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

Thursday, November 21, 2002

1015

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

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

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

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

1020

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1025

Mr. Gary Lunn

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

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Robert Connelly

Ms. Heather Smith

1030

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

1035

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

1040

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

1045

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

1050

The Chair

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

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1055

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

1100

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1105

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1110

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1115

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1120

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

1125

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

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

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

1130

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1135

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Ms. Heather Smith

1140

Mr. Gary Lunn

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Gary Lunn

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

1145

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1150

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

1155

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 005

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À (1015)

[English]

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

We have good attendance this morning. It will allow us to go back perhaps and clean up some amendments that were stood yesterday.

Before we do, Mr. Lunn would like to propose the motion that was announced yesterday.

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

I tried to dispose of this yesterday, in the interest of time, but was unable to. I will again move my motion that prior to a vote in the House, this committee study the Government's implementation plan for the Kyoto Protocol, which should be easily understood by Canadians, set out its benefits, and indicate how the targets are to be reached and at what costs, as called for in the motion adopted by the House on October 24, 2002; that this matter supercede all other matters before this committee; if necessary, that a department official appear before this committee and discuss with it any steps, information and costs associated with the ratification to the Kyoto Accord.

Mr. Chair, we had this discussion yesterday at length. I want to emphasize that this is not about trying to hold up the committee. I couldn't agree more that Bill C-9 is very important. I'm quite happy to have additional meetings. We're going to be discussing this in the House. At committee, it's a much different environment. We have an opportunity to question the officials.

I have to say, I'm really frustrated. I couldn't believe this morning that at five o'clock last night we were notified of a briefing on Kyoto by the government. The timing is an absolute disgrace.

As you know, we had to delay this committee. I was meeting with Minister Anderson's own constituents, as he was unable to.

Aside from all that, even worse, they had a separate briefing for government members behind closed doors with the minister, and of course the opposition members were given a different meeting.

It's completely unacceptable. It's imperative that we have an opportunity, from all sides, to bring witnesses, from the proponents and the people who are concerned, before committee so that we have an opportunity to get all the facts on the table.

I would ask the committee to seriously consider this motion. Again, we can invite the officials. If we need to schedule extra evening meetings, we can do so. I think it's very important.

The Chair: On the procedure, it is quite normal practice for the minister to meet with the members of his or her caucus. It's not a departure from what has been done here, almost over the centuries.

We heard a speech in favour of the amendment. Could we have one speech against, and then perhaps proceed with a vote?

Madam Redman.

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

As has been well pointed out, it's already on record why the government does not support this motion. We will be opposing it. Ratification is a formal act of accepting an international obligation. There will be debate in the House. There will be a vote in both the upper and lower chambers of Parliament.

As for communication, again, those discussions will be ongoing, as they have been for the past five years. For that reason we don't feel it's necessary for the committee to take up its time with this debate at this time.

The Chair: Are there any further interventions?

Briefly, please, Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): First of all, let me say that I share my Alliance colleague's concerns about the implementation plan put forward this morning by the federal government, among others. In terms of clarity, we are no further ahead than we were three weeks ago. As far as transparency is concerned, there is indeed cause for some concern.

However, where I do disagree with my colleague is on the importance of drawing a distinction between ratification and the implementation plan. According to what the government has told us, the vote will be on ratification, not on the implementation plan. In my opinion, this is an important distinction. Therefore, I cannot go along with the idea of our considering the plan before we vote on ratification.

À (1020)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Are there any other interventions? Those in favour, please so indicate.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: I invite you to open our book of prayers at page 67, to NDP-22, a motion in the name of the member for Windsor--St. Clair. This was stood yesterday. It deals with clause 9, on page 10 of the bill. It is a subject we have already massaged several times back and forth.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, I thought this had actually been dealt with in one of the other ones, but I understand now that it hadn't. I'm going to stand this down for now, because I was not prepared to speak on it. I have to indicate that I'm likely to withdraw it, but I want to take one more look at it.

It's the same for the amendment on page 68. I need to take a look at that as well.

The Chair: It's the same with the one on page 68?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, because I thought we were starting with page 69.

The Chair: “Likely to withdraw” : I like that nuance.

(Clause 9 as amended allowed to stand)

The Chair: In that case, we should be ready to proceed with page 69 and an amendment, which would introduce a new clause, that was also stood yesterday. It's an amendment in the name of Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do move this amendment.

Basically, the intent of this amendment is to create better visibility of what the assessment will cover, so that there is again greater transparency. In terms of some of the ill will that we saw during our hearings, in listening to our witnesses, both concerned citizens and the proponents, I think this would go a long way toward helping to diminish that and resolve that.

First of all, the information would have to be made available to the public. They would know the scope of the environmental review, and it would also make it a lot easier for the proponents to answer questions from the responsible agencies.

So, again, it's a diminished atmosphere of distrust between the environmental agencies, the citizens, and the proponents. It's all aimed at transparency, and I think it would be a positive amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Madam Redman.

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

I certainly appreciate Mr. Lunn's intent of transparency. Many of these issues actually are covered in another section about going into the registry, but I'm looking for clarification.

The very end of the amendment says, “pursuant to section 20 or 21.” I'm wondering if Mr. Lunn actually means proposed paragraph 20.1(1)(a). If it's referring to the parent act, section 21 is not covered. If it's proposed section 21 of this bill, then it is more specific if it says “paragraph 21.1(1)(a).” If that is what he means, then with that clarification, we have no problem with this amendment.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm going to have to defer to the officials to find out exactly what I mean.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Karen Redman: Wise decision.

Mr. Gary Lunn: They probably know what “20.1.1.1” means a whole lot more than I do.

The Chair: This is a member who a few minutes ago was complaining about being briefed by officials.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

À (1025)

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chair, I'm not complaining; that's shooting the messenger. I just was frustrated that we were not in on the same briefing. The officials are very knowledgeable, and I've always said that.

At any rate, if you could assist us in this matter, please do so.

Mr. Robert Connelly (Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Lunn. I hope I can assist you, especially after that very nice compliment about officials.

Under the bill, proposed section 21 is a recommendation from a responsible authority to the minister on whether the project should continue at the comprehensive study level or go to a panel review. Technically, it's a recommendation from one minister to another. We have not put that in the list of things that ought to be added to the registry, because it's technically not a decision.

