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, December 3, 2002

0910

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

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

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

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

0915

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

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

0920

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

0925

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

0930

The Chair

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

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

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

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

0935

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

0940

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

0945

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

0950

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

0955

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1000

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

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

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Heather Smith

1005

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1010

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

1015

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Robert Connelly

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

1020

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1025

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1030

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Mr. Robert Connelly

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

The Chair

Ms. Heather Smith

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1035

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

1040

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

1045

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

1050

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1055

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 006

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have a motion from the member for Fundy--Royal. If he is ready, we could start with that.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Can I begin by asking the officials for their comments on the amendment itself?

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. Connelly, would you like to comment on Mr. Herron's amendment on page 100?

Mr. Robert G. Connelly (Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to.

The proposal by Mr. Herron deals with the whole issue of follow-up. The idea that was expressed in this particular amendment to Bill C-9 is that when there is a follow-up program, the implementation will involve the federal authority and the responsible authority. I think what Mr. Herron is proposing is to eliminate the reference to an agreement between the federal authority and the responsible authority.

Our concern about that is that we feel that this needs to be done in a collaborative way. There is the possibility that a responsible authority could arbitrarily require the assistance of other departments and their resources to implement follow-up measures if this were deleted. For example, a department could say, well, Environment Canada, why don't you do some follow-up in the area of fish habitat, because we don't have the resources or we don't want to do this. We felt that there was an advantage to having a very clear agreement in terms of who was going to do follow-up and who had responsibility for which matters. For those reasons, we are concerned if these particular words do become deleted.

Mr. John Herron: Isn't it quite probable that if follow-ups were done principally by, in this case, Environment Canada, a level of expertise would be generated there that would perhaps be more efficient than trying to have that type of expertise within a myriad of federal departments on a particular type of assessment?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Well, our view is that the expertise in Environment Canada would exist for migratory birds, but with a department such as DFO the expertise on fish certainly resides there. We would like to make sure that in any follow-up program the department with the expertise would be the one that would do the follow-up.

Mr. John Herron: I'm not going to move this motion, sir.

The Chair: That makes sense. It's been withdrawn, and we will let Mr. Comartin decide when he is present whether he wants to move his amendment on page 101 in light of this discussion. We will also skip page 102.

On government amendment G-16 on page 103, I'm told there is a line conflict between G-16 and Mr. Comartin's amendment, NDP-36, in which case we will have to keep both for the time being, as well as amendment NDP-37 on page 104.

Madam Redman.

¿ (0915)

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering, through you to the clerk, if we have any indication of when Mr. Comartin or another representative of his party may be joining us.

The Chair: There is no indication. He was expected here, so maybe it's the weather or the traffic. We don't know.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would just submit for the committee's consideration at a future date, Mr. Chair, that there may come a point in time when we need to deal with amendments whether or not the mover is in the room.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Clause 19 allowed to stand)

The Chair: All this then takes us to the government amendment on page 105, G-17. I am advised that we should stand clause 20 as well because of Mr. Comartin's motions.

(Clause 20 allowed to stand)

(On clause 21)

The Chair: We could call clause 21 because it has no amendments. This is fantastic progress.

(Clause 21 agreed to)

(On clause 22)

The Chair: This takes us to clause 22, and here again we have a line conflict with NDP motions. We have a stand-alone amendment in the name of the member for York North, Madam Kraft Sloan, on page 108.1.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What this amendment does is add subclause 22(2) to the bill, which in turn would add a proposed subsection, 46(6), to the act. All it does is provide clarity with regard to transboundary projects. We have heard a lot of testimony about some problems, and the intent of this amendment is to add clarity by specifying that every related physical work in construction, operation, modification, etc., be considered. It brings the use of “project” in line with that in other places in the act.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Would you like to move this amendment, or would you like to hear first from Mr. Connelly?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd like to move it.

The Chair: All right. Now can we have some comments?

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We are opposed to this amendment because rather than seeking to clarify, as was my colleague's intent, it actually changes the meaning in this section and introduces the definition of “scope”. The definition of “project” is consistent as it applies through the act. This amendment, in our view, would cause conflict and confusion with other sections.

By using the term “every” instead of “any” in the proposed amendment, as it's used in the definition of “project”, the proposed amendment could trigger requirements for an assessment of existing facilities. We feel it's beyond both the scope and intent of this act.

The Chair: Yes, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We would be willing to entertain the friendly amendment by the government to change “every” to “any”. I think it is important, for clarity, to understand exactly what would be considered, with regard to transboundary effects and projects that have implications in that regard. This is simply because we heard from witnesses about a bridge that was going to be put through environmental assessment, when we were dealing with an 11-million-hectare project spanning two provinces. This flies in the face of common sense.

This is a very important clarification, to ensure that appropriate interpretations of these projects are taken into consideration. We heard witness testimony about one particular issue, as I mentioned, where only a bridge was identified, when there was an 11-million-hectare project.

So I'm more than happy to take the suggestion of the government for a friendly amendment, to ensure passage of this particular amendment.

The Chair: Thank you. So on the fourth line it would read “any” instead of “every”, after “includes”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

I guess I should clarify my comments. There is a bigger issue here than just the words “every” and “any”. I would ask Mr. Connelly to speak to the fact that this is actually talking about interprovincial effects, as well as international effects. In our view, it has a bigger implication than just those two word changes. As such, we still could not support this amendment.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Just to respond to that invitation, I might point out a couple of concerns. One is that this does alter the determination of the scope of the project in that particular clause, so it does change the meaning and is different from the definition that exists for “project” elsewhere in the act.

I think the other concern is that the transboundary clauses themselves have been set up as safety nets. They can only be applied in cases where the federal government does not have a decision to take because it does not have jurisdiction. That includes cases that do not trigger the act under the normal four areas of funding, transfer of land, proponent, or some kind of licensing or permit allocation. So this is seen as a safety net. Hence, the concept behind it was that in such instances, one would look at the transboundary effects only, and not necessarily all of the effects of that project, which presumably would be looked at by the local jurisdiction.

I wanted to clarify the intent of those clauses. They are truly safety nets to be triggered only in unusual circumstances. For that reason, the limitation has been placed on simply looking at those effects that are transboundary. For example, you might look at an air pollution effect because it would move across a boundary, but under the transboundary clauses, you would not look at the local construction effects of the facility.

