ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 21, 2001

• 1549

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues.

[English]

Ladies and gentlemen, sorry for the delay.

Before we start our nitty-gritty work and respond to a notice of a point of order, I would like to inquire whether you have any questions or comments on the budget for the Washington expedition, which was distributed yesterday morning. If not, if someone were to present a motion for its adoption, that would be very helpful.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we will hear the point of order.

• 1550

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, just before you deal with that, I would like to ask a question about the time on Monday, from 3:30 until 10.

The Chair: With a break for dinner.

Mr. Bob Mills: Is it an hour break for dinner?

The Chair: Yes, from 6:30 to 7:30.

Mr. Herron, please proceed.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): Mr. Chair, I'd like to refer to deliberations we had yesterday afternoon with regard to one of the clauses we went through.

As you and the committee know, I've been extremely grateful for the cooperative approach I've received from the Species at Risk Working Group, SARWG. I applaud it as an extraordinary coalition of environmentalists and industry folks alike who have come together with a unified position. There are aspects where the coalition may differ, but in general they're essentially of the same ilk.

Yesterday when we were reviewing clause 61, there were three or four different options pertaining to it. When we were reviewing those, we had to evaluate which one might be stronger or not so strong. I even said that my version was stronger than perhaps Gar's was but that I thought the committee might be more amenable to adopting Mr. Knutson's at that time.

I'd like to review the committee evidence, and I request your indulgence on this. I had a debate about whether the accountability should rest with the GIC or the minister. That was clear as a point of public policy that I made. That made up the first three paragraphs of my remarks.

In the third and fourth paragraphs I said that if the federal government is going to have the capacity to intervene on lands that may not be exclusively within federal jurisdiction, then we should set a list of criteria about when they engage and when they don't engage. We should have the fortitude to actually set down in language when they would intervene and when they would not.

I then went on to speak about the bill in general. I believe it's possible that I misled the committee on a point of fact. I was referring to the bill in general when the reference was made that I think the Government of Canada has wastefully ignored a lot of the consensus that was built by industry and environmentalists alike. They've ignored that particular consensus.

But the words I used following those two aspects on this amendment were as follows:

The issue that we're trying to do here, is that these are amendments that have been brought forth by industry and environmental coalition alike...

This meant the amendments we were just referring to.

...I'm saying that that consensus has been built. I don't know why the Government of Canada insists on going forward with an approach that has been panned by both sides.

To be fair to the full SARWG partnership, this amendment I brought forth was suggested by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, as one of the NGOs. It was not the full breadth of the coalition. I want to be very genuine to the very constructive approach of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Mining Association of Canada toward making a better bill. By no means did I want to mislead the committee in any way, shape, or form about that aspect being there. I was referring to the bill in general. My language did not reflect that, and I think it's incumbent that I'm square with the committee on that particular point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We appreciate very much your intervention and the points you brought forward. I'm sure that every member of the committee would be happy to express gratitude for your frankness. I appreciate that. Well done.

We now can proceed and start where we stopped yesterday when we decided we would not start taking votes on clause 74 because the committee had agreed we should leave some space for Mr. Comartin to present his amendment as part of the ongoing discussion on clause 74 and as a concluding intervention.

• 1555

We welcome Mr. Leblanc and all the others, of course. For those who were not here yesterday, we are on pages 7 and 8 of the parliamentary research branch study dated November 15. Mr. Comartin has the floor, as the last discussant.

(On clause 74—Powers of competent minister)

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me express my appreciation to the committee for adjourning when they did and allowing me this opportunity to speak to clause 74.

I won't take up a lot of time, out of respect for the cooperation that's been shown, but I just want to indicate I'm in full support of Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan's amendment. On my proposed amendment, if the minister is going to go ahead and grant these permits or make these agreements, as part of the democratic process, it's appropriate that they be published in a public registry, so the public can be aware that species may be affected by the decisions made in granting those permits or in entering into those agreements.

I think this is fairly consistent with a number of other amendments that have come forward in the process of going through the clause-by-clause. A good number of them have been successful. I'm just following that pattern.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin. Does anyone wish to ask a question or make a comment, in light of what has been said now and what was said yesterday?

If not, I will follow the pattern prepared for us by the researchers and inquire whether Madam Kraft Sloan wishes to put forward her amendment first, being that it's in the first group on page 7.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We are looking at the amendment on page 283A. Before taking the vote I would—

Mr. John Herron: Point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can we have a discussion first?

The Chair: Point of order first.

Mr. John Herron: I was scared that we would be voting right away, but I'd like to suggest an amendment to Ms. Kraft Sloan's—

The Chair: We will now open it up for a brief discussion. I will indicate the consequential effect of the amendment and then we'll vote.

Madam Kraft Sloan, you have the floor.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

As I indicated yesterday, this essentially ensures that the agreements that have been developed or the permits that have been issued are actually mandatory when it comes to activities affecting listed, endangered, threatened, or extirpated wildlife species, any part of their critical habitat, or their residence. These are species under federal jurisdiction. Subclause 74(1.1) is merely an enabling clause that allows the minister to enter into these agreements, essentially the same as in subclause 74(1).

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm clearly in support of the sentiment Ms. Kraft Sloan is trying to express here with respect to her amendment on subclause 74(1).

• 1600

I'd like to suggest two aspects that we would consider to her existing amendment. The principal one is adding the word “adversely” after the word “activity”. As opposed to saying “in an activity affecting a wildlife species”, I want to say “in an activity adversely affecting a wildlife species”.

The Chair: Sorry. You're now on subclause 74(1.1) on the third line, correct?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

I'm also suggesting the first lines of subclause 74(1) should read “An agreement, permit, licence, order or other form of approval under subsection (1.1)”.

The Chair: Is this in the form of a friendly amendment?

Is that accepted by Madam Kraft Sloan?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John Herron: The reason for adding that aspect to the first lines of subclause 74(1) is that the language that Mrs. Kraft Sloan has used in her amendment G-75 is consistent with that language of “permit, licence, order, or other form of approval”. So it's for the sake of consistency.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, that's right. I accept that, Mr. Chair. Also in my original version of the amendment dealing with this particular section, I did have “adversely affecting”. So I apologize for a drafting error, and I want to thank our friend, Mr. Herron, for pointing that out.

The Chair: Fine.

Are there any comments or questions?

Madam Redman.

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

The wording in the bill as it's presented by the government is “consistent”. We are consistently trying to protect critical habitat, but we're doing it through voluntary efforts, such as stewardship.

This amendment puts in a new prohibition. There will be automatic prohibitions for critical habitat. It basically says, “The onus is on you, ranchers, farmers, landowners. Despite the fact these are federal lands or PFRA lands that would be impacted, the onus is now on you to educate yourselves on where critical habitat is and to comply with our law that you do not destroy it.”

We are in essence foregoing the cooperative stewardship venue. We are not engaging in that way. We are saying to people that the only way they may do activity on critical habitat that will adversely affect—now with the amendment that's been made—is if they have a permit or a licence.

I don't know if Monsieur Nadeau wants to again speak to this, but fundamentally we see this as a threshold that is too low. An additional prohibition is not necessary because it undermines the cooperative nature of this bill.

The Chair: Monsieur Nadeau.

Mr. Simon Nadeau (Head, Endangered Species Recovery, Environment Canada): No comment.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Just so I understand the government's position, they're saying people don't have to get a permit if they're going to wreck critical habitat. Somehow requiring people to get a permit if they're going to wreck critical habitat undermines the cooperative spirit of the bill.

I would think that allowing people to wreck critical habitat without having to get a permit would wreck the cooperative spirit of the bill. I just want to make sure I'm clear on this—maybe the officials want to answer—that somehow requiring people to get a permit—and the government would have control over when to issue a permit—undermines the cooperative spirit of the bill. Have I understood that correctly?

• 1605

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice): There's already a prohibition with respect to the destruction of critical habitat.

The main thing this amendment would do is, instead of having a general prohibition in place from which you could be exempt pursuant to the clause 83 exemptions, it would then place a positive onus on people to go out before they do anything and get a permit. That's quite a shift in emphasis and an increase in regulatory capacity on the part of the government. That's the main difference between the two.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, Mr. Chair, as it's currently worded, the bill says that the minister may enter into an agreement with a person or issue a permit to a person authorizing the person to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species or any part of its critical habitat.