If you are looking at including a record of decision in the registry, then as Mrs. Redman indicated, that would be proposed paragraph 21.1(1)(a), which is the decision arising from that recommendation by the minister as to which track the project would follow. We wonder if, in fact, that's what you want to do. We're certainly very comfortable with that proposal if that is the case, because we want to be very transparent on the decisions that are made by ministers.

Mr. Gary Lunn: The intent is to keep it out in the open and to ensure that the public is informed as soon as possible.

I accept that explanation, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: So the text remains as printed, does it?

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, we could move it as recommended.

The Chair: So how should it read?

Mr. Gary Lunn: We're changing the section number.

The Chair: So the text will read “to section 21.1(1)(a)”.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Our legal adviser here, Ms. Smith, is saying we don't need the (a). I think we all agree on what it's referring to.

The Chair: So 21.1, is that right?

A Voice: It's 21.1(1), I guess.

The Chair: Do we replace both 20 and 21?

Mr. Robert Connelly: No, keep 20.

The Chair: So would you please read to us carefully how the last line would read.

Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): It would read, “determinations pursuant to section 20 or 21.1(1).”

The Chair: Fine, we got it. Thank you very much.

Are there any further comments or interventions? If not, are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 10)

The Chair: We now come to page 70, a motion in the name of Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, the purpose here is to replace the words “in prescribed circumstances” with “by regulation”. That's essentially what I'm attempting to do. I don't know what “prescribed circumstances” would mean. Unless I've missed something, it's not indicated elsewhere in these amendments. Certainly, the more customary language would be “by regulation”.

Perhaps Ms. Smith or Mr. Connelly would like to comment on what prescribed circumstances would mean.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Heather, you go ahead. I think it's a technical drafting issue, so I'll defer to your legal advice here.

Ms. Heather Smith: Mr. Chair, the member has caught us out in a drafting error. In the original act, the text that he wants to put in by this amendment is in the original act, required “by regulation”. When we were drafting the bill we discovered that there's no regulation-making power in the act currently that relates to subsection 18(3).

We had two choices: one choice was to create a new regulation-making power in section 59, and we decided to take the lazy route and use a regulation-making power that's already in section 59, which is a power that's in paragraph 59(m) of the act, to prescribe anything that is to be prescribed. So by using the word “prescribed” in subsection 18(3), we linked up to a regulation-making power that allows us to give effect to the text in 18(3).

We don`t have a big opposition to replacing the text in “prescribed circumstances” with “where required by regulation”, but what that means is we'll have to create a new regulation-making power in section 59, because we don't have one right now.

À (1030)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Here we go again.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Joe Comartin: Only lawyers would have this discussion, Mr. Chair.

I'm not following that. If the regulation in section 59 is there that allows you to do it, you just--

Ms. Heather Smith: You don't have one. In section 59 there's a multitude of powers--it goes from paragraphs (a) to (n)--but there's no power that relates back to the power to make regulations for the purposes of public participation in section 18. It is simply because of the way that the regulation-making powers are drafted.

However, there are a couple of basket powers in section 59. One of them is to prescribe anything that is to be prescribed, and here and there in the act--you don't find it in very many places--we use the word “prescribed”. For example, in the bill we talk about “prescribed authorities”. Well, if we didn't have any other regulation-making power that related to those authorities, we'd use the power to prescribe anything that is to be prescribed.

That's what we were doing when we put that in there. There's no great opposition in principle to creating a new regulation-making power, but it means we'd have to go back to the drafters to do that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I would prefer that route, Mr. Chair, because that's the normal route. I think we're taking a circuitous approach by doing it this way, and I'm feeling uncomfortable with where we'd end up.

Ms. Smith, are there any requirements for the government to pass regulations to deal with the prescribed circumstances?

Ms. Heather Smith: It's just a matter of how persuasive I am with the regulatory drafters, whether they believe the scope of that power covers this. I don't think we'd have any problem, because we consulted with them when we did this, and they said that's fine, you can use this power for that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So if we were going to add another paragraph....

Ms. Heather Smith: We'd just write a new regulation-making power.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Into section 59?

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, I don't know if that is going to put us in a problem with an argument over whether it's within the scope of this--

Ms. Heather Smith: No, there's no problem with the scope.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay.

Then I would prefer to go with my amendment and ask that Ms. Smith draft another amendment for section 59.

The Chair: In the meantime, shall we proceed with this amendment?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes; I would think so, yes.

The Chair: Any further comment? No?

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): It seems to me from what Mr. Comartin is saying, and certainly for one who may be reading this down the road ten years from now, it would be a good move on the part of the member, because it's not a difficult thing to do and it certainly clarifies it. I support it, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: And it shouldn't be interpreted as a lack of confidence in Ms. Smith's ability to convince the drafter of regulations.

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, I wouldn't say that.

The Chair: Good, good.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to be on record as not attacking Ms. Smith and her ability to deal with them--for the record .

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: On page 71, we have a motion in the name of Mr. Comartin.

À (1035)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, what I'm attempting to do here with this amendment is to require the authority to provide adequate notice.

As it stands now, the subsection just talks about “opportunity to examine”, and I'm looking to impose a standard where they would be required to give the public adequate notice.

You will recall that we heard from a group--I think it was the group that came out of Banff, but I'm not sure--who got a notice that was very short and a document that was 200 pages long, with obviously no ability or reasonable opportunity to be able to respond because of the amount of work that would have been required to provide a meaningful intervention. It's really to address that problem.

In addition, I'm seeking here to require them to also provide “any record relating”. You'll see that the wording now is “on the screening report”. This would be additional documentation in terms of background work that had been done in advance of the screening report.

So that's the addition I'm seeking: it's adequate notice and further documentation that in effect preceded the screening report.

The Chair: Do you have comments, Madam Redman and Mr. Bailey?

Mrs. Karen Redman: We have no problem with the proposed amendment, Mr. Chair, as it is the government's purpose to ensure public participation, and I think you see that throughout some of the pieces of this bill. We support the proposed clarification that the public must be provided notice when the responsible authority believes public participation is appropriate.

I don't know if the officials want to comment on it.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I support this, but you will recall on a number of other bills that we got into a long discussion as to what constituted “adequate” notice. With all due respect--I believe this was in Bill C-5, but I'm not sure--I'm a little uncomfortable with it, because that word in there itself leaves “adequate” up to discretion. To some people adequate would mean a pile of papers, but to others a short little postcard would be adequate. So maybe we should not have that word there.

