[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, December 11, 1996
.1533 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Ms Forget, when you're ready, we'll begin.
Welcome to this afternoon's meeting, which is orders of the day pursuant to Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation and extinction.
This is our sixth meeting on this subject. With us today is Ms Diane Forget from the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature.
Thank you very much. We have received your presentation. It's in French only, so perhaps you will give it to us verbally. Thank you very much.
Ms Diane Forget (Chargée de projet, Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature): I'm not sure I'm going to be able to give you this in English.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): No, that's all right. We get translation.
[Translation]
Ms Forget: I will try to be brief.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): That's all right. Take your time. We have all afternoon.
[Translation]
Ms Forget: The Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature represents 50,000 people in Quebec. It is the largest conservation group in Quebec. It is a non-profit organization that puts out a magazine called Franc-vert. The UQCN was established in 1981.
.1535
Today, I am speaking on behalf of the Fondation pour la sauvegarde des espèces menacées, which was established in 1985. The foundation is another non-profit organization, which represents fewer members, and whose objective is more to promote and finance wildlife protection projects. Our objectives focus more on education, popularization and lobbying. We do a great deal of lobbying.
So let us begin without further ado. We drafted a preamble with a number of whereas clauses, which are very similar to those contained in the bill. I don't think anyone could be opposed to these principles. The protection of wildlife species is of concern to us all. However, we added two points to the preamble, particularly regarding cooperation. It goes without saying that we cannot protect species without consulting each other, because, as we know the species don't know when they cross federal or provincial boundaries. We added a second point about mandatory measures. The UQCN thinks the bill gives far too many discretionary powers to the minister. We are living with the consequences of this very mistake in Quebec at the moment, and we would not want to see it repeated by the federal government.
In the definitions, our only suggestion is that the term ``residence'' be replaces with ``critical habitat''. This would have a major impact on a number of provisions in the bill. Unfortunately, we have to make a change to the document that is being presented at the moment.
I will start with the first recommendation about replacing the term ``residence'' with ``critical habitat''. This would probably cover a larger proportion of the animal's habitat. So there may be some spillover of federal jurisdiction on federal lands, chiefly in the case of migratory birds, because the critical habitat could be located partially on federal lands and partially on provincial lands.
The change I would like to make to our text should be made at the first - . It should be read only in reference to clause 33, which we will examine later. In the case of the recommendation about replacing the word ``residence'' with ``critical habitat'', wording should simply be ``for the critical habitat of migratory birds'' and then ``the essential habitat of species located on federal lands but whose range could extend beyond federal lands''. The UQCN is asking for an agreement with the provinces regarding the implementation of species protection measures, because federal jurisdiction will infringe upon provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Je m'excuse. I wonder if we could get the change again that you mentioned, please.
[Translation]
Ms Forget: The first recommendation...
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Maybe you could go a little more slowly. We're doing it a little reversed this time. We normally have the problem in English; today we have it in French. So please go a little more slowly for the panel members.
[Translation]
Ms Forget: I will summarize the first proposal, which is to replace the term ``residence'' with ``critical habitat'', which would cover a larger area than ``residence''. We are asking that there be an agreement with the provinces to implement wildlife protection measures in the following two cases: the habitat of migratory birds, which comes partially under provincial jurisdiction and partially under federal jurisdiction, and for habitats on federal lands, but which could go beyond federal lands to include provincial lands.
.1540
We discussed these protection measures. Although the list is not exhaustive, we did mention subclause 3(2) which discusses the application of the bill; clause 7, which is about agreements with provincial governments; clause 8, which covers funding agreements; clauses 31 to 33, which discuss measures to protect species; clauses 34 and following, on emergency orders; clause 36, on general exceptions; clause 38 on the recovery plan; and finally, clause 46 on agreements and permits.
We go through all these clauses in our brief, and we look at how they will apply.
A second result of replacing the word ``residence'' with ``critical habitat'' will be to provide increase protection for species which traditionally come under federal jurisdiction. I'm referring to fish species and those on federal lands. If we retain the term ``residence'' the protection will be inadequate. This would be unacceptable in our view.
On page 4, we suggest a definition for ``habitat''. I will not trouble you by reading it, because you've already heard a number of proposals. Would those who do not read French like me to read our proposed definition?
