EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, February 2, 1999
• 0916
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Order.
[Translation]
Good morning, everyone.
[English]
It's nice to be able to welcome members to the committee in the new year. It's nice to be able to start at quarter past nine. It would be even nicer to be able to start at nine, as some members did arrive here at that time. May I perhaps urge you tomorrow and Thursday to look at the clock so that we have a quorum at the recommended hour.
Colleagues, when we adjourned we stood page 217 at the request of the parliamentary secretary; that is amendment G-10.5. The parliamentary secretary has indicated that she is now ready to move that motion. That news reached the chair by horse in the last few minutes. If it is correct, then the floor is to the parliamentary secretary.
Welcome.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): Thanks. It's good to be back in the saddle.
It is my pleasure to move government motion G-10.5, which affects clause 95. This is a cross-reference to clause 92.1, which was added after we passed the new subclause 65(3). It's a cross-reference.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could clarify for the chair why on the tenth line in paragraph (a) there is a reference to regulations made under paragraph 97(b). It includes also the possibility of a situation whereby a written report may not be required. Perhaps that is too technical a question. Perhaps one of the officials may give an explanation as to the necessity of paragraph 97(b) with respect to the possibility of bypassing a written report. Under which circumstance would it be desirable to forgo a written report? That is the question.
If it is not possible to answer today, it can be answered at another time, of course, so that we do not leave it to improvisation.
• 0920
Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Department of the Environment): That would be preferable.
The Chairman: Then we'd better stand clause 95 until we have an answer to the question, and we can move to the next.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
(Clause 95 allowed to stand)
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Just before we get into clause 96, I'd like to ask that it be stood. We have a paper that was prepared by Mr. Moffet prior to Christmas on whistle-blower protection, and there's a suggestion that clause 96 be amended.
The Chairman: Yes, you're right. It is covered by clause 96. I was looking at the next one. You are quite right.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then there's another one in clauses 202 and 213.
The Chairman: Which is later, yes.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Which is later. So if I can, I would ask that clause 96 be stood.
The Chairman: And when would you like to propose those amendments, at which stage?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: For the next meeting.
The Chairman: We'll do them together with the other clauses.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. This was an earlier request I had that Mr. Moffet prepare a paper, and it would be my understanding that because of that request any parts of the bill that would be affected by the amendments would be covered at one time.
The Chairman: Yes. It was a shortcoming on our part not to insert Mr. Moffet's amendments in the collection of amendments. I apologize for that. Since this is the first time that we have an opportunity to see them, we will have to stand, in addition to clause 95, also clause 96 for that reason. Perhaps we can tackle it tomorrow.
(Clause 96 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 97 to 99 inclusive agreed to)
• 0925
The Chairman: Now we come to a bundle of amendments that were produced apparently late last night and delivered here in committee this morning dealing with clauses 100 to 104. They are government amendments. It will be desirable to give members of the committee a chance to mull them over. Therefore, I propose that we deal with them tomorrow.
You will notice that they deal with some important components of the bill. Rather than investing a considerable amount of time in questions and answers and clarifications and the like, I would suggest that it would be a wiser course of action to give members an opportunity to absorb them this afternoon and to deal with them tomorrow.
The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
Just to clarify, in this bundle that looks a little different in terms of the type there are a series of amendments to clauses 100, 101, 102, and 103. They would replace the G-11 that's currently in your binders or packages. It all relates to the prior informed consent convention, which was signed in the fall.
I'm more than happy to move on to clause 104, which I think has some amendments from the opposition.
(Clauses 100 to 103 inclusive allowed to stand)
(On clause 104—Definitions)
The Chairman: We will move to clause 104 and start with the amendment by Mr. Laliberte of Churchill River.
Would you like to move a motion, Mr. Laliberte?
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Yes, I would like to move a motion.
The Chairman: Madam Parliamentary Secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to identify that I think the issues the member is trying to address were already covered in part 5, and now we are in part 6, which is biotechnology. Substances were defined earlier, so I don't think this is necessary.
The Chairman: You're saying it's a redundant amendment? Could you indicate to the member where it is covered in part 5?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps Ms. Lloyd could give us a further scientific explanation because of the grouping of inanimate...
Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Okay. Ms. Torsney is correct, in that part 6 is designed to cover the animate products of biotechnology—the micro-organisms, the fungi, the bacteria. The inanimate products, which are chemicals, are covered in part 5. The sections are largely identical; this just separates them out.
The Chairman: Can you give us the numbers where it is covered in part 5 to facilitate understanding?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: It would be in the definition of substance, I guess. The definition of substance is broad enough to cover all chemicals.
• 0930
The Chairman: Would you indicate the page for the definition you are referring to, please?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: I'm sorry. It's the definition of substance on page 9.
The Chairman: You were saying earlier that it is covered in part 5. Are you now revising your statement?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: No, not at all. The chemicals that are produced by products of biotechnology are covered in part 5 because they're chemicals. The actual living organisms themselves are covered in part 6 because they're alive and animate. The inanimate parts, all of the chemicals you might raise the micro-organisms to produce, are substances and therefore are covered in part 5, like all the other types of chemicals we regulate.
The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, do lines 7 and 8 on page 9 meet your concern?
Mr. Lincoln and then Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I have a problem. If we say the definition is contained in the broad definition of substance on page 9, why then do we have another definition of living organism under part 6? It's either one or the other. Part 5 is supposed to be broad enough to cover animate or inanimate, yet in part 6 we've gone to the trouble of having specific definitions. I think what Mr. Laliberte wants to do is to say that under living organism, because it's a product of biotechnology, it can be animate or inanimate. If the other one picks it up, why do we have a definition here at all?
The Chairman: Certainly there is a lack of consistency between the definition on page 9 and the definition on page 73. Perhaps the department could explain why. That is the point raised by Mr. Lincoln and the reason for the amendment by Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: The answer is because living organism is a subset of substance. In fact, the definition on page 73 in clause 104 indicates that living organism means a substance, but it's a subset of substances. It's those substances that are animate products of biotechnology. All the other substances are treated as chemicals and are addressed under part 5. So you have to read the two definitions together in order to understand that living organism is a subset of the larger class of substances.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm not a physicist, a biologist, or a chemist, but can a living organism, in terms of biotechnology, be inanimate? That is what he is trying to say.
