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, November 20, 2002

1545

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

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

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

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

1550

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

1555

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

1600

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

1605

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1610

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

1615

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1620

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

1625

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1630

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

1635

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1640

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1645

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1650

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1655

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

1700

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

1705

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1710

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

1715

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Robert Connelly

1720

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1725

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1730

Mr. Robert Connelly

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

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

1735

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

1740

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 004

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, November 20, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to begin our study of Bill C-9.

[English]

Mr. Lunn is inclined to put forward a motion about which he informs me he wishes to have a very short debate. In light of that and so as not to hold up the work of the committee, we'll give the floor to Mr. Lunn.

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

Basically, we've given notice to the clerk of a few grammatical changes we've made.

I move the 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 cost, as called for in a motion adopted by the House on October 24, 2002; that this matter supersede all other matters before this committee; if necessary, that a departmental official appear before this committee and discuss with it any steps, information, and costs associated with the ratification of the Kyoto accord.

This is the motion, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, perhaps I might add that I appreciate we're doing Bill C-9 right now. At the pace we're currently going, it appears we could be going for a number of weeks.

There are a number of us on the committee who feel the government has indicated they wish to have a vote in the House of Commons prior to the end of this year. We believe it's imperative that we look at this matter immediately and bring in departmental officials, as well as other provincial officials.

I believe one of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservatives is going to move a very similar motion asking for provincial ministers. We need to bring these people before us to listen to their versions of events so all members of this committee can have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and get all the facts on the table.

Again, it is the reason for moving this motion. I would invite any comments from my colleagues.

Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm asking for some assistance and clarification on committee procedures.

I understand there's a certain amount of time required before motions come before a committee. Certainly, the motion has been before committee with the required length of time. However, as I understand it, you have read into the committee report that it would be before ratification. I believe it is a substantive change to the motion and, therefore, is a very different kind of motion.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Are you referring to the motion I gave?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: The intent of the motion is to bring this matter before the committee. I can go back to the original wording if you have a concern.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: My concern is with the words “before ratification”. It's a substantively different aspect to the motion. Therefore, we need proper notification to committee if you're going to pursue that route.

If you're willing to strike “before ratification“, then certainly, Mr. Lunn, the motion is in order and is certainly in order with the procedure of the committee. I'm willing to discuss it from there. I don't have a point of order, but perhaps you need to clarify it.

The Chair: Let's recognize the fact that Madam Kraft Sloan is making a point of order that commands attention. The motion deposited yesterday differs from the motion deposited today because of the last paragraph, if I understand her correctly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As I understand it, Mr. Lunn had said “before ratification“. It did not exist in the motion that was before committee within the prescribed time. For that reason, when you add “before ratification”, this is a substantially different motion and, therefore, requires the normal time frame to be considered.

The Chair: I think the issue before us is the motion that was deposited within the 24-hour limit, the motion moved by Mr. Mills, that this committee study the government's implementation plan for the Kyoto Protocol, which should be easily understood by Canadians, which sets out the benefits, how the targets are to be reached and its cost, as called for in the motion adopted by the House on October 24, 2002. That is the motion that is probably before this committee.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Chair, because the really important essence is that we do this right away, I propose that we put my motion on the Notice Paper and deal with it tomorrow. I believe Mr. Herron also has a motion dealing with this matter. Our whole intent is to bring this matter before committee immediately, as we could be moving to a vote in the House of Commons. We think it's imperative this committee have an opportunity to bring their witnesses before this committee and have an opportunity to question them and listen to their version of events.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Mr.Bailey, would you defer--

Mr. Gary Lunn: Until tomorrow.

The Chair: --to proceed with this tomorrow?

Mr. Herron, would you still like to make an intervention?

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Yes. I would like to make an intervention or actually move my motion, of which I've given notice to the committee. It's far simpler, but is in the same spirit, I think, as what Mr. Lunn is advocating.

I would like to move my motion. It's very simple. I consider it to be--

The Chair: We already have a motion before us, Mr. Herron. You can talk on your motion tomorrow, when it will be properly before us.

Mr. John Herron: No, no. My motion is properly before us right now.

The Chair: Was it produced yesterday?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Do you want to proceed with it today?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, please.

The Chair: All right, then, proceed.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I've tabled a motion and given due notice as follows: that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development invite the provincial ministers for the environment, or their designated colleagues, to appear at this committee before the House of Commons votes on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

It's a very simple motion. I think the very minimum we owe the provinces is an audience before parliamentarians take a decision, to extend an offer for their representatives to come forward. Manitoba can come forward to say why they're categorically on board, Nova Scotia can come forward and say why they're trepidatious, and the Albertans can come to tell us why they have a problem with the fact that there isn't a provincial consensus as of yet.

I can't fathom why this committee would not have enough respect for provincial rights not to extend the invitation. It's up to them to take it up. I know I have spoken firsthand to four governments in the last number of weeks who have said they`re amenable to this concept. I think we would see ministers come before this committee to have a day of hearings and I think that makes a lot of sense for the committee to do.

I seek the support of members. I know there have been parliamentarians on both sides of the House who have made clear language on the need to have a provincial consensus. It's better to go forward with a ratification process if you have a consensus.

We can play a role here, as a committee, by actually bringing environment ministers here to a public forum federally.

I move said motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Redman.

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

I wanted to seek clarification from the mover of this motion, Mr. Chair.

I note in your motion, Mr. Herron, that you have used the word “invite”, so what you're really asking is that before the ratification vote takes place, we send out an invitation. This does not necessarily mean that these representatives of the provinces would appear before committee before ratification.

Mr. John Herron: I think that's a fair intervention from Ms. Kraft Sloan.If they can't get here before the ratification vote, that's their problem, some folks would say. But if we send an invitation expeditiously, it's their choice whether they come forward. But I can tell you, from my conversations, that there is an element of support within the provincial capitals to do just that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a second point of clarification. When one makes an invitation, generally there's a date on the invitation card for the party. I would like to have some clarification from Mr. Herron as to when the party would be held and hosted by the committee.

Mr. Herron--

The Chair: Madam Redman, followed by M. Bigras.

Madam Redman.

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

We have a great deal of problem with this motion. I appreciate its intent, and I would assume the spirit in which Mr. Herron is moving this. However, these discussions, these conferences, and these negotiations have been going on for five years with the very people he is suggesting we now see as a committee.

There has been a clear statement, and it's well known that Parliament will be asked to vote on ratification of the Kyoto Protocol before the end of the year. This vote will involve both Houses of Parliament, both the House of Commons as well as the Senate. The specifics of precisely how and when that will be considered are still under discussion, but it will be this opportunity that provides all parliamentarians of both Houses an opportunity to discuss the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Chair, as representatives in the Houses of Parliament, we do represent all regions of the country. Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to bring forward regional differences. The ratification decision is the decision of the federal cabinet, but the parliamentary debate and vote will be an important factor going into that decision. The government has consulted with the provinces and industry, as well as other stakeholders, as we move forward toward an implementation plan.

