ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

• 0911

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have an interesting meeting today.

Before starting, let me make two brief observations. First I want to congratulate our colleague, Bob Mills, for a very cleverly engineered interview in the Ottawa Citizen last week. Very well done. For those who missed it, I'll circulate it so that you get a better idea of his background and the interesting comments he made.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, on that particular topic, if you're just interested in Bob's background, the speech he gave in the House of Commons was particularly interesting. It was about some of the background he had in earlier careers. It's all in Hansard records; it's a nice biographical sketch.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I don't think we really need to talk about me right now.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, just read Hansard.

The Chair: The article attempts to do the same in part, so there is a piece of biography there.

Secondly, we need a motion to the effect that the payment of witnesses be made for the Royal Society witnesses of last week. Instead of two, there were three who appeared. The committee, in its overall general motion two weeks ago, approved automatically the payment for two. In this case there were three, two from English-speaking Canada and one from French-speaking Canada. So the chair would appreciate a motion to the effect that the expenses of all three be covered.

Mr. Forseth, seconded by Mr. Laliberte.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

This leads me to the fact that we had an extremely interesting and productive meeting with the Royal Society witnesses on their report, as you will recall, on biotechnology and future approaches through the regulatory system.

It is something this committee should not lose sight of, and I will ask at the appropriate time whether there is a sufficient number of members of this committee interested in forming a subcommittee that would be asked to come up with a timetable for subsequent meetings with the Royal Society, so as to achieve two things: one, to gain a better, in-depth understanding of their recommendations; and secondly, to keep that topic alive, because it is of immense importance.

• 0915

Added to this is the fact that was passed on to me en passant yesterday, that we could very soon expect the introduction for first reading in the House of a bill amending the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I was not able to find out whether it is a matter of weeks or months, but it is an item that will descend on us. Therefore, we can face a pretty busy schedule in the time ahead.

Today we go into the question of witnesses and the question of travel. I would suggest that we first go over the list that has been carefully prepared by Kristen Douglas and the clerk based on the experience of preparing a similar list for the predecessor to Bill C-5, namely Bill C-33. This is why you have this categorization. If you agree, I would suggest that we go through it page by page so that you can have an opportunity to ask questions or comment so that we can arrive in a peaceful brotherly and sisterly manner at a list with which our clerk can work.

Let me stress one thing when it comes to witnesses. In order to make the process meaningful, one has to absorb the substance of the briefs. Therefore, space is needed between panels and between groups of witnesses in order to make good use in a coherent manner of what the witnesses will tell us. Therefore, the process of hearing witnesses cannot be pushed through at a galloping rate. When that is done there is very little capacity for absorption. We also have that factor to keep in mind.

I would invite you, if you agree, to start with the panels, with a list, and then we can discuss the issue of travel. Is there agreement on that approach? I hear no dissenting voice.

Madam Redman.

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

The only observation I would make is that whether or not we travel could impact on the composition of panels and when we hear them. My assumption would be that one could impact the other. I just make that as an observation. If the committee wants to go through the panels, I'm amenable to that.

The Chair: That is a very valid point. The witnesses, as organized in this manner, are organized on the assumption that they would be heard in Ottawa. The moment the committee decides to travel, this whole approach will fall apart; it would have to then be approached in a different manner.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Just to get this issue finally dealt with, I would move that we don't travel. I don't know if I require unanimous consent to bring in a motion without 24-hour notice, but if I do, I'd like to have that. I think we should make the final decision today. After consulting with my colleagues, I don't get any great sense that people really want to travel. Since I was the one who first brought it up, I'll move that we don't travel.

The Chair: The clerk informs me that the agenda includes travel, so your motion is in order.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you.

The Chair: There is certainly better coherence perhaps then by reversing the sequence and discussing travel first.

Are there any questions or comments on Mr. Knutson's motion?

Mr. Mills, and then Mr. Laliberte.

• 0920

Mr. Bob Mills: I'm quite concerned about communication of what we're talking about. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of this legislation. I've heard over and over again about how it's American legislation and so on. We have to try to tell them, no, it's not, this is different, it's going to be based on cooperation, and that sort of thing. I really feel that getting to smaller communities, as I said at our last meeting, would help in this communication process.

Believe me, I don't want to travel either. I would just as soon stay on the schedule I have. And I don't believe we should go to, as I think was suggested, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. That's not my idea of travel, because there aren't any endangered species in any of those places.

In the smaller communities, they're not going to be here to hear the witnesses, and they're probably not going to hear what we have to say. It would seem to me that one of our best tools of communication would be to get to the smaller centres and talk to the smaller centres' media. Those media people would get it to where 90% of the endangered species are: in rural Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Bigras and Mr. Reed.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I believe your idea at the outset, of looking at the list and then looking at the travel, was the right way to go. Once you see the list, there's a huge region in the northern half of the provinces that I don't see any representation for. You wouldn't expect it, because they're not organized for any sense of representation of associations. I would ask the committee to seriously look at travelling the northern regions of the provinces, because they're overlooked regions and the communities do not necessarily organize themselves as a provincial body or national body.

If you take the issue of species at risk to them, it's going to impact their communities big time. I'd certainly look at that, because they're certainly missing from this list. There are fishermen's associations, there are trappers' organizations, there are tribal councils in there, and there are Métis Nation councils in there. They are living in the traditional lifestyle and are using crown land. The representation that's expected of them is that their provincial government will speak on their behalf as users of this crown land.

When it comes to compensation issues, they're not necessarily landowners of title, but they've been traditional land users for generations. With the impact this act will have on their livelihood, as with other acts, it would be a big mistake if we missed them. Travel is the only way, I assume, that we could take this message to them and hear from them at the same time.

The Chair: Would you have the names of the organizations?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would in the Saskatchewan context, but that's only a small region of the whole boreal forest and the whole Hudson's Bay eco-region. On the east side, I see the James Bay Cree are on this list. But there's northern Ontario, there's northern Manitoba, northern Alberta, and northern B.C. Then you go north, of course, and the Northwest Territories are included in there.

The Chair: And they would not come to Ottawa if invited?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It would be a first.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on the statement made by my colleague Mr. Knutson.

At first glance, I also agree that the committee should not travel in this case. Let us not forget that about two weeks ago, the committee, to all intents and purposes, had no bills on its agenda, no topic to study, but we realize that as time goes on, our agenda is filling up. We are considering the bill on environmental assessment. Thus, I think that this is a factor we must take into account.

Upon reading the proposed list of witnesses, I realize that a certain number of national groups want to appear before the committee. I think that these national groups are used to coming here, to Ottawa, and that it would not be a great problem if they came to Ottawa. They are organized and it is a part of their usual lobbying.

• 0925

Thus, except in certain cases such as the North, as my colleague Laliberte said, I would rather hold committee sessions on this bill here, and invite witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On other committees on which I've had the honour to serve, we have brought people in who would not normally come to Ottawa, and that process has been reasonably successful. My own sense of it is that we could certainly accommodate the north of this country, the small communities, and so on, by being here but by being sensitive to extending invitations recognizing the location of those folks.

There's one thing I'd like to challenge Bob Mills on.

I don't want to be confrontational, Bob, but over half the endangered species are in our waters, and it's urban Canada that's killing those species. So when you talk about where the endangered.... This is one of the big problems this act presents. It presents a vision that somehow or other the endangered species are “out there” somewhere. They're on a farm or they're in a forest. The fact is that only some of them are. So one of the things I would like to see is for urban Canada to wake up to the fact that the contamination of places like the Great Lakes and so on is having just as serious an impact on species at risk as is disturbing the nest of the spotted owl.

