[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, February 17, 1997
.1541 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
In resuming this committee meeting today, to which I welcome everybody in this room, in particular the members of the committee, the staff and the departmental officials, it could well be that we are now entering the final stretch of our work here. We will put in a good two hours until roughly 5:30 p.m., when everybody will have a chance to have an early dinner, and resume again at 6:45 p.m.
As you saw from the discussions last week, there are jurisdictional concerns, federal and provincial, and concerns with respect to certain sectors of the economy. There are concerns related to certain departments. There are economic concerns. There are all sorts of concerns. It would be a long list if I articulated them all.
Of course, that is the reality of today. I would urge the members of the committee to keep in mind something that has become evident - namely, in our little way in this room we are making history with this legislation. This is not legislation that is amending an existing piece of law. It is new work. It is for the long term, for subsequent generations. It is to have the ability to explain to our great-grandchildren why there are beluga whales in the St. Lawrence and bald eagles somewhere else.
In other words, it is to emphasize what the French very aptly call patrimoine - translated into English it's a much less satisfactory word, ``heritage'' - which Canada is rather unique in the world in still possessing. In Europe when you read a book to your grandchildren about bears and wolves you read about something that is left only in books. There is no equivalent in reality. So it applies to a number of other species we have but that may disappear.
This exercise as we complete our work is an opportunity to rise above the short-term concern and to see whether we can also keep in mind the long term for the sake of a richness that only Canada possesses today and may not possess 50 years from now if we are not very careful.
That exhausts my preaching reservoir for today. I'm sure you'll give a big sigh of relief. It exhausts also my ability to highlight the significance of what we're doing.
.1545
I believe, and I'm sure all of you do as well, that what we're doing is of tremendous importance even if politically it may not be seen so and could be treated marginally. By and large, for the population out there, no matter where people live and what is their political affiliation, what we are trying to do is of tremendous significance and value.
I now urge you to get hold of the document identified with ``BQ-1'' on the cover, which is our bible for today. We'll not sing hymn 32 to begin with but rather clause 2. That is the clause that contains the definitions we stood, along with many other clauses, most of them because we had an internal agreement to do so. We will start with those amendments that are still before us.
The one the clerk has organized for us to tackle first is BQ-1. Perhaps Madame Guay is a position to introduce it.
[Translation]
Ms Guay (Laurentides): You said that we wouldn't be dealing with the preamble immediately. Can we start with clause 2?
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. We will start, then, with LK-3, because the preceding pages are to be left to the very end.
On clause 2 - Definitions
The Chairman: Amendment LK-3 was prepared by Mr. Knutson. Who would like to present in his absence?
Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): I'll withdraw LK-3, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: This being the only amendment today to clause 2, it leaves me with the task of calling as to whether clause 2 should carry as amended.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Could we know the reason why the clause is withdrawn?
The Chairman: I don't know. He isn't here. There is no request allowing us to proceed.
Mr. Hallée.
Mr. Philippe Hallée (Legislative Advisor, Legislation Section, Department of the Environment): There is a problem in the drafting of the French version of motion LK-4.
The Chairman: We are only at motion LK-3.
Mr. Hallée: I'm at motion LK-4.
The Chairman: Yes, but right now we are dealing with motion LK-3.
Mr. Hallée: Yes, I'm on clause 2. I'll come back to it later.
[English]
The Chairman: He has another amendment?
[Translation]
This clause was adopted last week. Is there any problem?
Mr. Hallée: Yes, but it's just because I didn't have time.
The Chairman: Is it simply a matter of making the two languages agree? In that case, it's merely a matter of technical adaptation. There's no problem.
[English]
Clause 2 as amended agreed to
.1550
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Why can't we hear clause 2 before we adopt it? We'd have a better idea of what the legislator intends, whether something should be added from the legal point of view or whether there are any corrections to be made. You are asking us to adopt clause 2 without...
The Chairman: We did that last week.
Ms Guay: You are asking us to adopt it when it requires an addition.
The Chairman: It's simply a matter of the text in either of the languages. Mr. Hallée, would you explain to Ms Guay the reason for your comments on motion LK-4?
Mr. Hallée: I don't want to change the committee's procedure. I simply wanted to note that the present wording of the French version does not convey exactly the same meaning as the English text. I'm just asking to have it corrected so the two are in agreement.
Ms Guay: Yes, it is important.
The Chairman: Yes, it's very important but it's simply a procedural matter.
[English]
On clause 3 - Application to wildlife species and habitats
The Chairman: The first item staring at us is amendment G-4. Mrs. Kraft Sloan has an amendment.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): No, Mr. Chairman, I'm just putting G-4 forward.
The Chairman: That's the amendment. Please go ahead.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'd like to seek some clarification, Mr. Chair. We had quite a discussion about this amendment the last time we dealt with it in committee before it was stood. I'm wondering, are we're supposed to go through these discussions again?
The Chairman: It was discussed. You did explain it. Then we had a lengthy discussion. In light of what you said, I will ask whether there are any questions or comments on amendment G-4.
Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: As I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to satisfy certain requests from the Yukon and Northwest Territories relating to legislation. Perhaps Ms Kraft Sloan or the legislators themselves could explain to us what exactly the situation is.
I gather that this does not mean that certain aquatic species and migratory birds will not be subject to protection on federal territory but that because of this amendment the federal government will be able to interfere in provincial territory. I'd like an explanation.
[English]
The Chairman: The explanation was given last week to your colleague in committee when it was presented, but I'm sure Mrs. Kraft Sloan will be glad to give you an explanation again.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In this particular situation we were respectful of the concerns advanced by the governments of the two territories. This allows them to have jurisdiction and control in certain areas of game management. As far as anything that's being operated on provincial territory that has only to do with agents of the Crown - for example, Transport Canada or something like that...but only with respect to the territories.
Maybe the drafters could help me out on this one.
The Chairman: The application is north of 60, in other words.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a subamendment to the amendment moved by Mrs. Sloan.
I move that the wording be:
- in respect of wildlife species and their habitats mentioned in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) and section
33
The reason behind this subamendment is that clause 33 in the bill protects cross-border species wherever they're found, which is a broader definition. So it's just to tie in to clause 33 and the authority clause 33 already gives.
The Chairman: The explanation is very clear. However, can you repeat where this subamendment applies so that everybody gets it?
Mr. Lincoln: The government amendment right now reads:
- in respect of wildlife species and their habitats in paragraphs 3(a) and (b)
The Chairman: All right. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Steven Curtis (Associate Director, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment): I would point out to the committee that clause 33 deals with application of the act to cross-border species, which is in addition to the provisions provided in clause 3. So the subamendment being proposed by Mr. Lincoln is not really necessary.
Perhaps I could get our Justice officials to comment on this further.
The Chairman: Is this only for further clarification, Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. Lincoln: I think this applies to emergency orders. I don't think it's a duplication. I don't think it's unnecessary or irrelevant. I think it will make it much clearer that it applies to emergency orders. I suggest that it has its place in there.
The Chairman: All right.
Are there any further questions or comments?
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): I have one comment, Mr. Chairman, with respect to not the text but your remarks. I think for Madame Guay's benefit you said it was applied ``north of 60''. That is so except in the province of Quebec, because the province of Quebec does in fact go north of 60.
The Chairman: Fine.
Are there any further comments? Mr. Keyes.
Mr. John Mark Keyes (Senior Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice): First of all, I would point out that a similar phrase occurs in proposed paragraph 3.2(1)(a). If an amendment is made in one place you should perhaps consider it in the other place.
Second, proposed clause 3.1 really only relates to clauses 31 and 32, the emergency orders and certain regulations. It does not specifically mention clause 33. It does not have anything to do with the application of clause 33. Clause 33 applies on its own. So it's not a concern here in terms of the application of this provision, because these provisions deal only with clauses 31 and 32, the emergency orders and the regulations.
Mr. H. Ian Rounthwaite (Consultant to the Committee): I do think Mr. Lincoln is correct that as worded now, without a reference to clause 33, emergency orders would not apply to protect cross-border species. So to bring an emergency order to protect a cross-border species would require the inclusion of clause 33, as the subamendment suggests.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Lincoln: I think Mr. Rounthwaite is right. In case of doubt, make sure.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions on the subamendment?
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Chairman, my comment concurs with the other gentleman's. Proposed subclause 3.2(1) has the same wording as proposed clause 3.1:
- This limitation does not apply
Does that wording not need to have ``and section 33'' if it's the intention that emergency orders are not limited? Do I have it right?
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite.
.1600
Mr. Rounthwaite: There is a subtle difference between clause 3.1 and 3.2. Clause 3.2 , I think, requires a reference in paragraph (a) to clause 33 because it provides that emergency orders only apply if the species and habitat are found on federal land. Clause 3.2 is quite the reverse of that. That is, clause 3.2 has no application with respect to an emergency order unless an order is made by the minister. I would think, as clause 3.2 is presently worded, an order could be made by the minister saying that an emergency order will apply in the territories. I don't think, strictly speaking, we need to add section 33 to that.
The Chairman: That's very clear. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: May I add one more drafting comment? This results from a discussion that Professor Rounthwaite and I had the other day. In paragraph 3.2(1)(a) he suggested, at the latter part of that, saying ``the habitat of game or other species'' to make it clear that the ``other species'' are species other than the ones that are found in (a) and (b) and that it includes the game species.
The Chairman: If you're suggesting a subamendment, how would you word it at this point?
Mr. Keyes: Simply by adding after ``habitat of'' the words ``game or'', and then continue with ``other species''.
The Chairman: Would someone want to move this subamendment suggested by Mr. Keyes?
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I so move.
The Chairman: Mr. Near.
Mr. David Near (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment):Mr. Chair, there's a possible concern that the constitutional basis of -
The Chairman: Possible concern, but let's now deal with reality, please.
Mr. Near: I wonder if I could introduce Mr. Mabbutt to give that information to the committee?
The Chairman: Who is Mr. Mabbutt?
Mr. Near: Mr. Mabbutt is a senior constitutional counsel with the Department of Justice.
The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. J. M. Mabbutt (General Counsel, Constitutional and International Law Section, Department of Justice): Mr. Chairman, clause 33 as presently drafted is in a penal form. It prohibits activities that are carried on knowingly and willingly for certain species designated as endangered and threatened and those that cross an international boundary. Clause 34 is a much broader regulatory text. It covers also not merely the prohibition of activities but the regulation of activities. As well, the basis for the regulation is much broader in that the elements knowingly -
[Translation]
voluntarily or knowingly...
[English]
or wilfully are not included. There's also an element of regulation as opposed to prohibition.
Clause 33 is a stand-alone provision that is somewhat distinct from the others, recognizing the special nature of the trans-boundary species where federal jurisdiction is shared with the provinces, unlike migratory birds and the marine species where federal jurisdiction is exclusive and unlike federal land. I simply bring these comments to the committee's attention.
The Chairman: Do you have any comments?
Are you ready for the subamendment by Mr. Finlay, whereby in paragraph 3.2(1)(a) the words ``game or'' would be inserted before the words ``other species''?
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: We now move to the subamendment that deals with paragraph 3.1(a) byMr. Lincoln, whereby at the end of paragraph (a), which reads:
- in respect of wildlife species and their habitats mentioned in paragraph 3(a) and (b);
- the words are added:
- and in section 33.
- Is that correct, Mr. Lincoln?
Subamendment agreed to
.1605
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Now we have an amendment by Mr. Forseth. Perhaps you would like to introduce it, Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is amendment R-4. The purpose of this was simply a technical drafting one, where it was redundant. Part of the explanation of why ``habitats'' was repeated was for greater certainty. But certainly I think, for clarity, this is the preferred reading, and I think I managed to get some consent and agreement from around the table on this one.
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments?
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: The next one is LK-6. In the absence of Mr. Knutson, is anyone here going to speak to this?
Mr. Lincoln: I withdraw LK-6.
The Chairman: LK-6 is withdrawn.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Is that the reason why Mr. Knutson is absent? Was he asked not to show up and told that someone else would indicate for him that he is withdrawing the amendments?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I should first of all explain to my colleague that no reason is required when a committee member does not show up. The rules are quite clear. Mr. Knutson has an important reason for not being here and I can answer for him. I shall take the amendments and if you're not satisfied with my answers, vote against me. There's no reason for us to say whyMr. Knutson is not present. He has valid reasons. You and Ms Guay were not present last week. No explanation is required.
Mr. Asselin: I'm not asking why Mr. Knutson isn't here. I'm asking why the amendments presented by Mr. Knutson, who is absent, have been withdrawn on his behalf. That is my question. I'm not asking why he isn't here.
The Chairman: Let me clarify a point. I made a mistake, it isn't a matter of withdrawing the amendment since it wasn't moved. The document is just for our information. The amendments in our book have not yet been moved.
Ms Guay: Mr. Chairman, I understand what my colleague meant. We were just wondering whether the mover of the amendment had to be present to give an explanation.
The Chairman: It may be presented by another committee member.
Ms Guay: If it is presented by someone else, there's no problem.
.1610
The Chairman: Contrary to my previous statement, the amendments are not withdrawn since they were not moved.
Mr. Asselin: Yes, but you said they were withdrawn.
The Chairman: Yes, I used the wrong word. My apologies.
Mr. Lincoln: Excuse me, Mr. Asselin.
[English]
The Chairman: The next one is LK-7, again in the name of Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Lincoln: Could you give me just a second, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Lincoln: May I make an amendment to -
The Chairman: It isn't even proposed, so you can change it in whichever way you see fit, if you want to propose it.
Mr. Lincoln: I would like the amendment to read:
- (b) species of migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
- and I would like to add the words
- and habitat areas frequented by such migratory birds.
The Chairman: Would you like to present the entire amendment and read it into the record, please?
Mr. Lincoln: Paragraph 3(1)(b) would read:
- (b) species of migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
- exactly as it reads now. We would add:
- and habitat areas frequented by such migratory birds.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): I'm wondering if Mr. Lincoln can tell me if he considers there to be a difference between the word ``habitat'' and the words ``areas frequented by those birds''. Can he see any difference there? It's my sense, although I can't think of examples, that ``habitat'' is more encompassing than the words ``areas frequented by''. I would much prefer the original wording because of the more encompassing word ``habitat''.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: So would I, but I'm trying to reach a consensus and a compromise based on the convention itself. I feel this is acceptable because the words come right out of the convention itself.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: With due respect to the desires of the committee to treat migratory bird habitat, I suggest that both formulations are beyond the scope of the authorities that we believe we have for this act and in fact would mean that the act would apply on provincial crown lands and to private lands, lands that the provinces believe the jurisdictions over which fall within their authority. This is an opinion the Department of Justice shares, and I want to advise the committee as as strongly as I can not to include this kind of wording in the construction of the bill.
Mr. Lincoln: May I ask a question to the constitutional expert from the Department of Justice?
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: How do you reconcile this position with article 35 of the convention regulations? Hasn't the federal government got complete authority under article 35 of the convention regulations where these words are found, word for word?
.1615
Mr. Mabbutt: Mr. Lincoln, the federal authority over migratory birds is limited to that set out in the Migratory Birds Convention, which is an empire treaty. That covers migratory birds. It extends to residences such as nests. We have never taken the position that it extends to the entire habitat, because migratory birds, by their definition, migrate and cover vast areas of Canada, including areas within the provinces and within private lands. We see our authority as limited strictly to the terms of the convention, and that does not extend to land management regulation.
Mr. Lincoln: I quoted directly from the convention.
Mr. Near: My recollection is that you quoted from article 35 of the migratory bird regulations. The Department of Justice has consistently provided advice to the Canadian Wildlife Service that that particular regulation may be ultra vires and should be repealed.
Mr. Lincoln: Your colleague said just a minute ago that he was almost arguing against the convention, in a sense. He was quoting the convention as part of a jurisdiction, and now you're saying article 35 is ultra vires.
Mr. Near: There's a distinction. There's the convention itself, which is the basis of federal jurisdiction over migratory birds. There's then the implementing legislation for the convention, which is the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Pursuant to that act a regulation, article 35, was passed. It has been our view for several years now - and I believe it's in the regulatory plan of the Canadian Wildlife Service - to have that article repealed, on the advice that it may be ultra vires the federal government.
The Chairman: Under what interpretation of the Constitution? That is really....
Anyway, we are not here to engage in that exercise for the time being.
I would like to know what Madame Kraft Sloan has in mind, and then Mr. Adams.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What we might want to consider here is ``in their residences''. Given the fact that the committee has amended the definition of ``residence'' to expand it from what was originally laid out in the bill, we might want to consider that.
The Chairman: We are not talking on this amendment.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, but I was talking about amending it.
The Chairman: Well, I'm sorry. You will have to make a decision on how to treat this first.
Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: This question is for Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis, you're not debating Mr. Lincoln's change in wording. You're actually saying the wording is not appropriate or suitable or whatever in either case. So we go with what's before us, ``and their habitats'', or we go with ``and the habitat areas frequented'', or whatever it was, ``by such birds''. You think both of those are out of line.
Mr. Curtis: Yes.
The Chairman: Also, keep in mind, as Mr. Near has informed us, that a regulation was written under the migratory birds act and passed by this committee two or three years ago whereby similar powers, with similar words, are put on paper.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, I personally am quite comfortable with either of these wordings. I wanted clarification, that's all.
Mr. Curtis: I tried to provide a bit of a clarification on just what article 35 of the migratory bird regulations does provide for. It prohibits the deposition of deleterious substances into waters or habitats frequented by migratory birds. That in and of itself doesn't give the authority to protect habitat. The activity that's being addressed or dealt with is the deposition of deleterious substances that have a direct harmful effect on the birds. That was the purpose of the regulation, and that is within the scope of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
The Chairman: Nevertheless, Mr. Curtis, it recognizes federal jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: If we add this amendment... We are not in agreement. There are legislative experts who tell us that it will not enforceable, that there will be challenges and that this has no place in the bill. Are we just going to vote on it like that?
.1620
We must be sure that this provision will not give rise to unending legal problems for the enrichment of lawyers. I'd like a somewhat more solid opinion on the matter before we make a decision.
Mr. Asselin: They're ready to vote on anything.
Ms Guay: We can't vote on just anything.
The Chairman: Just vote against it.
Ms Guay: That isn't the question. There isn't even consensus among the experts,Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite, could you please answer the question by Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, the opposition isn't raising the issue, it's the Department of Justice.
The Chairman: They provide their opinions.
Ms Guay: It's important, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Asselin: They should be more knowledgeable than anyone on the other side of the table.
[English]
Mr. Finlay: Other opinions may be different.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mr. Chairman, a number of points can be made about this proposed amendment. Paragraph 3(1)(a) protects aquatic species. The Fisheries Act protects aquatic species by protecting waters frequented by fish. The proposed subamendment wording in terms of protecting areas frequented by migratory birds simply would bring protection of migratory bird habitat in line with the way in which the federal government has always protected aquatic species.
I'm surprised that the department takes the position that the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994 is of questionable constitutional validity. It was reviewed in 1994 by this committee. Presumably at that time the department felt it was constitutional. Why things have changed in the last two years to make it questionable in terms of constitutionality, I'm not sure. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very plain that where a matter falls clearly within the federal government's division of powers, a reasonable regulatory scheme that is necessarily incidental to carry out the pith and substance of the federal head of power is entirely permissible and entirely acceptable. I think that's all this does.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: I clearly recall from the discussions that the Migratory Birds Convention Act was somewhat limited in its application to habitat. This is a clear effort to reinforce the jurisdiction that it's expansionary in nature. Either wording, one or the other, I think is asserting a federal authority on habitat that previously was contemplated was not fully functional under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. I suppose the objections came up because some of the provinces objected.
I recognize here that there is indeed an expansion of jurisdiction by this whole clause.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any further comments? Mr. Keyes.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: The gentleman had something to say.