As the polling indicates, the majority of Canadians are in support of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. As a matter of fact, sustained support has been quite high and quite consistent. The one thing Canadians are very tired of in all regions of Canada is having politicians from different jurisdictions pointing fingers at each other. For that reason, Mr. Chair, we do not support this motion before us.

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I find it quite ironic that motions like this one are being tabled today in committee by parties that have often opposed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. I think we should make sure that the motions we pass today are not a tactic to delay ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in Canada.

So I am more or less open to the motion of my colleague, Mr. Herron, and I think it would be good to invite the provincial ministers. However, like Ms. Kraft Sloan said, we should specify the date of the invitation and make sure that the debate and vote in the House of Commons on ratification of the Kyoto Protocol are not conditional on their accepting or refusing to appear before the committee. I hope that Mr. Herron, in tabling this motion, is acting in good faith. We are counting on his good faith so that this is not a tactic to delay ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

So I intend to vote for this motion because I am basically in favour of it. However, I am counting on Mr. Herron's good faith because I am convinced that he is an honest parliamentarian. Should that not be so, history would recall that the Progressive Conservative Party did everything it could to delay ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and used our parliamentary committee to delay ratification, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add my support to this motion. Obviously, it's similar in nature to what we just proposed.

I want to emphasize how very important this motion is. We have been informed that we are likely going to be voting on the Kyoto Protocol in the House of Commons. However, as an environment committee, we can really get into the teeth and the meat of what is going on. I appreciate that it has been going on for five years, but with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chairman, the minister only came into the House a matter of weeks ago with a vague plan. As a committee of members from all parties, we need an opportunity to examine provincial ministers and to examine departmental officials.

It's not about delay. If it means having extra meetings on top of this, I would fully support that. It is that important an issue. But we cannot go into the House of Commons and vote on this matter without the committee doing its due diligence and without having an opportunity to cross-examine and question all of these witnesses so that we can have all of the information on the table from all sides.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

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

I appreciate the intent of Mr. Herron's motion, and I really feel that there is a desire to expose this committee to more detail on this debate. But I also understand that joining the dots in what has been the draft or the skeleton of the Kyoto plan will have imminent release, and it's going to be released right away. So the idea that we need to engage, I would say, at the very best, is premature.

The other thing I would like to make very clear is that the Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement, and as a result, it is the prerogative of the cabinet to do that. When we debate the protocol in the House, we will be making the House's recommendation to the cabinet. But that does not override, if you like, the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis an international agreement.

º (1600)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I suspect that I'm no different from any member who sits here on either side of the table, in that when you have an issue like this before you, you automatically think first of your own constituency. That's what I do, and in my constituency, where we have the only two coal-fired generating plants in Saskatchewan, where we have the coal industry and the oil industry, I know where my constituency stands on Kyoto.

But that's not good enough for me, because I have to go beyond that. I don't want to make a decision that affects all of Canada, or even my province, based on my constituency alone. I don't know where the Province of Saskatchewan stands on this issue. If they are against it, I would like to know the grounds on which they oppose it. We have been well informed where one province—and I don't even have to name it—stands. But I think it's incumbent upon this committee to be able to listen to those people who have a responsibility towards the environment almost equal that of the federal government.

I might say, already because of the word “Kyoto”, we find the provinces starting to do things on their own. In that respect, the Government of Canada at this time is winning, because we have alerted people. But please do not ask me to vote on a bill that is...

I know how my constituency feels, but I'd like to know how the rest of the provinces feel about it.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

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

Pursuant to some of the other concerns and observations that have been raised, I'll reflect for a moment on the perspective I have of what we're doing.

The perspective I have is that the government has already given notice that it intends to ratify within the framework and principles of the protocol. The motion that has been moved is to deal with the implementation of the particular protocol within the context of those principles.

My suggestion would be that the motion is premature. It is very clear, obviously, that the government is going to act, and as has been pointed out, it has the jurisdiction and the authority to act in the manner that it is acting in an international agreement. I would suggest that the motion is not out of order, and it's not irrelevant or redundant; it is just in the wrong sequence, because the proof of the Kyoto Protocol will be in its implementation, a point that has been made time and time again by the opposition. I very much support that. So in an instructive, proactive, and ongoing way, if the advice of the provincial ministers is required, then germane to that is their advice with respect to the implementation, or their concerns with respect to the implementation.

So let's be very clear in terms of what we're trying to get at. If we're trying to get at the implementation, with great respect to the mover of the motion and those who support it, then I would look forward to seeing and hearing discussion on that motion at a later time. In the meantime, I would like to get on with the work that we have laid out before this committee. There is also a sense of urgency with respect to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

To conclude the debate, Madam Kraft Sloan and then Mr. Herron.

º (1605)

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

I had a question on the table, Mr. Chair, to the mover of this particular motion. I still seek some clarification on the date.

In many respects, I think we can have some extremely powerful presentations, particularly from people like the Premier of Nunavut, whom the chair and I had the pleasure of meeting with a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, another member of our committee was there as well. He spoke very passionately about how climate change is affecting his people right now, today. I think hearing that kind of testimony would be a powerful thing for the Canadian people.

I am also very concerned, Mr. Chair, that there isn't clarity around the motion as to when this would happen, given the kind of workload this committee has before us, and the fact we're moving toward a vote in the next few weeks in the House of Commons on this very important issue.

Indeed, it's a commitment in the government's throne speech. Members, at least on our side, have supported the throne speech commitment. We've had ample opportunity to go through this in the House.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for a clarification, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I'd like to address a number of points raised by my colleagues on the committee itself. I'd like to address why this matters to parliamentarians, and why it matters before the vote itself, to provide this committee and parliamentarians with a chance to make an informed vote.

Canada is a country that out-punches its weight because we have a reputation internationally for keeping our word. We know, as a point of fact, that without the active participation of the provinces, we may not be able to implement the accord. I don't want to make a vote in the House of Commons where I'm voting for something on an issue when I don't know if my nation can keep its word. It's why it's imperative we do this in advance, not after the fact. It clearly has to do with implementation, but, moreover, it has to do with our capacity to keep our word.

Mr. Chair, I don't have to point out to anyone on this committee that there's anything but unanimity or a consensus in place with the provinces on this issue. There have been many parliamentarians, the member from Lasalle-Émard, our party, and the Minister of Industry, as well. Clearly, it would make sense for us to go forward with the provincial consensus. This would provide an informed opportunity for parliamentarians to actually get inside where this trepidation comes from with respect to the provinces.

It's not an issue with respect to delaying, to address Mr. Bigras' point itself. I am asking this committee to send an invitation before the vote happens. If the provincial governments do not take us up on the invitation before the vote itself, we put the ball in their court. We should extend the invitation to actually do so.

I'm saying, from my conversations with provincial capitals, they are more than amenable. They're nearly pleading to have an opportunity to actually share their concerns with federal parliamentarians. I think it's the minimum we owe the provinces.