The Chair: Aileen Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think there's a dilemma insofar as that if the committee elects to travel, it must travel in a holistic manner so as not to make any part of the country, urban or rural, feel omitted. On the other hand, if we listen carefully to those like Monsieur Laliberte and Mr. Mills, and we bring to Ottawa those specific groups that otherwise would not have an opportunity to input, that may be the resolution. I don't think you can just choose the areas that we, in what would be perceived to be a relatively subjective manner, should access. Rather, if we ask them to come, it might be the solution we're seeking.

Thank you.

The Chair: Any further comment?

Well, evidently there are some good points made by Mr. Mills and Mr. Laliberte on the one hand, by Monsieur Bigras and Mr. Reed on the other, and in the summing up by Madame Carroll.

We have a motion on the floor, so I don't think I should elaborate at great length on this. It's always a difficult decision to be made, but we have a motion. If you're ready for the question, I will put the motion. Mr. Knutson has moved that the committee hold hearings in Ottawa rather than travelling.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, just to build on what everyone has been saying, and to ensure that people have a comfort around the decision we may make on this, I'm wondering if we need to amend Mr. Knutson's motion to suggest that we would be bringing some of the groups who are most impacted by this, particularly groups that are never really invited to these kinds of hearings, from some remote areas. I don't know if we need that kind of an amendment to the motion...or is there just a tacit understanding of that?

The Chair: It would flow from the discussion and the dynamic of the discussion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just want to assure other members around the table that this is our intent.

The Chair: It would be included, definitely. That would be the case.

Mr. Mills.

• 0930

Mr. Bob Mills: Just as a final comment, the one group of people we won't be bringing here are your small-town newspapers and your small-town media who would cover an event that was somewhere nearby, or at least in their province. They won't be here to cover that. That's communication, and, again, that's the biggest problem with this bill. There's not an understanding of what it's for. The city guys don't understand it and the urban guys or the rural guys don't understand it. That would be the one element that wouldn't be here to cover that, because they don't necessarily cover national stories.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Redman.

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

I don't want to belabour this, because I do really believe our colleague Mr. Mills is doing this with the best intentions for the outcome of the bill. My observation, however, has been that newspapers, whether they're small locals or big nationals, generally write what they want. It's not always the message, and it's not always the truth as we see it. I would agree with you that we have an education piece that's necessary as part of this important legislation, but there may be other venues that are more effective.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? If not, are you ready for the question?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I invite you to look at the pages entitled “Panels on Species at Risk study”, dated March 16. We could go through this panel by panel, and I will call them by number.

The first panel is a five-member panel. Are there any comments or questions? I should say also that, for the second group of witnesses, this could be dependent upon their availability. The first group would be here Thursday, composed of the technical people from the department.

[Translation]

Ms. Scherrer.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): I would like to know what criteria were used to choose the first groups. I find that this is very good, but haven't we forgotten some? Where did this first list come from?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, a lot of work went into this when we were organizing and lining up witnesses for Bill C-33. The rationale could perhaps better be explained by Kristen.

Please, would you like to go into the details?

Ms. Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): This list reflects the wishes of the committee when C-33 was about to be studied, and this is indeed the list upon which we embarked when we started holding hearings on C-33.

The first couple of panels represent major organized groups. For the Canadian Endangered Species Campaign, that's their membership represented in the five groups that are selected. It's similar for the working group that comes next. Those were important sources of information. Then the following panels are all organized around subject areas the members felt they wanted to hear about, or groups they wanted to hear from. There are some specific additions that members have brought forward, and there are others we have suggested. So there are a lot of sources for the information that's on the list.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: There was no public notice given to invite those who would like to appear to make their intentions known.

[English]

Ms. Kristen Douglas: Yes, there was.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Very well. Does this list reflect the applications we received?

[English]

Ms. Kristen Douglas: Yes, and when you look at the last heading of the list, on the last page or so, you'll find those are organizations that have been in contact, but we haven't put them on a panel, either because the panel was pretty full and there were some overlaps or because there may be some groups there from which some members felt they didn't want to hear.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are you satisfied with the answer?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 0935

[English]

Also on this list are either individuals or organizations suggested by members of this committee in recent weeks.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Chair, do I understand that there will be people from the department here on Thursday?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: What about the minister? Is there any schedule for him to appear?

The Chair: Yes, the minister has indicated his availability and his preference to appear towards the end of the witness process.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Is it not common practice for the minister to appear at the beginning?

The Chair: There is no fixed rule. It depends on the substance. Sometimes it's very useful to have a minister at the end to somehow summarize the work done by the committee until then. I think the committee is usually in a much better position to ask difficult questions of the minister towards the end of the process having had the benefit of the witnesses.

Mr. Bigras, Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, regarding the topic raised by my colleague Comartin, I find it unusual for the minister to come after the committee hearings.

The Chair: Near the end.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, near the end. I think there must be a rationale to this. The minister first presents his political vision of the bill, followed by officials who explain the details of implementing the act and the more theoretical or technical aspects of it, and then we hear witnesses. I rather agree with my NDP colleague who says that, logically—I don't mean to say that we are now doing something illogical—it would be preferable, to the extent that the minister can fit this into his agenda—and I ask the parliamentary secretary to take note of this—to hear the minister even before hearing the officials. I make this request to the committee through the parliamentary secretary.

The Chair: Your message will be relayed by the parliamentary secretary.

You mentioned political vision. If the minister wants to give us his political vision, he'll have to repeat the speech he made in the House at second reading. He expressed the political vision at that time. The speech would be the same.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: We will all be repeating ourselves because we debated this for hours in the House. Thus, basically, we will repeat what some colleagues already said in the House. Out of respect for some committee members who were perhaps not present when the minister made his speech in the House, he should express his political vision before the committee.

The Chair: You are right, but this is why we have the Hansard. You can read it at your convenience.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I am quite ready to believe that, but the minister is also there to reply to his fellow members before the committee. At that time, members have an opportunity to clarify some details not dealt with by the minister in the House. Committee members can then put questions to the minister before studying the bill more closely.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I feel that the important thing here is to get legislation that works. We know, I think, where the minister is going with this and living up to his commitments. Now it's a matter of listening to the witnesses to see where the gaps are and where the bill may not work. Then we can pose that to the minister and say that we've listened to all these witnesses and here's what we think won't work. We need you to help us fix this, and this is our recommendation. We can make that very strongly at the end, when we really can make the changes before we move forward. I think at this point we will just hear the political statement again, which I don't know is going to add very much.

The Chair: Mrs. Redman.

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

I would like to respond to the two previous interventions. Clearly the minister is at the disposal of this committee, but he has said many times on public record that he values the work of this committee and that this is very important legislation that Canadians have said they want. If after hearing the witnesses we're able to ask the pointed questions, he would be very interested to hear how this committee views the interventions of the witnesses. Perhaps it would be most productive if he were to come closer to the end, perhaps before clause-by-clause, to hear the reflections of this committee, how it reacted to what it heard.

• 0940

Mr. Mills has already made the point that there's a lot of misinformation out there. As we speak to the witnesses, we can formulate, as a committee, our view of the proposed legislation. It would be most productive for him to come at that point in time.

The Chair: We had a good discussion on the role of the minister, and I'm sure Madam Redman will convey the feelings of individual members to him.