I think that's an important clarification for understanding the nature of these clauses.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is the witness telling us, Mr. Chair, that an 11-million-hectare project has no transboundary effects, that only a little bitty bridge in an 11-million-hectare project has a transboundary effect? I don't think it was the bridge that was identified as having a transboundary effect. Was it the bridge that was identified as having a transboundary effect in the Tolko project? Was the bridge triggering the act because of fisheries issues, or was it because it was a transboundary effect?

The Chair: You're referring to the one in Manitoba, I suppose.

Mr. Robert Connelly: My recollection is that this particular project did not involve the transboundary clauses. You see, under the definition of environmental effect for any project that is triggered under the act, you have to look at transboundary effects automatically. These transboundary clauses only take effect in the event, first of all, that we do not have a trigger, and secondly, that it's determined that there is some transboundary effect. It's a kind of safety net application.

What occurred in the Tolko case, if I recall, was that it really was a question of the scope of the project. I believe that the responsible authority in that instance scoped the project as perhaps the bridge and didn't look beyond that. That is a different issue, which I believe did not involve the transboundary clauses because there was a trigger. The federal government did in fact have a decision to make there regarding the bridge.

The Chair: So in your opinion it was a problem of initial scoping.

Mr. Robert Connelly: In that instance the controversy was around, I think, the scope of the project as determined by the responsible authority, not whether or not the transboundary clauses should apply. There was no opportunity to provide those clauses because, as I say, the act had already been triggered through the issue of the bridge.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is my point. Here we have the act being triggered through the building of the bridge. In other words, Mr. Chair, through you to the witness, the 11-million-hectare project did not trigger the transboundary section because a bridge triggered it.

Well, I would suggest that we do need clarity here, and that's what this amendment is about, Mr. Chair. It is about seeking clarity on what is going to be included in the scoping exercise. If you have something that is minuscule in relationship to the overall project, then that is what is going to create the first and only trigger? I find that there's a huge lack of clarity on this, and I find that the act does not go anywhere near where it should be going in terms of providing all those wonderful things, which I articulated the last time we met, that exist in the preamble.

This is indeed about clarity. It's about clarity in terms of scoping, yes, and it's also about clarity in terms of how this act is going to be triggered. If the suggestion is that a bridge is a more important trigger than an 11-million-hectare project, then I have some concerns about this act.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Ms. Kraft Sloan, I understand the concern you're raising, but this would not address the problem you're identifying. This addresses the transboundary clauses only, which cannot be applied if there is another federal trigger for some element of the project. In a case where you applied the safety net transboundary provisions, it would require the responsible authority to assess not only the potential transboundary effects but all the local effects of the project as well. I reiterate, the federal government would not have a decision to take with respect to that project because that's the only time the transboundary clauses come into play.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, perhaps you can come to the rescue.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Historically, if we are considering changing the thought of this act, we have all kinds of acts many, many decades old concerning the movement of water between one province and another. You can look at recent flooding between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in Alberta, and so on. This is already a concept within our history, one not necessarily dealing with environment, but everything does come into play, even the acreages that could be flooded and so on. It's a huge multi-boundary project.

What I'm asking is why would this, a new act before us, be any different from what we have already established historically? Historically, we had to consider everything.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Bailey, in most circumstances, whenever the act is triggered...and if any project might affect the quality of water flowing, say, from one province to another--to use your example--it's almost certain that CEAA would apply, at least a very good chance because of at least the trigger of the Fisheries Act. So probably there would be a trigger that would cause the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and in that circumstance the transboundary effects would automatically have to be examined.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Haven't we always used the transboundary effects in dealing with water?

Mr. Robert Connelly: Indeed, and any time this act was triggered under normal circumstances, all those aspects would be looked at. All the factors required to be examined under the act would be considered.

The transboundary clauses themselves, though, are a safety net, so they're there in the event we don't have a trigger, yet we have a project that might affect water quality in another province. These transboundary sections give the federal government the authority to in fact intervene in that situation, even in cases where it does not have a decision to take. For that reason, it was considered of value to look only at the transboundary aspects of the project as part of the safety net.

Mr. Roy Bailey: There are incidents in Canada where, because of our long border, you have two provinces concerned in the movement of water. The same water moves south of the 49th and comes back into Canada again, so in that we've always had a three-partner scenario. If we've already had that historically, I don't see anything wrong with repeating it here.

That's what I read from this: everything would become involved, everything we've normally had involved in the past.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Are you now, Mr. Bailey, referring to the motion by Ms. Kraft Sloan here?

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, I'm referring to the word “every”.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): That is in the motion, yes.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Our concern is not so much around the change of “every” to “any”, it's rather around the added words that would require absolutely everything to be examined any time you would apply the transboundary sections. It would require you to look at, in addition to the transboundary sections, all the local effects in cases where we, the federal government, did not have jurisdiction. That was really the concern we had.

The Chair: Let's have a last intervention by Madam Kraft Sloan, and then we'll put it to a vote.

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

I realize that this may not be the most appropriate place to address the Tolko issues I have identified, but I have a couple of concerns. How often has the transboundary section been triggered and used? As we know, when it comes to safety nets in other legislation, they are never triggered.

The other concern I have is that because this is a clarity issue around scoping--and we have had countless witnesses come before this committee identifying scoping problems--I'm really trying to understand what the government has done with this new legislation in order to address those scoping problems, because section 15 is not opened by this act. I'm really wondering what use Bill C-9 is in addressing some of the most profound problems of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. And it's both environmental NGOs and industry NGOs that are concerned about scoping issues.

So I have two questions: how often has this transboundary provision been triggered, and second, what has the government done through Bill C-9 to address the scoping issues that are so profound?

¿ (0935)

The Chair: The second question has already been addressed by many witnesses in various papers.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I would like to hear the official version of it.

The Chair: We're putting the officials in a very odd position. In any case, Mr. Connelly, can you comment on the first question, please?

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

On the first question, the threshold is naturally fairly high for the application of the transboundary sections. I stress that it is a safety net. It applies in cases where the federal government would not have a decision to take and would not trigger the act under normal circumstances.

What occurs is, there must be a determination of significant adverse transboundary impacts in order to apply those sections, and that requires an assessment at a panel stage. It would take a very significant type of effect for those sections to be brought into force. For that reason in part, I think, that discretion has not been applied. We have never triggered the transboundary sections to the point of naming an environmental assessment panel to examine a particular project.

However, in every instance where we get a petition, an application, or a letter asking the minister to apply that section, we do an investigation. Inevitably, that involves a lot of discussion with other authorities, in particular the provinces. In a number of instances some very positive results have arisen because of the potential application of this.

