ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 18, 2001

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We can start. Welcome, everybody.

You will recall that yesterday we adjourned at a very interesting point, on the amendment by Mr. Mills, and the similar amendments by Mr. Comartin, Madam Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Herron. That will be the object of quite a good discussion very soon. However, why don't we first do some cleaning up of what we stood in the name of the government, because there were some consequential amendments that needed to be taken into account. Also, there was some question that needed to be clarified on page 13.

The clerk reminds us that we should deal with the motion by Mr. Knutson, which I will read. It was the subject of a brief discussion yesterday. It was decided we would deal with it this morning:

That the decision of the Committee on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 “requiring unanimous consent for the introduction of the amendments submitted after 12:00 noon, Wednesday, October 17, 2001” be rescinded.

Are there any questions?

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): I'm inclined to support Mr. Knutson's motion.

My perspective on this—and I believe the Hansard of the meeting before says this—is there was no situation where an amendment had been passed that was in order, in the first place. So in my view, we're rescinding something that never took place from the get-go. That's more than just a technical argument, should this not pass.

(Motion agreed to on division)

The Chair: There were only three who didn't raise their hands.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I'm opposed.

The Chair: We'll take note of that fact, Mr. Tonks.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I just want to suggest that perhaps we could have a 24-hour period when amendments could be introduced. Does that still apply? May I have clarification on that?

The Chair: I think this motion has taken care of that aspect.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But it would waive the 24-hour period. I was going to suggest, in order that members of the committee be adequately prepared, that amendment be given a 24-hour period. I was just opposed to the unanimous consent provision of that.

• 0910

Is this something the committee has cleared?

The Chair: I think that was the understanding in the first place, already.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: All right.

The Chair: Any amendment introduced is required to have a 24-hour cool-off period, as was suggested already by Madam Redman on Tuesday. That is part of the understanding.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then the clause will be stood down as well. We do that in good faith on this committee.

The Chair: Yes, it goes with it automatically.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Just to refresh your memories, please look at page 13.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, could I just interrupt? I apologize. For scheduling of our meetings, do we have a fairly set schedule now, so we will know for planning purposes?

The Chair: Yes. That question was also asked on Tuesday. The answer I gave was that we have three slots: Tuesday morning, Wednesday afternoon, and Thursday morning. In each case we will try, particularly on Wednesday, unless there is a vote, to sit until 6:30, to complete our work better. On Tuesday and Thursday we may sit until then, but not always, as there are constraints imposed by other committees that require the same room.

We were told yesterday that amendment G-3 on page 13 sets out in the schedule the rolled-over species, if I remember correctly. The question that still needs to be clarified is what happens to subsequent additions to or removals from the list? I think we were centring around that topic, and we need some clarification on that, if I recall the line of questioning correctly.

Who would like to answer that?

Ms. Ruth Wherry (Director, Species at Risk Act Office, Environment Canada): The motion on page 13 merely clarifies that there will be a schedule 1 to the act, which will include any species to which the statutory obligations apply. So that one is merely saying there will be a schedule 1, and that will be the so-called legal list.

Later motions will say these species will go on schedule 1 right now—198 species. After the act is proclaimed, clause 27 will allow the GIC to add to it or take away from it—to amend that schedule 1 to clause 27, which is the GIC listing process.

The Chair: Does that clarify the issue for everybody? Is the motion now written in a manner that satisfies your technical requirements?

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk): Yes, but I have another problem.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: If you look at clause 27, the government motion G-7 is consequential to G-3. If we pass G-3, that means we also immediately pass G-7. That means we have a line conflict with a number of other motions at the beginning of clause 27, which includes some Alliance motions, some Liberal motions, one of Mr. Herron's and also a Bloc motion.

The committee might want to proceed to clause 27 and see how they wish to handle that, before they decide on this particular consequential amendment.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Redman, and Mr. Comartin.

• 0915

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I suggest that clause 27 is an extraordinarily important clause for this bill. As counsel has already pointed out, there are a number of amendments attached to this section. I suggest we defer the matter of these clauses and discuss all of them together as a group.

It was discussed, in part, yesterday that some of the amendments had a broader and more encompassing range to them, and therefore we decided yesterday we would look at all of the amendments and decide which way the committee wanted to go.

So something that sounded like an inconsequential amendment is actually having a huge impact on this bill and other amendments.

The Chair: All right. I will propose, if you are agreeable, to stand G-3 until we deal with clause 27 in a proper manner. Are you in agreement?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): It's not just clause 27; five other clauses, including clause 42, are similarly affected. I believe there are proposed amendments on at least some of those other clauses.

The Chair: Counsel will check which other clauses are impacted by G-3, and let us know. So we'll stand G-3 for the time being.

Next we have a motion we stood yesterday, on page 15, by the member for Fundy—Royal, who is scheming something.

Would you like, Mr. Herron, to deal with your motion on page 15, regarding residence?

Mr. John Herron: Is that where we're going to go again here?

The Chair: It's the one we stood yesterday.

Mr. John Herron: I see that Mrs. Redman is quite excited about this particular amendment. She might want to make an interjection on this.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'm excited about all aspects of this bill and its many amendments.

I am just seeking clarification. According to my notes, two preceding amendments were also stood down yesterday. I wonder if we are going to start at the beginning and work through.

I have no problem starting with Mr. Herron's motion currently, but pages 11 and 12 were also stood down yesterday.

The Chair: They were.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I'm just seeking clarificaton as to how we're proceeding, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you for bringing it up, because it escaped me. We'd better go back.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

The committee had agreed to the hiring and contracting of Ian Rounthwaite. Mr. Rounthwaite provided the committee with advice on endangered species in the last round. This clause has a lot of importance around how we see the actual residence of a species, so I was going to suggest that perhaps this is one of those clauses that should be dealt with when Mr. Rounthwaite is here.

Mr. John Herron: I think that's sage advice. I would concur with that approach.

The Chair: You're referring to Mr. Herron's motion on residence.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

• 0920

I also have a motion on residence, which is a little different from Mr. Herron's. So I would suggest that this be stood down. I should have asked for a little clarification yesterday, but it was my understanding that these are the sorts of things that we would be discussing with Mr. Rounthwaite, and I think it's vitally important to the legislation as well.

The Chair: Mr. Rounthwaite's opinion could be very helpful to the committee, so I have no difficulties in putting this aside with a big R, which means Rounthwaite, and to put it into the package to be discussed when he will appear before the committee as originally planned.

Could we then go back and do what Madam Redman was suggesting, namely that we clean up what is on page 11 and page 12?

Madam Redman.

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

I was just going to say, taking into account some of my colleagues' comments, that we're prepared to deal with page 11 and 12 today if the committee is so prepared.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, are you ready to deal with your motion on page 11?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): The motion on clause 2 is actually part of a group that includes clauses 58, 59, and 11(3). My intent was to give the clerk copies of all my amendments in groupings this morning and then give him time to distribute them. Then my hope was we would start to deal with my groups of amendments on Tuesday.

The Chair: Are you agreeable?

Fine, we'll do it on Tuesday then—next Tuesday.

Apparently the legal group is working eagerly at grouping the amendments that have consequential impacts. That type of work will be completed by Tuesday morning, so we will be able to deal with Mr. Knutson's motion and with other motions as well.

A voice: With all of them.

The Chair: With all of them. Good.

Yes, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is that all of the consequential amendments, regardless of who has submitted them, including the government's consequential amendments?

The Chair: That's correct.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm impressed. That's quite an exercise.

The Chair: Yes, it is.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: It's going to be a lot of work.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You will find your place in heaven.

The Chair: This takes us now back to Mr. Mills' amendment on page 19, which is accompanied by one by Mr. Comartin, Madam Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Herron. Mr. Herron's is the one with the broadest net or the broadest impact, so to say.

I'm reminded of the fact that as a committee we received a letter from COSEWIC some 100 years ago, it seems, but it was only in August 2000. On page 3 of that letter, prepared by David Green, who you may recall is COSEWIC's chair, you find a reference to this section and a definition of “wildlife species”. You may recall this letter. If not, we can readily distribute it.

In that letter they make a reference to the present wording of the bill—actually at that time it was Bill C-33—and then they suggest an amendment, which reads:

“wildlife species” means a species variety or biogeographically defined population of animal or plant or other organism, other than a bacterium...

Then there is a rationale attached to it.

Probably the question we should ask our advisers is why does the bill not contain the definition as proposed by COSEWIC, which is the body in charge of this whole exercise? Why is there a variation?

• 0925

Mr. Simon Nadeau (Scientific Adviser, Endangered Species and Wildlife Conservation, Environment Canada): Actually, the COSEWIC definition for a species always changed over time. Their current definition is a bit different from the one you've just read. They've removed the “bio” from “biogeographically defined populations” so that it reads now, “any indigenous species, subspecies, variety or geographically defined population of wild flora and fauna”. That's their May 2001 definition. So it keeps changing. And that is one of the reasons why there's a preference for the broader concept of biologically different populations, so that if COSEWIC decides to alter its definition over time, we have something that's a bit broader that would capture it all.

Having said that, I think the definition that COSEWIC uses currently is fine.

The Chair: The other point COSEWIC is making, it would appear, is to them a species is a distinct biological society, so to say, a distinct biological group, and therefore the insertion of “biological” is not that important, because it's implicit in the word “species”.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: The “species” definition of COSEWIC includes entities that are below the species level, such as subspecies and populations. And the terms they're using, or indicators of distinctiveness, if you will, include geography and variety. But variety is really a population when it applies to plants. So it's only to make sure that it also applies to plants. But “population” would be fine.

The Chair: It would appear from the definition in the bill that the word “biologically” is redundant, according to COSEWIC, because the word “species” implies a biological distinction.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Different species are biologically different, but two subspecies are also biologically different and two populations are also biologically different. So it's a broader term.

The Chair: All right.

Madam Redman, Mr. Herron, Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

We have four amendments dealing with this section. And further to Mr. Nadeau's intervention, if we're going to look at the broadest definition possible, I would suggest that perhaps the one on page 22 by Mr. Herron is the broadest of the four that we have before us.

The Chair: I agree. I would imagine everybody agrees on that.

Mr. Herron, is that the speech you wanted to make?

