EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 24, 1998
• 0912
[Translation]
The Chairman (the hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the committee.
We are resuming our business, but first of all,
[English]
we have to do some housekeeping business.
There are two items. The first one relates to a motion by our colleague, Mr. Casson of the Reform Party. It is a motion that he is bringing forward in view of the fact that the House leader has moved up the date for allotted supply to December 1. This has, in a way, tightened up the time available for the loyal opposition to do its job, namely, to look at supplementary estimates, I believe.
So, without delay, may I invite Mr. Casson to make his intervention and to move his motion for the consideration of the committee?
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move the motion that's been presented. Just to add to what you've said, I think we need to get the minister to come to the committee to answer some questions on the estimates and time is of the essence.
The Chairman: The motion has been put forward by Mr. Casson. It does not require a seconder. Are there any comments?
Madam Torsney?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.
We have a bill before us that has some 400 amendments to some 300-and-God knows-how-many clauses, and I really wonder why we would want to take time out of the clause-by-clause process at this point and delay it further. It would be my preference—and I'm sure the minister is quite happy to talk to us—and I think it would be better if we could get this bill finished and deal with that later.
• 0915
The Chairman: Well, you must be realistic. Certainly by the time this bill is finished, the deadline for the debate or the questioning on supplementaries will be well past, so it would not be very realistic to expect the opposition to do that. It is within the scope of the loyal opposition to make this kind of request in this committee.
I would like to ask whether there is any further intervention and whether you are ready for the vote.
You seem to be.
The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): I must say that I am most disappointed in the government. What we're asking for is that the minister appear to talk about the spending that this government is going to do in the supplementary estimates on environment. The government members here just voted that down. It's a tradition in this House to have the minister before this committee, and I don't know where you people are coming from, but I think this is absolutely atrocious. You're going against all the traditions of this House. What are you trying to hide with the estimates?
The Chairman: Please address the chairman.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Through you, Mr. Chairman, what is the government trying to hide by not having the minister in front of this committee to talk about the taxpayers' money that's going to be spent?
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, Madam Torsney.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Gilmour, I think if these were ordinary times, fine, we'd say, let's have the minister in and talk about the estimates, but we're on clause 40 of a 300-clause bill. I think this clause by clause is taking an excruciatingly long time. We have two weeks left. When we come back in February we'll be very close to just getting the estimates for the upcoming year, so I don't know what's to be gained, particularly, by taking time away from clause by clause.
The fact that I voted against it wasn't indicative of not wanting the opposition to look at our estimates, but more to say let's get on with the task at hand, which is the clause by clause on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The Chairman: Ms. Torsney followed by Mr. Casson.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: My comments echo those of Mr. Knutson. I also just wanted to clarify that I put them on the record before we had a vote, and those were my only intentions in voting the way I did. I think it's highly unusual to have a debate about a vote afterwards. If people had points to make, maybe they should have made them beforehand.
The Chairman: Mr. Casson.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, the timing is irrelevant. The fact that we're in clause by clause or whatever we're doing in committee at the time this timeframe comes up.... To have the minister here before the deadline has no bearing on what we're doing here. The fact that the minister made herself available at very short notice to show up when we were talking about enforcement probably indicates that she has the flexibility to show up at short notice. I think the decision to come here or not should be left to the minister's office, not to the members opposite.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Gerard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I find inadmissible that the government refuse unequivocally, clearly and very transparently that there be a one or two-hour debate outside of a clause by clause study of Bill C-32. There are numerous amendments to the bill and we must take the necessary time to study them, but outside of that, the Chairman has the authority to call a meeting of the committee to study something other than Bill C-32. We could sit anytime this week or early next week for an hour or two to meet with the Minister.
• 0920
Mr. Chairman, the Minister needs thousands of dollars to
manage her department. The opposition parties, without necessarily
disputing the numbers, would like to at least be given some
information.
We are talking here about hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Liberal Party, in its election campaign, bragged about its government saying that it wasn't like the Conservatives, that it was transparent and that it wanted to answer all questions. I don't believe that the Reform Party's motion is a trap. The idea is simply to ask the Minister to come and explain to us the several hundred thousand additional dollars she needs to operate her department and to answer the opposition's questions if it has any. Government members are refusing to ask the Minister to come and answer the few questions the opposition would like to put. This is already a lack of transparency, Mr. Chairman.
Having heard the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois, government members are perhaps starting to have a guilty conscience and would perhaps be prepared to reconsider their vote.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.
[English]
There are no further speakers. I will move to the next item of business, which has to do with the fact that we have a contract with Resource Futures International, represented by Mr. Moffet here, who is providing the committee with his advice. The work that he has done so far has been covered by the first contract, which was approved by the committee in late September, I believe.
The clerk informs me that it is necessary now to renew that contract because the funds have been used. Therefore, I would entertain a motion to renew the contract for the extended period for a maximum amount of—
The Clerk of the Committee: It's $7,200, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: —$7,200, so as to allow the committee to have the benefit of Mr. Moffet's advice and counselling. Could someone move that motion?
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I move that motion.
The Chairman: The motion is before you. Are there any comments or questions?
The Chairman: This committee adopted an amendment at the last meeting to insert in clause 43 a definition of endocrine disrupters or hormone-disrupting substances.
• 0925
Our drafting clerks have indicated that
the insertion of that particular amendment as adopted
would take place in clause 43 by way of
a new line that will
read: “hormone disrupting substance” in line 3 after
the word “Act”, on a separate line, and then
the definition as
adopted, which reads:
Some members of the committee have indicated that they would like to expand on or improve the quality of this amendment. That would be fine. Do I have the consent of the committee to reopen this clause so as to permit the parliamentary secretary to make a proposal which, as I understand it, is intended to be a friendly amendment?
Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Yes, Mr. Chair. I believe government amendment 5.1 endeavours to bring in a definition of hormone-disrupting substance. Perhaps I can suggest to the parliamentary secretary that she introduce the necessary changes in that definition to show us the true context of the definition there in (5). You have (4) saying what the minister shall do. Then you follow it with (5) with the definition of hormone-disrupting substance. If you would bring forward your definition there in draft...I'm just a little leery of opening up clause 43 right now.
As you previously stated, members should have a debate before the vote, so let's see what you have for a definition. You have your amendment 5.1 coming in. I believe that's where the debate ended the last time. You were discussing whether you should split 44(5)...I was reading the blues trying to find out where you had ended off. You closed off at 11:05 a.m., I believe, with an undecided decision there.
The Chairman: Let us hear from the parliamentary secretary as to what she proposes to the committee.
