ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 23, 1999

• 0849

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have a quorum. Good morning to everybody.

[Translation]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Before resuming our work today, I have a few short announcements to make.

• 0850

[English]

The first announcement is that it's likely we will have a vote around 10.30 a.m. In any case, we will come back here once the vote is completed.

The second is not so much an announcement as an attempt to clarify and simplify our work this morning. When referring to the mini-package, we will be dealing with the document dated March 23. This is the mini-package that begins with G-5.5. Is that reasonably clear? When referring to the new small package, that is the March 16 package that begins with L-1.1 in the name of Mr. Jordan. So the new small package is L-1.1, dated March 16. The mini-package is the one dated March 23, with the government amendment G-5.5.

When we refer to the binder, then we mean the binder. That seems fairly straightforward.

Then to make things simpler and easier, there is also a new L-16.9.1 in the name of the member for Davenport, which looks like this. We will probably deal with it this morning in a proper sequence of amendments, and at that time I will ask one of the vice-chairmen to take the chair.

(On clause 68—Research investigation and evaluation)

The Chairman: We will start our prayers this morning with hymn 11.a, and that is to be found in the small package dated March 16. It's in the name of the member for York North, amendment L-13.13.0.

Would you like to move and introduce your amendment, Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to move this amendment. This amendment replaces the current subparagraphs 68(a)(i) to (x).

This amendment, Mr. Chair, encourages things like the precautionary principle and a weighted evidence approach. It also helps deal with endocrine-disrupting substances. As you can see, it talks about latent effects over the lifetime of an organism and this sort of thing. I would urge members on both sides of the table to support this amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Did the parliamentary secretary raise her hand, or was I misguided?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): You're never misguided, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I love to hear that, thank you, although it may not be correct. You're wrong once again. The parliamentary secretary is once again wrong.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

• 0855

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think Ms. Lloyd has had some input into this particular amendment, so we are quite comfortable with it.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Could you please turn to page 150 in the binder. We would very much like the presence of the member for Churchill River.

The Clerk of the Committee: He won't be here this morning, but he will try to be here this afternoon.

The Chairman: He will be here this afternoon.

The Clerk: Somebody from the NDP will be here this afternoon.

The Chairman: All right. We will then move to page 152, where we have the same situation.

(Clause 68 allowed to stand)

(On clause 342—Annual report)

We will move then to pages 21 and 22 in the mini-package, government amendment G-30.1.2. It's a negotiated amendment between Madam Kraft Sloan and the government.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What number is that again, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: We're on page 21 of the mini-package dated March 23. You would be wise to write mini-package on the package so that you will know.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Is there a Mickey package, a Mickey and a Minnie?

A voice: Where's Goofy?

The Chairman: The other one is called the new small package.

We require unanimous consent to reopen clause 342, which I assume is agreed to by the committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm happy to move government amendment 30.1.2, which affects clause 342. I think there might be a small wording change, for which we need to turn to Ms. Lloyd.

The Chairman: Fine.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): In subclause 342(2), as shown in the amendment, instead of saying in English “attach to”, it should say “include in”. It should say “The Minister shall include in the annual report”, and in French “Le ministre inclut dans le rapport”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? The friendly amendment is to the effect that on the first line of subclause 342(2), as shown in the amendment, the words “attach to” be replaced by the words “include in”, and the equivalent in French. Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 342 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Now comes the dramatic moment when the chair leaves the chair and invites one of the two vice-chairs to take his place. Mr. Gilmour, I take it you don't want to take the chair.

• 0900

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Is it possible to ask Mr. Cameron, who was supposed to check into clause 77, for his opinion as to what he checked and where we stand with this thing?

The Chairman: We will ask him.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Will I see him do that later?

The Chairman: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In the fullness of time.

The Chairman: It is on the list.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's a pregnant pause.

• 0901

• 0903

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): All right, we have an amendment in the name of Mr. Caccia from Davenport. Mr. Caccia, are you moving this amendment?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I'm referring to new L-16.9.1, and this has to do with an amendment to clause 329.

Mr. Charles Caccia: It's a package by itself.

A voice: A mini-package.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): It is a micro-package. And the only amendment in this package is the one being put forward by Mr. Caccia—the Honourable Mr. Caccia, actually.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The Honourable Sir Caccia.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): The Honourable HRH Caccia. Mr. Caccia, would you like to speak to this amendment?

• 0905

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you, Madam Chair and dear colleagues. A brief introduction to this amendment is necessary, and I will keep it short, of course.

I would like to invite you to cast your memory back to last June, when the Conservation Council of New Brunswick appeared before us and presented a brief on aquaculture. On that occasion, an analysis was put forward from an environmental point of view of the activities of the industry. That analysis was accompanied by a brief reference to the lack of resources in New Brunswick to overview the activities of industry in order to prevent damage to the ecosystem. You will recall that this particular presentation, which is on record of course, and which was rather disturbing—at least that's my recollection—was then followed by other submissions in September and October by industry, by the David Suzuki Foundation, and by the Minister of State.

It seems to me this is an issue we cannot overlook in our deliberations. The CEPA legislation comes before Parliament perhaps every 10 years—as at least this first round has shown. It was introduced and passed in 1988, and we are now in the 11th year, completing the review of that initial and—one must admit—rather pioneering legislation, even if it was done under the regime of the Conservative Party. It is now for us to decide whether we want to take this opportunity or not to bring under the roof of CEPA powers that exist in another piece of legislation, namely the Fisheries Act. Therefore, the amendment that is before you today is patterned exactly along section 36 of the Fisheries Act. It is taken from it word by word.

The Minister of the Environment presently does not have such powers. The Minister of the Environment, at present, has to turn to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in order to obtain action of this kind. In other words, a joint activity by the two ministers is required whereby the Minister of the Environment would have to turn to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to get his or her cooperation.

Now, it is a well-known fact that the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a dual one. It is to protect the habitat, but at the same time it also promotes harvesting activities. Therefore the two, at times, do come into conflict. Instead, the mandate of the Minister of the Environment is fairly clear and not dual, in that it is on the side of ecosystem protection, environmental protection, and of course of sustainable development, which means a protection of the resource for the long term. In a way, the mandate of the Minister of the Environment can be more than efficient, if interpreted in terms of sustainable development, than the current dual mandate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Therefore a case can be made, as I am attempting to do this morning, in favour of providing these powers outlined in proposed subclauses 329(1), 329(2), 329(3), and 329(4) to the Minister of the Environment, should there be a necessity to use them one day.

• 0910

It seems to me that one day has already come. I am suggesting to you that we have heard sufficiently in the evidence before this committee that this industry needs to be regulated like other industries, and it is to be regulated in its own interest, in order to function for the long term. The deleterious substances that are being reported every day, as you will recall from witnesses, cause great concern for a variety of reasons, and they include the drugs and pesticides that are being used, for instance, in order to eliminate lice in the body of the fish.

The experts in this field are even talking these days of the necessity of bringing this industry from water onto land, transferring aquaculture from its present habitat to firm land in order to prevent damage to the ground of the ocean and the coastline, and to prevent any escape of domestic salmon, in this case, into the open ocean.

I think we have been given evidence to the effect that the time is ripe for intervention by way of regulations. What is being proposed before you this morning is the following:

Proposed subclause 329(1), as it is in the package, simply creates a general prohibition on the deposition of deleterious substances that can have an impact on the health of the aquatic system. This is intended for either a direct deposit or activities that indirectly result in the substance entering water. For instance, you can have excess fish feed in the water that may be deleterious, or the sludge that accumulates beneath the pen. As described by witnesses, you can have the use of certain pesticides that may also be described as deleterious substances.

I invite you to move to proposed subclause 329(2), which simply creates the defence for the operators out there in the field, a defence from prosecution that may be initiated under proposed subclause 329(1).

I invite you then to move to proposed subclause 329(3), which is a standard clause that allows the minister to write regulations, and of course these regulations would concern the deposit of substances. They may deal with the types of substances, the places, the quantities, the concentration, the conditions, and the circumstances under which these substances are used.

I invite you to turn to proposed subclause 329(4), which simply allows the minister to direct or authorize certain persons to conduct tests and report the results, etc.

The amendment is then integrated or corroborated, if you like, with a definition of “deleterious substances” and some other definitions that are taken from the Fisheries Act, such as “fish”, “fish habitat”, “waters frequented by fish”, and so forth.

• 0915

So what I'm submitting to you for your consideration is a package taken in its entirety and with the same terminology, the same wording that exists presently in another act. I submit to you this morning that the political decision that needs to be made is very simply this: whether we see merit at this stage; having heard what we have from witnesses who appeared before the committee, whether the time has come to provide these powers to the Minister of the Environment as well.