We all want public participation, and it should and must occur, but we could get into an argument down the road with “adequate”, and then we start discussing the terminology and not the broad issue.

I just throw that in; I wouldn't be hung up on it, but I have run into difficulties with that word “adequate” when somebody else gives their own personal definition of it.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I share Mr. Bailey's concern. I struggled with this a bit when we were drafting. The difficulty is that if it's a very short period of time that's required, you wouldn't want to put in a specific time of, say, three months or six months. If, on the other hand, it was that 200-page document with a lot of technical detail in it, you may very well want three months' notice to be able to get experts in to assess the report.

I thought of using “sufficient”--

The Chair: What about “timely” or “appropriate”?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Using “adequate” does leave it open. On the other hand, if ultimately it's challenged at some court level, the court would judge it on the basis of what was required, looking at the facts of each individual case. That's why I ended up with “adequate”.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, I could live with “adequate” if the rest agree. I won't hold this up.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we have NDP-26.

À (1040)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, this is an addition to the bill, I believe in keeping, though, specifically with the request from the first nations association when they made their representation. In effect, it requires the authority to provide, in circumstances where either aboriginal or treaty rights may be affected, adequate notice and the opportunity to respect. It's providing a very specific clause for the situation where aboriginal treaty rights may be an issue or affected.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do not support this amendment. While aboriginal and treaty rights are very important, this could indeed have the effect of taking this environmental assessment process and making it a mechanism to define aboriginal rights and treaty rights. This goes well beyond the scope and intent of the act, which is to deal with environmental considerations. While this is a very dynamic area for public policy, it is influenced by court decisions and self-government and land claims negotiations, and that is why the minister in his report to Parliament has committed himself to the establishment of an aboriginal advisory committee. This and other issues may very well indeed be the topic of conversation in that committee, probably its first priority, but we feel that it's inappropriate to put it in the bill at this time.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I can't support this, but I do understand Mr. Comartin's intent. I think the previous amendment we just put in under public participation would also include the aboriginals, ensuring they got adequate notice. I'm not sure if we need to have a special section that they should receive notice. I think they would be covered off under public participation, so I don't believe we should have a special section.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

In my previous incarnation as a provincial member, I recall that an issue like this was dealt with as a matter of government policy, rather than being legislated. It's on that basis that I could not support this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To respond to Mr. Lunn, I'm going back to the Banff case, because in that situation one of the first nations that did have a land claim further down the Bow did not get notice. It only got involved, and extensively involved, including through litigation, in challenging that assessment through some of the NGOs who were fighting it. So it doesn't necessarily mean that under the existing legislation or this amendment they would get notice.

That's all I have to add, Mr. Chair. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Page 73.

Mr. Lunn, would you like to move?

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

In short, what we're doing is just adding in the word “reasonable”, for “may establish reasonable time limits”. We just think it helps protect the proponents from any unreasonable attempts at delay, while still allowing intervention, which is critical. There are some people out there, as we've seen in the past, who will have the line drawn in the sand and they will go to any lengths to delay a project. We just think it should be a reasonable time limit for the public to indicate their interests in supporting the screening. It's pretty straightforward.

À (1045)

The Chair: Well, it's a very subjective term, but let's hear what people have to say.

Madam Redman.

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

We do not support this amendment. While we agree with the intent to provide the authority to set timelines for an assessment, Bill C-9 actually provides this authority to the federal environmental assessment coordinator in proposed section 12.3, and this is set up by the agency. This amendment has the potential of setting up conflicting responsible authorities and would create problems during a cooperative assessment with other jurisdictions, and in situations where there was more than one responsible authority it could indeed lead to conflict. The amendment before us could dilute the effectiveness of the proposed federal environmental assessment coordinator, which is one of the improvements this bill brings to the assessment. This improvement is supported by environmental groups, industry, and provinces, and for that reason, we see it as an amendment we would not support.

The Chair: I'm very tempted to make a comment, but I will make it after the vote.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: When I arrange with my wife to meet somewhere, to go shopping, let's say, a reasonable time limit for being late for me is five minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I agree.

The Chair: A reasonable time limit for Mrs. Caccia is definitely not five minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I have the same problem.

The Chair: So in depending on so many factors, “reasonable” can be interpreted in so many different ways.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 11)

The Chair: Now we go to page 74, I believe.

Two weeks ago or so Mr. Herron was invited by the table to find some agreement between his motion and the G-11 motion on the following page, if I remember correctly, the reason being that PC-13 conflicts with G-11 and with BQ-10. If PC-13 carries, G-11 becomes redundant.

So I wonder whether Mr. Herron has some form of agreement with G-11.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just as a quick point, in my research on this, at least, if you do adopt PC-13, it will not deal with the French version.... It will? Okay.

The Chair: [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...deal with the substance of the motion, and probably then we'll deal with the amendment by Mr. Herron, because it was received first.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Before I proceed with the amendment itself, I've had discussions with some of my other colleagues that this is a very important aspect of the act itself. I know a number of members were on the committee when we heard from witnesses on this particular issue, and some members, particularly on the government side, who aren't here may be more interested in this particular issue. So I think it would be somewhat prudent to stand this section down for another time. I think there are members on both sides of the table who concur with that.

À (1050)

The Chair: I don't know who is missing from this meeting today that would warrant that request, Mr. Herron. We're on PC-13.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Perhaps, Mr. Herron, you're confusing this with another issue.

Mr. John Herron: I am.

The Chair: Evidently he is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But that's okay because you have a lot on your mind today.

The Chair: He does.

Mr. Robert Connelly: We're getting used to the confusion.

Mr. Gary Lunn: John, maybe the officials can help you clarify it.

Mr. John Herron: You're right. My comment referred to PC-14, not PC-13. I'm sorry.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I understand Mr. Herron is one of the few Tories who is going to be supporting the government on Kyoto, so he has a lot of weight to carry. Isn't that correct, John?

That allows me to make some comments about this bill, Mr. Chair, because you would have to agree that CEAA itself is a very technical and complicated bill--right, Mr. Lunn? I think everyone around the table would have to agree with that. Then you have a bill that amends another statute, which is a very complicated piece of work. As we've noted many times on this committee, it has unduly constrained the work of committee members, in trying to fix up a statute that's so badly flawed, as we've heard from our witnesses.