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, the committee has a chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Asselin: My comment was addressed to you.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I would just make a drafting point -
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: You are in such a hurry for the vote, Mr. Chairman, that you don't see us.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: - in terms of looking at the wording proposed by Mr. Lincoln and the wording adopted by the committee for the definition of habitat. The definition of ``habitat'' that was adopted spoke of area where an individual or the wildlife species ``occurs or formerly occurred''. So it uses the language of occurrence.
In the wording proposed by Mr. Lincoln, he is suggesting talking about areas ``frequented'' by such birds. This may introduce an inconsistency and raise questions about whether there's a difference between ``occurrence'' and ``frequented''. Purely from a drafting standpoint, I would suggest that if there is an intention here to include habitat at this point, the original wording is probably the better wording. It simply relies on the definition and the concepts contained there rather than introducing additional concepts such as frequenting.
I appreciate that this wording may have come from a regulation under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, but the drafting of this bill has taken a somewhat different approach. Really, in the drafting of this I think it should be consistent with the approach taken in other parts of this bill rather than the approaches taken in other legislation.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Are there any further comments? Mr. Near.
Mr. Near: If I could just make a point of clarification, when the Migratory Birds Convention Act was passed in 1994 it was indeed reviewed by the Department of Justice and found to be constitutional. The regulation in article 35 that has been referenced pre-dates the 1994 passage of that act.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lincoln.
.1625
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that Mr. Curtis, from his remarks, doesn't believe article 35, referring not to bill but to regulations of Migratory Birds Convention Act, is ultra vires. He seemed to say article 35 shouldn't apply here - they are two different subjects - but he didn't say it was ultra vires. Mr. Rounthwaite doesn't think it's ultra vires. I maintain my amendment. We'll just vote on it and see.
Amendment negatived
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have an additional government amendment here.
The Chairman: Does it belong here?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, it does.
Mr. Forseth: Are we going to move the original wording on that clause now? Somebody should move the original wording on that clause.
The Chairman: We now have to deal with the main amendment. We have dealt with a subamendment, which has been defeated. The vote on Mr. Lincoln's amendment takes care of LK-7 in its entirety.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I move an amendment to clause 3, line 20 on page 5. The proposed amendment would say:
- Birds Convention Act, 1994 and their residences.
Ms Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): But the original wording said ``and their habitats that are protected''. Is that deleted?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, ``and their residences'' means their residences are not being qualified by the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
The Chairman: For the benefit of the committee members, then, could you please read to us how paragraph (b) would read.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Paragraph (b) would read:
- species of migratory birds and their habitats that are protected by the Migratory Birds
Convention Act, 1994 and their residences.
.1630
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Legislatively speaking, what is added by the reference to ``and their residences''? Will this give more teeth to the bill?
Mr. Keyes: We have already included the habitats protected by the act. This adds the other residences that may not be protected by the act.
Ms Guay: So it does give more teeth to the bill.
Mr. Keyes: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Is the definition of ``residence'', then, as it appears now in the bill on page 4 in the definition clause? That whole clause is standing. I'm asking whether no further amendments are coming forward or are anticipated on the issue of the definition of ``residence''. Is it going to stand the way it is?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I thought we had adopted clause 2.
Mr. Forseth: Okay, thank you. So I clearly understand now what the definition of ``residence'' is on page 4.
The Chairman: That's correct; on page 4 as amended, yes. It was amended last week and that's how it reads.
The clerk will distribute the definition of ``residence'' as amended last week. You will find it under LK-4, I believe. That, Mr. Forseth and Madame Guay, is where you will find the definition of ``residence''.
Having done all that, we now have before us the amendment by Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I'm informed by the clerk that government amendment G-4 having been carried, Bloc Québécois amendment 2 drops out. So there is no need to call that amendment.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Mr. Chairman, could I still explain this amendment so that people can understand what our purpose is?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. It's not before the committee, but if you wish to do so, by all means go ahead.
[Translation]
Ms Guay: If my colleagues would allow me a short explanation, the purpose of this amendment was to allow the opting out of provinces for the protection of aquatics species and migratory birds in provincial territory. This is in accordance with the Charlottetown agreement concluded by the ministers of the Environment. The object of the amendment was to satisfy the provincial Environment ministers and to ensure that there is proper communication between the two levels of government as well as good administration. I know that we shall not be voting.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Guay.
[English]
Clause 3 as amended agreed to
.1635
On clause 4 - Binding on Her Majesty
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson has just arrived.
Would you like to take a moment to get your bearings?
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I'm prepared to put forward LK-8 with some modifications from Professor Rounthwaite.
In paragraph 4(1)(b), where it says ``species of migratory birds'', insert ``and their habitats''.
On the third line of paragraph 4(1)(b), after ``and their'', insert the word ``residence'', striking the word ``habitats''.
Mr. Taylor: I'm completely lost here.
.1640
[Translation]
Ms Guay: Mr. Chairman, could we have this amendment written out clearly? We can come back a bit later if necessary. We need a clear presentation.
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Guay is making a very sensible request, Mr. Knutson, because the members need to know the exact wording you're proposing, which is at variance with the written text of LK-8. With the agreement of the committee, I will stand this particular amendment and come back to it later when it has been written out and properly distributed. The clause will be stood as well.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, if you're standing the clause, I want to make a subamendment.
The Chairman: We are standing the entire clause to accommodate Mr. Knutson. If anyone wishes to present another amendment, we can do it when the clause is called again.
Clause 4 allowed to stand
Clauses 5 and 7 agreed to
On clause 8 - Funding agreements
The Chairman: We have a number of amendments. First is G-5, an amendment by the government, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is found on page 8 in the legislation, line 13. It allows some opportunity for agreements that would be authorized for funding under subclause 7(2). The intent here is to highlight the importance of the private landowner's role in species preservation. We will have some additional proposals I would like to add for clause 38.
The Chairman: Are there any questions on this amendment by Mrs. Kraft Sloan? Mr. Forseth.
.1645
Mr. Forseth: If we proceed and pass that, I take it this still does not then automatically preclude R-7.5, because it's dealing with line 13. I have ``adding after line 13''. I just want to make sure that if we pass this one, it doesn't automatically get rid of mine.
The Chairman: I'm told it's a new subclause.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next amendment is from Mr. Forseth, R-7.5.
Mr. Forseth: I would like some opinion around the table on this amendment. I'm proposing a slight change to the wording. It would read, in part, as follows:
- (1.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of subsection (1), ``costs'' include costs to a person
or organization incurred by way of a direct business loss
- So I am changing the words ``any cost'' to ``costs'' and inserting the word ``direct'' in front of
the words ``business loss''.
Mr. Forseth: I would like a bit of opinion on this. Perhaps Ian Rounthwaite could address specifically whether he figures that this is inside or outside the royal declaration of the extent of the bill.
Mr. Rounthwaite: It's a difficult question. If clause 8 is interpreted as to envision only those costs that will be expenditures designed to conserve or preserve endangered or threatened species, then that would be, in my view, the expenditure of public funds to preserve species only for conservation-type programs. The inclusion in an agreement that allows compensation for costs, even if they are direct business costs, in my view would require an additional expenditure over and above an expenditure purely for the purposes of conservation. So to that extent it may be beyond the scope of the bill.
You have to read ``costs'' in proposed subclause 8(1.1) in the context of subclause 8(1) - that is, costs of programs. Cost of programs could include any costs, including business-type costs, as you're referring to here.
Mr. Forseth: We've now amended clause 8, so....
Mr. Rounthwaite: In terms of saying that ``costs'' in subclause 8(1) means costs including direct business losses, then that would be within the scope of clause 8.
The Chairman: It's not amended, to our knowledge, Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Well, G-5 expanded clause 8, which in my view assists the ongoing viability of my amendment.
I would like an opinion from this end of the table. In view of what has been done in clause 8, do you think my amendment, with the tightening of the wording I've suggested, is survivable as far as the designation of the bill goes?
The Chairman: That is a question that really is addressed to the chair, Mr. Forseth. The chair turns for advice to both officials at the table.
I'm informed that the amendment you are proposing would still be beyond the scope of the royal recommendation. I'm also informed, if I remember correctly from last week, that you can test this ruling, so to speak, if you were not to pursue this amendment in committee, though, by way of an amendment at report stage. That avenue is open to you if you do not pursue it in committee, by virtue of regulations.
.1650
It is entirely up to you, then, to decide whether you want to exhaust all your possibilities here in committee, I would imagine by challenging the chair, which is perfectly legitimate, or by an amendment that you do not present here but in the House at report stage. The choice is up to you.
Mr. Forseth: Could the clerk offer an opinion on the record? We did so before.
The Chairman: I invite the clerk to express an opinion, if he's willing to do so. If he doesn't, the responsibility for the decision rests entirely on my shoulders.
The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chair, I would be reluctant to provide any advice, since the chair has now de facto ruled on the amendment. Therefore I would not want to offer comment in a public forum.
The Chairman: Charles, go ahead.
Mr. Charles Bellemare (Procedural Clerk): I confess this is a difficult call.
The Chairman: If any official wishes express an opinion on this question, we will be glad to hear from you.
Mr. Forseth: I would like to add that this is probably the most important clause of the whole bill concerning public acceptance. The resistance to the bill in the west is mounting and we have to do something to make the bill work.
The Chairman: Yes, that's the public aspect. Now we are on purely technical grounds and we need to know whether the amendment by the government, G-5, opens the door for amendment R-7.5, on the royal recommendation, or not.
If anyone wishes to express an opinion, please do it now.
Mr. Forseth: Steven?
Mr. Curtis: I would ask the Justice people perhaps to clarify what I am about to say.
Again, I respect the desire to provide some relief in these areas, but my concern would be that by using this kind of wording we create a potential liability for the government in terms of impacts of liability that will have to be met in every case and liability that will result in court action and so on. That would be my concern about this kind of wording.
The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: As I said earlier, the government has some amendments on clause 38 that try to go part of the way to address some of the concerns you have, Mr. Forseth. They open things up for cooperation and negotiation around the recovery planning process and identify the contribution that private landowners make.
Mr. Forseth: Okay.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But I think we have to be very careful when we talk about even direct business costs and the liability it's going to impose on the government.
Mr. Forseth: Okay.
Mr. Taylor: I would like a little further clarification on this too. I hope the question assists the committee in some way.
As I read subclause 8(1) as it appears in the bill and as amended already, which essentially is the basis for the royal recommendation, it talks about contributions to the costs of programs and measures for the conservation of wildlife.
.1655
Could it not already be interpreted that liabilities are established by ``programs and measures'' and that liability for a program or measure extends to anything the government wishes to consider a program or a measure? If I were a person out there, I would argue that the government is already obligated for some liabilities in regard to this and therefore the clarity that's being expressed by the amendment on the table actually reduces the liability rather than increases it. I would like some clarification on whether ``programs and measures'' does not already establish a liability on government for any kind of agreement they want to make.
The Chairman: Are you in a position, Mr. Keyes, to cast some light on this question?
Mr. Keyes: I could certainly try.
I think you're quite right that the crux of this is what the programs and measures are. In clause 7 the bill has already provided for certain programs and measures related to conservation. Clause 8 then picks that up with very similar language and speaks of ``programs and measures for the conservation of wildlife species''.
That's a fairly open-ended concept. I think there's a fair bit of discretion to design a program and to design measures. There certainly may be scope for building into those programs some form of compensation as part of the program. So it really goes down to what you think the program and measure will contain.
With Mr. Forseth's amendment, however, I think he's suggesting that in every case the costs would include these business losses. It strikes me that it's independent of whether it's part of the program or not. His amendment is saying the costs include these things. So you could have programs and measures that do not envisage any of these things, yet by this definition those costs are being brought in as being capable of reimbursement under clause 8.
Mr. Forseth: But how can you say that when it says ``may''?
Mr. Keyes: The wording I have in front of me is that the costs include costs to a person.
Mr. Forseth: Why don't we put the word ``may'' in there?
Mr. Keyes: So you are simply adverting to the possibility. Well, that would certainly soften it and perhaps go some distance towards alleviating the concern.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I still have concern around the use of business costs. As was just recently stated, amendment G-5 refers to programs and measures under an agreement authorized by subclause 7(2), and a business cost could be something that is outside of those measures, not party to those kinds of things. It seems you're opening up a whole wide level of cost areas. I think it's important that the government is recognizing the concerns of the private landowners and trying to go for some flexibility, but it's my feeling that it goes beyond the scope of the legislation to move into the area of business costs.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, without my claiming to be an expert in these matters - far from it - if I were to read clause 8 in isolation, so to say, it's a clause written as an emanation from the minister and the Governor in Council and it relates, as others have already indicated, to the costs of programs and measures. In other words, it is oriented to the initiatives and policy directions of the government.
Your amendment addresses instead a different sector. It addresses the private sector. It addresses losses that may be suffered in the carrying on of business by private individuals. In other words, we are entering an entirely different territory.
.1700
For that reason, I would again conclude that your amendment is beyond the scope of the royal recommendation. Again, I would urge you to examine the possibility - if you want to explore it, of course - of preparing an amendment for the report stage so that by not forcing your way here in committee, you preclude yourself from that alternative avenue.
Actually, I'm told there are two opportunities available to you.
The Clerk: You may propose your amendment at this committee. If it is ruled out of order, you can propose it again at report stage.
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I want to build on what the chair has said. The socio-economic considerations are addressed through the recovery planning process and also through the amendment I'm going to propose to clause 38, which talks about the recovery planning process. It refers back to clauses 7 or 8.
As the chair says, as part of the policy of the Governor in Council and the minister in regard to species preservation and conservation we have built flexibility into the bill to deal with some of these costs as opposed to costs that are strictly out of what is intended for the conservation implementation programs.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I fail to see how someone who may be affected by this particular clause, if indeed a species were to be found on private property, would get comfort in this legislation. I have to agree with my colleague, Mr. Taylor, that one could read into it - and I'm not a lawyer - that there may be in the legislation a provision for payment of loss of income or whatever the case may be. There has to be some comfort given to that segment of our Canadian population, because it's on private lands where this is going to become a problem, not on federal lands. It's going to become a problem on private lands.
Somehow I would like to see this addressed to the satisfaction that there's at least a comfort zone in which people can feel they have their needs addressed.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There's a recommendation here.
Mr. Steckle: There's one coming?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Mr. Steckle: Okay.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.
In light of this discussion, Mr. Forseth, I must ask you now whether you still wish to move your amendment.
Mr. Forseth: I'll make one comment first. When you read the plain language, it clearly says, ``by virtue of the implementation of a program or measure''. That really narrows it. It's a sub-consequence of what's coming out of the legislation. It's not contemplating anything in a general sense, as you referred to it.
But I will not move it at this point. I'll wait for later.
The Chairman: Do you mean that the clause be stood?
Mr. Forseth: The whole clause.
The Chairman: But there are two other amendments, I believe, BQ-4 and R-8.
Would you like to present your amendment, Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I move that Bill C-65, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 8 the following:
(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a responsible minister shall not enter into an agreement under that subsection with an authority, organization or person...
We also talk about municipalises. We say that this should be done by the provinces or the Department of the Environment unless the power has been conferred on them.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.
[English]
Are there any questions or comments? If not, I will call the question.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1705
The Chairman: Next is R-8.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, R-8 is withdrawn.
The Chairman: It was never presented. It was not proceeded with.
Clause 8 as amended agreed to
On clause 13 - Establishment
The Chairman: There is an amendment from the Bloc Québécois, BQ-5.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin: I move that Bill C-65, in clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 in page 9 with the following:
(2) ``More than nine members, appointed by the Council``.
The number of members does not change but we would like them to be appointed by the Council rather than by the minister.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Are you ready for Mr. Asselin's amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I'm voting in favour of this amendment for the sake of transparency and to eliminate patronage.
Amendment negatived
[English]
The Chairman: R-9. Mr. Forseth, would you like to introduce your motion.
Mr. Forseth: Yes, it is that Bill C-65, in clause 13, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 9 with the following:
- Minister after consulting the Council, the Royal Society and other scientific bodies that in the
opinion of the Minister have relevant expertise.
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We had a discussion -
The Chairman: Yes, we did.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: - around this amendment before. I was wondering if we could amend it so it would be more inclusive and we wouldn't exclude experts in the area of traditional ecological knowledge. If it could be changed to:
- The Minister may also seek advice from any expert body.
The Chairman: Well, what is the question to Mr. Forseth?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Forseth has moved his amendment as is, has he?
The Chairman: He has introduced his amendment, yes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay. Then I would like to amend his amendment.
The Chair: Could we have the text of the subamendment?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It is:
- The Minister may also seek advice from any expert body.
- Replace it with that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No. Replace it with:
- The Minister may also seek advice from any expert body.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You would replace your amendment with:
- The Minister may also seek advice from any expert body.
The Chairman: That would be a separate amendment.
Mr. Forseth: So you are losing the reference to the Royal Society?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Mr. Forseth: Oh, my goodness, no.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I guess the problem that has been raised around this is that it's too restrictive and it excludes persons who are practising in the area of traditional ecological knowledge.
Mr. Forseth: Well, why can't that be ``in addition'' rather than ``instead of''?
.1710
The Chairman: Mr. Adams, what is before us right now is only the amendment by Mr. Forseth. The chair has nothing else. So would you please make your intervention on Mr. Forseth's amendment.
Mr. Adams: I'd like to speak to it two ways. One, I think as it stands it is restrictive with respect to people who, for example, are in the area of traditional ecological knowledge, as Mrs. Kraft Sloan said. However, I tend to the view that if we could mention the Royal Society of Canada, it would be a good thing.
By the way, this is not, if I might say, to make it restrictive. My sense was that this was included here because of a more general effort in our society to strengthen our Royal Society and to put it on a par with similar organizations in the United States and other countries - not that it would be royal if it was in the United States.
So I would favour, generally speaking, that this be broadened in such a way that includes traditional ecological knowledge and other aspects, but my personal preference would be that the Royal Society remain in it.
The Chairman: Fine. This is very nice, but as long as the text before us is this, there's nothing more the chair can do than to put it to a vote, unless there is a subamendment. I remind you of the fact that in Mr. Forseth's amendment there is a reference to ``other scientific bodies''. If there is a wish to move a subamendment to ``other scientific bodies'' so as to refer to traditional knowledge, that is where that subamendment could be made.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, are you seeking an amendment now?
The Chairman: The amendment is already before us. This would be a subamendment.
Mr. Adams: Okay. As a subamendment, I would suggest that ``other scientific bodies'' be replaced by ``other expert bodies''.
I think, Mr. Forseth, that would broaden it. I would be willing to go so far as to say ``including those in the area of traditional ecological knowledge'', but my sense is that ``other expert bodies'' would cover that. That's why I'm speaking to it in that sense.
The Chairman: Could this be put as a friendly amendment that you may want to consider in your amendment?
Mr. Forseth: Yes, as long as Royal Society is kept in there. That would be a way of getting what are almost like buzzwords - and ``traditional knowledge'' has a meaning - inserted there as well.
Mr. Adams: I could try it again, Mr. Forseth. My choice would be ``and other expert bodies, including those in the area of traditional ecological knowledge''. So ``scientific'' would be replaced by ``expert'', and then it would say, ``including those in the area of traditional ecological knowledge''.
Mr. Forseth: I like that, except I'm a little bit worried about taking the word ``scientific'' out of there.
Mr. Adams: I would be comfortable, Mr. Forseth, with ``expert'' even without ``traditional ecological'', because in my view that would include them. I think ``scientific'' is exclusive.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, would you accept that the word ``expert'' would replace ``scientific''?
Mr. Forseth: Yes, with -
The Chairman: Without any further embroidering.
Mr. Knutson: Perhaps we could say ``scientific or other expert''.
