ENVI Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, December 11, 2002

1550

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

1555

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

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

1600

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

1605

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1610

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

1615

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

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

1620

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

1625

1630

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

1635

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1640

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

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

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1645

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1650

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

1655

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

1700

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

1705

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1710

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Svend Robinson

1715

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1720

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1725

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Robert Connelly

1730

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1735

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1740

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

1745

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1750

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

1755

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 011

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, December 11, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1550)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): I'm calling this meeting to order.

(On clause 26)

The Chair: When we adjourned yesterday, we did so on the understanding that there would be a revised G-23aa that would contain and reflect the amendments that have been proposed by committee members to their satisfaction. I would, therefore, invite Mr. Connelly to take the committee through the amendment.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, before we can get an explanation, do we not need unanimous consent to get this on the floor?

The Chair: Yes, you are quite right. Would you like to move?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Unfortunately, no, Mr. Chair. I am not in a position, and I don't believe I am the only one, to give consent at this time.

The Chair: And the reasons are?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm quite happy to put all my comments on the record, Mr. Chair, so you'll have to indulge me for a few minutes.

As you are aware, we've all been working in a very cooperative manner to get this bill through the committee, and we've been at this for a number of months now. Yesterday this all seemed to come off the rails. As Madam Kraft Sloan quite correctly pointed out yesterday on the procedural arguments, the government is rewriting amendments that have been passed by this committee, amendments I have proposed, amendments Madam Kraft Sloan has proposed, amendments Mr. Herron has proposed. This entire committee, including members on all sides, voted in favour of these amendments and passed them. What we're witnessing now is a government tweaking them. Madam Kraft Sloan went into that in great detail yesterday, and she wasn't entirely pleased--she may be today after great negotiations. There's also a future amendment with respect to crown corporations where they want to undo an amendment put forward by the Canadian Alliance.

So I don't think everybody has been acting in a completely open and fair manner. Quite frankly, that the government should be rewriting all these amendments at the 24th hour as we're trying to finish up this bill I find completely unacceptable, when they've had months to deal with this. So at this point in time I'm not prepared to give unanimous consent to put these on the table in this manner.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Evidently, what you are expressing is a feeling that your trust has been somehow damaged. Therefore, I wonder whether the explanation as to the content of G-23aa could not lead to a conclusion whereby the notion of tweaking and unsatisfactory management so far might be removed. This can only be done if an explanation is given, paragraph by paragraph, of the lengthy amendment before us. Nothing could achieve that other than an explanation of the content, because the government can only demonstrate its good faith by showing that the content of G-23aa reflects fully and contains the amendments made by members of the committee before G-23 was drafted.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chair, I look for, and maybe I can get, comments from my colleagues from the Conservatives. I see Madam Redman has her hand up. Before they can get into the explanations, you've got to get it on the floor, and that's the issue we were talking about. We can't put the cart before the horse, so we first have to get beyond that hurdle.

The Chair: It would require putting this on the floor to demonstrate that the content of the amendment is up to the standards you expect.

But as you say, I will recognize various members. We have Mr. Herron, Madam Kraft Sloan, and Madam Redman.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): My concern is somewhat similar, perhaps not quite as passionate as Mr. Lunn's. This committee has already passed an amendment on crowns. At the time we had essentially the same line-up we have here now, those who are more apt to be permanent members of the committee. So that's a good thing, as opposed to the tourists, which is the other approach we have once in a while. We passed an amendment. This committee has already made a revolutionary move, and Mr. Lunn's amendment should be commended for that.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Are you referring to G-23 or speaking in general?

Mr. John Herron: His amendment on crowns. In a conversation we had on the side just before the committee started we were told that the only way we could have the registry is if we opened up G-23. That particularly offends me, because if the government wants to table an amendment so that we can have--I'll let you clarify that, because I was just picking up on what I heard--a paper registry, they are more than welcome to table a specific amendment on that, as opposed to the holistic amendment we see in G-23. So I share some of the concerns Mr. Lunn has.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

As committee members are fully aware, I had a very heated dialogue, shall we say, on this committee, made a number of heated interventions with regard to process. I was very concerned about the way certain amendments that had been passed by this committee were integrated into G-23a. I do agree with the members who have spoken that it causes problems of trust between committee members and the government. But having said that, I think, Mr. Chair, we have to understand what is in G-23aa. There has been some discussion about a crowns amendment and G-23a, and I think it's really important for members to separate those two. We are talking about G-23aa. I realize that the two members who have just spoken are very unhappy about the process on committee, and I absolutely concur with them, I have no problem supporting their degree of frustration and unhappiness about what has transpired, but the reality is that we have to take a look at these two amendments in a very separate way.

It's very important, Mr. Chair, to understand what kind of product we are eventually going to have when this bill goes through committee and goes through the House of Commons. I think those are really important considerations to put forward. I agree that it's very important to stand on a point of principle, and there is no stronger ground to stand on than when it comes to principles with regard to process. Process is at the heart of our parliamentary system, and indeed, the way this committee operates. If the process on this committee falls apart, we do not operate well as a committee.

I believe a number of things have happened that cannot simply be attributed to the government's trying to pull a fast one on us. I know some members may find it odd that I'm making that statement, but this is a very technical piece of legislation amending a parent statute that is very technical. We got into a situation where there were a number of amendments passed that affected a large government motion. As a result, the government officials went away to take a look at how best to integrate the amendments that were passed by committee. I disagreed with the way my amendment was integrated. Whether that was miscommunication or misinterpretation or was due to the fact that the government wanted to pull a fast one is for other people to decide, but the outcome I have today is that the content and spirit of my amendment have been properly integrated into G-23aa. In fact, the government added something into that amendment that has made it even better, something that was not asked for. So we have to take a look at the difficult job that was required.

Second, Mr. Chair, we have to understand how you're going to make these amendments work in this section. If, as has been suggested on the other side, the government just brings in an amendment to say the registry is electronic and paper, my amendment hangs in the middle of space, because we will not be accepting the new G-23aa. I would suggest there will be problems in implementing my amendment, which is clearly a very important amendment for so many people, trappers who have had to lose their lifesavings because of this. So let's be really clear about what it is we're doing.

º (1600)

Also, the amendment that was passed on crowns requires the changes that are in G-23aa, so if people are committed to the substantive principles, if that is truly what they want, we also must have some patience. Maybe today is the day we start to learn to trust each other a little more. This is a good thing, Mr. Lunn. When I first came to Parliament, I thought there would never be a time when I sat down with the members of the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance Party. I have come to realize that you are pretty nice guys. Merry Christmas to you all.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Herron: You're fawning now.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, I'm not fawning, I am telling the truth for the record. Some very good legislation has passed because I was able to put some of my prejudices aside and work with the Alliance Party. I'm sure they had an awful lot of work to do when they had to sit down and work with me. In fact, Mr. Chair, I would say there was a lot more patience on their side and a lot more they had to put aside.

Let's be really clear about what we're doing today. We need to separate the issues and we need to understand what we are going to get and what we are going to lose.

The Chair: Madam Redman, and then Mr. Herron.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): I want to hug somebody.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Just for the record, Mr. Chair, that was my colleague Mr. Savoy looking to hug people.