For example, one project I'm familiar with in Ontario was a proposal to log just on the edge of the Bruce Peninsula National Park. Through a process of informally appointing a mediator, that whole issue was resolved. The logging did not proceed. In fact, some of the land involved is actually going to be transferred over to the park. I think it's an example of a very good success story, but we did not actually apply the transboundary element of our act. The possibility that this could occur certainly assisted in getting the parties together to try to resolve the problem.

There are other examples like that. I just chose that particular one.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if the safety net is never triggered, the possibility that it might becomes more and more distant, and the likelihood other authorities are going to try to do anything to resolve the issue so the safety net is not triggered becomes more and more remote.

I was wondering about my second question, about what the government has done through Bill C-9 to address some of the profound problems with regard to scoping so many groups and so many witnesses identified with this particular bill.

The Chair: On the second question, I have already indicated the officials would be in a difficult position to comment on the government's action or inaction because several briefs had been submitted on the subject.

Mr. Connelly, would you please answer the first question, and then we'll proceed with the vote.

Mr. Robert Connelly: As Ms. Kraft Sloan has indicated, the termination of the scope of project is at the discretion of the responsible authority. We do see some variation in how projects are scoped as a result of that.

One of the areas we are hoping to provide some greater consistency in is the new role of the federal environmental assessment coordinator and the responsibility the agency has to coordinate the application of this act among different federal authorities. It is hoped that as a result of that we'll bring about more consistency.

A second change that has been added in Bill C-9, one I think is important, is the quality assurance program that has been introduced and the responsibilities of the agency there. Obviously, if we find there are considerable problems in the area of very narrow scoping, I think that would become apparent, and that's something that would need to be examined.

Those are two features within Bill C-9 that we think will offer some improvement in that area.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: We will need to be examining that when--or how?

Mr. Robert Connelly: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman....

The Chair: On the areas that will need to be examined, to which you have just referred, will they be in a future amendment or a future bill?

Mr. Robert Connelly: No. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, let me clarify that. I was referring to the quality assurance program. If we found through it that there was some very inconsistent, inappropriate scoping, we would want to identify that problem and approach the responsible authority to take some corrective action. It would be our responsibility to do that as the agency, under the change to the act.

The Chair: You would correct it without necessarily introducing future amendments. This would partially answer Madam Kraft Sloan's question.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I certainly can't predict what this might hold in the future, in terms of amendments, but there are presently no proposals by the government for any further amendments to Bill C-9 on the issue of scoping.

The Chair: Anyway, we must now call the clause.

One final word, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If you had concerns that were identified through this quality assurance program and you went to a particular RA to bring these issues forward, what authority and capacity would you have to ensure the RA improved their scoping on particular projects, or even...?

Mr. Robert Connelly: We have authority under the act to develop various procedural regulations, if they are required, to correct certain situations. That might be one alternative that could be used.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So you're suggesting, as a way of addressing some of the scoping concerns, you might be amenable to bringing regulations forward.

Mr. Robert Connelly: That would be a possibility.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then I think a lot of people in many different communities would be very happy to hear that, Mr. Chair. Maybe in a year's time we can have a session with the agency, to see how far they have come with this particular issue.

Thank you.

The Chair: I would like to stress to members of the committee that we are spending so much time on this clause because scoping is such an important component of the whole exercise, and every effort to improve the scoping would certainly be welcome. But at this stage we have to rely on the regulatory process, which is a monster with its own dynamic and momentum. Perhaps we'll see what can be done by way of a review in a few years.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have one question, just to clarify something.

We have the federal environmental authority and we have provincial environmental authorities. I've heard of one example--and I don't know the authenticity of it--where there's a zoning of an environmental assessment group within a corner of the province, or something.

Is there any legitimacy to the province allowing that? Do they have any legal force to act in a way that would take the place of the province or contravene the federal authority? The transboundary we're talking about crosses the provinces, but other than that there are no other transboundaries, right?

Mr. Robert Connelly: No.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Roy Bailey: There's no other...? Oh, there are. What would those other boundaries be?

Mr. Robert Connelly: In response to Mr. Bailey's question, there are three transboundary clauses in the act. One is interprovincial. The second one is international and would apply, for example, if a project had the potential of having significant adverse effects on the United States.

The third is the effect of a project outside of federal lands, but on federal lands. An example that might be used is an Indian reserve affected by a project outside of that reserve--or a national park, for example.

Mr. Roy Bailey: But there are no other transboundary effects. A county or a group of municipalities cannot establish their own boundaries or zones.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Certainly from a jurisdictional point of view, provinces and local governments have full authority to establish zoning. Land use zoning is their responsibility.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Any time there's an environmental assessment done, let's say in that area, particular attention is obviously paid to how the province or local government has zoned the land. That's an important consideration, which has to be taken into account.

Mr. Roy Bailey: But it's still provincial?

Mr. Robert Connelly: That decision is clearly provincial—or municipal.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chair: I'd advise members that Mr. Comartin is in the hands of the great mother, Air Canada. He might show up later on, if all goes well. We stand clauses 22 and 23.

(Clauses 22 and 23 allowed to stand)

(On clause 24)

The Chair: We move briskly to clause 24, PC-18 on page 112.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to bring to the attention of members of the committee a report done by the Minister of Heritage, who, as we know, is the minister principally responsible for national parks. She commissioned a study with respect to preserving the integrity of Canada's national parks a few years back, which was, for the most part, received very favourably by stakeholders. The report itself was entitled Conserving Ecological Integrity with Canada's National Parks.

Essentially what my amendment does is to say that if the minister is of the opinion that a project has the potential to have a detrimental effect on a national park—or a negative environmental effect—then a comprehensive study needs to be done. The minister must, or “shall”, do a comprehensive study, if they're of the opinion that a project in or adjacent to a national park could have an effect on a national park.

However, as the second portion of the amendment itself says, if the minister “is of the opinion that a project may cause a significant adverse environmental effect”, then a panel review “shall” be done.

All my amendment does is actually activate the intent of the minister.... In one of the recommendations of the Heritage Canada report, the Minister for Heritage, Ms. Copps, made it very clear that every recommendation of the report would be carried out. This amendment does just that. The government has an amendment that tries to be of the same ilk. But the truth is that it waters down the recommendations of the report, which the minister said would be implemented in its entirety.

