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 8, 1999

• 1537

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are resuming the study of Bill C-32. We will be looking at the motions prepared by Mr. Moffet.

If I may, I'd like to first make a very short announcement.

The government has submitted amendments for which our clerk has given you a copy in both official languages. We could examine these amendments as soon as you are ready, but not before tomorrow.

[English]

Second, I would bring to your attention a two-page article that appeared in The Citizen on Saturday. It contains some rather disturbing information. I will ask the clerk if he will kindly distribute it.

It's by Donna Jacobs, and entitled “The Killing Fields”. It shows the good work of the Canadian Wildlife Service and an issue there that probably requires attention from this committee fairly soon.

• 1540

If that clipping whets your appetite, here is a summary of some eight articles that have appeared over the weekend in various media, articles dealing mostly with toxic matters. They are summarized. You know how to go about containing complete versions. Again, I will ask the clerk to distribute them for your examination.

Having done that, you will know that we have the small bible and the large bible. Today we will look up the small bible—namely, starting with page 2, beginning with amendment M-1, which will be followed by M-2 and M-3.

Mr. Moffet will perhaps take us through these amendments, if that's all right with him.

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): I'll just take you through the memo I prepared for the committee some time ago. It explains how we have moved from CEPA 1988 to It's About our Health! to the current bill and then to these amendments.

CEPA 1988 addressed whistle-blowers in two provisions. It authorized anyone to make a report to an inspector about a release of a CEPA-toxic substance and it provided protection to employees of federal departments, boards, etc.

In section 58 it provided similar protection to people who report the occurrence or reasonable likelihood of release of a substance contrary to a regulation made under one provision in the act.

When the committee reviewed CEPA and prepared It's About Our Health!, it recommended extending whistle-blower protection to cover not just the single violation referred to in the existing CEPA but also concerning any violation of CEPA, thus reports about any violation of CEPA.

It recommended also that the protection be extended to all federal employees.

Bill C-32 does respond to It's About Our Health!, and has whistle-blower protection provisions in four places now. Some members of the committee in the fall suggested that the whistle-blower provisions be extended even further by extending it not just to federal employees but to all employees.

In other words, anybody who notifies the government about a violation of CEPA should be protected. They shouldn't be in danger of losing their job.

In fact, precisely these types of whistle-blower provisions have been included in amendments to the Competition Act, Bill C-20.

What amendments M-1 through M-4 do, then, is take the relevant wording from Bill C-20 and apply it to CEPA. The effect would be to extend the whistle-blower protection to any employee who reports a violation, or potential violation, of CEPA.

What I wanted to do at this point, before turning the floor over to the committee, was to point out that paragraph M-1(b) says:

has refused or stated an intention of refusing to do anything that is an offence under or that is contrary to this Act.

I would request the committee to accept a friendly amendment from me, if you will, to delete “or that is contrary to”. It's the last line of M-1(b).

Mr. Cameron, counsel for the government, suggested this amendment to me, and I agree with it.

• 1545

Essentially, the current wording in this amendment suggests, (a) there are some things that are offences, and (b) there are some things that are contrary to the act, when in fact there is no distinction. There are just offences under the act. Let's just say that, and let's not say offences “or” contrary to the act.

So it's just simplifying the wording, not in any way weakening the protection that would be provided by these amendments.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet. This friendly amendment applies also to M-3 and -4?

Mr. John Moffet: Yes.

(On clause 16—Voluntary reports)

The Chairman: Now we have M-1, which first of all requires to be moved by a member of the committee.

Madam Torsney, are you moving it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment): I'd be happy to do that.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney has moved M-1.

Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry as amended?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of clarification, on the scoresheet there seems to be a PC-7. I couldn't find it. Is there something I'm missing?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): It's an additional motion. You may want to wait for Mr. Herron.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, I see what it's moving. It's moot now, though.

The Chairman: I'm informed that it is rendered unnecessary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay, sorry. I just wanted to clarify before we called the vote.

The Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry?

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Again, PC-7 is...?

The Chairman: Rendered unnecessary, I'm told by the legal clerk.

Could you please then move to page 16.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: PC-7 has some substance in it. I know Mr. Moffet touched on Bill C-20, but in the absence of Mr. Herron, would we give him the privilege of letting him know that it's...?

Mr. John Moffet: Maybe I could explain.

PC-7 would require the development of regulations to bring CEPA in line with Bill C-20. What the committee has just done is in fact incorporate those changes directly into the law, rendering unnecessary the development of regulations.

So we've done what he wants faster than he wanted.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

Mr. John Moffet: And more directly.

The Chairman: Thank you.

(On clause 96—Voluntary report)

The Chairman: On page 16, amendment M-2, would you please repeat what you said about the adjustment.

Mr. John Moffet: The adjustment I would recommend to the committee is deleting, in the final two lines of paragraph (b), “or that is contrary to”.

The Chairman: For the same reason as before?

Mr. John Moffet: Yes, for the same reason.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would be happy to move this amendment.

The Chairman: Any questions?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 96 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 202—Voluntary report)

The Chairman: Could you please move to page 35.

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: It's essentially the same amendment. I would propose to change the last line of paragraph (b) by deleting, “or that is contrary to”.

• 1550

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I so move.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 202 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 213—Voluntary report)

The Chairman: On page 36, it's the same.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd be happy to move it. I would suggest an amendment, though, and that would be to delete “or that is contrary to” in paragraph (b), the last line.

The Chairman: That's a very bold move on your part.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm breaking out over here.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 213 as amended agreed to)

Mr. John Moffet: I now have a better batting average than any elected member on the committee.

Voices: Oh, oh.

(On clause 47—Guidelines)

The Chairman: Would you please revert, in the same small book, to page 3, where you will find a motion by Madam Kraft Sloan in connection with clause 47.

That amendment is out of order, because it would delete an entire clause. According to the rules, I'm told, when you want to delete an entire clause, then you simply vote against it.

Would you want to take the floor, Madam Kraft Sloan, to explain your position?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this was not in Bill C-74, so this would revert Bill C-32 back to Bill C-74.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, Mr. Chair, but just on a point of order, are we debating the amendment that's not before us? What are we doing?

The Chairman: The amendment is not before us. I've just given Mrs. Kraft Sloan an opportunity to explain why she proposed her amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Her opposition to clause 47; okay.

The Chairman: We are just discussing the clause as a whole.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can you just give me a second, sir? We've been jumping around all over the place here.

