ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 17, 2001

• 1532

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon to everyone, and welcome.

[English]

A long journey starts with small steps, as it is said. Our first small step is to tackle clause 2. It is the rule to leave clause 1 and the preamble to the end. Therefore, to begin with, I would urge you to turn to page 6 in that rather voluminous bundle you have before you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to clarify a few things around the process of tabling amendments and speaking to amendments. I understand there were some decisions around the process made or discussed yesterday in committee. It's my understanding that the debate will be limited to one minute for the mover of the amendment, and then one minute for anyone wishing to speak against the amendment. Does this mean that anyone who wants to speak in favour of the amendment is not allowed to speak?

The Chair: Well, as the clerk has probably communicated to those who were unable to attend yesterday, there was a discussion on time. The conclusion was that there would be flexibility on time, but that it would be preferable to keep interventions to the shortest possible time, namely one minute, for the person in favour, and one minute, if any, for the person speaking in opposition.

Certain clauses would not lend themselves to such short interventions. Therefore the prevailing thought is that we will try to move as speedily as we can, with one minute for those in favour and one minute for those opposed.

• 1535

I wished that people who were not present yesterday would be briefed, and I hope they were.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): On that same point of order, Mr. Chair, the sentiment Madam Kraft Sloan has expressed and you have also touched on is that a myriad of these clauses are extremely complex, with a vast amount of complexity requiring debate of great depth.

I would ask the committee to reflect to the CEPA process, in particular the debate that took place on the amendment with respect to adding the capacity for the government to study endocrine disrupters. This single amendment actually took the better part of a full committee sitting. This was probably one of the few pioneering aspects added to CEPA during that process, but this probably would not have happened if we had limited comments to a mere sixty seconds.

We need to have whatever amount of time it actually takes to have an appropriate amount of debate. We should not in any way, shape, or form be looking at a clock and a limit of sixty seconds. We're trying to make committee work substantive and not the same kind of theatrical spectacle we see in the House of Commons, so I don't want to see a sixty-second perspective.

I'd also comment that there's no mandate—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I was interrupted on a point of order when I was still elaborating on what we are going to do. So I don't like this kind of interruption, quite frankly, because I would have covered these items as part of my introductory statement.

However, we covered this theme yesterday fully. We don't need to cover it again. At the urging of several members, it was decided that there ought to be a certain amount of flexibility. We don't need to be reminded of what happened with Bill C-32.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, my point is that there's no procedure to be able to do this. There was no capacity to have a motion or a debate that we would go with that perspective, because you have to let the committee know a day in advance if you're going to do something to actually entrench rules.

I understand from your comments that you don't want to make it inflexible. But I know Madam Kraft Sloan.... On behalf of the Progressive Conservatives, I know that we want to do good a job here. We want to set the rules and maybe have this kind of negativity up front so we can get our work done down the road.

The Chair: What we arrived at yesterday was by consent. There was a thorough discussion. It was communicated to you. And I hope we can start very soon, rather than rediscovering the wheel again.

Madam Redman.

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

I was here yesterday when we had our discussion. I raised one point that, while you did acknowledge it from the chair, I didn't receive a ruling on. It was a request that we have 24-hour written notice of any amendments.

I respectfully submit to this committee that looking at the 350-odd amendments we have just received hardly puts any of us in a position of being familiar with all other amendments. And I would ask this committee to consider at least taking overnight to go through these amendments, so we can, in some small way, start to digest them. Then perhaps we can have a thoughtful discussion and a more expeditious treatment of this worthy material tomorrow, after people have had a chance to actually go through these amendments.

The Chair: Probably the previous member will agree with your request, because everyone who has not been the author of a given amendment will want to be notified, and a one-day notice is therefore a very normal and reasonable expectation.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, are we then looking at concluding today's events and starting tomorrow at clause 2, after people have had a chance to actually go through these motions?

The Chair: We're starting now.

Mrs. Karen Redman: But Mr. Chair, we've just received 350-odd amendments—

The Chair: No, no, we can start now with the amendments that are virtually administrative in nature, the ones not causing enormous headaches—such as the one on page 6 to which I've referred. It is from your department and is an addition.

Do you need to be notified 24 hours in advance for an amendment that you yourself brought before the committee?

• 1540

Mrs. Karen Redman: No, Mr. Chair. I'm quite familiar with the government amendments. But I would contend that there are many other thoughtful interventions and amendments brought forward by other members of this committee. And indeed I don't imagine most of the committee members have had a chance to look at the government amendments.

The Chair: I don't see any serious problems.

If you find a problem that requires reflection overnight in amendments subsequent to the one on page 6, we will then be able to skip them. But we shouldn't throw the afternoon away just because these amendments are here before us, some of which are known to many of you and some of which are very simple in nature, like the one on page 6, which defines what federal lands are.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

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

I believe there was a point of order on the table that we were discussing.

The Chair: Yes. Then we spoke subsequently with Mr. Herron.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, but I am still seeking clarification.

I realize that you have flexibility, and I do appreciate that flexibility resides with the chair. It would be helpful for the members of the committee to have clarification as to what the process will be.

I have a question on the floor, which I'm still seeking an answer to. The question is as follows. Yesterday there was discussion in committee that there would be one minute for the movement of an amendment and one minute for everyone who wants to speak against the amendment. This could mean that one person moved the amendment and had one minute of discussion, and that three or four people wanted to speak against the amendment and it would take three or four minutes. There could be six or seven members who were supportive of the amendment and wanted to add something to the debate.

Will members who are supportive of an amendment, other than its mover, be allowed to speak?

The Chair: Yes. I'm glad you clarified this question for me. In answer, what I proposed yesterday was one speaker in favour, one speaker in opposition, and only one for each side.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I suggest, Mr. Chair, that not all of these amendments are going to be as simple as the one written on page 6. There are many facets to why members might want to support or oppose an amendment. Also, it's very helpful to the democratic process for other members to understand that there is more support or less support on the committee, so they can in turn make up their minds as to whether or not this is a worthy amendment to support.

The Chair: If there is an absolute necessity and urge for more than one speaker in support, we will recognize additional speakers. I invite you to use that prerogative sparingly, so we don't invest a phenomenal amount of time, considering the volume of work before us. I invite you to be a bit spare with this kind of request. But if more than one person wants to speak for a motion, the chair will recognize them. There's no escape from it.