Ms. Torsney, please.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that if you looked at the definition that passed, NDP-13, and what the government amendment is, 5.1, there is one phrase that is missing in that definition. If you're looking at NDP-13 on page 37, and if you consider the indented section, the first line with the quote “hormone disrupting substance” as line 1, and you move down four lines, in English, that fourth line reads “elimination of natural hormones in an organism”. I think we need to add the words “or its progeny” because that concept is included in G-5.1 and is missing from NDP-13.
And it's an important concept. It's not just about a substance disrupting my reproduction, it's also the future, 20 years later figuring out that something interrupted the disruption of my—at this point, mythical—child. It's an important concept for us to at least include that it's not just this individual but future generations that must be included in the issue of hormone disrupting. My request is simply that we would open clause 43 and allow the words “or its progeny” in English to be included in that definition.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's it, that's all.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I support the NDP definition in NDP-13, the amendment. For the record, I don't believe that “progeny” is missing from this definition, but I would be willing to add it to the definition.
• 0930
The Chairman: It hasn't been moved yet because I need the consent of the committee to go back to this clause. But before I do that, there may be other interventions.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I believe that Mr. Laliberte has a suggestion on the floor that the government amend its definition in G-5.1. That would then bring it in line with the definition in clause 3 so we don't even have to open up clause 3.
The Chairman: But we are at clause 43 right now.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry. I meant the definition in clause 44—
The Chairman: —as proposed by the government.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If the government amends its definition then we can make an amendment to clause 43.
The Chairman: Thank you. We do not have any motion yet so we are still operating in a vacuum. I would hope that soon you will allow me to put to the committee the question as to whether you would give consent to reopen this matter. We are discussing a matter that has not been reopened and the chair is becoming a little bit uneasy in this situation.
Mr. Laliberte, would you like to conclude?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, before you open up 43, you are on 44, as the blues from the previous meeting indicate. You are discussing subclause 44(4) and subclause 44(5), which is the disrupting definition. If the government would include its definition, as you stated, in (5), that would pass. If that motion passes, then I would agree to opening up 43 to synchronize the two definitions.
The Chairman: Yes, you're correct, Mr. Laliberte. When we adjourned we were discussing G-5.1. However, to achieve what Ms. Parliamentary Secretary is proposing, we would have to go back to clause 43 and the amendment that was adopted, namely NDP-13. You are now suggesting that instead the government amendment that is before us, G-5.1, be proceeded with and amended. In which way?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: In a manner that the parliamentary secretary stated that she'd like to see the definition.
The Chairman: It has the reference to progeny in subclause 44(5). Are you satisfied with that?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: She recommended that our definition of NDP-13 that was passed in clause 43 would include the word “progeny”.
The Chairman: Yes?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: If she would include that definition in hers, in (5)....
The Chairman: The word progeny is in (5) of G-5.1.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I understand, but she's recommending a definition that incorporates both.
The Chairman: Both what?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Progeny and 43; clause 43—the hormone-disrupting substance definition—was passed without the word “progeny”. Include that definition in your subclause 44(5) now. We can vote on it.
The Chairman: The motion of G-5.1 is a far cry from NDP-13.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): To avoid any confusion and be sure we understand each other I take it that what the parliamentary secretary was meaning was that subclause (5) would in effect read like NDP-13 except for the addition after the word “organism” of the words “or its progeny”. In other words, there would be a substitution of this wording with “or its progeny” versus (5). That's the way I understood it.
The Chairman: That's new to me, but maybe I misunderstood Ms. Torsney.
Would you please indicate whether you agree with what has just been said?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think what Mr. Laliberte is trying to suggest is that he would prefer that rather than give consent we just go back to clause 43 and add three words, which are “or its progeny”.
• 0935
He would prefer I
amend my amendment to be his amendment and then he
would go back and amend his amendment to be clause 43.
That's
a tad absurd to me. The option on the table is that
you include “or its progeny” in 43 or we move on to
clause 44. And I would think the government's 5.1
would pass.
Those are the options as I understand them.
The Chairman: Why don't we deal first with the amendment G-5.1? And then after we have dealt with that, we'll see what happens. Then we may decide whether we go back to clause 43 and the possibility of inserting after “organism” the words “or its progeny” because we have before us G-5.1, and unless I see consensus to move away from it I think this is the matter before us and we ought to concentrate on it.
Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, is the parliamentary secretary suggesting—as I think she is—that (5) would be withdrawn?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: If we—
Mr. Bill Gilmour: It would be withdrawn and we'd put “progeny” into—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Forty-three.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Forty-three, okay.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: But I need to understand what's going to happen on 43 before I make any amendment to my amendment. If 43 is changed, then my intention would be to split my amendment and remove the bottom part.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: And that just makes good sense.
The Chairman: Can we get at least an indication from Mr. Laliberte that if item (5) in G-5.1 is dropped then we have the consent to go back to reopen 43 and insert “or its progeny”?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would prefer that we go to 43 and include “or its progeny”—
The Chairman: I'm sorry, but this is not about what—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: —and then make a decision about 45.
The Chairman: —you would prefer. This is the business item that was before us—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right.
The Chairman: —as we concluded last time. It is still G-5.1, and unless there is consent to go back to 43—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: And that's what I'm seeking at this point.
The Chairman: —we cannot go back. So far there is no indication of consent. Do you see? So I'm trying desperately to find—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: To get consent to go back.
The Chairman: —a way out. This is why I'm asking Mr. Laliberte the question.
If it were to happen that G-5 is moved and adopted without subclause 44(5), would you then, Mr. Laliberte, consent to reopening NDP-13 for the purpose of including “or its progeny”?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.
The Chairman: All right.
[Translation]
Madam Girard-Bujold, please.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): During our last meeting, Mrs. Kraft Sloan had said that she wished to split the amendment to clause 44. She wanted to make two different motions, one dealing with section (4) and the other with section (5). We haven't yet decided on that.
The Chairman: No, we aren't there yet, but Mrs. Kraft Sloan indicated this morning that she intended to support a change if that were proposed.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): May I ask a question of the clerk? Is it possible to get unanimous consent to open it and change it at the same time so we know what we're agreeing to? Can we ask unanimous consent to open clause 43 and add the words “or its progeny” in one fell swoop, as a package?
The Chairman: We could certainly broaden the understanding of the consent.