The Chairman: No, ``scientific'' has already been put aside as being too limiting.
Mr. Forseth: Well, we're still working on this. I'm reluctant to make it an either/or situation. This is an important clause. It can be expanded to include the notion of traditional knowledge but not at the expense of the Royal Society or scientific. We can make it inclusive.
The Chairman: All right, then, a suggestion. Would those interested in this clause draft a text during the dinner break so that we have an agreed-upon text that will satisfy all currents?
Mr. Forseth: We can just stand it over dinner and come up with it.
Ms Douglas: To those who are doing so, it should be clear in English, as it already is in French, that it's the ``Royal Society of Canada''. The words ``of Canada'' were left out of the English version.
Amendment allowed to stand
The Chairman: Thank you.
.1715
We now move to G-7.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is self-explanatory.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We are standing the clause for the text of the amendment we discussed earlier, about other scientific bodies.
Clause 13 allowed to stand
On clause 14 - Qualifications of members
The Chairman: There is an amendment, R-11. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: The amendment is that Bill C-65, in clause 14, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 10 the following:
(4.1) Every member of COSEWIC shall be free to exercise his or her discretion independently.
We had quite a bit of discussion around that and about how far we could go, but I think enough remains to send the right signals. So much in this bill is sending signals rather than something that might be.
The Chairman: Quite frankly, the chair has enormous problems with this, Mr. Forseth, namely, whether one can legislate independent discretion. In any case, I don't want to insert my...since it is not anything that has to do with the royal recommendation, it's up to the committee to make a decision about it. I would welcome comments or questions.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Part of our discussion before was to delete the phrase after ``independently''.
The Chairman: That has already been deleted.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: And the ``shall'' has been changed to ``must''?
The Chairman: No, ``shall'' is still in the text.
Mr. Forseth: It reads:
- Every member of COSEWIC shall be free to exercise his or her discretion independently.
Mr. Knutson: I think it would read better if...and I would like to propose that we change ``shall be free'' to ``must''. It would then read:
- Every member of COSEWIC must exercise his or her discretion independently.
Mr. Forseth: It sounds like it. It's a directive.
Mr. Knutson: It's friendly to Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Especially if that then means the clause in its essence is going to survive.
Mr. Knutson: It is.
The Chairman: It now reads:
- Every member of COSEWIC must exercise his or her discretion independently.
.1720
The Chairman: How many angels can sit on the tip of a pin?
Mr. Lincoln: I don't want to vote against it. It just seems....
The Chairman: Then do not vote against it.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 14 as amended agreed to
On clause 16 - Subcommittees
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have an amendment.
The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan has an amendment which is not before us.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I will read it into the record.
The Chairman: We can't function that way. It's either written or it's not.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It's line 26 to 30 in clause 16. You would delete lines 26 to 30 and replace them with:
16. COSEWIC shall establish a special subcommittee to assist in the preparation and review of status reports on wildlife species considered to be at risk and may establish other subcommittees to advise it or to perform any of its powers or functions.
I just wanted to reinforce the work of the special subcommittee that's currently being undertaken and make sure that it's enshrined in the legislation.
Mr. Forseth: What was seen as deficient in clause 16 as it is now?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: As it stands now, clause 16 just talks about advisory and other subcommittees. I wanted to reinforce the fact that there are about 28 special subcommittees that currently make up COSEWIC and I think it's important to acknowledge the work they've done in the past and to enshrine their existence in the future.
Mr. Forseth: Would enshrining also provide some monetary resources for them to carry out their work?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm just talking about making sure they're identified in the legislation.
The Chairman: There is no one in this room except the parliamentary secretary who has the text of that amendment.
Mr. Forseth: I like the sound of it.
The Chairman: It begins with line 27. Thank you, Mr. Rounthwaite. Madame Kraft Sloan gave us the wrong line.
We need to know the text. It's a replacement of lines 27 to 30 inclusive. The text is to be distributed and I will come back to it after it has been photocopied after the dinner break.
Amendment allowed to stand
Clause 16 allowed to stand
The Chairman: We shall now move on. Clauses 17 through 21 were carried at the last meeting.
.1725
On clause 22 - Emergency designation or reclassification
The Chairman: We move to amendment R-14.
Mr. Forseth: I recall receiving presentations about this that there's always a concern that, well, we have a set of rules, but all of a sudden we set aside those rules when we're in an emergency.
The Chairman: That's what an emergency is all about.
Mr. Forseth: To clearly define what indeed is an emergency is to try to provide some reassurance to those out there who were somewhat worried about emergency powers.
The Chairman: But isn't the definition of ``emergency'' what you have introduced here? An emergency is when ``extraordinary conditions exist''.
Mr. Forseth: If that's your interpretation of it, then you should have no problem supporting the clause. It provides extra precision. Since this bill is in considerable trouble about being received by various parts of the community, any little extra we can do to ameliorate the fear I think should be supported.
The Chairman: Could we have an opinion from the Department of Justice, please?
Mr. Near: I would be inclined to say that ``emergency basis'' does say it all, that COSEWIC has to have an emergency basis, and it is simply the same thing as a situation where there are ``extraordinary conditions''.
So everything is expressed in the phrase ``emergency basis''.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Forseth, last comment.
Mr. Forseth: In the contemplation that ``on an emergency basis'' was somewhat species-focused on the emergency of the survivability or the vulnerability of the species, what about a condition such as a flood, a hurricane disaster, a pipeline exploding in a particular area and causing habitat degradation, an oil fire or whatever? Those are extraordinary conditions that are kind of environmental and out beyond the normal thing of the bill here, where ``emergency basis'' seems to be focused specifically on the species we're trying to protect.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Keyes, briefly.
Mr. Keyes: I can appreciate that you may have certain ideas of what ``extraordinary conditions'' are, but simply using that phrase I don't think narrows it in the way you're suggesting in that it would be open to a much broader interpretation than just the kinds of things you've listed.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Amendment negatived
Clause 22 agreed to
The Chairman: Clauses 23, 24 and 25 were carried the last time.
On clause 26 - Documents in public registry
The Chairman: There is a possible amendment here, LK-15, followed by R-15.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to put forward LK-15.
The Chairman: Okay. The next amendment is R-15.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: We're looking at clause 26 and we're talking about a public registry and the whole business of communication. I certainly felt it was helpful to add the designation and the reasons for the decision and a list of the applications referred to.
This doesn't have to be extensive. This is just a list of the applications. It doesn't have to include the body of the applications, but it sends a signal to the public as to where the concern is. I think it's very instructive for others who may be contemplating making requests under clauses 19 and 23. It's a kind of history of what COSEWIC is being presented with. It's part of the public registry, and I think this list should be added.
.1730
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could I seek some clarification? Would the name of the applicant go on the public registry, then?
Mr. Forseth: I haven't specified. I haven't said. I just said a list of the applications. It would obviously be up to those who handle the public registry how they define the list of the applications. Obviously it would be the title of the application. You would leave it up to those who administer the public registry how extensively they interpret ``list'' to fulfil the spirit of that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the concern I have is that this might deter the public from participating. There are often huge enough barriers and hurdles around public participation and environmental legislation, and I have grave concerns that these individuals would be targeted and subjected to abuse and lobbying.
Mr. Forseth: I would put it the other way, that when individuals or bodies or whatever make requests, they also have a public responsibility to move forward in the context of a community and we need to see the history of where these things are coming from. I haven't anticipated the naming of the individuals, but certainly the application refers to the species and the context and so on...that there's public knowledge of what the activity is in this area, rather than what almost seems to be a history of being able to carry on in secret.
The Chairman: You heard the proponent. You heard the objection. Are there any further interventions?
Amendment negatived
Mr. Knutson: I would like to propose a clause 26.1, which you will find written on LK-15.
The Chairman: It was not proceeded with. It was not presented.
Mr. Knutson: I know. It was an oversight on my part. I want to add new words identified in the last paragraph after....
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It was carried last week.
Mr. Knutson: All right. Thank you. Sorry.
The Chairman: Which one was carried? The last line?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Clause 26.1. It was carried at the last meeting. It's not even in the version today, because we carried it at the last meeting.
The Chairman: So we have dealt with it.
Mr. Knutson: I apologize.
The Chairman: All right, accepted.
Clause 26 agreed to
The Chairman: Considering the fact that clause 30 is a rather large elephant, how about having a nice dinner break and meeting here at 6:45 p.m.? Does that appeal to the committee and the people in the room?
We'll resume our work at 7:15 p.m.
.1734
.1854
The Chairman: We have a quorum and we can resume.
While an amendment is being reproduced for distribution on clause 30, and since I have not called clause 30, we move to clause 31, for which we have two amendments.
On clause 31 - Killing, harming, etc., listed species
The Chairman: In order of precedence the amendment by Mr. Knutson will come first. Are you prepared to move that amendment, Mr. Knutson?
.1855
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to propose LK-17 minus the word ``disturb''.
Mr. Forseth: And the word ``knowingly''.
The Chairman: Would you like to read into the record what you are moving?
Mr. Knutson:
- 31.(1) No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture, or take an individual of a listed, extirpated,
endangered or threatened species, or attempt to do so.
Mr. Knutson: It would read:
- Possession, collection, etc.
- (2) No person shall possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a listed extirpated,
endangered or threatened species, or any part or derivative of one.
Mr. Forseth: I would like to appeal to Mr. Knutson that in his amendment he insert ``No person shall knowingly kill''. It would allow me to withdraw mine.
Mr. Knutson: Then I would introduce drunkenness as a defence, and I'm not prepared to do that. That's an obscure joke.
Why don't you just propose that as an amendment and we can have a debate?
Mr. Forseth: The idea of mens rea was contemplated.
The Chairman: Sorry. The proposal has not been accepted.
Are there any further questions or comments? Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I'd just make a drafting comment about the reference to ``or attempt to do so''. In the drafting of federal offences we normally don't put in that language because it's already covered through a provision in the Interpretation Act, subsection 34(2), which says that all of the general provisions of the Criminal Code relating to offences apply to offences under any federal enactment, not just the Criminal Code. That includes the attempt provisions in the Criminal Code, and the words ``or attempt to do so'' are covered that way.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, is there anything that stops us in the law from doing so, so that the public reading the law realizes it is stronger and it is made much more evident? Is there anything that stops us from doing it?
Mr. Keyes: Nothing that stops you, although this is just one of the offence provisions. It might raise the question of why it was put into this offence provision and not into the others. If you have a long series of offence provisions, you're constantly repeating ``or attempt to do so'', and it can get a bit repetitive.
Mr. Knutson: I have conflicting advice, so unless Justice officials can convince me it does some harm, my preference is to leave ``or attempt to do so'' in there.
The Chairman: Any further questions or comments? If not, are you ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: The other amendment to clause 31 is by Mr. Forseth. Would you like to proceed?
Mr. Forseth: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You'll recall that we had discussions that this introduces the concept of mens rea - a guilty mind - into the proceeding. Again, it's trying to reassure those who feel that the bill is too intrusive and draconian. I just think it adds a refinement that is very helpful in the selling of the bill. That's R-16, number 43 on the bottom. It involves inserting the one word ``knowingly''.
Mr. Finlay: Can I ask -
The Chairman: We'll open it for questions and comments. Also, I'm advised that this amendment is knocked out by the amendment just adopted by the committee, because it deals with the same line. It seems to me as chair, however, that by introducing the term ``knowingly'', one introduces a concept that does amend the line, and that therefore it ought to be dealt with.
.1900
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: I'd seek some advice from the legal counsel, because I've got a reference here that no, it's not necessary, because it's currently a strict liability offence with the due diligence defence, which is too legal for me to interpret.
Mr. Near: Perhaps I could take a run at that one.
Clauses 31 and 32 are currently set up as regulatory offences or, to use the other term, strict liability offences, which give the accused the opportunity to raise the defence of due diligence.
If you add the words ``knowingly'' or ``willingly'', or words to that effect, it introduces the notion of mens rea or intent, so the Crown would also have to prove that the accused intentionally undertook those activities that were prohibited, whereas with a strict liability offence, if the accused was able to show that they acted with best intentions and tried to avoid breaking the law, the defence of due diligence would be open to them. That's the distinction. If you introduce the element of ``knowingly'' here, it makes proof of the offence considerably more difficult.
The Chairman: Right. Mr. Finlay, does that answer your question?
Mr. Finlay: Yes, thank you.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions? If not, are you ready for the question?
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 31 as amended agreed to
On clause 32 - Damage or destruction of residence
The Chairman: There are two amendments. The first one is LK-18. Is anyone willing to move it?
Mr. Knutson: I would like to move LK-18, with the exception of the word ``disturb''.
The Chairman: Would you please read it into the record.
Mr. Knutson: It reads:
- No person shall damage or destroy the residence of a listed extirpated, endangered or threatened
species, or the residence of an individual of the species.
Mr. Keyes: I think this is talking about two kinds of residences: one is of an individual, and that's fairly clear; but it's not, to me, very clear what the residence of the species would be. Is it likely that there would be a species, all the individuals of which lived in the same residence?
I would suggest that simply speaking of the residence of an individual of the species would cover what's intended here.
The Chairman: How would it read?
Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: With reference to the ``or residence of an individual of the species'' after ``the residence of a listed...species'', it better accommodates the amended definition of residence that was approved by this committee.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Rounthwaite: This committee amended the definition of ``residence'' to include -
Mr. Knutson: Things like breeding grounds.
Mr. Rounthwaite: That's correct. I think ``the residence of a listed, extirpated, endangered or threatened species'' would cover the breeding ground part of ``residence'', and ``the residence of an individual'' would then confirm the remaining parts of the definition.
Mr. Knutson: So you like it as is?
Mr. Rounthwaite: Yes. I think it's more comprehensive in accounting for the definition of ``residence'' as amended.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Any further questions or comments?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we come to Mr. Forseth's amendment, R-17.
Mr. Forseth: I'm not going to move it.
.1905
Clause 32 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, just as point of clarification on clause 33. In the record there was a little bit of discussion around this particular clause. I'm wondering, under new paragraph 33(1)(a), where it says ``knowingly kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a listed, endangered or threatened wildlife'', etc. Did we inadvertently put ``designated''?
The Chairman: Yes, that's correct, and it was brought to my attention as a technical correction that needs to be made. I was planning to do it at the end of the evening, but it could be done now if you wish. I need a motion to open clause 33 for this purpose.
Mr. Adams: I so move, Mr. Chair.
On clause 33 - Regulations protecting certain cross-boundary species
The Chairman: Now could we have that technical correction?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It is under new paragraph 33(1)(a), to remove ``designated'' in that first line.
The Chairman: Yes, this goes back to the discussion last Thursday.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Chairman: That's quite clear. Are there any questions or comments?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 33 as amended agreed to
On clause 34 - Order based on emergency designation or classification
Mr. Knutson: I would like to move LK-19, with two minor exceptions. On the third line, where it says ``within 14 days'', change that to ``within 60 days''.
The Chairman: That has been done.
Mr. Knutson: Okay, sorry. On the sixth line where it says ``The order shall include provisions'', change the ``shall'' to ``may''.
The Chairman: You've heard the amendment. Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Knutson: The first ``shall'' on the first line remains and the second ``shall'' on the fourth line from the bottom is changed to ``may''.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: Could you explain that last change from ``shall'' to ``may''?
Mr. Knutson: What we're doing is changing the law. We're saying the government must issue an emergency order, but we're giving them some more discretion as to what's included in that order.
Mr. Taylor: Actually, you're leaving it the same way it is in the bill.
Mr. Knutson: I don't think so.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No. There were two changes.
Mr. Taylor: Subclause 34(1) says ``The order may include''.
The Chairman: It will now become ``shall''.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It ``shall make an emergency order''.
The Chairman: The ``may'' on the first line becomes a ``shall''.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, but the second one in the bill itself already reads ``The order may''.
The Chairman: The second one remains the same.
Mr. Taylor: That's right.
The Chairman: Then there is a specification of time, which is not in the bill.
Mr. Rounthwaite: The word ``shall'' should probably be a ``must'' for consistency.
The Chairman: For the purpose of consistency, the suggestion is, Mr. Knutson, that the first ``shall'' should be a ``must''.
Mr. Rounthwaite: It would read ``The responsible minister must make an emergency order''.
Mr. Knutson: I guess I'm confused on that point. I thought we were changing ``must'' to ``shall''. But, fine, make it a ``must''.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, please explain.
.1910
Mr. Keyes: I'd like to explain the distinction in the drafting. The distinction we used in drafting was that when we were creating an offence, we would use ``shall'', but in other instances, when we wanted to create an obligation without an offence, we would use ``must''.
This would be an instance in which there's no offence intended, but we want to create an obligation on the minister. So in terms of the logic we used in drafting, ``must'' would be appropriate here.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes. So the first ``shall'' is apparently changing to ``must''. Is that your amendment?
Mr. Knutson: You might want to create an offence if the minister doesn't do his job.
Yes, change it to ``must''.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The other amendment is LK-20. Is it an amendment that's being put forward or not?
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the department has some difficulty with this. Before I put it forward officially, I wonder if I could hear their comments on LK-20.
The Chairman: It's not before us unless you move it. You may want to ask for -
Mr. Forseth: I was given the same privilege to canvass opinion before moving, so I think the same privilege should be given to Mr. Knutson.
The Chairman: You were given special treatment, yes.
The committee is master. If there is unanimous consent, certainly we can proceed. I will ask the question.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Forseth suggesting the chairman is pro-Reform?
The Chairman: Yes, sure.
Mr. Lincoln: I was just asking the question. I wasn't sure.
Mr. Forseth: We're all environmentalists. That's all.
The Chairman: Is there consent for us to proceed with some questions about this amendment without presenting it?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: There is consent, so you can go ahead, Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I'm told by a person that there is some difficulty with this.
Mr. Curtis: The first problem is the use of the word ``must''. This involves changing what was a ``may'' to a ``must'' in new subclause 34(1.1). This is a new clause, so its use of the word ``must'' in this sort of fashion - the response is on the paper to the right of you - says it forces the responsible minister to make an order, whether or not one is needed. That's the answer to this part.
On the other parts of your recommendation, the consideration was that what you're looking for was already covered by the provisions of subclause 34(2). There's enough generality in the wording of subclause 34(2) to cover what you're proposing here.
Mr. Knutson: On that first point, I think there are criteria laid out in the language in the middle part of the paragraph that say the minister would go ahead and do this if COSEWIC determines that the species faces imminent threats to its survival that are not addressed by the application of clauses 31, 32, or 33. So we're saying you've got a species that's about to disappear and clauses 31, 32, or 33 aren't enough to cure the problem. So I think that sets up an implication that an emergency order is necessary.
.1915
On that note I'll formally propose the amendment.
The Chairman: Fine.
The amendment is before you.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: It appears to me that all the things that are required to be done under proposed subclause (1.1) are already required under subclause (1). This clause kicks in when there has been a designation or a reclassification by COSEWIC, which is what triggers the orders under subclause (1). One difference is that here it's specified that there is no recovery plan. But under subclause (1) it doesn't say anything about a recovery plan one way or another, so the subclause (1) order would also have to be made if there were no recovery plan.
Proposed subclause (1.1) adds another criterion, which is that the threats are not addressed by the application of clauses 31, 32, or 33. Again, that isn't picked up in subclause (1). The subclause (1) order has to be made whether there are threats or whether those threats are addressed or whether they are not addressed.
So I suggest, at least on a quick reading, it appears that everything that (1.1) requires is already required by subclause (1).
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 34 - Order based on emergency designation or classification
The Chairman: There is an amendment, LK-21. It's a change from ``may'' to ``must''. Would you care to move this motion or not?
