[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, February 13, 1997
.0842 
[English]
The Chairman: While we are waiting for one more member to reach the necessary quota, I have a couple of announcements about the work of the committee today. We will work until noon. We will resume at 3:15 p.m., and I invite members to please help me in that respect. We will adjourn at 5 p.m. to allow the chair to catch a flight. We will then resume on Monday at 3:15 p.m. and put in a good effort in the afternoon and evening. At that time we will know whether or not to plan for Tuesday. It is too soon to predict.
I therefore invite those in this room who are interested in the work of the committee, and in particular the members and the staff, to do their best to be here on time at 3:15 p.m. so we can start.
As to last night's work, as you may recall we completed clause 6. We are now wading into clause 7, which I'm told is staring at us with three amendments - one by the Bloc and two byMr. Knutson - which have been distributed.
On clause 7 - Agreements with provincial governments
The Chairman: We will start with Mr. Crête and the Bloc amendment, which in your collection is indicated with the initials BQ-3, pages 19 and 20.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête, are you maintaining your amendment?
.0845
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The previous subsection states that a responsible minister could enter into an agreement with one or more governments of provinces or countries or organizations, etc.
The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that, when there is an agreement with a person, an organization or a province, the agreement will not have force of law unless there is a provincial law that provides for this. Basically, we are clarifying the situation just as we did for municipalities which, before signing contracts with the federal government, must first obtain a variation order from the provincial government. At any rate, this is how things take place in Quebec. This is the objective sought by the amendment.
Since this is an area where jurisdiction is ambiguous and where conflicts could arise, this measure could be a good way to avoid conflict. We would be making sure that, when there is an agreement, it will first have been screened and approved by the provincial government concerned.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
Are there any questions of Mr. Crête, or any comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It is so clear that everyone is in agreement.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Mr. Chair, this would certainly go against the spirit and the intent of the national accord. We would have to reject it on those grounds.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to respond to the member's argument. In a letter written by the New Brunswick Minister of the Environment, on behalf of all the provincial Ministers of the Environment, to the Federal Minister of the Environment, Mr. Marchi, it was very clear that the provincial ministers wanted to ensure that provincial jurisdiction will be respected. The letter gives some very concrete examples. With this amendment, we wanted to ensure that this spirit would be reflected in all agreements.
In my opinion, this does not contradict the general agreement that was signed because this agreement was very general. It left a lot of room for interpretation, however, there could be no agreement if jurisdictions were not respected. It is with this perspective in mind that we introduced the amendment.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next amendment, LK-10, is by Mr. Knutson.
Would you please introduce it.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
This has to do with the issue of pre-publication of agreements. It came out of an informal discussion we had in camera. At that meeting we asked the drafter, Mr. Keyes, to come up with better language. Maybe I can ask him to help me out and explain it.
Mr. John Mark Keyes (Senior Counsel, Legislation Section, Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice): Yes...at the in camera session. After that we had a look at Mr. Knutson's motion in relation to clause 7 and suggested that in order to incorporate the pre-publication requirements and the publishing requirements in clause 8, it might be better to separate subclauses 7(3) and (4) to make them a new clause that would relate to not just the clause 7 agreements but also to the new agreements under clause 6 that are envisaged by Mr. Knutson's motion.
.0850
The gist of this amendment, then, is to delete subclauses 7(3) and (4) and then reenact them as new clause 7.1, which would cover not only the clause 7 agreements but also the new clause 6 agreements added by Mr. Knutson's motion.
I would just point out that last night, I believe, the committee did adopt the motion numbered LK-9. At the end of it we had some wording that did the same thing. So if these new motions are adopted, that wording should probably be struck from the text of the motion on clause 6. These new motions essentially do the same thing but in a little more of an elaborate fashion.
The Chairman: This is refreshing our memory. It's very helpful.
Are there any further comments? Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: If I've understood correctly, we are eliminating the obligation to make public proposed agreements that the responsible minister may sign during the negotiation process, once they have been signed. We are eliminating the publication of proposed agreements. Am I on the right amendment?
The Chairman: No, that deals with another motion.
Mr. Crête: Perhaps I didn't hear properly. Are we on LK-10?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Crête: The one that deletes lines 37 to 40 on page 7?
[English]
The Chairman: Correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: These lines read as follows:
(3) ... the responsible minister must make the proposed text of it public...
The Chairman: There is a reason for that.
[English]
Would you like to explain?
Mr. H. Ian Rounthwaite (Consultant to the Committee): Mr. Chairman, my recollection of the wording of LK-9 as amended was to strike the last two lines with regard to publication and substitute words to the effect that any agreement shall be included in the public registry. The consequence, if this motion is passed, would then be a minor change to that, as pointed out by my colleague.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: My comment remains the same. If we accept this amendment, we will have to go back to LK-9 to make it consistent, so that there is some logic. I understand that.
However, as far as the very basis of the amendment before us is concerned, in a law where you want to ensure that the public is educated, you want to ensure that the issue of threatened species is truly a concern of all Canadians. I find it very difficult to understand why one would want to delete a clause from a bill calling for the publication of proposed agreements, which would inform the public that an agreement has been reached between a province or an organization and the federal government to take action with respect to certain species. Even when the agreement is signed, it will not be made public. This is going even farther.
In my mind, this is like limiting the application of the Access to Information Act, or, at the very least, this is putting people in a situation where they have to resort to the Access to Information Act in order to obtain documents pertaining to these agreements. Is this not the case?
Mr. Philippe Hallée (Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice): No. Mr. Knutson, at the bottom of his motion, suggested a reference to subsections 7(3) and (4), which in fact contain provisions providing for the publication of agreements and proposed agreements, which we are doing, since the agreements will now be contained in clauses 6 and 7. We are taking the provisions regarding the prepublication of proposed agreements, which were contained in clause 7 and we are applying them to both clauses, to the new agreements that we have now, and to clause 7. To do this, we are creating a separate clause from clause 7, where these provisions were found. So we will now have clause 7.1 which, in essence, contains what is found in subsections (3) and (4) of the current clause 7.
.0855
The Chairman: You have to look at LK-11.
Mr. Crête: The one that comes after.
[English]
The Chairman: I thought Mr. Finlay wanted to say something.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that I found LK-11, and it says what 11 says.
The Chairman: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Are we on 11 now, or 10?
The Chairman: We are still on 10, but moving towards 11 with the speed of a snail. We will get there.
If there are no further questions or interventions, are you ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Now we go to LK-11. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: To make sense of number 10 you really have to read 11 at the same time, and 11 puts back in a cleaner way pre-publication in reference to clauses 7 and 6. Again, I turn it over to the Justice lawyers to add further clarification.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: In essence, this is what Mr. Crête has just explained. Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 7.1 simply say the same thing found in the provisions of subsections 7(3) and (4). It's exactly the same wording except reference is made to clause 6 and to clause 7 this time.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I'd point out this. When an agreement is made public under subclause 7.1(1) and there's a 60-day waiting period before it can be concluded, the committee may wish to consider whether or not they wish to include provisions that allow members of the public to comment on the agreement during that 60-day period, and if so, whether or not the minister must respond to those comments. There are other parts of the bill where the public is entitled to that right.
The Chairman: I suggest that if that venue is to be explored, it be done during the noon recess. Thank you.
Are we ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'd ask that clause 7 stand, because we may have other wording as well.
The Chairman: Is the wording you're referring to coming forward for new clause 7.1 or for clause 7? It's for clause 7, is it?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Clause 7 allowed to stand
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I did not note what we did with R-8 submitted by the Reform Party. Has it been withdrawn?
The Chairman: Yes, it was withdrawn.
Mr. Crête: All right. Excuse me.
[English]
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Keyes mentioned we need to revisit clause 6, having just passed new clause 7.1, to clean up the language. Did I understand that right?
Mr. Keyes: That's correct. At the conclusion of Mr. Knutson's motion on clause 6, a phrase is added that essentially says exactly the same thing as is now said in new clause 7.1. There's a duplication there, so those concluding words at the end of clause 6 that were added last night should be struck from it so there isn't a duplication in wording.
.0900
The Chairman: Is that motion circulated? Is it available?
Mr. Knutson: I don't have it.
The Chairman: Then it will have to be put on paper. We will do that whenever it is ready, but we need a piece of paper.
Mr. Knutson: And that will be a house-cleaning motion?
The Chairman: It will be a consequential amendment, yes. So we can do it this afternoon, if you like, or later in the morning, whenever it's ready. Thank you.
On clause 8 - Funding agreements
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the wording we have in clause 7 may impact on the wording in clause 8. I'll have to have clause 8 stand.
The Chairman: There is a motion also by Mr. Forseth, which we will deal with on Monday. We also have a motion by the Bloc, and Madam Kraft Sloan's adjustment, so we will stand the whole clause.
Clause 8 allowed to stand
Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to
On clause 12 - Establishment
The Chairman: There is a government amendment G-6. Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I move that we add something on page 9 of the legislation, clause 12, lines 13 to 16. We're providing for two paragraphs, so first of all there is an (a) in front of the present subclause containing the words ``providing general direction''. Then there should be an ``and'' at the end of the present subclause, followed by what would then be a new paragraph:
- (b) coordinating the activities of the various levels of government relating to the protection of
wildlife species at risk.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 12 as amended agreed to
On clause 13 - Establishment
The Chairman: There are amendments BQ-5, R-9, and G-7.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Can I explain our amendment BQ-5?
The Chairman: We could do this, however, we will have to revisit the clause on Monday because Mr. Forseth is not here.
Mr. Crête: Okay.
The Chairman: Perhaps it would be better to do all three together. Would that bother you?
Mr. Crête: No, that's fine.
[English]
The Chairman: So we'll stand clause 13.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Bloc amendment BQ-5 is not out of order? It's more than nine members.
An hon. member: No.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It was ruled out of order.
A voice: It says ``not'' in the bill.
Mr. Finlay: ``Not'' is in the bill at the end of the line before.
.0905
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay, sorry.
The Chairman: So we will carry them all together on Monday.
Clause 13 allowed to stand
On clause 14 - Qualifications of members
The Chairman: We dealt with the amendment by Mr. Forseth yesterday. That's all we have.
Ms Kirsten Douglas (Committee Researcher): But we stood R-11.
The Chairman: So we have an amendment by Mr. Knutson.
Would you like to introduce LK-12?
Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): Mr. Chairman, can you refresh my memory as to what we did with R-10?
The Chairman: It was defeated.
The floor is yours, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We're on LK-12, an amendment to clause 14. I'm introducing that motion, as it's written there, except for one small change.
If you look at the fourth line of the second paragraph of the amendment, where it mentions the number eight, that number was based on the assumption that there would be a fifteen-person COSEWIC panel.
Since the motion raising the COSEWIC panel from a maximum of nine to a maximum of fifteen was ruled out of order - because of the potential to increase costs to the government - that number doesn't make sense any more. I would like to change it to ``one-half''. It will then read:
- no more than one-half of the members appointed are employees of the federal or provincial
government.
The Chairman: Is that a clarification?
Mr. Knutson: So it would read:
- no more than one-half of the members appointed are employees of the federal or provincial
government.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: As far as the entire clause is concerned, we'll stand it until Monday because of the commitment made to Mr. Forseth.
Clause 14 allowed to stand
Clause 15 agreed to
On Clause 16 - Subcommittees
Mr. Lincoln: I would like to move an amendment to clause 16, Mr. Chairman. After the words now in the clause, I would like to move that we add:
- Where a species is found on lands governed by aboriginal land claims legislation,
subcommittees shall, to the greatest extent possible, endeavour to incorporate traditional
knowledge into their work.
Mr. Lincoln: ``Traditional'', yes.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions?
Amendment agreed to
.0910
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have some other wording I wanted to put in, and it's not ready.
The Chairman: We don't have any paper here.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I know. It will have to stand.
The Chairman: This motion will stand until the text is available. When will the text be available?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This afternoon.
Clause 16 allowed to stand
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I would like to seek an interpretation. Right now we are considering this bill clause-by-clause. Where is the cut-off point for making amendments? We are standing the clause simply because we will not have the text of the amendment before this afternoon. Without going back on the decision, in the future, we're going to have to resolve the clauses for which there are no other proposed amendments drafted. Otherwise, we too could be tempted to say that we have to think about it further. However, in doing this, we will never get through this, practically speaking. I did not want to challenge the decision. I accept it; however, in future, we will have to consider what I have just said as much as possible.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête makes a very valid point. It is strengthened by the fact that if an amendment this morning would affect the amendment made by Mr. Lincoln, we would have to reopen the whole clause.
I would hope these kinds of last-minute changes are not becoming a pattern and that they will not have any impact on amendments that have already passed. This would then require the reopening of the clause.
Mr. Crête's intervention is perfectly valid. I hope good note is taken of this.
Of course, the clerk says that any clause could be reopened with unanimous consent, but as you can see, the process is slowed down accordingly.
Clause 17 agreed to
On clause 18 - Designation
The Chairman: There is one amendment by the government. Would you like to introduce it?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: On page 11, clause 18, there would be the insertion of a (1) after the numeral 18. After line 8, on page 11, there would be a new subclause inserted with the title ``Cross-boundary species''. So the new subclause would read:
- (2)If the wildlife species migrates across an international boundary of Canada or has a range
extending across such a boundary, the designation must so indicate.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: To support the arguments I presented yesterday with respect to clause 5, we came up with a wording that talks about species outside of Canada. The expression is used in both the English and French versions.
