ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

0905

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

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

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

0910

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

0915

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Joe Comartin

0920

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

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

0925

The Chair

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

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

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

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

0930

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Heather Smith

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

0935

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

Ms. Heather Smith

0940

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

0945

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

0950

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

0955

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1000

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

1005

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1010

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

1015

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

1020

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1025

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 003

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. We have a quorum. We will start today with clause 6. Welcome to the committee, those of you who are new and those who are not.

For urgent reasons I have to adjourn the committee at around 10:30 a.m., unless there is a vice-chair who will be willing to carry on the discussion beyond 10:30. Around that time I will inquire whether there is any willingness on the part of one of the two vice-chairs to carry on the meeting.

As you know, we meet tomorrow afternoon and Thursday morning. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon we should have a brief discussion on the work next week and the following weeks.

But since we are all well rested and eager to go, we start this morning with clause 6, particularly with the amendment in the name of the member from York North, earmarked KS-5. Before I propose moving on the motion, could we hear the comments of the officials on KS-5?

Could someone please comment on this motion? Madam Redman.

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

As everybody can see in the motion before them, Ms. Kraft Sloan, in her amendment KS-5, is suggesting that we delete the last line of proposed section 9.1, “as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made”.

This amendment goes farther than anything that we could support, Mr. Chair. It appears that Ms. Kraft Sloan is trying to close a potential loophole created by the Federal Court's Red Hill Creek decision. We feel this matter is partially addressed through government amendment 2. The proposed amendment would also create inconsistency in certain sections of the act that have the same wording.

There is a pending piece of legislation, Mr. Chair, called the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act . The criteria in that legislation for amendments would allow changes within acts that are of a housekeeping or technical nature in order to make a bill or an act consistent. But these would all have to be non-controversial changes. It wouldn't be the intent to bring up anything that was fractious or on which there hadn't been consensus, but to amend legislation to make it consistent and capable of being applied.

I don't know if Mr. Connelly or Ms. Smith would like to speak to this, but we have a suggestion for this specific amendment. We also have a suggestion on how we might move forward when there are pieces of the act that may not be open—or that we're unable to amend because they're part of the parent act at this time—and that may end up being inconsistent as a result.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I'm withdrawing this motion.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: The motion is being withdrawn. Thank you.

We now move to the next amendment by the member for Fundy-Royal. We will have to stand it. I'm advised by the clerk that this is an inadmissible amendment for the reason that it does amend the parent legislation and therefore cannot be proposed.

We have motion PC-4 on page 29. Are there any comments?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I think at some time the committee may want to have a discussion about whether an amendment can change the parent act.

First of all, Mr. Herron is not present this morning. I wasn't present when my amendment came up. I understand there's a tradition in this committee that members should be there while their amendments are coming forward.

The issue of whether you can propose an amendment that opens the parent act and doesn't open the act before us is an issue the committee may want to have a discussion about at some point.

For the record, this committee in previous incantations--is it an appropriate word? I see Mr. Bailey flinching. Am I stepping into the religious here with the words “incarnations” and “ incantations”? We don't want to get into a certain kind of practice here. It's when you get canned. We want to be “carned”. We want to be “incarnationed”.

In previous lifetimes of this committee, Mr. Chair, we have indeed opened up the parent statute when the act before us didn't have the section open.

I'm not proposing it.

The Chair: I don't recall any instance of that kind, but the issue is very simple. First of all, it does not require lengthy theoretical discussions. It is a very technical, mechanical discussion.

Whenever a motion comes forward, about which the chair will be advised by the clerks as to whether it is inadmissible, then the onus is on the mover to make the case that it does not amend the parent act. Once the discussion has been completed, then the chair will rule. It will then be a decision for the committee in case the ruling of the chair is challenged to either sustain or not sustain the chair.

What the chair wants to do, basically, is ensure that we pass a piece of legislation where amendments will not be changed by the Speaker because of the admission or the passing of an amendment that does change the parent legislation. This chair will be extremely firm and determined to make sure not one amendment is adopted that does amend the parent legislation. Otherwise, we will open the floodgates to all sorts of subsequent amendments.

As I have already said before, I want to make it quite clear that this is the procedure I will adopt. It is not the first time.

As to the motion by Mr. Herron, if he is not present, I am quite willing to set it aside so that when I make the ruling, after hearing him, that it is not admissible, then he has recourse available that he may wish to adopt.

Be very brief, please, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In fact, this committee did pass an amendment that did amend the parent act and did not have to do with the amending bill in front of us. The Speaker, in all due wisdom, allowed the amendment to stand in the House.

Certainly it was in the halcyon days of this committee, may I add, Mr. Chair, under your leadership.

Thank you.

The Chair: Under my leadership this certainly did not take place, to my knowledge at least.

We'll stand this amendment for the appearance of the member for Fundy-Royal.

We could then move, because it stands alone, to the amendment in the name of the member for Windsor--St. Clair, on page 30.

Madam Redman.

¿ (0915)

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

I just seek clarification. This committee has always dealt with things very cooperatively. I see Mr. Herron has arrived, so this is somewhat rhetorical. But at some time we're going to have to deal with all of these amendments, and if a member is not here and we've reached the point where we need to deal with an amendment, I assume this committee will, of its own volition, deal with it rather than continue this process forever.

The Chair: I would rather wait for the member to appear, as he has now. So I think it was the proper course of action to put it aside.