Would you agree, Mr. Lunn? Perhaps you'd like to--

Mr. Gary Lunn: I will offer no comment. I'm not about to agree with anything.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, you don't have the floor. You have not even asked for the floor. While I recognize your Herculean efforts to buy time for Mr. Herron, it wouldn't harm if Mr. Herron were to come back to us soon so that we can continue.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Could we have a comment from our guests here? I'm not quite sure what's going on. If we were t o look at PC-13, does that interfere, and to what extent, with G-11...from the minister, which is the...?

The Chair: It wipes it out.

Mr. Roy Bailey: One would wipe out the other.

The Chair: Exactly.

Since we received this first, we have to deal with the substance of Mr. Herron's amendment. Hopefully, it will be moved soon. Then we will hear the officials or comments from the members of the committee. Then we will vote. Depending on the vote, we will then know our next step. We are still in suspended animation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to save time. I'm simply asking a question. Are you saying that if this motion is adopted, BQ-10 falls by the wayside? Is that in fact what you're saying?

[English]

The Chair: Oui, correct.

Yes, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, on this particular amendment, PC-13, we had a fair amount of discussion back in the spring between myself and Mr. Connelly. I have the Hansard for the particular committee meeting we had.

Essentially, the essence of my concern stems from the fact that the intent of this amendment is to ensure there are no replacement class screenings, only model class screenings. A replacement class screening will not, in many folks' views, including my own, take into consideration the local circumstances of the cumulative effects a project might have. Those are the remarks I made at that time.

I essentially had asked Mr. Connelly if he could explain how this would make any difference on the ground from the tool kit they have right now under model class, such as time saved or how much more efficient it would be. We weren't able to have a full debate on it.

I'd ask Mr. Connelly the same question now since we're headed to the point where we're actually addressing the motion itself.

À (1055)

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, for the benefit of all of us, would you indicate what would be the net effect of this amendment?

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

Mr. Herron is correct in the sense of describing a model class screening. It is a tool we have under the act at the present time. With a model class screening, you have what I might call a “code of good practice” that requires the responsible authority to follow it. At the end of that, they then must look at the local conditions and take a final decision on a course of action, having completed the assessment.

The idea we have proposed in Bill C-9 with respect to replacement class screenings is to deal with projects that have even fewer environmental effects. It's a tool we believe would assist us in dealing with the smaller inconsequential projects and in ensuring they get some attention.

The idea of the replacement class screening is that, again, we'd have a code of good practice to follow. At the end of having followed the code of good practice, the responsible authority would be deemed to have met the requirements under the act. There would not be a decision taken or an examination of the local circumstances.

That said, I want to point out they are reserved for very small projects that we think warrant some level of assessment rather than being excluded outright under the act.

Mr. John Herron: I have one quick question for some more information, if I could, sir.

I appreciate the fact that you mentioned this would not take into account local circumstances. The intent of adding this to your tool kit is for smaller types of projects.

Where the trepidation lies, I think, is that it's not spelled out. It's subject to an interpretation where we've done this before and could use a model class on this particular issue. You're not only using it for a project with a large magnitude.

How do we know the potential for abuse does not exist in the act right now? Reassure me somehow.

Mr. Robert Connelly: We have a requirement to consult. We would establish a replacement class screening for a category of project types. An example of that might be, as I think I mentioned yesterday, the concept of small hydrometric stations that Environment Canada installs to measure things like stream flow. Now, they install these stations at many places across the country. We feel that with a code of good practice, one could follow that practice and be less concerned about the site-specific aspects and do it through a model class screening.

In terms of reassurance, it is the agency that determines if a model class screening is appropriate. So that determination is ours. We've also made the commitment that we would consult with our public prior to making such determination in all cases.

Mr. John Herron: What about the debate we had yesterday about other departments that have the capacity to make determinations about the type of environmental assessment?

Á (1100)

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Herron, that's a different issue. In this case, the determination lies with the agency. It's up to us.

Mr. John Herron: As coordinator?

Mr. Robert Connelly: No, it's not related to the coordinator responsibilities. It's a separate authority we have under the act.

If we feel that a class of activity such as, say, the small hydrometric stations I mentioned would be appropriate for a model class screening designation, then that would be our determination to make. Prior to determining that, we would obviously consult with and receive input from our public before making such a determination.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chair: Is there a comment from the government side, please?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, for the reasons outlined by Mr. Connelly, we do not support this motion.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Let's move to amendment G-11 on page 75.

Madam Redman.

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

I would move this amendment. It would ensure French-English concurrence in the bill.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We come to Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Please present your amendment which can be found on page 76.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is not only to ensure that the public has a chance to express its views during the pre-review phase, but also that any comments made go on record, for the sake of transparency. When members of the public raise certain questions and express certain opinion at this stage, we would like to see these comments go on public record, not just taken into consideration. I think we need to take matters further and, for transparency's sake, this motion should be endorsed so that the public's comments do not fall on deaf ears and are actually recorded and taken into account.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, we're not opposed to this amendment. We will support it.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 12)

The Chair: We come to page 76.1, a motion in the name of the member for York North.

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

This is a very important amendment in that it reinforces a very important principle that has been outlined in the preamble to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Because we're dealing with Bill C-9, which amends the parent act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, members may not be as familiar with the parent statute. I encourage members to pull out their parent statute. I'm assuming everyone has a copy of the CEAA.

I would encourage members to take a look at the preamble section of the parent statute. In the very first paragraph in the preamble it says:

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

Mr. Chair, this is a very important principle. In fact, this principle has been given priority within the preamble, because it's the first paragraph; it's the first one the preamble addresses.

If you take a look at the third paragraph in the preamble....

Do you have a copy of it?

Á (1105)

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'm afraid I'm not following you.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's in the preamble of the parent statute.

There may be others who don't have their parent statute in front of them, Mr. Chair. Perhaps we should find out if they need a copy.

So you've had a chance to see the first paragraph, Monsieur Bigras.

The third paragraph of the preamble also speaks to the Government Canada being “committed to exercising leadership within Canada and internationally in anticipating and preventing the degradation of environmental quality”. I think these are very noble principles that have been laid out within the preamble. Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, there are times when we have legislation before us where these very noble statements are laid out in the preamble but are not necessarily operationalized within the act itself.