First, is the government telling us that where a clause is discretionary, the government will never enact it? Is that what that means? It just confirms our worst fears. The second point I have is that individuals will be in a constant state of uncertainty as to whether there are going to be permits or agreements issued.

Mr. David Near: If you're referring to your proposed subclause 74(1.1), that's simply an enabling power for a minister. It gives them authority from Parliament to issue permits.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, one aspect of the subamendment I brought forward, referring to the language of other forms of approvals... In order to have other forms of approvals, you're going to have to be able to have agreements. If you have agreements in place, in order to obtain those agreements you would have had to consult stakeholders. It would have been implicit that there was an intrinsic obligation on the part of the Government of Canada... just to reiterate...

I just lost my train of thought, but it has come back to me again.

By talking about other forms of approval, in order to obtain an approval, you need to engage in arrangements or agreements. In order to have agreements, you have to engage stakeholders. There would have been an implicit and intrinsic obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to notify, for example, a woodlot owner who might happen to live near Bath, New Brunswick, or someplace near Red Deer, Alberta. In order to have that form of approval, there would have been an agreement made. In order to have an agreement made, you would have had to notify stakeholders. I think that makes an aspect of... actually engaging more people on the ground.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bailey.

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

We have to realize, first of all, that when it comes to habitat, we haven't totally at this point come anywhere close to identifying all relevant habitat. Therefore, if we have something like this, I have some concern about somebody unknowingly destroying habitat through no fault of their own. I'm wondering if this may prove too harsh on that particular individual if the habitat hasn't been identified but they were, say, in the process of working the land.

I found myself in that predicament many years ago. I was in fact about to destroy some very valuable habitat. I didn't do it deliberately or wilfully, and it came to my attention as I proceeded.

Do we really need this in such strong language in the nature of this bill while still asking for the cooperative approach? I'm wondering that. I'm not speaking against what you have, but I'm wondering if we really need this at this time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on that one point. You were worried about the landowner not knowing. What I'm saying is that in order to have a form of approval, you would have had an arrangement put in place, so that actually speaks to that specific point of notification.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

• 1610

Mr. Bob Mills: I tend to have some of the same concerns Mr. Bailey has, namely that basically what we're saying here is, thou shalt not touch any habitat without that permit. It seems to me that it's putting a lot of the onus on the landowner and not as much onus on the government. The nature of this bill is basically to engender cooperation, consultation, and so on. I'm a little concerned that we are putting too much onus on the landowner and not enough onus on the government by making these amendments.

The Chair: Is the Alliance in favour of greater government intervention? Is that how we should interpret your...

Mr. Bob Mills: No.

The Chair: Well, perhaps this requires some clarification.

Mr. Bob Mills: We're saying that once the government identifies a species at risk, all responsibility now falls upon the landowner. If the real intent of this bill were implemented, that things be done through cooperation and consultation, there wouldn't be a problem. The wording of the government here is going to result in the landowner and the government working together to get that permit. By changing it this way, we are putting so much onus on the landowner and less on the government.

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's a point.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

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

If I could, I'll point out to Mr. Mills and Mr. Bailey, through you, that I would indeed be concerned myself. However, there is the recovery strategy process, and the critical habitat has to be identified in that process. The landowners are certainly involved in that process if it affects any of their land. I would also point out that I have accepted the friendly amendment from Mr. Herron, which deals with adverse effects, so the landowners will be involved in a process whereby they will know where the critical habitat is because they will have been involved through consultations in the recovery strategy process.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Redman.

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

If I could, I'll just speak further to some of the points Mr. Mills and Mr. Bailey have brought up. Clearly, we all have the same objective. The basic intent of this amendment is to ensure that critical habitat is protected. We believe that encouraging stewardship, keeping prohibition as the last option of protection, is the best way to engage the people on the land, who will make this legislation work.

Comments have been made by colleagues previously that if there's no action taken and protection is not being afforded, there are prohibitions in this bill and they will come into effect. But that will not be the fundamental shift this actually brings, which puts the onus on the PFRA rancher—or whoever it is—to know everything and get a permit before they walk their cows across some piece of critical habitat.

I believe Mr. Near or Ms. Wherry would also like to make a comment on this piece.

Mr. David Near: I just wanted to point out to members of the committee that we're not just talking about the destruction of critical habitat. It talks about anything to do with adversely affecting a listed species. Arguably, clauses 32 and 33, which are the general prohibitions, wouldn't be necessary because they'd be captured by this prohibition where you don't have a permit, and the same might be said of the clause 58 prohibition.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am almost embarrassed to ask my question, because I have the impression that I have perhaps understood nothing since the beginning.

I would like someone to explain clearly to me who will apply for a permit for an activity. Are we talking about someone who has, on his... I said “someone”, but this must not be the case because we are indeed talking about federal lands. It is someone who intends to engage in an activity on land where there is the habitat of a species that has been identified as at risk. Moreover, that person is aware of that fact. This means that we are therefore hugely reducing the possibility of requesting this permit. We are still dealing with federal lands in clause 74, are we not?

The Chair: Mr. Nadeau, you have the floor.

• 1615

Mr. Simon Nadeau: This does not necessarily concern federal lands. In fact, the amendment is worded in such a way as to also take in aquatic species and migratory bird species that are not necessarily found on federal lands. At least, that is the case for migratory birds.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I just want to make sure I understand correctly. As Mr. Mills and Mr. Bailey said earlier, are we talking only about someone who applies for a permit because the habitat of a species at risk is found on this land?

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Clause 74 is not restricted to critical habitat. The clause applies to all kinds of activities, including research or recovery activities which could inadvertently harm a species. People carrying on such activities would therefore require a permit.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: So, you are talking about anyone who might work on lands on which there is a critical habitat.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: Any person who might harm a species or the species' habitat requires a permit.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): In regard to the friendly amendments, could the member explain this? I understand “adversely affected”, clarifies the whole purpose with a clear definition, in my mind, of agreements and permits, which is really required in this act. But now he's expanding into licences, orders, and other forms of approval.

To try to make this bill workable... you know, on federal lands, you're dealing with first nations lands as well. If you say any other form of approval, it could be a nod of the head by a minister. It could be an “okay coffee” at the coffee shop. It opens it up. When you're affecting the livelihoods of first nations people—their entire community is usually encompassed within that federal jurisdiction—I think we have to be a lot clearer and a lot more certain with this language. If there are going to be permits and agreements, I can understand that, it's a legal form. And licence sounds... it's the first time I've heard this terminology used. But to leave it open to other forms of approval... I think we have to be more formal in our legislation in Canada.

The Chair: While we let Mr. Herron think it over, we have Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm not sure. If the issue is does the government step in after the fact with a prohibition, I just want to remind the committee that we're talking about animals on the verge of extinction. So coming in after the fact may well be too late. This isn't a general wildlife management bill. This is a bill dealing with wildlife on the verge of extinction.

I'm all for the cooperative stewardship, and I don't see prohibitions being inconsistent with that. I get up every morning and I drive to work under the assumption that every other driver on the highway is going to cooperate with me by driving on the right side of the road, by stopping at red lights. The fact that there are serious prohibitions and consequences in place makes me even more certain everybody is going to cooperate with me.

So I think this argument that somehow prohibitions undermine the cooperative spirit of the bill is a complete red herring, in that it makes perfect sense that you get a permit before you destroy critical habitat.

The Chair: Mr. Mills, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the mover might accept a friendly amendment in which we would say “any part of its critical habitat or the residence of its individuals as identified in an action plan if the species”, and so on. What that would do is give two years for the consultation process for the development of the action plan, so it would buy the landowner that much time. It makes more sense, and it limits it, as our experts have said we should.

The Chair: Thank you. We have Madam Kraft Sloan and Mr. Herron.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Mills for his offer. I just need a few minutes to think about it. I also wanted to remind members that as the bill is currently drafted, yes, subclause 58(1) is a prohibition, but it exists only if critical habitat is identified by the GIC. The Governor in Council does not have to identify critical habitat.

Mr. Chair, I realize we have amended that section, but I think members around this committee were not born yesterday, and we understand that sometimes amendments are as ephemeral as those warm breezes that blow from the prairies sometimes—

Mr. Bob Mills: We call them chinooks.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Chinooks—probably with less effect than a chinook.

• 1620

I do want to remind members that we have to think about the original wording in this legislation, that while there is a prohibition in subclause 58(1), it works only if critical habitat is identified.

