THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Friday, May 13, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met by videoconference this day at 11:02 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 2 and 3 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization; and, in camera, to consider a draft report.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Paul Massicotte. I am a senator from Quebec, and I am the chair of the committee. Today, we are conducting a hybrid meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphone muted at all times, unless recognized by the chair. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. For those taking part in the meeting via Zoom, I will ask you to use the “raise hand” feature in order to be recognized. For those attending in person, I will ask you to please signal to the clerk if you would like to speak.
I will do my best to get to everyone who wants to ask a question. In order to do so, I ask you to keep your questions and preambles brief, and to specify who your question is for.
I would also like to remind witnesses that they have a maximum of three minutes to make their statements. Indeed, we have many witnesses this morning and a lot of members present, so vigilance will be important.
Now, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Margaret Dawn Anderson, from the Northwest Territories; David Arnot, from Saskatchewan; Claude Carignan, P.C., from Quebec; Rosa Galvez, from Quebec; Clément Gignac, from Quebec, who is replaced by Senator Amina Gerba; Mary Jane McCallum, from Manitoba; Julie Miville-Dechêne, from Quebec; Dennis Glen Patterson, from Nunavut; Judith Seidman, from Quebec; Karen Sorensen, from Alberta; and Josée Verner, P.C., from Quebec.
Welcome to all of you, dear colleagues, and all the Canadians who are watching. Today, we are continuing our study of the subject matter of those elements contained in Parts 2 and 3 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Our first panel, from 11:00 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. precisely, will be on petroleum resources. For that purpose, we have with us, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate. Mr. van Raalte will be with us for all the panels, as the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is overseeing the entire bill.
We also have with us this morning, from Natural Resources Canada, Nada Vrany, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, and Timothy Gardiner, Senior Director, Offshore Petroleum Management. Thank you for being with us today. Mr. van Raalte, you have the floor, followed by Ms. Vrany.
[English]
James van Raalte, Executive Director, Regulatory Policy and Cooperation Directorate, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Good morning, honourable senators. I’m pleased to be here to provide you with a broad overview of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, which proposes to amend 29 pieces of legislation via 46 amendments. These amendments are intended to keep regulations relevant and up-to-date by reducing administrative burden for business, facilitating digital interactions with government, simplifying regulatory processes, making exemptions from certain regulatory requirements to test new products or making cross-border trade easier through more consistent and coherent rules across government.
Bill S-6 is the government’s second annual regulatory modernization bill, or ARMB as we affectionately reference it. Announced in 2018’s Fall Economic Statement, the ARMB is meant to be a recurring legislative mechanism that enables the government to make common-sense changes across many pieces of legislation at once in order to address overly complicated, inconsistent or outdated requirements raised by businesses and Canadians.
Bill S-6 is one part of the government’s agenda to improve Canada’s regulatory system while continuing to ensure the health, safety and security of Canadians and protection of the environment.
Taken individually, the amendments in Bill S-6 are modest in scope. Taken as a whole, they will make an impact and contribute to the government’s regulatory modernization agenda.
Grouping relatively minor legislative changes in one bill is both time- and cost-efficient. Bill S-6 is designed specifically to propose multiple non-contentious [Technical difficulties] sponsor on behalf of her cabinet colleagues. Anything above and beyond this threshold may be a good proposal for regulatory modernization, however, should be brought forward by the individual responsible minister for parliamentary and public scrutiny.
Of the 46 proposed amendments, 33 are stakeholder-driven and 13 are in response to issues raised by Parliament’s Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
In the summer of 2019, TBS launched a public consultation via the Canada Gazette, inviting interested stakeholders to share their views on themes related to regulatory modernization, including inviting stakeholders to propose suggestions for the next ARMB. Forty-eight stakeholder submissions referred to legislative changes. However, most of these responses were not within scope as they proposed changes to regulations rather than legislation. However, all feedback was shared with responsible regulatory departments and agencies.