This committee can certainly point to a number of examples--the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, one can make a very strong argument, and certainly the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act. One can make some arguments on that as well.

That said, I think this committee has heard a number of witnesses who have suggested that this act needs to better reflect some of these noble goals and principles that have been laid out in the preamble.

What this amendment attempts to do in a way is try to operationalize these very noble principles. So, for example, when we look at the preamble and at “enhancing environmental quality” and “encouraging and promoting economic development that conserves and enhances environmental quality”, you can see in my amendment, in proposed paragraph 20(1)(a), almost in the middle of the amendment--not quite in the middle of the amendment--it says that “the responsible authority has reasonable grounds to anticipate that the project will make a positive overall contribution to the environment in the longer term and will not cause significant adverse environmental effects”.

In other words, Mr. Chair, what this amendment is attempting to do is to take these very laudable principles and begin to operationalize them within the act itself. This refers to decisions that follow screenings.

I would suggest to committee members with this particular amendment that if you want to bring the parent statute into line with the preamble in the parent statute, it is necessary to use a central test of positive overall contribution to the environment which matches what is articulated in the preamble, which is “enhancing environmental quality”.

As well, Mr. Chair, there is an additional change in proposed paragraph 20(1)(b), which says where “the responsible authority has reasonable grounds to anticipate that the project will cause significant adverse environmental effects or will not make a positive overall contribution”, certain steps are going to have to be taken in that particular case.

Indeed, Mr. Chair, here is another example, in this particular amendment and in this particular part of it, that aids in the operationalization of this very important principle in the preamble.

Finally, Mr. Chair, there is an additional change on page 76.2, which is actually proposed subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) in my amendment, that again speaks to this very important principle, this noble goal laid out in the preamble, which says where “the responsible authority is uncertain”, and then we add “will”--not may--“cause significant adverse environmental effects or will make a positive contribution to the environment in the longer term”.

I urge all committee members to support this amendment.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you.

Perhaps I may refresh our collective memory with respect to the opening statement made by Madam Kraft Sloan, and bring to your attention something that made quite an impression on us by way of one of the most powerful briefs submitted to this committee when we started studying this bill, namely the brief by Dr. Boyd from the University of Victoria.

In his concluding remarks, he wrote:

There is a tremendous gulf between the theory of environmental assessment and the reality of on-the-ground EA practices in Canada. A report prepared for the federal government concluded that the “main systemic weakness of EA in Canada is at the implementation stage.”

I would like to proceed now with Madam Redman.

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

We do not support the proposed amendment. Actually this amendment is not unlike other amendments, and I would point to NDP-1, which looks to broaden the definition of environment to include such things as social, economic, and cultural matters. It's intended to broaden the current environmental focus of this act and to take into account the broader issues, which, although related to sustainability, are an expansion of the intent of this bill.

The proposal originates with a submission to the standing committee of Professor Bob Gibson of the University of Waterloo. As you will recall, Professor Gibson noted that the environmental impact statement guidelines issued for the review of Voisey's Bay mine required the proponents to demonstrate their project would contribute to sustainability, locally and regionally.

The danger of expanding the definition of environment is that traditional environmental factors could well be simply outweighed or overruled by considerations for social and economic matters within the actual environmental process itself.

There would be no requirements to mitigate the overall environmental effects if they were not deemed to be significant even though there may be major impacts on species or the natural landscape. As the minister noted, we have had enough complexity on the environmental side. If we brought these factors--social, economic, and cultural--we would probably lose the clarity of the environmental concern.

On the other hand, if the amendment applies to the current definition of environment, making a positive contribution to the environment sets an extremely high threshold. Only a few projects come to mind, outside of habitat restoration, where in actuality you could demonstrate a positive impact and therefore proceed. Environmentally neutral projects could, indeed, be turned down if we accepted this very high threshold.

There are routine projects such as replacing old bridges for safety reasons, and larger projects such as mining developments, that would not be able to proceed if we were to include this amendment in this bill. You could even consider that an interpretive centre in a national park, or the construction of a campground, may not reach this very high threshold and would therefore not proceed.

The Chair: We have Mr. Herron, Mr. Bailey, and Madam Kraft Sloan to conclude, perhaps.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: As you can see, the amendment itself is actually quite lengthy in nature. We've heard two different arguments, but from my scanning through the amendment, although Ms. Redman's emphasis had been on the socio-economic aspect of it, I'm not sure where we see that actually in the amendment itself, as an argument.

I'd like to ask the officials not exactly if they would concur with Ms. Redman's argument, but whether they could explain the emphasis on the argument being based on socio-economic aspects. I don't think they're even remotely related to what the amendment says.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, please.

Mr. Robert Connelly: To respond to your question, Mr. Herron, if one is going to look at the broad issue of sustainable development, which is the point that Professor Gibson was making and Mrs. Redman made, then one would perhaps look at the definition of environment to include economic and social factors as well as environmental. I think the fear expressed there was that in such a situation, environmental factors might lose out in that kind of a broad determination by analysts who might give greater weight to social and economic factors rather than environmental ones. I believe this was the issue that was raised.

Mr. John Herron: That's not related to the amendment, though.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Well, it was in the context of Professor Gibson's presentation. He was suggesting that, if you're going to look at a broad definition of sustainable development, including economic, social, and environmental factors in such a definition, then you might want to consider, as a subsequent proposal, Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment, because then you'd want to make sure that you'd offset the potential of relying more on economic and social factors by a reference to having a positive effect on the environment. I think that is the linkage.

Mr. John Herron: Could you point to the line where that linkage occurs?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Well, there's not a direct linkage, Mr. Herron. The reference was made to Professor Gibson's presentation, where he was dealing with one aspect, and, I believe, suggesting this—

Mr. John Herron: But this is Karen's amendment, not Professor Gibson's amendment.

Mr. Robert Connelly: That is correct, but I think it's part of what he was proposing as a total package.

Mr. John Herron: But we're here debating the amendment, and we need to emphasize the amendment itself, not the overall précis of Mr. Gibson's presentation. The amendment itself doesn't go down that track in any language in the document.

You said there is no linkage between Karen's amendment and that particular argument. If I heard you correctly, you said precisely, there is no direct linkage. So I don't quite get it.

