ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, March 1, 1999

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chairman (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We now resume consideration of Bill C-32.

Today, we are very pleased to welcome a group of twelve graduate students from the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who are taking part in a parliamentary immersion program. Their Member of Parliament is Mr. Charbonneau, a very active member of this committee.

[English]

The official opposition would like to present a motion, but before doing that, the clerk says we have good news. We have a new small package of amendments, in case you felt you were being deprived, and a new separate amendment for schedule 6 that starts with the letter G-31.1.1, which is separate from the small package. It replaces the old small package.

Then before we start the business, I want to say we are so glad to have John Moffet back. He has recovered quite well apparently.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Don't make him laugh.

The Chairman: Correct.

Before we launch into the whistle-blowing amendments you worked on, we will invite Mr. Gilmour to put forward his thoughts.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The estimates were tabled in the House today, and as a standard notice of motion for tomorrow, I would like to invite the minister and the officials before the committee to discuss the estimates. Hopefully that will pass tomorrow.

The Chairman: And then be approved at a time that is suitable to the minister.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yes.

The Chairman: Is that agreeable to the committee?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'm going for 24-hour notice of motion.

The Chairman: He is notifying the committee that he will have a motion tomorrow that is according to the modalities.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Unless there is unanimous consent to pass it now.

The Chairman: We can do it tomorrow, considering the fact that the House is not burning. Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

Having done that, we will tackle our work this afternoon by doing something we postponed, namely amendment M-1, which I believe is outstanding. We'll invite...

Yes, Ms. Torsney?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if we could consider M-1 and that whole issue area tomorrow.

The Chairman: All right, we could, if you think that's... Does that apply to M-2 as well, or just M-1?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think there are four that are linked. So if we could just go through some other things today and move that one tomorrow, it might be better.

• 1540

The Chairman: All right. We had prepared ourselves quite heavily for that for this afternoon, so we can do that, but bear with us if we have a choppy sequence going beyond M-1 and M-2. Is that all right with you, tomorrow then? Fine.

Then we go to the small book instead. Since Mr. Lincoln is with us we could take advantage of his presence to deal with an amendment in his name on page 194 of the large binder.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make an apology here and put it on the record that I went back to reading the record, and I remember now that you were quite right. I had decided to withdraw that amendment for various reasons that by order would make it more difficult for the minister to have the necessary flexibility. So you are right, I was wrong. I apologize, and I think it should stand that I did withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: Is this a red-letter day, or is it because it's a full moon?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, maybe a red-letter day and a full-moon night.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. In the small package on page 12 there was a request before the committee—or we started to get it on the record before the committee—that with unanimous consent we reopen clause 85 and include the “within 90 days”, which is reflective of another amendment we made later in the bill, earlier this year or late last year. This would be a consequential amendment, which is the only reason I was seeking unanimous consent to open it.

The Chairman: So is there unanimous consent to reopen clause 85, which is actually one of the items we were about to conclude with at our last meeting? Is that correct? Do I see unanimous consent? I do.

(On clause 85—Significant new activity)

The Chairman: The amendment has been proposed. Would you mind moving your motion, Madame Torsney, please?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to move government amendment... is it 9.1? I'm looking for a little guy.

The Chairman: It is an orphan without a number.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's in the small book on page 12.

The Chairman: It's in the small collection on page 12. It is in typewritten form, with no duplication except number 12 in handwritten form.

[Translation]

Is there a French version?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Yes, there is. The reference shouldn't be to page 12, but rather to pages 12 and 13.

The Chairman: Understood.

[English]

So page 12, et à la page 13. Thank you. Merci, monsieur de Savoye.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: This motion, which seems to be gaining some acceptance today, proposes to add the words "within 90 days after". This amendment is similar to one we proposed for clause 110, which also provides for a 90-day period.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Paddy.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My pleasure.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Torsney.

[English]

You heard the amendment. Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 85 as amended agreed to)

• 1545

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think the next clause opened would be clause 91.