While the member is getting adjusted, we will proceed with Mr. Comartin's amendment.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Just to make things more difficult, I'm going to withdraw that motion, based on what occurred two weeks ago around crown corporations. They don't need it anymore.

The Chair: Thank you. The motion is not put forward.

Now we can invite Mr. Herron to open his book on page 29, amendment PC-4, an amendment that I'm advised is inadmissible because it amends the parent legislation.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Without going into my notes, the scope challenge would be the fact that we're pursuing the mandate of environmental assessment, versus just assessing the environmental effects. The bill we're dealing with is not the environmental effects act, it's the Environmental Assessment Act. In order to be consistent in terms of the theme of the approach that the piece of the legislation is supposed to have, I think it's a more appropriate approach.

I missed what took place on why it was deemed inadmissible. Perhaps the clerk could give me a little bit of background on that.

The Chair: The onus is on you, Mr. Herron, to indicate to us why, in your opinion, this amendment does not impact on the parent legislation.

Mr. John Herron: I think Mr. Comartin wants to make an intervention at this point, while I'm getting myself organized.

Mr. Joe Comartin: On a better approach, in response to something Ms. Redman raised, I indicated a few weeks ago that we've been doing some research on the whole issue of what is within the scope and what is not. There's some indication that some of the past rulings by the Speaker may not be consistent with earlier rulings, and the interpretation that has been placed on those more recent rulings has given them a much broader application than warranted.

I don't think we want to be looking at appealing each one of these decisions separately as to what is admissible or not, what is within the scope or not, or what the scope is. So I wonder if we could have an understanding--obviously this is going to be ruled inadmissible by you, from what you've said at this point--that we would still have the right to raise this particular amendment and in effect challenge that ruling at some point in the future, along with perhaps a number of others that are going to be....

This issue is going to come up around this wording on more than one occasion. I think this wording we're attempting to insert shows up in a number of other amendments, in both the definitions and later on in some of the proposed amendments. We'll have to signal the chair each time we want to stand down our right to challenge the chair, until we have a whole body of amendments that we may want to bring to the Speaker's attention.

So from a procedural standpoint, I am asking that we have the leeway to still bring this up at some point in the future if in fact we're going to raise this as a major issue and take it to the Speaker.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: I'm not so sure that is the route I would be prepared to follow. I would rather see each case treated on its own merits and hear the case by the member and then perhaps consult the officials so that we get on record the specifics and the reasons there is a duplication. But there is before us an amendment that reaches into the parent act, and not to drag these items all the way through would be my preference.

Let's now hear Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I think this issue is going to come up on numerous occasions throughout the process, as Mr. Comartin has touched upon.

This amendment doesn't need to be one of those occasions. I would seek the concurrence of the committee that I amend my amendment by just striking out the words “and the Act”. So I'm going down through “'assessments of the environmental effects' wherever they occur throughout the Bill” and I strike out the words “and the Act” before “with the expressions 'environmental assessment', and 'environmental assessments'”.

The Chair: I'm advised this would solve the problem.

Mr. John Herron: I want to thank Ms. Kraft Sloan for her words of wisdom in that regard as well.

Now we can go forward with the expression of what we're trying to do here. The amendment itself is obliging the crown corporations to conduct environmental assessments under CEAA as it is an alternative for the crown corporations not to comply with the act, the regulations, because of the EA definition of CEAA. This proposal to section 10, applying to the Indian Act, could be dropped if necessary, because I know that may be problematic with the officials.

I think that is a very skilful way for us to ensure that crown corporations are called upon to do what we ask the private sector to do.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is that concluding the remarks? Madam Redman.

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

Mr. Herron didn't have the benefit of my earlier intervention and at that time I was asking Ms. Smith--and I would ask her now--to come forward. Clearly, there's a fundamental reasoning behind this amendment that goes beyond whether or not it touches the parent act.

The government would strenuously oppose touching the parent act and maintains that motions that amend the parent act are indeed outside the scope of this bill and, as such, should be ruled inadmissible. However, fundamental to the spirit of this motion is something we think we can address, and clearly it's whether or not we're looking at environmental effects or environmental assessment.

I would ask Ms. Smith and Mr. Connelly to comment on the reason for this amendment being before us.

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

I might point out, first of all, that in my letter to the chair of June 17 I did outline the difference between the terms “environmental assessment” and “assessment of environmental effects” as they have been used in the act. I'll just go over that once again.

The environmental assessment as set out in the act applies to sections 14 to 45 under the heading of the “environmental assessment process”, whereas “assessment of environmental effects” is used in the act to refer to the process that describes processes set out through regulations such as Canada port authorities and CIDA, for example. It is also a term used to refer to processes established under other jurisdictions such as provinces.

That is the difference at the present time in terms of how the term is used in the act. I wanted to explain that initially, and now I'd like to call on Heather Smith to elaborate further on how it is used in specific cases.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Ms. Smith, please outline for the committee the net impact of this amendment.

Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): If you amend it in a bill.

I don't blame members for being confused about the terms. Actually, three terms are used in the act. It uses the term “environmental assessment”, which is a defined term; it uses the term “assessment of environmental effects”; and it also, in places, uses just the word “assessment”. So it is very confusing. Sometimes I'm confused, too, and I work with this act every day.