• 0935
The very reason, Mr. Cameron, you say that
“living organism” as a definition is a subset of the
broader term “substance” means that “living organism” as a
subset definition stands by itself. If it stands by
itself and there is a reason for putting it in, Mr.
Laliberte says “Okay, it's not broad enough the way it
is, and I want to broaden it.” If there's a point to
broadening it to include inanimate, why can't you do it?
That, I think, is the gist of it.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: You're asking, essentially, what is life, and it's a fundamentally difficult question to answer. So for legal certainty what we said is that we're going to treat all the universe's substances, but within that universe we're going to carve out those substances that are animate. We're going to call those living organisms. Perhaps we could have had it broader or we could have had it narrower, but to give it certainty we've said that those substances that are animate products of biotechnology are defined as living organisms and they will be the subject matter of part 6; those substances that do not meet that definition are substances nonetheless and they are covered in part 5.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Laliberte is really talking about a biotechnology product. In other words, what he wants to do is to say in that clause that biotechnology product is different from a living organism in terms of what you want to say—in which case, if it's a biotechnology product, it can be animate or inanimate.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: If it's inanimate it's covered in part 5.
Ms. Karen Lloyd: That's because it's a chemical. If it's covered under part 6 it's a living organism, so the triggers you would want would depend on the number of micro-organisms, how many fungi, how many bacteria, etc. But when you're dealing with a chemical, then you're concerned about volume, so the triggers are very different, and that's why they're set up differently.
But the inanimate products of biotechnology are chemicals, and there is nothing different about those chemicals compared to others in terms of the type of information you would require and how you would regulate them. The new substances part of part 5 is identical to part 6 anyway, so other than that one point where you're dealing with quantities of micro-organisms versus volumes of chemicals, they're identical clauses.
The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd, does that mean that in the case of biotechnology inanimate organisms are not the object of biotechnology and that only living organisms are?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: For part 6, yes.
The Chairman: Why are the inanimate organisms excluded in part 6?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: I think it is because they're chemicals and they're already covered in part 5.
The Chairman: But if the definition is not broad enough, it would mean that when it comes to biotechnological issues, inanimate organisms would not be covered. Is that correct?
• 0940
Ms. Karen Lloyd: I just don't understand what an inanimate organism would be. If you're an organism and you're alive, you're in part 6, and if you're a chemical that it produces, which is not live but inanimate, then you're in part 5.
The Chairman: But does biotechnology deal only with animate organisms? That is my question. My understanding is that biotechnology can deal with all sorts of organisms—
Ms. Karen Lloyd: That's right.
The Chairman: —animate and inanimate. I suppose this is the genesis of this amendment and all the questions that are being asked.
Madam Kraft Sloan and the parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: One of the things I'd like to know is if there is a legal definition of living organism. The concern I've heard articulated by other witnesses is that the whole issue of living organism and what that means may be left open to debate.
So, first of all, is there a legal definition of living organism, and how are things like viruses, prions, DNA fragments, and certain types of feeds and foods dealt with? The scope may be too narrow when we're chasing the definition of what living organism means as it pertains to biotechnology.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Perhaps I could answer that question.
This of course would be the legal definition for purposes of CEPA, and I have no doubt that there is a broader debate in the scientific community as to what life is and what a living organism is. However, in order to give legal certainty to the law, we have to make certain decisions and we have to draw certain lines, and that's what we've done by defining living organism in this way.
In terms of DNA fragments, as I understand it, a DNA fragment would not be an animate product of biotechnology and therefore would be treated as a substance and a chemical covered under part 5.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: A DNA fragment is not a living...?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: My understanding is that it is not, on its own.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: A DNA fragment? What about a virus? Is that considered an animate substance? If you're defining something that leaves the definition open for debate, how are you setting clarity within the law? Maybe we could have some comment from our researchers. Is a virus, for example, animate or inanimate?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: In our regulations, organism is defined to include viruses, so it would be covered in part 6, on biotechnology.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, but a DNA fragment is not an animate substance?
A witness: Not according to this.
The Chairman: We have a long list here. First of all, I apologize to Madame Girard-Bujold, who wanted to ask a question first. Then we have the parliamentary secretary, then Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Lincoln.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, the very fact that they are wondering whether or not we should include this in the definition of “substance”, on page 9, worries me. I would like Mr. Moffet to give us some clarification and his opinion on this clause and tell us whether or not he would recommend that it be included in the definition of “substance”, on page 9.
[English]
The Chairman: It is doubtful that Mr. Moffet would have a Ph.D. in microbiology, but we'll give him a chance if he wants to give it a try.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, that's not it.
[English]
Mr. John Moffet (Consultant, Environmental Law and Policy, Resource Futures International): I regret that I didn't finish the biotechnology doctorate. But what I can answer has to do with the definition issue.
If we look at page 9, substance is defined very broadly. So it's the intention of the government, and the intention of this bill, that the term “substance” captures the full universe of potential things you might want to look at to determine whether they're toxic and whether they need to be regulated in some manner. So we have a very broad definition of substance.
• 0945
Then we go to parts 5 and 6. Part 5 applies to
everything except the subset that is carved out in
part 6, and part 6 carves out a small subset of the
full universe of substances. It carves out that subset
that is defined to be “living organisms”, which are
defined as animate products of biotechnology. I
can't tell you what those are. You have to ask the
scientists that question.
But the issue I hear people groping towards is, is it conceivable that something is missing? In other words, is it conceivable that there is some product of biotechnology that could somehow not be included in this umbrella? I don't think that's the case, because in my view substance is very broadly defined. Anything that is not captured in part 6 as a living organism is going to be captured in part 5. Legally the issue is more one of practice: are the scientists going to address all the right substances in the right priority, and so on? And those are questions you've been asking in different sections in the bill; those aren't questions that pertain to this section.
So I think my answer is that we have the full universe encompassed in part 5 and part 6. I don't see any scope for something escaping these definitions.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The parliamentary secretary is next.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was glad to hear Mr. Moffet's description, and I would refer members who are still wondering to the summary of the bill, which is just inside the cover, which also carves out that these are the living products, that other inanimate substances are dealt with in part 5. Again, I don't support the amendment because I think it's a duplication. We already have this subset clearly set out for a reason.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe this question raises a major concern about terminology. This definition came from a test. My Cree language is based on animate and inanimate descriptions. So when I say ôma or awa, it defines which one... This table is awa. It means it's an inanimate object. I can refer to it with that word; it's clear. When I refer to a living thing as ôma, it's a totally different world.