Following the consultation, a What We Heard: Report on Regulatory Modernization was published in November 2020. Similarly, a call-out to regulatory departments and agencies was initiated in August of 2019. All proposals were reviewed extensively to ensure there were no negative impacts on the health, safety and security of Canadians or on the environment.
Beyond what may be contained in Bill S-6, additional proposals were set aside from further consideration for a variety of reasons. Some were considered too broad in scope or deemed not regulatory in nature, while others were not considered if, for example, they sought to alter service fees or proposed additional activities contributing to actually increasing administrative burden.
The process to develop the third version of this bill is already under way based upon COVID lessons learned. The President of the Treasury Board has committed to introduce the third ARMB in spring of 2022.
Moving forward, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will use its newly launched Let’s Talk Federal Regulations platform to seek input from Canadian businesses and individuals on ways we can improve Canada’s federal regulatory system. As such, consultations on the fourth round of an ARMB are expected to be launched in fall of 2022. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Nada Vrany, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Natural Resources Canada: Good morning to everybody. I’m the Director General of the Petroleum Resources Branch at Natural Resources Canada. I’m joined by Senior Director, Tim Gardner, but, alas, his dog ate his headset, so his mic doesn’t work. Hopefully, I’ll be able to address all the questions you may have, but Mr. Gardner would have been a great resource.
The proposed amendments to the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and Canada Petroleum Resources Act in Part 2, clauses 16 and 17, would provide greater flexibility in updating the regulations under those acts. Currently, those acts require draft regulations to be prepublished in Canada Gazette, Part I. These amendments would permit a more agile response to changing technologies and technical standards and would provide greater ease in updating regulations for any necessary miscellaneous or administrative changes. Any substantive amendments to the regulations would still proceed through the consultation process of prepublication in Canada Gazette, Part I.
The proposed changes in Part 2, clauses 18–22 and clauses 23–27 would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to accomplish two things.
First, it would update the language used in both acts related to the handling of hazardous products in the workplace to ensure alignment and consistency with the Hazardous Products Act, which was amended in 2015 to align with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. These amendments to the accord acts would ensure that offshore workplaces are subject to the same requirements for hazardous products as other federally and provincially regulated workplaces. This change would improve workers’ familiarity with such products and, ultimately, their safety. It would reduce costs to companies which would otherwise have to follow two sets of regulatory requirements when working offshore versus onshore or between federal offshore health and safety regimes.
Second, the proposed amendments would add an explicit regulation-making authority to both accord acts for prescribing record-keeping requirements in occupational health and safety regulations. The authority to have regulations to ensure record-keeping and the provision of information should an investigation be conducted, if it were deemed to be necessary, is commonplace in occupational health and safety legislation in Canada, for example, in the Canada Labour Code and provincial occupational health and safety legislation. This change would help increase the protection and safety of offshore workers and would complement the work done by Natural Resources Canada and the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in developing permanent occupational health and safety regulations for the offshore and would provide greater consistency with other occupational health and safety regimes in Canada.
This concludes my brief overview, and I’m happy to answer any questions that you might have.
The Chair: This legislation is about cleaning up definitions or errors in previous legislation, so if you don’t mind discussing the technical nature of it, let’s focus on that. We have four people who want to speak and we have seven minutes left. If you could make it short and sweet and to the point, it would be much appreciated.
Senator Galvez: My question is for Ms. Vrany. We are saying that we want to make the regulations more flexible and modernize them, as well as facilitate stakeholders’ activities and burdens. However, under the proposed amendments to the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, the draft regulations would no longer need to be published in the Canada Gazette, as you just said. The interested parties — and I’m not talking only about the petroleum companies — are no longer given the opportunity for commentary.
Have you replaced that in other ways, for example with digitalization? Maybe it could be published on the website. Why are you just eliminating it instead of providing an alternative, something more flexible, to avoid impacting transparency? Thank you.
Ms. Vrany: Thank you so much. That’s a great question. The idea is to use the existing, well-developed, comprehensive stakeholder consultation that includes early engagement with interested stakeholders and the public. That way, even before the regulations are changed, people would be aware of what changes are being recommended.
