CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 13, 1999

• 1538

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare this session of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage open, a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-48.

[Translation]

I now call to order this meeting of the Canadian Heritage Committee on Bill C-48, an Act respecting marine conservation areas.

[English]

If members will recall, this morning we reached new clause 12.1, amendment NDP-17.

Mr. Laliberte, the floor is yours.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): We're proposing an amendment here, and before I move it I'd like to ask a question. Is there a process or timeline of review of this bill? Once it's enacted, is it locked in, or is there an expected time of review?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Do you mean a sunset clause?

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

• 1540

Mr. Thomas Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): There is no expected time of review. There is a requirement to report to Parliament every two years on the state of marine conservation areas. You would do that report and parliamentarians would get an overview of what is happening to marine conservation areas. That includes reporting on ecological integrity, for example. So that basic reporting system is built in and provides a mechanism for parliamentary exposure and review.

The other item is the management plans, which are renewed every five years, at which time they must deal with matters pertaining to these areas, specifically the individual areas.

So we basically have two mechanisms of review. One is the individual park management plan—what is happening in that park. Then there is an opportunity for broad policy review on what is happening across the system and whether anything is going wrong and needs fixing.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The reason for questioning this is the next part of our amendments is prohibitions, and if they're locked in within the act, as we're proposing our amendment to be, we're trying to be understanding of the industry and focus our amendment on the finfish aquaculture. We understand the current state of this industry, and it's still in the development process, but at some time it could prove itself and conduct itself in a manner that could be positive or play a role in the conservation areas.

But at this time, with the existing data and the existing reports we've seen from other committees, this amendment would have to go under the prohibitions area. We were suggesting it should be reviewed at some time—a five-year review as part of the timeline through the management plans. I could certainly make a subamendment to my amendment to clarify that this prohibition be reviewed within five years, but I had thought maybe the overall act would be reviewed through some cycle and that review could fall into that. That's why I raised this question and held my amendment

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That was my first question. Is this amendment proposed?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, we're proposing it. We haven't moved it yet.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If it hasn't been moved, then we'll go on to the next one.

The Chairman: Do you intend to move it, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll move it and add a subamendment. I do have that privilege, I believe.

I move that Bill C-48 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 7 the following new clause:

12.1 No person shall conduct finfish aquaculture within a marine conservation area, and this prohibition to be reviewed in a five-year period.

Do you need it written down?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With all due respect, I might suggest to Mr. Laliberte that if he wishes to introduce an automatic review clause, he can do so at report stage. It shouldn't necessarily just apply to one section of the bill, but perhaps to the entire bill. Who knows, the government might consider that. I haven't had that discussion, so I can't say for sure. But generally speaking, these are things you will find in some legislation.

Having said that, I need some guidance. Does the amendment we have in front of us now include a subamendment? How must we proceed? I would like to speak to the motion as it was given to us initially.

The Chairman: What is proposed, Mr. Bélanger, is what you see before you, including the addition, which he is entitled to do. It would be quite in order for you to propose a motion including this addition.

Do I understand it right? Is that what you want to do?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

• 1545

The Chairman: Do you want to speak to it, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. As I stated before, the reason I raised the question was the review process of the whole act. I'm new in realizing legislative reviews, but that may be considered. But since there's nothing drafted, I was called to put this in our amendment.

The aquaculture industry in this country has certainly been in a major growing stage in the last decade, and especially in the last few years. The government of the day has certainly shown its support for an industry that could prove beneficial for many communities. But in the current state, we see a lot of impacts, in terms of the feed that's given to the fish, the nutritions that are released into the environment, and the chemicals and drugs that are administered to the captured fish in the cages.

If that environment and those practices are taken into the conservation areas, it would be very detrimental to the ecosystem and probably detrimental to other surrounding industries. We are proposing this be prohibited until the industry itself has a much more proven track record. The practices might be streamlined, as we have a commission and a body in this country looking toward them. That's why we're proposing the five-year review take place. But in the meantime, with the act, we would like to propose that finfish be prohibited.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This bill is structured in such a way as to prohibit aquaculture unless a licence or permit is secured. The bill already provides for the flexibility that our colleague is seeking by way of this eleventh-hour amendment.

Whereas initially certain kinds of aquaculture would be prohibited—and I see that the member and his party on backing away from a lifetime ban—, the bill now allows aquaculture provided this activity has been authorized and a permit issued. Obviously, if the bill is adopted, appropriate regulations will be put in place to oversee this process.

It is impossible to control every single detail, for example, the evolution of science, technology and aquaculture. We have to make allowances for certain eventualities and the bill in its current version does that very well. That's why we oppose this amendment and even the amended amendment.

The Chairman: Are you referring to clause 9(4)?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's already been approved. A regulatory framework needs to be put in place. The committee has even accepted the recommendations concerning water columns and the like. We have been very accommodating. I think this would be taking prohibitions a little too far.

The Chairman: Are you referring to clause 9(4)?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: To clause 4(3). Amendment G-3a refers to “the structure and function of the ecosystems, including the submerged lands and water column, with which they are associated”. We've covered all of this.

• 1550

The Chairman: It's clause 9(4) that contains the reference to aquaculture. Correct?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Correct.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, you wanted to say something.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I'm certainly sympathetic to my colleague's concern about aquaculture, but I think we're sort of putting a framework in place here. The key point then is we may be able to accomplish the same thing.

I'll ask this question of the officials. In your understanding of the present practices of the finfish aquaculture industry today, would it be allowed inside one of these areas? Is it consistent with the goals and objectives of a marine conservation area, or do you see a potential problem there?

Mr. Tom Lee: There is a variety of cases out there. There are certain examples we could find that we wouldn't permit, where the operations are not up to speed and don't reflect best practices. Clearly we would always be aiming for the best practices, but there are activities out there today that would be permitted.

