[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, February 12, 1997
.1542 
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay has arrived, so we can start.
Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. We received the amendments between 12 noon and 1 p.m. today. We were assured at yesterday's meeting that only technical amendments would be drafted, but after glancing quickly at these amendments, I see that they are very important ones which substantially change the direction of this bill.
So that we can proceed in an orderly, effective manner, I propose that we adjourn the meeting to look over these amendments and adjust our own, and that we reconvene next Tuesday. At the same time, this would enable us to meet on three consecutive days, that is on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Guay.
[English]
Madame Kraft Sloan. Would you please concentrate on the point that these are amendments that are changing the main direction of the bill, because this is a point that has to be addressed.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Perhaps Madame Guay and I may differ on that. But what I would propose, Mr. Chair, is to follow the procedure that we have established for bringing the other amendments forward, which is to have an in camera session with legal counsel and counsel that the committee has contracted out. So we would go ahead in exactly the same way as we had done with the other set of amendments and have that kind of in camera discussion. It was my understanding that this was proposed by the chair yesterday, anyway.
The Chairman: Also, could we have a comment as to whether the amendments are of such a fundamental and substantial nature that they change the direction of the bill.
.1545
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Well, to change the direction of the bill would be to be out of scope, and therefore they would be disallowed and they would be considered out of order. So I don't see that that exists. But we have the opportunity to discuss these points with legal counsel from the justice department and our contracted person.
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): Mr. Chair, I am in the same situation with regards to the amendments, in that if the government amendments came in now, it wouldn't give us time to talk to the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Nunavut Tunngavik, and all these other organizations to see what we can move forward with, really. This is a major piece of legislation, and we have to ensure that the people who are going to be affected by this bill get the necessary -
The Chairman: The amendments that were brought forward and elaborated upon yesterday by Mr. Adams are the amendments that were already discussed yesterday morning.
Mr. Anawak: Those amendments that Mr. Adams brought forward were mostly of the Inuit organizations, but the Northwest Territories government also had proposed some amendments.
The Chairman: Right. Anyway, those amendments had been put forward already yesterday morning.
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I was just going to repeat that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: I would like our legal counsel's opinion. He has most likely read the amendments brought in by the government and I would like his opinion before we begin the clause-by-clause study phase. Will these changes substantially change the direction of the bill?
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I believe I had a suggestion on the floor that we go to an in camera session, where these items can certainly be discussed.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Do you wish to put forward a motion or are you simply making a request? If you're asking a question, you have already received an answer. If you have a motion, then put it to the committee, we will vote on it and proceed accordingly.
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, I will put forward a motion. I also believe that we must give the provincial governments time to become familiar with the bill. It is near and dear to everyone's heart, to you, to us, to all stakeholders and to natives as well. We mustn't take it lightly. Therefore, if you want me to table a written motion, then I will oblige. I'm asking you to give us sufficient time to examine the amendments which, in our view, radically change the direction of the bill.
I've asked the legal counsel for an opinion. I don't know whether you accept it or reject it. We will put our motion in writing and the matter will be settled.
[English]
The Chairman: In the view of the chair, there are two points that need to be made on this topic.
First, consultations with the provinces have taken place over the last year at great length, and they culminated in a meeting in Charlottetown, at which the provincial ministers participated and at which they issued a communiqué, the substance of which is considerably reflected in the substance of this bill.
In addition to that, when we started our travels and consultations in committee, letters were sent to the various provincial ministers, some of whom replied to the invitation to submit their views either by not submitting views or by indicating that they would transmit their views or had already transmitted their views to the Minister of the Environment.
So consultations have taken place at tremendous length with the provinces as well as with the territories. Discussions with the territorial governments continued also when this committee had public hearings both in Vancouver and in Edmonton, and the amendments proposed yesterday morning by Mr. Adams go to some length to cover that area.
.1550
The second point that needs to be made is this. In my knowledge of the amendments, these are by and large technical amendments. They do not change the direction of the bill, because they would be declared out of order. They do not go outside the royal proclamation, because they could not be entertained. Therefore, the amendments are not of a nature that has been described by you, Madame Guay.
However, if you wish to put a motion, please do it now so that we can vote on it and decide on the strength of the result of that vote. We will then be able to take the next step.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: I'm putting forward a motion, Mr. Chairman, but I would first like to point out that the federal Environment Minister received a letter either yesterday or the day before from the ten provincial and territorial ministers informing him of their unanimous opposition to this bill. The amendments that the government is bringing in today are substantive amendments.
Therefore, I move that the committee suspend its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-65 until next Tuesday.
That is my motion.
[English]
The Chairman: You have heard the motion by Madame Guay. It has been duly received and translated.
Motion negatived
The Chairman: We shall now proceed with an in camera meeting, which could last anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes, so as to give the amendments proposed by the government the same treatment as the amendments proposed yesterday by the individual members of this committee.
To that effect, the people who will be asked to remain in this room are the legislative counsels who were in this room yesterday. I would like to ask the other people in this room if they would mind perhaps having a little trip to the coffee shop. We will reopen the doors of this meeting as soon as we have gone through the presentation of these amendments for preliminary examination.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
.1553
.1841
The Chairman: Welcome back to the proceedings. I understand Mr. Forseth would like to make a point of order, and I will be glad to recognize him in a moment.
Before that, let me give you an outline of how these meetings are going to evolve in terms of scheduling. The intended meeting for tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. will take place, of course. Tomorrow we will sit from 3:30 to 5 p.m. We will resume on Monday afternoon at 3:30, and then we will sit all day next Tuesday - morning, afternoon and evening - to hopefully complete our work. If we do not.... Well, I will stop at that, without anything further.
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): I'm sorry. Did you say that we would convene at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow morning and continue sitting until 12 noon?
The Chairman: Yes, probably until 12 noon.
[English]
Now, Mr. Forseth has to catch a plane, but he would like to put to us a proposition. In giving him the floor...I was told during the recess that there is an inclination or a disposition on the part of members of the committee to stand clause 3. Clause 3 is probably one of the key clauses of the legislation, and by standing it we would, in a way, partially meet Madame Guay's concern this afternoon. At the same time, we would also make it possible for circulation of, and further detailed elaboration on, some amendments that are being discussed by other members.
I'm saying that because if you have some amendments on clause 3, Mr. Forseth, we would then be able to deal with that clause on Monday afternoon, if that is your preference.
Now, please proceed.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, there is a background of committee delays. We all have to do our best to make our schedules, but unfortunately I have now run out of time. My plane leaves just a little bit before 9 p.m., which gets me home in Vancouver at 3 a.m.
.1845
I have commitments tomorrow, but I will be back here on Monday. I'm therefore asking for unanimous consent to proceed in order to try to get some of my amendments dealt with first. This was done in another committee I was at; I was allowed to do my amendments first because of circumstances. I therefore beg the indulgence of this committee, in the spirit of cooperation.
The Chairman: Well, Mr. Forseth, you have achieved in another committee something that is very unusual. I suppose it sets a precedent that we'd be glad to adopt here, too, provided that there is unanimous consent for you to proceed.
I will ask the prescribed question: is there any objection to Mr. Forseth's request that we first have a look at his amendments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In my view, we can concede this point to the Reform member as long as we have some assurances that we can always allow amendments proposed by the other parties to a particular clause to stand until we have looked at all of the bill's clauses.
For example, each party may have proposed different amendments to the same clause. Just because we consider the Reform Party amendment first doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't look at the other amendments. Just because we have decided to follow a different order than we normally do, where we might have adopted an amendment presented by the Liberals or by our party before the Reform Party's amendment, doesn't necessarily mean that we should give precedence to the Reform Party insofar as a particular clause is concerned. We're only letting the member go first so that he can catch his flight.
The Chairman: That's a very good question. I will ask the Clerk to give us a definite answer.
Mr. Forseth understands very clearly the problem that you raised and so do I. If there are any clauses to which Mr. Forseth, your party or the Liberal Party wish to propose an amendment, then we will stand them until Monday.
Mr. Crête: But not clause 3.
The Chairman: We will thus be avoiding the problem that you raised. Thank you.
[English]
Is there an agreement that we proceed with Mr. Forseth's amendments? Thank you.
.1850
[Translation]
As usual and pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will defer our consideration of the preamble and of clause 1 until all other clauses have been examined.
[English]
In other words, we are postponing the preamble and clause 1 until the time when we will have examined all the other clauses, as is customary in this procedure. Therefore, it is now my duty to call clause 2.
On clause 2 - Definitions
The Chairman: Do you have any amendments there, Mr. Forseth?
Mr. Forseth: I was looking at the page with the big black ``7'' on the bottom.
The Chairman: So the first place in which your amendment would be cleared for discussion, so to say - where it does not conflict with others - is in clause 2, amendment R-3. Would that be correct? Does that coincide with your information?
Mr. Forseth: Yes.
The Chairman: All right, then I invite the members of the committee to look up R-3, on page 7 of the thick book.
All right, Mr. Forseth, please proceed.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you.
You have the amendment before you, so I'm going to move that this amendment be accepted at this point. After moving it, I suppose we will have some brief discussion, followed by a a vote. Is that right?
The Chairman: Just present your amendment. It's very simple and it's very....
Mr. Forseth: The idea there is to make sure that all stages of development were contemplated. In the current presentation of the bill, it says, ``includes eggs, sperm, pollen and spores.'' There was a suggestion that the word ``embryo'' would cover off all eventualities, however, and it was a refinement that was suggested.
The Chairman: Is there anyone who would like to speak against this amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: The French and English versions don't appear to be in agreement. I need some clarification. In the English version, "developmental stage and includes" is followed by the word "embryos" which in turn is followed by "eggs, sperm, pollen and spores". In the French text, we have the following order: "spermes, oeufs, embryons, pollens et spores de l'individu auquel elle s'applique". The expression "de l'individu auquel elle s'applique" cannot apply to the word "embryon"; there is a problem either with the drafting or with the translation. I think this was an attempt to add a stage. When we talk about eggs, embryos, pollen and sperm, we're talking about a developmental stage. However, the French version comes up short: we can refer to the "spermes, oeufs, pollens et spores de l'individu", but we cannot refer to the "embryon de l'individu".
The Chairman: We will ask the Justice Department official to clarify this for us. Mr. Lincoln.
.1855
Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): I also noted that the order had been inversed in the French text.
[English]
In English it reads: ``includes eggs, sperm, pollen and spores.'' Now we've put embryos there. In the French definition it doesn't follow the same order, so the translation is incorrect on both counts.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Would the Justice Department official care to comment any further?
Mr. John Mark Keyes (Legal Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice): I believe it is important for all of the elements to be listed in the definition. The order isn't necessarily important; it is arbitrary. We can change the order. The important thing is for the elements to be listed.
The Chairman: Does that answer your question, Mr. Crête?
Mr. Lincoln: It seems to me it would have been simpler to follow the same order.
[English]
Why have a different order in French? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's just as easy to follow the same order.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I agree with Mr. Lincoln. Since we always say that the legislator never does anything without a reason, if the elements have not been listed in the same order, the clause could be open to different legal interpretations. My other point concerns the manner in which the sentence is constructed in English. It reads as follows:
[English]
``at any developmental stage and includes''.
[Translation]
Therefore, the developmental stages include eggs, sperm, pollen and spores. In the French version, there is no similar link established. Had we translated this definition literally, we would have ended up with: "à toute étape de son développement incluant les oeufs, les spermes, les pollens et les spores".
When we read: "La présente définition vise également les spermes...", it's as if the definition had two different components, whereas the English version is inclusive. The Justice Department has some work to do.