.0915
This approach is, in my opinion, much better. When dealing with clause 5 yesterday, we tried to come up with something that would ensure that the word ``Canada'' did not appear only in the French version. I don't recall what word we came up with for the English version. I wanted to point this out to you so that we could consider this we respect to clause 5.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
Clause 18 as amended agreed to
On clause 19 - Applications
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I move the consequential amendment to the one I just made. So in clause 20...
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The amendment was defeated. It was already defeated.
[English]
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, please proceed.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Did we do number 19?
Mr. Lincoln: I don't think we adopted clause 19. We rejected the amendment, but I don't think we adopted clause 19.
The Chairman: That's right. We rejected the amendment by Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Lincoln: I know, but I don't know if we adopted clause 19.
The Chairman: No, we didn't. I'm giving the floor to Madam Kraft Sloan with her amendment.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: My amendment has to do with clause 20, so we should go back to clause 19.
Clause 19 agreed to
On clause 20 - Status reports
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In clause 20, line 29, where it says ``reports, but the reports must'', the following should be added:
- indicate whether the wildlife species concerned migrates across an international boundary of
Canada or has a range extending across such a boundary and must
- species
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The second amendment?
The Chairman: The first.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The first amendment just means that when they're making reports, they have to indicate whether their international cross-border wildlife species migrate.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 20 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 21 - Decision with reasons
The Chairman: There is an amendment by Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Is LK-14...?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, since proposing this amendment informally, I've been advised that six months is unreasonable. Therefore, I'm withdrawing the amendment. I'm not even formally proposing it.
The Chairman: This amendment has not been proposed, so it doesn't require unanimous consent for withdrawal. So it's not before us, period.
Clause 21 agreed to
On clause 22 - Emergency designation or reclassification
The Chairman: Because of a motion by Mr. Forseth, we will stand clause 22.
Clause 22 allowed to stand
Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to on division
.0920
On clause 26 - Documents in public registry
The Chairman: We have an amendment by Mr. Knutson, LK-15. There is also one by Mr. Forseth.
We'll have to stand this one until Monday.
Clause 26 allowed to stand
Clause 27 agreed to
The Chairman: I seek the indulgence of the committee to revert, please, to page 38, at the bottom of which there is a new clause 26.1, which I did not call because it escaped my attention.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to
On clause 30 - Regulations
The Chairman: There is an amendment by Mr. Knutson and by the Bloc on clause 30.
The Bloc amendment will not be put because they cover the same ground.
Mr. Knutson, you have the floor.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have this clause put over. The reason is the Justice lawyers gave us advice the other day that we were on weak ground putting the word ``must'' into ``make the minister pass regulations'', and I'm still researching that point in consultation with the department. Consequently, I'd like this to stand. I'll either bring it back with the wording you see there or with different wording on Monday.
Clause 30 allowed to stand
The Chairman: I'll ask Mr. Crête whether he wants to...
.0925
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This is a situation I referred to earlier. If we make a decision pertaining to the Bloc's amendment number 6, we must then consider that the clause has been carried. We cannot simply stand it while waiting for the right word. It seems to me that this is in keeping with the principle that we had applied earlier. It would be preferable to resolve this once and for all.
[English]
Mr. Knutson: With all due respect, we had an informal session the other day. We took advice from the lawyers from Justice. They raised a red flag on this. I've been advised by other lawyers that the Justice concern is unwarranted, so I have conflicting views. As I indicated, I'm still trying to sort that out. I'm not trying to delay the process, except for good reason. I think in the interest of trying to pass the best bill possible, we should let clause 30 stand.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That is satisfactory.
The Chairman: We will stand both of them.
[English]
Shall we stand both amendments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Clauses 31 and 31 have amendments by Mr. Forseth. Therefore we will stand both 31 and 31 until Monday.
Clauses 31 and 31 allowed to stand
On clause 33 - Regulations protecting certain cross-boundary species
The Chairman: There's a government amendment. Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: On page 14, lines 16 to 34 will be replaced. The new wording is:
- 33(1) No person shall
(b) knowingly engage in activities that damage or destroy the residence of an individual.
Then the following will be added. So essentially this says that if the provincial government has an equivalent provision, we would enter into an agreement with them and they would have responsibility for the protection of the species.
The Chairman: Any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I require additional explanation. The Bloc has an amendment which was tabled before the Liberal amendment and I would like to be assured that the Liberal amendment reflects the spirit of ours, which stated that where, after consulting a provincial minister, the Minister is advised by that minister that the minister does not want any regulation in respect of which the consultation was made to apply to the minister's province, that regulation shall not apply to that province.
In the clause tabled by the majority, it is simply stated that if the Minister and a provincial minister agree... that an equivalent provision is enforced by or under the laws of the province, the federal minister is entitled to have some say as to the relevance and equivalence of the provincial law, in relation to species protected by the equivalent provision. There is a difference between the two texts.
This is not acceptable to me. If you want to adopt the government's amendment, I believe that we will have to make a sub-amendment including the Bloc's amendment.
.0930
It would read as follows:
33.1 Where, after consulting the provincial minister under section 33, the Minister is advised by that minister that the minister does not want any regulation in respect of which the consultation was made to apply to the minister's province, that regulation shall not apply to that province.
I'm therefore making a sub-amendment to the majority amendment. In this fashion, we will be able to debate and resolve both amendments at the same time.
[English]
The Chairman: Would you like to give Mr. Crête the clarification he is seeking? I don't know whether we can give him that assurance. I may be wrong, so I would rather rely on you. He's wondering whether his proposed section 33.1 is covered by this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: No. The amendments suggested by the Bloc Québécois are not of the same nature as those proposed by the government here. The perspective is very different. The government amendment deals with a situation where the two ministers agree that equivalent provisions exist in the laws of the province, whereas the Bloc Québécois' motion deals with a type of veto for the provincial minister that will enable him to prevent provisions coming into force in his province. The nature of these two amendments are very different.
Mr. Crête: I will not allow the legal counsel to make a political interpretation at a time when we are talking about legal interpretation. I am not referring to veto rights. I'm talking about respecting provincial jurisdiction. This is one of the important aspects raised by all provincial Environment ministers and I think that we would be wise to take enough time to come up with wording which would suit everyone and which would save us from having to put up with, for a long period of time, a problem with...
This is the spirit underlying my sub-amendment, which does not change the substantive nature of the question. Instead of saying that the Minister and the provincial minister agree that an equivalent provision is in force, we would simply state that when the provincial minister advises the Minister that the minister does not want any regulation in respect of which the consultation was made to apply to the minister's province, that regulation shall not apply to that province. That would enable a minister who is willing to accept the federal regulations or to enter into an agreement with the federal minister to do so, and, at the same time, it would enable those ministers who want to ensure that jurisdictions are respected to have this guarantee. This is what is meant by my sub-amendment to the government amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Lincoln.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it is very clear in the wording of this amendment that it is the minister and the provincial minister agreeing in writing. So there is every respect for the province and consultation and cooperation.
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, there is, in my opinion, quite a difference between what Mr. Crête is moving and what is indicated here. This indicates that if the federal minister and the provincial minister agree that there are equivalent provincial provisions as far as these regulations are concerned, the federal minister may delegate.
Mr. Crête wants to do exactly the opposite. A provincial minister could say, at any given moment, that he wants nothing to do with these regulations that pertain to a law dealing with matters under federal jurisdiction. I think that Mr. Crête wants to do exactly the opposite of what we have here. Indeed, this is similar to the case of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which contains sections about equivalency. The federal and provincial agreements can, if there are regulations that coincide, agree to delegate. This has occurred in several sectors.
.0935
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think that we have reached the core of the Act. This is when we will we be able to determine whether we can continue co-operating in this clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. According to the way that this provision is currently drafted, federal jurisdiction is being broadened to include all species and the entire Canadian territory. That simply ignores all provincial jurisdictions. It maintains an attitude that directly contradicts the perspectives submitted by all of the provincial and territorial Ministers of the Environment.
If the government does not change its position and is unwilling to accept a proposal for a new draft of that section, some difficult legal situations will surely arise. I intend to argue this point until I've succeeded in convincing the majority that it is relevant. In this kind of situation, arguments can be brought forward for hours on end because it is a very delicate issue for the provinces.
It isn't an everyday occurrence to hear a minister from the Liberal government of the province of New Brunswick call into question the practice of the federal liberal government. So this situation is obviously creating problems. I would like to see the Liberal majority adopt a more open attitude concerning the possibility of an agreement and respecting provincial jurisdiction in this field.
The clause specifies that the Minister and the provincial minister must agree that it is applicable. In other words, in the absence of an agreement between the Minister and his provincial counterpart, the federal Act takes precedence, as in many other cases.
If such a decision is applied, we may find ourselves a few years from now with a ruling from the Supreme Court stating that this section is ultra vires, which is exactly the opposite of the intended result of this provision. Instead of having an efficient and functional piece of legislation to protect species, we'll have to start our work all over again.
As legislators, it is our responsibility to enact good legislation. One of the characteristics of good legislation is that it respects the jurisdiction of each province. The clause presented by the majority fails to fulfil this criterion and, quite obviously in my view, will not withstand court scrutiny.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
The last intervention will be by Mr. Lincoln, and then we'll proceed with the vote.
Mr. Lincoln.
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Crête, the purpose of this clause is to resolve the problem posed by the provinces. It is a constructive attempt to do something. Furthermore, the Act does not apply throughout Canada and it fully respects provincial constraints.
In cases of clear federal jurisdiction, a province and minister are given the opportunity to sign an agreement. The purpose of such a provision is to enable a consensus between the provinces and the Government of Canada. This procedure has been followed in a number of cases, such as pulp and paper. I think it should be given a constructive interpretation.
Mr. Crête: Couldn't we ask the government legal counsel whether what I have said is correct or not? Is it not true that in the absence of an agreement, the federal legislation will apply? Am I correct in my interpretation? I would appreciate an answer.
The Chairman: You've already been told that this is so.
Mr. Crête: Did they say that my interpretation is correct?
The Chairman: Yes.
.0940
Mr. Crête: So that confirms my position and invalidates Mr. Lincoln's claim that this present interpretation would settle the problem with the provinces. It doesn't settle anything at all. It simply confirms what I said. This text merely confirms the precedence given to federal legislation over provincial laws in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
The Chairman: That is in accordance with the Constitution, Mr. Crête, as you know quite well.
Mr. Crête: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I didn't...
The Chairman: Such is the effect of the Canadian Constitution, as you know full well.
Mr. Taylor, you have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In this regard, it's only within the federal jurisdiction that it applies, though. It would not apply within provincial jurisdiction. Am I not correct? One of the criticisms of the act is that it doesn't go far enough into provincial jurisdiction.
I hope Mr. Crête realizes what I just said.
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I'm not a politician; I'm simply a lawyer. In my view, new clause 33.1 as proposed creates a criminal offence. It's very clear that under section 91.27 of the Constitution Act the federal government can enact criminal law. That's precisely what this provision does.
There are many other examples in the exercise of criminal law power, though, where the federal government has agreed that if there are equivalency provisions, that particular provision will not apply in the province. So this is quite a standard provision that in my view takes account of the provincial position.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not ready for the question. The comments that I've just heard confirm my interpretation. We are talking about animal species that cross over boundaries. How exactly will it be decided that the agreement is to be signed with the minister of one province rather than another in any given situation? That is a problem. The fact that there is a connection with the Criminal Code does not mean that the federal government is not required to respect provincial jurisdiction. There is no relationship between the two.
The fact that it may give rise to a possible criminal offence has no direct link with respecting provincial jurisdiction. There are other areas of jurisdiction where provincial law applies and the Criminal Code must make provisions for whatever situation may occur, including that one, but that does not prevent the government from showing proper respect for provincial jurisdiction in the matter by specifying in the section that if the provincial minister is not in agreement, the federal minister may not intervene in this particular sector.
It strikes me as obvious that the link with the Criminal Code does not justify federal government intervention in this field.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sure, Mr. Crête, that with goodwill, the provincial minister and the federal minister can arrive at agreements very quickly and easily, in the interest of the protection of endangered species, without any further recrimination or references to constitutional distinctions.
Mr. Lincoln wants to make an intervention.
You have the floor.
Mr. Lincoln: First of all, there's an accord between the provincial ministers and the federal minister to decide that there are dual jurisdictions in this case. That's quite clear.
Here, as pointed out by Mr. Taylor, what we're trying to do is give a chance to provincial ministers in the field of federal jurisdiction, not the reverse. What Mr. Crête would want to do is give a veto to any provincial minister to veto the federal jurisdiction in this legislation, which is completely unacceptable. So maybe we could choose to disagree and just move on.
.0945
[Translation]
You don't agree with the basic principle whereby an agreement between the provinces and the federal government is a matter of shared jurisdiction. It's actually an opening to the provinces to delegate the application of certain provisions of this legislation to a provincial minister. What you want to do is give a veto to any provincial minister with respect to the federal jurisdiction in this legislation. That doesn't make any sense. So we should perhaps agree to disagree and move on. Otherwise, there will be no end to the discussion.
