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

• 1519

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Welcome to the Thursday afternoon meeting of this committee.

Just as a brief notice, the clerk has sent out an announcement for meetings to be held on both Tuesday morning and afternoon—and for subsequent meetings, if necessary. We're not meeting Monday because it does not meet the convenience of several members.

• 1520

For the information of those of you who were unable to come this morning, the committee has completed clause 54 and we're now on clause 62.

We have an amendment, on page 5.a of the small book, in the name of Mr. Lincoln, L-13.7.2.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Lincoln isn't here yet. He's on his way.

The Chairman: Well, he may be on his way, but he may not. We have to move on.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I called his office and spoke to him. He said he was on his way.

I believe we've had many discussions about this. Has this been moved?

The Chairman: We need someone to move it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I so move it, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): I state for the record that I would not be in favour of this amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

For the benefit of members who were not here in the morning, Madam Kraft Sloan, would you explain the amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The issue here is that there has been a great deal of concern from a number of committee members that with these floating offers to consult that keep floating around, we don't seem to see a heck of a lot of action. There was a concern about having some time limits on the take-up of the offer to consult.

In CEPA 1997, or Bill C-74, these clauses were discretionary and not mandatory. The interesting thing about this one....

Mr. Chair, could I have some clarification on paragraph 2(1)(m)? Did an amendment go through on this one?

The Chairman: I can't provide verification, apparently. Paragraph 2(1)(m) is lost in the galaxy of amendments that have emerged and disappeared.

The clerk will try to answer that question.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's my understanding that this was not amended.

The Chairman: In any case, we have L-13.7.2 before us.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I know, but it's my understanding that paragraph 2(1)(m) was not amended. I'd like to have clarification on that.

The Chairman: We don't have a 2(1)(m) on record.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm just wondering if 2(1)(m)—clause 2, subclause (1), paragraph (m)—was amended. I don't think it was.

The Chairman: There was an amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But it was defeated.

The Chairman: We don't know whether the amendment carried. The clerk is checking it.

The Clerk of the Committee: There was an amendment, Mr. Chairman, and it was defeated.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to point out to members present that we have a very interesting phenomenon with this particular set of subclauses, 62(1) and (2).

• 1525

Subclause 62(1) is a residualization clause, and asks the minister to have particular consideration of paragraph 2(l)(m), which says you must ensure that all areas of federal regulation are addressed in a complementary manner in order to avoid duplication.

The other part of this, subclause 62(2), is a harmonization clause. So now we are going to be consulting the provinces. It says:

(2) In carrying out the duties under subsection (1), the Minister shall offer to consult with the government of a province and the members of the Committee

So now we are going to be consulting with the provinces on whether we have effectively acted under the residualization aspect of CEPA. This is a type of harmonization and residualization clause, then, which I find rather unique.

As I said earlier this morning, these amendments are representative compromises. It is not the position we would choose to take here. This was a compromise we have been working out over a number of months. It obviously has been rejected, which is quite pitiful.

I would open the floor to further debate.

The Chairman: Is there further debate? Are there any further comments or questions? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chair, before we take the vote, I would kindly ask those who voted against these amendments this morning to perhaps, after some reflection, look at whether it's a step forward to put a timeline in the bill, leaving some signal that any offer has to be acted upon and has to have a reaction rather than leaving it in the air, at the whim of both parties, open-ended on both sides.

This is the danger of it, that it is open-ended on both sides. On one side, the offer to consult is completely wide open. On the other side, it is also wide open. Not only does the federal government have the obligation to offer, which is unlimited in time, but the other party also has no limit in time to be able to react. So it's open-ended not just from the federal side but also from the other side.

If that makes for good legislation, well, then, I don't know what does.

I think that's an important point to remember, because I see we have a new, esteemed member who certainly has a mind of his own. Maybe he will convince his colleagues in the Reform Party of the logic and the good reason for this clause—that it's open-ended from not just the federal government side but the other side as well. It's doubly open-ended.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to know from the officials what provincial statute requires consultation with the federal government to ensure their consent on moving forward on their own actions and regulation-making powers.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any provincial legislation that requires consent from the federal government before the province can act. I'd simply point out that the issue of consent doesn't arise here either in the sense that this is consultation only. The federal minister would not require the consent of the province before she could act, either.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are there any provincial statutes that in these types of matters require provincial government consultation with the federal government?

• 1530

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I'm afraid, sir, I don't know the answer to that question.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I wonder if Madam Hébert is knowledgeable about any provincial statute that requires consultation.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I don't know of any. They may exist; they may not. I have no idea.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We had a year-long review. Certainly Mr. Forseth and Mr. Gilmour were part of that in the writing of the report. I know they spent many long hours listening to witnesses and going through very careful deliberation of the committee report.

