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

• 1532

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Honourable Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Order, please.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I would like to table the French and English versions of a motion to propose that the Standing Committee on Environment Sustainable Development proceed to establish a Joint Sub-committee with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to study the question relating to aquaculture. This motion supports the motion presented by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans at their March 11 meeting (No. 67).

Could the motion be distributed, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: You want to move your motion at 4 p.m.?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

The Chairman: We can provide the motion to the Clerk. According to the rules, it will be discussed at a future meeting.

[English]

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just before we broke in the morning session, we had opened an amendment to clause 73, which was a government amendment. After some consultation through the lunch period, I would seek unanimous consent to withdraw that motion and come back in clause 64 with an alternative solution that I think would please most members.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney is withdrawing the proposed amendment, which we were discussing at noon. Is there unanimous consent to do that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1535

The Chairman: Thank you.

To start with the proposition you just heard, would you please turn to a new amendment, which was distributed a few minutes ago. It is an amendment without a name and initials. We will call it a new G.30.1.1. It's on clause 64.

(On clause 64—Definition of “virtual elimination”)

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I don't think it has been distributed yet.

The Chairman: Yes, it was distributed, somehow or other.

The amendment is proposed by the parliamentary secretary. It has no initials, but at the top of the page on the left-hand side it is identifiable in the following manner: e064-037.01a. Did you find it?

Madame Hébert is drawing our attention to the fact that there is a problem with the French version, which refers to nocivité, whereas the English version refers to “inherently toxic”. We would like to know which of the two versions is the one that is being proposed, the English or the French.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The English version.

[Translation]

In French, we should say: "mais non dans le contexte de l'expression 'toxicité intrinsèque'".

[English]

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary has drawn the attention of the committee to the French version, which should read:

[Translation]

"mais non dans le contexte de l'expression 'toxicité intrinsèque'".

[English]

Please go ahead.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To assist members in figuring out how this would all work, it might be helpful to turn to page 126 in your binders, or however you're keeping your big book of amendments. It is government amendment 5.4. So clause 64 would read:

64. For the purposes of this Part and Part 6, except in the context of the expression “inherently toxic”, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment

—yada, yada, yada.

An hon. member: I don't see “yada, yada, yada” here.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Do you want to read it all out, just for clarification? No offence, but “yada, yada, yada” doesn't work. Just read the amendment, as it reads right now.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The amendment is “except in the context of the expression”—

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, excuse me, would you mind addressing the chair, first of all, and secondly, would the parliamentary secretary do us a favour and, as Mr. Stoffer has already suggested, give us the whole text of what is being proposed?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. The whole text of what is being proposed in this amendment is simply that the expression “except in the context of the expression “inherently toxic”' be inserted into what was already passed by this committee, and for your benefit I'm looking at page 126 in the big book, government amendment 5.4, which has already passed.

The Chairman: But on which line?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It would be after the comma in the first line:

64. For the purposes of this Part and Part 6, except in the context of the expression “inherently toxic”, a substance

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

So the amendment being proposed is inserted after the word “Part 6” on the first line of that particular amendment on page 126. Would you like to explain it briefly?

• 1540

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. I think there was a fairly thorough discussion on how “inherently toxic” meant some things to some people and had other meanings in this clause in the context of what is toxic. So to end that confusion and to clarify what the words will mean in clause 73, we've introduced this exception, which would help should anyone be looking at this with a fine-toothed comb in a legal manner.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I appreciate the government's willingness to reach a resolution on this. However, I'm a little puzzled as to what the context is of the expression “inherently toxic”. Is it possible to say “except where the expression “inherently toxic” appears”?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Cameron, I was wondering if you agree that this one would be clearer instead of “the context”?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Because “context” is very wide, and it has to do with application.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It would read “except where the expression “inherently toxic” appears”. I don't think it changes the intention, but I think it would be clearer, if you agree.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Environment Canada): So the opening lines would then say “For the purposes of this Part and Part 6, except where the expression “inherently toxic” appears, substances toxic if”, and so on.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I think that's quite clear, and it's certainly in the same vein as what we were trying to accomplish. So yes, absolutely.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay. Thanks.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, would you repeat that? It would read “except where the expression “inherently toxic”....

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Appears.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 64 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Please turn to the other amendment that was distributed at three o'clock regarding clause 330. One page is in English; the other one is in French. It is just on two stapled pages. I hope you were able to find it.

Parliamentary Secretary, would you like to introduce it, please?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to move this amendment. Do we have a number for it?

The Chairman: You could call it a new G-30.1.1.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, could I speak to this, please?

The Chairman: Just a moment. It hasn't even been spoken to.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The effect of this amendment, were it to pass, would be to replace all of what is currently written in the bill under subclause 330(3), and it would add a new subclause, 330(3.1), which once again would be reflective of what was discussed in last Thursday's committee meeting.

The Chairman: Is this the one that was referred to as the Moffet amendment? Was it discussed within the context of an amendment by Mr. Moffet?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, I put in the amendment before, and then we agreed that we would—

The Chairman: All right. Mr. Lincoln, the floor is yours.

• 1545

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I think we see a big improvement on what there was before. A lot of work has been done, and I think it reflects a great improvement.

At the same time, I would like to suggest a friendly amendment: that subclause 330(3.1) should refer only to clauses 167 and 177, which are the international parts of the bill, and that clauses 93 and 140 should not appear.

The reason for this is that clause 93 already gives the government all the powers needed to effect the regulations for certain places. For example, it says in paragraph 93(1)(a), “from any source or type of source”; in paragraph 93(1)(b) “the places or areas where the substance may be released”; in paragraph 93(1)(c) “the commercial, manufacturing or processing activity in the course of which the substance may be released”; in paragraph 93(1)(d) “the manner in which and conditions”. So all the wherewithal you want to accomplish under this is already in clause 93. I would suggest that rather than belabour it in a new clause, which might lead to confusion, we already have all the powers in clause 93.

If you look at clause 140 on page 101, under subclause 140(3) it says “A regulation may distinguish among fuels according to their commercial designation, source, physical or chemical properties, class, conditions of use or place or time of year of use”. It seems to me that you already have specific powers attached to clauses 140 and 93, and that it is redundant to bring in here clauses 93 and 140.