Mr. Keyes: There are two elements. First of all, the definition refers to "a wildlife species, whether living or dead, at any developmental stage" and goes on to add "and includes eggs, sperm, pollen and spores". The notion of individual does not include the notion of eggs and sperm. It's merely an extension of the definition. Development begins at the embryonic stage. What we're trying to do here is expand the notion of individual so that it encompasses sperm and eggs. Even though they are not really individuals, we want to protect them.
[English]
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Keyes: We're talking about the individual at any stage of development.
[English]
Mr. Lincoln: With all due respect, if you look at the French wording:
[Translation]
- La présente définition vise également les spermes, oeufs, pollens et spores de l'individu...
If you mean what you're trying to say, why don't you just say it in French:
[Translation]
- La présente définition vise également les spermes, oeufs, pollens et spores
just like they did in English.
Mr. Keyes: It's a precision that I agree is not in the English, but -
The Chairman: All right. If you agree with the precision, will you please redraft it and have this correction made for another day?
We are now going back to Mr. Forseth on the amendment, which is the insertion of the word ``embryos''.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak against it? Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering if ``embryos'' isn't already included, and if this isn't rather redundant in terms of the other words in this clause.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: We cannot adopt the French version of the amendment as such because we would be saying that this definition applies to an individual's embryo. This makes no sense. We can't refer to an individual's embryo. That's impossible.
The Chairman: I move that we vote on the amendment to the English version, following which we could correct the French version.
Mr. Crête: And adopt the clause, subject to having it translated.
The Chairman: Yes, but we must first vote on the amendment. Mr. Anawak.
[English]
Mr. Anawak: Thank you.
.1900
When we say ``egg'', does that mean the egg that you see? If it is, then what we're dealing with is sperm, which we know that a male animal...and then the sperm and pollen, whereas for an embryo, there's no.... I fail to see the reason for the -
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay is a biologist and can enlighten us.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I'm not sure there are any embryos outside of the egg or the animal or the mother that can live if the individual is not living.
The Chairman: We have had a good discussion, but if you want a brief rebuttal before we take a vote -
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Are we doing a biology lesson here or what?
The Chairman: We are not here at a gathering -
Mr. Forseth: I'll give a further explanation -
The Chairman: - of the biologists of North America, but we want to resolve it.
Mr. Forseth: I was just saying that if ``sperm'' is contemplated, then it raises the question of ``egg'' as an unfertilized egg. So if we have sperm and an unfertilized egg, when the egg is fertilized we have an embryo. This is to get around the issue that embryos are harvested for some type of eastern medicinal purposes and body parts are sold. There is a clear loophole here that was identified in testimony. The legislation contemplates sperm, egg and fertilized egg, but the embryo of a vertebrate is missing. That's an embryo until it's near development, and that is harvested and sold on the black market.
The Chairman: I will ask our in-house biologist, Dr. Curran, to give us a clarification, please.
Dr. Tom Curran (Committee Researcher): Mrs. Kraft Sloan was quite correct. That developmental stage, in my opinion, includes an embryo at any stage of development. So in a sense, adding the word ``embryo'' is redundant to the wording already there. ``Developmental stage'' will include embryo.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question? Are there any further interventions?
Mr. Forseth: I would like a further opinion from Mr. Rounthwaite.
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite, briefly, please.
Professor H. Ian Rounthwaite (Faculty of Law, University of Calgary): Very briefly, the definition as written says ``at any developmental stage'' and then goes on to include - and that ``includes'' is simply to give greater specificity to what is definitely included in the developmental stage. So I wouldn't say it's redundant. It might serve some purpose.
The Chairman: All right. You have a clarification. Are there any further brief comments?
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): I'd like to ask the same gentleman if, in his opinion, the term ``embryo'' strengthens the legislation.
Prof. Rounthwaite: In my view, it would strengthen the legislation because the legislation is based on protecting individuals.
The Chairman: Are we ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: I take it that my next amendment is in conflict because there are other amendments to clause 3. Mr. Knutson had a couple of amendments to clause 3. I take it that we're going to have to skip that one.
Mr. McKinnon: What page are you on?
The Chairman: Page 11.
Mr. Forseth: The big page 11. Is it right that as soon as there is more than one amendment to the whole clause rather than to any particular line -
The Chairman: So you're taking us to page 18. Return to page 18.
Mr. Forseth: Okay. Go forward to page 18, where there is no conflict. Is it page 16?
The Chairman: Would you like to present it? Then we'll have a discussion or questions.
Mr. Forseth: Okay, I'm looking at page 16, which has R-5 in the upper right-hand corner. This is the only amendment to clause 5 before us. Clause 5 is on page 7 of the bill. It's helpful to look at the bill to get the overall context of the -
.1905
The Chairman: I'll allow the table to verify that page 16 is not in conflict with others.
Mr. Forseth: The proposal is, just for everyone to be able to read it, on clause 5, looking at lines 6 and 7 on page 7. The bill reads:
- endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.
- I added the term ``where it is technically, biologically'', which appears elsewhere in the bill, but
the new concept that's introduced here is ``and socio-economically feasible to do so''.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that this clause comes under the heading "Purposes". Therefore, this clause defines the purpose of this bill. I am opposed to this amendment because the clause states:
5. The purposes of this act is to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct...
and this amendment proposes to add the following restrictions:
- ... where it is technically, biologically and socio-economically feasible to do so.
- An amendment of this nature to a main clause defining the purpose of the act would almost
nullify the effect of the act. It would become virtually an interpretative clause for all of the
legislation and would be more constraining then the present situation. If we agreed to an
amendment such as this, we would be in less of a position to protect species than we currently
are. To integrate these elements would be very risky indeed, in as much as the first words of the
clause already provide some leeway:
There is no commitment made to ensuring that species will not become extinct; the legislation seeks only to prevent their extinction. If circumstances lead to certain wildlife species becoming extinct, it would be impossible to charge anyone. In my view, this amendment is far too constraining.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a very similar argument. Under the recovery planning, the socio-economic conditions are taken into consideration.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Next is page 18.
Mr. Forseth: I assume there's a Bloc amendment also in clause 7.
The Chairman: There's no conflict, I'm told by the table, so please proceed.
Mr. Forseth: BQ-3 was withdrawn?
The Chairman: It is not withdrawn. There is no conflict, I'm told. Please proceed.
Mr. Forseth: All right.
This particular amendment I'm proposing I wanted to change slightly by just deleting the last two words. So it would read:
- risk, including the protection of their habitats, and may provide for education awareness.
- That came out of the discussion as to what were the incentives. The members are aware of the
background of what I was trying to do with this amendment. I'm moving an amendment that
says - and I don't have to worry about translation because I'm just deleting the last two words:
- risk, including the protection of their habitats, and may provide for education awareness.
- It stops there.
The Chairman: And ``education awareness'' means what?
Mr. Forseth: Well, the plain language of it, in that the public acceptance of the bill is very much related to public involvement, and for the public to understand the intent of recovery plans and the overall objective. It's the educational component that goes beyond just providing teachers' packages or whatever, but it's to get the cooperation of the public to make the bill actually work out in practice.
Mr. Lincoln: There's a comma between ``education'' and ``awareness'', is there?
The Chairman: Would you like to insert the word ``and'' between ``education'' and ``awareness''.
Mr. Lincoln: I think just a comma would do.
The Chairman: Yes, I realize that.
Mr. Forseth: What I'm saying is ``education'' or.... It's a modifier, so it should have an ``al'' on the end. It should be ``educational awareness''.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: In French it's three different notions. In French it says:
[Translation]
- ... de l'éducation, de la sensibilisation et des encouragements.
So either the French or the English is right. If you make it ``educational awareness'', then you have to change the sense of the French, or you say ``education, awareness and incentives''.
Mr. Forseth: I wasn't paying particular attention to the translation, and I'm not particularly fluent in French, but my intention was the concept of educational awareness as one idea.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Before I vote on the amendment, I would like some clarification of the expression "a responsible minister". Is this a reference to the Minister of the Environment? This bill defines the minister as the Minister of the Environment. The expression "a responsible minister" could give the impression that provincial ministers would be governed by this act. I want to know who the bill is referring to when it says "a responsible minister" because this could have some consequences.
The Chairman: You will find the definition of "responsible minister" on page 4.
Mr. Crête: Excuse me.
The Chairman: Several people are listed.
[English]
The Chairman: Who is next? Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I would suggest there is also an ambiguity in terms of what the subject of ``may provide'' is. In English it looks as though the subject is the minister, so the minister may provide for education and awareness. I guess it goes to the intention of the amendment: is the subject to be the minister, or is it rather to be that the agreement may provide for education and awareness? The same ambiguity is possible in the French: Il peut dispenser could refer to the minister or it could refer to l'accord.
I think it's an ambiguity that perhaps should be clarified one way or the other here.
The Chairman: Yes, the question is which way or the other? Madame Kraft Sloan, do you have a suggestion?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: First of all, I support the amendment in principle. I think it's a very good idea. Secondly, in our discussions the officials said either the responsible minister or the agreement; it doesn't matter, because that process would be involved within the agreement as well. So the ambiguity is fine from the....
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, would you like to approve of the amendment you're suggesting?
Mr. Forseth: Well, I'm suggesting that we will look at the concept in English and then let the translators take it. So my reading would be:
- habitats, and may provide for educational awareness
Ms Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): Mr. Forseth, there was a question about whether you intend it to be the minister to provide that or the agreement. So if you're thinking of the agreement, you could just say: ``and the agreement may provide for''.
Mr. Forseth: Well, we just heard the parliamentary secretary say that -
Ms Douglas: She said she didn't mind which it was, but I think there was still a desire to have it clarified.
.1915
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: If I may clarify, Mr. Chair.... I thought when I had my quick discussion with the officials they said it was okay either/or, but it was that we should go with the drafters' suggestion and have it as the agreement.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: I tend to think that's correct, because in the notes I scribbled earlier when we were discussing this in general terms I was under the impression that if this amendment were to pass it would allow for an education campaign to be included in a negotiated agreement. Essentially this allows us to proceed through the negotiations and end up with a campaign that might be negotiated. If that's the intent, I think the committee generally agrees with it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Then the proposed amendment as it stands now would read:
- and the agreement may provide for educational awareness.
- Correct?
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Next, page 23.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are 21 and 22 withdrawn?
Mr. Forseth: It depends on which book you're looking at. The last book doesn't have them in there because they were withdrawn.
The Chairman: Page 23, please. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Yes, this is perhaps the most controversial clause. This is the one where I have been aware that there's a great political problem in the west. It goes back not only to someone who looks at the plain meaning of the language of the bill and comes fresh to it and looks at the concept and perhaps would say somehow there's expropriation or confiscation without proper compensation or whatever. There's a historical background to the overreaction in the west, and it has to do with past political fights and concerns about dual claims to common land.
The example I can use is the claim by those who own oil rights or mineral rights under the ground versus the claim of the farmer who owns the property. Eventually Alberta dealt with this with legislation and arbitration boards and so on to provide for compensation to accommodate the dual claims to common land.
So when people in the west see this kind of legislation they react, and they overreact, I would say, but they have some legitimate concerns about dual claims to land. The proposed act might place a caveat on the land, saying the cattleman or the farmer is going to have to do certain things, stop certain types of economic activity, take some land out of production or whatever. If something is declared, maybe even on an emergency basis, he or she may be ordered to stop a certain type of economic activity.
I was trying to protect the individual from precipitous business loss, not going as far as compensation, which in a larger sense is a kind of a blank cheque and a bigger issue. I tried to draft something that was in the royal declaration as a subset of the language in clause 7, but I would like to get some comment from some of the drafters to give me their opinion on whether this would get ruled out of order or not. I would just like some opinion, first of all.
