it's like to be part of a full process. And I think my colleague here would talk about the cycles and the seasons and completing the circle.

I believe we should be able to finish this on Tuesday. We don't have an awful lot to finish, and as a symbolic gesture, I would be very happy to support the chair's new decision, for the record, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The chair is engaged in a consultation. He has not announced a decision, but it seems to me that there is a propensity, at least, from the majority of the members of the committee to reconvene Tuesday morning, and so we shall.

This meeting is adjourned, and I thank you very much.