Could I now invite you to provide further questions, if any, on item 1, and if there are none, then on item 2? These again are five organizations, from mining to pulp and paper, to the Sierra Club, to wildlife and nature federations.

Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Reed.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: On the overall panels, what I find missing here as well is the provincial governments. Maybe that should be a panel on its own.

The Chair: If they are interested, if they are willing to appear, it certainly could be a possibility. I'm sure the Government of Québec will give an enthusiastic, positive answer, so will Ontario, so will perhaps others. We will certainly explore that possibility.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, regarding this issue, when you say that we will study this proposal, should I gather that the clerk will send out invitations to provincial governments? Can I gather that?

The Chair: No. I did not say that.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: All right. I want to be sure that I understand.

[English]

The Chair: Just a second—Mr. Clerk, would you please elaborate on that?

The Clerk of the Committee: This list is compiled from groups

[Translation]

who got in touch with us to say they were interested in appearing before the committee. We did not call for requests to appear, especially not from provincial ministries.

If the committee wishes, I can contact them. It is up to you. We received a request from the Assistant Deputy Minister for Natural Resources from the province of Nova Scotia, Mr. Dan Graham, as you can see on the last page. I will not take for granted that other provinces are not interested. I am sure that they are aware of this bill.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, I was curious to know if, when the selections were being made, there was any assessment of duplication of mandate among the various groups. In other words, I see the Sierra Club of Canada and I see the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, for instance. How much will their philosophies differ? I am wondering whether that was taken into account.

The Chair: The answer is yes to your first question. There is a difference in approach, in mandate, in modus operandi between the two, definitely.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: They are different organizations, aren't they?

The Chair: He was concerned about the overlap, but to the best of our knowledge, there is really no overlap that one can identify at the present.

Mr. Bob Mills: On Friday I met with a provincial government chairman on the endangered species act in Alberta, which was instituted in 1997, and then I talked to three other groups involved with that act in Alberta. All of them, groups from both sides of the spectrum, said it's working very well. To hear the chairman of that committee, who is a provincial politician, tell you how it works in Alberta might be quite helpful for this group. I don't know that he would attend, but I think he probably would.

The Chair: Fine, then the clerk will certainly explore that possibility.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

• 0945

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was just going to point out to Mr. Reed that the Sierra Legal Defence Fund is with the Endangered Species Campaign and the Sierra Club is with the Species at Risk Working Group, which have taken, as the chair said, two very different approaches.

Mr. Julian Reed: Yes, fine, just so long as they're not—

The Chair: No, there was a deliberate attempt—and this is why they're organized in that fashion—to avoid duplication and to avoid overlap to the maximum. Now we can't guarantee it 100%, but that is the way it has been designed.

Are there any further questions on item 2, because if there are none I will now call number 3.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I hope I don't annoy the chair unnecessarily, but I assume, if we're on 2, that we've done 1.

The Chair: Nobody should worry about the chair. As long as you are on the topic, you're fine.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm on topic but not on the number. Have we done item 1? We then—

The Chair: There's no problem in going back and forth, as you'll discover further on some discrepancies and so on. So please go ahead.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm just noting the inclusion of the IFAW. I'm assuming that's the will of this committee to hear from that group.

The Chair: So far, yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I have some difficulty with them. I would hope they're not going to give out stuffed animals or employ any of their commonly used techniques. I also have some concerns that they're going to be part of a group whose other members are very mainstream, highly credible groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund. Just as long as they don't derail the overall presentation with any particular strategies, that's okay. but I'm already on record as to where I come from with that group.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would have to echo Madam Carroll's point on this because I think the position of this group is seen as very radical. Certainly radical behaviour serves a purpose, but it is a very different approach than the World Wildlife Fund or CPAWS or the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. The may be part of the campaign, but they certainly do have a different approach, and to suggest that they are going to somehow be reflective of the same approach, I think, is not correct.

The Chair: Thank you. Duly noted, and we will certainly keep that in mind when contacting the organization.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I think the committee is wise and can certainly separate the wheat from the chaff. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we have too much of a hard edge on exclusivity and send the message out that we've already decided what voices we're going to hear. Maybe we have to put up with a little bit of whatever in the spirit of inclusiveness and hearing from all voices. In the long run, if you try to shut things down, it doesn't help the end product. It's more headache than it's worth.

I'd rather have groups come and be given their due in a parliamentary committee format. They are bound by the limits of the presentations here, a quasi-judicial proceeding that is a matter of record, and if we close the door on certain people, I think the end result is worse than if we included them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth. I would say that both sides of the argument are very thoughtful and we'll keep them in mind when organizing the meeting.

Could I now ask you to go back to item 3 and to indicate any questions, if you have any?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I know that Mr. Green appeared, but I'm just wondering if Mr. Fraser, Dr. Boates, and Dr. Festa-Bianchet are the individuals who appeared before the committee the last time.

• 0950

A voice: They are.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: They are. Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Item 4, as you can see, is a large panel of seven.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is quite a full list. These are all law associations—there are environmental law associations, there's the Canadian Bar Association, which may send someone from their environment committee—but they are going to perhaps have different perspectives. I think it's very important to have panels that present different perspectives, and we have spoken about, when looking at some of the more difficult issues in the legislation, the possibility of having a panel comprised of scientists, environmental industry types, discussing whatever particular issue we might be struggling with as a committee. But I wonder if this particular panel is not a bit overwhelming.

Also, could we have clarification on the format? I understand it will be a two-hour format for each panel? Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes, it is. And this would create a nightmare of 101 hours and 10 minutes of seven different presentations. So it is quite possible that we would split this into two parts and have the environmental law group together, and the non-environmental law organizations—in other words, split it between two and five, including French sessions.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. However, there are—

The Chair: That would be one way of handling it.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: There are only two that I'm—

The Chair: There are two—yes, that's what I said. So we have the Quebec and the Canadian bars as one, and the other five in another panel. Or if you wish to make a different suggestion, by all means do it now.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would hesitate to suggest that two non-environmental law associations have equal weight with four or five environmental law associations. I don't know if that's an adequate comparison. I think you could have a proportionate amount of time for the Canadian Bar Association. When you get into, for example, some of these northern organizations and these other groups, again we're starting to see very long lists. So it may be that you have one two-hour session with the environmental law groups, and you have one half-hour or forty-minute session with the Canadian Bar and the Barreau du Québec, and then you couple that with some panellists from the northern organizations.

Again, when we get into number 6, we're finding quite a large list, and I'm sure we're going to have this situation with other panels, that we may have to couple some different panels together in the same two-hour session.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you. We may be able, as we progress, to identify smaller groups and combine them accordingly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chair: So it's duly noted by the clerk and by me.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Once again, regarding aspect 4, I think that this is one of the important aspects—I emphasize that it is an important aspect—of the study as a whole and for the witnesses who will appear. Here is what I mean. I more or less agree with Ms. Kraft Sloan that we should give more emphasis to national groups under point 4. We should understand that some provinces have already enacted laws. Thus, there is a legal side to this issue, and it would be interesting to see how some environmental laws groups and others, like the Quebec Bar, view the implementation of the federal law, while, for instance, also respecting the Quebec law regarding endangered species. Thus, I think that we need not necessarily give greater importance to national groups than to provincial groups, because we have to see clearly how the provisions of this act will be applied. I think that the legal aspect is very important in studying this bill.

• 0955

The Chair: We will keep that in mind.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I hope I'm not jumping the gun. I'm jumping into 5 and 6.