I would ask the chair if I could have a minute to think about Mr. Mills' suggestion.

The Chair: A minute, yes.

Mr. Herron, please.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I would say to Mrs. Kraft Sloan that on that particular aspect it may not be exactly what she was originally headed toward with respect to Mr. Mills' amendment, but I would say it's clearly an improvement over how it is currently in the bill, and she might want to ride with it.

To answer Rick's question, through you, Mr. Chair, on the reason I included “other form of approval”, I was just tracking the language Mrs. Kraft Sloan used in her amendment to clause 75.

I don't see anything wrong with stroking out the words “other form of approval”. I can see how you may perceive that to be vague. I was following it for consistency's sake. Whichever way Karen wants to go with that, I would be quite comfortable taking out “other form of approval”, but the tracking of “licence” and “order” in the amendment to clause 75 makes some sense.

The Chair: So you would leave the words “licence”—

Mr. John Herron: Actually, it would be “permit, licence, or order” under subsection (1.1).

The Chair: Thank you. We'll delete “other form of approval”.

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: I think it's important to clarify what exactly is being addressed here. It's not just the critical habitat aspect. If this motion is adopted, it essentially becomes the governing prohibition in the act with respect to killing, residence, and possession, which are all in clauses 32 and 33.

So clauses 32 and 33 would in effect become redundant and should no longer be in the act. The prohibition becomes, if there's no permit, you're in violation of the act. That would be with respect to all aspects, not just to critical habitat, which is the second part of this motion—unless it's been changed unbeknownst to me.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Near.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair—

[Translation]

The Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Kraft Sloan. Mr. Bigras has the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like clarification on something. At what point does this permit system become mandatory? For example, if a province already has its own permit system, is it required to apply this system, or is this system to be applied only where the procedures for issuing permits are not comparable to those of the federal government? In other words, under what circumstances will this permit system be applied?

[English]

Mr. David Near: The answer to your question is when a species is listed, this prohibition would be in place. With respect to critical habitat, when the critical habitat is identified in a recovery strategy, or, I believe, an action plan, then it would be applicable. So this is as automatic as you can get.

The Chair: All right. We now have Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if I could just hear Mr. Mills' amendment again, I'm in the position of accepting it. I just wanted to hear it for clarification.

The Chair: He suggested after the word “individuals” to insert “as identified in an action plan”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And the rest of it applies as well. So there's just that insertion. Yes, that's fine. I'll accept it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I just want to point out to Mr. Near and the others in the committee that the grand prohibition clauses 32 and 33 don't protect habitat. They protect residence and they prohibit killing. If we're worried about redundancy, I'd be quite happy to make an amendment so that this section we're dealing with deals with critical habitat, if I felt the government would then support it.

The Chair: Proceed with your suggestion.

• 1625

Mr. Gar Knutson: The amendment would now read:

(1) An agreement, permit, or licence under subsection (1.1) or section 75 is required in order for a person to engage in an activity adversely affecting any part of the critical habitat of a listed endangered, threatened, or extirpated wildlife species, if the species is:

(a) on federal lands;

(b) an aquatic species; or

(c) a migratory bird species

—and I would also include the language about “identified by” in the action plan.

The Chair: Could you repeat what you would insert after the word “affecting”, on the third line... “any part”...

Mr. Gar Knutson: “Adversely affecting any part of the critical habitat of a listed endangered, threatened, or extirpated wildlife species.”

The Chair: So you're inserting, “any part of the critical habitat of”. Is that correct?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes. I'm taking out “or the residences of its individuals”.

The Chair: You're taking out “residences” on which line? On the fifth line?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chair: You're taking out all the residences?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes. I'll give you a copy.

The Chair: Then we have now a multiple set of amendments or subamendments. As we understand it here—could I have your indulgence, please?—the amendment by Madame Kraft Sloan, with acceptance of amendments, would read as follows:

(1) An agreement or permit, licence or order under subsection (1.1) or section 75 is required in order for a person to engage in an activity adversely affecting any part of critical habitat of a listed endangered, threatened, or extirpated wildlife species, any part of the critical habitat of its individuals as identified in an action plan, if the species is:

And the balance follows, except for the insertion or the addition suggested by Mr. Herron on the third line of (1.1) of the word “adversely” after “activity”.

Are we all on the same wavelength?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. Just to be fun, Mr. Chair—it is my fault—there's a second “adversely affecting” as you go farther down in subsection (1.1).

The Chair: Yes. I did mention it.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you very much.

The Chair: There are two others, yes. All right.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In subsection (1.1), is it necessary then to add “The competent minister may enter into an agreement with a person or issue a permit to a person, or engage in a licence or order” as well, or not?

The Chair: I'm not in a position to be of assistance.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. It's probably not necessary in this section because it's just for enabling agreements or permits.

The Chair: I can't comment. I'm unable to do so.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's fine the way it is, actually, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question, or are there any further comments or questions?

Mr. Laliberte, Madame Redman.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm trying to understand what Mr. Herron explained on other instruments. If you look at clause 75, there are other acts that will allow these permits, and if you bring it into 74(1), you're synchronizing that understanding.

You may have to leave in what I asked you to take out now. I was looking at (1.1), “The competent minister may enter into an agreement or permit”. That stays clear; you're not adjusting that one. It's just recognizing other acts and other instruments that may be allowing that permit, so I have to correct it.

In reading it, the way you explained it... I misunderstood the first time. But I would agree with you that if you're going to recognize the other acts in 74(1), you have to bring it back in.

Mr. John Herron: I want to thank Mr. Laliberte for his help the second time and not the first time then. Yes, I think you're right.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, would you like to read the amendment as it is now in your understanding and as a result of Mr. Laliberte's intervention, just for the committee?

• 1630

Mr. John Herron: The beginning of 74(1) would read as follows: “An agreement, permit, licence, order or other form of approval under subsection (1.1)”, and so on.

The Chair: Would you mind reading the entire 74 as agreed upon between you and Madame Kraft Sloan, from beginning to end?

Mr. John Herron: I don't have all the wording with the Mills' component on my sheet, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Then I will read it as I understand it, and please correct me.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, sir.

The Chair: It would read:

(1) An agreement or permit, licence, order or other form of approval under subsection (1.1) or section 75 is required in order for a person to engage in an activity adversely affecting any part of the critical habitat of a listed endangered, threatened, or extirpated wildlife species as identified in an action plan, if the species is

Then (a), (b), and (c), and (1.1) reads as printed except that on the third line after “activity” the word “adversely” is inserted.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, sir.

The Chair: Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

Madame Redman.

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

I would like to reiterate and I would like to clarify one of the comments made by one of my colleagues.

This amendment brings in automatic prohibitions for critical habitat protection on all federal lands and all lands, private and provincial, when it comes to aquatic species and migratory birds. So this is an incredible shift, putting the onus on the ranchers, the fishers, and the landowners, and they need permits to engage in activities. For this reason the government does not support it, despite the fact that there have been a myriad number of amendments.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now Madame Kraft Sloan will conclude the debate.

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

This comes into effect after the action planning process, when there's been intensive consultation and involvement of those affected and they will know.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I would like to hear what Ms. Wherry has to say.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Wherry.

Ms. Ruth Wherry (Director, Species at Risk, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada): Could I ask for a bit of clarification before you vote on this?

Is this going to replace what's in 74(1) now? Does that mean nobody can do an agreement or permit for anybody to affect a listed species or its residence since this is now being changed to refer only to critical habitat, and that one still refers to the species, the residence, and the critical habitat?

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

• 1635

The Chair: As a result of this vote, then, the amendments that are on page 286 cannot be put, I'm told, as well as the amendments on pages 296, 298, 299, 302, 303, and 304, because they are consequential to the amendment.

So, Mr. Mills, if you are ready we can proceed with your amendment on page 287.

Then we will have 289, if Mr. Mills is still alive.

• 1636

• 1640

The Chair: Could I call on Mr. Mills to present his amendment on page 287.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, Mr. Chair. I believe the numbering on this probably would better fit (2.1) and it would follow as line 18. The purpose of this basically is to deal with something we've heard from a lot of industries and so on, a real concern they have, that because of this bill governments might be able to break their contracts, break the agreements they have with them.