With respect to the workload issue, clearly we have to deal with Bill C-9. There is not a more pressing file in domestic politics, federally or provincially, than this one currently, given we're about to go forward with the vote. I see no reason why we would deny the opportunity to this committee to send an invitation for the provincial ministers to present before this committee.

I implore my colleagues to reach out to the provincial governments and say we're willing to listen to their concerns because we know the issue is a provincial concern. It's why the meetings have been taking place, or are not taking place, as of late.

Before I have to make a vote, I want to hear from the provincial capitals firsthand. We know one thing in particular. Canadians do not know enough about climate change and Kyoto itself. The Prime Minister wrote to the provincial ministers and said there has to be more public dialogue. We provide a forum to do so. There is no better forum than using an instrument of Parliament and a parliamentary committee. I implore the support of our committee members.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: With respect to the date, again, we would send the invitation out now. If the vote is going to take place, it's the government's agenda. They set the date on the vote. We can set the date on the committee hearing. It's not to delay the vote on that basis, but it gives us a chance for parliamentarians to have informed hearings with the provinces. We would send an invitation out right away.

º (1610)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

It's a quarter past four, and it's time to take a vote.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, may we have a recorded vote, please?

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you Mr. Chair.

In the interest of time—I mean this sincerely; I just spoke with Ms. Kraft Sloan—I have a similar motion that will come before the committee tomorrow. In light of needing to go through all of this again, I would ask for unanimous consent—so that no notice is required--so we can put this motion before us. I don't believe there'll be much more debate.

The issue is similar, only that I will add that this is a critical matter to all Canadians. I think it's imperative this committee deal with this and bring witnesses from the government officials and from the provinces before the committee.

I appreciate we just voted, but I do have a notice of motion. I would ask for unanimous consent to delay that notice for the motion so we could deal with it now and waive the notice.

The Chair: No. We're not going to waive anything. The rules of this committee call for 24-hour notice. You presented a motion--

Mr. Gary Lunn: But I've asked for unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, to waive the notice of motion, and maybe we could deal with this matter right now.

The Chair: Do you mean deal with your motion right now?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Right now, and then--

The Chair: This afternoon?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, and then you would not have to deal with it tomorrow.

The Chair: Fine.

Is there unanimous consent to proceed with Mr. Lunn's motion now instead of tomorrow?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You mean, of the new motion as drafted. Yes.

The Chair: That is, the other motion that is before the members of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Can we have a copy of the motion?

[English]

The Chair: It is a motion on a single sheet.

There's no unanimous consent, so it will be dealt with tomorrow. Thank you.

I invite the members of the committee to open the amendment books to page 41.

Oh, I'm advised, Mr. Lunn, that there is consent on the part of the committee to proceed with your motion today. Is that correct?

Okay.

Mr. Gary Lunn: May I just have the floor for two minutes before you call the question?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just to summarize, I would ask the committee to think very carefully. I've heard some comments from my honourable colleagues on the other side that they believe this is premature. I would suggest--

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Given that we do not currently have the motion word for word, can my colleague repeat the gist of it? Apparently it is basically the same as the one we just voted on. I'm sorry, but given what I have heard, that is not at all how I interpret the motion. Can he at least repeat what he said or give us a copy?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): If you are uncomfortable with that, you can...

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'm not saying I'm uncomfortable. I am only asking to have the motion explained to us again before it is moved, given that we do not have it word for word.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras has a very important basic point, Mr. Lunn, and I'm sorry, we cannot go through with this. It has to be in two languages for the benefit of the members of the committee.

Now, Madam Redman had a point of clarification, so to speak. She wanted to introduce a paper as part of the meeting.

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

As you will recall, in response to a request made by Mr. Herron yesterday, the officials would come forward with, and we have tabled with the clerk, a list of the provisions where the government does support the replacement—and this is the changing of the wording—of “from assessment of environmental effects” with the phrase “environmental assessment”.

Since everyone is just receiving it, we would be happy to distribute it. After Mr. Herron has had a chance to go over the list, we'd be happy to discuss it at a future meeting or to discuss it now. I don't know if the officials want to say anything. We can wait until people have had a chance to review it.

º (1615)

The Chair: I think we had better have a discussion tomorrow when the full membership of the committee is present, including Mr. Comartin, for the benefit of Mr. Comartin.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's great.

The Chair: So it is received, circulated, and will be elaborated upon tomorrow morning.

(On clause 7)

The Chair: Yesterday, I believe we stopped on page 41, with amendment NDP-13, is that correct? That motion was lost.

I'm sorry. I'm informed by the clerk that the last amendment we dealt with was BQ-6, and that motion was lost on November 19.

Today, to begin with, we have before us an amendment in the name of Mr. Comartin, who is not here. Therefore, we will have to defer it until his arrival tomorrow. He had to attend a public event in the name of the Right Honourable Herb Gray, and we therefore move on, then.

On page 42, we have an amendment in the name of the right honourable member for Fundy—Royal.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that ascension to another title.

This amendment... go ahead.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: On a point of order, there may be some overlap with Mr. Comartin's amendment on page 44.

The Chair: This is the last amendment that was received. Therefore, we'll deal with Mr. Herron's amendment, because it was the first one that was received by the clerk.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, and as I understand it, Mr. Chair, we have a practice on committee to deal with the pool of amendments that overlap in order to give members....

An hon. member: They're all identical.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are they identical?

The Chair: That may be, but the three amendments are identical.

Mr. Herron has the floor.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, this particular amendment addresses the point that preventing subsequent orders may be problematic and have no legal justification, particularly when the order expires when a decision is made following completion of an EA. I'm going to try to turn to the exact page in the bill right now, page 7.

It seems to be in complete contrast to almost every piece of environmental law that we've reviewed in the last five years, particularly when we look at species at risk. The last thing we want to do is deny flexibility to a minister about changing a decision. It's in complete contrast, because we always want to be flexible.

As the bill has been written right now, it says:

(5) If an order has been made under this section prohibiting a particular proponent of a project from doing a particular act or thing, the minister or ministers may not make a subsequent order prohibiting the same proponent from doing the same act or thing.

Why would you deny the minister the ability to say at some point that he has more information and wants to change his opinion; or that he has more information and that there's still an immense number of problems out there in the community, so instead of doing a comprehensive review, he should perhaps do a panel review? The way the law is written right here, it denies the capacity for the minister to go down that track. Why do we want to deny flexibility to the minister? Why do we want to deny the capacity to make a new, informed decision? As this is written in the bill, it's wrong, and there is no legal justification to do so.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Bigras, Madam Kraft Sloan, and Madam Redman.

[Translation]

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

I would like to ask the officials a question. The amendment of my colleague, Mr. Herron, would strike lines 22 to 25 on page 7, clause 7.

Take, for example, a proponent who meets with a refusal under some order. Pursuant to this bill, would that proponent be prohibited from presenting the project a second time? That is the question I am wondering about. I think Mr. Herron's objective is to allow for a proponent who has presented a project once without obtaining an order to present the project again.

Do lines 22 to 25 mean that a proponent could not present a project a second time once it has been turned down? Why wouldn't that be allowed? Why would a proponent not be allowed to try again with a project that did not get an...