The Chairman: Have you any further comments or questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We are voicing our concern through the witnesses and the concerns that have been raised in terms of the future development, since this is the framework and the prohibitions area kind of sets it forward beforehand—not at a negotiation table of a management plan, a negotiation table between government and industry or community and industry. If you set it forward, people realize beforehand the impact of a conservation area in an area before they make a commitment. Otherwise a neighbouring conservation area could have aquaculture allowed in it, and on other side of the island or the other side of the bay it could be disallowed and then it would create—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's fair enough, but that's what you would get, for instance, in the broad consultation that would be initiated to set up a marine conservation area, as we have seen. That was one of the significant concerns expressed by the Bonavista people. They've expressed so many concerns that the government agreed—we're not going ahead there. So that process is indeed embedded in the act, to make sure local concerns can be reflected and you can have differences.

That's why we're setting up about 29 of these marine conservation areas overall. They won't all be the same, but they will all be set up with their own very extensive consultation process.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Again, I concur with the parliamentary secretary. One of the problems is we have to sort of accept the direction we're trying to go with these. But in the regulatory process for finfish aquaculture operations through DFO, you have a ministry that also has an economic development mandate for finfish aquaculture. We also have it identified through HRDC, so there's a certain element that's trying to develop this industry. When you have the economic development mandate and the regulatory mandate under the same ministry, it's a little bit problematic.

So because they have a licence to perform the finfish aquaculture there, are we just deferring to DFO? If they say it's okay do we say it's okay, or is there another filter for marine conservation areas?

Mr. Tom Lee: There's definitely another filter, and I think this is an important point the committee should note. The minister responsible for marine conservation areas legislation is responsible for approving the management plan for these areas. The management plan must scope the nature of a fishery operation, so this minister must approve the scope and work that out with her colleague. So that responsibility rests with the minister responsible for this act.

We're trying not to duplicate them. Here are the rules for fisheries, but we're both going to issue licences.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, are you satisfied now from that discussion we can call the vote?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. I've introduced my intention. I think everybody understands the reason we're doing it. It's your decision.

• 1555

(Amendment negatived)

(On clause 13—Exploration and exploitation)

The Chairman: We now move to clause 13. R-27 is not moved. R-28 is defeated because it's consequential to R-1. We'll go on to NDP-18, and I should point out to you that NDP-18 and G-10 are similar in substance.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll pull mine.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll move NDP-18, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Amendment G-10 cannot be put forward.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll pull it.

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: I'll now call NDP-19, which is a new clause, 13.1.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is again very straightforward:

Prohibition

13.1 No person shall fish for, catch or attempt to catch fish by the method of bottom trawling or dragging within a marine conservation area.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, for very much the same reasons as raised under new clause 12.1 or NDP-17, the government has an approach that permits greater flexibility. In other words, there are prohibitions of things you can't do unless you get authorization. This is another one of these situations, whereas the NDP would want to say to prohibit, period. Again, it's a matter of having some flexibility, and to reflect that in regulations. If you prohibit without giving any possibility, you will never be able to do that. There may be times when this could be allowed—I'm not an expert, so I can't determine when—and the way the legislation was crafted, it would allow that. It would do so only under situations expressly permitted by regulation. For that reason, we cannot support this amendment either.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to draw to your attention the fact that I don't know the reason for prohibitions here. It's raising a lot of expectations, I guess. It seems to be. I don't know what the reason for the act would be, then, if we didn't start cookie-cutting a good piece of legislation for generations to come.

I just wanted to highlight for the honourable member that on November 26 one of your colleagues stated that we have allowed the massive destruction of our ecosystem over the years, and have allowed intensive dragging of the ocean floor in our commercial fisheries. In terms of statistics, he stated that out of 123 draggers that were allowed for the shrimp fishery on the continental shelf, only six were Canadian vessels. These kinds of statistics show the huge devastation of our ecosystem, and also the direct impact to the commercial fishing industry in our coastal regions by a very small Canadian fleet. These conservation areas by no means dominate the entire coastal area. These are selected areas. Once we select these areas, why can we not prohibit the dragging and trawling practices?

• 1600

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We can. This legislation would allow that as it is, without that amendment.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Why can't you be up front?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are up front.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Then for dragging and trawling, vote in favour of this amendment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We could get into some partisan debate here, but to be up front doesn't mean you have to approve of what someone else is saying. This bill is intended to create marine conservation areas, to take care of some of what our colleague is suggesting is a problem. We're going to set up a whole bunch of them. To do that, you have to have some cooperation from the people involved. If they all say there are too many bloody restrictions so they're not going to approve of any, like they did in Bonavista, then we're not going to have any marine conservation areas and we're not going to be any further ahead.

At some point, there has to be some give and some take. We're saying here that, by virtue of the bill as crafted, we have that possibility through regulations. With the cooperation of the people involved, once we've determined that there is going to be a marine conservation area at a certain location, there is the possibility of banning what you're seeking to ban either in some of it or all of it.

So, no, it is not as wide-ranging. We are not banning bottom-dragging on the ocean floor, as you may wish. But I'll tell you that if you go to maritime Canada and propose that, you're never going to see a marine conservation area established. It's a matter of balance. Fortunately, this government is trying to achieve that. To some people it may seem unfortunate, but we believe we have that balance. If you start putting in massive and blanket prohibitions, you're going to lose the balance and the support.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: In terms of process, is it a case in which, if somebody wanted to conduct these activities in a marine conservation area, they would have to apply for permission to do it, as opposed to somebody having to apply for a ban on that activity?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Either that, or, if it's allowed, it could be banned by us.

The Chairman: Who are you asking the question to?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Anybody who thinks they have the answer.

Is it a situation in which, when a marine conservation area is established, those activities will not take place unless somebody has approved that they take place in that area? Or is it a case in which, if somebody is bottom-dragging through an existing area, somebody has to bring it to someone's attention? Where's the onus here? Who has to approve, and how does it work?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: On this one, my understanding is that the agency would have to prohibit, but I stand to be corrected. If it carries on, this activity could be stopped, but the onus would then be on the agency at the time the conservation area is being set up to prohibit it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But is it a case in which, if they aren't prohibited, they're allowed? Or are they not allowed unless they have a permit?