The Chairman: You would turn this way for an opinion, not that way. This is the correct direction.
May I have a statement here?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The government and the Bloc Québécois have moved amendments to virtually the same sub-clauses. Shouldn't we stand this clause?
.1920
Government amendment G-5 begins as follows: "That Bill C-65, in clause 8, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 8", whereas the Reform Party amendment reads: "be amended by adding after line 13 on page 8". These two amendments will impact on one another.
The Chairman: For the moment, let's see if the amendment is receivable.
Mr. Crête: Agreed.
[English]
The Chairman: Would the lawyers from the Department of Justice please indicate or repeat the opinion they expressed yesterday on this type of amendment.
Mr. Keyes: I would think that as the clause reads now, it's really focused on the costs to the person who is administering or providing the program, and that those would be the costs that are involved. If this amendment is carrying it beyond that to the costs of other persons who are merely affected by the program, I would think there's a risk that this really is an extension of it, and it would involve an increase in the costs that would be payable if we went with the original version of the bill.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Taylor: Perhaps I could add a couple of words to this. I want to echo Mr. Forseth's comments, but take it just a little bit further.
I understand the scope of the royal recommendation and the idea of adding costs to the bill, but - and this is where I echo Mr. Forseth - there are a lot of organizations and individuals out there, particularly in western Canada, that are prepared to come on-board and support this legislation if it recognizes that the costs of protecting endangered species are not put on their backs. If the legislation fails to acknowledge that they shouldn't pay for the costs of protecting endangered species, we can avoid a lot of conflicts that would exist over the passage of this legislation. It's both a political and a financial question.
I want to add to what Mr. Forseth is saying here in that we didn't hear just from landowners in western Canada, we heard from people representing workers in the forest industry who may lose their entire job, or their entire community, as a result of recovery plans that may be put in place to deal with endangered species. Whether you work in the forest industry or you own a piece of pasture land in Alberta, you are prepared to do your part to support protection of endangered species. But if the legislation ends up saying that the recovery plan is there and you lose your job, you lose your community, you lose your piece of land, we don't have their support, we don't have their cooperation. The bill ends up mired in a controversy that doesn't need to exist.
So if there's some way this legislation can deal with that question of individual rights, whether they be workers' or landowners', we can solve a big problem.
The Chairman: But there is still a royal recommendation that we have to deal with, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln and Mr. Crête.
Mr. Lincoln: I want to make sure I understood the lawyer well. If I understood him well, he was saying that this amendment goes beyond the scope of the actual wording of the bill. One is out-of-pocket expenses, and the other one is broad revenues and could be something very substantial. So was he saying that this was out of order?
The Chairman: Yes.
.1925
Mr. Keyes: I think that would be a conclusion that you could draw. I can't presume to know how the chair would rule on it, but in my view, this is extending the cost burden on the government. There's that potential here.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête and Mr. Taylor.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I understand the argument raised earlier. If we adopt this amendment which is directed at individuals, when the time comes for us to move our amendment which objects to the fact that the minister can sign an agreement without the approval of the province, this restriction will change the perception of our amendment and of its relevance.
I feel it is important that we wait to consider all of the amendments pertaining to this clause because this will affect the value of our amendment.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Mr. Taylor.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: The point I was trying to make there was not so much to influence the debate over whether this was or was not part of the royal recommendation. The point I was trying to make was that if it is determined that this amendment does not fit the royal recommendation and this committee feels it's important that we deal with the question of bringing all the elements together, then we have to either stand this recommendation and draft another one or defeat it and draft another one.
The Chairman: There is a third approach, which is the one I probably would be recommending, and that is to declare it beyond the scope of the four corners of the legislation, as they say, and to suggest that at the report stage it be presented in the House for debate there, so as to also give the government time to examine it in more detail in case there is an inclination to consider it favourably. At this precise moment, if I read the royal recommendation and the amendment at the same time, I have to conclude that it is beyond the scope of the legislation.
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Is there a possibility of having it stand so that we can take a look at it and find a way to reword it so that it wouldn't be out of the scope?
The Chairman: We can stand it until Monday, if that is your wish.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We are very concerned about this as well.
The Chairman: Is that all right with you?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We can leave it up to the Reform Party to propose that it be integrated elsewhere in the legislation.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, do you agree?
Mr. Forseth: Yes, I would request we stand it until Monday.
The Chairman: So technically we will consider that you have proposed this amendment, but we are standing it until Monday.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you.
Amendment allowed to stand
The Chairman: Next is number 25.
Mr. Forseth: Are we dealing with large number 25, which is R-8 in the upper right-hand corner?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Forseth: All right. This was a nuance, talking about.... The clause says:
- (d) specify the terms and conditions governing the operation and maintenance of the program or
measure.
- The addition was:
- and provide written notice to the persons who will be directly affected by the program or
measure.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: My concern on this particular amendment is that it would be very onerous and very difficult to identify everyone who is directly affected, and so I have concerns around that.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments? Mr. Forseth.
.1930
Mr. Forseth: Yes. If we are making an agreement, certainly those who are directly affected must understand the agreement. If they're not provided a written notice of exactly what they've agreed to, then we get into all kinds of fights about what was agreed to and what was not agreed to. An agreement must have some certainty and some confidence in what is done. It's to facilitate the ongoing administration that actually the agreement will be fulfilled.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Have I understood correctly that when the minister and a province make an agreement, written notice will have to be provided to persons directly affected by the program or measure? If the federal government and a province sign a wide-ranging agreement, each person directly affected by the agreement will have to be given written notice. The resulting paper burden could be rather impressive. Suppose all residents of the Lower St. Lawrence must be notified of a measure involving the conservation of wild geese? That's a great many people to notify.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
Mr. Lincoln and Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mr. Lincoln: I was going to make the same point. First of all, if Mr. Forseth is talking about the person who is signing the agreement, surely when they sign the agreement they negotiate it with the government so they know what the agreement means and what the measures mean, otherwise they don't sign the agreement. But the way his amendment is worded, it doesn't specify that it's the person signing the agreement, which, to my mind, would be redundant anyway. He's talking about persons generally.
As Mr. Crête rightly says, it could be just anybody affected. How do we decide who is affected and who is not affected directly? It's very subjective. I think it could open a real can of worms, myself.
The Chairman: Thank you. Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think we all agree with the intent that Mr. Forseth is very concerned about, making sure people are aware of what's happening. To make it a little more efficient - I know the Reform Party's always interested in efficiency - perhaps we could explore an amendment that would put this in the public registry. If you would like to come forward with that kind of amendment, we could deal with it on Monday.
The Chairman: But we are dealing with this now. Are we ready for the question?
Mr. Forseth: Perhaps what we'll do, then...I'll defer that and let this one stand.
The Chairman: All right. Are you in agreement that this be stood?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Chairman: All right. This motion will stand, but make sure that on Monday it is already well phrased so we don't put in too much time on it.
Amendment allowed to stand
The Chairman: Next.
Mr. Forseth: Page 27, R-9.
The Chairman: Can you quickly present it, please?
Mr. Forseth: Yes. This amendment was proposed by our esteemed adviser, Stewart Elgie. Mr. Knutson also had tendered a motion in this regard. It looks as though, after discussions, the wording of mine was considered the best one and that's why it remains alone...after mutual cooperation and discussion.
The Chairman: We need to know more about this conclusion, because it is one of those motions that would have to be stood and considered together with Mr. Knutson's motion, in this case.
Mr. Forseth: Well, it's not there now.
The Chairman: If he has withdrawn, then it is the only one there is. Is that correct?
Mr. Forseth: That's right.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): My motion was preliminarily ruled out of order because the change from 9 to 15 would increase the cost.
The Chairman: All right. So it's the only one.
Mr. Knutson: I think it's pretty silly, but -
An hon. member: Is that on the record, Gar?
The Chairman: I'm told by the chair that there is
[Translation]
also an amendment from the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Crête: However, it is not along the same lines.
.1935
[English]
The Chairman: All right, I am learning. Because the two amendments are on the same line, we cannot deal with them separately.
Mr. Taylor: Which one is that?
The Chairman: The one by Mr. Forseth and the one by the Bloc Québécois. So, Mr. Forseth, we'll have to stand this until Monday.
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could make a quick suggestion regarding this amendment. I know we're going to stand it, but it could save some time later. The amendment is a good amendment. The only concern I might have is that because it mentions the Royal Society it excludes other organizations, especially ones that specialize in traditional ecological knowledge. So if we changed it to:
- Minister after consulting the Council and any expert body that in the opinion of the Minister has
relevant expertise.
- this would allow for the inclusion of bodies with expertise and traditional knowledge and other
things as well.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I will clarify our amendment somewhat so that they can reflect on it. The purpose of the Bloc's amendment is to ensure that members are appointed by the Council, not by the minister after consulting the Council. Our goal is to ensure that the Council is as independent as possible and thus better able to withstand outside pressure. The Reform Party's amendment, on the other hand, does the opposite by broadening the opportunity for consultation. Our tendency would be to oppose this.
The Chairman: I see. We understand. Thank you.
[English]
Amendment allowed to stand
The Chairman: We will move on to the next one, which is 28.
Mr. Forseth: What I'm wondering is, if there is no conflict.... Is there's no conflict?
The Chairman: No, there's no conflict, Mr. Forseth. Please present it.
Mr. Forseth: As I said before, basically the thrust is to ensure that COSEWIC members are not political favourites or whatever. It protects the government from criticism. It is to improve the quality of the appointments and reduce the risk that the government is accused of appointing a biased group, or those that are captive of industry or a particular group.
The whole issue comes back to the veracity of someone's credentials, and that has to do with the peer group review, that someone is esteemed by their peers to be leaders in the areas of expertise. This word ``peers'' is what is dealt with in the scientific community. If there is an intent there that can be defended, that says this individual who has been appointed is esteemed by their peers in the scientific community, it provides one additional point of esteem, that the rulings of COSEWIC are going to be respected and not undermined and second-guessed.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I move a sub-amendment to amendment R-10 which states:
- And must be generally recognized by their peers to be leaders in their area of expertise.
- I propose that the words "par leurs collègues" be stricken from the French version. To be
recognized by peers when it comes to an appointment is a very subjective criterion. Selection
would be a fairly complex process in this case. By eliminating the words "by their peers", this
allows for more latitude when alluding to those generally recognized as leaders in their area of
expertise.
[English]
The central question is how do you legislate a recognition by peers to be leaders? How do you achieve that by way of a legislative measure? That is where the chair has problems, in reflecting on the amendment.
.1940
Could I have some questions or comments, please, further to what Mr. Crête has just said, suggesting the removal of the words ``by their peers''. Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I believe that if we adopt the earlier motion that refers to the consultation, the scientific bodies, obviously people are going to be talking about their peers, so this is redundant in some respects. But I guess I have a concern about how people can identify leaders, because again that can be political.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, do you want to put it to a vote or do you want to -
Mr. Forseth: Yes, I think we should.
The Chairman: You want to put it to a vote. Any further questions or comments? Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Are we voting on the amendment or on the sub-amendment?
The Chairman: No sub-amendment has been put for the time being.
Mr. Crête: The arguments have convinced me that a sub-amendment is unnecessary.
The Chairman: Very well. Therefore, there will be no sub-amendment.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Asselin followed the conversation.
[English]
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: The next item is 31.
Mr. Forseth: This is R-11 in the upper right-hand corner, page 31 at the bottom. This amendment was to try to -
Mr. Lincoln: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think that's the same as the LK-13 there, on page 30.
The Chairman: Is it?