In fact, I looked at the transcript of our discussions when this was first discussed with the officials, and Mr. Mongrain brought up the fact that what really worried the ministry was clauses 167 and 177, which have to do with international commitments, with which we agree. But I think clauses 93 and 140 are already amply covered. I would suggest that perhaps the officials would agree that we speak here only of clauses 167 and 177.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Is the proposition by Mr. Lincoln acceptable?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think there are some policy discussions that might be necessary.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): My recollection of our discussion, Mr. Chairman, is that we were trying to find the balance. It was felt that the original phrasing was too broad, and we were trying to narrow it.

With regard to our inclusion of clause 93, what we were trying to ensure we could do was the phasing in of any regulation in terms of a geographic area, and that discussion took place as well. I do note the reference Mr. Lincoln made. The point as to whether we could in fact do that kind of geographic phasing in is debatable.

On clause 140, I think Mr. Lincoln is correct when he says that power does exist. It is a matter of the balance we were trying to find in making sure that the powers and authorities were not too broad, as opposed to the flexibility required in order to be able to do that, which is why we introduced the amendment the way it is. On clause 140, most certainly, I think Mr. Lincoln is correct. I think the power is there to do that geographically.

Our preference would be to include clause 93 because it adds the certainty around that ability to do geographic phasing in. Again, it's a matter of the balance being sought by the committee.

• 1550

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

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

We're talking about clause 93 now. If you compare clause 93 to clause 140, Mr. Lerer, I don't want to be picayune or picky, but the fact is that 93 contains all the elements of 140, and even more than the elements of 140. Paragraph 93(1)(a) starts off talking about quantity and concentration, and then it says “either alone or in combination with any other substance from any source or type of source”. Very much like clause 140, clause 93 talks about “the places or areas where the substance may be released”. It talks about the type of activity, “commercial, manufacturing or processing”. It talks about “the manner in which and conditions under which a substance may be released into the environment”, etc. In fact, clause 93 goes into a huge number of elements that give you a great amount of flexibility.

It seems to me that if clause 93 is not explicit enough, we should make it so. But I don't think we should catch clause 93 through clause 330. I would suggest to you that if there's an admission that clause 140 is sufficient, then clause 93 is much more than sufficient.

Mr. Cameron, you seem to be on my side.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I think that's just a fishing expedition.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: My observation on this debate, Mr. Chairman, is that sometimes extra clarity in legislation is a worthwhile and important thing to have. If the ability to have regional discrepancies in regulations is in fact already in clause 93 and clause 140, then I'm not sure the addition of it in clause 330 takes anything away. If anything, it may just be for greater certainty. If it's not for greater certainty, I think the fact should be recognized that clause 140 and clause 93 are not as explicit as they could be in terms of allowing the kind of regional application we're trying to get at.

Clause 93 and clause 140 have to be looked at separately. Clause 140 does have subclause (3), which I think is the strongest point in favour of saying it's already there. Subclause 140(3) says:

A regulation may distinguish among fuels according to their commercial designation, source, physical or chemical properties, class, conditions of use or place or time of year of use.

I think the reference to “source” and “place” does tip the scales somewhat in favour of saying you can have a regulation that's regional. But again, I'm not sure it's 100% there.

What I do notice, however, is that the kind of language that we find in subclause 140(3) is missing entirely from clause 93, Mr. Chairman. I would simply point out that the absence of that might lead one to conclude that the power is in fact not already there in clause 93.

So at best, it's murky. At worst, we can't do it. For that reason, we've put in clause 330 the reference to 93 and 140 for greater clarity, and to make it absolutely clear to everyone reading this legislation that we can have regional phase-in.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask our two additional lawyers here whether they agree, Mr. Cameron. If they agree, then they agree.

The Chairman: So there's agreement on deleting clause 140, and the question is now on clause 93.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Right.

The Chairman: Could we have further comments, please?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There wasn't an agreement.

The Chairman: Yes, I understood that clause 140 could be deleted.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I think the point I made was that there could be a case made that the powers were in clause 140 and less likely in clause 93. That was the thing I pointed out, and I think it was confirmed by my colleague Mr. Cameron.

The Chairman: All right, let's now hear the views here from the table, and then come to a decision.

Are you in a position to comment?

• 1555

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Consultant): In my view, Mr. Chairman, I would say the powers are very clear under subclause 140(3): “A regulation may distinguish among fuels according to their source...[and] place...of use.”

I take Mr. Cameron's point that clause 93 is not as explicit as the proposed amendment for 330. However, in looking at the subclauses, my view is that the government has considerable power to craft regulations that focus on specific places where the substances may be released and regulations that focus on specific types of activities, including commercial activities, manufacturing activities and processing activities.

If the objective to single out a particular part of the country because of a particular regionalized or localized problem, in a previous discussion on clause 330 I think Mr. Lincoln gave us examples of ways in which it is possible to craft regulations that are notionally of general application, but that are written in such a way that they have effect in only one place or with respect to only one or a select number of facilities. Certainly paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of subclause 93(1) provide the government with considerable scope for customizing a regulation to ensure that it has limited application.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But following through on Mr. Moffet's question, the other option would be to have a regulation written for the whole country, to declare it in different parts of the country at different times, and to bring everyone up to a more similar standard. It's just a question of which tool you want to use at which time, and which would be the most efficient tool. Having the inclusion of clauses 93 and 140 in this clause wouldn't prevent the use of the other subclauses that are in clauses 93 and 140. It would just provide some flexibility in the implementation.

Mr. John Moffet: If I could just turn the committee's attention back to the issue that I think lies behind the extended debate that we've had around clause 330, my sense is that committee members are sympathetic to the objective of allowing the government to craft regulations that have a limited focus. Committee members also want that authority to be circumscribed to situations in which such localized regulations are necessary for environmental reasons.

The original version of clause 330, and indeed the current amendment that is before us with respect to 330, could be interpreted in such a way that it would provide the authority to promulgate such localized regulations, yes. But it could also be used to promulgate a regulation that says the regulation applies only in province A, not in various other provinces. I guess the test would be that the regulation would be required in province A for environmental reasons. The question I have is whether this amendment would ensure that the government cannot exclude the application of the regulation to other provinces for non-environmental reasons.

