[Translation]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 4, 1998
• 1541
[Translation]
The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon everyone.
[English]
Welcome to this meeting.
[Translation]
Resuming consideration of Bill C-32,—
[English]
In addition to yesterday's witnesses, we have someone by the name of Mr. Mongrain here as legal counsel. Welcome to the committee.
We are also glad to see Paul Forseth back in a committee seat. He has come back to grace us with his presence and to add to the collective knowledge of the committee.
We also welcome for the first time Mr. Myers, who we hope to see often and regularly, again to have the benefit of his experience and knowledge.
There are two brief points I would like to make. First, you will recall that during yesterday's discussion, Madam Kraft Sloan and Mr. Lerer explored quite at length the question of finding of toxicity and the plans for virtual elimination. It was quite an interesting exchange of some significance, of course, and I am sure the departmental officials have taken it back to their department for further reflection, if you like. The whole purpose for reminding departmental officials of that exchange yesterday is that I'm told by Madam Kraft Sloan that there will eventually be an amendment from her to do something that, in her mind, would rectify the situation. We would therefore certainly appreciate that the department is ready to give it their thorough and necessary treatment, as I'm sure they are for every amendment.
Secondly, the clerk has supplied us all with the collection of amendments. A package is now in the hands of every member, and it consists of 200-plus amendments. If we were to devote to each amendment, let us say, ten minutes, 2,000 minutes roughly boil down to some 35 to 40 hours. That is quite a considerable amount of time in terms of parliamentary sittings. It certainly poses a problem unless we do two things. First, we would impose on ourselves a certain degree of discipline in presenting each amendment—and I would like at this point to have the complete attention of colleagues and members around the table.
• 1545
First, we should impose on ourselves a certain degree
of discipline in presenting the amendments. If we do
so, as we do in the House of Commons with the Standing
Orders, then the presentation of each amendment could
more or less take one minute. Sometimes it will be
possible; sometimes it will not. Of course, the chair
is known for his immense patience and understanding.
By and large, however, it would be desirable to do it
in a manner that reflects our discipline in the House
of Commons. In other words, a lot of things can be
said in one minute.
What will follow, of course, will be questions for clarification. Here again it would be helpful if members would ask questions that are short, and if the answers would be possibly short as well. All of this would aim at allocation of time for each amendment that would be anywhere between five and ten minutes, depending on the complexity of the amendment, of course. If we do that, we might get out of this exercise by the end of the month, if we are also prepared to sit long hours the weeks of November 16 and 23.
So these are the two preconditions I am putting forward to members for their consideration. This week, we will start very slowly so that nobody is taken by surprise, particularly those who are going through this incredible exercise for the first time. But when we come back the week of November 16, we will accelerate the pace and prolong the hours, of course. The reason for that is, first of all, that this bill has to go to the Senate for examination there as well. Also, the more time we devote to C-32 in addition to the already lengthy time we have devoted to it, the less we can devote to examining other issues.
In recent weeks, there have been a number of issues raised that concern the environment and sustainable development—most recently, the one that links the use of pesticides to cancer—and other issues that the members raised when we discussed the long-term plan. We will not be able to tackle other issues until we are finished with this exercise, so I'm calling on the goodwill of members around the table to keep in mind the desirability of handling each amendment in the shortest possible time, without, however, sacrificing clarity or precision in the presentation of the amendments or comments that will be made thereon.
Having made this long sermon on the mount, I'd better now start with the fact that yesterday we had discussed the preamble. It was an extremely helpful examination given the points that were made, with a conclusion to which we all agreed. We will revisit the preamble for amendments once we have completed the clause-by-clause examination so that it will be re-examined with a full knowledge of what the bill contains.
I will ask whether anyone wants to make a general comment, and then we can quietly and slowly start our work. Of course, if there are members who wish to indicate that they want to stand a clause for technical or other reasons, I think we can do that at the beginning, for this week at least. The chair will become a little bit nervous if we do that as a frequent practice, of course, but if it is essential that a clause be stood, then we will do it in order to accommodate members as much as possible.
With that in mind, I turn it over to Mr. Forseth. Welcome again.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you. It's good to be here.
• 1550
I am looking at this particular package of amendments,
and I notice that certainly there are no Reform
amendments in here yet. I don't see any Conservative
amendments either. I have another piece of paper in
front of me that lists 18 Reform amendments. I
believe they've been submitted, but I understand there
is also a cut-off date of November 16. I'd therefore
like to serve notice that these amendments are in
process, yet I don't see them here. Some of them touch
on subclause 2(1), and I see that there is also an
amendment to the preamble and others throughout.
Perhaps we need to canvas where some of the other
parties are, because all I see are Bloc, NDP, and
Liberal amendments.
So it's directly germane to the pace you want to carry on. Perhaps you could also address this cut-off date, because we've been advised that it's November 16.
The Chairman: Yes, yesterday we discussed it. The ideal cut-off date was November 2, but we also agreed that if there were additional amendments that needed to be brought forward, the sooner they were brought forward the better, possibly by November 16 at the latest.
As to the bundle of amendments by party, the clerk is in a position to answer that.
The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that a number of requests for drafting have been received from members of the Reform Party. As of now, however, we have yet to receive the formal, drafted amendments. Therefore, none are included in this package that we distributed to you today.
The Chairman: Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I believe we have three amendments that have been submitted and that we will likely be reviewing today, as I understand it. The rest of our approximate number of amendments are already in the possession of legal counsel, and I suspect they will be done in plenty of time for when we revisit the issue next week. That's where our amendments are. They will be reviewed, so I think we're cool.
The Chairman: So they are in the system. Do you know where they are?
The Clerk: No.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth, I'm told the amendments your party requested have been drafted and have been sent back to you for approval. Once you approve them, sign them, and give them to the clerk, then they are officially received.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.
The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we had submitted three amendments from my office. Just one has been handed out. I have the two others.
The Chairman: Well, then, as Chairman Mao used to say in his lighter moments, “A long journey begins with a small step.” We move now— yes, Madame Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I notice that one of our colleagues who is not officially a member of the committee has a number of amendments. Under normal circumstances, we need unanimous consent for him to table them. I would like to put forward a motion that we have that unanimous consent from the committee.
The Chairman: Well, it's a very thoughtful gesture, and I see many members nodding. The clerk informs me that the normal procedure would be that a permanent member of the committee would move them on behalf of the member, and the member would then be invited to explain it.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: My understanding is that an associate member can in fact move his or her own amendments with unanimous consent of the committee.
The Chairman: And if that member is not an associate member?
• 1555
Ms. Paddy Torsney: My understanding is that it's fine. I don't think you have to be an associate member. I think we checked with the table officers.
The Chairman: All right. If there is unanimous consent, then the committee is the master of its own rules, of course. But there has to be unanimous consent. That's what the clerk, who is in charge of the regulations, understandably makes as a necessary requirement.
Therefore, is there unanimous consent that a non-official member of the committee be permitted to move his or her motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed unanimously.
(On clause 2—Duties of the Government of Canada)
The Chairman: We now start with the amendments.
The amendment that is first in your collection is amendment L-1, which deals with the regulatory duties. I've been asked to stand it, and therefore this amendment will not be proposed, as I would like to do. I will do it when I am given an indication that it is timely, at which point I will relinquish the chair and ask a vice-chair to take my place so that I can make a case for this particular amendment as a member of the committee.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
The Chairman: We will then move on to the next amendment, amendment NDP-1, reference 1325, in the name of Mr. Laliberte, Churchill River, and I invite Mr. Laliberte to present his amendment.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Chair, this issue also deals with the same amendment you are holding until later. Would it be better to discuss this issue at the same time, when you bring yours forward?