[English]
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, and then we'll put the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: May I say something?
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, under the Standing Orders, I am entitled to raise this point until I have received full information and exhausted my arguments.
[English]
The Chairman: You have received considerable information and you have taken a considerable amount of time.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. If you do not allow me to speak on that point, I'll have no choice but to raise this failure to respect my rights in the House. Under the Standing Orders, I'm entitled to speak in committee without any time limit. Can you answer that point, Mr. Chairman?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, would you allow Madam Kraft Sloan to make her intervention?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To provide the member from the Bloc with some additional information he's looking for, the Quebec minister responsible for wildlife was in Charlottetown and agreed in principle to the accord, and this clause is reflective of the accord.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, may I ask the question now?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, as I said, you cannot decide that is the final word on the matter. It all depends on the relevance of my comments and the sections concerned.
That being said, I am ready to challenge the claim made by the member. I challenge her to find out whether this section is satisfactory to Ministers of the Environment as a whole.
You arrived with a section yesterday and one of the last documents we received was a letter from the Ministers of the Environment stating they had very important reservations and that the bill was not acceptable.
As for Mr. Cliche's statement, this is what he had to say in a press release issued on October 2, 1996. I quote:
- We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to overlapping
between possible federal legislation and the Act that has been in effect in Quebec since 1989, an
Act that is working well and achieving good results. There is a risk of creating cumbersome
administrative procedures rather than devoting our energies to our real concern, namely the fate
of threatened species.
Personally I'm convinced that the provincial Ministers of the Environment will not be unanimous in accepting this proposal. On the contrary, I think they'll be unanimously opposed to the proposal.
So there is no truth to the claim that Mr. Cliche has approved this proposal. I think it's quite inappropriate, as I've just confirmed through a quote from Mr. Cliche.
So what is the present state of affairs? If we want to take into account the consensus of the provincial and territorial Ministers of the Environment, then we're much better served by the Bloc Québécois amendment than by the federal government position giving precedence to federal legislation in a field where it can have no such claim.
For the proper administration of the different governments in Canada and to avoid the kind of confusion found in other sectors, it is preferable to have legislation that is constitutionally sound at the outset without laying claim to any unconfirmed jurisdictions.
.0950
For that reason, I think it is very important for us not to adopt this amendment. I'd like to suggest that we find out from the Quebec Minister and other provincial Ministers of the Environment whether they consider the amendment to be acceptable. I'm not referring simply to the government of Quebec. We could check this with all the other Ministers of the Environment. I'd be interested to know how they view this draft amendment from the Liberal majority.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
I would like to bring this talk to a conclusion and to have a vote. It seems to me that we have exhausted the item ad nauseam.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know what the members of the Liberal majority have to say in answer to my question, if they'd be kind enough to give a reply. Do they claim...
[English]
The Chairman: Because we haven't covered any new ground.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think it's a new argument because the member claimed that Mr. Cliche agreed with this proposed amendment. That is completely false.
[English]
The Chairman: We are in Ottawa examining this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, and I'm asking...
[English]
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Chairman, can we have the question, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, Mr. Chairman. I'm still entitled to speak and I intend to do so as long as I consider it necessary. You can be sure that you won't be able to gag me when it comes to a clause questioning provincial jurisdiction in such an important area.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Crête. Just a second, please.
[English]
You have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to abuse it. You have made your point. You have had a considerable amount of time, but you cannot boycott the meeting, and there is a point when the vote has to take place.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman...
[English]
The Chairman: I'm now calling the question, excuse me.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: ... before we have our vote...
[English]
The Chairman: I'm now calling the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, if you do that, you'll find yourself facing serious problems in the House, I promise you. There is a problem of jurisdiction. I am entitled to speak in this committee for as long as I want. For as long as I have any arguments to present, I intend to do so.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, there is a limit to how much we can debate it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The limit to the debate, Mr. Chairman, is when each member has concluded his arguments and has obtained all the necessary information he requires to be ready to vote. I do not have that information at the present time. I asked the majority whether they were ready to find out from the provincial ministers whether they agreed with the proposed wording particularly taking into account the letter we received in which they expressed their rather serious reservations about the application of the Act.
In my view, the proposal we have before us concerning this section will not satisfy the provincial ministers. The only possible compromise would be to stand this clause until we've received assurances from the provincial ministers that this does meet with the concerns they expressed.
If we agreed on this compromise, I'd be willing to move on to the next clause. Let's find out from the provincial minister of the environment whether they are satisfied with this wording. That's the proposal I'm making to the committee.
I'd like to move that this section be stood until we've received notice from the provincial Ministers of the Environment indicating they find this section acceptable.
[English]
The Chairman: Fine. We will have this motion to stand this particular clause. Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: No, I would like to explain my motion, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: You have explained it at length.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have further arguments explaining why I think the view of the provinces should be sought.
[English]
The Chairman: We understand the motion.
Are there any questions to the motion by Mr. Crête? Those in favour, please so indicate.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm asking for a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chairman: The clerk informs me that you don't need a recorded vote. The motion requires unanimous consent.
.0955
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Do you need unanimous consent for that to be excepted?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Crête: Therefore we have to ask whether there is unanimous consent.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, thank you.
Is there unanimous consent that this motion be stood?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Now that my motion has been rejected, we have to find another way of ensuring that the clause respects the jurisdiction of each of the provinces. In that regard, the clause before us is completely unsatisfactory. If it is adopted as it stands, we will have to live with the legal consequences resulting from it.
I would prefer to move a subamendment reading as follows:
(2) Subject to subsection (3) to (5), the Governor in Council, may, on the recommendation of the Minister and with agreement of the provincial minister concerned, make an order declaring that subsection (1) does not apply to species in a particular province.
We would remove:
- if the Minister and a provincial minister agree in writing that an equivalent provision is in force
by or under the laws of the province... in that province in relation to species protected by the
equivalent provision.
- I will table this subamendment.
The Chairman: Do we want to give Mr. Crête time to finalize on paper his subamendment?
Mr. Lincoln: I'd like to ask for a bit of information. Is this substituted to BQ-7? Mr. Crête had said before that he wanted BQ-7 to be incorporated in this.
The Chairman: No, I don't think so. I think it is an amendment to G-10.
Isn't that correct, Mr. Crête?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would move an amendment to the government's motion. I do not know what will happen in the case of my amendment or the government's motion. My other amendment will disappear if it becomes irrelevant, or remain if it is still relevant.
The Chairman: Therefore, you are preparing a subamendment to amendment G-10.
[English]
The clerk will now read into the record the subamendment by Mr. Crête.
The Clerk of the Committee: After the marginal note ``Declaration of equivalent provision'', subclause 33(2) would read:
[Translation]
(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5), if the Minister and a provincial minister agree in writing that an equivalent provision is in force by or under the laws of the province, the Governor in Council may, under recommendation of the Minister, make an order declaring that subsection (1) does not apply in that province in relation to species protected by the equivalent provision.
.1000
[English]
The Chairman: You've heard the wording of the subamendment.
Mr. Lincoln: Can it be translated, please, for our friends who don't understand -
The Chairman: It was translated by the translator.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We can reread it, Mr. Chairman, so as to allow the interpreters to hear it.
[English]
The Chairman: Would you mind reading it again, please, for the members?
[Translation]
The Clerk:
(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5) if the Minister and a provincial minister agree in writing than an equivalent provision is in force by or under the laws of the province, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make an order declaring that subsection (1) does not apply in that province in relation to species protected by the equivalent provision.
[English]
Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I have watered down my position somewhat. You have to obtain the agreement of the provincial minister, but there is still reference to the fact that there must be an equivalent provision in provincial legislation. Therefore, we have gone part of the way to finding the most satisfactory wording.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
Are there any comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: Yes. I have a small problem concerning the practical application of that. You have the Governor in Council making an order on the recommendation of the provincial minister. That is unusual. Generally, the Governor in Council makes an order on the recommendation of the federal minister.
Also, in the text I have with Mr. Crête's amendments the last di part of the sentence, that is ``les positions équivalentes à l'égard de l'espèce en cause'', don't fit in very well with the way the rest of the clause is worded.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Subamendment negatived
The Chairman: We now have before us the motion by the government, as presented by Madam Kraft Sloan -
Mr. Lincoln: Well, are you going to...? I would like to propose a brief amendment to this to make it accord with previous wording.
The amendment to proposed paragraph 33(1)(a) says:
- listed, endangered or threatened wildlife
- I'd like to add the word ``extirpated'' before ``endangered''.
- The Minister shall include in the annual report required by section 101 a report on the
administration and enforcement
- This is to make it concordant with previous wording in the law.
You heard the adjustments or modifications suggested by Mr. Lincoln. You have the motion before you.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I have a question for the Justice lawyers. It's been suggested to me that in the third line in proposed paragraph 33(1)(a), where it says, ``if the species is listed as a species that migrates across an international boundary'', we would be better to use the language ``designate'' instead of ``listed as''.
.1005
I refer you to page 32b. The government amendment 8 makes reference to a designation if the species migrates across an international boundary.
The argument goes as follows. COSEWIC makes a designation that the species crosses an international boundary, and cabinet then lists the species as endangered, threatened, extirpated, or whatever. But it doesn't make sense to combine the word ``listed'' and migration. It makes more sense to refer to migration as a designation. Does that make sense to you folks?
Mr. Keyes: Yes. The listing in section 30 as it reads now is to be based on the designation. So that listing will reflect the elements of the designation, which would include, in the case of a trans-boundary species, that indication that it is one of these trans-boundary species.
The advantage of speaking of listing is that the listing is done in the form of a regulation. The courts must take judicial notice of the regulation. It's published in the Canada Gazette, and so it makes proof of this fact much easier in court.
If we simply refer to the designation, the designation is not published in the Gazette; the courts do not take judicial notice of it; and it will mean an additional element of proof that has to be brought before the court to obtain a conviction in these cases.
So I would suggest that leaving it as listing is preferable in terms of making it easier to obtain a conviction. It's one less element that needs to be proved, because that element is essentially proved in the publication of the list through regulation.
Mr. Lincoln: Would you put ``designated or listed''? In that case you could use either, whichever one suited. It would certainly be a better deterrent. At the same time you would have the possibility of using listing for better proof in court, which I agree with. At the same time you would have the advantage of ``designated''. Why not say ``an individual of a designated or listed...''?
Mr. Keyes: Yes, that could certainly be done. I suppose another consequence of that as well would be that the section would kick in before listing, if there is a period between designation and listing. In that interim period the section would apply, rather than having to wait for the regulation as well.
Mr. Lincoln: In that case, for procedural simplicity's sake, I'm prepared to add these words in my own subamendment, to make it easier for you, so that it would say:
- knowingly kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a designated or listed extirpated,
endangered
A voice: In line 3 the word ``listed'' occurs again.
The Chairman: And then in line 3 what do you do?
Mr. Lincoln: Excuse me. Just under the third line, too, we should also say ``if the species is designated or listed''.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Subamendment agreed to
Amendment agreed to
Clause 33 as amended agreed to on division
.1010
The Chairman: Thank you.
Now we go to new clause 33.1.
Mr. Crête, would you please introduce your amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think that the amendment is still relevant even if the previous subamendment to clause 33 was rejected. Subclause 33.1 would recognize that the provincial minister can point out to the Minister that he doesn't want the regulations which were the subject of consultation to apply to his or her particular province, which would be the equivalent of a right to opt out.
I think that the amendment should be adopted. It gives some flexibility to the provinces wishing to come to an agreement with the federal minister, as is made possible by clause 33 which states: ``If the Minister and a provincial minister agree in writing that an equivalent provision is in force''. Those wishing to use that provision could do so.
However, our amendment would still give a provincial minister the freedom not to get involved in that process and would also provide him with some helpful leverage. Furthermore, it would also allow those provinces wishing to sign agreements with the federal government to do so. That is why I consider this amendment to be relevant.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Crête: I would like a recorded vote on this.
[English]
The Chairman: The question is on new clause 33.1, proposed by Mr. Crete, amendment BQ-7.
Amendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 34 - Order based on emergency designation or classification
The Chairman: We have amendments by Mr. Knutson on clause 34. There are several amendments. Would you like to start with LK-19, please?
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to propose the amendment as written except for one change. I've been advised that 14 days is an unreasonable burden to put on the minister, so where it says ``14'', change that to ``60''. But the remainder of the text would remain as is.
.1015
The most substantive part of the amendment to the bill as it was originally written is changing the word ``may'' to ``shall''. That's it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like the member to explain what is added to the clause by the requirement that it be within 60 days after designation or reclassification of a species as endangered or threatened on emergency basis. It seems to me that clause 34 should apply even when there's not been any designation or reclassification of a species. I may be mistaken, but clause 34 as it stands provides an emergency mechanism for dealing quickly with a serious situation.
If you add ``within 60 days after COSEWIC designates or reclassifies the species'' would that mean that the minister will not be able to intervene in the case of species which were not designated or reclassified? Am I mistaken or is this logical? I would like to ask a question to our experts.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson may be able to answer the question. If not, we'll refer it to the experts.
Mr. Knutson: I think I'll let it be referred to the experts.
The Chairman: Whom would you like to answer the question?