I would just like to make an observation, Mr. Chair. Most of us sit on other committees. I guess I've had a bit of time to reflect over the last almost two and a half years when I've served as PS to this committee, and I think this committee is unique. There are many committees where, if you don't get your amendments in by the deadline, they are not considered by the committee. That has not been the practice or the history of this committee. There are some times the subject matter takes precedence over protocol and procedure, but I think, generally speaking, this committee does try to work cooperatively.

I think Ms. Smith and the drafters did a yeoman's job in trying to capture the spirit of many amendments that went into G-23aa, and I don't know what incarnation it's in right now. I'd also acknowledge that no member of this committee has done more work than Mr. Lunn. He has been a good and faithful attendee at these meetings, he has been open to suggestions. I would look at his amendment CA-22 on crowns, which did pass and is a good amendment, and as I recall, it did pass with a friendly amendment from the government. Mr. Chair, there are committees where what is happening would be very out of the ordinary. I don't think it is in this committee. Certainly, it was our intent, as a government, to capture the spirit of what was intended.

I would just ask this committee to recall the fact that there was ample time to examine what the drafters came up with, ample time to discuss whether or not the movers of those motions felt it captured the intent. Indeed, in Ms. Kraft Sloan's case, she felt it did not. We continue to work on that. In the spirit of cooperation, I would like to see us go forward and bring to fruition a lot of very hard work, Mr. Chair. We gave ample notice, we do have a motion, which we would ask the committee to consider, on the treatment of crowns. I look forward to its being on the floor and having the officials tell us the rationale and frame what those amendments may look like, then we could have a fruitful debate.

I also would suggest that if Mr. Lunn wants more time to think about this, there are other pieces of the bill we could work on. Perhaps consider the amendments to crowns and come back to visit G-23aa, if he wants more time to consider it.

º (1605)

The Chair: Thank you.

Perhaps Mr. Lunn will interject on this particular question.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm quite happy to let you go through and hear all Mr. Herron's interventions before I comment.

Mr. John Herron: My question is for the officials. The amendment is not on the table, we're not discussing entirely the amendment, but our concern is about accountability and improving that aspect of it with respect to crown corporations. That's why we want the crown to play by the rest of the rules as the other folks do. But given that cabinet thinks that's a pretty tough thing to do, and if you've got three years to set up the regulations on that.... The government sat on Kyoto for five years before they really engaged in earnest this spring. So I would like to hear a commitment from Mr. Connelly that he'd be amenable to coming before this committee or tabling something in writing once every six months on how the crowns and their subs are progressing, so that we don't get into a Kyoto situation, don't have this done at the thirty-fourth month, aren't rallying to try to get this done in the last few months. I would like to have a commitment from the agency for a progress report that those regulations are coming into effect, so we don't have a year or two on the process. If that's the case, maybe Gary and I could have a chat, but it might be better to do that at a different time.

Could you advise me on that sort of potential compromise?

The Chair: We are going from G-23aa to the amendment on crown corporations.

Mr. John Herron: However, we've been saying all along we see this as one envelope.

The Chair: If you see it as one package, that's fine, but I see Madam Redman would like to answer.

Mrs. Karen Redman: This is a substantive issue Mr. Herron seems anxious to get into. I would be more than happy to move the amendments that have been tabled, and we could go through and discuss those.

Mr. John Herron: I said we're not amenable to opening amendments. I like the suggestion.

The Chair: There are two separate issues here. The amendment on crown corporations can be moved any time.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes. It's not part of G-23aa.

The Chair: We started with G-23aa, now we've moved to the crown corporations. Some mental discipline here would be helpful, so I would prefer now to go to Mr. Lunn to hear his answer to the earlier question.

Madam Kraft Sloan, on a point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, there may be a way to resolve what's on the table. You may wonder why it's a point of order, but if you indulge in me a few minutes, you will see why. Mr. Herron has just put a proposition forward that perhaps Mr. Connelly can come to the committee every six months to let us know how this is progressing. Is that correct?

Mr. John Herron: I am still looking for an answer here.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, okay.

I made an appeal that we separate G-23aa and crowns, but quite clearly, crowns are an issue here. Maybe we can get an answer that will make a lot of people happy if you give me just a few minutes here.

There are some possibilities on the issue of crowns. I would certainly support having the agency, through Mr. Connelly or others, coming back and reporting to this committee on the progress they're making with regard to crowns and regulations. Further, we have a second report that we will be preparing in addition to this bill, which is the first report, and in that report we can identify any concerns we have and make the request that the agency come before the committee as well. By drawing attention to this issue through the the agency coming to this committee on a regular basis, by putting this information into our report, we raise the profile of this issue. As well, Mr. Chair, we could write a letter to the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development to ensure that the commissioner examine the progress on this particular item.

So there are many ways parliamentarians can play a role on accountability with this issue. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that if there are other options some of the members opposite and, indeed, on our side are willing to entertain, perhaps there can be some agreement on those options, which might then allow for a change of heart for Mr. Lunn. It's just a possibility, Mr. Chair.

º (1610)

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: With respect to both this other amendment and crown corporations, I don't believe you can move that without unanimous consent either, because it's in direct conflict with CA-22, which has already been passed by this committee. I haven't been satisfied yet as to why we should give consent at this point in time, so that's where we stand, and I believe I'm not the only one on this side.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I was in no way trying to be an obstructionist. My suggestion is that we put the amendments on the floor, so we can have a discussion about them, because right now we don't have them on the floor. I'd ask Mr. Connelly if he would be willing to respond to Mr. Herron's concern, but I would also like clarification from the chair.

Mr. John Herron: I made it clear that I didn't want them on the floor, I wanted that aspect discussed beforehand.

Mrs. Karen Redman: May I have the floor, Mr. Herron?

Mr. John Herron: No, you interrupted me.

Mrs. Karen Redman: My understanding is that we don't need unanimous consent and that we could move the amendments, and in this--

The Chair: The amendment on crown corporations can be moved any time, there is no need for consent. The only one that requires consent is G-23aa.

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

The Chair: I will be calling on the crown corporation motion very soon, but there's one more point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, what I am talking about is not the amendment or any substantive issues with regard to the amendment. I am talking about a process for discussion we could hold right now to see what people would be interested in, to give them some comfort about some of the changes that may be or not be occurring with some of the following amendments. Mr. Herron has put a very good idea forward. If the committee wishes, we may have a way to resolve this problem, and if the committee wishes, we can involve ourselves in this discussion before we even get to the question of G-23aa or this other amendment the government has brought forward on crowns. So it has nothing to do with clause-by-clause right now, it has to do with setting up an opportunity to engage in dialogue on some kind of package that we might be able to get to allow us to move into clause-by-clause again. That's what I'm trying to say.

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, as far as I understand the operations of the agency, is not in a position to give a final, definite answer to Mr. Herron's request. He can, at best, undertake to put the request to his agency and to the political authorities in the hope that he will get an affirmative reply, but I don't know whether he can go beyond that.

Madam Redman.

º (1615)

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, perhaps it would be instructive if Mr. Connelly could walk us through the amendments that deal with crowns, and maybe he could address Mr. Herron's concern.

The Chair: We are ready to entertain a motion that we proceed with crown corporations.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would be happy to move the government amendments, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Then let's now examine the crown corporation amendment.