Mr. Lincoln: It refers to the same subject, I think.
Mr. Forseth: Do I have to stand that because there are two?
Mr. Knutson: Excuse me.
The Chairman: It's the subclause, but it does the same thing.
Mr. Knutson: I have a point of order. I thought my LK-13 was withdrawn at our informal discussions. We didn't want to try to regulate independence, so I thought it was withdrawn.
The Chairman: There is no conflict, therefore. The other one has been withdrawn. Please proceed, Mr. Forseth. I am sorry for the interruption.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you.
In every line of this bill not everything can be subject to a court review, but a lot of what is in this bill outlines general intent and how things shall be done and sets standards for conduct of the end product of the bill. This is one of those that in a technical sense may be unenforceable, but so is a lot of this bill. It certainly outlines, I think, a standard that needs to be in the bill, to talk about independence, and it will give guidance. If someone has to look for guidance as to what is ethical, they have to look to the enabling legislation. So this is an attempt to provide further defence that COSEWIC is a credible body and is indeed independent and not subject to the criticism that's likely to come when conflict arises in the future.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I guess there was some concern that was brought forward by justice around employee-employer relationships and this sort of thing, so Mr. Knutson withdrew his particular amendment and I support Mr. Knutson's concern. Perhaps you want to comment again.
The Chairman: Could we have a brief comment, please?
Mr. Knutson: Can I jump in?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr. Knutson: The drafter for the committee advised me that if you didn't hook a penalty clause into this, there's a general penalty section in the Criminal Code that would kick in. She told me if you going to go with a clause like this, you should also bring in another clause to bring in a penalty. It seemed to get really complicated at that point, and that's why we withdrew it.
.1945
Mr. Keyes: I would just reiterate what I said yesterday, that this seems to be an attempt to regulate the employee-employer relationship and it could run into constitutional problems because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the province. Employer-employee relationships are generally considered to be property and civil rights.
Prof. Rounthwaite: Mr. Chairman, I can't say I agree with that. Simply because there's a reference in federal legislation to make a decision independently, free from any prior employment relationship, to my mind is not interference with provincial property and civil rights and an employment relationship.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: I would like to make a suggestion to Mr. Forseth. If you look at subclause 14(2), it says there:
- However, the members are not to be appointed as representatives of particular regions or
interest groups.
- I don't know whether you couldn't just add there:
- and shall be free to exercise his or her discretion independently.
- ``Independently'' means free from influence and....
- Every member of COSEWIC shall be free to exercise his or her discretion independently.
- I propose that.
I understand what the justice department people are saying in the broad sense, but I can't think of any example that fits within the general principle they are setting out. I would like to be able to look at an example if they have something that comes forward. Otherwise I'm very much in tune with what Dr. Rounthwaite has said, and I think we have to consider this in more depth.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I guess my concern is that if we don't amend this as Mr. Forseth has suggested and we have this ``free from influence, interference and obligation from past, present or future employer'', people may be reticent to join COSEWIC because they might be charged with some kind of influence from an employer, whether they have had employment or they want to have employment. I would have comfort with a period at the end of ``independently'', but my concern is that it may limit the people who want to serve on COSEWIC because they may be fearful of what might be interpreted as an employment contract as interference from their employer.
Mr. Taylor: I don't have any problem with that, but I would like to look at some examples, some hypothetical cases, because while that makes sense in theory -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: How does it work in practice?
Mr. Taylor: - what's a practical situation?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, that's my concern.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Forseth: Well, what I've put forward is the question. If we're going to go forward with the question, the question is on the wording:
- Every member of COSEWIC shall be free to exercise his or her discretion independently.
- That's the question.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of sympathy for what Mr. Taylor is saying. I was wondering if we couldn't say ``independently of any outside influence''.
.1950
The Chairman: How about inside? Where is the boundary line between the two?
Mr. Forseth: Independent is independent.
Mr. Lincoln: All right.
Mr. Finlay: I once knew the secretary of COSEWIC, and I think this is overkill unless we stop where Mr. Forseth said we should stop. Really....
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: That's right.
Mr. Keyes: Might I make a suggestion? My worry is that it's not clear what the legal effect of this would be.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Keyes: I think it could be made a little more precise if it were drafted as essentially a conflict of interest provision, so the result would be that the member is disqualified from making a decision if they feel they would be acting under direction. So I would suggest a change to say:
- Every member of COSEWIC must exercise his or her discretion independently and free from
influence
- etc. Then it becomes a provision that talks about how the members can behave on the committee
and the circumstances in which they would have to disqualify themselves from acting because
they could not act independently of their employer or anyone else. I believe that would avoid the
problem I was raising about the effect of this on the employer-employee relationship.
The Clerk of the Committee: You have to write it down.
The Chairman: He just did. Will you repeat the phraseology, please?
Mr. Keyes: I would suggest it read:
- Every member of COSEWIC
- - strike out ``shall be free'' and say -
- must exercise his or her discretion independently, free from influence and interference or
obligation.
Mr. Keyes: ``Independently'', I think, is where I would be inclined to stop it. If there's a will to bring the employers in, certainly the latter language would do that, but I think ``must exercise his or her discretion independently'' would accomplish the main objective here.
Prof. Rounthwaite: If you end it with ``independently'', then if it's a matter of a conflict of interest I would suggest clause 17 as it's now written, which allows COSEWIC to make rules on the holding of meetings and the general conduct of its activities. They could deal with any ethical problem under that provision.
The Chairman: Mr. Curran.
Dr. Curran: In discussing this amongst ourselves...presumably the members of COSEWIC at some point have to come to a consensus and agreement on some things, so in effect they are trying to influence each other, if you will. If they are to reach consensus they can't be totally independent or else they will never reach consensus. That's what occurs to me.
Mr. Forseth: That's why I prefer ``shall be free'' rather than mandating a ``must'' word: ``every member of COSEWIC shall be free to exercise independently''; and that's it.
I move a yes. You move we review it.
The Chairman: We have kicked this item around and I don't think we are going to a happy conclusion. I would suggest we put it on hold and let a few people reflect on it. If by Monday some better alternative comes forward we will examine it. If not, we will relegate it to oblivion.
Amendment allowed to stand
The Chairman: What is the next item?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Aren't we voting immediately?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Crête: I see.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be a good idea to defer everything until Monday. We've been wondering for the last half hour whether we should let certain clauses stand until Monday.
The Chairman: It's the process of acting wisely that takes time, Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin: Do you agree with me? We've spent at least...
The Chairman: Some people are wise immediately, while for others it takes longer. I fall into the second category.
Mr. Asselin: You'll agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that we've discussed several clauses thoroughly and that we've been asking for legal opinions, only to be told that these clauses will be examined on Monday.
.1955
I have a very brief proposition for you. I propose that we defer everything until Monday.
The Chairman: I will try to take note of your request.
[English]
The Chairman: Next, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I hope that you will render a decision before 7 p.m.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, R-13 on page 34 will be the last one I'll be able to deal with this evening. It deals with clause 19 on page 11 of the bill. Clause 19 is vague. It's not mandatory.
R-13 reads ``if possible, a status report and a list'', so that there's some reasonable contemplation in the beginning as to who's going to be directly affected should COSEWIC go ahead and act. I think this brings some reality into the whole process. But again, it's ``if possible, a status report and a list''. It's only ``if possible'', but it does give some direction.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: What is meant by "a list of parties that may reasonably be expected",
[English]
``and a list of parties that may reasonably be expected to be directly affected''?
[Translation]
Who are these parties?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, would you like to answer?
Mr. Forseth: They are those individuals or entities that are going to be directly affected and involved, both negatively and positively. It's not saying that I feel better because I live in downtown Toronto and we're dealing with some endangered species out in Newfoundland and I'm directly affected in my emotions because I saw it on TV. That's obviously not the issue, and you can't infer that when you look at the language; ``directly affected'' is quite specific.
But if COSEWIC is considering an action and a status report is requested, ``if possible'', part of that report should be a list of who might be directly affected. It sends a signal of practicality and reality into what may be contemplated.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but COSEWIC is set up to do something in this bill that is quite specific, that is, to list the species that are endangered. COSEWIC is not a public relations firm. They may have something to do with the recovery plans, but it's in the hands of the ministers and their teams as far as doing something about it is concerned. It has nothing to do with COSEWIC. They shouldn't be the least bit concerned. Then we really would have a conflict of interest, wouldn't we? Or we could have.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.
Are there any further comments?
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, this doesn't apply to COSEWIC. It applies to any person who may apply to COSEWIC. This is about the public. COSEWIC may be asked to do all kinds of things.
I'm talking about the application: ``the application must include relevant information about the biological status of the species''. Sure, we can get very technical, but what about those who are applying having some clue as to what they're setting in motion?
This refers to what I'm talking about: the socio-economic impact and the rights of those others who may be affected. If those who are applying have to contemplate that, it might bring some reality to spurious applications.
The Chairman: To conclude, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: My worry is - I'll make one comment - that we're really mixing apples and oranges here. With all due respect to my colleague, COSEWIC is set up to be a technical body to deal with one issue, that is, a species that is endangered or threatened or whatever.
The practical reality comes in after the process of listing. My worry is that if some university scientist or biologist or environmental group or whoever wants to apply to COSEWIC to have a species listed, we're still in the realm of a fairly technical scientific debate, but the issue of who's affected by this and how to deal with the consequences that flow from listing shouldn't get tied into clause 19. They come up under the recovery plan. That's why I can't support my colleague on this change.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: This amendment would make it impossible for almost anyone to make an application if there was a requirement to provide a list of parties that may be directly affected by COSEWIC.
.2000
It should be noted that this subclause is contained within a clause which reads as follows:
19. (1) Any person may apply to COSEWIC for the designation...
This additional requirement would result in operating in research costs which, in my view, would be disproportionate in the case of person who is not an agency with access to substantial financial resources and who wishes to make an application. I'm inclined to oppose the amendment.
[English]
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Forseth, thank you.
Mr. Forseth: I'm going to now take my leave. I want to thank the committee for indulging me and allowing me to get some of the more important amendments somewhat dealt with.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Thank you. We'll see you on Monday.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I think the committee's understanding of this arrangement is that Mr. Forseth is buying us dinner on Monday -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: - isn't that correct? And it's not going to be pizza. Trust me.
Mr. Forseth: I'll be back here on Monday. Just what's going to happen with...we have the remainder of my amendments. I expect they will be stood also and we'll be able to deal with them on Monday.
The Chairman: Of course. Your absence will be duly respected.
I ask the committee, then, to revert to clause 2, please.
On clause 2 - Definitions
The Chairman: We have amendment LK-1, on page 5. This is a motion by Mr. Knutson.
Are you ready, Mr. Knutson?
Mr. Knutson: It is an amendment to clause 2 on page 2. I would like to move that Bill C-65 in clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 2 with the following:
- ``critical habitat''
- ``critical habitat'' means habitat that is critical to the survival and recovery of a wildlife species,
as identified in a status report, a decision under section 24 or a recovery plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: What reason is there for adding "or a recovery plan"? I have read the definition of "recovery plan". Initially, it was mentioned in reference to a decision made under clause 24. I see! It's for the sake of consistency, because where talking about the recovery of a species. I apologize. I'm thinking out loud.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Next is LK-2.
Mr. Knutson.
.2005
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to add a definition of the word ``habitat''. I'm going to change slightly what's on the written page so that it reads:
- ``habitat''
- ``habitat'' means the area or type of site where a species naturally occurs or formerly occurred
and has the potential to be reintroduced.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I would like someone to explain to me why the notion of habitat would be included in the definitions. It is probably found elsewhere in the legislation. We're going to have both "habitat" and "critical habitat" defined, if I understand correctly. "Critical habitat" means habitat that is identified as critical to the survival of wildlife species.