Mr. Knutson: My note is that the department has the same objection as the last one, but to open up the discussion I'll move it and then if the department wants to object they can advise us of that.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: The reason is the same one as was provided before. Emergency orders provide the capacity for a minister to put in place some measures considered necessary to address a particular emergency. Some discretion is needed in doing that. The usual application of emergency orders deals with ``may'' rather than ``must''. We dealt with it by exception in LK-19, but....
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: If we changed ``may'' to ``shall'' or ``may'' to ``must'' in subclause 34(1), doesn't it follow that in logic we should do the same here? We did agree to change, didn't we? It would seem to me if it holds for one it must hold for the other.
The Chairman: The question is probably addressed to Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: In subclause 34(1) the provision deals with how to respond to the emergency designation of a species. It's clear that in such a circumstance the responsible minister must take some action. You did agree to the wording ``may'' for what the specific order will cover or apply to. This relates to subclause (2). That's the subclause where a minister determines that a recovery plan is no longer adequate or determines that for any other reason an emergency order is necessary. Those are in the realm of ``may'', depending on the circumstances. They are not the same circumstances in subclause 34(1). They are rather different.
My strong advice to you is not to use it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
.1920
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next amendment proposed for clause 24 is LK-22. Is anyone ready to move it?
Mr. Knutson: No.
The Chairman: Nobody. So we have no motion before us. The next one would be LK-23.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to move LK-23 as is.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to amend that to remove the amendment to paragraph 34(5)(a).
The Chairman: Yours is a subamendment. So the main amendment by Mr. Knutson is amended by Madame Kraft Sloan to the effect that paragraph 35(5)(a) be removed from it.
Questions or comments? Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: My question is whether or not the removal of paragraph 35(5)(a) in the amendment then revives paragraph 34(5)(a) as presently written. Is that the intent of the amendment?
Mr. Knutson: So it's as if I just proposed to amend paragraph 34(5)(b).
The Chairman: Yes, that's right. In essence, the amendment is as if Mr. Knutson has proposed an amendment only to paragraph 34(5)(b). Correct.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I'd suggest that the reference to a decision under subclause 21(1) should actually be a decision under clause 25. That's a final decision after the initial emergency designation.
If you go back to clause 25, it says:
- Within 18 months after making an emergency designation or reclassification, COSEWIC must
have a status report on the species prepared and make a final decision
The Chairman: So you're correcting the number of the clause.
Mr. Keyes: That's right, as well as the terminology. Rather than just ``decision'', it's ``final decision''. Rather than decision just about the ``status'', it's a decision about the ``designation or reclassification''.
This is intended to track the language of clause 25 so that this clause fits into it perfectly as it's drafted.
The Chairman: So you are inserting ``final'' before ``decision'' and you're deleting ``status'' and replacing it with ``designation or reclassification''.
Then, Mr. Knutson, the changes proposed by Mr. Keyes read like this:
- (b) COSEWIC determines that an emergency designation for the species is no longer required,
or makes a final decision about the designation or reclassification
Mr. Keyes: I have one further addition. In the second line of the paragraph it just speaks of ``emergency designation''. I would add ``or reclassification'' as well, since that's a possibility at the emergency stage.
.1925
The Chairman: Fine. After ``designation'', insert ``or reclassification'' on the second line.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: If you wanted to add ``wildlife species'' in the second line while you are making little editorial....
Mr. Adams: In the second line, instead of simply being ``species'', it might better be ``wildlife species''.
The Chairman: Insert, before the word ``species'', ``wildlife''. Is that what you are proposing?
Mr. Adams: Yes, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam Douglas will read the changes into the record.
Ms Douglas:
- COSEWIC determines that an emergency designation or reclassification for the wildlife
species is no longer required, or makes a final decision about the designation or reclassification
of the species under section 25 and the List of Wildlife Species at Risk is amended to reflect that
decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: I'd recommend that the last paragraph be divided into two since there are two distinct ideas. I think it would read better if there were a division. Of course I do have the wording of the French version.
[English]
The Chairman: Well, definitely you have it in the French version, but that does not necessarily apply to the English version.
[Translation]
Mr. Hallée: I don't know what my colleague thinks but in this particular instance, I think that we could make the same division of this paragraph in both the English and French versions.
[English]
The Chairman: All right, then, Mr. Keyes, would you please proceed according to your colleague's suggestion?
Mr. Keyes: I would concur in that. There are basically two groups of ideas in paragraph (b). The first is that there is a determination that the emergency designation or reclassification is no longer required. The second group of ideas is that it makes a decision plus the list is amended, and those two ideas go together.
To make it clear that there really are those two groups of ideas, it would be better to split it into a paragraph (b) and a paragraph (c). The paragraph (c) would begin with ``makes a final decision''.
Actually, we are going to have to repeat the word ``COSEWIC''. So it will be ``COSEWIC makes a final decision''.
The Chairman: But this is a language adjustment that can be made by you at any time. That will not imply any change in substance. That is editing.
Mr. Keyes: Fine. We are very glad to work with the clerks to accomplish that.
The Chairman: All right. Having heard all that, are you ready for the question?
Mr. Finlay: What happens to (a), Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Lincoln: It's as it is in the bill.
The Chairman: We'll first vote on the subamendment by Madam Kraft Sloan to delete portion (a).
Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we go to (b) as read by Madam Douglas and with editing adjustment to be made by Mr. Keyes, who will insert a period wherever he sees fit, in concordance with the French version.
Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Is anyone ready to move LK-24?
Mr. Knutson: I would like to move LK-24 exactly as written.
The Chairman: Alleluia!
Are there any questions or comments on this amendment?
Mr. Keyes: I have just a couple of minor wording changes. In a similar provision in subclause (5) we've used the word ``when'' rather than ``where''. So I would recommend changing the ``where'' on the third line to a ``when'', and the same on the third-last line. For consistency, that should also be a ``when''.
The Chairman: Is that agreeable to you?
Mr. Knutson: Yes. I must say I'm impressed by the attention to such detail.
Mr. Keyes: I finally had a chance to read it.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 34 as amended agreed to
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, I'm seeking consent to open up clause 35 for an amendment.
The Chairman: Is there a text?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Chairman: In a sufficient number of copies?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No.
.1930
The Chairman: We will open it up when a sufficient number of copies are available. I'm sorry, but we won't hold up the work of the committee.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I know.
On clause 36 - General exceptions
The Chairman: Those who are inclined to introduce a motion are invited to do so.
LK-25 has not been introduced. How about G-11?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, as discussed before, this is just some housekeeping that followed when we made clause 33 a direct prohibition. So it's just consequential.
This also deals with people who are in accidental possession of an individual from the listed species, so it follows from the changes we made to clause 33, as well as protecting someone who would accidentally come into the acquisition of a listed or an endangered species.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there questions or comments?
Mr. Forseth: Does this then automatically take out R-21?
The Chairman: No. To our knowledge, Mr. Forseth, it does not do that.
Are there any further questions?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we have amendment R-21 to clause 36. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Obviously, the amendment here is to try to include agencies and institutions. It's pretty self-evident.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
Mr. Keyes: What's being provided here is a defence to a prosecution, but in order to be prosecuted, you must be a person. The language of clauses 31, 32, and 33 all speak to that. They say ``no person shall''.
So adding in references to agencies and institutions is really unnecessary because you can't prosecute something that's an agency or an institution unless it is also a person. So providing the defence to persons alone, I think, is sufficient.
Mr. Forseth: So in essence, say an incorporation is a legal person. That is covered under the definition of a person?
Mr. Keyes: Yes. That's right.
Mr. Forseth: Okay. In view of that, I won't move R-21.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We move then to LK-26. Is anyone inclined to introduce it?
It is not being moved. Thank you.
We'll move to LK-27. I'm told by the clerk that it is covered by G-11 and therefore is redundant. Those amendments have already taken place. Those lines have already been amended by amendment G-11.
Shall clause 36 as amended carry?
.1935
Mr. Knutson: I'm getting information from a lot of different sources at one time here. Can I get you to explain what you explained to the whole group?
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mr. Chairman, LK-27 is concerned with recovery plans, and G-11 does not mention recovery plans at all.
Mr. Bellemare: It doesn't have to do with substance, Mr. Chairman. It's a question of the rule being that once you have amended lines you can't go back and have another go at them - always subject, of course, to the unanimous consent of the committee. But then the mover would have to be very careful that his amendment could be reconciled with the lines as they were changed by the previously adopted amendment.
The Chairman: I'm advised that this kind of amendment could be moved at the report stage.
Mr. Knutson: I would just like to know for the record what the wording of subclause 36(3) is. What does it say?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: As amended?
Mr. Knutson: As we're about to vote on. We're about to remove the whole clause.
The Chairman: Mrs. Douglas will read it.
Ms Douglas: It reads:
- Sections 31 to 33 do not apply to persons who are engaging in activities authorized by a
recovery plan.
- and the regulation under section 42.
Clause 36 allowed to stand
The Chairman: I will call new clause 36.1.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: I was just wondering if the previous amendments would strike this out. You were about ready to approve the whole of clause 36.
What I was attempting to do here was.... The meaning is pretty clear:
- may...authorize any public education activity in respect of wildlife species or their habitats to be
an authorized activity for the purposes of paragraph 36(1)
- I don't know what the then further ``(a.1)'' means. I don't even find that.
You're operating on page 16 of the bill, if I understand you correctly. No, you're operating on page 17 as well. It's an additional amendment you would put in.
Ms Douglas: But it doesn't overlap.
The Chairman: But it doesn't overlap, I'm told by Madam Douglas. So you can proceed.
Mr. Forseth: Again, I don't want to repeat all the arguments, but it's the theme of trying to send the appropriate signals on what the minister may do or should do for public acceptance of the bill. It doesn't really add any further cost. The meaning is clear.
.1940
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Would this be using education for an activity that would otherwise be prohibited? I'm having trouble understanding this thing. This is under the prohibition section -
Mr. Forseth: It's trying to get around that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Maybe I could have a read from the department or one of the drafters.
Mr. Curtis: I think there was a bit of concern about the reference to any public education activity for the sorts of things Mrs. Kraft Sloan was getting at. What would be included or encompassed within that body of activity and would they otherwise be unlawful? I guess that is the question. There are provisions in other clauses of the bill for permits for educational and scientific purposes. Why not rely on those?
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, would you like to find a better location for this amendment, rather than under prohibitions?
Mr. Forseth: I'm trying to limit the prohibitions and make sure we can have public activities that don't get caught up in this provision. Maybe there's some comment from some of the drafters or somebody else who has an opinion on this.
Mr. Keyes: I really don't have any drafting comment. To me it's a question of pure policy and what the committee wants to accomplish.
Mr. Forseth: But from a technical point of view the question was raised that they understand the intent or the thrust of it. The suggestion was that it was misplaced, in that first of all there are sufficient alternative measures in the bill that handle the idea. The other idea is that it should be some place else in the bill.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, with respect to handling the idea, as you just put it a moment ago, there is another spot where this concept has been incorporated in the bill. Ms Douglas is looking it up now. It was last Thursday, I believe, when we dealt with educational awareness.
It was your own amendment, actually R-6. You have achieved that already.
Mr. Forseth: Okay. I guess I'm following the theme. I was looking in the bill where I thought I saw a problem.
Mr. Rounthwaite: What Mr. Forseth may be trying to do is get at the list of activities that can be authorized under another act of Parliament in subclause 36(1). Those authorized acts under another act of Parliament are limited to national security, safety or health, including plant and animal health. I think what Mr. Forseth may be trying to say is that if the minister authorizes educational activities under another act of Parliament, they should be included in this general exception, as are national security, health, etc.
Mr. Forseth: It sounds good to me.
Mr. Rounthwaite: The minister does have power to encourage environmental awareness and environmental education under the Department of the Environment Act. He may create programs under that act that Mr. Forseth is saying should come within another act of Parliament.
The Chairman: So what are you suggesting in the end?
Mr. Rounthwaite: My suggestion would be that it would be cleaner to add it to paragraph 36(1)(a), that is, national security, safety or health, including animal and plant health or educational programs.
The Chairman: Just as simple as that, by adding ``or educational programs'' in 36(1)(a).
.1945
Mr. Rounthwaite: ``Or educational activities'' would be perfect.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could you give me an example of what this would be? I'm having trouble understanding what an example would be in this particular case.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I'm just trying to suggest to the committee why Mr. Forseth may have proposed an educational exception under proposed clause 36.1. It seems to me the way he has worded it is to try to tie in this educational activity with the activities that are authorized by another act of Parliament under paragraph 36(1)(a). For example, the minister can enter into educational programs under the Department of the Environment Act. It may be that Mr. Forseth is saying educational activities authorized under the Department of the Environment Act, for example, should come within the general exception of paragraph 36(1)(a).
The Chairman: Ms Douglas has a comment to make on how this might be interpreted.
Ms Douglas: It strikes me that we're still in the context of exceptions from the prohibitions under the bill, and I'm wondering if this is really what the committee wants to do. I'm picturing a class being led through a particularly vulnerable area, trampling a bunch of endangered plants, and our not being able to prosecute as a result of the damage that was done. I still don't think this is necessarily the right place for enhancing education or encouraging it.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Or a class killing....
Mr. Rounthwaite: I would just point out to the committee that an activity may be authorized under another act of Parliament for national security, but if in carrying out that national security exercise the bounds of the authorization are exceeded, that wouldn't be a defence, nor would paragraph 36(1)(a) apply.
I think the short answer would be to place it somewhere else.
The Chairman: Yes, that's our general view.
So we'll leave it with you, Mr. Forseth, to determine where you might want to place it at report stage.
Mr. Forseth: Okay, I'll not move it, then. I'll withdraw it for now.
Clause 37 agreed to
On clause 38 - Preparation of recovery plans
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Amendment G-12 is on page 18. We would be inserting:
- (c) any wildlife management board that is established under an aboriginal land claims
legislation and is affected by the plan; and
- (d) the government of any other country
- (i) any other information or mea-
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I have one drafting comment. This parallels amendments the committee made to clause 45 last week. There are really two ways of approaching aboriginal input here. One, with the management boards, is to speak of the boards that are affected by the plan. The other is to talk about species found on land that is subject to the land claims legislation. They are two somewhat different tests. I would suggest one is much more difficult to work with. It's simply a test whether it's affected by the plan. The other is somewhat more objective. It speaks of the species being found on the land that is subject to the legislation. It may be a much easier test to apply, much more cut and dried, rather than trying to determine whether the board is affected by the plan, instead to try to determine whether the species is found on the land that is governed by the land claims legislation.
The Chairman: What is the language you propose?
.1950
Mr. Keyes: I would suggest that in paragraph 38(2)(c), in the second line, after ``claims legislation'', rather than saying ``and is affected by the plan;'' it would instead say:
- if the wildlife species is found on land that is governed by the legislation;
Is there any other comment?
You have a suggested change. After the word ``legislation'' on the second line, it would read:
- if the wildlife species is found on land that is governed by legislation;
Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Finlay: I don't understand.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could I have a clarification here? What are we voting on, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: We're voting on your amendment as modified in the language by Mr. Keyes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Can I have a second to consult, please?
Mr. Keyes: For clarification, I might also point out that this language is found in Mr. Adams's amendment to clause 16 on page 32 of the package. His amendment spoke of:
- Where a species is found on lands governed by aboriginal land claims legislation,
subcommittees shall, to the greatest extent possible, endeavour to incorporate traditional
knowledge
Mr. Finlay: Could I hear paragraph 32(2)(c) again, please?
Mr. Keyes: That would read, in total:
- (c) any wildlife management board that is established under aboriginal land claims legislation
- - this is where the new part begins -
- if the wildlife species is found on land that is governed by the legislation;
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, this is fine.
The Chairman: All right.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: We now come to the amendment from Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: I think that a good deal of my amendment has been covered. This would be to bring the discussion of the recovery plan into line with what we've already agreed to with the discussion of the management plan. There might be a new subclause 38(2.1), which would say something like:
- If the wildlife species is found on land that is subject to an aboriginal land claims agreement
Mr. Adams: It would be a new subclause 38(2.1).
The Chairman: It isn't before us anyway, unless you have a text.
Mr. Adams: Some colleagues have a text.
The Chairman: Is this LA-3?
Mr. Steckle: Yes.
Mr. Adams: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I was reading out the portion we have here, with one small change. My question was really whether it was necessary in light of the amendment we've already made. My thought is that it does bring the best discussion of the recovery plan into line with what we already agreed to under the management plan with respect to wildlife management boards.
It says here, except for one small change, which I'll highlight:
- If the wildlife species is found on land that is subject to an aboriginal land claims agreement, the
recovery plan shall be prepared or amended in accordance with any applicable provisions of the
agreement.
The Chairman: So you're moving new paragraph 38(2)(d)? Are you still moving it?
Mr. Adams: I'm moving new subclause 38(2.1), Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I don't see any new subclause 38(2.1) anywhere.
Mr. Adams: It needn't be numbered. It could be new if you like, or some other one.
The Chairman: There is a paragraph 38(2)(d) in your motion, and we need a clarification.
Mr. Adams: Could we come back to it? I will get copies.
The Chairman: This would replace LA-3?
.1955
Mr. Adams: Yes, Mr. Chair, it would replace it. As I understand it, LA-3 is largely redundant because of the amendment that's already been made.
The Chairman: Yes, we agree with that.
Mr. Adams: I apologize. I'll get copies of this one that I have before me, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Fine. We'll keep the clause open until you're ready for that.
We'll move to Mr. Knutson on LK-28.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to move LK-28.
The Chairman: Any explanation?
Mr. Knutson: Just the understanding that the wording in my amendment was what was agreed to by the task force.
The Chairman: Any questions or comments?
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Knutson is proposing the wording ``technically and biologically possible'', instead of what's in the bill, which was ``feasible''. There's quite a big difference between the word ``possible'' and the word ``feasible''. Something can be possible, but not feasible. The other way around, it can't be feasible if it's not possible. Therefore, I'm saying the word ``feasible'' is quite preferred.
The Chairman: That is your amendment, is it?
Mr. Forseth: No, I'm talking about Mr. Knutson's amendment, LK-28.
The Chairman: You have a ``feasible'' in your amendment afterwards.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It says ``feasible'' in the bill.
The Chairman: It's in the bill. Yes, that's right.
Mr. Forseth: I would add R-22, but I'm just speaking to what's on the table at the moment.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: For the sake of finding out, I would like to read the reason why the task force recommended ``possible''. This is what the task force said - it's not very long:
- The word ``possible'' should be substituted for ``feasible''. The Task Force recommended that
the responsible minister may decide not to prepare a recovery plan where COSEWIC
determines that recovery is not ``biologically or technically possible''.
- The Act instead uses the phrase ``biologically or technically feasible''. This is probably a
drafting oversight.
- I believe it wasn't, but it should have been an oversight.
- Determining whether recovery is biologically or technically feasible requires an analysis of (i)
the recovery options available, (ii) their cost, and (iii) their likelihood of success. In other
words, it means doing most of the things that are required under a recovery plan.
- This is why the task force deliberately used the word ``possible'' instead of ``feasible''.
- Determinations of the ``feasibility'' of recovery should be made only after a recovery plan has
identified the available recovery options and assessed their likely costs and benefits.
- Also, if the minister determines that recovery is not biologically or technically possible, that
determination should be supported by reasons and be subject to public comment, since it
effectively means accepting the extirpation of the species.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: After that, I'm almost sorry to have to say this, but the government's position is in fact in favour of the use of the word ``feasible'' as opposed to ``possible''. This was a specific decision taken in the cabinet process that led to the approval of the bill. Let me just illustrate this with an example.
Not very long ago we received some correspondence from someone who suggested that it was possible to recreate the passenger pigeon. The passenger pigeon, as you know, is a species that is extinct in Canada. He believes that, because of all the carrier pigeons used in Europe, there is sufficient genetic stock in some of those European carrier pigeons that it might be possible to recreate the passenger pigeon; they might contain enough of the original genetic material.