The Chairman: Yes, we are there.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: With your permission, I'd like to stand this down.

The Chairman: Stand clause 91? Actually, it was carried, according to our records.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry.

The Chairman: It's clause 92 that was not carried. But there is a government amendment, you're right. The amendment came forward after the clause had been moved, so we need concurrence to reopen it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Not the additional clause. It's a new section.

The Chairman: Sorry; the amendment was not moved when we dealt with clause 91. Evidently, there is something that again needs to be rectified here.

Do I see unanimous consent to reopen clause 91?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Wait a second; I think we're at new clause 92.1.

The Chairman: That is stood, clause 92, but on clause 91 there is the unsettled question of what happens to G-10.1.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We chose not to move that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You chose not to move that?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: Well, then, fine. Clause 91 was carried.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, it was.

The Chairman: Then we have no need to reopen that.

Now we come to clause 92, which was stood.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Was the whole clause stood?

The Chairman: But there were no amendments, to the best of our knowledge.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Except that there was new clause 92.1.

Oh, I know. It may have been stood because it related to new subclause 65(3).

The Chairman: We have nothing in the binder.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We'd be happy to move that, and to have it pass, even happier. This refers to new clause 92.1

The Chairman: That's amendment new G-10.2. On page 15 of the separate package, we do have a government amendment.

Is that what you're referring to?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. It appeared in a previous package at some point as well.

The Chairman: The clerk informs me that we first have to deal with clause 92 as it is in the bill, and then new clause 92.1, as proposed by the government, because it's totally separate and new. It will then have a number, 93, once it is adopted.

So in order to deal with G-10.2, first we have to deal with clause 92, to which there are no amendments at the present time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, but according to the clerk's notes, clause 92 has already passed.

The Chairman: No, clause 92 is open.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, okay.

The Chairman: No, it is stood.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's fine. So the new G-10.2 replaces what was in the original package on pages 206 and 207.

The Chairman: We'll come to that in a second. First we have to deal with clause 92, and then deal with G-10.2.

• 1550

Are there any questions or comments on clause 92 as it stands now in the bill?

(Clause 92 agreed to)

The Chairman: We now have before us the new G-10.2, pages 14 and 15.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move these amendments, English and French. Again, they are very similar to the previous ones on pages 206 and 207 of the book, except that new G-10.2 says “the Ministers”, to reflect some language changes we made earlier in the bill.

The purpose of this amendment is to give the ministers the power to make regulations in support of the definition included in new subclause 65(3), which is earlier in the bill.

The Chairman: If you turn now to page 61 of the bill, in the section that deals with regulation of toxic substances, you will see that proposed amendment G-10.2 would come after line 25, preceding clause 93.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perfect.

The Chairman: Do you want to speak, Mr. Cameron?

Mr. Lerer, go ahead.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Perhaps for clarification, Mr. Chairman, the clause 65 where the amendments respecting virtual elimination, as introduced by the government and carried by the committee, was not the 65 in the printed bill but clause 64. Okay?

The Chairman: Oh, yes. We did a switch here.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: We did a switch in the numbering.

The Chairman: Now I remember. Thank you.

Madame Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I'd just like to point out to members of the committee that the new definition of virtual elimination, which has in fact been adopted in committee, stipulates that the minister—and that means the Minister of the Environment—“shall” prescribe the levels that are the object—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, I don't think so.

Ms. Monique Hébert: It's new subclause 65(3).

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): The first version we put in said “Minister”, and then we replaced it with another one that said “Ministers”.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Okay, but I understood it was still mandatory, that the ministers “shall” prescribe.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Oh, that; “shall”.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I remembered that there had been a discussion on it. This amendment, G-10.2, makes it discretionary, and there would seem to be a conflict between the two provisions that essentially address the same matter.