The Chairman: Perhaps Madam Hébert can give us an indication as to what was in Bill C-74.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

As I look at clause 47, proposed now in Bill C-32, only the first part of that clause was actually in Bill C-74. It's the one that would have empowered the minister to issue guidelines respecting the cost-effective use of the information-gathering powers. That's as far as the clause in Bill C-74 would have gone.

• 1555

Now, there are some extra provisions here that were added to Bill C-32, and a listing of factors that the minister should consider in issuing those guidelines. Those factors were not in the predecessor bill.

As well, I'd like to point out that I believe Mrs. Kraft Sloan's proposed amendment would have deleted down to line 26. I just point out to the committee that this is one of those “shall offer to consult” clauses, which is a series of clauses appearing in this bill that the committee has systematically deferred, presumably to deal with them together.

Under Bill C-74, it was a “may” consult with the provinces clause. This was changed in Bill C-32. Now it's “shall” offer to consult with the provinces.

So those are the two major differences between Bill C-32 and Bill C-74.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Madam Hébert.

Mr. Chair, not only is it in line with some of the harmonization clauses that have been stood down in the bill but it also falls into line with some of the concerns Madam Carroll has articulated in terms of some of her amendments around the use of the word “cost-effective”.

The concern here would be that we are talking about the development of guidelines on the powers provided by subclause 46(1), which is around conducting research, etc. So it seems it would be a very unwieldy process to have cost-effective barriers that have to be dealt with as well as some of the consultation issues that would encumber this activity.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would just address a couple of points with regard to clause 47.

We have an NDP amendment as well that would delete the obligation on the minister to issue guidelines, which I think would be a tragedy. I think we do want the minister to issue guidelines.

Secondly, if you look at G-5.2, I'll be moving that amendment to delete “cost-effective”.

We have a number of other amendments that could be used that would in fact leave things less clear than they are now in this current bill, Bill C-32.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, perhaps we should consider standing this clause down, because this is part of the concerns addressed in a number of amendments Mr. Lincoln has put forward having to with the issues around harmonization. Those issues, as far as I know, haven't yet been dealt with by the committee.

The Chairman: All right.

Is there consensus that we stand this clause?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What are we standing it down for?

The Chairman: For the reason just given by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, first of all, I think there has been a clear indication from the government that “shall offer” will be throughout the bill, and that amendments are not desired to those clauses. I'm quite prepared to deal with those now.

Furthermore, we're dealing, I would imagine, with NDP-18 at this point. So perhaps we could discuss it...the first part of NDP-18(a) already.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I apologize. I was away last week due to illness, and I wasn't aware that we were dealing with the “shall offer to consult” clauses.

Mr. Lincoln, you've been moving your amendments on those particular clauses?

The Chairman: We certainly have a number of clauses that are waiting to be dealt with. Because of that aspect—namely, subclause 47(2)—I would be inclined to accept the request that this clause be set aside so that we can deal with it when we deal with all the “shall offer” clauses that are waiting for disposition.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we get some indication from the committee members when they might be prepared for that?

The Chairman: I think everybody is ready to move on that tomorrow.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: So we will do it tomorrow. All right?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Fine.

(Clause 47 allowed to stand)

• 1600

The Chairman: With that in mind, I would invite you to move to page 99 of the large book.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: We have to stand also the amendment by Mr. Laliberte on clause 47.

Madam Kraft Sloan on a point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to know where we were.

The Chairman: We are just finding our way. We are consulting the compass.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Consulting the compass; the compass swings in many different directions.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps we could ask Mr. Lincoln if he's ready to deal with clause 140. That might provide some opportunity for the committee to accomplish something.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): It has to do with fuel, Mr. Chairman.

I'm ready to deal with this particular clause, but you'll recall that it had been suggested that the government might want to amend the definition of “engine” under another division of the bill. The agreement I had was that there would be a change made, suggested by the government drafters, so that we can discuss it. That's what I was waiting for.

I mean, if you want to take this one separately, that's okay. I can deal with this one. But I would suggest maybe we'd better....

Maybe Mr. Cameron could tell me where it's at, and when it's going to be ready.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's right there.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I see. I'm sorry; I just got it now.

The Chairman: Are we going ahead, then?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think it would be fair to let us read what's in there and just see how it changes. I thought they were going to send it in to us before we had a chance to discuss it.

The Chairman: I don't know what you're referring to. What has been handed to you?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's the definition of “engine”. It's just been given to me now.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I apologize. I thought it had already been distributed to you.

The Chairman: So I don't think we can deal with that at the present time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

(On clause 65—Toxic substances)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 5 of the small book, for amendment L-13.10, a motion by Madam Kraft Sloan on the definition of “toxic”.

• 1605

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, what I would like to do is amend the amendment. The only thing that would be put forward in (a) would be the addition of “biological diversity or human health”, and in (b), the deletion of “human”.

So the amendment I would like to make would be to add, at the end of (a), “including biological diversity or human health”, and under (b), to delete “human”.

The Chairman: Would you mind repeating that? You are accepting clause 65 in its present form.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. What I would like to do is change paragraph 65(a) by adding, “including biological diversity or human health”.

The Chairman: Right.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Under (b), I would like to delete “human”.

The new reading would be:

(a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment, including biological diversity or human health;

(b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or

The Chairman: Right. Paragraph 65(c) remains the same.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chairman: Fine.

Would you like to move it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I so move.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just by way of explanation, Mr. Chair, it might be easier if people turned to page 126 of their large book, to follow along with the current clause 64.

The Chairman: Yes, that's very good. That's very helpful.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: We have there the text Mrs. Kraft Sloan is endeavouring to amend. She's adding, after the word “environment”, “including biological diversity or human health” in (a). In (b), on the second line, she's deleting the word “human” before “life”. Paragraph (c) remains unchanged.

The motion has been moved. Are there any comments or questions?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just suggest that in terms of process, since this came before us once again some time in February, it probably would have been clearer if we had an actual amendment before us, certainly for the sake of our clerk and for the people who are going to have to deal with this afterwards.

Secondly, if we are going to deal with it—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]...clause 126.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, clause 126 has already been adopted. The amendment that's before us, L-13.10, is now quite a bit different from what is “L-13.10”.

To just deal with the layering of the issues, in (a) we talk about the environment, which of course would include biological diversity and all components of the environment, including animals and humans. In the second one we focus on danger and human life. Thirdly, we talk about human health and human life. So there are three layers to this definition.

Perhaps you can turn to Ms. Lloyd if you want further comments on the effect this amendment, which is sort of before us, would have.