I would say this is an interesting idea, and we wish them all the best luck in pursuing this kind of thing. This is something the government may choose to contribute to, but it shouldn't be obliged to contribute to it, so the word ``feasible'' was quite deliberately chosen.
.2000
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, in the example given by Mr. Curtis, the proponent of this idea could also argue that it would be feasible rather than possible. According to this, it's also feasible to play with the genes and produce a new travelling pigeon. I think laws are guided by common sense, however, and I think it's very important for us to....
We had a task force. We instituted it. I would therefore remind you, Mr. Chairman, why this bill was sent to the committee after first reading rather than second reading. It was really that today committees are empowered to look at the bill and broaden it, provided it is in the context of what the bill is trying to carry. I feel this is a perfect example, and I think our members should really try to go for ``possible'', which is really the task force's recommendation.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Through you, Mr. Chair, I have a question for Mr. Curtis. It's on subclause 38(7), which reads:
- If the recovery of the wildlife species is not technically or biologically feasible, the recovery
plan must include recovery measures limited to the prohibition of activities that directly affect
individuals of the species or their residences.
Don't you think subclause (7) gives you an out? I don't think we're ever going to find ourselves doing a lot of activities in which we're spending a lot of resources when, from an objective point of view, they don't make sense. I think subclause (7) is a huge qualification on the whole clause.
Mr. Curtis: My only comment is that recovery plans represent a major body of work. There's a lot involved in producing an adequate recovery plan. If it really isn't feasible, you don't want to have to undergo an expense that isn't really needed if the prospects for doing anything for the species are remote.
I'll leave it at that.
Mr. Knutson: I just say that subclause (7) anticipates that you would do a recovery plan where the recovery of the wildlife species is not technically or biologically feasible. The subclause goes on to say that when that's the case, your recovery plan says you don't kill the last bald eagle or the last grizzly bear. That's your recovery plan.
Mr. Curtis: Maybe this is a moot point, then, a matter of semantics.
The Chairman: All right. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I must also point out that changing this from ``feasible'' to ``possible'' is consistent with the statement in the act that, when there is scientific uncertainty, we are to exercise the utmost caution. There may be a case in which it's difficult to determine feasibility because of lack of data or lack of evidence, but we can determine the possibilities. So it would be consistent.
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite is invoking the precautionary principle. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: By proceeding on this, of course, it automatically affects R-22. Again, in support of feasibility, I wanted to introduce ``and socio-economically'' as a subamendment to LK-28. It gets at the larger question of why I think ``feasible'' was in there.
The Chairman: Thank you. That's very straightforward and clear. We have a subamendment by Mr. Forseth to insert ``and socio-economically feasible'', right?
Mr. Forseth: Yes.
.2005
The Chairman: But the text has ``possible'' here, so you can insert ``socio-economically'' but not ``feasible''.
Mr. Forseth: That's right.
The Chairman: So the subamendment by Mr. Forseth is to insert ``socio-economically'' in the amendment by Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Forseth: Then we can have it both ways. We can have the word ``possible'', but we are still getting the nuances of what was in the word ``feasible''.
The Chairman: So the amendment will read ``technically, biologically and socio-economically possible and must''. Is that clear, Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. Lincoln: I just want to ask for a clarification. If we vote against the subamendment, we can still vote on Mr. Knutson's prior...?
The Chairman: Yes, that's correct.
Are there any further questions for clarification before we vote? Is that clear in your minds? Good.
Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Forseth, do you want to give another kick at the same...?
Mr. Forseth: I can't.
The Chairman: I'm told they're the same lines.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, for the sake of concordance, I would like to move that ``feasible'' in subclauses (5) and (7) be replaced by ``possible''.
The Chairman: In the same clause?
Mr. Lincoln: The same clause, subclauses (5) and (7), where ``feasible'' appears. Now that we've agreed on ``possible'' -
Mr. Forseth: Amendments LK-29 and LK-30 do that.
Mr. Lincoln: Okay. Sorry.
The Chairman: Thank you. We now move to LK-29. Is anyone willing to move it?
Mr. Knutson: I'll move it.
I'd like to move it precisely as written, except for paragraph (a), where it goes (a), (b) and (c).
In paragraph (a), after it says ``that is consistent with'', I'd like to add the words ``and builds upon'', and then do the same with paragraph (b) - after ``that is consistent with'', add ``and builds upon''.
The Chairman: Thank you. Would you like to explain it briefly, or do you feel it is self-explanatory? Are there any questions or comments?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have a motion in the new package of government....
The Chairman: Are you on clause 38?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. It's in this other package from earlier this afternoon.
The Chairman: How is it identified?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: On the very first page, it says ``Preamble''. It looks like this. The amendment I'm referring to is clause 38, page 19.
.2010
The Chairman: Would you please read the amendment?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It starts at (h):
- (h) recommendations on agreements that may be negotiated under section 7 or 8 to promote
cooperative efforts for the protection and recovery of the species and its habitat;
(j) any other information or mea-
- and so on.
So this is adjusting what we were referring to before, providing enabling mechanisms to help with the participation of private landowners.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: What I see here is that a new section is being inserted, and the paragraphs are relettered because of the insertion of that new section.
I would like some further explanation about what this really contemplates. With ``recommendations on agreements that may be negotiated under section 7 or 8'', we're getting back to my concern around helping those who have some financial difficulty. Can I have some further explanation of this?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This has to do with the recovery process. It is laying out the subclauses under 7 and 8, when you're talking about the programs and measures and some of the costs that are involved with them. So as you involve people through the recovery plan process, you can involve them with agreements to encourage their cooperation.
Mr. Forseth: You referred to costs. Can you give me an example of what the cost might be? What kinds of costs are you talking about?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There's no cost in here.
Mr. Forseth: You mentioned cost in your explanation.
The Chairman: But it's not in the amendment.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It says ``to promote cooperative efforts''. This leaves it flexible enough that those kinds of activities can occur.
The Chairman: It has to do with the recovery plans.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: As people get involved in the recovery plan process, you can enter into agreements with them to encourage their cooperation and help, and support and recognize some of their needs.
Mr. Forseth: To encourage them could mean to contemplate giving them a little bit of money to help some of their out-of-pocket expenses or something.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You'd have to take a look at what would be negotiated within the recovery plan process.
Mr. Forseth: The recovery plan might get an agreement from a landowner to take certain land out of current agricultural production, or a portion of it. The landowner, the farmer, might agree to absorb some of his business or revenue loss, but you're saying that the encouraging part might be a little bit of a financial incentive in order that they would split the inferential costs to perform the recovery plan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This might be a way of encouraging third parties to be involved - some of the things that you've been talking about earlier; some of the NGOs and things like that; some of the people who have money set aside for conservation and trust and stuff like this. This could be an enabling provision that would open up agreements around those kinds of issues as well.
Mr. Forseth: So you anticipate that this is where organizations like the Body Shop might get involved in a project, or other such organizations that have a tremendous capacity to raise funds around the world.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It certainly opens up the potential.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, I think there are some further comments here.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: I was just going to add that this contemplates the sort of landowner assistance arrangements or agreements that are very much analogous to the kind we have in place now under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, under which we work with landowners and with easement programs and so on. There's money that is contributed to those, and that's the kind of thing contemplated here.
The Chairman: That kind of thing, as you call it, would be very helpful to members at the report stage and in third reading debate, if you wouldn't mind supplying it to members.
Mr. Forseth: All right.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are you ready for the question?
.2015
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: The next amendment is either LK-30, or it is in this smaller package. Make your choice.
Mr. Knutson: LK-30.
The Chairman: LK-30. Please go ahead.
Mr. Knutson: It's presented as is.
The Chairman: All right. Are there any questions or comments on amendment LK-30, to clause 38, as moved by Mr. Knutson? No? Are you ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Now, still on clause 38, we have the amendment in the smaller package.
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I thought this was covered. The agreement changed G-12.
The Chairman: I'm sorry that some people don't identify them.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is the package I was given, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: We can't read the minds of those who prepare amendments.
This is G-12 then?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I received the package at the same time you did, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Yes, but the onus is on those who present them to identify them. The clerk informs me that this has not been moved.
A voice: But she's not moving that.
The Chairman: No, because it is already done.
Clause 38 as amended agreed to
On clause 39 - Consultation on recovery plans
The Chairman: Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, could I just have one moment? For LA-3, I'm sorry that we left it open. Should we go back to that, or do you want me to go to LA-4?
The Chairman: You can go back to LA-3 if you are ready with it, yes.
On clause 38 - Preparation of recovery plans
Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The wording I did not have before is now being circulated, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for that.
This is LA-3, on page 62.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So we shouldn't have passed clause 38 as amended.
The Chairman: Sorry.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is part of clause 38.
Mr. Adams: This is dealing with recovery plans, and my suggestion is that in the act, at page 18, after paragraph 38(2)(c), we add a clause with the heading that I think people can see there now: ``Aboriginal land claims agreements''. It suggests that it be 2.1. Again, as I tried to explain before, this is to bring our recovery plan's wording into line with our management plan's wording, and it says:
- If the wildlife species is found on land that is subject to an aboriginal land claims agreement, the
recovery plan
- - and you'll see I changed it to -
- must be prepared in accordance with any applicable provisions of the agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to make a sort of technical comment on that, but it seems to me that it makes the position of the wildlife board and the land claims agreements as strong in the recovery plans as it is in the management plans.
The Chairman: And this change would apply after line 10?
Mr. Adams: After line 10, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: On which page?
Mr. Adams: It's on page 18 of the bill. It's new subclause 38(2.1). The part I read out would be it.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Forseth: It says the recovery plan must be prepared in accordance with any applicable provisions of the agreement. Is the reference to the agreement referring back to the earlier sentence about an aboriginal land claims agreement or some other agreement?
Mr. Adams: Actually, Mr. Forseth, it refers to the wording we used in subclause 45(1), which is where we deal with management plans and we have the same wording.
Mr. Forseth: You often put in ``provisions of the said agreement'' to make sure which one you're talking to.
The Chairman: Let's hear what Mr. Keyes has to suggest.
Mr. Keyes: In drafting, we normally just rely on the definite article ``the'' to indicate that it's the same one. We have gotten away from using ``said'' because it's rather legalistic and it really doesn't add much in the way of precision. So here ``the agreement'' refers to the land claims agreement in the preceding line.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Forseth: So it doesn't have a difficulty because of the comma there?
Mr. Keyes: No.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 38 as amended agreed to
On clause 39 - Consultation on recovery plans
The Chairman: We go now to clause 39, amendment LA-4. It's on page 19 of the bill, isn't it?
Mr. Adams: These are lines 28 to 34 on page 19 of the bill. I think again we all have the wording:
- consultation with other persons who the responsible minister considers are directly affected by,
or interested in, the plan.
Ms Douglas: There are no paragraphs 39(a) or (b).
The Chairman: It replaces paragraphs 39(a) and (b), does it? All right.
Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Forseth: I'm just wondering who the ``other persons'' are. It must be in consultation with persons.
Mr. Keyes: I think ``other persons'' should be simply ``any persons''. This ``other'' made sense when you had paragraph 39(a) there, but if paragraph 39(a) has been removed, it should be just ``any persons''.
The Chairman: Is that acceptable, Mr. Adams?
Mr. Adams: Yes, it is.
The Chairman: All right. There is this adjustment.
Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, if we accept LA-4, does that automatically cancel G-13? Is LA-4 the equivalent of G-13?
Ms Douglas: Yes.
Mr. Adams: Yes, that is correct.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. It is the same.
[Translation]
Yes, that is so.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: So this disposes of G-13 as well?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: G-13 will not be going forward.
The Chairman: Right.
Clause 39 as amended agreed to
On clause 40 - Publication of recovery plans
The Chairman: We have an amendment by Mr. Forseth.
.2025
Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Throughout, I've tried to make sure there's no double standard in the bill. I don't know if I've been successful in other places, but here's another attempt.
Out west one of the first questions is, is there going to be a level playing field? This amendment tries to get at that by adding, in clause 40, after line 9 on page 20:
- (3) A federal department, federal agency or federal Crown Corporation may not authorize or
take any action that violates a recovery plan and must fulfill its obligations under the plan.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? No? Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Forseth: Before the question, I would like to hear some opinion from others in this room about this clause. I don't want to call it too quickly. I think some individuals are thinking about what this means. Perhaps we could start with Mr. Keyes and what he thinks, in a technical sense, and then maybe Mr. Rounthwaite could chime in, and then I think Steven Curtis is going to chime in.
Mr. Keyes: From a technical standpoint it would seem the effect would be that it locks the federal government into complying with the plan. If the plan says something, then the federal government has to do it. So in a sense it's giving the plan the force of law vis-à-vis the federal government. That, it seems to me, is the effect of this. Beyond that I really have no other comment.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Rounthwaite?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I would agree that is the effect of this provision. It may be in better context if we had dealt with clause 4 of the bill, which specifically addresses crown corporations. In my view, the way clause 4 is worded right now, there isn't a level playing field between crown corporations and other corporations in having to comply with this bill. If some of the suggested amendments to clause 4 passed, then I think this would simply make the implementation of a recovery plan provision consistent with any amendments to clause 4 with respect to a level playing field for crown corporations.
Mr. Forseth: However, we didn't get that in clause 4, did we?
The Chairman: We haven't yet dealt with it.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: My suggestion to Mr. Forseth would be to stand this amendment until we deal with clause 4. Then maybe we'll see daylight. If we can carry some amendments into clause 4, maybe this will make sense too.
Mr. Forseth: Yes, that seems to have merit.
Mr. Curtis?
Mr. Curtis: There are a couple of thoughts here. First is the one about taking an action that violates a recovery plan, and then there's the separate thought about fulfilling obligations under the plan, and those are really rather different ideas.
We have provided for - and passed - a section that required regulations to implement regulatory measures contained within a recovery plan, so clearly, if there's a regulatory measure, agencies can't act in contravention of that regulatory measure. So that part would seen to be covered off.
But what does a ``violates a recovery plan'' provision mean if it isn't one of those regulatory measures? Recovery plans will provide for such things as remedial measures, or the restoration of something, or possibly for captive breeding. How do you violate that? Either you do it or you don't. I have some questions about the practicality of implementing this and what it really means, I must say.
Mr. Forseth: So you understand the general concept. Maybe I'm looking for some help, and we can think about this some more, but I'm looking at the issue of level playing field; that the government doesn't prescribe for others what it's not willing to govern in its own house.
In view of the comments I've heard, I think I'll take Mr. Lincoln's suggestion and stand it or hold it for now and see what we do later in the bill.
.2030
Clause 40 allowed to stand
On clause 60 - Circumstances in which a person may bring an action
The Chairman: There is an amendment to clause 60. Mr. Knutson, do you want to move your amendment LK-50? Are you proposing it, Mr. Knutson?
Mr. Knutson: I'm not, but somebody else may want to.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose LK-50 with some amendments.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Lincoln: I'd like to propose LK-50 with paragraph 60(1)(c) deleted.
The Chairman: Yes, and that's the only change?
Mr. Lincoln: That's the only change.
The Chairman: Would you explain why you are deleting paragraph 60(1)(c)?
Mr. Lincoln: It seems to me that if you look at the task force recommendation, it's very clear. We have to be at least at the same level as the provincial acts. For example, the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights provides very much of this section. Quebec goes further in its act. I feel the federal act should reflect at least the minimal position under the provincial acts.
The Chairman: So this brings it into alignment?
Mr. Lincoln: Yes.
The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions?
Mr. Near: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, if paragraph 60(1)(d) is left in as well, it goes well beyond certainly what's in the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, in which the person who has actually applied for the investigation is making the determination about whether or not an offence under this act is to be committed or is about to be committed, as opposed to the court determining whether or not a series of actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Paragraph 60(1)(d) is also well beyond what exists certainly in the Ontario legislation.
With respect to paragraph 60(1)(a), the word ``required'' is also a variation from what is in, I believe, subsection 84(2) of the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, which also speaks to being within a reasonable time as opposed to being within a required time.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis, and then Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Curtis: Mr. Near has already covered my points.
The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Near, can we fix paragraph 60(1)(d) by taking out the words ``the person believes that''? This removes it from a subjective test to an objective test. That's from the second year of law school.
The Chairman: So it would be:
- (d) an offence under this Act is about to be committed.
Mr. Knutson: The implication is that there would be an objective test. If I wanted to say the court decides that an offence is under the act, I could put it in but I don't. This changes it to an objective test.
The Chairman: Is that okay with Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. Lincoln: Yes, I can accept that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: It will mean shortening paragraph 60(1)(d) to read:
- (d) an offence under this Act is about to be committed.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Knutson: I've also been advised that paragraph 60(1)(a) is a consequential amendment to what we had passed earlier. Does anybody else see it that way?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I think that's correct, because we now require a report to be issued within a stipulated period of time.
The Chairman: Mr. Near.
.2035
Mr. Near: The Ontario legislation as well sets out timeframes. It does not make it a trigger for an action simply because an administrative timeframe is missed.
So if we're comparing the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights by way of an example to this legislation, the Ontario legislation sets specific timeframes - thou shalt provide a notice within20 days - but it does not make the trigger of an environmental action missing that deadline. Rather, it refers to a reasonable timeframe.
Mr. Lincoln: Could Mr. Near compare this section, for instance, to what happens in the Quebec act?
Mr. Near: No, I could not, sir.
Mr. Lincoln: But I'm sure you'll find out that the Quebec act even goes further than this, in that anybody can bring a case forward.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: The next item is Mr. Forseth's.
Mr. Forseth: Again, Mr. Chairman, we're getting at this issue of mens rea, knowingly done. In this context, we're involving courts of competent jurisdiction against the person who committed or - this is what I'm suggesting - has knowingly done anything directed toward the commission of an offence. This is trying to make the proof just a little bit higher. We're talking about courts and offences in this case. Why not inject ``knowingly''?
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: The next item is LK-51. Is anyone prepared to move it?
Mr. Knutson: I'll move LK-51.
The Chairman: Will you please explain it?
Mr. Knutson: I'd like to move it as is.
The Chairman: Okay, that silent explanation is self-explanatory.
Mr. Curtis: The trigger for the provisions in clause 60 are offences under the act. In LK-51, you dropped the wording that referred to threatened and endangered species. There aren't specific prohibitions associated with vulnerable species, so there isn't an offence. This is obvious. I'm just pointing out that it's what is not said here that's of concern rather than what is said.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I believe we could make it consistent by adding ``endangered, threatened, or extirpated'' after ``listed''.
The Chairman: How will that read, please?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It will read:
- (b) caused or will cause harm to a listed endangered, threatened, or extirpated species, its
critical habitat or the residence of an individual.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this paragraph now mentions the species, critical habitat, and residence of an individual, but it does not mention an individual. So the residence of the individual is covered, but the individual itself is not covered.
Well, I suppose it's covered insofar as it's part of the listed species, but -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are you suggesting then that I add ``or individual'' after ``species'' in my amendment?
.2040
Mr. Keyes: Perhaps it could simply say ``harm to an individual of a listed species''. That would then make it consistent with the reference to the residence of the individual.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.
The Chairman: Would you please read the modified amendment?
Ms Douglas: Yes:
- (b) caused or will cause harm to an individual of a listed endangered, threatened or extirpated
species, its critical habitat or the residence of an individual.
Clause 60 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: We have now a clause 62.1. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: This is on page 30 of the bill. It reads:
- An endangered species protection action may not be brought if the alleged conduct is an activity
authorized by an agreement or permit made or issued under subsection 46(1) or by an
agreement, permit, licence, order or other similar document referred to in section 47.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I don't believe this is necessary, because these permits and these agreements would give the person a defence to the offence in the first place. If the person is acting under a permit or an agreement, he or she is protected. There is a defence to the offence. The offence is a necessary ingredient for this action, so it's already taken care of in terms of the defences or the exceptions that are already in the act, and which cover people who are acting under agreements and permits.