It's very simple. The first part is that if the minister believes that a project could have negative environmental effects, then a comprehensive study will be done. And if the minister is of the opinion a project may have significant environmental effects, then a panel review “shall” be done.

These are national parks. We're not talking about some provincial lands in play. I think if there's one place we're going to maintain our biological integrity, it should be in a national park. It's focused on national parks, and I think we should carry out the recommendations, just as the Minister of Heritage had said she would.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, we are advised that your amendment is somehow causing problems in terms of clarity. But it could perhaps be discussed as a possible amendment, if it were to stand alone as a clause, rather than as an amendment to lines 26 to 39. Have you presented a new version, so that it would stand alone?

Mr. Connelly, could you comment then on the possibility of shifting the nature of this amendment, so that it would not be a replacement, but a stand-alone clause? It would not replace certain lines, but stand alone without interfering with the current text of the proposed bill.

As you can see, the copy being circulated now is an addition after line 17, whereas the amendment we had before was a replacement of certain lines. Does this make a difference, so it can become acceptable? Could you please comment?

It seems to be a political kind of amendment, related to some statement by the government.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Robert Connelly: I think there are two questions here, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I believe that Mrs. Kraft Sloan has a motion that does in fact make it a stand-alone clause, or very similar to it. So I think hers may deal with the first question.

The second question, which I believe needs some discussion, is what the implications of this actually mean within the context of CCEA. That's the second question for discussion.

The Chair: Now we have before us Mr. Herron's amendment. So I would like to hear your comments on it.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Just as a point of clarification here, Mr. Herron's amendment is very similar to mine. Where will you be amending the clause to add this?

Mr. John Herron: The amendment is that clause 24 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 20....

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: After line 17 on page 20. That's exactly where my amendment....

So you're talking about amending the same section of the act as mine would. Is this correct?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I thought there were amendments prior to that. So if Mr. Herron is putting forward the same amendment at the same location, but there are amendments coming before that, then we should perhaps deal with the amendments before that.

Mr. John Herron: It doesn't matter to me. I think your amendment follows the same track I'm interested in, as well.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But, Mr. Chair, just in terms of proper procedure, if there are other amendments by other movers preceding my amendment, and my amendment and Mr. Herron's amendment are identical, then are we supposed to go to those other amendments first?

The Chair: These amendments were presented on November 29.

I wish this practice of sending amendments at the last minute would be discontinued, because it causes confusion. Until now, I didn't have Madam Kraft Sloan's amendments in my binder. So I'm doing it now. This is why I called Mr. ....

The question is which do we take first.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Gary Lunn: I don't have it either.

The Chair: I think the two members would have to decide between them which one should be dealt with first, so we can proceed in an orderly fashion.

Mr. John Herron: I'm not fussed either way. Essentially, my amendment is just a clarification of the one we originally submitted; this is to make it acceptable within the scope of the bill itself.

If Karen wants to go first, it's fine by me. They both seek the same objective in that if there is a project that has a potentially negative effect with respect to a national park, whether it's inside the park or outside the park, and the minister's of that opinion, then a comp study will be done. If they think there's going to be a significant impact, a panel review should be done, and this is about parks.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage said that recommendation would be implemented, and this amendment does just that. The addition of the added paragraph, I understand, provides some technical clarification about what aspects of the act we're referring to.

The Chair: So to proceed in an orderly fashion, we'll say that what we have in the binder on page 112 is now withdrawn and deleted; it doesn't exist anymore because of this development in the last few minutes. In other words, Mr. Herron has replaced his amendment on page 112 with the text he has circulated. This text appears to be the same as on page 121.1 in the name of Karen Kraft Sloan. Mr. Herron has agreed to defer to her, so that's how we will then proceed with that.

So we now have before us G-19 on page 113, an amendment by the government. Madam Redman, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I move government amendment G-19.

The Chair: It is so moved. Is there any explanation?

Mrs. Karen Redman: It provides consistency with the French and English version in section 48 of the act as well as sections 46 and 47.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We will now move to page 114, amendment G-20.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I move government amendment G-20.

This speaks, I think, to an issue we've already chatted about a bit. It introduces changes to make the transboundary section of the act more operable. This follows through on the minister's commitment to provide an explicit focus in the act for national parks and their ecological integrity--I'm sure Mr. Herron wants to hear every word of this. As the minister noted, these amendments will explicitly recognize CEAA as an instrument for protecting the ecological integrity of national parks.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: The amendment is an improvement on where the bill is right now. The amendment falls noticeably short of the recommendations made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage when she said that all recommendations of the report...unimpaired for future generations conserving ecology integrity with Canada's national parks. She made it very clear in her public remarks that all recommendations would in fact be implemented in their entirety.

This amendment falls short of implementing recommendations 9 through 11 of said report. I think that for the sake of consistency we should honour the commitment the minister of heritage made to Canadians. If we vote for this amendment as is, then we are failing to live up to that particular commitment. She made it very clear that every recommendation would be honoured. If we pass this amendment, we have broken a promise on behalf of the minister of heritage, so it's a choice members have. Do we want to keep our word or not?

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have a question for Ms. Smith. Are we being redundant or repetitive here when we already have the Canada National Parks Act with the authority they have? Does this proposed amendment give more power to the Canada National Parks Act or does it give more power to the environment act? I'm not quite sure where we're going with this. Is it redundant? Is it just repeating the same thing in the same two acts?

Ms. Heather Smith (Senior Counsel, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Provisions in section 48 of the Environmental Assessment Act give a safety-net kind of power to the Minister of the Environment, as Mr. Connelly said earlier. Where the federal government doesn't otherwise have a decision to make about an activity that's going to take place, it can use these provisions to assess the kinds of effects a project outside of a national park will have on the national park, in this particular case.

So it's a power that belongs to the Minister of the Environment. There are provisions in section 48 now that ensure that the Minister of the Environment consults with the minister responsible for national parks, in this case.

Mr. Roy Bailey: My feeling is that we have already seen a number of examples, having two national parks in Saskatchewan, that if you give the power to the other minister, it makes the power of the environment minister look somewhat chintzy at times. Sometimes the parks have asked for protection way beyond what Environment itself would agree with. So we could be creating an internal problem between two ministers, which I'm sure no government would like to handle.

I have some real concerns about this amendment. It would add power to one minister and take power away from the other minister. That's the way I see it. I'm sorry, but it looks like we're debating the controversy over the power struggle, you might say, within any government.