We had provincial representatives here, and I didn't hear any of them crank out that they had legislation that required them to consult or offer to consult with the federal government, therefore the federal government had to include it in their changes to CEPA 1988. I find that rather unusual, because certainly if they had that requirement in their own statutes, they would want the federal government to have the same requirement.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What's happened this morning has happened, but here we're talking about pollution prevention plans. What I want to understand from Mr. Mongrain, Mr. Lerer, or Mr. Cameron is this: Are you saying that before we make our guidelines regarding pollution prevention plans that apply to industry, we should make an offer to consult? In the offer to consult, do they refer to the models of the pollution prevention plan that are in the guidelines? Do they refer to whether the pollution prevention plans are appropriate or not?

Why do you tie this whole question of the pollution prevention plan to the administrative duty under paragraph 2(1)(m), which refers again to providing effective and comprehensive protection in all areas of federal regulation? Doesn't that in a sense say the federal government then has a particular duty? It is making guidelines for pollution prevention and why do you need, in this particular case, such definite offers to negotiate, to consult? In what sense is that consultation happening in the appropriate manner of the model?

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): I see from clause 62, these are guidelines on how the minister will use the authority to require pollution prevention plans. The offer to consult doesn't apply in each and every instance under this clause, when the minister is deciding whether to use pollution prevention planning. There are other mechanisms in part 5.

The intent of having guidelines, if I recall correctly from the days when we were putting together Bill C-74, is twofold. One, this is a new power for the federal minister. Having guidelines provides some transparency for industry and others on when to expect that authority to be used.

My second point is they are just that—guidelines. They are not binding or regulatory. They are not binding on the Minister of Environment. They're simply guidance. It's a matter of transparency to illustrate in what type of situations the authority to require pollution prevention plans for toxic substances, and now for international air and water, will be used in a general fashion.

• 1535

With respect to paragraph 2(1)(m), it was developed in anticipation that other federal statutes might incorporate a similar type of authority for pollution prevention planning. It's forward-looking, and I'd like to reiterate once again these guidelines are not binding on the minister.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think Mr. Mongrain's making the point for me. If the guidelines are simple guidelines that are not binding on the minister in the first place, and are therefore an accessory or a working tool, in Bill C-74 it was very clear the minister may consult, in which case she had a lot of discretion. Now, according to all the definitions you have brought forward to us before, there's a far greater onus to offer to consult.

In other words, there's an obligation, according to Mr. Cameron. So you have an obligation there to offer to consult on something that is a guideline and not even binding on the minister. Don't you think it's kind of carrying this to the extreme? I don't agree with you, but I can see how you could argue against me this morning about toxics, saying “This is very important; the provinces need to be consulted about guidelines and they're not binding on the minister.”

We have an obligation to consult, and according to Mr. Cameron we have to decide on the test of what is reasonable because, according to what happened this morning, you won't agree to a time limit. So we have to confine ourselves to what is reasonable in any particular circumstance. I wonder what that is in the case of a guideline that is not binding on a minister.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I think it is probably quite reasonable in this instance. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment have developed and issued a strategy on pollution prevention planning, and some jurisdictions are moving ahead. I don't think there's anything wrong with requiring a simple offer to consult when we're developing the guidelines that will illustrate how this authority will be used in the future, working in conjunction with other jurisdictions that may be doing a similar thing. It's a matter of helping improve coordination and cooperation.

Because it's an innovative new tool, a new authority and a developing area, I'd hope this offer to consult would result in us learning from provincial jurisdictions and vice versa, so we can use what is a brand new tool for CEPA in a very effective way for the protection of the environment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would agree with you, Mr. Mongrain, if it were really a simple offer to consult, which you had in Bill C-74. Because Bill C-74 said “may consult,” then you had a simple offer to consult. You did or you didn't, or you had the discretion to do it in special circumstances. Now it's no longer a simple offer; you have an obligation.

It seems to me when you have an obligation it's not simple, especially if it stays in the decor there, for a time that is left to the test of what is reasonable, to decide what it is. I don't think it's that simple. If it were that simple it wouldn't be insisted upon by the government so fiercely, and by Mr. Dion so fiercely. They would have left it as “may consult”. But now we're talking about something the government is very keen to have because it has a certain power to it. It really says something to the provinces—“I don't have any leeway; I have to offer to consult”.

That's why I thought it would be extremely reasonable, especially in a case of a guideline, for goodness' sake, to say to the provinces, especially in light of the CCME getting ready with pollution prevention plans—therefore they don't need any leeway, they're already ready—“Okay, you have 60 days to come back to tell us what you want to do. Those are our guidelines; tell us what you would like.” Then we say no, we'll just offer. We'll send it out and wait for the CCME. The CCME will meet next spring and we'll wait for that. Then we'll consider what is reasonable and we'll call the Department of Justice and they'll say it's not reasonable; don't push the provinces too hard.