The Chairman: If that is your wish, Mr. Laliberte, it is only fair that we do it that way.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: But before we move on, could I ask for clarification while we have members of the department here—
The Chairman: They will always be here, day and night.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, this could take a long time for what they have to interpret.
I would like to get their interpretation of administrative duties, what the purpose of this section is—kind of an overview.
The Chairman: Could we have a brief answer as to what administrative duties implies as a practice?
Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Environment Canada): They are duties that are imposed on the Government of Canada in the administration of this legislation. They are legally enforceable duties.
The Chairman: And they usually precede every bill. Do they exist in almost every bill?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: As a matter of fact, sir, to my knowledge, this is the only piece of legislation that has a clause like this.
The Chairman: Is that so?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes.
The Chairman: Could you explain to us why it was necessary?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: I do not know. I can only point out that this similar clause appears in the CEPA that was passed in 1988.
The Chairman: Does that answer your question?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: The other question is, are the duties specific to the environment minister?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: No, they are duties that are imposed on the Government of Canada in the administration of the legislation—
The Chairman: As specified in subclause 2(1).
Mr. Duncan Cameron: —as specified in subclause 2(1).
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.
• 1600
The Chairman: So your question, Mr. Laliberte, is to stand amendment 1325?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.
The Chairman: Fine.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
The Chairman: We will then move on to the next amendment, 1216, in the name of the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have read the other amendments. I have also read the text of clause 2 of the bill. The other amendments focus on measures, whereas yours focuses on the end results. I would just like to say that I consider your amendment to be better than ours. Therefore, when the time comes, I will endorse it.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Do we need permission of the committee to withdraw it? The motion has not been moved, Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
This means that we can move on to the following amendment,
[English]
reference 1326. Sorry, we have a Progressive Conservative amendment that precedes this. It is numbered 1495. It seems to be slightly different from the Bloc Québécois'.
Mr. Herron, would you like to move it and explain it, or would you like to explain it first before moving it?
Mr. John Herron: I'd like to explain it. Essentially, we're taking out “cost effective” because it refers to the Government of Canada. I believe it is mentioned essentially four times in this section. Obviously, we would believe all actions taken by the government would be done in a cost-effective manner, and we don't think it adds anything to the legislation. Finally, “cost-effectiveness” also conflicts with the concept of the precautionary principle mentioned in the preamble of the bill. So we would like to table an amendment to strike out those two words.
The Chairman: And you so move?
Mr. John Herron: I so move.
The Chairman: The amendment has been moved, first of all, to replace the text in the proposed bill on line 6 on page 3, with “take preventive and reme-”; in other words, by deleting “cost-effective”. Secondly, on line 15, it is to replace that— no that is on page 4, so we are not that far.
Mr. John Herron: Correct.
The Chairman: So we are stopping at the first part of your amendment.
Are there any questions on the amendment by Mr. Herron? Madam Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Since Mr. Herron is the proposer, he speaks first, I assume.
The Chairman: He has already spoken.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's it. Is there no clarification?
The Chairman: You can ask for clarification.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's not really clarification.
The Chairman: Yes, Madam Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay, I have the floor. It's my understanding, Mr. Herron, with regard to the word “cost”, that a colleague on this side of the table requested assistance with a further definition of that word yesterday. We are awaiting clarification from the department, unless the department officials have come forward today with that. So I wonder if you could— may I ask then, do you recall— I'm not sure because it was in my absence, so I was very interested in hearing—
Perhaps, Joe, you can tell me the person. Is the person who was going to respond here?
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): No.
The Chairman: Madam Torsney.
• 1605
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering, since there are a number of amendments to (a), and some have been stood down and some are still in the loop, if we could just move on to (b) for now. With Mr. Herron's acceptance, we can go to (b).
The Chairman: That is a possibility, but we'll hear Mr. de Savoye now.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I intend to vote against this amendment for two reasons, the first being that the French and English versions are not consistent. The notion of cost does not appear in the French version.
Secondly, whether or not the notion of cost is included, the amendment still focuses on measures. Let me reiterate what I appreciate about your amendment, namely the fact that it focuses on the end results. Different measures can be taken to achieve results, but the results are ultimately what matters.
Therefore, I intend to vote against this amendment and support yours.
[English]
The Chairman: This is based on the assumption that the amendment L-1 would replace (a) entirely, and I don't know if that will be the case.
Mr. Charbonneau, did you raise your hand?
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
[Translation]
I see nothing contradictory between Mr. Caccia's amendment which reflects a general position and that of Mr. Herron. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. Mr. Caccia simply wants to place the government in a much clearer position. In my view, the two are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, I agree with you that Mr. Herron is correct. The French version, which does not include the notion of “cost-effective”, clearly reflects what Mr. Herron is saying. Mr. Herron is trying to find a way to convey “prendre les mesures préventives et correctives” as contained in the French version.
Because I agree fully with what Mr. Caccia is proposing, I submit to you that there is no contradiction. I would have liked to hear Mr. Caccia explain his position to us, but I don't see any contradiction between the two amendments.
[English]
The Chairman: These are two separate items. Therefore, the motion by the member for Fundy—Royal, Mr. Herron, deals exclusively with the question of cost-effectiveness—period. It has to be dealt with on that narrow band.
Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: If this amendment is accepted, is it possible that when we go back to review your amendment, your amendment will supersede the amended—
The Chairman: No, it would be a separate amendment. It would not have anything to do with the present one.
Mr. John Herron: Okay.
The Chairman: It is, in scope, a completely different fish, so to say.
Mr. Charbonneau has said he doesn't want to be recognized. So who is the chair around here?
Thank you.
Madame Kraft Sloan.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to clarify something for me. According to what I just heard, the proposed amendment would replace paragraph 2(1)a), and become the new paragraph a), with the subsequent paragraph being re-numbered b), c), d) and so forth.
I respectfully suggest that we begin with your amendment so as to shed some light on the subject.
The Chairman: Yes, but as I've been saying for the past ten minutes, I have been asked to wait until tomorrow to discuss my amendment. However, there is nothing stopping us from considering paragraphs 2(1)a), b), c), d) and so on.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I understand.
[English]
The Chairman: All right?
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have to agree, if we decide to pass your amendment, your amendment is complementary, and I would support Mr. Herron's amendment.
The Chairman: That's fine.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It would seem to me if we decided not to accept Mr. Herron's amendment, then we'd be in a bit of a fix, because we're going to produce an amendment in French to put in the words that are left out in French. So I would suggest it would be far simpler to accept Mr. Herron's amendment and leave the French version as it stands.
• 1610
The Chairman: Well, are you ready for the question? Are there any further questions? If not, are you ready for the question on Mr. Herron's amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the French version now going to coincide with the conservative version—I mean the ultra-conservative version we've just accepted, “cost-effective”?
The Chairman: Well, the comments have been made on bringing in line the two versions.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I see. The French version will now be cost-effective as well.
The Chairman: And if the original text was the English one, then of course the French has to be brought in line. However, if the process was the reverse, that the French text was written first, then the English text would have to be brought in line with the French. That is a matter we have not yet fully understood in preceding meetings when Mr. Charbonneau raised this question more than once. In that respect, we have to ask Mr. Lerer to clarify this point. If he can't do it today, he could do it another day. Or Mr. Cameron could do it.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: In fact, sir, it's neither English translated into French nor French translated into English.
The Chairman: Would it be in Arabic?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Both are drafted at the same time by drafters in their own language, and both the French and the English versions stand as the legal text. So it's not a case of a translation.
The Chairman: But, Mr. Cameron, you heard various interventions, and I have to go back to Mr. Charbonneau who made a comment on the inequality of the two versions. Did you take that into account?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes, and I inquired of the drafters, and the explanation I was provided was that the French term “efficientes” connotes the same meaning as cost-effective.