A voice: —[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

Ms. Heather Smith: Or not, as the case may be.

The term “assessment of environmental effects”, as Mr. Connelly has said, is used to refer to any process that is not the process that is set out in the act itself in sections 14 to 45. But within that category there are actually two distinct meanings for it. It's used to describe the process for ports, for crown corporations, for Indian bands, so it's processes that are modified by regulations under the Environmental Assessment Act.

It's also used to refer to processes that are not processes under the act at all, such as provincial processes, processes that are set out under self-government agreements, processes that are adopted by international organizations like the World Bank. That term is used to describe all those processes.

From my point of view in understanding the act, there isn't a legal problem with removing that term when it refers to any process that's created under the act, either through regulations or through the act itself. If you want to get rid of the use of that term for port authorities, for example, there's not a problem with that. But we still need an expression in the act to describe the processes of somebody else, and we can't use the expression “environmental assessment”, because it's defined to be the environmental assessment process under this act, and whatever it is that the provinces are doing or international organizations are doing, they're not doing assessment under this act. So we need to have an expression for that and that's where that expression, “assessment of environmental effects”, is useful.

However, if you find you want to get rid of the distinction between the processes that are created under the act itself and the ones that are created under regulations made under the act, there's not a problem with that.

Mr. John Herron: Is that specifically with crown corporations?

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes, you can get rid of that distinction and there won't be a legal problem.

Unfortunately for you, or fortunately, I have done an inventory of all the places it shows up in the act and if anybody is interested I could provide you with the list of them tomorrow. There are a few places where we've made mistakes and we have to clean it up, but if you want to have a look at it, you can do so. There are a number of places where it's clearly talking about somebody else's process and hasn't got anything to do with what I think is the concern of the members here.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey and Madam Redman.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Yes, Mr. Chairman, in light of what Ms. Smith has said, not being a lawyer, I wonder if it would not be wise to have that clear definition at the beginning of what we are doing so that we don't have to argue each time that this is what this means. Or perhaps there's one word that could cover all. But apparently you can't do that, is that right?

Ms. Heather Smith: Well, the best distinction—

Mr. Roy Bailey: One terminology.

Ms. Heather Smith: We can use one term for anything that's done pursuant to this piece of legislation, including its regulations, and have another term that describes everything else.

Mr. Roy Bailey: As long as that was designated, Mr. Chairman, it seems that down the road and for the future, looking at the committee itself, we wouldn't have to stop at each clause because it would be defined that way.

The Chair: So you think we'll be faced by a problem of semantics, here—

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

The Chair: —or a problem of terminology, almost dictionary. I don't know.

Madam Redman.

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

I think Ms. Smith's clarification, hopefully, will show us where we need to go. But I would also like her to describe the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act because I think it gets back to the heart of whether or not we are looking at things in the parent act. Again, I would argue very strenuously that there is a defined scope of this five-year review in amending the parent act. If a section is not opened, in our view, it is not part of this process, and as such, we would undertake to make this act consistent through this other piece of legislation that applies to all legislation, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For consistency alone, with the intent of the amendments in this process, we would not have justification to go back and look at the parent act.

I just wanted that to be very clear. And Ms. Smith has offered to table a list of where we see those inconsistencies.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: An inventory, yes.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm wondering if Madam Smith could answer a question, Mr. Chair.

You have pointed out that we have to make a distinction between processes that fall under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and other processes, international or otherwise. I'm just wondering if there are clauses within Bill C-9 that actually refer to processes covered by CEAA where indeed this change could occur.

Ms. Heather Smith: Do you mean are there places in Bill C-9 where you could get rid of “assessment of the environmental effects” and replace it with “environmental assessment”?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Ms. Heather Smith: Yes, there are.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is it possible at this time to indicate those locations?

Ms. Heather Smith: It's basically the clauses dealing with crown corporations and port authorities. There's proposed subsection 9.1(1). I think it's under clause 6. That allows you to create a process for other prescribed authorities, and we could also do it for Indian bands.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have another question for Madam Smith, Mr. Chair.

As I understand it, you want to have two categories of naming happening here because they're dealing with processes under the act and then other processes; for example, international processes. I fully appreciate the fact that you want to have different categories for these things. But my concern is more of a substantive concern than a process issue. As this committee has been told, the assessment of an environmental effect is substantively different from an environmental assessment. My concern is that when we're asking for these other things, there is a substantive difference, not just a process difference. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

Ms. Heather Smith: I understand what you're getting at when you're talking about anything that's within the control of Parliament or the Government of Canada. If you're talking about anybody who could be caught by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, if you want to use that term for them, there's not a legal problem with that. But we can't reach out and impose any process under our legislation on other jurisdictions. It comes back to yes, it's a question of terminology, but behind that terminology is a recognition that we can only act within our jurisdiction. So that expression, in most of the places it's used in the bill, is the term that sums up--we know you're out there doing something, and it's not what we're doing under this act, but we can work together with you. That's mostly where it's used. But as we discussed, there are a number of places in this bill where you can use that term.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's a process argument. But there is still a substantive component within those two definitions. There's a substantive difference. Perhaps we need a better name for those other circumstances that are outside of the act, because there is a substantive effect with the environmental effect that's different from environmental assessment.

¿ (0935)

Ms. Heather Smith: I have been wondering whether members who have been proposing these amendments are really trying to drive at getting rid of the distinction between the process that's set out in the act and the power under the act to modify that process to meet the needs of specific actors within federal jurisdiction, such as the ports.