Mr. Joe Jordan: And then close it?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: It can be phrased in that manner. It's a different way of wording an approach that we have discussed until now. The two can be linked together, certainly.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, I would be happy to have them linked as a general consent for the two items, one to open 43 for the purposes of adding “or its progeny”, but I want it to be clear that it's my intention to seek unanimous consent to open 43 before we deal with any changes to clause 44. That's what's really on the table.
The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Maybe just in more of a legal context, if the government did introduce the definition it wants now, the existing definition including progeny, if that came under (5), as indicated in their amendment, legally we would now have two definitions in the bill.
• 0940
Ms. Paddy Torsney: We don't have two.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, we will, though, if you do this. Then we could look at 43.... What is the legality if you have two definitions in the act?
The Chairman: That's what we're trying to avoid by way of a vote that will remove two definitions.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.
The Chairman: That's what this exercise is all about.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: What I'm suggesting is to allow the parliamentary secretary to bring in her definition, as she's suggesting now—
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: —and then I'll consent to reconsider for 43.
The Chairman: Yes, that's a good point. There has to be some degree of trust and mutual confidence here. If there is a commitment that clause 43 will be reopened provided that the G-5.1 motion does not contain the definition, I would imagine everybody would stick to that kind of commitment.
Mr. Jordan and Madam Torsney.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I just want to take my point a little further. Why don't we get unanimous consent to add the words “or its progeny” to the NDP motion, to close that clause and to delete the second half of the Liberal one, all at one time? That's what we're trying to accomplish here.
The Chairman: Yes, we can do that. Sure. If there is a will do that—
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, let's go for that.
The Chairman: —the committee can do that.
An hon. member: All in one swipe?
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan is proposing that instead of proceeding on two separate tracks, one subsequent to the other, we proceed with one fell swoop, if you like, to the effect that we combine both actions into one motion to which the committee would consent, namely, calling on the deletion of (5) in the government amendment and at the same time inserting “or its progeny” after “organism” in NDP-13.
Is that an acceptable approach?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Laliberte, I'm going to ask, then, whether there is consent to this approach, which combines both actions at the same time, in good faith, namely, a deletion of (5) in G-5.1 and an insertion in NDP-13 after “organism” so as to include “or its progeny”. Do I have the consent of the committee to proceed along these lines?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Having done that, then, we have the motion, G-5.1, which I believe was moved by Madam Torsney. I think Madam Torsney will have to move a subamendment to this amendment in order to delete, or just move, as the clerk advises me, the first part, namely, (4), nothing more than that.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Because we've just agreed to the change in the definitions. Yes.
The Chairman: So what the committee has before it by way of a motion by the parliamentary secretary is 44(4) of G-51. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Could I just ask a short question?
The Chairman: If it's a short one, yes, because we are crystallizing thinking here, so don't ask hypothetical questions, please—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gar Knutson: It's not a hypothetical question. Are the words “actual or likely” necessary?
The Chairman: You'll have to ask the parliamentary secretary that question.
Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to ask the officials.
A voice: Well, likely they are—
A voice: —but actually they're not.
The Chairman: The word “likely” certainly broadens the scope of the amendment.
Are you ready for the question? Those in favour of the amended amendment by Madam Torsney, namely, item (4), please so indicate. Those opposed, if any?
The Chairman: Now, first of all, shall clause 44 as amended carry?
• 0945
The Chairman: Do I have the consent of the committee to reopen clause 43 for the purpose of inserting the words “or its progeny”?
An hon. member: You do have that.
The Chairman: I do have that? Would someone please move that amendment?
Madam Torsney?
The Chairman: On page 94, you will find a motion by Mr. Herron, who, in his immense wisdom, will explain to us the implication of his amendment.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): With respect to the information-gathering component, I think the amendment is self-explanatory. It simply says, “The Minister of Health shall”, as opposed to “The Minister of Health may”.
The Chairman: Mr. Herron, could you elaborate again, please?
Mr. John Herron: Sorry. This is with respect to the Minister of Health in clause 45, where it says:
and we're advocating that the minister “shall” conduct research and studies. I think the amendment is self-explanatory in that regard.
The Chairman: Any comments from the table?
Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I would just like to comment that there's a similar clause, clause 44, requiring the conduct of studies and so on. Last week, the committee adopted PC-8, which made that particular clause mandatory, and it follows that clause 44, which is a similar clause but which addresses the Minister of Health, should also be made mandatory. Otherwise, you would have a difference between clauses 44 and 45, which basically deal with the same thing.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. John Herron: Given that the Minister of Health is the co-sponsor of the bill, that would dovetail quite nicely.
Ms. Monique Hébert: Although, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to hear from the officials. I am a bit uneasy about mandating so many studies and research and so on. I don't know in practical terms how this would—
The Chairman: We don't want to go into the practicalities at this stage, but Ms.—
Ms. Monique Hébert: It's unusual. It's not very often that you have this sort of mandatory language in legislation.
The Chairman: —Hébert brings to the attention of the committee amendment PC-8, by Mr. Herron. The last meeting did accept an amendment by Mr. Herron to change “may” to “shall”. Therefore, PC-9 is a parallel approach that is reminiscent of the one already adopted by the committee.
Are there any comments or questions by the members of the committee?
Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I just wanted to reiterate that the “may” is more of a role and the “shall” is more of a responsibility. I think it's nice to see the Minister of Health take responsibility in this.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are you ready for the question?
• 0950
The Chairman: Page 95, Madame Kraft Sloan, s'il vous plaît.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This adds a “may” in clause 46, line 30, on page 27, so it reads, “substances that may cause or contribute to international or interprovincial pollution of fresh water”, etc. This definition is acting on things like the precautionary principle, which is a major tenet or principle of the bill.
The Chairman: Thank you. Any comments or questions? Are you ready for the question?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We have another amendment, L-13.2, on page 96, for line 33 on page 27. It does the same thing with regard to air pollution.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Madam Girard-Bujold.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like to know why Mrs. Kraft Sloan always brings forward this type of change with words like "may". There is a difference between "may contribute" and "contribute". She wants to say that they "may contribute". Why does she want such an amendment? Why do you want to add "may"? You say that it is for reasons of prudence, but beyond prudence, why do you want such an amendment? I do not understand.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Often it is very difficult scientifically to show that something has a direct cause and effect. However, there is a lot of evidence which can show that these things will tend to contribute to something. This allows us to adhere to a precautionary principle which suggests that even though there is a lack of full scientific certainty we can act in regard to the public health because we know it's very likely that these things are causing the problem. In science, it is very difficult to show direct cause and effect, so this allows the government to act on behalf of public health.
The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is already covered. If you look at the top of the page, it reads, “The Minister may, for the purpose”.... We're repeating it again. It's already, in my view, at the top of the page.
