ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 0916

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. As usual, we are resuming our study of Bill C-32.

[English]

and we'll pick up where we left off yesterday. This morning we will be able to cover a considerable amount of ground if there is some agility and flexibility on the part of the committee. The committee is well known for agility and flexibility, but perhaps we can practise a little bit more today, since we are on the eve of spring—three days away.

We will start where we left off yesterday with motion L-13.16.1.1 on page 11.f, which you will find in the small collection. That motion is a reincarnation of L-13.16.1 on page 169 in the name of Mr. Lincoln, which is also identical to motion NDP-36 on page 170 in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Lincoln has redrafted his motion in recent days, after extensive consultations I'm told. The motion deals with the question of 60 days, just to refresh your memory, which carried yesterday at the end of the afternoon.

Before we do that, I understand there is a point of order or something that needs to be raised in connection with a certain clause that apparently needs to be examined. I don't know who wanted to raise it.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, before I do that I would like to put on the record that I think it is a disgrace there isn't a full number of Liberals here, and I'm still prevented from voting.

Mr. Gallaway phoned my office yesterday to ask me to replace him, but I guess I'm a pariah on this committee. I want to put on the record that I think it's just terrible that I, as a bona fide Liberal and associate member of this committee, am not allowed to take full part in putting whatever skills I have in regard to this legislation to fruition. I'm here as a sort of pariah or squatter on this committee, and I'm allowed to vote only when whoever decides. Then I'm not a hindrance to whatever happens in the committee. Even when we don't have enough people on our side, and even when the member who doesn't turn up phones my office twice to ask me to replace him....

I want to put this on the record. I'm not allowed to vote and I think it's a disgrace.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, I will make due note of what you said and transmit your sentiments to the whip today, so at least he will be informed of the views you have expressed.

• 0920

Is there a point of order to be raised in connection with the clause?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. I would like to raise a point of order in connection with clause 77, please.

The Chairman: It is on clause 77 as it is in Bill C-32, in the text?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. I know this clause has been passed and accepted, so we need unanimous consent to reopen it.

The Chairman: First outline the concern.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, but I'm just going to say why we need it. It's on page 46, paragraph 77(4)(c). If you look at the wording of it, I know we had an amendment to delete paragraph 77(4)(c). Sadly, it was defeated and that has been accepted, but it says:

(4) Where the Ministers propose to take a measure referred to in paragraph (2)(c) in respect of a substance and the Ministers are satisfied that

(c) the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or substance,

the Ministers shall propose virtual elimination of the substance under this Act.

It really opens the door completely through the notion of the last word “substance”, because “substance” is of course a key word in the bill. It means this could open the door completely to exempt any substance, and I think that was a drafting error.

I would like to ask the officials if they agree it was a drafting error, and ask for unanimous consent this be reopened and we substitute the word “substance” for—

The Chairman: We don't want to go into the substance of the substance and discuss the issue. But it is legitimate to ask whether this is a drafting error, and therefore I would seek the opinion of Mr. Cameron or Mr. Mongrain to this effect.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, on further reflection I think the paragraph is not as clear as it could be.

The intention here was to mean the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or a naturally occurring substance. However, the way it's drafted, it's not clear that the words “naturally occurring” modify “substance”. It's possible to read this to mean the substance is not a substance. Of course that's not our intent at all.

The Chairman: Can I ask whether you propose to deal with it? Perhaps you can come forward on Tuesday with an adjustment.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I think we have to do that.

The Chairman: Fine.

Madam Kraft Sloan, briefly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I wonder if we could use a word other than “substance”. Perhaps we could use “element” or something like that.

The Chairman: This discussion can take place after we adjourn.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Fine, but I just want to put that on the table if they're going to redraft.

The Chairman: That is a very good point. Are there any other suggestions? Thank you for raising it, Mr. Lincoln.

(On clause 76—Priority Substances List)

The Chairman: We can now proceed with the motion on page 11.f in the name of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, which is a reincarnation of the amendments proposed on pages 169 and 170, respectively by Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Lincoln, you have the floor.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think this follows on the discussion we had yesterday in connection with clause—

The Chairman: There are other members here today, so you might want to bring them up to speed.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I will do that. I would like to refer to our discussion yesterday in relation to clause 69.

• 0925

The gist of the amendment L-13.16.1.1 is that yesterday, when I questioned Mr. Cameron, he pointed out that “shall offer to consult” is not an obligation to consult but an obligation to offer to consult. I think he made that quite clear to us.

In light of this, we don't have any quarrel with the wording “shall offer to consult”. As you know, I put in an amendment before to change “shall offer to consult” to “may”, which I will not move in favour of this amendment, which would leave the words “shall offer to consult”, but I will amend them so the offer to consult doesn't stay completely open in time. So there will be some measure whereby, having offered to consult at a reasonable point in time, the minister is prepared to take action if necessary when the offer to consult has been made for a reasonable period of time. Otherwise the offer to consult would stay completely fluid for an indefinite period of time, which could be six months or one year, and nothing would happen.

I chose 60 days because, if you refer to subclause 332(2), where the public has a right to file comments with respect to an order or regulation made by the minister and the Governor in Council and must state reasons for the objection, in that case members of the public are given 60 days.

This is also found in another clause of the bill, where members of the public are given 60 days again. Our feeling was that if the public is given two months to state reasons for an objection, which is quite a task in itself, surely that should be enough time for a government that has all the resources at its disposal to act.

My amendment differs from yesterday's amendment because the amendment we passed on clause 69 enables a minister to act after 60 days of having offered to consult. Secondly, in the case of clause 76 versus clause 69, where it refers only to guidelines, clause 76 deals with the priority substances list, which is a much more operational issue than clause 69, which refers to guidelines. So we have added a proviso in there that if there is an urgency, if there is something to do with the environment that is an emergency—this is why we talked about something that would cause actual and imminent harm, an unforeseen happening that would result in a possible urgency—the minister can take action regardless. So this is the gist of the amendment I've put forward.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd be pleased to move this on behalf of Mr. Lincoln.

The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.

• 0930

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

I would not be in favour of this motion for a couple of reasons. One is that clause 94 covers interim orders and imminent harm; the minister has all the powers she needs to act. Secondly, 76(2.1)(a) as it's drafted, the whole thing really, is just a false offer of consultation. If you say she'll offer to consult, but I'll do anything I want any time anyway, then it's really not a very genuine offer to consult, and I don't think this would be helpful in terms of our federal-provincial and aboriginal negotiations and discussions.

The Chairman: The clerk is endeavouring to equip the new members of the committee this morning—whom we welcome, Madam Catterall, Madam Phinney and Mr. Peric—with a copy of the bill so that they are in a position to follow the discussion, which they are not right now because they only have the amendment. We appreciate their handicap and also the fact that they were not present yesterday during the discussion and the vote that carried a preceding amendment similar to this. But the clerk tells me he is endeavouring to get a copy of the bill through the messenger and I can see that one is being shared with Mr. Peric, and Madam Catterall is sharing one, and here is one coming from....

We are on clause 76 on page 44. The amendment proposed by Mr. Lincoln would insert his text between subclauses 76(2) and 76(3).

Madam Carroll, please go ahead.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm confused, as an old member. When you say that in reference to Mr. Lincoln's motion we're talking of inserting between subclauses 76(2) and 76(3), I thought we were talking of.... Sorry, I'm on the wrong page, wrong song sheet. It's the new version.

The Chairman: Yes, it's the new version on page 11.f.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): No.

The Chairman: Sorry. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the arguments, I'd be quite prepared to delete (a) from my amendment, so in the amendment only paragraph (b) under subclause 76(1) would be left.

The Chairman: In light of what you've just said, Mr. Lincoln, could you explain to the committee why the emphasis is on 60 days, as you did previously. I think now they are able to follow you, whereas before they couldn't since they did not have a copy of the bill.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, the rationale for the 60 days is that in cases where members of the public are given the right to object to a regulation made by government, and this will be found in clause 332 as one example, and there's another clause, which unfortunately I don't have with me at the moment, but I'll try to find it.... Please hang on a minute.

• 0935

You're going to find that in subclause 77(8) as well. If you look at subclause 332(2) and subclause 77(8)—

The Chairman: Subclause 77(8) is on page 47, for the new members.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —on page 47, you are going to see, for instance, in subclause 77(8), that where the ministers make an assessment:

any person may, within 60 days after publication of the decision in the Canada Gazette, file a notice of objection with the Minister requesting that a board of review be established under section 333 and stating the reason for the objection.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, excuse me for interjecting. May I draw to your attention that there is also a reference to 60 days under subclause 77(5) on page 46.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And under subclause 77(5):

Any person may, within 60 days after publication of the statement referred to in section (1), file with the Minister written comments on the measure the Ministers propose to take and the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed.