I hope that explanation is adequate. I thank you very much for the opportunity, Madam Chair, and for the time that you've given me to make this presentation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will not be supporting these amendments for a number of reasons, the first being that CEPA is an umbrella regulation. We do not go particularly towards any industry, be it the chemical industry, or pulp and paper, or agriculture, for example, yet these amendments go directly to the aquaculture industry. I don't think that is in the spirit of CEPA; that's not the reason for this bill.

The Fisheries Act is one of the strongest acts in the Canadian legislature, and deleterious substances particularly are covered. Many of these areas within the amendment are already covered within the Fisheries Act, which, as I said, is a particularly strong act.

To suggest that the aquaculture industry is not regulated is a false statement, I think, because provincially it is well regulated. In my province, British Columbia, I have 26 fish farms in my riding on the west coast of Vancouver Island. They are well regulated both provincially and federally. As well, we heard the witnesses say that in the study, again done in B.C., a $1-million study of the industry, yes, there were some concerns, but many of these concerns are being sorted out.

Again, I will not be supporting these amendments because I feel the industry is well regulated, and in fact these amendments would do damage to the industry and are not in the spirit of CEPA, of being a broad umbrella approach to all industries and not going after one particular industry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was a little bit surprised to receive this here this morning. Reading it carefully, as quickly as I can, and at the same time listening to the proposer, I'm aware that there have been some changes since this amendment was originally put forward. I would like to have had the opportunity to read those in advance of the meeting. So that's one item.

Secondly, I too listened with alarm to some of the evidence that was brought forward to the committee and would like more information. I would like to have perhaps an opportunity to consider the industry within a broader framework, to look at what the dilemmas are, to look at what is being done. I'm not totally cognizant of all of the regulations. I certainly have grave concerns as a result of what I've heard. I have not heard enough.

So I make those two points at this time in the discussion, Madam Chair. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Does anyone else want to speak on this? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I want to go back to what we heard at the committee hearings, and I would like to quote from a paper that was produced at the time, written by several experts from the policy forum of Science magazine's “Science's Compass”, entitled “Nature's Subsidies to Shrimp and Salmon Farming”, October 30, 1998. I noticed in there that they quote these figures:

The Nordic salmon farming industry discharges quantities of nitrogen and phosphorous equivalent to the amounts in untreated sewage from a population of 3.9 and 1.7 million people, respectively.

• 0920

Then there were the articles about the fish farming Atlantic salmon in B.C. where B. C. was considering another moratorium because juvenile Atlantic salmon were discovered in the Tutizika River this summer, prompting an extensive investigation.

Then there was the report from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, which appeared before us. They said that in some pens growing large numbers of fish together—as many as 300,000 per site is now common, some sites are even bigger—and with tough competition for food, stress is making the fish more vulnerable to disease.

As an example of what's happening, they noted that the most recent disease problem to hit New Brunswick is infectious salmon anemia, a fatal virus that has now infected one-quarter of the salmon farms. In December 1997 the New Brunswick government ordered the slaughter of all clinically infected fish in the 1997 year class. Infected 1996 fish are being harvested early and marketed. Health Canada says the virus poses no human health risk, of course. As of February 19, 1998, 202,000 fish have been slaughtered and a million more remain in the water to be killed. And when I ask the New Brunswick agriculture people when they appeared, they said actually they'd slaughtered a million fish.

What I find disturbing for us, as members of the public, is that I happen to eat a lot of fish and now I'm wondering when I eat fish whether it's farmed fish or natural fish, and whether it's farmed fish that is part of the stuff that is infected and being harvested early and that Health Canada assured us poses no human health risk. Of course, so many things never posed any human health risk, like DDT and all kinds of other things, until it was too late. And I'm wondering what happens. If we don't do anything about it, who does and when? We say this is highly regulated. Maybe it might be in B.C., but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case in other places where obviously, according to all the reports we're seeing and according to the research made by our own experts in the Library of Parliament, there seem to be a huge number of problems kicking around.

Those fish are not labelled. We don't know, for instance, when we eat the fish what kind of fish we're eating, whether it's farmed fish from New Brunswick or B.C., or wherever, whether it's land-cultivated fish or costal cultivated fish, or whether it's been infected by pesticides. I saw a report yesterday from the Ministry of Health that said they were applying pesticides to kill the lice on the fish. But then the officials had assured the Ministry of Health that although they use that pesticide to kill the lice on the fish, it didn't affect the fish, so it affected only the lice.

I must say I remain a skeptic and I find there are a huge number of question marks in the question of fish farming in costal areas, which by all documentation we received and what we heard in the committee is a very serious business. I wonder what will happen if we don't take advantage of this opportunity when it comes and when we can federally do something about better control of the industry.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Herron.

• 0925

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): The testimony we heard over the last number of months, even beginning back in June, which raised concerns about some of the processes related to the fish farming industry, I think warranted the committee's attention. I think we did the process a bit of a service to actually hear witnesses from both sides of the spectrum.

Having said that, though, my concern is that—and to use a word that Madam Carroll used—I think ultimately what the fish farming industry needs is a more focused framework related to the aquaculture industry.

I think it can be said that the industry is heavily regulated today, but it may not be necessarily well regulated. I think it would be more prudent for this particular industry to be studied independently, and for legislation to be brought forward independently to address it, as opposed to capturing the concerns within the more omnibus approach of CEPA.

Now, I was incorrect when I said we heard from witnesses that CEPA had not been used to manage any one particular industry. I know that for the pulp and paper industry it was determined at the time that CEPA would be the best vehicle for us to regulate some of the toxins that are produced from pulp and paper. But I'm not so sure we've done enough homework to actually believe CEPA is the best place to regulate this particular industry.

So I have concerns. One is that from a jurisdictional perspective I think our British Columbia and New Brunswick partners really have to have a collaborative say, a contribution, in regulating that particular industry, given they're the two principal provinces that come into play. And I don't think it's the case. I wouldn't necessarily say we were doing this unilaterally, because we have tried to have some due process, but I think our provincial cousins need to have more collaboration. I have a jurisdictional concern in that regard.

I also think we really have to take a more prudent look at this particular industry in developing a framework for it in terms of how this industry can thrive in the future while ensuring the environment is protected as well. I think it would be more prudent for the committee to encourage the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries to visit this issue and establish a proper framework and not to do it under CEPA.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Madam Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): What Mr. Lincoln said is really worrisome. We heard about things that are really uncommon. We did not think it could exist in that field. I think it is a little too early. We head the commissioner for aquaculture. This is a shared jurisdiction with provinces. In fact there are agreements between the federal and provincial governments. As we heard, those agreements must be updated. They must be adopted to the year 2000 situation.

We also have a proposal from the committee on fisheries who would like to strike a subcommittee on aquaculture. I think it would be a good thing to do before taking the actions proposed by Mr. Caccia. They might seem legitimate to him because he had very worrying information. As for me, I think that this very rapidly evolving area should be studied further. The industry needs a niche; it needs expanding in the direction of aquaculture. But everything is not set and we do not have all the necessary components to make a decision along that line.

I would therefore prefer to wait, to get ready, to better position ourselves. Before making a decision, we will have to hear witnesses and get satisfactory answers. We must ask the commissioner for aquaculture to come and give us information on what he is going to do and what action he is going to take to improve the federal-provincial agreements.

• 0930

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank your, madam Girard-Bujold. Mr. Charbonneau, please.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam Chair, we heard evidence to the effect that the situation was rather bad under the management of Fisheries and Oceans, but we also know that the Department of the Environment did not really prove it had the means to take charge of that management.

I will ask a first question. I would like the officials from the Department of the Environment to tell us what changes the jurisdictional transfer to that department will bring. What resources would they have to use in order to better discharge that responsibility than we did in the past?

My second question, Madam Chair, is along the line of Mr. Gilmour's argument. He told us that, as he understands it, the Environmental Protection Act is an umbrella legislation and that the transfer of such responsibility to the Department of the Environment would be a unique occurrence. He says that the other industries are not particularly affected. It would be a specific case.

Could we ask Mr. Moffet or Ms. Hébert, who have a more comprehensive idea of the bill and of all its implications, if this opinion is valid or if other industries would be affected by the Environmental Protection Act?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Ms. Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Researcher for the Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Charbonneau, quite obviously CEPA is an umbrella legislation which does however affect some specific industries. More precisely, the chemical industry. CEPA regulates toxics and therefore the chemical industry as well as the petroleum industry, the nutrients industry and the cleaning products industry which use substances that are regulated in that part of the act. We also have the pulp and paper industry as well as the motor vehicle industry since part 5 of the bill will from now on be able to regulate the emissions from vehicles, engines and equipment.