• 1540

If that makes sense, it sure doesn't make sense to me.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Recorded vote, please.

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

(Clause 62 agreed to)

(On clause 122—Definitions)

The Chairman: Would you please turn to the large binder, page 251, motion 52.1.4 in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You are forgiven, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just can't wait until the next Parliament.

A disposal definition comes in, and there are exemptions, as you see, but that does not include.... And that is where our amendment comes in: “(g) a disposal that is”; we are deleting “incidental to or”. So it becomes:

(g) a disposal that is derived from the normal operations of a ship, an aircraft, a platform or another structure or of any equipment on a ship, an aircraft, a platform or another structure, other than the disposal of substances from a ship, an aircraft, a platform or another structure operated for the purpose of disposing of such substances at sea.

We are contesting the issue of “incidental to”. All the other definitions being exempted here derive from the normal operations, which we can accept. But the term “incidental to” comes to a major question. We are asking the committee to delete this. It does not need to be exempted here.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

I wonder whether the new members of the committee this afternoon are equipped to follow the amendment you have just proposed, whether they have a copy of the bill and a copy of the amendment. If not, they might share a copy of the bill and the binder.

Madame Torsney, you have a comment to make.

• 1545

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We had some discussion on this issue before. I think Mr. Mongrain provided some enlightenment when we debated this last time. Our position was that we were not in favour of it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Mongrain, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. It's just as good, but it's shorter. Perhaps you could fill us in.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

The ocean disposal provisions in CEPA are designed to fulfil Canada's commitments under the 1972 ocean dumping convention, and there's a recent 1996 protocol, which is being taken care of with amendments in Bill C-32. Essentially, what this allows for is the disposal at sea of certain things.

In the standing committee's report It's About our Health they recommended a reverse onus approach, in that CEPA would only allow the disposal of certain types of substances or wastes. The government accepted that recommendation of the standing committee, and that is what the provisions in Bill C-32 provide for.

Mr. Gilmour is from British Columbia. Some of the non-governmental reef-diving societies on the west coast, for example, have taken surplus navy destroyers and applied for an ocean disposal permit. That's been accepted and they've been allowed to sink a ship to create an artificial reef. That's the type of activity that occurs under these provisions, or the disposal of clean dredged material.

The effect of the amendment proposed by Mr. Laliberte would bring us into the realm of regulating shipping. All ships have discharges that are incidental and essential to their normal operation. These are things like bilge water, cooling water, sewage, etc. This type of thing is subject to another international convention related to shipping. I'll give you the term, Mr. Chair: it's a convention on the prevention of pollution from ships and shipping.

Canada has chosen to fulfil these requirements under the Canada Shipping Act. Sections 654 to 658 provide explicit authority for pollution prevention regulations. Transport Canada has garbage pollution prevention regulations, oil pollution prevention regulations, and non-pleasure-craft sewage pollution prevention regulations. That part of the Canada Shipping Act in fact takes a pollution prevention orientation, as does CEPA throughout, but it's also encouraging to see it in other statutes.

I know, Mr. Chairman, of your interest and that of the committee in the issue of enforcement. I'm told by Transport Canada that they have about a $25 million enforcement budget, of which approximately 30% is devoted to the enforcement of their shipping pollution prevention regulations; so it's about $8 million a year. Once again, the effect of Mr. Laliberte's amendment would bring CEPA into that area and would cause confusion in parts of the bill that are not designed to regulate shipping. They're designed for disposal of large amounts of materials, such as dredged waste, or ships, fish waste, etc.

The Chairman: Is that satisfactory?

[Translation]

Mrs. Girard-Bujold, please.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that paragraph 122(1)(g) in the English version and subparagraph 122(1)g)(i) in the French version should be modified. I'd like to ask Mrs. Hébert whether the expression "a disposal that is incidental to or derived from the normal operations" is equivalent to the French expression "les rejets résultant ou provenant de l'utilisation normale". Do these two expresions mean the same thing in legal terms? I feel that the French version has a different meaning.

• 1550

Mrs. Monique Hébert: I'm inclined to agree with you. To ensure concordance between the two versions, I'd have tended to say "a disposal that results from or derives from", thereby emphasizing the concept of the result from a specific action.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Exactly. What should we be doing, Mr. Chairman? Both versions have a different meaning.

The Chairman: This question should probably be put to Mr. Cameron. Who can tell us whether the French version or the English version will take precedence?