Mr. Tom Lee: They are permitted unless they're prohibited.

Mr. Joe Jordan: In this case?

Mr. Tom Lee: In this case, yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Finfish were a separate thing.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. Tom Lee: Just to go over the structure and the controls that we've tried to place in this legislation, you start with the precautionary principle. If the science isn't there to support it, then you have to go ahead and check that. As Monsieur Bélanger mentioned, you go on to subclause 4(3). The changes the government has introduced in subclause 4(3) are particularly in here because of the concerns that were raised with respect to bottom-dragging, so you find additional protection for the bed. If something is happening to the bed that is ecologically unsustainable, then action has to be taken under this act.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I agree with the approach and that we keep the framework broad, and that we then can take action within that framework. It would be nice to be able to define everything in advance, but it isn't very practical, given our experiences with Newfoundland.

Thanks.

The Chairman: Do you have any other comments, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No. I think that if I raise my hand now, it will be the only one registered in favour of this, unless somebody else agrees.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1605

(Clause 14 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: We'll move on to new clause 14.1. It's found in amendment NDP-20.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is another amendment on prohibitions. I know I've been counselled that prohibitions are well intact in this bill, but we're still not resting assured. We'd like to ask the committee members to independently think on their own here, and read this amendment and heed it:

Prohibition

14.1 No person shall dredge in a marine conservation area, except for existing navigation channels or in exigent circumstances.

This amendment is part of clause 14, but I think it would probably culminate with a different number, so we've proposed it as 14.1. Anyway, I move this amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is a bookend of 12.1. New clause 12.1 was “no, unless allowed”, new clause 13.1 was “yes, unless restricted”, and this is another “no, unless allowed”. As it stands, we're comfortable with it. There is the prohibition that the member seeks, but it does allow for some flexibility to say yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Is that how you're telling the members to vote?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, we're saying no to your motion. As things stand, under clause 12, it is not allowed unless people get a permit.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. Speaking of bookends, if we put enough of these acts together, they would make a good bookend. But as proposed, we would still put forward that this prohibition be clarified in this bill, and that these activities be prohibited from conservation areas.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's not the government viewpoint. We're not going to that extreme, Mr. Chairman, so we're not supporting this amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

(On clause 15—Permits and authorizations)

The Chairman: Turning to clause 15, we have R-29. It is defeated because it's consequential to R-1.

I will now call NDP-21.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Isn't that consequential as well?

The Chairman: It is consequential to R-5, so it is defeated as well.

R-20 is also consequential to R-1, so it's defeated.

I will call G-11.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I know these consequential motions are just willfully thrown to the side, but the consequential issue was “the authority of existing and future bodies established pursuant to land claims agreements”. That seems to have been protecting the rights of the minister. Here, though, it's the issue of the superintendent of marine conservation areas issuing permits in accordance with regulations. In issuing permits, why couldn't the superintendent take into account the authority of existing land claims bodies? I understand that the other one was specifically on the powers of the minister, but this one is not. This is dealing with issuance of permits and authorizations.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's the derogation clause again. It's consequential to that. Well, consequential—it's superfluous.

• 1610

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We'll thread it through.

The Chairman: Excuse me a minute. Let's just check it out.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: He agrees, Mr. Chairman. Derogation or non-derogation.... Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lee might be of assistance here.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: With the introduction of the non-derogation clause in this bill, all the provisions provided for in land claims, including bodies and the authorities they have, are protected. You have passed a non-derogation clause earlier in the bill, and it follows that the superintendent must follow the non-derogation clause. So this is not required.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The reason I asked was that I thought it was consequential to the first motion we introduced, but I think the government's introduction carried through. That's my understanding.

The Chairman: Okay. So you're not moving this?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No.

The Chairman: We are moving to G-11.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are proposing three amendments to clause 15. The first amendment is of a technical nature and aims to clarify the intent of the legislator. It follows through on the testimony we heard and clarifies the powers of the superintendent, stipulating that the later may "issue, amend, suspend and revoke permits and other authorizing instruments".

Since some witnesses expressed concern that holders of permits and licences issued under the Fisheries Act would have to obtain new fishing permits from Parks Canada, we are proposing, by way of a second amendment, that it would not be necessary for them to obtain a new permit under this Act.

The third amendment, also of a technical nature, is designed to reflect the legislator's intent. It stipulates the following:

(3) For greater certainty, the superintendent of a marine conservation area may not amend, suspend or revoke a licence issued under the Fisheries Act.

These are fairly significant clarifications that we have made in response to the concerns expressed by the witnesses appearing before the committee.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 16—Regulations)

The Chairman: Amendment R-31 is consequential on R-22, so it's not moved.

I will call G-12.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly clear. It allows the government to adopt regulations that are either specific to a particular area or that apply to all areas, except of course to those which have a special status. The regulations may, of course, also apply to that area, provided the parties in question have given their consent. It's as simple as that.

• 1615

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: R-32 is defeated, consequential to R-1.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Shouldn't you call for the vote on amendment G-12a? I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of things. This next amendment is relatively straightforward. Its purpose is to ensure agreement between the English and French versions.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: R-33, R-34, and R-35 are defeated.

Let's go on to NDP-22.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We'll move this one, and I'd like to ask for a friendly amendment. We missed one word there. We didn't intend to delete “wildlife”, but we wanted to include “wildlife habitat”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That could be amenable. So what would that read, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It would read:

for the control of the flight of aircraft to prevent danger or disturbances to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and respecting the takeoff,

That's where we were lost with this...“and respecting the takeoff”.

The Chairman: So your amendment would read “prevent danger or disturbances to wildlife, wildlife habitat...”?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The reason I recommended a comma there is because it goes into “and respecting the takeoff, landing and taxiing of aircraft”. It may require, instead of a comma, “wildlife and wildlife habitat”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There's no fundamental disagreement; we'll just get the comma in the right spot.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's just that loose “and” there.

