ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 16, 1999

• 1542

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome Mr. Lebel.

We will be resuming our study of clause 115 and the government amendment moved by Ms. Torsney.

[English]

The discussion includes the amendment PC-18.0.0.2 by Mr. Herron, and what else? What is the third amendment? There are three items we're discussing: the government amendment, the Herron amendment, and....

The Clerk of the Committee: We have the government amendment; we have Mr. Lincoln's amendment—

The Chairman: Where is Mr. Lincoln's amendment?

The Clerk: It's on page 244.

The Chairman: Oh yes, there it is.

The Clerk: And then this one.

The Chairman: Yes. And the amendment being proposed by Mr. Lincoln on page 244.

The Clerk: And Mr. Herron's amendment.

The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Herron's amendment is being....

The Clerk: It was circulated already. That was circulated this morning. This one is really not into play until it comes out in two official languages.

The Chairman: That's right. It's changed.

The Clerk: They've changed the reference from Governor in Council. Until this can be presented in two official languages it's not before us. It's not in play. It hasn't been circulated.

The Chairman: But how can we have the discussion without this before us?

For the benefit of new members, could Madame Torsney, Mr. Herron, and Mr. Lincoln outline or summarize where we were when we broke up, so as to somehow bring people up to speed on the discussion, keeping in mind that Mr. Herron's amendment is to be recirculated in the version that was suggested before the break-up.

• 1545

Ms. Torsney, would you like to explain the government amendment, please?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): Sure. We're on page 22.c of the small package dated probably today, March 16.

The effect of this amendment, were it to pass, would be to address the committee's concern that where other acts of Parliament regulate an activity, there is some attention paid to whether or not the other acts are sufficient to protect the environment and human health.

The Governor in Council already has the power to make regulation under clause 115. This is just a check that again reflects the committee's desire to ensure that this bill does not become residual, that the protection of environment and human health remains paramount, and that while other amendments are being proposed that would have a questionable value, the way this is worded will also ensure that the objectives are achieved with the other legislation and that they are sufficient.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have a new version of PC-18.0.0.2.

The Chairman: It has not yet been circulated. Are you ready to have it circulated?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. Maybe I'll wait until my colleagues have their copies. It's in both official languages,

[Translation]

because it's the Semaine nationale de la francophonie.

[English]

In the French version, you will find that there are some very minor grammatical errors.

[Translation]

In subsection (2), instead of "si le dernier est effectivement", it should read "si ce dernier est effectivement". Furthermore, the bill should read "à l'égard d'un organisme" and not "à l'égard de l'organisme". I think that's about it.

[English]

The intent of this amendment.... I had an error that Mr. Moffet had pointed out during the previous section where I referred to the Governor in Council in the middle, as opposed to putting “the Minister” on top of the amendment. So you'll see how it reads now: “Parliament...that, in the opinion of the Minister and, where appropriate, the Minister of Health, provides to...”

Essentially, this ensures that the Minister of Health or the Minister of the Environment has the final call as to whether there's any potential harm to human health or the environment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I've also taken out the controversial section that was brought up with respect to sufficient and equivalent that was in the previous version of PC-18.0.0.2. Perhaps that might be somewhat more palatable.

I'd like to ask Ms. Hébert about her comments on this new version.

• 1550

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): The existing version has three tests. If all three tests are met, that means that cabinet could not enact a regulation under CEPA. The regulation that exists under another statute would prevail in that case.

Now, this revised amendment retains three tests. There is the test of notice and there is the test of assessment, and these provisions must be under the other regulatory regime. It's the third test that would be changed in this revised amendment. In the original amendment proposed this morning, it was an equivalency test. The test as revised doesn't require any judgment calls; it simply states that the regulation that is passed under the other statute would have to deal with potential risks to the environment, etc., identified under the assessment process called for under the other statutory regime. This is the difference here.

However, I'd just like to point out that in this case it is the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, where appropriate, that would make the determination of whether the three tests were met or not in order to decide whether CEPA regulations would be appropriate should those criteria not be met.

Mr. John Herron: My question would be that the only difference, at the end of the day, between the government amendment and our amendment would be whether cabinet makes the call or just the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, the co-sponsors of the bill.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Well, I'd have to refresh my memory, but I don't believe the government amendment requires that the other regime have the notice and assessment provisions that are part of your proposed amendment.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

Mr. Moffet, you raised some concerns at the end of the last session. Do you think those concerns have been addressed in this modification?

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Consultant): The concerns I raised this morning had to do with the equivalency test issue, and I don't think those issues arise under this version. I'm not a draftsperson, and we might want to ask Mr. Cameron, but I'm still not sure.... I'm trying to read this carefully, if you'll just bear with me.

Subclause 115(2) at the end says that the Governor in Council shall not make a regulation if the regulation regulates an aspect of the living organism that is regulated—let's remember those words, “that is regulated”—under another act that provides for (a), (b), (c), the regulation. So that is regulated by another act that provides for the regulation of any potential risks to the environment.

I just want to clarify that this amendment of yours does not stipulate, I don't think, that the particular regulation—I'm not sure—addresses all.... This paragraph (c) describes the act, not the regulation, I think. I'd like to turn this over to Mr. Cameron. That's my reading, and I don't think that's the way you presented it.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, briefly.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Department of the Environment): I think I share that concern. To be honest, I'm looking at it now for the first time as well, and I wouldn't want to give a definitive opinion, but at first blush I think paragraph (c) relates to the act, not the regulation, as Mr. Moffet indicated.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, would you like to explain your amendment?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Frankly, to me, my amendment reads very clearly. It's exactly the same as Mr. Herron's. I'm very confident with it. I don't have to ask 15 people to tell me what it says. In fact I think Mr. Herron's amendment is exactly the same as mine, except it has one added feature, which I think is really worth while: he has substituted the opinion of the Governor in Council for the opinion of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health. In that sense it differs from my amendment, but in substance it's the same. What it seeks to do is to provide for notice, provide for an assessment, and finally for regulation and control of potential risks.