A voice: No.
The Chairman: Just a moment.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: With due respect to Mr. Gilmour, I don't think it's the same thing at all. I think the purpose of the amendment is referring to the paragraphs themselves and saying that instead of a direct contribution, it's a potential contribution. It doesn't have anything to do with the minister conducting research. She may or she may not, but these substances “may” cause and the fuels “may” contribute. It is a distinction that is important.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: I understand it is the wish of Madam Kraft Sloan to put aside this next amendment, L-13.3.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I want to stand this motion.
• 0955
The Chairman: Ms. Hébert would like to make a brief intervention on clause 46 on page 27.
Ms. Monique Hébert: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to draw to the committee members' attention that in paragraph 46(1)(b) there is a change from C-74. C-74 also referred to part 6. This bill refers to part 5 only. Part 6 deals with products of biotechnology and I'm wondering if the officials could explain why part 6 was dropped from this particular clause.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hébert.
Mr. Lerer? Mr. Mongrain?
Mr. Steve Mongrain (Senior Policy Analyst, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): The change from Bill C-74 to Bill C-32 corrects a drafting error. If you look at the words “determined to be toxic”, that determination occurs in part 5. Whether it's a product of biotechnology or a substance, it occurs in part 5. It doesn't occur in part 6.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are we on L-13.4 now?
The Chairman: No, we are on 46 in general and we have moved to L-13.4 at just this very moment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, would you like to move your motion?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: L-13.4 deletes the words “which may not exceed three years”. The concern I have here is that the NPRI would only be in effect for three years and would have to be renewed every three years.
The Chairman: And so...? Would you like to elaborate?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So if we're bringing the NPRI into force in this legislation, we should allow it to continue operating.
The Chairman: So...?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So we don't want to have to re-authorize the NPRI every three years.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify, what this actually does is renew the notice to gather information every three years. It does not renew the NPRI every three years. And perhaps Mr. Moffet might want to comment further.
The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Moffet?
Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): I need a minute. Perhaps I can pass the buck. Perhaps the officials can explain the way that the NPRI works and the way the NPRI relates to this clause 46 which authorizes the gathering of information.
Mr. Steve Mongrain: First, Mr. Chair, I'd like to point out for members' attention that clause 48 requires establishment of the NPRI. It's separate from the information-gathering powers in clause 46. They are, if you will, the tools that allow for the gathering of information that goes on the NPRI.
• 1000
The powers in clause 46 can be used for purposes
other than the NPRI. Information can be gathered for
the development of objectives, guidelines and codes of
practice and to determine substances that
might have to go
on the PSL, the priority substances list.
The powers in 46(1) are much broader than just the establishment of the NPRI. Because Bill C-32 greatly expands the information-gathering powers compared to the existing act, it seems reasonable to have a three-year period upon which we reconsider our information-gathering needs so a notice isn't, in effect, into perpetuity. It's just a reconsideration.
The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, please.
Mr. John Moffet: I just wanted to clarify the implications of what you're saying. The implications are that under clause 48, assuming it's passed, the minister will be required to establish an NPRI and there will be no time limit on the NPRI. The time limit of three years has to do with the information that will be gathered, a subset of which will contribute to what is published under the NPRI.
And you want to renew the requirements for that information every three years, in other words, to keep it current, to drop certain parties and data off the list and add new parties and data and ensure that it's current. The way to do that is to require that it be updated every three years. So you are not renewing the NPRI. You're renewing the source of information that will contribute to the NPRI.
Mr. Steve Mongrain: Precisely. You're taking a step to reconsider and adjust based on that reconsideration of your information. It's above and beyond the NPRI.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'll withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman: Shall clause 46 as amended carry?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. I have an amendment. I have stood L-13.3.
The Chairman: All right. Go ahead if you want to move it.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. I said I wanted to stand that.
The Chairman: You want to stand the whole clause?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.
The Chairman: All right. We have to get unanimous consent to stand clause 46 for the purpose of allowing a motion to be put at a later date, I suppose.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, maybe we can pass the entire clause except for what is referred to in amendment L-13.3.
The Chairman: No, we cannot do that. I'm sorry.
The chair can seek unanimous consent to stand this clause and that's all that the chair can do.
Madame Girard-Bujold, s'il vous plaît.
[Translation]
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why Mrs. Kraft Sloan wishes to stand amendment L-13.3.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm looking for negotiating for more support on this particular amendment.
Voices: Oh, oh.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to get unanimous consent to pass the clause except for this one amendment?
The Chairman: No. We can adopt the clause and then seek consent to reopen it at a later date. That we can do, but not linked with a particular intent related to a particular amendment.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: There would be two options. If you were to pass clause 46 now, your options would be to seek unanimous consent to reopen on a later date or you'd have report stage in the House.
• 1005
The Chairman: That's correct. So both options are open. Either we seek unanimous consent to reopen it at a later date or reserve this amendment, which has not been moved, for the report stage in the House.
So shall clause 46 as amended carry?
The Chairman: The next item in our sequence is in the small book, L-13.4.0, in the name of the member for York North, on page 8.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to stand down clause 47 and come back at a later date. I do not believe that you need unanimous consent because there are no motions that have been moved.
The Chairman: No motions have been moved. We can certainly set aside clause 47.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to stand down 47?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Madam Girard-Bujold, please.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to come back to clause 46 even if it has already been passed. Are we still standing amendment L-13.3? It is no longer there. Thank you.
The Chairman: It isn't there, for the time being.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
On page 108 there is a motion by the member for Churchill River.
The clerk informs me that there is some discussion amongst lawyers as to the constitutionality of this amendment, and I wonder, Mr. Laliberte, whether before moving it you may wish to hear some of these arguments so as to save you time and energy, perhaps.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. Carry on.
The Chairman: Could we then invite the comments of the legal minds?
Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The concern here is that this motion would require the preparation or implementation of pollution prevention plans for substances referred to in the national inventory of releases with the NPRI.
As this committee knows, there are many substances on the NPRI that have not yet been determined to be toxic. The constitutional concern is that by requiring pollution prevention plans to be prepared or implemented with respect to substances that have yet to be determined to be toxic, we would be invading into provincial jurisdiction, insofar as our criminal law jurisdiction to require such plans would only extend to those substances that would have an adverse impact on human health or the environment.
So insofar as this motion would purport to require such plans for substances for which we have no idea whether they'd be toxic, we believe this motion would clearly be beyond the scope of federal jurisdiction and, as a result, would be unconstitutional.