Mr. Knutson: Well, clause 34 as it's written was to empower the minister to make an emergency order if COSEWIC advised him or her to make such an order by declaring an emergency situation. However, the clause as it was originally written didn't provide any kind of deadline or timeframe. That's where I came up with the original 14 days. However, I've been advised that 14 days is too short and 60 days is more reasonable.
I'm just tightening up the language in subclause 34(1) by adding the 60-day provision requirement on an emergency order, and the other change we're making is we're changing it from a discretionary clause flowing from the word ``may''. We're strengthening the language quite significantly by making it mandatory, changing the ``may'' to ``shall''.
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Curtis.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Would you like me to repeat my question.
The Chairman: No. He understood it clearly.
[English]
Mr. Steve Curtis (Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service): I'm not clear on whether I'm responding to Mr. Crête's question or... In that case I would like to have the question repeated, if you would, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The original clause 34, entitled ``Emergency Order'', seemed to me to allow the minister to intervene in order to protect a wildlife species on an emergency basis, regardless of the status of the species concerned, etc, whereas the amendment reads as follows:
34. (1) The responsible minister shall make an emergency order providing for the protection of a wildlife species within 60 days after COSEWIC designates or reclassifies the species as endangered...
That would mean that intervention by the minister on an emergency basis would be restricted to those specific cases designated or reclassified by COSEWIC. Does that not rule out the possibility of intervention in the case of a disaster or spill affecting a species which was not previously in danger but could suddenly become so, since the minister could not make an emergency order until COSEWIC designates or reclassifies the particular species?
I understand that the intention is good, but it seems to me that this limits the power of the minister to intervene, whereas the initial clause seemed to allow him to intervene with a great deal of freedom in the case of an emergency.
[English]
Mr. Curtis: If you look at the existing wording of subclause 34(2), it says:
- The responsible minister may make an emergency order providing for the protection of a
wildlife species if the responsible minister determines that the recovery plan for the species no
longer adequately protects it or that immediate action is required to protect the species.
- It's that latter part in particular that gives the sort of ability to respond that you've just described.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Basically, it's just an editorial change. Was the intention to place it at the end of the initial clause 34 where it's now placed at the beginning?
[English]
Mr. Curtis: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's all right. In any case, it answers my question.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Curtis, please.
Mr. Curtis: I have some concerns about the use of the word ``shall'', because it forces the responsible minister to make an order even if it isn't needed. The idea of emergencies is to have a capacity to respond when there is an emergency and to take the necessary action. It isn't always the same sort of action. It may not always be a regulatory action; in most cases it probably would be, but the minister would do that with the authorities available.
Mr. Keyes: I can give the committee a very good example of a situation -
The Chairman: We don't need that.
Mr. Knutson, what is your position?
Mr. Knutson: The minister may do it if so disposed, but if this language were applying to, say, the current government in Ontario, I'm not sure the discretionary language of ``may'' instead of the mandatory language of ``shall'' would make me feel all that confident that the species was going to be protected. Changing ``may'' to ``shall'' was a substantive change on the assumption that sometimes ministers don't do what they're supposed to do.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the explanations, but after COSEWIC has designated or reclassified the species as endangered or threatened, we give the minister 60 days. I think it should be ``shall''. Let him do it. If they're threatened or endangered, we know it, the minister knows it, and he has 60 days. He should move on and issue an emergency order.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I can come up with one example of where an order would not be needed. This power is triggered not only by a designation but also by a reclassification. So for instance, if the species had been classified as endangered and the reclassification lessened that to merely threatened, there would already be measures in place in relation to it as an endangered species, and no additional measures would be needed.
By the same token, if it were a reclassification to upgrade it from threatened to endangered, the prohibitions in clauses 31 and 32 would already apply, because it would already have been designated as threatened, so it would be covered by clauses 31 and 32 in those prohibitions.
So there would be no need to add in further prohibitions, because the prohibitions in the act already apply in that case.
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mr. Chairman, this amendment only speaks to subclause 34(1), and subclause 34(1) is an emergency order that the minister shall make if COSEWIC acts. COSEWIC can only act to make an emergency order under clause 22, which has been stood, if COSEWIC is of the view that there is an imminent threat to the survival of the species.
Under clause 23, which this committee has approved, dealing with an individual making an application to COSEWIC under subclause 23(1), again, an emergency order or an emergency designation by COSEWIC can only be made if there is an imminent threat to the survival of the species. I cannot think of any situation where there would be an imminent threat to the survival of the species when the minister would not make an order.
The Chairman: All right.
.1025
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We could have one vote on the part ``within 60 days'', and another vote on the part ``shall make an emergency order''. That might make it possible to come up with a clause in which we could look at the question of the 60 days, and also decide on the relevance of ``shall make'' and ``may make''.
The Chairman: Thank you. Perhaps we have made a decision.
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, because other ministers are involved with this, I would ask the committee to stand this until Monday so we can get clarification on this.
The Chairman: Do we need unanimous consent on that?
Mr. Lincoln: I would like to see unanimous consent that we do that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent that this be postponed until Monday?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, you have our full co-operation.
[English]
Amendment allowed to stand
The Chairman: Following the decision taken on LK-19, I'm advised that we might as well stand LK-20 through LK-24.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In LK-20, an example of a situation is given where the responsible minister must make an emergency order. It was specified in that case, and that explains to us why in the previous case, the term ``shall make'' was used.
In any case, as we think about this for Monday, this point will have to be taken into consideration.
[English]
Clause 34 allowed to stand
Clause 35 agreed to
The Chairman: Clause 36 is stood because of the commitment with Mr. Forseth.
Clause 36 allowed to stand
The Chairman: That takes us to new clause 36.1, which is also stood.
On clause 37 - Species listed at the request of a provincial minister
The Chairman: We have the phenomenal breakthrough of being able to put the question on clause 37.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Have clauses 31 and 32 been adopted?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Crête: Therefore, we might have to stand clause 37 and wait for clauses 31 and 32 to be adopted, because clause 37 refers to clauses 31 and 32.
The Chairman: Yes.
[English]
He's right. So let us stand clause 37 for the very good reason just mentioned.
Clause 37 allowed to stand
Mr. Lincoln: Well, this is definitely a standing committee.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Having stood clause 37, we go to clause 38, which is the last amendment that requires standing, because there is one by Mr. Forseth.
Clause 38 allowed to stand
.1030
On clause 39 - Consultation on recovery plans
The Chairman: We can now glide happily into clause 39, where there is an amendment from Mr. Adams.
Mr. Lincoln: The amendment is that clause 39 be amended by replacing lines 28 to 34 on page 19 with the following:
- consultation with other persons who the responsible minister considers are directly affected by,
or interested in, the plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Just a moment please, Mr. Chairman. Are we on clause 39? Could the member explain to us the change being made to the original wording? It referred to ``in consultation with any wildlife management board that is established under aboriginal land claims legislation and is affected by the plan''. Are all those points withdrawn under the amendment?
[English]
Mr. Lincoln: I think it has to be stood, because under clause 38 we proposed an amendment moving paragraph 39(a) to clause 38. So it should be stood.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, clause 39 does not refer to any other clause. Could it be in the previous clause that reference is made to clause 39?
Mr. Lincoln: I will explain to you the purpose of the amendment. The amendment is being proposed because as a result of another amendment paragraph 38(a) is being moved. So, this clause had to be changed to state that the recovery plan must be prepared, following which only paragraph (b) remains stating ``in consultation with any persons''.
It's exactly the same thing. This is a technical amendment because (a) is withdrawn and placed elsewhere. If you look at the amendment, it says that the recovery plan must be developed in consultation with wildlife management boards etc. That is being moved. It would now read ``with any persons who the responsible minister...''.
Mr. Crête: And the reference to aboriginal groups is found elsewhere?
Mr. Lincoln: You will find it in clause 38. That is why I think that should be held over until we consider clause 38. We don't know if it will be accepted in clause 38. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: So we'll stand LA-4 in the name of Mr. Adams.
Does the same apply, then, to G-13 or not?
Mr. Lincoln: Yes.
The Chairman: Before we tackle clause 40, we'll have a five-minute break.
.1033
.1043
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order, please.
[Translation]
We would like to welcome Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Good morning.
The Chairman: Good morning.
[English]
We resume at clause 40 with an amendment LK-31, followed by LK-32. Perhaps Mr. Knutson can explain it or introduce it, please.
On clause 40 - Publication of recovery plans
Mr. Knutson: In LK-31 we're tightening up the timeframes in clause 40 giving people the right to comment on the plan, and within 30 days; it was 60. At first there was no mention of a timeframe under the bill as it was originally proposed. So this is just strengthening the language of the section to make sure processes move promptly.
.1045
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you. We then move on to LK-32. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: My change is to change 150 days to 120. Again, it's just to tighten up the process and make it faster.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We go to BQ-8,
[Translation]
on page 74.
Mr. Bernier, would you please present your amendment?
Mr. Bernier: I have a small technical problem. My researcher is busy at the moment.
[English]
Mr. Lincoln: Maybe we should deal with 41 and come back to 40 afterwards.
The Chairman: No, we can't.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: How do you want me to present it? Do you want me to read it or just comment on it?
The Chairman: Really, it has already been presented. As you wish.
Mr. Bernier: The Bloc Québécois wishes to amend clause 40 by adding after line 9 on page 20 the following:
(3) The Minister shall implement the measure contained in the plan and do so within the time-frames and in the manner set out in the report referred to in subsection (2).
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.
[English]
Any comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: I have just one comment of a technical nature. In subclause (2) no reference is made to the report, but rather just to a summary in order to ensure consistency in the wording. In the English version the word ``report'' is used, whereas in the French version the term ``énoncé'' is used in subclause (2). Therefore, to ensure that the two correspond, subclause (3) should use the term ``énoncé'' rather than ``rapport''.
Mr. Bernier: Still on the same technical question, it seems to me that a report is a report whereas an ``énoncé'' or statement is not the same thing. Why is there a difference here? Do you want to amend the English term?
Mr. Hallée: It's simply so that the French version will be consistent. Subclause (2) refers to an ``exposé''. I must have used the wrong term and spoken of an ``énoncé''. In fact, it is an ``exposé''. That is what we have in subclause (2), and we want to have the same thing in subclause (3).
Mr. Lincoln: Could you please repeat that? I didn't follow.
Mr. Hallée: In the Bloc Québécois motion, they speak of a report referred to subsection (2). However, in the French version of subsection (2) the term ``exposé'' rather than ``rapport'' is used.
Mr. Bernier: I agree with what was just said. However, when I read the English version of the original text, I see that it refers to a report. I presume that my colleague, Monique Guay, and my research assistants preferred the term ``rapport''. In the English version, do they talk about a report or a statement?
Mr. Hallée: The word report is used in the English version. In French, the best word was ``exposé''. That is what was used in subclause (2).
The Chairman: It seems to me that we can replace the word ``rapport'' with the word ``exposé'', can't we?
Mr. Hallée: The terms in English and French are not exactly the same. Report is not translated by ``rapport''. In this case, ``exposé'' was the best term. We used ``exposé''. All I am suggesting is that we use the same term in subclause (3) if we want to link it to subclause (2).
.1050
Mr. Bernier: Is there a linguistic expert here? We could come back to it a little later. Based on my knowledge of both languages, there's seems to be a difference between an ``exposé'' and a ``rapport''. So I would support what a linguistic specialist has to say on that. When you submit a ``rapport'', you are referring to something. When you do an ``exposé'', that does not have the same meaning or the same legal weight in my mind.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I also tend to agree with my Bloc colleagues. We are back to what we were discussing yesterday. The English version of subclause (2) says:
[English]
- must prepare and publish in the public registry a report
The French version says ``le ministre compétent prépare un exposé''. In my mind, an ``exposé'' is not a ``rapport''. The French version should include the word ``rapport''. If it is an ``exposé'', the English version should be changed to outline or something. It seems to me that we should review that and that the translators should see if ``exposé''is the equivalent of ``rapport''. I think that a report is a ``rapport''. The connotation is different here.
The Chairman: It is not the translation. The French text is drafted...
Mr. Hallée: If I can make a very brief comment, in French, a ``rapport'' is precisely to report on things that have been done or concluded. Here, it does not mean a document that will be prepared. It is an ``exposé'', because it says that we are setting out how and when the minister will act. So, it is in the future; it is what will happen after. You cannot report on something that will happen after the fact. That is why in French, the word ``exposé'' is preferable to the word ``rapport''. A report is prepared only after events take place.
Mr. Bernier: Why don't we use the word ``outline'' as my colleague opposite suggested in English. It would perhaps express the spirit of the English text more accurately.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I would suggest that the word ``report'' has greater elasticity in English than it does in French. We could come up with any number of synonyms for it but I think they would all have exactly the same effect. We could say ``outline'', but to me, it doesn't change the meaning an iota. In this case, ``report'' is an acceptable term for expressing what we mean in English.
The Chairman: We all agree on the English version, Mr. Keyes. On the French version, do you recommend, then, as does your colleague, the word exposé?
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, do you agree with the word ``exposé''? Instead of ``rapport''? In the French version as recommended by the Department of Justice?
Mr. Bernier: We will accept the word, but I'm still not entirely satisfied. In linguistics...
The Chairman: It's a technical question.