The Chair: Yes. Please wait a second.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I'll wait.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, probably, is on 4.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I am. Concerning the issue of environmental law, I'll make this comment through you, Mr. Chair, but it may be to the parliamentary secretary.

It's been my experience that when we have lawyers in front of the panel, their general message is that the federal government has the authority to go further, and we never hear the counter-argument from the department. We may be told informally, off the record, “Oh, if you do this, we're going to get sued, and the bill will be struck down in court.” I'd like to bring this issue into the full light of day in front of the committee and have a briefing from the Department of Justice as to exactly what is the limit on federal government authority. I'd like a written brief before officials from the Department of Justice come in front of us, so that we can look at it ahead of time.

We've been through this exercise before. I can't speak for others, but at times I'm suspicious that there's a political agreement between the federal government and the provinces as to how far the federal government is going to go in this area. Then they try to dress it up with legal arguments. It's not my intent to be cynical, but I'd like to deal with this issue in a straightforward manner and have it fully exposed.

The Chair: Would you envisage the witnesses in group number 4 appearing before this committee in the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice, so that that person can be questioned?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It wouldn't be bad to have a Justice official present while they're here, but I think Justice may require its own meeting, at least its full one-hour session.

The Chair: Fine.

Madam Kraft Sloan, then Madam Carroll.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would be extremely supportive of Mr. Knutson's comments. You are talking about a technical briefing this Thursday. I would presume that would be a little early for—

The Chair: No. I'm not talking about a technical meeting, but—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There's a technical meeting with Environment Canada this Thursday, is that correct?

The Chair: This Thursday, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. I would assume that is too soon to have Justice appear before us, but I think we need to hear from them right away. I think Mr. Knutson's idea is very good.

As to your suggestion about having a mixed panel, I think as the committee goes through listening to witnesses for this legislation, we can identify some of the points—as we suggested last spring—where we may want to have a panel to deal with the various points that seem to be sticking and where we've heard contradictory evidence, and get both sets of witnesses before us. So I think this would be an excellent way to combine some of the thoughts that Mr. Knutson and you have put forward. I would like to encourage the committee to think that while this is a fairly final witness list, there will be things we need further discussion and clarification on as we go through the process.

The Chair: Yes, definitely, Madam.

Madam Carroll, then Monsieur Bigras.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you. I have a question, through you, to Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Karen, are you suggesting that Justice officials come as part of the technical briefing with Environment? No? Good. Because I agree very much, as you do, with Mr. Knutson. I would ask, however, that we tell the Canadian Bar Association in advance of their venue that they will be appearing with the Department of Justice. Because the CBA, like a lot of our other resources, has been carved back, and if they have some sense in advance that they may be looking at the constitutional, as well as the environmental, aspects, I think we will get a better briefing from them.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But my suggestion did not relate to when the law groups make their first appearance. Let them make their first appearance, but then if we decide there are issues that are sticking with this legislation, that we're getting conflicting messages, we should strike a panel that looks at the constitutional elements, or whatever the issue is, and bring in—

• 1000

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You have the advance—

The Chair: I'm not going to have conversations like that.

May I bring to your attention the fact that panel 14 includes Dale Gibson, who has always been extremely helpful to this committee on constitutional law. When we indefinitely deal with a number of issues that will be raised in panel 4, we should perhaps advance Dale Gibson's appearance so that it is closer to the work produced by the environmental and non-environmental law organizations.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If he appears, then we could have the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec appear in the second hour or the previous hour.

The Chair: Yes, we could do that.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree with Mr. Knutson's proposal. I think that it would help us to fill a gap and to make things clearer. I also propose that representatives from Intergovernmental Affairs appear at the same time as the Department of Justice. I think, in fact, that the Justice Department must appear and I entirely agree that it should appear. But when we raise constitutional issues, we have to look for the answers where they can really be found. Thus, I think that we should turn to the department in charge of this matter, namely the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. Thus, given that the Department of Justice will appear, I request that we appeal to the right department. I entirely agree that we should deal with this matter, but I think that representatives of Intergovernmental Affairs are the ones who should be able to answer our questions.

[English]

The Chair: Well, that would be a very valid intervention, Mr. Bigras, if wildlife were to respect the provincial and international boundaries. Unfortunately, they don't. So I don't know how much advantage there could be of going into political and artificial boundaries, which have nothing to do with the scope of the bill. But anyway we'll take that into account.

Mrs. Redman.

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

Just for clarification, the earlier intervention I assumed was talking about departmental people and not asking the minister to appear before this committee. I'd just like to confirm that my understanding is the one the committee holds. It's Justice department people.

The Chair: Yes. Correct.

Mrs. Karen Redman: We're not asking the Minister of Justice, which is what I understood from Mr. Bigras.

The Chair: No, no. The justice lawyers.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No, no.

The Chair: Correct.

Are there any further comments on item 4? Are the lawyers satisfied? Mr. Comartin?

Mr. Joe Comartin: No, I'm not.

I think we're really confusing.... If we're going to bring Dr. Gibson in to speak about constitutional issues, I don't expect the bar associations—I'm not sure about the Barreau—to be addressing the constitutional issues.

The Chair: It could be. We don't know, but it could well be.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The other concern I have is I don't know Dr. Gibson's work. I haven't seen any of his studies or treatises. Is he the only constitutional expert we're proposing to bring? He's the only one I saw on the list.

The Chair: He is the only one that this committee is aware of from past work for having done a considerable amount of thinking on the subject. However, if you want to bring.... We'll be glad to supply you with work that he has done, for your satisfaction.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay.

The Chair: Could we go to item 5 now, please?

Mrs. Redman.

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

I'm just going to suggest—when I went over the list—that perhaps the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada should be moved from a later panel—panel 7—to go into this panel.

The Chair: From panel 6.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Sorry, 6.

As well the Native Women's Association of Canada, which was in the other category, would be appropriate to be in the national aboriginal organizations.

The Chair: Any objection to that? Fine. That can be done. So Inuit Tapirisat to 5..

• 1005

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: She took the words right out of my mouth for 5. I'd like to go on to 6, but I'll wait.

The Chair: All right. Any other comment on 5? If not, number 6, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If you entertain the issue of territorial governance and provinces, you look at the Government of the Northwest Territories as one, Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board as another, and the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board. Those are territorial jurisdictionals. If you brought them out as territory and provinces, they would fit comfortably, then you would look at northern organizations. The list wouldn't be so big now. You could bring in some of the northern provincial organizations—the trappers, the inland fishers, and some of the traditional land users. Those are completely overlooked in this witness list.

The Chair: Are you suggesting a 6(a) section—a separate section?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, that's what I mentioned with the provinces and territories. A lot of them have within their territories wildlife management boards, but within the province there are environmental departments. In our case, we have the Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, which should be a part of this dialogue, and maybe Alberta and Manitoba want to be a part of that as well. I think they should have their own grouping.

The Chair: Fine, we will make them into a separate group, as you suggested. That's fairly easy. We'll have two panels.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: And then just in closing, I would ask, is there a process? Do I have to acknowledge to the clerk some of the other regional groups that should be invited, or should I tell the regional groups to send letters of intent to the clerk?

The Chair: Yes, that would be fine. That's the way it is usually done. You alert the regional group or vice versa—either way—so long as they make contact, or the clerk is asked to make the contact.