The proposed definition of the term ``habitat'' should be: ``the physical, chemical and biological conditions required to maintain a viable population of a given species''.
On page 5, with respect to clause 3(2), we simply recommend, to avoid any ambiguous interpretations, that the sub-clause should end with the words ``only on federal land'', rather than ``those species and their habitats are found on federal land''. The fact is that any species may be found on federal land sometime during its life.
It is important that sub-clause 3(2) be amended, because it has an impact on clauses 30 to 32, on the emergency orders, and on clause 42.
I come now to clause 33, which deals with cross-boundaries species. I now would like to come back to the change that I was talking about at the beginning of my remarks, with respect to the error that occurred. The UQCN believes that most wildlife species migrate outside Canada and that these species are already managed by the provinces. So we can see the problem of overlapping jurisdictions on the horizon. The federal government could pass legislation, under the power given to it in clause 91, on the so- called international species, as it does in the case of migratory species. However, in order to avoid any political problems, the UQCN suggests that if a province has some equivalent provisions for managing cross-boundaries species, the provisions of clause 33 should not apply to that province. That is in fact what I ask you to remove on page 3.
If there is a dispute as to whether the provincial provisions are equivalent to the federal provisions, the UQCN thinks that the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council could be given the power to rule on the equivalence of the provisions.
.1545
In cases where a province does not have any provisions to protect its threatened species, particularly cross-boundaries species, the UQCN believes that the federal government should get the provinces' approval or cooperation to implement the measures set out in clause 33. I am referring to a prohibition on killing, harming or damaging the ``residence'', which, under our proposal, would be called the ``critical habitat''.
Our second recommendation on clause 33 is that the making of regulations prohibiting killing or damaging the critical habitat or residence should not be left up to the minister's discretion. Rather, this is should be mandatory.
On page 6, under the heading ``Listing of Species'', I give a specifically Quebec example. The Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature is convinced that the federal government should not repeat the error made by the Quebec government. Despite the fact that Quebec passed legislation may include some good protection measures, it lists only nine species of plant, and no animal species, seven years after the legislation was passed. This is because the use of these measures is left up to the government's discretion. It is all very well to have good measures, but if they are left up to the government's discretion, things can take a very long time. Can our threatened species wait that long? Some can, some cannot.
Whether the listing of species is done by the COSEWIC, as we would like, or by the Governor-in Council, we think the members of COSEWIC should represent the regions, but no group in particular. That would enable it to take into account certain special features of the provinces in the listing and designation process.
With respect to the protection of listed species, the UQCN would like disturbance to be included among the prohibitions set out in clauses 31 and 32.
The second recommendations refers to sub-clause 2(1), which is mentioned on page 3. Each time the word ``recommendation regarding sub-clause 2(1)'' appear, the reader is to understand that we are simply asking that when a measure is implemented on lands that come under provincial jurisdiction, this should be done with the cooperation and agreement of the provinces.
On the clause covering emergency designation or reclassification, here again, we are asking that there be no discretionary powers - that is, that the minister be required to obtain an emergency order when a wild species is designated or reclassified on an urgent basis by COSEWIC.
The UQCN thinks that the general exceptions, covered in clause 36, are much too broad and should be restricted to genuine emergencies.
.1550
We think that clause 46, which covers agreements and permits, should provide for mandatory control and monitoring. This is not really the case at the moment, and we find that dangerous.
Once again, we would refer to the recommendation in sub- clause 2(1), which is to take the provincial jurisdictions into account and to obtain their agreement and cooperation in cases in which the federal government is infringing on provincial jurisdiction.
There are five other clauses I would like to discuss. Once again, we should not give the minister the discretionary power to implement the measures set out in the recovery and management plans and in the regulations. The UQCN agrees with the schedule proposed for implementing the recovery plans throughout the year or in the two years following the listing of a species.
The bill does not even provide for a time within which the measures set out in the plan should be implemented. This is a very serious shortcoming that will weaken the bill. If the minister decides not to implement the measures contained in the plan, he must, at the very least, state publicly why he is doing nothing. All federal departments must comply with the plan and implement it. The bill does not provide for this either.