All right, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I wanted to reiterate my concerns, which are similar to those expressed by the others. There are times when we would possibly want all of us to be able to speak, if the scope of the amendment warrants it.

To speak to Mrs. Redman's comments, if we did have some time—perhaps overnight—to go through this, we could probably identify which amendments are of most concern to us.

It's going to be somewhat difficult. I don't know how fast this is going to go, but if it goes too fast I would be quite concerned that we would have more time, having just seen this now, to be able to identify those. So either the process goes very slowly at first, or I would recommend that we did have that 24 hours.

The Chair: At first the process is very slow, there's no doubt about that. But we'll certainly not be pushed. We'll go at the speed of the committee. I can give you this assurance.

Mr. Comartin and Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, if someone has moved the amendment, obviously the representative of that party would speak to it. But if the other four parties are all in opposition to the amendment, how will you determine who among them will speak against it?

The Chair: Whoever raises their hand first will speak first, but if the other three parties absolutely wish to make an intervention, their representatives will raise their hands and they will be recognized.

• 1545

I am only asking you to use this measure with some caution so we don't go into hours of debate. Ideally, one for and one against meets the requirements of many clauses. When it comes to a very complex one, of course, then more than one intervention on each side will be necessary. We will use discretion.

I cannot recall, since we have been working in this committee, when I have denied any member the floor, once an indication has been made by the member wishing to speak. If I have, let me know now.

Mr. John Herron: If that's the guide, we're okay, as long as no one is denied the chance to speak.

If you're using the word “consensus”, there's no consensus for this one-minute formula, given the number of interventions made.

The Chair: There was no consensus yesterday either. It was communicated, in turn, that this was to be interpreted as a very flexible measure that would be changed depending on the complexity of the clause and the amendment.

I regret that the two members were not present, because they would have the full flavour of the discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): That is the point I wished to raise. When you explained it, you did not place much emphasis on the notion of flexibility, while the notion of flexibility was part of yesterday's agreement, which some members of the committee who were not present yesterday may not have understood.

[English]

The Chair: Then would Mr. Herron please say so?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: The notion of flexibility was part of yesterday's agreement. So, to my mind, there is no reason for concern among the members of the committee.

I would like to return to a question raised by Ms. Redman concerning the amendments tabled. I think that each of these amendments must be analysed judiciously. I find it precipitous that we should be presented with these amendments without even having had a chance to look at them.

Ms. Redman has asked that we adjourn. I think that it would indeed be judicious at this stage for us to be given at least 24 hours to examine the amendments, so that we can work constructively. This is an important bill and, to do a good job, we have to take a more in-depth look at it. I therefore request that we be given 24 hours to become familiar with the amendments presented to us.

[English]

The Chair: No one will spend the next 24 hours on it, because there are also some hours dedicated to sleep and other activities while going through this. I'm asking you to give it a try.

We'll start with a few. If we come across one that is really too difficult, we will either adjourn or put it aside and go on to the next one. We will use our common judgment. I'm sure we will get through it. At least we will make good use of the next hour and a half.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want to thank you very much for clarifying the first point I raised on the debating time for each amendment.

I have an additional point for which I'm seeking clarification. I understand amendments had to be in to the committee clerk by noon today. If they were not in today at noon, there would have to be unanimous consent by committee.

Again, as we go through the legislative process, one often finds an amendment that would be necessary and appropriate. I've done this a few times in the past eight years. Given the minister's reluctance to amend any part of this bill, or a concern with doing so, it seems the opposition has put them in a very unfavourable position of having unanimous consent to bring an amendment forward. This is the first time we've ever done it on this committee.

I find it odd that opposition members didn't speak against this yesterday when it was raised in committee.

• 1550

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I have a compromise as to how we might want to proceed with this kind of thing.

First, I think it would be worthwhile to use the time we do have. If we're going over a clause that's not controversial, we'll go forward and see how we do. If there's an issue where there hasn't been an amendment, we have a lot of clauses to go through and we stay on the clause. We move on and try to do a few more amendments. If we get another controversial clause, we'll stand the clause and move forward again. We have an awful lot of work to do. Let's start chipping away.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, could I point out to committee members, unless your amendment was in today by noon, you cannot submit your amendment unless there is unanimous consent. Only one person on this committee could disagree with you, anyone around this table. One person could disagree with your amendment and everyone else could support it, but you do not have the ability to bring your amendment forward.

That's how I understand it. I'm seeking clarification from the chair on this point. I find it odd the opposition has accepted this idea.

Mr. John Herron: I appreciate....

The Chair: Excuse me, may I now say something before this becomes an interesting bilateral communication system?

I'm glad that yesterday the committee agreed that no further amendments would be accepted unless there is unanimous consent. I would like to reiterate the conclusion, because it was the consensus of the committee.

Mr. John Herron: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, an agreement of that nature would be completely out of order. We would have to be given 24 hours' notice in advance that we're going to move a rule change of that nature. It has been the tradition.

The Chair: There's no rule change. It's an understanding and consensus of the committee, keeping the door open to those who wish to introduce an amendment to seek the consensus of the other members of the committee. It is usually given as a matter of courtesy, if not as a matter of substance. I don't see any difficulty.

I think we must pull our oars and get going. We could be here by next Easter at the rate we are going.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, again, I have a point of order. If we refer to the clerk, I'd like to have his advice. In my view, in order to pass something like that, we would have to be given notice of an amendment, or the intent of the committee to actually have the vote, 24 hours in advance and in writing. It has been the tradition of the committee as well. Therefore, I think it would be out of bounds.

The Chair: I will ask the clerk to confirm either way.

The Clerk of the Committee: If there's consent, which I gather there was yesterday, the rule is waived. The motion for 24-hour notice can be waived by consent. There was consent.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The question has to be asked to waive the 24-hour notice.

The Clerk: It was understood.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Maybe members didn't understand what they were agreeing on.

The Chair: It was agreed that we would proceed this way. When we come to that problem, if there is any amendment, which may never occur, we can discuss it again. I don't think we should waste too much time on this now.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, I was here yesterday. We did submit our amendments in August. We spent the summer going through it because we had it before us.