As well, as I was pointing out to one of your colleagues earlier on, the French version of the definition of virtual elimination that was eventually adopted doesn't make any reference to levels of concentration and quantification.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): Two points. First, Madame Hébert did speak to me before today's hearing about the French version of new subclause 65(3). I'm having the drafter look at it right now. If it's found to be inadequate in some way, we'll have a new motion to table with the committee tomorrow morning.

With respect to the issue of mandatory versus discretionary, it's true that new subclause 65(3), as passed by this committee, is a mandatory power. It requires that the ministers “shall” prescribe.

• 1555

The reason new clause 92.1 is couched in discretionary language is because this is the way in which that mandatory obligation is fulfilled, and it was not considered necessary to have mandatory language in both when it's clear from the language of subclause 65(3) that the obligation does exist. So it's not that they're inconsistent; it's that this is the regulation-making power by which that obligation is carried out.

The Chairman: Can you give us the rationale for moving from the singular to the plural, from minister to ministers?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's plural in both, sir.

The Chairman: Yes, and why is there now a two-minister requirement?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: This bill is co-sponsored by the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We've done that consistently.

The Chairman: I hope the members of the committee had an opportunity to trace the origin of subclause 65(3), which is referred to in the amendment before the committee. One can find the text of subclause 65(3) on page 131 of the binder—at least one possible text. There it is still in the singular, and it has not been changed to the plural. The clerk informs me that it was changed in an earlier small package.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 94—Interim orders)

The Chairman: There is a government amendment, G-10.4, on pages 215 and 216.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move this, but I just want to clarify something. It relates to clause 93, which I think we stood. For the sake of consistency, I would be happy if we held on to it. In some cases we've linked groups of things, and since this relates to clause 93, which we have already stood, let's continue—

The Chairman: So we'll continue to stand it. Fine.

(Clause 94 allowed to stand)

(On clause 101—List of Substances Requiring Export Notification)

The Chairman: Let's see if the committee is ready to tackle clause 101, pages 17 and 18 of the small package. This is commonly referred to as the PIC amendment, if you like. John Moffet did some work on that for the committee, and he's apparently ready to comment on that.

• 1600

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): Mr. Chair, I've just had a request from Mrs. Kraft Sloan that we delay discussion of this amendment. She understands that the—

The Chairman: She can make the request from her seat.

Mr. John Moffet: She doesn't have a seat. The request was made on the basis that the NDP had indicated they might want to have some input into these amendments, but they're not here today. I don't know the nature of their input, so I can't speak for them.

The Chairman: We'll take that request into account.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, as you know, we had a meeting the other day with officials from Environment and Foreign Affairs prior to the meeting in Cartagena over the biosafety protocol, which touched, I believe, on the whole question of the import and export of various substances. If you're going to leave this aside, I think it would be really useful for us to find out what went on there and what kinds of results were obtained regarding the import and export of substances before we tackle this. I don't say delay it, but at least we should take into account what happened there, because I understand it would have an impact on what goes on here.

The Chairman: There was some coverage in the media last week. Certainly, we can take that into account and try to arrange a meeting with those who were in Cartagena.

Can we take advantage of the presence of the Bloc Québécois today and perhaps deal with some of their unfinished business, namely, the amendments beginning on page 247? It deals with clause 121.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I think the NDP would wish to be present because they have a couple of amendments. I'm looking through the list, and I'm already down to clause 208 before I find anything we might be able to deal with today.

The Chairman: Is there an NDP amendment on clause 121?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: But it's identical to Mr. Lincoln's, so I think one would take care of the other.

Do I take it you are not ready yet to deal with “shall offer to consult” amendments?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I've always been ready to deal with those, but I think the committee has some desire to wait until later in the week. In glancing through the list of things that are still out there for discussion and are not in those “shall offers”, “will offers”, and “may offers”, I'm already down to clause 244 before I find anything we can work on, given the presences in the room and the combination of options. I haven't had a chance to look at clause 244 to see why we stood that. I'm at the pleasure of the committee, but it did seem in the past where we've had...

• 1605

Do we have any indication from the NDP as to when they will be in attendance? Is tomorrow better because it's a Tuesday?