Mr. John Herron: I want to know if that was a comment in favour of or... But I thought Mr. Nadeau's comments were quite helpful to this particular amendment, because he actually chose to use the word “variety”, which is one of the additions that actually made it even broader. And I would say that given that Mr. Nadeau seems to be warm to the COSEWIC definition in utilizing the word “variety”, beyond just using plants, it could apply to mammals, as well. An example of what we could have would be when we're looking at the Algonquin wolves while the scientific community determines whether they are in fact related to the grey wolf. It's a different variety, but they're not quite sure yet. So there would be a different type of example that could be used, and I wanted to thank him for his addition to utilizing that particular word.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

I think that COSEWIC's advice is well taken in this instance, in that, as I understand, a number of the scientists who came before the committee said that “biological” lacked a lot of clarity. I think when we look at the addition of “geographically or genetically distinct populations”, we have to take into consideration the fact that particularly “geographically” is the approach that COSEWIC is certainly taking right now, and has taken with their reassessment of species. So one would ask, if this were not in the bill, what would happen to that newly reassessed list and all the practical fieldwork that COSEWIC has been working on?

• 0930

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: For me the key word is the genetic part of it, which is much more specific than the biological term. I don't quite know where that starts and stops. I think the word “geographic” is a little fuzzy. I'm not sure exactly of its implications. Maybe Mr. Nadeau could clear that up. If we put geographical into that, does that mean that... The only thing I can think of right now is a red-shafted flicker in Alberta and a yellow-shafted flicker in B.C. Because the mountains separated them, genetically they developed this one unique difference. Is that what we're talking about?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Actually in the current COSEWIC procedures, when they don't have evidence or proof that two different populations are genetically different, that they are two different subspecies or variety or population, they use some kind of a geographical framework. They look at the species within a pre-defined geographical area. If they find that the species is at risk within that geographical area, then COSEWIC would list the entity within that geographical area as at risk, even if it could occur in other geographical areas. That's the system they're using.

The Chair: The committee should try to avoid discussions on how many angels can sit on the tip of a pin, perhaps.

We have four motions. I would be inclined to call the first one on the same subject and see what the committee thinks.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was just going to add that when COSEWIC is looking at geographically distinct subspecies, they're looking at species or subspecies that are geographically isolated. Often they are genetically distinct, because they've had a very long period of time of evolution that is separate from the rest of the species. So it's not just a matter of a bunch of animals hanging out in one little area. These are scientists who have developed these procedures over a long period of time.

The Chair: The COSEWIC-suggested amendment highlights the importance of the word “variety”, or “biogeographically defined population”. That is where their focus is—on the word “variety” and “biogeographically defined”. So that's what I can only tell you in terms of COSEWIC's latest outlook in the year 2000. However, in the year 2001 there is already a variation on the theme. Do the words “variety” and “biogeographically defined” still exist in the definition you have?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: For “variety”, yes. They changed “biogeographically” to “geographically”.

The Chair: Fine. So with that clarification, can we proceed now with Mr. Mills' amendment first, followed by the others, if the first one doesn't carry?

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have a point of order. From the advice we had yesterday, I assume we have to make the amendment now. So I will move that if Mr. Mills' amendment is on the floor, I wish to make a subamendment, which is to add the term—his wording—“geographically distinct”.

The Chair: So that it would read...

Mr. Joe Comartin: That line would read, “cies or genetically distinct population”.

The Chair: So that is your subamendment.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That's correct.

The Chair: Fine. It is clearly understood. We stop there.

• 0935

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, if that were to proceed we're going down the road of subamendments to broaden. So I would seek help from the legislative clerks to encompass the language that I utilized in my amendment. That would speak to variety and to the genetically distinct aspect as well.

In my view, it's very important because of how COSEWIC identifies a species. There's a process where they go through geography. They look at variety and they even look at the genetics. So all three of these elements are looked at. This is how they do it.

The Chair: So we're moving on by way of another subamendment—

Mr. John Herron: There you go.

The Chair: —to include the concept of variety and genetically distinct. Is that all right? No, genetically is already there.

We have two subamendments—one that adds the term “geography” and the other one that includes the term “variety”. Is that clearly understood?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: I think he said “geographically”.

The Chair: Geographically, yes, and variety.

May I have your attention for a moment? It may clarify... and then I will recognize people.

We will first deal with the subamendment by Mr. Comartin, then with the subamendment by Mr. Herron, then with the amendment by Mr. Mills, and then we'll resolve it.

Madam Redman.

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

I'm seeking clarification truly in the spirit of just that. We have just changed the amendment on page 19, with the exception in the passage of these two subamendments, to be the amendment on page 22. I've already stated that it's the broadest definition and the one the government could support.

The Chair: Yes, that the essence of—

Mrs. Karen Redman: If we continue on this road, would it not be possible for the proponents of the amendments to not move them and just go to page 22? Or are we going to proceed in this somewhat cumbersome manner?

The Chair: By unanimous consent we could. But I am guided by the order in which the amendments were received and are listed in the book. Out of fairness to the first one, namely Mr. Mills, I am forced or obliged to deal with his. But if there is unanimous consent to jump to Mr. Herron's amendment, which has all three concepts in one, that can be done.

Is there unanimous consent? There is. Thank you.

Since you have moved your own amendment, Mr. Mills, would you be so kind as to withdraw it?

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Having done that, we can go to page 22. We have, instead of those subamendments and amendment, just one amendment that includes the three concepts. I have to ask you whether you are ready for the question.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just for clarification on the geography, western bluebirds are quite plentiful in Alberta. They're probably almost endangered in Manitoba. So now with the addition of geography, we're saying that COSEWIC might list them as an endangered species because of the geography of the situation. Obviously if you're in Manitoba they are endangered. In Alberta they're not endangered. Is that the right interpretation of what we're saying?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Not taking the specific example of the bluebird, yes it is. It currently happens that species that are abundant in some part of the country or not considered to be at risk, if you will, are actually considered at risk in other parts. So the leopard frog, for example, on the prairies is listed as endangered, I believe. It's also listed in the province of Alberta. But around here it's not at risk at all.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

• 0940

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, if you recall the testimony we had from COSEWIC, they addressed this point. They indicated what Monsieur Nadeau said, that there would be times it would in fact be listed, even though the species was plentiful somewhere else in the country. But there are other times when, if the species that was plentiful elsewhere was fairly close geographically, they haven't listed it. I think the answer to your question is that there's potential for either to happen. COSEWIC may list and they may not, depending on, I think, the proximity of the species that is vibrant and viable.

The Chair: Mr. Nadeau, you especially have to clarify for us if there is a species in danger in a specific geography, then COSEWIC would specify that point as well, and it would be listed as such for that particular geography. That's the point Mr. Comartin is making, which answers your point.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just again for clarity, for instance, with the bluebird or the leopard frog, if I were the farmer who was being told that this is an endangered species in Manitoba, the guy in Alberta would not be under the same restrictions the person in Manitoba would.

The Chair: Correct.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think, as Mr. Comartin pointed out, it would be noted that there is a large population in Alberta, while the population in Manitoba is not as large. We are also talking about species that are geographically isolated; therefore, in many respects they're genetically distinct, which gets to your concern. Then we also have the recovery strategy process itself, which looks at socio-economics and will take the stakeholders' interests. So if there is a farmer who is in Manitoba and one in another province, obviously those things will be taken into consideration as well.

The Chair: Ms. Redman.

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

We've talked about terrestrial animals. I wonder if we could have Mr. Powles come forward from the Department of Fisheries to give us their input on aquatic species.

The Chair: Could you please introduce yourself?

Mr. Howard Powles (Director, Biodiversity Science Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Howard Powles, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, director of the biodiversity science branch, and I'm also a member of COSEWIC.

In terms of your debate on this issue, I did think Mr. Nadeau gave a very good general response on this one yesterday, in that “biologically distinct” encompasses all the other elements, including geography, genetics, and so on.

I speak from the perspective of aquatic species. There's a lot of work going on now on the genetics and the separation of populations in aquatic species, and of course we manage by population already, as best we can define them. There seems to be a perception that the genetic information or the genetic word can be much more precise or unequivocal, but in fact genetic information can be quite difficult to interpret, in aquatic species anyway. Depending on which markers you use, you can get contradictory results. In other words, if you use mitocondrial DNA, you may get a different answer from micro-satellites or different markers in the genetics. It's not as clear-cut as perceived.

So we do feel, as Simon said yesterday, that taking all the biological information together—a good interpretation of genetics; tagging results; the differences in life histories; morphology, as he mentioned; plumage; and colours in fish—is a good way to go about it. And we've certainly thought that “biologically distinct” would be good.

The other thing about using “geographically” is you can have species or populations that are geographically together but are distinct. We have these little forms that diverge in lakes—for example, the Lake Utopia dwarf smelt, or the Cultus Lake pygmy sculpin, that are diverging. They're geographically together, but they are distinct populations. So we feel, as Simon said, that “biologically distinct” would be better.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But Mr. Powles, that's not COSEWIC's position—at least it wasn't the position they took before this committee earlier this year.

• 0945

Mr. Howard Powles: This is true. There was considerable debate within COSEWIC about what would be said to the committee, and Dr. Green did his best to bring the various opinions together. This is an area, both on the technical side and in the area of applying what we know scientifically to policy and protection, where there's a lot of debate right now. The Americans, in their act, have a way of going about this that seems to be working out pretty well. There's a lot of debate in COSEWIC. We keep on debating it. So yes, you're right: it's not entirely consistent with what COSEWIC says.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We've now heard all the views on this subject. We now face the amendment by Mr. Herron. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We go to page 23. Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: No, they're gone now.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: We never moved them.

Mr. Bob Mills: My reason for this amendment is simply that this is largely already dealt with in clause 1, so I just wondered why it was necessary to repeat all of that clause.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Nadeau, would you like to reply? The point was that this particular definition is already dealt with in clause 1.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I think there has to be consistency between the first part of the definition and part two of the definition. This is more or less what COSEWIC is using in terms of guidelines to decide that a species is a true Canadian species. It decided it has to have been present in Canada for 50 years, and if we don't have evidence to prove that, then COSEWIC decides that it's presumed to have been present for 50 years.

The Chair: Is that convincing enough?

Mr. Bob Mills: So you're saying it's necessary to repeat that in order to clarify it?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: This is actually applying the precautionary principle to deciding whether a species warrants evaluation by COSEWIC for its risk assessment. It's using a precautionary principle that in the absence of data proving the species has been present in every single year for a 50-year period, it's presumed to have been present.

Actually, for most species, especially rare species, the information is a bit scanty. It's been accumulated more over recent years, but historically, we don't have a good track of the presence or absence of species. So I think this could be used for a number of cases.

Mr. Bob Mills: So the fact that we've had three very warm winters in Alberta and we now find we have cardinals showing up in southern Alberta... They've never been there before. There are maybe one or two sightings a year. They would now be an endangered species, obviously, because there are so few of them. Will we assume they've been there for 50 years?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: No. We have good evidence that cardinals been expanding their range in the last few decades because of feeders that people have put on their lawns. We have trend data showing they've been expanding their range and expanding populations. It's the kind of information used by COSEWIC to assess status—the trends. The trend is actually positive, so a species like that would not be listed as at risk by COSEWIC.