Finally, the provincial jurisdictions must be taken into account, and their cooperation and agreement must be obtained in the implementation of the recovery plans. We know, for example, that if a falcon is located in a federal land and that if the federal government has a recovery plan applicable just to that federal land, the plan will lose a great deal of its effectiveness. There has to be harmonization and cooperation so that the largest possible area is covered under the recovery plan.
Another major flaw in the bill is the lack of preventive measures. That is a good part of the Quebec legislation, but in this bill, there is almost no mention of any preventive measures. The recovery plans are so expensive that it would be much more economical and simpler to cover this by requiring authorization for projects that could have an impact on listed species or their habitat.
It goes without saying that environmental evaluation is the best preventive measure. However, Quebec has a preventive measure whereby some projects are subject to section 22 of the Environment Quality Act. The Quebec ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune (Department of the Environment and Wildlife) authorizes these projects. When it authorizes them, it must take into account the list of species that could be listed as being threatened or vulnerable.
When a project is not subject to section 22, the reason is often that it must undergo environmental evaluation. Very few projects can actually be put forward without authorization.
With respect to applications for investigation and the circumstances giving rise to it, the UQCN really does not see the relevance of this whole investigation process. In Quebec, a provision in the Environment Quality Act allows citizens to ask for an injunction to stop an activity or a project that could be harmful to a species or its habitat.
.1555
Since the legal system already has a number of provisions to protect species, if there is an investigation process as well, this could be a disincentive to people.
Finally, on the last page of our brief, we talk about protecting non-listed species. Clause 7 provides for agreements with provincial governments, but we are somewhat confused about the wording of this provision. Depending on how the clause is interpreted, it could mean that the federal department can legislate on species that may come under provincial jurisdiction without obtaining the agreement of the provincial government. The clause states that a responsible minister is not required to enter into an agreement with the provincial governments regarding the implementation of the provisions of the bill. Once again, our recommendation on page 3 applies - namely that the agreement and cooperation of the provinces should be obtained.
That is all I have to say.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
We'll go for questions. Mr. Asselin, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Thank you, Ms Forget. For once, I don't have to wait while you put on your interpretation device.
I must start by congratulating you on the high quality of your research and your organization's proposals for improving Bill C-65. Heaven knows it needs improvements. A number of witnesses have made many recommendations for improving it.
We know that four provinces have passed legislation to protect endangered species. Quebec is one of them. Do you think that there has been a clear improvement since the minister or the Quebec government passed its legislation? Is it merely legislation for legislation's sake, or have species that are at risk actually been protected as a result of this legislation? How is the Act implemented in Quebec?
Ms Forget: You seem to be suggesting something in the first part of your question, when you ask whether there had been a clear improvement. No, I'm not prepared to say that there has been such an improvement. The main problem, as I explained, is that the government has too much discretionary power. Too many departments are involved, including some whose role definitely is not to protect biodiversity.
However, the Act does provide for some other protection measures, the most important of which is the designation of the species which leads to protecting its habitat. That is the most important provision in the Act, but unfortunately, it is also the one with the most serious flaw. Fortunately, there are other provisions on protection, such as the preventive measures I referred to earlier, which screen the management projects before they are implemented. The Act provided that authorization must be obtained for such projects. That is a good point.
There are also conservation measures that can be implemented. However, here again, this is left to the minister's discretion and sometimes to that of the government, in cases where a protected area, such as an ecological reserve, is established, because this is not the sole responsibility of the Minister of Environment.
To answer your question, as a conservation group, we would definitely say that things are moving too slowly.
.1600
There have been so many cuts at the Quebec Department of Environment and Wildlife, that it can no longer meet the demand for regulations. When a species is designated, regulations on protection measures have to be introduced.
However, in order to introduce this regulation, officials have to go into the field to try to understand the reasons for the extinction of the species, or, at least the threat it is facing, in order to determine how to protect it.
Mr. Asselin: We could end up with ten provincial laws on endangered species. The Canadian government would also have an Act respecting the protection of wildlife species from extirpation or extinction.
If we don't start with the basics, with regulations to improve air, water and even soil quality... Let me explain what I mean. If we do nothing to eliminate carbon monoxide, industrial fumes, acid rain, the tons of toxic chemicals dumped into our waterways each day, we will have problems with the ecosystem.