The Chair: Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: On a point of order, just for clarification, I bring up that context in that argument precisely for the same reason that Ms. Kraft Sloan talked about the preamble to the actual act. The tie-in is the fact that the basis of the argument to include this amendment—

Mr. John Herron: That's not a point of order.

Mrs. Karen Redman: —is to operationalize the preamble to the actual act. That is the context in which I bring up Professor Gibson, and the fact of what sustainable development actually is. That was why I brought that in.

Mr. John Herron: Is that a point of order?

The Chair: It is not.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, when I read the preamble, at first glance I don't have a problem with the fact that the federal government is targeting sustainable development. However, I've always looked upon sustainable development as striking a balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. That, to my mind, is the balance we must strive to attain. Ms. Kraft Sloan needs to convince me because I'm not convinced the amendment as it is now worded will result in the concept of sustainable development being properly applied. If my colleague can manage to convince me, I will throw my support behind the motion, otherwise, I'm not convinced this amendment will result in a better application of the sustainable development concept.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

On the two points of clarification, first in terms of Madam Redman, my amendment, as Mr. Herron has pointed out, does not deal with changing the definition of environment. So my amendment is a stand-alone amendment. It is not consequential. It may have received its inspiration from some of the work that Professor Gibson brought before the committee, as indeed a lot of our amendments receive inspiration from various witnesses who come before committee. But because we choose to put forward a particular amendment does not mean that we agree with everything that a particular witness had to say.

Á (1120)

Mr. John Herron: And we vote on the amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And we vote, absolutely--thank you, Mr. Herron--on the amendment before us.

Mr. Bigras, I want to thank you for your intervention, and I would like to clarify the point that you made. I agree that there are other things that are addressed in the preamble, and what this amendment attempts to do is not operationalize the entire preamble. That would be very difficult, cumbersome, and probably almost impossible to do with one particular amendment.

I was drawing your attention to the preamble because I had pointed out two sections in the preamble, one that had to do with enhancing environmental quality through the achievement of sustainable development.

It's true that there are three components of sustainable development. There's an equity component, an economic component, and an ecological component, and those things are integrated. That's how we move towards sustainable development. But what this act seeks to do is to achieve sustainable development by conserving and enhancing environmental quality.

This particular amendment is about one of the legs of the stool of sustainable development, which is the ecological stool. What I am trying to do in this amendment is to take one piece, one idea from the preamble, and try to operationalize it here by saying, if you're going to make decisions about screenings, then they need to make to a positive overall contribution to the environment.

There are other aspects that we can deal with, certainly on the social and economic aspects, throughout this process.

The other point I would like to make on the mitigation is that it's not an “and”. If I can ask committee members to take a look at my proposed paragraph 20(1)(b), it says “the responsible authority has reasonable grounds to anticipate that the project will cause significant adverse environmental effects or will not make a positive overall contribution to the environment”. This is not an “and”, this is an “or”. So you have a choice here.

The other thing I'd like to point out, which may be of some interest to Mr. Herron, is that I understand it was the Tory government that stated this in the preamble. So if I am led to believe a Tory government is far more fiscally conservative than a Liberal government, but the Tory government saw fit to suggest in the preamble that we can work to enhance environmental quality, then perhaps there's a lesson that we can learn.

You might want to comment on that, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think you did a very good job on your own.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I want to believe you, Ms. Kraft Sloan, but when Ms. Redman claims--and officials can confirm this--that a number of projects, indeed a large number of projects, could be rejected or not come to fruition, is this not proof then that some aspects of sustainable development, be they economic or social, would not be taken into consideration?

I for one would like to see some kind of balance struck between the three components in the definition of sustainable development. I don't know if officials can confirm if certain projects could be cancelled, but as I see it, the desired balance is lacking.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I believe you quoted from Dr. Boyd, and I think we should just pause for a minute as a committee and recognize one basic fact. That is, there is much about this bill and all the bills dealing with the environment, sustainable development, and so on, about which we could keep in mind the old phrase, “the best-laid plans of mice and men”. How many projects have I seen in my time, and I'm sure Julian Reed has seen, where everything is going to be this way? But we don't really know, because sometimes the theory looks perfect and we come to an unknown flaw.

So I am worried about having what Ms. Kraft Sloan has in this, because it puts too much onus on something that is unforeseen. Something may come into the assessment, and it certainly has if you've ever done some of what you call the primary occupation of farming. It happens almost all the time. And I wouldn't want to blame the most talented environmentalist, and so on, for some flaw or something that has happened or some change that took place, even within the atmosphere, and then to have that preamble prejudging everything and falling back this way and that.

I think we should leave this alone. I see nothing wrong with the.... I know what the member is attempting to do, but at the same time, something will happen and will make it look terrible, and then you come back to this preamble instead of the one that's currently there. At least what you're saying in the preamble that's currently there is the possibility of error, because you're dealing with a lot of unknowns; it could happen.

Á (1125)

The Chair: To conclude, Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

I certainly appreciate what Mr. Bigras and Mr. Bailey have just said. My concern, however, is with the use of the word “balance”.

I should perhaps take the chair's seat right now, because our chair, I know, would love to enter into this discussion. He has long provided the committee with very illuminating....

I'm searching for the proper word; “lecture” is not quite right.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Sage-like.

An hon. member: Erudite.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, he's provided sage-like, erudite presentations on the issue of sustainable development and what it means.

The concern is, when you have a balance, and when you are seeking to find a balance, the environment often loses out. The way to really approach this is to think of an integration. Over the past decades, I think, it has been a good thing that we've been working towards the idea of sustainable development. However, I think one of the failures of the concept of sustainable development is we have always sought to go towards a balance. When we go towards a balance, we know the forces on the economic side may not be as enlightened as they should be, although some are. There are some very good examples of these things. Unfortunately, though, when we seek a balance, the environment loses out.

We can look at the cabinet table itself, because environment sits on the economic committee of cabinet. And who is around the table? There is our poor, lone environment minister, fighting the good fight all by himself with the other ministers, who have economic interests and are pushing those economic interests. So the idea of balance is not necessarily the best way to approach it.

I think if we want to move to a new and important order of thinking about sustainable development, we have to think about an integration. We have to think about the enhancement of environmental protection, because there is always the enhancement of the economic domain. There is always consideration, or there should be perhaps even a better consideration of the equity domain, but the reality is the environment always loses out.