Mr. Bob Mills: Okay. Then I'm satisfied.

• 0950

The Chair: The amendment has not been formally moved, so we can withdraw it.

We then come to page 24. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We've just passed this amendment in a fuller form. I'm wondering if Mr. Herron would like to suggest a friendly amendment and add “variety”, being such an interesting variety of human subspecies himself.

Mr. John Herron: My answer, clearly, is yes. My assistant and I were just saying, as Mrs. Kraft Sloan brought that forward, we missed an opportunity to include “variety”. Given that the government has seen in their wisdom to support that term, for the sake of consistency we should maintain that approach.

The Chair: Provide the text, please, of what you're suggesting.

Mr. John Herron: After the word “species”, we will add two words to my amendment PCDR-3. It will read:

cies, subspecies variety or geographically or genetically distinct population

The Chair: Are you then deferring to Mr. Herron's amendment?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I think it's very appropriate.

The Chair: We are now on page 25 instead of page 24.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Mr. Herron had missed variety in his, I see. Yes, of course, very good.

The Chair: You have a new amendment on page 25, with the insertion of the word “variety” after subspecies.

Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): May I suggest that wherever we see “biologically distinct population”, we submit throughout the document, just for sake of text, “variety or geographically or genetically distinct population of”.

Maybe the clerk could give us some advice on that, for consistency purposes.

The Chair: This is the only place where it appears, as far as we know, but if it does, we will certainly watch it.

Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): I see nonetheless a difference between the English version and the French since in the proposal in the English text, on page 25, “subspecies” has been added, which is not in the French version. Is it included elsewhere or is it simply an oversight?

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We talk about "species" and "subspecies". Is it the population at that time?

The Chair: You are right, there is a text... We should read the bill.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: It is not in there. All right.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On page 26, Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

I am somewhat puzzled by this subclause 2(4). I'm just wondering if I can get the parliamentary secretary to explain what's intended.

• 0955

Mrs. Karen Redman: Being the parliamentary secretary, can I defer to the officials?

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near (Legal Counsel, Environment Canada): When this type of clause was first proposed seven or eight years ago, there was a suggestion that we could, by regulation, introduce new definitions to the legislation. There would be no intention to substitute a regulation for something that was actually defined in the bill.

Anticipating your next question, it is a highly unusual provision, and is not common in federal legislation.

The Chair: What would be the net effect of this particular clause?

Mr. David Near: There would be the possibility for the GIC, by regulation, to introduce a new definition that would operate with respect to the legislation. It wouldn't replace one of the existing ones Parliament had passed, but would introduce a new definition.

As I recall the policy decision at the time, there was some concern that something new in the science would come up that had not been anticipated when the bill had passed through Parliament.

The Chair: Wouldn't the government of the day take an amendment to Parliament then?

Mr. David Near: That would obviously be a longer exercise.

The Chair: But it would bypass Parliament by adopting this, would you agree?

Mr. David Near: As I indicated to you before, Mr. Chair, it is an unusual provision.

The Chair: Will you define the word “unusual”?

Mr. David Near: Unusual has a very general interpretation.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm extremely uncomfortable with the text, as it is right now. I have an amendment that mimics Mrs. Kraft Sloan's here. That's the purpose of Parliament. In a democracy we don't want people to be able to do end runs around Parliament. We're actually here to provide the capacity to set these definitions.

In a society, lawmakers are supposed to be democratically elected and accountable. If this were done in an arbitrary fashion, we would lose that element of accountability. This would be more than just an unusual approach; it would be very close to being draconian.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I am very concerned that in a piece of legislation that defers so much to the GIC, here again, as Mr. Herron has pointed out and as you have pointed out, we're doing an end run on Parliament and deferring statutory authority outside of Parliament.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to finish after the officials had spoken.

It is a very unusual provision in this bill, and the government is prepared to support deleting it, if that's the wish of the committee. So I guess I would ask for the question to be called.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Mr. Mills has a motion coming up on page 28 related to this.

The Chair: It may not be necessary. Decide on this. If it carries, that motion will be redundant.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to move this amendment. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 2 as amended allowed to stand)

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Clause 2 deals with definitions. If there are other amendments that inflict any changes on definitions, is it possible to come back?

• 1000

The Chair: Yes. And we'll be here until the year 3001.

(On clause 6—Purposes)

The Chair: Now, I invite you to move to page 29. There is here an amendment by Mr. Mills on clause 6.

Would Mr. Bailey like to explain it, perhaps?

Mr. Roy Bailey: In regard to my amendment CA-7, Mr. Chairman, I sense that this act is going to be more acceptable with its passing if the public has an input into the regulations. We must aim as this group for cooperation. I believe that the draft regulations should be placed in a public registry for public comment for a period of time. I think that a number of these particular ones deal just with that.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Is that the same one?

The Chair: Yes, we are. Yes, we are dealing with page 29.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think it's page 28. It's to put regulations in a public registry, and we can't not do that.

The Chair: Are we are on page 28?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We're on CA-8, next page.

The Chair: We are?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Bailey, I deleted the clause that precedes your amendment, so you don't need your amendment.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I apologize. You deleted it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We deleted the clause you recommended with the qualifier effect.

The Chair: So perhaps you would like to explain the motion, CA-8, on page 29.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think what's written there is self-explanatory, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on the proposed amendment?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: On page 29?

The Chair: On page 29.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is probably a topic that's near and dear to your heart, the issue of sustainable development. As we all know, there are many ways to interpret it.

I have a great deal of concern with suggesting that “The purposes of this Act are, in a manner consistent with the goals of sustainable development, to prevent wildlife species from” extirpation, etc., because as we all know, environmental protection is different from sustainable development.

My fear is we are adding yet another burden of socio-economic hurdles. This act is about the prevention of wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct, etc. This is not an act around sustainable development; they are two different things.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Redman.

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

The government would not be in favour of this motion, specifically for some of the reasons already mentioned by my colleague. Certainly socio-economic considerations are built in throughout Bill C-5 in the implement action, as well as GIC discretion and consideration, and recovery strategies as well as action plans. So as much as I'm sure this is well intended, it is not the intent of this bill.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think if we were to proceed with this amendment, and I am opposed to it, we would have to put into the act a definition of “sustainable development”. Again, Mr. Chair, you're more knowledgeable than I think any of us sitting here of the various ways that term has been interpreted, some of which would be quite offensive to environmentalists. So I don't think it's necessary to proceed with this amendment and I would be voting against it.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, in the light of the comments made, would you still like to move the motion?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I want to make a comment. I want to point out that you can't have a... If it's going to be sustainable, there are economics and costs involved. If you say that is adequately covered in other parts of the bill, fine. If so, I would withdraw. I'm not sure that is adequately covered, though.

• 1005

The Chair: That is a question of judgment. You have seen the bill yourself. You have to determine whether you're satisfied with the coverage in the balance of the bill. What I'm asking you is whether you still wish to proceed with the amendment.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes, I do, sir.

The Chair: The amendment has been moved. Are you ready for the question?

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to speak to it, Mr. Chair.

I come from a rural area that's going to be affected potentially seriously by this legislation, and I think it's essential that we consider sustainable development as a part of this wildlife act. The act does not stand on its own. Consistently throughout the act, we talk about the groups we need to consult with. It talks about the need to consult with provincial ministers. It talks about the need to consult with aboriginal groups. We need to consult with wildlife management boards. But it never in there says explicitly that people need to be consulted who are at the local level.

As I read through that act, consistently it struck me that this can affect in a huge way those areas, particularly rural ones. I notice that we have lots of urban people here who are concerned about the environment, but it does affect the rural areas probably more than anywhere. We need to consider sustainable development as part of this act when we're considering wildlife and how we treat them.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: May I have your indulgence in calling clauses that were not touched by amendments but which the chair must call for approval?

(Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 7—Composition)

The Chair: There are no amendments on clause 7. Shall clause 7 carry?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Can I ask that clause 7 be stood until further work on the draft of an amendment is worked on?

(Clause 7 allowed to stand)

The Chair: We now move to clause 8 on page 30, where there is an amendment, CA-9, by Mr. Mills. Would you like to elaborate?

Mr. Roy Bailey: We see throughout this bill the third party involvement in the administration of this act. This can be positive in itself. Responsibility in this case must be limited to the Government of Canada and its agencies. So the regulations must stipulate who may be accorded delegation under what circumstances. Also, these regulations must be developed in consultation with the stakeholders, and that's the reason for the amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Could we have a comment from... Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Were you going to ask the government witnesses?

The Chair: I was going to ask Madam Redman whether she wishes to comment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would prefer to wait.

The Chair: Comments?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask the officials.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: The purpose of this section is to enable delegation of responsibilities to prevent duplication, for example. Sometime you may wish to delegate a function such as the issuing of permits to a provincial authority, again to avoid duplication of efforts, or delegate enforcement functions.

• 1010

The Chair: Is that satisfactory, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Can I ask another question to the...

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Would this mean that the government could delegate authority to a group such as the Wildlife Federation? Does it mean that they could delegate the authority to an individual themselves in the protection and—

Ms. Ruth Wherry: As currently drafted, yes.

The Chair: As currently drafted in the bill? The answer is yes, apparently. I would have said no, but I have to defer to your judgment.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As I understand, “person” includes a corporation, so you could delegate the enforcement of this act to say a pulp and paper company, or what have you. Or you could delegate any aspect of this act to any individual. So I have a great deal of concern about this particular clause. This is an incredibly wide-sweeping delegation of authority, because any authority under this act may be delegated to anyone.

The Chair: I don't think we're on the same wavelength here. Why are you saying yes to Mr. Bailey's question if it is quite clear in lines 8, 9, and 10, “delegate to any person any of that minister's powers”? This cannot be transferred to an association of frog-interested citizens. These are the powers and functions of the ministers. Your answer should be no.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I was merely clarifying what the provision in the bill would enable, and yes, the wording in the bill would enable this to happen.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I disagree with you. Your interpretation is wrong.

Mr. Joe Comartin: No, it's right. She's agreeing with you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: She's agreeing with you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Then I'm sorry, but Mr. Bailey is getting conflicting messages, as I am, because he is interpreting your answer to mean that this delegation could be transferred to the type of association he was referring to.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So is everyone else.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: The current wording in the bill would enable delegation to any person, and if that person were, for example, a head of a corporation, the current wording could enable that.

The Chair: A corporation would have the minister's powers or functions?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chair: That is absurd.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I know.