Mr. Gary Lunn: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would submit that their amendment is in direct conflict with CA-22, my amendment, which was discussed here and passed by this committee. With that amendment, all crown corporation projects inside Canada would be under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and if you look at their amendments, clearly, they are trying to undo CA-22. If it's in conflict, it cannot be moved.

The Chair: Well, I'm told that there is no line conflict, Mr. Lunn, and therefore--

Mr. Gary Lunn: It's a substance conflict, not a line conflict.

The Chair: There is no line conflict, and so it can be put forward without the request for unanimous consent. I think it is perfectly in order and we can proceed with the discussion on that amendment.

Mr. Tonks, on a point of order.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you just said something interesting. You've just been advised that CA-22 and the government's amendment, G-23aa, are not in conflict? If that is correct, why do we need unanimous consent? Why can you not just make a ruling, and then we can proceed?

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, if you were following the discussion and heard what I said a few moments ago, we can proceed. There is no line conflict.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Then I would just suggest that we do that, that you receive a motion to table G-23aa.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, we are already there.

Mr. Alan Tonks: You could have fooled me on that one, Mr. Chairman, because I haven't seen us move too much past that point. We seem to be in conflict over a procedural matter that Mr. Lunn has raised, and you haven't ruled on it. You now appear to have ruled--

The Chair: I did already rule on that when I said a few minutes ago there is no line--

Mr. Alan Tonks: Then tap your glass and let's get on with it.

The Chair: So we can proceed. I recognized you on a point of order, and I'm grateful that you took the initiative of reinforcing what I said a moment earlier.

Madam Redman has the floor.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I would ask if we could allow Mr. Connelly to comment on the crown corporations.

Mr. Robert Connelly (Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Perhaps I could address the first point to Mr. Lunn regarding G-23aa. I regret very much that there has been some confusion, and understandable frustration, associated with the reworking of that amendment. We had a very complicated motion by the government when the minister indicated, when he appeared before this committee, that he was prepared to reintegrate the paper registry into the electronic registry. Then we had a number of motions from the members that we did our best to integrate. We thought we had achieved that and had done our best to achieve the wording Mr. Lunn and Madam Kraft Sloan had put forward. We did our best in that regard, and we regret any misunderstandings that have been created as a result.

With respect to the crown corporations, let me say, in response to Mr. Herron's comment, that it always is an honour for officials to appear before this committee, and if it is the wish of Mr. Herron and others that we come back and report on progress on the regulations under the crowns, we're certainly prepared to do that. I will take that back to the agency, but I'm of the view that the agency will support that request.

º (1620)

Mr. John Herron: Because of our schedule, we're a very busy committee quite often. If we were to agree to your doing it in person or in writing, say, every six months or so, would that be a concept you'd be amenable to taking back to other officials?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Whatever is the most appropriate, we're open to that. We don't think it's unreasonable in this case to give you a report on how we're progressing.

The Chair: That has been helpful, Mr. Connelly.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, then, do you wish me to proceed through the explanation of G-1?

The Chair: Yes, that will be helpful. Perhaps you can explain all the amendments related to the subject matter, but focus on G-1 to begin with.

(On clause 1)

Mr. Robert Connelly: The members of the committee will have G-1a in front of them. This deals with the definition of federal authority. The change made by the KS-2 amendment has been retained, the removal of the exemption for a crown corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. In other words, crown corporations would be treated as federal authorities, as per Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment. The proposed government amendment, however, would delay the change until three years after royal assent to give the opportunity to develop regulations for appropriate crown corporations. Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment, KS-2, did not include a reference to crown corporations, and the proposed amendment adds a specific reference to parent crowns, as defined in subsection 83(1) of the Financial Administration Act. What this would mean is that environmental assessment obligations would be extended to parent crown corporations, and there are a total of 41 such parent crown corporations.

There is an exemption put forward for Export Development Canada in the definition of federal authority. The case for EDC is unique because of previous amendments to the Export Development Act, passed as Bill C-31 in December of last year. There is an exemption for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This board was established by Parliament in December 1997. It is a federal-provincial body that invests Canada Pension Plan premiums, and it does operate independently from federal and provincial governments. It's excluded from the definition of federal authority because of its unique federal-provincial nature. Then there is an exemption for wholly owned subsidiaries, and the reason is that their relationship with government is even more arm's-length than that for parent Crown corporations.

The next motion is G-2a, the administration of federal lands. The phrase "administration of federal lands" is necessary because crown corporations do not always administer the federal lands they own or occupy. So that's a technical matter.

(On clause 5)

Mr. Robert Connelly: To turn to G-4.1, the primary function of this section is to retain the ability to create future regulations, if need be, for wholly owned subsidiaries of crown corporations. Proposed subsection 8.2 is to address potential conflicting decision-making responsibilities. This ensures that the federal department is triggered, because of its role as a regulator, and is fully responsible for the assessment, rather than a crown corporation, if it is also a proponent for the same project. An example of that might be Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which is regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We would prefer that the process to be used would be that under the act with the regulatory body, rather than any process that would be used by the crown corporation here.

º (1625)

(On clause 26)

Mr. Robert Connelly: The next is G-23aa, which deals with registry provisions. The registry provisions in the first motion are linked to the Access to Information Act. Some crowns are not subject to the act. The proposed amendments will deem the relevant sections of the act to apply to crown corporations for the purposes of administering the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry. This amendment also provides to directors and officers of a crown corporation the same protection from civil proceedings or prosecution as is provided to ministers and the agency and officials.

The last motion I would refer to dealing with crowns is G-25a. This deals with the future regulation-making authority. With several of the regulation-making powers in the bill, the only modification we're proposing is to change the current reference to section 8 in order to clarify that the powers can also be used for crown corporations, which are federal authorities. The proposed regulatory powers also allow the government to tailor the environmental assessment requirements to address the unique circumstances for the crowns. For example, if we applied the full act to a corporation like the Farm Credit Corporation, which provides a lot of assistance to family-run farms, our concern is that the full act might result in some delays in getting some of their money to small farmers, without, perhaps, a corresponding environmental benefit for many of the small projects. We'd like to at least leave open the ability to vary a regulation for them, so that we can ensure that it does not create any problems for their operations with respect to family farms.

I think that is the last point I would make, Mr. Chair, on what we're attempting to do. The concept here overall, very simply, is that we're proposing to apply the act fully within three years unless regulations are developed in the meantime for parent crown corporations. We anticipate that in the case of a number of crown corporations, the full act will probably apply, because we do not need to vary. However, there are special circumstances. I mentioned Farm Credit Corporation, and other financial crowns are in that same circumstance, where it really does make sense to vary the full application of the act to fit their unique circumstances. That may involve half a dozen or so crowns, I'm not sure yet, as we have not done our research to determine that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

º (1630)

The Chair: We surely don't want to penalize the Farm Credit Corporation, do we?

Thank you, Mr. Connelly.

Mr. Lunn, I'm sure, has a question or two.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm not so sure if I have a question or more of a statement, Mr. Chair, but here goes.