• 1555

So I agree that there are three tests and that it meets the three tests. In the case of his amendment, he substitutes the opinion of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health. So I'd be very happy to rally to his amendment.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Herron, briefly, please.

Mr. John Herron: There is just one comment that I did miss that I might want to mention to my dear colleagues from the Reform Party. This circumstance puts more political accountability into our institutions by making the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health responsible as opposed to an arbitrary cabinet.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The beginning of this subclause (2) does not change, nor does subclause (1). The comments by the honourable member were absolutely incorrect. It is still up to the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, to make regulations, and in subclause (2) it is still up to the Governor in Council not to make regulations. So to suggest that this somehow, either Mr. Lincoln's or his own, would achieve something else is absolutely false.

The Chairman: I don't know whether it is false, but maybe it is a view that is incorrect or that the member doesn't share.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that there are two separate subclauses there, (1) and (2), and they stand apart, one from the other. In the second one, Mr. Herron's amendment deletes “in the opinion of the Governor in Council” and he substitutes for it “the opinion of the Minister and the Minister of Health”. Surely there's a difference. I don't think I'm too stupid.

The Chairman: No, that was not the implication, Mr. Lincoln.

We will now proceed with a vote in the following manner. We have the amendment by the government, and that will be followed by the amendment by Mr. Lincoln, and it will be followed then by the amendment of Mr. Herron, should any of the preceding ones fail to be approved.

We will take a recorded vote upon the request of Mr. Herron, and we'll proceed now with the vote on G-(08/03) on page 22.c.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 6)

The Chairman: We will now go to the amendment L-15.6 in the name of Mr. Lincoln on page 244. Are there any questions or comments? If not, we'll take another—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, but I withdraw my motion in favour of Mr. Herron's. I think his is more complete.

The Chairman: All right, the motion is not moved.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we have clarity as to whether it was on the table or not on the table?

The Chairman: It was not on the table and it was not moved.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

With regard to Mr. Herron's amendment, there is clearly a problem with paragraph (c), but if Mr. Herron doesn't want to change it, that's fine. Clearly it should not say “including biodiversity”. It should say, as in other sections, “or its biological diversity”. But it will be up to him whether or not he wants to make it correct.

• 1600

Mr. John Herron: Being the team player that I am, if we want to make that adjustment we can.

The Chairman: Is that a friendly amendment on the part of the parliamentary secretary?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, it's a piece of information. If someone wants to make an amendment, they can make an amendment.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to make an amendment to that effect.

The Chairman: So as to—

Mr. John Herron: So it's just a matter of language.

The Chairman: We need language, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: “Or its biodiversity” is what I understood.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Including its biological diversity.

A voice: As opposed to biodiversity?

The Chairman: To include after the word “including” the words, “biological biodiversity”. Is that what you're moving?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As the mover of this amendment, I thought “or” was included with that as well. So it would be “or its biological diversity”.

The Chairman: Would you then read paragraph (c) in its full form, please?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan:

(c) the regulation or control of any potential risks to the environment, or its biological diversity and human health, identified by that assessment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're welcome.

The Chairman: And it's being moved as a friendly amendment, as original language.

Are there any other comments, any other suggestions?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What's your question on?

The Chairman: The question is on the amendment by Mr. Herron as read a moment ago.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think in terms of process, Mr. Herron has to indicate whether or not he supports an amendment. Otherwise we need a subamendment. Can we have a recorded vote when we have a vote on—

The Chairman: He has invited suggestions and I understand that he accepted a suggestion. Is that correct?

Mr. John Herron: I absolutely did.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd like the clarity. So that's fine.

The Chairman: If the parliamentary secretary would like to take the place of the chair, I would be glad to exchange places in order to round the committee and I would be delighted to take the place of the parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No doubt. I would not be delighted to be in the chair.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question? Do you want a recorded vote or not?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1605

The Chairman: There are no more amendments to clause 115.

(Clause 115 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 200—Regulations)

The Chairman: I'd like you to turn to a motion in the name of Mr. Laliberte, NDP-52.11, on page 302. It's on clause 200.

Would you like to introduce your amendment, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I move amendment NDP-52.11. I'm looking at the overall section dealing with environmental matters related to emergencies and I'm trying to frame my argument here.

The Chairman: Thank you. Would you like to explain it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte:

200.(1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister and after the Committee is given an opportunity to provide its advice to the Minister under section 6, make regulations

(a) establishing a list of substances that, if they enter the environment as a result of an environmental emergency,

What we would be doing is taking out the “or” in subparagraph (iii) and adding subparagraph (iv):

(iv) have or may have an immediate or long-term effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity;

This is expanding the description of the environment, including conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and I believe it would be very appropriate to add that in here.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: When we dealt with clause 64, we made a change to include biological diversity in subparagraph (a)(i). If we want the language to mirror the same language, we would in fact simply add to the end of subparagraph (a)(i) “or its biological diversity”, and that would achieve perhaps the same goal as the member opposite is trying to do and make it clear and consistent.