We need to set up programs to clean up our water supply, to treat rainwater and domestic sewage, and even the waterways into which snow is dumped. There is an increasing impact on our natural habitats.
We know that many toxic products, including PCBs or others, are buried into dumpsites at the moment. We know there are intermunicipal dumps that are not really appropriate, where everything is dumped. These too have an impact on the quality of the water in our waterways, just as clear cutting destroys the natural forest habitat, and certain mining practices destroy other habitats.
When a habitat is destroyed, the species that lives therein are destroyed by definition. The habitat is poisoned: hence the species' ability to survive is jeopardized.
As far as the federal government's bill goes, we are also facing financial problems and many staff cutbacks. Of course, we are in favour of a bill to protect endangered species, but not of a bill that will be shelved while allowing the minister and the government to boast that they have passed legislation which, it turns out, will have no effect. The bill does not make it clear who will inform whom. Which animal is on the Quebec list and not on the federal list?
Ms Forget: That is why the UQCN suggests that the members of COSEWIC represent the regions.
Mr. Asselin: Right. Who will provide information and control. Who will impose the penalties? If there are no penalties, or even if they are provided for, but there is no one to issue the penalties, because there are staff, budget and equipment shortages, the bill becomes unenforceable.
Bill C-65 applies to federal lands, but as you said earlier, species disregard boundaries, whether they are in the air, on the land or in the water.
So, not only does the bill apply only to federal lands, but it does not apply to provincial, aboriginal or private lands.
If I were the representative of an organization such as yours, I would be extremely upset with a bill that will in fact do nothing.
Ms Forget: We think the proposals we have just mentioned are satisfactory, because even though the bill protects only 30% of all species - because we think the federal government would have jurisdiction over approximately 30% of all species in Canada - if the bill does so well, that means that 30% of all species will be saved. Four provinces provide protection within their means. If the federal government provides protection within its means, there are grounds for optimism: half of the species will be saved. There will still be six provinces that have done nothing.
We propose that provinces which have something equivalent to clause 33 (and the equivalences would be assessed with the Canada Council) would continue to enforce their legislation. Otherwise, the federal government should sit down with the provincial government and encourage it to pass endangered species legislation, under clause 33 of its bill, which gives it jurisdiction over international species in accordance with section 91 of the Constitution. If the province does nothing, the federal government could simply say that it would do something.
.1605
We see this as a sort of safety net, and one which is acceptable with respect to the distribution of powers. We will not get anywhere by imposing a strong federal law that applies to all habitats and all species that come under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not have the money or the will required to protect all the endangered species, and some of the provinces already have legislation on this. All jurisdictions are having financial difficulties at the moment.
If we want to get anywhere, we have to work together. A very good example is the St. Lawrence Plan, which worked well and produced positive results for our river. It is a joint federal- provincial plan. If we want to, we can get things done. Both governments invested a great deal of money in this project, and it produced results. This is a fine example of federal-provincial cooperation. That is exactly what we are proposing in our brief, and we believe in this very much.
Mr. Asselin: Are you suggesting that all the provinces should have a representatives on COSEWIC, including those with no provincial regulations?
Ms Forget: Not a political representative...
Mr. Asselin: A representative designated by the government.
Ms Forget: It would be a scientist who would represent the regions. There are no politicians on COSEWIC, but there will be regional representatives to avoid any inequality among the regions. At the moment, for example, the Cooper's hawk has no status according to COSEWIC. However, it has the status of a species likely to be designated threatened. This species is really in difficulty in Quebec, but not in British Columbia.
Mr. Asselin: Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Ms Forget. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you very much. Welcome to the committee today.
I hope you can give us your Quebec experience for the making of the federal law. So I'll ask you this. From your Quebec experience, when you decide under the Quebec legislation to protect habitat and give a new designation on a land that restricts or reduces commercial activity on that land and when economic activities that are acceptable on a piece of land then become banned, this directly affects the value of the land or the development plans for improvements to be made on the land may be stopped or the commercial business that is occurring on the land has to come to an end. A company may go broke, jobs are lost and/or the investments made now become worthless.