This amendment would then mean that government would negotiate with companies with respect to the contracts, not just arbitrarily break them because of the species at risk legislation. I think this basically protects what should be a reliable business deal and would guarantee that. That's the purpose of this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Mills has presented his amendment on page 287. Questions or comments? Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the section that's deleted by this amendment, it takes out the part that says a competent minister must carefully consider the purpose of the permit or agreement; this requirement is now removed. I would ask if Mr. Near or Ms. Wherry would like to comment.

Mr. Bob Mills: This doesn't remove anything; this adds (2.1).

The Chair: It becomes (2.1).

Mrs. Karen Redman: So it's not your intent to delete?

Mr. Bob Mills: It becomes line 18.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Sorry, I did hear that, so your intention is to leave what is in the bill?

Mr. Bob Mills: Leave what's there and add this for that protection and call it (2.1).

The Chair: Are there any comments or questions? Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would just ask if Mr. Near has any comment.

Mr. David Near: I think I made this comment earlier. The definition of an agreement is an agreement with the consent of the parties, so it's hard to understand exactly the effect of this. In terms of the government unilaterally breaching agreements, one would presume that if that ever happened, the party would have a remedy against the government.

The Chair: Thank you. Any further comments? Are you ready for the question? Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: The only thing I would add, in response to Mr. Near, is that you're assuming now that the company will end up in the courtroom if in fact they have to or if the government does use its heavy hand. I think it's pretty unfair to expect them to endure that sort of pain when this would simply clarify exactly where they would be and protect them.

Mr. David Near: Actually, I'm assuming that the government would fulfill their contractual obligations.

Mr. Bob Mills: You haven't dealt with the government often then.

Mr. David Near. Yes, I have.

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

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Herron. I think you're next, on page 288.

• 1645

Mr. John Herron: And we're still on 74, right?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: I spoke on this in brief the other day, and basically what it's saying is that there be an accountability mechanism that forces the government to publicly justify why it is granting an exemption from the prohibitions of this act. If we're going to give exemptions to it, something that's extraordinary, we should say why it's worthy of an exemption. We believe the public policy-makers should be accountable, and therefore public scrutiny, in the spirit of openness, would prevent abuse of the exemptions. This was suggested by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and was advocated by SARWG, both the industry and the environmental side alike, as well as Nature Saskatchewan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Questions or comments? Madame Redman.

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

In the spirit of increased transparency and accountability, the government prefers its own amendment on page 290, by which if agreement or permit is issued, it would be put in the public registry. We think our wording is a little clearer.

Mr. John Herron: Okay, Shakespeare.

Yours is on what page?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Page 290.

Mr. John Herron: In the interest of goodwill, Mr. Chair, and that's obviously an approach that the Conservative Party takes, I would gladly forego—

A voice: What party?

Mr. John Herron: The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I would gladly forgo my amendment and support G-17E, if that would be more amenable.

The Chair: Thank you. That takes care of 288.

Mr. Mills, are you around? We are on your amendment on page 289.

Mr. Mills has switched parties.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, I would accept that some people don't like socio-economic, and cost-benefit is something I've heard used several times in debate here, so if someone wanted to make that a friendly amendment, that would be fine. What I want to do here is to include all considerations, the scientific, the technical, the socio-economic, or cost-benefit, in making our decisions.

The Chair: Comments or questions? Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would ask if Mr. Near or Ms. Wherry would like to comment on this amendment.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: Generally, the primary consideration in permitting here is to take into account the ecological considerations, particularly the needs of a listed species, as opposed to the socio-economic considerations. I don't really have much more to say than that.

Mr. Bob Mills: But haven't we been attempting to broaden this so that it does become more workable on the ground? And to be more workable you can't just deal with the species in isolation, you have to deal with all of the factors, and this simply emphasizes that this is what you're going to do.

The Chair: Madame Redman.

• 1650

Mrs. Karen Redman: Further to Ms. Wherry's comments, and the fact that Mr. Mills says he's not married totally to the wording, I wonder if you would consider broadening it to take into account ecological, scientific, and technological, as well as socio-economic.

Mr. Bob Mills: Definitely. Sure. That's a positive amendment.

The Chair: For the information of members who are searching for lost words, the word “ecological” has been inserted before “scientific”.

Are there any comments or questions?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We are ready now for the amendment on page 290, in the name of the government.

Madame Redman, would you like to introduce it?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would be pleased to, and I would like to take this opportunity—I know Mr. Herron is hanging on my every word—to say that I do appreciate the goodwill.

I would move that Bill C-5, in clause 74, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 34 the following:

Explanation in Public Registry

(3.1) If an agreement is entered into or a permit is issued, the competent minister must include in the public registry an explanation of why it was entered into or issued, taking into account the matters referred in paragraphs (3)(a), (b) and (c).

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: We now have an amendment in the name of Madame Kraft Sloan, whom I don't see, on page 292. We'll defer it for a moment, perhaps.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification, is this not the same section as we just dealt with?

The Chair: We are coming to the same conclusion.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan, the amendment on page 290 seems to cover the same territory as—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. It's not a problem, Mr. Chair. I'll withdraw it.

The Chair: So we don't need to deal with the amendment on page 292. Thank you.

We come to page 293.

Madam Redman.

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

In our universal, overall discussion last day, I know my colleague Mr. Laliberte had some questions around the amendment by the government, an attempt to clarify the word “amend” with “revoke or vary”. I would ask Mr. Near to speak to this issue, because I know it was a concern raised by Mr. Laliberte.

The Chair: When we interrupted the discussion, we seemed to be converging on the possibility of replacing the word “vary” with “amend”.

Could Mr. Near perhaps comment?

Mr. David Near: I could repeat briefly what I said the other day. The intention was to clarify the possibility to revoke this type of permit or agreement, and we could easily change “vary” back to the original language to read “revoke or amend”. It would have the same intent.

• 1655

The Chair: So to meet Mr. Laliberte's intervention, to take it into account, the amendment would read “revoke or amend”. Is that understood? Is that clear?

Mrs. Karen Redman: If that's the clarification that's needed, that's fine.

The Chair: So the amendment reads “revoke or amend”.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: So the amendment on page 295 is taken care of. Thank you.

At this point, we have concluded clause 74.

(Clause 74 agreed to)

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, with the committee's indulgence, I would like to proceed to clause 97. I have an amendment on page 327.1, which deals with compliance with subclause 74(1). These are maybe not consequential, but they're linked, so I'm wondering if we can have that debate.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, just to intervene at this point, I'm quite concerned about when we're dealing with clause 64. I will not be able to be in committee tomorrow, so I did ask that it be done today. It concerns me if we start jumping way ahead. My understanding was we'd be going from clause 74 to clause 64, to be sure we finished that today.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, on that same intervention, if this committee does go in a different direction from what we agreed to before, the least I think we owe the Canadian Alliance, and Mr. Mills in particular, is to ensure that he is in the room when we deal with that very crucial section of clause 64.

The Chair: So it seems better that we go to clause 64.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Or we could do clause 97 very quickly and then proceed right to clause 64.

The Chair: We will do clause 64 first, and then clause 97, and see how that works. So clause 64, please.

(On clause 64—Compensation)

The Chair: Where are we now? Do we have a marching plan here?

We'll go to page 261, an amendment in the name of Mr. Mills. I'm advised that if this amendment carries, we cannot put the amendments on pages 262 and 263.

Mr. Mills has the floor.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask your indulgence. As I think I've indicated for months and months now, this is the clause that probably has the greatest meaning to me and to the success of endangered species and the effectiveness of this particular law. This is the critical point, if we really are serious about saving species at risk.

• 1700

As recently as last evening I attended a town hall meeting with a packed crowd, where people were present all the way from Toronto to that whole area north of Toronto. Those people all, to the last person in the room, indicated the importance of clause 64 to them on the ground.

What this says is something very basic to this legislation to make it different from the U.S. legislation, which hasn't worked and has caused all the money to be spent in the courtroom instead of spent saving endangered species and critical habitat.

I know this particular clause is as important to the person in downtown Toronto as it is to the person in rural Rocky Mountain House or any other of the ridings across Canada.

I've talked to potato growers in P.E.I. I've talked to people on the island in B.C. Right across this country they're concerned about this. This will be the focal point of this legislation.

The Chair: Would you mind addressing the amendment?

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, this is so important to me, I would really ask your indulgence to deal with the amendment and the overall point I'm trying to make here.

Basically, if you ask people, 90% of them will say, “We want to save endangered species.” I agree with that. We want to save endangered species. But if you don't provide compensation to them when they lose part of their living from that land, you're not going to save an endangered species. You're not going to get cooperation. You're not going to get consultation and all those things we've talked about.