• 1610

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): On the change to paragraph 65(a), adding “including biological diversity or human health”, we do consider effects already in biological diversity, as we do other effects on the environment, under paragraph (a).

Just to remind people, when we apply this definition in doing our risk assessments, paragraph 65(a) has been used to be the effects on the environment; paragraph 65(b), the effects on the environment on which human life depends, including ground-level ozone and formation of stratospheric ozone depletion; and paragraph 65(c), the part that Health Canada has conducted, which is the risk to human health.

So by putting human health in (a) as well as (b), it's being redundant, because all of the effects on human health are already covered under (c). That's the way we've always applied the definition.

I would argue that human health in (a) is not necessary, because you're already doing it in (c).

Keep in mind that a substance is toxic if it meets (a) or (b) or (c). It doesn't have to be all three.

As well, biological diversity is already included in the environment, so it's any effect on the environment, whether it be on a species' mortality or reproduction rate or immunosuppresion—anything.

So I think it is, for some reason, picking out something when it's already covered, and I don't why you would give it special attention.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Lloyd.

Are there any further comments?

Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would be willing to remove “or human health” in (a) so that it would just say “including biological diversity”.

We've been working on this bill a long time, so you have to forgive me, but in the definitions section, “environment” does not include biological diversity.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): If I may, in the definition of environment on page 6 of the bill, it refers to “the components of the Earth”, and then lists (a), (b) and (c). Then (d) talks about the “interacting natural systems” that include the components mentioned above.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is not necessarily a direct reference to biological diversity. We've had this discussion in committee before that the concept of biological diversity is a special concept that needs to be addressed and focused on.

I think Mr. Lincoln would like to say something here.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: It is defined in the definitions section as well.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was wondering, if environment includes biodiversity in the way it's defined, as it is, why do we have a special definition of biological diversity? There are two definitions. How do you know which one refers more to biodiversity or in a broader way than the other one? Why do we actually put the definition of biological diversity in the definitions if we are not going to spell it out in the clauses?

If environment was sufficient to include biodiversity, I would think we wouldn't have a particular definition for it. We would just say it's included automatically. But we do define it. By defining it, we are saying there's something a bit different from the definition of environment. It's broader. It's different.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Lerer, do you have any comments?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I would ask for your indulgence, just for a moment, while we find the specific reference outside of the definitions section. If it is defined, it's used somewhere else in the bill.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify—there may have been some debate at the head table—the first part of L-13.10 is not being discussed or adapted. The G-5.4 is remaining, the beginning part.

The Chairman: Yes. Correct.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: We are only dealing with (a) and (b).

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just wanted to clarify that. But it's not (a) as it is, because it's not “human health” now.

The Chairman: It is not (a) as it is. I was going to suggest a subamendment very soon so that we can deal with the subamendment deleting human health.

Mr. John Moffet: Mrs. Kraft Sloan has already done that.

• 1615

The Chairman: Fine. If that is acceptable to the committee, then I will clarify that when we come to the crunch.

Ms. Lloyd or Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: The answer to Mr. Lincoln is that there is no good reason for not including it in the definitions, sir.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But—

The Chairman: Oh, there is a “but”.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The second “but” is that I do not support (b) being changed from its current state in G-5.4.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What is the reason for not supporting it if we admit that there's a reason for having a definition of biological diversity?

Mr. John Moffet: She said (b).

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I see. I'm talking about (a).

The Chairman: To facilitate the vote, we will proceed in the following manner. We will first vote on (a), in its modified form, without the last three words, “or human health”. Then we will vote on portion (b), as proposed by the mover.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, but just for further clarification, the word “harmful” has been left out of (a) as well. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not.

I guess I'm having a bit of a problem with this floating kind of amendment. I think it would be far clearer if we had it all before us, exactly as people intended it to be voted on. Again, this came up in February, when we had a fairly detailed discussion.

It's fairly stressful that it's not properly delineated here.

The Chairman: Fair enough. We will then wait for a text to be prepared by Madam Kraft Sloan for a vote either tomorrow or Wednesday. I think that is only fair.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 65 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 10. There is a new amendment there, L-13.13, in the name of Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Are you ready to proceed with it?

• 1620

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, at the risk of putting forward another floating amendment, I understand that the officials had some recommendations for changes on this.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, but I was very ill last week. I spent most of the week in bed with the flu as well as trying to do my work. I'm very sorry about that.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, no, that wasn't—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can I ask that this one be stood down? I'll have it prepared for committee tomorrow as well.

The Chairman: All right.

With the arrival now of Madam Carroll, we could perhaps move on to her amendment, which is page 4 of the small package.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, sir, that's clause 47.

The Chairman: That's clause 47, yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But you just stood down clause 47.

The Chairman: Yes, we did. We will let page 4 stand by.

(On clause 2—Duties of the Government of Canada)

The Chairman: We will go to page 1 of the small book, amendment L-1.1, which is under the name of Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Does everyone have a copy?

The Chairman: Yes, everyone has a copy.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

This was in response to the concerns over the word “cost-effective”. It was felt that rather than engage in a rather obscure exercise of trying to define cost-effective, we'll leave cost-effective to know what it means, which is defined in the bottom of the amendment here as, “includes any measure that may or will have a short-term, adverse economic impact”. So we know what that means.

But prior to that, what this amendment does—and I'll draw members' attention to it—is say:

The Government of Canada shall consider the following before taking any cost-effective preventative and remedial measure under paragraph

Essentially, what it's trying to do is balance the equation a little bit by trying to bring in some of the benefits of environmental legislation—I guess in business it's what we'd refer to as “opportunity costs”—that don't find themselves into the cost-effective formulas. They're outlined in (a), (b) and (c) of this amendment.

So I would just draw members' attention to the fact that it's not binding them to do anything other than trying to bring a little balance into the decision-making process.

I'll remind members also that when Treasury Board was here and went over the guidelines they used, they used three filters. Essentially, they dealt with purely economic measures. So we're just trying to think laterally a little bit here and bring into the equation the consideration of some of the benefits of environmental legislation, and what enforcing environmental legislation might bring to the picnic that otherwise won't get captured or considered in a purely economic analysis.

The Chairman: Did you also comment on part (a) of your amendment?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes. I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.

The Chairman: Would you like to move your amendment?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Absolutely.

The Chairman: So moved. Thank you.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Since we're now considering clause 2, perhaps I can direct members' attention to government amendment 0.1, which has the desired impact—that is, to delete “cost-effective” from paragraph 2(1)(a).

Perhaps we could turn to the officials about the efficiency of having an additional subclause 2(1.1).