• 1600

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: There's another aspect to this amendment that I think we should also consider, which is that if we take out the reference to clauses 93 and 140, we might be creating the inference that the regional application does not in fact apply, that you may have an inconsistency between clause 330 and those provisions of clauses 93 and 140 that could be relied on to have site-specific regulations or region-specific regulations, because of course when you interpret legislation you interpret it as a whole.

If in reading those provisions in clauses 93 and 140 we think there's an argument for regional application, it's possible that argument or interpretation might be diminished by the absence of referring to those sections in clause 330 as well. So I think that's a caution that should be kept in mind, which is one of the reasons we included it in our amendment in the first place.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

I should also have brought to the attention of the committee, and I apologize for not having done so, that on March 10 we discussed this clause quite at length when we decided then to stand the motion by Mr. Lincoln on page 375 of the binder, amendment L-16.10, which covers the same lines as this amendment covers. However, I'm just raising this as a notice. We are now in a position of having to decide whether this amendment is to be put for a vote or whether more examination, more elaboration, is required on the question of clauses 93 and 140, then.

Mr. Lincoln, while you were distracted for a moment by other business, Mr. Cameron was saying that the elimination of clauses 93 and 140 would create an interpretation of inconsistency, if I understood him correctly, in the application of clause 330.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It would certainly create doubt or an adverse inference that those powers already exist in clauses 93 and 140, because we would be tailoring clause 330 just to clauses 167 and 177. The inference would be that if other sections such as clauses 93 and 140 are absent from the list, then perhaps the power to have regional phase-in doesn't apply, and then you would have an inconsistency between the terms of clause 330 and the language in clauses 93 and 140.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I had put an amendment to clause 330 to refer only to clauses 167 and 177, which is a new one. I wonder if, as it is written now, it can be considered should this one still pass.

The Chairman: I will now put the amendment to a vote, the new G-30.1.1, moved by the parliamentary secretary, and it is in its entirety.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 330 as amended agreed to)

• 1605

The Chairman: Now if you can find your mini-package in the amount of paper in front of you, page 7 and 8 of the mini-package, we require unanimous consent to reopen clause 77 to discuss a proposed government amendment. Is there unanimous consent to reopen it?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think we had discussed some parameters on requesting that consent to open. That was consent to open it, make this amendment, and close it. I think the amendment that's before—

The Chairman: That's what I'm asking, whether there is consent to reopen it. So why do we discuss the substance before we reopen the clause?

Is there consent to reopen this clause? I take it there is, yes.

Now, do you wish to have the floor? Move your amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure, Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move amendment G-5.5.3 on page 7 in the mini-package, which would be to add “naturally occurring” before “substance”.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments on amendment G-5.5.3? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, regarding the amendment, certainly the intention is right, but I think “naturally occurring substance” is not correct, because a naturally occurring substance could certainly include chemicals that would be harmful to the environment. I think it would be far better if we used the word “inorganic,” which really sets out what the intention of the bill is.

• 1610

What we want to do is be able to control organic substances, but inorganic substances that are occurring should be exempted. I would like to suggest the government consider a friendly amendment to replace the words “naturally occurring” by “inorganic”.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is the member suggesting that it should be a naturally occurring inorganic substance?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, just hang on a minute. I think “naturally occurring” should be replaced by “inorganic” substance.

The Chairman: So paragraph 77(4)(c) would read “the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or an inorganic substance.”

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If it would read “naturally occurring inorganic substance”, it would be taken as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just give us a few seconds. Meanwhile, maybe Mrs. Lloyd could speak to it, please.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, may I?

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: It is our intention in this clause, and this clause refers only to virtual elimination, not life-cycle management, to ensure that for virtual elimination we were not dealing with naturally occurring metals and minerals, but that we were able to capture man-made releases of substances that are persistent and that bioaccumulate. Those are essentially the organic substances we are interested in.

The example I would use is dioxins and furans, when dioxins and furans are naturally occurring. They occur because of forest fires, as I was reminded by several colleagues. But what we are interested in is when they are released to the environment because of anthropogenic sources. So the exclusion would fit that ability to capture if it were to read “radionuclide or a naturally occurring inorganic substance”. That would be the intent.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When I was reading the clause again, I just came to the conclusion that maybe we don't need to do that. You just say the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or inorganic substance. Obviously it's already there, naturally occurring.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, if I might recall, the reason we were suggesting opening the clause before was that there was some concern that the absence of “naturally occurring” in front of “substance” was a drafting error, and we agreed that it was. So we came back with “naturally occurring” in front of “substance” to clarify and correct that drafting error. The thing that is under consideration now is whether we should make sure the carve-out for exclusion to virtual elimination is limited to inorganic substances.

• 1615

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to understand the proposal. In the French version, I understood that one would add, after the words "activité humaine" the words "et qu'elle n'est pas une substance d'origine naturelle ou un radionucléide d'origine naturelle". That is not the same as the English version.

The Chairman: I don't see any problem.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Does it have the same meaning?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, the French and the English versions do not mean the same thing, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, they do.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No because, in the English version, you find after that expression the words "the Ministers shall propose virtual elimination", whereas, in the French version, this paragraph does not end that way.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Research Advisor to the Committee): Allow me to explain, Mr. Chairman, that the French version is more or less inverted. Sub-clause 77(4) states in French that "ils doivent proposer la quasi-élimination", which translates the English "the Ministers shall propose virtual elimination". In the French version, those words come at the beginning of the paragraph whereas, in the English one, they come at the end. However, everything that is required is in that paragraph.

The Chairman: That is another example of the difference there is between our two languages.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: So true, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): We have invented two systems.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's true and it does not make sense.

The Chairman: Two systems?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It would be preferable to have faithful translations rather than trying to invent two different drafting systems.

The Chairman: There have been long debates on this matter. Our book is full of similar examples. The principle of word-for-word translation has always been rejected.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Not by me.