The Chairman: A number of witnesses have stated that the word "habitat" should be defined.
Mr. Crête: I see.
[English]
The Chairman: Are we happy with this definition, even if it does not make a reference to species?
Madame Kraft Sloan and Mr. Taylor.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Perhaps we should change ``organism'' to ``individual'' and ``population'' to ``species.''
The Chairman: A suggestion is being made that ``organism'' should be replaced by ``individuals.''
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: And ``population'' replaced by ``species.''
Mr. Lincoln: Is it any individual or any species, or individuals or species?
Mr. Finlay: It's ``individual'' as in the definition.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Would you like us to repeat this?
Mr. Crête: I understood that a suggestion has been made to substitute the word "individual" for the word "organism"...
The Chairman: That's correct.
Mr. Crête: ... and the word "species" for the word "population".
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sorry, could we have one at a time? Mr. Taylor and Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: Is it singular or plural? I want to ask Mrs. Kraft Sloan whether it should read: ``where any individual or species naturally occurs''.
The Chairman: She said ``individuals.''
Mr. Lincoln: ``Individuals.''
The Chairman: I understood it's in the plural.
Mr. Lincoln: I don't understand that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Singular, ``an individual or a species.''
The Chairman: Sorry, so we are in the singular.
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Crête.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Caccia.
My question in fact goes a little broader than that. It deals with the word ``occurs'' or ``occurred.''
I'm not an expert in biology by any means, but I don't know if the words ``naturally occurs or formerly occurred'' is enough to define habitat. To my mind, habitat includes the life cycle of the species, whether it be breeding, feeding, living, existing, or dying. Does the word ``occurs'' take in all of that or not? I'd some expert advice as to what the word ``occurs'' -
The Chairman: You made your point clear. A biologist who is a member of the committee is now studying that question. but Mr. Crête first, followed by Mr. Knutson and by Mr. Finlay.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have a question which may be difficult to answer. Regarding the member's suggestion that in the proposed amendment, the word "individual" be substituted for "organism" and the word "species" for the word "population", can the department's experts give us some indication of the impact that this amendment would have?
I glanced quickly at the definitions, but I didn't find one of the word "species". Everywhere we note that qualifiers have been used, such as "aquatic", "extirpated", "at risk", "endangered" and so forth. If we include the word "species" without including a definition, we will end up with a generic definition of the word.
.2010
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Keyes: "Wildlife species" is the expression defined in the bill. Perhaps this is the expression that should be used in the amendment.
[English]
or ``wildlife species'', rather than simply ``species'' ou espèce.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I wanted to point out that the professor also had a suggestion he handed to me and I forgot to bring to the committee's attention. He's suggesting we add in, as a part (b) to that:
- ``habitat'' means a type of site containing the physical or biological features on which the
species or individual depends.
- It helps address the point of my colleague from the NDP.
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Chair, I have some problem with ``the individual''. As someone mentioned, we have bird counts every year, and somebody finds a bird that has never been known to nest or be anywhere near where it's found. I presume the same sort of accident could occur. I suggest we make it:
- means the area or type of site where a wildlife species occurs
- and use the definition already in the bill, on page 4.
Mr. Finlay: Yes, it is.
Mr. Lincoln: So I don't see why we shouldn't bring it in.
But I have a point about the translation from the French to the English. I think it's important because it's a translation of substance. I don't know who translates there, but if you look at the English version it says, whatever we choose eventually, ``and the individual species naturally occurs or formerly occurred'', which gives the sense that it lives there but it also migrates, it also evolves there on that site, and it's not just fixed to that site. This is a deliberate choice of the word ``occurs''. Otherwise they would say ``lives'' or ``resides'' - whereas in French they say vit ou a déjà vécu.
I think to translate it properly it should be something like ``a évolué ou a déjà évolué. ``Occurs'' is a much broader term than vit. Vit is just that you're confined to the site. A species doesn't necessarily live there. It could live there for a little while and migrate. In other words, vit and ``occurs'' are different.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Crête briefly, and then we'll circulate the alternative definition Mr. Knutson brought to our attention a few minutes ago so we have a comparison.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I see a contradiction if we include in the definition of "habitat" the notion of an individual whereas in the definition of "critical habitat", there is a reference only to habitat that is identified as critical to the survival of a wildlife species.
We would end up with a definition of "habitat" which refers to individuals and species and a definition of "critical habitat" which refers only to species. This will lead to some interpretation problems and in the medium term, the tendency might be to refer only to the notion of "habitat" given that it includes an individual, whereas "critical habitat" refers to species, not to individuals.
Therefore, some agreement is in order. Either we include the two in both places, or not at all. It is important in my view that this point be clarified.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
Let's now for a moment suspend the analysis of this version and have a look at the version that one of us will read into the record so there will also be a French version in front of you, Mr. Asselin and Mr. Crête.
Would you mind reading it?
.2015
Ms Douglas: It reads:
- ``habitat'' means
(b) a type of site containing the physical or biological features on which the species or individual depends.
[Translation]
There are two parts to the definition.
[English]
Mr. Lincoln: Are you deleting ``or type of site'' from paragraph (a)?
Ms Douglas: Yes. It's in the second part.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, since you have circulated both, where do you stand?
Mr. Knutson: I would prefer the scholar's approach of Professor Rounthwaite.
The Chairman: You mean the second one?
Mr. Knutson: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: I would move what has just been read as an....
Ms Douglas: Amendment.
The Chairman: Which is before you.
Mr. Finlay: The one that says ``habitat'' means (a) and (b).
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crete: I know that you prefer the version that has just been read to us, but this doesn't address the question that I raised, namely that the definition of "habitat" refers to species and individuals, whereas the definition of "critical habitat" refers only to species. In my opinion, this may lead to problems. I would like the opinion of an expert as to whether this inconsistency should be rectified.
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could call Stewart Elgie to the committee. Is that appropriate? He can answer this question far better than I can.
The Chairman: Whoever drafted this alternative amendment should answer it.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Prof. Rounthwaite: Mr. Chairman, in an exercise of statutory interpretation, when we have a definition we don't want to define a definition by the use of a definition. But in this particular case there are two ways of solving this.
First, when you read the definition of critical habitat: ``critical habitat means habitat'', and then plug this particular definition into the word ``habitat'' in the definition of critical habitat, which would include both an individual and a species.
Alternatively, you could add ``individual'' to the definition of critical habitat, although that has already been approved. But I would suggest the problem can be solved by reading the definition of habitat into the definition of critical habitat.
The Chairman: If I understand you correctly, why would you append the explanatory note?
Prof. Rounthwaite: I'm saying it would be a matter of interpretation of critical habitat.
The Chairman: Mr. Curran has a suggestion.
Dr. Curran: I would suggest you add to (b) in the definition that was just read, so it reads as follows:
(b) a type of site containing the physical or biological features on which the species or individual depends for survival and reproductive success.
We read a lot that habitats can be created for species, but they simply won't reproduce. So reproductive success, I think, is a key element in the definition - survival and reproductive success.
Prof. Rounthwaite: ``And'' or ``or''?
.2020
Dr. Curran: No, ``and reproductive success''.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Oh no, if you have an ``and'' it has to meet both tests, of survival and reproductive success.
Dr. Curran: Yes, that's right.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm getting other advice here.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I don't see that. If it says ``depends'', depends is broader. I don't know why we have to define it. If it depends, it depends in many ways that we can't even define. So I think we should leave it with depends.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: If we go with the definition of "habitat" as it is written here and if we strike the expression "of a wildlife species" from the definition of "critical habitat", it could be taken to mean a habitat essential to survival.
Habitat could be defined as the habitat of a wildlife species or an individual and the reference to "wildlife species" could be stricken from the definition of "critical habitat". This would resolve the logic problem that I spoke of earlier, but it would not answer my question, namely the impact that the inclusion of the word "individual" in this definition would have? Is it realistic to include the word "individual" in the definition of "habitat"?
Do you understand what I'm suggesting? I would like the two definitions to be more logical. We must first decide if we want to include "wildlife species" and "individual" in the definition of "habitat". Later, in the definition of "critical habitat", there would be no need to repeat "wildlife species", as this would already been included in the initial definition of "habitat".
However, my question remains. What impact will the inclusion of both the notion of wildlife species and individual in the definition of "habitat" have on the scheme of the Act?
Mr. Keyes: I think that each time the word "habitat" is mentioned in the legislation, it is in reference to a wildlife species. It's very rare to speak of a habitat in relation to an individual. If we refer only to the habitat of a wildlife species, this would include individuals, as the word species includes individuals. If a wildlife species lives in a particular location, then so do individuals.
Mr. Crête: I'm not an expert on the substance of the question, but in so far as the interpretation of the legislation is concerned, if the definition of "habitat" refers to wildlife species and individuals, whereas the definition of "critical habitat" contains a reference only to wildlife species, some disputes could arise. If you can prove the opposite to me, then more the better.
Judging from what you stated initially, I'm convinced that the legislative scheme is based on the notion of wildlife species. Introducing the notion of "individual" into the definition of "habitat" could significantly effect the legislation in general and its application. That's what you're telling us. We should proceed with extreme caution before changing the definition.
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: ``Critical habitat'' is a far more narrow definition. ``Habitat'' should be broader and therefore you should have room for individuals. I believe, as Dr. Rounthwaite has pointed out, that habitat is a definition that helps define critical habitat. Therefore, it's implicit that an individual would be in a critical habitat.
Perhaps I could make a suggestion on a couple of very small amendments: under (a), ``the area where a wildlife species'', and (b) ``features on which a wildlife species''. If we just add ``wildlife'' in there as well, it would be consistent.
The Chairman: I am sorry, can you repeat the two changes?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Two changes: under paragraph (a), inject ``a wildlife species''; and under paragraph (b), ``on which a wildlife species''. That would make it consistent.
.2025
Mr. Finlay: ``A'' wildlife species instead of ``the''. Here it says ``the''.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, I know; ``a'' wildlife species.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I want to be very certain that all members of the committee understand that according to expert opinion, if we expand this notion to include wildlife species and individuals, we are significantly modifying the legislative scheme. Before doing this, we should know what impact this will have. The impact could potentially be enormous. This definition is widely used in the Act. We should give this matter careful thought and not approve any changes of this nature quickly.
[English]
The Chairman: It is for this reason that Madame Kraft Sloan had inserted the term ``wildlife'', so that now the definition proposed and circulated reads as follows - and I will ask Ms Douglas to read it again, stopping here, because I think Mr. Lincoln has given us good advice there.
Ms Douglas:
- ``habitat'' means
(b) a type of site containing the physical or biological features on which a wildlife species or individual depends.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Chair, I do think that (b), when we look at it clearly, is talking about what (a) is talking about, only in the absence of the species. If the species has the potential to be reintroduced into its habitat, then it seems to me that that habitat would contain the physical or biological features on which the species or individual depends. Since we are talking about habitat for wildlife species, do we really need (b) at all?
The Chairman: Dr. Rounthwaite, would you like to answer?
Prof. Rounthwaite: The habitat is an absolutely, fundamentally important part of a recovery plan and part of a management plan. In putting together recovery plans and management plans, you must identify habitat.
In doing that, my understanding - and I'm not a scientist, so correct me if I'm wrong - is that environmental scientists identify species' habitat in two different ways. One way, of course, is if they identify the presence of a species in an area, or if they identify evidence that a species did at one time occupy or occur in that area.