Several industries are therefore specifically affected by a possible regulation of CEPA.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Are there other questions?

[English]

You wanted a response from one the officials, Mr. Charbonneau?

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): Sorry, Madam Chair, if I could reminded of the specific question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I asked the officials from the Department of the Environment what impact this new responsibility will have on the department. We heard witnesses who gave evidence that the Department of the Environment was terribly lacking resources to take up those responsibilities across Canada. A few dozen persons only have to see to the implementation of all the legislation and regulations. We also realized that Fisheries and Oceans was not really monitoring the situation. The officials from that department do not seem better equipped or in a better position to take on those responsibilities.

I wanted the officials from the Department of the Environment to tell me what means the department is going to implement to take on such a responsibility. What changes and what new resources does that mean so that we have an idea of the impact on the department of taking on that responsibility?

• 0935

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I find it a very difficult question to answer. With CEPA 1988, and the assumed passage of Bill C-32, we know there was a specific line item in the budget for $40-million-plus over three years in order to help us discharge our responsibilities under what we anticipate will be the new act.

In my view, in any discussion that I've been in, this amendment is unanticipated. I think there would be resource pressures. If my advice were carried in the department, I would be looking for new moneys, because I don't believe we could undertake this under the current resource phase.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Harvey, just to put it on the record, I understand that aquaculture would be a new industry, but I think it should be clear that the Minister of the Environment is already responsible for the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. There's already a delegation to the department, isn't that correct?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: We are responsible for the enforcement of section 36 of the Fisheries Act, yes, that is correct.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Are there other questions?

Ms. Carroll.

[English]

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm listening very closely, and from my perspective I think it's a very large issue. I think it's one that deserves considerable attention. Certainly when the people came forward on both sides of this issue, the commissioner for aquaculture joined us the same day. My sense was that he realized that this member of the committee, and the committee generally, had considerable concerns about this industry. From my perspective, as I said to him—and I'd like to put it on record again—I was reading his job criteria as promoting an industry within the confines of a department that doesn't have the same job to do as Environment has. That's poorly put, but it says what I mean.

What I'm doing today is putting on the record strong concerns, strong reservations about this industry. I think it deserves considerable attention from our perspective, perhaps in the context that Mr. Herron mentioned as well. I know we are monitored here by many industries, aquaculture being one of them, and I would like them to know that the evidence brought forward has raised considerable concern with many of us. At the same time, I think this response perhaps is more limited, rather than being as broad as I would have the study be.

So while I won't support the amendment, I do want it to be on record that I have a lot of questions that I would like addressed in future on the matter of this industry in Canada, and how it's conducted.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Ms. Carroll.

Are there other questions? Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Through you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank my colleagues for their interventions, and I provide the following answers.

To those who feel this is an attempt to go after one specific industry, and one particular industry only, I would like to summarize what has already been said by Ms. Hébert. CEPA regulates pulp and paper; it regulates vehicle emissions, and therefore the motor vehicle industry; it regulates nutrients; it regulates fuels, and therefore the petroleum industry; it regulates toxics, and therefore the chemical industry. So there is a wide range that has to be taken into account as the objective for CEPA in terms of preventing pollution and in terms of protecting human health.

In relation to those who said there hadn't been enough time to study this amendment, I would like to say to Ms. Carroll that this amendment has been available for some time in the form in which I introduced it this morning. We have had some time to examine it or to digest it, if you like. It is therefore not a new amendment. It has been in the binder for some time.

• 0940

More importantly, I would like to make the following observation: On the basis of a chart that deals with the regulatory framework for aquaculture, it is interesting to notice that there is no regulatory framework for aquaculture in five provinces, and they are P.E.I., then Ontario—which has nothing going on—Quebec, Newfoundland and Manitoba.

As for the British Columbia regulatory system, which does exist, it is not the strongest in the world. There have been six charges laid against those who were operating without a licence, two for failure to report escapes, two for processing without a licence, and seven for violating the terms of a lease.

But none deals with the key, central and troubling question of discharges and of deleterious substances. It's the deleterious substances that are our concern, and it would not be very wise to hope that sometime, somewhere, someone else will take the initiative, when this committee has this opportunity to take an action today in the face of a situation that is deteriorating from day to day. It is not improving. At least, we haven't seen any evidence to that effect.

You will recall that we had to ask the commissioner of aquaculture about what has been done in the implementation of the bullet in the plan, the bullet that deals with environmental protection. We were told this is somewhere in the making. This is four years after the production of that specific document. Evidently environmental protection is, at the present time at least, not at the top of the preoccupations in that department.

So the provincial legislation leaves much to be desired. Section 36 under the Fisheries Act is not being invoked. Thirdly, we have the opportunity to give the Minister of the Environment, if she wishes to do so, the opportunity to take action, and to provide her with the powers that exist already—not one word more and not one word less—in the Fisheries Act. It is exactly the mirror wording, the mirror text.

As to the question of resource pressures by Mr. Lerer, yes, there would be an impact on the department, in reply to Mr. Charbonneau's question. But there is also such a thing called supplementary estimates, as we probably know. Therefore, if this particular responsibility were to be also given to the Department of the Environment through supplementary estimates, and if the minister were to decide to write regulations—which is not something that happens overnight; actually it is a very lengthy and cumbersome procedure, although we already have the matrix set by the Fisheries Act—this would certainly be easily taken care of in the fall, at the time of supplementary estimates.

To conclude, I think the merits of the federal regulations, as proposed through this amendment, are that they are clear, they are simple, and they deal with the question of deleterious substances. Of course, one can decide to postpone action to another day, but let me tell you that we are sitting on a time bomb here, dear colleagues. Sooner or later, something will have to be done. It is not being done by the provinces.

• 0945

All constitutional experts agree fish are a federal responsibility, and we have to discharge that responsibility as well. We are being exposed to the experience of hearing what goes on in that particular field, and it seems to me that we have a responsibility—or at least an opportunity—to take action that is within our reach as parliamentarians, as legislators and as concerned citizens.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I defer to Monsieur Charbonneau.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Supposing that amendment is carried, would the Fisheries Act be automatically amended so that such provision would be erased from the other act or would it appear in both acts? What would happen on the legal side and which provision would supersede the other if they appear in both acts?

Mr. Charles Caccia: With your permission, Madam Chair, I would like to answer. This is a very important question. The provision will remain in both acts. The Fisheries Act will not be amended but we would have the situation where two departments instead of one would have the authority to take the necessary initiatives.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do we have precedents and if yes, how will that work? Do we already have that kind of situation where two ministers have exactly the same authority through two different acts? I would like those who know to tell us. Let's suppose one minister wants to act but not the other, what happens then and who solves the problem?

Mr. Charles Caccia: This is also a very important question. This is a pioneer situation. This is a unique precedent; I do not know of any other comparable situation. That initiative came from a situation that was discovered in the course of our committee work.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My question goes to the sponsor of the proposal. Why is he not proposing the transfer since that seemed to be the initial intention? We realized that Fisheries and Oceans was not really taking care of it. The basic idea was that if we transfer that responsibility to Environment, there would be more consistency. But then we find out that both will anyway have that responsibility.

If one of them wants to act and the other does not agree, will the departments fight between themselves instead of cleaning the aquaculture pens? What will happen?

Mr. Charles Caccia: This really amounts to a transfer since from the moment the minister of the Environment will take on that responsibility, it will not be necessary anymore for the minister of Fisheries and Oceans to implement section 36. In another committee, Parliament could revoke or suppress section 36 of the Fisheries Act.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Are there any other questions, or are we ready to call the question?

I'm sorry, Mr. Forseth. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you. I'd like to ask Mr. Caccia one question, and I'd like the parliamentary secretary to comment after that.

• 0950

The overall amendments...I'm wondering what the additional cost implications of that are. Does that violate the original designation of the recommendation at the beginning of the bill? There's a recommendation that His Excellency, the Governor in Council, recommend that the House of Commons appropriate the public funds.... This particular amendment may involve a substantial increase in cost. Does it fall outside the original designation of the bill? If I could have an answer to that, I would then like some comments from the parliamentary secretary about her attitude about the wisdom of adopting this particular section.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I'm sorry. Who were you directing the first question to?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia: I cannot comment on the permissiveness of this amendment because this is a matter that is under the jurisdiction of the clerk and the chair to determine whether this amendment is in order. Therefore I cannot comment on that question.