That happens in some cases when habitat is preserved by law, which brings us to the problem of how you people in Quebec then help people caught in that situation? How do you assist individuals who are being asked to bear the cost of habitat protection for all of society? The person whose land is restricted loses money. In Quebec, how do you help them?
To refer that over, how might the Quebec example help the making of the federal legislation in those cases?
[Translation]
Ms Forget: You want to know how Quebec overcomes the problem of a confrontation between economic development and habitat protection.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Compensation, I think, isn't it?
[Translation]
Ms Forget: There is a cost involved in protecting species. If we want to continue with economic development without considering other factors, we will not protect species that need protection. I'm speaking on behalf of UQCN, which believes the two aspects can be combined. In the United States, only 0.1% of all projects were substantially changed or stopped because of the legislation on endangered species.
.1610
In Quebec, our strength is that we have preventive measures. They provide that a developer who proposes a project will be told by the Department of Environment and Wildlife or by the government, if the project passes the environmental evaluation that he has to make certain changes in order to comply with certain criteria, including those on endangered species. There are other criteria as well. The views of people living next to these proposed projects and who are opposed to them must also be taken into account.
The issue of endangered species is not the only one that will result in changes to a project. There are other environmental and human health considerations as well. Often, it is not necessary to give the developer a categorical no. Sometimes the project requires some changes. Sometimes the project is rejected, because a critical habitat or an area that is already protected or about to be protected is involved. Quebec does not yet have an overpopulation problem. It still has a great deal of space, some of which is less fragile than others, hence the importance as I was mentioning earlier of obtaining authorization from the Department of Environment and Wildlife.
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Is there any fund or mechanism in place to compensate someone who is going to have to shut down their industrial operation? What about farmers who are going to have to end their particular activity? How about someone who is not able to subdivide their property and build a house because their land has now been designated as a critical habitat for a bird, for example?
[Translation]
Ms Forget: To my knowledge, we have not experienced any situation of this type. At the moment, the only protection measures on private lands are for the protection of the individual of the species, not its habitat. In order to protect the habitat of a species, there is a government organization called the Fondation de la faune du Québec. It tries to enter into easement agreements or on habitat protection without asking the owner to stop his economic activity. I know of no case in which a person lost his means of livelihood or any income because he had been asked to protect the habitat of a species.
[English]
Mr. Forseth: So you're saying that in the operation of the Quebec legislation, there is no law that will automatically devalue someone's property, but you protect habitat by voluntary recovery plans.
Ms Forget: Yes, with the Fondation de la faune du Québec. It's an animal foundation that's an organization of the government. They go knocking on the doors of the people who have animals that are endangered. They talk with them to try to do something for them.
Mr. Forseth: In summary, then, the protection of habitat is a voluntary thing rather than a legal issue.
Ms Forget: Yes, but
[Translation]
the government has the power to do so under the Quebec Act, but is not doing so at the moment. It does this through agreements. Under these agreements, there is technical support from biologists and the financial support to manage the habitat, but there is no compensation for a loss of income. That has not yet happened.
.1615
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. Mr. Adams.
[Translation]
Mr. Adams: Thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting.
[English]
I wonder, first of all, if you could tell us some more about your two organizations, the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature and the Fondation pour la sauvegarde des espèces menacées? Are these two organizations linked?
Ms Forget: They aren't linked.
[Translation]
They are not linked. A member of the Board of Directors of the Union québécoise is a member of the Board of Directors of the Foundation. In addition to this, we do have contacts.
[English]
Mr. Adams: Okay. The foundation mainly deals with financial matters. It funds research projects. For example, can your union make proposals for projects, and then perhaps the foundation funds them?
Ms Forget: No, because
[Translation]
The Union québécoise is a national organization engaged mainly in the lobbying of bills in the National Assembly. At the present time we are facing a serious problem in Quebec, off-road vehicles are driving on sand dunes and destroying the habitat of the piping plover. The piping plover is a federal species. Its nest is also under federal jurisdiction but the remainder of the habitat comes under provincial jurisdiction. At the present time there is cooperation in an attempt to protect it but the Quebec Department of Transport, which had a bill on off-road vehicles adopted, is not particularly concerned about the environment. So we are trying to protect the habitat right now.