The Chairman: The next possible candidate would be clause 140 on page 262, where there are actually two amendments in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could you give me a few minutes? I just want to read my notes. There are a few scenarios there.

Mr. Chairman, could you go on to another item and let me come back to this, please?

The Chairman: We can try. We have to decide a motion by Mr. Gallaway on page 291, L-16.1, related to clause 194.

Would that suit you, Mr. Gallaway?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If we have three seconds...

The Chairman: Sure.

• 1610

(On clause 194—Application)

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Yes, I'll move that amendment, Mr. Chairman. It's been so long that I...

The objective is to remove shipping emergencies from clause 194. Sometimes there are environmental emergencies that result from shipping. I'm thinking of the Great Lakes in particular.

The Chairman: That is quite evident, but what is the rationale for removing it, Mr. Gallaway?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm trying to remember.

Voices: Oh, oh.

A voice: Does he live near the lake?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: The reason for this is that sometimes these types of emergencies come about not as a result of negligence but simply because of acts of God, and to hold people responsible for acts of God or for what may be determined to be an act of God is, in tort law, a new level in negligence. People can be held accountable for those things that are reasonable and foreseeable, but sometimes accidents happen that are not foreseeable. You're trying to impose a new standard.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, I think the committee looked at this before. The amendment is limited to the discharge of oil from a ship.

Other rationales for the amendment, if I understand this correctly, include the fact that these types of incidents are covered under the Canada Shipping Act, specifically in sections 696 to 700, I believe. That's the same regime. It sets up a liability for the shipowners as well as the owners of the substance, of the oil. Those entities have contributed to the Ship-source Oil Pollution Prevention Fund, which, as I understand it, has about $250 million available to deal with such emergencies.

We wouldn't want the uncertainty of having two pieces of federal legislation that set out possibly different liability schemes. The Canada Shipping Act is already well established in this area—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And has money.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: —and has money, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Moffet.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think this is the case where Mr. Gallaway was just coming into the room and I moved it for him.

The Chairman: Yes, you moved it for him.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's fine.

The Chairman: It's now moved by both, so to speak.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's a team effort.

The Chairman: If you prefer that in the record it is moved by him, we'll indicate it that way.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We could record him having a win.

• 1615

The Chairman: So it's moved by Mr. Gallaway, for the record.

Madame Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Perhaps I could comment before John looks at the policy considerations here.

If memory serves, the government wanted to introduce an amendment that would have exempted matters dealt with under the Canada Shipping Act from the application of part 8 of the bill. At that time their proposed amendment was stood down, because it was drawn to the committee's attention that part 8 has its own residual clause, which would bump CEPA's authority for matters that have been regulated under other enactments, and the subject under discussion is of course the Canada Shipping Act.

So I would like to draw to the committee's attention that there is this residual clause that would apply for matters that are dealt with under the Canada Shipping Act.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I have a question about the amendment. It's not clear to me why the amendment is necessary, because part 8 has a number of provisions that give the minister discretion to issue guidelines and codes of practice and to publish a notice requiring emergency prevention plans. The minister doesn't have to do that; the minister may do that. So if the minister decides that the substance or the activity is otherwise covered, she doesn't have to do that.

Then the other provisions in the part have to do with liability and remedial measures, and those provisions all apply only to substances, which are defined in section 193 to mean “a substance on the list of substances established under regulations made under this Part”. So the minister again has the choice as to whether to include any given substance, including activities with respect to that substance, on that list. If she decides tomorrow that oil carried in tankers doesn't have to be on the list, she doesn't have to put it on the list.

I'm just asking why we need an exemption in the statute when we can leave this to the minister's discretion to determine whether or not to add the activity or the substance to the list and whether or not to create a code or a guideline.

The Chairman: This seems to reinforce what Mr. Mongrain was saying a moment ago. Is that correct?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I have to confer with my—

The Chairman: Okay then, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it would be possible to be so specific in the list of substances as to indicate oil in a tanker. That option may be available to the government for carving out the scenario of emergencies created in relation to oil from ships.