What this attempts to do, then, is to recognize the elements within the preamble that talk about enhancing environmental quality, just as the Tory government before us, in the wisdom of that particular time period, sought to put it in the preamble. We now are.

I may be alone in this. It's unfortunate that my colleague Mr. Comartin isn't here. I think Mr. Herron might be willing to support me in attempting to operationalize this in the act.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It hasn't been moved, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Would you like to move it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I guess I should. I'll move it.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now to page 76.3, a motion in the name of Mr. Reed.

Á (1130)

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

This is a less controversial housekeeping amendment. It arises, interestingly enough, out of a Federal Court decision.

The purpose of environmental assessment, of course, is to centre on mitigation. This particular court decision regarding Suncor actually limited the ability to mitigate. This amendment is simply a response to that court decision, which reinstates the government's ability to proceed with mitigation.

Therefore, I so move it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed, and a very important amendment, too.

Madam Redman.

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

We do support the proposed amendment. It's consistent with the practices under the act and will address a source of uncertainty.

The Chair: Thank you.

Any further comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: On page 77 is a stand-alone motion in the name of Mr. Comartin, and we will stand it.

(Clause 12 as amended allowed to stand)

(On clause 13)

The Chair: We now come to page 78 and G-12, an amendment by the government to clause 13 . It is in conflict with a number of other amendments. Therefore, if G-12 carries, then NDP-28 and CA-8 cannot be put.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I notice that Mr. Comartin has a fairly lengthy amendment here, and I'm suggesting that we perhaps stand down clause 13.

The Chair: We can deal with G-12.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I thought you just said....

The Chair: No, I see what you mean. It would mean NDP-28 and CA-8 cannot be put.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, so perhaps we should just stand it down and go on to clause 14.

The Chair: Yes. The clerk agrees with you. We'd better stand G-12, and stand the whole clause.

(Clause 13 allowed to stand)

(On clause 14)

The Chair: The clerk informs me that we face the same problem with clause 14 because of conflicts between KS-12, NDP-29, and maybe PC-14.

(Clause 14 allowed to stand)

Mr. Gary Lunn: You could deal with CA-10, just to get it off the books.

The Chair: Which page is that?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Page 84.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn is announcing his decision to withdraw his motion on page 84.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, I believe I have the feelings of the committee, so I'll just withdraw it in the interest of time.

The Chair: Thank you. The amendment is withdrawn.

(On clause 15)

The Chair: So we had to stand clauses 13 and 14 and move on to clause 15 in the hope that here we have sufficient....

Á (1135)

It starts with an amendment by Mr. Comartin, but we have an amendment by Mr. Lunn. Then we go to clause 17.

All right. We will stand, on page 89, the stand-alone motion by Mr. Comartin, NDP-30, but we can deal with Mr. Lunn's motion on page 90, CA-12.

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

The intent of this amendment is to better define what happens when mediation succeeds. It will prevent reopening of grievances that are already resolved, and the agreement shall be final and binding among the parties who sign the agreements. This is to provide better clarification as to what happens when mediation should succeed.

The Chair: Do we have any comments?

Madam Redman.

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

We do not support this proposed amendment. Mediation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is a tool to generate recommendations to the government about a specific project. This proposed amendment would be a significant shift in that approach.

In mediation, matters such as whether an agreement is binding is formally negotiated between the parties who are doing the negotiation. This amendment as it's proposed removes the government's capacity to take the recommendations that arise out of a mediation and modify them to achieve the best environmental results possible.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have a question. In looking at this particular motion, does what Mr. Lunn is proposing in fact contradict any other part of the act? You have your assessments, and agreements, and so on. Would this cross over to other sections?

Mr. Robert Connelly: I might turn to Ms. Smith in a moment to help in responding to that question, Mr. Chairman. But I would point out an experience I recall from a number of years ago that involved a mediation at a provincial level--and this picks up on the point Mrs. Redman made--where I believe the problem was a landfill and the potential for contaminating a water supply. The tool of mediation was used, and the conclusion reached at the end of it was that a different source of water would be provided to the residents in the area of this landfill.

The concern I would have from an environmental assessment point of view is that while the parties reached an agreement on a solution, that solution probably was detrimental to the environment. In other words, they didn't fix the problem, which contained a contaminated environment, but those involved in mediation were happy with the result. I think that is the concern we have, if I could use that example, with respect to a binding agreement following mediation affecting the decision.

I believe Ms. Smith has a comment more directly related to your question, Mr. Bailey.

Ms. Heather Smith: I'd just like to comment a little bit about the structure of the Environmental Assessment Act and where mediation fits into it.

Mediation, as it's envisioned in the act, is a method of conducting environmental assessment, but the product of the mediation is to come up with recommendations in the same way that a panel comes up with recommendations for the government to act upon. In the structure of the Environmental Assessment Act, the recommendations go to the governor in council--to cabinet--for a decision.

Cabinet is not going to be one of the parties to the mediation. The government would be represented by one of the responsible authorities. So from a legal point of view and a government point of view, I would say that if this provision went into the act, the RA would not be able to sign any kind of written agreement in the mediation, because they can't be seen to bind the hands of cabinet before cabinet makes its decision.

So it would certainly make it more difficult for a responsible authority to manage its participation in a mediation process if this went in, because of the perceived and the real possibility that they would be binding and restricting the discretion cabinet has to act on the recommendations.

Á (1140)

Mr. Gary Lunn: So basically the final decision is that of cabinet. Although the proponents and the concerned people may reach some type of consensus on how to deal with this, it's purely a recommendation to cabinet, which is going to make the final decision anyway.

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes. It certainly would have a lot persuasive and political value--

Mr. Gary Lunn: A lot of weight, obviously.

Ms. Heather Smith: --but there's the distinction of whether cabinet is left free to make the political decision.

Mr. Gary Lunn: In light of that, Mr. Chair, I'll withdraw in the interest of time.

(Amendment withdrawn [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Reed and I were talking some time ago--and you know, because of age he has a lot of experience....

Mr. Julian Reed: I turned 39 last month.

Mr. Roy Bailey: As I see it, the problem through the years has to do with the environment that we commonly call the “aquifer”. I can name a good many, as Mr. Reed and I were discussing the other day. That's why I ask the question, basically, because you may sign an agreement and find out within two years that you really goofed it up. And these are ongoing, all the time, so I was glad to hear that explanation and I want to thank you very much.