The other way, though, is that a species habitat is identified simply by identifying the biological and physical attributes of a site, and then, based on scientific knowledge, a decision is made as to whether those kinds of physical or biological features of the site are the kinds of features that a particular species depends on. So the intent of the definition was to allow both means of identifying habitat to be brought into the bill.
The Chairman: All right. Short of a yearly convention of the society of Canadian biologists, we have done pretty well. I would like to conclude very soon and go back to Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: I would like to add a couple of concrete examples for Mr. Finlay. For example, the grizzly bear does not exist in our waterways but it depends upon salmon for its existence, let's say. So the habitat of the grizzly bear includes its food source that is in the rivers. The same with an eagle. A marsh is not a critical habitat for an eagle, but if its food source exists within the marshland - mice or whatever - then that becomes part of its habitat. That's not identified in paragraph (a), which says simply ``occurs''. The grizzly bear does not occur in the water and an eagle does not occur in the marsh, but there's dependence that exists there.
.2030
Mr. Finlay: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman -
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, we don't want to have a debate on the refinements of this matter now, but please make a final intervention.
Mr. Finlay: It is simply that I was thinking of the grizzly bear as being a reason for keeping ``individual'' in paragraph (a), because they have a very broad range. Certainly they may eat salmon and a lot of other things as well, but they don't live in the water. My concern about both parts - and I think the doctor has partially convinced me we should leave them both in - is that it seems to me that if a site or an area has a potential for the species to be reintroduced, it will contain the physical and biological features on which the species or individual depends. That's all I was saying.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, in your intervention could you please indicate which motion you are putting forward so we can vote on it?
Mr. Finlay: You're going to lose either way.
Mr. Knutson: I'm going to lose either way.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. Since my original comment, I've been advised by a biologist from the department that the word ``depends'' is far too broad. Therefore, I'm recommending that Mr. Finlay's amendment, which was de facto the Rounthwaite motion, be defeated. Then after it's defeated, we go back to the discussion of my original -
Mr. Taylor: Oh, shame!
Mr. Knutson: Oh well.
The Chairman: Just propose one of the two.
Mr. Knutson: Just propose one? Then I propose the.... Norm, I had it all figured out in my head what I was doing.
Ms Douglas: Okay, number two, my amendment.
Mr. Taylor: Stick to your guns.
Mr. Knutson: I'm proposing:
- ``Habitat'' means the area or type of site where an individual or wildlife species naturally
occurs or formerly occurred and has the potential to be reintroduced.
Those in favour of the question please indicate.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like a recorded vote because the notion of wildlife species is important to my mind. If we vote in favour of this change, it might keep me awake.
[English]
The Chairman: A recorded vote has been requested by Mr. Crête. Are you ready for the question?
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2
The Chairman: Next is number eight. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: This is LK-3. I've been advised there's new wording coming and I'd like to ask that it be stood.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson is requesting that this motion be stood.
Number nine. Mr. Knutson, G-2, please, page 8(a).
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. This is a technical change to page 3, clause 2, line 38, in the French.
.2035
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the definition of residence is now more specific than the definition of habitat.
A voice: It has to be.
Mr. Taylor: I hope so, but I just think it's....
The Chairman: On number 9, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I am proposing wording that is slightly different from what's on the written page, so I'll read it.
I move that Bill C-65 be changed, such that:
- ``residence'' means a specific dwelling place such as a den, nest or other area occupied or
habitually occupied by an individual or population during all or part of its life cycle, such as
breeding or hibernating.
An hon. member: I don't know what you do at home, Gar, but -
Mr. Knutson: I breed; I hibernate.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: John wants to know if you're bragging or complaining.
Mr. Knutson: About breeding and hibernating? Sex and sleeping, that's all there is.
An hon. member: That sounds good to me.
The Chairman: Would you like to indicate why you are modifying the text as proposed in writing?
Mr. Knutson: On reflection, I thought the definition, as originally proposed by me, was too wordy. We didn't need that long a list, because ``during all or part of its life cycle'' is pretty comprehensive, so I thought two examples to highlight what all or part of its life cycle meant was enough.
The Chairman: Why would you delete the rearing? Isn't that an important continuation of breeding and an essential one?
Mr. Knutson: I can rethink this.
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: In a species, when you say ``residence'', then I think you should probably just leave the hibernating, because any species does all the others in its habitat, not necessarily in its....
Take a polar bear...or a caribou. They breed, rear, stage and feed in their habitat - they don't hibernate. The polar bear hibernates only in the residence. So I think only the hibernation should be included, instead of the breeding, rearing, staging, wintering or feeding.
Mr. Finlay: What about wolves?
Mr. Anawak: They do it probably really quick, or they're half dead.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that adding the words "such as breeding or hibernating" considerably broadens the scope of the word "residence".
.2040
In terms of breeding and hibernating, migratory species could easily have two residences in this case. I see all kinds of significant implications. If an individual leaves his residence and goes to a specific dwelling place for breeding or hibernation purposes some distance away, what happens to the definition then? It poses somewhat a problem.
Furthermore, the notion of population is being introduced and it has not been defined elsewhere in the legislation. I would suggest that we go with the initial definition.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In light of some of the comments that have been undertaken around the table, perhaps we could consider adding ``rearing'' back into this list. I'm proposing that.
The Chairman: Well, if you're going to do that, what is the rationale against ``wintering''? Can we have some serious treatment of this item?
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that when we say ``all or part of its life cycle'' we've covered the kinds of things Mr. Anawak mentioned. We've also covered the stormy petrel and a lot of birds that breed in the Arctic and winter in the Caribbean. If we're going to preserve a species we obviously have to have some.... It seems to me that is to understand both habitats, or both residences, if you like.
The Chairman: So what is your conclusion on the terminology here?
Mr. Finlay: I think the period after ``all or part of its life cycle'' is adequate.
The Chairman: This is why the subsequent line is preceded by ``such as''. It's as an illustration. You're quite right. It intends to give guidance to whoever will interpret the law as to what is meant by ``life cycle''.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chair, I guess it's somewhat a matter of semantics. There's an argument that we don't need the list at all; when we use the words ``all or part of its life cycle'' we don't need ``such as breeding or rearing''; we don't need any of those words. So I'm somewhat ambivalent on whether we put a few words in, no words, or the whole list. I know you're looking for some definite input here, but I think - I'm trying to accommodate my colleague Mrs. Kraft Sloan - ``breeding, rearing and hibernating'' is comprehensive enough.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chair, I believe there's a difference between the English and French versions, and it's quite significant. In English the reference is to ``breeding'', etc. They modify ``life cycle''. So the definition still relates to ``specific dwelling place''. In the French version, added on is
[Translation]
"y sont assimilées les aires de reproduction".
[English]
It's not simply a precision on what is part of the life cycle, it's saying that in addition to these places where the species lives during the life cycle you also have breeding grounds, rearing grounds, staging grounds, hibernating grounds, etc. There's definitely a discrepancy between the two. The French seems to be extending it much further than the English.
Mr. Steven Curtis (Associate Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment): Could I add a comment on this? When we crafted this we intended there to be a distinction between residence and critical habitat. If we had meant critical habitat, we would have said ``critical habitat'' here. So the sorts of things Mr. Anawak was referring to - rearing, staging, wintering, feeding, and so on - are essentially parts of the critical habitat.
.2045
We took the example from the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Birds and nests are protected by that act. We wanted to extend that kind of concept to be able to deal with structures and areas such as nests, dens, burrows, and so on. That was the concept. It wasn't to allow this to apply to critical habitat. It was to apply to components of the habitat that were critical to the survival of the individual.
The Chairman: I suppose you have seen this photograph, which reads ``Residence Versus Critical Habitat''.
Mr. Curtis: Right.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: I have a few comments along those same lines. If we are building a better definition of habitat into the bill, if we're broadening the sense of the bill to include more habitat, residence, one would assume, is included in ``habitat'', where a species lives or breeds or whatever. Why is there a need to include the word ``residence'' anywhere in here? Why isn't the word ``residence'' simply replaced with ``habitat'' wherever it occurs in the bill...and we carry on?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Because certain provisions in the bill refer only to ``residence''.
Mr. Taylor: The point I'm making is why is that necessary any more? Why is the specific reference to ``residence'' important if we just go ahead and replace it with ``habitat'', which is already defined in the broader sense? Maybe we could look at those specific areas where it occurs and simply replace it.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, we've had a lot of discussion about this item. Mr. Knutson, who proposed this, suggested we could choose three different options, but he has chosen the option of saying ``its life cycle, such as breeding, rearing and hibernating''. That's what he finally proposed.
Then the experts suggested the French version didn't quite fit in. If we agree with this particular definition, if we pass it and adopt it, then the French will be just matched to it, that's all. We will just change it accordingly.
I think we should just call the question and decide now. Otherwise we'll go on forever.
The Chairman: It was drafted in English in the first place, so it will be the English version that will be translated, not vice versa.
Mr. Anawak: I still think all those words, other than ``hibernating'', refer to habitat.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, would you like to read your proposal again, and we'll vote on it.
Mr. Knutson:
- ``Residence means a specific dwelling place, such as a den, nest or other area occupied or
habitually occupied by an individual or population during all or part of its life cycle, such as
breeding, rearing, or hibernating''.
The Chairman: Amendment G-3 on page 9(a). Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: On a point of order, I think this amendment has an immediate effect on clause 32, which says:
- No person shall damage or destroy the residence of an individual of a listed endangered or
threatened species.
.2050
Mr. Anawak: That's pretty wide.
The Chairman: On 9(a), Madame Kraft Sloan, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, this is simply a proposal to amend the English version. The French version already reflects the proposed change.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Could we please have a brief presentation?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is G-3, 9(a). It's on page 4, line 25. This is an ``and'' instead of an ``or'' so it includes both.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Page 10. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to move that we replace lines 37 and 38 on page 4 with the following:
- ``wildlife species'' means a species, subspecies or geographically or genetically distinct
population
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: We now go to LK-8, which is on page 15.
Mr. Lincoln: What about LK-2?
Clause 2 as amended allowed to stand
Clause 3 allowed to stand
The Chairman: Now we move on to clause 4, page 15, an amendment by Mr. Knutson.
On clause 4 - Binding on Her Majesty
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, this deals with the issue of crown corporations, and I'd like to ask the committee to let it stand as well until after we deal with the government amendments. I think there's a need to amend clause 4, assuming certain government amendments get made to ensure crown corporations are treated similar to other corporations. I'd like this stood down until Monday, please.
Clause 4 allowed to stand
.2055
On clause 5 - Prevention and recovery
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: I would like to suggest that ``or natural event'' should be added to ``as a result of human activity''.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, could you just give the page reference?
Mr. Anawak: I'm sorry, I don't have anything on paper. I'm just saying that in clause 5, ``or natural event'' should be added at the end.
The Chairman: It is proposed by Mr. Anawak that on clause 5, page 7, line 6, after the words ``human activity'', the following be added - ``or natural event''. Are there any comments? Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We have difficulty with species becoming extinct because of human activity, and if natural events are occurring we should not interfere with them because it's just another human activity interfering with a natural process.
Mr. Finlay: Natural events are not human activities and they do not interfere with the natural process.
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak, this legislation attempts to discipline humans and not control natural events.
Mr. Anawak: That may be, but if an endangered species were going to disappear because of a natural occurrence, this would make sure an attempt would be made to try to save that species from being destroyed through natural events.
The Chairman: As if the task weren't difficult enough with human activities, you want to add natural events.
Mr. Anawak: If the intent is to save endangered species, even if a natural event or occurrence were destroying a species, there should be some attempt to save that species from being exterminated.
The Chairman: Suppose there is a climate change, for instance, and the temperature of the water makes it impossible for a species to survive. How would you correct it?