The Chairman: At the end of subparagraph (a)(i)?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The one delineation between subparagraphs (i) and (iv) is that (i) has “harmful effect” and ours has “long-term effect on the conservation and sustainable”, so it would have a language difference here. The term “long-term effect” acknowledges that the action is not necessarily going to pose any danger in the immediate sense, but the long-term changes that are made have to be taken into consideration.

• 1610

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, “long-term” is referred to also in subparagraph (i).

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I was highlighting the term “harmful” effect. In our amendment it says “long-term effect”.

The Chairman: All right, so you're proposing your amendment as on page 302, I understand.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Another element is addressed by Mr. Laliberte's amendment that is not addressed in this clause, and this is the idea of conservation and sustainable use. So this would not be addressed in subparagraph (i) because, as Mr. Laliberte points out, it's an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment and it doesn't deal with the idea of conservation and sustainable use, which is a different set of activities.

The Chairman: All right, are there any other comments? Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Once again, I'd just reiterate that this language, as originally drafted, was mirrored in the definition of toxic, and if the members are interested, I'd be pleased to see “or its biological diversity” added to subparagraph (i). I'm not sure what other long-term effects the member would be concerned about, but if you want the language to be similar and clear, such as we adopted in another clause of this bill, that is an option that would be available to you. If that's not what you want, that's fine.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Torsney.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Chair, I could support the parliamentary secretary's friendly amendment of adding the words “biological diversity” in subparagraph (i). I could not support the NDP motion as it's written.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there any other comment? Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was wondering what the effect would be of adding “conservation or sustainable use” as Mr. Laliberte has done in his amendment.

The Chairman: To whom is that question addressed?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: To Mr. Moffet and Madame Hébert.

Mr. John Moffet: I think in fact adding “conservation and sustainable use” may circumscribe the test to a narrower test than the one the parliamentary secretary is proposing, because this would describe certain aspects of biological diversity—in other words, just conservation and sustainable use, which of course are important. But the parliamentary secretary is proposing to leave the concept quite general and talk about biological diversity, which is defined quite broadly in clause 3.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If we added biological diversity under subparagraph (i), and then included subparagraph (iv), what would the effect be? You would still be encapsulating the broad version of biological diversity, but we would still also be addressing the idea of conservation and sustainable use.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I'm not sure, I'm afraid. My preliminary reading says that this may be redundant, but I'm not sure. I apologize.

But I did want to reiterate the point made by the parliamentary secretary—and I think this is fairly important—that this clause is a direct parallel to clause 64, which is the trigger for the federal government in addressing toxic substances and has been fairly carefully worded. It has now been amended to include the concept of biological diversity—or I suppose we're all assuming it will be amended in that regard.

• 1615

In clause 200 the attempt is to mirror that precise trigger to authorize the federal government to make a list of substances in order to address environmental emergencies. As long as the committee is satisfied that in using mirror language to that in clause 64 they will be able to address all of the issues about which they are concerned, I would urge them to in fact use that language.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to ask the government officials a question, since this is a regulation for the minister:

...under section 6, make regulations

(a) establishing a list of substances that, if they enter the environment as a result of an environmental emergency,

This case would be bioremediation, clean-up materials. Is that the list this would be referring to directly as having an immediate harmful effect, constitute danger, and also constitute danger to human life or health? Are we interpreting this right?

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, this is a list of substances to which the other parts of subclause (1) would apply. I'll give you an example. The Minister of the Environment would be empowered to require industry to prepare emergency plans for some of these substances.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's it?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: That's an example of what this list would be used for. If you read on, you'll see it would also be to set out requirements respecting notification and reporting requirements if there was an emergency or an accidental spill or release of these substances. Respecting the implementation of international agreements, we may have obligations that arise out of international agreements for handling emergencies. So it's a broad regulatory power that would apply to that list of substances established through the regulatory process.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: This is just a very small point. I'm simply concerned over Mr. Laliberte's amendment, which does not have the requirement for the effect to be adverse or harmful to biological diversity. Arguably, therefore, substances that could be beneficial to biological diversity would, on the strength of this amendment, be capable of being placed on the list of substances in relation to which emergency measures could be promulgated by regulation. I'm just wondering if one doesn't really want the notion of harm to be part and parcel of the substances on that list.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Following along a similar line to the comment Ms. Hébert just made, I would raise the constitutional question of how the federal government can regulate with respect to these substances if they don't pose a harm to the environment. We were very careful in structuring this clause to mirror the definition of toxic, which, as the Supreme Court held in Hydro-Québec, is our basis into exercising the criminal law power.

If you incorporate this new language in NDP-52.11, subparagraph (iv), which has no link to harm for the environment, I question how we could exercise criminal law power with respect to these types of things. In my opinion, this would go far beyond the types of things the federal government is authorized to regulate and would be therefore unconstitutional.

• 1620

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I would also like to remind the committee that they are considering amendments to the definition of toxic, one of which was pointed out by the parliamentary secretary, and they are L-13.10, which is modified I believe, and also.... L-13.10 is the one I have in front of me, and it was one that was speaking to long-term harmful effect on the environment, or its biological diversity. I think that suggestion has been incorporated into the amendment that was going to be put by Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan.

The reason this clause is there is that those two definitions of toxic, I would suggest, must parallel each other. So I would suggest that the committee might want to think about changes that are going to be made to the definition of toxic and whatever changes should parallel in clause 200.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lerer. That's very helpful.

The suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary, I'm told by the clerk, is one that could be, if moved by unanimous consent, inserted into NDP-52.11 after this amendment has carried. So the first step would be to decide on this amendment. If it is not carried, well, that's the end of it. If it is carried, then the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary to insert “or its biological diversity” could be inserted by unanimous consent.