Just as the members opposite might have some concern if a conservation organization or an environmental NGO were the recipient of the delegation of any of the minister's authority, I have a concern that an industry NGO might be the recipient of the delegation of authority, because one of the things we continually forget through this process is how discretion works. Discretion works both ways.

A number of members around this table are concerned that discretion will not work for the preservation of species, but the other thing is that discretion opens up a lot of activity that perhaps people you represent or feel strongly about are not going to be treated fairly.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Wearing my lawyer's hat, I don't know if it is constitutionally permissible for a government minister to do this. Have we had a constitutional opinion as to whether you can in fact delegate to that degree? It seems to me it's a total abdication.

• 1015

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: It is legally possible for Parliament to decide that a minister can delegate the authority. I'm not advocating one way or the other with respect to the provision. It is important to remember, however, that a minister can take back and remains ultimately accountable for any powers that he or she delegates.

So it's legally possible to delegate to any person. Whether or not it's a clause you wish to pursue is up to you.

The Chair: Madame Redman, and then Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak a little bit broadly on this amendment, because there's a subsequent amendment coming up that I think speaks to some of the concerns you're hearing around this amendment, which is that perhaps we need to look at narrowing the ability of the minister to delegate.

Yes, it is constitutional, to my understanding, Mr. Comartin, but it is also important that the minister have that kind of flexibility for some of the reasons that Ms. Wherry talked about, looking at not duplicating effort and being able to consistently apply the same kind of standard.

The government is certainly amenable to limiting the delegation if we look at the next amendment, which talks about the delegation of actual enforcement and having the minister report annually on all agreements so that they would be part of the public discussion around how this act unfolds.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As a member of this committee since 1994, I have heard overlap and duplication used as an argument time and time again. There was an environmental harmonization accord drawn up between the federal government and the provinces as a result of overlap and duplication. Every time the issue of overlap and duplication came before the committee, we asked for an example. We were never given a single example. The government finally got off the overlap and duplication track. Unfortunately, I see that rearing its ugly head again.

I am terribly concerned that any person in the country of Canada can be the recipient of any power of the minister under this act. May I underline those two points, please?

I would suggest that Mr. Bailey, acting on behalf of Mr. Mills, be responsive to a friendly amendment that “government wildlife management board or any other body established under a treaty” be substituted for “person”.

The Chair: Where would that apply in the text?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The text itself would read:

8.(2) The Minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may, after consultation with the other two ministers, delegate to any government wildlife management board or any other body established under a treaty any of that minister's powers or functions under this Act.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: At this time I'd like to put forth a motion that we stand this so we have an opportunity to study the amendment, because with all due respect, I think what you have added is a whole lot more than maybe we as a group, and right now certainly I, could do. So we could stand this until tomorrow.

The Chair: There is a lot of wisdom in Mr. Bailey's suggestion for a number of different reasons, so we will stand this amendment and this page.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: We will move, then, to page 31.

Mrs. Karen Redman: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair—

The Chair: It's on the same subject, so we have to stand it.

• 1020

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, I presume then that we're standing down both page 30 and 31, as those pertain to the same section. Are we then considering a notice of motion by Ms. Kraft Sloan that we consider her amendment to be friendly to what has been put forward by Mr. Mills? Is that a new amendment?

The Chair: Which page are you referring to?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, but my friendly amendment—always friendly, Mr. Bailey—was to the amendment on page 30—

The Chair: That's correct.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: —which, as I understand it, is being stood. Also, I have amendments on pages 31 and 32 that I would like to stand for Mr. Rounthwaite.

The Chair: We are standing pages 30, 31, and 32.

(Amendments allowed to stand)

The Chair: We then come to page 33, an amendment by Mr. Mills.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is in respect to the same issue. This is a timeline issue with regard to clause 8. It should be stood.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 8 allowed to stand)

(On clause 9—Advisory committees to assist Minister)

The Chair: We will move now to clause 9, and an amendment on page 34 in the name of Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Once more, Mr. Chairman, in this amendment we talk about “one or more committees, in accordance with the regulations, to advise the Minister”. It seems that we have to clarify this issue by that amendment.

The Chair: So you're inserting the term “in accordance with the regulations”.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Right.

The Chair: I'm advised that we should stand this also, because it is dependent on the outcome of clause 8. Once that clause is decided upon, we can decide on this particular amendment.

Mr. David Near: With respect, I don't see that clause 9 is attached to clause 8, actually.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: It may not be, but it appeared to me that it was all on the subject of what's going to be under regulation and what isn't. If I'm mistaken, please explain to the committee.

Mr. David Near: Clause 9 is the ability to generate advisory committees to assist the minister. Clause 8 deals with the possibility of delegation.

The Chair: Then we'll deal with it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, as I understand counsel, she is saying it's connected because it has to do with the making of regulations. So does that mean that to any clause to this bill that has to do with the making of regulations, those are all consequential amendments? In my interpretation, I don't see clauses 8 and 9 as related, but I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at.

The Chair: What Mr. Mills is proposing here is to insert the word “in accordance with the regulations”. That insertion would be on line 22 of clause 9.

Are there any questions? Madame Redman.

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

• 1025

Mr. Bailey, I appreciate the fact that the intent is to clarify. I'm just at a loss to follow that line of logic as to how adding “in accordance with the regulations” clarifies either this or the next amendment section.

Mr. Roy Bailey: What Mr. Mills had in mind, and certainly what I have in mind, is a clarification to the public of accountability. I think that's one of the things we need to emphasize. Adding “one or more committees, in accordance... to advise the minister” just emphasizes the point of accountability throughout this act.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When I looked at this amendment where it said “in accordance with the regulations”, I thought they were saying they had to do this because of the way the regulations were drawn up. But one of the researchers from the Library of Parliament has suggested to me it requires that regulations are made if they don't currently exist. Is this then a requirement to have a regulation-making process around this particular activity, so whenever we see this it's not merely saying you have to follow the regulations, but you have to make the regulations? Is that correct?

The Chair: Increase the budget of the department, Mr. Bailey.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The debate should not be whether they follow regulations, but whether it's necessary to make regulations around this activity. Right?

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, could we ask the officials to comment? I think there's an issue of timing, as well.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Madam Kraft Sloan has said a lot of what I was going to say. You would actually have to create regulations, if you put something like this in.

This provision is simply to set up any kind of advisory committee, whether it be an aboriginal advisory committee or any other advisory committee, to give advice to the minister. That's all it is. To have a requirement to create a regulation and have it be in accordance with a regulation seems overly burdensome.

The Chair: In light of the comments made, would you still like to move this motion?

Mr. Roy Bailey: With all due respect, I think it only stands to reason that if a committee is being appointed, they act in accordance with the regulations. I see no reason why that would constitute an extra expenditure on the part of the government or anybody else. The regulations are in place, and these committees should abide by those regulations. That's what we're saying.

The Chair: So you're moving the motion?

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's right.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question? Would you like to speak on it?

Mr. David Anderson: Yes, I would.

If you're going to be establishing committees in order to look at these kinds of things, they obviously need some direction to them; they need some regulation of them. It's obvious you need to make sure there's no conflict of interest within the committees. We need to make sure the committees are not just political appointments. We're sure this government wouldn't do it, but future ones may.

We also need to make sure there's a point of urgency in setting parameters for those committees and getting the results from them. They have to have some guidelines and direction in what they're doing. That's all this amendment suggests—accountability.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There would be extensive costs on the part of the government. They would have to undertake a regulation-making process because you're suggesting here they create regulations—

Mr. Roy Bailey: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. We've had that discussion, Mr. Bailey. It may not be what you intended with this, but the actual effect is that the government would be required to make regulations in this particular situation.

My concern is cost. I also want to avoid red tape, which I'm sure is something the Alliance Party is interested in—saving taxpayers' money and avoiding extra red tape. I would like the money to go to saving endangered species.

I'm also concerned, as you are Mr. Anderson, about urgency. If we have to go through a regulation-making process, the minister's ability to consult and receive advice is going to be delayed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Could we have a very brief rebuttal please?

• 1030

Mr. Roy Bailey: You appoint committees. The regulations are already there, and they abide by those regulations when they are appointed. I'm at a loss to understand why you have to make new regulations for a new committee. You may have to sit down and lay out guidelines under which they work, but I don't see that this invites a whole lot of extra expense.

The Chair: From past experiences, that conclusion may be fairly accurate, that it would require...

Could we now come to a conclusion? Are you ready for the vote?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We have a motion by Mr. Mills on page 35. Would you like to move it, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10—Administrative agreements)

The Chair: On clause 10, we have two amendments: one by Mr. Mills, and one by Mr. Herron.

Mr. Bailey, would you like to introduce your motion?

Mr. Roy Bailey: It's rather a large motion, in that we're replacing lines 33 to 40, and the wording is there.

I think, if we read this carefully, there is a clarification in the amendment that members of this committee could take a look at. There's a bit of a definition involved too, with “landowner”, which I think is imperative that we understand.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments? Madam Redman.

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

I would ask Ms. Wherry if she would like to speak to this amendment.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I think it's primarily very similar to what is already in there, other than what was pointed out. It's just highlighting the landowner, etc.

The only point I would make about this is if you start highlighting other groups to put in it, you then perhaps exclude some main groups for this legislation, aboriginal peoples, for example, and you would then have to deal with that issue, whereas the wording in clause 10 covers everybody.

The Chair: Thank you.

A brief intervention from Mr. Reed, then Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): It just seems to me this is already covered in clause 8, where the minister has ultimate responsibility, is ultimately accountable, and is able to make agreements with anybody. Is that not true?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Clause 10 is for administrative agreements. Normally, administrative agreements are done with government bodies, governments, etc.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Julian Reed: But in clause 8—

The Chair: No, clause 8 is different from clause 10 in substance, Mr. Reed. There is a big difference.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): I have a question. As I can see, there is a difference. You say that there is little difference between the two clauses but, I do see one: the one proposed by Mr. Mills in his amendment to paragraph (a), namely "a provincial government". Why has it not been included first in the bill, if it is similar?

[English]

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Sorry, when I gave my first explanation, I thought we were talking about clause 11.

Clause 10 refers to any government, so that would include a provincial or territorial government.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Just along the same lines, I am a landowner and a cattle operator. It would seem to be important that the landowner be defined in there and be one with whom an agreement could be made. Why was the landowner not included?

• 1035

The Chair: Because, as Madam Wherry explained already, this is an administrative agreement between members of government.

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. David Anderson: The point I'd like to make is that the practical administration of this act is going to be done at the ground level by the people on the ground, who are the landowners and the resource users, and I don't see there should be a problem including them in the administration of the act. In order for it to be practical and to work efficiently, it's going to have to be done by them, through them.