What we’re talking about here, senator, are a couple of different kinds of situations. One is when there are differences in the French and English versions. It’s clear what the intent is, but there’s an error. There’s a typo in something. The other one is if there are technical standards that need to be updated, because it’s an international standard, and we need to ensure that we’re using the latest standard that everybody, globally, is using. It would incorporate the changes made by reference.
It would be published in Canada Gazette, Part II, and there would also be a comment period at that time. For instance, if somebody missed the early engagement, they would have an opportunity to respond. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Sorensen: I have a follow-up, Ms. Vrany, to Senator Galvez’s question. You touched on this, and I’d like if you could elaborate further. How will the government determine which regulatory changes are minor enough not to require publication? Also touched on previously, have you consulted with or heard any concerns from industry, and is there a concern about transparency or consultation?
Ms. Vrany: All the departments, as you know, are subject to the Cabinet Directive on Regulation, and that is overseen by my friends at the Treasury Board. Any time we would propose something like this, we would have to, obviously, consult with our stakeholders and, shall I say, convince the Treasury Board that the change is indeed minor and necessary. If it’s not, if it’s a substantive change, it’s not in the department’s interest not to go through the entire process. Indeed, the cabinet directive requires that you take it through Canada Gazette, Part I and into Canada Gazette, Part II. That’s what we would propose to do in this case.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses today. My question is for both witnesses.
We understand that Bill S-6 is intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the Government of Canada. It is clear that this bill, if passed, will encourage innovation and economic growth. That’s our wish. The Government of Canada and your respective departments have a policy of reducing policies and regulations. For each new policy, how many do you actually remove? Thank you.
[English]
Mr. van Raalte: Thank you for the question, senator. One of my broad responsibilities is with respect to regulatory modernization.
Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for the administration of the Red Tape Reduction Act, which is meant to control the growth of administrative burden on businesses and industry throughout Canada. On an annual basis, if a new regulation is brought forward and it has a dollar of administrative burden contained within it, under what we call the one-for-one rule under that legislation, a dollar of administrative burden must be removed. Further, potentially, another whole set of regulations, what we call a “title,” must be removed.
Since 2012-13, the Red Tape Reduction Act has been successful in not only controlling but actually reducing administrative burden by $60.5 million a year throughout Canada.
Senator McCallum: I just wanted confirmation. Does offshore, then, fall outside the scope of provincial and federal laws?
Ms. Vrany: There’s a co-management regime for the offshore, and the two pieces of legislation that we are proposing to make tiny amendments to in this case are those that govern how the province and the federal government will work together in the offshore. It includes an occupational health and safety section and requirements, and we’re proposing to make changes to ensure that the Hazardous Products Act is up-to-date.
The Chair: That brings to an end our first panel.
[Translation]
For our second panel, on Canada Lands Surveyors, we have, from Natural Resources Canada, Jean Gagnon, Director General/Surveyor General, Surveyor General Branch, and from the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, Jean-Claude Tétreault, Executive Director. Thank you for being with us today. Go ahead, Mr. Gagnon.
[English]
Jean Gagnon, Director General/Surveyor General, Surveyor General Branch, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendments to the Canada Lands Surveyors Act will modernize minor elements related to the oversight of the Canada lands surveyors profession. At the request of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, this is the first time that amendments to the act are being proposed since it was first enacted in 1999.
The Canada Lands Surveyors Act establishes the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors and provides it with the authority to regulate the profession and the practice of land surveying on Canada lands, subject to the oversight of Minister of Natural Resources. Canada lands include the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Indigenous lands such as reserves and settlement lands, offshore areas of Canada and Canada’s national parks. Surveys on Canada lands must be completed by a Canada Lands surveyor.
[Translation]
The act provides the association with the authority to establish a complaints and discipline committee, which reviews complaints received by the association regarding the conduct or actions of its members. The main objective is to ensure the protection of the public while maintaining the integrity of property rights and the reputation of the profession.