Any other comments on 6? If not, would you please comment on 7, panel 1 and panel 2.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, there was a very good presentation made by a forestry group when we heard witnesses on the last incantation of this bill.

The Chair: What was the name?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm just trying to remember.

The Chair: Perhaps you can let us know.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can I check my records, please?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chair: Other comments on item 7? We will hear from Mrs. Kraft Sloan on that organization.

Item 8, panel 1 and panel 2. Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's come to my attention that

[Translation]

l'Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature

[English]

is a member of the Canadian Nature Federation. There are other organizations that are also members of the Canadian Nature Federation as well. I'm just wondering—not to pick on a Quebec group by any stretch of the imagination—but they are like the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, Alberta Wilderness Association, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, for example, Nature Saskatchewan. They are all members of the Canadian Nature Federation. The Canadian Nature Federation is making a presentation to us on the species at risk working group, so I'm just wondering if it's the intent to hear duplicate witnesses who have already been represented in another guise.

The Chair: Well, before I recognize Mr. Bigras, certainly the David Suzuki Foundation would object strenuously to the notion that they would be represented nationally by someone else.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm not suggesting the David Suzuki Foundation. I'm just saying the Union québécoise—

• 1010

The Chair: But the Conservation Council of New Brunswick would also carry some.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, that was not one of the ones I mentioned. I mentioned the last group—

The Chair: I know.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: —on the first panel in number 8. I mentioned the Alberta Wilderness Association, the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and also Nature Saskatchewan. These are all members of the Canadian Nature Federation. Those are the ones I mentioned.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, in fact, the Union belongs to the federation. But I think that this bill must be analyzed here, within the context of current legislation in each province. If, tomorrow morning, we told the Union that it could not appear before the committee because it belongs to the Canadian federation, I do not think that it would be happy with that. Thus, I think that this bill must be analyzed in the context of what is already being done in the provinces, and the Union québécoise would help us to make the connection between what has been done in Quebec since 1989 and the bill that was tabled today. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the Union québécoise be kept on the list of witnesses.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, my only point is that we have duplications here, and I thought that at one point we had discussions about how much we were going to allow duplication among the witnesses. There is a whole series of duplications once you get to pages 6 and 7. That's all.

The Chair: I think it would take a superior quality of wisdom, which I do not possess, to rule on this. It may well be that some organizations listed on pages 6 and 7 will insist on coming, even if this entails some duplication. If they insist on being heard, we will have to hear them. To exclude one at this stage wouldn't be the wisest political thing to do.

Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Judging from the past, I assume that it would be consistent with this committee's practice to invite all groups to submit written submissions. Then, whether or not they choose to come or if they are unable to come in person, we will have the benefit of their written submissions.

The Chair: The answer is yes.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Earlier today we made a decision not to travel on the grounds that we could still manage to be inclusive and comprehensive working in Ottawa. I think we have to hear all parties, even if there is some duplication. It's a necessary part of the process in terms of giving Canadians an opportunity to be heard, so I think we have to be generous with our time.

The Chair: All right, that's also very helpful. Mr. Morawski has an additional piece of information to add. Please go ahead.

The Clerk: The Canadian Nature Federation contacted me and said they'd be willing to serve on a panel with all the other naturalists combined if the committee wishes, so this would include all the groups that have been mentioned.

The Chair: So we'll explore that possibility to see if it can be done.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And how long...?

The Chair: It will be a separate panel.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It will be a separate panel, but you're still looking at a fairly long list because I have two other organizations that I'd like to add to number—

The Chair: Are they naturalists?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chair: Well, there may be two panels then.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Fine.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I just wanted to mention to Ms. Kraft Sloan, who spoke of pages 6 and 7 and of other organizations, that if it makes her feel any better, none of these other organizations is from Quebec. Therefore, I don't think there will be a duplication of the Quebec point of view when the bill is examined in committee. There is no reason to fear any kind of overlap of presentations from the two Quebec groups.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Going back to the decision not to travel, I have the name of a person on the list here, Colin Kure, who happens to be a constituent of mine. He is a typical kind of farmer, but he has been active. His father set up endangered species projects on a private basis throughout the whole province of Alberta. He's just a grassroots kind of a farmer. He's not some organization, nor does he represent people right across Canada.

• 1015

If we want to hear people like that, they would likely only show up at a meeting in Calgary or wherever. He would never have an opportunity to come to Ottawa and speak out on behalf of the average grassroots farmer. I don't know whether we want to hear from people like that, but as I say, he and his family have been active for literally a hundred years in preserving wildlife. He won't fit on that agricultural panel, but he's the kind of guy who I think would give a lot of insight into what the real guy on the ground thinks about this whole thing.

The Chair: If he's a pioneer, I think you could make a very strong case for bringing him to Ottawa as a pioneer in the field. There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Bob Mills: And there are other people across Canada like that, I'm sure.

The Chair: It is possible, as the clerk is suggesting, to form a panel of individuals who would be pioneers in their respective regions.

Are there any further comments on number 8? If not, I will call number 9, please.

I don't hear any murmurs. Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, while I know what these people are going to say, I still think we're going to have to hear from them.

The Chair: All right. Number 10.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, on the back page I have two names I've submitted of witnesses who are Americans. One of them is the former secretary-general of CITES, a UN group focused on protecting endangered species and preventing the trade in endangered species.

The Chair: What's the name?

Mr. Bob Mills: He's on page 7, Eugene Lapointe. As the former secretary-general, he represents a whole different perspective from what we've heard concerning endangered species and trading in body parts—the gallbladders of bears and all that sort of thing.

The other person, Helen Chenoweth-Hage, is a former congresswoman. She didn't run this past election, but she was a congresswoman in Idaho for a number of years and has done extensive work in the U.S.A. in terms of where their legislation went wrong and certain other concerns. She comes very highly recommended as an expert in the field because of her three or four terms in the U.S. Congress. If you want to look at the American scene, she would be a very good person and could come under number 10 on that list as an American.

The Chair: We'll try to arrange it. Maybe it will work out. Are there any further comments?

Mr. Bob Mills: I don't know if these people will come, but they are people who could be invited.

The Chair: Could we have item 11, please.

Mr. Bob Mills: A Dr. Robert Bailey I met with is from Ottawa. He's an ecologist. I don't know if you're familiar with him, but he is here, and I was fairly impressed with his experience. He does contract work for various organizations and advises them as to basic concepts of what can go right or wrong in working with industry on preserving endangered species. He is here in Ottawa, and I think he would fit in that scientists' panel. I don't know if any of you know him. I met him once, but he seems to be pretty down to earth, and he is from Ottawa.

• 1020

The Chair: That's a great plus. Thank you.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If his expertise is scientific but he works with industry, perhaps we should find another panel for him to sit on, because this is a purely scientific panel.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes.

Mr. Bob Mills: He works with non-profit organizations and industry.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right, that's fine, but I think what we're looking at here is the scientific basis of the legislation, as opposed to the operational side of the legislation and the policy side. I've advocated for a scientific panel because I think it's really important to hear from the scientists, not lobbyists, not policy-makers, not lawyers, and not industry.

Mr. Bob Mills: It's wherever he fits. I just think he would be a good witness.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, and I think that's a good idea, because we need to understand how to make this legislation actually work.

The other question I would have, Mr. Chair, is on item 11. I'm assuming this first panel under item 11 is going to be a full two hours, because we're dealing with some of the most highly respected scientists in their field and they need the time to present their information.