Certain amendments are made to the core process under the act through regulations to accommodate their needs, and that's what the regulation-making authority is there for. So would they be doing an assessment in accordance with the act and the regulations if they followed the regulations? Yes, they would. Would they be doing the same thing that is set out in sections 14 and 45? I think the substance of the analysis would probably be the same, but there would be differences in some of the steps in the process.

The Chair: Mr. Herron can answer this question.

Mr. John Herron: Specifically on the amendment as I proposed it, is it your interpretation that it goes beyond the scope of just crown corporations?

Ms. Heather Smith: I read that amendment as you proposed it--changing all the places in the bill--as meaning yes, you want to go beyond crowns.

Mr. John Herron: But you're amenable to changing it if it were just to apply to crowns?

Ms. Heather Smith: Beyond that we're saying if what you're driving at is the use of that term for crowns, for ports, for Indian bands--and there's power to modify the process that applies to CIDA; there's power to modify the process for projects outside Canada--if you're getting at those things, the government doesn't have a problem with it.

Mr. John Herron: That's precisely my objective.

Ms. Heather Smith: The only place we have a problem is if we're describing some other process that isn't our process.

Mr. John Herron: Well, that's precisely my objective, so I'm willing to withdraw this amendment if the government is amenable to providing language on their own, farther down the track, that addresses that particular concern, so that we can move the yardsticks. I'll rescind this amendment or stand it down if the government wants to come forward to address the concern as Ms. Smith has just outlined it.

The Chair: Ms. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: My understanding is that if Mr. Herron is standing by his amendment to his amendment, which is striking out that last piece, it's probably something that would be better dealt with now. But I would ask officials to comment on that.

The Chair: That would mean the addition of the words “and the Act.” That is what is before us.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, through you, I'd say to the parliamentary secretary that there are two issues. One is that stroking out the words “and the Act” makes the amendment itself admissible. That's an issue the committee can vote on.

The second point I'm raising is the objective Ms. Smith and I just spoke about, of ensuring that crowns and CIDA, within those federal jurisdictions, go through the process of an environmental assessment. The officials said they had no problem going down that track. That's my objective with this particular amendment, so I think it's in the government's interest to take yes for an answer and provide a set of amendments, where the process applies to crowns, that addresses the concern of committee members.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Subject to the officials' comment, my answer would be, if you put your motion forward, are you not achieving that objective? Rather than asking government to go away and do new wording, I would ask the officials to comment.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, what we could do that might help in the discussion is come back tomorrow with a clear indication of which clauses or which sections in the act could accommodate that change. I think it might satisfy Mr. Herron's concerns, as I understand them. It would deal with crowns, CIDA, Indian bands, and so on--the list of sections Heather Smith referred to.

Ms. Heather Smith: I'm just a little concerned, though, that some members might think they're achieving more than they are achieving by changing this word. Changing the expression in itself is not going to get rid of the power under the act to vary the process. Those are the regulation-making powers. They're substantive provisions right now, as proposed in proposed sections 8, 9, 9.1, and 10 of the bill, to vary the process to accommodate the special concerns of different organizations that are caught by the legislation. If you think you're getting rid of the power to vary the process under the act by changing this term, you're not doing that. But you are getting rid of the distinction between the term used for the process under the act itself and the term used for the processes that are varied by the regulations.

An hon. member: And is that a good thing?

Ms. Heather Smith: I think it would probably help for the clarity of the act overall.

¿ (0940)

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to stand this down and wait for the officials tomorrow.

Ms. Heather Smith: We'll come back and let you know where it can be done.

The Chair: Thank you.

We can now move to government amendment G-5 on page 31. If this amendment carries, then Alliance amendment 3 cannot be put, and the same applies to NDP amendment 9 and the amendment in the name of Karen Kraft Sloan, number 6.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: On amendment G-5, Mr. Chair, it follows from the minister's commitment to address the concerns of the Assembly of First Nations about regulations that apply to band councils for projects on reserve lands. Basically, the bill responds to ensure that a decision or a responsibility of a band is actually within the ambit of that band's authority. It is in order to make it consistent, and this amendment ensures regulations apply to projects where a band council is the project proponent, providing funding or grants as an authorization and enabling the project to proceed.

The Chair: Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I have a question. If motion G-5 is carried, then CA-3 would be gone. Is that correct?

The Chair: That is correct.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Our concern is, are we not creating a special regulatory regime for band councils under this amendment? Might we not be creating a regulatory nightmare by having different regulatory regimes for different band councils, depending on what their circumstances are? I'd like the officials to comment on that.

The Chair: Different bands require different regulatory systems, and that might be the reason.

Mr. Connelly, would you like to comment briefly.

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

Just by way of context, what we are attempting to do with this amendment in the bill is close a gap that exists at the present time. I'll just give you a bit of background. At the present time, whenever the federal government provides funding for a project anywhere in the country, it triggers the act. The one exception is on Indian reserves, so we've introduced this change to section 10 to fix that problem first of all.

We then realized that we needed to make further clarification, and that is the purpose of this particular motion. We need to make further clarification, as Ms. Redman had indicated, to relay that regulation-making authority to the band itself. Otherwise, they might be expected to conduct an assessment of something for which they had no power or authority, which didn't make sense to us. That is the context for it.