The Chairman: It should be “to prevent the danger or disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat, and respecting the takeoff”. Would you agree?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Agreed.

The Chairman: For drafting purposes, I don't know who is the drafter here.

We will now vote on NDP-22, which will read:

prevent danger or disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitat,

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We will now go on to R-36.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We'll go on to NDP-23.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In this one we have alluded to this issue under the consultation. Not only should the coastal waters be taken into account, but the amendment is to read, under these regulations, as follows:

(l) authorizing the dumping of substances, in the manner and to the extent provided in the regulations, by persons holding permits for that purpose into waters of a marine conservation area or neighbouring waters that may affect a marine conservation area to which section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act does not apply;

So it's adding “neighbouring waters that may affect a marine conservation area”, and that would mean either lakes adjacent to the body of water that might be draining into the conservation area or river systems. These should be subject to a regulation.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We have some difficulties with that of a jurisdictional nature, Mr. Chairman. This amendment has an effect of extending the jurisdiction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage beyond the boundaries of a marine conservation area. It would probably not be able to be enforced. It's as simple as that. We could be authorizing the dumping of substances where it was never intended by extending this, or visa versa. It's just opening up something that we wouldn't be able to enforce in the bill because of other jurisdictions, other authorities.

• 1620

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the officials about the point Mr. Laliberte made. Let's say that subsequent to a marine conservation area being established there's dumping going on in a tributary or there's something feeding into this area. Is there any new trigger here, given that this stuff is ending up in the conservation area and degrading the ecosystem, or is it just a general smorgasbord of potential triggers to try to get them to stop that?

Mr. Tom Lee: There isn't any specific trigger here. If you'll recall, we discussed this when we discussed the Saguenay bill.

Following up on Mr. Bélanger's comments, with an amendment of this type one could imagine in the extreme that the heritage minister might have to authorize somebody dumping something in Thunder Bay, because it eventually comes into the Saguenay Marine Park. So it's definitely an extension of jurisdiction.

To use the Saguenay example again, we think the Saguenay will help clean up the Great Lakes because there's been a special place identified that requires protection. It's been determined to be of national significance, so it urges that extra effort. It's very difficult to conceive of the Minister of Canadian Heritage being able to permit these very remote types of things.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: To be blunt, Mr. Chairman, if we read this amendment properly, and that's where I might seek your guidance, this could essentially allow regulations to be made that would authorize dumping of substances in the waters of the Great Lakes. I gather that these may not be covered by the Canada Environmental Protection Act or some such thing. I'm a bit out of my water here, and I'm really not convinced that we're helping the cause by throwing in that amendment.

Mr. Laliberte, unless you have insight to the knowledge that I don't have, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that we're not supporting this.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To raise the issue of section 67 and the impending changes that may have been drafted as part of the new CEPA that would impact on this area, it may require our drafters or our aides to take a look at this. The intent is that in the waters in a marine conservation area specifically, if you say dumping, everybody will know that within that jurisdiction of the conservation area there is a dumping process and permits are required.

What about waters that feed into the conservation area? It may be a river; it might be a lake feeding into it. All we're saying is that you take the ecosystem approach. This whole area is impacted and you recognize that other jurisdictions such as CEPA or else DFO might come in. These have to be put into place. That's all we're clarifying.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Presumably, this would all occur in the exercise of setting up a conservation area and the plan that would accompany that without necessarily extending or trying to extend the authority of the minister beyond the scope desired. I suspect it would not meet with some test on their own.

We are concerned with marine conservation areas. When this law was drafted we understood that we had to deal with DFO, for instance, and with other agencies and that a balance was to be struck. Part of the striking of that balance was a restriction of jurisdictions to the marine conservation areas. If we start expanding that now, I don't personally think it would fly. It would run into all kinds of problems.

• 1625

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, just in reading this clause, I come to the observation that what we're trying to do here, what is intended here, is to say that if people are holding permits according to the ocean dumping provisions in CEPA, and they've got a legitimate permit to dump in that particular water that is covered by a marine conservation area, then they can. Regulations can be made to allow for that permit to be enforced.

In other words, they've got a permit, so they're allowed to actually dump in that particular water. If you were to put in “neighbouring waters”, in effect you would be going beyond the CEPA permit, because CEPA will pick it up any way. CEPA grants a permit according to its own criteria and scope.

It seems to me what we're trying to say here is if you've got a marine conservation area and that person or body holds a permit, which is allowed in the CEPA regulations, it would be in order for that person to use that permit.

Is that the way this clause reads right now, Mr. Amos?

Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks, Department of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Chairman, this particular regulation-making authority needs to be read in conjunction with subclause 14(1), on dumping, which the committee has already discussed.

This particular regulation-making authority would deal specifically with the Great Lakes, where CEPA does not apply. It's our regulation-making authority to make sure that regulations governing dumping could be in place in the Great Lakes because CEPA doesn't apply there. Elsewhere, clause 14 describes how various appropriate sections of CEPA would apply. This is to fill the gap to make sure there are appropriate controls over dumping in the Great Lakes, because CEPA doesn't apply. Elsewhere, the sections of CEPA are referred to in clause 14, as the committee has already seen.

I think the same discussion is still relevant for the amendment on the table. What the amendment would do is go beyond a marine conservation area out into neighbouring waters and give the minister the ability to authorize dumping somewhere else in an area of provincial jurisdiction beyond the marine conservation area. But this clause specifically deals with the Great Lakes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If the chair and the committee would allow me, I'll withdraw this one. If something comes to light because we have to cross-reference this with other acts, we could bring it forward in the report stage and share the information with you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fair enough.

The Chairman: So amendment NDP-23 is not moved. Was it moved?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I need consensus to withdraw.