The Chair: There are no further amendments to clause 15, but we have to stand it.

(Clause 15 allowed to stand)

(Clause 16 agreed to)

(On clause 17)

The Chair: We move now to page 91, amendment G-14.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

I move the amendment as it's written, Mr. Chair. Again, it is intended to ensure French-English concordance.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 18)

The Chair: We come to page 91.1, an amendment in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

This amendment is essentially the same as the other amendment that we had a very good discussion on, and that got very lonely support, unfortunately, may I add. However, this falls after the comprehensive study process.

I'm just going to speak very briefly to this. Again, it attempts to operationalize a very important principle in the preamble. As members will no doubt remember from our earlier discussion, the preamble of the act talks about environmental enhancement. Unfortunately, when we proceed and start reading through the act, there is nothing else in this act that deals with environmental enhancement. In fact, this act is based on lessening environmental degradation; it's about mitigation, which is truly unfortunate.

I think this is an important issue that members will want to address in our second report, and I'm going to pull this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any comments?

We now come to Mr. Reed's amendment on page 91.3.

Á (1145)

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

This amendment is a companion amendment to the other one, concerning the ability of environmental assessment to stress mitigation. The same argument would be put forward here. It simply addresses a court decision, or a response to a court decision. I so move.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We come now to page 92, an amendment in the name of Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I withdraw the amendment.

The Chair: The amendment is withdrawn. Thank you.

(Clause 18 as amended allowed to stand)

(On clause 19)

The Chair: We're on page 95.

Mr. Herron, your motion was received before the NDP's, so it has precedence. There is a line conflict with amendment G-15, but we'll worry about that later.

Go ahead, Mr. Herron. You have the floor.

Mr. John Herron: The amendment follows a track similar to one we were on yesterday. Essentially it removes a component where there are regulations. We had trepidations about going down that track, because there are individuals who perceive that the government doesn't need to act if there are no regulations in place. What this does is force the Government of Canada to get those regulations done. The committee agreed with a similar approach yesterday, and I believe the table might go down that same track as well.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

We're not opposed to this proposed amendment, but want to assure members that follow-up will be mandatory following a comprehensive study, mediation, and review once Bill C-9 is brought into force. I would also point out that the regulatory-making authority for follow-up regulations exists in section 59.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Let me add, on this day in particular, Mr. Chair, that the concern we have can be addressed in other ways. It's becoming more and more in vogue for Privy Council to develop legislation that is framework legislation, and the regulatory regimes come in afterward. A more progressive approach in our opinion would be, when we have acts of this nature, to actually bring the draft form of the regulations into view simultaneously so that we don't have this particular concern. I know there is a huge appetite for parliamentary reform, to go down that track. This would address that concern.

That's just a little bit of an adjunct.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Just for, I hope, further clarification, this amendment would not remove the governor in council's ability to proceed with regulations to amplify the follow-up provisions of the act.

The Chair: Well, I want to warn Madam Redman that I am told that if this amendment carries, G-15 cannot be put.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We would withdraw it, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You would withdraw it? Fine.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This is a question to our honourable visitors. Would this amendment, if carried, somewhat make the actions that follow the act in its final...kind of redundant in terms of what Ms. Redman has to say?

Ms. Heather Smith: The function of this phrase Mr. Herron is proposing to delete is to connect whatever section it's found in--in this case subsection 38(1)--with the regulation-making power found in section 59. They are sort of mirrors of one another. This refers to the regulation-making power in section 59, and section 59 refers back to this section. So if you take this phrase out of here, it's not going to cause me a legal problem with my legislative drafters, because there's still a reference in the regulation-making section back to this section saying that we have the power to make regulations.

Mr. Roy Bailey: It's not ambiguous either, then?

Ms. Heather Smith: No, it's not ambiguous.

Mr. Roy Bailey: All right. Thank you.

Ms. Heather Smith: Madam Redman was just clarifying so that everybody understands the regulation power still does exist.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on the page 95 motion by Mr. Herron?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Not to thwart the breakneck speed at which we are going, I notice that some of the proponents of some of the proposed amendments are no longer here. My understanding was that we were going to talk about our future work schedule. I know there are some members at the table who have a time constraint. I'm wondering if we could perhaps stop at an appropriate point and discuss the future work agenda for this committee.

The Chair: Would you like to stop here?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I was going to suggest the same thing.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We are agreeable, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Then let's have a brief discussion about next week, perhaps by setting the following framework.

Apparently, at 3 o'clock today, Mr. Boudria intends to make a kind of announcement about debates on Kyoto next week. I don't know the details of which days next week, but we will know them later today. I understand that more than one day will be devoted to Kyoto. Of course, the members of the committee have indicated to me that, on those days, they would rather be free to watch, listen, and follow and to participate and intervene in the debate.

Second, because of the absence next week of the vice-chair and myself, we have had one more meeting this week. I hope that there will be concurrence to hold another Wednesday meeting on December 4—though it also has to be finalized—to make up for the two meetings that we will skip next week, either because of the Kyoto debate or other reasons.

So for the purposes of continuity, I would be inclined to suggest that we leave next week open for interventions in the debate on Kyoto, and skip meetings of this committee, before resuming on Tuesday, December 3. This is the way I propose that we start the discussion and see what are the thoughts of members of this committee.

We will know more later in the afternoon. Of course, I will get in touch with the clerk tomorrow morning to see what should be planned. But this is roughly the suggestion that I would be inclined to make to members of the committee.

Madam Kraft Sloan is raising her hand.

Á (1155)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make a comment on behalf of Mr. Comartin. He is travelling next week for leadership debates, so he won't be here.

Mr. Gary Lunn: And I won't be here.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're not here as well?

So it will be very difficult to do work on amendments.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I guess I get to be the only one on this side of the House, Mr. Chair. If they're all going to go, then I'd have a heyday on this side, wouldn't I?

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, you made some comments yesterday after the meeting—

Mr. Roy Bailey: Well, I know what's going to happen now. Earlier when we talked, I thought we should proceed, but with Kyoto coming down, if there's going to be absenteeism, you wouldn't really have a quorum.

So I guess the cards are drawn, and there'll be no meetings next week.

Some hon. members: Agreed, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.