In answer to your question, what we are anticipating is that while we could have some variation in regulations for different bands, it is our view that it is likely that we will have a regulation that will be quite similar and that there will not be a lot of variation. For example, we're working right now with bands in the province of Nova Scotia and are about to launch a pilot project to take them through how this regulation might work in practice if it is agreeable to Parliament to pass this amendment. The notion there is that this one process would deal with all the bands in the province of Nova Scotia. It is our hope that if that worked, then the same principles could be extended elsewhere in the country, but we also recognize that we have the ability to bring in some variation if that is considered desirable.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, I'm inclined to support the amendment.

I have one concern. In my proposed amendment NDP-9, I put in the wording “any regulations”. The government amendment G-5 would limit it, as I read this.

It's a question really to the staff here. The wording they used is “with those regulations”. For the purpose of the committee, before the first underlined part in G-5, my amendment would have included the wording “with any regulations” rather than “with those regulations”. It wouldn't limit it to the regulations under the Indian Act.

I'm not sure to whom my question is really directed. Is Mr. Connelly better able to answer than Ms. Smith?

Mr. Connelly and I know each other well enough by now. I didn't know who would be better able to answer this.

Mr. Robert Connelly: We'll huddle here on this, if I may, for a minute, Mr. Comartin.

The Chair: The question is whether the word “those” could be replaced by “any” on the eighth line of proposed section 10.1.

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

Ms. Heather Smith: Mr. Comartin, can I ask you a question of clarification?

When you were talking about “those regulations”, did you believe the expression referred to regulations that might be made under the Indian Act?

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's the way I'm interpreting proposed section 10.1, yes.

Ms. Heather Smith: I don't interpret it in that way. I interpret it as being a reference back to paragraph 59(l) of this act.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It is of the current act.

Ms. Heather Smith: The reference to the Indian Act in this clause is a reference to what a reserve is. It's where the reference to the Indian Act comes in.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, if I may. Is it your understanding that it's broader than the regulations under the Indian Act?

Ms. Heather Smith: The way I read this is that it's not a reference to any regulations under the Indian Act; it's a reference to regulations that would be made pursuant to paragraph 59(l) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

There's a lot of bumph in this section. The substantive obligation is for a band to ensure that an assessment of environmental effects is conducted in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 59(l) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Chair: What would be the effect of deleting the word “those” altogether so it would read “in accordance with regulations” before the band?

¿ (0950)

Ms. Heather Smith: I think the word “those” in the paragraph is really designed to reference back to paragraph 59(l). I think it does add some clarity, at least for me, with the word there. It's not as clear if you don't have the word or if you have the word “any”.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, it seems to me Madam Smith has made a case for retaining “those” for clarity, precision, and reference. You have the final word and then we go to Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not clear on what the impact would be if we changed “those” to “any”. I would think “any” would potentially give us a broader number of regulations that would be applicable. “Those” does in fact limit it.

I would like to hear from Ms. Smith as to what she thinks the impact would be of changing “those” to “any”.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, perhaps you may wish to move a subamendment to that effect so we can proceed.

We're not yet at that point. We'll hear from Mr. Bailey in the meantime.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, I want to clarify something within my mind. A statement has been made that there could be variations within a particular band. Am I right? Is it not true there could also be variations within the provinces or within the corporations in the same respect?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Bailey's question relates to crown corporations. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Yes, that possibility does exist under the act and the bill. I might add that the variations are generally not significant variations from the fundamental principles of the bill. Nevertheless, such variations are possible.

Mr. Roy Bailey: But it is not singling out native bands alone for having variations? That could take place within provinces, crown corporations, or provincial crown corporations?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Yes, Mr. Bailey, that variation can take place for any body for which a process can be established, or for any body through regulation under the act.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Madam Redman, would you formally move this amendment, please, so that we can entertain perhaps a subamendment by Mr. Comartin.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I move amendment G-5 as written, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Comartin. Is it your wish to move a subamendment?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, I'm not sure that I do, Mr. Chairman.

I'd prefer to have Ms. Smith give me the answer to the question I asked regarding her opinion on what “any” does as opposed to “those”. Perhaps if she can satisfy me, I won't have to move the subamendment.

The Chair: Ms. Smith attempted to answer the question. Perhaps you may want to rephrase it briefly.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I understand why she wants “those” in. I'm trying to figure out what the impact would be if we replaced it with “any”, but she didn't answer that part of my question.

Ms. Heather Smith: The word “those” shuts down the possibilities of what regulations you're talking about to being the regulations made under paragraph 59(l). If you say “any” regulations, it opens up the possibility that maybe you're talking about some regulations that are not the regulations made under paragraph 59(l).

I'm wondering if the concern to add the word “any” is related to a concern not to create an environmental assessment obligation under this bill if there haven't been regulations made under this bill. If that's the concern, I think it has been dealt with in the proposed section, because there's a phrase in the proposed section that says, “if regulations that apply to the band have been made under paragraph 59(l), and have come into force”. So there's a condition there that this proposed section is not operative with Indian bands until regulations that specifically apply to them have been made and have come into force.

So if that was the concern behind using the word “any”, I think it's covered through the word “those”.