As to the costs that could be involved, I would imagine that once the regulations have been written that would suit the particular industry, and of course in cooperation with industry because this cannot be done in isolation, and in the interest of industry as well, if an allocation is required, it would be done at the appropriate time when the expenditure would be necessary. This could easily take six months, if not one year, and possibly it would be a matter that would be included in the next estimates.

So this is a process that is projected into the future and not one that comes into effect instantly.

I hope I've answered Mr. Forseth's question, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The parliamentary secretary?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think the limited testimony we did hear suggested that the industry is in need of further review. It is my understanding that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have requested that there be a joint committee to study further what is going on and what changes need to be implemented to achieve the best possible health and environment for all Canadians. This, I think as the member has suggested, is straight out of the Fisheries Act, which already has this power to make these changes or to implement regulations based on their powers. So as somebody who has spoken out repeatedly against duplication, I would not be in favour of these amendments.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I harbour no illusions about the fate of this amendment, but I find it funny that in CEPA, whenever an environmental issue touches another ministry, they absolutely enshrine in that consultation with other ministries, and that residuality is an issue we've been dealing with.

Here's an issue where very clearly under the Fisheries Act it has a direct environmental component, but they don't want Environment even close to it. They don't want Environment written in. All of a sudden consultation makes no sense. Cooperation isn't needed. It's a very strange set of circumstances.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Madam Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I agree with Mr. Caccia that we will have to innovate and create precedents, but do we really have to create them right away? I think that this is important. As I was saying a moment ago, it is important and we should not put it off indefinitely. We are well aware of certain facts and it is important to act in the aquaculture area.

I think that it is also important to answer positively to the request from the two committees and to strike a subcommittee that could act rapidly. Mr. Caccia's amendments will perhaps be tabled with that committee where they will stand better chances of being carried. I think that it is a little early now. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Madam Chair, I think that Madam Girard-Bujold went to the crux of the matter. We must act now and not postpone indefinitely. It is a choice Madam Girard-Bujold can make today. The situation is serious. If the amendment is carried, we will need a lot of time to implement it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 0955

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): Madam Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Sorry, Madam Chair, but I do not want to postpone this issue indefinitely. On the contrary, Mr. Caccia, I want us to have all the necessary elements in order to deal expeditiously with this problem even at the risk of having our amendments carried by the joint committee on fisheries and environment. I think we do not yet have all the necessary elements. I do not want to postpone it indefinitely. On the contrary, Mr. Caccia. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 3)

The Vice-Chairman (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Now that the motion is defeated, I must say that there are some people who had reservations. I had a reservation about duplication in the two acts as well.

I think it's been a worthwhile discussion, but I would like to ask that the committee convey to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in connection with Madame Girard-Bujold's request, that a subcommittee be struck immediately so that we don't leave this thing going on and on. If there's a subcommittee to be formed, it's a question that is pressing and we could do it almost right away.

The Vice-Chairman (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: If I could just say ditto to those comments, I would like that on the record. We should be striking this committee. We should be looking at all aspects and giving a very fair and broad look to all proponents and opponents. Let's bring attention to this and see if we can help.

The Vice-Chairman (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's my understanding that the fisheries and oceans committee has already passed a motion to establish such a committee, so it's up to us at this point.

The Vice-Chairman (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: One of the questions I was going to ask the parliamentary secretary was that she made allusion before that there would likely be some form of a joint committee?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's up to us. The fisheries and oceans committee has already indicated they want to do that, and the two ministers have already sent a letter to this committee indicating that they believe some important issues were raised and that such a committee is necessary.

Mr. John Herron: May I ask, through you, Madam Chair, is there any kind of a timeframe that the ministers had thought about?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Immediately.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I suggest that the Committee on environment be an integral part of the joint committee requested by the Committee on fisheries for the study of aquaculture. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): It's my understanding that there is not a motion before the committee, that this was just discussion for the record, and we can follow this up at a later date.

We will be changing horses in midstream.

The Chairman: Let me say that I appreciate very much the time that has been given to the examination and the discussion of this committee. I appreciate very much every intervention and what has been said. We have at least put the issue, so to say, in the committee's collective memory.

• 1000

(On clause 116—Definitions)

The Chairman: I would now like to urge that we continue our work by moving to the next amendment, on page 24 of the new small package, dated March 16. We probably have some 25 minutes before a vote, but we can do some good work. This is a motion on the part of Mr. Herron, amendment PC-18.0.1.

Mr. Herron, would you like to introduce your amendment now?

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I have one brief moment?

Mr. Chair, do you have an amendment before mine as well?

The Chairman: My amendment has been wiped out by the vote, as far as—

Mr. John Herron: Amendment L-15.6.1.

The Chairman: For the information of the members, I'm not moving amendments 116 to 119, and that is why I'm calling your amendment, Mr. Herron, because I think you have a major contribution to make to this particular section of the bill.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I'm not going to necessarily move the motion just yet. I want to open up some dialogue with it.

Essentially this motion reverts this section back to the CEPA 1988 format. As Bill C-32 is currently drafted, the CEPA 1988 version would have a broader scope than what is more narrowly defined under “nutrient” in the current version of Bill C-32. If I were to move it, I would be deleting at the end of paragraph (b) the words “that is useful to human beings.”

But I would like to ask Madame Hébert and Mr. Moffet, and maybe some of the officials, what their thoughts would be if this amendment were to be moved and passed.

The Chairman: What would you like to know?

Mr. John Herron: In terms of the actual scope of the definition versus what's currently in Bill C-32....

The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Mongrain can answer that question.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): Yes, I'll have the first crack at it, if you wish.

There are two things that have been done to the nutrient section. One was to incorporate an ecosystem approach, as recommended by this committee in its report, It's About Our Health!. When we were doing that and when we were drafting the definition of “nutrient” based on what was in the existing act, we recognized that a lot of the provisions there more appropriately belonged in a regulatory section, and so we moved them down to clause 118.

• 1005

Another way of saying it is that we left in the definition of “nutrient” those matters that were appropriate to a definition section, and simply moved the additional information and provisions in detail to the chapeau, or the head, of clause 118, which provides for the making of regulations. So as I understand it, it was simply a question of drafting.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: More specifically, would you consider the version of CEPA 1988 to have the capacity to capture fish feed as well?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, the provisions in Bill C-32 are based on the provisions in the existing act, CEPA 1988. The change that has been made is that we have incorporated an ecosystem approach to it. I do not believe either provision could specifically be used to address fish feed.

The Chairman: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...conclusion here at the table.

Mr. Herron or Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, I look at the definition in CEPA 1988 and in CEPA 1974 and in Bill C-32. The difference is that you have used the top portion of the definition and left out the negative portions of it. Yet it seems to me that a law is supposed to signal an intention; it's supposed to signal a feeling as well. The two subsections that were dropped from CEPA 1988, especially in the light of the discussion we had this morning, seem essential to me.

For instance, what you have dropped out in there is “of such densities”. In other words, what we say is that they provide “growth of aquatic vegetation in those waters”, but when the densities are such as to “interfere with their use by human beings or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to human beings,” or “degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of those waters to an extent that is detrimental to their use by human beings or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to human beings”...it's the very thing we were discussing this morning.

That is really what is happening, and I wonder what is a good reason for leaving these qualifiers out when you talk about densities and volume.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Mongrain?

The Chairman: We will have the explanation, and then I will recognize the next speaker.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Fine.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, we didn't drop those from the nutrient provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b). We simply moved them down to clause 118, into the regulatory authority.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: There was authority in CEPA 1988, as well, to make regulations. You are defining what nutrient is there. What is wrong with Mr. Herron's approach and the approach in CEPA 1988 of actually leaving this in the definition? Could it do any harm to leave it in the definition? I realize you have it in clause 118, but what harm would it do to leave it there?

• 1010

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Lincoln's question, I don't think it's a question of harm. I think it's a question of drafting simplicity, and what we have done here is along the same lines as what was in CEPA 1988.

We have a regulation-making authority with respect to nutrients, but instead of having a narrow definition of nutrient, we've broadened the definition of nutrient to take out the issue of deposit and concentration and so forth, broadened it to a very broad degree and in clause 118 indicated the types of regulations we will be making; namely, regulations with respect to preventing or reducing aquatic vegetation.