The Chairman: Could we have consent for Mr. Laliberte to withdraw the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We'll now go to amendment G-12b.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a matter of ensuring agreement between the French and English versions.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1630

The Chairman: Amendment R-38 is not moved.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, again, the purpose of this amendment is to make the English and French versions agree with each other.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We go to amendment NDP-24.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, I will move this one.

This is dealing with aboriginal activities. What we're proposing here is that the Governor in Council may, after the minister has consulted with affected aboriginal organizations and communities and has obtained their consent, make regulations. This is, I believe, the intent of this motion. We're asking that communities be taken into consideration, because aboriginal organizations may be national, provincial, or regional in scope. When it comes to conservation areas, they might be site-specific or community-specific, and I think communities should be given the chance to be part of this.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Once again, I wish to point out that this concept has already been addressed in clause 4(3). While we agree that treaties must be respected, I do think that we would be taking things a little too far if we were to require the consent of the aboriginal organizations and communities affected, as far as these regulations are concerned. Quite frankly, we have already agreed to the notion of unanimous consent, in terms of establishing marine conservation areas. We would be going a little too far if we were to accept your proposal. We would do just as well to close up shop. At some point, there has to be accountability. Elected officials are responsible, using the means available to them, for drawing up regulations. In spite of our goodwill and efforts to consult with them, if their consent was required, we would be granting them a veto right and perhaps there would be no accountability. We are not prepared to support this amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Have you any comments, Mr. Laliberte, or do you want to proceed?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, what I'm trying to understand is subclause 16(6), as we're dealing with it here. The one link we have is under the prohibitions, where we have at the end of clause 13: “with the exception of activities referred to in subsection 16(6)”. So as an exception, the minister could, after consulting with affected aboriginal organizations, make regulations respecting activities that are prohibited. We're saying why not get the consent? You may consult the aboriginal communities, but it may be an industry that's going to be permitted. Allow these organizations and communities to consent to this—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There's a comment here that I'd like to make.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We also want to expand this. In Bill C-7, when the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park came into play, that was part of the terminology that was used, that consent be sought from communities.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you wish to make a comment?

Mr. Bruce Amos: I'm struggling to find the exact reference, Mr. Chair, but I think the previous reference that linked with this clause, which was amendment G-10, was passed by the committee. So it effectively looks to me like a stand-alone clause. The link I think Mr. Laliberte is referring to was the subject of an amendment by two sides that was passed.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't confuse consultation with consent. Too often, unfortunately, individuals or groups claim that they have not been consulted simply because things didn't go their way.

• 1635

I believe we must make this distinction. It is clear in the legislation that the government must establish transparent, open mechanisms and report on its activities. However, I reject the idea of forcing the government to obtain the consent of aboriginal organizations and communities at the regulatory stage.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Amos has rightly pointed out, if you look at clause 13, that the words you quoted a minute ago don't apply any more. In other words, according to your own amendment, we have deleted those words—amendment NDP-18.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, but that wasn't moved by me.

The Chairman: No, no. But they moved it and it was passed.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You withdrew it because the next one was the same.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: You guys were going to pass it through anyway.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes. But it still holds.

The Chairman: Hold it, hold it. It was passed. So in effect now clause 13 stops after “matter within a marine conservation area”, period. The words “with the exception of activities referred to in subsection 16(6)” are not there any more; they have been deleted. So we can't refer to them any more because they have been deleted. The clause stops at “conservation area”. There is no reference to subsection 16(6) any more. So subsection 16(6) is a stand-alone clause now, as far as that goes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I understand the parliamentary secretary raised the issue and concern of “has obtained our consent”. We would be willing to strike that and include “and communities”, that “in the consultation process, that the affected aboriginal organizations and communities” be the amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have a point of clarification for Rick.

I'm just wondering, when we remove the reference to this clause, what the purpose of the clause then is, because we've already said, I think, that we have to respect existing treaties, and so on and so forth. We then have a list of prohibitions, and I guess this clause allows for the exemption of those prohibitions in cases where it may infringe on previously agreed-to activities. I guess we're talking about fishing and hunting types of things. It seems to me that....

Rick, what problem are we trying to solve? Is there a situation where you think a group that represents an aboriginal community may ask for exemption on something the community might disagree with? We're talking about giving them exemptions from the prohibitions here, so is that the situation you're...? What loophole are we trying to close?

The Chairman: In any case, Mr. Jordan, I think we would like to clarify this.

According to what you suggested, Mr. Laliberte, if your amendment would read “organizations”, and the only thing you add is “and communities”, is that what you want us to consider now?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chairman: That's a completely different thing. That's what he wants to add now, just “organizations and communities”.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to reflect on that.

I used subsection 16(6) as an example in reference to clause 13, but I guess I chose the wrong example. But as a stand-alone, I believe it has merit on its own as well, that the minister and affected communities and organizations should be consulted. Because there might be specific regulations that you would require for aboriginal activities to take place, flowing from their existing aboriginal or treaty rights, that may not be given to any other person. These regulations, under consultation with the communities and organizations, may be either the sacredness of the ceremonies or the harvesting and intellectual property rights in that area—there are a number of issues. I'm just trying to interpret why this clause would have been standing on its own, as opposed to an exception clause.

• 1640

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, before we get too confused, are you asking a question of Mr. Lee or Mr. Amos or...?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just trying to address the question Mr. Jordan asked; I was just trying to flow it back over here.

The Chairman: Okay, so you're asking Mr. Lee to....

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To clarify that as a stand-alone clause. That's how it was raised.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Then I have a question.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee or Mr. Amos, I think when we address this thing we should address it now in terms of the new wording that he proposes, just “communities” and leaving out “and has obtained consent”, because that's out now.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Understood. I understand there are two questions then: first, the purpose of the clause, and secondly, to comment on the communities aspect.

The purpose of the clause is to make it clear that the minister, after consultation, does have the authority to make regulations respecting activities that may be carried on by aboriginal people by virtue of their rights. So this would make it clear that such regulations could be put in place, after the appropriate consultations.