I'm a living organism, but if I cut my finger off, what does that tip of the finger become? Now, biotechnology experiments with tips of the fingers.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Figuratively.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: It takes these organisms, which are now going to be defined as inanimate, and it could design whole new activities that will not fit in part 6.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It'll fit in part 5.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. Part 5 does not deal with biotechnology. This is a specific section on biotechnology.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, maybe that's part of the problem. The fact that this heading is called “Biotechnology” does not mean that inanimate products of biotechnology are not dealt with in other parts of the bill. They are. But this part is the animate part of biotechnology. When your finger got attached to somebody else...that's not a good example.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: No.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we get away from the fingers? When it's living, it will be dealt with under part 6. If it's not living, it will be dealt with under part 5. Both products are biotechnology. You might want different legislation affecting them. And I think you'll probably agree if you think about it.
• 0950
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think Mr. Moffet has explained it very well.
What I want to ask Mrs. Lloyd is this. What you suggested was that whatever is not picked up by the term “living organism” under biotechnology is automatically picked up under part 5 as a chemical. I think the argument is whether everything that is not under part 6 is necessarily a chemical, and I think this is a problem that some of us have. We're not sure whether a DNA fragment is a chemical, and in fact I think our researcher gave us the advice that probably it isn't. That's where the problem is.
My view of part 5 is this. We talk about chemicals, but the description is broader than chemicals. Now it says “substances”. I think that's where you've convinced me that it's part 5, because part 5 picks up everything else under substances. We don't have to define it as a chemical as such, because you say that whatever is not there is a chemical. I must say I have a problem with it, because inanimate matter may not be a chemical, it may be something else. It may be some kind of virus that is possibly living. But as long as it's not there...
What I want is your confirmation that whatever is not there is picked up as a substance, whether it's defined as a chemical or not.
Ms. Karen Lloyd: That's correct.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That's correct? Then I don't have any problems.
Thanks.
Mr. John Moffet: I just wanted to agree with what Karen Lloyd said and remind the members that the word “chemical” may have been used by the government staff, but it doesn't appear in part 5. So it's not what determines what's in part 5. Part 5 is all substances other than living organisms.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, that's right.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to pose a suggestion.
With this issue being as touchy as it is and our country going into a protocol discussion on biosafety, is it possible that we can get a biotech, scientific perspective on this? It seems as though everybody is reaching for these definitions, but we're not experts in this. But somebody who is well versed in this might define the term “living”. We don't know what “living” is.
The Chairman: Perhaps a suggestion of that kind ought to have been raised at the time of our hearings and our calling of witnesses. At this stage it is a little bit late in the game, so we have to use our own devices and resources around the table.
Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: My other comment, Mr. Chair, would be to ask to what end you would need to have this interesting discussion about biotechnology. The reality is that if it's an animate product it will be dealt with under part 6 of this bill; if it's an inanimate product it will be dealt with under part 5 of the bill. If the issue is regulating products of biotechnology, we have the tools, however you define them.
It would be an interesting discussion for another day, but I think in terms of the legislation it's an unnecessary one at this point.
The Chairman: I can see your difficulty, Mr. Laliberte, in the definition of the term “living” and whether it would cover both animate or inanimate. Also, it is clear that animate and living are probably synonymous and that inanimate means not living. But we are being told today that the inanimate are covered under part 5, so it is now for you to decide whether that explanation is sufficient and to decide whether you will move the amendment.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I would still move the motion. I do have another question that I wanted to raise as well.
The Chairman: Very well, move the motion and ask the question.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, I'll move the motion as is presented.
• 0955
The question is this. The government representative
mentioned the term “chemical”. What would chemical
additives such as those in Roundup Ready seeds be
defined as?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: An animate product of biotechnology.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Inanimate?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: Animate. They're living. Seeds are living, so that would be covered under animate. It's not covered under this act; it would be covered under the Seeds Act. CEPA doesn't regulate seeds.
The Chairman: Do you want to comment at this stage?
Mr. John Moffet: Yes, Chairman.
The Chairman: Do you have a question for Mr. Moffet?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Back to the seeds, these seeds are being exposed to the environment and human health... We have a case in Saskatchewan of a neighbouring farmer being sued by a corporation because of seed use on his farm. He's saying it was wind-borne and he is innocent. Now with this transgression and the migration, these seeds are in our environment.
Isn't the protection of our environment the task here? Why wouldn't these fall under this?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: Because that particular part of biotechnology is covered in a different act; it's under the Seeds Act.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: And is environmental and human safety covered under the Seeds Act?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: I'm not an expert on that act, but...
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm quite concerned about it.
The Chairman: We can see that. But would you like to ask a question to Mr. Moffet? Then we'll proceed with the vote.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe Mr. Moffet is trying to jump in and define it, so I'll request that he fill in the blanks.
Mr. John Moffet: All right. I wanted to distinguish the issues here.
One of the issues that's on the table is whether part 5 and part 6 collectively address all the substances that we're concerned about. I wanted to reiterate the view that the government has presented, and that I've presented, that collectively they do. But I wanted to remind the committee members that the concern that some of the witnesses before the committee had raised about this was not whether part 6 and part 5 together address everything but whether the dividing line is clear between part 5 and part 6. In other words, is this definition of living organism, which is the definition that demarcates part 6 from part 5, a clear definition that will provide effective guidance to government scientists and regulators?
That's not a question I can answer for you. I'm not a scientist. As a lay person, I find the definition vague.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that the committee might want to focus on that issue when looking at these two lines. The issue is not whether collectively we are getting all the substances but whether we have the line between part 5 and part 6 drawn clearly enough so that it can provide effective direction to the government.
The Chairman: The question then is what do we do to draw these missing clear lines?
Mr. John Moffet: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was unclear. I said that as a layperson it appears unclear to me. I guess I'm asking the government to respond to that and to tell us whether or not it is clear enough.
Ms. Karen Lloyd: It's elaborated upon in regulations that deal with substances and biotechnology. It's laid out clearly there.