So any member of the public would have to motivate and substantiate their reason for objection, which is a formidable task when you reckon that the member of the public could be a single individual, could be an environmental group without too many resources, or any group or any community group; whereas in the case of a province, when an offer to consult has been made, surely they have the wherewithal, the capacity, the skills, the resources, to be able to react to that offer within 60 days. And the reason for the 60 days is to put them in the same category as members of the public in the same circumstances.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

There are many references throughout the bill to 60 days, not just the ones the member referred to. When you have an order, when you put things in the Canada Gazette and they're published, there's a 60-day notification and consultation period that is open. But what we're talking about in subclause 76(2) is in fact dealings with provinces and aboriginal governments and people being given a “shall offer to consult”. If people do not take up that offer or if they indicate that they're not willing to negotiate or to consult, then, that's fine, the minister can carry out her duties.

If someone's actively engaged in the consultation, what's the point if the government has this clause hanging over them? If their consultations are going well, if everyone's acting in good faith, and there's this other clause that says it doesn't matter if we're talking to you or we're working things out, we get to do what we want anyway, I think it is again a false offer to consult and it's not the spirit in which we have been operating with the provinces and the aboriginal governments. It totally is not appropriate.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour, Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Cameron, could you clarify what the effect of this would be? With the 60 days we have in the bill, I find that sufficient. What does this in fact do in legalese?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I'm not entirely sure, and the reason I'm not entirely sure is that it's conceivable to me, in fact I would imagine quite common, that consultations with all of the provinces and aboriginal governments and so on would take longer than 60 days. And if those consultations are being carried out in good faith and are progressing in the normal course but happen to take longer than 60 days, then, under this language, I suppose the Minister of the Environment would be able to stop those negotiations cold and exercise the power that she's able to exercise under clause 76.

In view of that, I think legally the point made by the parliamentary secretary is correct, that it makes the consultation process somewhat false, somewhat hollow, and could undermine the legitimacy with which those consultations are being carried out. Although it's conceivable that a resolution as a result of consultation would be made well before 60 days, it's equally possible in my mind that those consultations could take longer than two months. And it's in that situation that I think there's a problem.

• 0940

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: As a brief interjection, what would happen if there was no 60 days? The 60 days seems to be the problem.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Of course, if there is no time period, as the bill is currently drafted, then consultations would be carried out in the normal course. On a case-by-case basis they would be carried out, and if there were legitimate consultations being conducted, once those consultations come to fruition then at that point the minister would have a decision to make.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Cameron is playing with words. Yesterday he told us that the obligation is an obligation to offer to consult, not an obligation to consult. Today you seem to be changing your tune. This clause doesn't stop the consultation from going forward at all. What this clause said is that if there's an offer to consult, and the offer is not taken up within 60 days, then the minister has the right to act. That's what it says, because your operating words are “shall offer to consult”, not “shall consult”, and the minister after 60 days is not obliged to take action. The minister can let that clause sit there for as long as she wants.

So if the minister feels the consultations are in good faith and are carrying on, he or she would be a very foolish minister to say we stop the consultation today and we start acting. The clause does not say that. The clause says that if an offer is made and an offer is not taken up within 60 days—and 60 days is two months for a government to say, yes, I'll pick up your offer and I'll start to consult. That's what it says.

If nothing happens, surely the minister then has the option of acting if nothing is happening or she can just leave the consultation to go on and not act. There's nothing in this amendment—and you tell me where there is—that forces the minister to act after 60 days and to stop consultations. I would like to ask Ms. Hébert, because I worked with her on this, what her interpretation is, because she's also a lawyer.

The Chairman: Ms. Hébert.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Would you like my response first, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: We'll hear Madam Hébert and then we'll come to you.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I agree partially with what Mr. Lincoln was stating. This basically imposes a 60-day timeline. Once that 60 days expires, the offer to consult is made to the provinces and the aboriginal governments. There is a 60-day timeline. If negotiations are going well, the minister would have full discretion to keep on negotiating. She would not be obliged in any way to take action under this clause. However, if after 60 days the minister feels there is some stalling or whatever, there would be nothing preventing her from taking action if she feels it is appropriate in those circumstances.

I suppose this 60-day timeline could be viewed as a signal to the provinces that the minister wants to enter into genuine discussion with them. However, there has to be some finality here, and the 60-day timeline simply suggests to them that it is time to become very serious about this and let's have genuine discussion. That's another way of interpreting it.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: The problem with this language is that it doesn't say what happens if the offer is accepted. If the offer is accepted, the 60-day period would still apply. It would allow the minister to opt out of those consultations even though they're progressing in good faith. I have to disagree with the point made by Mr. Lincoln that the clause is clear on that issue, because to me it is not clear on that issue. If the offer is accepted and the negotiations are proceeding, this would still give the minister an out based solely on the calendar.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

• 0945

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm trying to interpret this clause. Even without the 60th day, the minister can opt out at any time. All it challenges her to do is to offer to consult.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, if the offer is accepted—and perhaps I am somewhat at fault for not having made this point yesterday—surely the obligation continues to apply, and the obligation transforms into an obligation to negotiate and to consult in good faith. I assumed that was obvious, and if I didn't make it explicit, I apologize. There's an obligation to offer, and if the offer is accepted, she simply can't walk away. She has to carry out those consultations in a proper manner and in good faith, and those consultations could take some time.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Let's follow through on that frame of thought, Mr. Cameron. If the province or aboriginal groups do accept that offer within 60 days, they carry on business as usual, but if the 60 days expire and nobody responds to the offer, the minister can act under the obligations of this bill. That's all it says.

The honourable member is just introducing a motion that after 2 months, 60 days, if there is no response, no obligation is made, no offer is accepted, then the minister has a way of following through without delay. But within that 60 days, if the offer has been accepted by an aboriginal group or by a provincial government or representative, then you're obliged, as you just said. It has been clarified.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is the problem, sir. The motion as drafted does not deal with the situation of what would happen if the offer is accepted, and that is the problem. If the offer is accepted, it still says the minister may act at any time after the 60th day.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Lincoln, Madam Torsney, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to ask Mr. Cameron a question. Either what he said yesterday was correct or what he says today is different. But you can't have it both ways, Mr. Cameron. Yesterday I purposely asked you about this so that I would be clear on it. I asked what does the Minister of Justice say about “shall offer to consult” versus “shall consult” or “may consult”? You told me very clearly that it's an obligation to offer. That's what you said, that it's an obligation to offer to consult.

You tell me where in subclause 76(2) it says that something will happen after the offer to consult or that the minister will or will not do anything. You said nothing about it there, but you are suggesting that we should put it in our amendment.

All our amendment says is to offer to consult with and to put out an offer that is valid for 60 days, that somebody has to say “I agree to consult”. There's nothing in my amendment that is any different from what happens in subclause 76(2) following your offer to consult. What is the difference, really, in your subclause 76(2) when you have offered to consult? What happens if that offer to consult stays in the landscape for a year and a half or two years? Do we just leave it and not do anything? What happens if we have offered to consult and the province just kind of stays in a foggy situation for six months, a year, two years? Is it that we don't do anything?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I would think the offer would have been discharged by then.

I want to repeat the point that I am being entirely consistent today with the comments I made yesterday, and the point I made yesterday was that the obligation is to make the offer to consult. I stand by that.

What I am saying as well—again, I apologize if I didn't elaborate on this yesterday, because it seems to me to be fairly obvious—is that if that offer is accepted, then the obligation continues to carry out those consultations in a bona fide manner. That seems to me to be quite clear from the reason the offer is being made. She simply doesn't make the offer to consult, have it accepted, and then walk away from the table.

• 0950

In terms of the other question that was asked, Mr. Chairman, as to what would happen if the offer is made but it lies there in limbo, so to speak, for six months, there's no question in my mind that well before the end of that six months the minister would be able to act because the offer would not have been accepted in a reasonable and timely manner. So the failure of those parties with whom she is consulting to respond in a timely manner empowers the minister to act.

The Chairman: For the understanding of the committee, it may be clear in your mind, but does it say that in the bill?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is it six months, is it a year, is it nine months? Is it the time of a human pregnancy or an elephant pregnancy? What is it?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Hopefully it's shorter than the time of a human pregnancy, since I'm living through that now.

There is an assumption in all legislation, sir, that ministers carry out their statutory obligations in a reasonable manner. Sometimes legislation circumscribes the conditions in which powers must be exercised by putting in time periods or other criteria. But in the absence of time periods or other criteria, there is a legal inference that powers will be exercised in a reasonable way.

The Chairman: Can you give us the equivalent of a reasonable approach?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is up to the committee to decide.

The Chairman: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

Now, Madam Torsney, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have no idea, Mr. Chair, if this is going to be amended, but I did want to reiterate that the way it is written, assuming it's just subclause 76(2.1) and the opening and paragraph 76(2.1)((b), again, it would be a false consultation. If there's an engagement and things are going along, to have the 60 days hanging over is not necessarily appropriate. It's a bit like negative option billing or something.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Madam Catterall.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's Mr. Lincoln's will that this amendment be amended so that paragraph 76(2.1)(a) would be deleted. I would really like to know what the mechanism is to discharge the offer to consult. I would like you to point that out to me. You talk about what is reasonable, but where is the mechanism to discharge that offer to consult?