º (1620)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, briefly, please.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Bigras, I think you are right. We subsequently thought it was possible. For that reason, I think the motion is valid.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: So if I understand correctly, you are in favour of Mr. Herron's amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Fine. We've had a very short discussion.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Herron, we'll now deal with your next motion on page 25. In all fairness to the point raised earlier by Madam Kraft Sloan, the discussion of Mr. Herron's motion should take place together with a discussion of the motion on page 47 in the name of Mr. Comartin, and that discussion can take place in his absence, I would hope.

[Translation]

A Voice: —[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

The Chair: It is almost the same as yours.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I'm more in support of the amendment as tabled by my colleague with the New Democrats. Essentially, what I want to do with this motion is to empower the public to make an appeal for an injunction on a particular project. The NDP motion says “Attorney General of Canada, or any interested person”. Mine says only “any interested person”. I'd rather go down Mr. Comartin's track on another day.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a possible solution.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Herron could put his amendment forward and I could friendly amend it so that it's exactly like Mr. Comartin's. I too believe that Mr. Comartin's amendment is a little better.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: The government would be able to support a friendly amendment that retained “the Attorney General of Canada or any interested person”. So if it's the wish of the committee, we could support that motion.

The Chair: All right. We need a mover of Mr. Comartin's motion because it isn't technically before us.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Herron can move his motion, and then I will friendly amend it. That will take care of everything.

A voice: Why doesn't somebody just move Mr. Comartin's motion?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Because it sets a precedent. He's not here.

Mr. John Herron: I'll move my motion. I understand that Mrs. Kraft Sloan is making a friendly amendment. The government said it will support it. So let's vote.

The Chair: So Mr. Herron is moving the motion on page 45, which says, “If, on the application of any interested person, it appears to a”. That's the text. Is that correct?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Fine. What is the amendment?

º (1625)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It would now read “If, on the application of the Attorney General of Canada, or any interested person, it appears to a”.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Two in a row. It's too much.

Mr. John Herron: I know. I still don't feel happy about the last one.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 7 as amended allowed to stand)

(On clause 8)

The Chair: We move on to clause 8, page 48, a motion in the name of the government.

Madame Redman, s'il vous plaît.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is a government amendment that basically is dealing with the French-English concordance. The proposed amendment adds a reference to the comprehensive studies that should have been included in the French version of proposed section 12.1 but was not. So I would so move this.

The Chair: So moved. Any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We now have a motion in the name of Mr. Herron on page 49.

Mr. John Herron: The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the federal government in fact makes regulations. Just above, as you will see:

The federal environmental assessment coordinator shall, in accordance with any regulations made under paragraph 59(a.1),

Essentially all my amendment does is add the words “coordinator shall”.

The Chair: With reference to that sentence, it doesn't seem to stand by itself. We need a crutch, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: By actually deleting “in accordance with the regulations under paragraph 59(a.1),” the language as I see it now reads... This language has been interpreted by government in the past to mean there was no responsibility in the absence of regulations, so if there are no regulations, then the Government of Canada doesn't have to do anything.

By stroking out “in accordance with the regulations” made under this paragraph, it means the government has to develop those regulations. That's been the concern, that there can be aspects that should have a regulatory framework that may actually never get developed.

The Chair: Can you explain why you are deleting reference to paragraph 59(a.1), in other words?

Mr. John Herron: Perhaps I can, but I would like to seek a little bit of help, if I could.

Mr. Chair, if I may add, it's not that we mind regulations. The intent of taking this approach is to ensure we actually have those regulations developed. It's not incumbent on the government to do anything if they're not in regulations. Sorting this out takes away the capacity of the government to delay. I come from a corporate background, where if you can't measure it, your can't manage it. So this would actually pressure the government to develop those regulations.

º (1630)

The Chair: Madam Redman, perhaps you can clarify this for us.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We really don't have a problem with this amendment, as long as it's understood that this isn't an attempt to delete the authority that would allow for regulations that actually amplify the federal coordination provisions in this bill.

The authority for these regulations also exists in section 59, and I realize the amendment deletes paragraph 59(a.1), but the rest of that section deals with the governor in council being able to proceed as planned with changes under the current federal coordination regulations. So if that's the understanding, we won't oppose this amendment.

The Chair: So you accept the deletion to the regulation, with the reference to paragraph 59(a.1)?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: That amendment took care of NDP-16, right?

So now we will move briskly to page 51, a government amendment.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I move this government amendment. It ensures the French and English are in accordance with the duties of the federal environmental assessment coordinator, as outlined in proposed section 12.2. Basically, the proposed amendment to the French version of the bill is intended to ensure that the French and English say exactly the same thing. It adds the notion that federal authorities may provide expert as well as specialist knowledge. It also replaces the French term “intervention” with “participation” in proposed paragraphs 12.2(c) and 12.2(e).

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Thank you.

The clerk advises that the motion on page 52, G-8, should stand until we deal with the government motion G-23. Therefore I invite you to turn page 54, a motion in the name of the member for Fundy—Royal.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intent of this motion is precisely the same as for the previous Tory motion, and I seek the support of the committee in the same manner.

The Chair: Is there any comment by Madam Redman?

Mrs. Karen Redman: We don't oppose the proposed amendment, and reiterate that the authority for the regulations also exists in section 59.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Moving on to page 56, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the government amendment on page 57, which is a linguistic amendment, has a line conflict with amendment PC-11 for technical reasons, not on substance. So I'm inclined to put forward both for your consideration.

Is there agreement on that conclusion?

Madam Redman.

º (1635)

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

I understand your wanting to entertain the substantive pieces, but is it my understanding that, regardless of the fate of amendment PC-11, we will then deal with amendment G-9?

The Chair: Yes, well...

Mrs. Karen Redman: No?

The Chair: We will deal with amendment G-9 first, and then with PC-11, because one is of a technical nature and the other one is of a substantive nature, so I don't see any way out.

All right, the clerk draws our attention to the fact that Mr. Herron's amendment will delete several lines, lines 17 to 23. We should therefore entertain that amendment first to see whether there is any propensity for adopting it, because the technical amendment by the government would not be necessary if Mr. Herron's motion carries, obviously. So let us first deal with Mr. Herron's amendment.

Let's have your remarks for a moment.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, the intent of the amendment is to have all projects coordinated by the agency. One might ask the question, what's wrong with having other entities actually carry out the environmental assessment itself?

I would say, from a simplicity perspective, first, it provides an identifiable, almost clearing house for environmental assessments to actually take place, so that we have a better single entity of contact.

Perhaps secondly, what takes place is that, as this process continues, you have individuals who develop an immense amount of expertise within the agency itself as opposed to having it all over the government.

The third reason I would advocate this type of approach is that it also provides an immense amount of independence to actually form a decision on the information before them, given that the agency is going to disseminate the information and make an informed call as opposed to themselves.

Again, I seek the support of the committee on the basis of enhancing government expertise, having better coordination, and having a strong level of independence.

º (1640)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman, please.