We will work together cooperatively to try to make this bill the best piece of legislation possible. I think if a member wants to bring in an amendment, even if I don't agree with it, I would say at least there is the right to put it before us. I think most of us, unless we become partisan and antagonistic, can get through this bill and work together on it.

It's why I would agree to something like that. If it was to obstruct, slow down, and not get this through, then of course we could have hung everything up. If we get a major thing here, we're going to all get a chance to speak to it. If we want to bring forward an amendment, we will get the opportunity to do that as well. We'll probably get consensus.

I would like to at least start with that as the premise of how we're going to operate. If we're not, of course, then I guess we put on the battle gear and go to war. I would hope it's not going to be the case.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills. You put it very well. I'm sure everybody agrees with you.

Mr. Laliberte.

• 1555

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): To clarify what went through yesterday, you said there's a 24-hour notice required, as suggested by the parliamentary secretary, for any new amendments coming in now. Is that after we have the consent of the committee, or is that 24 hours' notice to arrive here and then it's subject to consent?

The Chair: No, the discussion of the 24 hours is related only to new amendments. Those would be the ones that are in the book right now.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So when does the unanimous consent—

The Chair: Additional amendments, if required, will be sought by way of unanimous consent. And then when they are tabled, of course, 24 hours is desirable, because usually people will want to fully understand the consequences of the proposed amendment at that stage. So at that point, there would be a 24-hour cooling off time, so to say.

Madam Redman.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In closing, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say I didn't realize the structure of the clause-by-clause was going to be discussed yesterday. I had other committee commitments.

The Chair: No, neither did I. But when I—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Neither did I. And Mr. Herron didn't realize that—

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry. But the committee meets, you know, and there is business to be done.

As I prefaced my remarks yesterday morning, the clerk had just informed me that it was no longer 250 but 350 amendments that could be expected. Then the discussion had to take place, first of all, to determine whether there should be a deadline, which was agreed upon, and following that there were other details and aspects of the discussion, which were then duly communicated to members who were unable to be present.

So I don't know beyond that what the committee could do in order to keep everybody happy and informed.

Madam Redman.

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

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have one more point of order.

The Chair: Madam Redman has a point of order, perhaps.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you on a point of order, or just discussion?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would defer to Mr. Comartin. He has not spoken yet.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, on a point of order.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, Mr. Chairman, back to this issue, I want to say I echo Mr. Mills' sentiment—

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In my opinion, this committee has, with very, very few exceptions, been as cooperative as anything I would have anticipated, being the freshman member on the committee.

However, you did not, in fact, yesterday—I've been through the minutes of the meeting yesterday—waive the 24-hour notice. It was not done. It's just not there.

Mr. John Herron: It just wasn't done.

Mr. Joe Comartin: There was a schedule of events that were supposed to occur yesterday. There was not anything in advance that this issue was going to be raised. We had no advance notice of it at all. In fact, the information we got was that there were other events that were going to be raised in the committee meeting yesterday.

So you didn't technically follow what you were supposed to do in terms of waiving the 24-hour notice that has been the practice of this committee. And I believe this provision of mandatory, 100% unanimous consent of amendments is foolish. I certainly would have spoken very strongly against it, as I understand Mr. Herron and Ms. Kraft Sloan would have if they had been there. But we didn't get that chance because we weren't told this issue was coming up.

Just for the record, I'm opposed to that position. I intend to be as cooperative as everybody else who's been here, but we did not get the proper notice.

The Chair: My recollection is we had that discussion and there was that agreement, but if it was not recorded, then we have....

Mr. John Herron: It's not in the Hansard. We can't make it up. The words “Do we waive the 24-hour notice before...” are not in here. Therefore, it doesn't exist. It can't exist that way. It's not in yesterday's Hansard.

The Chair: The clerk has his interpretation. Would you please proceed?

The Clerk: By asking consent of the committee, which the committee got, to waive consent.... Well, not waive consent; it was understood. To ask for new amendments by consent, it's basically understood that the 24-hour notice period is waived.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Did anyone understand that?

The Clerk: It wasn't implicit.

Mr. John Herron: It's not here.

The Speaker would rule differently on it, if it's not here.

The Chair: Well, let's not invoke the Speaker now.

Mr. John Herron: Well, let's not invoke a rule that's out of order.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

• 1600

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): If this is about what silence implies, I think we could spend a lot of time debating what silence implies in parliamentary procedure and the rules. I don't know, but I think there's no consensus now, so I would move we rescind yesterday's decision and allow people to bring amendments. I make that motion.

The Chair: With 24-hour notice?

Mr. Gar Knutson: With 24-hour notice.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson has put a motion forward. It's on the table. Is there any comment or discussion?

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: There has to be unanimous consent.

The Chair: We seek consent to waive the 24-hour notice for Mr. Knutson's procedural motion. Is there consent to waive this requirement? I presume there is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. So Mr. Knutson will bring his motion forward tomorrow.

Are you going to bring it forward tomorrow?

Mr. Gar Knutson: You just said I would.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm asking you if you are going to bring it forward. I want to find out. If you won't, I will.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Twenty-four hours is four o'clock. We're not meeting at four o'clock.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then we'll deal with it on Tuesday next week. Are you going to bring it forward?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'll bring it forward.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, may I have clarification as to what the motion actually is going to say?

The Chair: Mr. Knutson has articulated his motion. Everybody understood so well that it was turned down.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted clarification if it's 24-hour notice to bring in amendments without unanimous consent, or 24-hour notice to bring in amendments with unanimous consent.

Mr. Gar Knutson: My intent is to waive the unanimous consent requirement, which would allow individual members to present amendments under the normal procedure, which would include the 24-hour notice.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

May I guide you now to proceed to page 6, to the first motion, which is related to clause 2. Since it is in the government's name, the parliamentary secretary may want to present it—unless someone else wants to present it.

We are waiting with bated breath, Madam Redman.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

Mrs. Karen Redman: The amendment is that clause 2 be amended by replacing line 5 on page 4 with the following:

federal lands that are administered by that Minister and that are national parks,

This clause defines what is meant by the competent minister in the bill. Not all of these federal lands are national parks, national historic sites, or other protected heritage areas within the administration of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. For example, some are under the administration of the Minister of National Defence, and species on these lands would still be covered, as the Minister of Environment would be the competent minister. This amendment is proposed to clarify the responsibilities of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there questions on the amendment?