In other words, it's a purely stylistic drafting change that has been made, but it's one that simplifies, clarifies and, frankly, from a legal point of view, makes it easier to follow. It's not a question of harm. It's not a question of whether it's better. It's just a question of a different approach that we believe is clearer.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: For Mr. Herron's information, if you look at his amendment and assume there are three paragraphs—the first three or four lines are the first paragraph—that's covered, starting on line 26 of the bill. The next one's on line 29 and the third one is on line 31 of page 84 of the bill. So the concepts are already incorporated in the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, if I might add, incorporated into the regulations in Bill C-32 is the pollution prevention concept. If you read what the regulations are for, they're for preventing or reducing the growth. We're taking that preventive orientation to nutrients.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, are you ready to move something? We are operating in a vacuum now.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, sir. I'd like to move amendment PC-18.0.1, but I'd like to amend it as follows: by striking out paragraph (a) altogether and by eliminating the words “that is useful to human beings” in paragraph (b).

The Chairman: You're not moving, in your amendment, paragraph (a) in its entirety, and in paragraph (b) you are deleting all the words after “plant” on the fifth line. Is that correct?

Mr. John Herron: That's correct.

The Chairman: Fine.

So then the letter b becomes letter a probably, or is just left without any identification. Is that all right?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you want to further elaborate on your amendment?

Mr. John Herron: No.

The Chairman: It's self-explanatory?

Madam Torsney, then Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

I will not be supporting this amendment for two reasons: one, because the concepts are already covered in clause 118; and two, because they're actually covered, I think, better in clause 118, and that is to focus on prevention and the precautionary principle, and it would be unnecessary and perhaps not even achieve the objectives that some members might want in this amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I was for a broader definition of nutrient, but after listening to Mr. Mongrain and Mr. Cameron, I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't really help, and that the definition in clause 118 is broad enough to capture what we want. So I think it could be just contradictory in a way.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Madam Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but we do not have the same writing in French and in English. In French, we do not have

[English]

useful for human beings.

[Translation]

He wants to delete it in English.

• 1015

I am in a very difficult position to decide how I am going to vote, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Madam Girard-Bujold, in French, it says "l'utilisation nocive pour l'homme".

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, "l'utilisation nocive pour l'homme ou pour les animaux ou plantes utiles à celui-ci."

The Chairman: We have useful to human beings in English.

Ms. Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I believe that it says "utiles à celui-ci", Madam, which means "utiles à l'homme".

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Herron, to conclude.

Mr. John Herron: I was trying to keep this amendment alive because by striking “that is useful to human beings”...that was recommendation number 67 in It's About Our Health!.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clauses 116 to 119 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 122—Definitions)

The Chairman: Mini-package, page 12, please. It's a government amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'm happy to move government amendment, not numbered, to clause 85, which, as you've mentioned, appears on page 12 in the March 16 book.

The Chairman: No, no. It is numbered. It is the mini-package dated March 23, page 12, amendment G-13.1.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: This is an amendment to clause 122, which reflects a debate we had the other day on this clause, and it's only an amendment to the French language. We were having some issues related to “a disposal that is incidental to or derived from the normal operations of a ship”. It was found that the French language used was not....

Mr. Duncan Cameron: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, sorry, right. This amendment is being proposed following the debate we had the other day. It's up to the committee whether, after some discussion, you prefer the language that's currently in the bill or this language. We've offered it because there was some debate and some concern, and it's up to committee members whether you think it's more helpful or you want the current language, based on the debate we had.

The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Cameron can be more explicit here. What is the better approach?

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

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that there was a question raised, I believe, at the last session as to whether the French properly reflected the concept of “incidental”. At your request, I consulted the drafters on this and they explained to me that they believe the term “résultant” dans la version française is the correct term to use. “Résultant” is the equivalent term for “incidental to”. However, to facilitate the wishes of this committee, I requested—

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, it's not a question of pleasing the committee. The question is, which of the two versions is the most desirable, the most appropriate to meet the purpose?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: We believe we got it right the first time, sir.

The Chairman: We're not here conducting a minuet. We are here passing legislation. Which of the two versions are you proposing? Is there an amendment before us or not? If it is before us, it means the government feels this is preferable. If it is not, then we don't have an amendment before us. But the government has to make up its mind. Which of the two?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It just goes to show that flexibility sometimes doesn't get you anywhere, does it?

• 1020

We believe it was correct the first time. However, the committee requested that we go back and come up with some options. Those options are before you.

The Chairman: Fine. Which is the option that you are proposing?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We like the current bill.

The Chairman: Fine. Then have you moved this amendment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: In fact, I did move the amendment, so in keeping with proper procedure, people can either vote for it or against it, as they wish.

The Chairman: Then it becomes a linguistic examination. Which of the two versions is preferable? Any comments, questions?

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Since the committee seems to be at a loss for words for a change, I wouldn't mind hearing the response of Madame Hébert to that. Which one do you prefer?

Ms. Monique Hébert: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I just mentioned to you, the debate is getting so finite here that one really needs a linguist. I don't think my law degree helps much at this point. All I know is that if the government goes ahead with this proposed amendment in the mini-package, which refers to, in the French version

[Translation]

les rejets directs ou indirects,

[English]

I wonder whether that now reflects the English version. I don't know which is the best.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Let's be clear on what happened at the last meeting. We think the bill reflected in English and French...that it was equivalent. Somehow we changed channels here. We were fine in the first place. This committee, after debating those specific lines and the use in French, asked for us to come back with another option. We think it was fine in the current bill. This committee, after a debate, a linguistic debate perhaps, asked for some options. We have presented those options. Surely if we were able to have a debate last time with linguistic options, we could have the debate again. It didn't seem to hold anyone back last time, whether it was within their skill area or not.

Perhaps Madame Girard-Bujold would give us the benefit of her comments.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, in French, in order to have a result, you have to have an action. That's what is meant here. We are talking about "rejets directs ou indirects provenant". The term "résultant" or the words "directs ou indirects" mean the same thing to me. Actions have been taken.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Madam Girard-Bujold, the difference between the last time we discussed it and today is that Mr. Cameron has been told by the law clerk that "provenant" and "résultant" do the same thing. I therefore believe that we should leave it as it is.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, it's better that way. There is no need to change it. It means the same thing, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Does the committee wish to leave the bill in its form?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, Mr. Chair, listening to this debate, I would seek unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.

The Chairman: Is there consent to withdraw the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion withdrawn)

(Clause 122 agreed to)

(On clause 166—Determination of international air pollution)

The Chairman: In the same book, would you please turn to page 13? It's a government amendment. This amendment is identical to Mr. Gilmour's motion, R-17 and is perhaps an enriched or enlightened amendment.

Madam Torsney.

• 1025

Ms. Paddy Torsney: When we were reviewing Mr. Gilmour's amendment we had a long discussion about whether “any” would be better or “the” would be better, and whether the English and the French were equivalent. So it is my pleasure to move G-14.0.1, which as you say is identical to Mr. Gilmour's amendment.

The word “the” is appropriate in the singular and the plural, so if we are in a situation where a provincial government is responsible and there could be overlapping jurisdiction with an aboriginal government, the word “the” could mean all of the governments or one of the governments.

So we think we have covered the issue Mr. Gilmour has raised, and this is the way to solve the problem.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'm just delighted the government has seen the light.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We are now in the new small package that starts with L-1 in Mr. Jordan's name, page 33. The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to move the new G-14.1. It affects lines 2 to 4 on page 118 in clause 166. It's consequential to allowing pollution prevention with regard to international air. It's consequential to a previous amendment.

The Chairman: It's quite a departure from the original subclause 166(3). It proposes a dual action under (a) and (b), and (a) is broken down into a further (a) and (b).

Could Mr. Mongrain explain the substance of this amendment?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Certainly, Mr. Chair. The committee amended clause 56 to allow the minister to require that pollution prevention plans be prepared for Canadian sources of international air pollution. This is a corresponding amendment to close the loop, so the authority exists in clause 166.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The previous amendment on clause 56 was on pages 116 and 117 in your big binders. It was G-5.3.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We have only seven or eight minutes for the vote, so we will resume right after the vote in this room. This meeting is temporarily adjourned.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I just want to make reference to a discussion we had when we met last week. We made some analogies about the labour and delivery that is going on here as we attempt to bring forward good legislation. There was a bit of joking about another delivery of Mr. Cameron. In that regard, Mr. Chair, I thought it might be nice, since I was the one doing the teasing, to send a little gift along.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

• 1030

• 1109

The Chairman: Please turn to page 19 of the mini-package dated March 23, G-30.1.1. It's an amendment to clause 330.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, can we stand clause 330 until this afternoon, please?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I thought we were finishing this morning.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, it doesn't look like we're going to, so if we can come back to clause 330 in the afternoon....

The Chairman: Page 19, this amendment is stood.