That insertion is possible, I'm told, in both cases, whether the amendment is carried or not.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of clarification, the new PC amendment 18.0.0.2 went backwards to line 41 when we were already on line 45. I'm not sure what kind of motion is necessary to go back to line 11 on page 138.

The Chairman: They had not been moved, I'm informed by the clerk.

In dealing with this matter now, Mr. Laliberte, I think we have to move on and make a decision.

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm ready.

The Chairman: All right. The question is before us in the form of amendment NDP-52.11 in its present form, as it is on page 302.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, after we have this vote, could we please revert back to PC-18.0.0.2, because paragraph (a) was absolutely necessary. It doesn't make any sense if paragraph (a) wasn't included because you have—

• 1625

The Chairman: The understanding of the chair was that the amendment that was moved included paragraph (b), not paragraph (a). We can revert to that portion.

But we'll take one step at a time. We'll now vote on NDP-52.11.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, would you like to move your insertion of “or its biological diversity” on line 11?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. I move that we amend Bill C-32 in clause 200 by replacing line 11 with “ment, or its biological diversity”.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: The amendment by Mr. Herron that was earlier adopted consisted of paragraph (b). The point is being made that paragraph (a) ought to be included. That was not perceived or picked up by the chair.

Mr. John Herron: I may be mistaken in that regard, but it was my thought that we voted on paragraphs (a) and (b). I know we're allowed to go back to paragraph (a). Our clerk may be able to tell us where that actually applies from Beauchesne's perspective.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I think that during the discussion I heard a discussion between the two gentlemen there that we were talking about paragraphs (a) and (b), and that paragraph (a) was in fact discussed as part of the debate during the whole thing. So we were talking about paragraphs (a) and (b).

The Chairman: The clerk will clarify this point, having consulted our legislative clerk.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Herron was referring to Beauchesne's citation 697(2), which I'll read in part: “If an amendment to the latter part of a clause is negatived or withdrawn, it is competent to propose one to an earlier part”. I don't believe this applies in this case because nothing has been negatived, so it was wide open to be proposed. So we're really at the pleasure of the committee as to where we are with regard to paragraphs (a) and (b).

The Chairman: If it is the general recollection that the motion put forward by Mr. Herron included paragraphs (a) and (b), then we'll accept it as such, and we apologize for the mistake made here at the table.

Mr. John Herron: Also, Mr. Chair, my able-bodied friend and assistant pointed out that the French version actually includes both in one body.

The Chairman: The French version includes both in one breath. That's right. Fine.

The parliamentary secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There's no need to end final debate on this if you want to check the record. But the other point about the fact that it included paragraph (a) was that we in fact reverted several lines.

The Chairman: Yes, we did. So it will be recorded that the entire amendment by Mr. Herron was examined, discussed, and passed.

We'll now turn to the motion on page 303, an amendment in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, this refers to environmental emergencies. Subclause 200(2) now says:

The Governor in Council shall not make a regulation under subsection (1) in respect of a matter if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the matter is regulated by or under any other Act of Parliament.

• 1630

The objective of the amendment is to add:

and the Governor in Council is satisfied that the regulation by or under any other Act of Parliament provides for a level of protection to human health or the environment that is at least equal to the level of protection that could be provided under this Act.

In this particular case I think the case can genuinely be made that we don't have any arguments about whether it's equal, equivalent, or sufficient because that clause is so broad and well defined. There's a definition of what an environmental emergency means, and the powers of the minister are very clearly defined. The duties and powers are there. I think in this particular case it doesn't lead at all to any confusion. We have left in this motion the notion of the Governor in Council. It's just to put a standard that before the Governor in Council turns to any other act of Parliament, the Governor in Council should be satisfied that the other act of Parliament has an equal standard to that provided in this subclause under environmental emergencies.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Is there anyone willing to move this amendment? Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I'd be pleased to move this amendment.

The Chairman: This amendment touches on the same lines as three other amendments, NDP-52.12, the government 14-2.1 and PC-18.5. I'm just bringing this to the attention of members.

Is there any comment or question on L-16.5? Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'm essentially comfortable with the intent of Mr. Lincoln's amendment, but the amendment I have, PC-18.5, incorporates in the opinion of the minister or the Minister of Health. Mr. Lincoln has the Governor in Council here on this occasion. So that would be the difference between the two. I think either way is still augmenting the bill.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: My amendment refers to the Governor in Council, and Mr. Herron's refers to the two ministers. I take it, Mr. Chairman, that should mine not succeed, his would still be valid.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm just asking a question.

The Chairman: It is the very end of the amendments that are affected by this amendment, and therefore we cannot predict what will happen to the preceding amendments, as to whether or not it will still be dealt with.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just want to confirm that it's not the same as my amendment and that it's still valid. I think our legal adviser here is shaking his head in an affirmative way, so that's fine for me.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I won't be voting in favour of this, but I would like a recorded vote on this, please.

The Chairman: Fine. Are you ready for the question? Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Why will the government not be voting in favour of this? Perhaps I can ask the officials. I'm concerned about the level of protection, but if the government isn't, I'd like to know why.

• 1635

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think we've had this debate in a number of other areas, and to get a chance to move on to other issues would be fine. I will not be voting in favour of this.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Could we get the officials' point of view?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I guess the difficulty is that when we're designing regulations, we're doing so to protect the environment and human health. That's the test we want to meet, not the test of what might be regulated.