Mr. Bob Mills: Where does that relate to first nations lands? When you talk about federal lands that are administered by the minister, are first nations lands then technically administered by the Department of Indian Affairs or not?

The Chair: This is Canadian Heritage. Look at the bill. It's the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can we put that question to the officials?

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Would Ruth Wherry or David Near like to respond?

• 1605

Mr. David Near (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): The amendment is with respect to identifying the responsibilities of the three competent ministers. In this particular case the amendment is with respect to the heritage minister. It's been brought to our attention by the heritage department officials that there are lands that are not administered by the heritage minister, which may be national historic sites, just to use an example. It's not really related to anything to do with aboriginal lands.

The Chair: It's a broadening, in other words, of that clause.

Mr. David Near: Yes, and it's important to understand that the default is always the Minister of the Environment. So there's no gap; there's always a competent minister with respect to any given species.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How does it affect agencies? Because the federal government has set up new agencies and things like that, so the minister is still responsible for the administration of the lands even though they are under the care of an agency. Or does that remove the administration?

Mr. David Near: There's really no removal. Each of the ministers is responsible for the lands they've been assigned, if you like, for the responsibilities they've been assigned by the government. So this is just a clarification that in some instances the heritage minister doesn't actually have administration of lands that may be national historic sites.

I should bring to your attention that if there's a concern with respect to parks, all of them are administered by the heritage minister. It's only in certain rare instances where a national historic site is still administered by the Minister of National Defence, for example. It's a small technical point that was noticed six years after the fact.

The Chair: Is it fair to say that this amendment, Madame Redman, defines better the mandate of the Minister of Canadian Heritage?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's right, Mr. Chair. It's just a clarification of what was in the bill.

The Chair: Any questions? Any interventions? Any problems?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I invite you to turn to amendment L-1 on page 8, please. Mr. Knutson, would you like to take the floor?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you.

None of my amendments in this whole package are particularly controversial, so I think we could approve them quite quickly, actually.

This is a slight expansion of the definition of critical habitat. It turns on the issue of necessary and sufficient conditions for. The term “necessary condition” is a narrow term. The term “necessary and sufficient” for the survival and recovery broadens the definition of critical habitat. Necessary and sufficient conditions are often discussed in first year philosophy classes, but that's not really relevant. It's a slight expansion of the definition.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, you are, in other words, adding two words, “and sufficient”. Is that the essence of your amendment?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Is that understood by everybody? Fine.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask if Simon Nadeau could speak to this.

Mr. Simon Nadeau (Scientific Adviser, Endangered Species and Wildlife Conservation, Environment Canada): I think there are two changes in this one. It adds “sufficient”, but it also changes the “or” between survival and recovery.

I think the difficulty would be actually in identifying critical habitat for a species for which we don't know exactly what the whole critical habitat is. We would know that at least this area where the species is, for example, would be considered necessary. But in order to recover the species we would need supposedly other areas to make it sufficient, but we don't know what these areas would be.

• 1610

So actually when the recovery team or the recovery folks would have to determine what is critical habitat, they wouldn't have sufficient information to do this identification. In the wording of the bill, it wouldn't be possible to do so, so if it's not possible to do so, it would have to be identified later, when that piece of information becomes available. So it would remove flexibility of actually protecting what we know would be at least necessary, if not sufficient, early on.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I interject?

The Chair: Yes, please. Go ahead, one at a time.

Mr. Gar Knutson: With all due respect to the wise officials, I find this argument that we have to know completely bogus. You're telling me that somehow the recovery team will know what habitat is necessary, but the recovery team won't know what habitat is sufficient. I'm sorry, but I don't catch the distinction. If there are ten pieces of habitat that are required so that the species doesn't go extinct, the way this bill is drafted you could protect three, three of the ten that are necessary, but leave out seven. And I'm not sure why you'd want to draft legislation.... I think my amendment is just trying to make the clause more logical.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It would certainly make it more difficult. For a lot of species, we know where the species is, so we know that to actually make it survive we need the area where it is. But in order to get to the recovery stage, and especially when we see here that survival and recovery habitat would have to be identified, then these other areas that are not currently used by the species would also have to be identified. That is often complicated for many species, so that's the difficulty.

Mr. Gar Knutson: In rebuttal?

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Who has the floor?

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think the problem we're having from a definition perspective is you said we know what we need to do to immediately protect the species, that was your first comment, but we wouldn't know what we need to do from a recovery perspective. Guess what? That's the game plan. We're trying to recover species that are at risk. So we're going to go through that process. So I don't see anything strange in that in the first place.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thirty seconds, I think.

The Chair: Yes, it was very tight.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I can understand the official's position, I think, in that “sufficient” could be very wide-ranging and it would depend on the biologist you were talking to as to what that range might be. That could then cause a minister not to protect what's necessary for that species, and in fact this could mean that, due to socio-economic impacts or whatever, he could decide to simply leave that species off the list.

So I'm not sure that it wouldn't be better to get the minimum and then work on it, rather than go the other way. I would tend to agree with the official on that.

The Chair: Yes. Who else has their hand up? Madam Redman or Madam Scherrer. No.

Mr. Knutson, would you read fully how the clause would read if amended?

Mr. Gar Knutson: If amended?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: “ `Critical habitat' means the habitat that is necessary and sufficient for the survival and recovery of a listed species as identified in the recovery plan for the species.”

The Chair: It's “in the recovery plan...”?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's “in the recovery plan for the species”.

The Chair: Not “in the recovery strategy”?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, recovery plan.... Sorry, “in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species”.

The Chair: All right. That's how it would read.

Mr. Gar Knutson: My apologies.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, could I say something very briefly?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I want to suggest one point to Mr. Mills.

One of the concerns that landowners have is that they need to know. So if we want to start with a bare minimum, as you had just stated, and then potentially we might actually go into a landowner's situation, the first thing we should be able to do is have the tool kit to immediately inform them that we may be headed that way. By not having the sufficient thing flagged, and later on trying to move that we inform landowners of the right to know, we're taking away that capacity for working the bare minimum. Landowners may get blindsided that way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1615

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bob Mills: My concern is simply that you're not going to get agreement among the biologists. If it's a fish or something, you could basically say the entire river might be needed. So depending on the species, you could get yourself into some major problems by getting too broad in it, off the top.