The Chair: It's turning into a festival for lawyers. By all means...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Joe Comartin: Some of us, Mr. Chair, enjoy the academic exercise from time to time. The rest of you may not, but some of us have superior intellectual powers.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We are in awe and admiration.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Joe Comartin: I will not be moving that subamendment; Ms. Smith has satisfied me.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: So then we don't need to deal then with CA-3, NDP-9, and KS-6.

We come now to a stand-alone amendment in the name of Mr. Comartin on page 34.1.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Ms. Smith and I have had a discussion about this, Mr. Chair. Given the comments that were made earlier about this particular wording, and what we're going to get tomorrow, I would ask that this stand down until we have that. It's along the same point of this terminology, as to whether it will be necessary depending on what we get tomorrow.

The Chair: All right. Then we can move to page 35, amendment NDP-10.

Mr. Comartin, would you like to have the floor?

Mr. Joe Comartin: The difficulty I have with the wording that's in the current bill is that there's no timeline for this exemption that's being granted to CIDA. The government could just sit on its hands and never pass the regulations. I don't think we should be leaving it that wide open. It seems to me there's been a fairly strong consensus in this committee that CIDA be subject, as far as it goes, to the provisions of the bill. So the purpose of the amendment is simply to delete that so they will, in fact, be subject to the bill immediately it's passed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

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

Mr. Comartin's deletion of this, in our view, actually makes this provision less clear because, whether there's a regulation or not, the project is covered by the act. This actually lends clarity to CIDA. By deleting it, it would make it less clear. I would ask Mr. Connelly if he wishes to add to that.

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, would you explain what is the net impact of a suspension on CIDA in this clause? It is the net effect that we would like to have clarified.

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

The net effect is that if you do not have a regulation in place, then the act itself applies to CIDA. In the absence of a regulation, therefore, CIDA is covered under the act as a whole. What this is doing, and I recognize that perhaps it's worded rather awkwardly, is really making it clear that when a regulation for CIDA is in place, then the act doesn't apply; it is the regulation that applies. The inverse occurs, of course, if there is no regulation in place. The act then applies as a whole to CIDA.

The Chair: That certainly is a surprise. This is not your intention, is it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's not. But I'm not sure that I'm necessarily agreeing with Mr. Connelly. Perhaps the best thing, Mr. Chair, would be to stand it down until tomorrow and I'll indicate tomorrow, once I've had an opportunity to review it, because that was not the way I read the bill, or the consequences. If Mr. Connelly's interpretation is accurate and I can accept it, then I'll simply withdraw this, because obviously it's not my intent to get CIDA out, but bring them in.

À (1000)

The Chair: Fair enough, thank you.

Now we come to a theoretically completed clause 6, but we have to stand it.

(Clause 6 as amended allowed to stand)

The Chair: We still have PC-5. Mr. Herron, you have the floor.

Mr. John Herron: This amendment, I think, is going to engage the same problem we had before, being outside the scope of the act itself. I believe the amendment, as I've proposed it, will precipitate a similar debate to the one we had before. Being that the amendment is outside the scope of the act itself, my objective is to ensure that crown corporations respond, at a minimum, to the spirit of the CEAA process itself. In that vein, then, I think the conversation we had before and the list that Mr. Connelly is going to provide us might address my intent in PC-5.

Does that argument follow from what we spoke about earlier? I'm asking the officials to comment, if they would.

The Chair: Would you also comment, Mr. Connelly, whether by replacing the word “act” with the word “bill”, we could make this amendment admissible?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a different issue from just the matter of replacement of the words “environmental assessment” with “assessment of environmental facts”. I also believe section 11 of the act is not open at the present time.

The Chair: That is where the problem lies, Mr. Herron. That's the main—

Mr. John Herron: The intent of what I'm trying to move forward here is that further amendments are necessary in order for us to determine if the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or process wasn't followed. If crown corporations had an obligation to form an assessment and that assessment was not done, the public would have an opportunity to pursue it, if necessary, in the courts, because there would be a tangible definition of what was supposed to be done versus what wasn't done. Right now, with the environmental effects debate, I would say it's less tangible for litigants to be able to challenge crown corporations from a court perspective.

The Chair: I appreciate the purpose of Mr. Herron's effort and what he intends to achieve, but at the same time I have to indicate an increasing unease in entertaining a discussion on an amendment that is inadmissible. So, first, I would like to conclude the discussion fairly soon on the admissibility.

Madam Redman, and then Madam Kraft Sloan.

À (1005)

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, we agree with you that it's outside the purview of what this committee is discussing at the moment.

Regarding some of the concerns that Mr. Herron is talking about, there is an incentive for proponents to comply with the act in the linkage between the environmental assessment process and decisions about federal funding, transfer of federal land, or regulatory permits. As well, the commissioner of the environment routinely audits the performance of departments.

So there are things built into this act, and indeed there have been improvements as part of this act that I think do speak to some of the underlying concerns of Mr. Herron, but we would agree that this amendment is outside the purview of what this committee is dealing with at this point in time.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

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

There are two points I would like to make. The first point, of course, has to deal with a bill that only amends sections of a parent statute, which makes it very awkward to do justice to any improvements in the parent act.

The second point I would like to make is, just for a little clarification for members around the table, sometimes these discussions are very good, because there is a second report that we're going to be attaching to the first report. A number of witnesses who came before the committee were very concerned that if you don't comply with this act, guess what happens...not too much. So I applaud Mr. Herron's efforts in bringing this issue to our attention through this particular amendment.