The Chairman: Let's have a brief answer, please.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's not explicit in the legislation, and therefore the minister would be able to discharge that responsibility in a variety of ways. In situations that would require expeditious action, I imagine a telephone call would do, and in other situations a letter would probably be the appropriate mechanism.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Catterall.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, Mr. Chairman, I have another question.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would suggest that 10-plus years of CEPA 1988 being promulgated and we have identified almost two dozen substances to be toxic, and they're not even listed yet so we can't even take action under certain provisions of this act—that's not reasonable. So where is a mechanism to discharge the offer to consult? You talk about what is reasonable. I suggest that 11 years of not listing toxic substances is very unreasonable.

The Chairman: Madam Catterall, please.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I heard what Mr. Lincoln wishes to accomplish here. He wishes to ensure that if the minister makes an offer to consult and 60 days later that offer to consult has not been taken up, the minister may continue to act. Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Lincoln?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That's right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't think in fact this amendment does that or does only that. What it does do is say that the minister may act any time after the 60th day and that could be whether or not consultations have in fact been taken up and begun. So it seems to me that the clause as written, without disagreeing with Mr. Lincoln's intent, puts a two-month shotgun on any consultations that are taking place, and to me that doesn't seem reasonable or a good environment for consultations.

• 0955

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, please.

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): Mr. Chairman, I agree with the honourable member who just spoke and with Mr. Cameron that the amendment as presented in open-ended. It could have the unfortunate consequence of signalling to other governments that the federal Minister of the Environment is reserving for herself the right to act, whether or not the offer to consult has been taken up.

On the other hand, I think Mr. Lincoln's concern has been clearly articulated that he does not want the offer-to-consult clause to be used to drag out and to unnecessarily delay action that should be taken under CEPA. As I understand it, he wants to put some closure around the offer to consult.

I'm wondering if his concerns would be satisfied any more clearly by adding at the end of the amendment the phrase, “if that offer is not accepted in good faith”, or some words to that effect. Paragraph (a) is gone, so the clause would read:

(2.1) Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent the Minister from carrying out the duties and exercising the powers under subsection (1) at any time after the sixtieth day following the day an offer is made under subsection (2) if that offer is not accepted in good faith.

I suggest that if the offer is accepted, then of course the minister, as Mr. Cameron has suggested, is obliged to follow through on the offer and start consulting in good faith. If the offer is not accepted, it makes it clear that the offer has a maximum life of 60 days. If you don't respond and say you want to start consulting, then the minister is free to act.

The Chairman: We will have Madam Torsney, followed by Mr. Sekora.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Following through on what Mr. Moffet has just said, I would suggest that an automatic time delay could be introduced by just that mechanism.

As currently written, it would be up to the minister to make a decision on whether or not her offer has been accepted and whether or not negotiations are operating in good faith. Once you introduce the wording that this offer is open for 60 days, what would compel anybody to respond and to start discussing or negotiating until the 59th day? You're taking away the discretion that currently is in the bill and you're introducing a two-month delay, a 59-day delay.

If you think the relations with the provinces or with the aboriginal governments are so precarious that we need to put these kind of things in, I would suggest to you that you would exacerbate the relationship with the provinces by introducing language as you have suggested.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will have Mr. Sekora, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think these dates of 59 days or 60 days being brought up seem fairly reasonable to me. In my own communities where there are some environmental problems with developers and others, they're not getting any answers in two and a half or three years.

The other day I wrote a stinging letter to the minister and a stinging letter to a few other people and threatened to go to the Prime Minister's Office. All of a sudden I had a four-page letter from one of the members on environment. Frankly, these are the things that really bother me.

The fact is I don't think the minister is ever informed by the bureaucrats on what's really taking place so that the minister can step in. It's one of those things where we're doing our own thing, people get out of our way, and if it takes 10 years, so it takes 10 years. I can give you all kinds of really frightening incidents like that in British Columbia. This has to be narrowed down and somebody has to really get on to it and start moving.

The Chairman: That was a vigorous exchange.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think Mr. Sekora's experience in municipal politics perhaps hit the nail on the head, because I know the bill is peppered with references to 60 days and the Canada Gazette.

• 1000

I pointed out two or three key clauses to point out that when it comes to the public, when it comes to the average individual, the citizen, we say, oh, 60 days, that's plenty of time. You state your reasons; you go and find some advisers who will write scientific treaties for you to prove that what we are doing is right or wrong; you object, but we give you 60 days.

In the case of a province and an aboriginal government that have all kinds of resources, we say, no, 60 days could hurt them; it could exacerbate relations between us. As far as the public goes, 60 days is fine; for the average Joe, 60 days is fine. I think 60 days is plenty of time for a government.

Mr. Moffet's qualification of the amendment makes sense. I'm quite prepared to accept it as part of the amendment if that is going to make a difference. I think 60 days is plenty of time for somebody. If “shall offer to consult” really means what Mr. Cameron says it does, that it's an obligation to offer, and there is plenty of time to offer and accept.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

The amendment before us is being shortened by the deletion of paragraph (a). It has been lengthened with the addition just commented upon by Mr. Lincoln, for which, however, I need a motion for the words “if that offer is not accepted in good faith”, if I understood Mr. Moffet's statement correctly.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As the mover of this amendment, I take Mr. Moffet's suggestion as a friendly amendment: “if that offer is not accepted in good faith”.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Let me just point out two things. First, by tagging on “if that offer is not accepted in faith”, if it's accepted in bad faith, then we somehow have a different scenario.

Secondly, again, if the minister makes an offer to consult with the provinces and the aboriginal governments and that offer is not accepted, or the minister doesn't believe someone's operating in good faith, she could very well discharge that offer to consult within 10 days, if that's appropriate, or within 20 days. If you introduce 60 days, you're automatically introducing what I would consider at least a 59-day delay that may not be necessary and may not be desired.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would further amend this amendment just to say “if that offer is not accepted”.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Cameron, does this in fact close that hole that you were discussing earlier or are we still left with the problem?

If we backtrack to where we were yesterday when we were talking about offering to consult, your conversation, as I recall, said “the offer” was there so that if we had just “shall consult”, it could be used as a barrier. By offering, we have closed that door, but by adding “if that offer is not accepted” at the end of this amendment, does it fix the problem or are we still left hanging?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I believe it fixes that problem, but it may create another problem, which is the point the parliamentary secretary has raised. It may prevent any action within the 60-day period. If substances are to be added to the PSL and if the powers are to be exercised sooner than 60 days because of the circumstances of the case, this language may force the minister to keep that offer open for two months.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, will you conclude the debate?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, I would like to ask Mrs. Lloyd, Mr. Lerer and Mr. Mongrain a question. In the cases that Mr. Cameron has mentioned, is that 59 days going to make a difference? We have taken 10 years since CEPA 1988 and we've listed a handful of substances, and now we are arguing that we have to act within 30 days, 40 days, or 60 days.

The Chairman: I don't think Mr. Mongrain should be drawn into this discussion.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: All right.

The Chairman: Madam Hébert wishes to make a statement.

• 1005

Ms. Monique Hébert: Well, I'm just a bit concerned about the revised amendment with the additional wording that Mrs. Kraft Sloan has just raised, because it seems to me now that it is almost—not quite explicitly so, but almost—codifying the obligation to consult if the provinces show interest. I'm wondering if this is really what the members want. It's no longer obliging the offer to consult to be made, but if there is any indication that there is interest, then the consultation becomes, in and of itself, a codified obligation. Also, of course it doesn't in any way address the problem of the possibility of stalling, protracted negotiations, and there being no finality to this particular process.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The amendment before us for the record reads as follows:

That Bill C-32, in Clause 76, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 44 the following:

(2.1) Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent the Minister from carrying out the duties and exercising the powers under subsection (1) at any time after the sixtieth day following the day an offer is made under subsection (2) if that offer is not accepted.

Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I request a recorded vote.

The Chairman: If you are ready, a recorded vote has been requested. We shall proceed.

[Translation]

One minute, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Since we did not hear the interpretation, could you repeat this motion?

The Chairman: It is moved that Bill C-32, in clause 76, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 44 the following:

(2.1) Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent he Minister from carrying out the duties and exercising the powers under subsection (1) at any time after the sixtieth day following the day an offer is made under subsection (2) if that offer is not accepted.

[English]

It stops right there.

[Translation]

If you are ready to proceed, we will hold a recorded vote.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 5)

(Clause 76 agreed to)

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 247.

Mr. Laliberte, on a point of order.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Amendment NDP-36.

The Chairman: An amendment in the name of the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Are you in fact referring to page 247, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I am sorry. One minute, please.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, what is your point of order?

• 1010

Mr. Rick Laliberte: On page 170, we had a motion dealing with the shall-may issue. We weren't given an opportunity to withdraw it or stand it or whatever, unless I missed the dialogue.