The Chair: But this would not be the place to insert that concept at this stage.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, perhaps it would be helpful if Madam Wherry were to give us some examples of administrative agreements. Mr. Anderson's concern may better be reflected through the recovery strategy process as well as the action planning process, because that's really where the on-the-ground work is. I think if you gave us some examples of administrative agreements, that would clarify it for members.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Actually, I would add that if you went ahead to clause 11, where you have the stewardship agreements, that in particular, I think, would address your concerns and what you're really looking for. Clause 11 is certainly the place for that discussion.

As I said, clause 10 is primarily administrative-type agreements that you do usually with governments for administrating the legislation itself.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question? Would those in favour please so indicate?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, in light of what has been said and the topics that have been raised, I would withdraw this one, and we'll move directly to clause 11.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to allow Mr. Bailey to withdraw the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron's motion on pages 37 to 38 impinges on clause 27. Therefore he has asked that it be stood for that reason? Is that correct?

Mr. John Herron: There are two issues here in play. It infringes on clause 27 with listing, and in clause 29 with respect to emergency listing. I guess technically this would actually go in between clause 10 and clause 11. It would be inserted between them. So that's where we would actually proceed, if I'm square with the clerk on that particular point.

But I think we should stand this down, and not just for the technical reason of clauses 27 and 29. I'd like to very briefly speak to the amendment itself. We've always maintained that we wanted to have a very cooperative approach and really foster stewardship.

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting for a second. Why wouldn't you keep your speech for when we come to the time to present and move the motion?

Mr. John Herron: Because I'd like to be able to afford the government members some opportunity to be able to contemplate the origin of this amendment, and given that it is rather long, they would have a chance to reflect on the language involved.

The Chair: Quite briefly.

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The purpose of the proposal is to state clearly in the act that the toolkit we've been talking about with respect to stewardship is in fact available. This enables the minister to further prove to the landowners and stakeholders—who, for all practical reasons, are the people who are going to be on the ground and who are going to have to implement it—that he or she will be able to work closely with the landowners in designing solutions.

As I said before, there are consequential amendments to this that relate to clauses 27 and 29. If you look at the menu of a national action plan, I want to point out in particular that the national stewardship action plan we're proposing here says “shall include, but is not limited to”, so there's flexibility in that regard.

• 1040

If you look at every one of these items right from paragraphs 10.2(a) to (i), they are issues that officials, NGOs, industry, and landowners had all flagged in the past. Landowners said they need to have these stewardship initiatives if we want them to be involved in the game. This is proof that they must look at these issues from a steward's perspective.

I'd like the members to reflect on this, even though we can't deal with it until clauses 27 and 29—to see whether we can really demonstrate that there's a national stewardship action plan.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, we will be standing this down until Mr. Rounthwaite's visit, then.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

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

At the risk of abusing the chair's good nature, I really appreciate having heard Mr. Herron's rationale. I would like to make just one further point. Specifically, why is paragraph 10.2(h) included? Could you either give us that in written form or, briefly, verbally, tell us why that's there?

Mr. John Herron: The purpose of paragraph (h) is a commitment to notify the landowners, subject to clauses 27 and 29. Once the species is listed, this is the bare minimum that we should be able to do to the potential stakeholders who could be affected. If they are informed, sometimes that's as far as we need to go. They can then take some reasonable stewardship initiatives, saying, okay, now that you've told me, I can avoid that particular section or I'll take that particular measure. It's the public's right to know. We need to inform the stakeholders right away, so that they can say okay, we may have a potential problem and can ask, what does that mean. The sooner we can do that, the sooner we can take the very progressive step, in turn, to obtaining buy-in. I think paragraph 10.2(h) may be almost one of the most valuable items of the whole menu.

The Chair: Thank you.

I can see the merits of informing members about a motion that is being stood. But I would hope that we use this practice sparsely in future.

With your indulgence, I will call clause 10—I forgot to call it.

(Clause 10 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Now we are on clause 11, on page 39, with the motion by Mr. Mills. This is the same issue as in clause 10. So what would you like to do, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I would like to just make a brief comment, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

There are three main points, and I want to name them. This motion and this amendment was designed to name those who are responsible for the primary stewardship, namely, the landowners and the resource community. It also puts landowners and resource users as potential administrators of this act. I think that's imperative to have. It is also a symbolic thing in the place of the order of consultations. It's very important, because in this act you are going to be dealing with hundreds and hundreds of landowners, and they should be listed as resource users of this act. That's why this amendment is here.

The Chair: How would you like to dispose of this amendment?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I would like to see it booted.

The Chair: You would like to move it?

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's right.

The Chair: All right. The motion by Mr. Mills has been moved by Mr. Bailey.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I appreciate that explanation and would observe that most of these groups are certainly covered by the current wording. I'd ask Ms. Wherry whether she wants to make a comment about it.

The Chair: Please, let us have a short comment.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Basically I would like to say that all of the groups identified in here are covered by the current wording. Having said that, this merely highlights some groups specifically. The only downside in doing so is then you may exclude some inadvertently.

The Chair: Mr. Anderson.

Mr. David Anderson: I think at some point the government needs to recognize that this bill needs to be more appealing, particularly to landowners. Landowners I know see this as a coercive piece of legislation. It's through amendments such as this that the government can show that it is interested in landowners and actually dealing with them on a fair basis. I think this is going to come up fairly often. It has before.

• 1045

Ms. Wherry didn't say it this time, but on clause 10 she said that this would be the place for this amendment to go, so I'm just bringing that up again. Now she says that it isn't, but she did say that this was the place for it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Are there other interventions? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have an amendment on subclause 11(3). This is regarding protection of critical habitat. It also refers to clauses 2, 58, and 59. They all have to do with critical habitat, and I'm wondering whether we can deal with them as a group.

The Chair: You would like this clause to be stood for the purpose of your amendments.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right.

The Chair: We can deal with this amendment now, but we will keep the clause open. Is that all right?

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I'm still speaking to the amendment before us, Mr. Chair. I would ask whether we could hear from some aboriginal representatives. The point has already been made that if you mention some groups, you may leave some off. I wonder whether we could hear an intervention from a representative of that group.

The Chair: Is there anyone in the room?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Or, failing that, may I make a friendly amendment to add aboriginal people onto that list so that they're not overlooked?

The Chair: Would you like to read it then?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would make that as a friendly amendment.

The Chair: As paragraph 11(1)(e), or how would you...

Mrs. Karen Redman: To paragraph 11(1)(c).

The Chair: Added to paragraph 11(1)(c).

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

The Chair: Would you read it as “landowner, aboriginal people”?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

The Chair: Would you say aboriginal person or people?

Mrs. Karen Redman: People.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, are you putting it in paragraph 11(1)(c)?

The Chair: Madam Redman is proposing after the word “landowner”—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Because if you're putting it in paragraph 11(1)(c), we're talking about individuals. If you use “people”, you're referring to a group.

The Chair: That's why the suggestion was made of “person”.

Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: The current wording was designed to encompass aboriginal individual persons, aboriginal organizations, and because there's always the debate about whether or not in some instances there is an aboriginal government, the phrase was used “any government in Canada” to try to avoid that ongoing debate. So the current wording in the legislation covers all three possibilities with respect to aboriginal people.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I think the earlier comments were very apt.

The Chair: Your comments.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm just going to explain them. I'm trying to pull them out of my memory cells, which often are very slow. The comment was that when we list individuals specifically, we often leave other people out. I would tend to agree, because right now we're experiencing that problem.

The Chair: That was a point made earlier by Madam Wherry.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If there's coverage already in this clause, then I have confidence that this is fine.

The Chair: All right, we have had a considerable amount of input.

Mr. Anderson.

Mr. David Anderson: I'd just like to make the point that throughout the legislation landowners are left out. They're not mentioned. There are other groups that are included specifically and often, but landowners are not one of those.

The Chair: But there is the word “person”, and person includes landowners and people who are also not landowners.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sorry, Mr. Chair, but there are examples throughout the bill where people who have a direct interest in the land are referred to, and I think that would cover off the landowner as well.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Yes, you are. With the addition made by Madame Redman.

Do you still want it in?

• 1050

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chairperson, in the spirit of more clarity, perhaps rather than add it to (c) we would make another subclause. Perhaps it could be (d) and the existing (d) could be (e) and just say “aboriginal people”.

The Chair: So first we have to go to Madam Redman's subamendment.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm trying to reflect on this amendment and how it fits. The original intention, as David mentioned, is that any government, organization, or person covers all the different dynamics that you're trying to encompass in the aboriginal sense. But when you look at the amendment that's brought in, it eliminates any government, not only aboriginal government. There are local governments, there are regional governments that are involved, there are municipal governments, there are rural municipal government, county governments, which are now discarded and hopefully fall under the organization or person category.

So I think this would be well worth standing, because I think if there's an essence of massaging it to fit, I'd rather see the right wording fall into place.

The Chair: I don't know what we would achieve by standing it. You have part (a) of the amendment that refers to provincial or territorial government.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The text that exists in the act now deals with any government, organization, or person, and that disappears in this one. It doesn't reflect any government.

The Chair: This is the point of Mr. Near. I concur with Mr. Near that the way it is phrased now is much more comprehensive than this shopping list. Therefore, I wonder why we should insert an additional section in this amendment if we are of that view.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Perhaps this could be cleared up in part (a) if we just simply had “any government in Canada”. That would include provincial, local, and so on. Maybe that's where an amendment should take place.

The Chair: That's what it says on lines 6 and 7. Anyway, I would like with your consensus now to bring this piece together for some kind of decision. We have a subamendment by Madam Redman to insert a part (d) so that aboriginal people are included.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now we have the amendment, CA-15, as presented before us by Mr. Bailey on behalf of Mr. Mills.

(Amendment as amended negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On page 40, Mr. Mills, your amendment seeks to replace lines 10 to 13 in clause 11... Instead of “may” it is a “shall”, so it is from permissive into mandatory in essence.

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's correct.

The Chair: Fine.

Any comments from the officials?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Was this possibly intended to be hooked to the earlier motion for amending the purposes section?

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

• 1055

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think this ensures that the government takes the measures and it makes it compulsory that they take these measures in respect of that particular species. It also allows the government greater flexibility in their work of conservation and in any work the government may undertake. But it's about the compulsory nature of having it not “may” but that they “shall”. “May” gives the government a great deal of leeway to opt out of their responsibility.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I read this amendment in exactly the opposite way, in that by changing is from “may” to “shall” it makes is less flexible and doesn't allow for the agreements to be purely with a conservation objective.