The Chairman: But by your predecessor.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: What are we going to do, Mr. Chairman? Are we going to vote on the French version or on the English version of this bill? Which version will have precedence?

The Chairman: They have the same meaning.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: But there are things that do not mean the same thing, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: They mean the same thing.

[English]

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to pick up on the parliamentary secretary's suggestion that it would be considered a friendly amendment to add the word “inorganic” to “naturally occurring”. If that were the way clause read.... I wanted to then follow up on Mr. Lerer's suggestion that what the department is interested in getting at are anthropogenic sources of various types of substances. What I'm wondering is if we explicitly insert “naturally occurring” here, will the government be able to address anthropogenic sources of naturally occurring compounds?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Once again, Mr. Moffet, I'm sorry.

Mr. John Moffet: If we have “naturally occurring” in the clause, so that the clause reads “the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or a naturally occurring inorganic substance”, will the government be able to propose virtual elimination for anthropogenic sources of naturally occurring compounds? In other words, will it be able to address substances that, yes, are naturally occurring, but in the case that we're trying to address are also released anthropogenically? And I'm thinking of methyl mercury or tributyl tin or substances like that.

• 1620

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): By using the word “inorganic” it would allow you to go after the substances you just mentioned, because they're organic.

Mr. John Moffet: Right. Even though—

Ms. Karen Lloyd: It has the methyl and the butyl on it. That would make it an organic compound.

Mr. John Moffet: And “naturally occurring” would not restrict...?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, for the specific substances you mention, and they are substances, not elements. So for example it is not tin that we are interested in if it's tributyl tin, which is the bio-available version; it is an organic compound. Mercury, no; methyl mercury, which is the bio-available version, is an organic compound. The answer is yes, we would be able to capture those.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I didn't understand the question in the beginning. But with the examples, the answers to both of those instances are yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, after these explanations, would the parliamentary secretary then agree that we read this amendment as “radionuclide or a naturally occurring inorganic substance”? And is this what we are going to vote on?

The Chairman: Apparently the answer is yes.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 77 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 68—itResearch, investigation and evaluationro)

The Chairman: The next page is 150 in the binder. It's an amendment in the name of Mr. Laliberte, amendment NDP-30.

We welcome Mr. Stoffer to the committee. Would you like to introduce your amendment and move it? Move it and then explain it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just for clarification, in regard to NDP-30, are we not going to deal with NDP-29.1, or is that for a later time?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can he give us the reference?

The Chairman: It could not be moved because L-13.13.0 was adopted, which wiped out NDP-29.1.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thanks for that clarification.

The Chairman: The door is open to proceed.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move NDP-30. The amendment is basically replacing line 10 on page 40 with “lected or generated under paragraph (a) using a weight-of-evidence approach and”. The purpose of this weight-of-evidence approach is for the precautionary principle. We'd like that to apply for this one, and it's our effort to strengthen the legislation.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. While certainly the weight-of-evidence approach is a great idea for assessment, it might not be necessary or in fact might be difficult in information-gathering. And since this clause specifically relates to information-gathering, I would not be in favour of it.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Herron first.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'll be supporting my colleague's amendment, given that we have one that's exactly alike to follow, which we won't be able to move because we're voting on it in this time.

I think it does incorporate the precautionary principle in evaluating data collected on substances for the purposes of determining their toxicity. I think that would be a worthy endeavour and I think we should support it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer, please.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: With all due respect, sir, to the parliamentary secretary I would like her to believe, or at least I believe she would like to believe, that anything we can do to strengthen the legislation would be advantageous for the citizens of this country. And the precautionary principle is, as my colleague from the Conservatives mentioned, a good thing. So maybe she can reconsider that last statement and support us for once.

• 1625

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron, briefly please.

Mr. John Herron: Could I ask the officials about what concern they might have if this were incorporated in this phase?

The Chairman: Madam Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: The committee has already made an amendment to when we're assessing the risk posed by a substance, whether through the priority substances assessment program, through screening assessments of the domestic substances list, or through looking at decisions made in other jurisdictions, that we must incorporate the precautionary principle and a weight-of-evidence approach. And that's where it's appropriate to do so, when you have different sources of information that on their own may not be enough. But when you'd use a weight-of-evidence approach and they all point in the same direction it's enough.

In this case you may be only doing one study, so you can't apply a weight-of-evidence approach to interpreting the results of one study. You have to have several different pieces.

It would be appropriate if you did apply this to collecting tons and tons of stuff, but it may be that you only want one study to be able to determine whether something is toxic. So I think it's more appropriate where the committee has already added the weight-of-evidence approach and the precautionary principle.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer, to conclude.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If possible, Mr. Chair, could we get clarification from Mr. Moffet on this as well, if he doesn't mind?

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, please.

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chairman, to clarify Ms. Lloyd's comments, the amendment she referred to is amendment L-13.16.2, which amended clause 76, which requires that essentially all of the three types of risk assessments conducted under this part be done with the application of a weight-of-evidence approach and the precautionary principle. I certainly agree with this amendment that the precautionary approach and the weight-of-evidence approach are appropriate for risk assessments.

This amendment we are now dealing with has to do with data collection and not data interpretation. In my view, the precautionary principle and weight-of-evidence approach is appropriate for interpretation, but not for collection, as Ms. Lloyd emphasized. I would urge you to enable the government to collect as little or as much data as it believes it needs in order to make a case that something is or is not toxic.

If you require a weight-of-evidence approach there may be an argument that they have to collect a number of different studies, more than they might need to come to a conclusion. So I would urge you to reconsider this amendment.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 151, an amendment in the name of Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: No.

The Chairman: So it's not before us any longer. We will go to amendment NDP-31 on page 152.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's an easy one, Mr. Chair.

With the unanimous consent of this wonderful committee we'd like to withdraw that amendment.

(Clause 68 as amended agreed to)

• 1630

The Chairman: Please turn to page 274, an amendment by Mr. Laliberte, NDP-52.1.13.

Mr. Stoffer, would you like to move your amendment?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, sir. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that conferences do occur, thus improving and expanding the public participation in the CEPA process.

The Chairman: So moved.