The Chairman: In which area?
Ms. Karen Lloyd: In the new substances notification regulations. We can provide you with a copy of that, if you would like.
The Chairman: Parliament leaves that task to non-elected representatives, in other words, as is the case with all regulations. In other words, in this particular instance will the writers of regulations be given sufficiently clear direction in the legislation passed by Parliament?
• 1000
Mr. Clifford Lincoln and then Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I must say Mr. Moffet had first convinced me, but now he's unconvincing me.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just don't understand. He seems to be backing off. I thought—and I was quite clear on it—the definition was a subset, and everything else was picked up under part 5. But now he seems to think the line is a little bit blurry, as I had thought until he convinced me otherwise. Now he's trying to say that there is still a blurry line.
I'm not sure where we are now.
Mr. John Moffet: Let me restate my position.
I'm trying to make two very different points. The first point is that part 6 addresses a subset of substances and that all other substances are addressed in part 5. That is my position.
The question I'm raising is more of a practical one. I'm saying that I'm not sure. Some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee argued that the line around the subset that is part 6, and that is drawn by this definition of living organism, is somewhat vague. That doesn't mean that substances remain outside the legal definition. It's more of a practical implication of whether or not the legislation and the regulations provide clear enough guidance to the government to determine which ones to address under part 6 and which ones to address under part 5. None escape the legal umbrella. It's just that which ones get addressed where is not clear, or may not be clear, in the law.
Ms. Lloyd suggested that the line is clarified in the new substances notification regulations. I don't have those before me, so I'm not capable of commenting on them.
The Chairman: We are now calling the Library of Parliament researcher, a biologist who has done the background work for this committee, to see whether he can come over and address this issue for a moment in light of this latest exchange.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I don't have the current CEPA, the 1988 CEPA, in front of me, but I believe it handles biotechnology differently. I'm not sure whether it handles it differently with regard to this particular definition.
The Chairman: Would you like to comment, Madam Hébert?
Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Yes, Mr. Chair, but I need a few more moments.
• 1005
The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.
Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, just to respond to Mrs. Kraft Sloan's question, on page 3 of the 1988 CEPA there is a definition of biotechnology. It's also dealt with in the regulatory authority, section 32. You'll find that on page 20.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When you look at the definition in CEPA 1988, there are a few things in there that are kind of interesting. It says:
To me, this seems to be far broader than what we have used as a subset now.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In other words, you pick up “parts or products of living organisms”, which is the subject of an upcoming amendment by Mr. Laliberte, but it also says “in their natural or modified forms”. I wonder why we don't use that kind of definition here.
The Chairman: Ms. Hébert.
Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Lincoln, I'd like to point out that I believe in the definitions section of the bill there is a definition of biotechnology that more or less repeats the wording of the existing act. Biotechnology refers to living organisms “in their natural or modified forms”. So it is there in the bill.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Does that mean the subset is qualified by the broader definition, in your view?
Ms. Monique Hébert: The definition of biotechnology in the bill would have a bearing on the definition of living organism in part 6, as that definition carries the notion of products of biotechnology.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So when you talk about living organisms under part 6, it would be in their natural or modified form, then, because of the broader definition on page 5.
Ms. Monique Hébert: I would say, off the top, yes, except that the definition is limited to “living”, as it is with biotechnology.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Madam Hébert, does this include, as the definition points out, “living organisms or parts or products of living organisms”, then?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. It shows that in the definition.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's in the definition, I know, but as it's stated under clause 104, a living organism means “a substance that is an animate product of biotechnology”.
So in the definition of biotechnology, on page whatever, at the beginning of the bill, it refers to parts or products of living organisms. So it's not only the full living organism itself but also a part of the living organism as well as a product of the living organism.
Does this definition for living organism in clause 104 constrain or reduce the scope of that?
Ms. Monique Hébert: I'd have to look at the clauses far more carefully to be able to see how they work together. I can't answer just off the top.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Why is it necessary to have that in here if we already have a definition of biotechnology?
Mr. John Moffet: Again, now we're coming back to the distinction here, and to the two points made earlier.
First, part 6 focuses only on animate substances. That's why this is qualified as an animate product of biotechnology.
The second point is the one that the parliamentary secretary made and that I would agree with. I think the title of part 6 is unfortunate, because it's leading everybody to believe it should address all substances of biotechnology. That's unfortunate, but it has no legal bearing on the way part 6 will be administered or interpreted. I guess I would urge you to disregard that and to focus on the wording of the provision.
• 1010
So the definition of biotechnology
is qualified here because part 6 is focusing
on animate substances.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is a DNA fragment part of a living organism, then, or is it a chemical? Or is it an inanimate substance?
The Chairman: I don't know whether we can let this committee become a forum for a discussion on definitions of animate and inanimate. We have devoted some time to this portion here.
This amendment is a very important one. There seems to be general agreement that the title for part 6 is not appropriate or accurate. For the guidance of those who will interpret this bill once it becomes an act, I think the title ought to be changed. I don't know what it could be changed to, though.
Certainly the removal of the impression that part 6 deals with biotechnology seems to be of some importance. That is the conclusion I'm arriving at after almost 45 minutes on this matter.
The second point is that we have a motion before us, and it will be time to take a vote very soon.
Mr. de Savoye wants to make an intervention. I will give him the floor if he can please make it short.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not arriving sooner. Nevertheless, I understand that we are having problems defining the meaning of “living organism”, particularly in conjunction with the proposed amendment before us. However, further to Ms. Kraft Sloan's question, I can see that we are also having problems defining what is meant by an animate product. Are we referring to a DNA fragment or to all of DNA? Should an animate product be able to reproduce itself? Right now we are all at sea, not only about the chapter heading, but also about the basic definitions that will determine whether or not we have a clear or somewhat muddled understanding of the other clauses. Until we clear up this confusion for all committee members, I don't see how we can get any further ahead by a simple vote. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, let me ask you this question. Would you be willing—if the committee agrees, of course—to withdraw this motion so that you would still have an option, perhaps at report stage, to advance your amendment, having then the benefit of further consultation and further opinions? You will appreciate that if a vote takes place now on your amendment, then this option would be forgone at the report stage.