Prior to 1999, the Surveyor General of Canada Lands was responsible for regulating the profession and practice of land surveying on Canada Lands. In 1999, the association was delegated the authority to regulate the profession, including the assessment of qualifications, examinations, admission and discipline of its members.
Now, after more than 20 years of working within the existing regulatory framework, the association and the Government of Canada have come to recognize that minor changes are needed to streamline the regulatory framework while making it more robust and effective, and better protecting the public interest.
[English]
Modernizing the legislative framework that regulates Canada Lands surveyors will, among other things, enhance the protection of the public by modernizing the complaints and discipline processes that govern Canada Lands surveyors. For example, it will provide the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors with the power to compel witnesses to appear; reduce the regulatory burden of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors by allowing the association to make bylaws respecting a broader range of matters — nine components that were governed by the regulations will be transferred so they can be managed by the association through bylaws; harmonize the French and English versions of the act for consistency and clarity by, among other things, addressing certain recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations; and improve labour mobility within Canada by better alignment with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. We’ll also harmonize the text of the act with the private law of the provinces and territories, being the civil law regime in the province of Quebec and the common-law regime in the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Jean-Claude Tétreault, Executive Director, Association of Canada Lands Surveyors: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I represent the professional licensing body that has the mandate to regulate and govern the practice of surveying of Canada lands, private lands and territories for the protection of the public interest in accordance with the Canada Lands Surveyors Act, its regulations and bylaws.
The ACLS Bylaws and Legislation Committee has been working on this initiative since 2012 in order to address shortfalls, inefficiencies and ambiguities of the act. The association sent its recommendations to make amendments to the act to the Minister of Natural Resources in 2016.
Should the proposed amendments be adopted, they would enhance the protection of the public by modernizing the complaints and discipline process that governs Canada Lands surveyors. For example, in relation to public discipline hearings for transparency, which are held in camera right now, there will be no need to hold expensive hearings if an agreement is obtained from parties, streamlining our process. The amendments would give us the power to suspend a member if the public interest is at risk and the power to compel witnesses to testify and procure relevant documents, which we can’t do right now. They would reduce the regulatory burden by broadening the bylaw-making powers of the ACLS council. The proposed amendments will allow the transfer of many sections of the regulations to the bylaws. These sections are administrative in nature so should be in the complete control of the association. The amendments would harmonize the French and English versions of the act for consistency and clarity by addressing certain recommendations of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and improve labour mobility within Canada by aligning the act with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.
The Association of Canada Lands Surveyors supports these changes since they will improve the tools that it possesses to fulfill its mandate to more effectively protect the public interest. Resultant benefits from these changes are the streamlining of the complaints and discipline process. Discipline hearings can cost between $50 and $100,000 in direct costs, not counting in-kind or staff costs, and it could take up to a year to finalize, which has to change.
Facilitating labour mobility is not only a government objective but will encourage more licensed provincial surveyors to join the ALCS, add a benefit to Indigenous communities and elevate the text of the ALCS act to modern standards.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Tétreault. We’ll now move on to the question period, and I will give the floor to Senator Sorensen.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. My question is for Mr. Tétreault, although you just did a great job of answering the question that I had intended, which was around the modernization process for discipline and complaints and how they differ from the current procedures. You have done a good job in answering that.
Do the new procedures provide a fair process for individuals who either make or are subject to the complaint?
Mr. Tétreault: We believe so, and we believe that streamlining will accelerate the process, which is to the benefit of all parties. Reducing costs and holding public hearings brings in the transparency, which I think will demonstrate to everyone that the process is fair.
Senator Anderson: My question is a follow-up to Senator Sorensen’s question with regard to the streamlining of your process. It talks about greater powers to enter private and public lands. Can you tell me a bit more about that? You said it would be a benefit to Indigenous communities. Could you tell me what those benefits are?
Further to your English and French publications, just to make you aware, there are 11 official languages in the Northwest Territories, and French and English may not be the languages that are used.