Are there any comments or questions? The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Actually this is an amendment to subclause 166(5), which currently reads, “When acting under subsection (3), the Minister shall take into account comments made under...” the various subsections, and those of course are comments made by the public.

It would be our position that the minister should consider the comments made by the public. The effect of this amendment would be to give her the option of listening to the public, if it would be “may take into account comments”. I think the member opposite might think that the minister listening and being compelled to listen to the public would be a good idea. His amendment would do the opposite.

The Chairman: Any further comments?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I like what Mr. Moffet says when he speaks. Is it possible to get clarification from him?

Is she right in a legal sense—may or shall? I have tremendous respect for you.

Mr. John Moffet: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe the parliamentary secretary is correct in her interpretation.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 166 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 200—itRegulationsro)

The Chairman: I believe there is an amendment by Mr. Lincoln on page 303 of the large binder. Would someone move the amendment?

Madam Kraft Sloan is moving the amendment. Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, would you like to introduce it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, there was a considerable amount of discussion about this the other day, and it was left that we would try to craft something that would reflect the spirit of the discussion. What this amendment does is to say that—

Mr. John Moffet: I think the chair has introduced a different amendment.

The Chairman: I'm sorry. There is some confusion here at the table.

• 1635

Did we move the amendment on page 303 some days ago?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I will explain, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Please go ahead.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you look at the amendment on page 303, when we discussed this amendment as L-16.5, there was a lot of discussion about the last part of it, which said “protection to human health or the environment that is at least equal to the level of protection that could be provided under this Act.” In other words, it was a blanket provision first of all, and also it's at least equal to the level of protection that would be provided under this act.

After a lot of discussion, we agreed we would try to find some wording that would satisfy the intent, the intent being to refer to the particular clauses we are talking about here, environmental emergencies that are specifically the authority of the minister under part 8, and perhaps word the suggested amendment differently from L-16.5.

We have done that now in this one. So if you look at subclause 2 on page 139, lines 5-7, what we are saying there is:

a matter if, by order, the Governor in Council states that it is of the opinion that

(a) the matter is regulated by or under any other Act of Parliament

—and this is where we have changed it—

that contains provisions that are similar in effect to sections 194 to 205;

In other words, we have clearly circumscribed what we are talking about in the way of equal protection. We have said “that are similar in effect to sections 194 to 205”. We have deleted the words “are equal protection”. We have specified what we are talking about and we have said:

that Act or any regulation made under that Act provides sufficient protection to human health and the environment.

This is really the type of wording the government was using in the first place—“sufficient protection to human health and environment”. I think it's much more circumscribed, much clearer than the previous L-16.5, and I think it was designed to obviate any opposition to it in that form.

The Chairman: So the amendment before the committee is the one on the sheet that is floating around and that has been moved by Madam Kraft Sloan, as explained now by Mr. Lincoln.

Any comments or questions? Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just wanted to flag for members' attention that should this new L-16.5 pass, NDP-52.12 would probably be out of order.

The Chairman: Yes, I was going to say that in a moment. There are three amendments that are affected by this.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: They are NDP-52.12, G-14.2.1, and PC-18.5.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In my amendment, the one you called floating—

The Chairman: Yes, the new L-16.5.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —the new L-16.5, I'm sorry for one omission. Everywhere we've talked about sufficient protection to human health and the environment, we have added “or its biological diversity”, and I would like to have a friendly amendment to include these words.

• 1640

The Chairman: You would add “or its biological diversity” after the word “environment”?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Right.

The Chairman: Do we have someone to move it? Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, as the mover of the amendment, I would take that as a friendly amendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 200 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Will you please turn to schedule 6 and the amendments that were prepared over the lunch hour. They are in loose form before you.

Before we deal with schedule 6, please turn to the new small package. In the new small package, we first have to deal with the government amendments on pages 46.a and 46.b. We discussed them before lunch and then left them in a suspended animation state.

Is there any further discussion on G-31.1.1, which we had this morning? You'll remember that we discussed the various uses of “should” and “shall”, “can” and “may”.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I've had the opportunity to look at this material on schedule 6 a little more closely over the break, and I have to agree with some of the discussion that was held earlier around the concerns about some uses of “should be”.

The Chairman: Is there an amendment?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I'm just wondering why they can't all be changed to “shall”.

The Chairman: There was a lengthy discussion, and a lengthy explanation was given for each one of them this morning.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm just wondering if people haven't had an opportunity to rethink this. For example, there's another issue. Item 3 of schedule 6 is an item separate from the “should be” and “shall” issue. It says “an applicant is expected to formulate” in the English, whereas en français it says “doit formuler”. That means they “must formulate”. In item 3 iten anglaisro, it's “expected to”, which is very weak. So there's a difference between the English and the French in that particular situation. That is different from “shall” and “should be”. If people have had an opportunity to take another look at these things, I would feel a lot more comfortable if we can change some of these to “shall”.

• 1645

The Chairman: Speaking of an opportunity to rethink, we'll hear from Madame Torsney, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, from your reference to the two amendments that were brought before the committee this afternoon with respect to item 3 and item 4, I gather that in terms of process you're trying to dispense with G-31.1.1, but you won't rule out additional amendments to this section. Therefore, there wouldn't be a problem with passing this one and then dealing with other amendments that might need to be dealt with.

The Chairman: That's correct, but since we are on G-31.1.1 and are having a discussion on schedule 6, I'm entertaining any intervention. I would therefore welcome some comments on what Madame Kraft Sloan just said so that there is a continuity in the debate.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But in terms of process, I'm just gathering that things coming up after the passing of this particular amendment that is before us would still be entertained.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So we could close this, and additional things could be changed. In terms of whether this passes or fails, the question is whether people agree with these changes or don't agree with these changes.

The Chairman: G-31.1.1 is an amendment to schedule 6. We would still have schedule 6 before us for further amendments.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I've been looking at item 3 again. If we look at item 3, I think Mr. Mongrain was addressing this before. If we look at the last line relating to permit renewal, it says “Permit issuance or renewal should be subject to compliance with this requirement.” In French, it says:

[Translation]

Permit issuance or renewal should be subject to compliance with this requirement.