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, it's not a question of precedent. They both have legal force.

The Chairman: If it's not a question of precedent, which of the two will be considered to have primacy? Evidently, the two are different.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: If the two are different—and I can check into that—then that would be an error that we would have to correct. Whether or not they are different, though, is a question I would have to seek advice on from the drafters at the Department of Justice. When legislation is drafted, I know the intention is to make the English legally identical to the French. If that has not occurred here, then it's an error that needs to be corrected.

The Chairman: Since there is a gap between the two, would you mind giving the committee a brief update on your findings on Tuesday?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I certainly will.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any further interventions?

[Translation]

Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I didn't understand very well what Mr. Cameron was saying earlier about Mr. Laliberte's amendment and the regulations governing shipping. Could he explain what he told us?

[English]

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, I'm looking right now at the English and the French from CEPA 1988, because these provisions are taken from the existing act, at least in the English. I think the question of “incidental to or derived from the normal operations” was included in the original act in order to make it perfectly clear that we were not going to be regulating shipping. It's a question of whether there's concordance between the French and the English in the two versions. We'll have to confirm that.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I'm just having a look at the structure here, and I realize that (g) in the English is different from what it is in the French. The French has the phrase “but does not include” next to the (g): “sont exclus de la présente définition”. The things that are excluded in that definition are identified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) in the English version. Those same four things appear in the lower-case Roman numerals under paragraph (g) in French, as subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv).

So if it's just a question of whether the numbers are the same, they don't have to be the same in order for them to be legally equivalent. I know Madame Hébert spoke about this earlier, but based on my understanding of the French, the content of what's in subparagraph 122(1)(g)(i) is the same as the content that's in paragraph (g) in English. The only difference is the numbering, which is of no consequence at all.

The Chairman: But Mr. Cameron, the issue is not with the numbering, the issue is the comparison between the two versions, the one in English on line 24 and in French on line 17. The problem is language, not numbering.

• 1555

There is also a problem with line 40 and with line 44, because those two lines don't seem to flow from the preceding, above text. I will leave that to you as well to explore in order to determine what happened in the printing shop.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Very well.

The Chairman: Any further interventions? Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, it shows to what extent the English and French versions of this bill are inconsistent. It is another example and I think it is frightening. I wonder how people will be able to find the provisions of this bill in French and in English.

The Chairman: We are making note of your intervention, Mrs. Girard-Bujold. I'd like to guarantee you that we'll review this issue of concordance very soon.

[English]

Evidently Madame Girard-Bujold is raising here an important point that requires attention, Mr. Cameron.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Cameron is supposed to give us some clarification tomorrow.

The Chairman: Tuesday.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: If we get some clarification only on Tuesday, you can't put this clause to a vote today, Mr. Chairman. Wouldn't it be better to postpone its approval?

The Chairman: We are only putting the amendment to a vote, not the clause.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: All right. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

[English]

Are you ready for the question?

An hon. member: We are.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: The amendment is lost, but we will not call clause 122 for the time being.

I'd like you to turn to the amendment on page 252, NDP-52.1.5.

Again, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have an amendment deleting the entirety of paragraph 122(1)(j). It had raised concerns with us in regard to exempting, under the definition of this proposal, “a discharge or a storage directly arising from, or directly related to, the exploration for, exploitation of and associated off-shore processing of seabed mineral resources”. If these are directly being carried through from the previous regulations and definitions, could we ask for a definition of “discharge”?

I'm asking this because I'm drawn to making a friendly amendment to this that could drastically change the amendment, but if I understood the definition of “discharge” from the government's point of view in a working sense, it would change the whole context. That might address my concern.

The Chairman: Would Mr. Cameron and Mr. Mongrain define “discharge” for Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, I can define it perhaps in this context. The discharges from an offshore platform are mostly things like drilling muds, cuttings, water that comes out, cooling water, or the deck drainage off a rig. If I may elaborate, the disposal of such things is regulated through something called the Canada Oil and Gas Act, which is administered by the National Energy Board. Essentially, the National Energy Board sets standards for these types of discharges. I believe officials from our marine environment division were very closely involved with and wrote many of those standards and guidelines.

• 1600

The offshore petroleum exploration as governed by federal-provincial boards and there's federal legislation related to that. These are the boards that provide the licence to operate for something like the Hibernia rig, and a specific project would have to meet the standards set by the National Energy Board, as administered through these federal-provincial boards, before obtaining its licence and approval to go ahead with the exploration.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I found what I needed. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, does that interpretation satisfy you?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. So in terms of discharge, when you say directly arising or directly related to it, does that deal with oil flushing or glycol being used in terms of oil platforms?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'm certainly not an expert on the issue, but the information I've received is that it's things like the results of the exploration. Certainly if something like glycol is involved, it would be part of the environmental assessment that is done prior to the approval of any of these projects, but also the operating regulations or standards that are put in place before these offshore drilling activities can take place.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In my motion, then, I'd like the committee to consider instead of deleting the entire clause, all we would ask for is that “or storage” be deleted.