• 1625

It would be my position that it wouldn't be necessary. First of all, we've deleted “cost-effective”, and second, I think the bill speaks for itself in terms of the reasons that you want to have environmental protection, and the benefits of that.

So G-0.1 would have the same impact as paragraph (a) of L-1.1. This is on page 3 of the big book.

We can all take up Saturday nights at bingo after this—at Stornoway, perhaps.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney is making an important point—namely, that the government amendment has implications that have to be taken into account.

I can't find G-0.1.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's page 3 of the big book.

Mr. Chair, my contention is that by taking the word “cost-effective” out of this bill, we're fooling ourselves if we think that's going to solve anything, because it's still in the Treasury Board guidelines. My amendment forces a few more variables into the process.

Now, if we want to deal with the cost-effective definition, we can deal with that separately, but I don't think it's an either/or, and I don't think G-0.1 comes even close to addressing what L-1.1 is trying to do.

The Chairman: That's an interesting observation.

According to what Mr. Jordan has just said, it would appear to us at the table that if his amendment carries, then G-0.1 would become redundant, replaced by Mr. Jordan's amendment.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Certainly if the government's amendment to delete “cost-effective” carried, then “cost-effective” can come out of mine. That is fine with me.

That means L-1.1 would read:

The Government of Canada shall consider the following before taking any preventative and remedial measure

That's fine. Take “cost-effective” out of there, if you want.

If they would remove cost-effective from the bill, then I would say that would also deep-six (1.2), which is fine with me as well. But that can take place after this amendment is voted on.

The Chairman: The sequence that is being advanced here by us is that your amendment would come first. Therefore, we don't know what will happen to the government amendment until that decision is made.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I don't know if you would want to entertain this—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —but the issue we had in our original debate was with “cost”, not “effective”. You may just want to make it, “effective preventative and remedial measures”.

So it's kind of a compromise. Both can have their way.

The Chairman: Well, we can only go by the words of the amendments before us.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wasn't sure if Mr. Jordan's comments suggested that he wanted to split his amendment into two and in fact not deal with the first part, which would be (a), and deal instead with (b) when we get to line 17 on page 4.

The Chairman: And leave (a) for...?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Consideration of G-0.1.

• 1630

I don't think it would be necessary to have, “subject to subsection (1.1)”. It's neither here nor there.

While Mr. Jordan is considering that, maybe I can just ask him also to look at paragraph 2(1)(b), which in effect talks about the same kind of issues he's trying to accomplish with new subclause 2(1.1). In the bill it's on page 3.

The Chairman: What was your suggestion?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The necessity to protect the environment is clearly given some primacy here. The issues he is covering in new subclause 2(1.1) are already covered in paragraph 2(1)(b), so it might not be necessary to have a new (1.1).

Mr. Joe Jordan: Except I don't see any requisite timeframe and I don't see any definition of what social decisions are.

I think I'll just move my amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: All right. Can you then, for the sake of the committee, clarify it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just for clarification from the clerk, if the word “cost-effective” is subsequently removed, if it's removed from my bill, I think what I'll do, then, if I can suggest a friendly amendment to mine, is take the word “cost-” out of “cost-effective”, and delete new subclause 2(1.2) entirely. Therefore, it won't be affected by G-0.1.

The Chairman: Is this an enquiry or a statement on your part?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't know the difference, because I'm new. I think I would like to move that.

The Chairman: Can you repeat?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Sure.

I move L-1.1. as written, except in new subclause 2(1.1), rather than taking out the word “cost-effective”, it will just read, as Mr. Laliberte suggested in a friendly way, “taking any effective preventative and remedial measure”. New subclause 2(1.2), which was a definition of cost-effective, will be deleted entirely.

So we won't deal with the issue of what cost-effective is. We'll just deal with the expanded definition.

The Chairman: What happens, then, to the part on the following page of your amendment, Mr. Jordan?

Mr. Joe Jordan: New subclause 2(1.3) then becomes 2(1.2), Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: And that's all, is it?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Two points. For the sake of clarity in law, to me it would seem unusual to suggest that the government would take anything other than effective preventative and remedial measures. Would the converse be possible, that they would actually set about to set up ineffective measures? As well, what would be the test for whether or not they were in fact effective?

Furthermore, a lot of the issues addressed here are just repetitive and unnecessary, given the clear administrative duties that are set out and clear—and lengthy, one might argue—making this entire section unnecessary.

The Chairman: To answer only the first part of your intervention, Ms. Torsney, the effectiveness of the measure is then qualified by (a), (b) and (c). It is a way of setting priorities and specifying how the word “effective” is to be interpreted within the scope of this amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I guess I would have to beg to differ.

• 1635

The Chairman: I cannot answer the second part of your question, of course.

Mr. John Moffet: May I comment?

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I was going to suggest to Mr. Jordan that I agree with the parliamentary secretary that “effective” is not necessary.

This section wouldn't require the government to take effective action. This government qualifies the kind of thinking it has to do, and if you left “effective” in, it would only have to do this thinking with respect to effective measures, not with respect to any other measures. That's the only effect of leaving “effective” in. So I would suggest you take it out.

On the other hand, I would disagree with the parliamentary secretary that (a), (b) and (c) of Mr. Jordan's amendment are redundant. In my opinion, they address issues different from those raised in the rest of the administrative duties section.

In particular, I find them to be different, at least insofar as they are more detailed, from paragraph 2(1)(b). They're much more detailed. They require a particular kind of economic analysis, which, as Mr. Jordan has pointed out, is not the norm in terms of cost-benefit analyses carried out by most economists in the government.

That direction is certainly not explicitly in the bill anywhere else, so I don't think these are redundant at all.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm prepared to take the word “effective” out, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Mongrain or Mr. Lerer?

The Chairman: Excuse me.

The net result of what has been discussed until now, if I understand you correctly, is that the word “cost-effective” is removed completely; that new subclause 2(1.2) is removed completely; and that new subclause 2(1.3) becomes 2(1.2) in the amendment.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's right.

The Chairman: All right.

Are there any further comments or questions?

Mr. Mongrain, Mr. Laliberte, Madam Torsney.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): Just looking at it, Mr. Chairman, this sets out a number of duties the government would have to take before taking preventative and remedial measures. That includes economic analysis, identifying benefits, and so forth.

It's important to remember that in part 5 and in other parts of the bill the minister has an emergency power—the “interim order power”, as it's called in the bill—that is exercised in emergency situations, sometimes in a matter of hours.

There is then a process whereby the interim order goes to the Governor in Council, but it's done in a rapid fashion, before any of this type of analysis might be able to be accomplished.