I've heard a lot of arguments against this, and people say “Well, you're setting a legal precedent”. Mr. Chair, we've already got precedents. We've got the provincial Municipal Government Act and the Public Highways Development Act, and the federal Proceedings Against the Crown Act—we've got all kinds of acts that provide compensation when you take someone's livelihood or affect it in some way.

If you want that rancher, that farmer, those people out there to save that species, you've got to provide them with compensation. When you decide to put an airport somewhere, you change the value of that person's land. The Aeronautics Act provides compensation. Why wouldn't you provide compensation to save an endangered species?

People want to do this. I just think the backlash against the species at risk, the very problem... Many of the naturalists have come to it; many of the environmentalists realize you have to have compensation. There's just a broad-based support for this.

So for the government to say “may”, and not indicate there would be fair and reasonable compensation—which is what this amendment does—for the government not to include that in this bill will nullify any of the good things this bill could accomplish to save endangered species.

I couldn't feel more strongly, more emotionally, about how important this issue is and amendments like this are. I would just ask you, let the government take it out if they want. But let them also have the pressure from this committee to say “This is what the people are saying on the ground”.

I've done my homework on this one, and I know. It's fine to say “Oh, yeah.” In one of the ridings I was in last night, 68% said they're in favour of endangered species legislation. The next question that was put out on a questionnaire was “Do you support Bill C-5?” Well, 80% of them said they didn't know what Bill C-5 was.

So there's your problem. We're not communicating. You're not going to get support for this bill if you don't pass a motion like this that provides fair and reasonable compensation to that landowner, to that rancher, who loses the use of a piece of his land because of endangered species.

Will it cost much? No. We know we want to cooperate. We want to consult. These people are already environmentalists. They know how important the land is to them. They've got to conserve that hedgerow. They've got to conserve that land.

But when you come down and say “We're going to tell you `You can't do that' and not compensate you”, you just broke that contract with them and that trust.

• 1705

To simply say “We're going to deal with it in the regulations—maybe” is just not acceptable. There's not the level of trust in government to allow you to say that.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm going to, in a moment, propose a friendly amendment to Mr. Mills' application. I'll proceed with a little more brevity.

There are certain aspects of this bill that explain why most individuals perceived it to be weak: there was the least listing approach the government had taken initially; the mandatory protection of our critical habitat on federal land; the unwillingness to include migratory birds and transboundary species and that aspect of it. The last plank where there were weaknesses was that there was not enough clarity with respect to the compensatory regime. This has been a strong issue, primarily in rural Canada, and that is why Mr. Mills has argued so eloquently and intensely on this particular issue.

What I'm advocating is that if the Government of Canada has compensation in the tool kit to protect the species at risk, then it should have language in the bill that addresses that issue in a more forthright way.

I would like to propose a compromise between the government and Mr. Mills' amendment that would knit the two together. If you look at the amendment on page 261 where it says “fair and reasonable compensation to any person”, I would like the following words—which basically reflect where the Government of Canada already is—to extend it: “for economic losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of:”.

I'm also proposing an amendment. Although I categorically support the “shall” aspect of Mr. Mills' approach, what I also am moving is a subamendment substituting the word “may”. It is clearly not what a lot of individuals in rural parts of the country would prefer. It is clearly not what the Canadian Alliance has been steadfast in wanting to have.

What we're arguing here is that he's made his battle for “shall”. He can be clear; the Hansard has been clear: the Canadian Alliance has been working towards “shall compensate”. The Progressive Conservative Party would like to have that as well. We're willing to move the subamendment for “may” if we get more votes on the other side of the table. That's the purpose of it.

I want to make it clear to my friend from Red Deer that we're on board in the same position, but we're proposing “may” only because we're trying to give a broader tool kit to landowners, lessees, and the like than they currently have.

A reason for it, Mr. Chair, is that I believe if the word “shall” stayed in the bill on its own, even though there is a strong argument to have it there, given that it's still going to be subject to regulations, the regulations would be so precise and so tight that the flexibility component wouldn't be there in the first place.

I would say, from a political perspective, let the minister take the heat for not providing fair and appropriate compensation in this regard.

So I move the subamendment to replace “shall” with “may”, reluctantly. I also add after the word “person”, “for economic losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of:”.

The Chair: I don't know how friendly it is, but...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We've only been able to sketch part of the suggested friendly subamendment, but before we go on at greater length we'll have to know whether Mr. Mills accepts it. We'll now continue the discussion so as to give Mr. Mills a chance to mull it over.

Mr. John Herron: Is there an opportunity for us to have both votes?

The Chair: We could have separate votes, yes.

Mr. Forseth.

• 1710

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I'll just outline very briefly that basically this is the time for a political decision to be made. We know what's going to happen if “shall” isn't there. Our party is going to dig its heels in. There's going to be a national firestorm across the country on this issue. We will go at it as long as we can in the House. We will do everything we can to bring this to the attention of the Canadian public.

It may reflect whether essentially the bill is a fraud or not, because that has been said. The government has been criticized in that basically it wants a bill in name only and it's really not going to try to protect anything. That certainly is rather harsh, but this is fundamental to the basic political will of the sincerity of the government to protect anything. We have to be cognizant of the political outfall on the other side if “shall” doesn't get in there.

Now I've heard all the arguments on the government side and from my perspective they just don't wash at all.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

One of the great joys of parliamentary life is to be able to sit on a parliamentary standing committee that is representative of all parties of the House. Mr. Chair, there are many opportunities for learning about other perspectives. I think this committee has had the opportunity of the demonstration of the importance of the environment and the fact that it crosses party lines. The environment is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chair.

I feel that it's very important that people who are adversely affected, if we can use that term, in an important economic way should indeed be compensated. So I don't have any disagreement with Mr. Mills' amendment even as it stands. The problem I do have, and I share Mr. Herron's expression, is that sometimes we have to reach a compromise. I don't expect Mr. Mills to reach a compromise on this issue, nor indeed do I expect Mr. Bailey, nor indeed do I expect Mr. Forseth nor any other member of the Canadian Alliance Party, because they have been very clear on this issue. They've been very passionate on this issue.

I have moved my position a number of times on this bill and, Mr. Mills, you have moved your position many times as well. I think all of us appreciate the good work that has been done. In fact, it's an untold story, which is rather sad and unfortunate.

My concern about leaving “shall” in is that it's something the government cannot live with, and to have it removed in the House will create an incredibly difficult backlash for this bill. So I will agree with the proposal Mr. Herron has put forward. And I want to thank the Alliance members for the work they've done on behalf of their constituency, because this bill is indeed about cooperation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, I want to say this. For 20 years in local government one way or the other I have watched what happens to governments, provincial-federal relationships. If this doesn't come to “shall”, I'm afraid that first of all you're going to run into serious problems with the provincial governments. I'll get down to the landowner. You're going to run into severe problems with the provincial governments. I know through taxation. I know through PFRA land. I could go on and on, based on 20 years of experience in this. You cannot have a choice left to the one taking the land.

The Government of Canada wouldn't dream of coming out and taking a piece of Charles' land over there to add to a PFRA pasture without compensation. And you cannot then come to a ranch like the one where I was the other day last week and take about six sections out of it without first having an understanding that they shall be compensated and it shall be determined at a given rate within that general area. If you don't have that, you have absolute rebellion. And some of these people are big landowners.

• 1715

You could ruin the whole bill with this. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, these people are cooperating in full. They know. Some of them have already done it. But if you're going to take more than the habitat, they have to know factually that they shall be compensated, not maybe compensated. This bill will lie flat. This bill will be rejected throughout all of the area I serve, right out, right now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

We have Monsieur Bigras, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Tonks.

[Translation]

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

I will perhaps express myself less passionately than the Canadian Alliance did regarding this amendment, but I wish nevertheless to give my opinion.

As you can see on page 262, I also am proposing an amendment that would make it mandatory to provide compensation. On the one hand, in my view, keeping or putting little in Mr. Herron's amendment ignores the fact that there are economic costs associated with applying this legislation. On the other hand, these economic costs must be assumed by the community and also by the government, of course, but at the end of the day, it is the whole community that will decide to create a fund, to protect the environment and to recognize that there are related costs. This will have an impact on many families in Canada.