Mr. John Herron: I want to know that there's a possibility here.

The Chair: Is there any further intervention?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I invite you to turn to page 9, where there is another government amendment, I believe.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: This is on clause 2—that it be amended by deleting lines 28 to 31 on page 4. This is to show that the Government of Canada is committing to the protection of species at risk. We are proposing to remove an option of going first with guidelines for crown corporations, in the implementation of measures in both action plans and management plans.

This simply means that crown corporations will have to comply with any regulations that are established for the implementation of action and management plans. This can be accomplished by deleting clause 54, relating to action plans, and clause 72, relating to management plans. As these are the only clauses in which the bill uses the term “crown corporations”, there is no need to define the term in clause 2.

The Chair: Does that mean “crown corporations” will be exempted from the act?

Mrs. Karen Redman: No, it doesn't. They will be required to comply with the act, the same as any other.

The Chair: In which clause is it indicated that they will be asked to comply?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would defer to Ms. Wherry.

Ms. Ruth Wherry (Director, Species at Risk Act Office, Environment Canada): Under the bill, crown corporations have to comply with the prohibitions in the bill, just like anybody else.

There was a clause 54 and a clause 72. This is just for regulations that would come out of action plans or management plans. In this particular area it was offering—

The Chair: Excuse me. Why did this clause find its way into this bill in the first place, if it's covered in another piece of legislation? Why are these four lines inserted in this bill?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Could I finish? Crown corporations are covered by this bill the same way other federal entities are. There are no exceptions—only in one area, under clauses 54 and 72, for regulations that would come out of action plans or management plans.

• 1620

In this bill, it currently says the first option with crown corporations is to allow them to go with guidelines. If the guidelines don't work, then you can use the regulations route.

We're proposing to delete that option of first going with guidelines, and make them subject to the regulations, the same as anybody else. If that amendment gets voted and accepted, there is no need then to have a definition of crown corporations. They will not be excluded by this bill. They are included.

The Chair: What happens to the wording in clause 54?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: We would simply delete the option that says they could go with guidelines first, which would make them subject to the regulations like everybody else.

The Chair: All right. Just a moment. We have an intervention by our legal adviser here.

Go ahead.

Ms Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk): Could you give us the numbers of those government motions to do the deletions in clauses 54 and 72? The chair might want to propose to the committee that we treat that as a consequential amendment, and one vote would cover the whole situation.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: It should be considered consequential to the other ones.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: So we're proposing to vote against the entire clause, in amendments G-10 and G-16.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: That's right.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Unfortunately, you cannot do that in committee. The proper course of action is to vote against the clause.

When we get to them we can't treat them, unfortunately, as consequential amendments because of the rules. So we will have to just remember to vote against those clauses when we get to them.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Can we just do it now, so we don't forget?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: I think they'll remind us.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chair: First the committee has to understand clearly the implications of removing the reference to the definition of “crown corporation”. It is not clear yet, at least in our minds, what it all implies.

Madam Redman, and Mr. Near.

Mrs. Karen Redman: This created an exemption for crown corporations from adhering to the requirements of management action plans through guidelines. By deleting the two reference sections, clause 54 and clause 72, which we will do subsequently, it will treat crown corporations as any other corporations under this legislation. Thus there is no need to define a crown corporation in this legislation because it will not be treated in any way differently from any other corporation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: I think that adequately covered my comments, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Thank you.

On page 11 we find Mr. Knutson's motion. Would you like to introduce it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you.

The clause we're dealing with is a definition of habitat. My motions on pages 11 and 12 deal with this section of the bill. The gist of this is to expand slightly the definition of habitat. In paragraph (a), after the word “processes”, it adds:

or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced; and

• 1625

I think it goes back to an earlier point: we're not just about survival; we're about recovering. I know there's no perfect knowledge in this universe, and we won't know precisely which areas those would be, but I think we can instruct through legislation that people use reasonable judgment. So it's submitted with respect, and I ask for the committee's support.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask that this amendment be stood down so that we have a chance to study it, as it has some real impact. We'd like to come back with a fuller response after we've had a chance to look at it more fully.

The Chair: The committee has heard Madam Redman's request. Is there a consensus?

(Amendment allowed to stand)

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I make the same assumption about page 12?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Knutson is nothing if not perceptive, Mr. Chair. We would request the same of that.

The Chair: So this motion is also stood.

Mr. John Herron: Karen, I hope that generosity of spirit will be extended on both sides of the aisle. It's good. I like it.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I said he was perceptive, I don't remember saying “generous”.

The Chair: On page 13, we have another government amendment. Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we've moving that clause 2 be amended by replacing line 35 on page 5 with the following: “Risk set out in Schedule 1.”

The original plan had been for the legal list to be established by regulation pursuant to clause 27. However, the public would expect to find the legal list in a schedule to this act instead of in a regulation. Adding the list as a schedule to the act would result in less complexity for the layperson.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions? There is a procedural question. Please go ahead.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: I'm sure this is a consequential amendment. Perhaps you could tell us which ones are consequential to it.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: This is part of a package tied in with a whole series of amendments proposing a new schedule 1 that would include a number of species in it.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: May we have a list of those? When we vote on this one, we could vote on the others and do an entire package together.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Yes, we have the list together.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments on this amendment? Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm looking for clarification on this.

The Chair: Clarification from Madame Redman?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. Is the list going to be set out in a schedule attached to the bill?

Mrs. Karen Redman: That's right.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How does that affect the legal listing process itself—the timing and triggers in the bill, and all that? Does it have no effect?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: It doesn't really change the listing per se, except that there would be another slight change in clause 27. Again, it's packaged, a series of amendments. Currently, clause 27 says the list may be amended by regulation. There would be another slight amendment in this package to change “regulation” to “order”, because if it's a schedule attached to an act, it's generally done through an order, as opposed to a regulation. It's similar to what is in CEPA.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What is the timing difference for this sort of stuff?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: If you're getting to another one, an order versus a regulation, the process for an order is slightly faster. It's somewhat similar, but it is slightly faster.

