[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 8, 1995

.1005

[English]

The Chairman: I'll call the meeting to order. We're looking at the votability of private members' business. Our first submission is from the Hon. Charles Caccia in connection with Bill C-275.

Are you familiar with the procedure, Mr. Caccia? Roughly five minutes, plus five minutes for questions. Please begin.

Hon. Charles Caccia, (Davenport): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.

As you said a moment ago, this is a fairly straightforward topic in itself. Also, it is rather complex. It flows from the Rio de Janeiro conference on sustainable development that took place in 1992. It is the object of a worldwide convention that Canada was the first nation to sign and among the first nations to ratify.

The bill in itself is the result of consultations with private groups, organizations, industry to some extent, and governments, and it is really the product of intensive consultations aimed at putting in legislative terms the urgent necessity of protecting fauna and flora, which, as you know, in some regions are at risk of being damaged and even decreased. While this problem is not as acute in Canada as it is in other regions of the world, nevertheless we have certain regions in Canada where encroachment, human activities, and resource exploitation have led to the conclusion that this type of measure is desirable.

To make a long story short, it is a measure that intends to protect the enjoyment of fauna and flora for future generations if we care for them. It is also intended to maintain in the environment surrounding us the richness of life that our predecessors and we, until now, have been able to enjoy. Therefore, it is a measure that reflects a domestic as well as a national and international concern.

I leave it to your judgment, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. White.

Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Thank you, Mr. Caccia. I must say that this was on my list of private members' bills to do, as well.

.1010

I think there was mention of a schedule in this bill.

Mr. Caccia: Yes, there was a schedule.

Mr. White: How is the schedule made up? From what source is the schedule made up?

Mr. Caccia: This is the official schedule that has been prepared by the group called COSEWIC, which has been in that business for many years. It is therefore their schedule, not mine, because it was produced by people who are specialists in the field and who are knowledgeable.

Mr. White: Could you explain the penalties? I know there is a provision for penalties in here. How do you incur the penalty and what would the penalties be?

Mr. Caccia: I don't think the private member's bill can impose penalties. That would be the object of existing legislation that protects wildlife and that protects migratory birds and activities. The private member's bill can only indicate the possibility of charging levies, but it is my understanding that it is not possible for me to set specific amounts.

Mr. White: Well, penalties are mentioned in it - that no person shall kill or injure and so on. What happens if people do kill and injure?

Mr. Caccia: It is spelled out in clause 12, subject to penalties as set out in clause 2, but it is not specified because there are limits imposed on the nature of a private member's bill. It would have to be done by way of...if this bill is the object of government fiat, then in that case the bill can become more specific.

Mr. White: So it comes under the Canadian Wildlife Act, then?

Mr. Caccia: It could be done by way of an amendment to the Wildlife Act, or it could be done in committee, if the government indicates its willingness to do it through that route.

The Chairman: I understand that some provinces have adopted endangered species legislation.

Mr. Caccia: Yes, very much so, and some provinces have adopted some excellent legislation in this respect. This is an attempt to provide a common national denominator.

The Chairman: Have other countries, to your knowledge, adopted similar legislation?

Mr. Caccia: Yes, Holland, Denmark, and some of the Scandinavian states; I believe also the U.K. I'm not so sure about other countries.

Mr. White: I have just one question for my own information. Why is this, in 1995, the first time this has come forward, or is it the first time?

Mr. Caccia: That's a good question.

In the last Parliament I had a private member's bill that died because it never saw the light of day. This year it took me over seven months to update this and to bring it forward last September. Now we are in June. As you can see, the parliamentary times have their own speed and requirements.

Mr. White: I'm just surprised that it's once in the last Parliament and once in this Parliament -

Mr. Caccia: Yes, and it is the kind of bill that I would like to think not many would oppose in the House if it were to come to a vote.

The Chairman: I would just add one thing from our perspective.

You're aware that we have legislative negative criteria that we've adopted and we use generally - not with scientific restrictions, but we do use it - and one of those criteria indicates that where the government has placed an item on its legislative agenda, we wouldn't select the item as being votable.

.1015

The Minister of the Environment came very close to doing this at a Question Period on May 5, in reply to a question from the member for Nickel Belt, so there appears to be something in the pipeline. We might inquire more specifically after that, unless you have more information yourself.

Mr. Caccia: Mr. Chairman, all I can say to that is that, as we all know, we are surrounded by roads paved with good intentions. Right now there is nothing on the legislative agenda at all. Therefore, that reply can be interpreted as a good intention - and I hope it will eventually be the subject of a legislative measure - but right now there is nothing.

The Chairman: With your long experience, you will undoubtedly be aware that we may be close to a prorogation, and you're fully aware of all that happens when that occurs.

In any event, that probably won't impair our decision-making process here.

Do you have any more questions? No? Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Caccia: Thank you for the hearing. I very much appreciate your interest and your kindness. I'll see you again. Goodbye.

The Chairman: We may be able to deal with Madame Venne.

The Clerk of the Committee: I don't believe we'll see Madame Venne this morning.

The Chairman: Then let's talk about her item. I don't know what it is, but it may be so good that we couldn't resist making it votable, just on the face of it.

Mr. White: I'd like to think that if it was so good the member would at least skip out for 15 minutes -

The Chairman: I don't know. I didn't look closely at what her item of business was. Mr. Clerk, what is it?

The Clerk: M-208, a commission of inquiry on ministerial ethics.

The Chairman: We have lots of copies.

Mr. White: Not being given the opportunity to ask questions of the individual as we are with the others, I couldn't....

The Chairman: Yes. This is not a straightforward item. It sounds like a standing committee. Oh, it deals only with ministerial matters, not MP matters.

Mr. White: You have to determine an issue that is contrary to the code of ministerial ethics, I presume by the ethics counsellor, and then at that point members of the House gather and decide, I suppose, what action should be taken.

The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, we have already heard from Mr. Caccia in relation to the endangered species matter, and we were just discussing Madame Venne's motion concerning a standing -

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): She didn't show up?

The Chairman: No, not yet.

Mr. Langlois: Well, so be it.

The Chairman: Do we want to discuss these things now and make our decisions? If we do, we go in camera.

We have a bell for a vote. My guess is that it's a half-hour bell, so we have 25 minutes. Then let's go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]