Ms. Heather Smith: The way the act is currently structured, there are a lot of conditions around the use of these safety-net provisions, to make sure the left hand and the right hand know what's being done. Currently, under the act, there is a provision that allows the Minister of the Environment to trigger an environmental assessment of impacts of something carried on outside of federal land, generally, on the federal land.

That can implicate any federal minister who has administration of the federal land. That could be the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, or the minister responsible for the national parks. There are mechanisms built into section 48 to ensure that the Minister of the Environment doesn't do this without the knowledge of the minister responsible for those lands. There's even a mechanism there for the minister responsible for those lands to ask the Minister of the Environment to use this power. So the structure of the provision already includes protections to ensure the necessary consultation within the federal government.

À (1005)

The Chair: All that is contingent on political will.

Ms. Heather Smith: That's right. They're all discretionary powers.

There are also provisions built into that section now that ensure consultation between the federal Minister of the Environment and provincial authorities, for example, who also have an interest in the activity, because the province might be authorizing the activity.

In the context of these provisions, you're really talking about activities and projects in which the federal government otherwise has no involvement, except for the impact they'll have on federal land. So a lot of safeguards are built in to ensure that people are consulted before the power is used.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, please.

Mr. John Herron: I think we're getting distracted here a little bit, because we've just said that the decision is still discretionary. That's what our officials had just pointed out.

I'm arguing from the perspective that, in terms of the bill as proposed, including government amendment G-20, those potential changes do nothing to require an environmental assessment where there exists a risk that a project threatens the ecological integrity of a national park, park reserve, and so on.

The study I referred to, which I've just handed to the officials, recommended that an environmental assessment be specifically required in such circumstances. Also, proposed amendment G-20, which we're speaking about right now, specifying that “federal lands” includes national parks, does nothing more than unnecessarily state the obvious. It does not incorporate the requirement, as recommended by the study I just referred to, that environmental assessment be carried out where a project presents risk to national parks.

I'm seeking some help from Mr. Connelly with regard to recommendations 9 to 11, which I've just handed them a copy of. The Minister of Heritage said every recommendation would be carried out. If we pass amendment G-20, have recommendations 9 to 11 been carried out, which the Minister of Heritage said would be implemented? So Liberal members or any members who actually vote against that concept would be knowingly breaking the word of the Minister of Heritage.

I'd like to have Mr. Connelly comment on whether amendment G-20 fulfills recommendations 9 to 11--please and thank you, yes or no.

À (1010)

Mr. Robert Connelly: Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Herron, regrettably, often a question cannot be answered in simple yes or no terms. So I'd ask you to perhaps bear with me for a moment.

Mr. John Herron: I'm with you.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I'll get to Mr. Herron's question in a moment and provide an answer, but I think there's one thing that's very important to recognize.

In Bill C-9, first of all, we have removed a significant impediment to the operation of all of the three transboundary clauses by removing the words “or conferred by any other Act of Parliament”. So the way the transboundary clauses were set up, it said if there was no other federal trigger or any power conferred by any other act of Parliament.... We've removed those words, so we're making it very clear that we will use the transboundary clauses only in cases where there is no federal trigger.

So we have removed an impediment already for the use of these clauses. This also applies in the context of national parks, and that is seen as a very positive step forward.

Mr. John Herron: I said that.

Mr. Robert Connelly: In addition, with the motion in amendment G-20, the government has made very specific reference to “a park or park reserve”, rather than just federal lands. So it's very specific.

Then, thirdly, it has identified and made reference to the need to take into account the park's ecological integrity. These are all positive improvements with respect to the potential for determining if a panel should be called to deal with significant adverse transboundary impacts on a park.

Mr. John Herron: I agree.

Mr. Robert Connelly: Where this does not go, as far as Mr. Herron's motion is concerned, is that it does not deal with a decision--

Mr. John Herron: It's Ms. Copps' motion, as well.

Mr. Robert Connelly: The motion before us does not go so far as to deal with a situation where a determination is made that the effects are only adverse. It lowers the threshold potentially quite, quite significantly. We're dealing here in amendment G-20 with potential for significant adverse impacts on the ecological integrity of the national park. Mr. Herron's motion would in fact lower that threshold to require an examination of projects that have the potential for any adverse impact, not significant adverse impacts. That lowers the threshold quite significantly.

We believe it would create a very significant burden for national parks, the parks service. That's their view. We've had a number of very high-level discussions with the parks people on this issue. They're quite concerned about the added requirements this would mean, to look at every very small project adjacent to the park and require a comprehensive study to be undertaken.

I think that is essentially the concern, and those are the reasons we have not proposed going as far as Mr. Herron has recommended.

The Chair: Next is Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Lunn.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair--

The Chair: There are other people who have been patiently waiting for their turn to intervene.

Mr. John Herron: My entire question was with regard to recommendations 9 to 11 of the panel report. Does amendment G-20 honour the commitment of recommendations 9 to 11? That's my whole question.

The Chair: I believe Mr. Connelly has already commented on that.

Mr. John Herron: No, he hasn't.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

I think Mr. Herron has identified a number of very good points. Actually, the wording is exactly the same as the recommendation. We are talking about the ecological integrity panel that was established by Minister Copps, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and parks. As Mr. Herron has indicated, Ms. Copps is on record as saying that all of the recommendations should be accepted. We're in a position where we're discussing two amendments here, Mr. Chair. So I hope committee members are aware of this. I think the government should be commended on its amendment G-20 for including considerations around ecological integrity. Unfortunately, as Mr. Herron has pointed out, it does not really address the concerns that were articulated in the ecological integrity report and their set of recommendations.

As far as this issue of lowering the threshold for considerations around a comprehensive study is concerned, we have to understand what this really deals with. Section 48 has to do with environmental effects on federal lands. But we're talking about a very small subset of federal lands.

This is very important to Canadians. I served on the outlying commercial accommodation review panel, where we looked at the four national parks. Our national parks are something we hold in trust for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It's not just for the use of people in Alberta and British Columbia or people from Japan or Germany. It's for all Canadians. I think it's really important to clearly understand how important our national parks are to us as Canadians.

If Parks Canada feels that this is going to increase their workload, I would also point out that this is something the minister responsible for Parks Canada has supported and has said we should operationalize.

With regard to government amendment G-20, I think it's really important to understand that this is only a small step. It does not address the concerns identified in the ecological integrity panel report.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You'll have to bear with us, as we only received these amendments this morning. We're trying to wade through them and figure out the nuances between them.