The Chairman: But, Mr. Cameron, you heard very strong, clear, lucid, convincing, almost final interventions on this subject. I wonder whether this could perhaps be put on record again for the benefit of the translators.
Mr. Charbonneau, I need your help.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I don't know if I'm going to the much help or not. In my opinion, it's not the same thing. However, regardless of what the drafters of the bill say, since I'm the one who has vote, I have the final say on the matter.
[English]
The Chairman: And anyone who has even an elementary understanding of French, as in my case, can see there is a difference between the two versions. It does not require a Ph.D. in French literature.
So let's leave it for the time being in the hope that some kind of correction can take place, and perhaps we will revisit this at the end, or perhaps you may, at a certain point in the coming week, at 4 a.m. perhaps, bring it up again.
The clerk advises me that the next amendment is again in the name of Mr. Herron, reference 1491.
Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: My comment evolves from the fact that the precautionary principle was included in the preamble of the legislation to deal with the reality that science is not always proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think in order to be consistent with the preamble's intent, this particular addition would augment this section.
• 1615
The Chairman: Mr. Herron, are you sure that your amendment is to be inserted on line 8 of page 3, as it says in the text you sent us? We cannot make sense of it in that particular location.
Mr. John Herron: It should be (a).
The Chairman: But where do you want the amendment to be inserted? If it's “restore the environment;”, then why do you have (a.1) there?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, given that you have it in your amendment, I'd like to rescind this amendment. Your version actually includes my intent. We would happily defer to your amendment.
The Chairman: You did not actually move this amendment yet.
Mr. John Herron: No.
The Chairman: That's fine. So there's no requirement to withdraw it. Thank you.
I can assure the members of the committee that it will be much easier tomorrow.
We now move to Mr. Laliberte. This one is reference number 1326, NDP-2. Would you like to present your amendment?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll present the amendment as written. You will find that the amendment is to delete the words “endeavour to”. This terminology seems to diminish the role of the government in terms of our interpretation or knowledge of administrative duties. We heard the Minister of the Environment continually saying to us that this government will achieve the highest standards. Here's an opportunity for the government to strengthen the language. Take “endeavour to” out and state and accept the responsibility and accountability to protect our environment and the health of this country.
The Chairman: Thank you. Do you so move this?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move this.
The Chairman: It is so moved.
Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think this amendment should be stood down. By cutting out “endeavour to”, it means we force the government to act. There might be some circumstances whereby they can't act. This is why “endeavour to” is good. It's just an attempt to try their best.
The Chairman: All right. Is there anything else? Yes, Madam Torsney and Mr. de Savoye.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just wondered if the member realized that this clause actually refers not just to provincial, federal, and aboriginal governments, but also actually international governments. So while the Canadian government always tries to act in cooperation with their colleagues internationally, it can't necessarily force anybody to take our side.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The fact is that the various levels of government share responsibility for the environment and that constitutionally, the federal government could be at fault if it were to act unilaterally.
Consequently, "endeavour to" is not strong enough; under the circumstances, action is required. In my view, "endeavour to" opens the door to a variety of interpretations and excuses that could be given not only when special cases arise, but unfortunately, on a regular basis.
Therefore, I cannot support the Conservative Party amendment since we are proposing something similar, undoubtedly because of similar concerns.
[English]
The Chairman: That's fair enough. Thank you.
Madam Torsney, may I refer you to the definition of “government” on page 8 in light of what you just said?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I actually have realized that.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.
• 1620
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): If we take out the words “endeavour to”, which means to make the best efforts or try, and say “act in cooperation”, that would open the door to the Mike Harrises of the world to challenge our regulations by saying they weren't passed with the cooperation of the provinces of Ontario or Alberta. I don't want to give the provincial governments any more leverage than they already have. So I would vote against the proposal.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam Kraft Sloan, please.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, you took my point, and Mr. Knutson took my other point. Thank you.
The Chairman: Are there any further interventions? Are you ready for the question?
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: On a point of order, what happened to amendment NDP-1?
The Chairman: We stood it earlier, Mr. Lincoln.
Now we come to the next one.
[Translation]
I take it your amendment is similar, Mr. de Savoye?
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Unfortunately, I expect it to suffer the same fate. That's regrettable. I hope to encounter more favourable circumstances at another time.
[English]
The Chairman: That's one of the most historic statements made in this room for a long time.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That's high praise indeed, coming from you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: We now come to the amendment under reference number 1494, which is in the name of Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very simple. I think the duty of the government is to establish nationally consistent standards of environmental quality. This is its intent.
The Chairman: This is what?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The intent is to make it a clear duty of the government.
The Chairman: All right.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, I'm wondering in fact if there might be an opportunity to stand this one down for the time being.
The Chairman: It has not been moved yet, so that's a fairly simple process. It can be stood. Is that the wish of the committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
The Chairman: Thank you.
Now we move to the next amendment, which is under reference number 1327. It's in the name of Mr. Laliberte.
The clerk advises me that there's one preceding it. I'm sorry, Mr. Laliberte, there's an amendment by Mr. Herron. It's reference number 1501A.
Yes, Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, I think you'll find that it has essentially the same intent as Mr. Lincoln's amendment, and his would have precedence over mine.
The Chairman: In our order, yes, it has precedence.
Mr. John Herron: That's fine.
The Chairman: That's fine with you?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Lincoln's is fine. It has the same objective.
The Chairman: You're happy with this as it is. Thank you.
Then we can go back to Mr. Laliberte and amendment 1327, please.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, this is paragraph 2(1)(g). You'll find that you have this little word “endeavour” creeping in here again, and I'd like to swat it away. So to clarify this intent again, we would say that:
would replace
Several witnesses had pointed the issue out to us that this bill should not be a residual bill of devolving responsibility or allowing excuses by the government for reasons unknown. It should clarify that “endeavour” should not be stated at all. It should read:
The Chairman: Do you so move this?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move this.
The Chairman: If I remember correctly, this was an amendment suggested by the West Coast Environmental Law Association.
Madam Torsney.
• 1625
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if I could get a clarification. Say we stood down amendment L-2. This one is substantially the same, with the exception of “the highest”. Mr. Laliberte seemed to have proposed the amendment, in his explanation, more closely to L-2, and I wondered if there might be an opportunity to stand them both down together until a later time.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe we stood down—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: We stood down L-2.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: —L-2 because of the words “endeavour to”. This one says “establish the highest national standards”. I think the intent is a lot stronger, as you were saying, so I'd like to leave it on.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.
The Chairman: All right.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: First of all, I'd like to make an observation along the lines of something I said earlier about national standards. If the environment is viewed as a responsibility to be shared between two levels of government, such standards are not always indicated. Accordingly, the word “endeavour to” seems appropriate to me here.
This being said, this amendment touches on two notions. It also refers to “the highest” standards. I'd like to come back to that later.
I would have preferred to vote on these two amendments separately, to determine whether or not want to include the word “endeavour to”, and also to see if we want to include “the highest” standards. However, the decision rests with you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We can only vote on one amendment at a time. Right now, Mr. Laliberte's motion is on the table. That's how it is. He moved this motion and that's what we must vote on.
[English]
Are there other interventions, viewpoints, perceptions, or nuances?
We'll go to Ms. Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Am I correct in understanding, Mr. Chairman, that “establish” comes after the word “endeavour”? Does it then leave in the word “endeavour” for the purposes of this amendment?
The Chairman: The word “endeavour” is dropped.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, the word is dropped, as you see.
The Chairman: The word “endeavour” is gone.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: You've dropped the word.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: The word is dropped. After the (g), it starts with “establish”.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: I thought this was an inclusion rather than a deletion.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: No.
The Chairman: There's the deletion of “endeavour” and the insertion of “the highest”.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: I see.