But what this motion by Mr. Gallaway would do is give legal certainty to that carve-out and give legal certainty to the fact that the comprehensive regime under the Canada Shipping Act would have precedence in relation to any emergency caused by the discharge of oil from a ship.

So we have a scenario where we could address that type of scenario by a listing process under CEPA, or we could treat it in a more legally certain way, which is the way proposed by Mr. Gallaway—that is to say, whenever you have an emergency situation caused by the discharge of oil from a ship, then the Canada Shipping Act shall apply.

That regime, as Mr. Mongrain explained, is quite comprehensive, provides for the creation of a very sizeable fund from which claims can be drawn, and in our view is sufficient to address these types of scenarios. Therefore, from a legal certainty perspective, since we want the Canada Shipping Act to be the applicable regime, Mr. Gallaway's motion seems to make sense.

• 1620

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. De Savoye.

Mr. Pierre De Savoye: We have a choice to make. Should the provisions of CEPA cover these particular scenarios? If so, the Canada Shipping Act would need to be amended to transfer this authority to CEPA. Conversely, we could decide that CEPA does not affect in any way the provisions set out in the Canada Shipping Act. Mr. Gallaway is recommending this second option. Therefore, the committee has a decision to make.

The Chairman: What option do you prefer? Have you decided?

Mr. Pierre De Savoye: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, unless I'm given clear proof to the contrary, since this is the environment committee and the environment should take precedence, I think this matter should be covered under the CEPA regime.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. De Savoye.

Mr. Lincoln.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, every time we have a discussion about whether CEPA is going to take precedence or another act that is not under the aegis of the committee, somehow we seem to shy away from CEPA. There must have been a reason that page 291 was put in there in the first place.

Despite Mr. Cameron's assurance that the legalities would be more protected under another act, the fact is that most of these spills are environmental spills. That's where the damage is. You know, we don't have to look at any of them. We can only conclude that all the damage is always environmental damage first, and if it's in CEPA, we should rejoice that it's in CEPA.

I'm just flabbergasted that the officials always seem to militate against CEPA instead of trying to say, “Hey, it's in there. Let's push it and make sure it stays.” I don't think it should get away from CEPA. We shouldn't amend it. We should leave it in CEPA. And I hope the officials next time back CEPA instead of backing some other act that they don't have control over.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are two comments I'd like to make.

First of all, Canada has signed international agreements that cover scenarios involving the discharge of oil from ships at sea, and the Canada Shipping Act is the legislative instrument by which those international agreements have been ratified.

Secondly, when this issue was raised, I believe at the last hearing or at a previous hearing of this committee, the suggestion was made that we may be able to invite officials from Transport Canada to explain the detailed regime. I've noticed that our colleagues from Transport are not here today, and I would simply remind the committee that they are available to answer those questions.

The Chairman: And your second point?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is my second point, sir.

The Chairman: Fine, okay.

Are there any further comments?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have one point of clarification, and I'm not sure if it was just an overly broad statement.

We're talking here about a very specific incident and a very specific regime, and the officials are rightfully pointing to something that is very specific. It's an oil spill from a ship and a specific fund that exists. Why don't we get the officials from Transport to give a further definition of that? Perhaps it would be in the interest of people who care about the environment to make sure that if this other thing has all this money and it has a regime to deal with this in international agreements, people might just say that's a better place to deal with it.

The Chairman: All right. Is it the wish of the committee to hear from Transport officials?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Then we'll stand this clause for that purpose.

(Clause 194 allowed to stand)

• 1625

The Chairman: We can now go back to the amendment by Mr. Lincoln on page...

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question?

The Chairman: Just a second, we still have to identify the page.

A voice: Page 294 would be identical to Mr. Lincoln's.

The Chairman: Page 294? Is that the one we are going back to? Pages 293 and 294.

Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, is it the committee's pleasure to deal with L-16.1 tomorrow? If it is, we will ensure the appropriate officials are here.

That is the Canada Shipping Act question, sir.

The Chairman: We can do that tomorrow, yes.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Thank You.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Clause 197—which I think you are trying to go to—is part of the consulting.

The Chairman: Yes, we're going back to clause 140, on page 262. That's L-15.8.

(On clause 140—Regulations)

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, I'd like to present this motion with a slightly different wording, which I will file with the clerk. I would like to explain it here. I will write down the different format that I will introduce it in.

First of all, as far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, “if the Governor in Council is of the” would remain the same as it is in the amendment. What we're doing here is... If you'll read the clause, it says:

The Governor in Council may make a regulation under any of paragraphs 1(a) to (d) only if the Governor in Council is of the opinion

It seems to me we are placing an onus on the Governor in Council that is very restrictive. In other words, the word “only” need not be there. I think the first part of the amendment is to delete the word “only” after (d), for obvious reasons.

The Chairman: Yes, proceed.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Then, if you look at the clause from line 16 on, I suggested on line 15 changing the words “resulting from” to “created”. But I would like to retain “resulting from”. After checking it out, I feel that “resulting from”, as is written in the bill, is broader, and those of us who have worked on it have come to the conclusion that it would be better to leave it as “resulting from”. That is fine the way it is.

The Chairman: Yes. Next please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The next line we want to amend is paragraph 140(2)(a), line 16. What happens now is that the clause says resulting from “direct or indirect effects of the fuel”. What I want it to say instead is resulting from “directly or indirectly the fuel or any of its components”. The reason for this is if we leave it the way it is in the bill today, the effects of the fuel only happen when the fuel has been burnt—when there is combustion. Whereas by putting it this way—air pollution resulting from “directly or indirectly the fuel or any of its components”—it doesn't have to be tied into combustion; it can be just the fuel itself.

Finally, under paragraph 140(2)(b), the change would be to “the fuel's effect on the operation, performance” and... May I make a change there? I will file the wording with the clerk. If the members want to see it, we can postpone it for passage if you want. It would be “performance or introduction of engine technology or emission control equipment”.

• 1630

The reason for introducing the notion of introduction of engine technology is that right now the clause is tied into combustion technology, and as we know, new types of engines like the Ballard fuel cell are not combustion engines in the straight sense of the word, in the traditional sense. With the tremendous evolution of engines today, you can have all kinds of different engines. If we said, “the fuel's effect on the operation, performance or introduction of engine technology or emission control equipment”, I think it would catch all the various notions. That would be my amendment.

The Chairman: All right. Then, if I understand correctly, to summarize it, Mr. Lincoln, you are proposing to delete the word “only” after (d) on line 12.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Correct.

The Chairman: You return to the text of the language and retain “resulting from”. Then you go to the text in your amendment on page 262: “(a) directly or indirectly the fuel or any of its components;”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Right.

The Chairman: Finally, you're proposing to replace the word “combustion” on line 18 with the word “engine”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, it's to say “the fuel's effect on the operation, performance or introduction of engine technology or emission control equipment”.

The Chairman: So you're retaining the text in the bill but you're replacing “combustion” with “engine”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That's correct.

The Chairman: All right. We have it here at the table, but it would be desirable if it were spelled out on paper.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: All right.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to seek further clarification in amendment L-15.8, the word “by” appears in both (a) and (b). Are they also being deleted?

The Chairman: Yes, the two by-bys are given a farewell.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are we having a debate about this or will we be considering this on a day when we all have it before us?

The Chairman: I think we need to have it translated so that it is visible to everybody. We'll move on to the next amendment as soon as Mr. Lincoln has scribbled out the text.

[Translation]

Mr. De Savoye.

Mr. Pierre De Savoye: Mr. Chairman, because I want to feel that we have truly accomplished something this afternoon by adopting some amendments, would Mr. Lincoln agree to our dealing with only the first part of the motion, which calls for the word "only" to be deleted from the English version and the equivalent word from the French version? We could put that behind us and say that we have accomplished something.