This is, therefore, a friendly suggestion in terms of leaving this option open, considering the importance of the subject matter.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm new at the parliamentary and legislative process. The report stage would be in the House, right?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is a legal document, and in terms of definition—I'm just reading the government's response here—it's still pretty specific that non-living organisms are specialty chemicals. So it goes back to chemicals. It's a major issue. I welcome friendly amendments, and certainly the government is going ahead with biosafety protocol at the same time. I'm sure there are specialists swarming around the minister's office at this time. If we could attract them here, it would be just fine to have their perspective shared with us.
• 1015
The Chairman: The suggestion, Mr. Laliberte, is that you seek consent to withdraw this amendment so as to keep an option open at the report stage, where time will allow for further enlightenment on this particular issue, provided of course that the committee is willing to grant it.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would take the friendly amendment. I respect the suggestion, and I would take it. I encourage our committee to look further into this until we get to that point.
The Chairman: If I understand Mr. Laliberte correctly, he is seeking the consent of this committee to withdraw his amendment for the time being. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment withdrawn)
The Chairman: Thank you.
Could I take it, Mr. Laliberte, that you would want to have the same freedom of options and not proceed today with the amendment on page 227, which is in the same vein and on the same clause? In other words, you would retain your option to present an amendment at the report stage, should you see fit to do so.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, those were linked together, so we will do the same.
The Chairman: So the amendments on pages 226 and 227 are not moved.
The same would apply to an amendment we received this morning that also refers to clause 104. It deals with hormone-disrupting substance. It was distributed only this morning, and I wonder if—
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, we'll do the same.
The Chairman: The amendment is not moved. Thank you.
Could I then urge the officials of Environment Canada to give some thought to changing the title of part 6, Biotechnology, to take into account what has been said this morning and to see if you can come forward with a title that would be perhaps more adequate and reflective of the comments made about its inadequacy. Thank you.
(Clauses 104 and 105 agreed to)
(On clause 106—Manufacture or import of living organisms)
The Chairman: We have an amendment by Mr. Laliberte on page 228. Mr. Laliberte, the floor is yours.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: It involves the deletion of “prescribed fee”. In future years this could limit a growing biotech industry, and prescribed fees could be expensive and industry related. As we heard yesterday from those involved in aquaculture, in their industry investment is very crucial. Young university students who have the know-it-all might be limited. In terms of accessing financial obligations, it might be well worth it.
• 1020
The Chairman: You would amend, therefore, line 44 by stopping with the first “prescribed”. It's clear.
Are there any comments or questions? The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would just have to question why this was being done when in fact recommendation 8 of It's About Our Health! talks about users paying, and in the preamble of the bill we talk about the person who's going to derive the benefit paying for the services of the government in this way. The government has a policy that there should be fees for these services, and I think it's a pretty fair principle.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: We'll turn to page 229. Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's a similar amendment. It takes away the fee part, “accompanied by the prescribed”. It's for the same reasons, so I'll introduce the amendment.
The Chairman: Thank you.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: We'll now move to page 230. Mr. Laliberte.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair—
The Chairman: Madam Parliamentary Secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: —just before you move to page 230, I wonder if we could have the consent of the committee to stand the rest of this clause and to move on to clause 107. I think there have been a number of discussions, and it might give us a day or so to wrap those up.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary is suggesting that we stand the remaining amendments on clause 106.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
(Clause 106 allowed to stand)
(On clause 107—Prohibition of activity)
The Chairman: That takes us to page 238. Mr. Laliberte, are you ready to move your amendment to clause 107?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What page are we on?
The Chairman: We're on page 238 and clause 107.
• 1025
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll introduce the motion. I don't know if Mr. Moffet would like to speak to it. We have dealt with it before: that when waiving information, the “by order” comes with responsibility in process for the government, or the minister.
The Chairman: So moved. Thank you.
Mr. Moffet.
Mr. John Moffet: With respect to the member, I think the motion in this case is redundant, because I believe his objective here, by inserting the words “by order”, would be to trigger clause 332, which would require the minister to publish in the Canada Gazette a copy of the order and then to have a comment period. But the remainder of subclause 107(3) specifies that if the minister waives the requirement then subclauses 106(11) to (15) apply, and (11) to (15) essentially require the minister to publish a notice in the Canada Gazette.
The requirement to publish a notice with respect to the decision to provide a waiver has explicitly been provided for in a somewhat circuitous manner by this provision. So I think the amendment is redundant.
The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, I trust the process there. I can see the tracking there. We were going through the whole bill and seeing the “by order” responsibilities. I'll retract the motion.
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent for withdrawal of the motion? I see there is. Thank you.
(Amendment withdrawn)
(Clauses 107 and 108 agreed to)
(On clause 109—Action to be taken after assessment)
The Chairman: We move to page 239, clause 109. Mr. Laliberte, you have an amendment. Can we simply not move it, for the reasons given on the previous occasion?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: We won't move it.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Can we then move to page 240? There is an amendment by Mr. Laliberte. What is your wish?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is the issue of prohibition. This transfers the responsibility to the minister. We felt that accountability by the minister would be well considered here, so I would move this.
The Chairman: So moved.
Are there any comments? The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would just point out that the Governor in Council publishes in the Canada Gazette, so it wouldn't be appropriate.
Actually, I have to correct myself. This relates to regulations, and the regulations are in fact approved by the Governor in Council. To insert the minister here instead of the Governor in Council would be setting up a situation where you would imply that the minister could second-guess the Governor in Council, and that would be an inappropriate way to deal with things.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Mr. Moffet.
Mr. John Moffet: I'm not sure I followed.
• 1030
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: May I ask for clarification, please? If what Mr. Cameron said is right under subclause (4), what is the position under subclause (5)? Subclause (5) says “the Minister shall publish in the Canada Gazette a notice”. So if subclause (4) is right, is subclause (5) wrong?
Mr. John Moffet: And subclauses (1) and (2).
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And subclauses (1) and (2) as well.
Mr. John Moffet: That is the question I was going to ask as well.
The Chairman: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary may wish to make a third statement on this matter.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, actually I'm clear on that. We're all conferring here. Mr. Mongrain is chomping at the bit. Mr. Cameron is chomping at the bit too?