• 1110

(On clause 332—Publication of proposed orders and regulations)

The Chairman: We'll now move to page 376 of the binder, to amendment L-16.11 in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Could we have someone move it on your behalf? Mr. Jordan, thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you look at subclause 332(1), this amendment would delete, on lines 5 and 6, “an order referred to in subsection 81(9) or 106(9)” and read “a list or an amendment to a list referred to in section 66, 87, 105 or 112”.

The clause now reads that the minister shall publish in the Canada Gazette a copy of every order or regulation proposed that she or the Governor in Council makes under the act, except orders under subclause 89(9) or subclause 106(9)—106(9) being biotech and 81(9) being new substances. So the gist of the amendment would be to not exempt subclauses 81(9) and 106(9) from the publication.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Of course, this would be consequential to the amendments already made, because we deleted subclauses 81(9) and 106(9). So obviously we would be in support of this since those two subclauses have fallen away.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like to ask Ms. Hébert what impact the deletion of "except an order referred to in subsection 81(9) or 106(9)" has. How does that improve the bill?

The Chairman: Madam Hébert, please.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Madam, we changed the two paragraphs. If something has been changed earlier in the bill, we have to make that same change elsewhere in the bill. It's a matter of consistency. Since we made a change earlier, we have to change that subsequent part of the bill accordingly.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Hébert.

Are there other questions?

• 1115

(Amendment agreed to)

[English]

The Chairman: Next on page 377 is an amendment in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move this in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

The Chairman: This is moved by Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Subclause 332(4) refers to subclause 81(9) and subclause 106(9). It says: “subsection (1) does not require a copy of an order proposed to be made under subclause 81(9) or 106(9)...” and is very much in the same vein as the first one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Section 332 as amended agreed to)

[English]

The Chairman: On page 40 of the March 16 small package you will find schedule 3. It is preceded by schedule 2, which has no amendments or changes. Therefore I will call for the adoption of schedule 2 before we go to schedule 3. Schedule 2 is on page 220 of the bill.

I wonder if Mr. Gallaway would like to receive a copy of the bill in case he feels abandoned by the committee.

(Schedule 2 agreed to)

The Chairman: Schedule 3 is now before the committee.

Ms. Torsney.

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

I would be happy to move G-31.1, which replaces the schedule 3 that's currently in the bill. As we discussed when we passed the amendments in clauses 100 to 103 related to prior informed consent, the schedule that appears in your bill was drafted before the prior informed consent convention was completed. In fact that convention has three parts, as reflected in this presentation to you on page 40 of the small package.

• 1120

The Chairman: We will proceed in an orderly fashion. You have part 1, the list of prohibited substances. Are there any questions or comments?

We have part 2, the list of substances requiring export notification. It is now called “substances subject to notification or consent”. What is the difference between the two titles now?

Mr. Lerer, there is a change in title. Perhaps an explanation might be in place.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. The list is completely different in that the division into three parts is completely different, and it's reflective of the convention itself and the process by which substances move between countries that have signed and ratified the convention. So this is all about making sure we can implement that convention. And in some cases we need to get prior informed consent from those countries that would be receiving the goods being exported from Canada.

The Chairman: I understand that, but why is the title “requiring export notification” being deleted?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Because it's reflective of how the actual convention is—

The Chairman: No, I'm sorry, but that does not explain why. I'm sorry, that's not an adequate explanation.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The words “requiring export notification” are the same thing as “subject to notification or consent”. I don't understand what your question is.

The Chairman: One thing is to have a part that deals with notification or consent. Another is to deal with substances requiring export notification. The notion of export has been dropped; hence the question: why has it been dropped?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If you go to the title of the new schedule 3, amendment G-31.1, it is entitled “export control list”, and then it's divided into three sections.

The Chairman: I realize that.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: And in that export control list, according to the obligations under the PIC convention—the prior informed consent convention or protocol—there are three parts, and they are listed as prohibited substances, substances prohibited in Canada.

Part 2 is those substances subject to notification or consent under that protocol. And the third part is a listing of restricted substances in Canada.

So in terms of your specific question, in the old schedule 3, there is the list of prohibited substances and the list of substances requiring export notification. What we've done is constructed a list that we've entitled “export control list” with those three separate categories.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could you tell me, Mr. Lerer, just as a matter of curiosity, why some of the substances appearing in the previous part 2 of schedule 3, for instance numbers 1 and 15, are not found in the same appellation or description under this part 2? Perhaps you could tell us the reason that this is so. They are chlorobiphenyls and bromochlorodifluoromethane.

• 1125

The Chairman: Some of them have been put in the new part 3. Is that the reason?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, they are in part 3. In the one that you chatted about, the export is prohibited; therefore it isn't subject to any consent provisions or prior notification provisions here.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Lerer, perhaps you could also explain this change from schedule 3, part 2, item 11 in the bill, where dieldrin is listed with quite a series of numbers following, which are of a technical nature, I suppose. In the new version, the one before us today, dieldrin is referred to with only CAS 60-57-1. Does that mean this reflects exactly the same meaning as item 11 in the bill? In other words, why is there a change from a very long list of numbers to a very short series of numbers in brackets? Is there a reason for that, and if so, what is it?

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On the top of page 41 in English—en français, c'est à la page 44—there is a reference to how the chemical abstract services registry numbers are being used instead of the long series of numbers that were attached in the old bill.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Then, Mr. Lerer, can you explain what happened to tetraethyl lead and tetramethyl lead, numbers 21 and 22 in part 2 of the bill?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: They're in part 3 now.

The Chairman: They're in part 3 now, yes. Thank you.

Is there going to be a plain-language explanation of “n is greater than 2”, as we already decided on for schedule 1?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, there will be, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Schedule 3 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall schedule 4 carry?

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It's just blank in the bill, as was schedule 2. I'm assuming it just inserts the acts and regulations, but we're passing something and we don't know what we're passing. It's empty. We're passing an empty page.

The Chairman: It will be full soon. That's the whole point.

Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, it's necessary to pass the schedule in order to allow the minister to schedule these acts and regulations in the fullness of time. At the moment, no acts or regulations have been scheduled, however, because the decision to be taken has not yet been taken. But we need to have the schedule passed to enable that decision to be taken in due course.

• 1130

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Of course, if members are looking at page 223, it covers schedule 4, which is subtitled “Subsections 106(8) and (9)”, which the committee didn't pass. They were changed. This would be consequential to other amendments that would pass. In the normal drafting procedure and report stage, things are renumbered as appropriate.

The Chairman: Thank you.

(Schedule 4 agreed to)

(Schedule 5 agreed to)

The Chairman: Next is schedule 6. Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to move amendment G-31.1.1. You'll see that there are several references to “shall”, and they would replace “should”. “Shall” is just more appropriate drafting language.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, could I ask whether we shouldn't also substitute “shall” for “should” in articles 12, 13 and 14?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, I can answer that.

After your intervention of a few weeks ago, after your early morning reading of the schedules, we undertook to revisit them in order to see where we could use the more stringent “shall” instead of “should”. The amendments before you are replacing them in many instances. For articles 12, 13 and 14, we determined that replacing “should” with “shall” would require us, in some instances, to conduct assessment steps that are not necessarily necessary before a decision could be made. This is analogous to the situation with toxic substances, in which we don't require the minister to gather all information, only the information that's necessary in the case to make a decision.

It's for that reason that we've retained the language that comes in fact from the protocol to the London Convention, the conditional language “should”. For example, in article 13, we wouldn't necessarily want to integrate or have to be required to integrate all of the information listed, simply the information that was necessary to make a decision on whether to approve or reject the permit.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is that the same argument for article 10 as well? It says in article 10:

The upper level should be set so as to avoid acute and chronic effects on human health or on sensitive marine organisms

It seems to me that “shall” would be far more stringent.

• 1135

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If I recall the discussion with program people, in both articles 10 and 12, “should” is there to reflect the fact that there may be scientific uncertainties associated with this and with establishing a level or making a concise statement. We were fearful of being inadvertently limiting in the kind of action that could be taken because there wasn't a specific cause-effect relationship or specific proof. It was our reflection that the lack of full scientific certainty shall not deter from taking action.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: We passed Mr. Caccia's amendment requiring the precautionary principle. If we take that under the administrative duties, Mr. Lerer, does that include the “shall”? In effect, is that consistent with “shall”? You have to act regardless of scientific uncertainty. In other words, scientific uncertainty is no longer a reason for not taking action. If there is a potential threat of emergency regardless of scientific certainty, the minister is bound to act anyway.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Article 10 is referring to the national action list, which sets limits in the low parts per million or parts per billion for the substances outlined, such as cadmium and mercury. It limits in sediment, for example.