Mr. Tétreault: On the two official languages, I do not have an answer as to whether we should proceed with translating it to 11 languages.
What was your first question, I’m sorry, because you had many?
Senator Anderson: I had asked about your greater powers to access private and public lands in the Northwest Territories. Can you tell me what that means? It was said that it was a benefit to Indigenous communities. I would like to know what those benefits are.
Mr. Tétreault: Well, one thing that we are living with right now, and it is affecting most surveying associations, is demographic issues. We are losing members. To properly serve all of the Indigenous communities, we need more surveyors. It would give a choice of which surveyor they can use for their surveys. So for that part, labour mobility definitely would be a plus for us.
The power to enter properties is needed because to properly survey a property, you have to be able to find as much evidence as possible to be able to come to an opinion on where the boundaries are. It is very important to have the legal right to access all the properties that the surveyors need to find the evidence they need.
The Chair: Mr. Tétreault, I am hearing you say that you have the authority to enter anyone’s property at any point in time because that provides greater accuracy in denoting what belongs to whom, but there must be some limits to that. At 2:00 in the morning, you would not be very welcome at home anyway. There must be something more reasonable, for example, reasonable access with proper notice. Is there not?
Mr. Tétreault: Well, I know by experience definitely our members do not show up at 2:00 in the morning. It is common practice definitely to give proper notification. I am sure all of our members do that.
The Chair: And that is subject to the agreement of the other party. There were references yesterday in a committee hearing that the person tells the other person, but without reasonable notice, in other words, they pop in and they expect to have immediate access, I presume that the other party can say, “That is not convenient for me. Why don’t you make it in two days’ time?” Is that permitted?
Mr. Tétreault: Well, it is up to the agreement between the surveyor and the property owners, definitely.
The Chair: I agree.
Mr. Gagnon: I would like to point out that this piece of legislation does not in any way affect the existing right to access the land. The power of the right of access to the land to do the survey, as Mr. Tétreault said, was given to the association in 1999.
The amendments we are proposing are not touching that piece at all, other than it is the piece of its members — not the general public, but its members. It is the ability to review the records of its members in order to examine the records for the purposes of reviewing the complaint. In other words, it’s having access to the records to do a proper examination, and it affects the rights of its members.
The Chair: Got it.
Senator McCallum: I had the same questions as Senator Anderson, and I did not understand what would trigger entry into a dwelling house. Is this a dwelling house on Canada lands or a dwelling house of the surveyor?
Mr. Tétreault: It’s the dwelling house of the surveyor. It’s to allow the complaints committee to do a proper investigation, so to do that they have to enter a place of business. It depends upon where the member is practising. Either they would have a place of business or an office, or some would practise in their dwelling.
To properly do the investigation, we have to go and see the records of the surveyor.
Senator McCallum: Most of the surveyors would not be living on Canada lands. They would be living on provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Tétreault: Yes, I would say that most of them do.
Senator McCallum: How does the law apply? How would that work, then, if they are on provincial land?
Mr. Tétreault: All licensed members of Canada Lands Surveyors are under the jurisdiction of the Canada Lands Surveyors Act.
Senator McCallum: I just wanted to make a comment. As a dentist, we have a self-regulatory body. We are self-regulating, and that has not worked in a lot of instances, especially when that body speaks on behalf of both the complainant and the one that is being accused. There is some sort of conflict that happens. I know because I have used this process.
How will that be addressed?
Mr. Tétreault: Well, the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors is a regulatory body, and its mandate is to protect the public interest, not to protect its members. There is no conflict of interest.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Chair: Senator Patterson, I notice that you had your hand up. Took it down. Put it back in. Are you playing tricks with me, or did you have a question here?
Senator Patterson: No, this is riveting testimony, Mr. Chair.
I did have one question: Could the witness kindly give me an idea — I am just curious — about what sort of a situation would arise where a complaint would be made about a land surveyor? I just cannot imagine how often that would occur, and maybe you can tell us if that is a commonplace issue.