So I would be concerned about the impact of this on that emergency power.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just trying to figure out what he said there.

I would speak to the fact that there's been a quick whiteout of the use of the word “effective”.

The Chairman: The effective elimination of cost-effective.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

There's a BQ amendment asking for “all”. Maybe Mr. Moffet, who was quick to kind of bomb my amendment that's coming up, can speak on the “all” aspect of the duties of the government of this country. “Effective”, I would assume, would have been a nice duty to have, but if “all” is better....

Maybe he would like to respond.

Mr. John Moffet: We may be talking about two different things. Mr. Jordan's amendment is with respect to new subclause 2(1.1). It's not paragraph 2(1)(a) he's talking about, and my comments did not refer to paragraph 2(1)(a).

• 1640

I think your comments were about paragraph 2(1)(a). You're suggesting that you would like the government to be required to take effective preventative and remedial measures. No problem.

Mr. Jordan's amendment has to do with new subclause 2(1.1). The result of leaving “effective” in would have been to say that, “The Government of Canada shall consider the following before it takes any...effective measures”.

What you're saying, then, is that they have to consider these before it takes effective measures, but it doesn't have to consider them when it does something else. Your amendment would not have required the government to take effective measures. Mr. Jordan's amendment doesn't require the taking of measures; it requires thinking about (a), (b) and (c) before it acts.

Do you follow the distinction I'm trying to make?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Jordan seems to be laying out the exact description, in new paragraph (1.1)(a)—that is, that the government “shall consider the following before taking any cost-effective preventative and remedial measures”—of paragraph 2(1)(a). It specifically points to 2(1)(a).

What he was doing was accommodating the upcoming amendment of taking “cost-effective” out and compromising with “effective”, taking “cost” out. I believe that's what his intention was.

When you disagreed with the “effective” side, I automatically assumed you were disagreeing with having the “effective” part of paragraph 2(1)(a) there.

Mr. John Moffet: I'm not disagreeing with keeping “effective” in paragraph 2(1)(a). I was agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that leaving it in new subclause 2(1.1) would be unnecessary and inappropriate.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I guess the only thing I want to clarify is that at some point, you suggested that if L-1.1 would be passed, G-0.1 would not be eligible to be passed. If the first part of this amendment does not affect paragraph 2(1)(a), then I'm not sure why it would not be in order. Mr. Moffet has just identified that it would still be there.

We need clarity.

The Chairman: The government amendment touches on a different line, so I'm told it would be all right to consider it as well.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was going to just suggest something to Mr. Jordan. If there was an issue around interim orders, perhaps an amendment to his amendment could be made exempting interim orders.

Mr. John Moffet: Can I ask a question?

The Chairman: No, just a moment.

Mr. Jordan, would you like to wrap it up so that we can conclude?

Mr. Joe Jordan: On the interim orders, I don't think there's anything in here that throws up a hurdle to the minister enacting emergency legislation. What this is aimed at is when the short-term economic impacts are sort of skewing the decision. There's nothing in here that would keep the minister from acting. I'm trying to get the minister to include a larger group of benefits and a longer-term view of things. I don't see anything in here that would impede the minister acting.

In response to the parliamentary secretary, new subclause 2(1.1) could read, “The Government of Canada shall consider”, prior to paragraph 2(1)(a).

Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Chairman, it just struck me that there's a great deal of discussion because Mr. Jordan's proposed amendment really is linked to what is eventually done in relation to paragraph 2(1)(a), and we don't know the outcome of that clause at this point.

• 1645

It seems to me that we could proceed with Mr. Jordan's amendment if we just reworded it to say “before taking any measure under paragraph (1)(a)”. This would eliminate the need to debate whether it's preventative, effective, remedial, or whatever. It's the reference over to paragraph 2(1)(a) that will capture the wording of that clause once it is adopted by the committee.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's fine. I see the logic there.

The Chairman: That's a very helpful observation.

Would you then please read new subclause 2(1.1), as suggested now?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Here it comes.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Chairman, he's deferred to me.

I would just state the opening words of his proposed amendment as, “The Government of Canada shall consider the following before taking any measure under paragraph (1)(a)”.

That leaves it open as to the kind of measure that will be stipulated in paragraph 2(1)(a).

The Chairman: Yes, and that leaves the door open, then, for the determination of (a).

Ms. Monique Hébert: For a debate on paragraph 2(1)(a); this would be consequential to whatever is adopted under (a).

The Chairman: Thank you. That is extremely helpful.

Now, Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a question, through you, Mr. Chair, for Mr. Jordan.

Is the second part of this amendment on the back side, which was numbered (1.3) and now numbered (1.2), still part of this amendment?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then perhaps, Mr. Jordan—through you, Mr. Chair—you could explain this. New subclause 2(1.1) now says, “The Government of Canada shall consider the following before taking any measure”, and new subclause 2(1.2) says, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as to prevent the Minister from taking any action”.

So really, what does this accomplish? In the first it says you have to do these things, and in the second it says, yes, but you can do it if you want to. It's in complete contradiction of (1.1). It's just a nice statement for the minister to—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Well, I think new subclause 2(1.2) deals quite effectively with the interim orders, doesn't it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But my point is that in one you're saying you shall consider this before doing anything—(a), (b), (c)—and in the second side you're saying nothing can prevent you from taking any action. It's redundant.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The new subclause 2(1.2) says, “Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the Minister from taking any action”. That's the objection that was raised by the officials.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So what's the point of (1.1)?

Mr. Joe Jordan: There's a difference between thinking and acting. Hopefully we think before we act. What this does is cause these things to be considered before action is taken.

All it says is they “shall consider” these things before action is taken. But you can't use this as a stalling thing. You can't say that....

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then I would suggest that in fact subclause 2(1) is quite clear in setting out a number of thinking-type statements about how the minister is supposed to act, and that, if anything, the addition of new subclauses 2(1.1) and (1.2) would only confuse people who are trying to read the bill, not provide greater clarity.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think it would confuse people who are used to thinking economically.

I want to move the amendment, Mr. Chair. Call the question.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet has a question.

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be possible to ask the officials to elaborate on the comment Mr. Mongrain made. Maybe Mr. Cameron could provide an opinion.

The issue that I found to be telling was the assertion that this amendment might in fact impede or slow down the ability of the government to take action to protect the environment.

I wonder if you could elaborate on that assertion.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Perhaps I can, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: What clause 2 does and what the amendment would do, in my view, is set out tests that must be met before any action could be taken by the Government of Canada. This is the administrative duties on the Government of Canada.