The Chair: Could you please give us your wisdom twice?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I read this as making the clause less flexible, as it doesn't keep agreements purely with conservation objectives.

The Chair: Mr. Anderson.

Mr. David Anderson: Ms. Kraft Sloan had a concern earlier that we were going to be putting regulations into place that we wouldn't need or wouldn't use. If you put a “may” provision in there you allow the government to come to these agreements and then do nothing with them. And that's a good way to spend money without getting any results. So this just encourages them to produce results from what they have already initiated.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Herron and Mr. Comartin.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to pick up from where Ms. Redman was coming from, maybe to help the movers on the amendment. In terms of the permitting capacity for the government that may jeopardize protected habitat or species, there's a provision in clause 74 that permits this to go forward. This clause is about stewardship, and there needs to be more clarity that this is about recovering a species. Clause 74 is where the flexibility element is involved that would provide the minister the permitting capacity to encounter socio-economic aspects.

So I would say that the objectives they're looking for here should not be blended into stewardship, because the stewardship aspect is about recovery, and clause 74 is about the actual permitting for socio-economic situations.

I think that might help my colleagues.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: My question is really to Mr. Bailey. In terms of the attempt to make it more compulsory, I'm not sure why he would then put in “may include measures” at the end of the third line of the amendment. I'm not understanding the thrust of that. I would think that if it were to be consistent it would be “shall”. I wonder if I could have that clarified.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think that in ensuring that the government take conservation efforts in respect to a species and then it's up to them, and through the regulations they may take any measure they see to their advantage, the “shall” is making sure that they proceed.

So I think that with the “may” clause we have put in there it's up to the determination of themselves and their officials.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, the minister is ultimately accountable. Therefore, it seems to me that to leave flexibility in the hands of the minister is very appropriate in this case. To tie a minister's hands and say the minister “shall” creates an entirely different atmosphere.

Just remember, ultimately the minister is accountable in every respect.

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes. Part of that accountability, though, comes out of the acts the minister is responsible for. And it seems to me as though where we're trying to do the best possible for endangered species, putting in “shall” retains much more accountability on the part of the minister to ensure that he or she takes action for that endangered species.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom.

A final comment, Mr. Near.

• 1100

Mr. David Near: I think it's important to remember that agreements are exactly that. It's a consensual agreement between the two parties. The one party is the government and the other party would be the individual involved. So it isn't a mandatory exercise. By definition, this is an agreement between two consenting parties.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have one last comment.

The Chair: One last comment, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In agreements it's fine if both partners have equal resources, but in this case we're going to have the resources of the federal government, which is much more massive than the resources of the individual landowner. So I don't know about these agreements being that workable.

I can give an example of a water project regarding Ducks Unlimited, and the massive resource difference between Ducks Unlimited in the project over this dispute and that of the landowner. It's an unfair argument that comes up, or an unfair ability to resolve it, because one is so much larger.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question? We had a good exchange.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

The Chair: We are now on page 41, and we have Mr. Knutson's amendment to clause 11.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This is part of a group that includes clauses 58 and 59, regarding protection of critical habitat. I ask it be stood and we deal with them all together.

The Chair: All right, then stand it.

Mr. Comartin, on a point of order.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't agree with Mr. Knutson that it includes clause 59. It includes clause 74, but he forgot to mention that. These amendments—I have one, and I think there are two other ones as well—all refer to clause 74.

I want to take issue with him, because I don't see where it does apply to clauses 58 and 59, which I think were the other two that he mentioned.

The Chair: A feud between lawyers?

Mr. Joe Comartin: We are lawyers, Mr. Chair, but I don't believe that's where the dispute lies.

Mr. Gar Knutson: He's a good lawyer.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I believe it lies in the facts. I just don't see where it applies, and I think we should be able to deal with this today.

I'd like to hear Mr. Knutson's argument as to why clauses 58 and 59 apply. I've looked at them, and I don't see where they do. I think it's only clause 74 that does.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Then let's deal with subclause 11(3).

The Chair: If that has your consent, then we will. Would you like to present it?

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

• 1105

Mr. Gar Knutson: It does connect with clause 74. Are we going to deal with clause 74 today?

The Chair: Definitely not, so we will stand it.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: What is your inclination or wish, Mr. Comartin, on your amendment on page 42?

Mr. Joe Comartin: If we're going to stand down Mr. Knutson's, I agree to stand mine down.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: We'll go to page 43.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, my impression is that I have two amendments of the same ilk on pages 43 and 44. The one on page 44 will not be moved at all. On the one on page 43, though, it's my impression that although it reflects on the mandate of clause 11 in terms of stewardship, it doesn't really make a direct tie to clause 74.

So in contrast to my vote a few moments ago, essentially this particular amendment clarifies that this clause is clearly about stewardship agreements and is not supposed to permit any harm to a listed species. In order to make this point clear, this amendment clarifies that agreements made under subclause 11(1) are not the same as agreements for permits under clause 74.

These subclauses 11(2.1) and 11(2.2) are new verbiage that we didn't have before.

My last comment is that this amendment inserts a clarifying statement to ensure that each authorization for harm happens only under clause 74, because in clause 11 the stewardship agreement should be about preserving species only, and stewardship agreements in the bill are not supposed to allow for any harm to a species. They are intended to allow the government to fund, on occasion even compensate, to provide extensive services, education, and so on. And it is not clear that the new stewardship agreement would in fact allow for a derivation from regulation and prohibition. So this provides more clarity to the clause, and I don't think there's anything here that wasn't in the intent of the drafters in the first place.

The Chair: It sounds as if you're trying to convince yourself... to achieve what?

Mr. John Herron: Pardon?

The Chair: What is your intent?

Mr. John Herron: The intent is to make it very clear that clause 11 is about preserving species, not about harming species. This is the stewardship aspect of it. If any harm is to take place to a particular species, there's a provision in the bill in clause 74 that we should do it then. This is actually more for clarity that stewardship is about preservation and conservation, not about harm. Clause 74 is the envelope to address that particular issue.

The Chair: So you would like to move it, then?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: All right, Mr. Herron has moved his amendment on page 43. Are there any comments?

Madam Redman, and then Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Notwithstanding Mr. Herron's eloquent dissertation on why this doesn't impact on clause 74, I would respectfully request that it be stood down.

In subclause 11(2.1), I would suggest that perhaps his intent in that last line was activity “negatively” affecting a listed wildlife species, as opposed to any affecting; and in subclause 11(2.2), it would be our contention that paragraph 74(2)(b) wording meets the intent of this amendment. So if we're not going to deal with clause 74 at this point in time, I would ask that this be stood down to be dealt with at a subsequent time, with clause 74 as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine.

• 1110

(Amendment allowed to stand—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

The Chair: Mr. Herron, did I understand you correctly that you are withdrawing the motion on pages 44 to 45?

Mr. John Herron: You understood me precisely. That's right.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, you may recall that Mr. Mills' motion on page 36 was withdrawn. I'm informed that this motion here on page 46 would follow the fate of the motion on page 36. Therefore this motion is withdrawn, the one on page 46.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with what you're saying there, but I humbly suggest to this committee that if you look across Canada, the term “any government in Canada”, provincial, territorial... When you say territorial, Mr. Chair, you're talking about a region other than a province, but within each province you also have other governments. I think we should be saying a province, a territorial government, or any local government, and by that I mean your city, town, rural municipalities, counties, and so on. I think somehow we have to include that, because indeed they may become very much involved.

The Chair: On the other hand, in constitutional language the regional and municipal governments are the creatures of provincial governments. So I don't know whether that distinction is necessary.

I'm also informed that if you read line 29, it reads “with any government in Canada”. So it would embrace the regional and municipal governments that you had in mind.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think you're dead on, Mr. Chair, in that part it does say “any government”. That would give them the capacity for them to talk to all levels. But in the verbiage that is here, as I learned in a sidebar conversation I just had, it would leave out first nations governments. So the language that's in the amendment is not as inclusive as the verbiage that would be in the bill as it stands.

Mrs. Karen Redman: For clarification, Mr. Chair, page 46 is withdrawn, right?

The Chair: Page 46 is withdrawn, and I was about to indicate that also page 47 is to be withdrawn for the same reason.

Mrs. Karen Redman: So we're having a philosophical discussion on something that's not before us.

The Chair: This is becoming a committee with many dimensions.

Having withdrawn the motion on page 47, we could call clause 12.

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13—Funding agreements)

The Chair: On page 48 you will find the motion by the distinguished member from York North.

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

I was just suggesting a friendly amendment for my colleagues to make.

• 1115

We're on page 48, and this amendment to clause 13 just adds provisions for inclusion of the proposed text for agreements concluded under section 8, delegation of authority; section 10, administrative agreements; section 11, conservation agreements; and section 13, funding agreements, to be put into the public registry and be broadcast to the public by any means that the competent minister considers appropriate. This just adds that once the agreement is concluded, they are put into the public registry as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments? Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: While I appreciate the spirit of the mover, it seems overly burdensome and bureaucratic. I would ask Ms. Wherry if she would like to speak to these aspects of the amendment as it's proposed.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I would agree with the comments you just made. Certainly in the case of, for example, trying to do stewardship agreements with local landowners or rural people, putting it all in the public registry and having comment periods and things like that sounds like it would act as a complete disincentive to what we're trying to do here.

I would also ask a question. I believe clause 8 was stood down. I don't know if this one needed to be also.

The Chair: Not necessarily. That can stand by itself.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Actually, this is just a requirement to put it in the public registry. There's no requirement for public comment.

The Chair: Are there any further comments on the amendment?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: One of the things we were told when Environment Canada made their presentation was that this act is littered with examples of how the public can be involved, and how information will be provided to the public, so I don't see where it's unduly bureaucratic to just put a document—which should be a public document—in the public registry.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: The only comment is that while it's possible to do so, generally speaking, we don't, for example, publish all contribution agreements the government enters into with private individuals.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? Madam Kraft Sloan? Mr. Hilstrom?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think this not only helps to protect species, but it raises the level of accountability of the governments involved in these agreements. It prevents closed-door types of agreements that are not in the best interest of species or are unfair and unequal to other agreements they're making. I see nothing wrong with this disclosure.

We're not talking about business interests where disclosure would harm somebody's business activities; we're talking about protection of endangered species and doing what's best. It's not about commercial activity that needs to be kept secret. So I think there's a difference here.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have some interest in making a subamendment to this amendment that would provide for a public comment period insofar as agreements under clauses 8 and 10 are concerned. Clause 8 refers to delegation of authority. I'm just wondering if we could stand this down and give me time to draft one.