• 1630

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I just want to be sure I'm clear that the minister said the COSEWIC list would in fact become the list. What does this do to that statement?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: All it does is say that, in line with the proposal the minister made to add 198 species to a new schedule attached to the bill that the statutory obligations would apply to upon proclamation, the list is set out in schedule 1. If you look at the rest of your motions you will see that what goes with schedule 1 is a whole list of species. Schedule 1 would become the legal list.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This list, then, to add to or delete from at any time, is by proclamation of the minister?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: It's by proposed section 27. Clause 27 enables the Governor in Council to amend or delete from the schedule.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chair, to help the layperson and also the technocrats together, maybe accepting both would help. It would read: “means the List of Wildlife Species at Risk established under section 27 and set out in Schedule 1”.

Why don't you add both? That way, if you're trying to have somebody understand what the list means, clause 27 defines how the list has come about. Schedule 1 will be the actual list.

The Chair: Sounds reasonable, but perhaps there is a profound, complex reason for—

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Proposed section 27 calls for listing through the Governor in Council “by order”. What this proposal is doing is saying there will be species on the legal list as soon as the act is proclaimed. From then on, anything added or deleted from that schedule would be done through proposed section 27 by the Governor in Council through an order.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There's only one list, right?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: At the time of proclamation there's only one list. After proclamation you can add to that same one list or take away from it, but it will be done through the section 27 process, which is by the Governor in Council.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Can you do something to make that clear? If we're having questions like these, it would seem to me others are going to as well. Does that make it clear enough?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I think it does, except that again, it's a bundle of amendments that probably should be considered together with the main one, which is to propose the addition of 198 species in the schedule. When you come to the end of the schedules you will see an amendment that includes 198 species. In making this change we had to change other parts of the bill. This is one of the ones we would have to change. I don't know if you want to consider that series all together at the same time.

• 1635

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, if it facilitates...

The Chair: This amendment, I'm told, is causing some procedural difficulties because it has to be seen as an amendment not just affecting this particular clause but also those to which amendments G-7, G-9, G-15, G-20, G-22, G-23, and G-24 apply. In other words, the government amendment needs to be written in such a manner that it also affects all the other clauses. Otherwise we will have an uneven or incomplete set of amendments that will create confusion. So can we have now an understanding that you would be willing to redraft your amendment, or would you move a motion that would include an understanding that these subsequent amendments would also be touched by this amendment?

Madam Redman.

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

I'm pleased to speak to the bundling. Had we had time to study this, we would have been able to number it, and it would have been less confusing for committee members, because I have—

The Chair: There was time, until yesterday, over the whole summer, Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Well, I have the listing of the government amendments, but I don't have the listing showing how the clerk has prepared them. I'm happy to bring forward those amendments in a bundle if committee members are willing to shuffle paper and find out which ones they are.

The Chair: The numbers are here already. They are available.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: I can give you the numbers if you wish.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Okay.

The Chair: One second, please, I'm just conferring.

Will you proceed?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: They would be G-3, which we're currently discussing, G-7, G-9, G-15, G-20, and G-22.

You want page numbers? Okay.

The Chair: Page numbers will be provided very soon.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was just going to suggest that because we're talking about a number of amendments here, would it be easier just to have it in one package? We can deal with it tomorrow. You could just photocopy all of the amendments, put them in, and we'll get into our micro-mini-packages again. Just pull them all together and we'll deal with them tomorrow instead of trying to rifle through this all over the place and follow it, because it gets confusing.

An hon. member: Then we'll probably pass them.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And we'll probably pass it. Or we could just pass it right now, because that's what's going to happen.

The Chair: The clerk is suggesting something that at least for me seems to make sense. Would you please repeat it?

The Clerk: I have the original package that was submitted to me by Madam Redman. I'll just take the relevant ones out of that package, re-photocopy them, and pass them around tomorrow. Then you can discuss them.

Is that fine?

An hon. member: Great.

The Chair: So we will then stand this particular amendment so that tomorrow we can do it in a comprehensive, clean manner so that it affects all portions of the bill that are impacted by these amendments. Is that correct?

A voice: Perfect. Yes, that's very nice.

The Chair: This particular amendment is stood.

Now we come to page 15. The honourable member for Fundy Royal has the floor.

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

The intent of this particular amendment is to alter the definition so that it becomes biologically applicable to more species, including fish in particular. It makes the definition very similar to the one we had in place with respect to Bill C-65, which many members of the government side supported at that time. It's also supported by a broad coalition, whether from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the Pulp and Paper Institute, or the SARWG group in general.

• 1640

Essentially, with this amendment, the addition of “feeding” contemplates the need of many species that are threatened by the loss of food sources. Further, “feeding” encompasses marine species more comprehensively than the other listed activities, some of which are specific to terrestrial species.

The deletion of “specific” dwelling-place and “similar...place or structure” recognizes that many marine species, like some terrestrial species, do not have precise homes like a fox, a falcon, or a ferret might have. It's intended to be more biologically applicable by including more species in play. So I so move this amendment.

The Chair: Excuse me for asking, but you seem to be placing specific importance on “staging, wintering, and feeding”, in addition to “breeding, rearing or hibernating.”

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Can you explain why?

Mr. John Herron: I have covered off the feeding aspect. “Wintering” refers to certain species whose residence will change on a seasonal basis—the seasonality and the feeding aspect of it as well.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to suggest that this amendment be supported. I'd point out to people that the officials have indicated they don't want to saddle the recovery teams with legislative instructions that aren't doable or don't make sense in the real world. When the head of COSEWIC came, he said the concept of residence, for biologists, was just.... He didn't use the word “silly”, but he said it was too limited and didn't make a whole lot of sense. This tries to expand that concept of “residence” so that it takes in some habitat.

This clause is really about one of the major debates that's going on over this bill, that the bill doesn't protect habitat enough to provide the necessary conditions for recovery and survival. If you listen to the evidence that the scientists gave us, we need to expand the definition of “residence.” We should support it.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to Mr. Bailey.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, in the amendment we talk about “life cycles,” but by listing all the phases of the cycle within the species' life, we're taking on an international compunction here—that is, the breeding or hibernating may indeed be within another country. I guess it would be understood that it's a Canadian act, but at the same time, somebody reading it would say we don't have any jurisdiction over that phase of the cycle.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I respond to that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The question is, if you protect the bird's nest, and that's all you protect and that's what a residence is, but you don't protect—

Mr. Roy Bailey: I know that. I know what you're trying to do, sir.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The point is, the bird is going to die. That's why biologists told us the concept of residence isn't really a good working concept for the biologists in the field.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, followed by Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to re-emphasize the point that Mr. Knutson made. This is one of those sections that is really important, so we should be hearing pros and cons quite extensively.