Mr. Anawak: Let's say a dam -
The Chairman: That is a human activity.
Mr. Anawak: Yes, but if as a result of a flood of some kind or a large snowfall in Manitoba some species were going to be destroyed, wouldn't there be an attempt, knowing it was going to be destroyed, to save that species?
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson and Mr. Crête.
Mr. Knutson: I agree with Mr. Anawak. If you have a particularly harsh winter and it reduces a population or species to a critical level, you would take action to make sure food was available, notwithstanding the fact that it was due to a harsh winter as opposed to over-hunting.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: If I've understood correctly, the amendment is so broad that it would be akin to striking the part that deals with human activity or natural events. Then, the purpose of the Act would be to prevent any threatened species from becoming extinct.
This puts a disproportionate amount of responsibility on our shoulders. Personally, I am opposed to this amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In some ways, the world's scientists have told us, climate change is a result of human activity. I think there are a lot of natural events that are consequences, directly or indirectly, of human activity.
.2100
For example, Peary caribou have had incredibly harsh winters, but why are their numbers so low? They are going to be close to dying...human activity might have been involved with that.
Someone mentioned plant disease. Well, that's monoculture...we have problems with the way we grow things, so that's human activity.
I guess I'm talking to some deeper philosophical understanding of what a natural process is, separate from something that has occurred because of human intervention, whether it's direct or indirect.
The Chairman: We will hear from Mr. Anawak again, and then from Mr. Rounthwaite and Mr. Curtis, please.
Mr. Anawak: But can we just point to climate change as a result of human activity in the case of the Peary caribou? Are we going to have that definition so that we can try to save the Peary caribou because of the destruction of its habitat as a result of human activity?
We're already trying to save the Peary caribou. And as far as we're concerned, it's because of the harsh winters and what not. But until we get to the point where we can say that this is a result of human activity, the Peary caribou - if we weren't doing what we're doing right now - will be in danger of becoming extinct if nobody is prepared to say that this is the result of a human activity and therefore, under this act, we have to save that caribou.
The Chairman: In reading the recommendation and the summary of the bill before us, I do not find any language that would restrict an amendment of this kind. In other words, there is no specific reference to human activities. So in that respect, I will consider that amendment in order.
Mr. Rounthwaite, followed by Mr. Curtis.
Prof. Rounthwaite: I was just going to point out, Mr. Chairman, that clause 5 is not an action clause or a triggering clause. It's a purpose clause. What determines what species will or will not be protected will be COSEWIC's designating of that species, and regardless of what may jeopardize a species, COSEWIC must consider designating that species. I think a species would be protected whether it was human activity or natural occurrence.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis is next, and then Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Curtis: The way this is worded right now, Mr. Chairman, the intent is to prevent wildlife species from becoming extirpated or extinct for whatever reason, a human reason or a natural reason.
So this means that you would prevent further decline. You would prevent their killing and so on. You would take steps to prevent their further demise.
But you wouldn't necessarily create an obligation for the government to recover all species that are declining as a consequence of natural activities. That doesn't mean you can't do it...it's just a question of whether you've obliged yourself to recover all species, to take remedial measures and do some active intervention stuff to recover species that are becoming extinct as a consequence of natural activities.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln is next, and then Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mr. Lincoln: I think my query has been answered.
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I would do everything I could to save the Peary caribou, but my intent here is that this is a warning to the human species: we have to stop meddling in natural processes. And I know that sometimes it's very hard to disentangle what a natural process is and what something that has been caused by human intervention is, but I think it's important for us to understand that we cannot keep playing God. We have to understand that species extinction is a natural evolutionary process and we have to stop meddling in some of these things.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, please, followed by Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Taylor: Given what's been said, and particularly what Mr. Curtis said, that the purpose of the act is simply to prevent species from becoming extinct, extirpated or threatened, perhaps Mr. Anawak would amend his amendment and instead of adding words, delete them. Perhaps he would delete the words ``as a result of human activity''. You'd simply have a period after the word ``threatened'', and that would take into account everything that's been said.
.2105
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak and Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Anawak: That was my point - to put a period after ``threatened'', if we're not going to look at ``or natural events''. If it's not such a big deal to leave out ``natural events'', then it should not be a big deal to leave out ``as a result of human activity''.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest exactly that in the first place until Mr. Curtis spoke out. I think if Mr. Curtis has given the correct explanation, then we must leave it in, because there are two notions or purposes of this bill. The first is to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct - that's one - and then to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.
If I understood Mr. Curtis right, what he's saying is that in regard to prevention it's completely broad, but in regard to recovery it refers to human activity, because the bill has purposely stated that they want to recover as a result of human activity - because there's something different there. If we take out the ``human activity'', which was my first thought as well, then what we are going to say is that we prevent and we recover regardless of causes. If the intent of the bill is to limit it to human activity because we can't carry out an unlimited scope, then that makes a big difference.
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Keyes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I understand what Mr. Anawak is trying to get across, but my other concern is that if we take out ``human activity''.... I have been sitting on this committee since I started in Parliament, and I often hear certain witnesses saying, well, that's a naturally occurring substance; that happens in nature, and therefore because humans do it, we should be removed of any obligation of not doing it any more, even though it degrades the natural environment. I think we need that as a warning and a lesson as to what this is all about.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I'd like to suggest that this clause is extremely important -
The Chairman: Oh yes.
Mr. Keyes: - to the interpretation of the scope of this bill. There is no definition of ``extirpated'' or ``endangered'' or ``threatened'', and this clause adds a very important element to the interpretation of those key concepts for this bill. It says those concepts are to be looked at and defined in terms of human activity, as opposed to any broader notion.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Anawak, in light of the discussion that has taken place, I wonder whether you would be so kind and gracious as to perhaps withdraw this motion.
Mr. Anawak: Well, I haven't been convinced yet that the events that occur naturally.... In putting ``or natural events'', it's understood that natural events are going to occur that are going to destroy some species. I get two understandings - first, that this is just for definition purposes; and second, that this is an extremely important clause.
I consider it an extremely important clause in that I think ``or natural events'' should be included, because unless there is a description of human activities or natural events and disasters, then species are going to become extinct as a result of natural events we won't do anything about because they're not considered human activity occurrences.
The Chairman: Yes, I can see your point. At the same time, Mr. Anawak, may I invite you to turn to page 1a and have a look at the first paragraph under the title ``summary'', which has now been brought to my attention, and which reads as follows:
- The purpose of this enactment is to prevent Canadian wildlife species from becoming
extirpated or extinct and to provide for the recovery of those that are extirpated, endangered or
threatened as a result of human activity.
As you can see, the legislation has a limitation: it does not include natural events; it is focused on human activities. It is for that reason that it would be -
Mr. Anawak: Okay, I'm prepared to withdraw that amendment. I just wonder if that would be covered somewhere else, not necessarily in this bill.
The Chairman: It's certainly not covered in this bill, and I would be intellectually dishonest to give you assurance that it is covered somewhere else, quite frankly; I really would have some difficulty. But we will certainly make note of your interventions, and one day there may be a piece of legislation that will offer that opportunity.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Perhaps Mr. Anawak would like to draft something that would be included in the preamble, and he could work with the department on that if he would like.
The Chairman: No, even in the preamble it will not be....
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No?
The Chairman: No.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I think we're talking about something really important here.
My understanding of the summary you read is that it's in two parts, two notions. I want to make sure I understand it well.
I think the prevention has no qualification about human activity. In other words, for prevention, we have to use any means; the causes are completely....
It says ``or extinct and to provide for the recovery of those''. So I think that's another notion. In other words, ``human activity'' refers to ``recovery'' and, I think, rightly so. That's why there is that qualification.
But for prevention, maybe that will make Mr. Anawak feel better, that in regard to recovery...unless Mr. Curtis tells me otherwise. In regard to prevention, it's much broader, so maybe he'll feel some comfort in feeling that for prevention purposes the bill is much broader than human activity.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I would point the committee to subclause 38(7), where it talks about:
- If the recovery of the wildlife species is not technically or biologically feasible, the recovery
plan must include recovery measures limited to the prohibition of activities that directly affect
individuals of the species or their residences.
The Chairman: All right.
Thank you, Mr. Lincoln, for that intervention. I hope Mr. Anawak is satisfied with it.
I am now going to put the question as presented by -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman...
[English]
The Chairman: We were on clause 5 as in the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have another amendment to propose to clause 5 and I think that now is right time to bring it up. I trust you will see the humour in it.
I think the translator must have been obsessed or maybe he was a staunch federalist because in the French version, we read the following:
5. La présente loi vise à prévenir la disparition - de la planète ou du Canada seulement - ...
In the English version, there is no reference to the planet or to Canada. I don't think the purpose of this Act is to bring about the disappearance of Canada. Undoubtedly, this was a mental elucubration. I think the words between the dashes should be removed from this clause because they are not found in the English version.
[English]
The Chairman: Can the committee accept the mental élucubration and change the English version, or what?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Simply remove these words from the French version and then it will be comparable to the English text.
The Chairman: We truly appreciate your comment.
Mr. Crête: Perhaps Ms Copps was responsible for drafting this clause.
[English]
The Chairman: Will the drafter please intervene?
[Translation]
Mr. Keyes: I believe that the point in the French version was to get two ideas across, that is extirpation, which applies solely to Canada, and extinction which occurs everywhere in the world. That's why the drafter used the word "disparition" in French as it is the generic term; the specific word for the planet is extinction and, in the case of Canada, extirpation.
.2115
Mr. Crête: We should come up with another translation. I'm not the one whose being made fun of.
[English]
The Chairman: You had an adequate reply, evidently.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: I don't think it's adequate, Mr. Chairman. I think it's very inadequate.
I agree with Mr. Crête 100%. Surely there must be a term in French to translate ``extirpated''. If there isn't, then we had better -
The Chairman: Well, tell us.
Mr. Lincoln: No, it's not for us to.... Mr. Chairman, what I've noticed in this bill -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: What about using "territorial" or "extraterritorial"?
[English]
Mr. Lincoln: What I've noticed in this bill is that the French translation is very deficient in many examples. I think we have to pay a lot of attention to it, because the bill eventually might be nullified in parts if the two don't match. We've seen examples tonight. Whether we say it differently in English to match the French or vice versa.... I agree with Mr. Crête. I don't think we should leave it as it is, because it will lead to all kinds of problems afterwards.
The Chairman: All right, let's take this good advice to heart, and we will vote on the version as it stands before us in one language.... Actually, we had better stand it and ask the drafters to come back on Monday with a version in French that is tight and clear and has the equivalent of ``extirpated'' in French in one verb rather than in six or seven additional words, so we don't have any problems in the courts, as Mr. Lincoln has warned us. They should also come forward, as the clerk is warning us, with consequential amendments throughout the bill so we have the consequential amendments provided by you people throughout the bill where the word ``extirpated'' appears in an inadequate form in French.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Crête suggested something that could be looked at. I don't say it's necessarily the right version, but disparition territoriale et extraterritoriale might be one way. I don't know that it's the best way, but certainly it should be looked at.
The Chairman: Would you like to comment on this proposition, please.
Mr. Keyes: Unfortunately my colleague who drafted the French version is not here this evening. In my view, what he has rendered is an exact match of the words ``extirpation'' and ``extinction'' in English. I know he tried to find French terminology that would match word for word, and I gather what is used internationally in this area is exactly the phrase he has used, disparition au pays'', which is extirpation, or disparition de la planète mondiale''.
This does render, I believe, the best French equivalent to the terminology in English. The two languages are never in every case an exact match. We don't always have one word in English for one word in French. The two languages have their own spirit.