• 1010
I discussed the matter with Mr. Moffet this
morning before the hearings began and I'll let him
speak to it, but he indicated that he agrees with that
analysis.
The Chairman: That is very kind of you, Mr. Cameron, but we will let Mr. Moffet speak.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: My apologies, sir.
The Chairman: I wonder, though, whether you have decided on your own that waters are not a federal jurisdiction, that the toxic pollutants, through navigable waters specifically, would not come under federal jurisdiction? Where do you get that constitutional notion from? I'm astounded at your statement. It seems to me that you are rewriting the Constitution.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: No, sir. I'm giving you the interpretation of the Supreme Court in Hydro-Québec, which indicated that the federal jurisdiction to require these regulatory measures such as implementation of pollution prevention plans is tied to the determination that the substance being regulated has an adverse effect on human health and/or the environment, and that in the case of the NPRI, there are—
The Chairman: So far, so good. So what makes it unconstitutional for the federal government to have jurisdiction?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: We would be purporting through this motion to require the preparation and implementation of P2 plans in respect to substances for which we have no idea whether they are toxic or not.
There's a statement here from the Supreme Court decision that I would refer you to, in which Mr. Justice La Forest indicated that:
Without that assessment of toxicity, we can't require companies or other persons to prepare or implement P2 plans unless we have first determined that the substance causes adverse impacts for human health or the environment.
The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify, the constitutional argument and the ability to do specific things is that you keep it narrow rather than broad. The issue wasn't so much water being federal/provincial; it was, if you go too broad have you entered into an area that's inappropriate? Do you lose the effect of your specificity and your abilities as a federal government to target things, within both a federal and a provincial jurisdiction?
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Cameron, how do you reconcile this interpretation of that part of the Supreme Court decision with the precautionary principle that we enshrine into the legislation? Surely if we take your definition.... It seems to me that when the judges talked about adverse effects they were talking about PCBs released by Hydro-Québec, and even then, in the definition and in the ruling, the fact that PCBs were released into the environment, into the river, didn't mean that the adverse effects on health were proven to a “T”, were proven to the last iota.
The fact is that they look at adverse effects on health in a broad context. Because, if your interpretation is right, then we would almost have to be so precise as to include in the NPRI only those toxics where we have 100% certainty of inclusion, which is never the case. And it seems to me that there are two ways of taking that definition: in its narrowest expression or by looking at it in terms of what the judges, I think, intended, which is the adverse effects on health which don't have to be proven before.... Otherwise, the NPRI is going to become a very small instrument.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: The authority for the NPRI is not in fact a criminal law power. The authority for the NPRI falls under other federal heads of power in the Constitution, specifically the power over statistics and information gathering.
• 1015
What this motion does, however, is go beyond the
collection of that information to requiring individuals
to prepare pollution prevention plans or to implement
those plans. That's a regulatory measure that would
have to find an
attachment to one of the other heads of power.
The only head I could think of that would be available would be the criminal law power, which is the basis for much of the bill before you. In order to be able to exercise that criminal law power by requiring such measures as implementation of these plans, you must have already determined that the substance you're regulating has an adverse impact on human health or the environment. That's the individual assessment that Mr. Justice La Forest is referring to in the passage I quoted.
In terms of your other question about the precautionary principle, I see no inconsistency between taking a precautionary approach and the exercise of valid criminal law jurisdiction to regulate toxics. The precautionary principle, however, does not go so far as to allow us to exert regulatory authority where it clearly doesn't connect to one of our federal heads of power in the Constitution, which is what I believe this would do.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But—correct me if I'm wrong—the Hydro-Québec decision was based on criminal law.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: That's correct. And PCBs were already determined to be toxic.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: That assessment had occurred.
The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.
Mr. John Moffet: I just wanted to elaborate on Mr. Cameron's last point that there need not be an inconsistency between this committee inserting a provision into the bill requiring the ministry to act with regard to the precautionary principle and the interpretation that Mr. Cameron has given regarding NPRI.
As he has explained, the result of the Hydro-Québec case, I think, in very simple terms, is that in order to assert regulatory jurisdiction over toxics, the federal government first needs to make a determination that the substance poses a significant risk. That process hasn't been gone through for all substances on the NPRI. That's the reason he's saying this amendment would be beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.
However, where the precautionary principle comes in, in my view, is in the way in which the government makes the decision about whether a substance is toxic. I believe the precautionary principle can be applied so as to require the government to err on the side of precaution when deciding whether or not a substance is toxic and therefore whether or not it can regulate under the criminal head of power under the Constitution.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to further clarify, what Mr. Moffet is referring to is not what the effect of this amendment, should it be introduced and passed, would do.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: So what seems to be the interpretation? Is it that this infringes on constitutional issues?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: If it were to pass, it wouldn't be
[Inaudible—Editor]....
The Chairman: That's the opinion of one lawyer, Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: So understanding the NPRI, our amendment extends beyond creating a list to at least looking at preparing a pollution prevention plan or implementing one. Is that the problem, the implementing part? Or is it the preparing part?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: I believe both of them would be the problem.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Both would be a problem?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Sure. Because the notice requiring someone to prepare the plan is itself an exercise of regulatory authority and, as we've tried to explain, there are many substances on the NPRI. We simply don't know whether they're toxic or not.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: What if you qualified it by saying “which have been assessed toxic”?
• 1020
Mr. Duncan Cameron: That amendment that Mr. Laliberte is suggesting would essentially duplicate the power under part 4, particularly in clause 56.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We've heard from two lawyers. Perhaps we can hear from a third, Madame Hébert.
Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Chair, I am aware that the Supreme Court ruling based the constitutionality of part 2 of the existing CEPA on the criminal law power. It did not have to decide whether there might be some federal jurisdiction under the peace, order and good government clause which would give the federal government far more room to manoeuvre in the types of instruments it could enact.
That being said, the law as it is now seems to constrain us to a fairly narrow approach that is based on the criminal law power. Therefore, to require pollution prevention plans for substances that are not toxic but are on the NPRI...there wouldn't seem to be any constitutional authority for it at this time. However, there might be room for growth in future. For instance, I'm thinking especially of NAFTA, where you have your three North American jurisdictions coming together and trying to co-ordinate their national inventory of pollutants and so on. There may be some hope for it in the future, but as it is now it does seem fairly narrow and grounded on the criminal law.
That being said, though, it doesn't follow, even if you did find some authority under the peace, order and good government power, that it would enable the federal government to go and seek out those pollution prevention plans. That is a case apart and that is far more difficult to justify, in my view.