On the question of communities versus aboriginal organizations, in the case of activities that are aboriginal or treaty rights it's crucial that consultation take place with an accountable aboriginal organization. It's not unlike other regulations where the government may pick and choose those people it believes are affected and who it wants to consult. In the case of rights that flow from treaties or aboriginal rights in section 35, the reason the reference is here to affected aboriginal organizations, and is not a longer list, is to be quite clear that we're talking about the accountable aboriginal organization that, according to the treaty or claim, has the right to speak on behalf of the beneficiaries of the treaty or claim.

That's why we've steered clear of making a longer list, which might appear to give the government some choice or the ability to shop the different parts of the aboriginal community. The sense here is that there will be an accountable aboriginal organization and one should seek advice on who that is, and that's who one should consult with, with respect to these regulations.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, you had a question?

Mr. Joe Jordan: My question was around the potential legal ambiguity of the word “community”. I guess it's a double-edged sword. I mean, is that clearly defined? Is that something that has legal meaning?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Not in this case.

Mr. Tom Lee: Not that I can see, but I'm just going to follow up and be quite specific and take you through an example: Nunavut and the land claims. Under the land claims the Nunavut have, in the national parks that are being established in the Arctic, continuing harvest rights. The setting of those harvest rights is done through a wildlife management board to be established pursuant to the land claim.

The minister makes regulations according to the advice and recommendations given by that, and she has no choice but to go to that body. She has no right to go to the community and say “I consulted the aboriginal community, they don't agree with the wildlife management board, therefore I'm following the....” These are legally structured.... It wouldn't be any different in southern land claims where in fact the tribe or the native council or whatever body—

Mr. Joe Jordan: So I guess the issue is if the organization doesn't speak for the community we have a problem, but we're not necessarily going to solve it here.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes.

The Chairman: Anyway, Mr. Laliberte, you have a motion you've presented. Do you want to carry on with it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. I've introduced the amended motion to read “organizations and communities make regulations with respect to activities that may be carried out”. I just wanted to refer to the comments that were made that it seems to be some reference to claim. It does not say anything about claim. It's under section 35 of the Constitution Act. If people are aware of this section, it's aboriginal right; it's Métis, Inuit, and first nations. These rights don't flow from a claim. These are constitutional rights recognized as a people.

• 1645

What we're saying is that you don't necessarily have to look at affected aboriginal organizations. If it's a Métis community that's being affected, or an Inuit community, you don't necessarily have to go to the Ottawa-based representative organization for consultation. Give the privilege to that community in that site-specific conservation area. It's not a national area; it's dealing with conservation areas.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It need not be national; by putting it this way, you must consult, but it need not only be national. It could be a local organization. But at times what the difficulty may be also is identifying representatives for the community versus identifying representatives for an aboriginal organization, which is much more established and clear-cut. That's a difficulty.

I don't know if you thought that one through, but it could create a good deal of confusion. We'd rather stick to what is there.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In our debate that took place earlier on coastal communities, that's the same situation that these situations of consultation should respect, beyond the organizational aspect. Some of these communities may not be part of an organization, because you don't have a definition of “aboriginal organizations”, and that's what's lacking here. We're trying to help you so that when you're dealing with conservation areas and protecting them, the consultation will be best with the communities, the aboriginal communities that will be affected.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The question would be if there is no organization, who would be consulted? Is that it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No.

Let's look at the high Arctic region. You're going to have conservation zones as planned under this area. There would be affected communities along those coastal—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, but they will be consulted.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: They will be consulted—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There's no doubt about that. But you're referring—

The Chairman: Can you not carry on a debate through the chair?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Certainly.

The Chairman: It's getting very confusing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like to ask a question, if I may.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The amendment that our colleague is proposing is not “communities”; it's “aboriginal communities”. If he's proposing “communities”, that's already covered—c'est superflu. But he's suggesting “aboriginal communities”, and the question there is how do you define that? Who speaks for an aboriginal community? When you're talking about “aboriginal organizations”, that is pretty clear-cut and well established.

That's why there's a

[Translation]

reluctance to draw a distinction between aboriginal communities and clearly defined aboriginal organizations. It's not a question of ill will, but a question of clearly identifying those with whom we wish to consult.

As for other communities, including coastal communities, their concerns have already been addressed. If that was our colleague's intent, then his amendment is not necessary. However, if his intent is to single out aboriginal communities and aboriginal organizations, as he appears to be doing, then this could potentially create some confusion, something that we want to avoid. Moreover, as agency officials pointed out to us, this could even send the minister off on the wrong track.

[English]

The Chairman: Anyway, I think we are clear now on both sides. We should proceed. I'll call the vote on amendment NDP-24, which now reads, “aboriginal organizations and communities,”—so the words “and has obtained their consent” don't appear any more—followed by “make regulations....”

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 17 agreed to on division)

• 1650

(On clause 18—Designation of marine conservation area wardens)

The Chairman: I'll now call clause 18. Amendment G-13 is consequential to amendment G-2a, so it's adopted on division. R-41, R-42, R-43, R-44, and R-45 are defeated. G-14 is adopted.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can we carry clause 18?

The Chairman: Sorry, I went too far there. Could we just do clause 18 up to R-43 defeated?

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 19 agreed to on division)

(On clause 20—Certificate of designation and oath)

The Chairman: We'll go to clause 20. R-45 is defeated. G-14 is adopted, consequential on G-2a. And R-46 is defeated.

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(On clause 21—Arrest by warden or officer)

The Chairman: On clause 21, R-47 is defeated; so are R-48 and R-49. And G-15 is carried, as consequential on G-2a.

(Clause 21 as amended agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(On clause 22—Arrest by warden)

The Chairman: On clause 22, R-50 is defeated. G-16 carries, as consequential on G-2a. R-51 is defeated. G-16 carries, as consequential on G-2a. R-52 is defeated; so are R-53 and R-54.