First, with G-1a, it's well known that yesterday this committee, all members on all sides, passed CA-22 and brought all crown corporations operating inside Canada within the act. Crown corporations operating outside Canada would continue to be exempt from the act, but this one made crown corporations accountable like any other corporation. This committee decided that they shouldn't have any different rules, just like anybody else. Of course, that's just the accord. It went all the way up to the PMO. We're told by numerous people that it went to cabinet and they're going to resolve it.

So what has the result been? I'm putting it on the record that they're now going through the back door because they can't deal with the clause where CA-22 was. Obviously, there'd be a line conflict, so they're changing the definition of a federal authority. They're exempting the Export Development Corporation, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, and any crown corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary, Mr. Chairman. So I'll acknowledge that they snookered us on this one. This is not about a democracy, this is not about a committee that's going to operate. Obviously, the department is taking its orders from somewhere--with no disrespect to any of the people here--and they're coming back and they're going to undo what that amendment passed.

So I find it absolutely unbelievable that they're actually looking for our cooperation on other matters, when we have played fair ball on this bill all the way through. They will go to any lengths to get what they want and have absolutely no respect for democracy or what this committee has passed previously.

Thank you.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I wonder if we could ask Mr. Connelly to respond on some of the content, aside from the political message that Mr. Lunn is clearly sending all of us.

The Chair: On the definition of federal authority, which was Mr. Lunn's main point, could you please elaborate?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Lunn is correct in one sense, in that the government motion has an exclusion with respect to Export Development Corporation.

º (1635)

Mr. Gary Lunn: That was brought forth after we passed CA-22. We've never had any notice of that before. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Lunn, I must say, with respect to the Export Development Corporation, I believe I was asked a question by the committee as to what the implications of that amendment were. I indicated at the time that I thought this would mean the act would apply to all crown corporations, with the exception of the Export Development Corporation. I said that not fully understanding how the Export Development Act had been modified. Subsequently, I did mention to this committee that I erred in that, after looking more carefully at the way the Export Development Act had been modified. So that was an error on my part. In fact, the motion that was passed previously had no exclusions.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Would you agree with me simply that what you're doing right now is changing the intent of CA-22 after the fact. The first time we've seen this motion is today. You're giving us this today to rewrite what we did in CA-22. Yes or no? Is that not changing what CA-22 does? And it goes further, obviously. You're giving other crown corporations three years to develop their own regulatory regime. They're going to do it anyhow, but am I correct in that statement?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Lunn, the amendment before the committee does vary. I guess the question you're asking is, what is the difference? Maybe I could deal with that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: But simply, it changes what CA-22... In other words, without--

Mr. Robert Connelly: Oh, sorry. No.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Does it not change CA-22?

Mr. Robert Connelly: CA-22, Mr. Lunn, is not affected. Your motion is not changed.

Mr. Gary Lunn: My motion deals with federal authorities, and you're changing the definition of federal authorities.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Your motion dealt with the issue of crown corporations and the whole issue of variance with projects outside Canada environmental assessment regulations, and that was accepted by the government with a friendly amendment.

Mr. Gary Lunn: The intent, though, was that the crown corporations operating inside Canada would be under the act.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Lunn, that's not what your motion does. Madam Kraft Sloan's motion brought all crowns fully under the act. CA-22 would not accomplish that.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I accept that.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I just want to clarify that Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment to the definition of federal authority would mean all crowns are covered under CEAA, with no variation. They have to apply all the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including all the registry requirements. The difference between that and the government motion is that we have the possibility of varying that requirement. They'll all come under the act, but we have the possibility of varying some of the requirements for those that, I think, need that variance in order to operate.

Mr. Gary Lunn: But they don't come under the act. Any crown corporation under this legislation has the ability to write its own regulations within three years.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Let me clarify that also, Mr. Lunn. These regulations are developed by the Minister of Environment and approved through a special committee council. As I said earlier, if the committee finds it appropriate for us to report on progress with that, we would certainly be pleased to do so.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Is it not true that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act can then develop a specific regulatory regime for any crown corporation operating inside Canada, as long as it's done within three years? Is that true?

Mr. Robert Connelly: The government can do that. The Minister of Environment--

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you. That's what I was trying to get at.

The Chair: Except for EDC.

º (1640)

Mr. Robert Connelly: That's correct.

Mr. Gary Lunn: EDC is exempt completely.

The Chair: But those of us who have been around some time, like Mr. Robinson and I, remember the fight a few years ago in putting the pressure on the EDC. That resulted in the EDC setting up its own environmental assessment regime. It may not be perfect, but at least they complied. So there are certain agencies that already come under an assessment regime, but it is their own.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Their own assessment regime.

The Chair: So this point has been clarified.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): I have no desire to go over ground that's already been covered, but this government motion does not address one of my concerns, namely that the Export Development Corporation could be subject to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act. Is that true? A simply yes or no will do.

We would like to see EDC subject to the CEEA, as would many other organizations, specifically Development and Peace or the Halifax Initiative which have made this recommendation several times. Therefore, even if you have already stated so, could you say again that if the government amendment is adopted, EDC will not be subject to the provisions of the CEEA.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to intervene in this committee's deliberations on this point, because I'm here to substitute for my colleague Joe Comartin, who is at a funeral on the west coast, but because I have some knowledge of the EDC debate, which took place actually in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, I did just want to draw to the attention of the members of this committee that there was a vigorous debate in that committee and that the committee itself, in an earlier unanimous report to Parliament, had recommended that the EDC be subject to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act. The government brought forward amendments--and the chair will recall this--in the foreign affairs committee that effectively negated that particular recommendation. On a very tight vote, it was decided that the EDC would have its own environmental assessment process, which was much weaker, frankly, than the Environmental Assessment Act.

So I would hope that this committee takes the opportunity to restore the full oversight under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act that the foreign affairs committee originally unanimously requested. This is an opportunity to do that, and I would hope that the committee avails itself of the opportunity to ensure that the EDC hasn't got a sort of second-class environmental assessment mechanism, but is fully subjected to the provisions of the act.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson, for making the life of this committee easier.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, and then I will invite Madam Redman to move G-1a.

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

I wanted to thank Mr. Connelly for the clarification on the motions that had been passed by the committee. KS-2a was the motion that removed the exclusion from the federal authorities and thereby brought crowns into the act itself. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, in order to operationalize some of that, G-23aa must be passed as well. That said, as a result of that particular change, one can appreciate what goes on when these new changes occur in legislation. Mr. Robinson, you're sitting on the committee today for the first time, and I welcome your participation. Other members will find it difficult to believe I'm giving such great kudos to the agency today. Anyway, the agency has worked very hard to find a way to deal with KS-2a, and I am appreciative of this, because I think it's very important. Indeed, members on both sides know how important it is to bring crown corporations into the act.

With regard to the Export Development Corporation, I would prefer that they were under the act, but sometimes you have to deal with the things you would like to have, and you also have to deal with certain realities. The reality we have here is that the EDC has its own legislation and its own environmental assessment regime. As well, Mr. Bigras, you would be interested in knowing that the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board is a joint federal-provincial initiative, so it becomes a little difficult to establish regs. The agency, because we are dealing with such a short timeline, weren't able to solve this particular problem right away. The reality is that there is still the possibility within CEAA to bring in groups that may be excluded with this amendment. That possibility always exists.