• 1650

What new subclause 2(1.3) in the amendment does, in my view, is say that the minister—not the Government of Canada but the minister—shall not be prevented from taking any action that is necessary under this bill. My fear is that this sets out a test that could be construed, from a policy point of view, as all of these things having to be met before action could be taken.

I'll leave it to my colleague, Mr. Cameron, to give a legal view, but from a policy point of view, as a public official interpreting, I would see this as setting out a test that must be met.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Service, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, I really don't have much to add, as I think the language is quite clear. The proposed (1.1) would create a legal obligation on the Government of Canada—and I think we can interpret that to include the Governor in Council when the Governor in Council takes action under this legislation—that these types of economic factors would have to be considered before the environmental measure could be developed and taken.

I think this puts the focus in an interesting place. It seems to put the focus on economic considerations, whereas the purpose of the legislation surely is much broader than that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I was just looking at the intention of Mr. Jordan's amendment. I don't have any problem with his intention whatsoever.

I guess my question to the officials—through you, Mr. Chair—is around the word “consider”. New paragraph 2(1.1)(b) says, “the positive economic impacts arising from the measure, including those cost-savings arising from health, environmental” and so on, looking sort of long-term. It may be impossible for you, on any kind of short-term basis, to be able to determine the benefits of doing a particular initiative.

If that was what you considered, saying the length of time would take too long, but at least you considered that factor, isn't that still...? Would there be anything wrong with adding these clauses to the bill?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That would be an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure it would be taken by all the people affected by it.

I mean, if that were the interpretation taken from a policy point of view, that we considered it, we don't have any information, and therefore we have considered it, I'm fairly confident we'd be challenged within three milliseconds of having said that.

Mr. John Herron: Could you make a friendly amendment of, “at the minister's discretion” at some point in time?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: These are duties on the Government of Canada, not the minister.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I think as the parliamentary secretary pointed out before, there is an administrative duty that addresses this type of issue. Paragraph 2(1)(b) states:

take the necessity of protecting the environment into account in making social and economic decisions;

So it is trying to inject the environment.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan followed by Madam Torsney.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm having difficulty following what's going on here. On the one hand, the officials have stated a concern about spending too much time taking into consideration ecological benefits as well as positive economic benefits when this legislation is riddled with clause after clause—after clause after clause after clause after clause—of the minister having to consult, the minister having to do this, and the minister having to do that, without the minister being able to act forward on different aspects and elements of the bill.

In this particular amendment, we have a situation where there is a requirement to consider the ecological benefits arising from an environmental protection measure. Even though this bill is about pollution prevention, this is one of the few mechanisms I see in this bill that actually talks about this directly, as opposed to a different kind of perspective, which requires all these other hoops that have to be jumped before anything can be done.

• 1655

So this is almost a mirror of some of these other elements I've been referring to and of some of the concerns members of the committee have had over the past several months. Here we have an opportunity where we can actually put right up front the fact that these things have to be considered.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, in reviewing this amendment, I think it's important that members look toward paragraph 2(1)(a) in its entirety. In the first place, 2(1)(a), should the government amendment pass, will say “take preventative and remedial measures to protect, enhance and restore the environment”. That's primacy; that's the first thing that has to be considered. The second one, paragraph (b), talks about, “social and economic decisions”.

These issues seem to be given the right priority—and the priority, I think, Mr. Jordan's comments have addressed in talking about his amendments—because the first thing is the environment and the second thing is social and economic.

I think the problem I have, for one, as a committee member, with the way this is done is that if anything, the desire to get away from cost-effective is...in fact, cost-effective is the focus of what this amendment would do. It would actually go in the very direction that I understood the member did not want to go in.

Again, Mr. Jordan has asked for the question to be called. I'm happy to do that. I just wanted to clarify that I think the priorities the member has articulated are in fact in (a) and (b).

The Chairman: No, it's very helpful to have a broad discussion now, because it is inevitable that we would have it. I'm glad you did it.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to force the cost-effective; I'm just being realistic. I'm just trying to make the cost-effective argument balanced.

I'm just suggesting that before you reject action on the basis that it costs too much in the short term—and we don't have to have very long memories to realize that's the way these things sometimes go—you take a look at some of the other things. They may be kind of tough to quantify, but I think we have to make sure we capture some of the benefits of environmental regulation. Otherwise, we're going to be swimming upstream constantly. I would suggest one of the problems we've had in the traditional environmental-economic banging of heads is that we don't fully capture all the costs.

This is not going to prevent action. I think this is going to encourage further action based on the quantification.... For example, if you have cleaner air, you're not spending the money buying asthma respirators for children.

I think we have to start capturing the essence of some of those things so that the economic arguments can be made that these types of regulations make economic sense. They don't make economic sense if you're going to narrowly define with cost-effective, but they make economic sense if you look at it longer term and expand your view of what costs are.

So I don't think this is a hurdle to action. I think this is a springboard to action.

I do suggest, though, that the reference to the wording of the new clause 2(1.2) is valid, and suggest that rather than refer to the minister there, it read as follows:

Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the taking of any action authorized under this Act to protect the environment or human health for the purposes of this Act.

That way, we're not talking about the minister specifically.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Madam Kraft Sloan and Madam Torsney.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, paragraph 2(1)(a) talks about taking “preventive and remedial measures to protect, enhance and restore the environment”. Now, what Mr. Jordan is talking about is looking at how environmental protection measures can produce ecological benefit, as well as looking at how ecological measures can produce positive economic impacts. This is not the same thing as what 2(1)(a) and (b) are saying. These are very different things.

As I said earlier, the whole bill is creating many, many barriers, over and over again. As we go through the bill, clause by clause by clause, we see many barriers to action that the minister has to jump.

In this situation, Mr. Jordan says to take a look at an environmental protection measure because it can have positive ecological and economic benefits that may not be taken into consideration.

• 1700

Even if cost-effective is taken out of this bill, we still have to deal with the Treasury Board guidelines in terms of regulation-making, which does not address the fact that environmental protection measures have ecological and human health benefits as well as economic benefits.

Those are the things Mr. Jordan is addressing, and those are not the same things as in paragraphs 2(1)(a) and (b).

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney following by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Let me reiterate that it's the government's intention to remove “cost-effective” from (a) so that there are no caveats to taking, in fact, “preventive and remedial measures to protect, enhance and restore the environment”.

The effect of removing “cost-effective” would be to remove any caveats. The effect of passing Mr. Jordan's amendment would be in fact to set up a model where you have to prove positive economic impacts arising from the measures. Why do you need any caveat around taking the right course of action?