The Chairman: So that it would read how, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I might have misunderstood this whole thing.

The Chairman: May I draw your attention, Mr. Laliberte, to the fact that the deletion of paragraph 122(1)(j) in its entirety was recommended by the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I understand that, but for the term of “storage” there were no definitions of “discharge or storage” discussed, and we were drawn into accepting that “storage” would be a reasonable exemption from disposal. It was “discharge” that we were concerned with, and I misunderstood—

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, would you please read your amendment?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The friendly amendment would be that “discharge or” would be the deletion.

The Chairman: And would you please put on the record what paragraph 122(1)(j) would read?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Paragraph 122(1)(j) would read: “a storage directly arising from, or directly related to, the exploration for, the exploitation of and associated off-shore processing of seabed mineral resources”.

The Chairman: All right, the members have heard your own amendment, the deletion of the word “discharge” and the word “or”.

Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I ask Mr. Mongrain, considering that “discharge” and “storage” are two key elements in these clauses, can you tell me why we didn't feel it necessary to include some definition of “storage” and “discharge”, even referring to other acts if necessary? Why were just these two left out?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, if I understand the question correctly, it's why haven't we defined “discharge or storage”.

The Chairman: Why have you left them out of the definitions?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I understand now, Mr. Chair, it's why it isn't included in the definition of “disposal”. That's because these activities are regulated through the Minister of Natural Resources, the National Energy Board and the federal-provincial boards that currently have the responsibility for oil exploration off Canada's coasts.

• 1605

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I understand that, but it wouldn't have stopped you from saying that discharged means discharged as defined under whatever acts there are, and storage means the same. There would have been at least a reference to what we're talking about. There's not even any reference to the other acts there that define what storage is. Wouldn't it have been better to do it?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure that they are defined under the other act. There's probably not a definition in Bill C-32, because as is the case elsewhere in the act, the dictionary definition would apply, I imagine. You were using the term in the normally understood sense.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And yet we chose to define a ship. People know what a ship is, but we chose to define a ship; we didn't say look at the dictionary.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, if we've defined ship, it means we're utilizing it in a sense that could be interpreted as being different from the normally understood usage.

The Chairman: Any comments?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I see where we've defined a lot of things. When we talk about a master and a ship and a structure, the structure means a structure that is made by a person, as distinct from I suppose a structure made by a squirrel. Yet we say “discharge”, which is a key thing, and we don't define it. And when I ask why we don't refer to the other acts, they tell me it's not defined in the other acts. So maybe there's a lack in the other acts and this act. That's what I was suggesting, that it's a key word.

I think Mr. Laliberte is right in pointing out that discharge and storage are key elements and the two of them don't appear there. Why don't we define storage if we define structure? It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe there is a profound explanation, but I've yet to hear it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, please, briefly.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The reason we're accepting storage as an exemption from disposal.... I can't imagine what can be stored out there. If it means safe containment, I don't know if storage is defined. What I envision is that you store something to recapture it or encapsulate it, but discharge is a release to the environment. It could be interpreted in that way, and that's disposal as well. So why are you exempting a discharge from disposal? Storage you can accept. Storage is storage as far as I understand it. It's like a closet: you can always recapture it. But discharge could mean a release into the environment with no chance of ever bringing it back, which could mean disposal.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, as I've indicated previously, these are things that are covered under other pieces of federal legislation and have been for some time. The ocean disposal provisions are designed specifically with respect to Canada's obligations under the London convention related to ocean disposal. Oil exploration is a different matter.

The Chairman: The Ocean Dumping Control Act was an act that came under the jurisdiction of your department?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The Ocean Dumping Control Act of I believe around 1975. It's before my time.

The Chairman: The answer is yes.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: And that act has been folded into this act, correct?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The Ocean Dumping Control Act, which was to meet Canada's obligations under the 1972 convention, was folded into the original CEPA of 1988, and now we have CEPA 1999 before us.

• 1610

The Chairman: So nothing is to prevent this committee and CEPA from improving the wording of any legislation related to dumping.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, the committee is in charge of its own destiny.

The Chairman: Considering that the Ocean Dumping Control Act is an act that came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Yes, sir, as do these provisions under CEPA.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, do you have any further comments? Otherwise we'll proceed with the vote.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We have the motion in place. You understand the amendment. I will keep it intact. I will not discharge it.