Mr. Bernier: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier agrees with replacing the word ``rapport'' with the word ``exposé'' in the French version of his amendment.
[English]
Are there any comments by the Bloc on this amendment, with the change from rapport to exposé in the French version?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: If this supports understanding of the bill in French, or making sure there's consistency, that's fine.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: For this amendment here? We feel this amendment is redundant in English.
The Chairman: It cannot be redundant in one language and not in the other.
Mr. Finlay: I think I agree with my colleague. Subclause 40(2) says:
- the responsible minister must prepare and publish in the public registry a report on how, and
within what time-frames, the Government of Canada intends to implement
- This amendment says he ``shall'' implement the measures according to his intentions.
Can we have a position from the government side so that we can proceed with the vote?
.1055
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Shall we stand the clause for discussion on the Reform amendment that is before us?
Clause 40 allowed to stand
Clause 41 agreed to
On clause 42 - Regulations
The Chairman: We have an amendment LK-33. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to present the amendment as it's written with two minor changes.
On the third line I'm advised that the word ``must'' should be changed to ``shall''. Apparently it's just the way they do things.
On the fourth line, before the word ``measures'' and after the word ``implementing'', I'd like to insert the word ``regulatory''. The fourth line will read:
- implementing regulatory measures included in the recovery plan
- Other than that, the language stands as I'm proposing.
Clause 42 as amended agreed to
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to
The Chairman: We are now on clause 44.1, amendment LK-34 by Mr. Knutson.
[Translation]
You have the floor, Mr. Knutson.
[English]
Mr. Knutson: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a note that we had some concerns at our informal meeting that Professor Rounthwaite was going to address.
Mr. Rounthwaite: It's a matter I can raise to the attention of the committee if you wish.
Mr. Knutson: Yes, if you would.
Mr. Rounthwaite: With respect to clause 44.1, my understanding of the intent of the amendment is to allow the minister the flexibility to incorporate the information that will be gained from monitoring a recovery plan into the decision-making process that the minister has with respect to recovery plans. As worded now, new clause 44.1 requires the minister to amend the recovery plan if he or she determines that the plan is no longer adequate to protect the species or to provide for its recovery.
The point I raised was about a possible gap that might occur in the legislation. A situation could arise where as a result of monitoring the implementation of a recovery plan it appears that the possibility of saving a species is just no longer biologically or scientifically possible. As a result, the sensible position for the minister, rather than amending the recovery plan, may be to revoke it, and the other provisions of the bill that are not dependent on a recovery plan would then be adequate to preserve what's left of that species.
.1100
So it's just a suggestion that the committee may want to consider broadening the wording of new clause 44.1 to the effect that the responsible minister must amend a recovery plan if he or she determines that the plan is no longer adequate to protect the species or provide for its recovery, or may revoke the recovery plan if he or she determines that it is no longer biologically or scientifically possible to protect the species.
The Chairman: Can't you have this at the beginning of the sentence, or ``may revoke'' on the first line, after ``must amend or may revoke'', so that the following three lines then follow ``The responsible minister must amend or may revoke''? No?
Mr. Rounthwaite: That would accomplish it, although it would not -
The Chairman: Not as clear.
Mr. Rounthwaite: - specify that a decision to revoke is being made on scientific grounds.
The Chairman: All right, fine. Thank you.
Well, then, Mr. Knutson, do you accept the suggested wording by Professor Rounthwaite?
Mr. Knutson: Suggested...?
The Chairman: At the end of the sentence, after ``recovery''.
Mr. Knutson: I think my preference is to leave new clause 44.1 as I've proposed, and then perhaps to offer a new clause on Monday to deal with the issue of revoking. I don't think I want to combine the two concepts in the one paragraph. So in the interest of moving forward, I would... My preference is to go with new clause 44.1 as it's written there.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, the clerk and I are debating whether we should stand this clause in case we come forward on Monday with an additional subsection, or whether we should call it -
Mr. Knutson: My preference would be we call it now.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: One quick question.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: We have just voted on 44.1, but I'd like some clarification. I understand thatMr. Knutson must come back Monday with other clarifications if there's anything else. Is this not correct?
For discussion purposes, subclause 38(7) talks about recovery that is not feasible. I thought that if it was not feasible, the minister already had the authority, under subclause 38(7), to change things and decide on a plan. Is this not redundant with 44.1?
I just wanted to draw that to your attention.
The Chairman: Thank you for your comment. We will leave it up to Mr. Knutson to decide what he will do Monday.
[English]
Mr. Knutson: I appreciate the counsel.
The Chairman: Thank you.
.1105
On clause 45 - Management plans for vulnerable species
The Chairman: We have an amendment, LA-5.
Mr. Lincoln: I move that clause 45 of Bill C-65 be amended by replacing page 20, line 42, to page 21, line 4, with the following... The new wording is to add:
- To the extent possible, the management plans shall be prepared in cooperation with any wildlife
management board that is established under aboriginal land claims legislation and is affected by
the plan.
The Chairman: Thank you. Could you just emphasize the changes you are proposing, rather than buttering up the chair?
Mr. Lincoln: That's what I just did, Mr. Chairman, while your attention was astray.
The Chairman: It says ``To the extent possible, the management plans shall be prepared'', and so on. This is the change.
Mr. Lincoln: This is the change; that's exactly right.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Lincoln: You're right again.
The Chairman: Are there any questions? Are there any comments?
Mr. Keyes, please.
Mr. Keyes: I would make two drafting suggestions.
The new wording should be added as new subclause, because the subclause is already fairly lengthy. It would be to simply put a (1.1) in front of ``To the extent possible'' and all the new wording, just so that subclause (1) does not grow and grow and become very awkward.
The second point would be -
The Chairman: Before you go on with the second point, what's wrong with a long clause? Since when...?
Mr. Keyes: It helps to divide it and make it easier for the reader. It also assists in referring to the particular provision.
The Chairman: Excuse me. The concept is the same. There is no change in the substance of the concept being addressed here. It just adds ``To the extent possible'', and it continues with the same theme. It is not an introduction of a different theme; I beg to differ. But go ahead with the second point.
Mr. Keyes: My second point is on the word ``shall''. Throughout the rest of the clause, the word ``must'' is used. I would suggest that to be consistent, we use ``must'' in the additional text, as we have done in the rest of the clause.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, would you like to comment, please?
Mr. Lincoln: I'm a little confused. Before it was suggested that we change it to ``shall'', and now we're saying it must be ``must'' and not ``shall''. Anyway, I will bow to the experience of the jurischair - is that correct? - and I will go along with it. That's fine.
The Chairman: We are bowing to the Department of Justice here.
Mr. Lincoln: We also have a distinguished lawyer here, and I respect her intelligence profoundly.
The Chairman: So the amendment proposed by Mr. Lincoln replaces ``shall'' with ``must''.
Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mr. Chairman, I may be incorrect on this matter, but I thought when we met on Tuesday morning we agreed to strike the words ``To the extent possible''.
The Chairman: Oh, yes. That was Mr. Anawak's intervention. Thank you very much for reminding us, because we did discuss the possibility. Right? I'm sorry about that.
There are two changes then: First is the deletion of ``To the extent possible'' to make the sentence stronger, and second is the replacement of ``shall'' with ``must''. Is that clearly understood?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I understand that in this particular context the words ``To the extent possible'' were put because there may not be the resource capacity to prepare these management plans. It was just to give aboriginal boards the possibility of not being able to produce those plans.
The Chairman: That's very fine; nevertheless, it was our colleague from the eastern Arctic who made at that time, if I remember correctly, an intervention to the effect that the sentence was weak and that he would prefer the deletion of the words ``To the extent possible''.
Mr. Lincoln: Apparently he raised it, but apparently it wasn't agreed to when he raised it.
The Chairman: I thought it was.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The motion wasn't before the committee.
.1110
The Chairman: When we discussed it, that was the understanding. Mr. Adams was here. I remember Mr. Adams making that point.
Mr. Lincoln: I wasn't here, so I'll just let the other members decide.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the motion was not before the committee. That was an informal agreement between Mr. Adams and Mr. Anawak.
The Chairman: So what is being moved? Can we please have Mr. Lincoln read the motion again?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I'm subbing here. I wasn't part of this conversation. I'm moving the words that I moved.
If my colleagues want to change the sentence in accordance with the discussion,Mr. Rounthwaite, by all means they should do this. I don't feel qualified to do it, because I wasn't there during the discussions and I don't feel I'm in a position to do it. If any of the other colleagues would be prepared to do it, I've no objection whatsoever.
The Chairman: Ms Douglas, please.
Ms Douglas: I'm not a drafter, but it seems to me that it's not useful to say there's an obligation to consult beyond what is possible anyway. ``To the extent possible'' is pretty strong. I don't know whether the drafters feel differently, but I think leaving the words in doesn't do any harm, with all due respect. I understand what Mr. Anawak is trying to do, but you can't consult more than is possible anyway.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I suggest my amendment stand the way it is.
So there's no misunderstanding, are we changing the ``shall'' to ``must''? Is that what it's supposed to be?
The Chairman: Yes, that's what is to be done. Yes, we have.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: I need a bit of an explanation. The word ``doit'' is being replaced with the word ``peut''. That was the last change, wasn't it? ``Must''is being put in the place of ``shall'', isn't it? That is how it is written there?
Mr Lincoln: ``Shall''and ``must'' mean exactly the same thing. We are replacing ``shall'' with ``must'' to make it consistent with the previous sentence, where we used the word ``must''. The meaning is the same. The two words are synonymous in English.
Mr. Bernier: ``Shall be prepared''. In French, it says that ``le plan d'aménagement est élaboré en coopération''. The nuance ``doit'' or ``peut'' was not clear. Mr. Chairman, I am perhaps taking some initiatives and I apologize, because I'm somewhat new to environmental issues, but the way that 45 is worded, could it not have an impact on 46? Clause 46, on agreements and permits, says:
46. (1) The responsible minister may make an agreement with a person...
It says he can negotiate or make an agreement with the people set out in clause 45. When we use ``may'', it is at the minister's discretion. If we force him to take into account clause 45, we are removing the discretion set out in clause 46.
That is just a comment I'm making. If there is no inconsistency between the two, I will stop there.
The Chairman: I don't think there is any inconsistency, but I will ask Mr. Keyes or Mr. Hallée to comment.
Mr. Hallée: I do no think that there is a link between clause 45 and clause 46.
Mr. Lincoln: One talks about management plans, and the other about agreements and permits. They are two different things.
The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: I will find out a little later, but I was wondering about something. Clause 46 says that he may prescribe or authorize activities to protect an endangered species. That is what I understood. Later on he talks about management boards. Are they Native management boards?
.1115
Mr. Lincoln: No, clause 45 deals with management plans. It focusses on management plans. There was already a provision on the preparation of that management plan by the minister, and here we are giving Native band councils the opportunity to do the same thing. So clause 45 deals with management plans. Clause 46 deals with something completely different. It deals with agreements and permits. So there is no contradiction.
Mr. Bernier: Okay.
The Chairman: It is an amendment that the Yukon Aboriginals asked for when we were in Vancouver.
Mr. Bernier: Okay, I will leave clause 46. I will go back to where we were, on clause 45. I would like to have a better understanding of the last part of the sentence that was added:
- To the extent possible, the management plan shall be prepared in co-operation with any
wildlife management board...
- Can someone tell me exactly what that refers to and who is on these management boards?
Mr. Bernier: Fine.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Taylor.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: To go back to this debate over the words ``To the extent possible'', I think those who were in Vancouver and Edmonton will remember representation from the Yukon and Northwest Territories governments and the wildlife management boards indicating that the agreements they have include a section on consultation, and what is meant by consultation. They were very adamant that in terms of consulting on this bill, the federal government had said, ``We consulted'', and they said, ``No, you didn't''.
So ``To the extent possible'' indicates a very subjective view of what is consultation, whereas in the agreements it's very specific. If we take out the words ``To the extent possible'', we simply recognize that consultation and cooperation are spelled out in the agreements we're referring to here.
I support Mr. Anawak's comments from before.
The Chairman: I must say, Mr. Taylor is refreshing our memory quite well. He is making an important point here. I would like the members of the committee to reflect on this before we take a vote.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have an additional amendment to a clause following this particular discussion that might give some comfort to Mr. Taylor's concerns on this issue.
Mr. Lincoln: At this point, to enable us to make up our minds, perhaps we could ask Mrs. Kraft Sloan to read this thing so that we know what it is and how it affects it.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There would be an additional subclause added, subclause (1.1):
- Aboriginal land claims and agreements
I think we have to go back to what Mrs. Douglas had said before, regarding what is meant by ``To the extent possible''.
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: I want to support what Mr. Taylor said. I do not think, with all due respect, that what Karen Kraft Sloan has read makes me rest any easier. The intent here is that there must be some consultation and cooperation. We heard that this wasn't occurring. I think ``To the extent possible'' is fine, except, as Mr. Taylor has said, it's very subjective. You know, there was a storm; we couldn't get there. The lines were down. The telephone didn't work.
.1120
The Chairman: We'll go on with the vote here. I would like to proceed only when everybody has had a chance to express their views. We cannot vote on the assumption on this clause without taking into account all the points made by Mr. Finlay and Mr. Taylor flowing from what we heard in Vancouver and Edmonton.
Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Lincoln: Are we just taking my amendment for now?
The Chairman: Yes. It is before us right now.
Mr. Lincoln: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would like someone to repeat what exactly we are preparing to vote on. Is it on the last amendment proposed by my colleague opposite?
The Chairman: No, no. It is the amendment...
Mr. Bernier: Amendment LA-5?
The Chairman: Subclause 45(1) as it is written, but the amendment was to eliminate the expression ``to the extent possible'', and we discussed the possibility of putting the expression ``to the extent possible'' back in.
[English]
Mr. Finlay, followed by Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Finlay: I think you've set my mind at ease, Mr. Chairman. I want to know what is the wording of the amendment we are putting. Is it with ``To the extent possible'' or without it? As well, is ``shall'' changed to ``must''?
The Chairman: ``Shall'' changed to ``must''? Definitely.
Mr. Lincoln will clarify the other part.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want a clarification. If members feel that they like this amendment but they want to change it, if they defeat it now then we can't go back and amend it. Is that correct? It's lost.
So let's bear that in mind and make sure we know what we're voting on.
Mr. Lincoln: What I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of perhaps meeting Mr. Taylor's points, is that I'm prepared to leave it the same, with ``To the extent possible'', and to incorporate into my motion the addition suggested by Madame Kraft Sloan, to take the whole thing together. That would make sense.
The Chairman: We don't have any addition before us.
Mr. Lincoln: Well, the one she read. Then we would have it before us. It's all written here. It says:
- If the wildlife species is found on land that is subject to an aboriginal land claims agreement, the
management plan must be prepared in accordance with any applicable provisions of the
agreement.
Mr. Taylor: My sense is that it's unnecessary to go that step. The way it is written, without the words ``To the extent possible'', covers all that you're adding.
The Chairman: We will call this motion as it is before us, with the change that has been agreed, that ``shall'' is replaced by ``must'', but the words ``To the extent possible'' are still in the motion before us unless there is agreement to remove it. I don't see the agreement to remove it.
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: I think what you're saying is that if I want those words out before you put the question, then I must move a subamendment to this amendment to remove the words ``To the extent possible''.
The Chairman: Correct.
Mr. Finlay: I so move.
.1125
The Chairman: We have a subamendment by Mr. Finlay to remove ``to the extent possible''. Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
You have heard Mr. Finlay's subamendment to eliminate the words ``to the extent possible''.
Mr. Bernier: It will start with: ``The management plan shall be prepared...''
[English]
The Chairman: Correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: It is his subamendment.
The Chairman: It is his subamendment.
[English]
Any questions or any comments? Then I will put the subamendment by Mr. Finlay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, are you going to put the question? Could I ask another short question?
The Chairman: The vote is only on the words ``to the extent possible'' that Mr. Finlay wanted to strike.
Mr. Bernier: Okay.
[English]
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: Now we come to the amendment, as proposed by Mr. Lincoln, where the word ``shall'' is replaced by ``must''.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Shall the clause as amended carry? Carried.
Mr. Lincoln: Hang on a minute.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have an amendment. I'd like to move an additional subclause here. I have a copy of it, and I will read it slowly into the record. It would be subclause (1.1):
(1.1) If the wildlife species is found on land that is subject to an aboriginal land claims agreement, the management plan must be prepared in accordance with any applicable provisions of the agreement.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The clerk has the text of amendment. He will read it again, so Mr. Bernier can hear it twice.
Please proceed.
[Translation]
The Clerk: The amendment reads as follows:
[English]
(1.1) If the wildlife species is found on land that is subject to an aboriginal land claims agreement, the management plan must be prepared in accordance with any applicable provisions of the agreement.
Amendment agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Could I ask one short question now that clause 45 has carried?
[English]
A voice: No, no, the amendment has to be...
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: We're not done?
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the clause as amended carry?
A voice: No, there's another amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I don't know if the clerk or the people from the department can help me. Is the term ``management plan'' defined at the start of the bill? What does that mean?
Is there a clause in the bill somewhere that defines it? Sometimes definitions are at the start of an Act and sometimes they are found a little later on.
The Chairman: No, there is no definition of management plan.
Mr. Bernier: It will perhaps be a good idea to define it in the Act or somewhere in the lexicon.
The Chairman: That's a very good question, Mr. Bernier. I think Mr. Keyes could give you an answer.
.1130
Mr. Bernier: I would appreciate that.
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: [Inaudible - Editor]
The Chairman: It's a technical question, the definition of management plan.
Mr. Keyes: The management plan is not defined, because this is really the only place in the bill where it's mentioned. We simply refer to management plan in its ordinary sense of a plan for managing the species.
The Chairman: So you don't consider it necessary?
Mr. Keyes: I really can't judge. I think it certainly makes sense as it is. It's intelligible.
The Chairman: It's an understood term.
Mr. Keyes: But if the committee wanted to go further, then it's up to the committee.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
We move on to new clause 45.1.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: Perhaps it is the first time that it's mentioned, but in the definitions at the start, we took the time to define the term ``recovery plan''. There are different plans to be managed. Perhaps it would be a good idea to define what we mean by ``management plan''. It is a management plan for an endangered species, but in what respect, its habitat? We represent a small group of members here, and two or three amendments had to be made to clause 45 before adopting it. I'm not an expert in terms of that kind of management, but as a manager, I know that it is always easier to manage when things are clear.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bernier. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: It would certainly be possible to add a definition to make the link between clause 45 and the expression ``management plan'' if that would make the bill easier to understand.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
We're now on clause 45, amendment LK-35. Please introduce your amendment, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to introduce amendment LK-35. It's an amendment to clause 45. I'd like to introduce it as written, with two minor changes. I'd like to strike out the reference to clause 40 and add a reference to clause 44.1.
The Chairman: Could you then slowly read it?
Mr. Knutson: It reads:
(4) Subsections 38(2) and (6) and sections 39, 42, 43, 44, and 44.1 apply to the development and implementation of management plans with such modifications as the circumstances require.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Knutson: My notes to myself say it hooks in the recovery plan process. That's justification for the change.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Are there any other clauses that we have not yet adopted in Mr. Knutson's proposed amendment? Did we miss any clauses? If yes, do we have to deal with this amendment immediately or stand it?
The Chairman: Yes, that is correct.
.1135
[English]
We have stood clause 38, I'm told. The others have been passed.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: We stood it because the member was not here. Do you want to stand the adoption of...
[English]
The Chairman: Do we have any technical problems with passing this?
[Translation]
No, there are no technical problems.
Mr. Bernier: If there are no problems, that is fine, but it is difficult to adopt a clause that refers to clauses that have not yet been adopted. If you don't see that being a problem, that is fine, but I find that strange.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
Clause 45 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: We have an amendment, new clause 45.1. Mr. Knutson, please.
Mr. Knutson: This is amendment LK-36. I would like to propose this amendment as it is written.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I would make just one comment. I believe the intent of this is already covered by a provision in the Interpretation Act, which says that where a power is given to issue or make a document, that includes the power to amend it and to revoke it. When we drafted the provisions on the recovery plans, we were relying on that as making it unnecessary to add this specification.
The Chairman: So it is redundant, is it?
Mr. Keyes: That would be my recommendation, yes.
Mr. Knutson: I'm willing to accept Mr. Keyes's sage counsel on this one.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes says it's redundant.
We'll accept your word, Mr. Keyes.
Amendment withdrawn
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: Could I make a comment before we move on to the next clause? Still on clause 45...
The Chairman: We adopted clause 45.
Mr. Bernier: Yes, but I'd like some clarification. In the last amendment that was made, we added subclause (4) which says: ``With such modifications as the circumstances require.'' What does that mean? Can one of the expert witnesses shed some light on that for me?
Mr. Hallée: That means that in the provisions referred to, all that is included is a mention of the ` `recovery plan''. Here, we're talking about a management plan. That means that the provisions in question must be read; instead of reading ``recovery plans'', we will read ``management plan.'' The substance of the provisions will apply as if it were a management plan instead of a recovery plan as stated in the provisions.
Mr. Bernier: If I understand your explanation, it is very important to provide a clear definition of ``management plan'' somewhere at the start of the bill. There's a difference between the plans and it needs to be clarified somewhere so that everyone understands.
.1140
Mr. Hallée: We could have a definition in clause 2 that would stipulate that a management plan is a plan as set out in clause 45. You would know right away that you need to go to clause 45 to see what a management plan is.
Mr. Bernier: When we looked at the definition of a ``recovery plan'', we thought that it covered recovery plans, but also management plans. That is a bit confusing for me.
They say we have to adjust and clarify things. My question is for the experts who will help us draft the next clause. On page 4, in the definition of the ``recovery plan'', it says:
- ... means a plan prepared under section 38.
Mr. Hallée: There is a heading preceding clause 38, which applies to the provisions that follow it. Clause 38 includes the recovery plan and then, a few clauses later, we have the management plan. Preceding clause 38, there's a heading that simply announces the rest of the provisions. It does not apply exclusively to clause 38.
Mr. Bernier: A short comment on the heading.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier, may I interrupt you? You have raised an interesting point.
[English]
Clause 2 has been stood and will be discussed on Monday. If you would like to examine it on Monday and make a suggestion, there is time to do that so we don't do it now at the expense of other amendments. Is that acceptable?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: You are right, Mr. Chairman. The message is clear.
[English]
The Chairman: It's an interesting point you are raising. There is a definition of a recovery plan but not of a management plan, so we find your contribution very helpful.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: We can continue, Mr. Chairman. I understand what you're saying.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
On clause 46 - Powers of responsible minister
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.
Mr. Knutson: I'm sorry, but I'd like to present LK-37 as is, except for two minor changes. The last word on the first page is ``and''; I'd like to change the word to ``or''. On the following page, the last line, is the word ``minimally''; I always find that word hard to pronounce, so I'd like to change it to ``incidentally''.
The Chairman: There's quite a difference between ``minimally'' and ``incidentally''. They're not synonymous, as far as I know.
Mr. Knutson: Actually, I have some good reasons. ``Incidentally'' was the word agreed to by the task force and the word all the stakeholders in the pre-consultation to the bill agreed to.
The Chairman: We're going to the task force phraseology, are we?
Mr. Knutson: Yes, that's what the consensus was built around.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: My question has been answered, Mr. Chairman. I was reading the clause and I couldn't follow, but I understood that he was making a subamendment to his amendment. Okay.
.1145
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have any questions or comments? Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I have a few drafting suggestions to make. First I would suggest that the addition of ``residence'' is unnecessary because the residence would be part of the critical habitat very clearly in terms of the definition of critical habitat.
The second point is that paragraph 46(1)(b) refers to regulations under clause 33, but clause 33 has been amended so that it's no longer a regulation-making power; instead, it is a direct prohibition in the bill. To reflect that, it should read ``a wildlife species to which section 33 applies''.
My third point would be that as a matter of drafting conventions in federal statutes we have for many years not used provisos in statutes because of the ambiguities they tend to introduce in legislation, and so rather than saying ``provided that'' in the middle line, I would suggest changing that simply to ``if the activity is'', and it clearly indicates that this is a condition for the application of what precedes.
My final comment is on the numeration that's used for the following paragraphs. They should be numbered as paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) because they are paragraphs. We normally use the small roman numerals for subparagraphs but these in fact are paragraphs and should be lettered as (c), (d) and (e).
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, would you like to comment on these suggested changes or improvements?
Mr. Knutson: Once again I would accept Mr. Keyes' sage counsel, certainly on the latter points.
Mr. Keyes, are you convinced that ``residence'' doesn't add any weight to the line at all?
Mr. Keyes: I would perhaps defer to the officials or to Professor Rounthwaite on that, but in my view I don't believe it does. I think it's covered by ``critical habitat''.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: If it says ``its residence or its critical habitat'', what harm is there in leaving it?
Mr. Keyes: It suggests that the two are different concepts. The rule of interpretation is that when Parliament speaks, it speaks very precisely and it does not add additional words unless it means to add some additional concept. That's the difficulty with leaving in a term that is in fact encompassed by another term that's used, because it raises the potential for interpretational problems in terms of the way the courts approach the interpretation of legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: If I may, the word ``residence'' is defined in clause 2 has being linked to an individual. If we are talking about a species, we should use the concept ``habitat'', which is linked to a species. The ``residence'' generally refers to an individual in particular. That is generally how the Act is being drafted. When we were talking about the species, we talked about habitat and when we were talking about an individual, we talked about the residence.
[English]
The Chairman: This is the only sticking point of the changes recommended by Mr. Keyes, as I understand them. So can we now decide, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I'm prepared to accept Mr. Keyes's recommendations in full and remove the word ``residence'' and change the roman numerals to new paragraphs.
The Chairman: Insert these instead of ``provided that'' -
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: If I can suggest another drafting point, Mr. Knutson, I think that for the provision to read more smoothly, it would be preferable to turn the last part into a subclause (1.1) instead of having a provision continue after a carriage return. It gets a bit heavy. It would be easier to have a subclause (1.1) that would say:
(1.1) This activity must comply with one of the following conditions:
[English]
The Chairman: That can be arranged.
Mr. Knutson: Point one is fine. Also, the one thing I didn't mention, which the Justice lawyers had mentioned, was striking out the reference to regulations under clause 33, which is no longer written in the form of empowering regulations.