I'll try to explain this a different way. Clause 200 provides very broad authority to do a number of things. Other pieces of legislation also provide authority for the protection of the environment and human health from environmental emergencies. From our point of view, the test isn't whether the authority in another piece of legislation meets the potential, it's the level of protection of the environment that's important. We wouldn't want other ministers designing their regulations because of what might be done under CEPA, because if we were using CEPA we wouldn't be using paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and so forth. We'd pick the appropriate authorities, and we'd design the regulation accordingly to deal with the situation at hand.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Really, Mr. Mongrain, you floor me. You're talking about environmental matters related to emergencies, and we're talking about environmental matters related to emergencies. This is the environmental statute. Surely the environmental statute should be the guiding statute for environmental emergencies.

Before, you made a case about equivalency. I still don't agree, but we had to accept “sufficient”, sadly. At the same time, it's clearly defined here. You have a definition of environmental emergency, you have a definition of substance, and you have the application. It is clearly defined as to what CEPA tries to do in environmental emergencies. What is wrong with asking not the administrative staff but the Governor in Council to say that if another act is going to cover an environmental emergency, it had better provide at least the same protection as is provided here in this particular clause? Otherwise, are we saying that the environmental law should not be the standard? Why shouldn't it be the standard?

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I would never propose that CEPA should not be a standard. What I'm trying to suggest is that the language at the end of Mr. Lincoln's amendment, “protection that could be provided under this Act”, is very broad. The powers in clause 200 relate to a multitude of different items that may or may not be appropriate to different cases. In some cases, we may only be dealing with paragraph (g), respecting international agreements. We have an agreement with the U.S. on emergency response. In other instances, we may only use paragraph (d), respecting plans related to prevention and preparedness.

We wouldn't want other ministers to be held up to the test of having to establish a list, require plans, and implement international agreements. That's just not practicably operable. From Environment Canada's point of view and our minister's point of view, what we want from other ministers is the provision of protection for the environment and human health. That's the most important key, not whose authority does what.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mongrain.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to defer to Mr. Herron, because we may have a solution here.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I don't have a solution, but I was initially concerned that some of the examples that Mr. Mongrain was using were not really related to the clause we're discussing right at the moment in terms of the emergencies, but I think I was wrong when I first raised my hand in that regard.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'm reading right from clause 200, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, we realize that. Thank you.

• 1640

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I don't see how sufficient protection is going to allow a standard of protection that CEPA should be able to provide. I use the example of my son understanding that 51% is sufficient enough to pass. Well, that's not going to provide him with an opportunity to get into post-secondary education in the school he chooses. I therefore have real difficulty with the government amendment. Mr. Lincoln's amendment says it's at least equal to the level of protection.

Now, if there's a problem with “could”, maybe we need to say “would be provided under this Act”. And if “could” is not appropriate, why is it not appropriate? Is it because all of the authorities of this act have not been undertaken, because regulations haven't been undertaken? I think we have to listen to what Mr. Lincoln says. This is different from other aspects of the act for which we have looked at similar amendments, because of the specification and detail.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? The question was put as to whether a change from “could” to “would” would be helpful. I don't know.

Madame Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Using “could” means there are no limits to what might be done under CEPA. Using “would” has more of a reality component to it, that what might likely be passed under CEPA would have regard to all of the factors that must come into play. I think this is more realistic than “could be provided” under CEPA. The word “could” is more a notion of pie in the sky, with absolutely no ties to reality. That's my impression.

The Chairman: Thank you.

An hon. member: So would you accept the word “would” instead of “could”?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would be quite happy with that.

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Lincoln indicates the acceptance of “would”. Madame Kraft Sloan, are you prepared to convey that acceptance?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I'm prepared to accept that.

The Chairman: So the last word on the second-last line reads “would” instead of “could”.

Are you ready for the question?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could we have a recorded vote?

The Chairman: It will be a recorded vote.

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chairman, I'm just not sure. How would you operationalize that test? Would the cabinet have to ask the Minister of the Environment what she would do? I'm sorry, I've never been part of cabinet, so I just don't know how this would work. It strikes me that this is what you would have to do. You would have to ask what she would do in these circumstances, the minister would then say that this is what she would do, and then you would look at the other regulation and compare the two. I'm not sure “would” has improved the problem that is on the floor here.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, perhaps another amendment could be considered that would take out “that could be” and we could say “to the level of protection provided under this Act”.

A witness: You still have the same problem.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The same problem?

Mr. John Moffet: I'm very sympathetic to the concern here, and everybody's wrestling for a solution. No protection would have been provided under CEPA without a regulation, so you don't have a counter-factual; you don't have anything to compare it to. That's why “could” doesn't work, and that's why “would” doesn't work.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Moffet, could you tell me if the cabinet is going to ask the minister for the basis on which this other act is sufficient? If one question doesn't make any sense, does the other one make more sense?

• 1645

Mr. John Moffet: That's why I say I'm very sympathetic to the concern. We are wrestling for language that will assure the committee that decisions made in the future provide us with the level of protection that we want, and the level of protection that we think will be provided under CEPA. We have to do that in a way that is good law, that will stand up in the future, and that can be interpreted clearly. I think that's what we're wrestling with here. I'm not disputing your rationale.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But surely if you have all this rationale here in the way of a definition of what is an environmental emergency and in the way of all the definitions of powers, surely the cabinet is smart enough to decide whether this other act has equivalent provisions that will provide the same protection in case of environmental emergencies.

Mr. John Moffet: These provisions say the Governor in Council “may” do what follows. I think this was Mr. Mongrain's point: they provide a shopping list. The minister and the Governor in Council will decide what items they're going to take on that shopping list, on a case-by-case basis. What we need to do is figure out how to make sure the level of protection provided is the same as what would be provided if....