We must also keep in mind that, in the second paragraph, the Governor in Council may exercise all the authority and has all the leeway that he considers necessary in determining the terms and conditions for the provision of compensation. There is nothing here that clarifies the kind of compensation that will be decided on or considered. In my opinion, from a policy point of view, we have a duty to give families, farmers and others a clear indication that compensation will be mandatory. However, the Governor in Council is entirely free to apply the terms and conditions and the type of compensation that he wishes. That is why I will be supporting the amendment formulated and tabled by the Canadian Alliance.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's an interesting history on this bill for Mr. Mills and me, in the sense that when I first met him and we discussed this bill, this was a major issue for him, as he has already said. And I must admit, I did not place the same degree of emphasis on it at that time. But over the last... it seems almost too many months—I've come to a similar conclusion that there has to be a mandatory nature.

I must admit, I have some degree of discomfort by making it mandatory in that we don't have perhaps more extensive wording. I was going to say better wording. But I have some comfort level with the wording Mr. Herron has put before us in his subamendment. If that's incorporated into it, I also would have a comfort level that would let me support the amendment, as proposed by Mr. Mills, and that's how I intend to vote.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, any notion of breaking the principle of law that one shouldn't do through the back door what one is precluded from doing through the front door should be obviously avoided. The notion that backdoor expropriation would take place is anathema to all of us. I think that principle is extremely important.

However, I think there's an element in terms of the spirit of the wording that suggests there is no automatic and built-in inherent prejudice against a person who may be adversely affected by anything that is in this bill. In fact, the prejudice has been purged and the degree of preciseness is in favour of, first, the species, second, the habitat, and third, the owner. That's my reading of the legislation.

• 1720

I appreciate the sense of commitment to the principle of possible impinging on natural law in terms of due process, and that persons may in fact be unable to defend themselves with respect to an act such as this, even if it is well intended to protect the species. However, on balance—and this may appear to be anecdotal—I think it's how complicated even the best of intentions can become when you attempt to provide for every possible contingency.

In the greater Toronto area we just protected the Oak Ridges moraine. The federal government put up federal lands in the area where we are supposed to have an airport—Seaton, Pickering—in favour of protecting the Oak Ridges moraine. This will do all of the things that habitat protection and species protection should do, as well as the aquifer and all of those kinds of things. I'm sure you're aware of the case.

The provincial government, thinking they are mirroring the template the federal government has taken, with the goodwill built into that, has now, on a quid pro quo basis—they say—taken those lands within the Oak Ridges moraine that have been speculated upon by developers and corporations and in fact has exchanged them for lands of equal value in other vulnerable areas behind closed doors.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to say is that if you prejudice through specific legislation, with the best of intent to protect species and habitat, you may stack the deck against the very goal and objective you're trying to reach, and in this case have people speculating on lands that are extremely valuable to the protection of species and habitat.

I don't think that's a situation we should put ourselves in. If you say there must be compensation, then there is no onus of proof with respect to the value of lands, the intent and spirit and wording of the legislation, and everything that fair and reasonable process is all about.

Mr. Bob Mills: It's a legal term.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of it is that you should be as specific as you can. Mr. Bigras, I think, has put his finger on part of the problem, which is subclause 64(2) that talks about how the procedures of compensation and the process of natural justice and so on are going to be addressed. But I think we're barking up the wrong tree if we make the process so finite that people in fact are going to see a loophole they can walk through. We're going to be going in exactly the counter-direction.

I understand the public won't understand that as easily as they understand this notion of backdoor expropriation. I mean, there was a lot of tea poured in the harbour in another instance, to talk about that kind of principle.

Mr. Chairman, I would feel much more comfortable, having seen what is happening with respect to trying to play, like a roll of the dice, with the market. I think that's very dangerous, and I think that's where this is going. I think the wording should be as discretionary as possible, for a competent minister. But the process of natural justice should be what we focus on, and I think that will be through the regulations. I would suggest that Mr. Bigras is right in terms of when those regulations come forward. Mr. Mills, from that perspective, should be extremely analytical and advocate from the perspective that he is.

Thank you.

• 1725

The Chair: Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Tonks has done a wonderful job of putting his finger on some real-life examples of really how very complex this issue is. The reason compensation appears in the bill is because the government did consult broadly. This is in the spirit of cooperation, and we believe this is a necessary aspect of the bill. However, caution is required in drafting this and very much for some of the reasons Mr. Tonks has outlined so well.

We're all in agreement that compensation for restrictions on land use is a complex issue, and we certainly do understand the concerns that have been voiced by the Alliance. They've done a very good job of articulating them.

To go back to the structure of the bill, we continue to emphasize that conservation actions, incentives, and stewardship activities will always be the first line of implementing and the preferred approach of protecting critical habitat and species at risk.

Before we draft eligibility and thresholds for compensation, we need real-life experience. We need to implement this legislation, and particularly the aspects of recovery and stewardship, to see how they work on the ground. That is why we have suggested in the bill that it be done on a case-by-case basis, so that we get some experience and have some real-life examples that we're able to give.

We're committed to having a draft general regulation ready for public review and comment shortly after royal assent. Clearly the government is interested in seeing some kind of compensation regime that will work, but clearly in light of the broader structure of the bill. Our approach is intended to be open and transparent, and we do need to proceed cautiously.

I would ask Ms. Wherry if she would like to add her comments to this issue.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I have just a few comments. I notice that the motion refers to any prohibition, so it's not just critical habitat. I don't necessarily agree with comments made by Mr. Mills that everybody wants compensation. We also went around the country. I went around with Mr. Pearse and we went around ourselves. There are significant people who do not want to see compensation in the bill. Certainly most of the provincial governments. They are very afraid this will set a precedent and we will have to put it in other legislation—and certainly in their legislation—to protect species.

The only other comment I would make is that this bill was built on stewardship for protecting critical habitat as a first approach. I'm not so sure now that with the changes that have been put in the bill that's a first step any more. It seems as if we've gone to the prohibitions right away, including on provincial land. It seems as if we're going to be compensating for everything, so what incentive is there for anybody to go to stewardship now?

The Chair: Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Bailey.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, after some deliberations around the table, I've elected not to move a subamendment to Mr. Mills' amendment. I will be supporting Mr. Mills' amendment, but I will be moving an amendment to follow that will follow in the same stead that I had before.

Mrs. Redman is absolutely right, though, that the first line of defence on this in terms of protected species at risk is stewardship. The government should be categorically applauded for having that part in the regime in this bill.

The second thing, though, on compensation is extremely revisionist, because I quote Minister Anderson: “Responsible behaviour is something we expect, not something we should buy”. So the compensation regime has been pushed by landowners, and it was through consultation and by advocates, including the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties, that we believe they moved to adding compensation to their tool kit.

The Chair: So to be clear on what you intend to do, Mr. Herron, you intend to move an amendment should Mr. Mills' amendment not be adopted.

Mr. John Herron: That's right, in its entirety, yes.

The Chair: All right. That is understood.

Now we have Mr. Bailey and Madame Scherrer.

• 1730

Mr. Roy Bailey: I want to make this point very clear. I was in an administrative position when a provincial pasture was formed. I was also in administration when a new PFRA pasture was formed. In both cases the land value was so many times the assessment. That still is pretty well par across the west today. But you're forgetting one fundamental level of government, and that's the municipal government or the local government. Every time you take a section of land out of their tax base—in some cases we've had 80 sections removed or 20 sections removed—you weaken the structure of that local government, particularly in the support of education in rural areas.

I talked with the provincial government, and you're quite right in saying they haven't totally supported this because they don't know how this is going to affect the third level of government under which they have control. I'm not worried about the compensation as much as the ruination of a tax base that's there now and will just disappear.

I know the federal government has grants in lieu of taxation, and so on, but it never makes up for the land that goes into a government program.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, we would like to now move on. Thank you very much.

Are we now ready to vote on Mr. Mills' amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Scherrer, would you like to add something?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Although the Alliance's approach seems an excellent one because the proposed binding nature does seem to protect everyone, this amendment does cause me some concern. Given the amendments which were passed yesterday, the federal government, to all intents and purposes, now becomes responsible for the safety net for several species.