The second point I would like to make concerns the exclusion of the wholly owned subsidiaries. This is an area I have a great deal of concern about, which I will speak to a little later, but right now what I would like to say is that there are very good reasons for two of those items to receive exclusions under federal authority, which does not mean to say that they cannot be brought under the act for regulation-making.

The other point I would like to make is that as parliamentarians, we have achieved a great deal here. What this means is that the crowns will have to make regulations or come under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and they have three years to do this. In some situations it is better for the organization affected to understand its own situation and develop the regs that are important for that particular organization. I would, however, say that I have a great deal of concern about wholly owned subsidiaries. I understand that we have some kind of resolution, but I'd like to put some statements on the record with regard to those.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you.

We have Mr. Lunn, Mr. Herron, and Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Gary Lunn: The reason we were holding fast on G-23aa--I'm going to give my consent when that comes back, just to ease Mrs. Kraft Sloan--is that we have levers. We just want openness and transparency. In the last 24 hours we hadn't had that, as Madam Kraft Sloan has suggested. We cannot not operate in a vacuum, if people aren't going to be completely up-front and transparent.

The bottom line is that the government struck a chord on crown corporations. As my good friend Mr. Herron pointed out, we've been snookered, because they did it through the back door. They're determined to change it and they did it, and I acknowledge that. There's nothing we can do to stop it, and I'm not going to deny a paper registry for the people who wanted it. That would be the wrong thing to do. But after working months on a bill, trusting each other, and taking them at their word, we get in a situation where all that trust just comes off the rails. It will make a good committee inoperable in the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you for your words, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Gary made it very clear that neither the Canadian Alliance nor the Tories were wanting to sacrifice having a paper registry, which we were clear on all along. We're not happy with the process, how this amendment developed, but I believe I'm amenable to permitting G-23aa to come on the table, in exchange for what has been suggested. This committee wants to keep the process accountable, with a report every six months. It doesn't have to be the most elaborate report of all time, but it should at least be a progress report on how the regulations are being developed for crowns and subs. We consider that to be a win for the process.

Is that what you're saying, Gary?

º (1650)

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'll buy into that.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I too had to be away for two days, and I can't believe you got yourselves in such a mess.

I have served in similar situations provincially, and there are always regulations that make crown corporations exempt from certain aspects. So I understand the point Mr. Connelly made.

If I'm clear on this--and I just walked into it today--as a result of the motion my colleague made, in order to make it applicable for the operation of what's already in legislation, we are now coming back with all these amendments. No?

The Chair: Mr. Connelly.

Mr. Robert Connelly: The changes the government are coming forward with relate more to Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment on crowns than Mr. Lunn's.

Mr. Roy Bailey: On crowns. Okay, thank you. That's what I got.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, a brief intervention, and then we move on.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to put on the record, Mr. Chair, that I am concerned that wholly owned subsidiaries are exempt. There is the possibility that the parent crowns might filter projects through the wholly owned subsidiaries. I have had discussions with the agency about this, and there are some reasons they may not do it, but I would not want to see this loophole, so I'm flagging it for the record, hoping that we include this issue in our second report.

Having said that, I do think we have made some progress on this particular issue. It's one of the issues we're going to be talking to the agency about and holding the parent crowns accountable on. I hope the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development will look at this issue, because we need baseline information and transparency on this.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman, would you like to move amendment G-1a?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, I would like to move it, and I will save us all from reading it, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any questions or further comments? This has already been massaged considerably in the last half hour.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

The Chair: Madam Redman, would you like to move G-2a?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I move G-2a, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: This was explained earlier by Mr. Connelly.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Madam Redman, would you like to move the next amendment, which would be G-4.1?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would move G-4.1, Mr. Chair.

º (1655)

The Chair: Mr. Connelly elaborated on the content of this amendment earlier.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I am told that the last amendment on crown corporations, namely G-25a, requires unanimous consent in order to be put forward. Is there unanimous consent to that effect?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman, would you like to move it.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would move G-25a, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: This also has been explained earlier by Mr. Connelly.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now we come to G-23aa. I understand that Mr. Lunn has agreed to provide unanimous consent that this motion be put forward. Will the committee confirm that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would move G-23aa.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on G-23aa?

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, I wonder if someone could give me a clarification of what has gone on previously.

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I know what you're doing, but what led up to this particular amendment?

The Chair: Mr. Connelly.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Yesterday we had some discussions in your absence, Mr. Bailey, and some misunderstandings, I think, as to how we tried to mix the electronic registry in with the paper registry in some of the motions. We had misunderstood the intent of some of the previous motions that had passed. We integrated the whole package to try to assist the understanding in the debate. Unfortunately, we may have confused it a little yesterday, but as I understand it, members are now satisfied that their concerns have been addressed.

The Chair: Are there any further questions on the part of committee members?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I am informed that the consequential amendments following the adoption of amendment G-23aa would be G-8 and G-32. Is it the understanding also of Madam Smith that amendment G-8 and amendment G-32 would be consequential amendments?

Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Yes, that's my understanding as well.

The Chair: And also amendment G-27?

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. So that takes care of G-8, G-32, and G-27.

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 30)

The Chair: We have a motion in the name of Mr. Herron, PC-22.

» (1700)

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I find it very strange that there is a clause in the bill itself that proposes to exempt from environmental assessment requirements projects that have a total cost below a prescribed amount and meet prescribed environmental conditions. I don't think the cost of the project should be of concern, it should be whether it has an environmental effect or not. I find it quite odd that we actually have that financial threshold injected in the bill in proposed subparagraph 59(2)(c)(iii). So my amendment deletes that item.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If there is not a lower end threshold, it means a great many small projects would never get started, because the cost of doing an environmental assessment is horrific, and you're talking to a guy who has been there. If you want to eliminate that lower end threshold, do it at your own peril, because all it does is create a situation where projects would never take place.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I would like to say to my learned colleague that most of the environmental assessments are paper screenings anyway. What we're measuring is whether it has an environmental effect or not. That should be the threshold, not the price tag. How many have you done?

Mr. Julian Reed: One--that was enough.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chair, I want to support this amendment and to note that my colleague Mr. Comartin has actually proposed an amendment, NDP-47, that would have the same effect. So if this amendment is adopted, it would clearly negate the need to move amendment NDP-47. I'll just wait for Ms. Kraft Sloan on this particular amendment, but I think it's an important one, because it is clear that there may be projects that fall below a particular financial threshold, yet would potentially have a very destructive impact on the environment. So to arbitrarily say that anything below a certain financial ceiling should be exempted from the environmental assessment goes in the face of evidence presented to this committee by many environmental witnesses who expressed their concern. It's an arbitrary line, and one that really does a disservice to the thrust of the legislation, which is to say, if there's a potential for a serious adverse impact on the environment, let's have an assessment. Just because something is fairly small or falls below a particular financial threshold, it doesn't mean it can't be very damaging to the environment.

So I want to strongly support the amendment and to point out, in response to Mr. Reed, that no one is suggesting there be massive environmental assessments of everything. But to exempt any projects below a particular line, as this would allow, really does a disservice to the environment, and I think it undermines the scope of the legislation. So I hope the committee could support this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: The difficulty with that argument is that when an environmental assessment or a screening is done, it doesn't matter to the bureaucrat whether it's a $10 million project or a $20,000 project, you go through exactly the same hoops. Unless you've been there, you don't know, but I can tell you exactly that unless there's some kind of relief for small projects, they will not happen.