Mr. Steve Mongrain: Oh no, I'll be the horse.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Who makes the most money?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: The lawyers.
Mr. Steve Mongrain: Perhaps I could take a step back and explain some of this.
This is where the minister puts a condition on a new living organism. It's the minister who does so. The Governor in Council has two years to publish a notice in the Canada Gazette indicating that it will pass a regulation essentially confirming that condition. The condition or the prohibition has a shelf life of two years, essentially, at which time it must then be confirmed by the Governor in Council. This is analogous to a situation where we have an existing substance, and it's the Governor in Council that regulates when it's found to be toxic.
The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, the question that is puzzling the committee is that in subclause (4) the Governor in Council publishes, and in subclause (5) the minister publishes. Perhaps you can explain to the committee why there is this shifting responsibility.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In subclauses (1) and (2), as pointed out by Mr. Moffet, it's the same: the minister publishes.
I have just seen now where CELA, in their brief, suggested that it was quite appropriate legally to have the minister be substituted. In fact they recommended that this be so. They said that if you go to the Governor in Council it's a long-winded business where the Minister of the Environment is very often outvoted—that's the way it goes in our system—and that it would be quite appropriate for her to have the powers, just the same as in subclauses (1), (2), and (5). I don't see why in subclause (4) suddenly it's the Governor in Council. I don't think Mr. Mongrain has explained the distinction.
The Chairman: No, he hasn't.
Mr. Mongrain, would you like to try again?
Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'll take another stab at it, if I may.
It's analogous to what's in the toxics part. These are new living organisms that are not in Canadian commerce. The applicant provides information to the department and an assessment is made. If the minister decides, on the basis of that assessment, to either put conditions on the use of the living organism or to prohibit its import or manufacture, the minister may do so. That condition or prohibition has a shelf life; it expires after two years. What the minister is doing is analogous to the regulation of an existing substance or an existing living organism in the case of this part 6.
What then kicks in is the Governor in Council publishing in the Canada Gazette a notice of proposed regulations. The prohibition is in place. It expires within two years. Within that time, the Governor in Council essentially confirms the decision of the minister and puts in place—
The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, no, no, you are making an assumption. You are saying that the Governor in Council possibly will do that. But the question that is puzzling this committee is why the action shifts suddenly on subclause (4) from the minister to the Governor in Council. That is the question we are asking you to address.
• 1035
Mr. Steve Mongrain: It's because it's analogous to a regulatory instrument. It's similar to the control of an existing substance, except that in this case it's a new substance. We don't want the minister to have to go to the Governor in Council for an initial decision. The minister has the authority to prohibit, and then the minister says to the Governor in Council, “I prohibited this living organism. Here are my recommendations based on the scientific assessment. Please pass a regulation prohibiting the substance.” It's similar to the regime we have for new substances under the existing act.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions? Mr. Moffet.
Mr. John Moffet: I think I owe the committee an apology for misleading them on this. I think Mr. Mongrain's explanation has clarified this for me.
Essentially, subclauses 109(1), (2), and (3) provide the minister with the authority to temporarily address the living organism with a prohibition for up to two years. If it were the determination of the government that a regulation, a more permanent instrument, would be required, then under subclause 109(4) the Governor in Council has to publish a notice of the proposed regulation. So the decision-making authority is quite different. The minister is given temporary decision-making authority for up to two years. That decision expires after two years. Then, if they decide to regulate, the Governor in Council must publish in the Canada Gazette, as they do with any other regulation, a notice of the proposed regulation.
So this strikes me as being quite sensible, actually. So I apologize.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If I can follow up on this, Mr. Moffet, you have said “if” the Governor in Council decides to regulate. What if they decide not to regulate? Then this just expires.
Mr. John Moffet: Correct.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can the minister on her own decide to regulate, or is it just the Governor in Council that regulates?
Mr. John Moffet: Right.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If the Governor in Council decides not to regulate, what happens to subclause 109(5), then? Does the minister still have the power to vary or rescind?
Mr. John Moffet: Subclause 109(5) refers back to subclause 109(3), which allows the minister to vary or rescind the condition or prohibition, and subclause 109(5) simply says that where the minister exercises that power to vary or rescind, she has to publish that variance or rescission in the Canada Gazette.
The minister's authority to permit, to prohibit, or to request further information flows from subclause 109(1), and that is a time-limited authority, as I understand it, limited to two years.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Shouldn't subclause 109(5) follow subclause 109(3)?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Subclause 109(5) never refers to subclause 109(3). It's a broad subclause that doesn't refer to subclause 109(3) at all. It says: “Where the minister specifies, imposes, varies or rescinds any condition”. It seems as if the minister retains a tremendous power under subclause 109(5) anyway.
Mr. John Moffet: I wouldn't have read it that way. Maybe we can ask Mr. Cameron to comment on the drafting of subclause 109(5).
The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, please.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: I believe subclause 109(5) refers to a variety of powers in this clause, including those powers to specify and impose conditions under paragraphs 109(1)(a) and (b), as well as the power to vary or rescind under subclause 109(3). So it's essentially a basket requirement and therefore, in our view, is appropriate to put at the end of the clause.
• 1040
Mr. John Moffet: But I think the issue is whether or not it should precede subclause 109(4). It may be a catch-all provision, but it's a catch-all with regard to subclauses 109(1), (2), and (3) and not with regard to subclause 109(4).
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If the Governor in Council makes the decision not to regulate, then it all stops there. So it seems that having subclause 109(5) follow something that can stop the whole process is inappropriate. I don't know, but it doesn't seem logical to me, because it seems to imply that something else may be allowed to happen.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have to differ. Starting with subclause 109(1), the side comments are “Action to be taken after assessment”, “Additional information or testing”, and “Variation of conditions and prohibitions”. All of those things are active. Then you have “Expiry of prohibition”, how you get it to be over; and then finally, “Publication of conditions and prohibitions”. So it is actually clear, and it is in appropriate order.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any further questions? Mr. Laliberte, did you move this amendment?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I did.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 109 agreed to)
(On clause 110—Significant new activity)
The Chairman: We now move to page 241. We have no amendments to—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sir, we have an amendment to clause 110.
The Chairman: We received an amendment to clause 110 only this morning, so we'll give members a chance to absorb it, and we'll deal with it tomorrow.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's fairly simple. It's on page 9 of the small package.