The Chairman: That's very thoughtful of you, Mr. De Savoye, but we would prefer to deal with this amendment as a whole rather than split it into several parts.

Mr. Pierre De Savoye: Unfortunately, I think I already knew that, but there's no harm in asking.

The Chairman: We too want to make some progress here.

[English]

Mr. Lincoln, will you be here tomorrow morning?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: At what time?

The Chairman: Nine o'clock.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Since another amendment to this clause has been moved, we need to stand this.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, you have to stand the clause.

(Clause 140 allowed to stand)

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But will you present this tomorrow?

The Chairman: Yes, tomorrow morning.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: However, we will get back to it later in the week.

[English]

The Chairman: I think we can move on to clause 145 now, can we, on page 264, an amendment by... Oh, no, these are the “shall offers”.

• 1635

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I've used the time to go through this and see where it is that we don't have clauses with either an NDP amendment or an “M”, and I think I'm down to clause 330. That has an amendment by Mr. Lincoln, on page 375. But I'm not sure if that was what Mr. Lincoln was also referring to.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, would you turn to page 375 to determine whether that is an amendment that falls into the category of the untouchables or whether we can proceed with it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We can always go to schedules 1 and 6 and pass them—or we could do schedule 3. We could do all the schedules.

We could do the one on pages 47 and 48 in the small book.

[Translation]

It's on page 48 of the small package.

• 1640

[English]

The Chairman: Did you say page 48?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Little page 48.

The effect of it is just to change the name of the bill to “1999” in clause 1. There's not going to be too much debate. Or do you want to do clause 1?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Let's be realistic and put “to stand”, or something like that.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Don't tempt me.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Let's stand this clause. It's more likely.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Alternatively, we could—

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer, you were referring to Canada Shipping Act officials in the room earlier, to whom we turned. Are they still in the room?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, sir. The officials from Transport Canada will be available here tomorrow. I talked to a colleague from Transport Canada to ensure that the appropriate officials would be here.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And PIC we could do tomorrow, if we get the officials.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre De Savoye: Could we put off considering this clause until tomorrow? I'll make this a formal motion.

[English]

The Chairman: It looks as though we'd better relay to tomorrow...

Do we have anything else?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, on another point of clarification, we had a discussion here about the PIC provisions, and the committee had asked that at the appropriate time the head of delegation for Canada for the PIC convention be available. Perhaps you could give us some indication of when it would be the committee's pleasure to deal with those clauses.

The Chairman: It could be tomorrow morning.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Tomorrow morning? I was under the impression, sir, that you wanted to speak to the negotiators from Cartagena.

The Chairman: It could be tomorrow morning. We can't guarantee it, but we will endeavour to...

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To clarify, tomorrow we're going to have the shipping officials. We'll deal with Mr. Gallaway's amendment. Then we're going to try to have the PIC people, to pick their brains. Then we're going to do whistle-blowers, hopefully.

Is that the order?

The Chairman: M-1 and M-2, yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And 3 and 4?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We also will be able to go through some other things, assuming we have an NDP member here. So if anybody else has an amendment in an area that we just stood down because the NDP has some amendments, maybe they could also try to make themselves available for the debate. Then we don't have to keep playing games... or not games; we can have everybody here who wants to—

The Chairman: Yes. We may go well over 11 a.m. tomorrow, if the room is available, to make up for today.

Ms. Torsney, the clerk has noticed that clause 244 was never carried. It was stood on your request some time ago. We did the preceding and following clauses, but not 244.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We thought it had been passed. I'm quite happy to get it passed.

The Chairman: All right.

Then it will please Monsieur de Savoye to learn that clause 244...

Will it be carried, sans amendement?

(Clause 244 agreed to)

The Chairman: All right, then, we'll resume tomorrow morning.

Thank you for your cooperation.