I'm sorry, I can't help you in terms of appropriate legal language. Maybe we should revisit this. I just think these proposals don't provide a test that anybody can meet.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Are you saying there are... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. John Moffet: I'm not commenting on that.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I see.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question on the item before us, which is amendment L-16.5?

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I'm trying to determine what the result will be in French because there are some nuances between the words could and would. Would we be any further ahead if we used the word should, Mr. Moffet? Should is more definitive or more precise. It seems to me that you're looking for something more precise.

[English]

Pie in the sky

[Translation]

with could, and would is a bit better. Don't you think that the solution lies in using the word should, with an appropriate translation in French?

The Chairman: Ms. Hébert, please.

Ms. Monique Hébert: It seems to me, Mr. Charbonneau, that the use of the word could, should and would does not pose the problem. It's more an issue of equivalence, namely, how to overcome this problem and show that the measures taken elsewhere will at least be equivalent to those that could be taken under CEPA.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The word should infers an obligation, it is more mandatory. The reference is more specific. It's less ambiguous and less open, is it not?

Ms. Monique Hébert: No, at this point, the difficulty no longer stems from the use of the word could. It's the notion of equivalence that's creating the problem.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, before I vote, I'd like to know the French translation of the English word that's going to be used.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Just a moment.

[Translation]

Ms. Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Charbonneau, off the top of my head, I would say: "au moins égal au niveau de protection qui serait pris en vertu de la présente loi qui serait assuré sous le régime de la présente loi".

The Chairman: "Qui serait assuré".

Ms. Monique Hébert: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That's would.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Moffet, briefly, please.

Mr. John Moffet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The assertion I was making before was that these amendments are problematic in law, in my opinion. I am wondering if there is a possible solution—

The Chairman: Excuse me, could we have order, please, because we cannot hear everybody.

Continue, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I'm just wondering if there's a possible solution that would require deferring this clause in order that we can go away and find appropriate language. Perhaps the solution could be founded on basically the approach that was taken under clause 115.

• 1650

The concern we've had is that clause 200 provides a shopping list and we don't know precisely how the shopping list would be used from time to time, from case to case.

The Chairman: That's very true, yes. We know that.

Mr. John Moffet: Maybe we could say “if the matter is regulated under another Act of Parliament that provides for the same powers and where the regulation provides sufficient protection”. So you're combining the two. We want to make sure we're acting under an act that provides the same powers, and that the regulation provides a similar standard of sufficient level of protection.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, would you like to comment?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Moffet has so confused the issue now. I think maybe what we should be doing is just going back to the government's own wording that says requirements referred to in this paragraph are met under any other act, and maybe that will be acceptable to all the legal beagles here, because otherwise we'll just run around in circles.

I thought “equivalent” in this act was consecrated in CEPA 1988. It was seen in clause 10. And now we're talking about powers and regulations. It's getting so confusing that maybe we should go back to the government's own wording on whether or not the requirements referred to in this paragraph are met in another act of Parliament. Then there'll be this “meeting the standards”, and what difference does that make? Wouldn't that also be a judgment call by the cabinet, whether they meet the standards or they don't meet the standards? I don't know. You've lost me there.

The Chairman: We have to move forward. So we either take a vote or we withdraw this. We do not—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I think we should make a decision briefly, because time is pressing on.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, we've had this discussion and we've supported an amendment by Mr. Herron. I think this amendment by Mr. Lincoln is a very important amendment. I think there are examples of how this amendment might be rewritten to address some of the concerns expressed around the table, and I would ask that this amendment be withdrawn and that we have an opportunity to redraft it. There are opportunities to take a look at the government's own—

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry. I would ask that this clause be stood.

There are examples in the government's own amendments where they have referred to similar sorts of concepts, and if it's okay for the government amendments, I'm sure it must be all right for Mr. Lincoln's amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet has pointed at a possible solution whereby an amendment could be drafted that would make a reference to “same powers” in legislative terms and to “same level of protection” in regulatory terms as a way of bringing this amendment to an alternative solution.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I will accept this right now. It's just as good, if not better. So that's fine.

The Chairman: If that is acceptable to the committee, we will stand this clause and wait for its version tomorrow.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The version is already before you. The power that the other act has is the power to regulate. So in the clause, we're talking about powers to regulate, and if you were to adopt the amendment on page 34.b, you'd have the sufficiency issue that Mr. Moffet was referring to.

So it's already before the committee, if the committee wants to deal with it right now.

Mr. John Moffet: I'd like to clarify that. I was referring to more than a general power to regulate. I took from Mr. Lincoln's comments...and he pointed to the numerous specific provisions that describe the type of regulatory authority that the Governor in Council has under CEPA. So what I was suggesting is let's refer to those explicitly, in an inclusive manner, rather than listing them all one by one. But let's refer to them. Let's combine that notion with a sufficiency test. I think the essence of my suggestion was that there is an issue here.

• 1655

As someone who tries to be an objective observer, I don't see a disagreement on the substance of the matter. What I have seen this afternoon is a disagreement about how to come to a solution. What I'm suggesting is let's take a little bit of time and try to work out something that everybody agrees solves the problem.

The Chairman: Then I would recommend that we stand this and that we ask Mr. Moffet to bring forward, possibly tomorrow, an amendment for the consideration of this committee that would be put before you for a final decision. So we are standing the clause.