I want to speak in favour of this amendment. To go back to the final point that was being raised, the reality is that the staging or wintering area is in Canada. The bird or other animal spends their time elsewhere the rest of the year. We have the responsibility to protect it. The present section doesn't let us do that; it doesn't authorize us to do that.

• 1645

We kept hearing the quote—I'm going to mangle it here—that it's like protecting your bedroom but letting the house burn down. That's what the existing wording allows for. This amendment, if it proceeds, would allow us to protect the whole house. It's meaningful. What we have now is close to useless.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I read the amendment, it says: “means a dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other area”, and then it says, “or a place”. The way the English language would be interpreted, “or other area” could mean absolutely anywhere in the universe, which is much broader than in the bill. The bill talks about “other similar area”. It tries to tie it to the nature of a dwelling-place, a den, or a nest. But this just says “or other area or”. “Other area” is far too broad.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In reference to the fact that some species may spend their winters in Canada, unlike many Canadians who don't, I know we've been talking a lot lately about toughening up passport provisions, and so on, but I wasn't aware that species had a citizenship, and just because species spend part of their life cycle in Canada, we can't consider them to be species that Canadians should care about.

I think it has been amply pointed out that we're looking at the biological reality of species, and we want to ensure that this bill has a good, sound biological basis, that it's important to understand just where and how species spend all or part of their life cycle.

I think the amendment put across by Mr. Herron is one that we should support.

The Chair: Mr. Mills, and then Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Bob Mills: Again, as a biology major and so on, I can agree with you that you could broaden it that much. But I look back to government enforcing this sort of thing, and when you broaden it so much, which is what you'd like to do, there are trade-offs you have to make. In everyday life we have to make those trade-offs.

You're broadening it to include provincial and international issues, and I think you'll just get government inaction when you broaden it that much. At least this way you have your foot in the door; you're going to get some action, and you're going to start to preserve that species. If you go for the whole shot, I tend to think you'll get nothing.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: At the risk of overstepping my bounds as a tourist, I listened to Mr. Herron's argument, and I think this is a very important amendment. Unfortunately, I think it needs some time to be studied. I'd be uncomfortable forcing the issue now. I would move that we stand this amendment. Given the importance, I think it needs to be dealt with in a very serious way, and given the reservations that I'm hearing, I think it's probably in the interests of the amendment to stand it until we've had time to look at it.

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, do you want to conclude this round of discussion?

Mr. John Herron: I'm okay with standing it down, but I do want to address a couple of specific points that were brought forth.

First off, in terms of getting into jurisdiction where we're not welcome, if we're talking about international aspects across boundaries, it is federal jurisdiction. That's our job.

Secondly, with respect to “other area”, if you look at it—I'd say this to Paul and Bob—it's qualified specifically, because if you read further, it says “that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals” through their life cycles. It actually defines for what purpose. It doesn't say the whole universe. It defines the activities involved. It's not as broad as any other part of the universe. So there is more specificity there.

The final comment is this: We know we need to have recovery plans and that these things have to be taken into account at some point. If we're saying the intent of what we want to do, we shouldn't be fearful about actually saying it. That's what this amendment actually does.

So if I have the votes in the room, let's go forward. If not, we can stand her down.

We're standing down.

• 1650

The Chair: All right, we'll stand, as agreed.

Mr. John Herron: Maybe we can do some horse trading here, Karen.

The Chair: On page 16, there is a motion that overlaps with Mr. Herron's.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. Mr. Chair, given the discussion we've just had, I would ask that we stand this one down as well, because there are elements that are similar.

The Chair: That takes us to page 17.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Withdrawn.

The Chair: Withdrawn. Do we have the consent of the committee to have it withdrawn?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: He hasn't moved it.

The Chair: He hasn't moved it.

Mr. John Herron: I haven't moved it.

The Chair: Page 18, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is a new definition. It defines “transboundary species”. I would seek the counsel of the committee. It's part of a group of amendments, otherwise it would be silly to stick in a definition of transboundary species unless it applied to future amendments. If we're making the decision to deal with related amendments all at one time, as a group, then I would be prepared to do that. However, I'd prefer not to do it tomorrow. I'd prefer to do it next week.

The Chair: Should we suspend it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, I'm asking, are we going to deal with amendments by group?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: We have to.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We have to? Thank you. Then I would stand the whole group of them—and I'm sure Eugene can tell us what the group was.

The Chair: Can you identify the group?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Not without referring to my notes, which are back in my office, but I'll....

The Chair: Mr. Knutson has requested that we stand this. Is that agreed?

We come to page 19, a motion by Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just to explain this, Mr. Chair, it's the change of a word from “biological” to “genetically”. That stands closer to what would be modern, scientific terminology—“biologically” being rather vague. So the purpose of this is simply housekeeping to make it fit with what you're talking about. There's more accuracy and consistency with species and subspecies. This is a recommendation we heard from several scientists as well.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have a question, because there are other amendments here that overlap this one. There is “geographically or genetically distinct” populations. What happens if Mr. Mills' amendment is supported? Can we then go on to looking at adding “geographically”? Which order do we do this in?

The Chair: Apparently, we can amend a line only once. Therefore, it would be desirable that any amendment that amends that line be as comprehensive as possible because of that limitation imposed by the rules. Is that what you're saying?

• 1655

So the suggestion is that we look at all the amendments for these lines and choose which is the one the committee wishes to have discussed and voted upon, in view of the limitation imposed by the rules that any given line can be amended only once.

Mr. Herron, and then Mr. Forseth.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I'd like to support the amendment Mr. Mills has moved. That is encompassed in the amendments that follow his that include....

An hon. member: Geographical.

Mr. John Herron: Geographical—thank you. There are a number of species that have become clearly distinct species in that regard, and I refer to our Shetland ponies on Sable Island, which have been there for over 400 years and are now geographically distinct. That's a very tangible example. So I think Mr. Mills' amendment would be augmented by accepting any one of the following four that included “geographically”.