Mr. Forseth: But that would involve someone having to defend. He may have a good defence, but the whole tactic is to exhaust the other side by having to make them defend, whereas this contemplates that an action may not even be brought. I'm looking at the perverse uses of the act.
Mr. Keyes: I think we're probably getting into areas of civil litigation and procedure here. I'm not really sure of the mechanics of bringing preliminary motions to strike out actions, or whether this would be a more effective shield than the other, but in substance I don't believe there's really any difference. The defences that are recognized in clause 36, and which involve permits and agreements, would protect the same people who would be protected by your amendment in clause 62.1.
Mr. Rounthwaite: This is a matter of procedure, and there is some benefit to what Mr. Forseth says. With clause 62.1, a preliminary motion could be brought to have the endangered species action struck out so that the defendant would not have to defend. If clause 62.1 applied, the question then would simply be the trial of an issue in order to determine the application of 62.1. I agree withMr. Keyes that the substantive effect is the same, that this could be of procedural benefit to a defendant.
Mr. Forseth: What happens in civil court? I know that a charge is made in criminal court in the final analysis, but there's that quasi-legal decision that's made on whether or not the process shall be issued.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of the victims or potential victims of legal morass, even those who feel they're going to be subject or enwrapped in some kind of a recovery plan. The whole process of the time involved and what they have to give of their own resources is going to be burdensome, even though the surrounding circumstances are great. I'm looking for areas in which we can shut off nuisance things right at the front end, in which court process can't even be issued or contemplated, rather than having to go through it even though you have a good defence.
.2045
Mr. Rounthwaite: Being a civil action, this clause 62.1 would allow defendant's counsel to apply to the court for a determination of whether or not the activity was authorized under subclause 46(1) or clause 47. In order to deal with that on a preliminary basis, under provincial rules of procedure, the court could order the trial of an issue on that single question, rather than requiring the defendant to go through a full-blown defence, only then to have the court determine whether or not there was a defence of statutory authority. That's what we're talking about here in the civil context. Without this clause, one of the issues in a trial would then be whether or not the defence of statutory authority was available in an endangered species protection action, which is a civil action. Here, it's allowing a preliminary motion to determine the issue up front.
Mr. Forseth: So in essence you're saying that as far as the concept of what I'm trying to get at is concerned, it doesn't do it.
Mr. Rounthwaite: No, I'm saying it does. If you're trying to provide an expeditious way for a defendant to get a ruling on whether or not the activity is protected, clause 62.1 will do it.
Mr. Forseth: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Near.
Mr. Near: I don't wish to belabour the point, but without this particular clause, and under current clause 60, I think the procedure would also be available to someone to bring, by way of a preliminary motion, that in fact no offence has been committed under the act.
The Chairman: Is that why Mr. Keyes said earlier that it is not necessary?
Mr. Keyes: Yes.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: We move now to amendment R-28.5, possibly proposed by Mr. Forseth. Are you ready to move it?
Mr. Forseth: Yes. This one looks at what the court may do. One of the obvious things I can see is that it doesn't state specifically ``on application of the Attorney General''. I was looking for ``dismiss''. The word ``study'' crept in there from the drafter. I really wouldn't contemplate ``The court may, on application of the Attorney General, study or dismiss''. I would strike out ``study or'', so that it would say ``may dismiss the action where the court is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to do so.'' It provides latitude as a kind of escape clause in the general sense, when the statute doesn't provide some particularly available options.
Mr. Near: The statute contemplates the participation of the Attorney General in these actions. As such, if the Attorney General was of the opinion that it was in the public interest not to proceed with this action, then the Attorney General wouldn't make such an application to the court, as it currently stands.
The Chairman: Is your comment completed, Mr. Near?
Mr. Near: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: The Attorney General can always intervene, take over a prosecution and stay a prosecution, but I'm not aware of any provision that allows an Attorney General to intervene and stay a civil action. This is intended to provide a civil action, not a criminal action.
The Chairman: Here, we are in a real jam in terms of opposite opinions.
Mr. Forseth: What if I turned it around? Let's read it this way: ``The court may dismiss the action where the court is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to do so.''
Mr. Rounthwaite: There's nothing to say that the court couldn't dismiss the action. The court would always have an inherent jurisdiction to do so. I'm simply saying that the mere fact that the Attorney General is a party or may be a party to the action does not allow the Attorney General to stay or dismiss the action.
The court can always do this. The only concern that I would have with this is that, as it's worded right now, it does not give the court any guidance as to how it is to determine whether it is or is not in the public interest to dismiss the action.
.2050
Amendment negatived
Clause 69 agreed to
On clause 77 - Contraventions
The Chairman: Next is an amendment to clause 77.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It is G-17. This is a consequential amendment to the change that you made with clause 33.
The Chairman: G-17 was carried last week, according to our records, and LK-52 as well. This is the remaining one, R-29. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: This particular amendment attempts to get at the case where we get into multiples of counting for fines - to make sure that we're not going to add up multiples for flowers or insects or eggs and so on. The real issue for multiples that the average person thinks about is killing more than one vertebrate, not about a machine going over a mound of exotic flowers and adding up multiples of fines for that - that's ridiculous, but I think the act should clearly state it. I think that was in the contemplation. When dealing with the multiple issue, I think one multiple or one vertebrate was what was contemplated.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, If we could have clarification.... I think in our earlier discussion we had talked to the fact that the court takes this into consideration; that if you mow down a field of endangered flowers or plants or something like that, they won't charge you individually, depending on.... If you can give us....
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I was just making the point that this provision gives the court the discretion to increase the level of the fine. It's not a mandatory provision. The court always has the discretion to decide whether it's appropriate to multiply the fine in this way.
The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: I think on behalf of all those who don't have backbones we should vote against this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Adams: Spineless politicians and politicians with spines are treated equally here.
The Chairman: Including the jellyfish?
Mr. Knutson: Sorry.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments?
Mr. Forseth: Just that it really makes it a possibility, and why not be clear. I think it's a helpful amendment. When other people begin to look at the act, as I've said so many times tonight, when you begin to add these little nuances up one by one, they cause people to go screaming in a hundred different directions, saying that the bill can be draconian and what guarantees are there for the so-called victims of the bill, which are probably going to be some landowners or whatever. They want some assurance of reasonableness.
The Chairman: All right. Any further questions or comments? Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Finlay: What is the change?
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, the change would be that instead of line 23 as it reads now - ``more than one animal, plant or other organism'' - that line would read ``more than one vertebrate'' and proceed with the balance of the text.
Amendment negatived
Clause 77 as amended agreed to
.2055
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, before we go to the preamble, I have -
The Chairman: We are not going to the preamble. We are going to clause 4.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What about clause 103? I have the final additional government amendment.
The Chairman: Would you please turn to the small package.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, will we begin the study of another package or will the meeting conclude at 9 p.m.?
The Chairman: No, we'll finish.
[English]
All right. This is the last one in the small package. Clause 103.1. Would you please introduce it?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. It would be on page 45 and this would be adding after line 40 a new clause, 103.1. Essentially this speaks to some of the concerns raised about the current COSEWIC list and how it's going to be dealt with.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Essentially there is going to be a schedule I added to the list, and there's this little photocopy that describes schedule I and schedule II. There's an addition to this amendment. So you need these two things.
The Chairman: Could you read the proposed amendment into the record?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay. There will be a schedule 1 and a schedule 2 attachment. Schedule 1 includes all extirpated, endangered, and threatened species on the current COSEWIC list. Schedule 2 includes all vulnerable species on the current COSEWIC list.
The reason I mention that is because schedule 1 and schedule 2 are treated differently in this amendment, so that....
The Chairman: Could you please read the amendment?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. The amendment is that:
- 103.1(1) COSEWIC must assess the status of each wildlife species mentioned in Schedule 1 or
2 and decide whether it should be designated under section 18
(b) within 18 months after that section comes into force, in the case of a species mentioned in Schedule 2.
And then right after that we would insert schedule 1 and schedule 2 and then the deemed designation, which is:
(2) If a decision is not made about the wildlife species within the required time, the species is deemed to be designated and classified as indicated in Schedule 1 or 2.
And then prohibitions will kick in:
(3) Sections 31 and 32 apply in relation to each wildlife species mentioned in Schedule 1 until any one of the following events first occurs:
- and then those are listed (a), (b), and (c).
The Chairman: Would you please read them?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes:
(a) COSEWIC decides that the species should not be designated;
(b) the Governor in Council gives notice under subsection 30(2) that the Governor in Council does not intend to amend the list as a result of a designation of the species; or
(c) the species is listed.
.2100
The Chairman: Would you confirm that these are transitional provisions you are proposing?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is absolutely, Mr. Chairman, a transition to deal with the currently listed species under COSEWIC.
The Chairman: Are there any questions? Are there any comments?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I have a question with respect to a clarification of paragraph 103.1(3)(c). I don't see anything here that says this is transitional, yet subclause (3) seems to say that once the species is listed clauses 31 and 32 won't apply to it any more.
The Chairman: Doesn't the heading of the page indicate transitional provisions?
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mine says ``application of sections 31 and 32''.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: At the very top it says ``transitional provisions''.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: In terms of the reason for terminating the application, really what we're talking about here in subclause (3) is the application of those sections by virtue of this transitional provision. Once the species is listed you don't need to apply those provisions through the transitional provision because they apply on their own because the species have in fact been listed, so they apply directly through clauses 31 and 32, which themselves speak of species that are listed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Can I ask if there was any thought or discussion of including clause 33 in the transitional provisions?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I made that inquiry myself, and clause 33 under the bill states that COSEWIC has to make the designation of the fact that it is a cross-border species, so the current list wouldn't reflect that.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Although it would apply equally, would it not, to paragraph (3)(a)? COSEWIC decides that the species should not be designated, so COSEWIC could decide that a clause 33 species should not be designated, could it not?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you clarify?
Mr. Rounthwaite: What I'm saying is that clauses 31 and 32 will apply automatically to any schedule I species, that there may be a schedule I species that is a cross-border species that would otherwise be protected by clause 33. The only thing that's not protecting it is the lack of a designation by COSEWIC as not an endangered threatened species but only because there is no designation that this is cross-border.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting the inclusion of clause 33 in subclause (3)?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I am, to protect cross-border species until such time as COSEWIC decides not to designate it as a cross-border species for the purposes of protection under clause 33; that is, applying the same prohibitions against killing or harming cross-border species as are protected under 31 and 32.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It was my understanding that species aren't designated as cross-border species. From what I understand, it's COSEWIC under this act that was going to be designating species as cross-border, so they're not currently designated as such. I'm wondering how we can apply clause 33 if they are not currently designated as a cross-border species.
The Chairman: Could we hear the answer by Mr. Rounthwaite?
Mr. Rounthwaite: My point is I don't think there's anything in the legislation presently that would prevent on a transitional basis the application of clause 33 until such time as COSEWIC decides not to designate as a cross-border species those species that are found on federal land and cross international borders.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, doesn't COSEWIC simply list something as being, say, extirpated, and it doesn't care where it came from?
Mr. Rounthwaite: My understanding is that COSEWIC does have a set of criteria it applies to various species, some of which are whether or not it is a migratory species across international boundaries.
What I'm asking is could we not apply an automatic application of clause 33 on a transitional basis until COSEWIC decides that the species should not be designated as cross-border species, the Governor in Council gives notice, and then species listed would be redundant?
The Chairman: Mr. Adams.
.2105
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, I may be missing something. This list is prepared on the basis of whether they're vulnerable, endangered, or extirpated. The federal government has certain limitations on what it can do, but I don't see how that affects the list. The list could be entirely species that are outside of our jurisdiction. No, that's not possible, but do you know what I mean? Does it matter? They go on the list anyway. During this transition period, they may or may not come under our legislation.
The Chairman: There's an additional condition that Kirsten Douglas would like to make.
Ms Douglas: Because there is no official designation anywhere yet of which species are cross-border ones, it's my view that I don't know how you could decide to which species clause 33 would apply until they're designated.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I will agree with that, but then I would ask that paragraph (c) be amended to say that rather than simply listing it, it would be listed or designated under paragraph 18(f), I believe, which is the designation under clause 18 as a cross-border species.
Ms Douglas: But if I can keep going, a species that's designated under that clause will also be listed. Am I not right about that?
Mr. Keyes: If we put in ``designated'' or ``listed'', it will create a gap here in paragraph (c). This is terminating the transitional application. If that transitional application terminates with designation but it's before listing, there's a gap, and clauses 31 and 32 won't apply in that gap until it is later listed. I therefore think this has to be listed; otherwise, you're going to have a gap.
Ms Douglas: You'd have to do a special clause just applying to clause 33 species in order to allow there to be a transitional kick-in, but it would have to be as soon as they're designated cross-border and before they're listed if you wanted to fill that gap for those particular species.
Mr. Keyes: I'm inclined to agree with your comments on the difficulty of applying this to the cross-border ones. It's a concept that is being created by this legislation, and it has to be administered by COSEWIC. The second point, which was simply adding ``designated'' into paragraph (c), is what I think creates the gap, or would create a gap.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I think my concern is just simply that it seems that the intent of this transitional period is to encourage COSEWIC to act as quickly as possible under subclause (1), and then to provide that there will be an automatic protection in respect of clauses 31 and 32 until one of these three things happens. I would like to see something in 103.1 that would encourage COSEWIC to make the necessary designation of cross-border species in order to kick in the protections of clause 33 as quickly as possible, yet there's nothing in subclause (1) to do that.
The Chairman: Would that be a (c) that you are suggesting under 103.1?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I'm sorry. I think I'm confusing the situation, rather than clarifying it.
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: As I read 103.1(1), Mr. Chairman, at the top it refers to designations under section 18, which includes the one we've just created referring to cross-border designations.
The Chairman: So it's taken care of under 103.1(1).
Mr. Curtis: I believe so. I mean, the assumption is that COSEWIC -
The Chairman: All right. Well we have averted a major disaster here, then.
Mr. Rounthwaite, do you have any further comments?
Mr. Rounthwaite: No, I think Mr. Curtis is right.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Schedules I and II agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we move on to clause 4.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, do we have to carry clause 103? Is it all taken care of?
The Chairman: Shall clause 103 as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Clause 103 as amended agreed to
.2110
On clause 4 - Binding on Her Majesty
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Where are we going now?
The Chairman: There is something floating around called LK-8, which I understand is being considered by Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: No, I would like to bring a subamendment to LK-8.
The Chairman: First we need LK-8 to be proposed.
Mr. Knutson: This is my intended LK-8.
The Chairman: It would apply to lines 28 to 32. Will you please read it into the record?
Mr. Knutson: I propose that Bill C-65, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 32 on page 6 with the following:
(b) species of migratory birds and their habitats that are protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and their residences;
(c) wildlife species and their residences protected under section 33;
(d) other wildlife species and their habitats, to the extent provided in the regulations.
and then (b) by replacing line 38 with the following in paragraph 4.(1)(d):
- species and their habitats that are found on federal lands
Mr. Knutson: I think I made a mistake.
Mr. Curtis: What's the point with paragraph 4.(1)(d) again?
Mr. Knutson: Sorry, I think I made a mistake with the extra paper floating around. I meant to read just this one page.
The Chairman: All right. So paragraph 4.(1)(d) is evidently the object of a subamendment. Mr. Lincoln, do you want to proceed?
Mr. Lincoln: Yes, I'd like to move a subamendment. I would like to suggest that my subamendment, which I've circulated, should become paragraph 4.(1)(d) and that Mr. Knutson's paragraph 4.(1)(d) should become paragraph 4.(1)(e). Paragraph 4.(1)(d) would read:
(d) species and their habitats that are found on federal lands;
The reason for including this is that unless we include this, it gives the crown corporations a right that nobody else has. They could damage or disturb a species in their habitats on federal lands, which nobody else can under the bill. It's to give crown corporations a licence they shouldn't have. So I suggest that this be included as paragraph 4.(1)(d) and Mr. Knutson's paragraph 4.(1)(d) becomes paragraph 4.(1)(e).
The Chairman: That's quite clear. Any comments or questions? Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: It's no longer clear what doesn't apply to crown corporations with this formulation. Why would you bother with all these provisions? What part of the bill wouldn't apply to crown corporations? You have them covered for federal species, you have them covered for section 33 species, and you have them covered for all lands.
.2115
The crown corporations are not like federal agencies and departments; they need to operate in a competitive fashion. The understanding was that laws of general application that would apply to a private corporation would also be expected to apply to a crown corporation.
The part of the package that concerns me is the most recent amendment proposed byMr. Lincoln.
The Chairman: So you are referring to paragraph 4.(1)(d)?
Mr. Curtis: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln and then Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, if we're talking about federal lands, just say ``national park''. Why should a crown corporation have more rights than anybody else? It seems to me we have to give the duty to crown corporations to be just as responsible as any citizen. I feel this is very logical. In fact, it was pointed out again by the task force that was appointed by the government.
The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle: On paragraph 4.(1)(c), ``wildlife species and their residence protected under section 33'', I would like some clarity on that.
Mr. Knutson: You have to read clause 33.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: Clause 33 refers to species that migrate across an international boundary, to the range extending across such a boundary. That's what clause 33 refers to.
The Chairman: Thank you. Any further questions?
Mr. Forseth: I'd like to ask Mr. Lincoln, where we're looking back at his paragraph 4.(1)(d) and his discussion was about placing limits on crown corporations, the wording he uses to support that says ``species and their habitats that are found on federal lands''. What about the activity of crown corporations that is not on federal land? Crown corporations operate, I would think, on private land. The object is to make sure, as I've mentioned before, that everything within the federal house, including the behaviour of crown corporations, comes under the bill. How does the limitation of just being found on federal lands capture a crown corporation when they carry on on private land as well?
Mr. Lincoln: I'll point out to Mr. Forseth that this paragraph that I've added doesn't stand by itself. It stands in a total clause. It's just one feature of a total clause that is included for better protection.
The Chairman: Thank you. Any further comments or questions?
Mr. Lincoln: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the task force report on this clause that calls the whole notion of making a special exemption for crown corporations as absurd. It says:
- The act should begin from the assumption that it does apply to crown corporations unless and
until regulations are passed limiting its application.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Let me briefly try to respond. The logic of this was that crown corporations would not benefit from crown immunity, that they would be subject to provincial legislation. So in clause 4 we have said that the bill applies in relation to what are called the ``federal species'', where the provinces have no jurisdiction; that is, the aquatic species and the migratory birds. With other species, the assumption was that these crown corporations would be subject to provincial law in a way that the federal crown would not, because the federal crown has crown immunity.
The concern here was that most of these corporations operate on a business basis. They are subject to provincial law, and they should not be subject as well to additional regulations on the federal level that their private counterparts are not subject to.
.2120
Mr. Lincoln: What happens, first of all, when there's no provincial act? Secondly, we're talking here about federal lands, and it seems to me very ironic that crown corporations should be absolved from a special duty on federal lands. So I would like to maintain my amendment.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Lincoln: And then people who don't like it will vote against it, that's all.
The Chairman: You've heard all the arguments for and against. Are you ready for the question? We will start with the subamendment by Mr. Lincoln, identified as (d), ``species and their habitats that are found on federal lands''.
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: Next is the amendment by Mr. Knutson in which he is proposing (b), (c), and (e). You heard the arguments for and against.
Mr. Knutson: Can we just have a minute?
The Chairman: Shall I call the meeting to order? We're in the midst of a vote, so I would invite you to come to the table.
Mr. Lincoln: Could we suspend for just a minute?
The Chairman: That's what we have already done.
Mr. Knutson: What we just passed was an amendment to my amendment, right?