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

We do not support this amendment because, in essence, what it does is make the agency the coordinator of all 6,000 assessments that are conducted annually under this act. The majority of screening-level assessments are conducted by a single responsible authority. You can think of a small project, such as the construction of a small dock, and that authority carries it out with no other involvement of other departments or jurisdictions. In essence, there is very little to coordinate if it's just a single authority that's involved. So this, in our view, would be a step backwards and actually add to the bureaucracy.

I would remind the committee of comment of George Sinclair, who is with Athabasca Oil Sands Developers. He said we always have to be careful about not creating too much bureaucracy. In our view, this would just add a bureaucratic level that's not necessary.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I would simply say in response that I think having different sub-pockets or individuals responsible for these types of assessments in different levels of government in fact creates more bureaucracy, not less. If the agency is empowered to actually be the overall coordinator of environmental assessments, if it is a simple assessment that needs to take place--for instance, a dock--they will develop or already have that expertise in-house.

So I think it makes a whole lot more sense to coordinate this leadership. It provides more independence, because there may be something about that dock that the informed officials at the agency might flag that could be problematic, that individuals too close to the issue might not see. For the purpose, again, of independence, of tearing down bureaucracy, not adding to it, and of developing expertise, it makes more sense for the agency to be the coordinator of environmental assessments.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

I'm wondering if the officials could explain to us how the coordinator is selected with regard to these different subsections in proposed section 12.4, because there are different contexts outlined here. That would probably aid in clarifying this issue as well as understanding Mr. Herron's motion.

Mr. John Herron: You are saying we should delete proposed subsection (3).

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, but I would like the officials to outline what goes on in these various contexts for the selection of the coordinator.

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, please.

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

I'd first point out that the concept of a coordinator is not a substantive one in the process, in the sense of dealing with the substance of the issue. It's designed to--if I can use the term--get the federal house in order on assessments and particularly assist when we are dealing with another jurisdiction.

When we completed the review, we found a lot of concern raised about the lack of coordination. So the intent here is to provide that responsibility for the agency, we believe, where it really counts. Where it really counts is for the larger projects that clearly are subject to comprehensive study. In addition, they would also include all screening-level assessments where another jurisdiction is involved. Other jurisdictions would be provinces, for example, aboriginal land claim bodies, aboriginal self-governing bodies, foreign states, or international organizations.

We feel we're covering off what is a reasonable level of coordination for those projects that require it. As Mrs. Redman said, if we were to extend that, it could create an additional level of bureaucracy, certainly additional resources would have to be provided for that by the agency, and we're not convinced that there is value added for it.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan and Mr. Herron.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Surely, Mr. Chair, the activity of coordination is not without its substantive components. I guess I would have a level of concern about who was doing the coordinating in terms of how they were going about doing their job and working with all the various interests and the various individuals involved. I'm not entirely sure that this is an activity without substance, because we all know these kinds of activities have a great deal of impact in terms of how these activities are carried out. Certainly, depending on possible conflicts of interest that might exist, it may affect different outcomes as well.

So I might want to challenge our official on that one, Mr. Chair, and perhaps he could respond to that.

º (1645)

The Chair: Can you please provide briefly some assurance then?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree fully with Mrs. Kraft Sloan's comment in that the work of the coordinator is very important and I perhaps should have emphasized that it's an administrative function. I used the term “substantive” to mean in the sense of it not being a decision-making role; that is left with the responsible authority. It's a very important administrative role and an essential component, we feel, of Bill C-9, and one of the fundamental changes of importance in Bill C-9 for the agency.

The Chair: All right, Mr. Herron, you have the last word.

Mr. John Herron: Again, to reiterate, this provides more independence. Ms. Kraft Sloan raised the possibility of conflict of interest, where I would use competing interest, that would obviously exist in a human dynamic. Having the agency be the stewards for environmental assessments eliminates that. Again, it provides more expertise. It provides more clarity for the private sector and individuals who are potentially affected. They know exactly who to go to. I believe it tears down bureaucracy, not adds bureaucracy.

It is possible there may be more resources required at the agency in order to do it. I'd also make the same argument that it means there are going to be less resources required at the different departments. We're moving from point A to point B. With the synergies that would take place from having one agency in place, I think the amendment makes some sense.

I move the motion. I hope to earn the support of my learned members in the same vein as we have the last five. I didn't say six.

The Chair: Your message has been heard.

Madam Kraft Sloan would like the last word.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is a new section in the act and we're seeking greater clarification here. I know you had identified what the different contexts were. Perhaps for committee members, could you tell us how Mr. Herron's amendment would affect the various sections in a little fuller detail? You have the various contexts because you talked about studies and screenings where other jurisdictions are not involved. In terms of the items identified in proposed section 12.4, could you tell us how Mr. Herron's amendment would affect them?

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, briefly, please.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Thank you.

Mr. Herron's amendment would mean we would serve as a coordinator for all projects. I think fundamentally the concern we have is that some of the projects, due to their very small nature, will involve only one federal authority. In very simple terms, there really is nothing to coordinate in a lot of the small projects. If there is only one federal authority involved and there's no other jurisdiction involved, one raises the question as to whether a coordinating function is really needed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Connelly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Isn't there a conflict of interest situation, Mr. Chair, that might arise, for example, if DFO was the RA?

º (1650)

Mr. Robert Connelly: We don't see a problem in that sense, no. As I said earlier, the function of the coordinator is to improve the efficiency in the process, to pull the players together to make sure things can happen more efficiently and more quickly. The coordinator will not have a function of ruling on the significance of an environmental effect. It remains with the responsible authority.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: The next motion is on page 57 in the name of the government, G-9.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, this is removing the term “également” from paragraph 12.4(1)(a). It is ensuring French and English concordance. I would so move.

The Chair: Thank you. Those in favour, please so indicate. Are there any opposed?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Herron, your motion, on page 58, is next, please.

Mr. John Herron: I think we have an opportunity to get the committee back on track again.

As with the amendment we had before to ensure that the government came forth and made those regulations in a timely manner, that's what the spirit of this particular amendment does. I move the said motion in that same vein, subject to the concurrence of the Prime Minister's secretary, through you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mrs. Redman.

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

Again the government is not opposed to the proposed amendment, with the understanding that the authority for these regulations exists in section 59.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We will now stand pages 60 and 61 because these are amendments in the name of Mr. Comartin; consequently, we will also stand clause 8.

(Clause 8 as amended allowed to stand)

The Chair: We will move swiftly to proposed clause 8.1.

It's a new clause in the name of Mr. Lunn, but I am told it is inadmissible because it relates to or amends the parent legislation. So with great regret, unless you would like to make an intervention to prove the contrary, in which case it will be listened to carefully, the amendment is withdrawn--or ruled out of order, or both.

We go now to page 62.1, motion KS-8, and here again the motion is not admissible because it would amend the parent act.