The Chairman: I will call the question.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chairman: Would you like to present your amendment, Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to move that we insert in paragraph 2(1)(i) the words “including traditional aboriginal knowledge”. This speaks for itself. It was a request very clearly of the aboriginal people. I subscribe to it very strongly. That's why I suggested it.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions?
Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if Mr. Lincoln would consider a friendly amendment. It would be to move the words of the amendment and insert them between the words “knowledge” and “science”. You would deal with all the knowledge issues first, and then you would move to science and technology. I think it might read—
The Chairman: All right. This is a friendly suggestion to insert “aboriginal knowledge” right after the word “knowledge” and before the word “science”.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Are all suggestions friendly?
Voices: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: Is that acceptable, Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln accepts.
Are there any further questions or comments? I will call the question.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chairman: Thank you. Open the bottle of champagne.
Now we come to amendment NDP-4. Madam Kraft Sloan.
• 1630
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, there's a reversal of order here.
The Chairman: Is there? Do you have one?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. There is a Liberal amendment to paragraph (j), and there's a Bloc one. It should be BQ-3, L-4, and then NDP-4.
The Chairman: You mean 1455 is to come before 1328?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: They have to do with the same clause, do they not?
The Chairman: I'm asking you about the reference number at the top left, 1455. Is that the one you're referring to?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, it should be 1223, 1455, and then 1328, all to the same clause.
The Chairman: Could you please repeat which one you are referring to as coming before 1328?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I believe it's 1223, followed by 1455, and then 1328, Mr. Chair. It was my understanding that we were going alphabetically, according to party, when we were dealing with the same clause—B, L, N.
The Chairman: The arrangement has been made now to go as they were received and not by party affiliation. At this stage I would go by—
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, I think the rules really do bind us to go according to the numbers, according to how they're received. When we get to a clause, though, if we can make common sense out of the way they're worded, we might find unanimous consent to reorder the amendments to a particular clause. We can then ignore the basic rule, but we're going to have do that piece by piece.
The Chairman: Yes, thank you.
I think one amendment compared to the other is slightly more comprehensive, namely the amendment Mr. Laliberte ended with the word “and other threats”. It tries to encompass a wider scope, so to speak, so perhaps in terms of proceeding cautiously, I would put forward for discussion the amendment that is narrower in scope and then the one that is broader in scope. I would therefore give precedence to amendment 1455, followed by amendment 1328, which would amend this amendment.
Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: I don't want to necessarily complicate things, but my amendment had that same initiative—amendment 1501, which I rescinded. I actually attacked the “endeavour” word in one amendment that we did not address, so I'd like to have amendment 1501 applied to paragraph (j) as well.
The Chairman: So you're now back to 1501.
Mr. John Herron: Yes, 1501.
The Chairman: Part (b)?
Mr. John Herron: Part (b).
The Chairman: Well, that is the narrowest of the three. We will therefore deal with it first, and then go to Mr. Lincoln's, followed by Mr. Laliberte's—and I apologize for this delay.
We therefore have to now examine the amendment PC-3, reference number 1501, item (b).
• 1635
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Chair, are we proceeding out of number order by unanimous consent on this particular clause?
The Chairman: The chair has improvised the rule, whereby since we have three amendments dealing with the same clause and each of different breadth and scope, we will proceed with the one that has the narrowest scope, followed by the other two as the scope broadens.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Don't we have four amendments, Mr. Chairman? The Bloc Québécois amendment is the narrowest, I would suggest.
The Chairman: It's the narrowest of them all? Oh, yes.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's the same as the PC amendment anyway.
The Chairman: It's the same. You're right, it's a question of a toss between the two. Then I will take the one with the lowest number.
This is very arbitrary. I am really at a loss here as to what would be the fair selection between two amendments that are exactly the same, but since B comes before P in the alphabet, we will go for the Bloc Québécois amendment first.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You're very astute, Mr. Chairman. You understand that the point here is to ensure that the government not only makes an effort, but that it acts as well. In any case, taking action implies that every possible effort is being made. We understand that it would be redundant to say "endeavour to" and that this could even be used as an excuse. Therefore, we should strike the words "endeavour to" and move on to the other two amendments, which are slightly more substantial.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
As I recall, this amendment was also suggested by the West Coast Environmental Law Association.
Are there any questions? It is a fairly self-explanatory, simple, straightforward amendment, reference 1223, amendment BQ-3:
In other words, you would be deleting the word “endeavour”, which is the same as amendment PC-3, but we have it moved by Monsieur de Savoye.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: Now we come to the next amendment, amendment L-4, which is broader in scope, by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: My amendment changes the wording that says “to protect the environment, including its biological diversity”. I think “biological diversity” can stand by itself. It's the broadest of all.
So it would say “protect the environment, human health”, which is an inclusion, “and biological diversity”, which has been explained many times and the word is accepted and known, and including “from the use and release of toxic substances”, and we add in “and products of biotechnology”.
The Chairman: Are you ready to move it?
So moved. Are there any questions or comments?
Madame Hébert.
Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I'd like to point out two technical points here. First, if you look at the definition of environment, it of course is broad enough to encompass human health and biodiversity. If you start setting them out separately here, it might lead to some confusion. Also, the bill doesn't refer to products of biotechnology; it refers to living organisms. This may be changed down the line—this is clause 106—but I want to draw to the attention of the members that the bill in its current form doesn't refer to products of biotechnology.
• 1640
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: First of all, you agree that there is a separate definition for “biological diversity” in the definitions, right?
Ms. Monique Hebert: Yes.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: There is a separate one for “environment”.
Ms. Monique Hebert: Yes.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't see where it says, for instance, “environment” includes all organic and interacting natural systems. With due respect, I don't see what conflict there is to separate human health from the environment, or to put the accent on it, and to include also a reference to biological diversity, which is already defined anyway separately in the text.
Ms. Monique Hebert: I don't disagree with you, but it seems to me that the environment is far broader and by definition includes biodiversity in the way it is stated right now.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If we did, why then in the definition of environment in the text doesn't anything get included? Biological diversity is defined separately in the text, so there must have been a reason. Biological diversity is defined separately from the environment.
The Chairman: Mr. Moffatt, please.
Mr. John Moffatt (Consultant, RFI, Resource Futures International): I'm going to respectfully disagree with my colleague and agree with Mr. Lincoln.
I think biological diversity refers to the variability among living organisms, as it's defined, which is a different concept from “components of”, which is what the environment describes. It's a relationship among those components of the environment that are important in the concept of biological diversity. So I see them as being very different, and I don't see a contradiction or a problem with separating them.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Next are Madame Carroll, Madame Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Lerer.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Could I ask you as well to give me your definition of “products of biotechnology”?
Mr. John Moffatt: It's not defined in the bill.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: No, I know that.
The Chairman: All right, we'll not go into that.
Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think if we go to the title of the bill, it talks about pollution prevention, protection of the environment and human health. So this just reinforces Mr. Lincoln's statement here, and I think it's useful to have this included.
The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.
Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to the debate around definitions, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Moffatt are correct: there is no conflict.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, in order to check some various technicalities about products of biotechnology, I'd like to ask for the clause to stand until at least tomorrow, if that's possible.
The Chairman: All right. Do we have the consent of the committee to stand this particular amendment? Mr. Lincoln would like to check the terminology or the definition of “products of biotechnology”.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
The Chairman: Then, Mr. Laliberte, I think it would be wise for you to stand yours also, because they are so close to one another that they are intimately related in their destiny.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I agree.
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Chair, before we leave that, I want to ask Mr. Lincoln, additional to that— he talks about “from the use and release”. That is an additional concept to what is in the original bill.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Right.
Mr. Paul Forseth: That expands the bill quite considerably, so maybe you can talk a little bit about that.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think it speaks for itself.