(Clause 200 allowed to stand)

(On clause 210—Non-application of regulations)

The Chairman: In the small binder, I invite you to turn to page 35.c, please. We are now moving to clause 210, pages 35.c and 35.d.

This amendment also touches on three other amendments: the one by the Bloc Québécois, number 30; by the PC, number 18.6; and by a Liberal member, 16.8.

Would the parliamentary secretary like to move this amendment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd be happy to move this amendment respecting clause 210. It is before everyone on page 35.c.

Some of the debate is the debate we've had around earlier clauses today, and I think there's not much more to say. It addresses the issue the committee has brought forward on several other clauses and on this clause.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I would just like to point out to the members of the committee that this seems to be the only clause that doesn't fit the pattern of the other residual clauses.

The big problem regarding equivalency was we didn't know what potential regulations could be developed in order to compare them with the actual regulations developed under another statute. The regulations called for under clause 210 basically state that the regulations are developed for the federal House; however, they won't apply to certain circumstances where other regulations would apply. So you actually have here the development of a regulation. You're no longer dealing with potentiality, but with a concrete regulation developed under this clause. So the issue is a bit different from the debate we had in relation to the other residual clauses.

The Chairman: Whether it is explicit or not, this is an amendment that applies to the non-application of regulations as indicated in clause 210.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'd just like to point out that I will not be supporting the government amendment in lieu of PC-18.6.

Essentially, the conservative amendment refers to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, versus the Governor in Council. Also, we have a slightly elongated paragraph (c) that refers to biological diversity, human health, and a level of protection that is equivalent to the level of protection that would otherwise be provided by regulations made under this part, which we've debated on previous occasions as well.

• 1700

The Chairman: I notice that your amendment, Mr. Herron, does not make reference to sufficient protection. Could you indicate why?

Mr. John Herron: We're utilizing the word “equivalent” in this case in the same aspect as we've maintained before: that protection on an interdepartmental basis between the different departments should be obtainable, if it's obtainable to have levels of equivalency between the provinces and the federal government.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin, could you explain amendment BQ-30?

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are suggesting that the words "or of the legislature of a Province" be added. The text would read as follows: "or any other Act or regulation of Parliament or of the legislature of a Province". The purpose of this amendment is to avoid duplication between federal and provincial environmental protection legislation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Lincoln, would you like to explain your amendment, which is also affected by this?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The way the amendment is written, it doesn't speak of equivalence or at least equal, so I hope this time we won't have an argument about this part of it. What it says is that where there are any provisions under any other part or other act of Parliament that refer to federal work or undertaking or federal land or aboriginal land, and where regulations relating to the same aspect of protection of the environment are made under this part, the provisions that best protect human health or the environment, as determined by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health where appropriate, shall apply.

Maybe this is the kind of wording Mr. Moffet should consider for the other clause we discussed today.

The Chairman: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Any further comment or question?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, if I may add, we leave the determination in the hands of the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Health to decide which is the best provision to protect environment and human health.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'd just like to share that I agree with Mr. Lincoln's. I think it's more workable. But because mine is different, I'd like to reserve the right to move it later on if we have a chance.

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I had a question about Liberal 16.8. I noted that there is no discussion about orders, which would of course have a comment period and a publication component to them. I wonder if that was intentional.

Page 35.c of course has public comment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The original clause under 210 doesn't refer to orders. I wonder why we must put orders in the amendment. In the original clause 210 there's no reference to orders, is there?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But 35.c is what's before us.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm just amending clause 210, and clause 210 itself, the original clause, talks about “any other Act of Parliament, or regulations made under them”.

• 1705

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm simply drawing members' attention to the fact that the proposed clause 210 that is before the committee, on page 35.c in English, includes a process in which there is an order, which of course would ensure publication and comment. So if you're comparing a group of amendments that are before you, some people might be interested in that. L-16.8 does not include that.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What Mr. Lincoln pointed out was that clause 210 does not include this. I'm wondering why the government is including it in theirs.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, the reason we're including it in ours is to provide certainty in the process, to make it clear that the decision of the Governor in Council is reflected through the publication order, and it will be through that process that certainty will be given as to which set of regulations shall apply.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I ask, Mr. Cameron, why this wasn't put into the other clauses where you give discretion to the Governor in Council, where there is sufficiency and you didn't refer to any orders? Maybe we should revisit this and put the onus on the Governor in Council to issue orders in the other clauses that were passed.

The Chairman: Madame Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could answer that question, in the sense that in the other residual clauses you didn't have two competing regulations. You just had the one developed under the other act and the potential for one under CEPA. So there is no confusion, because you have only one actual regulation, whereas in this case here, under clause 210, you basically have two regulations develop: one possibly under another part of CEPA, and the other under this part, which deals exclusively with the federal House. Therefore, to add clarity you want to say that it's the regulation developed under the other part that will apply to the federal House for certain instances, whereas the regulation developed under clause 10 will apply to the other federal entities.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I agree with Madame Hébert. It's a unique situation where there may be a regulation under another act that has only a very limited application, whether it's under the National Defence Act and it applies to Canadian Forces in DND, or perhaps the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might have something that specifically applies to their responsibilities and jurisdiction. CEPA would apply broadly to the federal House, and then the question for the Governor in Council would be, since there are measures that are limited and precise to a certain area of jurisdiction, whether CEPA should apply or whether it should be what already exists under another act.

The Chairman: All this brings back sad memories of the public hearings with witnesses from various departments on the issue of the federal House and the performance in 1995. That was not a happy chapter.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to have a moment to confer with the mover of this amendment to see if he wishes to make any friendly amendment changes to it.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would be quite happy. It seems there's a consensus among Ms. Hébert, the parliamentary secretary, and the officials that an order would be desirable, and I would be quite happy to insert it in my amendment somehow, if you give me half a minute.