Madam Kraft Sloan, are you willing to withdraw it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, it is really unfortunate, Mr. Chair, because I think this amendment would do a lot to improve the parent statute, particularly in light of requirements around taking alternative assessments into consideration, which is indeed a precautionary approach and a very useful principle to operationalize within the parent statue. However, at this time I will accept the chair's opinion.

º (1655)

The Chair: Thank you. The motion is withdrawn.

(On clause 9)

The Chair: We then move to page 63, government motion number G-10.

This is a motion that requires a lot of careful handling. I'm told that friendly amendments would be desirable.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, I invited you to think about your motion, because if motion G-10 carries, yours will be eliminated. However, if you want to try and find a way of...

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Chairman, the meaning is quite different. My motion adds an obligation with respect to recognizing aboriginal traditions and knowledge, whereas the government wants to be able to take them into consideration.

I could make a friendly amendment, but it is substantively different.

[English]

The Chair: We will come back to G-10, because it is a small change. It is not going to be affected by the discussion and by whatever decision is made on BQ-9, CA-5, and NDP-21.

But we do have a problem with the three motions. Mr. Bigras is quite correct in saying that it stands alone in a certain way. But they are all duplications of CA-5 and NDP-21. What the chair is now seeking is some assistance so that the three motions can be merged in a manner that accommodates the sense of each one of them in a coherent fashion. Therefore, I'm asking Mr. Lunn to look at his amendment to see whether he is satisfied with BQ-9, to the point of accepting it in its totality, or to the point where he would like to propose a friendly amendment. And I would like either Mr. Herron or Madam Kraft Sloan to act on behalf of Mr. Comartin to see how his amendment on page 66, “traditional knowledge shall be considered in”—

» (1700)

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): It's already in.

The Chair: Yes, it's actually already in. So in that sense we don't need to worry about NDP-21.

So now we only have to worry about the Canadian Alliance motion and the Bloc Québécois motion, to see to what extent they can be merged.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Proposed section 16.1 right now reads:

16.1 Community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge may be considered in conducting an environmental assessment.

I want to add the words “when applicable” after that section. The intent is to ensure that projects are not held up waiting for input from these sources if none exists. I'm not too sure if I can see how that would fit with the Bloc amendment. I'm open to any suggestions, but I do not see how our amendment can do that. If the clerk or someone else has a suggestion, I'm very open.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, it probably would have been better for clause 16.3 that I want to add to be in a separate amendment, because it deals with a different topic. If we eliminate clause 16.3 as I am proposing in my amendment, the amendment will very closely resemble amendment CA-5.

[English]

The Chair: We seem to have resolved the problem of the line conflict, by way of Mr. Lunn's helpful agreement to delete item (b) in his amendment CA-5 on page 65. The remaining motion can now be put forward for discussion.

Once we have voted on that, we can go ahead and deal with BQ-9.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Proposed section 16.1 now reads:

16.1 Community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge may be considered in conducting an environmental assessment.

Our motion adds the words, “when applicable.” Again, our intention is to ensure that projects are not held up while they're waiting for input from any of these sources if none exists.

I move the motion.

» (1705)

The Chair: Can you deal with item (c), please?

Mr. Gary Lunn: It's gone. That's all we're dealing with.

The Chair: So what is before us, and I am correcting myself, is adding “ when applicable”.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Agreed.

The Chair: Let's hear some comments, if any.

Madam Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask Mr. Lunn exactly what value is added by changing it to “when applicable”, when the wording in the bill currently is “Community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge may be considered”. It seems to me it would have the same outcome. I'm wondering what subtle difference he sees between the wording currently in the bill and the one he's proposing.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Although it now says “may”, it will be incumbent upon them to ensure that they look at that community knowledge and traditional knowledge of the aboriginal people.

In the past--at least we have been informed--projects have sometimes been held up while they're looking for this knowledge. It's just to clarify that if there is none of this knowledge, it's “when applicable”. It's just to ensure greater openness and transparency, and if there's no knowledge, it's only when it's applicable. If it's not in there and there is a project, we don't want people holding it up if none of this information exists.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I would ask Mr. Connelly to comment. I'm a little perplexed. This must be a difference too subtle for my understanding.

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, please come in.

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

I understand the intent of Mr. Lunn's motion, and our thinking was that the word “may” had that same spirit in that one would consider such information if it was appropriate and where it was applicable and available. Our only concern with adding the words “where applicable” is that it may create the impression that there's an intent here to limit its use possibly, and that is not something we had intended with the word “may”.

In summary, we're not sure it really adds anything in addition to the word “may” as it was in the bill originally.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, a final word.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I withdraw the amendment.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: We then go to the motion in the name of Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

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

I would say that this motion contains two distinct but complementary objectives.

First of all, it makes taking local and aboriginal knowledge into consideration during environmental assessments mandatory. Secondly, if a project involves provincial jurisdiction and if an environmental assessment has already been conducted by a provincial body, we want to see that environmental assessment used in decision-making and reports.

So for us, traditional aboriginal knowledge must be recognized, and when decisions are made, provincial assessments that have been carried out must also be taken into consideration.

» (1710)

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Madam Redman.

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

It's interesting. We have both sides of the coin. We can't support the mandatory requirement of the use of aboriginal, traditional, and community knowledge. We can see a situation where in fact it may cause people not to use it because they may see it as holding up studies. It is our sincere attempt to make use of aboriginal and traditional knowledge where applicable.

This runs counter, actually, to Chief Matthew Coon Come's comments when he stated that inclusion of traditional aboriginal knowledge should not be mandatory. You may recall that during the species at risk legislation, there were some issues as to who actually owns the traditional and community knowledge, and there were also issues around intellectual property. So to make it mandatory may result in people shying away from actually seeking out this very valuable resource because they would see it as somewhat encumbering.

The proposed changes in proposed section 16.2 also present problems. They make the use of regional studies mandatory and they don't recognize that these studies could be out of date or flawed. By making the use of them mandatory, we may end up with less exact decision-making with a different result.

The proposed new section 16.3 could limit opportunities, actually, for public participation during screenings and comprehensive studies. This again goes counter to exactly what this bill is trying to incorporate.

I would ask Mr. Connelly if he has any additional comments to make.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Thank you, Mrs. Redman and Mr. Chair.

I would make a point with respect to proposed section 16.1--it's further to the point raised by Mrs. Redman--that during our five-year review of the act, we heard frequently from aboriginal people that they would not want to make such information a mandatory requirement in all cases, because in some instances the information is of a spiritual or cultural nature and they may not wish to reveal it. So for that reason, we understand they prefer the word “may”.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I'm having trouble understanding Ms. Redman's logic. We know that when a project that is to be carried out on land under provincial jurisdiction may have an impact on areas of federal jurisdiction, Quebec legislation stipulates that federal environmental assessments must be recognized. Federal environmental studies are used in making decisions on the provincial level with respect to environmental assessments.

We're asking for reciprocity. We want to see what exists in provincial legislation incorporated into the federal act. In Quebec, federal studies are used when it is believed that a project has an impact in areas under federal jurisdiction.