The Chairman: I think we should treat them all in the same manner. There has been no opportunity for anyone to assess it. This kind of approach will apply to all the amendments that were received this morning by the committee.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, does that apply to the opposition ones as well?
The Chairman: Mr. Herron, please.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I was just going to say that if they involve very simple changes, such as in friendly amendments, and if the committee thought it would be prudent for us to hear them and to get on with it, then I would be willing to have the parliamentary secretary introduce her amendments.
The Chairman: There is an amendment to clause 110 that refers to 90 days, which has been introduced. I don't know if that is a small detail or one that may have implications. The fact is that it was received only this morning.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair—
The Chairman: I would rather apply that rule without going into the merits of each amendment in detail so as to save time.
The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps we could just clarify it, then. Are all amendments received from opposition members going to be delayed as well until the following day, or is it just some of them?
The Chairman: If they are received in bulk like this one on the morning of a meeting—not just one but several—I would suggest that it is a better practice to give the members a chance to absorb them. I received them at 9 a.m.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.
The Chairman: It's not one, it's several. If it were one—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, but it doesn't relate to the other ones.
The Chairman: Excuse me, if it had been one, perhaps we could have had a chance to discuss that single one. But because it is a group of amendments and because we have had the whole month of January to produce these amendments, it is, I think, only fair that we give the members a chance to look at them all, and we'll go into them tomorrow.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I just clarify one point, Mr. Chair?
The Chairman: Sure.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: While they may be in groups, because the first several pages do relate to clauses that are grouped together—that is, clauses 100, 101, 102, and 103—this particular one and the following one are not related to those. They are related to the clause we are dealing with.
• 1045
The Chairman: Fine. If the parliamentary secretary wants to have a long debate as to whether we should then reopen the whole question, fine. We can use the time this morning to discuss whether or not we should handle certain amendments differently from others.
My suggestion is very straightforward and simple. What was produced as a package at 9 a.m. today ought to be seen tomorrow to give everybody a chance to understand and absorb it.
What is the wish of the committee? I'm in your hands.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, can I just clarify one point? It's not a package. That's my point.
The Chairman: But it arrived as a package.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: There was one package at the beginning. I appreciate that it should be dealt with as a group—
The Chairman: Unfortunately, it was delivered as a package today at 9 a.m.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, ensure that the stapling is done differently in future.
The Chairman: We have no control over how they are delivered.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: We'll watch the stapling.
The Chairman: I'm in the hands of the committee.
Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I understand your position and support it.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Given that we're prepared to take a lot of time to debate what at times seems like fairly minor issues, I think we can take some time to read the amendments and deal with them today. We don't seem to be in a big hurry, generally.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: We just spent 45 minutes on one issue.
Mr. Gar Knutson: So let's take our time, read them, and deal with them now.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
Ms. Carroll.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Chair, it would appear, as usual, that there is a compromise that possibly will keep everybody content; that is, as the parliamentary secretary has requested, that we just deal with those few that are not, apparently, substantive ones that require the kind of reading that—I agree with you—we need to have.
It would also be neat and tidy, as it would finish this one clause, leaving for tomorrow, as you suggest, the others that probably should have been stapled separately.
The Chairman: That puts the chair in the egregious position of determining which are substantive and which are not. Quite frankly, I'm not prepared to make that decision.
Secondly, there was a motion produced this morning by Mr. Laliberte that we agreed earlier not to deal with and to treat in the same manner as the block of motions presented by the government this morning, so as to give members a chance to absorb it as well.
So you can see the predicament of the chair, having reached this point—that is, having now to decide which are minor and which are major.
My decision, that we go on with our process and deal with all of them tomorrow, still stands. It will give members a chance to absorb them, whether they're minor or major.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, could I just clarify one last point?
The Chairman: Certainly.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm quite willing to follow your suggestion, but I would like to clarify one last point. Mr. Laliberte's amendment, which we deferred, was not an actual deferral. He was going to table it at report stage. In fact, it was out of order at the time we distributed it.
The Chairman: We are not referring to that motion but to another motion, one that was presented at 9 a.m. It's another motion.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: That was out of order.
The Chairman: Yes. Fine.
The chair has ruled. However, the chair can be challenged, and if someone wishes to challenge, by all means do so—feel free—and we'll go into a debate on that. If there's no challenge, then we'll proceed with the next amendment on page 241.
Ms. Paddy Torsney:
[Editor's Note: Inaudible]
(Clause 110 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 111 to 113 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 114—Regulations)
The Chairman: Unfortunately, clause 114 is the object of this bundle of amendments, and therefore is deferred until tomorrow.
(Clause 114 allowed to stand)
(On clause 115—Other regulations)
The Chairman: We will move swiftly to page 243, and an amendment by Mr. Laliberte.
• 1050
Mr. Laliberte, we have a problem understanding the
language here, in plain English. That amendment
somehow is not clear. Probably there was a typo or
some other kind of mistake in reproducing your
amendment. Perhaps you could read it and give us the
precise text you originally had in mind.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would put that to a later time, because it again deals with living organisms. Somehow we were trying to address this issue of strengthening the regulations, and the role of the Governor in Council comes into question here.
The Chairman: So the motion on page 243 is not moved. Is that correct?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I won't move this one. I'll take it further.
The Chairman: Fine. Thank you.
We move then to page 244 and the amendment to clause 115 proposed by Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think some notions of this amendment are tied up with what happens with clause 106. So with the agreement of the committee, I'd like to stand this.
The Chairman: It's not moved?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No. Can I stand it so that it can be moved later?
The Chairman: Would you please turn to a colleague to make that suggestion, since you are not a member of the committee today?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I see. I'm not a member of the committee today.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson is moving that this motion be stood, is that correct?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of clarification—
The Chairman: Just a moment.
Are you moving that this motion be stood?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a point of order.
The Chairman: The clerk is suggesting that we may have to stand the entire clause.
On a point of order, the parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was wondering, Mr. Chair, if we could seek unanimous consent to stand down clause 115 so that we have a chance to examine it in concert with clause 106 and with what is before us, so that we can move on to clause 116.
Mr. Gar Knutson: That's fine with me.