The precautionary principle is precisely the reason “should” is used in article 10. If there's some scientific certainty associated with whether the upper level causes chronic effects on human or sensitive marine organisms, we couldn't set it at that level. We would have to set it a different level. What this allows for is flexibility. We don't necessarily have to prove that the limit set causes these chronic effects. It's intended to operationalize the precautionary principle by giving the government greater flexibility.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm not disagreeing with you, Mr. Mongrain, I'm just trying to understand for myself. It says “The Action List shall specify an upper level and may also specify a lower level.” The lower level is at “should” as well. Are you trying to say that although we have to specify a higher level and a lower level, we don't know where the lower level and higher level should be set, and that it would depend on what knowledge is available at the time? Is that right?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: That's correct, and we wouldn't want someone to challenge our level because there's no proof of chronic effects. We're making our decision based on the best available science at the time.

• 1140

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: All right.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, can you perhaps explain why “should” remains “should” in article 3 and is not modified to a “shall”?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: If you look at line 4 of article 3, Mr. Chairman, these are things that are done in collaboration with relevant local and national agencies. Sometimes we cannot force that cooperation or collaboration. Therefore, we cannot subject the applicant to that requirement. I'll give you an example: The Port of Vancouver can't force the provincial government or the surrounding municipalities to collaborate in waste reduction activities for waste prevention at source, because the Port of Vancouver is not in that position when doing so.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, you are excluding the possibility that the Port of Vancouver might be asked to pass in its bylaws a certain measure resulting from article 3, in which “shall” replaces “should”. The Port of Vancouver is not a foreign nation, a foreign power, or beyond the reach of national objectives.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I don't disagree with you, sir, but the Port of Vancouver cannot force the City of Vancouver, for example, which might be the source of the waste.

The Chairman: That is all the more reason to do it, perhaps.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'm not sure it would be within our jurisdictional capacity in this instance.

The Chairman: No, but you could ask for compliance with the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, it's the compliance by the Port of Vancouver. Within its own jurisdiction, the Port of Vancouver can take all necessary measures to reduce waste, but there may be other sources of waste that are relevant to their application but over which they simply have no control, whether it's runoff that originates within the municipality or otherwise. We wouldn't want to put the applicant in a very difficult position of having to comply with a requirement over which they don't have complete control.

The Chairman: That's not the issue at stake here. The issue at stake is what kind of benchmark the schedule should offer and expect from other agencies.

• 1145

In item 9 in the last discussion on the schedule....

[Translation]

Yes, Madam Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to section 3, schedule 6, page 225. On line 4, in English, after strategy, it says between brackets: in collaboration with relevant local and national agencies. In French, this does not appear. Has it been inserted somewhere and I don't see it?

The Chairman: Very good question.

[English]

Mr. Cameron, you are the expert on the French version.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes, it seems to be missing. I think we should add it if it's not already there, and perhaps I am missing it, but based on my understanding of French it's not there.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: More than that, I think, Mr. Cameron, you're going to see that in the French version it speaks of “en collaboration avec le ministre” and in the English version there is no reference at all to that; it speaks of relevant local and national agencies. So the two are completely different.

[Translation]

Luckily, Madam Girard-Bujold reads all those things very quickly. It's wonderful.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, when we were discussing item 9 in schedule 6 the last time, we spent a few minutes on the second last line, which reads “An Action List can also be used as a trigger mechanism”, etc. If I remember correctly, the suggestion was discussed to turn that “can” into a stronger verb. Is that recollection correct, and do you have any comments?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: My recollection is similar to yours, Mr. Chair. We went back to the officials who run the program. As background, this national action list sets trace limits for prohibited or restricted substances. There's an existing regulation that will be rolled over, and we're already working on limits for many of the substances that are outlined in item 9.

When we spoke with the program officials about the use of the words “can” versus “may”, we were told that when this protocol, which is part of the London Convention, was being negotiated, the word “can” was taken to have more force in that context than the word “may”. I'm not a linguist, but this was something that arrived out of those international negotiations. There was a hierarchy of terms, “shall” being the most stringent, followed by “should”, followed by “can”, and then followed by “may”. Our program officials recommended, because of the international negotiations surrounding the terminology, that we retain the term “can”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Well, the committee has to decide whether we adopt schedule 6, except for item 3, in the light of Madam Girard-Bujold's observation, or whether we set it aside entirely and see whether we can deal with it this afternoon.

• 1150

The clerk advises that we should stand it. So if we can get an improved version this afternoon, there is plenty of time to rewrite it.

(Schedule 6 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on other clauses? If not, we'll go to the mini-package, please. Would you turn to page 1.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think I had moved this amendment, and so we either need to close this amendment or have unanimous consent to leave the amendment stood, or we could vote on this amendment and then if further changes are needed—

The Chairman: Are you referring to page 1?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. I'm referring to the amendment we were just considering, 31.1.1. I think it's still open.

The Chairman: We are standing it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I didn't hear you ask for unanimous.... That's fine.

The Chairman: This is because of item 3, the French version of item 3 that needs to be rewritten.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I heard you say we were standing schedule 6, but I didn't hear you dispose of this amendment, and this amendment doesn't effect item 3. So we could close this amendment and then still leave item 3 open.

There's no reference to it.

The Chairman: I'd rather do it all at once, the amendment and the schedule.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay, so I gather we have unanimous consent to stand the amendment?

The Chairman: Yes, we do.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay, no problem.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chairman: On page 1 of the mini-package, there is a government amendment, G-5.5. We need unanimous consent to reopen clause 65 to permit this amendment. Is there unanimous consent? I take it there is.

(On clause 65—Toxic substances)

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: This amendment is being offered following discussion by the members that in French we had some missing words. They would appear before you—the underlined words, obviously.

The Chairman: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...that the proposed amendment is in line and corresponds with the English text as adopted on November 25.

Ms. Torsney.

• 1155

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If people are having some difficulty understanding where that might have been, it would be on page 132 of their big book, government amendment 5.5.

The Chairman: So an amendment has been moved. Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

You will find the original text on page 132 of the binder. The amendment is to section 65.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We are dealing with amendment G-5.5 page 132. All the words we have here are in the present bill. This motion which is on page 1 of the small package is intended to change the words we have here. This motion is in the small package dated March 23 and it is amendment G-5.5 as amended.

Ms. Girard-Bujold said that the English and the French versions were not consistent.

The Chairman: Did you get the necessary information, Madam Girard-Bujold?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

The Chairman: Are you ready? Do you agree on the text?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I agree, the two versions are consistent, but that does not mean that I will vote in favour of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. The French draft is correct.

• 1200

The Chairman: We understand the situation you are in.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 65 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now turn to page 3 of the same mini-package, government amendment 5.5.1 to clause 73. We need unanimous consent to reopen this clause. I take it there is.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(On clause 73—Categorization of substances on Domestic Substances List)

The Chairman: Thank you. The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to move government amendment 5.5.1, which once again reflects the discussion the committee members had on this issue and the desire to insert the word “harmful” in paragraph 73(1)(b).

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Madam Hébert, Mr. Cameron, and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I gather Mr. Cameron can speak to this.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, it was brought to my attention at the break that this line has previously been amended. I apologize, but the language before you in G-5.5.1 does not reflect the change that was made by the committee. It should read “herently harmful to human beings or non-human organisms, as”. The words “human beings or” were inadverently left out of this motion when it was prepared.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The other issue is that when this passed before, we had “toxic”, which has a specific meaning in the bill, and “harmful” is in effect what we meant in this clause. It's just to make sure that the language is consistent with the legislation.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We have some amendments to this clause. What does paragraph 73(1)(b) as amended currently say, or did those amendments pass?

The Chairman: If you look at page 161 of the binder, you will find an amendment that modifies the text in the bill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The bill currently says “inherently toxic to human or non-human organisms, as determined by laboratory or other studies”. So that's what it currently says.

The Chairman: That is how the amendment reads, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's the amendment that has passed.

The Chairman: I'm told that this amendment was carried.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The amendment has been added to amendment G-5.5.1.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: For the record, I'd be happy to read what government 5.5.1 should say, and that would be that clause 73 be amended by replacing line 41 on page 42 with the following:

herently harmful to human beings or non-human organisms, as

The Chairman: So, Madam Kraft Sloan, the text that is being proposed for this particular clause, as originally amended by your amendment L-13.15, is that it would read on the first line “herently harmful to human beings or non-human organisms, as”. Correct? Is that acceptable?