Mr. Tétreault: Well, we are fairly fortunate that we don’t get many complaints. I don’t know why, but in the last year we have received three complaints. One was dismissed, one is going to discipline, and I am waiting for the report from the complaints committee, but it seems that last one will go to discipline as well.
In this last case, it is fairly easy to explain that we have a practice review department that reviews the practice of each of our members every three years. In this case, it seems a case where the surveyor did not collaborate, did not cooperate, with the practice review manager, so a complaint was submitted.
We did have a case where it is really, I would say, a mental issue. The surveyor was not responding to the client. It came to the client submitting a complaint. The client was improperly served by the surveyor, was not in communication with the surveyor. In many cases, it is a communication issue, but sometimes there is a complaint and, following the recommendation of the complaints committee, it would go to discipline.
Senator Patterson: Okay. That is very helpful.
Have I got another moment, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: You do.
Senator Patterson: This is undoubtedly not on point. But I cannot miss the chance to ask you, when Nunavut was created in 1999, the exact boundary between Nunavut and N.W.T. had not been surveyed. I am just wondering if you can tell me if that has been fixed up now, if there is now a proper survey of that boundary that has been completed. Forgive me for straying from the focused topic of this meeting, but I cannot help but to ask that question.
The Chair: Mr. Gagnon, do you have a short response?
Mr. Gagnon: The short response is, no, it has not been surveyed. There have been surveys of the boundary in order to provide some clarity for mineral exploration near the boundary so that they would know which jurisdiction would apply. In order to complete the survey and put it into place, there would need to be some type of constitutional amendment to bring it into force, but it has not been done.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: Given we have a bit of time, why a constitutional amendment? Why not just do it?
Mr. Gagnon: You would need to replace the description that is in the Nunavut Act to say that the survey now controls the boundaries. In order to do that, I believe under the Constitution, section 43, there is a process in there. What we can do is, rather than go into something that requires a fairly long explanation, we could reply back in writing.
The Chair: That is a very good idea.
Allow me to ask this question to Mr. Gagnon. When you look at all of the amendments that were made in Bill S-6, the reason we picked on you is that you are the one who has the most number of amendments. You have a significant number of amendments on a number of things. I’m wondering why. When we hear you speak, it seems to be very technical, as it should be. Why were there so many things to clean up in your end of the town? Why were you so special?
Mr. Gagnon: In 1999, when we set this legislation up, we put in place a transfer of responsibility to regulate the profession from the federal government to the profession. We looked at what was in place at that time and did our best to put a process in place that would work.
After 22.5 years, we have seen the evolution of self-regulatory professions across the country, the greater interest of protecting the public interest rather than protecting themselves. It is not about protecting ourselves; it is about protecting the public. We looked at the legislation and looked at what was going on across the country in provincial jurisdictions. We looked at places where we could improve.
What we are actually seeing right now is the ability to have public hearings, which creates more transparency, and the ability to compel witnesses to appear for testimony — it is our own members. We want the ability to have a faster process, so it is primarily that.
The rest of the amendments were very minor amendments to accommodate and to align with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, English and French, tweaking, a lot of amendments touching just one process.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Should First Nations be concerned about the land in regard to land claims?
Mr. Gagnon: No. The proposed amendments are not affecting any land rights.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Mr. Gagnon: They are affecting the practice of a profession to make sure that the profession is looking out for the public interest.
From an Indigenous perspective, if I may add, however, the profession serves the people that live on Canada’s lands, and to a large extent that is the Indigenous population in Canada, in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and First Nation lands in southern Canada. In essence, strengthening the body that regulates the profession to have a more transparent and open process is enhancing the protection of the public, and it will largely benefit the residents of those lands in that sense. It does not affect land rights. It is more about protecting a contract relationship when a surveyor contracts work with a resident of these lands.
We were asked what type of complaints we get. Well, sometimes it is just charging too much for this. I want it resolved or it does not make sense.
It could be, I’m trying to get a survey done but this surveyor is not doing the work. It is taking a long time. They are not responding. That could be the type of complaint that we receive. It has to be investigated by the association. So in that way it is strengthening that relationship.