The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mr. John Moffet: I will just make one more point. I'm very sympathetic to the desire to extend the federal government's power in this regard. My concern is that there are not at the present—and there still won't be under this bill—clear guidelines for adding substances to the NPRI.
My concern is that as a practical matter, if the committee were inclined to adopt an aggressive interpretation of the federal government's constitutional authority by passing this amendment, then there would be brought to bear extreme pressure to significantly limit the number of substances that are put on the NPRI, thereby potentially undermining the purpose of the information tool that we are at present trying to expand and strengthen. There may be a saw-off required here.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have two questions.
Certainly in terms of what Madame Hébert raised for the peace, order and good government clause, it wasn't any comment on that, really, when the Supreme Court made their decision.
Why are certain substances added to the NPRI? Why are we collecting data if there is no concern that this affects environment or human health? Secondly, it seems that it's an incredible effort to get substances declared toxic, such that we have a limited availability of substances that can be put on the track for pollution prevention planning.
Anyway, could you answer my question about the NPRI? Why are substances included? Why are we gathering information if we don't feel that there's some concern about these substances?
The Chairman: Mr. Lerer, would you like to answer the question?
Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the substances that go on the NPRI, the criteria are being established right now through a multi-stakeholder process. Two of the very important criteria are, of course, substances that may potentially be of concern from a scientific point of view, and volumes, volumes that are actually released into the environment. We want to keep track of those. There are other criteria that are being developed through multi-stakeholder processes right now.
• 1025
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But why do you care about the amount of the substance being released into the environment if it's not determined to be of concern in regard to the environment and human health?
Mr. Harvey Lerer: One of the reasons is any consideration associated with exposure, and as the volume increases, exposure may increase as well. That is one of the considerations in considering whether to track a substance through the NPRI.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But then why would we be concerned about exposure if we're not concerned that the substance has an effect on the environment or human health? We must have some concerns if we want to track these things.
The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd.
Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I think one of the main reasons that you have the NPRI is the community's right to know what substances are out there. So whether they've been assessed or not, if they're out there in huge volumes or things are being released into their communities, this is a way that the public can be aware of it. I think that's probably largely the reason we have the NPRI.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, but I would also go back to my second point, which is that a lot of substances...it's a great deal of effort to get substances declared as toxic, which is not to say we only have a couple of dozen toxic substances in Canada, because I think we have evidence to the contrary.
The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, would you like to decide whether you move this motion?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think it would probably be appropriate to stand the motion and have the legal issues looked at. The intent of the motion is very clear. When you look at the list, we want to have some intention or possibility of planning or implementing of the NPRI, but in regard to this constitutional cloak, I don't necessarily want to step on or fray the Constitution in any way. It never came into my mind at all when we amended this. So if that can be clarified or given an opportunity, I would entertain it.
The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, you will not move the motion so the amendment is not being dealt with. Is there consent sufficient to stand clause 48?
• 1030
The Chairman: Now we move to clause 53 and the first amendment, which is in the name of the member of Churchill River, on page 109.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll move the amendment and clarify the point. It would strike the word “clearly”. The intent is for the minister to decide when the public interest is at stake, when “disclosure” outweighs “importance”, and the words “clearly outweighs” would limit the minister's decision. I don't know what would outweigh the public interest. I think this whole concept is about public knowledge. I believe it's appropriate to take it out.
The Chairman: You've heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: On page 110, you have a motion in the name of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask the member for Churchill River, who has put out exactly the same amendment as I have proposed, if he would agree that this clause be stood, and I would like to ask for the consent of the committee to stand it at this time.
The Chairman: Is there consent that we stand clause 54?
The Chairman: We then move to clause 55. On page 112, there is an amendment in the name of the member for Nanaimo-Alberni.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, I'll move this motion. It makes the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment consistent by saying that the Minister of Health—four lines from the bottom of the page—“shall” offer to consult, rather than “may” offer. This just makes it consistent with the wording that we have with the Minister of Environment. It puts them on the same footing.
The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions?
Ms. Monique Hébert: May I say something?
The Chairman: Madame Hébert.
Ms. Monique Hébert: In response to your amendment, Mr. Gilmour, it wouldn't quite make it similar to the other “shall offer to consult” clauses because the “shall offer” applies only to governments, be they provincial, territorial or aboriginal governments, whereas here, as I understand your proposed wording, the “shall offer” requirement would apply not only to governments but to all the entities listed under that clause.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I agree with Ms. Hébert's opinion and I think we should go against this amendment.
The Chairman: Any further comments? Are you ready for the question?
• 1035
The Chairman: On page 113, you will find an amendment related to clause 56, made by the member of the Bloc Québécois caucus.
[Translation]
Madam Girard-Bujold, are you ready?
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a complete rewrite of clause 56. It reads as follows:
This amendment to clause 56 forces the Minister to publish a notice in the Canada Gazette whereas clause 56 as it now stands in the bill states that "the Minister may... publish in the Canada Gazette". We are requiring of the Minister that he or she publish a notice. That is the intent of the amendment I am proposing.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam. Ms. Hébert would like to make a comment.
Mrs. Monique Hébert: I have a little comment to make regarding your amendment, Madam. In the French version, you allude to the substances in Schedule 1, but the text should really talk about the toxic substances in Schedule 1. That is what the text of the bill says. The English version talks about the toxic substances. I therefore believe it would be appropriate to add this detail.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Toxic.
Mrs. Monique Hébert: Precisely, these are toxic substances.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, that is true. Fine.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I ask for some precision? I know the phraseology has been changed around, but is the intent of the motion to replace “may” with “shall”? Is that what it is, effectively?
Ms. Monique Hébert: Yes.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't know why she changed the wording around.
[Translation]
Would it not be sufficient to replace "may" with "shall"?
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: In my view, "shall" means that there is a duty to do it.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I understand, but you have rewritten the whole thing.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, because I wanted to make it easier to understand.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, well.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, that's very helpful. The amendment by Madame Girard-Bujold emphasizes that the minister “shall”. The text of the bill is that the minister “may”. So this is where the crunch comes, plus the observation made by Madame Hébert a moment ago.
Mr. Moffet, please.
Mr. John Moffet: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm of the view that actually this amendment doesn't change the substance of the current text of 56(1) at all, because the amendment that is put forward is still qualified by the phase “where the Minister is of the opinion”.
In other words, the minister shall require a pollution prevention plan only where she is of the opinion, which, in my view, is effectively the same thing as saying the minister may require pollution plans whenever she's of the opinion they're required.