[English]

So we're already putting a precondition on the issuance of the permit, right? In other words, the permit is conditional, based on the previous provisions that are set out in item 3. I think we agree with that, except that when we come to saying it, we say “should be subject”.

In both the French and the English, it seems to be the intention that this permit be conditional, based on respecting the conditions of item 3—“itne devrait se faire que si cette condition a été satisfaitero”, or “be subject to compliance with this requirement.” If you have it in the first place, I don't know why “shall” is not logical.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): Mr. Chair, I'll respond to that. I also had some time to think about it over lunch, albeit briefly.

The example I was trying to illustrate this morning was one in which the applicant for the permit is not in control of the generation of the waste. I'll use the Port of Vancouver as an example once again.

Often, the material that is disposed of at sea is dredged material. During normal maintenance for a harbour, the Port of Vancouver has to dredge the harbour, and then it has to put this dredged, excavated material somewhere. The disposal of that material falls under this regime. For the Port of Vancouver, the reason for the dredging of the harbour is the build-up of silt. The Port of Vancouver doesn't have the jurisdiction, the means or the authority to control all the sources of that silt. That silt is generated through run-off from the surrounding areas, the surrounding municipalities. In this instance, then, the most we could ask for from the applicant is to work in collaboration with relevant local and national authorities to develop means to prevent the waste at source. But there is a chance that those authorities may not choose to act in this area because it's not a priority for them. The silting up of a harbour may be a priority for the Vancouver Port Corporation and not as great a priority for the municipality of North Vancouver. However, the municipality is the source of the silting up because of runoff through rainstorms, etc. It builds up.

• 1650

The port authority, the applicant for the disposal permit, has no means of influencing the prevention of that waste—no legal means.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Mongrain, I won't quarrel with you about the Port of Vancouver and the silt. We'll agree with that. What I am saying to you is look at the last sentence of the permit. I agree that in case of waste you might have local authority. We agree with that. It's already provided for in the clause anyway. But I suggest to you that there the word “should” doesn't refer to that; it refers to permit issuance or renewal. If conditions are not met for one reason or another, you just don't issue that permit or you don't renew it. But when you renew it, it is subject to that condition and the “shall” or the “should” relates to permit issuance or renewal. I don't see why you can't say that permit issuance or renewal “shall” be subject to compliance with this requirement, because if there is no compliance you won't issue the permit anyway.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, that would put the Port of Vancouver, which is operating in this instance, let's say, in good faith, in a situation where it would be unable to dredge the harbour for which it is responsible because, for some reason, the local authorities weren't cooperative in trying to address the source of the runoff.

Especially when you run into cases of non-point sources, where you have several sources for a particular problem, we don't want to bind the hands of the applicant with very strict language. We have strong language—“should”—which allows us to look at it with a reasonable eye as to whether they're operating in good faith or not and are meeting the spirit of what we're trying to do under these provisions.

The Chairman: But Mr. Mongrain, as Madam Hébert mentioned a moment ago to me, if the applicant is expected to formulate and implement a waste prevention strategy as indicated on lines 3 and 4, then it follows that, being expected to formulate and implement such a waste prevention strategy, the renewal shall be subject to compliance, because the two concepts, the two thoughts, go hand in hand. This is what Mr. Lincoln is advocating. In the premise leading to the last sentence, you already have all the elements required to justify a “shall” instead of a “should”.

Isn't that what you said, Madam Hébert? Perhaps you would like to elaborate on this.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Just to follow up on Mr. Mongrain's explanation, I was just a bit puzzled, because the applicant is required or at least expected to implement a plan. If things are that much out of his or her hands as is being suggested, maybe this requirement to implement the plan—because the sources are from elsewhere—is unrealistic.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I'm using a specific example—

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, I think we are now going around in circles.

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I understood Mr. Mongrain's rationale to be essentially that there are some cases in which it would be impractical to require a permit applicant or a permit holder to develop a waste prevention strategy, because that party might not have direct authority or direct ability to reduce the wastes.

• 1655

I'm not sure that I follow the rationale, because a waste prevention strategy could be crafted in a variety of different ways. A waste prevention strategy from a plant that emits pollution is presumably going to address the waste over which that plant has direct control. If the port authority of Vancouver harbour were subject to this requirement, presumably their waste prevention strategy would primarily involve education, exhortation and collaborative programs with regional governments.

There's nothing, in my view, that would prevent them from being able to develop a waste prevention strategy and furthermore to make their ability to gain or renew their ocean-dumping permit subject to them having formulated and implemented such a strategy.

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

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I want to raise an issue with item 12, where it says—

The Chairman: Let's finish this item.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: All right.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, further to my comments earlier, I think we were working on an understanding that whereas in most cases when we're voting on an amendment, subsequent amendments to that clause would therefore be out of order, but that on this particular schedule, given the amendments that are before us in G-31.1.1 and the other two that are on the table and the discussion here, we weren't going to prejudice other amendments by taking this vote and it being in the affirmative.

I wonder if, in terms of efficient use, we could close this by taking the vote, move to the other ones that are before us, which address an earlier issue, and then, following those votes, have a more thorough discussion about all of these issues and obviously entertain any consequential amendments to that discussion.

The Chairman: Sure, we can do that. We can keep the schedule open and adopt the amendments that are at least before us. That's perfectly in order.

I will call G-31.1.1. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Then we have the amendment on replacing in the French version on the fifth line of item 3 on page 225 the words...etc. It is an amendment, in other words, to the French-language text. Apparently, somehow there was an error and instead of régionaux, it is to read nationaux, I'm told.

Are there any comments on this text?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: The other amendment, in the French version again, on page 225 as well, also should also refer to locaux et nationaux on the last line, and on the fourth line it should read “page 225”.

Are there any comments or questions? First of all, it needs to moved.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'll move it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I moved the last one too.

• 1700

The Chairman: That was recorded. It has now been moved. Are there any comments or questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm lost, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. Are you talking about paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 of Schedule 6?

The Chairman: Paragraph 4.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Where do you want to add those words?