Again, I think the effect of Mr. Jordan's amendment would be to skew the analysis into positive and negative economic issues instead of positive and negative environmental measures.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think I would agree with what the parliamentary secretary says if we could take “cost-effective” out of 2(1)(a). Certainly it's a big step forward. If we also took it out of the preamble under the precautionary clause, where we leave it....

If anybody was to define the intent of the legislation under the preamble, it's not the operating part of the bill, but at the same time, it does give a very strong signal.

As well, in the preamble we talk about economic resources, economic factors, cost-effective measures, and economic and technical matters. There are at least four references to “economic” and “cost-effective”, which would tend to give a clear notion, to anybody interpreting the law, that economic factors are paramount in identifying the bill.

So I would agree with the parliamentary secretary if we could take “cost-effective” out of 2(1)(a) but also out of the precautionary principle. Then I think we would have something. Otherwise, I think Mr. Jordan's idea at least is going to put an onus on the government to work toward identifying, in their mind, both “cost-effective” and “economic”.

In other words, it's taking into account the beneficial side of environmental prevention, which somehow never gets taken into account. It's always the downside, never the plus side.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I thought perhaps we could have clarification from the parliamentary secretary.

It was my understanding that if you were going to take “cost-effective” out of the bill, it would be out of the preamble as well. Is that not correct?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The clause that's before us is clause 2, the administrative, and that's what we're dealing with right now.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I thought we were dealing with the entire bill, that “cost-effective” would be deleted throughout.

The Chairman: We are having a broad discussion, there is no doubt, which is helpful, because it will save us time later on—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So “cost-effective” is still going to stay in the preamble. This is a real problem.

The Chairman: —but we now discussing mainly the administrative duties.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Well, I would like to call the question, Mr. Chair, and just draw members' attention to the word “consider”.

The Chairman: If you are ready for the question, then we'll repeat the fact that the changes made in the course of this last half hour are to delete the phrase, “cost-effective preventative and remedial measure” in new subclause 2(1.1) so that it reads:

The Government of Canada shall consider the following before taking any measure under paragraph (1)(a);

That is the first change. The second is to delete (1.2). The third is that (1.3) becomes (1.2) without the words “Minister from”.

Is that correct, Mr. Jordan?

• 1705

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes. It would read as follows:

(1.2) Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the taking of any action authorized under this Act to protect the environment or human health for the purposes of this Act.

That gets us around referring to “the Minister” in this part as opposed to the beginning.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chair, can we have a recorded vote, please?

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt wants a recorded vote. We will proceed with a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Thank you.

• 1710

Mr. Gilmour, since you are already up, would you mind taking the chair so as to allow the chair to move these amendments.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): I'd prefer not to, because that causes the vote to....

Let me see what we're talking about first.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: It's in consideration of the fact that Madam Kraft Sloan is not ready for the Metropolitan Opera.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I would prefer that Madam Kraft Sloan take it. It's a disadvantage to the opposition side because of the votes.

Mr. John Herron: Not necessarily.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: How quickly things change.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are you talking about putting the opposition off by putting me in the chair? Is that what you're doing?

Mr. John Herron: I think Mr. Pratt is capable...is ready for this particular opponent.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Pratt could be a good chair.

The Chairman: To simplify matters, a suggestion has been made that a member of the committee kindly move it and a member of the committee speak to it.

I'm referring to new L-1 on page 1.b.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, Mr. Chair, but I think in fact L-1 is not properly worded. It should be line 6, not line 5, because paragraph 2(1)(a) is on line 6. In that case, then, BQ-1 and G-0.1, would go first, and then L-1.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Chairman, if it makes things easier, you can withdraw amendment BQ-1.

The Chairman: Yes?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Lincoln would like to speak to this, I'm told, and Mr. Jordan would like to move it.

Am I correct?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

The Chairman: Please go ahead.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: This is an amendment, proposed by the chairman, that would have the effect of introducing in the administrative duties the precautionary principle that:

lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation, and promotes and reinforces enforceable pollution prevention approaches;

The advantage of this is that the precautionary principle becomes an operative clause. Besides introducing the precautionary principle, I think you're going to find that nowhere in the bill is there a notion of exercising its powers in a manner that protects the environment and human health.

• 1715

This is a strong indication of what the intention of the bill is in an operating clause, added to which the precautionary principle comes into the operative clause.

Because it had already been agreed by the government to delete “cost-effective”, we have deleted “cost-effective” from the standard wording of the precautionary principle.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, followed by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I so move.

The Chairman: Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if the clerk could supply us with an old L-1, which was before the committee at some point.

Oh, sorry, it's on page 1 of our book.

Let me say that the government in fact would support L-1 but does not support the new L-1. The old L-1 operationalizes the precautionary principle, as the member had desired at an earlier point.

One more thing. While the old L-1 was something we in fact supported, that was with the exception, in the second-last line, of “enforceable”.

The Chairman: Before the committee, at the present time, there is a new L-1. It was produced after careful consideration. So the vote and the discussion are on the new L-1 at the present time. The wishes of the government have been taken note of.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I say one more thing?

Should the new L-1 be defeated, it would be my intention to move L-1, if it was the pleasure of the committee.

The Chairman: No, it could be moved only by the writer of that amendment, nobody else.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't think that's correct.

The Chairman: Oh, yes, it is.

It can be moved by anyone?

I'm sorry, then, but it would be moved against the wishes of the person whose name it has been listed under in the collection of amendments.

On new L-1, you heard Mr. Lincoln. Are there any further comments?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Realizing that there is an old L-1, and it's different, I think the intention of the new L-1 specifically clarifies that, “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures”. It's very clear, and I think it deserves support, to make it a duty of this government to address that “serious and irreversible damage” happens every day in this country, in some shape or form. The minister, through the powers given to her by this government, should act on it, either in an emergency situation or for the benefit of our health and safety.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm supportive of this motion because it's similar to PC-2, which I have as well.

As I interpret your amendment, Mr. Chair, it follows the discussion with respect to the document It's About Our Health!, where it is imperative that we enshrine the precautionary principle in the legislation itself.

I think that is your intent, and the Progressive Conservative Party is in full support of your motion.

The Chairman: You're addressing now new L-1?

Mr. John Herron: I'm now addressing new L-1.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, in light of the fact that this is one of your amendments, I'd like to seek unanimous consent from the committee to put Mr. Lincoln in the chair. That would then allow you an opportunity to vote for your own motion.

• 1720

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to place Mr. Lincoln in the chair?