The member's amendment would not require the minister to require pollution prevention plans in all circumstances. I think it leaves her with exactly the same discretion that she has under the existing 56(1). With respect, I don't think this changes anything.
The Chairman: Thank you. I would also like to ask Madame Hébert whether she has any thoughts as to whether this particular part of clause 56 in Bill C-74 was phrased in stronger language than it is in Bill C-32?
• 1040
Ms. Monique Hébert: Yes, Mr. Chairman, actually this would enable the minister to require pollution prevention plans for substances actually placed on the list of toxic substances, whereas C-74 would have allowed pollution planning in relation to substances proposed to be added to the list. I might say that this is an amendment that Mrs. Kraft-Sloan will be addressing. It's at page 114 of the package. It's L-13.5, and I believe that her amendment would bring it back to the wording of C-74.
The Chairman: All right. Thank you. We'll then wait for that amendment for discussion.
Are there any further questions or comments to be made on BQ-19 on page 113?
Madam Torsney, please.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: This is not a huge comment, but I think subclause 56(1) as it is currently written is perfectly clear and this amendment is not necessary.
The Chairman: All right. You've heard these last comments. Are there any further comments?
[Translation]
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that when the Minister is of the opinion that a person or a category of persons should prepare or implement a plan, he shall... He must do it. If there is an opinion, he must do it. This is not quite what it says in the clause.
[English]
The Chairman: Merci, Madame.
Are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: We are now on page 114, with an amendment by the member for York North.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair. As Madame Hébert suggests, this amendment restores this part of the bill from Bill C-74. However, at this time I'd like to stand this amendment.
The Chairman: This amendment is not moved.
How about the other amendment then?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's not mine.
The Chairman: Madam Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I would like to move that amendment; it is just to include the word “and”.
Oh, am I out of sync with things?
The Chairman: Oh, this is your amendment.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes.
The Chairman: Fine. We are coming to it in a moment.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.
The Chairman: The next one before Madam Carroll's amendment is the amendment, I am told, on page 115 by the NDP, amendment NDP-23.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll make the appropriate motion. I believe all the other amendments that I'm trying to filter through here deal with certain clauses of this, but I believe it would be appropriate that the minister “shall” publish in the Canada Gazette. And in dealing with “the Minister considers appropriate”, the appropriate part is left in there. This is “shall publish”, since we're dealing with public access.
The Chairman: Do you so move?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would so move if the time is right.
The Chairman: The time is right.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to have consent to have this whole clause stand. The problem is that I had an amendment before that which I asked to stand and then the clause passed, so I'm unable to go back to it. I'd like to have consent to have clause 56 stand.
The Chairman: All right. We will ask for consent from the committee to stand clause 56.
Mr. Gilmour.
• 1045
Mr. Bill Gilmour: The difficulty I'm having with the standing of different clauses is that we're doing what we said we would try to avoid by having amendments coming in: we're going back and forth through the bill. Why can we not just move forward and deal with the amendments as they're here?
The Chairman: For the reasons given by Madam Kraft Sloan.
Actually, clause 56 has four more amendments in addition to the one we are discussing at the present time. I'm in the hands of the committee on determining the standing of clause 56 for the reasons given by Madam Kraft Sloan. There is an amendment in addition to the one by the NDP, by the government, G-5.3, preceded, actually, by an amendment by Madam Carroll, L-13.5.1, and then an amendment L-13.6, as well as amendments NDP-24 and NDP-25.
The picture is quite complex here and it depends on the goodwill of the committee to facilitate the process.
However, it is 10.45 a.m. We will adjourn at 11 a.m. We can perhaps discuss the government amendment without having to stand the clause, and hopefully we will still be at clause 56 by the time we adjourn at 11 a.m. so that we will not have to seek consent.
The fact is, however, that Mr. Laliberte moved his amendment—NDP-23—a moment ago, so you will have to seek the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw that amendment unless you're prepared to have a vote on it now.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll seek unanimous consent to stand that amendment.
The Chairman: Yes, just to stand it.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could we just clarify this? Normally you stand an amendment before it's moved. If you've already moved an amendment, then you're actually seeking permission to withdraw your amendment and that needs unanimous consent.
The Chairman: Right.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: And, then, just in terms of process, you're prepared to deal with G-5.3 and L-13.5.1. Are we also discussing whether or not we're going to move forward with some of the other ones? Or not? Because if we're going to end up voting on NDP-24 and the others, I'm not sure why we would need to withdraw NDP-23. I'm just trying to seek clarification as to what Mr. Laliberte's goal would be in withdrawing this amendment.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe it's the will of some committee members to look at standing clause 56 for further consultation. That's why I'm considering requesting that my motion be withdrawn and stood. I just want to clarify that our motion is a unique one. It doesn't at all reflect the other amendments. All it's saying is that the minister “shall” publish. I think that's the only one that stands out in here.
The Chairman: It is clear that if Mr. Laliberte wishes to have his motion stand, he is doing that for the purposes he has already indicated, namely, to have further consultations. In order to stand it, however, unanimous consent is required and it's up to—
Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Gerard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, in the motion BQ-19 of the Bloc Québécois, moved by Mrs. Girard-Bujold, we said that the Minister "shall publish" rather than "may publish in the Canada Gazette".
• 1050
In the L-13.5 of Mrs. Kraft Sloan, it says that "the Minister
may publish" and not "shall publish". If she wants us to discuss it
later, fine.
In the NDP amendment, it says in French "le ministre publie". It means the same thing as "the Minister shall publish". Otherwise, it would say in French "le ministre peut publier". So, when it says "le ministre publie", it becomes mandatory and he must publish.
The Chairman: Agreed.
[English]
Is there consent to stand the amendment NDP-23 on page 115?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's already been moved, so it has to be withdrawn.
The Chairman: The clerk will address the difference between the two terms.
The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, this is causing us a bit of a problem. In order for an amendment to be stood, it must be formally moved. Frequently, when the members say “stand”, they're referring to the fact that they're not moving an amendment.
So, we might, Mr. Chairman, pay attention to that kind of vocabulary. Most of the time, I think, we understand what the members are saying here. If it's not moved, it can't be stood. It doesn't exist. It's a piece of paper.
The Chairman: In this case, the motion was moved. Therefore, the question is whether the committee is allowing Mr. Laliberte to withdraw, for the time being, his amendment, and not to stand. If I understand—
The Clerk: No, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the motion to amend which is on the floor now, if the motion is to stand it, that means it will put it in the agenda farther down and the committee can return to it, and that would require unanimous consent. If the motion is to withdraw, it disappears forever.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: So he wants to stand.