What we want to do is cover toxic substances and products that could be harmful to the environment, such as products of biotechnology that could be harmful to the environment, why they are being processed, why they are being—in other words, pesticides that are being used. For example, it can be just as toxic and bad for human beings before they are released. You don't have to wait for them to be released into the environment. If you have them in your house without releasing them—
• 1645
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Lincoln, you recall testimony from researchers who talked about closed systems, which really cut off our ability to expand the boundaries of knowledge. If certain enterprises are prohibited from ever even dealing with these substances in a very careful, controlled way in order to expand knowledge, it cuts off our research.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I know, but what we are saying is the intent is to protect the environment. If their use is safe, then that's fine. There's no problem.
We're just saying that, after all, the basis of this law is pollution prevention plans and the virtual elimination of toxic substances. So what we are saying is if the use of a substance is completely safe, the environment is automatically protected anyway. But if by any chance there's an unsafe use, an unsafe release— I mean, if tomorrow there is a release that is a zero discharge, this act won't apply here.
Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand your concept of use is perhaps in the practical application, but I'm talking about very toxic substances, where there is no question about their dangerousness. But within a closed system, where there is scientific research in the use of these elements to create perhaps other safe products, a blanket prohibition to meddle with these substances would preclude all kinds of scientific research.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you take any argument to the extreme, as you do, then I could argue the same way about release. Obviously we're just talking about a normal, safe practice of industry. This doesn't close up industry. If tomorrow you are using different substances for research, the same argument could be applied to release. So then you don't put release in there because there might be this one time when—
This is not the intention at all. What we are trying to do is say pollution has to be prevented at source. We want to protect the environment, and use and release are almost controverted.
Mr. Paul Forseth: I guess I'm finding that particular exception, and I note it for the government's side to deal with. There you are.
The Chairman: That was a very useful and interesting exchange. We move on now to (k), on the same page, to the amendment by Mr. Laliberte, 1329. It is another amendment, if I understand it correctly, to delete the words “endeavour to”.
Mr. Laliberte, would you like to introduce it?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I will introduce it.
It's deleting “endeavour to” and calling on the government to act expeditiously. This is a debate we've had for the last hour, just about, trying to remove “endeavour” and get the government to pull up its socks and get to work.
The Chairman: Do you so move?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I do move.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Herron?
Mr. John Herron: I'd like to support my honourable colleague in that amendment. I think Ms. Kraft Sloan spoke to this issue just the other day in committee about the length of time it takes the government to actually act. By contrast, leaving “endeavour” in means they could act expeditiously, or they could just sit on their hands for a long time.
So this is something that is very prudent and progressive for us to add.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I agree, of course, with my two colleagues.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to ask our expert from Justice what happens if we take out the word “endeavour”.
• 1650
Mr. Duncan Cameron: There are currently something in the neighbourhood of 23,000 existing substances on the domestic substances list. Removing the concept of “endeavour” would make it a duty imposed on the Government of Canada to assess these substances in an expeditious manner. I would be concerned that a court might interpret “expeditious” to mean “immediately”, and with the current resources it's very difficult to assess that many substances immediately. So I would see that as being problematic.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Cameron, you contend that if we remove the word “endeavour to”, we would be creating a duty or obligation. Does this mean then that if we don't strike these words, there is no duty or obligation? And if that is the case, why is this clause included in the section entitled
[English]
administrative duties? Is it or isn't it a duty?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: It clearly is a duty, and we find that from the chapeau that, in the administration of this act, the government shall do the following things. The concern is that if you remove “endeavour to act expeditiously” and simply say “act expeditiously”, that would mean act immediately, and there are simply too many substances on the domestic substances list to determine toxicity immediately.
The Chairman: Is that the interpretation en français, which says avec diligence? That is quite different from “expeditiously”? Diligence does not imply speed. So how do we reconcile the two approaches?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Precisely.
[English]
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Once again I can simply say that when the English and French versions are drafted, they are drafted independently but they follow the same instructions.
The Chairman: Which will prevail?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's impossible to say which would prevail. It would depend on—
The Chairman: So in francophone Canada we will be diligent and in anglophone Canada we will be expeditious.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: If there is any ambiguity or difference or irreconcilability between the two, the court would look at it and try to determine what the intent of Parliament was.
The Chairman: Why don't we do it now?
Monsieur de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Rather than expedite this issue, could we do it diligently? Is there a difference?
When we want to expedite something, we want to get rid of it fast, to speed it up. When we act with diligence, we take the time to do things properly. That's the difference, and I would rather apply the French version on such an issue than the English one, if you'll allow me.
The Chairman: Then what Mr. de Savoye is telling us is that paragraph 2(1)(k), in the English version, should have the word “diligently” instead of “expeditiously”.
Mr. Cameron, what would be your comment on that?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: My comment earlier was aimed at the words “endeavour to”, and so I don't have a comment on changing “expeditiously” to “diligent”.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Gar Knutson: We were just told how many substances there are. If you want to put in “diligently”, to act with care, fine, but it should also be expeditious. They should do it quickly. Human health is at stake.
The Chairman: Anyway, what we have before us on the table for discussion is only Mr. Laliberte's amendment. Are there any further questions? We have to take a vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Obviously, when the time comes for me to vote on this amendment, I will keep the French version in mind and assume that it is consistent with the English version.
[English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Could we have a subamendment then?
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I have a suggestion. I agree with Mr. Knutson that “expeditious” is important. This was the thrust of previous work, to try to speed up the listing of substances. So maybe if that will help, we'll just put the two words in there so that the French version will be a happy one, as will the English version.
The Chairman: Is that a subamendment?
If you have a subamendment to propose, please put it in writing.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have two questions. We're dealing with amendment NDP-5, but I think amendment BQ-4 goes before amendment NDP-5 because we're doing them in alphabetical order.
A voice: There is also amendment PC-3, which is the same thing.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay, but then I have a question. Are we voting in English or in French? I'm serious. Are are we adding “expeditiously and diligently” in both French and English?
• 1655
The Chairman: We can only do that if there is a subamendment. Right now, we have only Mr. Laliberte's amendment on the table, nothing else.
I have heard a lot of suggestions, but I do not draft subamendments. That's up to the members.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could we have a five-minute break?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask Mr. Cameron if “expeditiously” and “diligently” are two different notions. Then there would be no harm in putting the two in.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: I can check the dictionary if you'd like and confirm that after the five-minute break—
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, I mean legally.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: —but to my mind, these words were drafted in a way to reflect the same intent both in English and French. If there has been an inadvertent error in that regard, then by all means it should be clarified.
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The notion of diligence implies two things. You do the right thing and you do it as quickly as possible. You have the two notions. Hence, the word “diligent” should be enough to cover everything we need.
If you're not diligent, that means you haven't done the thing you should have, or you haven't done it in proper time, and you could be sued if you are not diligent in assuming whatever task you have to assume. So the word “diligent” here should be enough to cover everything we want to have happen.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think the issue of diligence and expediting is for another amendment, and we have until the 16th to clarify that definition.
This amendment is specific on “endeavour to”. I'd like to get the government off the couch, off the seat, and get to work, diligently or expeditiously. It doesn't matter what they do, but we don't want an excuse to sit down.
He's saying “due to a lack of resources”. That's the worst excuse. We're not challenging the government to come up with excuses of resources or lack thereof; we want to address environmental issues here—action.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.
We have your amendment before us, nothing else, and we will proceed with a vote unless Madam Torsney has to make an intervention.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Based on Mr. Laliberte's comments, I wonder if we could get clarification. If the only issue you want to vote on now is whether or not “endeavour to” goes in, then wouldn't you need to amend this to just delete the words “endeavour to”, and then you wouldn't deal with “expeditious” and “diligence” at this point?
The Chairman: Correct. That's all there is before us.
After this most interesting discussion that would certainly please l'Académie française and any other group of thinkers in other places, are you ready for the question?
Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm sorry, no. If in fact we do the amendment as Mr. Laliberte has it before us, we're not just deleting the words “endeavour to”; we in fact would be dealing with “expeditious” and “diligence” at the same time, because it would only say “act expeditiously to”.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's in there now.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I know, but if the issue he wants dealt with now is only the issue of deleting the words “endeavour to”, then it has to be changed from what the current amendment before us reads, in amendment NDP-5, because otherwise if you want to add “diligence” later and “expeditious” in French, then we'd be agreeing to something that he later wants to amend again. We'd have to amend—
The Chairman: I'm sorry, all there is on the table right now is a very short amendment by Mr. Laliberte to read that the first line of paragraph 2(1)(k) would read “act expeditiously to assess”—period. That's all there is before us.
(Amendment negatived)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye, do you want us to repeat the same exercise? This is more or less the same amendment.
• 1700
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The amendment calling for the words "endeavour to" to be removed was defeated. What I want here is some assurances that the French and English versions of the bill will agree with each other.
I haven't time to read the bill in its entirety and there are probably other discrepancies. However, when we uncover a relatively important discrepancy, I think this committee has a duty to rectify it.
Do we want to act expeditiously and move on to the next clause or act with diligence and do things properly?
The Chairman: I have to wonder if your colleague read both versions before drafting this amendment. I have the impression that she has accepted that the two versions are different.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, this means that we accept—
To begin with, even if we were prepared to accept that the two versions are different, that would not be at all logical. On the one hand, we can't have two different bills, or even different French and English versions of the same bill.
On the other hand, I'm certain that my colleague assumed, as you did, that the two were identical. However, I now realize like others have that the two versions are not consistent. Therefore, it's normal for us to make a decision on this.
I believe it is reasonable and more than sufficient to say that the government must act diligently. I don't believe it needs to act expeditiously. In my opinion, that would be unreasonable and dangerous.
The Chairman: Then I think you should draft another amendment because what you have just said here doesn't correspond with the text of the amendment now on the table.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: As the committee proceeds to consider the other clauses in this weighty bill, no doubt it will uncover more inconsistencies resulting from the translation. That is normal and unavoidable. If we don't agree, then we should move an amendment, but if we agree that the French and English versions are in agreement, then it's a fairly simple matter.
Could you give us your enlightened opinion on this?
[English]
The Chairman: Merci. Monsieur de Savoye is putting forward an interesting suggestion, that if there is to be unanimous consent on one version, it be the one in French, so the word “diligence” is the one that will apply also in English. We'll ask Mr. Cameron to come back to the committee at the proper moment to give us his comment, and, hopefully, concurrence. To do that, I need the concurrence of the committee to instruct Mr. Cameron to examine the difference between the two texts and inform this committee about the application of the French text to the English.
Mr. Myers.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm little confused here. Prior to coming to this meeting, I would have thought that in fact would be the case. I would like to hear from Mr. Cameron as to what exactly the status is vis-à-vis French and English. It seems to me it's very important it be pretty exact. I'd like to hear from Mr. Cameron.
The Chairman: He already said there are times when mistakes are made in translating or preparing text.
Mr. Lynn Myers: I'd like to hear Mr. Cameron.
The Chairman: He said it a moment ago, so he can repeat it.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Certainly the intent of the English and the French drafters in Justice is to come up with a text that is legally identical in both official languages. If there are inadvertent errors because of nuances between the languages, then certainly they need to be resolved. The intent is that both the French and English drafters choose words that have the same meaning legally, so there's an identical legal meaning between both versions. In fact, at the Department of Justice, they're not simply drafters, they're jurilinguists who are specialists in reviewing text to ensure that is the case.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Myers.
Madame Torsney and Mr. Lincoln.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I want to put on the record that I've learned a new word: jurilinguist.
I did also want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act—the version I have is dated July 1994—has “expeditiously” in the English and “diligence” in the French. So it's consistent with the previous act, whether that makes a difference or not to you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Lincoln.
• 1705
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, rather than prolong this discussion, I would suggest Mr. Cameron check with the jurilinguists and come back to us next week if there's a problem. If he can confirm there is no problem, then we'll have to take the word of the jurilinguists.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: —[Editor's Note:Inaudible] —Mr. Chairman?
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have a point of order, Mr. Knutson?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Could we take a five-minute break, please?
The Chairman: Yes, on the understanding it is a five-minute break and we will not adjourn before 6 p.m. Agreed.
It's now 5.05 p.m. Take about five minutes.
• 1705
• 1712
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We now have before us amendment L-4.1, in the name of Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is it amendment L-4.1 or L-5?
The Chairman: We're not yet at amendment L-5. This is before that. It's amendment L-4.1. However, if you prefer to do amendment L-5 first, it's fine with us.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to withdraw amendment L-4.1, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Amendment L-4.1 is withdrawn. Thank you.
We'll move to amendment L-5.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: On amendment L-5, I would like to ask your permission to stand this for the time being, if it's possible.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
The Chairman: We now move to amendment NDP-6, in the name of Mr. Laliberte.
We've been asked to wait for a member of the NDP Party to come and move that amendment, which will be in a matter of minutes. So we will do that. We will stand amendment NDP-6 for a few minutes.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
• 1715
We'll go to amendment BQ-5, which is
exactly the same.
[Translation]
Go ahead, Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, the expression “to the extent that is reasonably possible” is indicative of a well-intentioned attitude. When someone acts, it is always to the extent that is reasonably possible. Isn't it somewhat redundant to tell the government to act to the extent that is reasonably possible? Isn't that always the case? Therefore, I'm proposing that we strike these words from this clause.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments on this particular motion by Madam Girard-Bujold?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —[Editor's Note:Inaudible] —refers to the item on the clause, if it's (k), (l) or (m).
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: This is (m), like Mary.
The Chairman: Are there any questions?
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Paul Forseth: It's interesting that in the government's original paragraph 2(1)(m) it puts in the issue of reasonableness, and the whole reasonable test has been litigated a million times. Obviously they are looking down the road at some potential problems and want a caveat here.
I'd like to hear something from the government side about the defence of the original paragraph 2(1)(m), in view of the amendment. I understand there's a kind of exception loophole being put here because of anticipation of certain circumstances.
The Chairman: Correct. That is a fair comment.
Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: The way I read that clause, I can understand taking out language to the extent it's reasonably possible. But in this case, the way I read it is if one of the parties isn't being reasonable, then the federal government will just go ahead. So I think that particular language makes this a better clause.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —[Editor's Note:Inaudible] —
The Chairman: Are there any further comments?
[Translation]
Would you care to respond to that?
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I repeat that the important thing here is the word “ensure”. To ensure does not imply taking forceful action, but rather ensuring, monitoring and taking measures to ensure. In my opinion, adding the words “to the extent that is reasonably possible” weakens the text considerably. It's as if one were trying to wriggle out of the responsibility. I'm certain that that is not the objective here, but that's the impression I get.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Myers.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: I wonder if Mr. Cameron could comment briefly in terms of the implications of this.
The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, please.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: The implication would be that because it's a legally enforceable duty, if the government were to not take measures to ensure effective and comprehensive protection of the environment, it could be used as a cause of action, challenging decisions of the government.
The aspect of the term “reasonably possible” seems to provide enough clarification that we should do the best we can in the circumstances. It would ensure that the judicial review is not launched in every case where there is a difference of opinion.
My own view, from a legal point of view, is that keeping the phrase “to the extent that is reasonably possible” is necessary to keep us out of court every time there's a difference of opinion.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much. I think that clarifies it.
The Chairman: It's interesting to compare Mr. Jordan's interpretation with Mr. Cameron's, but that's maybe for another day.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Can I come in on this?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In my opinion, you'll have exactly the opposite effect because you now have a test of reasonableness. If I go to court and can prove it could reasonably have been done, the government is in trouble. If it is not written, then the government is not in trouble. I would suggest my opinion is completely the opposite of yours.