The Chairman: It was not moved according to my notes, Mr. Laliberte, and we have dealt with that subject matter now in the motion by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just didn't have it written down that I had withdrawn it, but I will officially say the motion is withdrawn.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw amendment BQ-25 on page 247.

(The amendment is withdrawn)

[English]

(On clause 121—Objectives, guidelines and codes of practice)

The Chairman: I invite you to go to page 250.

Mr. Laliberte, motion NDP-52.1.3.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On pages 248 and 249 there are similar amendments to BQ-25. I just wondered if they were being moved or not.

The Chairman: Yes. Thank you. We turn to page 248, to Mr. Lincoln's motion L-15.7, which has precedence over the other two.

For the new members of the committee, we are on clause 121.

Would someone move your motion on your behalf?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, I don't know, Mr. Chairman. You'll have to ask them. I'm a non-person here.

The Chairman: Do you wish to have it moved?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, of course.

The Chairman: Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I so move.

The Chairman: The amendment is moved by Madam Carroll. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just as in previous times, I will not present L-15.7, but instead L-15.7.1. And in this particular case....

The Chairman: To do that, I will ask Mr. Laliberte whether he will then forgo moving his motion, since in the sequence of amendments in the binder, his motion would be before the motion on page 32.a. Is that acceptable to Mr. Laliberte?

• 1015

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I'll pull it out.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now we'll move to the amendment on page 32.a, moved by Ms. Carroll.

Mr. Laliberte, I have to ask you the same question in relation to amendment NDP-52.1.2 and NDP-52.1.3. Are you agreeable to having the committee proceed with the amendment on page 32.a?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe NDP-52.1.3 is a totally different context.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The amendment on page 32.a deals with “shall offer to consult”, and NDP-52.1.3 deals with organization of conferences. I will put that forward if you want to deal with it first and I'll introduce that motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, we have to allow Mr. Laliberte to proceed with the amendment on page 250, NDP-52.1.3.

Mr. Laliberte, you have the floor.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is very simple. I think we can just go right into a vote because it deals with the obligations of a minister under “may”. She “may organize conferences relating to the prevention or reduction of marine pollution from land-based sources”. We're suggesting paragraph 121(2)(b) be changed to say “shall organize conferences”. I think it would be a fine obligation for the minister to create public awareness on the prevention and reduction of marine pollution from land-based sources.

The Chairman: Are there any comments? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: In considering this motion, it is important to look at the whole clause 121 and how it's written. Subclause 121(1) says:

The Minister may, after consultation with any other affected minister, issue environmental objectives, release guidelines and codes of practice to prevent and reduce marine pollution from land-based sources.

This next subclause says: “To carry out the functions...the Minister”. If you're going to switch that to “shall organize conferences”, you're placing an obligation on her to organize a conference before she releases guidelines or codes of practice or issues environmental objectives. If she “may” do that, it could be how the minister and the other ministers come to some arrangement. But if you “shall” organize conferences, you can't do anything until you've had the conference, or organized it anyway.

The Chairman: Thank you.

As Mr. Laliberte suggested earlier, we can have a short debate.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think the whole preamble to this bill is the public's right to know. A conference is certainly a very public domain, and if the minister organizes this—it doesn't matter on which coast or whatever; it could be central—I think a conference creates an openness to the obligations she's going to make in the guidelines, and also brings forward any public concerns or new ideas to deal with pollution.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 32.a. in the name of Mr. Lincoln, moved by Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: This is amendment L-15.7.1.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, you have the floor.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd not going to belabour the subject again. We had a long discussion about it before. I will just reiterate my understanding. I want to make quite clear what Mr. Cameron has said. This is an obligation to offer to consult, not to consult.

• 1020

Mr. Cameron has also indicated that in his view, if the offer is not taken up, the minister has the prerogative to act anyway. Is that correct?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is correct. I would add one point that we also discussed previously. If the offer is accepted, the obligation becomes one to consult in good faith.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm just trying to put a timeline on it because I think it's completely unfair to leave it floating, in the case of certain institutions, and saddle members of the public with a different type of onus that is completely.... If any institution is in the position to be able to react to these issues quickly, it is those that have the resources, power and wherewithal to do it. I don't see why we shouldn't put a timeline of 60 days on it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To reiterate, my objection to this motion is very similar to the previous debate. I think, if it were to pass, this motion could delay action.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments or questions?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like a recorded vote.

The Chairman: Proceed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd also like to point out to members of the committee that provincial and aboriginal governments are also part of the national advisory committee. They would probably be well informed as to what was happening with different aspects of CEPA, unlike the public.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 121 agreed to)

(On clause 140—Regulations)

The Chairman: We will now go to page 32.d. It's an amendment in the name of Mr. Lincoln, moved by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Lincoln, would you like to introduce it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's the same discussion. I don't want to take the time of the committee any more.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify, is amendment L-15.9.1 being moved as it is written on page 32.d, or has it been amended?

The Chairman: The chair has not been informed whether it has been amended or not.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As the mover of this amendment, I would be pleased to remove part (a) if the government supports this amendment. Otherwise it stands.

• 1025

The Chairman: You either move it or don't move it, Madam Kraft Sloan. The motion before us is in full form unless the mover decides to amend it. You may wish to solicit a comment, in which case you may want to subsequently amend it. But it is the full motion that is before us.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then in order to have consistency, I will amend this amendment as the other one was amended.

The Chairman: The clerk informs me that he has the amended version with the deletion of paragraph 140(5)(a) and with the addition at the end of paragraph 140(5)(b) in the English version of “if that offer is not accepted”.

Are there any further comments or questions? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just feel the need to put on the record that this could in fact delay action and that it would also change the relationship between the federal and provincial governments and aboriginal governments. All someone would simply do, perhaps, is wait until the 59th day to start engaging in an act of consultation, and I don't think that's what the members of this committee would have desired.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to put on record that certainly in CEPA 1988 we didn't have all this. It didn't seem to really cause any kerfuffle. We have a national advisory committee that the aboriginal governments and the provinces sit on, and that 60 days is good enough for members of the public. It's good enough for a poor individual who wants to protest against a government regulation and has to substantiate his or her reasons for doing so, so it should be good enough for government without creating a crisis in Canada. This is, after all, a federal statute. I think 60 days is plenty of time to give.

In any case, I realize I'm wasting my time anyway.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to put it on record that Mr. Lincoln noted that this did not exist in CEPA 1988. I would like to contend that this is part of our implementation of the harmonization accord that was signed between the federal and provincial governments. This is an accord that this committee has had grave concerns over, and I would direct members to those comments we articulated in our report last year.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question? A recorded vote is requested, I assume.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

(Clause 140 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 145—Regulations)

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 32.f, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln, moved by Madam Kraft Sloan.

• 1030

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Which amendment are we on?

The Chairman: We're on page 32.f, clause 145.

Does Madam Carroll wish to move it in its entirety or in the revised form?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm leaving it to Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Chair, but I imagine he'll revise it, as has been done with each of the others, and therefore be consistent with my having removed them on his behalf. But it's certainly up to him to say.

The Chairman: Ms. Carroll is moving this amendment in the revised form, as was done on the last occasion. Mr. Lincoln, do you want to comment on it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, it's a waste of time.

The Chairman: The amendment is before the committee. Are you ready for the question? Is a recorded vote required?

Some hon. members: Yes.

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

(Clause 145 agreed to)

(On clause 166—Determination of international air pollution)

The Chairman: The next amendment is on page 269 of the big binder in the name of Mr. Lincoln. It refers to clause 166. It's amendment L-15.11 on page 269. Could we have a mover?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd be pleased to move this on Mr. Lincoln's behalf.

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

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. I'm going to introduce the amendment on page 269 because when I try to compromise and keep the thing, obviously it's not even tolerated.

So I will move “may consult with the government” because I think that instead of an obligation to offer to consult, it leaves latitude with the minister that she may consult if she wishes to. I'm going to move this amendment in the form shown on page 269.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. If members look at page 117 of the bill, they will see that clause 166 deals with international air pollution and that subclause 166(2), which this amendment seeks to amend, deals with sources of international air pollution that are not a federal source. In this instance the province has the power over that source, so there is an obligation for the minister to consult with the provincial government because they currently hold the power.

• 1035

Secondly, the way the amendment is written creates a bit of a problem because the opening says:

If the source referred to in subsection (1) is not a federal source, the Minister shall

(a) consult

I'm sorry, because “may” is introduced twice, it's probably fine. I apologize for that. “May” is written twice as opposed to just once in the amendment. It's just changing the sentence structure. It's fine, but I'm not in favour of it.

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

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I want to ask Mrs. Lloyd if, in the present CEPA 1988 that deals with the same subject, she has had any problems in regard to consultation with provinces because it doesn't have the “shall offer to consult”.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): Perhaps Mr. Mongrain could answer. I'm not sure.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): I'm looking at the existing CEPA, and for these particular provisions Bill C-32 is equivalent to the existing act. It's says “shall consult”. It's a consultation to determine if the provincial government can take action to deal with the Canadian source of international air pollution.