Look at the Toulnustouc project, for example. When the Quebec government felt that the project could have an impact on habitat and areas under federal jurisdiction, it waited for and recognized federal assessments before making a decision. So we are looking for reciprocity for matters affecting us. Under federal legislation, we want to see provincial assessments taken into consideration when projects are carried out in areas under provincial jurisdiction and on land clearly recognized as being under provincial jurisdiction.

Can the officials admit that there are pieces of provincial legislation, like the one in Quebec, that recognize federal environmental assessments, which the bill we are currently dealing with does not? That is the amendment we are asking for today.

[English]

The Chair: The chair would take the liberty of suggesting that we split this motion into two parts and deal separately with the top part down to the section that starts, “by adding after line 28 on page 10 the following”. These are separate items, separate thoughts and suggestions, and this might make it easier for the committee to sort it out.

Is that acceptable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

» (1715)

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I find that acceptable.

[English]

The Chair: We now have a motion before us in two parts.

Monsieur Bigras, may I ask you to read the first part, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are proposing to line 15 would reword the provision to provide that community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge shall be considered in conducting an environmental assessment. This amendment would make it mandatory to consider aboriginal traditional knowledge in conducting an environmental assessment. That is part (a) of the amendment.

Part (b) amends line 22. Would you like me to read clause 16.2 in full, as it would read following this amendment?

16.2 The results of a study of the environmental effects of possible future projects in the region, in which a federal authority participates, outside the scope of this act, with other jurisdictions referred to in paragraph 12(5)(a), (c) or (d), shall be taken into account in conducting an environmental assessment of a project in the region, particularly in considering any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.

[English]

The Chair: All right, we have now before us parts (a) and (b) of the motion on page 64. Are any clarifications needed before we take a vote? Is it clear?

Good.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My question is to the officials. I would like to know if you have any idea of the approximate number of environmental assessments in which you were required to consider community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge. Could you document that for us? Do you have an approximate figure? I'm not asking for an exact number, but do you usually have... We know that there is a difference between the word “may” and “shall”. Has this been done in the past? Is automatic consideration given to these items in the course of each assessment, if appropriate? I would like to know in which cases this was done in the past.

[English]

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, I definitely do not have numbers in response to Mr. Bigras' question, but what I can say is that any time there is a review that involves the public in general--and I would include aboriginal people in that definition also, because they will participate in assessments as well--you're going to hear evidence or information brought forward that reflects their local knowledge, their community knowledge, and in the case of aboriginal people some of their traditional knowledge. That always happens in cases where you're consulting with the public, I feel. Therefore I can say in general, when such consultation occurs, that kind of information is taken into account in the environmental assessment.

» (1720)

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Why does the provision say that the government "may" if this is generally done? Why not make mandatory something that is already generally done?

[English]

Mr. Robert Connelly: Again in response, I think the issue particularly with aboriginal traditional knowledge is that in some instances the aboriginal members may not wish to bring it forward for reasons I mentioned earlier that are important to them for spiritual and cultural reasons to protect, and they don't want it made public.

If you make it mandatory, the responsible authority would be obligated to obtain that information, and I think some aboriginal people would be very concerned about that requirement in law. In other words, they might be forced to release it against their will.

The Chair: All right, we are ready for the question, then.

I'm sorry. Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Just as a comment, I think using words to make something mandatory not only adds a whole lot of work for everybody but it may be a process by which you aggravate and create unnecessary opposition. To make something of this nature mandatory handcuffs the minister and his people in the application of this act, and I think that is something we should keep in mind as we continue.

“May” leaves discretion; “mandatory” takes the discretion away, and I think that's my observation with this as well.

The Chair: Thank you. Are you ready for the question? We have the first half of Mr. Bigras' motion before us.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now, Mr. Bigras, you may speak to the second half your motion.

I am advised by the clerk we should follow a slightly different itinerary for a moment. First of all, the vote that has just taken place takes care of NDP motion 21 on page 66, which therefore cannot be put.

Then we have to go back one page to deal with government motion number 10 on page 63, to deal with that technical amendment, if you like. Could we have Madam Redman?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

I have consulted the motion before us as printed and it basically proposes an amendment to ensure French-English concordance.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We have to stand NDP-22 and NDP-23 because of the absence of Mr. Comartin. Let's go back to Mr. Bigras' motion, on the second half on page 64, namely, the one that deals with the provincial jurisdiction and the proposal he makes for using provincial assessments when made, etc.

Are there any comments on that?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want to ask the officials a question.

The Government of Canada signed an environmental framework agreement with the provinces and they have side agreements on environmental assessments for harmonization. I'm wondering if you could explain to us the impact of this amendment if it would go forward, particularly in light of that agreement on EA harmonization.

» (1725)

Mr. Robert Connelly: Perhaps I could just seek clarification. Is this question directed to our views on proposed section 16.3 in Mr. Bigras' motion, Mrs. Kraft Sloan?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. It's on page 64, Mr. Connelly, paragraph (c). This legislation itself requires many leaps of intellect to follow and I think this current amending of amendments requires even more leaps to follow.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Thank you for that clarification.

Under the harmonization agreement and the subagreement on environmental assessment, the whole concept of those agreements was to cooperate and to share information and work together. We feel we have in two ways the ability to obtain that information now.

If there is a study done by a province, that information can already be used now. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, any such information can be used in the conduct of an environmental assessment. And with the cooperative arrangements through the harmonization, that opportunity is there also.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And what would be the impact of this amendment on that process?

Mr. Robert Connelly: As we see it, it would make it obligatory and I guess we wonder whether that is really needed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are there situations, Mr. Connelly, through the chair to you, where the Government of Canada may decide they need more information because everyone has their own interpretation of what is an adequate assessment, and particularly in light of certain triggers like, for example, the Fisheries Act and permitting under the Fisheries Act.

I can think of a number of cases, particularly with highways in Ontario, which is the province I live in, where the provincial EA has gone through and then there is a federal trigger for permitting and it affects waters and things like that. So you have Fisheries and Oceans Canada involved, and perhaps all of the information may not have been gathered by the province.

I do appreciate that provinces can do very good environmental assessments, but there may be some situations when all of the information isn't gathered. And what would be the effect of this amendment on that scenario?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Yes, thank you for that question also.

This does raise a concern on our part in the sense that because of the obligatory nature and the relation to section 21 of the act, it could put some limitation perhaps on the federal government to do some additional studies, which I think is the point you have made. So that would also be a second concern we might have with this motion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Ms. Kraft Sloan had an excellent question. If this amendment is carried, will this prevent the federal government, under other provisions, from conducting environmental assessments if it deems them necessary? All we are saying is that we should use... Are there any other provisions in the act that allow the federal government or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to undertake comprehensive studies, to go further? Does this really give the federal government less power? Does it prevent it from going further? That is what I would like to know. I am sure that the federal government has included other provisions in the bill to the extent that it can intervene. So I would like to know whether there are any other provisions in the bill that would allow the federal government to intervene even if we pass this amendment?