The Chairman: The clerk will read the amendment as modified by Mr. Laliberte.

The Clerk: That in clause 122, line 44, the words “discharge or” be struck out.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 122 allowed to stand)

(On clause 149—Definitions)

The Chairman: Page 265. Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This refers to page 105 in the bill, line 17 in English and line 28 in French, the definition of “engine”. We are proposing deleting “but does not”. Yesterday I was told “but not” didn't make sense in the act, but “does not include” is used here.

It's nice to use this language; I knew my language was good.

The amended definition would read:

“engine” means any prescribed internal combustion engine, including an engine designed to propel

(a) an aircraft...

(b) rolling stock...

(c) a steamer, steamship or tug...

This definition seems to exempt aircraft, rolling stock and ships, and we're saying that these are also producers of pollution in some shape or form, and I think that's the reason for the definition of “engine” under “Vehicle, Engine and Equipment Emissions”, which this division is dealing with.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

I think all members will see, on page 105, that aircraft engines are covered under the Aeronautics Act in paragraph (a), that rolling stock engines are covered under the Canada Transportation Act in paragraph (b) and that steam or steamship or tug engines are covered under the Canada Shipping Act. So there is no need to have duplication.

• 1615

The Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to raise the issue.... I didn't catch the parliamentary secretary's intention here, but does that mean the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Shipping Act deal with environmental and pollution prevention?

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, please.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Once again I have some of the details. The Aeronautics Act sets airworthiness standards, and chapter 516 of something called the Airworthiness Manual includes standards for aircraft emissions.

The Canada Shipping Act has air pollution prevention regulations related to emissions from steamers and ships.

For railway engines, the House has just passed Bill C-58, which provides authority to govern the release of pollutants to the environment from the operation of railway equipment. In addition, with respect to railway stock, I believe Bruce David Walker of STOP, one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, mentioned the existence of an agreement between Environment Canada and the rail industry with respect to emissions.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 266. Mr. Laliberte, the same page, line 42.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's the same issue:

“vehicle” means any prescribed self-propelled vehicle, including an aircraft, rolling stock, steamer, steamship and tug.

So moved.

The Chairman: One wonders—and I would direct this brief footnote to Mr. Cameron—whether in future it wouldn't be much more desirable to word these types of references so as to read “as defined under” the various acts rather than using the negative phraseology “but does not include”. It would save a lot of suspicious feelings from arising and it would serve the same purpose. In other words, on line 42 it could read “as defined in the” and then the acts could be identified. It would simplify the language, and it would be shorter and less cumbersome. But that is for posterity.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 149 agreed to)

The Chairman: There is a new proposal now, I understand, by the government, and that is G-30.1.1. It is in a very, very short collection that was distributed this morning, I believe. It's only four pages or so. It has no page number, but it is G-30.1.1.

Ms. Torsney.

• 1620

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps we could move on to another clause and come back to this one, please.

The Chairman: All right.

I invite you turn to page 376 in the large binder. You will find there a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln, L-16.11.

I am apprised that this flows with one that was put aside a moment ago. Can we go then to page 377 or not? No? In which case, since we have 20 minutes left, we could go to schedule 1 and see whether we can wade through the schedules.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: The motion I had this morning that we were going to bring back at 3 p.m. hasn't been lost in the system, has it? I'm sure we'll get back to it.

We were changing the “any” to “the”.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, are you ready to deal with that?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes.

The Chairman: Would you please put on record the number of the clause?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's subclause 166.(2) on page 117.

In English it says “consult with any government” in paragraph 166.(2)(a). And in French it says le ministre consulte le gouvernement. The question this morning was if it says “any” in English, but le in French, the two don't seem to reflect one another.

I spoke to the French drafter after this morning's session, and he agreed that there was a problem here. The Department of the Environment informs me that the English is the proper version, that it reflects the intention correctly. We mean to convey the point that there could be more than one government and that the consultation should be with any of the governments responsible for the area, given the fact that there could be, for example, a province that is responsible. There could also be an aboriginal government that's responsible and they would have concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction over the area.

I apologize for not having the time to get it in writing. The amendment would be to change the French words le gouvernement to the words tout gouvernement and then the two would have exactly the same meaning in English and French.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Gilmour, is this explanation satisfactory to you?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: At least we're the same, in English and French. However, I still have difficulty dealing with “any”, because as I said, if we have cross-border acid raid, for example, going into Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia, if you read “any” government, the government could consult Ontario and not consult the other two and still have fulfilled their regulation.

• 1625

What I'm saying is if they put the government responsible, or all governments responsible, either way, then they can't slide through and consult only one province or consult the province and not the native community. They have to consult them all. That's the reason for my change.