.1150
The Chairman: All right. Before asking for a vote, could I ask the lawyers to provide the clerk with the suggested technical improvements.
Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mr. Lincoln asked whether or not there was any utility at all in keeping ``residence'', and there may be some. I'm not sure it was pointed out, and I think he should know, that clause 32 makes it an offence to damage or destroy a residence. It does not make it an offence to damage or destroy habitat. The minister might be reassured to know that he can issue a permit authorizing what may be incidental damage to a residence, rather than... So there may be some utility in specifying residence or critical habitat.
The Chairman: I think he has a point there.
A voice: You could maybe say ``residence or other part of critical habitat'' to clarify that we don't mean that they're separate things.
The Chairman: Madame Douglas, please.
Ms Douglas: I'm just wondering if Mr. Keyes might think it would be useful to say ``its residence or other aspect or part of its critical habitat'', so that you made it clear that you consider them to be one part of the other.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, that I think is a very good suggestion that may accommodate all of the concerns here.
The Chairman: Terrific.
Mr. Keyes: It would certainly solve the problem that I see.
The Chairman: That would be ``its residence or other part of its critical habitat''.
Mr. Knutson, are you happy with that change?
Mr. Knutson: I'm very happy.
The Chairman: You're all extremely relieved. So with those changes, are you ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We move on to amendment G-14. Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is consequential to the amendment of clause 33. This is found on page 21, lines 18 and 19, and the change refers to the change that we made on regulations. So it now says:
- (b) a wildlife species to which section 33 applies or its residence''.
Ms Douglas: That line is covered by Mr. Knutson's amendment, which was just carried. The effect is accomplished, but that motion isn't in order any more because the line has been amended.
The Chairman: So this motion is unnecessary?
Ms Douglas: It can be dropped, yes.
Amendment withdrawn
The Chairman: Thank you. Next is LK-38, please.
Mr. Knutson: This is an amendment to clause 46. I would like to present it as presented, as written.
The Chairman: Fine. You mean it's self-explanatory? Fine.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: On LK-39, Mr. Knutson, please.
Mr. Knutson: I would like to present LK-39 as written.
The Chairman: Are there any comments from Justice on this? Is it acceptable to you? Fine.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Knutson.
.1155
Mr. Knutson: This is amendment LK-40. I move the amendment as it's worded, which proposes to change the word ``may'' to ``shall''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Next, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: LK-41 is an amendment to clause 46. I'd like to present the amendment as written, with one minor change. I'd like to add the word ``responsible'' before ``Minister''. The underlined sentence would then read:
- The responsible Minister may amend a permit or agreement as required to ensure the survival
and recovery of a species.
Any comments? Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: We'd certainly concur with that. I hadn't had a chance to look at it before it was voted, but I would suggest that adding the cross-reference in the opening words is unnecessary as well. This follows from subclause 46(1), so it's clear that we're talking about the same permit and the same agreement. The cross-reference really is unnecessary and doesn't add any further clarification.
Mr. Lincoln: What in fact are you saying? Are you saying this is okay or not okay? I'm not sure.
Mr. Keyes: The motion has added, in other words, ``to a person referred to in subsection (1)''. I'm back on page 39.
Mr. Lincoln: We're at subclause 46(4) in amendment LK-41.
Mr. Keyes: I'm sorry. I was going back to LK-39, because there's the same problem with ``responsible minister'' in the motion on LK-39 that I think is being raised here.
The Chairman: Now, are you saying that the insertion of ``responsible'' is redundant?
Mr. Keyes: No, I'm saying it needs to be inserted here. This deals with permits and agreements made by a responsible minister. So the requirement to provide reasons should also be on the responsible minister rather than on the Minister of the Environment.
As LK-39 is written, it simply says ``the Minister'', which is the Minister of the Environment. But the Minister of the Environment isn't necessarily the person issuing the permit or making the agreement. It's ``the responsible minister'', so it possibly could be some of the other ministers as well.
Mr. Lincoln: I know, but this suggestion that Mr. Knutson brings in adds the ``responsible'' minister may amend a permit. You don't have any objection to that.
Mr. Keyes: No, I have none whatsoever.
Mr. Lincoln: So that's okay.
Mr. Keyes: Yes. I was also addressing another point back in LK-39.
Mr. Lincoln: Oh, I see.
The Chairman: We'll review that in a second. Let's complete LK-41. Is that all right? Fine.
So in dealing with LK-41, with the change as suggested by Mr. Knutson, are you ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Let's revert for a moment to LK-39, where Mr. Keyes is suggesting that the word ``responsible'' be inserted before ``minister''.
Mr. Keyes: That's correct.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the suggested amendment by the Justice people? It's a technical one.
Mr. Lincoln: My brain is much slower than yours.
The Chairman: That's impossible.
On the second-last line in LK-39, in English, and on the third-last line in French, Mr. Keyes is recommending insertion of the word ``responsible'' before the word ``minister'', which, in the English version, now has a small ``m''.
Are you ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Hallée.
.1200
Mr. Hallée: There's a problem in motion LK-38. There's a drafting problem in the French version.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. What are you recommending?
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: It presently says:
(1.1) Le ministre compétent est tenu de consulter le conseil de gestion de la faune...
To be consistent with the other references to it, it should read ``le conseil de gestion des ressources fauniques''. The second last-line of the subclause should read: ``concernant une espèce soumise à l'autorité d'un tel conseil'' rather than ``d'une telle commission''.
The Chairman: You have heard the two amendments. Will you move them, Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. Lincoln: I so move.
The Chairman: These are two amendments to make the French version clearer.
[English]
Those in favour, please so indicate.
Amendments agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Hallée.
We move ahead now to LK-42. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to present LK-42, to amend clause 46 still, exactly as written.
The Chairman: Hallelujah! Thank you.
Mr. Knutson: You're welcome.
The Chairman: Any questions? Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: What's the rationale for this?
Mr. Knutson: The three-year limit on permits and agreements. It's consistent with other legislation, I've been advised. It's just to avoid somebody issuing a permit and then never having to look at it again. I think it's useful, given that we're dealing with endangered species. Three years is a long time.
Mr. Curtis: If I had any concern at all it would be with the administrative requirements this might provide, particularly for agreements, and the fact that it took away the discretion of the responsible minister to have a longer-term agreement if there was a sound one in place. On the permit side, it makes some sense, but...
I'm just looking for a way to have a bit more discretion built in here to not create unnecessary administrative burden.
The Chairman: Could the flexibility you're searching for, Mr. Curtis, be met by replacing ``shall'' with ``may''?
Mr. Lincoln: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Curtis brings up a good point, that there's a differentiation between a permit and agreement. Maybe we should specify three years for permits and five years for agreements, which would make it more flexible.
Mr. Curtis: I agree.
The Chairman: All right, then, how should the amendment read? Could we have it on record?
Mr. Lincoln: Can we say that no permit shall be made for a term longer than three years and no agreement shall be issued or made for a term longer than five years?
The Chairman: Is that all right with you, Mr. Curtis?
Mr. Curtis: The opportunity for reissuance is available, obviously.
The Chairman: It is, apparently. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I would just make a minor drafting suggestion. When we speak of permits we usually use the verb ``issue''. I think it would be sufficient to say no permit shall be ``issued'' for a term longer. Then when we speak of agreements we'd use the verb ``made'' - that is, no agreement shall be ``made'' for a term of more than five years.
The Chairman: Fine. That is very helpful. Thank you.
Are there any further questions or comments?
.1205
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: We have people at the end of the table who seem to be quite familiar with the legislation. How should we feel about section 46(5) if we allow the minister to have control over issuing permits through regulations? If we set out an obstacle to this under 46(4.1) we will be restricting him. Will he be able to get around that with regulations?
Mr. Hallée: I asked myself the same question, but if you look at the wording of subclause (5), you will see that regulations can be on issuance, which won't be a problem. In fact, there can be regulations on the issuance and renewal. Even if an agreement or a permit is only valid for a limited period of time, there's nothing, in the case of permits in any case, that allows for their renewal.
That is also the case for revocation - they can be revoked before expiry - and suspensions. These are all things that can be regulated even if agreements and permits are only valid for a specific period of time.
Dr. Bernier: So preventative measures were set out in the bill for a maximum period of time, but the minister or Cabinet could have done this in the regulations. It is simply to make this clearer.
The Chairman: Sir.
Mr. Michel Arès (Legal Advisor, Department of the Environment): What my colleague is saying is that within that three-year period there is still room for regulations. Subsection (5) does not allow the minister to regulate for longer than the periods of time granted by Parliament.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you. Next, Mr. Knutson, please proceed.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to present amendment LK-43 as it's written in the text.
The Chairman: Any comments? Monsieur Hallée.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: I would like to come back to the French wording of LK-42 which will have to be slightly changed. May I suggest wording for LK-42, the one that we have just discussed? Subsection (4.1) would read as follows:
(4.1) No permit shall be issued for a term longer than 3 years and no agreement shall be made for a term longer than five years.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I would suggest in the English to replace the word ``revision'' with ``amendment''.
Mr. Lincoln: We've gone back to the previous one now.
The Chairman: All right.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée, thank you. We've taken note of your suggestion for LK-42.
[English]
Now, we go to 43, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I would suggest in the English version to use the word ``amendment'' rather than ``revision''. ``Revision'' in this sense is a Gallicism; ``amendment'' is really the correct English term here.
The Chairman: Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Knutson?
Mr. Knutson: Absolutely.
The Chairman: It is. So the text en français -
Mr. Lincoln: What's the word he's suggesting?
[Translation]
The Chairman: ``Amendment''. Mr. Hallée.
Mr. Hallée: I'm looking at this. In this case I would simply say amendment instead of review, if that's the idea that...
The Chairman: ``Amendment'' instead of ``review''?
Mr. Hallée: If that's really the idea.
The Chairman: ``Amendment'' instead of ``review''.
Mr. Lincoln.
[English]
Mr. Lincoln: I have a query. I don't know if amendment and revision are the same thing. To me, the word ``revision'' is much stronger. I think it's an important point. What do you think, Madame Douglas?
Ms Douglas: I think amendment is a better word than revision.
Mr. Lincoln: It's better? Why?
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: I agree with Mr. Lincoln but I would like to have more details on the message that we are trying to put across. Is this a review of the permit to ensure that it will still be valid or is it amendment in order to add something to the permit or the agreement?
.1210
[English]
The Chairman: What is the intent behind the word ``revision'', which apparently is stronger than ``amendment''?
Mr. Knutson: I'm not sure I appreciate the difference between revising something and amending something.
Mr. Rounthwaite: In part I think this is just filling a gap in that there are a number of things the minister can do with respect to permits in clause 46 and one that was not covered was giving the minister the ability to revise a permit. However, I would note that in the amendment to subclause 46(4), which is LK-41, the minister was then authorized to amend a permit. There is actually nothing in clause 46 now that authorizes the minister to revise a permit. So I would agree with Mr. Keyes that the amendment power is what I think the intent to give the minister is.
The Chairman: Fine, thank you.
With those changes, are you then ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 46 as amended agreed to
On clause 47 - Agreements and permits under other Acts
The Chairman: On clause 47, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to present the amendment to clause 47 as it's written.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 47 as amended agreed to
Clause 48 agreed to
On clause 49 - Notification of Minister
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I am advised that the government is planning to introduce an amendment, so I'm not prepared to propose this at the present time.
The Chairman: When will that be?
Mr. Knutson: The government is here.
The Chairman: Is the amendment ready? What happens to LK-45?
Mr. Lincoln: It's withdrawn.
The Chairman: So amendment LK-45 is withdrawn. Then we will proceed with G-15.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The intent of this amendment acknowledges the fact that environmental assessment is required under other acts and land claims agreements. That is the intent of this amendment, and the change is reflected by replacing lines 13 to 39 on page 22 with what is on the page. However, I would like to make one amendment to this, which is under ``Required action'', subclause (2), beginning with ``The person''. I would like to delete ``association or organization'', because it's reflected in the definition of ``person'' later.
The Chairman: The text is as it is printed now? There are no changes?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: None other than the deletion of ``association or organization'' in subclause 49(2), because ``person'' contains those ideas.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to move an amendment to this, a simple one adding the word ``extirpated'' where we have ``vulnerable, threatened or endangered''. We've added the word ``extirpated'' in the past.
The Chairman: Vulnerable, threatened, endangered, or -
Mr. Knutson: Extirpated.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: If it's easier, Mr. Chair, I'll request that this be added in this amendment and then I'll move the amendment. So the two changes to the amendment as written would be to say ``as extirpated, vulnerable'' and then to remove ``association or organization''.
.1215
The Chairman: Thank you.
The motion is before you. Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: I have to be sure I'm on the right page. Is this LK-45?
Mr. Lincoln: G-15.
Mr. Bernier: Oh! There is a big difference. I didn't understand a thing.
The Chairman: Did you listen to the recommended changes?
Mr. Bernier: Yes, if you can just...
The Chairman: Ms Kraft Sloan, can you...
Mr. Bernier: Was LK-45 carried?
The Chairman: It was withdrawn.