» (1730)

[English]

Mr. Robert Connelly: Perhaps I may call on Heather Smith to assist in this question, Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): The member is correct, Mr. Chairman. There are other provisions that allow the government to carry out the necessary studies or whatever else is necessary to meet the requirements of the act. Consequently, this provision is not necessary, because there is already provision elsewhere for the government to use these powers, particularly in section 18.

In addition, there is a question that must be asked before this provision is used or before we know what to do with it. We have to ask whether the project relates to a matter that is substantially under the jurisdiction of a province. This question has no meaning in the context of the CEAA. There is no question as to whether a project is substantially a federal or provincial project. It is simply a project, and the federal government must make a decision that triggers the federal process.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Smith has just answered the question. She said that even if we pass this new clause 16.3, this will not prevent the federal government, if it deems it necessary, to undertake a comprehensive study. Ms. Smith goes even further. She just told us that section 18 allows the federal government to trigger the comprehensive study process.

This motion has a single objective, Mr. Chairman. It states exactly what Mr. Connelly has just said: namely, that we must work cooperatively and try to achieve a partnership. If these words have any resonance or impact, the members of this committee must vote for this amendment, because it simply states that the federal government uses environmental studies and assessments. So this motion is designed to promote cooperation, and in no way prevents the federal government from intervening under other provisions of the act if it feels this is necessary.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, we cannot force committee members to vote one way or the other.

[English]

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, throughout this bill we have wording such as.... This is a federal piece of legislation, so naturally we hear such phrases as “the federal government fulfilling their obligations”. That means that these obligations may be with the provinces, they may be with industry, they may be all over. It's a natural thing. If the federal government is going to fulfill the obligations, it will be in the spirit of cooperation. But in doing so, if they don't have that cooperation it still rests, because this is a federal act, that the federal government cannot miss any part of it.

There are going to be times when the industry, the native, or somebody else may not agree, but the federal government must fulfill the responsibility of this act. My guess is it will be of a cooperative nature, because it makes it that much easier for them.

The Chair: Thank you.

We are now proceeding with the vote on Mr. Bigras' motion. Those in favour, please so indicate. Those opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I think we'll take this as the last motion for this afternoon.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, for clarification, I know you were mentioning ones that were stood down.

Would NDP-23 not be put? Having dealt with Mr. Bigras' motion, does it not cover off the substance and the section of that?

» (1735)

The Chair: I'm advised, because in the first and second line there is a reference to past, existing, and possible future projects, it is a slightly different motion.

Mrs. Karen Redman: It's very similar in the mandatory aspect. I would ask the clerk to look at it.

The Chair: Since we have dealt negatively with Mr. Bigras' motion, this motion stands by itself.

We'll now deal with the last motion for today in the name of Mr. Lunn. Would Mr. Bailey perhaps like to propose it?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I will propose it, but I must admit, serving on about four different committees, I'm not quite sure if I'm up to date on this.

The Chair: Would you like wait until tomorrow, then?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I would like to stand this until tomorrow, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: All right. We'll resume our work tomorrow at this point.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, may I interject here?

I, along with many members of this committee, serve on many different committees. It makes it difficult not to make every opportunity available, not that I love committees that much. I understand we nominated and elected two vice-chairs. Is it not possible, with the intelligence of both sides on this, that we could proceed next week to look at these very carefully and make some advances in getting the bill out of the way? To take a full week... Mind you, I would look forward to it, but I don't think it's in the best interests of reaching a conclusion.

I only throw that out. If we have two vice-chairs, couldn't we proceed with the bill?

The Chair: In which way?

Mr. Roy Bailey: We could do it clause-by-clause, as we're doing now.

The Chair: It was my intention to put forward three alternatives tomorrow morning as to how to deal with next week, in view of the fact both the vice-chair and I will be part of a delegation to the European Parliament. We have several options to look at. Mr. Comartin will be back and Mr. Herron will also be present, so hopefully we'll have a brief discussion on options. Then I will have to make a decision on Friday and give the clerk direction as to what to do for next week.

Mr. Roy Bailey: That would be fine. I want to point out that I'm being sent to another committee at 8:30 a.m., but I hope to be back here by 9 a.m. So that would be fine with me.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'd also like to talk about our future business. Our sources tell us that at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow the government is to make an important announcement on the Kyoto Protocol. Apparently there is a briefing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. to inform parliamentarians about this issue. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister to confirm this for us. I think this is something important that parliamentarians must attend. However, there could be a scheduling conflict.

I think it is important to hear what the government is about to tell us. First, I would ask that the parliamentary secretary confirm these reports we have heard. In addition, if there were to be a briefing tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. on the Kyoto Protocol, I would like us to delay our study of Bill C-9 until next week, if possible. Otherwise, there could be a lot of members missing from the committee meeting tomorrow.

The Chair: If there is a briefing, the committee will begin its work once the briefing is over. However, we will hear from Ms. Redman, because she is much better informed than I.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I will confirm that there is a briefing tomorrow morning from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. We are ready, willing and able to go forward with this clause-by-clause legislation. My understanding is that it will be over by 9:30 a.m., so if we wanted to delay this meeting by half an hour, I think we could accommodate both.

» (1740)

The Chair: Let's say we'll start shortly after the conclusion of the briefing, that people will come here to the meeting after the conclusion of the briefing, be it 9:30 a.m. or 9:45 a.m, around that time.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Could we have at least half an hour after the briefing is over, which is supposed to be at 9:30 a.m.? I would say right now that at 9:30 a.m. a number of party critics will not be here at the committee, because they will be doing interviews and they will have to become familiar with the plan. I think it would be advisable to postpone tomorrow's meeting until at least 10:00 a.m.

[English]

The Chair: All right, we accept Mr. Bigras' suggestion of 10 o'clock.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, I want to concur with Mr. Bailey's suggestion about sitting next week and continuing with clause-by-clause. I realize we won't have your wisdom here, or Ms. Kraft Sloan's wisdom, but there are a lot of amendments to get over. In the interest of getting it done, I think we should attempt to move along.

That's all I want to say. I want to throw my lot in with the suggestion Mr. Bailey made.

The Chair: We'll have a discussion tomorrow morning.

Madam Reed--oh, I`m sorry--Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, people often confuse Mr. Reed and me.

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify that no matter what time we start, we will be finishing at 12 o'clock tomorrow as per the schedule.

The Chair: Sure. I mean, we are in the hands of the committee. Once we lose the quorum, we have to stop. It will probably be around 12:30 p.m.

Madam Kraft Sloan would like to make an announcement.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I realize that parliamentarians' schedules are very busy and poor Mr. Bailey sits on many committees. But I wanted to point out to members that there is an invitation in your office to attend a meeting of the Canada Nordic Contact Group. It's the first meeting. The Nordic ambassadors will be in attendance at that meeting, and the idea is to have members of Parliaments from both sides of the House spend about an hour to talk about issues they're most concerned about with regard to working with the Nordic ambassadors.

I thought you would be interested, because so many of you have environmental interests and those are keenly part of the Nordic agenda as well.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): When?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Two weeks today, around 5 p.m. I think it's in Room 112-N.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.