I think it's important for members around this committee to understand that there are issues that were brought to our attention by the many witnesses who came before us. While some may argue that they can't be attended to through this process, I think at least in the second report some of these comments can be captured. So let's remember this when we do our second report.

The Chair: Yes, that is a very good reminder, and definitely there will be an opportunity to make that point when we're discussing the draft report.

Mr. Herron, at this stage I have to rule this amendment not admissible. Thank you.

I have to say the same with respect to the next one, on page 36.1, amendment KS-7.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I withdraw the motion.

The Chair: Thank you.

(On clause 7)

The Chair: The next amendment stands alone. It is in the name of the member for Fundy-Royal, Mr. Herron, PC-6, in clause 7.

Mr. Herron has a motion that, if adopted, would not make it possible to put the motions NDP-11, BQ-6 and NDP-12.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Through discussion with my colleague, Mr. Comartin, I will be withdrawing my motion in place of his amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The purpose of my amendment is to draw in both the Minister of the Environment--that's really who I'm adding to the government's amendment--and the minister through whom the responsible authority is accountable.

It would bring in the Minister of Energy, if the issue involved his or her department, as well as the Minister of the Environment, so either one of them could exercise the authority under this. Quite frankly, in spite of the history of the present minister, I'm hopeful and perhaps optimistic that the Minister of the Environment would be more inclined in the future to use this section to make ministerial orders than some other ministers who might not be as well informed on environmental issues and the need for environmental assessments.

It simply expands the jurisdiction, beyond the immediate minister, to include the Minister of the Environment. I don't think it's a major amendment, but it's an appropriate one.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

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

I will ask Mr. Connelly to speak to this. I guess my question is whether this is a marked departure from what currently exists anyway.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Thank you. At the present time we don't have a prohibition order, and I think this is an important step forward. If an environmental assessment were started, and perhaps a proponent started construction or something like that, this provision would allow for a prohibition order to be issued.

Just in response to Mr. Comartin's point, when we drafted the amendment in the bill in the first instance, our thinking was that the responsible authority was generally closer to the project than the Minister of the Environment, because of the role the responsible authority played in the licensing or decision-making process; hence we identified the responsible authority as the minister who would have that authority.

Such authority usually lies with one minister, not one or the other, and this might create some inconsistency, in the sense that you would be creating a potential for two ministers to exercise the same authority here.

Those are the two points I would make in response to the question.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, through his amendment, is telling us it wouldn't be a bad idea for the minister to have the power to issue ministerial orders, as an alternative to the minister who is the responsible authority. In other words, if I understand him correctly, this would introduce an environmental dimension into the decision-making process. It would just expand the power base, as to who should be issuing ministerial orders.

Am I correct, Mr. Comartin?

Mr. Joe Comartin: You put it much more eloquently than I did, Mr. Chair, but yes, the bottom line is that the environment minister presumably has a greater knowledge within that department and a greater interest, perhaps, in seeing that the act is applied. There's a whole series of points regarding why you would want the expertise and knowledge of that department involved and the minister to be making those decisions as opposed to--let me make one additional point--a minister who may be responsible directly for the assessment, but who may in fact be in a conflict because of other interests in that department. So the Minister of the Environment would be almost a neutral person coming in.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Bailey.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was going to make the same point, that in some cases the RA is potentially in conflict of interest.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of what has already been said, with the addition of what Madam Kraft Sloan has said, on a large project I could see the necessity in this amendment of “the Minister or the ministers”. We could have more than one minister involved, and I think maybe we should make that plural.

À (1015)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, if that's suggested as a friendly amendment, I have no objection. I agree it's a valid point--in fact, it probably should be in there even if my amendment doesn't go through--that “the minister” should be plural.

The Chair: Now, this motion has not yet been moved, so would you like at this point to move it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, I'll move my motion.

The Chair: With the plural?

Mr. Joe Comartin: With the plural in it.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would also like to point out for members, when they read that particular clause, that this is still discretionary because it says “may, by order”. It's really enabling the Minister of the Environment to act in a certain situation; it's not a mandatory clause.

The Chair: It's on line 7, right?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. I think it's really important for members to understand that in exceptional circumstances the Minister of the Environment has the ability to act, and as the chair and others have pointed out, I think it provides a broader base and it provides a voice for the environment in an act that's supposed to be about the environment.

The Chair: Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I'd like to defer to Ms. Smith.

Ms. Heather Smith: I would like to speak to Mr. Bailey's point about making “minister” plural. The way the proposed section is drafted now, the first reference to minister is a reference to a situation where there would be only one minister, one responsible authority involved. For the scenario where there is more than one minister involved, that's dealt with explicitly in the provision already. It says on the third line, “or, if there is more than one responsible authority in respect of a project, the ministers together”. So I'd just like to point out to the committee that it would not be appropriate to add an “s” in the first line.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I just wanted the record to show that I was right in the first place.

The Chair: It's very hard to be humble these days, isn't it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: If I weren't perfect, that would probably be true, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John Herron: This leadership bravado is really getting out of hand here.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Speaking of yourself, of course, Joe.

Mr. John Herron: No, no.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do members of our committee have memberships in two parties, Mr. Comartin?