The UQCN has also done a lot of lobbying and education of its members through its magazine Franc-vert. We also have an Internet site called Écoroute de l'information, it's the only French language Internet line that talks about environment. So we're doing lots of work promoting the conservation of nature.
[English]
Mr. Adams: You have, as I read this, 112 organizations?
Ms Forget: Yes.
Mr. Adams: There are 5,000 individual members. In a sense, you represent 50,000 people.
Ms Forget: Yes.
Mr. Adams: It's remarkable. I agree with Mr. Asselin sometimes. He's right. You agreed with him that governments at the moment don't have much money. They don't have many resources.
It seems to me that legislation like this depends on citizen involvement, the education your organization does, and also the parts of this legislation that allow citizens to take people to court, and so on.
So I hope you will support the strengthening, if anything, of those parts of this legislation, because I think it is very important.
Ms Forget: Yes. I think that everything we said in this document is the best thing for the species, and it takes into account the federal and provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. Adams: In a couple of places in your presentation, you discussed the overlap between provincial and federal jurisdictions. You explained some cases of it. But wouldn't you agree in this case that it's often better for there to be overlap than for there be a gap between the two?
.1620
Ms Forget: If we didn't have this history of federal and provincial tensions, I would say yes. I don't want to talk about Quebec, but my reading of this is that some provinces just see federal law projects like this and they say it won't apply at all in their province, even if it's for endangered species or whatever.
So I think we'll leave some tension. It's better for us to stick with what the federal one
[Translation]
has traditionally done.
[English]
Mr. Adams: I sort of agree with you, but sometimes people say that overlap is bad. It's bad if it's a waste of money and so on, but it seems to me that there are situations in which you're better off.
We don't live in a perfect society. The danger at the moment in Canada for endangered species is for them to fall between the cracks rather than being too protected, if you see what I mean.
[Translation]
Ms Forget: In the case of multinational species, this is the best hope for the federal government in managing species. It must stick to its traditional jurisdiction. The international aspect is one of its jurisdictions. When a province already has a legislation with provisions equivalent to those of clause 33, it does not apply the federal provision because it already has them. If, in the six other provinces, there is no measure equivalent to clause 33, then there should be cooperation with the province so that such measures are implemented. It's a kind of safety net. The UQCN is willing to go that far in accepting jurisdictional overlap.
Mr. Adams: You gave us a definition of the notion of habitat. Do you see this as being the same definition as that of critical habitat?
Ms Forget: No.
Mr. Adams: What would you add to this definition so that it is a definition of critical habitat?
Ms Forget: The definition in the bill is a different one. The critical habitat is the habitat the species requires to survive whereas habitat in general applies to the area over which the species is spread. We want the notion of critical habitat to be included mainly because of federal land. If we merely refer to habitat... The species will occasionally be found in federal land but that does not mean it lives there. Federal land is not necessary for its survival. It can always go elsewhere. This would have the effect of extending federal jurisdiction far too much.
Mr. Adams: Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
Are there any questions from members on that side? There are no further questions.
We thank you very much for your presentation. It certainly has helped us to understand how your organization is operating. It gives us some common-sense views of maybe how things should be done. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Ms Forget: Not at all.
.1625
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Could the members of the committee stay for just a few moments? I think we've lost Mr. Asselin, have we?
We have a document in front of us here that we need to discuss with regard to our travel plans. Normand, will you give us more detail?
The Clerk of the Committee: I've just received word that the motion to travel has been approved, pursuant to these dates.
I have the week of January 27. It's difficult to determine at this moment if it will be a day and a half or one day or two days. Depending on the number of witnesses, I think it will be more than less, because there are quite a few witnesses wanting to appear.
Next week we will contact all the witnesses we had originally contacted, then we'll start afresh. I would also like to seek the permission of the committee to prepare a news release once you've gone through this more or less to provide some guidance for the witnesses on our trip.
I should point out that this has of course been done in accordance to the direction given by the chair, Mr. Caccia.
As for the trip, we will contact your offices and the witnesses. We'll fill the dates up. Then by the end of next week, we'll be able to tell you exactly when you'll come back. Thursday, January 30, will be the very latest date that you'll be returning to Ottawa. The week of February 3 is the week we come back. In theory, that's the first week that the House will be sitting. That will be to sort of clean up, if you wish.