The second panel is on environmental law and policy. I know you have labelled this “Scientists and Experts”. How does this differ from environmental law? Are these policy experts as opposed to lawyers?

The Chair: And the answer is...Kristen?

Ms. Kristen Douglas: The second of the two is a faculty of environmental design professor, not an environmental lawyer.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I understand.

Ms. Kristen Douglas: I think this results from some moving around of witnesses. Dale Gibson was originally part of this group and then was moved away.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So David Boyd is environmental law and policy? Is he more of a policy type or more an environmental lawyer?

Ms. Kristen Douglas: To tell you the truth, I can't remember who brought forward his name, so I will admit I don't know that off the top of my head.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Not a problem.

Ms. Kristen Douglas: We may look at that panel again to see if there may be some other miscellaneous experts who would fit there, or whether those two could be moved somewhere else.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Are you thinking of putting them on the same day? If it's under item 11, is that all the same morning?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No.

Ms. Kristen Douglas: I think it makes more sense to schedule them as they fit into whatever the committee schedule is. The grouping does not bear any relation to days of the week or anything.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But panel 1 is an expert panel, right?

The Chair: Yes, it is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The University of Victoria has an excellent environmental law program. It's one of the finest in the country. But I was just curious as to whether this was law or policy.

The Chair: It's a good point. We have to clarify that and decide where to put Dr. Boyd, if we put him anywhere else. It's the same in the case of of Stephen Herrero. Does he fit into this second panel, or does he fit somewhere else?

Mr. Bob Mills: Stephen Herrero is a world expert on bears. He knows all about grizzly bears, has written books, and is world-renowned in terms of bears. I didn't really know he knew much about environmental law, but maybe he does.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Environmental design.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm assuming he's a policy expert, but we don't know if the other guy is a lawyer or a policy expert. But I know this guy, and he's very good.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes.

The Chair: All right, we will do some more work on that, and we will perhaps find a better slot.

Item 12, Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm consistently slow here.

Looking at item 10, you mention the United States. When you're dealing with the United States, I know you're dealing with international issues. Is there a possibility of opening that up as an international panel? Is there anything in the biodiversity convention at the United Nations that would shed some light, or is there anything from the circumpolar relations we have in the north that would bring some help to us, beyond the United States' boundaries?

• 1025

The Chair: If you draw your attention to the last page, the International Wildlife Management Consortium is being added to item 10 from the last page. That might answer your question.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further questions on item 12? If not, we'll move to item 13.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're discussing item 13, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was wondering why we're hearing from the Fraser Institute. It's my understanding that their position is that we don't need a bill at all. We all know what the Fraser Institute is, so I would question why they are appearing before the committee when everyone around the table is of the opinion that we do need a bill. There's also the fact that their credibility on environmental issues is about as high as minus seven in a parking garage.

The Chair: They came forward and asked to be heard. That's why they're on the list, but let's discuss it.

Mr. Reed, then Mr. Mills.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, just because we may not agree with a point of view, surely any committee has a responsibility to listen to all points of view, whether we agree or whether we disagree. I've never heard the Fraser Institute comment on this kind of thing at all in the past, but surely we are charged with hearing the broadest range of viewpoints possible.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, I agree with what Mr. Reed said. I think you listen to all sides, and you probably end up in the middle somewhere. That's what this is all about. I think inflammatory comments about the Fraser Institute, certainly in western Canada, would not be accepted in terms of them being a bunch of freaks and fanatics, or whatever, because they are highly thought of. A lot of people attend Simon Fraser University and consider it to be a very valid institution. I just don't accept that the Fraser Institute should not be listened to. Whether you agree with them or not is not the point, but you listen to them. But you certainly don't defame any of these groups, whether you agree with them or don't agree with them.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

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

Beyond the argument to hear all groups—and I am in complete agreement with Mr. Reed and Mr. Mills—we must not forget that there is another reality. There are people who feel that it is not necessary to have an act to protect species at risk. Those who share this point of view might be in the minority, but it is nevertheless true. Therefore, to my mind, in order to have a global vision of this issue, we must hear that group, even if I have not always, myself, agreed with what they had to say. This is not a vision that is shared by a majority of the public, but we must still hear it. We cannot refuse to listen to certain groups who don't share the views of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Perhaps if people had listened to my comments, they would realize I didn't say I don't want to hear them as committee witnesses because I don't agree with them. There are a lot of groups on our list that I do not agree with, but I want to learn from them. I just don't feel the Fraser Institute is terribly credible on this particular issue. That was my point.

Secondly, they are not Simon Fraser University. I think Simon Fraser University would have something to say about that.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? No?

Madame Redman, please.

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

Following my colleague Mr. Laliberte's lead, I wanted to go back to a panel we've already covered, if I could. The list I was working from previously doesn't quite match up with the current one, so my apologies.

• 1030

We should add, under “Fisheries and Organized Labour”, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, as well as the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters. I note that the original panel has been broken into two, and I'm cognizant of the fact that I'm adding two names, but I wonder if they could be heard at once or if there's a sense that there need to be two panels, which couldn't be collapsed into one.

The Chair: I think a panel of four could be handled.

So the first one was United Fishermen—

Ms. Karen Redman: The United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union—

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Redman: —and the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, seeing other members reach for this list—Mr. Mills, and now Ms. Redman—am I to assume that with the list beginning on page 6, “Other organizations and individuals which have been in contact with us”, we have already agreed they're all coming? I thought we were going to discuss that.

The Chair: We haven't yet reached that.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But we are reaching for it now. If we take some of the people on that list and include them in groups.... I'm just asking whether I am correct in assuming that all of them are going to come forward, that it's just a matter of slotting them in somewhere. Or are we going to discuss the value of some of them coming or not?

The Chair: Then that applies to all of these names before us.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: This?

The Chair: Yes. The whole discussion.

So I take it that the Fraser Institute is safe, and that we have added the fishermen and the Council of Professional Fish Harvesters to number 12. And now we are moving into number 15, which has names of people recommended by members of the committee.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Going back to item 10, I think Mr. Laliberte's comments twigged this thought in me. It would be very helpful, from my perspective, to have some evidence with regard to the operation of the legislation in Mexico. It's particularly timely, given what's just happened to the monarch butterflies in that country. Can we attempt to find somebody who can tell us how that legislation is working?

The Chair: That's an excellent thought, I must say, and it didn't occur to us before. Probably the people in Montreal of the Commission for Cooperation in the Environment, which is a NAFTA sidekick and has done a lot of work with the monarch butterfly, would be the appropriate people. So we'll certainly do that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

So now we go to number 15. Are there any comments on these suggestions: Labrador Inuit Association, Native Council of Nova Scotia, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, Danusia Orleanovich, Earl Campbell, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation? Are they acceptable?

I might also ask, then, in the same vein, whether you want also to comment on pages 6 and 7, “Other organizations and individuals”. Perhaps an explanation is necessary. These are mostly new names, mostly regional names or individuals. Some of them have already been brought into an earlier panel, as suggested by some of you, like the Native Women's Association and the naturalists. So could we have a general impression on this catch-all list, which attempts to pick up those who were not picked up by the specific net that was applied before.

Madam Carroll, then Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think any of these additional groups that are already included under another umbrella organization have been accepted by the committee. I don't think we need to, as the lawyers say, deal with this joint and severally. If they're included in a national organization or an umbrella organization, ça suffit. Otherwise this will be a never-ending process. I'm not able to say which of these other groups are umbrellaed, because I don't know that. But if they are, then they've got input into the collective presentation their umbrella group is going to make.