The Chair: Well, you have an amendment, Mr. Herron, that covers both items, the geographic and the genetic. So does Madam Kraft Sloan, as does Mr. Comartin. So who is going to pull a straw?

Mr. Paul Forseth: We have to finish discussion.

The Chair: Yes, you have a point, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Herron's made his point and I'm going to make my point that we heard evidence that the word “genetically” does add some sophistication to the bill, but going as far as “geographically” is problematic. I recall hearing evidence about various geographic distinctions between various rivers on the west coast of British Columbia with salmon and so on. It goes down a road that is not wise. So I think that—

The Chair: Mr. Forseth, you are discussing an amendment that is not yet before us.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, we're discussing the concept of the two before us here. I'm saying we can support adding the genetic nuance, but if we're going to go into the other ones that add that plus the geographic one, I think that's inappropriate.

The Chair: So you would rather discuss first and vote on the amendment that deals with “genetically distinct” population only. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's a matter of having a discussion on these two concepts, and then we can try to sort it out.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: First of all, if a clause passes, we cannot deal with the other clause. There was a suggestion from the chair that we deal with the most comprehensive one first. The question, I believe, that was given to committee was whether we should proceed. There are two or three amendments that include geographic distinction. Should we proceed with Mr. Comartin's, Mr Herron's, or mine?

I don't care. I think the important decision we have to make right now is to proceed with the most comprehensive amendment. We can have a discussion about that, and then we can have a discussion about the amendment.

The Chair: I remember making this point a few minutes ago. A decision has to be made as to which of the amendments ought to be discussed among the ones that include the geographic as well as the genetic dimension.

Mr. Bob Mills: Could we get a legal opinion?

The Chair: Yes, we will. But at this point Mr. Forseth has indicated his aversion to expand on an amendment that would include the geographic; therefore, until we have somehow dealt with Mr. Forseth's objection, we cannot choose from the other three. However, let us first of all have a comment on the amendment that is before us, which is only Mr. Mills' at this point, namely the genetically distinct population.

Now, would you like to say something?

• 1700

Ms. Susan Baldwin: There is a method you may want to consider for proceeding. I think it would be best to move Mr. Mills' amendment. Then to have a distinct discussion, you could move a geographical subamendment to Mr. Mills' amendment.

There is a fourth amendment from Mr. Herron that mentions variety. I don't know whether he wishes to have that one discussed or not. You could discuss the first geographical subamendment. Then you decide on it, because you can only have an amendment and a subamendment before the committee.

If you wish, you could then come back and move the variety subamendment. After you've amended the Mr. Mills' main motion, you would have a complete discussion on the matter that would cover all four of the motions. Does that make sense?

The Chair: It makes sense, but I think you have to be more clear.

You can amend Mr. Mills' amendment.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes, correct.

The Chair: You can also amend the amendment.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Once you decide on the first subamendment, anyone may propose another subamendment.

The Chair: Yes. You can have more subamendments.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes.

The Chair: All right.

Let's go back to Mr. Mills' motion for a moment to get a comment on the “genetic” dimension. Is there any comment to be made on this? There is definitely a difference between “biological” and “genetic”. I hope the distinction is clear in the minds of the members, because we are embarking on a very difficult journey.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: My point exactly, Mr. Chair. I thought there was an understanding at the beginning of today's meeting where anything that was particularly controversial or took us on a difficult journey we would defer. I ask that we do so.

The Chair: All right. We can do so. Let us get input on “biological” and “genetic”, so you can mull it over overnight in the next 24 or 36 hours.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: In our opinion, actually, the term “biologically” is broader than any of the terms proposed, including “genetic”. It actually includes genetic differences. It includes geographical differences that would lead to biological differences. It also includes other circumstances where we would know that two groups of individuals are different. COSEWIC should be able to look at these independently.

For example, you can have groups of animals that behave differently. You know the two are not the same, but you might not be able to find genetic differences. Genetics is a difficult tool to use. They don't necessarily have different geography either. You could have appearance differences, plumage differences, but the two forms would co-occur. All of these indicators are actually grouped under what we would call biological differences or biologically distinct populations.

The Chair: Mr. Herron has a question.

Mr. John Herron: I have a question. COSEWIC, who are biologist folks, are saying “genetically” is the better word to utilize. The Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador also argues that “genetically distinct” is less controversial, because it's easier to prove than “biologically distinct”.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It's a subset.

Mr. John Herron: You can prove it. I would hate to have too broad a word, as we were using in our other debate. It's more scientific. It's easier to prove in that regard.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It's not more scientific in the sense that up to very recently, before genetic tools existed, we did have recognized sub-species, for example. We knew from looking at them that they looked different.

The difficulty is if COSEWIC didn't have genetic evidence, they wouldn't be able to list two different forms. They wouldn't have the data. They would know that somewhere in their genome or genetic background there would be differences. You have to find that, and it takes a lot of work, a lot of study, to find out.

Mr. John Herron: Why are COSEWIC scientists more comfortable with this biological term?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: COSEWIC doesn't use the term “genetically different”.

Mr. John Herron: They're the individuals who actually suggested we go forward in that realm. It matches what we did in Bill C-65.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: They asked for “geographically different” populations because it's an indicator. It's something that is part of “biological differences”. We're arguing that it is broader. It's what we're proposing.

The Chair: Mrs. Kraft Sloan, do you have any questions?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want to talk to you on the “geographically distinct” side. As I recall, there was a lot of scientific evidence around the issue of using “genetically distinct” versus “biologically distinct”. It had been suggested “biological” may be broader, but it didn't make a lot of sense.

• 1705

I would like the opportunity to go through the testimony. I would like to defer this.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: This question is for Mr. Nadeau. If I hear you correctly, you are saying “biologically” is a broad enough term that you wouldn't have to specify geography, and so on. Is it all-inclusive? Is that what I hear you saying?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Why don't we adjourn at this point. We haven't had time to absorb all the information we have received. Rather than move on to other items that are more mechanical, as some of the following motions are, we will resume tomorrow at this very point. We will resolve it.

We will also resolve the issue that we stood with the consequential impact of the amendment by Madame Redman.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have one item, before people leave.

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Would the chair like to make an impassioned plea for support of his private member's bill tonight?

The Chair: No, he wouldn't. It would be out of order.

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We need unanimous consent.

The Chair: We will resume at this point tomorrow at 9 a.m.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.