I just want to clarify--

The Chair: We're on G-20 now.

À (1015)

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's correct. I understand that.

I'm trying to differentiate between the nuances that Madam Kraft Sloan is promoting and G-20. If I understand it correctly, one is making a comprehensive study mandatory, and the other makes it at the discretion of the minister. Are we on the same page there? I understand that Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment would make a comprehensive study mandatory for any project in a national park or on lands adjacent to a national park.

Mr. John Herron: Only if the minister is of the opinion that it will have a negative effect.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Under G-20 it would be at the discretion of the minister. Is that correct?

The Chair: Mr. Connelly.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I'm sorry, I missed the very last point, Mr. Lunn. Perhaps you could repeat that, please.

The Chair: It had to do with it being at the discretion of the minister.

Mr. Gary Lunn: For a comprehensive study relating to Parks Canada, it's at the discretion of the minister. If it were a very small project, the minister might decide that we wouldn't need a comprehensive study, whereas under Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment it would be mandatory. Is that what the difference is?

Mr. Robert Connelly: My understanding in both instances is that it is discretionary, Mr. Lunn, the discretion that the minister has at the present time under Bill C-9 or CEAA. Bill C-9 plus the government motions to amend deal with a higher threshold, which is “significant adverse”. That's discretionary.

Mr. Herron's and Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment is also discretionary in the sense that it is in the opinion of the minister, but it lowers the threshold to adverse effects, and that is the issue. I think the difference is, with the motion we have from Ms. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Herron, it would require investigations of potentially a much higher number of projects that are not necessarily very significant in their effects.

It's possible that a small building adjacent to a park could have an adverse effect, but that really wouldn't be very significant in terms of the park's ecological integrity. Nevertheless, it would have to be assessed.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you. That helps.

The Chair: All right, you now have the motion by Madame Redman, amendment G-20. It is fairly clear. It has been thoroughly discussed and massaged. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We're going to stand page 116.

We could examine amendment G-21, which stands alone and can be moved.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I will move amendment G-21. It is not a substantive change, but just for clarity between the French and English. It is consequential to amendment G-22, to proposed paragraph 48(5)(f). They're technical in nature and merely clarify these sections, both the French and the English.

It is so moved.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now move boldly to amendment G-22.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I so move. This paragraph, as it was drafted, is not clear, so we are making an amendment in proposed paragraph 48(5)(f). It did not correspond with paragraph 48(3)(c) in the act, and we're making these amendments in both the English and the French versions for clarity.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

À (1020)

The Chair: On page 121, we have a motion in the name of Mr. Lunn. We are informed that this is inadmissible because of a reference to municipal government.

Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I guess I would ask for a further explanation on that ruling. The intent is to include the local governments, as we are including all the first nations. In some cases in British Columbia, we have first nation governments, so my intent was to actually include the municipal governments at the same level.

Is it inadmissible because of the specific reference to municipal governments?

The Chair: Yes. It's a reference to creatures of the provinces.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Okay. Withdrawn.

The Chair: Thank you.

We now come to the Kraft Sloan and Herron alliance. Would you like to elaborate on your motion, amendment KS-14a?

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

It's not clear whether I would be the leader and Mr. Herron would be the finance minister, or vice versa.

Anyway, having said all of that, I think what we should do is to start at the beginning of the discussion with regard to the amendment on page 121.1. We've had a bit of a discussion with regard to government motion 20 and this, so it may have been somewhat confusing.

What this amendment does is add new subsections (8), (9), and (10) to section 48 of the parent act. The parent act has to do with projects outside of federal lands, and the effect on federal lands. So as I said earlier, Mr. Chair, this amendment affects a small subset of federal lands.

When we think of this as a small subset of federal lands, what we have to do is to understand just how important this particular subset is—that these are our national parks. If anyone has ever visited any of the national parks in this country, one would have to admit just how important they are to who we are, as a people.

The rest of the world, Mr. Chair, takes a look at our national parks and at some of these pristine wilderness areas set aside in other places—in the north as well—and identifies who we are as Canadians with these particular parks, and looks upon us as the stewards of these parks, as well. As I said before, this is something we do for ourselves.

It's important for Canadians who don't even get an opportunity to go to a national park, because every child in school learns something about their national parks. My daughter is a grade 5 teacher. She began this year, and will have the opportunity in her classroom to tell her children about the national parks of Canada. So kids who live in different parts of the country—whether they're from Quebec or Ontario, or wherever—may not have the opportunity to visit that national park once in their lifetime, but they know that it exists, because it is for them. So we have to understand just how important national parks are to us.

The other thing that is of great concern—which has been identified by the ecological integrity panel established by Minister Copps—is that we do not want these little islands to be in the middle of development. If they become little protected islands in the middle of large development, they will become unsustainable. The water, the landscape, and the wildlife will be threatened. This is the most important thing, because we know that environmental effects know no boundaries. We know that disruption of the land, contaminants in the air, and changing water courses know no boundaries. So we are setting up a structure of these little protected areas, which are at risk by all kinds of development around them.

So I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that this is a very important amendment with regard to our national parks. It's something the government supports. Minister Copps sits around the cabinet table. Minister Copps is a member of the government. It is something the government supports.

À (1025)

While I understand that it will likely lead to an increased workload, we have to decide, as parliamentarians. Indeed, the government has to decide if they want to have a real genuine commitment to our national parks. If they're not concerned about the national parks and don't have this genuine commitment, then G-20 is the only amendment we need to pass here with a reference to ecological integrity. The reality is, four or five requests have already been undertaken to have environmental assessments of some of these projects, and they have all been turned down.

We know what happens with discretion. You've already heard how many times the safety net provision has been used with regard to transboundary provisions. It's been used many times. So we know what happens when discretionary clauses are triggered within legislation.

The fact that a process, procedure, policy, or guideline has been established to look into things does not, in reality, deal with the concerns that have been articulated. If we walk away from this particular amendment, then I will be very sad to say we will walk away from our national parks.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I just want to make sure the committee knows what we are voting on. First off, the minister has to be of the opinion that an adverse effect will take place, a negative effect, something not good. So if they're putting up a lamp-post next door to a national park, the minister will obviously say it will not have an adverse effect on the ecological integrity of the park. The minister would have to be of the opinion that something bad could potentially happen to the ecological integrity. That's the trigger.