I can give members the section numbers. It's section 61 on page 42 of the existing act. The language isn't identical but the intent is certainly the same.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What section are you referring to?

The Chairman: It's subsection 61(2).

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, but where is it in section 61?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It's subsection 61(2). I can read it into the record, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Proceed.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It states: “the Minister has endeavoured, through consultation with the government of each province”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: We're playing games here. That's exactly the reason I asked you. It says “has endeavoured to”; it's not “shall offer to consult”. There's a big difference. I asked you if under this act and this wording now you had any problems with consultation as “endeavoured to” says “may consult”. That's really what the notification is. It's not “shall offer to consult”, as “endeavoured to” doesn't say “obliged to”. That's why I asked if you had any problems with the wording the way it is today.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'm not sure I fully understand Mr. Lincoln's point. Certainly the word “endeavoured” is used, but it's through consultation. It says: “The Minister shall not make a recommendation under subsection (1)”—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Sorry, are we on clause 61?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: —unless that consultation has occurred.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Oh good, because it's not reading to me....

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The difference in Bill C-32 is that the language has been made consistent with other provisions in the bill.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: No.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

• 1040

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There seems to be some confusion. If you actually read all of clause 166, you see that if the provincial government that controls the source of the pollution has the power to do it or doesn't do it, in subclause 166(3) the minister retains the power. She can recommend regulations to the Governor in Council. Surely there's some obligation, if they already have the power, to give them the opportunity to use their own laws and their own jurisdictions, but if they can't or won't, we take back the power because it is international air pollution.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, if the provinces were to control the sources of pollution we wouldn't have the Fisheries Act, so you may want to be a little more careful in interpreting the Constitution.

I don't see any further interventions.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I have to accept that when you're wrong, you're wrong. I think Mr. Mongrain's interpretation is right, so I'll withdraw my amendment.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chairman: I'd like to return to page 271, amendment R-17, in the name of Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Gilmour, you have the floor.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple word change. On page 117, line 32, instead of “consult with any government responsible” we are changing it to “consult with the government responsible”.

I think it falls between the cracks, for example, where you have acid rain coming across the border into Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. The way this reads with “any government”, the government could consult with Nova Scotia and be covered by the bill. I'm changing it to “the government responsible” to force the government to go to each and every province that's affected.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour. This is what you get when you try to legislate consultations.

Are there any comments? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In trying to understand the whole clause 166 here, when it flips you to subsection 166(4) and then brings you forward to subsection 166(2), does that mean if we have an international agreement with the United States, if that government is the source they will also be consulted?

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, please.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Governments are defined in the bill as provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments. There's a specific definition.

These clauses are operative in two instances. This may clear it up for Mr. Laliberte. If there's a source in Canada that's impacting on another country such as the United States, or if there's an international agreement that's being violated that is binding on Canada, we could have an instance—and we do have agreements with the United States—where a Canadian source of air pollution is contrary to an agreement we have with the United States. The United States would then complain to the Government of Canada, to the federal government, and the steps outlined in clause 166 would then become operative. The federal government would determine if the government responsible for the area, whether it's a provincial, territorial, or aboriginal government, can or is willing to take the action required. If they are unwilling or not able to do so, then the minister has the authority to recommend regulations, to require pollution prevention planning or, if it's an emergency situation, to issue an interim order.

• 1045

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mongrain.

Are there any further questions? Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I found something interesting. On line 32 of the French version, we read: "le ministre consulte le gouvernement", while in the English version, we read: "consult with any government". There is a difference.

The Chairman: You are right. There is a difference.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: A very substantial difference.

The Chairman: This lack of correspondence must be corrected.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm trying to understand this whole context again. I'll take you back to subclause 116(4). If the air pollution referred to in paragraph 166(1)(a), which is the source of the pollution—“air pollution in a country other than Canada”—is a U.S. source, and Canada does not have substantially the same rights with respect to “the prevention, control or correction of pollution” in that country under that division under the U.S. legislation, we wouldn't have the same rights.

It says the minister shall decide whether to act under subclauses (2) and (3). If it's a source in the U.S., why would we be consulting with governments responsible for that source when the definition of government does not fit? There's a whole circle here and it all starts with the opening paragraph of clause 166, “Subject to subsection (4)”. So it leads you to subclause 116(4) right away, before you even get to subclause 116(2).

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. My previous answer wasn't answering Mr. Laliberte's question. I understand what he's asking now.

If Bill C-32 is passed, we will have rights under U.S. legislation because of this clause. It's a reciprocity. The U.S. Clean Air Act sets up a regime where if another country provides the United States with rights under their legislation to complain about pollution, then the Clean Air Act and I believe their Clean Water Act provide the reciprocal rights.

Subclause 116(4) provides the minister with the option of acting or not, even if Canada does not have those reciprocal rights. Let's be frank. We are dealing with the United States here because of our continuous border. We do have those rights under existing American legislation if Bill C-32 is passed, and we provide that same reciprocal right to the United States.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So the terminology of “any government” or “the government”, as proposed under the definition of government that exists under CEPA, may need to be expanded or clarified. Are you satisfied with it?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: If you look at subclause 116(4), Mr. Chairman, it uses the words “in a country” whereas “government” is limited to those governments within Canada.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In a country? The minister shall decide—

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The minister has the discretion if that other country does not provide Canada with the same rights provided under these subclauses.

• 1050

The Chairman: It's an issue of reciprocity.

Are you ready for the question? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: While I appreciated the equivalency argument on le gouvernement, I just wondered, when there's more than one government responsible, what the effect would be of changing it, as Mr. Gilmour has suggested, to “the” government. Obviously in some of the regions it could be both; it could be more than one government that would be responsible for a couple of sources. That limits you, but “any” doesn't limit you.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the purpose of the Reform Party's proposal is to ensure that the two versions correspond. The words “any” and “the” are not translated in the same manner in French: the translation of “any” is “plusieurs”, while the translation of “the” is “le”. If we go along with the Parliamentary Secretary and vote down this amendment, we will have to amend the French version.

The Chairman: Yes, that's true.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: So, I don't know where that puts us.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour, would you like to have the last word?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If there is a consistency, can we have the officials draft it so that it is consistent between the English and the French versions, and then bring it back at a later date?

The Chairman: They can definitely make an adjustment that will have to be taken care of.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Are we going to use the English or the French version?

The Chairman: Mr. Casson makes a good point. The decision has to be made whether the French text should be used or the English text, because if the French text is used then your amendment somehow is accepted by virtue of a mechanical adjustment. And the question is, then, which of the two texts prevails?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps we could come back with an answer at 3 p.m. when we resume, if that would help.

The Chairman: All right, is that acceptable to Mr. Gilmour? We'll then put this aside.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 166 allowed to stand)

(On clause 173—Interim order)

The Chairman: The next amendment is on page 276 in the name of Mr. Laliberte, NDP-52.1.14.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is a residual question, and basically it would be deleting:

consulted with other ministers of the Crown in right of Canada to determine whether any action can be taken under any other Act

I will introduce the motion. We have debated these issues before, so it's fairly straightforward.

The Chairman: For the benefit of the new members, you may want to summarize your reason.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Under consultation, we are endeavouring to include the following under subclause 173(4):

(4) The Governor in Council shall not approve an interim order unless the Minister has within 24 hours after making the order, offered to consult with all affected governments to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the significant danger.

• 1055

That is basically the intent in paragraph (4)(a). We would be deleting paragraph (4)(b), which says:

(b) consulted with other ministers of the Crown in right of Canada to determine whether any action can be taken under any other Act of Parliament to deal with the significant danger.

So this is a reciprocal situation we've been debating and trying to clarify through the whole procedure, that CEPA be given first right and the Minister of the Environment make that decision.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Given the reluctance of the member to consult with other governments, I'm surprised to see even this clause being desired in his amendment. But surely there is some obligation for the government, if it's going to issue interim orders, to make sure they're issuing under the best possible piece of legislation, and if another act of Parliament is able to deal with something and could deal with it, why wouldn't you determine that?

The effect of Mr. Laliberte's motion would be to ensure that there could be duplication, and I don't know what purpose that would serve. I don't agree with it, and I'm surprised by it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Torsney.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, we have sensed the hesitancy of the government to pass any residual situations. Our position has been a strong federal presence in protecting the environment, and a lot of these issues have dealt with giving the powers and the means for the environment minister to act on in protecting the environment and human health.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, please.

Mr. John Herron: I want to ask my colleague from the NDP, would you want to have the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, the two?

[Translation]

Both of them?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, he did not—

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Unless the minister has within 24 hours...or do you only need one person to do it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Under the present clause it's the minister, referring directly to the environment.

Mr. John Herron: All right.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, please proceed.

Mr. John Herron: No, that's it.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, I would like to make a comment. This is the interim order power. It's very similar to provisions in CEPA 1988 that existed for toxic substances under section 35, and we've added that to the international air pollution clauses. But it's the same model as exists in the current act.