Mr. Joe Comartin: No, they're supposed to stand in line.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And vote early and often.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Then we have a stand-alone amendment. The amendment in the name of Mr. Bigras stands alone. No, it's not gone, not any longer.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I am proposing an amendment to clause 7, by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 7. My amendment would eliminate the section containing the words “alter the environment” because, in our view, it is a useless restriction. We don't think any part of a project should go ahead until the environmental assessment is completed.

If a project goes ahead, it's difficult to stop it.

That is the reasoning behind this proposed amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have any comment, Madam Redman?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask Mr. Connelly to comment on this.

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

The reason the words “could alter the environment” were put in the bill in this proposed section was to be very clear that the prohibition order would be possible or could be issued only in circumstances where the environment was being affected.

The reason we were careful to put that in was associated with concerns that perhaps a proponent might take action to seek financing for the project, might do some design work, for example, that really would have no implication for the environment itself. We thought, therefore, there ought to be some clear limitation in terms of when such a prohibition order should be issued. So that was the rationale behind the inclusion of those words, “alteration of the environment”.

À (1020)

The Chair: Mr. Connelly, is it impossible to envisage a situation whereby a proponent for the construction of a bridge would argue that the construction would not alter the environment?

Mr. Robert Connelly: I would say that any physical activity of that sort has the potential to alter the environment. I don't see how--

The Chair: So who is to determine then? Who's to make the judgment call?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Clearly, the discretion lies now with the Minister of the Environment and/or the minister of the responsible authority, given the motion that has just passed.

The Chair: The minister in charge of public works, for instance, could argue that the construction of a bridge does not alter the environment, couldn't he or she?

Ms. Heather Smith: I think if the minister was going to make that argument, the minister wouldn't issue an order in the first place. It's a discretionary power to issue it, and if the minister wasn't concerned he wouldn't exercise the power.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to challenge that opinion, because if he or she decides to exercise the authority, he or she has to meet the test that's here, and why would you add an additional test that there would have to be some proof that it's altering the environment? Why you would add it when it's a discretionary clause in the beginning and when in fact you're faced with a proponent that is going ahead?

We've had too many incidents of this in the country where proponents have gone ahead clearly when an assessment's underway and taken additional steps. You shouldn't have to; that is, the minister should not have to establish that it's going to alter the environment. Why would you add an additional onus on the minister in those circumstances where you have a proponent who is clearly breaching both the spirit and probably the wording of the legislation? To add an additional responsibility on the minister makes no sense.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I wanted to support what Mr. Comartin has said, Mr. Chair. Quite clearly, because it is a discretionary section, the minister would only act when it was clear there was a reason to act and, certainly, financing may not well be that reason to act.

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, would you like to move the motion?

[English]

The motion has been moved.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, there has been a lot of attention given around this table by members on all sides about the impact this has on different levels of jurisdiction. I would point out, for instance, that were a proponent in need of a zoning bylaw change, this could prevent them from going to a municipality to request that the bylaw change be looked at. So if you take it to its furthest extension, it could indeed go very far down the process and prevent very legitimate activity in other levels of government looking at legitimate questions and making decisions in those purviews that could impact activity that indeed does not alter the environment at that point in time.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the minister in question, whether it's the Minster of the Environment or the responsible authority, would look at the discretionary powers in that section and say, well, they're altering a bylaw, and it's up to the municipality or jurisdiction involved to decide whether they want to alter the bylaw or not. So again, the argument has not been made for the government that suggests that we should vote against Mr. Bigras' amendment.

In fact, I would like to applaud Mr. Bigras for his amendment because, as Mr. Comartin has already stated, we're just adding another test, another level in a history of environmental assessment in this country that has made it exceedingly difficult for our natural heritage to be protected. I think the committee members should support this amendment.

À (1025)

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: At this point, with regret, the chair has to leave the chair. There are two options before us, on which I would like to consult the committee. Either the committee continues with one of the two vice-chairs or the committee adjourns until tomorrow. What is the wish of the committee?

An hon. member: To adjourn.

The Chair: To adjourn?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Gary Lunn: With respect, Mr. Chair, page 40, amendment NDP-12, is identical to page 39. Could we deal with that right now, just to get it out of the way?

It's already gone? It's gone. Okay, my question has been answered. Thank you.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, thank you. I would point out that we have two very capable vice-chairs in attendance, and this committee has been willing to stand down amendments.

Mr. Comartin may want to make a minority report later on.

However, this committee has shown a great willingness to stand down amendments, and I would point out to this committee that this is very important work. It has already had a birthday of being before this committee, notwithstanding the distractions we've had with other issues. We have most of the proponents of amendments before us, and this is wasted opportunity, from the government's perspective, if we don't continue on with a pre-scheduled meeting and discuss the amendments before us.

The Chair: The committee is apparently divided, so it's not going to be--

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

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

Indeed, one of the duties of the vice-chairman is to replace the chairman in his absence. However, we can't forget that we are doing a clause-by-clause study of a bill and that the chairman has also proposed some amendments.

The role of the chairman is important and must not be subject to any conflicts of interest. A good chairman ensures that debate proceeds smoothly, which means that the chairman should not himself sponsor certain amendments. That's why I think we should adjourn. Since we have less than an hour to go, I don't think that would be a problem.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I actually think we should take a vote.

The Chair: There's no point in taking a vote and proceeding, forcing a meeting of half of the committee when the position is clearly not in agreement.

The meeting stands adjourned.