[English]
Would you mind, Madame Kraft Sloan, repeating the changes you have announced?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: To be consistent with other parts of the legislation, I would add ``extirpated'' to paragraph 49(1)(a) and delete ``association or organization'' in subclause 49(2).
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: I would like to give you the wording that takes into account Ms Kraft-Sloan's amendments. The fifth line of subclause (1) should read as follows: ``as vulnerable, threatened, endangered, extirpated''.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I think it's a suggestion for the English to adopt the same order -
The Chairman: Sure, adopt the same order. No problem.
Mr. Keyes: - of ascending harm to the species. So ``extirpated'' would go at the end of the list, because that's the most drastic state.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Next is amendment LK-46 by Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: My note says the government is planning an amendment.
The Chairman: This has already been covered by what we have just done. So it's withdrawn.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you.
Clause 49 as amended agreed to
Clause 50 agreed to
On clause 51 - Inspections
The Chairman: We come to amendment G-16, please.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This amends the French version, replacing line 25 with:
[Translation]
- under the authority of a warrant.
The Chairman: So you're dropping ``de perquisition''.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Chairman: Are there any questions to that amendment?
Mr. Lincoln: What is the English text, just as a matter of information?
The Chairman: The English text is, ``or under the authority of a warrant''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: What kind of warrant? It stops after ``warrant'', but...
The Chairman: A search warrant. What kind of warrant?
Mr. Bernier: It says: ``under the authority of a warrant''. What kind of warrant?
Mr. Hallée.
Mr. Hallée: They're referring generally to a warrant. There are all kinds of warrants that can be used in those circumstances under the Criminal Code. The term ``search warrant'' was more restrictive and that wasn't the intention.
.1220
[English]
Clause 51 as amended agreed to
Clauses 52 to 55 inclusive agreed to
On clause 56 - Application for investigation
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: This is amendment LK-47. The justification for this is to allow a non-profit corporation's standing, such as an environmental group. My understanding is that the government doesn't... They're still researching the implications of this change.
Perhaps the officials can explain why it was left out. Why are we trying to prevent non-profit corporations, or other corporations, from being given standing?
Mr. Keyes: At the in camera session, I think Professor Rounthwaite gave quite a good justification for it. I really can't account for the policy behind it other than to say that I think it reflects the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights approach to a comparable action.
Perhaps Professor Rounthwaite can go over the explanation he gave.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I guess I can say the same thing I said on Tuesday. By excluding a corporation, it means an individual would have to bring an application in their personal capacity. The only possible reason I could see for doing that would be that this would then allow any costs the court may award against the person who brought the application...to be personally liable for it.
I can't say that I can see any utility in excluding a corporation from having the same rights as an individual in their personal capacity, so I'm not sure I understand what the intent of this one is.
I might add, this is not the same as Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights Act.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Curtis, do you want to comment on this at all?
Mr. Curtis: I was looking to my colleague from Justice for some guidance on this. We can look into it, but I can't provide any clarification at the moment.
Mr. Knutson: Not seeing any objection - and I appreciate the ambivalence - I think the amendment should go ahead as proposed.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but there is one possible reason that occurs to me that you would want to exclude a corporation. You would exclude a corporation so that it would not be possible for two competing companies...where one uses an investigation as a means of trying to delay the commencement of a project by another company until the investigation was concluded. Other than that, though, I can think of no other reason.
I don't think that's the reason I gave on Tuesday.
Mr. Knutson: With all due respect, I find that a bit of a stretch. If a company wanted to use the act for something it's not intended for, they could put up a front person and just proceed as an individual.
Again, I suggest we just proceed.
The Chairman: Are we ready to call the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 56 as amended agreed to
On clause 57 - Investigation
Mr. Knutson: I would like to present the amendment as written.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
.1225
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: In the English version, second line, I would remove the words ``of receiving it''. It's rather obvious under the circumstances, because usually receipt is acknowledged once it has been received.
[English]
The Chairman: Ce n'est pas nécessaire. Correct?
Thank you, Mr. Hallée.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next is LK-49. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I'm advised that the reference to clause 57 in that amendment is a mistake. It should refer to clause 58.
The Chairman: Then let me go back. Shall clause 57 carry as amended?
Clause 57 as amended agreed to
On clause 58 - Progress reports
The Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I propose LK-49.
The Chairman: There are no changes?
Mr. Knutson: No changes.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
The French version is fine? Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 58 as amended agreed to
Clause 59 agreed to
On clause 60 - Circumstances in which a person may bring an action
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.
Mr. Knutson: Apparently the changes I've suggested for clause 60 have caused some concern. I'm still consulting with my colleagues. I'd like this stood until Monday.
Mr. Chair, you remember that clause 60 was a subject of great debate from the witnesses throughout the hearings. I feel I need time to work through my position.
Clause 60 allowed to stand
Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to
The Chairman: The amendment that proposes clause 62.1 is in the name of Mr. Forseth, so we cannot handle it now. We'll move on to clause 63.
Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to
The Chairman: The amendment that proposes clause 64.1 is in the name of Mr. Forseth, and has to wait. It is deferred.
.1230
Clauses 65 to 68 inclusive agreed to
On clause 69 - Remedies
The Chairman: There's an amendment here by Mr. Forseth, so we'll defer it.
Clause 69 allowed to stand
Clauses 70 to 76 inclusive agreed to
On clause 77 - Contraventions
The Chairman: We now have amendment G-17.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I move to amend clause 77 by replacing line 34 on page 33 with:
- sections 31 to 33 or any prescribed provision of
- This is a consequential amendment to the changes we made in clause 33.
The Chairman: The French version is correct.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: We now go to amendment LK-52. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: This will see an increase in the penalties to make them consistent with what's in the Fisheries Act, subsection 40(1).
The Chairman: Thank you. That's self-explanatory.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Shall we stand clause 77 for Mr. Forseth's amendment? Yes. We will have to stand it because of the vertebrate business.
Clause 77 allowed to stand
The Chairman: We now have new clause 77.1. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Amendment LK-53 was conditional on a previous amendment - I can't remember the number offhand - about employers interfering with their employees. If I remember correctly, that amendment was withdrawn. My sense is this amendment should also be withdrawn.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson is asking that it be withdrawn.
Clauses 78 to 100 inclusive agreed to
On clause 101 - Annual report to Parliament
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: For my information, when I am silent when a vote is taken, Mr. Chairman, do you put ``on division'' in the minutes?
The Chairman: We will do so if that is what you want.
Mr. Bernier: So that this moves faster, it will be on division.
The Chairman: Fine. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Knutson, we are on clause 101.
.1235
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to present LK-54 as written except for the following changes.
Under paragraph 101(e) where it says ``section 7'', add in the words ``or 33''. And then on paragraph (g), I had made reference to ``regulations issued under section 33''. Because of the government amendments, regulations no longer get issued under section 33 and so that would read ``regulations issued under section 42''.
The Chairman: Is there any other change?
Mr. Knutson: No.
Mr. Lincoln: Could I ask for a precision, Mr. Knutson. Does paragraph 101(e) now read ``all agreements entered into under section 7 or 33 or delegation arrangements''?
Mr. Knutson: Yes.
Mr. Lincoln: Okay, thanks.
The Chairman: Department of Justice, do you have any comments?
Mr. Keyes: Just a couple of minor points. With regard to paragraph (d), as I mentioned earlier, when we speak of agreements we normally use the verb ``made'' and we use the verb ``issued'' for permits, so I would suggest that for ``all permits and agreements issued'', we add ``or made'' under those sections.
The second point would be on the following paragraph, (e). I believe the amendments to clause 6 speak of ``delegation agreements'', and to be consistent with that language it would probably be better, at least in the English, to say ``delegation agreements under section 6''.
Mr. Lincoln: Could you tell me, under paragraph (e), whether you would change ``entered into'' to ``made'', as well, because if you change it -
Mr. Keyes: Oh, I see. Yes, that's right. We should probably be consistent between the two. I would change it in paragraph (e) as well, yes, to ``made under''.
Mr. Lincoln: And may I ask Mr. Hallée if
[Translation]
``an agreement is concluded under section 6 or 7 and the delegation agreements''...
Mr. Hallée: I would simply say: ``an agreement is concluded under section 6 or 7'' because there are now agreements under both sections.
Mr. Lincoln: So we would not include ``delegation arrangements''; but in that case we need to correct the English version.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: That's right. I would then simplify the English as well just to say ``all agreements made under section 6 or 7''.
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln: So it will also be 6 and 7 in the French version.
Mr. Hallée: In French the wording will be: ``an agreement is concluded under section 6 or 7''.
Ms Douglas: And 33.
The Chairman: Or 33.
[English]
Ms Douglas: You wanted to add section 33 to paragraph (e), so it should be ``6, 7 or 33'', then.
Mr. Lincoln: I wonder if the lawyers could re-read it in French and English for us so that we are sure.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: In French it would be: ``an agreement is concluded under sections 6, 7 or 33''.
The Chairman: Fine, continue until the end.
Mr. Hallée: That is all for paragraph (e).
Mr. Lincoln: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. In the French version, under paragraph (d) you say ``en vertu'' and here you're saying ``au titre''. Does one say ``au titre'' or ``en vertu''?
Mr. Hallée: Usually I would say ``au titre'', but in order to be consistent with the rest of the clause, we could use ``en vertu''.
Mr. Lincoln: Fine.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I wonder if I could get a point of clarification. I perhaps misheard, but I'd thought that in the English we were adding the reference to 33 in paragraph (d).
Mr. Lincoln: It's in paragraph (e).
Mr. Keyes: Okay, fine. Then the English then would read ``all agreements made under section 6, 7 or 33''.
Mr. Lincoln: Okay.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: Paragraph (g) should read ``regulations concluded under section 42'' and ``sections 33 and'' should be removed.
.1240
[English]
The Chairman: All right. Merci.
Are there any further questions, further comments?
Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I need to raise a concern from the agency that's going to have to create all these reports. I respect what's intended, and the ideas are good, but I have to say I'm quite concerned about the amount of paperwork and reporting that's required here on an annual basis.
The Chairman: It will reduce unemployment, Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: I suppose it's a question of the amount of detail required to satisfy the requirements of this section - the preparation and implementation of recovery plans. Reporting to Parliament is obviously a serious matter, and we would treat it that way. I'm just concerned about the amount of effort and energy and money required to produce such a report on all these matters on an annual basis.
I'll leave it at that.
The Chairman: But you see that the emphasis is on summary, Mr. Curtis, don't you?
Mr. Curtis: Yes, I do.
The Chairman: That should help alleviate at least some of your concerns.
Mr. Keyes: I have one last drafting point. It is on the use of ``shall''. In the other parts of this section we speak of ``must''. For consistency I would suggest saying, in the new portion that's added, the report ``must'' include a summary.
The Chairman: A final change of ``shall'' to ``must'' is being proposed by Mr. Keyes.
Is that all right with you, Mr. Knutson?
Mr. Knutson: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chairman: And the French version?
Mr. Hallée: This is just a technical point. On the fifth line of section 101, there is a typo. It says ``jorus'' and it should read ``jours''.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 101 as amended to agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 102 and 103 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 104 - Bill C-25
The Chairman: On amendment G-18, please proceed.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I move to amend lines 16 and 17 on page 46 by changing ``within 23 days'' to ``as soon as possible''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 104 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We now have to deal with the preamble, which is quite extensive.
Mr. Lincoln: I thought we had agreed to stand the preamble because of the motions by the Reform.
The Chairman: I believe there are two government amendments that we could discuss.
.1245
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There's a government amendment to the preamble, yes, but -
The Chairman: There is one.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, that's what I mean. The preamble works in my mind as one piece. It's hard to separate, because you have to see how it's all working together.
The Chairman: I'm reminded that I stopped at clause 106 and that clause 107 needs to be called.
Clause 107 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Perhaps we should postpone our discussion of the preamble until the Reform Party members can come. I am told that there are people missing. Furthermore, there are whole clauses that have been stood. I don't know whether that will have an effect or not, but usually, the preamble is dealt with at the end.
[English]
The Chairman: I want to thank you for your endurance, insights, and suggestions.
We will not sit this afternoon. We'll resume Monday afternoon and continue into Monday evening, and then, if necessary and only if necessary, into Tuesday morning, by which time perhaps we might come out of the tunnel. We might conclude, therefore, sometime on Monday or sometime on Tuesday. It's very hard to predict, but I know some of you people want to make plans for next week, and it's my duty to give you this kind of rough reading into the future.
It is absolutely essential that we start Monday at 3:15 p.m. so we put in a good day's work.
Mr. Knutson: On that point, I've just checked with my office, and because of the airline schedules, I can't be here until 4:30 p.m.
The Chairman: There will be plenty of discussions, but we will need, perhaps for one hour, a replacement on your behalf. We want to start. We may still be on the preamble for that time.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
The Chairman: Actually, we will start with those clauses that have been stood, in the same order as we started yesterday.
Mr. Knutson, in case an LK amendment is called during that hour, you could leave instructions with a colleague so they'd be moved on your behalf, with whatever changes you see fit.
Mr. Knutson: Right, thank you.
The Chairman: It may not occur, but it may occur.
Mr. Knutson: Thanks.
The Chairman: I can see some indications of tiredness here, or looking forward to lunch, so I thank you again, and we will come back on Monday.
The meeting is adjourned.