The Chairman: Now we have only the government amendment in discussion, because it has been moved and it is before the committee for a vote.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just wanted to have a recorded vote.

• 1710

The Chairman: If any changes ought to be applied to amendment L-16.8, it will have to wait for the moment if and when we get there.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to ask Mr. Lincoln whether or not he would be prepared to add, to his suggestion, the words "or provincial" after the expression "or any other Act of Parliament" before we vote on the matter. The Bloc Québécois would be prepared to support this amendment if you would agree to this.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Asselin, I'd like to ask for the opinion of Mr. Cameron and of the committee's legal experts, but I do believe that clause 10 already provides for federal and provincial equivalence. The bill already states that if there is an equivalent provincial regulation or act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will not apply.

[English]

Would that apply there too, Mr. Cameron?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: No, sir, that's not correct. The reason it's not correct is that provincial law is not binding on the federal crown and this part deals with federal lands and federal instrumentalities. Therefore it was only felt necessary to refer to other parts of CEPA and other federal legislation.

The Chairman: All right. The mover of each motion that has a bearing on these lines has had an opportunity to present the motion. We now have to proceed with a vote so that we see our way clear to where we should put our energies and time.

The first motion before us is G-(08/03). A recorded vote has been requested.

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

(Clause 210 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 81—Manufacture or import of substances)

The Chairman: We go to pages 11.g and 11.h, please, in the small collection. The amendment here by the government also touches on amendments L-13.20, NDP-41 and PC-0.0.1. So we will hear all three.

Would you like to start, Ms. Torsney, with your amendment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure, Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move this amendment, the government amendment to clause 81, which appears in your small book, dated March 16, as 11.g.

The effect of this amendment is to make some changes to subclauses 81(7), 81(8), and 81(9) and that is to delete subclauses (7), (8), and (9) and replace all three of those with a new subclause 81(7). Once again, it would be our desire to reflect the wishes of the committee and their concern about who has power and how that is determined when it comes to CEPA.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Would the movers of the other three motions like to present their amendments for the benefit of committee members, starting with amendment L-13.20, which you will find on page 188 of your large binder?

• 1715

Could we have a brief presentation, Mr. Lincoln?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just give me a minute, Mr. Chairman, please. Maybe you could pass on to somebody else and come back.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, would you like to present or give a brief outline of PC-18.0.0.0?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, Mr. Chair. I can't move it because it's not before us, is that it?

The Chairman: No, but just—

Mr. John Herron: Speaking in favour of amendment PC-18.0.0.0, the debate we had before stems from that of political accountability. Essentially what it did was change the decision-making process in this particular clause to that of the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment, as opposed to just the arbitrary back room of the cabinet. I think that's a better way for us to go from the accountability perspective.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, would you like to outline briefly NDP-41 on page 189?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Amendment NDP-41 is basically deleting subclause 81(9). That's a residual issue. All these are linked somehow since they're under clause 81. Amendment NDP-42 replaces line 6 on page 52 with “Minister may, by order....” That's what we're asking be added. That's triggering the public consultation and public notice.

Amendment NDP-43 deletes lines 12 to 18 on page 52—I'll have to read that one. You caught me off guard.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We are being called for a vote in about 12 minutes, so Mr. Lincoln could perhaps explain his amendment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, I won't move my amendment.

The Chairman: No, it's not a question of moving it. It's just if you'd like to present it.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, I won't speak to it because—

The Chairman: Fine.

Are there any questions or comments on the amendment before us moved by Madame Torsney, on page 11.g?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief comment on a statement made by Mr. Herron that this decision process is some sort of a back-room process.

The Governor in Council process in this instance, if amendments further on in the large book proposed by Mr. Lincoln are passed, would be transparent. There would be a 60-day public comment period.

The Chairman: Perhaps we may want to repeat it since Mr. Herron just came back. Would you mind doing that, briefly?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Certainly I can repeat it. Perhaps I'll try to be a little clearer.

It's the government's intention that this process be open and transparent, that there be a 60-day comment period. There are amendments, I believe by Mr. Lincoln, to clause 332 that would achieve this end, and I believe they are supported by the government. Mr. Chair, it's in respect to Mr. Herron's comment that this is a back-room decision-making process.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question? Ms. Carroll, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Mongrain, I was just wondering if you could give me the specific reference to the upcoming amendments by Mr. Lincoln with which this amendment will marry.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: While Mr. Mongrain is looking for that specific reference, let me also direct members' attention to paragraph (7)(b), the second-last line, which talks about “by order”, so of course that is a public process because there's publication and comment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mongrain.

• 1720

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lincoln's amendments that we would support, or are in favour of, are 376 and 377 in the big book.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask Mr. Herron about his amendment and if he was—

The Chairman: No, we are not discussing it any further. He has presented it. If we come to that, there can be questions and answers.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I realize that, but our support of the government's amendment is going to be dependent on the final look of Mr. Herron's amendment.

The Chairman: All right. Briefly, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm just wondering if Mr. Herron would be amenable to an amendment that would affect his amendment by allowing the ministers to make the recommendation but the listing would be done by Governor in Council.

Mr. John Herron: We're comfortable with that, because again it engages the minister at a higher level than is currently in the bill. I'd be okay with that friendly amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could we have a recorded vote, please?

The Chairman: We will have a recorded vote on the government amendment on page 11.g.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: This meeting resumes tomorrow morning. Thank you.