Hey All,
This is a short one.
Below is a brief transcript of Michael noting inconsistencies in legislation.
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Morning Sitting
Volume 5, Number 4
Committee of the Whole House
Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2009
(continued)
M. Sather: So there have been a couple of changes to the meaning of “wildlife.” Can the minister give me the current wording now, after this amendment, of the definition of wildlife?
Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for his question. Currently, as the member will likely see if he’s got the existing statute in front of him, the definition of wildlife includes threatened species and endangered species. This amendment, if you go to the next section — I believe it’s section 91.… If you read it together, what we end up with is wording that says:”species at risk.”
So in effect, what we’re doing is substituting the phrase “species at risk” for the terms “threatened species” and “endangered species.” In other words, “species at risk” incorporates those other two subsets, but it’s just different terminology.
Section 90 approved.
On section 91.
M. Sather: Well, there have been some interesting twists and turns here with these various acts on the meaning of wildlife. I could go into that in more detail, but in the interests of time, I’m just curious about how we landed at the definition for wildlife and if that’s the definition that the government really wanted to land at. In the vernacular, it’s kind of a hokey description.
The one that, it seems to me, we should have landed at is in Bill 29, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, which says that “‘wildlife’ means (a) vertebrates that are mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians and are prescribed as wildlife under the Wildlife Act, (b) fish…(c) invertebrates or plants listed by the minister as endangered, threatened or vulnerable species….” That seems to be a very sound, biological definition of wildlife and a meaningful one.
Did the government not want to…? Is there some reason why it didn’t want to adopt that meaning, or what happened there?
Hon. B. Penner: Now that we’ve passed section 90 of Bill 13, I’m told that section 91 logically follows because the provision that’s been changed now, by virtue of section 90 passing, means we no longer need whatever is referred to in section 91.
The policy is not changing. The definition in the Wildlife Act, as I mentioned…. This is all about the term “species at risk,” as opposed to the terms “threatened species” or “endangered species.” The other definitions of “wildlife” remain the same. It’s about using the phrase “species at risk,” as opposed to the other.
M. Sather: So the definition that I read out is under the Environmental Management Act, so does this mean, then, that we have…? This is an enacted bill, as I understand it — Bill 29 in 2008, Environmental Statutes Amendment Act. Does that mean that we have a different definition of “wildlife” under the Environmental Management Act than we now have under the Wildlife Act?
The Chair: Would the member repeat the question, please.
M. Sather: We’ve made reference to the Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act of 2008, which under section 4 has a definition of “wildlife” which I think is a sound definition for “wildlife.” But the definition for “wildlife” under the Wildlife Act is quite different, as it now stands. So does that not mean, then, that we have two different definitions of “wildlife” under two different acts?
Hon. B. Penner: The short answer, I’m advised, is no, but there was a change that was inadvertent last year in the Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, which we’re addressing here today.
Sections 91 to 93 inclusive approved.