The Chairman: At line 7.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Allright.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Now the discussion resumes on item 3, but we need some kind of amendment if that is the intent of the members, to concentrate their efforts on item 3 or any other item of schedule 6. In other words, I would entertain any motion, if you're ready, on the question of turning “should” into “shall”. If a motion is put forward, then we'll have a discussion.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, I would like somebody to move a motion for me. I will give the wording, then ask for somebody to move it.

I would move that Bill C-32, in schedule 6, be amended by replacing, in the eighth line of item 3, the word “should” with the word “shall”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Who is moving?

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

The Chairman: The amendment is before the committee and now the discussion is open.

Mr. Mongrain.

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

I'd like to return to where Mr. Moffet left off, talking about a waste prevention strategy that a ports corporation, for example, could implement. I agree with him, in general terms, that those are the types of things such an entity could put forward. But if you read on in paragraph 3, the waste prevention strategy must include specific waste reduction targets and further waste prevention audits.

So this is a very stringent commitment. It comes from Canada's international obligations under the London convention, and we've simply retained the term “should” rather than “shall” in this instance to provide for those instances where the disposal permit applicant is not in full control of all the tools needed to reach specific targets.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments in reply? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if for the purposes of discussion members would consider a friendly amendment that would also, in the third line, where it says “applicant is expected to formulate”, match the French, which says “must formulate”—in other words, “shall formulate” instead of “expected to”.

The Chairman: We need a mover for that, to amend his “expected to” to the word “shall”. Do we have a mover to this amendment? Mr. Jordan. The motion is expanded to propose an amendment on the third line with the word “shall” in place of “is expected to”, and on the second-last line of item three, to replace “should” with “shall”.

Are there any further comments?

[Translation]

The Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Chair, are we sitting tomorrow afternoon? Tomorrow's Wednesday.

The Chairman: We're sitting after Easter at the rate we are going.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I know, but I would not be the one trying to ensure that. I wonder if for the sake of clarity we could put this one aside until tomorrow. It's changing by the minute, and if we had it on a piece of paper it would be a lot clearer.

• 1705

The Chairman: Yes, we'll be sitting tomorrow afternoon and Thursday morning for sure, and maybe Thursday afternoon and then after Easter. We certainly can put this aside as a matter that can be elaborated upon.

Madame Hébert would like to make a brief announcement. Go ahead.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Given the parliamentary secretary's comments, I would be pleased to take instruction from Mrs. Kraft Sloan and draft all the clauses she feels should be changed in schedule 6. The committee could consider these tomorrow with something in writing before them.

The Chairman: Is that acceptable? I take it that it is.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Would that include number three?

The Chairman: It could include number three, number twelve, wherever there has been a comment that members would like to develop into an amendment.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Before we go on to the amendments, I want to address for now the question of “is expected to” versus the French droit. That surely could be solved right now. I mean, it's very clear that....

The Chairman: I'm sure we can do it in one shot tomorrow, when the amendment is written out.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Tomorrow.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes. I think you do it all in one scoop.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: You see, if we have a whole package, I'm worried that if it's one package of amendments then we vote on all of them. So as long as we vote on them separately, because we could pass three and just reject number twelve.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney apparently wanted to make a similar point. Please go ahead.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's my problem. This thing is expanding. I'm wondering if Madame Hébert, if she's going to be writing up amendments, could in fact put each of them on a separate page so that people could vote for some and against others.

The Chairman: There will be different pages for each different item.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have concerns with a number of items under schedule 6, as Madame Hébert had noted. However, perhaps we can deal with item three, as Mr. Lincoln has stated. There are two amendments in item three that perhaps we could just deal with now. I might encourage the committee to consider that.

The Chairman: By giving the government an opportunity to reflect upon the changes, it might lead to a better outcome than by proceeding now. Also, from a time-comsuming perspective, I think it would be less time-consuming.

I might also warn the members of the committee that a schedule could be the subject of the deliberations of a good four or five meetings if we really wanted to go into them thoroughly. There is no doubt about that in my mind, at least, and I'm sure in some of the members' minds. Therefore there may well be tonight and tomorrow morning an opportunity for members to give Madame Hébert the amendments they wish to propose in order to improve this particular schedule, which evidently, judging from reactions, is very important.

We will therefore come back to schedule 6 tomorrow. This amendment is stood.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We have an opportunity that has been provided to us this evening that we could possibly finish up this bill, which would be a joyous event for all of us concerned. We will be sitting very late with the House, from what we understand. Perhaps some of us who are on this committee could just complete the goddamned thing.

Voices: Oh, oh.

• 1710

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I don't like to mix religion and politics, but I think it's terribly appropriate at this stage.

The Chairman: Madam Sloan, we have thirty amendments on the preamble. I think you are a bit too optimistic on concluding in one session. There is enough work here to sit at least tomorrow afternoon and Thursday morning and Thursday afternoon and beyond.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Regardless of whether there's a little bit or a lot left, I'm just wondering whether it would be good use of our time to meet at seven o'clock, since we have a vote tonight at eleven.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, we can identify those who are trying to complete this bill and those who prefer to slow it down.

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think the perception is somewhat opposite.

The Chairman: I invite the committee members to turn to clause 1, page 47 of the new small binder. It's a government amendment, G-31.2. Would the parliamentary secretary like to move it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm having a little trouble here.

The Chairman: The new small package dated March 16, 1999.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. Mr. Chair, this amendment would be consequential to previous amendments that would have been made and would in fact reflect more accurately the name of this bill, which should be the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The Chairman: At the rate we're going, it could also be the year 2000, particularly by the time it goes through the Senate.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 381 of the large binder. We welcome the new members of the committee. If they so wish, we'll provide them with a copy of the bill and the amendments before us.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just wanted to seek clarification that we closed clause 176. Okay.

Since we made a change to clause 166, which was reflective of Mr. Gilmour's amendment, instead of “any government”, to say “the government”, I wonder if members would look on page 15 of their mini-package

[Translation]

and at page 16 in the French version.

[English]

The Chairman: Your question is on clause 176?

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, and this amendment is similar to the one that was at page 13 in the English version and page 14 in the French version.

[English]

The Chairman: And your question is...?

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could we vote on this amendment?

[English]

The Chairman: Well, we carried them.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We have passed the amendment of page 13 not the one that is at page 15.