The Chairman: Correct.
Mr. Knutson: If my amendment fails, what we just passed fails.
The Chairman: Yes. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I've been advised that for various reasons this clause I've just introduced could be of prejudice, so I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to reopen it.
The Chairman: I will ask the question. Is there unanimous consent to reopen the clause?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: There is no unanimous consent. We will then proceed with a vote on the amendment LK-8, as amended by Mr. Lincoln. We will now go to the amendment as proposed by Mr. Knutson, as amended by Mr. Lincoln. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Lincoln: Could I ask for unanimous consent to reopen this clause, please?
The Chairman: This clause -
Mr. Lincoln: No, not my subamendment, this particular amended clause.
The Chairman: This particular item is before us still.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We're still in debate, Mr. Lincoln.
The Chairman: So we are dealing now with the amendment by Mr. Knutson as amended by Mr. Lincoln. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, there were just some comments around Mr. Lincoln's concern on this subamendment that was passed and then there were comments that it's beyond the scope of the bill, etc. I would just like to hear a little bit more about that before we -
The Chairman: Sorry. We have voted on that already, so that item is closed unless it is reopened by unanimous consent. So far there has not been unanimous consent.
.2125
Mr. Forseth: That's pertaining to the issue I wanted to -
The Chairman: But we can certainly clarify the amendment as it stands before us right now, yes. So if you want to ask a question on the amendment before us, you can.
Mr. Forseth: I had said no, but I've heard further information now, so maybe I would not say no.
The Chairman: I have already asked twice, but I will be glad to ask a third time. So you can ask your question, because we have before us the amendment as amended by Mr. Lincoln. So the matter is before us. Please go ahead. What is your question?
Mr. Forseth: If we want to reopen, we need unanimous consent. I'd go along with that.
The Chairman: Either that or to defeat the motion. I think we are in the process of voting now, and I would rather now put the amendment as amended.
Are you ready for the question? I assume you are ready for the question.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The amendment is defeated and that concludes clause 4.
Mr. Knutson: Just before we finish on clause 4, given that my amendment was defeated, I'd like time to put forward new wording that might -
The Chairman: When you are ready, you will let us know, and I will stand it for a moment.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you very much.
Clause 4 allowed to stand
On clause 13 - Establishment
The Chairman: We move now to clause 13. Mr. Forseth, you have an amendment on clause 13. Mr. Adams, you have a motion as well. So which do we take first?
Mr. Forseth: I have wording. There are a number of us who have wording on this.
The Chairman: It's a joint motion?
Mr. Forseth: I haven't seen his and he hasn't seen mine.
The Chairman: This is the motion, R-9? We will call it R-9.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, there are several wordings. I suggest maybe we'll get them all out on the table and discuss them a little bit.
The Chairman: We have only one, so would you like to read it into the record?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, my preferred wording is the first one, but I have two subsidiaries ready.
The Chairman: Before the chair and the table there's only one motion, which reads:
- Minister after consulting the Council, the Royal Society of Canada and other expert bodies,
including those possessing traditional or community knowledge.
Mr. Curtis: Am I reading this correctly? Does this mean that the minister must consult with all of those who possess traditional and community knowledge before he or she can make an appointment to COSEWIC?
The Chairman: Your reading is correct. In terms of the English language, that's how I would read it, too.
Mr. Curtis: I suggest that this is -
The Chairman: You find it too broad?
Mr. Curtis: Yes. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
.2130
Mr. Curtis is drawing the attention of the committee to the fact that these types of consultations could be quite wide and lengthy. He is alerting the committee to that fact. He has done that, and that's all he can do.
Now, could you please focus on the wording to see whether you can tighten it up.
Mr. Forseth: I'm looking at:
- Minister after consulting the Council, the Royal Society of Canada and other scientific and
expert bodies, including those possessing traditional or community knowledge.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, my thought was that the expert bodies expression included ``scientific'', but it included others who are not scientific. That's all. The term ``scientific'' excludes experts who are not scientific.
The Chairman: In other words, ``expert'' casts a broader net.
Mr. Adams: Yes. Well, the Royal Society does include people with both scientific and other knowledge, but there would be other bodies that consider themselves just scientific. A farmers group is an example I could use: it would be an expert group, but not a scientific group.
The Chairman: I'm trying to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that when it comes to traditional or community knowledge, this could mean a consultation with tens of thousands of people.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I'd like to propose an amendment that would add a phrase at the end of the sentence, namely: ``that in the opinion of the Minister have relevant expertise''.
A voice: It's in there.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mr. Chairman, I think the same thing could be achieved by putting in ``who in the opinion of the Minister'' after ``including those'', so it would read: ``including those who in the opinion of the Minister possess traditional or community knowledge''.
Mr. Knutson: Will that fix it, Kirsten?
The Chairman: Would you mind reading it?
We are dealing with R-9 in its more recent incarnation, and Ms Douglas will read it.
Ms Douglas: Well, it's not clear to me if there.... I don't think Mr. Knutson is sure where to put this last phrase, but his suggestion was:
- Minister after consulting the Council, the Royal Society of Canada and other expert bodies,
including those possessing traditional or community knowledge that, in the opinion of the
Minister, have relevant expertise.
The Chairman: So ``including those who in the opinion of the Minister possess traditional or community knowledge'' - was that your text?
Mr. Rounthwaite: Mr. Keyes has pointed out why Mr. Knutson's language is better than mine.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, would you like to say it again?
Mr. Keyes: Well, I think that approach creates a double standard. It separates the expert bodies that possess traditional and community knowledge, and gives a discretion to consult those, but with the rest of the expert bodies there is no discretion.
I would suggest that the committee consider simply putting a period after ``Council'', and then starting a new sentence that would give the minister discretion to consult other bodies. It would simply say: ``The Minister may also consult the Royal Society of Canada and other expert bodies.'' So it leaves it up to the minister then to decide which other bodies will be consulted. The minister isn't bound to consult all these bodies.
The Chairman: The chair can hardly restrain joy and relief.
Voices: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: Now, as we all heard, Mr. Keyes is suggesting a period after the word ``Council''.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chair, I don't like that, because -
The Chairman: Just a moment. Then ``The Minister may also consult'', and then you have a catch-all phrase that includes all the others.
It gives some discretion to the poor minister of the day. Give him or her a break.
Mr. Forseth: How can you put the Royal Society of Canada with all the others?
The Chairman: There is nothing wrong with that.
.2135
An hon. member: Why not?
The Chairman: There's nothing holy and untouchable about it.
Could I have some comments from the committee so that we can move on?
Mr. Finlay: I'd like that: ``The Minister may...''
Mr. Knutson: May I hear the wording again?
Ms Douglas: There would be a period after ``Council'', and then a new sentence would read:
- The Minister may also consult the Royal Society of Canada and other expert bodies, including
those possessing traditional or community knowledge that, in the opinion of the Minister, have
relevant expertise.
Clause 13 as amended agreed to
On clause 16 - Subcommittees
The Chairman: I'd like to seek the indulgence of the committee in terms of trying to move along. We still have the preamble and the title. With some good will, we could finish this evening.
Would you mind introducing the clause, please?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: With the amendment, clause 16 would be replaced by the following:
- COSEWIC shall establish specialist subcommittees to assist in the preparation and review of
status reports on wildlife species considered to be at risk and may establish other subcommittees
to advise it or to perform any of its powers or functions.
Mr. Forseth: I would like to ask something. Clause 16 of the bill says ``COSEWIC may establish'', and now you've gone to ``COSEWIC shall establish''. We've previously discussed that when we're creating an offence it's ``shall'', but when we're asking somebody to do something, we use the word ``must''.
First of all, I would like to ask why we've gone from the ``may'' to the ``shall'' or the ``must''? What's the issue there? And if we're going to do that, then use the word ``must'', rather than ``shall''.
The Chairman: There was an extensive explanation earlier by Mr. Keyes about this item. However, Madam Kraft Sloan, could you briefly enlighten us?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Well, as I said, it's to ensure that the specialist subcommittees, etc., are passed. I can seek advice from the drafters as to whether it should be ``must'' or ``shall''.
Is it ``must''?
Mr. Keyes: I would suggest that ``must'' is correct.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Sure, fine.
The Chairman: The suggestion is ``to exercise or to perform''. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: I'm just noticing that clause 16 had been amended previously to include another sentence regarding aboriginal land claims legislation and the incorporation of traditional knowledge. That's been lost with the new wording. Can I ask the mover if that's the intention?
.2140
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No, that's not the intent. I just have to find it.
The Chairman: I'll call on Mr. Taylor. It would come after ``functions''.
Mr. Taylor: As long as it's clear by -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No, that's not the intent.
The Chairman: It has been verified and we are able to confirm that it comes after ``functions''. Anyway, thank you for raising it.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 16 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Would you please move to clause 30. Who is to present this?
Mr. Lincoln: Can we stand clause 30 for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: We could.
We then move to an amendment for a new clause, clause 35.1.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Has it been passed around?
The Chairman: It's now before us. Who would like to introduce it?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm introducing this one. Clause 35.1 proposes that:
- A responsible minister is not required to make an emergency order if he or she is of the opinion
that equivalent measures have been taken to protect the wildlife species under another act of
Parliament.
Amendment agreed to
.2145
On clause 36 - General exceptions
The Chairman: We are now calling an amendment under subclause 36.(3). Who is proposing it?
Mr. Knutson: I am.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr. Forseth: Pretty soon we'll have one about God and the ark.
Mr. Knutson: The words in the square brackets are new. The rest of it is as was in the original bill. You can look it up or you can take my word for it.
My amendment to subclause 36.(3) is to add the words ``and the regulation under section 42''.
The Chairman: Why are you doing that?
Mr. Knutson: If we look at clause 42, this is a consequential amendment.
The Chairman: Thank you. You heard this is a consequential amendment by Mr. Knutson, subclause 36.(3).
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: This means that in order to provide the exemption you would have to make regulations in every case. It wouldn't be enough that the recovery plan provides for certain activities. We'd also have to formalize it in a regulation to obtain the benefit of the exemption.
Mr. Rounthwaite: That could be remedied by changing the ``and'' to an ``or''. I think the intent is either recovery plan or a regulation.
Mr. Knutson: All right. I think that's a valid point.
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite suggested that ``and'' be changed to ``or'' so as to meet the observation made by Mr. Keyes. Is that acceptable, Mr. Knutson?
Mr. Knutson: Apparently the effect of this as it's written, without changing the ``and'' to an ``or'', would be that recovery plans are not exempt. I don't know that we want recovery plans exempt.
Mr. Keyes: I guess the objective is that the recovery plan's exemption would not kick in until it was formalized in a regulation.
Mr. Knutson: But in a general sense we don't want recovery plans exempt. We want them to operate within the law. We don't want broad powers of exemption for recovery plans.
Mr. Keyes: The regulations under clause 42, though, are to implement the plans. You have to have something in the plan for the regulation to attach to and implement. It's recognizing that something in the plan might authorize these activities, and then the question is whether you have to have it formalized in a regulation under clause 42 or not.
Mr. Knutson: Well, the regulations give it legal force. It would give the plan legal force. It would give the exemption legal force.
Mr. Keyes: That's right.
Mr. Knutson: So I think I'm going to stick with the wording as is, as I proposed.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 36 as amended agreed to
On clause 40 - Publication of recovery plans
The Chairman: Next is an amendment to clause 40. It's amendment R-26. Is it yours,Mr. Forseth?
Mr. Forseth: What is it?
The Chairman: I'm informed, Mr. Forseth, that we should still resolve clause 4 before we go to your amendment, so with your indulgence we will stand it.
We move from this to clause 30. Are you ready for clause 30 now? if so, let's deal with clause 30.
.2150
On clause 30 - Regulations
Mr. Lincoln: I'd like to introduce the amendment with a few changes, which are easy to follow on this text. Instead of 90 days it will read ``Within 120 days''. The word ``must'' will become ``shall'', and at the last but one line where it says ``must publish in the public registry'', there's a period there and the rest of the phrase is deleted.
The Chairman: So it would be a period after ``registry''.
Mr. Lincoln: Right.
The Chairman: Would you mind reading the whole amendment again?
Mr. Lincoln: All right.
(2) Within 120 days after COSEWIC designates a wildlife species, changes its classification or revokes a designation, the Governor in Council shall amend the List accordingly unless the Governor in Council determines that there is reasonable justification for not amending the List.
(2.1) Where, pursuant to subsection (2), the Governor in Council does not amend the List, the Governor in Council must give notice of this decision in the public registry.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson: We had an education on the significance of changing ``must'' to ``shall''. My understanding is that if we put in the word ``shall'' and the minister doesn't do this, then there's some section in the Criminal Code that kicks in and he or she is subject to all these terrible consequences. They can go to jail, etc. Do I have that right?
Mr. Keyes: I was explaining that the logic of our drafting was that ``shall'' is used customarily to create offences. If you don't want to create an offence you use ``must'' instead, and it signals to the court that this is not to be an offence creating provision.
Mr. Knutson: Is it written down somewhere, this must and shall business?
Mr. Keyes: No. It's largely a practice of the Department of Justice in drafting legislation.
Mr. Knutson: How do the courts know that?
Mr. Keyes: I can't say with any certainty that they do. It's reflected in the logic of our drafting. For example, in the drafting of this bill, clauses 31, 32, and 33 use ``shall'', and then we have the offence creating provision later on which says that persons who contravene those sections are liable to the penalties.
Clearly we've made the link there with our offence creating provisions and the provisions that are ``shall''. Those offence provisions, those penalty provisions, don't apply in relation to any other provisions in the act. So the logic is evident there in the drafting of this bill.
The Chairman: It would appear that ``must'' is desirable, so could we make that adjustment?
We are back to ``must'' as in the text, so the only change is from 90 days to 120 days and the deletion after the word ``registry''. Are there any further comments or questions?
Mr. Forseth: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In the piece of paper I had it went on and instead of ending there it says they must provide COSEWIC with ``the reasons for not amending the List''.
The Chairman: That has been deleted.
Mr. Forseth: Okay.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I just want to point out that this may put COSEWIC in a difficult position because COSEWIC will not know the reasons that cabinet decided not to amend the list and yet COSEWIC will be getting applications not only on its own initiative but also from any other person who's entitled to apply under clause 19. Then COSEWIC will just simply keep going back to cabinet. It's important that COSEWIC know why so that COSEWIC can take that information into account before simply referring it back when another Canadian makes an application.
Mr. Forseth: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that's a persuasive argument and I would like to make a subamendment to what's on the table here to put that back in.
The Chairman: All right. That subamendment has been made.
Mr. Near: I'd just like to express the concern that if that is added back in, you would have a situation where cabinet would be reporting back to COSEWIC on its determinations.
Mr. Forseth: What's wrong with that?
Mr. Near: I simply state that it's unprecedented and it would be rather unusual.
Mr. Keyes: Perhaps I can add to that. By requiring the Governor in Council to give reasons, it is transforming this power into something that is closer to the decision-making end of the scale rather than the legislative end. As you get closer to the decision-making end of the scale, the requirements of natural justice may kick in.
.2155
So this could be the foot in the door to require the Governor in Council, as a matter of natural justice, to afford the protections of that, the procedural protections of natural justice, culminating perhaps in a hearing of some sort.
This is quite unprecedented, at least in modern times, with the Governor in Council in its cabinet deliberations. It would be treated as a decision-making body. It's not really equipped to hold hearings; it's not equipped to do a lot of the things that decision-making bodies are generally equipped to do.
The Chairman: In light of what Mr. Keyes just said, Mr. Forseth, do you still want to proceed with your subamendment?
Mr. Forseth: Well, when a decision comes back and there are two or three paragraphs attached giving a reason, I don't think that contemplates all kinds of hearings. It puts some onus for some kind of semblance of justification beyond just whether it was cloudy on a particular day or political reasons or whatever. It at least begs the question that the answer is going to be justified in some minimal way with some kind of reason.
The Chairman: I will put your subamendment to the committee for a vote and then we'll take it from there.
Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: We had a discussion on this earlier. In the third line, instead of the word ``determines'', I think ``is of the opinion'' would be better wording.
The Chairman: Is that acceptable to the mover?
Mr. Lincoln: I don't know, Mr. Chairman. If you give me a minute, I'm going to think about it.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, shouldn't we deal with one amendment first and then move to another?
The Chairman: Oh, yes, definitely.
We'll now proceed with the subamendment by Mr. Forseth, namely, to delete the words after ``registry'' in amendment LK-16. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for two minutes. We need to discuss this further to make sure that everybody on our side is on the same wavelength. With your permission and indulgence, could we suspend for two minutes?
The Chairman: I will put this motion aside.
Clause 30 allowed to stand
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: In order to accelerate movement on the government side, perhaps someone could give up his place next to Mrs. Kraft-Sloan so that Mr. Lincoln can sit next to her? I think that would speed up the debate.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin. I've taken note of your remarks.
[English]
We'll proceed now with clause 4, which needs to be finalized.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could we just have a few minutes' break? We don't have clause 4 duplicated yet.
Mr. Knutson: We need to get photocopies.
The Chairman: Well, you have an option. We can have a five-minute break and then resume and continue with clauses 4, 40, and 30 and then the preamble, or we can continue at 8:30 a.m.
Mr. Knutson: Let's push on. Let's take the break and push on and then sleep in tomorrow.
Mr. Lincoln: If you give us five minutes, we can finish tonight.
The Chairman: All right, we'll rake a five-minute break.
.2200
.2214
The Chairman: If the members of the committee could please resume their seats, we will continue our discussion on clause 30 so that we can bring that to a conclusion.
The only advice the chair can offer in order to break the impasse, so to say, and move that item forward to a vote is with respect to the amendment proposed by Mr. Lincoln after the word ``registry''; namely, by inserting a period and dropping the balance of the sentence in the discussion that followed before the intermission.
.2215
It seems to me that the political system itself provides usually for a press release or a statement by the government or by the minister whenever a decision is made of this nature. Therefore, it is not necessary to put into the legislation a provision that the decision be made available to COSEWIC for and with the reasons.
It is obvious that by way of the public interest, by way of the process as it works, this would be done, and therefore the information would reach the interested parties as well as the public at large. I don't think it would be possible to keep that concealed as to why the white fox, for instance, should or should not be put on the COSEWIC designated list.
I'm offering this comment so that we can put this item for a final round of discussion and for a vote so that we can move on.
Mr. Lincoln, do you have any comments to offer?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, after discussion and suggestions that the wording be changed, I would suggest we would be better off with the original wording. I don't want to change it in any way, so I'd rather withdraw my motion.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, are we still studying clause 30 of Bill C-65?
The Chairman: Yes, clause 30.
[English]
All right. I will have to seek the consent of the committee to withdraw this amendment.
Mr. Forseth: That's withdrawing the whole thing. I have a subamendment that's still on the floor.
In relation to my subamendment, I note your comments, Mr. Caccia, but I will flip it over to the reverse and say what is the harm? A large aspect of the bill is the political aspect, the public's sense of accountability. I just take the cue from what the government does with Orders in Council and other things. There's always a bad smell around the appearance of acting without any reference to Parliament or any kind of review or whatever. It's just like it's our decision and that's it.
I agree with everything you say, but what is the harm on the other side?
The Chairman: All right. Since this motion cannot be withdrawn, we will proceed with the subamendment by Mr. Forseth. Having dealt with that, we'll go with the amendment by Mr. Lincoln.
Are you ready for the subamendment by Mr. Forseth, which is to add the words ``after registry'' in the last line and to keep the full text after the word ``registry'' in its full form?
Mr. Forseth: Which says ``and provide COSEWIC with its reasons for not amending the list''.