My fear is that a province might decide sometime in the future, for example, that it is costing it a lot of money to provide major compensation for losses suffered in the protection of a species. The province might refuse to pay out this money. In such a case, responsibility for compensation would automatically fall on the federal government because the provinces do not currently have compensation legislation. It is quite possible that a province might decide to take this type of action if it deems the compensation that has to be paid is too great for it to take on. The province could then wash its hands entirely and refuse to deal with compensation. If such a situation were to arise, the federal government would have to take responsibility for compensation. This is why I have some difficulty with this amendment. If we keep the discretionary factor, we allow the federal government room to make choices.

The Chair: Mr. Nadeau, briefly, please.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: I think that Ms. Scherrer's interpretation is spot-on. Yesterday, we passed an amendment whereby, if a province requests it, the minister is required to protect the critical habitat of a species. If this amendment was combined with the current amendment, which requires owners to be compensated for losses incurred due to the presence of a critical habitat on this land, the province in question could require the minister to pay the costs—which would normally be borne by the province—for protecting a critical habitat.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Mills will summarize before we take the vote.

Mr. Bob Mills: The government has tried. I've met with the minister many times. Over the summer we talked a number of times. I've written letters back and forth at his request. I've talked to the provinces and I know where they're coming from. I don't agree with you, Ms. Wherry, about where they're coming from because they're not telling me that.

We're talking about the livelihood of these people on the ground. You can you say it's not expropriation, it's regulation, but that's the same when you say they can't use that piece of land. You're really going to take the money you would put into saving species and put it into the courtroom.

If I were a lawyer in this room, I'd be very pleased. Environmental lawyers are going to get rich. You're not going to help save those species. You'll go down the same path and make the same mistakes that have been made by anybody else putting this forward.

• 1735

I really challenge you. If you care about those species, if you care about those guys on the land, think about how you vote on this because that's who really matters in this. They are the ones who are in contact and have them on their land. The aboriginal people, farmers, and ranchers out there are the ones who will save these species, not someone in planet Ottawa or in the cities of this country.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 6—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now we have Mr. Herron's amendment.

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

This is essentially a similar approach—

The Chair: Just a moment. In proper order I think we have Mr. Bigras' amendment first on page 262. I apologize.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, we should vote on this amendment now.

The Chair: Yes, let's do that.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I think that the amendment is in line with the debate that we have just had.

The Chair: All right. Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Herron, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, PC/DR-53 on page 263 is going to be slightly different. We're replacing lines 21 to 24 of subclause 64(1) on page 30 with the following:

The minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide fair and reasonable compensation to any person for economic losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of

The remaining lines that follow in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would remain. Essentially it embraces the flexibility aspect of “may” that the government is pursuing. It provides far more clarity with respect to fair and reasonable compensation. That's what we would like to go forward with.

[Translation]

In French, that would translate as—

[English]

The Chair: There's no need because it has been translated very faithfully in the booth, and we are now covering similar ground, Mr. Herron. Thank you.

Madame Redman, please.

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

Again, the government has a problem with the fact that we would be defining thresholds in eligibility before the fact. We continue to feel this would be best done on a case-by-case basis, so we could build up a body of experience and knowledge.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan, briefly, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Maybe the member can explain. I know he's quite specific, and the economic losses were highlighted in the previous debate, but not all resources are for economic gain. Some of them are for sustenance, especially for the traditional land users.

Is there any perspective in there? Maybe Ruth Wherry would like to discuss that. The aboriginal working group had discussed the issue of sustenance and economic impacts.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I'm sorry, could I ask you just to repeat it, please?

• 1740

The Chair: Is the concept of sustenance reflected in either the section as it is in the bill or the amendment proposed by Mr. Herron, in your opinion?

Ms. Ruth Wherry: In my view, if the decision is made to compensate anybody, then you need to have appraisers, etc., who are involved in land valuations and in determining the amount of money. If it is for aboriginal land or an aboriginal activity, there are experts out there who do that kind of assessment. As long as the proper expertise is brought in to do the valuating, that takes care of the concern you are raising.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just want to speak in support of the amendment, and I've already given my reason. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are we ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: May I have a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested. You have the amendment by Mr. Herron on clause 64. Would you like to read it again for the benefit of some people who were otherwise engaged?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I would, Mr. Chair.

The amendment on subclause 64(1) would replace lines 21 to 24 on page 30 with the following:

The minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide for fair and reasonable compensation to any person for economic losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of

The Chair: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd just like to hear the comments of the officials on this. It seems pretty reasonable.

The Chair: Ms. Wherry.

Ms. Ruth Wherry: I think it's only fair to add to my comments when I responded to Mr. Laliberte. I wasn't paying enough attention to the new word that was put in—“economic”—so that might present a little bit of difficulty, with respect to the response I just gave you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That wasn't my question.

The Chair: Ms. Wherry, could you answer Mr. Knutson's question now?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It can be Mr. Near or Mr. Nadeau. We don't need to pick on Madame Wherry.

Mr. Simon Nadeau: The word “reasonable” is probably not problematic, but on the word “economic”, if you're talking about aboriginal people who want to have access to burial grounds or sacred grounds and are prevented from that through protecting the species, it's not an economic loss per se. It's a loss, but it's more of a cultural or other kind of loss.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, do you have another question?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I move a subamendment deleting “economic”?

The Chair: The suggestion by Mr. Knutson is made in order to meet Mr. Laliberte's point. Is that the correct interpretation?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd still like to hear a general comment from the officials. It's still discretionary, so what's the concern?

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Laliberte, and then Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just being specific on “economic” losses, it's very narrow compensation. There are land users out there who live off the land. They're still sustaining their lives off that land. It's not for economic gain; it's not capitalizing on resources. But if you take a moose down, or take a beluga down, it's to sustain your life. It's not to make money to put in your bank account. Is that loss going to be compensated, if that's going to be part of these agreements?

The Chair: I think this is a political judgment that the members of the committee have to exercise at this point. But, Mr. Near, if you want to comment, do so, by all means.

Mr. David Near: I tend to agree with the comments. In the original bill, the term “economic” was not included, so it could address any potential loss created by the extraordinary impact of the legislation.

The Chair: So then we go back to Mr. Knutson's friendly amendment.

Mr. John Herron: I welcome it wholeheartedly. Let's get on with it. I'm ready to go.

The Chair: So the word “economic” is deleted.

Mr. John Herron: It's gone.

The Chair: Madame Kraft Sloan, you have the last word.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was just wondering if we should add “economic and cultural”.

The Chair: It has been deleted, so it has been taken care of.

Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: From my reading of it, there's nothing consequential with this one going, but I just want clarification before the vote is taken.

The Chair: I'm advised there is no consequential effect, but you never know.

Voices: Oh, oh!

• 1745

The Chair: At this stage we don't see it yet.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: —

Mr. Bob Mills: Page 264. I think basically I'm trying to say the regulations must be in place, and the government has to do that right now—as soon as possible they shall do it.

The Chair: Do you so move?

Mr. Bob Mills: I so move.

The Chair: Comments or questions? Madame Redman, briefly, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to the fact that it's mandatory, typically we don't prescribe actions of the GIC. I don't know if Mr. Near wants to comment.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, please.

Mrs. Karen Redman: They all said pass.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to add, as a friendly amendment to Mr. Mills' efforts, a subsection (b) that would read as follows.

The Chair: Which (b)? Are you on page 264?

Mr. John Herron: I will be. Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a subamendment to Mr. Mills' effort, and as you see on 64(2) where there's an (a), (b), and (c) clause, I would like to add as a (d)—

The Chair: Mr. Herron, we are on Mr. Mills' amendment.

Mr. John Herron: Right.

The Chair: Your amendment, your (d), is on page 265 in a separate amendment that will follow Mr. Mills'. Can we do one thing at a time? We now have Mr. Mills' amendment that deals only with one line.

Are you ready for the question? I assume you are.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We now come to page 265, the amendment by Mr. Herron. You have the floor.

• 1750

You are only concerned with paragraph (d)?

Mr. John Herron: I'm only concerned with paragraph (d).

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. John Herron: I want paragraph (d) to read as follows:

the factors to be considered in determining whether there has been an extraordinary impact under subsection (1).

The Chair: We are not on the same wavelength, Mr. Herron. You have to guide us as to what you are amending. The committee is looking at page 265.

Mr. John Herron: And I am as well.

The Chair: Paragraph (d) on page 265 reads differently.

Mr. John Herron: Given what has passed previously, I would like to add a modification to the intent that I have with PC/DR-54.

The Chair: It has often been noted, Mr. Herron, that one is very wise to quit when ahead.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just think of us at 10 o'clock Monday night.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Are we meeting at 10 o'clock on Monday night?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Good.