• 1720
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It seems to me we are talking here about all areas of federal regulation for the protection of the environment, which is an immense field. We can't delete the notion of what's reasonably possible. We can't put an onus on a minister that's almost impossible to carry. It has to be within reasonable possibility. I think it makes a lot of sense for it to be there.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chairman: This takes us to amendment NDP-6. This is no longer necessary because, Mr. Stoffer, we have just debated an amendment that's identical.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): I just wish to make it formal—
The Chairman: We welcome you to the committee
Mr. Peter Stoffer: —that we wish to withdraw that motion.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Not bad, eh?
The Chairman: We now have NDP-7. I'm sorry, we have L-6 first.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is extremely simple, because it's meant to make the clause much more clear in its intent. Here is the way it reads now:
If it's in a complementary manner, that's sufficient. It explains itself. If we do it in a complementary manner, it obviously avoids duplication. It avoids a lot of things. It's a joint system, so it's complementary. So I would suggest that it would be far clearer to read:
The Chairman: All right. Are there any comments or questions?
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I just wish to say that it's almost exactly the same as our amendment NDP-6, so we'll be supporting Mr. Lincoln's motion.
The Chairman: Yes, we realize that. Thank you. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Myers.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back again to Mr. Cameron with respect to the reason why “in order to avoid duplication” would have been inserted in the first place. There must have been some reason for that.
The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, please.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: The reason is precisely in the words themselves. Because we're talking about all areas of federal regulation, the purpose of this duty is to ensure that we address matters of environmental protection and human health concerns in a complementary manner that does avoid duplication. The fact that it may be complementary doesn't mean it's not duplicative. So the phrase “in order to avoid duplication”, to my mind, does add a concept that's not otherwise there.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We'll go Ms. Carroll, Mrs. Kraft Sloan, then Mr. Lincoln.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: I just want to be clear on this. The duplication is with whom and what?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Because we're talking about all areas of federal regulation, we would be talking about duplication with other federal departments.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Are you speaking only federally?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes, because only other federal departments can regulate in the area of federal regulation.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine. I'll defer to Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: First of all, there has been testimony in front of this committee by the people who have been attending this very faithfully from the start that the notion of duplication is not necessarily bad and that we don't need to avoid it necessarily. If legislation is complementary, it means that the two mesh with one another and form a comprehensive whole.
To introduce the notion that we have to avoid duplication— Sometimes duplication is necessary. Sometimes it's a safety net. Sometimes there are acts of biotechnology, for instance, that are contained in one ministry, another one— I'll cite the examples of the health ministry, the environment ministry, or the ministry of agriculture, where if you had to read every act to make sure there's no duplication, you'd find a lot of it. But it has to be complementary, and I think that is the gist of it. I think to avoid duplication puts an objective in there that is not necessarily the best for the environment.
• 1725
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Lincoln that duplication isn't necessarily a bad thing. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think it's also important to understand that there can be many layers of duplication and understanding of what duplication is. I think what Mr. Lincoln was pointing out is we're talking about addressing environment and human health protection in a complementary way. It has to be effective and it has to comprehensive, which means all of these things are covered off. Just because one department is occupying a particular field, it may, on the surface, look like there is a duplication, whereas that may not necessarily be so, that things aren't done in a way that meets the eye and provides effective and comprehensive protection. So I think it's unnecessary to have this here.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, Mr. Chair, I wonder if, with the agreement of the mover, we might be able to stand this down.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think we'll vote for it.
The Chairman: It's a friendly suggestion, Mr. Lincoln.
Although it has very little to do with the amendment before us, might I also remind members that in reference to this particular point, when Barbara McElgunn appeared before us on behalf of the association for people with learning disabilities, she recommended inserting “and inaction” after the word “duplication”. This, of course, is not an amendment before us. I'm just putting it on record as a footnote. If it's the wish of the committee to stand it, we will stand it, Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't have a vote and I don't have a say.
The Chairman: We will stand it on the request of the parliamentary secretary. We now move to the next amendment.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I thought we were voting on this.
The Chairman: On the request of the parliamentary secretary, we are standing this motion, this amendment.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I thought we had to have unanimous—
The Chairman: It cannot be moved, to my knowledge. It cannot be moved officially. I did not ask Mr. Lincoln whether he so moved and he did not say “I move it”.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was just expressing the will of Mr. Lincoln.
The Chairman: Well, Mr. Lincoln is grown-up enough to express his will and he has already done so.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, Mr. Lincoln doesn't have a vote on the committee and Mr. Lincoln cannot express his will in that regard.
The Chairman: He certainly can.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.
The Chairman: There was unanimous consent at the beginning of the meeting to permit everybody at the table to express their views.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Not to vote, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: I am referring to the ability of expressing views.
May I ask the members of the committee to turn to NDP-8, in the name of Mr. Laliberte.
Yes, please, Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: In light of Mr. Lincoln's stand, we'd like to have it stand as well, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: We can stand motion 1333 on the request of—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's number seven, sir.
The Chairman: Sorry.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's NDP-7.
• 1730
The Chairman: All right. That's clear. Thank you.
We now move to NDP-8, please.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: In NDP-8 we would like the words “endeavour to” to be removed, please.
The Chairman: It relates to paragraph 2(1)(n), and we have a motion to delete, in essence, the word “endeavour”. It is self-explanatory. Are there any questions or comments? If not, are you ready for the vote?
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if we might get some clarification from our officials as to the impact this amendment might have if it were to succeed.
The Chairman: To whom is your question addressed?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Probably to Mr. Cameron, but before he answers, might I ask— if we're dealing with 2(1)(n), I think 1462, which is L-7, might have actually had to go first, although it probably doesn't make a big difference.
Sorry, 1227. Madam Kraft Sloan is right. It should be BQ first and then the Liberal and then NDP.
The Chairman: Yes, you are correct. I apologize.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Actually, Ms. Kraft Sloan is correct.
The Chairman: We misarranged the sequence. The chair apologizes. We have to turn first to L-7 and the motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln, are you prepared to move this motion?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I thought you were talking about BQ-6.
The Chairman: You're right. It's BQ-6.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I'll move BQ-6.
The Chairman: Okay.
The amendment is to delete the word “endeavour”. Are there any questions? Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, in examining the three amendments and the bill, there is actually an additional change in BQ-6 and L-7, and that's a drop of the letter “s” on powers. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but maybe when Mr. Cameron is answering—
The Chairman: It is likely a typo. It should reproduce faithfully the text of the bill, but it does not and it is a typographical error.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It could be intentional, too. I don't know.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, Bloc-6 and L-7 are the same, so can we keep them together?
The Chairman: At the same time. Yes, we can.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And may I make an amendment?
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, first of all, we need to know whether Mr. de Savoye has moved his amendment.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I want to point out, Mr. Chair, that the amendment I've moved adds an “s” to “power”.
The Chairman: Fine, thank you. Now we can entertain the subamendments.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to introduce a subamendment that, under line 21, the word “cost” be deleted—the last line.
The Chairman: We are now on line 13 and we want to do one step at a time. It's not a subamendment to the amendment. I'm sorry.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's a subamendment to that clause.
The Chairman: But it is a separate amendment, I respectfully suggest.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: All right, if you prefer it that way, that's fine with me.
• 1735
The Chairman: Could you please prepare a little line in writing so we can treat it that way? As soon as we have finished with this particular item, namely the motion—
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: May I respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the first amendment, L-7, refers to paragraph 2(1)(n), not to a word or a sense. It refers to that paragraph. Surely I can make a subamendment to the same clause under the same amendment.