The Chairman: Yes, we agree; and we don't want to engage in a discussion on the translation and interpretation.
Would you perhaps consult tomorrow with the terminology used at the Supreme Court? There must be sufficient experience and knowledge to verify and confirm that this is the only way of translating it. If you come back with that conclusion, we will stay with that. If there is a better one, we will have to adopt the better one. Is that agreeable?
Mr. Keyes: I will certainly do that. I'll certainly bring it to his attention and we will come back with an answer.
The Chairman: All right. So we'll have to stand clause 5.
Mr. Taylor: In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I noticed, just looking at the title of the bill, An Act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.... In French it basically says ``protection for species in peril''.
.2120
The Chairman: But that is in a different context, though.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête, briefly please.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Lincoln's comment is quite relevant. The translation of the bill is fairly difficult to deal with and it could create some legal problems down the road. Therefore, we will have to pay close attention to this.
In the title of the bill alone, different interpretations are possible. We could stand clause 5 and adopt it later after coming up with the appropriate wording to satisfy the clerk's concerns. There are several references to clause 5 further on in the bill.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. Clause 5 shall therefore stand.
[English]
Clause 5 allowed to stand
The Chairman: I'm now calling clause 6.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour the point, but if you take the title, it talks about extirpated species, and when you look at the definition of extirpated species on page 3, from what I see it calls it ``espèce sauvage''. I'm just saying that's three times this word comes out and it's -
Ms Douglas: They're not at the same place, coming out in that order.
The Chairman: The next page.
Ms Douglas: I know, but ``extirpated species'' is defined over here as espèce disparue du pays at line 25 or 26 of the previous page. In alphabetical order, it's different.
Mr. Lincoln: Okay. At one time it's en péril and at one time it's disparue du pays.
Ms Douglas: No, extirpated is disparue du pays.
Mr. Lincoln: I know. But the other time it's disparue de la planète et du Canada.
The Chairman: All right. Thank you.
A final intervention.
Mr. Finlay: I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that on page 11, clause 18, ``extinct, extirpated, threatened, or vulnerable'' are all listed in English and they're all listed in one, three, or four words in French.
The Chairman: Thank you.
On clause 6 - Responsibility for administration
The Chairman: Shall the clause carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, didn't we agree to wrap up at 9:00 p.m.?
The Chairman: At 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Crête: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: There is an amendment, LK-9 on page 17, by Mr. Knutson for clause 6. Would you like to present it?
Mr. Knutson: Yes, I would. Thank you.
Again, I apologize, but I'm going to change some of the wording slightly from what's in the written text under Delegation:
(2) A responsible minister may authorize any person or governmental body to exercise or perform any of that minister's powers or functions under this Act relating to its enforcement. Any such delegation to a provincial government shall be the subject of an agreement that shall provide that
(a) an annual report shall be prepared on its enforcement activities under the agreement, and
(b), the federal government retains the residual authority to enforce the Act
- and any such agreement shall be published as in subsection 7(4).
Mr. Knutson: That's the first change.
The Chairman: And the second?
Mr. Knutson: The next change is in the paragraph (a). I'm saying an annual report shall be prepared on its enforcement activities under the agreement, and I'm striking the words ``the provincial government shall prepare''. I'm not sure we can legislate the provincial government to prepare a report so I'm just saying that an annual report shall be prepared and the Minister of the Environment can prepare a report on the agreement.
The Chairman: Will you then please read the revised (a)?
Mr. Knutson: The revised (a) will read:
(a) an annual report shall be prepared on its enforcement activities under the agreement,
The Chairman: Is there any other change?
.2125
Mr. Knutson: Yes. All of paragraph (c) is being deleted. Then the last paragraph will read:
- and any such agreement shall be published as in subsection 7(4).
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I understood that a decision had been made to treat the provinces as subordinate to the federal government.
They are being told that if agreements are reached with them, they will be responsible for preparing annual report on their activities and if some things are omitted from the agreement, the federal government will retain the residual authority to enforce the act. Furthermore, this provision talks about the agreement expiring within a maximum of three years. Therefore, the provincial governments are in a fairly subordinate position. In addition, you have amended the clause which provides for any responsible minister to delegate his powers to a governmental body.
Previously, the provision read as follows:
6. (2) A responsible minister may authorize any person or governmental body...
Therefore, we already have a change which hasn't been mentioned.
The amended provision would read as follows:
- ... any of that minister's powers or functions under this act...
- Previously, this clause said:
- ... its enforcement or to the issuance of permits.
I need some additional explanations in order to understand what this is doing in the bill, given that the initial version referred to "authorized a person or governmental body to exercise or perform any of that minister's powers or functions".
Why is it that a Minister may authorize a governmental body to exercise any of his powers or functions without requesting specific plans, as is the case with a province? We are demanding more of a province than we are of a person or governmental body. This is somewhat of an aberration. It's as if we're creating two classes of citizens.
I would like someone to explain this further to me.
[English]
The Chairman: I take it, Mr. Crête, that you are not widely supportive of this clause and you want an explanation as to its application, I suppose. Perhaps Mr. Knutson will comment.
Mr. Knutson: I actually agree with the gist of what Mr. Crête is saying and I think we can solve it by saying ``Any such delegation'', then strike out ``to a provincial government shall be the subject of an agreement''. That deals with the issue of setting up two classes of delegates. The clause would then read that in essence whoever you delegate to, and you have an agreement around that delegation, you have to prepare an annual report on how the delegation is going and what effect it's having.
The Chairman: Thank you. Will you read again what you are deleting or leaving?
Mr. Knutson: In the paragraph that is preceded by subclause (2), the sentence that is underlined ``Any such delegation'', then strike the words ``to a provincial government'', then leave the word ``shall''. That sentence will then read: ``Any such delegation shall be the subject of an agreement that shall provide that''.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lincoln.
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln: Perhaps I misunderstood. My colleague Mr. Crête sees this perhaps as an attempt to restrict the powers of the provincial government.
Personally, I have quite the opposite interpretation of this clause. The clause in question refers to the federal Minister who has authority over federal jurisdictions and notes that if the Minister decides to delegate the enforcement of the Act to a province, he will sign an agreement with the said province.
.2130
This would occur in cases where the federal Minister chooses to delegate his powers to a province, for example in the case of migratory birds. In such instances, he signs an agreement with province X, Y or Z, and the latter will then be responsible for enforcing the legislation. This already happened in the pulp and paper sector and in other sectors as well. That is the gist of this clause.
Mr. Crête: There is a world of difference between what Mr. Lincoln is saying, the spirit of the Act and what is written specifically in it. We are eliminating one problem by saying that any such delegation would apply equally to everyone. However, in paragraph (a), it says that the provincial government shall prepare an annual report on its enforcement activities under the agreement.
Paragraph (b) states the following:
(b) the federal government retains the residual authority to enforce the Act;
Since all of the provinces and the federal government have not agreed on fields of jurisdiction, putting this in the Act would place the provinces under the obligation of accepting significant changes.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, Mr. Knutson has also made changes to paragraph (a) and taken out the first line which stipulates:
- (a) the provincial government shall prepare...
The Chairman: They stay the same.
Ms Douglas: Paragraph (c) is being withdrawn.
The Chairman: Paragraph (b) stays the same, while (c) is being withdrawn.
Mr. Crête: I don't see the relevance of including in the Act the stipulation that the federal government retains the residual authority to enforce the Act. There is a general rule in the Constitution pertaining to residual authority.
The Chairman: Provision has been made in the Constitution for residual powers. This is a constitutional reality.
Mr. Crête: Yes, but there is no need to specify this here.
Mr. Lincoln: There are many agreements in place today between the federal government and the provinces and in each case, the federal government has retained its residual authority.
Mr. Crête: Not in legislation.
Mr. Lincoln: Why not in legislation? What's to prevent this?
Mr. Crête: In the past, we have had experiences where residual authority has been exercised. Based on these experiences, Quebec wants this to be specified in as few enactments as possible.
Mr. Lincoln: That's quite a different matter.
The Chairman: Gentlemen.
[English]
Evidently we can't satisfy all of Mr. Crête's objections. Some have been, some have not, and I think it's time to take a vote, unless you want further interventions.
Our legal adviser wants to speak.
Mr. Keyes: I just have two drafting points to raise. With the deletion in paragraph 7(1)(a) of ``provincial governments'', there's no longer any antecedent for the words ``its enforcement''. Before, I think it referred to ``provincial governments''. That's now gone, so it should be made clear what ``its'' refers to. I assume it's the ``person or governmental body'' enforcement activities.
The second point is that at the conclusion relating to the publication, a cross-reference to subclause 7(4) is left, but that subclause merely says that the agreement is to be made public by putting it into the public registry. It will be simpler just to say that here rather than including a cross-reference to another clause that says something in fewer words.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, could you then take us through the revised paragraph (a) and the revised bottom line, so to say, that last line in accordance with your reference?
.2135
Mr. Keyes: In paragraph (a), I would suggest that it read:
(a) an annual report shall be prepared on the enforcement activities
- actually, deleting ``its'' might be the simplest thing -
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Keyes:
under the agreement,
Then in the concluding words I would just add the words that appear in subclause 7(4), simply that:
- the responsible minister must make it public by including it in the public registry.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like a separate recorded vote on paragraph (b). The remainder could be voted on separately.
[English]
The Chairman: Sure, we can do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Could we add the following to (b): "with the consent of the provinces"?
Mr. Crête: You could propose that we withdraw (b) altogether.
The Chairman: You would be better off proposing a sub-amendment to isolate (b).
Mr. Crête: I propose, therefore, that paragraph (b) be stricken and that this sub-amendment be put to a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête has proposed that we have a recorded vote on a subamendment that would delete item (b). Once that vote has taken place, we will vote on the entire amendment and then on the clause as amended.
I will explain that again. We have a proposed subamendment by Mr. Crête to delete paragraph (b), the one that is before you. It refers to the federal government retaining the residual authority to enforce the proposed act.
Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2
The Chairman: We now go back to the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, may I propose an amendment?
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Mr. Asselin: If we keep paragraph (b), the federal government will retain its residual authority to enforce the act with the consent of the provinces. Thus, if a province wishes to assign its residual authority to the federal government, it can do so. However, if a province is not prepared to assign its residual authority, its consent will be required.
[English]
The Chairman: A constitutional expert would have a field day with that. Nevertheless, Mr. Asselin is proposing a subamendment to the effect that paragraph (b) would read:
The federal government retains the residual authority to enforce the Act with the consent of the provinces,
Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If the province concerned consents to this.
[English]
The Chairman:
subject to the consent of the provinces.
Mr. Lincoln: No, ``of the province or provinces''.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: If a province wants to turn its residual powers over to the federal government, then it will do so. I'm still talking about the act. However, if it does not consent to this, the federal government will not be able to exercise its residual power.
[English]
Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2
The Chairman: I am now calling on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Knutson. Are you ready for the question?
.2140
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm ready. I simply wanted to say that this is a fine example of how meaningless the distinct society concept is.
The Chairman: Even your party rejected this concept.
Mr. Crête: Someone could have brought it up during Question Period, but you don't give us any chance to.
[English]
The Chairman: It's a concept that has been rejected even by Mr. Bouchard.
So we are ready for the question. Would you like a recorded vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No.
[English]
The Chairman: All right, the question is on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Knutson.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: Now, since it is 9:40 a.m., would you agree that we adjourn until tomorrow at 8:30 a.m.? Is that unanimous?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: If that is the case, therefore, without a distinct society, we will adjourn. I wish you all a good night and I thank you for your collaboration.
The meeting is adjourned.