The Chair: We will adjourn at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What time are we starting?

The Chair: At 3:30 p.m.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're starting at 3:30 p.m.?

The Chair: With dinner included.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: While we're at this, would you test the committee to see whether some have commitments past six o'clock? I would be willing to make any adjustment necessary, but if the majority of the committee are of the same mind in terms of other matters...

The Chair: I asked the clerk to send out a notice a week ago and this is the only day we're sitting in the afternoon.

Mr. Bob Mills: May I ask why we are?

The Chair: Because it's the only evening when it does not conflict with other caucus meetings and other events.

Mr. Bob Mills: We have our shadow cabinet Monday night.

The Chair: So Monday is a unique day in which to have a good marathon.

Mr. Herron, do I take it that you have decided to move?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I have.

Mr. Chair, we have already passed a component of the amendment I have on PC/DR-54 on page 265.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. John Herron: So what I would ask the committee to do would be to continue on from this issue where it says, after the word “regulations”, that he or she “considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and the provisions of subsection (1), including regulations prescribing”. So I would delete (a), (b), and (c).

The Chair: Yes, we understand that.

Mr. John Herron: Because circumstances have changed, I would like to add a new (d) that would read “the factors to be considered in determining whether there has been an extraordinary impact under subsection (1)”.

The Chair: The factors to be considered?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, “the factors to be considered in determining whether there has been an extraordinary impact under subsection (1)”.

• 1755

The Chair: Would you please explain the impact of your amendment, briefly?

Mr. John Herron: Essentially, the amendment tries to provide some clarity. It would express the rationale that led the government to provide compensation by describing precisely what the extraordinary impact is.

The Chair: So this is a proposed paragraph 64(2)(d)?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Could we have a comment by the government, and then Madame Kraft Sloan will follow.

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

I guess I can't help but hear echoes of Mr. Tonks' comment that if you can't come through the front door, you'll come through the side door. This, in essence, is much the same argument we made earlier to motions that were defeated. It does not allow the government time to get experience in developing a case-by-case rationale in order to have thresholds and form regulations.

I don't know if Ms. Wherry and Mr. Near want to comment on this.

Mr. David Near: Yes.

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. David Near: In fact, in the header to this particular subsection, it says to cover provisions of subsection (1), so it's already covered in that general language. I would suggest we leave it out, because we usually don't put in words that have the same meaning as those that appear elsewhere.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Near.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, just for clarification, Mr. Herron is deleting paragraphs 64(2)(a), (b), and (c) from his amendment—

The Chair: Yes, he is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: —not from what's in the—

Mr. John Herron: I'm deleting what's in the package currently.

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

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We can now approach page 266, an amendment in the name of Mr. Mills.

I'm told this is out of order, because it would cost money; therefore we cannot put it. Correct.

So we come again to Mr. Herron, page 267. Do you find this necessary? Have we not covered this, Mr. Herron?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

This will allow—

Mr. John Herron: Can I have your vote from the last vote for being so quick this time?

The Chair: This will allow us to call clause 64 as amended.

(Clause 64 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 97—Contraventions)

The Chair: We can now go to clause 97 to accommodate both Mr. Mills and Madam Kraft Sloan. I would seek your indulgence to do that, and then we will adjourn.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to move Mr. Reed's amendment on the same clause, and speak to it, if I may.

The Chair: I'm very glad you thought of it. There is an amendment for him, and we were worried about the fact he would not be represented.

We start with Madame Kraft Sloan's amendment on page 327.1.

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

• 1800

I'd like to ask the members of the committee to focus on clause 97, which outlines offences and punishments in the legislation. Subclause 97(1) deals with contravention, where every person who contravenes certain subsections or subsections of the act or who fails to comply with alternative measures, etc., is guilty of an offence under the act. Subclause 74(1) is missing from this list, so what that means, Mr. Chair, is that people don't have to get a permit. It's not a contravention under the act, so they also don't have to comply with the permit requirement.

I think it's important that, where there is a prohibition, there should be some means of ensuring that there's compliance with it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Redman.

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

I'd ask Mr. Near to comment on this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: I'll just respond briefly. Since the committee passed clause 74 and imposed a general prohibition, if you don't add this, then there's no penalty. It's related to your earlier decision with respect to clause 74.

The Chair: Are there any further comments? No? We will now take a vote on Madame Kraft Sloan's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, you have the floor.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, clause 97 deals with those who contravene the subsections, and it doesn't treat non-profit corporations separately from corporations and...

In talking with Mr. Reed, I found that the intent in his amendment was that the punishment, if you will, be applicable within the terms of his amendment on non-profit entities, corporate entities, and persons... and a question of degree.

Under summary conviction, which is a lower level of violation with respect to the subclauses, there is a lesser punishment in terms of quantifying it, and under indictment with due process through the courts there is a higher level of punishment. If his amendment is supported, what it would do is, under the summary conviction provision in paragraph 97(1)(a), where every person who is guilty of or contravenes a subsection is guilty, and so on...

In the case of a corporation other than a non-profit corporation, it is being added that there would be a fine of not more than $300,000. The second part, in the case of a non-profit corporation, specifies a fine of not more than $50,000. And, finally, in the case of any other person, there is a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than one year.

In the indictable offence category, similarly, in the case of a corporation other than a non-profit corporation—that is what is added—the fine is not to be more than $1 million; in the case of a non-profit corporation, a fine of not more than $250,000; and, finally, in the case of any other person, a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment, etc.

Mr. Reed's intent here is to amend the clause to reflect the fact that non-profit entities are not in a position to be held culpable to the extent that for-profit corporations and persons should be treated under the law.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Bailey.

• 1805

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think “non-profit corporation” may carry a slightly different meaning in different areas. Could you correct that, sir?

Mr. Alan Tonks: That's a good question. I forgot also that the amendment would be to clause 98 on page 49, which would add the definition of a non-profit corporation. I think it's a fairly standard definition, the non-share position and so on and so forth, as outlined in his amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: I hate to ask you this, but seeing as we just got this today, I'm having real trouble trying to decide on these numbers and what exactly they mean. I wonder if it wouldn't be best if we asked to stand this down. I hate to ask that of you, but we need to do some work on what exactly this means, “non-profit”, and on how to interpret this. Those numbers will be pretty scary to those organizations.

Mr. Alan Tonks: They're scary in the act. As a matter of fact, they're scarier in the act.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's what I mean.

Mr. Alan Tonks: The amendment will soften it somewhat. I can't speak for Mr. Reed—it's his amendment—as to whether he wants it stood down. I thought these had been distributed much earlier than today.

The Chair: Mr. Near.

Mr. David Near: The intention of the amendment is basically to deal with members of non-profit corporations, who usually don't have the luxury of taking out personal liability insurance when they act as directors of non-profit corporations. It's to treat them as if they were individuals so they would face the same type of fine as if they were just acting as individuals.

Alternatively, if we lumped them in with the current definition of corporation, they would be subject to the higher penalties that exist in the legislation currently. It's a recognition that many non-profit corporations have people who act on their own time and that these non-profit corporations often do not have the wherewithal to buy their directors liability insurance in case something goes wrong.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to support Mr. Mills' suggestion that we put this over to next week, Monday or Tuesday.

There are some other aspects to this with regard to the individual and the non-profit corporation, that is, whether we might be imposing—and this is mostly for a communication principle—the concept of a range of clients.

The difficulty with that, Mr. Chair—and I want to check this with some other colleagues—is that if we do suggest the minimum, it may prevent a judge from imposing other types of penalties that might be available otherwise. I'd like to be able to explore that a bit more, so I would like to put it over to Monday as well.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, do you mind if we put the vote off till Monday?

Mr. Alan Tonks: That's fine.

The Chair: As to next Monday, the notice already went out last week. The day was chosen according to the least number of conflicts for holding an evening meeting. The dinner will provide a break for one hour. For those of you who have commitments outside this room or this building and for those who have to attend other meetings, there is a reservoir of alternates to be chosen from. They will be member colleagues who will probably be very glad to pitch in for a very jolly, interesting, and productive evening.

Mr. John Herron: Is there a meeting tomorrow?

The Chair: Tomorrow there is the usual meeting at 9 a.m. in Room 308.

I thank you very much for your cooperation.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would just like to add that I think we could probably finish the bill on Monday, which would be a very joyful thing indeed.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.