If the minister knows that an adverse effect from a project could affect the ecological integrity of a park, the panel, commissioned by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, will recommend that we do a study. That's what we're voting on; that's all it comes down to. If it's going to have a negative effect on a national park, a comprehensive study will be done. If it's going to have a significant effect, we'll have a panel review.

We're not talking about all federal lands. At a minimum, Canadians expect us to maintain the biological integrity of our national parks. We're not going to be reviewing every project that's next door to a national park. The minister first has to be of the opinion--there's still discretion--that the project will have an adverse effect on the national park.

The most important thing here is this comes down to democratic accountability and the integrity of the political system. A report has been tabled before Parliament. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has said that every single recommendation of this report will be honoured. If we do not pass Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment, or my version of it, we will break a promise the Minister of Canadian Heritage has made to Canadians. It's our choice.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron. Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Madam Redman.

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

I will ask Mr. Connelly to comment on this change and how it affects the bill.

Mr. Robert Connelly: I may have responded previously, in part, in the discussion around G-20, but I will point out that Mr. Herron's example of a lamp-post is probably appropriate, in the sense that it's the kind of project that would not likely have an adverse impact on the park. Nevertheless, it would require an investigation to make that determination. That's an example of the potential workload that could be created on the part of national parks here.

The motions to improve the sections dealing with transboundary effects that would allow panels to be appointed--G-20 and the motion by Mr. Herron--are very similar in their intent. But our concern remains with lowering the threshold for a very large number of projects that would have inconsequential effects but would still require investigation.

I would also point out that parks--

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting. Your concern about workload and lowering of the threshold would be contingent upon the decision of the minister, and whether the minister would require a certain study. So are you implying that the minister would be so capricious as to request an investigation for every possible activity outside the park?

Mr. Robert Connelly: The potential would exist that somebody could ask for something to be done and that would cause officials to--

The Chair: But that somebody would be the minister.

Ms. Heather Smith: Perhaps I could just--

The Chair: It's all contingent on the minister, if I understand the amendment correctly.

Ms. Heather Smith: Perhaps I could clarify how this mechanism would work.

In order for the minister to form an opinion as to whether something may cause an adverse effect, an investigation would have to be done by officials to inform the minister. So there would have to be a factual analysis of a situation before the minister can make a determination--

Mr. John Herron: Wouldn't that happen anyway?

Ms. Heather Smith: --whether he's of the opinion it may cause an adverse effect or not, and I believe that's what Mr. Connelly is talking about.

Mr. John Herron: Wouldn't that happen anyway? Because once a project takes place, when someone is going to do a project you're going to have your eyes open on what's happening next to your national park, so that process is going to take place anyway. That's not any extra work. You're going to be doing that anyway.

The Chair: We have Mr. Lunn and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'll defer to Madam Kraft Sloan. I was going to make a comment, but I'll keep it to myself.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you. I'm interested in hearing your comment.

Mr. Gary Lunn: We have Mr. Herron adamant that we have to keep Ms. Copps' promises, but government members aren't too interested. I'm not sure what's happening here, where all the coalitions are being formed. Anyway, I'll let us get back on topic, Mr. Chair.

An hon. member: Welcome to the environment committee.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, with regard to the investigations, these investigations are carried out anyway, but they're not part of an official government process. So in many respects, if this amendment were to go through, then the investigations that are normally carried out would feed into an official government process and thereby provide a better, more efficient, more effective use of government funds.

I would suggest that with regard to investigations, no, it's not going to add an undue burden. I think that, as Mr. Herron has pointed out, this is in the opinion of the minister. So lamp-posts and sheds probably are not going to cause adverse environmental effects.

À (1035)

Mr. Gary Lunn: But Karen, if there's a project that's going to be carried out and the Minister of the Environment believes there's going to be an adverse effect, don't you think that minister is going to trigger a comprehensive study?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There have been requests, four or five requests. There is something called the Cheviot Mine. There are a number of cases where we're not talking about adverse environmental effects; we're talking about significant adverse environmental effects. We're talking about cumulative effects.

Let me bring it right back to the crucial point. We're not talking about the land of Canada. We're not talking about the federal lands of Canada. We are talking about a very small subset. Indeed, if Canada had its own monarchy existing here in Canada, these would be our crown jewels. These are the same things as the crown jewels that are locked up in the Tower of London, but we have the opportunity in this country to visit our crown jewels. We have an opportunity to learn about them, and we have the opportunity to preserve them for future generations, not only in Canada but globally. People travel from around the globe because we have these crown jewels available.

The Chair: Are there any further interventions?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And I would like to add, Mr. Chair, we don't have to take Mr. Herron's word for it. I would like to add Madam Copps' word. She said:

“The Panel gives us one generation to turn around Canada's national parks. But we can't wait that long. We must make ecological integrity the centrepiece of every decision we make for the future of Canada's national parks. We must create and strengthen partnerships with Aboriginal peoples, with outlying communities, with provincial and municipal partners, and with Canadians at large. (...) I'm further asking Parks Canada to find ways of implementing all of the Panel's recommendations, if humanly and legally possible. I have faith in the employees of Parks Canada who, as the Panel pointed out, want to do the very best they can. Please understand what I'm saying. I'm not just saying we will analyze the recommendations, I'm saying we will implement them in dialogue with partners.”

Mr. John Herron: On a point of order, I'd ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

The Chair: We stand clause 24, and move to clause 25, an amendment in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan, on page 121(b), KS-15.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm withdrawing this motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

We have, on page 122, an amendment in the name of Mr. Herron, PC-19.

À (1040)

Mr. John Herron: On PC-19, I'd refer members to the bill. I remember seeing, in the act itself, other language very similar what is being proposed. What my amendment does is to take away this discretionary aspect with respect to international agreements or arrangements.

When you read the bill, it says from line 33, “the Government of Canada or the federal authority shall ensure, in so far as it is practicable”—which I wonder how someone determines—“and subject to any other such agreement to which the Government of Canada or federal authority is a party.”

I'm essentially deleting the words “in so far as it is practicable”. I don't think I've ever seen this kind of informal verbiage in an act. Who determines “in so far as is practicable”?

When I've seen amendments in the past—CEPA, or the Species at Risk Act—as soon as we used informal language, the officials always said “Well, when you use informal language, it's hard to interpret what a threshold would be”.

What is “practicable”? If someone is just having a conversation, it makes sense to use this type of language. But I've been told by officials that when we use language of a completely interpretative nature it's too much of an arduous process to determine what it is, on behalf of the courts. And actually the officials say “How do you determine when something is practicable or not?”