(Clause 115 allowed to stand)
The Chairman: Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, before we move on to clause 116, which deals with nutrients, I suggest we don't proceed any further given that we're close to the end of the day and given that we're still to hear witnesses on aquaculture, or fish farming, which would be applicable to the nutrient clause on page 84.
The Chairman: Yes. That is certainly a suggestion that fits well into the schedule of this week, but that does not prevent us from devoting a few more minutes to the next section, beginning with clause 121, I believe.
Can we go into that? No, we can't. That's still land-based sources of pollution. Can we deal with that?
• 1055
This is only limited to division 1.
So we can tackle division 2, adopt the suggestion made
by Mr. Herron, and start with clause 120.
(Clauses 116 to 119 inclusive allowed to stand)
(Clause 120 agreed to)
(On clause 121—Objectives, guidelines and codes of practice)
The Chairman: There is an amendment by Mr. Laliberte, page 245.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is changing the minister's powers into a responsibility. It reads:
Instead of “may”, which gives the power to the minister to do the issuance, we're putting “shall”, that she shall issue.
I so move.
The Chairman: Thank you.
May I draw to the attention of committee members that this motion was also recommended by the West Coast Environmental Law Association when they appeared before the committee.
Are there any questions? The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
I might draw the committee's attention to the fact that there are other acts that could be used here, including the Oceans Act and some provincial acts. So the effect of this, were it to pass, would be to potentially create some duplication, and that would be unnecessary. I think yesterday we heard Mr. Herron and others talking about duplication not necessarily being a good thing.
These powers under CEPA are intended to be used where there are gaps in other pieces of legislation, and so with “may, after consultation with any other...minister”, she may do these things. I think it would probably be more appropriate than forcing her to duplicate what other ministers are doing.
The Chairman: Which are the provincial acts you have in mind?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps one of our officials could give us that list. But the Oceans Act certainly would be a federal piece of legislation.
The Chairman: Yes, but you referred to provincial acts. Could we know which ones?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: We'll get you that list.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a clarification. I'm never sure here whether my situation is animate or inanimate—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —a living organism in natural or modified form, voting or non-voting. So I'm going to check my status every day with the clerk to find out whether I'm animate or inanimate. But in any case, I believe that as an inanimate object I'm allowed to speak all the same.
I would like to disagree that CEPA is a gap-closing statute. Then we admit that it's residual. If we say it's supposed to close gaps, then we admit that it's residual, and I think we would say exactly the reverse, that CEPA should be a primary act and the minister should take control. If there is duplication, well, let the other acts sort themselves out.
The Chairman: Thank you.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chairman: We now move to page 246, a motion by Mr. Gilmour. You have the floor, sir.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's fairly self-explanatory. As the parliamentary secretary has suggested, there are situations where provincial governments will be involved, for example, municipal sewage. And this amendment, in conjunction with the “may” that we just passed—it stays as “may”—asks that the minister consult not only with other ministries but also with any provincial government that may be affected in the area.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. de Savoye and the parliamentary secretary.
• 1100
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated Ms. Torsney's remarks about the amendment on page 245. I can see that the amendment to page 246 follows along the same line exactly, making the position that Ms. Torsney explained to us very clear. I will therefore support this amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Merci.
Madam Torsney, please.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
If I might draw committee members' attention to page 87, which would be paragraph 121(2)(a), the offer to consult with the provinces is already in fact in the legislation. The effect of this amendment, if it were to pass, would be to duplicate consultation with the provinces.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's page 87, at the top of the page, line 1: “(a) shall offer to consult with the government of a province”.
The Chairman: May I draw to the attention of the committee members that this particular paragraph (a) referred to by the parliamentary secretary was the object of a recommendation by the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The Canadian Environmental Law Association recommended that it be deleted.
Are there any comments or questions?
(Motion negatived)
The Chairman: So we move now to page 247, a motion by the Bloc Québécois caucus.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye, are you ready?
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to move this amendment. I will therefore withdraw it.
The Chairman: Really?
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: It is not moved. Merci.
So we can move to page 248, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln, who has evaporated.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Actually, the inanimate Mr. Lincoln had to go chair another committee. But I think we'll have to stand clause 121 down.
Mr. Chair, this is a whole series of amendments for which the clauses have been stood down.
The Chairman: Yes. With the indulgence of members of the committee, perhaps we could finish this clause 121 before we adjourn, since there is also a motion by Mr. Laliberte that is identical. That would allow us, if we have the time to conclude with clause 121 today, to deal with the next two amendments by the NDP. That will, in a way, take care of the amendment on page 248. Let's see whether we can do it. It's 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Laliberte, are you ready to move your motion, page 249?
• 1105
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, we had just decided that Mr. Lincoln's motion and the clause would be stood down because it's part of a package of amendments that Mr. Lincoln has put together on this issue.
The Chairman: No, I don't see any package right now. I only see the duplication of amendments.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's a whole set of amendments, changing “shall offer” to “may offer”.
The Chairman: We have a confabulation here.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I asked to stand clause—
An hon. member: But he never agreed.
The Chairman: This set of amendments, including the ones on pages 248 and 249, is part of a group of amendments that had been put aside as amendments that are the object of discussions, if I understand it correctly. In that case, there is a group of amendments that we have set aside preceding these amendments. So I will then be consistent with previous decisions of the committee and not call on L-15.7 and NDP-52.1.2 on pages 248 and 249 respectively.
I think we will conclude here and stand clause 121, because there may be some lengthy discussion on the amendment proposed on page 250.
(Clause 121 allowed to stand)
The Chairman: It is now past the 11 o'clock time, so I would suggest that we adjourn and that we resume tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. We will start with the government amendments, clean up the section that we did not deal with today, and move back to clause 121. Is that agreeable?
The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
If committee members are interested, if you want to separate your package and pull off the last four pages, it might help you read the amendments in a better order.
I also wanted to ask if anyone needs any background information on this section. The officials will be able to talk to them either individually or as a group now. Since we were blocked in for another 55 minutes, they're available if you need further clarification of this issue. But the first page is identified.
An hon. member: I would like clarification on what is life.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: The first eight pages are one group. That is what I'm trying to direct the committee members' attention to.
The Chairman: And the last two are...?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Different clauses, different issues.
The Chairman: Thank you.
This meeting is adjourned.