The Chairman: So you are still proposing your amendment now?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'm still proposing my amendment.

The Chairman: May I invite members of the committee to look at page 271, amendment R-17, if you haven't already done so.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: May I ask a question on this amendment, Mr. Chairman? The bill refers to the "gouvernement responsable de la région dans laquelle est située la source". As you know, there are 12 regions in Quebec. I'd like to know how these regions that a government is responsible for are defined in this clause of the bill.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's not a defined term, Mr. Chairman. It means the area in which the source is situated. It's a word that has its ordinary meaning.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, several areas may be the originating source. Shouldn't we be referring to "areas" or "regions"?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It is the place.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but....

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It is the place.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: There might be several areas, Mr. Chairman, and not just one. We should therefore put "regions" because they may not ne concentrated solely in one small place.

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, the word “government” is defined in clause 3. It means “the government of a province or of a territory or an aboriginal government”. So as long as the source is only in one province or one territory it would be that government, but it may also be an aboriginal government that has overlapping jurisdiction over that land. It's not intended to reflect regional governments, municipal governments, etc.

The Chairman: Do you have a comment to make on Madame Girard-Bujold's suggestion that “region” should be in the plural?

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: As Mr. Mongrain just said, several governments could be involved, including aboriginal and provincial governments. A lot of things are interrelated, and that's why I am so reluctant if we only refer to the "area".

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Since you've had us all turn to amendment R-17 on page 271, I wasn't sure that Mr. Gilmour wasn't proposing perhaps something different, and that would be on the English side, in all governments responsible.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Perhaps that would cover all circumstances, and if there's a friendly amendment to change the words to “all governments”, I'd be quite satisfied with that.

Mr. Cameron, is that going to cause a problem at the municipal level?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that would be acceptable, because it would mean we would consult with all the applicable governments, be they provincial, territorial, or aboriginal. If that were the intent, and we were to make that change in English, then in the French version we would change the words le gouvernment to tous les gouvernements.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It might be useful for Mrs. Hébert to tell us what she thinks of the way it is drafted in both languages. I find the amendment of the Reform Party very, very surprising. Could it be possible to come to an agreement on friendly terms on this clause? I could move an amendment to that effect, if you so wish.

The Chairman: Mrs. Hébert.

Mrs. Monique Hébert: I must recognize, Madam, that I am not concerned that only one area or region is mentioned here. I think the reference is of a geographic, not a political nature.

• 1630

It might be appropriate to use the term "place", which is somewhat less specific, but I believe that the word "area" is not a bad choice and is not confusing.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Could I move my friendly amendment. Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, move your friendly amendment, directing it to Mr. Gilmour.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I move that the text be changed to "the Minister shall consult with any government responsible for the area or the areas in which the source is situated to determine whether that government can..." Such language would reflect what Mrs. Hébert was saying.

The Chairman: Could you read your amendment again, please?

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: "the Minister shall consult with any government responsible for the area or the areas in which the source is situated to determine whether that government can..."

The Chairman: Are you certain you want to move a friendly amendment?

[English]

Mr. Gilmour, would you like to reply?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yes. I suggest if we're going to do this that we do it on two separate votes, because we're on separate lines. Do mine first and then Madame Girard-Bujold's, because they are separate issues.

[Translation]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When we refer to the region, what is meant is a collective place or area. If we said "de la région ou des régions", thee would be a different connotation. It might suggest, among other things, the notion of political regions. On the other hand, if the English expression "for the area" is translated "de la région", it means the collective place or area. If we indicated "for the area or the areas", it would sound a bit funny. I believe that it would be much more difficult to interpret if we used "de la région ou des régions".

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

[English]

We will now come to a vote in two steps: one, on the amendment by Mr. Gilmour; and secondly, on the friendly amendment by Madame Girard-Bujold. I will first ask the clerk to read the amendment proposed by Mr. Gilmour.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, it just seems from the discussion and from reading and rereading that we're really talking about more than just a couple of changes. We really need to see all of this on paper, because there's not just one source. What Madame Girard-Bujold would be proposing could significantly change what Mr. Gilmour is talking about. I really think that people need a little more reflection on that, and we should have that on a piece of paper.

The Chairman: We will then deal with this matter on Tuesday when it is on paper, as proposed by Mr. Gilmour and Madame Girard-Bujold.

We will stand amendment R-17 and we will go to schedule 1, on page 39.a.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I'm happy to move government amendment G-31.0.4, which in English is on 39.a and 39.b and en français c'est page 39.c et 39.d.

On the suggestion of the chair, this schedule has been changed to be much clearer and more direct. I think the chair had a fair bit of input into that.

• 1635

The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I take it that the brackets after the original title on the amendment just fall away—the brackets fall away.