(Clause 22 as amended agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(On clause 23—Custody of things seized)

The Chairman: On clause 23, amendment R-55 is defeated. G-17 carries, as consequential on G-2a. R-56 is defeated; so is R-57.

(Clause 23 as amended agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive agreed to on division)

[Translation]

(Clause 27—Orders of court)

The Chairman: The next item of business is amendment G-18.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the objective here is to clarify the definition of the word “resource”, as suggested to us by the Canadian Nature Federation. The inclusion of the words “element of the ecosystems” has a balancing effect. We are no longer dealing solely with matters of a commercial value, but with elements of the ecosystems as well. We found that this suggestion had considerable merit.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): That's good.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: G-18a?

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a matter of ensuring agreement between the different pieces of legislation.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 27 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 28—Limitation or prescription)

The Chairman: On clause 28, amendment R-58 is not moved.

(Clause 28 agreed to on division)

(On clause 29—Pollution clean-up)

The Chairman: On clause 29, amendment R-59 is defeated.

NDP-25?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I move amendment NDP-25. I hate to break your flow here, but that's exactly what our concern is with this amendment. It is:

Where a substance that is capable of degrading the environment or injuring any animal, fish or plant is discharged or deposited within or into a marine conservation area, any person who has charge, management or control of the substance or who causes or contributes....

And so on. We're adding “or into”.

• 1655

The Chairman: Are they any questions or comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I'm having some problems. Now, I'm having trouble keeping up. I think it's similar to the situation we encountered earlier where there was a danger of inadvertently granting the minister some powers, when that was not the intent.

Could I have a few moments, please? Perhaps my colleagues would like to comment, but I'm not prepared to debate this amendment.

The Chairman: In my view, this amendment is somewhat different and runs counter to the one examined earlier.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If you'll kindly indulge me, I'm not ready to discuss it.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Amos: Gentlemen, madam, once again it does deal with the distinction between things that are in this case deposited or discharged within, as opposed to something that is deposited or discharged into—was presumably deposited or discharged outside and then came into. So we are dealing with a somewhat similar case.

This clause deals essentially with mitigation and where it takes us. If you follow down the various subsections, it would allow the government to seek reimbursement of expenses. If the government had to take action when the person who discharged or deposited the materials didn't take actions that the minister felt were reasonable, this would permit the minister not only to deal with those who deposited things within a marine conservation area, but also with those who deposit something outside a marine conservation area that then comes in. This could be anything that could degrade the environment.

Here again, the concern is what is the appropriate scope of authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage vis-à-vis marine conservation areas, in this case, in terms of seeking remedy for clean-up? Because there are, and our justice department colleagues can help us explain those, ways by which discharge of material outside of marine conservation areas can be sought through other authorities.

The Chairman: You've asked your justice department colleagues to respond, please.

Mr. Allain Roy (Legal Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage): If there is a discharge or a deposit outside the marine conservation area, there is other legislation named in subclause 29(4) that would kick in, like the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Those are already in place and they already apply outside the marine conservation area. The only reason subclause 29(1) was put in place is if there is a deposit or a discharge within the marine conservation area, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have the authority to deal with the portion those statutes would not cover. For example, if it's a type of damage that's not harmful to man, in that case, if they are not covered by subclause 29(4), it would fall under the Department of Canadian Heritage.

So if it's outside the marine conservation area, there is already legislation in place to take care of those areas.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

• 1700

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe the officials who spoke have answered my concern that there could be discharges or deposits taken away from the immediate conservation area. The air flow or water flow could take it into the conservation area. The Ministry of Heritage under its resouces may have cleaned it up immediately, but of course with due cost and measures. CEPA or any other act would have not done anything, because you, being the stewards of the conservation area, may have done it already. All you're asking for is the mitigation and cost and recovery of damage. If it's not covered under CEPA, the exceptions are there. It's fair enough. If something comes into your conservation area, why wouldn't you want the right to regain your damages or your costs of cleaning it up? You may have done it yourself, or may have had to ask a professional or a corporation or some organization to do it.

Mr. Allain Roy: You'd have to read that in conjunction with subclause 29(4). Subclause 29(4) says no measure may be directed to be taken by the minister. So all the other departments have to act before we do in order to clean up even with the marine conservation area. So the authority the minister has is not an unlimited one; it's complementary to what the other departments are doing. For example, if it's a discharge from a ship, either inside or outside, it will have to be under the Department of Transport to do the clean-up.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm a little confused because the French version seems clear enough to me. It reads as follows: “En cas d'un déversement ou d'un dépôt d'une substance dans une aire marine de conservation”. My colleague seems to think that it would be preferable to replace “within” by “within or into” in the English version. What about “or deposited in”? There doesn't appear to be any problems with the French version. He hasn't suggested any changes to that version and I assume, therefore, that he has no problems with it.

[English]

You go along with that?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let's see if there is agreement.

[English]

It could read,

Where a substance that is capable of degrading the environment or injuring any animal, fish or plant is discharged or deposited in a marine conservation area

The Chairman: Okay. Hold it a minute.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: This reinforces what I was going to say, because the way I read this—and I'm not a lawyer, but don't misconstrue that as an apology—“deposited in” to me means if you dump it upstream and it ends up there, you've deposited it in there. So if that's what you're saying, that's great. If we're saying we agree with that, that's even better. When I deposit something in the bank, I give it to someone who gives it to someone, who gives it to someone. So there's a connectivity here. So if “deposited in” is the terminology, I think that's good.

The Chairman: Hold it a minute before we get too confused here.

Before we get too confused, what is your wish, Mr. Laliberte? Are you saying that if it reads “deposited in a marine conservation area” that would be satisfactory to you, or do you stick with what you proposed before? This is just so we know exactly where we are.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe the parliamentary secretary was alluding to the French terminology. You're saying that “in” was the word, as opposed to “within”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's acceptable to us.

The Chairman: So moved.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Hold on. I'm getting a nod here.