» (1705)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey and Mr. Herron.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I just want echo what Mr. Reed has to say. In the past three or four years I have seen massive road projects cancelled totally because the local government didn't want to have to bear the cost of the thing. Somebody has to pay for it. So I appreciate your point. I appreciate Mr. Robinson's point as well, but you cannot possibly put such things as a 24-inch culvert before it. I have seen that done, and it's a terrible mistake to put that on there.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: What I would like to add is that if it's a massive road project, it's going to be subject to an environmental assessment anyway, because it's a massive road project.

The second point I'd like to touch on is that this threshold would be subject to regulation, so the threshold could be $20 million, or it could be $1 million, or it could be 20¢. We don't know. Given that there's not a simultaneous regulation put forward, I would ask Mr. Connelly just just question. The truth is that a project of $20,000 is not going to go through the same hoops as a project of $20 million.

The Chair: Mr. Connelly.

Mr. Robert Connelly: The legislation actually doesn't distinguish. For anything at a screening level, the process is the same, regardless of the cost. It might cost $20,000, or it might cost $10 million.

Mr. John Herron: At the screening level.

Mr. Robert Connelly: But there are some very large projects actually handled at a screening level. So the requirements, as Mr. Reed indicated, are the same for small and large projects. The nature of the assessment will be simpler for a small project than it will be for a large one. Nevertheless, the requirements to post on the registry and so on will be the same for both small and large screenings.

Mr. John Herron: But the nature is simpler?

Mr. Robert Connelly: It is. It is certainly quicker, and I think that's maybe your point. It's certainly quicker to do an assessment of a dock, say, than of a diamond mine. That's possibly also an example of a project that could be done at the screening level. The level and the complexity of the assessment will differ quite a bit, but the legal requirements under the act are the same for both.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson, a final, most urgent message.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The point Mr. Connelly makes is an important one, that there is a screening. But surely, if this amendment were adopted, there would be mechanisms to ensure that smaller projects that didn't pose a significant threat to the environment could be dealt with in an expeditious manner. So I hope that this could be supported.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I invite you to move then to NDP-47, which is identical.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the disposition of the earlier motion that basically had the same principle, I would not proceed with this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Now there's NDP-49. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That amendment has been withdrawn.

» (1710)

The Chair: Thank you. Sorry, I didn't have that annotation.

(Clause 30 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 8)

The Chair: We have NDP-20.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I apologize for not having a fulsome explanation of the purpose of the amendment. I'm moving it on behalf of my colleague Mr. Comartin. I'm not going to read the amendment, as I think it's before you. The effect of the amendment would be to broaden the scope of access to information under the act, to ensure that the public has access to all information, any relevant reports, information, other materials. I believe, in the interests of transparency and openness of this process, this is an important amendment, which I hope would meet with the unanimous consent of the committee. What we're doing is attempting to ensure that the public has the fullest possible access to the information that is the basis of decisions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask Mr. Robinson if he would consider that this content has already been covered by KS-18, which was integrated into G-23aa, which amends proposed section 55.3, which requires a federal environmental assessment coordinator or, in certain circumstances, the agency to ensure that printed copies of documents on the Internet site and in the paper-based projects file are provided on request. Does that not cover off the concern that would be addressed by this amendment, which, as a result, is not needed?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate that the amendment to section 55 does refer to facilitating public access, but I believe the proposed amendment is a little more comprehensive and makes specific reference to a number of reports and other relevant material. I see the two working in parallel with one another, rather than being in conflict.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I understand the intent of this amendment. I am fully supportive of opening access, but I have a small question. I'm wondering if this might undermine the general rule of access to public information by making special rules. It may, because of the wording, work against the intent, so I'm seeking clarification.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I was one who sat on the justice committee that drafted the access to information legislation in the early 1980s, and it's certainly fair to say, if Parliament chooses to specifically make reference to certain information, that doesn't in any way weaken the existing provisions of access legislation.

» (1715)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

The Chair: PC-3 was withdrawn on December 10.

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 1)

The Chair: We will start now with amendment CA-1. Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have a question for Mr. Connelly. What does mitigation mean in relation to this bill? I read what Mr. Lunn has here. Do you have a problem with the definition of mitigation here?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Bailey, I think your motion is to add “adaptive management” to the definition of mitigation. We do have a concern with that, as we feel that it may offer something of a blank cheque to some responsible authorities, to be honest with you. The bill requires a responsible authority to determine in advance whether a project is likely to have significant environmental effects or not. There is the potential, if you were to include this in the definition of mitigation, that this responsible authority would always be able to say, we'll deal with that later. I'm not suggesting that would always be the case by any means, but there is the potential here that instead of determining up front that there's a potential for significant adverse impact, and hence referring the project to a panel review, for example, they could arrive at a conclusion that they'll deal with that later through adaptive management. They'll never arrive at a determination of significance at the beginning of the process. That was our concern with that. We see great value in the term “adaptive management”, and we have incorporated that in other amendments in the follow-up section, and we think that's the appropriate place for it.

The Chair: That amendment is withdrawn, so we will go to NDP-1. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: This is a fairly lengthy amendment. As members of committee will note, there are actually four components to it. I'd be interested in seeking some guidance from perhaps Mr. Connelly on the response of the government to the individual components. I would particularly note that item (c), with respect to aboriginal government, is consistent with an earlier amendment to the legislation, if I'm not mistaken. I think there was an amendment that took into account aboriginal government. This would simply include this definition that is consistent with the earlier amendment.

» (1720)

The Chair: If you intend to move it, Mr. Robinson, I would alert you to the fact that I'm told that suggested paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) on page 2 of the amendment are beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore they would have to be excluded from the amendment.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's fine.

Ms. Heather Smith: The term “aboriginal government” was put in other NDP motions. There were two of them, NDP-28 and NDP-57, and both of those motions were withdrawn, according to my notes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: They were withdrawn.

Ms. Heather Smith: Actually, one couldn't be put, and the other one was withdrawn.

Mr. Svend Robinson: My instructions were that NDP-57 was adopted by the committee and NDP-28 was withdrawn.

The Chair: Yes, I believe amendment NDP-57 was adopted.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If amendment NDP-57 was adopted and it referred to aboriginal peoples, with the consent of the committee, I'm prepared to stand this, so that the wording we're proposing would be consistent with the wording that was adopted in amendment NDP-57. I hope that meets with the agreement of the committee. In other words, it would read “aboriginal peoples”, as opposed to “aboriginal government”, to be consistent with amendment NDP-57.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Robinson is correct, NDP-57 was carried. So with the proviso he just mentioned, are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Svend Robinson: In other words, the language would be consistent with what we adopted in NDP-57.

Ms. Heather Smith: I'd like to point out to the committee that if you replace the term “aboriginal government” with the term “aboriginal peoples”, it would have the effect of really limiting the scope of the term “aboriginal peoples”. “Aboriginal peoples” is a very broad term, and the definition you propose is a very narrow definition of governing bodies of some aboriginal people, but wouldn't encompass the wide range of entities, groups, or individuals even that would be covered in the generic term “aboriginal peoples”.