The Chairman: So Mr. Laliberte wants to stand this motion for further consideration at a later date. Is there consent to that effect?
The Chairman: Thank you. We'll move on now to the amendment on page 116.
Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Je pense que c'est Mme Carroll.
The Chairman: No.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry. Thank you.
G-5.3 on page 116 of your book deals with clause 56. The effect of the underlined text is to give us an option on P2 plans, pollution prevention plans, on international air and water. Subclauses 166(1)—international air pollution—and 176(1)—water—would be included.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Miss Torsney. I have just been advised that it would be the proper sequence before we go into this amendment on page 116 to deal with the amendment by Madam Carroll, L-13.5.1, which deals with line 13—rather than line 17.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. I'm happy to—
The Chairman: Would you object if we allowed for discussion on that amendment first and we suspend this one for a moment?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would be happy to, because that's actually what I thought we were doing in the first place. So yes, we will deal with 13.5.1 and then we'll go to G-5.3.
• 1055
The Chairman: We are calling, for a moment, a brief suspension of the discussion on G-5.3 to allow an amendment that precedes G-5.3, namely, L-13.5.1, which was distributed a few minutes ago. Madam Carroll, I believe, is ready to address it.
Would you like to explain the amendment, Madam Carroll?
Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's just a desire on the part of the government for clarity by adding the word “and”, Mr. Chair, to line 13 on page 33. You will note that the words “persons described in the notice to prepare” are already there.
The Chairman: And the “and” would replace the “or”. Or not?
A voice: Yes.
The Chairman: That is not made clear in the amendment, however.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I should have made it clearer when I was putting it together.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It is clear. It does—
The Chairman: Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: With respect, the line, in fact, would replace the other line, so the “or” would be deleted because the line would have just those eight words, and those words would be “persons described in the notice to prepare and”, and then you'd fall into the next line, which would begin with “implement”.
The Chairman: Correct. Yes, I think that is the position that the clerk is giving as well. Thank you.
Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I just would like to get some clarity from the officials.
Was that just something that someone missed or is there a reason for just saying “or”?
A voice: Yes.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Do you mean is this the most substantive “and” we've ever dealt with?
Mr. Steve Mongrain: It was a drafting error or shortcoming that Mr. Moffet, I believe, identified in his presentation to the committee in the spring. It corrects that oversight.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.
The Chairman: And it required Madam Carroll's very fine eye to catch it. We are grateful for that. Are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: Now we go back to G-5.3 on page 116. We will conclude with this item.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I'm not sure that there's anything beyond what I've already clarified, but the effect of this would be to ensure that where provinces weren't taking action on international air and water we would have the ability to require P2 pollution prevention plans. I think it would reflect the committee's desire.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: I wonder if I could ask Mr. Moffet and Ms. Hébert about the implications of this amendment.
Mr. John Moffet: I can answer that. At the moment, the bill provides the federal government with authority over a number of issues: toxic substances, hazardous wastes that are being exported, international air, international water and ocean dumping. At the moment in the bill, under 56, the government would be authorized to require pollution prevention plans with respect to toxic substances. There is then another clause which would authorize the government to require waste reduction plans. The ocean dumping would then require pollution prevention plans with respect to ocean dumping substances.
At the moment in the bill there is no authority to require pollution prevention plans with respect to international air and international water pollution, whereas there is authority to require something like a pollution prevention plan with all the other issues that are being addressed in the bill. This just completes the picture and, I think, is a very worthwhile amendment.
• 1100
The Chairman: All right.
Monsieur Asselin and Mr. Gilmour.
[Translation]
Mr. Gerard Asselin: If we are going to require provinces to prepare plans, will they be required to spend money? There may be areas of federal jurisdiction. If the federal government needs a feasibility study or an impact study, it should pay for these itself.
I'm afraid the federal government is stepping into areas of provincial jurisdiction by requiring them to prepare plans on aspects over which it does not itself have jurisdiction and making them pay. Again, this would be interfering with provincial jurisdiction.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Exactly.
[English]
Mr. John Moffet: This clause doesn't deal with the federal government making an order to a provincial government. Under clause 166, if the provincial governments have not acted, then the federal government is given some authority to deal with sources of international air pollution. So if the provincial government has not acted, then the federal government can assume authority.
What this amendment would do is to say that part of that authority would be the ability to require those sources—not the government but the sources—of international air pollution to prepare a pollution prevention plan.
The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour and Madam Torsney.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Could I get advice from the officials? We're dealing with international agreements, whether it be climate change or whatever. It would appear that this is in fact giving the minister power that in many cases is now a cabinet decision. Is that a correct interpretation? How far afield does this go?
The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.
Mr. Steve Mongrain: If you look at clause 166, you will see that the power is residual to that of provincial governments. The federal government can act only if the province is either unable to or unwilling. It's completely residual to provincial governments for sources of international air and water pollution.
In regard to the authority that exists already, the minister can issue an interim order, which is an emergency order, or the minister, through the Governor in Council, could regulate.
Pollution prevention planning under clause 56 is not the same type of regulatory instrument and is within the jurisdiction or scope of the Minister of the Environment.
The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just wanted to really make sure that Mr. Asselin realizes that this clause does not cause the federal government to tell the provinces to do something that would cost them money.
I think that was in your question, Mr. Asselin, and I just wanted to be clear that's not what it's about. The federal government would be telling a company that is a source of a problem to deal with the problem. It has nothing to do with the provinces in this case.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm just wondering if this doesn't strengthen some of the arguments for expanding P2 planning to the NPRI, because CEPA gives authority to the NPRI and there may be a way of amending the earlier amendment around P2 planning and extending it to the NPRI to talk about some of the residual aspects that you've talked about here, such that if provinces are requiring P2 plans for substances already, then perhaps we're not really overstepping our constitutional bounds, as has been argued by some people and not supported by others. I'm just wondering if that's a possibility.
The Chairman: Are there any comments on this comment?
Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Do you want to ask a question?
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: All right. An oversight on the part of the chair, Madame Girard-Bujold.
• 1105
[Translation]
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This addition gives the federal government authority to do things provinces cannot do. In my view, this is what it means.
The Chairman: That is your interpretation.
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: To me, that is what it means.
The Chairman: Others don't share this interpretation.
[English]
Are you ready for the question on G-5.3?
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, do all the substitutes who have come in have voting rights? Are they substitutes?
The Chairman: The clerk has checked their names against the list provided by the whip and informs me that the answer is yes.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.
The Chairman: This meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.