The Chair: I'd rather not; we're standing a lot of stuff. Let's deal with this as it is before us now, otherwise we'll never complete our work.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

• 1120

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would be very supportive of Mr. Knutson's friendly amendment. I'm just trying to see how we can quickly add this in here—concluded under clause 8. We could probably add a subclause 13(1.2) that says “a public comment period of 60 days” or “a public comment period would be included for sections 8 and 10 within the 60-day period”. Then subclause (1.2) would be changed to (1.3). I think when we take a look at delegation of authority, any agreements under delegation of authority and administrative agreements are things that definitely the public should have some comment on.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would just like to point out to the committee that we're talking about hundreds of conservation agreements that are made every year. We're now protracting this process and adding months onto it for public debate. The bedrock of this entire legislation is to have something that protects endangered species and will work on the ground engaging the fishers, the ranchers, the farmers, and the people on the land, and despite its well-intended spirit to be public and transparent, it's actually going to be an encumbrance to those very people we are trying to work out stewardship agreements with to move forward with conservation on this important issue.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I was asking for public comment on clause 8, which is delegation of authority and is a hugely important clause in this bill, saying that the minister can delegate any of his authority under this act. I feel there should be an opportunity for public comment. One would hope there wouldn't be hundreds and hundreds of delegation-of-authority agreements under this particular act, because I would be very concerned that there would be that many opportunities for the minister to delegate his authority under this act.

Secondly, administrative agreements, as Madam Wherry has pointed out, are usually a matter between the federal government and another government. Again, I would be concerned if there were hundreds and hundreds of administrative agreements set out.

I left out conservation agreements because, as Madam Wherry pointed out, it's important to move ahead with these things; these are often negotiated with individuals or community groups. I'm asking only that they be put in the public registry, and if anyone has a website they know how easily this stuff can be put into electronic form.

So I'm leaving out conservation agreements and funding agreements, asking that there be a public comment period only for the delegation-of-authority section and administrative agreements.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Reed, please.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of this legislation we're trying to pass, one would hope there would be hundreds and hundreds of agreements, since there are hundreds and thousands of landowners, and there are hundreds of aboriginal communities. One would hope the cooperative spirit would be the outcome of this legislation, so there would be hundreds and hundreds of agreements.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, please.

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

What our officials have just said, and what Mr. Reed has just said too, makes it necessary to have a consultation process. Now, as has just been said, in the course of the implementation there can be a very large delegation of authority and, in that regard, the Canadian or Quebec public has a right to know to whom this delegation has been made and what kind of agreement has been entered into. So, I would support Mrs. Kraft Sloan's motion.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, would you like to read your motion? It has been amended by you by the insertion of a new subclause 13(1.2). The text was a bit long; therefore, you will have to read it for the benefit of the committee.

Madam Sloan, before you do it, if I may be excused, Madam Scherrer would like the floor.

Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have just one comment. I still wonder about the reason why we should ask for public comment. Normally, we ask for such comments because, if they are favourable, we are sure to have public support. If, for example, the comments were unfavourable, is there a process to go back on such a decision?

The decision to announce publicly something, to make the process public, does not create any problem. However, when we ask for comments, we have nonetheless an obligation to take them into consideration. So I simply want to make sure that if, in fact, we ask for public comments, we will be prepared to face the consequences if the public tells us, for example, that it does not agree with one delegation or another.

• 1125

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: First of all, Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification, I too share Mr. Reed's hope that there are thousands and thousands of stewardship and conservation agreements. I'm not asking for public comment on this.

I am asking for public comment on the delegation of authority, clause 8, which allows the minister to delegate any authority under this act. I suggest that if we are to have accountability and if this clause remains unchanged, making sure the public knows about it and has an opportunity to comment on it is absolutely vital.

It's my sincere hope that the minister is not going to enter into all kinds of delegation agreements, thousands and thousands of delegation agreements. This isn't necessarily going to happen, but the public should have an opportunity to comment. That's one thing.

Administrative agreements, as Madam Wherry has pointed out, are generally made between the federal government and another government, usually a provincial one. Therefore, again, we're not talking about hundreds of agreements. We're talking about a number of agreements; but they are very important agreements, and therefore the opportunity for the public to comment is also very important.

As for conservation agreements, both under clause 11 and funding agreements under clause 13, I am only asking that they be included in the public registry, but not be there for the public comment period. It's simply a matter of transparencies, which anyone would like the opportunity to have.

Putting conservation agreements into a public registry can also mean that other communities who want to enter into these activities will have an opportunity to learn, to be educated, and to promote conservation of species. People may think this is a very difficult thing to do, but if a blueprint is already out there for them it makes it easier for you to take this activity on as a community. In this way a public registry of conservation agreements can act as an educational activity as well as an accountability mechanism.

The Chair: Would you now read, please, the amendment as you have indicated?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I hope this is all right, Mr. Chair.

I propose that Bill C-5, in clause 13, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 11 the following:

(1.1) At least 60 days before an agreement is concluded under section 8, 10, 11 or 13, the competent minister must make the proposed text of it public by including it in the public registry, and by any other means that the competent minister considers appropriate.

I also propose to add the following amendment, that agreements under clasue 8 and clause 10 be subject to public comment:

(1.2) Once the agreement is concluded, the competent minister must make it public by including it in the public registry.

The Chair: So the only new aspect in this amendment is the idea that the proposed agreements be subject to public comment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If there is better legal wording, I defer to that.

The Chair: Are you ready for this, Mr. Near?

Mr. David Near: With clauses 8 and 10, there's already a requirement in the bill that agreements be in the public registry. So those two paragraphs are redundant.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is that the proposed text, “60 days before”?

Mr. David Near: No, there's no requirement for your comment period, but right now the legislation is drafted so that those agreements have to be put in the public registry.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is that the final agreement, or is it as it is worded in (1.1)?

Mr. David Near: In the current legislation, it's the final agreement.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, (1.1) requires that it be the proposed agreement, 60 days before it is finalized—so that is different.

Mr. David Near: The other little legal worry I have is the term “concluded”. How does one know when it's actually concluded? I have some difficulty with this.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Would you have a suggestion for a word other than “concluded”?

Mr. David Near: Not off the top of my head.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Would “signed” be an appropriate amendment here—once the agreement is “signed”?

The Chair: It stands to reason.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, so may I read the new (1.1)—the final paragraph there?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: “Once the agreement is signed, the competent minister must make it public by including it in the public registry. ”

• 1130

The Chair: Are there any further questions? Yes, Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Are we going to have a vote on the three amendments?

[English]

We have to agree on all three?

The Chair: All three amendments.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: So if I'm not comfortable with the public comments that means—

The Chair: If you wish, you may move a subamendment in which you single out one particular portion of this amendment.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It was my understanding that Mr. Knutson had moved the subamendment for the public comment. Perhaps we could have a vote on Mr. Knutson's subamendment. If that passes or fails, then we can have a vote on the amendment.

Mr. Knutson moved the subamendment. I was only speaking to it. I did not alter my complete amendment. We have to have agreement on the subamendment.

The Chair: Yes, definitely, we have to.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This probably answers Madam Scherrer's concern then, that we have two votes.

The Chair: We are voting first on the proposed subamendment (1.2)—the one that deals with proposed agreements being subject to public comments.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But under clauses 8 and 10 only.

The Chair: Is this the one you are concerned with, Madam Scherrer?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: In fact I don't agree with that part, but I'd agree with the rest, so just tell me how to vote.

The Chair: That's very helpful.

And we now understand that the first vote is on the subamendment on (1.2), the one that deals with proposed agreements to be subject to public comments.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6, yeas 5)

The Chair: Now we come to the amendment as it stands before us.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 5)

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: And we move to page 49, where we have an amendment from the member for Fundy—Royal.

Mr. Herron, would you like to speak?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, Mr. Chair.

This amendment details the functions to be carried out by COSEWIC. The amendment itself was recommended by COSEWIC. It clarifies that COSEWIC will function with the best available information—obviously, scientific, aboriginal, and biological information in particular. I think biological is redundant; that's one of our sciences.

There's an addition I missed in the amendment. For the sake of consistency we used the phrase “community knowledge” quite often. So between the phrases “scientific knowledge” and “aboriginal traditional knowledge”, I'd like to insert the phrase “community knowledge” as well, because it exists throughout the bill.

• 1135

The principal issue is that COSEWIC be there for the purposes of science, not to incorporate social or economic implications, or as the minister has said, to be susceptible to lobbying either way on a particular issue. Its function would be predetermined on these criteria. This is where the bill has provisions to include the other aspects or concerns. So it defines the functions of COSEWIC as suggested by COSEWIC.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments? Madam Redman.

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

I look at this amendment and I would contend that subclause 15(2) contains all of this wording except for the analysis of biological status.

I would ask Ms. Wherry or Mr. Nadeau if they would like to comment on it.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes.

Actually, the new clause 14 would include what we see right now in subclause 15(2) and also elements of paragraph 15(1)(a), excluding community knowledge, but Mr. Herron said that was a typo.

The addition is really combining different elements already in there. But in addition, it is clarifying that COSEWIC's function would have to be based on the best available information, including information on the biological status of species at risk. There's a bit of a problem, because this is what COSEWIC does. So COSEWIC would have to consider the result of what it has to do before it can actually come to this conclusion. It's kind of a circular argument. COSEWIC uses biological information but not information about biological status, because its main function is to derive that status.

Have I made this distinction clear?

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I agree with the intent of your amendment, Mr. Herron. My concern is that placing it here in clause 14 does narrow what COSEWIC does.

If you have some kindness in your heart—I know you're very generous as a Tory, and you will probably find some kindness in your heart—I have an amendment that comes on page 55 of the amendment text, but it's subclause (2) of clause 15 on page 12 of Bill C-5. It talks about how COSEWIC must carry out its function and attempts to do a similar sort of thing without narrowing down the broad functions of COSEWIC.

While I agree with your intent, I'm concerned that this is perhaps not the most appropriate place.

Mr. John Herron: Can you give us time, Mr. Chair?

I have not moved the motion. It's not moved.

(Clause 14 agreed to)

(On clause 15—Functions)

The Chair: On page 15, on clause 15, we have amendments by Mr. Mills, by Mr. Herron, and by the government—lots of amendments.

Mr. Bailey, would you like to introduce this motion, to move it, or what is your wish?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I want to move the motion, but I'd like to say a few words.

We think this change actually strengthens the scientific basis of the bill. Scientists must be limited in their studies to what is, and not what will be. That's one thing.