• 1035

And while I have the floor, I do have to suggest—while I appreciate Mr. Mill's input—that bringing forward names of people we have read about or listened to and have some regard for is too open-ended. While you may find Dr. Robert Bailey an ecologist who appeals to you, I'd probably have other ecologists who, in my opinion, are also useful. That could go on and on as we reach for individuals. I would like to take a second look at that. The same applies to the American woman, former congressman. I see a certain amount of expertise there, but likewise, I would probably have some politicians in New England who I have a high regard for. So I think we have to come together on a criterion and vet individuals accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: On the first item, you're probably referring to Edmonton and Calgary, the regional chapters of CPAWS. And probably we will have to talk to them and see whether that is so—in which case, the national association will have to speak for them. And that will be done by the clerk, I'm sure.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association—what's the rationale for that group coming? I'm not being non-inclusive—to the members of the alliance.

The Chair: The only rationale for the names on pages 6 and 7 is that they came forward themselves or they've been recommended by a member of the committee. None of those actions is a sinful one. It is perfectly—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Well, I would strike that one. If you get into civil liberties associations—

The Chair: Understandably.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: —you're opening a door to many other groups. So I would ask members to consider that. If you want civil liberties, for whatever reason, take the national organization. Let's not start with ten provinces.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Over the years I've got to know quite a number of environmental organizations at the national, regional, and local levels. And while I haven't had interactions in all parts of the country, there are still a lot of groups on this list that I have never had any interaction with. I know absolutely nothing about these organizations.

I think it would be helpful, before we make a final decision on some of the members of this list, for them to submit an organizational profile. Because someone can declare themselves an organization, they can set up a website, but we need to know that they have a bona fide.... If they're calling themselves an organization, they must have articles of incorporation or whatever, a board of directors, some kind of membership. We need to know what their mandate is. I'm not suggesting that ECO Express Gifts is a questionable organization, but it sounds to me as if it could be a good e-business.

So I don't know what the purpose and the mandate of these organizations are. While we do hear from industry and people who are involved in the private sector, it's because of the legislation and the impact of the legislation. So I wonder who these people are. Whether they are a for-profit business, I don't know, but if we're going to start hearing from individual businesses, then we'll become endangered, extirpated, and extinct, etc. Does that mean only breeding in captivity? We won't go there.

To add to that, if we are looking at some regional groups, I would like to add the South Lake Simcoe Naturalists, Dr. Paul Harpley, who has been head of that organization for a number of years. He's a well-respected ecologist. He's very actively involved with one of the pavilions down at the Toronto Metro Zoo. He's called on for consultation by the Chinese government. He has taken me personally into areas in my own neighbourhood where he's pointed out a number of endangered species. He's also a wildlife artist. He's called upon by the Chinese government and by many governments for consultation.

• 1040

I would also recommend STORM, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine, which is an organization that has been actively involved in five regions surrounding Toronto, trying to protect the Oak Ridges moraine, an area of vital importance, particularly in southern Ontario. It has a longstanding history, a huge membership, and so on.

I would add those two. Dr. Anna Tilman often represents that organization, and she is well known in academic and policy circles as well.

The Chair: Dealing first with the suggestion of an organizational profile, it is certainly very helpful and we will attempt to obtain that so as to be able to assess better the substance of the organization, whether it is a paper one or not.

In regard to individual suggestions, Bob Mills, for instance, has identified someone who sounds at least like an interesting pioneer in the field, who is working out there, and who also comes from a region that he knows very well. Madam Kraft Sloan has mentioned someone she knows very well in her region as well.

To do justice and to conclude that search, would it be fair that we create a category in which one individual or organization—but just one—is chosen by each member of this committee for a panel discussion or two? We are fifteen members, so we will meet twice—once with seven witnesses and once with eight. Then everyone has a chance to bring forward his or her preferred pioneer or organization.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You have achieved the wisdom of Solomon; you're cutting the baby into fifteen pieces.

The Chair: Yes, and as Kristen says, it would then inevitably bring in a very interesting geographic breakdown because of the composition of this committee.

Mr. Bigras, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Comartin.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I agree with what you are proposing. I believe it is a principle of justice and fairness with which I would agree.

What I wanted to point out is that earlier, it was said that there may be regional groups that are members of a national federation, and that we would have to look into that. I believe that there is an important criterion: We must never exclude an organization that is an independent member of a national federation. Even if a group is a member of a national organization, it can still be independent and, from time to time, hold positions that are very different from those of the national group to which it belongs. That is an important criterion and I would ask that we respect it. I can't give you any specific examples, but it is something that, I believe, is important. L'Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature is an example of what I have just said. You can be a member of a national federation and be independent, take a stand that is sometimes different from what is advocated by the national federation, and I think that such opinions and such visions must be expressed before the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: To address Ms. Carroll's comment about the Americans, the one comment I get is, well, you're creating legislation just like the Americans. The reason for having the Americans is for them to tell us what that legislation is like and how it didn't work.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, I didn't—

Mr. Bob Mills: That's why I went searching for people who had that expertise. I know that congresswoman is going to tell us about the legislation, and looking back 30 years in her involvement, what they did wrong and wished they hadn't. I think that's the message.

I think that would be very helpful for us, to be able then to say as a committee, hey, we looked at that and this is not what we have, so you can trust this legislation. That was the purpose of that. It wasn't a matter of cherry-picking people. I don't know for sure what they'll say, but I think they'll tell us about the U.S. because they were there, they were part of it, they were part of the legislation.

• 1045

I wouldn't want to use them up as my—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: As you wish.

Mr. Bob Mills: —one select grassroots guy, because they're not grassroots certainly.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, if I could just respond—

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, and then Madam Carroll.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have three points to make. I think your suggestion of each of us bringing forth an individual is an excellent one. After some of the comments about the animal welfare group, the person I'm thinking of is somebody who has been trying to save the hawk population in my region. He tends to bring one of the hawks around with him, but I'll tell him he can't do that.

Secondly, I'm quite concerned about the impact of this legislation on the national parks, and I think it would behoove us to have an additional panel of some of the groups that are concerned about that. I see on pages 6 and 7 there are a number of organizations that would qualify in that regard. This legislation will, or potentially will, have some significant impact on the parks, and I think it's important to hear the perspective of people who have worked extensively, not as part of the government organization running those parks, but as individuals and groups assisting in the preservation of the parks.

Then I'd like to echo the comment of someone from the other side of the table. I would like to see a list of backgrounds on these groups before we make final decisions on how we're going to treat them as witnesses.

The Chair: It was Madam Kraft Sloan. She suggested an organizational profile.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Your point on national parks is definitely a dimension that needs to be dealt with.

Madam Carroll, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: To respond to Mr. Mills, I think learning about the American experience is very valuable, so I did not mean to suggest cherry-picking in that sense. I would like to learn about the American experience. But the remarks made earlier have led to the conclusion that I think we've come to, that we have to have some kind of criteria and agreement as we reach into individuals.

From my perspective, there are some incredible people with British experience, but I start to think, how is this growing and what rules will we apply? So I have to agree with Madam Kraft Sloan that the chair exhibits the great wisdom of Solomon in dividing the baby into 15 pieces.

The Chair: Are there any further comments on the overall approach, or suggestions or advice?

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mine is a bit of a departure, perhaps, but certainly connected with the target at hand, which is the witnesses and how we're going to manage hearing them.