• 1205

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We have some concerns about—

The Chairman: About “toxic”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I have some concern as to what happens to “toxic” here, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Moffet, please.

Mr John Moffet (Researcher): Clause 73 at the moment refers to substances that are found to be inherently toxic. The rationale here was to allow the government to categorize substances on the domestic substances list in terms of their inherent characteristics quite apart from issues around their release and exposure. That was the objective of focusing on the concept of “inherently toxic”.

The problem in the way the clause is currently worded is that it refers to the word “toxic”, which is defined in the bill in clause 64. Combining the adjective “inherently” with the current definition of “toxic” would lead in my view, and in the view of the government officials, to a contradiction because you would have the concept of “inherent” but then you'd have the definition of “toxic”, which includes the concept of exposure. In other words, it is not an inherent toxicity definition. So in order to allow for this different concept of inherent risk or inherent harm, the government is proposing to use a word other than the word “toxic” to get around this problem.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this clause as originally worded referred to “inherently toxic to non-human organisms” and that seemed to be acceptable before the amendment, and now we're just including “inherently toxic to human beings” as well as “non-human organisms”. So why does the contradiction exist now but not before?

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chairman, it did exist before. It wasn't noticed before, I think, is the simple answer. But in my view there would have been a serious problem with the old drafting. The problem has nothing to do with your amendment, Mrs. Kraft Sloan, which added the word “human”. The problem had to do with the use of the word “toxic”, and the problem would have significantly limited the ability of the government to focus on the inherent characteristics of a substance and to take action based on the inherent characteristics of a substance, which was one of the main recommendations of this committee in preparing It's About Our Health!. They wanted to strengthen the government's hand and provide it with the ability to take action based solely on the inherent characteristics of a substance. In my view, they would not be able to do that, or at least they would run into some potential legal challenges, if we left the word “toxic” in this clause.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

[Translation]

I apologize. Madam Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: If I understood correctly, Mr. Chairman, in French, we had "toxicité intrinsèque" and you had put it in English version. It does mean the same thing as harmful in English, doesn't it? The word harmful in English means "toxicité intrinsèque"?

The Chairman: Ms. Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I think that the word harmful is equivalent to "nocivité intrinsèque". It is amendment G-5.5.1 page 4 in the mini-package dated March 23. This was translated by "nocivité intrinsèque" to move away from the notion of toxicity which is already defined in a particular way in the bill.

• 1210

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I want to ask Mr. Lerer, if you look at subparagraph 77(3)(a)(ii) regarding screening assessment, we see under there “inherently toxic”, and I think we amended it to “human and non-human organisms”. Surely, if we say “inherently toxic”, can't we also conclude that the fact of “toxic” being defined under clause 64 and making that toxicity inherent, which has a meaning of its own, which means that all these various characteristics would be part of the substance automatically, they wouldn't have to be proven almost, they're there...? Is there a case for leaving it like it is, that “harmful” reduces the potency of the...?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, “toxic” is defined in the bill and the definition of toxicity includes the concept of “is entering or may enter the environment”, which requires exposure. It requires exposure to meet the definition of toxicity.

In these screening assessments, and in both clause 73 and the next amendment the committee will consider, which will be to modify the same phrase in clause 77, what we've attempted to do is remove that potential for challenge—that once we have conducted the assessment or the screening, because we haven't considered exposure, we haven't met the test of “toxic” because it is precisely defined in the bill. So what we've tried to do is introduce a term that is used in the bill that would meet that intent of not having to consider exposure when carrying out our obligations under these two clauses. That is why we have introduced the word “harmful”.

That is the only change we wanted to make. We wanted to change “toxic” to “harmful”, and inadvertently, when we did that, as Madam Hébert pointed out, there had been an amendment. So in G-5.5.1, our amendment, which suggests “inherently harmful to human beings or non-human organisms, as” , what we're trying to do is change the defined term “toxic”, which requires an expression of exposure, so that we do not cause that potential for serious challenge in carrying out our assessments and screenings, sir. And we would make the same amendment, as amended, in clause 77.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Does this mean you're going to change this toxic substance management policy? It's my understanding that in there it talks about how substances on the domestic substances list are screened, and one of the screenings is that we look for “greatest potential for exposure” or “are persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic”, as identified in paragraph 74(a) and subclause 73(1). This comes from the risk assessment and management under the Bill C-32 flow chart we were given.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, it doesn't. This is in subclause 73(1). It is the categorization of the domestic substances list, and what are the criteria for that categorization? Paragraph 73(1)(a) says “may present, to individuals in Canada, the greatest potential for exposure; or”. That is one test. The second one, and where we were afraid the confusion might come in, is “persistent or bioaccumulative in accordance with the regulations” in paragraph 73(1)(b), and that simply sets out the numbers.

Then we use the phrase “inherently toxic”. In our interpretation of this, as we started working through it, we came to the conclusion that the use of the term “toxic” in this instance would leave open the potential for challenge, because “toxic” is a precisely defined term in the bill.

• 1215

The Chairman: Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What does it say in CEPA 1988 in regards to this issue? Is it covered? It's not covered.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: At the risk of adding a further complication, I wonder if I could raise an issue for the government to respond to. As I've stated, I believe it is very important to change the word “toxic” to a word such as “harmful”. However, I'm concerned that the proposed amendment may lose a concept that is in the definition of toxic in clause 64, because clause 64 defines toxic as a substance that “has or may have”, “constitute or may constitute”, a danger or harm. If you read paragraph 73(1)(b) as amended, we would lose the concept of “may”.

I'm wondering therefore if it would be appropriate to amend line 40 so that paragraph (b) would read:

(b) are persistent or bioaccumulative in accordance with the regulations, and are or may be inherently harmful to human beings or non-human organisms.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering, given the lateness of the hour and previous commitments, if we could come back to this one this afternoon. People could have a chance to examine all the issues and put them all on the table.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I want lunch. It's nothing to do with commitments. Let's have lunch.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a commitment.

The Chairman: But could we at least complete this brief intervention with a comment by Mr. Lerer?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, go ahead, Karen.

The Chairman: Karen Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: In response to Mr. Moffet's question, “inherently toxic” in the bill was meant in the scientific sense. It was never meant in the legal sense, as defined in clause 64. So I think your point of the potential was never really meant to be anyway. We'd always interpreted it in the practice of this clause, in the program, as “inherently toxic” in the scientific sense.

It was only when I went to use it and sent out some things using it in that sense that I was corrected and told, “Well, your interpretation is all wrong because “toxic” means as defined in the bill.” But that had never, ever been the intention. It was meant that we would go to a table that listed all the toxicity studies on a particular species, and you'd pull out the most sensitive and use that. That has nothing to do with the way toxic is defined in the bill.

So I don't think it ever had the concept that Mr. Moffet was implying it might have.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm prepared to accept that there might be a confusion there. If there was, what would be wrong in...we have a definition of toxic, right? We've used “inherently toxic” in clauses 73 and 74, I think, to carry an intention. It seems to me it's clear we were trying to carry an intention in clauses 73 and 77. Why can't we just add a definition of the term “inherently toxic”, which would solve the whole thing?

If we are going to say there's a difference between toxic and inherently toxic—and I think all of us agree there is and we know what we're trying to do—it seems to me the simplest would be to say, well, okay, toxic is already there; because of the confusion we just add another line to say what inherently toxic is. Then we keep the definition that is accepted worldwide, that has a meaning.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Okay, that was the other option. We had hoped this was easier for us to get agreement on. This is the simple reason as to why we chose “harmful”. I don't know how difficult it will be to go back and try to get people who use the term to agree on the actual definition. But that's an option.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm glad to hear that was one of your options. I didn't know that. It's good to know.

• 1220

The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Do we need a motion to adjourn? We're 20 minutes over, and I'm quite concerned about the hour.

The Chairman: We're not 20 minutes over at all. We still have 10 minutes to go, actually.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I apologize. I thought it was on until 12.

The Chairman: There is merit in putting on paper what has been discussed in the last half-hour on this particular amendment, so that when we resume, possibly at 3 p.m. instead of 3.30 p.m., if at all possible, we have the full amendment in writing, with the change proposed earlier by Mr. Cameron when he spoke at the beginning, and with the reference, or this inquiry made by Mr. Moffet, which actually has been dealt with now by Ms. Lloyd in her reply. Are you satisfied with that? So that has been dealt with.

Can we try to resume at 3 o'clock with an amendment on paper that is in its full form? Well, 3.15 p.m., perhaps, let's say, because we are in the West Block and no longer in this room. If we start at 3.15 p.m. we could perhaps make some inroads in the afternoon, as well.

This meeting is adjourned.