The Chair: You may note also that in NDP-57 the words “aboriginal government” were removed.

Ms. Heather Smith: I see “aboriginal peoples”--

The Chair: “Aboriginal peoples” was there instead. So we are dealing here with an amendment that is discombobulated by further events. I'm even told it is out of order, that at this point there is nothing in the bill referring to “aboriginal government”, and we don't define terms that aren't used in the bill.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I appreciate that, and that's why I'm suggesting that in order to ensure that there's consistency with what was adopted, the definition be of “aboriginal peoples” rather than “aboriginal government”.

» (1725)

Ms. Heather Smith: My comment back on the substance of the proposal is that the term “aboriginal peoples”, as found in the bill right now, would have a much broader connotation than if you put this definition in the act. If you defined “aboriginal peoples” to just be the council of a band, within the meaning of the Indian Act, or other governing bodies, that would have the effect of narrowing it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I quite appreciate that “peoples” is broader than “government”. My only question is whether there is in fact a need for a definition of “peoples” in light of the fact that this was included subsequent to the original tabling of the bill. That's the issue. I would assume that since the concept of “aboriginal peoples” is a new concept in the bill, we should define it. I'm not suggesting that it be defined in the same terms as “aboriginal government”, because that would narrow it, but I am suggesting that we should define it.

Ms. Heather Smith: We have an understanding of the term“aboriginal peoples” generally, among the general public, so it's not a term I would think it particularly necessary to define in the Environmental Assessment Act. It would have the meaning it has in the dictionary.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, to perhaps make things easier for you, and in answer to your earlier comment, at the table here the conclusion is that this amendment is in order on the first page except for item (b); on the next page all is in order except for proposed paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f); and on the final page all is in order except for the portion marked (c) and (d).

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I assume the definition of “aboriginal government” was removed as well, since it's not referred to in the legislation. I would ask, then, that the committee vote on what's left after those changes to the amendment, and I apologize for the confusion on it.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Robinson, that's fine.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, we've heard the rationale given by the officials, and we do not support the sections of this amendment.

Mr. Svend Robinson: May I have some clarification as to why that is, either from Mr. Connelly or from Mrs. Redman?

Mr. Robert Connelly: We do have a consistent definition for the term environment in other pieces of environmental legislation. We question whether that should change in the case of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Also, one of the issues we discussed at previous meetings was the extent to which it is necessary or desirable to expand the definition of environment to include economic and social aspects. It really would change substantially the nature of the Environmental Assessment Act. It could turn it into something more akin to a cost-benefit analysis. So it would change the whole approach, with less of a focus on environment, we feel, and more of a focus, potentially, on economic and social issues. Those were some of the fundamental concerns we had with this in the first instance.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could I just get clarification? I understand there is legislation, I believe it's Bill C-2 on the Yukon, that does deal with social implications, as well as others. Is that the case? If so, would we not want to be consistent? It's a broader definition, very much in the terms of this proposed amendment.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Yes, I understand that is correct. I think one very important difference with the Canadian Environment Assessment Act is that it is putting into place a land claim agreement established a number of years ago. I think the circumstances are different because of the land claim component of that legislation.

» (1730)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chair, I think the amendment proposed by Mr. Comartin is an important one, in that it does broaden the scope of what might be considered under the CEAA process and recognizes that environment, and particularly environmental effect, is more comprehensive than just the narrow terms in which the legislation was originally drafted. Once again, I would appeal to members of the committee to be brave, to be bold, to be visionary, and to adopt the amendment of my colleague that would expand the definition in terms similar to those that were adopted for the Yukon. I recognize that it was adopted through a treaty process, but if it's good enough for the Yukon, it's good enough for the rest of Canada.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I invite you to move to motion BQa.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I withdraw the motion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

The next amendment is BQ-6. Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

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

If I'm not mistaken, we debated several days ago the importance of making an exception in the case of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. May I also remind you that we would also like to see the Cree exempted from these provisions, in light of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and specifically section 22, which recognizes that the Cree have a special status. Therefore, in view of the mechanisms set out in the agreement, we feel the Cree should benefit from an exemption. That is the purpose of my motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Ms. Redman.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: The proposed amendment removes the lands covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement from the definition of federal lands. We do not support the proposed amendment, as it appears to weaken the principle that the act is a law that's meant to apply right across Canada. Again, I would remind this committee of the intervention by Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Assembly of First Nations when he told the committee:

Certainly, I would agree that there has to be some kind of national governing policy, because at times we as first nations may want to do certain things that may contravene certain legislation. The province also does the same thing. So you have to have some national standards.

Therefore, we would oppose this motion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As I understand it, there is a motion in our deck that has to do with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to look at these together.

» (1735)

The Chair: It was announced this morning that Mr. St-Julien is in hospital and is not in a position to appear.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I understand.

The Chair: However, his motion can be put forward at the report stage, if he wishes to do so.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, but I was wondering if there was a link between what Mr. Bigras is trying to do and Mr. St-Julien's motion, and maybe those two should be worked together.

The Chair: It is for Mr. Bigras to reply.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: As I recall, Mr. St-Julien' s motion covered a range of issues, whereas mine is much simpler. It calls for an exemption to be granted to the Cree nation. Mr. St-Julien's motion is more detailed. Contrary to what the government is claiming, our amendment corresponds to a request from the Grand Council of the Cree. Let me say again that the federal government signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and must apply the terms of the agreement in a coherent manner. I believe the Cree should be granted this exemption.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Are there any further comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras has requested a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I invite you to move to amendment G-2.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I am happy to remind the committee that this has to do with the Red Hill Creek issue. This motion was discussed on June 13, and it follows through on the minister's commitment to close a potential loophole that was created by the Federal Court decision on the Red Hill Creek expressway. It also proposes to create a new interpretative clause in section 2 of the act, which clarifies an understanding that falls within the definition of project. It continues to be a project for the purposes of the act until a federal authority, such as a department or body, that is regulated under this act, such as a Canadian port authority, takes a decision following an environmental assessment. In other words, projects that need a federal decision will not be able to proceed until the requirements of the act have been met.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was just trying to determine whether there's a line conflict. I've been told you can add as many lines as you want after a line, but there is a substantive difference between the two amendments. Both my amendment KS-2a and the government's deal with the Red Hill Creek business. While it is possible to add, the reality is that there are differences with the content and they both deal with the same issue. So I think it would be important to discuss them both at the same time, as we have done in the past on this committee, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Would you like to explain KS-2a? Then we'll take a vote in sequence.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: With the government's amendment, there are some questions in my mind that really aren't answered. I think, essentially, we're both heading in the same direction, but I do believe mine is a lot clearer, because it provides timelines, whereas the government's does not. What mine boils down to is that this new section would be added. The assessment would commence immediately. It would be considered a project until the assessment is concluded and action is permitted. So this provides greater clarity, Mr. Chair, which is somewhat lacking in the government's amendment.

» (1740)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think what the government is trying to do, and what Mrs. Kraft Sloan's amendment tries to do as well, but better, is bring the project under the assessment process sooner, specifically with the words “shall immediately commence the required assessment under this Act or regulations”. I think this provides greater certainty from a corporate perspective as well. So I'm inclined to support the amendment, KS-2a, I mean.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask Mr. Connelly or one of the other officials a question. With the government's amendment, once a person or body takes an action, does this mean the project is no longer considered a project for the purposes of the act?