The Chair: Thank you.

We have Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment that there are many areas in this bill that allow the minister discretion.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This is just one of them—

Mr. Julian Reed: Just one of them, that's right.

Mr. John Herron: I was was asking the officials on that.

Mr. Julian Reed: Sorry, the chairman gave me the floor.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

This amends section 54, and we really should be reading this in conjunction with section 7, which states that an environmental assessment is not required where a federal authority provides financial assistance, and the details of the project are expected to receive federal funding, and whether it is not known. It requires that agreements transferring funds to the recipient, whether it's a province, a foreign state, or an international organization, include requirements for the recipient to conduct an assessment of the projects.

Bill C-9 has a reference to funding decisions through section 10, which includes regulations as they apply to CIDA. The language “in so far as is practicable” is included. The exceptions under this wording would have to be reasonable. This proposed amendment does not take into account difficult political circumstances, or conflict situations—including war—which might prevent a full assessment of an important development for assisted projects overseas. That's why we do not support this amendment.

The Chair: Any further interventions? If not, are we ready for the question?

Mr. John Herron: I was waiting for interpretation.

The Chair: Interpretation has been given by Madame Redman.

Are you ready for the question?

Are you voting for your own amendment?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Herron: When do we get a comment from the officials?

The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm thinking about that.

(Amendment negatived)

À (1045)

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Herron, would you like to take the floor?

Mr. John Herron: No.

The Chair: We will skip page 123. It will stand.

Mr. Gary Lunn: It's exactly the same.

The Chair: Oh no, that has been applied to that already.

Page 124 stands on its own.

We come to 124.1, a motion in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan, KS-16.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm withdrawing this amendment.

The Chair: We'll stand motion 125 in the name of Mr. Comartin. After this meeting I will undertake to speak or meet with Mr. Comartin to resolve the problem that is being posed by his absence.

The next motion is by Madam Kraft Sloan, on page 125.1, KS-17.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would request that this motion be stood down. I understand that the agency will be providing me with some wording this afternoon—or may have already provided it. Unfortunately, it was not available for committee.

The Chair: We stand clause 25.

We come to clause 26, an amendment by the government, G-23, on page 126.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, a point of order on this section.

This section by the government is quite detailed. Members also have various amendments in this section.

It being 10:50, I'm thinking that it's perhaps a little late to get into this section. Maybe we can stand this clause down, and come back to it when we have a lot more time. Maybe we could start it at the beginning of our session on Wednesday afternoon, because there are a number of amendments here.

The Chair: No, I think we can use the time we have. The room is available. We don't have to adjourn at eleven o'clock exactly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are we going to proceed to vote on this, then? There are a number of amendments that other people have put forward that....

The Chair: Some time ago I asked members to talk with each other on motion 126, including Madame Kraft Sloan—who is leaving the room—because G-23 affects a number of amendments by other members. I will read them off: BQ-11, PC-20, KS-18, KS-19, CA-14, CA-15, CA-17, and KS-20.

The adoption of G-23 would mean that BQ-11, PC-20, and CA-14 cannot be put.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I am willing to withdraw my amendment BQ-11. This should solve at least one problem.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, thank you.

We have a suggestion here that BQ-11 could be retiré.

Well then, how about other motions that will be affected? Could we ask the Alliance whether they have any comments on CA-14 and CA-17?

Mr. Gary Lunn: We'll start off with CA-14 if you like, and I'm quite happy to move that one, Mr. Chair.

The whole intent of this motion is to ensure that there's ample opportunity for interested parties to take part in the assessment process from its inception. We're suggesting that notice be given within 14 days of the commencement of an environmental assessment except where a class screening report is to be used. It's the 14 days that is significant, and we heard from a number of witnesses that there just wasn't an opportunity to take part in the process. That's the reason for moving this amendment.

À (1050)

The Chair: Are there any comments?

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, we don't support this amendment simply because the electronic registry is a new undertaking and we want to gain some experience with using it before we put in this kind of timeline in case it is unachievable. Certainly it is our intention to monitor the situation, and if departments aren't posting notices of commencement in a timely manner, there is an authority for the agency to impose a time limit that exists under subsection 55(3). Because of that uncertainty with the new system and the fact that we feel we have a backup plan if we are not moving and if we don't see the departments moving in a timely manner, we don't support this amendment at this time.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Fourteen days is a reasonable amount of time for them to respond. Even though it's new, if they can't do it within the 14 days, there's something wrong. That's what we're trying to ensure, that people have an opportunity to ensure that they can participate in the process right from its inception, because it has not happened in the past. We heard that from witnesses, and we're trying to rectify that. I just think that transparency is an important issue, and if all the facts are on the table and if everybody has access to them, it will be better for the entire process.

Again, I don't accept your reasoning that because you're doing an electronic registry and it's new, we don't want to tie your hands. I think we should tie your hands, and 14 days is not an unreasonable amount of time. If they can't get it done within that time, considering the number of people they have, there's something wrong. I don't think it's an unreasonable request.

I heard from numerous witnesses that they were not involved from the beginning, they did not get notification, so I believe it's a very reasonable amount of time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We come down to page 140.1 and KS-18, an amendment in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this amendment deals with concerns brought forward by a number of witnesses who talked about the issue of having convenient public access. They were also concerned about people's limited ability to perhaps access an electronic registry or that not all the information could be easily put on the electronic registry, so they wanted to have hard copies.

Indeed, I would like to remind committee members that we heard from a trapper from northern Ontario who bankrupted himself and went into his life savings; he had to take the federal government to court because he was unable to get information about an environmental assessment. What more can I say, Mr. Chair?

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

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

We are not opposed to this amendment but would point out that it would have to be properly integrated into our amendment G-23 if passed.

The Chair: I am told that this amendment ought to be a subamendment to G-23.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We are losing members here; they have to leave because of commitments at eleven o'clock.

Mr. Gary Lunn: On this same point, could the clerk also advise people, specifically because the NDP have so many amendments, that if next time there is a problem with Mr. Comartin attending, could they have an alternate member attend, because it's really going to strain us trying to go through this bill.

The Chair: That will be the essence of my conversation with Mr. Comartin as soon as I can make contact with him.

Tomorrow we can catch up and see how much progress we can make. If members can be a bit flexible late tomorrow afternoon so we can keep a quorum until six, that will be helpful.

On this happy note, with subamendment KS-18 carried, I thank you for your cooperation, and we'll see each other tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.