Subamendment negatived
The Chairman: We will now go to the amendment proposed by Mr. Lincoln. At this stage, we will vote on it, since by lack of consensus it is not withdrawn. We voted the subamendment with your consent. Would you consent to withdraw the amendment?
Mr. Forseth: Are there any other subamendments?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Forseth: Now Mr. Lincoln is requesting a withdrawal?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Forseth: Okay.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn
.2220
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, clause 30 of Bill C-65 says:
30.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, may make regulations establishing and demanding the list of wildlife species at risk.
The Bloc Québécois' amendment reads as follows:
30. (1) Where COSEWIC designates a wildlife species or changes its classification, the Governor in Council shall make...
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Where are we?
The Chairman: We're at BQ-6.
[Translation]
Please continue, Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin: When you use the term shall in the English version, does that create an obligation?
The Chairman: Are you asking the question?
Mr. Asselin: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, could you answer the question?
Mr. Keyes: Yes. The term shall or must can be used to create an obligation.
Mr. Asselin: What difference is there between the Bloc Québécois' amendment I've just read and amendment LK-16 that we've just adopted? Has the full amendment been withdrawn?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Asselin: So we have to choose between the wording in the bill and the amendment tabled by the Bloc Québécois specifying that the ``Governor in Council shall make'' rather than ``may make''.
The Chairman: Without the word ``may''?
Mr. Asselin: Yes. The original version says:
30. (1) The Governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister may make regulations establishing and amending the List of Wildlife Species at Risk.
Our version states:
30. (1) Where COSEWIC designates a wildlife species or changes its classification, the Governor in council shall make...
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I think that the Bloc Québécois amendment brings together subsections (1) and (2). They have included in subsection (1) the wording of subsection (2), that is the words ``where COSEWIC designates''. The original version contains two stages: subsection (1) establishes the list and subsection (2) contains a requirement to amend the list after designation. So it seems to me that amendment BQ-6 combines these two ideas in the same subsection.
Mr. Asselin: Since you refer to subsection (2), I'd like to note that there was an amendment proposed by the government to replace 90 days by 120 days. Will adjustments be made to the entire Bill to replace all the 90-day references by 120 days? I ask this question because I see that we still have 90 days mentioned here.
The Chairman: We withdrew that amendment.
Mr. Asselin: Very good, I'm ready for the vote.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments on Mr. Asselin's motion?
[English]
Amendment negatived
Clause 30 agreed to
.2225
On clause 4 - Binding on Her Majesty
The Chairman: Who is moving clause 4?
Mr. Knutson: I will.
Look at clause 4 on page 6. I'm proposing new lines 27 to 32.
I move that Bill C-65, clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 32 with the following:
(a) wildlife species and their habitats mentioned in paragraphs 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) and section 33; or
(b) other wildlife species and their habitats to the extent provided in the regulations.
The Chairman: Would this catch a wider range of species? Is that the purpose of your amendment?
Mr. Knutson: Yes.
The Chairman: Fine.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, there is a problem. You are producing documents that are in English only. The interpreters do not have the text either and it makes their work extremely difficult. It seems to me to the very least that the motion should be read before being tabled. This isn't the first time this has happened.
The Chairman: You are quite right. We shall provide the text to the interpreters.
[English]
I'll ask Ms Douglas to read it in English so that the French version will be translated at the same time. Please go ahead.
Ms Douglas: Lines 27 to 32 of paragraph 4(1)(a) would be replaced with:
(a) wildlife species and their habitats mentioned in paragraphs 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) and in section 33; or
(b) other wildlife species and their habitats to the extent provided in the regulations.
Mr. Forseth: Does that mean the old paragraph 4(1)(a) - aquatic species and their habitats - is going to disappear?
The Chairman: That would be a logical conclusion, yes.
Mr. Taylor: It's taken into account in paragraph 3(1)(a) now, isn't it?
The Chairman: That's right, because of the explanation given by Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Shouldn't that ``or'' be an ``and''?
Ms Douglas: I'm told that ``and'' should be ``or'' - both of them - in paragraph 3(1)(a). Shall I try it one more time with ``or''?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Rounthwaite: Shouldn't the ``and'' be ``or''?
Ms Douglas: It would read:
(a) wildlife species and their habitats mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(a) or paragraph 3(1)(b) or in section 33; or
(b) other wildlife species and their habitat to the extent provided in the regulations.
Mr. Rounthwaite: I was referring to the ``or'' after section 33. Should that not be an ``and''?
.2230
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite has asked whether ``or'' should not be changed to ``and'' before (b).
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of curiosity, is this paragraph correct, or is it 3(a) and 3(b)? It's clause 3(a) and 3(b), isn't it?
Ms Douglas: Let's ask Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: The terminology we used in the statutes here would be paragraph 3(a) and (b). The terminology changes when you go from a bill to an act; clauses suddenly become sections in English.
The Chairman: Do I take it, Mr. Knutson, that the ``or'' preceding (b) is now changed to ``and''?
Mr. Knutson: Just a portion of the clause; it's the paragraph within the letter (a).
The Chairman: Sorry, what were you saying?
Mr. Keyes: I'm sorry, I was addressing Mr. Lincoln.
The Chairman: It would be nice if it were somehow shared by all.
Mr. Lincoln: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I apologize.
The Chairman: No, I do.
Mr. Knutson, will you please clarify whether you can accept the suggestion made byMr. Rounthwaite?
Mr. Knutson: I think the ``and'' should stay as an ``and''. If you look at the way clause 4 is written now -
The Chairman: He's suggesting changing the ``or'' preceding the (b) into an ``and''.
Mr. Knutson: That's fine.
The Chairman: Could Ms Douglas please read that clause again?
Ms Douglas: Yes:
- (a) wildlife species and their habitats mentioned in paragraphs 3(a) or (b) or in section 33; and
- (b) other wildlife species and their habitats to the extent provided in the regulations.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 4 as amended agreed to
Mr. Adams: At some point I would like, if it's possible, to discuss again clause 18 on page 11. I don't know if I can do that, and if I can, how I do it.
The Chairman: We need unanimous consent to reopen it. Mr. Adams is asking for unanimous consent to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Is it a draft that we have to examine this evening? Is it already included in the amendments we have or is it a new amendment?
The Chairman: It's a new amendment.
[English]
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, it's kind of a technical point. Could I just...?
The Chairman: We first need consent to reopen it.
Is there consent to reopen clause 18 so as to provide Mr. Adams an opportunity for a technical amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, we've gone to some trouble to reach out to a number of partners, and one of them has been the first nations, particularly in the territories. It seems to me that the reason we've gone to this trouble is the enormous habitat area represented by the territories.
At various locations in the legislation we've included specific mention of the aboriginal land claims agreement. It seems to me that under clause 18, where the COSEWIC designation is dealt with, it would be appropriate to do the same, so that it fits in with our treatment of the management plans and recovery plans and so on. That's my point.
I have a suggestion, which is exactly the same wording as we've used, I believe, in three other places now. If it's not necessary, Mr. Chair, I'd be quite glad to take the advice. My suggestion is that the existing clause 18 becomes 18.(1) and that 18.(2) read, as we have it elsewhere, ``If the wildlife species is found on land that is subject to an aboriginal land claims agreement, the designation must be in accordance with any applicable provisions of the agreement.'' That's wording that is elsewhere in the legislation now.
The Chairman: All right. Mr. Adams has made a suggestion for a suclause 18.(2). Could we have comments please?
Mr. Near: If I might, Mr. Chairman, this was discussed along with the other amendments that were ultimately adopted by this committee, namely with respect to recovery plans and management plans. The distinction was that with respect to designation it is in fact COSEWIC making that designation on the basis of the best scientific and other criteria set out in the statute.
.2235
It was felt it would be best to let COSEWIC, together with the council making the general policy decisions, determine the method of consultation. There's a distinction between designating and COSEWIC'S role in the development of management plans and recovery plans. That's why that distinction was made.
Mr. Adams: Is there sufficient provision in the listing for us to be sure that the rights of the management board, for example, in the NWT are covered in that listing process? It says here that the management board has the right to approve the designation of rare, threatened, and endangered species, and that's in the land claims agreement.
Mr. Near: Yes, it's in the land claims agreement subject to the discretionary decision-making authority of the minister, whoever is the appropriate minister with respect to that topic in the land claims agreement. So it's not a totally unbridled, if you like, approval process on behalf of the management board.
The Chairman: Mr. Adams, may I make a suggestion that you examine your amendment for a possible amendment at the report stage so you would have time to consult other sources?
Mr. Knutson: It's a good idea.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Chairman: It's more than a technical amendment.
Mr. Adams: Well, if that's your ruling, Mr. Chair. I personally can't see the difference between this and the other two situations where we presented it. It simply seemed appropriate for me to do it.
I'll take your advice, Mr. Chair, and deal with it at a later stage, but I would again make the point that we're talking about 40% of the country at some point. I really want to build in the appropriate consultation and treatment for that 40%. It's one of the great treasures of the country, and if we don't tap that properly I think we're losing something substantial here.
The Chairman: Well, this is an important political point. Perhaps you may want to consider it for the report stage.
Mr. Adams: Again, it's your ruling, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: It's not a ruling; it's a suggestion. It's a friendly suggestion.
Mr. Adams: Okay, Mr. Chair. I'll deal with it at report stage.
On clause 40 - Publication of recovery plans
The Chairman: We move now to Mr. Forseth's amendment for clause 40. This is the last amendment before we go to the preamble. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Well, it simply says, in subclause (3):
- A federal department, federal agency or federal Crown Corporation may not authorize or take
any action that violates a recovery plan and must fulfil its obligations under the plan.
The Chairman: Could you give a brief explanation?
Mr. Rounthwaite: I'll be as brief as I can.
Federal departments and federal agencies would be required to comply with recovery plans and not to violate their terms. Otherwise, they would be committing an offence under clause....
Mr. Forseth: Whatever, yes.
Mr. Rounthwaite: It would be committing an offence.
Federal crown corporations now, if there were other regulations enacted under the amended paragraph 4(b), would be committing an offence and therefore also would be bound. So to that extent there is a level playing field, in my view.
.2240
Mr. Forseth: Is that your view, Mr. Curtis?
Mr. Curtis: Yes.
Mr. Forseth: In view of that, I'll withdraw it.
Clause 40 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Now to the preamble, which is at the beginning of the beginning.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The beginning of the end. Or is it already over?
The Chairman: We have here some few amendments. The first one is in the name ofMr. Forseth, amendment R-1.
Mr. Forseth: What happened to amendment BQ-1?
The Chairman: I apologize, amendment BQ-1.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin, please.
Mr. Asselin: What we want to do is add to the preamble the words ``consultation with the provinces''. That sums it up.
The Chairman: Which amounts to deleting lines 14 to 24.
Mr. Asselin: Concerning our amendment no. 1. Mr. Chairman, we want to delete this part of the preamble because in our view, it attempts to legalize a strong centralizing and interventionist approach on the part of the federal government with respect to the protection of threatened species.
The Chairman: Have you concluded, Mr. Asselin?
Mr. Asselin: The part that we wish to delete mentions that this bill will enable Canada to meet its international commitments. The fact that Canada signs international conventions does not necessarily mean that its decisions are prevail in an area of provincial jurisdiction, particularly on provincial territory.
We are perfectly in agreement with the aim to protect the species and we also think that it is necessary for the different levels of government to consult each other. However any action undertaken in this field must respect the constitutional jurisdiction of each level.
I have concluded.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.
Amendment negatived [see Minutes]
The Chairman: Thank you. We'll now deal with Mr. Forseth's amendment.
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to get a little bit of an opinion before I bring this forward. In a general sense, a number of the amendments I've tried to bring in are not substantive and none have really changed the thrust or the strength of the bill. Yet there were certain little phrases here and there that you might say are little bells to play the right music for those who are going to be standing back and watching just what general direction the bill has and does it have these little phrases in there that bring good will. And one by one you might say all those little bells have been knocked off the sleigh. This is one of the last ones that is there to kind of bring a sense of interpretative direction and just what the object and the intent or the tone of the bill will be. I'm wondering what others would say about it, and then I can quickly make a decision about what I'm going to do.
The Chairman: Let's see what others have to say about it. Let's find out whether there's any comment.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
.2245
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: While I feel very supportive of part of this amendment, that it's important to work together in this regard, I guess I have concern around this idea. Yes, of course we want to work towards national objectives for species, but when we're talking about this being supported by national resources I'm concerned about the financial implications this may lead to.
Mr. Forseth: The concern was that this sets a tone and then what those national resources mean is clearly then later defined in the bill, and the bill rather narrowly defines what those national resources are. It gets at the principle that no one individual or few individuals should bear the cost or become the victim of a national objective. If we have a national objective to define ourselves as Canadians about the kinds of species and land we live in, certainly that must be supported by national resources. This is so general in nature that it could not imply something beyond the limiting interpretive parts that come later in the bill. Would you not think so?
The Chairman: Maybe there is an implicit suggestion to you by Mrs. Kraft Sloan that you delete the last three words and that you insert a period after the word ``supported''.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I can support that.
Mr. Forseth: But the whole idea is we have a national objective that is going to be supported by national resources.
The Chairman: By all sorts of things. If you leave it unspelled it has a broader significance and a broader impact.
Mr. Forseth: Yes.
Mr. Taylor: Maybe call it shared national resources, and then you bring in provincial and private partnerships.
The Chairman: Anyway, this is the amendment as proposed. Unless you want to change it, we will put it to a vote. Do you want to make another intervention?
Mr. Forseth: Is there some further discussion on the other side?
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There is also a government amendment we would like to put forward that deals with the provinces, and my concern is then that we wouldn't be able to pass the government amendment.
The Chairman: The amendment is not before the committee -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I know, but I'm just giving another reason why I'm concerned about passing this.
The Chairman: We can't deal with that unless -
Mr. Forseth: One of the other suggestions was to add ``and that national objectives for species must be shared'', or something like that.
Mr. Taylor: Be supported by shared national resources.
Mr. Forseth: If it's going to be by shared national resources, again it's one more place to try to provide reassurance to all those who are going to feel victimized by the bill. It surprises me, given how mild this is, that this assertion cannot be made. And if you cannot make this kind of a mild general assertion then I can see how it will be argued the other way, with people asking if that's not your intent then what is your intent. They'll say you then must have a malevolent intent. And then I can just see how it runs off the other direction. I won't make those arguments, but they'll be made very loudly. I'm trying to save this bill from the tragedy of the MMT bill.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This bill is supported by 92% of Canadians.
The Chairman: All right. If there are no further questions or observations I will put the amendment for a vote.
Mr. Forseth: I'll withdraw it.
The Chairman: We move then to the amendment G-1.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair. This is line 28 in the preamble. It's replaced by:
- is important for them to work together to pursue the establishment of complementary
legislation and programs for the protection and the recovery of species at risk in Canada,
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This just reinforces the accord.
Mr. Knutson: That's good.
.2250
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, does that come close to your concept?
Mr. Knutson: Reinforcements...good.
Mr. Forseth: It's referring to.... Who is ``them''.
The Chairman: In the preceding line -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Various governments.
Mr. Knutson: John Finlay's on a roll.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Forseth: Yes, it's a fine motherhood statement.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: What would that change? What do the representatives of Justice think? Is it just a clarification or would it completely change the nature of the preceding text?
[English]
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Next is amendment R-2. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Again, here was an attempt to introduce some concept of balance where we get the biological and the socio-economic concerns wrapped up together into an ideal that means sustainable development that has an ongoing environmental ethic or value to society. It's the kind of phraseology that would appear in the front of a bill to outline a tone that.... If we have just one or the other, the bill is out of balance.
I would like some very brief comments, and then I'll decide what to do.
The Chairman: Comments are invited.
Mr. Knutson: Karen doesn't like it.
The Chairman: Mr. Rounthwaite.
Mr. Rounthwaite: This balancing of biological and socio-economic concerns to achieve sustainable development and then balancing this with an environmental ethic sends a very strong and important message that should be in the preamble.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rounthwaite.
Are there other comments? Mrs. Kraft Sloan, any comments?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have a concern when we're talking about socio-economic concerns and conservation. I feel that those should be very distinctly separated and not in the same sentence.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Forseth, would you like to proceed with an amendment or not?
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Keyes has a comment.
Mr. Keyes: I just have a drafting comment on the word ``wherein''. It speaks of ``an informed public wherein biological and socio-economic concerns are combined''. I suggest that it would be more grammatical to say ``an informed public whose biological and socio-economic concerns are combined''. The concerns are not in the public, they belong to the public, so ``whose'' is probably a better word here.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: I'll just respond to Karen's comment on trying to make them separate. The whole point is to try to pull them together. When you wrap up the biological and the socio-economic that's how you get this concept, which is often hard to pin down, of sustainable development that has a lasting value of society. It was described in the testimony as ``an environmental ethic'' in the community.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: My concern is that when you're dealing with conservation, and if you're putting socio-economic concerns in there, they're going to negatively impact on conservation measures. So I have a great deal of concern about having it linked in this preamble.
Mr. Forseth: If you're going to try to have a conservation plan, or whatever, in society at this point and you try to exclude the socio-economic concerns, you never will conserve anything. It's pipedreaming. If you don't wrap those things up together and try to get to sustainable development, then the activities of conservation and so on will be vigorously resisted by the community. It's the way of getting cooperation.
.2255
The Chairman: Thank you.
If this debate goes on too much further I will have to rule the chair out of order for allowing a debate without the motion being presented.
Mr. Forseth: Any further comments?
The Chairman: No, there aren't any.
Mr. Forseth: I will withdraw it then.
The Chairman: Withdrawn. Actually it's not even withdrawn, it is reserved for later use. Thank you.
We now move to the motion by Mr. Adams, I believe, LA-1.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I believe there's an amendment prior to that, the government amendment on the front of the smaller government package.
The Chairman: Is that in the small collection?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, it's in the front page of the small collection.
The Chairman: Could you please read it into the record?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It's after line 32, on page 1, ``the conservation efforts of individual Canadians'', and makes a change here: ``and communities should be encouraged and supported and their interests should be considered in developing and implementing recovering measures''. I think in a lot of respects it addresses a number of the concerns that Mr. Forseth has raised. It's not ``particular persons'', it's ``individual Canadians''.
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Finally, the one by Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, it's amendment to lines 33 to 35 on page one. I think we have the test before us, but I would like to suggest, if I might, a small amendment. It's the role of the aboriginal peoples, not people -
The Chairman: As it is in the bill anyway, yes.
Mr. Adams: Yes, Mr. Chair, and ``of Canada'', instead of ``in Canada''.
The Chairman: As it is in the bill.
Mr. Adams: Yes.
And then ``and of the wildlife management boards established under aboriginal land claims legislation'', and it goes on, ``in the conservation of wildlife in this country are especially important, and''.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams, that's fairly straightforward.
In any case, are there any questions or comments? We are in the preamble. It's the last amendment, I understand.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Curtis, you're welcome as a member of the committee.
Mr. Curtis: I wasn't voting. I was just wondering whether it should have been ``is especially important''. I was wondering why it was ``are'' because I thought the -
The Chairman: Look, if there is some editing to be done, by all means.
Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 77, which the clerk has drawn to my attention as not having been carried, carry?
Clause 77 agreed to
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended be reprinted?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: We have a little item with respect to the contract with Dr. Rounthwaite, who has extended his services to the committee. Therefore, his honorarium has to be covered by virtue of another day plus travelling expenses - two days plus travelling expenses.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.2300
The Chairman: Is there anything else? Also, I would need a motion to the effect thatDr. Thomas Curran attend the National Biotechnology Strategy on March 11 in Newfoundland, I believe.
Some hon. members: Toronto.
The Chairman: In Toronto. Oh, my God, of all places. Could I have a motion to that effect?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we move it to Hawaii.
An hon. member: So moved.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Good night.
The meeting is adjourned.