I don't know whether the minister will appear or not, but I simply put down that the minister may appear. Also, there are a couple of interdepartmental briefings on how the bill works. There may be a briefing on the provincial jurisdictions, if that's possible.
This is important. Mr. Asselin has given his okay in writing to this. February 6 would be the last day to submit amendments to the clerk, if anybody has amendments. That will give us Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday to put them in the right place, collate them, and then of course, subject to your permission, circulate them or not circulate them. Each member makes his own choice to circulate his own amendments. At least if we have them, we can start working on them.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): You could still bring them up in clause-by-clause. This would not preclude that.
The Clerk: This would preclude that. It would not preclude subamendments, or amendments to the amendments, but it means that all amendments -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): But you're talking about the last day to submit them.
.1630
The Clerk: Yes, submit them, otherwise you can't proceed, because then no one has any amendments from anybody, and it makes it difficult to have the clause-by-clause. But obviously it's your decision.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): You have to put it on the table at some time.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Madam Chair, I think we need to have a workable system here. I agree that most of the amendments should come before the committee by Thursday, February 6, so we'll have the opportunity to get them translated and looked at.
Here's my concern. To suggest that there shouldn't be any amendments allowed at all when we're doing clause-by-clause other than amendments to an amendment gives me a bit of concern. I would hate to be put into a position such that we were so inflexible on that.
The Clerk: That's at the discretion of the committee.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Is there anybody else with any comments on that?
Mr. Forseth: I understand that we get one shot here in committee to make amendments, which is in essence the clause-by-clause. Once we report the bill, we're done with it. It doesn't come back here.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No, no, I understand, but the way it's standing right now is that any amendments have to be submitted by February 6.
Mr. Forseth: Yes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So while we're doing clause-by-clause, no new amendments can be put forward unless they're an amendment to an amendment.
Mr. Forseth: I see.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Here's the concern I have. As you start working with the document, there may be something that comes up that you feel should be amended.
Mr. Forseth: Certainly the committee is the master of itself, so if we could get agreement -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In terms of the proper operation of the committee, so that everybody is prepared, we should have the amendments submitted by February 6. I think that's very important.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): With the proviso that if it's necessary to make further amendments, we'd be able to do that during the clause-by-clause.
The Clerk: That's at the discretion of the committee. As Mr. Forseth pointed out, you are the masters of your own proceedings, so that's fine.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): The other thing, then, is getting bogged down during the clause-by-clause with a discussion of amendments. Is there some way we could put a ceiling on that?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think we have to work in good faith. I think this committee has a history of doing that.
If there are amendments that we see we want to put forward, then they should be put forward by February 6 so they could be translated and looked at by the legal authorities to see if they're in order and all of those things. That facilitates the effective and efficient working of the committee.
The reality is that once you get into the document, you may be in a situation where you are looking yet again more clearly at something, and you realize with the interplay that you should be putting another amendment forward.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Do we have agreement on that, then, from everybody?
Mr. Knutson: I think that's being fair.
The Clerk: This is for guidance. In other words, we're asking for the amendments to be in by February 6, but obviously if the bill needs to be changed further, then the committee can do so. The clause-by-clause would then start on the Tuesday.
I also omitted to put in there that in the news release we should indicate, if you wish, that all written briefs should be submitted prior to the trip. So January 24 would be the cut-off date for written briefs.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Is that okay with the research staff?
The Clerk: Again, if we receive briefs after that, of course we'll circulate them. We're not going to throw them in the wastebasket. It's simply to give guidance to the people out there about the timeframe.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The only suggestion I would make in the press release - I assume you're already going to do this - is to make sure that the regular chair of the committee has an opportunity to okay the final press release.
The Clerk: I think that's a fair statement. I was hoping to send it out next week, but actually I may not be able to. It depends if I can do a schedule next week so I can know when we're in Vancouver and Edmonton.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Clerk: We'd also like to put the news release on the Internet, on the home page of the committee and on the Green Lane of Environment Canada.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.
The Clerk: That will be, in essence, how we will communicate with the groups. We're not going to use newspapers or that kind of information system.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But I think the regular chair should have the final say on that.
.1635
The Clerk: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.