The Chairman: The introductory sentence in the amendment in the name of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis refers to line 13.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay, then can we say line 13, and line 15 as a subamendment to the same clause?
The Chairman: I don't think so.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, we can't? Okay.
The Chairman: I don't think so.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Perhaps I'll write something—
The Chairman: I may be wrong. I will be guided by other comments, but it seems to me that dealing with another line— If it were the same line, I would say yes.
Amendment NDP-9, which is coming up later, deals with line 15, but we can still accept an amendment from you. All I'm saying is that we are on two different lines.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: All right. So we'll start with the first one then.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are we ready for the question?
We have not yet received a reply from Mr. Cameron or Mr. Lerer. Please, go ahead.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: From a legal perspective, I would be concerned that if the words “endeavour to” were removed from the English version, then that would open the government up to a challenge from industry such that the government was not exercising its powers with respect to the provision of information in a coordinated and cost-effective way. By including the term “endeavour to”, we provide some flexibility to ensure that those types of challenges from industry, who after all are the parties from whom information is being requested, would not be able to challenge decisions of the government.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
I remind members of this committee that this is paragraph 2(1)(n), which is the subject of a proposed amendment in the paper prepared by Madame Hébert, and dated October 6. She endeavoured to provide the committee members with a list of amendments that would bring Bill C-32 in line with Bill C-74. That means this particular paragraph didn't exist in Bill C-74, which died on the order paper because of the 1997 election.
It's the first time we have come across this category of amendments that have been suggested, outlined, or brought to the attention of members by our research people. Therefore, it's my duty to bring this to your attention, because there will also be others as we proceed that are all intended to bring Bill C-32 into line with Bill C-74, if this is the wish of the committee.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, perhaps, Mr. Chair, given the fact that a number of members have expressed concern about having “endeavour to” while Mr. Cameron has expressed concern about taking it out, and given the fact that this wasn't in CEPA 1996, we should have a proposal just to delete this clause. It wasn't in the previous bill. I think that would address the concerns of many members.
The Chairman: Well, to do that, Madam Kraft Sloan, I'm told we need a motion in writing, and we don't have it.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, we'll get it.
The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.
• 1740
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, with your indulgence for just one second to my honoured friend Mr. Cameron, I personally think the word “endeavour” is very vague and would just reduce the government's obligation. They should be doing this without qualification or apology. But I do wish to advise Ms. Kraft Sloan that under my expert advice, we in the NDP here will support her motion, once she gets it done. Thank you.
The Chairman: If and when it is presented. But in the meantime we have a motion from Mr. de Savoye before us, and there is a point when we must bite the bullet.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if I could have further clarification for the benefit of some members about how this clause works operationally and who potentially would benefit if “endeavoured to” was removed.
The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Or Mr. Lerer.
Mr. Harvey Lerer: The intent of this clause was to deal with the information-gathering powers of the minister, and the intent is to endeavour to ensure we are not duplicative in those requests. Gathering of information and provision of information is not a trivial matter, either in time or in money. We wanted to avoid, for example, instances of the same government department asking for exactly the same information within weeks of each request, or even within the same department.
However, there are times when you cannot ask every other government department whether it has the information or whether the information was provided previously in another form, so that is why the phrase “endeavour” is in there.
So it deals with wanting to avoid duplicative requests while also recognizing that at times requests will be made, either because the information is needed immediately or the information that was provided previously is old. That is why the language is in the bill.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: So I'm to understand this is like a promise—as it's written now—that we'll do our best in our dealings with business and our requests for information on various substances, policies, pollution prevention plans, or whatever to try not to have similar departments ask for similar things. So should the Department of Environment ask for something, and then another department ask for something similar, they could actually use this against us in getting the information if we took out “endeavoured to”.
Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, I for one wouldn't want to be caught in a position with industry where they were able to use this against us in the provision of information. I think we should have the flexibility to ask industry whatever we want, at any time, and “endeavour to” would be a good safeguard.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: With all due respect—and I don't want to offend anybody here—by asking an environment ministry official or a lawyer to clarify something, let's face it, we would have the weakest bill in the world, because that would give the greatest flexibility ever. That's been our problem. When we ask for information, it doesn't get supplied in time because our resources are too few and far between and the budgets have been cut back. I think what we're saying there is to exercise the powers to require provisional information in a coordinating and effective manner. “Effective” doesn't have to be tomorrow morning, but let it be effective. I agree 100% with Mrs. Hébert on her recommendation.
The Chairman: All right. At this stage we have before us motion 1227 from Mr. de Savoye, and I have to ask you whether you are ready for the question. It's only on line 13; that's the only line that is before us. Are you ready for the question?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
• 1745
The Chairman: Some members have indicated their intention to make an amendment on line 15. It's the one that Mr. Lincoln proposed a few minutes ago. It deals with the question of deleting the term “cost” before the word “effective” on line 15.
The motion was subsequently also raised by the NDP in NDP-9. So we have before us the Liberal motion to the effect that the word “cost” be deleted from line 15. Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I'd like to ask the movers of this to stand it, and here's the reason why. We stood a motion on it the last time it appeared so we can revisit it. There's drafting under way to define the word “cost-effective” so that it isn't the narrow economic definition that keeps coming back to haunt us. If that definition is not acceptable, then I want to maintain the opportunity to come back and get rid of it. That's my thinking. So I would just ask if the movers would make that stand until we know what we're dealing with in terms of the—
The Chairman: May I ask, Mr. Jordan, who is working on the definition?
Mr. Joe Jordan: I am, for one.
The Chairman: Ms. Torsney and Madam Kraft Sloan.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: If we're dealing with line 15, in terms of order I think BQ-7 is first. I'm not sure if we're actually debating something that isn't actually moved yet.
The Chairman: It has not been moved yet. That is quite true.
On a point of order, Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to know who gets to stand an amendment. Is it the person who is moving it or can anybody else on the committee stand—
The Chairman: It is usually the person who moves it, with the concurrence of the committee.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We did not have it the last time around.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask to stand it. I think it's very clear. I think “coordinated and effective” is very clear. I think this could stand by itself. It doesn't stop us from revisiting the clause that Mr. Laliberte earlier asked to stand, so I'll leave the motion as it is.
The Chairman: Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm sorry if I've not got something here, but I have BQ-7 and NDP-9 that relate to this clause. Do we have another amendment?
The Chairman: Yes, there is an amendment that was just produced by Mr. Lincoln a few minutes ago, which he presented following an intervention he made a few minutes ago.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: But in terms of the order with anything to do with line 15, doesn't BQ-7 go first? Nothing has been moved, so I'm not sure.
The Chairman: BQ-7 says “coordinated manner; and” and now it is different in the text. This one here leaves the word “effective” in. It just deletes the word “cost”, so it is narrower in scope.
Are you ready for the question? The question is the motion by Mr. Lincoln to delete only the word “cost” from line 15. Mr. Lincoln, you have so moved.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I get a clarification? If this is passed or defeated and there is another part of the bill we deal with later that has similar language, can you then come back to this one if you wanted to, or not?
The Chairman: You can later on, if the wish of the committee is unanimous to reopen a clause and come back to that clause. That's my understanding.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Even if you passed or defeated a similar motion?
• 1750
The Chairman: Regardless. To reopen a motion is in order if there is unanimity.
I have a sense that here we are beginning to fall apart and to disperse—I can see the clock—so I will consider this the last vote for today and then we will adjourn.
Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I have a point of order before we consider adjourning. Was NDP-8 an oversight?
The Chairman: I'm sorry. We are now dealing with this motion. We have it before us. We can give you an answer in a moment.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.
The Chairman: We will now conclude this discussion and have a vote.
(Motion negatived)
The Chairman: It's now 5.50 p.m., and we probably would benefit from a little rest. We'll resume tomorrow at 9 a.m. in room 237-C.