• 1140

We as politicians have to cooperate with scientists and others. We should identify potential future threats to species at risk. I think this identification need not be public material, because in many cases it's too hypothetical.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

Madam Kraft Sloan and Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There were two points I wanted to raise. Perhaps you have answered them. I was wondering why you took out “as part of the assessment”. Do you not believe that the public should know this information?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'll consider myself as being public, and I'll say that the scientists are in fact undergoing a study. To make information available to the public that the study is going on is fine, but to do so and then have the public draw conclusions, with an end result that may be something entirely different, may cause a lot of confusion. I think you can provide information at the conclusion, yes, but not while the study is going on.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm always interested in a very open and transparent process. I'm very concerned that the public have opportunities for full participation throughout the process. It would seem to me that if scientists are in the middle of a process and are identifying things but have still not reached final conclusions, that's part of the wonder of science. It's a very educative process for people to understand the evolution of science, thought, and understanding. Also, if it's some kind of interim report you're referring to, people will know that.

I guess I have a question as to why “as part of the assessment” has been deleted. The other thing I wanted to disagree with was this. You said this strengthens the section, but you're removing “potential threats”, and my concern is that if we're trying to understand the future of species, we cannot look only at what exactly is happening today. We also have to understand where threats are going to be coming from, because the bigger threats are the cumulative threats.

If we only look at human interventions project by project, then we will have no understanding of the full impact. Some of the best science is done on cumulative threats, on potential threats, and on understanding what could happen ten years from now so we can stop things now when it will be far more cost-effective.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Along similar lines to those of my colleague, certainly it would be our view that by removing “potential threats” you are limiting science that may be of use to COSEWIC, and that would not be something the government could support. I would ask Monsieur Nadeau if he would like to comment on this.

The Chair: It's not necessary, because the removal of “potential threats” disposes in a merciless manner of the precautionary principle. We are therefore all on the same wavelength—or if not all, most of us.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

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

This amendment addresses paragraph 15(1)(a). It would read—and this describes a function of COSEWIC:

assess the status of each wildlife species considered to be at risk and, as part of the assessment, identify existing and potential threats to the species and its habitat.

This amendment mandates COSEWIC to evaluate and identify the full scope of threats to the species. It does not require COSEWIC to determine the legal boundaries of other species' habitat.

• 1145

We know that destruction of habitat is the primary cause for the loss of a given endangered species. COSEWIC is a scientific body capable of identifying threats to habitat. It can make a scientific contribution to that for the government to consider. This is provided in their mandate. At the end of the day, it's the government that sets out what the legal boundaries of that habitat would be. But COSEWIC would be offering, and would be mandated to give, their best advice on what scope of habitat should be considered.

The Chair: Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: If I understand Mr. Herron correctly, he's suggesting that COSEWIC can comment on something they're unable to define. I would ask Monsieur Nadeau if he would like to comment on this.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: In the assessment of species' status, different kinds of information are used. As for the area of threat, it's certainly common practice and within the COSEWIC criteria to look at threats affecting habitat. They are actually a subset of the threats affecting the species. Habitat-mediated threats are important, but threats affecting the species directly are also important.

Currently COSEWIC is assessing threats to the species and its habitat, but the role of COSEWIC is really to assess a species' status, not derive habitat status. So there could be confusion if this wording were put forward.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: May I ask a question to the official?

The Chair: Certainly.

Mr. John Herron: The first question would be this. We know as a point of fact that species require habitat in order to be able to survive. We agree on that point. A scientist or biologist would clearly have the capacity to recommend a tool kit with respect to what form of habitat should be considered in the recovery of a plant. That is what the amendment says: that it consider and make a recommendation as to habitat. At the end of the day, the government still sets the legal boundaries. They're the people who actually define the habitat. They're making a general recommendation with respect to habitat about what kind of habitat tool kit is required in order to maintain the species.

Do you agree with that point?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I'm not sure what you're saying. Sorry.

The Chair: You're putting forward a very important amendment here, there's no doubt. Implicit in Mr. Nadeau's answer a few minutes ago... One could interpret it to mean that COSEWIC does in its work deal with habitat protection. Is that correct? That would reinforce the line of approach of Mr. Herron. I think that is what he is aiming at.

John?

Mr. John Herron: You see what I'm aiming at.

The Chair: Yes.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if I understood correctly, Mr. Nadeau said that the job of COSEWIC is to determine the status of species. Is that correct?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It's their responsibility, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I wasn't aware that wildlife species lived in a synthetic habitat, an artificial habitat, a man-made habitat. Habitat is species, so why would it be out of line? If COSEWIC—

The Chair: Out of line?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What I understood Mr. Nadeau to say was that the job of COSEWIC is to assess the status of species. I would suggest that habitat is merely the accumulation of many different species.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: It includes that, but it also includes other physical factors and biological interactions. It's a component, but not all components.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But habitat includes different species. I didn't say habitat equals species or species equal habitat. But species are contained in habitat.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Yes. I think there is no argument about the importance of habitat, and the fact is that COSEWIC looks at trends and habitats and the amount of habitat available when assessing the species' status. It's using a whole suite of other criteria as developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. But all of these criteria are used for one purpose, which is to assess species status, not to try to assess habitat status.

• 1150

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Exactly. But the point I believe Mr. Herron is trying to make here is that it's important as part of the protection of species to assess habitat as well. Also, as the chair pointed out, the precautionary principle is a principle we're all greatly concerned about. The parliamentary secretary spoke against the removal of “potential threats”, which again reinforces the necessity to understand habitat, its link to species, and the fact that species are in habitats.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: On the question of potential threats and existing threats, these two types of threats are within the current terms of reference for COSEWIC, and assessing species status and these terms of reference have been approved by the Canadian Council of Endangered Species.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, why not say it, if that's the practice?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I'm talking about potential threats. I'm not saying the purpose of COSEWIC is to assess habitat. That's certainly not in the current terms of reference for COSEWIC. But they're including that as one of the many factors they're looking at to derive a species' status.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You had originally said that's what they do, so why don't we just say it?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I think what Simon has been trying to say over and over again is that COSEWIC does in part of its work look at threats to habitat, etc., but its mandate is to assess the status of species. If you include this, you're considerably broadening the mandate of COSEWIC. I think that's what he's trying to say. He's not denying the importance of habitat or that COSEWIC doesn't consider habitat when it does its work, but its mandate is to assess the status of species.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Scherrer, please.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, in the same vein, I know that the real mandate of COSEWIC, is to determine whether a species is at risk because of certain elements. So, when it is suspected that the species in at risk, we go and see whether its habitat or the habitat is problematic or whether there are real or potential threats. I have no difficulty with this. Where I have a problem is when we leave the "potential" element or the habitat aside because the species may possibly not be at risk, not in the least, but there can be potential threats. Then, we broaden considerably the scope by saying that the Council must go and determine, because of potential threats, what the possibilities are, at a given time, that a species which is not presently seen as being at risk becomes at risk. Then, it becomes a very very broad mandate. It should be very clear that, if we include this, we broaden considerably the mandate of the Council.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: This amendment is far simpler than I think it should be. When you look at it, Mr. Nadeau clearly said in his comments that one of the factors COSEWIC uses in terms of determining the status of a species is habitat. That's part of the equation, the tool kit, that we're talking about. I'm highlighting it. If that's part of it, why not say it?

I know we're so scared to actually broaden the scope of habitat, but this is one time when we actually say it. I think Madam Scherrer really touched on this. If we're bold enough to talk about potential threats like loss of habitat, if we're going to go so far and so broad to use the words “potential threats”, why the heck wouldn't we include “and its habitat”? At the end of the day, no one should get too spooked by this, because this is a scientific—biological—recommendation about what kind of tool kit a habitat would need to be used, and the legal framework in terms of what ramifications that would have is still set out by the stewardship agreement in the actual bill itself.

I know there were early signals that we didn't want to broaden the scope of habitat because it was too controversial. This is the most vanilla form of actually saying habitat matters. I think it's a slam-dunk.

Anyway, thanks, Mr. Chair.

• 1155

The Chair: Thank you.

Two final comments, briefly, Mr. Hilstrom and Mr. Reed.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I think it would be helpful to the committee—as this amendment does broaden out COSEWIC—if the experts would remind us of where in fact habitat is considered in the legislation, the responsibility to do the habitat portion of this. That would settle whether or not we need to have this amendment.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Habitat will be identified during the recovery planning process, and that will include a broad participation of stakeholders, scientists, government officials, etc. Then there's another phase where a subset of habitat called “critical habitat” would have to be identified and measures proposed to protect that critical habitat.

Right now we're dealing with a clause that looks at the status of species, and there are supposed to be very clear and distinct processes—the assessment of species status and what we do about it afterwards. And yes, assessment of what's happening to the habitat of species is one of the things that is actually done to derive species status, as many other indicators are used, too.

Mr. John Herron: Perhaps on a point of order, I think we're talking about a different clause of the bill now. We're talking about listing here. He's talking about recovery. They're different beasts, so we're in a different clause of the bill.

The Chair: That's correct, but we have to leave Mr. Nadeau some space for his argument.

Mr. John Herron: I'm sorry. I'll give you some habitat for your argument.

The Chair: We should protect his habitat, too.

Mr. John Herron: I can't really say more than what I've said already.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reed, a brief comment.

Mr. Julian Reed: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should be trying to organize COSEWIC's mandate. After all, the amount of confidence we've put in them in terms of their listings and the fact that we accept their science should be enough. We're not qualified to determine how they interpret the list, and that's why they're there and we're here. I can't support an amendment like this that would alter their mandate.

The Chair: A final comment, briefly, Madam Kraft Sloan, and then we'll vote.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think what we have to remember is there is a COSEWIC that existed prior to this legislation and a COSEWIC that will exist after this legislation. There are structural changes that some of us around this table may agree with and some of us may disagree with that are going to put into statute the way the membership of COSEWIC may be different after this legislation comes out from what it was before this legislation. The kinds of activities that COSEWIC does may subtly change, because of the membership and because of the different nature of COSEWIC as a result of this legislation.

I think this discussion on what COSEWIC does is very important. We can talk about what COSEWIC has done in the past, but we also think of what it's going to do in the future. I think it's important to recognize the fundamental importance—sorry for using the same word twice—of habitat, and we have to understand how we can better strengthen the legislation to ensure that occurs.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Thank you.

One more motion and then we'll adjourn. We have a motion and amendment by the government on page 52.

• 1200

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

There is a change: that Bill C-5 in clause 15 be amended by replacing line 7 on page 12 in the French version with the following:

reclassifier ou de les déclassifier.

I would turn to Madam Wherry.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: It's just an amendment to make the French version congruent with the English.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Is the next one also a technical amendment? No, it is not. Then since we have put in a good three hours, how about adjourning now? Agreed?

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.