Ms. Heather Smith: That was quite a concern for us when we were drafting G-2. For that reason, we used the terminology that an activity is a project for at least as long as a federal authority has not made a decision in relation to it, leaving open the issue of whether it's a project beyond the environmental assessment decision that's triggered under the act. The reason it needs to be left open is that there are obligations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that continue after an assessment decision is made, and those obligations relate to implementation of mitigation measures and assuring that a follow-up program is implemented and reported on.

One of the concerns we have with motion KS-2a is that the way it's drafted, it seems much more unequivocal that a project is not a project after an environmental assessment decision is made. The language that's proposed in KS-2a says the activity will be considered a project until the assessment is concluded and either action is permitted or no action will be required for the project. That would mean that if a project is able to go ahead after an environmental assessment, under the wording of KS-2a, there's a strong argument that it is no longer considered a project under the act, and the obligations related to implementation of mitigation measures and ensuring a follow-up program is implemented could be frustrated.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Mr. Robinson, briefly, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I was persuaded by the eloquence of Ms. Kraft Sloan to support her amendment, but I'm concerned about the point just raised by Ms. Smith. I wonder if Karen could respond to that. If it would, in fact, have the impact suggested by Ms. Smith, it could be narrower than amendment G-2.

The Chair: Could we have a brief reply, since this is the last item.

» (1745)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to follow this response through.

There is the other issue in respect of the triggering of the environmental assessment, which mine does address, and that is “shall immediately commence”. We have been told by DFO that it can take up to 15 years to trigger an environmental assessment. In the case of the Caledon rock quarry, they've been trying to trigger an assessment for the past four years.

It may be possible, Mr. Chair, to have elements of both amendments melded together in order to come up with something. I have to digest the comments Ms. Smith has just made, because it's the first I've heard of that possibility. However, I am concerned about getting things started in a timely way, and as we all know, that's one of the problems. Indeed, we know of cases where activities have begun before the assessment has been completed. We know how difficult it is to get an environmental assessment triggered sometimes. We certainly know about the problems in the Red Hill case. The issue I have is that the government said it would try to deal with the Red Hill case, and I'm not entirely sure it's dealt with in this clause. It should have been dealt with in subsection 74(4), I believe. That is where the real nub of the Red Hill Creek problem is. Unfortunately, because it's not opened by this bill, we can't get at that section.

I'm wondering if there's a possibility of working on these two amendments to come up with something that's more agreeable.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?

The Chair: Just a moment.

If we take a vote, keep in mind that if G-2 passes, KS-2a cannot be put. So there is an option here.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'd like to ask a question of Mrs. Kraft Sloan, or perhaps Ms. Smith. In light of the concerns that have been raised by Ms. Smith with respect to the potential narrowing in amendment KS-2a, would it be possible to incorporate the timeliness provision of amendment KS-2a into G-2, in other words, to ensure that G-2 would include the reference to “shall immediately commence”? That would deal with the concern on timeliness, but it would avoid, I think, the point Ms. Smith raised. I wonder whether that might be an acceptable compromise.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson is dealing with another issue here, and it lies in those three words.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes. If we can incorporate those words into G-2, there may be some movement here.

Mr. John Herron: There may be better options too.

The Chair: In other words, would the government accept the friendly amendment to insert the concept of “shall immediately commence”?

Mr. Svend Robinson: You'd have to find the wording.

The Chair: That is the substance of Mr. Robinson's intervention.

Ms. Heather Smith: The underlying issue with the words “shall immediately commence” is that there are instructions elsewhere in the Environmental Assessment Act that tell you when you have to carry out an environmental assessment. The approach taken in a number of places in the Environmental Assessment Act is that you have to undertake an environmental assessment as soon as practicable in the planning stages of a project and before irrevocable decisions are made. You see that concept in a number of places in the act. I believe the terminology “as early as is practicable” is used to recognize that there are a number of reasons, some of them dependent on a proponent, some of them practical limitations, for not immediately commencing an environmental assessment. So some flexibility is built into when an assessment is carried out, but it must be carried out before the federal government provides support.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the last part of my amendment. Perhaps Mr. Robinson and others who are interested may want to take a look at this. It says that it'll “be considered a project under this Act until the assessment is concluded and action is permitted to be taken or the person or body determines that no action will be required for the project”. So this is an either/or proposition. If I understand Ms. Smith correctly, you were worried that there would be no opportunity for mitigation etc.

» (1750)

Ms. Heather Smith: The way this particular amendment is worded, it leaves open an argument that once an environmental assessment decision has been made, the activity that's authorized is no longer a project. Therefore, the obligations for mitigation measures and follow-up don't apply. That would be the concern.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I understand that, but perhaps we can take a look at what the words say--and I may be totally wrong on this one. It says that it's “considered a project under this Act until the assessment is concluded and action is permitted to be taken”--so we're dealing with action being permitted to be taken--“or the person or body determines that no action will be required”, in other words, when you receive permission, it is no longer a project; if there other actions are required to be taken, it's still considered a project until those things are taken care of.

Ms. Heather Smith: Are you talking about adding some words to that motion?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. It says, “or the person or body determines that no action will be required for the project”. In other words, you have a situation where there's a permit that says it can go ahead. It is no longer a project when there are no other actions required for it. So it gets into your idea of mitigation.

Ms. Heather Smith: When I read that motion I interpreted “no action will be required for the project” as the environmental assessment saying the project can't go ahead. And “action is permitted to be taken” I interpreted to mean the environmental assessment says there's no environmental reason this project can't go ahead. Once you're into the scenario that says there's no environmental reason this project can't go ahead, that's where it's crucial for the obligations under the Environmental Assessment Act related to implementation of mitigation measures and a follow-up program to operate.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Well, I guess you're the lawyer, I'm not, but I'm understanding it the other way.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, Mr. Savoy, then we'll take a vote, and then we'll conclude.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Ms. Smith, could you give us an easy yes or no? If it's no, then we should go to the question. I've provided Ms. Smith with some wording she may wish to comment on that could provide a compromise and get us going on this.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could you share it with the committee?

Mr. John Herron: I'll have her read it into the record.

Ms. Heather Smith: The proposed wording was designed to address the issue of whether a project continues to be a project beyond the environmental assessment decision, but it doesn't address this other issue of “shall immediately commence” versus “as soon as practicable”. But I can read the wording in if you wish.

Mr. John Herron: Do you consider that to be a compromise the government could live with or not?

Ms. Heather Smith: The government, I think, would still have an issue with the difference between a requirement to do an environmental assessment “immediately“ and “as soon as practicable”.

Mr. John Herron: Okay, I won't move it.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on G-2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill be reported to the House as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill be reprinted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

» (1755)

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, before you adjourn, I would just like to officially thank all the officials and the people in this room who have worked so hard and so cooperatively.

The Chair: Thank you. Perhaps might I add that this was a tremendous experience and a very worthwhile effort, because everybody made a phenomenal contribution from every side of the House, as well as the officials. I think this is a great day for parliamentarians, for the process, and for the democratic institution that is so dear to the heart of everybody here.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.