The Chairman: Which original title? Which one are you referring to?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The words “Toxic substances are named or described in items in boldface...” That will fall away automatically.

The Chairman: Yes. It is not in the revised text.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. Okay.

The Chairman: But may I ask whether the terminology “n is greater than 2”, which has been retained, is one that should not require an explanation of what it means, since it occurs frequently, either by way of a footnote or attached to this same paragraph? It appears in paragraphs 3, 5, and 16. The explanation was given the last time. I would not be able to repeat it even under duress, but could we indicate that for the purpose of clear understanding, a term of this nature, which is probably mathematical, or exponential at least, would require an explanation so that an average Canadian can read it and understand, or is that asking too much?

Yes, Madam Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): The way it's presented in here is the standard way of expressing chemical formulas, so it's commonly understood. But if nobody ever took chemistry, then I could see it wouldn't be obvious.

The Chairman: Is there a possibility of providing a footnote to the schedule that would explain the meaning?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Yes, we could do that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Madame Girard-Bujold and Mr. Laliberte.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, this government amendment aims at keeping only the first line and removing all explanations which were there, including paragraphs 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) in schedule 1.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mrs. Torsney.

Mrs. Paddy Torsney: But there is one exception, clause 13, which is in boldface.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

• 1640

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In discussions we had last time, the chair took careful concern on specific issues, like “except for certain uses” and “secondary lead smelters”. Those were highlighted in my notes here. And then the issue of dropping the whole regulation list was discussed, but I don't know whether it was agreed upon. Is this where we're agreeing to drop the regulation list? If we don't pass this, does the regulation list stay on? This, I assume, is known as the TSL, right?

Also, would the title beg to read “Toxic Substances List”, since everybody calls it the TSL? All of a sudden it's the LTS, maybe to streamline it. Like “public right to know”....

I'm trying to follow it from my short experience in dealing with this. But the public's view is that the regulations do help. If you look at it from layman's terms, somebody freshly opening this act would know specifically how to link these regulations to specific.... If you've walked through this for the last year, as we have, you can simply drop the regulations; but if there's somebody out there opening a municipal office, or if there's a university student or a researcher in some political office, I think these regulations would certainly help.

I know the concern the chair raised with specific reference to “except for certain uses”, and we had asked the government to answer those questions under the regulations portion. So I don't know where that went. And we're taking a bigger, bolder move of taking the regulations off these lists.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, Mr. Lerer, and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Certainly the member is correct, in that we keep referring to the domestic substances list and the toxic substances list, and everything like that. But if you look at the top of schedule 1, where it says “sections 56, 68, 71...”, if you look in any of those sections, it's still called “the list of toxic substances”. So the language is consistent throughout the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): With respect to the question regarding the removal, I undertook to do that at what I believe was the request of the committee, sir. For clarity's sake, I thought I was under the instruction of the committee to provide an amendment to remove those, because people felt they were confusing.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Lincoln. I urge the committee to keep an eye on the clock.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to point out to Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Chair, that under schedule 3 it's just the “list of prohibited substances”.

So this brings it consistent with schedule 3, and this is a list of toxic substances, not a list of toxic substances and regulations. What this does is it increases clarity, so there's no confusion. In some peoples' minds they may think these are the only regulations that are allowed under CEPA. Not that that's true, but it adds to that perception. So if we're dealing with only the list of toxic substances, then certainly the list of regulations under those substances can be found elsewhere.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, I agree, Mr. Lerer, that after a long discussion we found it would be far clearer for the public to just list the main items and not try to define them, because there were a lot of.... There was confusion and contradiction. In certain ways, terms were used differently in one as opposed to the other. So I think it's better to list it as we have in the amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I ask the officials, what is the effect...? In the old regulation, the way it is now, we have, for example, under lead, which is item 7, “limited atmospheric releases from secondary lead smelters”. Now it is just “lead”. What does that mean for lead used in car batteries, in the hull of a sailboat, in fishing, or in weights for scuba divers? Does it change the...?

• 1645

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, it does not change the regulations that have been passed. As I recall, there was some confusion as to whether the short listing under this schedule led people to believe these were the only regulated substances, and they are not, as the other schedules show. But it has no effect on the regulation that is in place. All it does is name the substance that is on the list of toxic substances, and then one goes to the regulation-making lists that are available elsewhere to see what aspect of that is regulated.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Shall schedule 1 be adopted?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are people voting in favour of government amendment 31.0.4?

The Chairman: In the motion on the page before us schedule 1 is identified in that way, yes.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: This meeting now stands adjourned until Tuesday morning at 8.30. Your offices will be notified that on Tuesday we will be here for four hours, between 8.30 and 12.30.