Mr. Tom Lee: “Within” is definitely the clearer word in English. It is within, it's inside of. You get inside and you deposit it. You don't let it float down the river and get in. So you deposit within, inside of, the marine conservation area. I don't know what the comparative word in French is.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: “Dans”, “à l'intérieur”.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, “à l'intérieur” is equivalent to “within”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then the French version needs to be amended.

• 1705

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: So we have to come to a conclusion and move on. It seems as if the government wants to stick to “within” and change the French to à l'intérieur d' to make it correspond to “within”. If that is the case, then you have the choice of leaving your amendment as it is so we can vote on it and deal with it, or.... What is your wish? We really have to take one side or another and move on. Do I understand, Mr. Lee, you want to stick to “within”, and your suggestion is that the French be changed to à l'intérieur d'?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes.

The Chairman: It is definitely the government's choice to stick to “within”. They will change the French to à l'intérieur d'. So your choice, Mr. Laliberte, if you want to carry on, is to move your motion or leave it for report stage. It's up to you.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We'll move it.

The Chairman: You'll move it.

We'll take this in two stages. First of all, there will be a drafting change, so the French will read à l'intérieur d'. Do we have to make a motion?

The Clerk of the Committee: Somebody has to move it.

The Chairman: Somebody should move it so we can clear that part of it. Somebody should move à l'intérieur d' to replace dans on line 29. So we'll clear that up first.

The clerk tells me Mr. Laliberte's motion comes first, so we'll deal with it first. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We'll strike what we have in there to clarify it, because we don't have the French interpretation. I'll just read how we want it: “or deposited in a conservation area”.

The Chairman: So all the members are clear, your amendment would be that on line 38 the word “within” would be replaced by “in”. Then the French would remain the way it is.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chairman: The amendment by Mr. Laliberte, NDP-25, now reads: the word “within” on line 38 is replaced by the word “in”, and the French version stays the same. So we'll take the vote on that. Do you have a query?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I was just wondering. You have “within”?

The Chairman: No, the word “within”is replaced by “in”.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Right.

The Chairman: The French remains the same, because it already says dans.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We will now deal with a government amendment to change the French version of subclause 29(1) on line 29.

• 1710

Excuse me a minute, but our legal adviser from the Library of Parliament points out to me that under CEPA, when they talk about disposal in the waters under Canadian jurisdiction they say in the English version, “no person shall dispose of any substance in any area of the sea”. In the French they say:

[Translation]

“il est interdit de procéder à l'immersion de substances [...] dans toute zone de mer”.

[English]

He points out that in CEPA we talk about “in” and not “within”.

Mr. Tom Lee: There is a distinction. One understands in the sea that it's applying to the whole sea. This is dealing with a very small part, only that part.

The Chairman: All right.

We will now deal with an amendment to change the French dans to à l'intérieur d'. Have I a mover?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I so move.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We'll now move to NDP-26 by Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I will move it. I would like to change line 41 on page 15 to read:

discharge or deposit from any source, including any land-based source, shall take effective

The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this amendment. It was not at all the intent of the bill to deal with land-based sources. This question does not fall within the scope of this bill. I'm told that it goes even further than CEPA. Therefore, we cannot support the proposed amendment.

You're also proposing to substitute the word “effective” for “reasonable”. There is a subtle difference between these two words. Taking “effective measures” could imply substantial costs. It may be regrettable to have to admit this, but at times, the only option open to us is to take measures that mitigate, rather than eliminate, degradation or risk. If we fail to fully meet our objective, that is if we achieve only 95% or 98% of our stated objective, it still means we took measures that were reasonable, albeit not 100% effective. It's a matter of degree. Again, I'm concerned that this goes a little beyond the legislator's intent.

We oppose this amendment, not because we are mean-spirited or acting in bad faith, but because we are not prepared to give this bill the scope it was never intended to have.

• 1715

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We believe that the conservation areas are definitely non-existent on their own. They depend on an ecosystem they're connected to. There's interconnection with land-based sources, with water-based sources. We still stand by this amendment, that it should be strengthened. This is a matter of the minister having the ability to regulate and also to recover costs to damages incurred in the conservation area from these external courses.

I don't understand where the department is coming from in not opening up and giving themselves the empowerment to recover these costs if the other acts do not fall into place. There's an exception clause already. If none of these other acts falls into place, why doesn't the minister want to accept these powers? This is a power to recover, to clean up and to be able to mitigate for damage.

I will call the question. I know we're running out of time. We have a vote coming in and we might be setting a record here if we finish this.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Just call the question.

The Chairman: Just hold it a minute. Mr. Lee wants to speak.

Mr. Tom Lee: If the other acts reply and we did the work, we would recover on behalf of the federal government. So there isn't a question of cost-recovery there. If it is inside, we do cost-recover; that's what the legislation says. So basically we are covered in terms of cost-recovery. The issue is extending the jurisdiction into other provinces, territories, legislation, and so on.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Amendment R-60 is not moved.

(Clause 29 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 34—Bill C-29)

The Chairman: On clause 34, G-19 is adopted, consequential to G-2. So let's move to G-19a.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Amendments G-19 and G-19a are of a technical nature, that is they are designed to ensure agreement.

[English]

(Amendments agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 34 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chairman: G-20 is adopted, consequential to G-2.

(Clause 35 as amended agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: R-63 is defeated.

• 1720

(Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Now on the preamble, amendment G-1c was stood at the request of the NDP. Could we go back to amendment G-1c, please?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, you can go back to it.

The Chairman: We have not voted on it. Should we vote on it now, amendment G-1c?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chairman: You asked to stand it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No. The issue was coastal communities, and I think everybody understands that we'll bring that in at report stage. I just didn't want to tie my hands—

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —with this one, because it was dealing with other amendments.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Shall the preamble pass as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall clause 1, the short title of the act, pass?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the title pass?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill be reprinted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: That's it. The meeting is adjourned.