I sense there's a lot of goodwill within this committee and a lot of belief that this is a very important piece of legislation, and I would reiterate that the minister has said on public record many times that he values the work of this committee and looks forward to our work after we hear the witnesses.

This could be a never-ending story. There is an inexhaustible number of voices that are interested in this. So I guess the challenge before the committee collectively is to get representative voices. This is very important legislation, and it will cause us to consider at great length what we hear from witnesses.

I'm going to ask if the committee would agree on a date upon which we would move to clause-by-clause. It will be in that process that we then examine what we've heard from witnesses. This is in no means meant to be an effort to truncate that process in any way, other than to say, as important as this legislation is, the bill in itself is not complex, and when we get to clause-by-clause we will then synthesize as a committee. The minister would be pleased to come and hear our interventions before we move to that, and then it will be in the House, when this committee has made its recommendations, that it will receive a full and I'm sure very productive debate.

I'd like to put forward for discussion purposes, if I could, a date on which we might consider clause-by-clause, recognizing that part of this request would also be that we have additional committee meetings. Again, it's not my assumption that we would meet night and day, but I think if we were to provide flexibility to proposed witnesses and panels, it might be a productive use of not only our time, but of witnesses' time. Not all witnesses can appear on a Tuesday or Thursday morning, so perhaps we could look at holding evening meetings and additional meetings, as I know this committee and other committees have done in the past. I think that would be in everybody's best interest.

• 1050

For discussion purposes, the date I would suggest we look at for beginning clause-by-clause consideration would be May 7, and if it were the committee's wish, the minister could appear on May 3.

The Chair: Is that it?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: With respect to the proposal made by the parliamentary secretary, May 7 should not be a problem for me.

What I would like to ask the clerk, however, is the following: in the light of what we have just determined as to the scope of the activities, the industry, fisheries and others, can we hear all of the witnesses that we have so far, before May 7? Does the planning of our business allow us to hear everyone by May 7 before proceeding to the clause-by-clause examination? I believe that's fundamental. If the answer to that question is no, then May 7 will no longer apply.

[English]

The Chair: Before asking the clerk to answer your question, Mr. Bigras, keep in mind that in April we are not sitting for two weeks.

Now, over to you.

The Clerk: Unless the committee wants to sit for those two weeks.

An hon. member: No, no.

An hon. member: In your dreams.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Clerk: Anything is possible. It's up to the members to have the will to sit morning, noon, and night.

The Chair: We can certainly strive to include days other than Tuesday and Thursday. Sometimes Wednesday would be perfectly fine. As to Monday, I don't know if those who come from far away would be happy about that.

But keep in mind something I mentioned at the beginning. If the process of hearing witnesses is to be meaningful, you will need some space to absorb their material. You need some time to digest what has been said. Sometimes briefs are 40 or 50 pages long. You need some time to review the material in order to organize your thinking for the next wave that is going to hit you. Therefore, I'm telling you that I'll not subscribe to a schedule of meetings that would engage the committee for four or five days in a row. That is out of the question, because then the committee members will have a tremendously difficult time making intelligent use of the material that has been put to us. So we'll have to do some balancing here—keeping in mind that it would be desirable to have a meeting with the minister in early May—but not at the expense of our capacity to absorb the subject matter.

Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, building on what you've already said, I think it's important that we also consider time set aside for the preparation of amendments. The committee members themselves will have to go through all of this vast testimony in order to develop a synthesis and to understand what are the themes and some of the problems. I've never seen a piece of legislation, particularly on the environment side, that has been able to pass through committee as soon as it came in the door. So I would suggest we have this time set aside for meetings with witnesses, but we also will need some time for the preparation of amendments.

The committee has consistently said all along since last spring that as we go through this process, the likelihood of the necessity to bring witnesses back to deal with some of the more controversial and sticky issues in the legislation will probably be very high. I think it's very difficult to determine a set time as to when we would start clause-by-clause consideration.

The Chair: Anyway, we have at least a benchmark, and this is stimulating some thinking.

Mr. Mills would like to say something.

• 1055

Mr. Bob Mills: That basically is four weeks of Parliament time we would have open to us. I can't imagine going through that whole list and absorbing all of that in four weeks. I know how controversial this is, and therefore it will be important for us to have time to communicate what's happening here. If there's any view that we're rushing this through, I think we're going to have real difficulty. I know I'll have difficulty explaining it within my caucus, and we'll have difficulty explaining it to the public. So I'm really concerned about that.

I don't think this legislation is going to die on the Order Paper because of an election. I think we're safe in terms of not having that hanging over us, as must have been the case with the last two committees.

I would hate to see us pin down a date and say we could finish it by then and therefore we're meeting every night until midnight in order to achieve that. I was on a committee that did that once. It wasn't much fun, and it didn't accomplish anything, really.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I agree with Mr. Mills except that I think that, at some point, we will have to have a timeframe. We have calculated that there are some 24 committees. I don't know how often we can see them, but if this goes on forever, we will never see the end of it. If we wait for each group to be available on a given date, we will be here forever. I think we should have our own timetable and say that there are 24 committees and this is the timeframe that is available. When they are invited to appear, we should keep to the schedule, otherwise, we will still be here next Christmas. We will never see the end of it.

Therefore, since we have determined which groups will appear, we should draw up a schedule. I have no objection to adding certain times in the week without giving May 7 as a specific date, but we should tell them, at some point, what type of schedule we have according to the number of weeks remaining. We will determine how many witnesses we will hear and we will set a time limit. Otherwise, it will go on forever.

[English]

The Chair: Merci. Mr. Comartin, Madam Kraft Sloan, and then Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Taking just a brief look at how many panels we're likely to have, I'm up to something in the range of 20. If we only meet twice a week or even three times a week, there's no way we can do it in four weeks' time. This timeframe is just not practical if we're going to hear those panels. So I think we have to say to Ms. Redman that it's not possible unless we're prepared to pare these panels down to probably half of what we're talking about this morning.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

We've gone through a very useful exercise this morning in going through the witness list. The next stage is the preparation of the work plan, which is something the clerk and the Library of Parliament researchers will work on. They'll make a presentation to us. So we will have a schedule, and it's all part of the process. I look forward to seeing that schedule.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: That is more or less what I was saying. Would it be possible, in view of the time that the committee has available, to prepare some type of plan for the groups that would take into account agreements among the whips, for example? I wouldn't want us to have to add evening sittings, on Wednesday, or Friday. I remind you that the sittings that have been scheduled by the committee are the result of an agreement amongst the party whips, and we can't change that without consulting the whips.

Therefore, in view of what the committee has in mind, would it be possible to prepare a plan? We will then be able to determine if it is necessary to add any more meetings.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras is reminding us of the importance of the block system and the consequences of jumping out of it. There are parties with 12 members only, and they would certainly be under stress in manning the committee outside of the block. That is a point that had escaped me.

Anyway, I think, as Madam Kraft Sloan said, we've had a good meeting.

Mr. Laliberte, did you want to say something?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The Inuvialuit Game Council has the same phone number as the Wildlife Management Advisory Council, and there's the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. That whole aspect of figuring out a space for them is interesting.

The Chair: The last comment on this is that the chair will alternate his tasks with the two vice-chairs so as to provide opportunities for experience and alternative styles of chairing for the members of the committee, so that they have at times an opportunity to see different faces in the chair.

• 1100

We will certainly work hard on your recommendation to make sure we come back with a reasonable timetable.

The meeting is adjourned.