The Chairman: Is there any further intervention?

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Would it be possible to amend this amendment?

The Chairman: Of course.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: What bothers me, is that, although I think that his proposal is valid, the other ministers are being excluded. If there were a health problem, the minister would not consult with the Health Minister, who is responsible for enforcing legislation containing measures to deal with that. I move that we specify that the minister has:

—offered to consult with all affected governments and ministers to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the significant danger.

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, could you submit this amendment to us in writing?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Please.

[English]

Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Ms. Torsney.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to ask Madam Hébert and Mr. Moffet for their opinion on this particular amendment.

The Chairman: Madame Hébert.

• 1100

Ms. Monique Hébert: Basically the effect of this amendment would be to delete paragraph (b). Therefore, in order to confirm an interim order, only the affected provinces would have to be consulted and not other federal departments. Therefore, action under CEPA would prevail, even though it might be possible to take action under another statute. So this would give primacy to CEPA and not give it a residual status that paragraph (b) might entail.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I ask a question to Mr. Cameron or Mr. Mongrain, or any of the—

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney is next on the list.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wanted to point out to Madame Girard-Bujold that in fact the amendment she's writing would—

The Chairman: She's not answering the phone right now. We'll have to wait until she has drafted what she wants to draft and then she will listen.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To save some energy here, I wanted to say that the amendment Madame Girard-Bujold is drafting is in fact the paragraph (b) that's currently in the bill, which Mr. Laliberte would be trying to delete. So I'm not sure, one, that her amendment would be in order because it would be restoring the bill to it's current state, although in a different combination perhaps, but the effect is exactly the same. So she might want to look at paragraph 4(b) before she goes too much further. Secondly, I wanted to turn to the officials for them to have a chance to comment on what Madame Hébert has just communicated.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold should be given a chance to write her amendment so that it can be seen. In the meantime, we will go to Madame Hébert and the officials.

Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have to disagree with what Madame Hébert just said. All the removal of paragraph (4)(b) would do is to take out the obligation to consult. It would have no impact on whether CEPA was primary or residual to other legislation. It would simply take out the obligation to consult. So the characterization of this amendment as somehow impacting on the relationship of CEPA to other legislation is simply false, in my opinion.

The Chairman: We have Mr. Lerer briefly.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): The intent of the language that is in Bill C-32 is to find the most effective vehicle to deal with an emergency situation, whether it be CEPA or another act of Parliament.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It seems to me that Mr. Lerer is almost contradicting Mr. Cameron, and I note that what Mr. Lerer says is much closer to what Ms. Hébert said. I would like to ask Mr. Cameron or Mr. Lerer, or any official: In this consultation with other ministers, it seems to me that all the minister has to do is to determine whether any action can be taken. In other words, in terms of the other statute, all the other minister has to say is, yes, I can take that action. There are no criteria as to what action it's going to be, when it's going to be taken, and how it's going to be taken. Is it the case that this is all the minister has to do? And she could say, “CEPA doesn't apply if I call the minister of XYZ and ask if he could take the action, and he says, yes, I can take the action.” But she doesn't have to determine when he takes the action, how he takes the action, and in what form he takes the action. Isn't that completely open-ended in favour of the other statute, and doesn't that leave a tremendous discretion to the minister to decide?

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask the question of the officials first, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: All right. Mr. Mongrain.

• 1105

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'll make an attempt.

This consultation—and Mr. Cameron will correct me, I'm sure, if I'm wrong—doesn't prevent the minister from issuing the interim order, but it is, in my opinion, good public policy to determine the best tool possible to deal with a significant danger in an emergency. If CEPA is used, that order must ultimately be confirmed by the Governor in Council. There may be in certain situations, given the scope of emergency, better tools in the Emergencies Act, for example, if the emergency is of a scope beyond the capacity of what the Minister of the Environment can order under these clauses. So it's simply good public policy to determine what's in the toolbox and use the most appropriate tool, the most powerful tool, to deal with a significant danger and the emergency.

I'm not aware of other legislation having a similar interim order regulatory authority like CEPA for emergencies, and this power has been used in the past by the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Chair. CEPA is a powerful tool and will be used accordingly.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, I don't think that answers my question at all. What I'm trying to find out is.... It would seem to me it would be very different if the minister had to determine whether an action can be and shall be taken, or just can be taken, because the other minister says, yes, that action can be taken, and then he leaves it completely in a blind alley as to whether the Governor in Council.... All the minister has to do, before the Governor in Council approves an interim order, is consult, and she says, okay, I've consulted and they can take an action. Do they take the action? Are they going to be committed to take the action?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with a situation here of significant danger and emergency. The Minister of the Environment and other ministers of the crown are not simply going to say, “We could take action under this act but we're not going to.” In that instance, if the other minister said, “Yes, I could take action but I'm not going to”, the Minister of the Environment is within her rights to issue the interim order.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Let's just take a step back here. This subclause 173(4) says:

The Governor in Council shall not approve an interim order unless the Minister has

(a) within 24 hours after making the order

and furthermore consulted. The obligation is the consultation with the other ministers. It's not that the other ministers are agreeing to take action or not take action. So when the Governor in Council is sitting there approving these interim orders that have already been issued, he or she is saying: Check—other governments have been issued a letter or phone call or something saying the Minister of the Environment has issued an interim order. The other ministers of the crown? Yes. Check. There's an emergency happening. They were told there's an emergency. They have some power under other legislation.

It doesn't talk about giving supremacy to another piece of legislation. What the member opposite is trying to do is remove an obligation for the Governor in Council to check that the ministers are talking to each other.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, in my mind there are two difficulties with this. First, there is not a timeline suggested for consultation with the other ministers as there is with the provinces. Secondly, it says “whether any action”, and any action can be equivalent, it can be greater, it can be far less. Mr. Moffet has made a suggestion here that perhaps we could look at whether more effective actions can be taken under any acts of Parliament. If the idea is that you're only going to utilize another act of Parliament if it is stronger than CEPA, then why don't we say that? Any action does not imply its relative effectiveness vis-à-vis CEPA.

If we could change “any” to “more effective action”, it would give me a little more confidence in this clause.

• 1110

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The interim order in the emergency has already been issued. The Governor in Council is approving of it. Is there an obligation for every minister, when there's an emergency, to make sure they're paying attention to it? Sure.

It doesn't say that the other minister gets to take over the area of the problem. It just says they need to be talked to about the problem, so that we can use all the tools in the toolbox, or some of the tools in the toolbox. But the CEPA action—the emergency, the interim order—is still happening. The consultation is what would be removed.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it says that the Governor in Council “shall not approve the interim order”. So the Governor in Council cannot approve the interim order the minister has put forward unless.... Yes, we're talking about consultation, but as part of that consultation it says “to determine whether any action can be taken under any other Act of Parliament”. If we follow the logic that has been put forward by Mr. Cameron in the past around “offer to consult”, well, if you offer to consult and the offer to consult has been taken up, then you have to go with the consultation.

In this situation, you have to consult with the other ministers to determine whether any action can be taken under any other act of Parliament. Well, if any action can be taken under any act of Parliament, then what's the logical consequence there? It says “to determine”.

I know it doesn't bind the minister to allow another act of Parliament to have precedence, but neither does it qualify that any other action has to be more effective than CEPA. So I would suggest that is the intent of the government on this—that we clarify it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mongrain.... Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The logical consequence of this—

The Chairman: You should decide who wants to speak.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I want to go first.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I would like to go first.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I just want to draw members' attention to subclause (3), which says:

An interim order ceases to have effect 14 days after it is made unless it is approved by the Governor in Council within that period.

This is the point I believe the parliamentary secretary is trying to make. The order has been issued; it is in effect. It is good public policy in cases of significant danger to consult with other ministers to determine if supplementary action can be taken, action to replace the CEPA order, all kinds of options. So it's not necessarily a case of effective.

I would like to turn the floor, Mr. Chair, over to my colleague from the justice department.

A voice: The lawyer.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make a very similar point.

Madam Kraft Sloan asked what the logical consequence of this consultation is. It is to apprise the Governor in Council in its deliberations whether to approve the interim order, whether in fact the interim order is the most appropriate instrument, or whether, for example, regulations under the Emergencies Act would be more appropriate, or some other kind of legislative instrument. This simply empowers the Governor in Council with all the information it needs to decide what the most appropriate legislative vehicle is in the circumstances of the case.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think Mr. Cameron has proved what Mrs. Kraft Sloan was saying. He said “more appropriate” and “most appropriate”. That's what she is saying. He didn't say just “appropriate”; he said “more appropriate”, and then he said “most appropriate”. That's what she is saying—put “most effective”.