Senator McCallum: How do they take into effect when there is an industry that wants to come in and do exploratory work there? Does that come into play?
Mr. Gagnon: No, that does not come into play.
Senator McCallum: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Tétreault. This concludes our second panel. For our third panel, we welcome from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Stéphanie Johnson, Executive Director, Legislative Governance Division, and Paula Brand, Director, Species at Risk Policy. Thank you for being with us today. Go ahead, Ms. Johnson.
Stéphanie Johnson, Executive Director, Legislative Governance Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much. My name is Stéphanie Johnson, as you mentioned.
[English]
Today, I will be speaking about two amendments under two acts under the authority of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Specifically, these are amendments that try to make it clear and more transparent what species are protected or subject to trade-related regulations by simplifying the number of schedules or lists that need to be referred to.
The first piece of legislation is the Species at Risk Act which is known at SARA. That law establishes mechanisms for listing species assessed as being at risk which are then provided protection under the act.
The proposed amendments to SARA would address issues related to two transitional schedules, Schedules 2 and 3, which list species that had been assessed as at risk before SARA was enacted 20 years ago but were to be reassessed under SARA. So 20 years later, all species on Schedule 2 and all but four species on Schedule 3 have now been assessed. However, there is no mechanism in SARA to update the schedules, so that creates confusion as to whether or not species are protected under the act.
The key amendments would repeal the now-depleted Schedule 2; there are no species left there. They would also provide the means to update Schedule 3, keep it up-to-date going forward and eventually repeal it when there are no species left on it.
Some amendments would clarify timelines for the preparation of recovery and management documents for species that are listed currently on Schedule 3 by just grouping those timeline-related sections about Schedule 3 species with similar timeline-related sections elsewhere in SARA.
[Translation]
Second, we have proposed amendments for the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. You may be familiar with the name of the act by the acronym WAPPRIITA. This act regulates the trade in wild animals and plants listed in an international convention’s appendices, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which is also often known by the acronym CITES.
The act currently requires the maintenance of a duplicative list in its regulations specifying the animals and plants that are listed in the convention’s appendices for protection purposes. This requirement was important in 1992 when the act was passed, given the lack of widespread internet access at the time, but it is now obsolete.
The amendments would therefore ensure that the convention’s appendices, which are readily available to the public on the convention’s website, in both official languages, would be automatically incorporated and become the official list of species subject to the act, rather than reconfirming the list by regulation.
On a different note, other amendments would clarify that the prohibitions in the act relating to wild animals and plants and the regulation of their international and interprovincial trade are all subject to regulations.
Finally, various French sections of the act would be amended to ensure consistency with other federal conservation laws by replacing “licence” with “permis.”
This concludes my remarks. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I will start the questions. First, let me say thank you very much for being with us.
Why these changes? Why not others? How did you determine what needed to be modernized? How did you define that criteria?
[Translation]
Ms. Johnson: Maybe I’ll ask James to round out the answer, because we actually followed the Treasury Board of Canada criteria for this annual regulatory modernization bill. We checked with the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada to see what could be included, based on the criteria that had been provided; that’s how we came up with the list for our department.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
You may have mentioned this, but remind me about the intention of repealing Schedule 2. My question is intended for Ms. Torck, but either of you can answer. Do these changes help us in our efforts to preserve biodiversity by protecting species at risk and move us to a nature-positive state, which is something near and dear to my heart?
Ms. Johnson: Ms. Brand might add to this after, but the amendments would not change anything. Schedules 2 and 3 date from 20 years ago when they had several species on them, which have been assessed and are now protected under SARA, were deemed not to be at risk or were deemed not to be actual wildlife and thus eligible for assessments.
It is really just a cleanup. It would not change whether species are protected or not.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’d like to thank all the witnesses and experts for their advice. Thank you for helping us to understand the legislation and for sharing your knowledge. I’d ask my colleagues to stay, as we will now go in camera to discuss our report.
(The committee continued in camera.)