Some hon. members: No.

An hon. member: Mr. Lincoln is not a member of this committee.

The Chairman: All right, that's fine.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: He's an associate member. This committee can do whatever—

The Chairman: I don't see any further comments or questions, but I must briefly explain why there is an L-1 that is old and an L-1 that is new.

The L-1 that is old was written before we had a good discussion on the precautionary principle definition. At that time it became quite clear that the definition, according to the Rio Convention, includes a strong consideration of cost-effectiveness, and that evidently was, and still is, an inadequate definition. It was arrived at in the small hours of the morning, which I'm on record as having indicated before.

It was a compromise definition, and it is far from being satisfactory in a bill that attempts to prevent pollution and to protect human health. That consideration led to the writing of the newer one.

I hope this explanation is sufficient for the members of the committee.

May I ask whether the committee wishes a recorded vote?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'd like to seek some clarification from the clerk.

As master of its own destiny, the committee could have put Mr. Lincoln in the chair, could it not have, by unanimous consent?

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lincoln is not a member of the committee.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: He's an associate member.

The Clerk: Mr. Lincoln is an associate member of the committee, which effectively gives him some privileges with regard to appointment to subcommittees but gives him no more status in the committee unless of course he's designated as an official substitute.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So the point is, we couldn't have put him in the chair.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We could have.

The Chairman: Anyway, there was no consent, and therefore the discussion becomes unnecessary.

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. John Herron: Is it possible for us to have a vote on whether we think Mr. Lincoln should be the chair?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: It's not necessary. There is not unanimous consent.

Are you ready for the question for the recorded vote?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

• 1725

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 3 of the large book, a motion in the name of Mr. Knutson, L-10.3.

I'm sorry; that is the oldest arrangement. It has now been replaced, whereby on page 3 there is an amendment by the government, G-0.1.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I would be happy to move government amendment 0.1, the effect of which would be to remove “cost-effective” from the sentence, “take preventive and remedial measures to protect, enhance and restore the environment”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I guess this is where I was leading Mr. Moffet to at one point in time, in the conversation we had. We're taking cost-effective right out, and there's a motion coming up to include “effective” preventive and remedial measures. The BQ has pulled out “all” measures.

Maybe Mr. Moffet could speak on taking everything out as opposed to effective being in.

Mr. John Moffet: I'm trying to recall what I told you before. I believe I may have misled you when I said I would leave “effective” in. I apologize for that. I don't think either “cost” or “effective” is necessary here.

The words “preventive and remedial” modify “measures”. So this administrative duty would require that the government would have to take measures that are both preventive and remedial. I think those two words focus quite clearly on the main thrust of the bill.

I would be concerned that “effective” may, again, establish some threshold, I guess, that could be challenged. Somebody might say, well, this measure is not effective—can you prove it's going to be effective? That's as opposed to this measure being preventive and remedial.

I think that's what I would urge the committee to focus on, the preventive and remedial aspects of the measures. So I wouldn't leave effective in.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So just to clarify the point of Mr. Jordan's motion, cost-effective was taken out so that it deals specifically with preventive and remedial measures.

Mr. John Moffet: But preventive and remedial measures was left in.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, but in terms of a duty for a government—“shall take preventive and remedial measures to protect, enhance and restore the environment”—do you think the weight of just that is strong enough as opposed to qualifying with effective as an administrative duty?

Cost-effective was very narrow, and it could mean pro or con in terms of cost, but effective is more effective measures.

I'm saying this because I had so much faith in the first statement you made. You had me duly convinced, and now you've flushed it down again.

The Chairman: In the end, Mr. Laliberte, it's your judgment that counts, and we can't fault anyone for that. The amendment before us is G-0.1. If you want to address it, that's fine. Otherwise, we'll take a vote.

• 1730

Are there any further questions? If not, are you ready for the question?

Just one moment.

Look, we have something to report to you that is rather unusual, to say the least. Some time ago, Mr. Herron had an amendment that was exactly like this. That amendment was defeated. My attention has been drawn to it right now. It was an amendment dated November 2. It was a PC amendment, PC-1a.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To what clause?

The Chairman: Excuse me.

It was a two-part amendment. To facilitate the vote, we split the vote on part (a) and on part (b).

Part (a) was a motion to amend Bill C-32 in clause 2 by replacing line 6 on page 3 with the following:

(a) take preventive and reme-

The clerk will read—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, what clause?

The Chairman: —the part of the rules that deals with situations of this kind.

Mr. John Moffet: Ms. Torsney has a question.

The Chairman: Just a minute.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we just have an indication of what clause this amendment of Mr. Herron's affected?

The Chairman: Clause 2.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think it would be helpful if we had a copy of the amendment. We don't have it.

The Chairman: It is in your book—or it was.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It no longer is.

The Chairman: Well, we will certainly circulate it.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, I'm reading from Beauchesne's, citation 699:

If it appears during the course of discussion that an amendment or new clause which has been moved is out of order, then the Chairman directs the committee's attention to this fact and withdraws the amendment or clause from further consideration by the committee. As examples, the discussion of an amendment or clause brings forward the fact:

(1) that the question raised thereby had already been decided by the committee.

So the chair can rule the amendment out of order.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But can he rule otherwise?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, might I suggest a solution?

The Chairman: Just a moment.

• 1735

Your clerk is informing me in the affirmative to the question of whether the committee can, by unanimous consent, put this motion before us and proceed with it.

Therefore, my first question would be, is there unanimous consent? Because if there is, then the matter is resolved.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: No, not until I understand what the clause is as we passed it, and what it reads—

The Chairman: Well, we will read it again.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: But it was defeated. So what will the line say?

The Clerk: Line 6 on page 3 is as it stands. It has not been amended.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So “take cost-effective preventive and remedial” is still there.

The Clerk: Yes, it's still there.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

The Chairman: So is that all right?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: There is not unanimous consent.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: In recognition of the hour and the desire to check Hansard and confirm, in fact, the events of November 2, I wonder if we might move this to tomorrow morning.

The Chairman: Yes, certainly that can be done.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think that may be wise to do, but I also would like to raise that topic. There were a couple of circumstances in which Rick and I had similar amendments. We took a couple of runs at it and we lost. Well, just because I had this same amendment, and it was defeated, I think perhaps it would still be possible, given what we've done it a couple of other times, to—

The Chairman: We will also ask the clerk to consult further luminaries on the rules and regulations to see whether by tomorrow morning we can get some further guidance on this matter.

We'll follow the advice of the parliamentary secretary and adjourn.

Thank you.