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the honourable member opposite if he would be amenable to a friendly amendment that would replace his amendment with “more effective” or “most appropriate”. In other words, retain paragraph (b), but have “more effective action” or “most appropriate action”.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

• 1115

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If I understand the suggestion being made, the body of my amendment would be focused onto paragraph (b), “...to determine whether a more appropriate action can be taken under any other Act of Parliament to deal with the significant danger.” Is that where you're suggesting?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Or “a more effective action”. Perhaps Mr. Moffet would like to comment on that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I understand the suggestion being made. I would be swayed to agree with that if there's a tendency by the government to shake their hands in disagreement again.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I think this amendment that has been crafted by Mr. Moffet and the government officials relieves some of the concern a number of the committee members have on the residualization aspects.

The Chairman: I don't know what amendment you are now referring to, Madam Kraft Sloan. What I know is that you're asking Mr. Laliberte to accept a change to his amendment by expanding it so as to retain paragraph (b) but also to insert in paragraph (b) three words: “most appropriate action”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Or effective.

The Chairman: That is a decision that Mr. Laliberte seems to be unwilling to make. Therefore we are still with Mr. Laliberte's amendment before us and with a proposed subamendment by Madame Girard-Bujold, who has put in writing an amendment that boils down.... It's a French version, translated into English to “the Ministers”, on the second line—in other words, including by definition the Minister of Health as well as the Minister of the Environment.

At this stage I'm going to ask for a vote, because I think we are dragging this debate far too long. Madame Girard-Bujold has put forward a subamendment, which is a friendly subamendment, I take it, to pluralize, if you like, the reference to “the Minister” in subclause (4), after the word “unless” on line five.

Could I have some comments, please? Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The Minister of the Environment has the option under subclause 173(1) to issue an interim order. The Minister of the Environment has this power. I think it would become unworkable to suggest that somehow we add a series of ministers into subclause (4) when it's the minister who has the power and the minister who's exercising that power. Suddenly you're taking it away from the minister to make sure of something else. I just don't understand what that purpose would be, or how that would ever work.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Furthermore, the Governor in Council is the Governor in Council and the representative of all the ministers.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold, would you reply?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I was proposing that the provision read “if the ministers have”, since in subsection 3(2) on page 10 of the bill, we read:

(2) Where the word “Ministers” is used in this Act, it refers to both the Minister and the Minister of Health, and where the expression “either Minister” is used in this Act, it refers to either the Minister or the Minister of Health.

[English]

The Chairman: You've heard the subamendment and you heard both interventions. Mr. Mongrain, briefly please.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: This part of the bill is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment.

• 1120

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 173 agreed to)

(On clause 183—Interim order)

The Chairman: We now go to motion NDP-52.4, in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is exactly the same thing, deleting paragraph (b). So moved.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Any comments? Questions? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would not be in favour of this amendment. As the member opposite has suggested, we've had a fairly thorough debate of that.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 183 agreed to)

(On clause 197—Consultation)

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 34.a, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln. We need a mover.

It is moved by Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Lincoln, would you like to elaborate for the benefit of the new members?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: [Inaudible—Editor]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

The Chairman: Is the problem with the translation or with the sound?

A voice: I think it's back now.

The Chairman: It's back to normal?

[Translation]

Do you agree, Ms. Girard-Bujold? Yes? Can you hear the French interpretation?

[English]

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, for the members who have joined us today, I wanted to bring to their attention that the committee had undertaken a year-long review of CEPA 1988. At that time, other than comments regarding the expansion of the federal-provincial advisory committee into a national advisory committee, which included aboriginal representatives, there was no concern articulated around “offer to consult” and these kinds of issues. So this is all brand-new stuff, and it didn't arise out of our consultation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, we didn't hear what Mr. Lincoln had to say because the mike wasn't working. When he talked on this amendment, we couldn't hear what he was saying.

• 1125

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I said I don't want to say anything, but we've just been discussing this thing ad nauseam. People know where the arguments are, so there's no point in belabouring the thing and wasting time.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 293 now. There is a motion in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I believe this motion is identical to Mr. Lincoln's motion on the following page, and I would defer to Mr. Lincoln on this.

The Chairman: All right. So it's withdrawn and we move to page 294. The motion by Mr. Lincoln is also identical to NDP-52.9, but his takes precedence.

Is there anyone who wishes to move this amendment? Madam Kraft Sloan has moved this amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm conferring with Mr. Lincoln.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln has the floor.

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

The Chairman: The amendment is withdrawn.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lincoln will be not moving the one in the big book, but he will be moving the one in the smaller package.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, it's L-16.2.3.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: On page 34.a.

The Chairman: L-16.2.3 has already been dealt with. The next one would be the one in the name of Mr. Laliberte, page 295, amendment NDP-52.9.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I understand the the records of the votes that have taken place all morning and I will not introduce this. It's fruitless.

The Chairman: Motion not introduced.

I would like you to turn to Madame Girard-Bujold's motion on page 296, BQ-26.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, the floor is yours.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, the intent of my motion is the same as that of Mr. Laliberte. I therefore withdraw it.

The Chairman: You are withdrawing your motion.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

(The amendment is withdrawn)

[English]

(Clause 197 agreed to)

(On clause 208—Minister shall establish)

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 35.a, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln, L-16.6.1. Is there a mover?

Madam Torsney moves the motion.

• 1130

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, no.... Nice try.

I was just trying to refer the members to the fact that on page 306 there's another amendment. I just wanted clarification on whether that was being moved, because it would have precedence over this one.

The Chairman: This is Mr. Lincoln's option. The motion on page 306 is dated November 13 and it is being replaced by this recent amendment on page 35.a. We need a mover.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd be happy to move it, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Moved by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Lincoln, would you like to introduce the motion?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The motion has been moved. That's good enough.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I would not be in favour of this amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 208 agreed to)

(On clause 209—Regulations for the protection of the environment)

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 307,

[Translation]

where we see a motion submitted by Ms. Girard-Bujold.

You have the floor.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am proposing that we replace the words “the Minister shall offer to consult” with the words “the Minister shall consult”. He must consult with provincial governments. I am moving it; it means what it means. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I would not be in favour of this motion and I would just point out for some members that this would be in the exact opposite direction of the way the member herself has voted in the last few votes.

The Chairman: I don't know whether members need to be reminded how they voted in the last few votes, or how they voted. Nevertheless, we have Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to know who the parliamentary secretary is referring to.

The Chairman: That is a question of—

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know to whom the Parliamentary Secretary was referring.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, would you like to answer the questions?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure.

In the last number of votes where we've had a motion before us that would have switched “shall offer” to “may offer”, the member opposite, in a very similarly structured clause, voted for “may offer”, and now is removing even the “offer” and putting forth a motion for “shall consult”. So as a point of reference, it would be in the opposite direction to her comment and actions earlier.

The Chairman: It's not a good practice.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I find the Parliamentary Secretary's remark inappropriate. It's not up to her to presume how I will vote or to pass judgments. I respect her way of operating, and so she should respect mine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

• 1135

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 35.b. Do we have a mover for this amendment, L-16.7.1?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to move this amendment.

I would like to remind the members of the committee that a number of us have a great deal of concern on these particular clauses. The member who drafted these amendments, I believe, has made a lot of accommodation and compromise. It's really unfortunate that the drafter of these amendments has not taken into consideration the spirit...in terms of trying to compromise. This, in my opinion, is not the best option for an amendment. I would like to see a far stronger amendment, but it is a compromise. It's unfortunate that it can't be seen in that light.

The Chairman: Thank you. Any further comments?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this amendment is all the more important in that here we're talking about regulations. The whole of this clause 209 has to do with regulations. It's all the more reason why there should be some time limit in offering to consult.

The Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to assure you that my eyes were open and that I was not in favour of this amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Any further interventions? Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Did we have somebody introduce the motion?

The Chairman: Yes, the motion has been moved. Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can we have a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 209 agreed to)

(On clause 323—Consultation)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 36.a. There is a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln, amendment L-16.8.1.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to move this compromise amendment on behalf of Mr. Lincoln.

The Chairman: Thank you. Could we have an introduction to the amendment, please?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The introduction is the same as all the other introductions, and the result, I'm sure, will be the same.

The Chairman: The Romans used to say repetita juvant, Mr. Lincoln, which translated into English means it helps to repeat.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If I understand the history that I have read, the Romans had regular soldiers who were well trained to be there...the same people. But here it's a very different type of application. I don't think the comparison to the Romans is fair.

• 1140

The Chairman: Are there any comments? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would not be in favour of this amendment.

I just wanted to clarify that L-16.9 would not be removed on page 374.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays: 8; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 323 agreed to)

(On clause 47—Guidelines)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 4.c for a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln. On page 4.c, we have motion L-13.4.1.1.

Is there a mover? Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

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

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, Mr. Chair. I introduce it because I feel that it's commensurate with Mr. Cameron's comments that we're talking about an obligation to offer to consult. We shouldn't let offers to consult float around without any length of time, without any limitation at all, so that the offer to consult will be a wonderful escape hatch for non-action.

We've had a statute here since 1988 and we know what's happened. It has taken months and years. The review was done in 1994 and today we're in 1999 and we don't even have a replacement statute as yet. So action has been very slow. I'm sure the officials themselves would love to have some clout to act a little more promptly.

In the world of never-never, I know what's going to happen. We'll offer to consult and the offer will stay floating around for a long time. Then we'll have another wonderful excuse for non-action. In a few years we'll come back here. We'll have all sorts of hearings and we'll have people who will ask us why we have this wonderful statute of a million pages and nothing is happening. We've offered to consult, and we've been offering and offering, and the consultation goes on and on, and nothing is happening.

So I was just basing myself on the record of what's happened to CEPA 1988 and I was trying to put some sort of limitation on it, which is the same as we imposed on the poor members of the public, who are devoid of all the substance, the wherewithal, the infrastructure and the resources to be able to act. Yet we tell them 60 days is what you have.

We really have to let it float because we don't want to ruffle any feathers. God forbid that in 60 days they wouldn't have time to answer. So we have to let it float on. The past record will show that it will keep floating and floating.

So that was the sense of my amendment. I was hoping myself that my colleagues from the Reform, who are for government efficiency and for moving on and who tell us this all the time, would back us in this thing.

• 1145

I am afraid, Mr. Chair, that without a limit, we are going to be in Never-Never Land. That has been the history, and the history will continue.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madame Girard-Bujold, and then Madame Torsney.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, there is a saying in French that goes something like this: Do as I say and not as I do. I find that, in this bill, the government is saying things, but does not give itself any guideposts. In my view, then, it's a farce. We see it with these amendments, which could have brought some serious obligations into this bill. At present, it contains nothing serious. Like Mr. Lincoln, I find that extremely disappointing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. We're dealing with clause 47, which has been amended in a cooperative manner with the support of the government. But I would just point out that I would not be in favour of the amendment before us, L-13.4.1.1, because if the minister believed there was no consultation forthcoming, she could act in much less than 60 days. The introduction of a 60-day time limit could in fact delay action by as much as 50 days, or more, and institute a new policy that I don't think would be advantageous to the implementation of, in this case, guidelines.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, we have gotten to the point now where 60 days is going to hamper CEPA from moving fast. This is really unbelievable. After all we heard from witnesses about the lack of enforcement and lack of diligence in having regulations published, now we are down to saying that if we put on a 60-day limit, CEPA won't happen; it won't take effect; some things won't take effect, because we want to move from the first day. Certainly, the reality is very different.

What I was trying to do is give some clout to the officials here, who need it very badly, because they need it through legislation that points out that there's a timeline, so that they themselves have some argument to go back to the powers that be and say we have to move because we have a 60-day limit here.

Otherwise, we know what the record is. I would believe the parliamentary secretary if the record were different, but the record has been abysmal, because there are so many escape hatches. We have to consult this, consult that, consult this minister, consult that minister, consult this province, consult that province. We leave it floating.

Every time we ask why there has been no action under CEPA, the answer is that we had to kind of defer because there was an agreement with province A and province B or because there was an agreement with another minister or with an industry concerned. So nothing happens. To say it would happen within 60 days...wow, I wish. But maybe we should put it on record we have heard that maybe things will happen in 60 days. Then when we review the act in five years, we'll see whether or not that was true.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? Are you ready for the question? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to say that this “may” and “shall” issue has been lingering above us for a number of months. In our case we have diligently pulled our “may” clauses off, because the “may” issue is trying to enable the minister to act immediately for the protection of our environment and our health.

The honourable member has brought forward amendments time and time again allowing for a 60-day period. If that period of consultation or offer to consult is not taken up, then it brings the diligence of the minister to act, and I think this is very appropriate. I think he has compromised from a “may” amendment to a clause that says, within 60 days of that offer, if consultation is not accepted, then the minister shall act. I think he's very perceptive in allowing the administration of this act, through the bureaucracies that may be...to give them powers to have CEPA enacted for the betterment of our environment and our health.

I would speak in favour and vote in favour of this.

• 1150

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

I am compelled to note that in Bill C-74 the text had a “may” rather than a “shall”, as in Bill C-32.

Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 47 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, do you want to say something?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: On clause 47, I hadn't officially pulled out my amendment, and I wish to indicate that now.

The Chairman: Fine. Is that on page 107?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

(On clause 54—Formulation by the Minister)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 5, an amendment proposed by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. Is there a mover?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move. I feel a wind coming on here pretty soon.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, would you like to introduce the amendment?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, as you exhorted us to repeat the mantra, I'm just going to suggest that without a limit, offers are going to be floating in thin air for a long time. This has been the pattern all the time. You yourself pointed out that Bill C-74 said “may consult”. Bill C-32 has brought in a compulsion, an obligation to offer, and I think unless we circumscribe this obligation to offer to consult, we are going to be offering for a long time. To believe otherwise is to delude ourselves, because the record has shown this very clearly.

I want to ask the officials and Mr. Cameron why there was this compulsion to change the wording from “may consult” in Bill C-74 to what it is today in Bill C-32.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, would you like to—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Don't ask Ms. Torsney. Ask the officials.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a point of order. I just want clarity that we're not moving the amendments on pages 110 and 111. We should be putting that clearly on the record.

The Chairman: If they're not presented, they're not presented.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: All right.

The Chairman: Would Mr. Mongrain like to answer?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, it's the decision of the government.

The Chairman: The decision of the government is the answer.

Are there any other interventions? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I ask the officials if in their minds there is even a possibility? I think there is a threat. If there is the possibility under an obligation to offer to consult, in cases where you don't have a time limit—you could argue that in certain cases you have a two-year time limit—this offer will be floating around for a long time.

• 1155

It has been said that if the offer is not taken up within a reasonable time.... And Mr. Cameron has qualified “reasonable time” as six months, which belies any possibility of any action within 60 days, for sure. If reasonable means six months, then within six months we have to wait....

You're shaking your head, but this is what you said before.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I don't believe I said reasonable meant it had to take place within six months. Reasonable means what is reasonable in the circumstances, and I would be in error if I were to say that meant it would be a specific time period. Reasonable is variable, and it depends on the circumstances of each case. That's exactly what reasonable means.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay. So reasonable means the circumstance of each case, and it could be, but I think you mentioned an example—and we'll go back on the record—of six months. I agree it's not a definite time of six months, but you yourself said it could be variable. It could be more, it could be less. What happens in a circumstance when reasonable, which is a subjective judgment anyway, happens to be nine months or a year?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I don't know how I can answer a question that's so hypothetical.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is that not the problem with this, that it is so hypothetical? Isn't that the reason for my amendment, to remove the possibility that it's hypothetical, that we are leaving a judgment call to somebody to say what is reasonable? Is “shall offer” two months, three months, five months, six months, one year, depending on variable circumstances, or two years? Could “variable” in certain circumstances be...? And who decides? If the minister has been in place and then decides to leave the offer floating because of her reasoning that it's reasonable, then she gets shifted and another one has to start over again, could the offer just stay in the landscape for any length of time, a floating length of time? Isn't it better to put a time limit on it, so that at least the minister and the people who are receiving the offer know exactly what they should be doing within a finite length of time?

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, followed by Madam Carroll.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I think the question is about political accountability. It really belongs in the arena of politics rather than officialdom. Secondly, there is a process of political accountability that takes place right across the country.

We've had this debate for at least three hours, and yesterday as well. Perhaps we could call the question.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, I indicated prior to Mr. Laliberte that I was willing to move this on behalf of Mr. Lincoln, as it is the same as his other ones.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm offended. I'm offended that the suggestion has been made that we've had enough debate on this particular subject. I'm still in consultation on this, and I feel there are more issues that have to be addressed. I'm not satisfied with this. I'm a member of Parliament. I was elected by the people of York North and I represent the people of this country. I'm here on behalf of the public interest, and I haven't been satisfied with this yet.

As I said earlier, this is a compromise. What we wanted to do was revert to Bill C-74. All we're trying to do is make it easier for the officials to do their work on behalf of the people of Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you. Any further interventions?

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I find that legislation will not be in place for officials and individuals, but for the government, that does not know where it should be going. I find this a shame.

I, for my part, think that Mr. Lincoln and Ms. Kraft Sloan have made compromises. I have tried to make some too, but there is no open-mindedness on the other side. As Mr. Lincoln said a few minutes ago, everyone changes his or her opinion regularly, without knowing what is going on.

• 1200

I arrived here not long ago. You held hearings. Many people came and told you many things. Well, now we are at the point where we no longer give any consideration to what happened. We are seeing nothing more than ad hoc action hat has nothing to do with the evidence we heard here. I find that extremely disappointing and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should speak to her government about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am leaving now.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold. Are there any other comments?

[English]

Are there any further comments? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): No, I withdraw my point.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could we have a recorded vote?

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 54 agreed to)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'd like to have a motion to adjourn.

The Chairman: All right, we have a motion to adjourn. May I urge the members of the committee and officials to make an effort to be here at 3 p.m., or as close as possible to that, since we will adjourn at 4.45 p.m.

This meeting is adjourned.