[English]

The Chairman: Is this the government amendment, 14.20 on page 15?

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: All right. We missed that, did we?

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We would like to have unanimous consent.

• 1715

[English]

The Chairman: All right. It has not been dealt with and it is now to be put to the committee. Would you please turn to page 15 of the mini-package dated March 23. It was an oversight on our part. It's government amendment 14.2.0.

Would you like to introduce it, Madame la secrétaire parlementaire?

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Our amendment to clause 176 applies only to the English version. We move that the words "any government" be replaced by "the government".

[English]

The Chairman: It's an amendment that somehow flows from discussion on a Reform Party amendment, R-17. Is that the origin of it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, and government amendment 14.0.1.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: The other one was clause 166, did you say?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We've already done that.

The Chairman: So that is the end of your list.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But we need to close clause 176.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, that's the end of my list.

(Clause 176 as amended agreed to)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, with this one it says “the government responsible”. Is it the government's intention to include “in the likely event down the road of aboriginal self-government” as well?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The inclusion of “the” was to reflect that there could be more than one government that would be responsible, an aboriginal government and a provincial government, and “the” clarifies the rules.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Could you please turn to the preamble, where we have a number of amendments, beginning with Mr. Lincoln's, I believe, L-18 on page 381.

Does anyone wish to move Mr. Lincoln's amendment?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm happy to move Mr. Lincoln's amendment L-18.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The gist of the amendment is in the present sentence that reads “Whereas the Government of Canada acknowledges the need to control and manage pollutants”, it will now say “acknowledges the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent toxic substances and the need to control and manage”. In other words, we would include “the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent toxic substances and”.

Considering this is a preamble, which states the intention of the bill, I think it would be really important to include this intention. That's what we're hoping will happen. It's not a part of the operative clause, and I hope all will see the use of having it in the preamble to state our intention.

• 1720

The Chairman: So would you please read, for the benefit of the committee and also the new members, whom we welcome accordingly, the full text of the section you are dealing with.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The section now says:

Whereas the Government of Canada acknowledges the need to control and manage pollutants and wastes if their release into the environment cannot be prevented;

What we would say is:

Whereas the Government of Canada acknowledges the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent toxic substances and the need to control and manage pollutants and wastes if their release into the environment cannot be prevented;

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Some time ago there was some discussion about whether the member would be interested in having this read “knowledges the need to virtually eliminate the most persistent substances and the need to control and manage”. That would be more consistent with what's in the bill. So if you're looking at it again, the words “phase out the generation and use of” would be replaced by “virtually eliminate”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, again.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And the addition, between “persistent” and “toxic”, of the words “and bioaccumulative”.

The Chairman: All right, we have now Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Stoffer, and Mr. Lincoln.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the goal of “virtual elimination” is the phase-out of “generation and use”. And if this is a preamble of the bill, it seems to me that we want to be stating our highest goals we want to achieve. In other words, what's a heaven for if we can't begin to exceed our grasp and start working toward the very ultimate objectives we have identified? And even in the toxic substance management policy, it talks about how the goal of virtual elimination is for the phase-out of generation and use. So I think it's important, when we're talking about the preamble, to ensure that we have these goals, which are very important for Canadians, articulated in this.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, please.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. My question for the parliamentary secretary was when you say “virtually eliminate” did you say “and/or phase out” or just “and phase out”?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My request would be that it would say “acknowledges the need to virtually eliminate the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substance and the need to control and manage”.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would you accept the fact that you could say “and/or”, as well?

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I wanted to point out, first of all, where we talk about “persistent”, we say “persistent or bioaccumulative” in the text of the law. I think if you check that you will find it's “or”, not “and”. Look at paragraph 73(1)(b).

The Clerk of the Committee: Clause 77.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What does clasue 77 say?

• 1725

Mr. Duncan Cameron: So it's “and bioaccumulative”.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question, through you, to the parliamentary secretary? Our first preference is to keep the words “phase out”. What I would like to ask is whether we are being asked to change “phase out” to “virtual elimination”. What sort of assurance would we have that virtual elimination, as now accepted by us by amendment, is to be kept? If there's an assurance that it's going to stay, maybe then we could consider it. I certainly would be prepared to discuss it. But what happens if I accept it and then “virtual elimination”, as I know it today, becomes different at report stage, for instance, and is diluted or reduced in scope?

In other words, are we talking about virtual elimination as it stands today?

The Chairman: I don't know whether the parliamentary secretary's in a position to comment.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was wondering if the honourable member for Lac-Saint-Louis would accept a friendly amendment stating the following: “acknowledges the need to phase out and/or virtually eliminate the generation and uses of the most persistent and bioaccumulative substances”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Do you mean to leave out what is there?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, no, it's “virtually eliminate and/or phase out”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, yes, sure. I would accept that with joy.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: We lost a couple of them here earlier, so....

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, as the mover of this amendment, I would be happy to take the friendly amendment, and we can call this to a vote.

The Chairman: Just a moment. There are people who want to speak.

The amendment is accepted as moved. I will ask the clerk to read it for a moment and then I will recognize the parliamentary secretary.

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, it would read:

acknowledges the need to virtually eliminate and/or phase out the generation and use of the most persistent toxic bioaccumulative substances and the need to control and manage

The Chairman: All right, the parliamentary secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then my question is to the drafting counsel and clerk as to whether that would be in order.

The Chairman: We have Mr. Stoffer and then Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I would move to the—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, after consulting with my colleagues here, I would like to suggest to Mr. Stoffer that we just leave it as is—“to phase out”. I think it accomplishes everything we want to do.

The Chairman: Let's now proceed with some clarity and order. The amendment that was proposed in a friendly manner by Mr. Stoffer is rejected. Correct.

The amendment before us, then, is that.... Would you mind reading it, please, Madam Kraft Sloan?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As far as I understand it, we've acknowledged “the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances and the need to control and manage”.

• 1730

The Chairman: You now have the amendment before you.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I apologize. I wasn't sure if “bioaccumulative” was included or not.

The Chairman: Yes, it is.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. So there is no desire to have it read “virtually eliminate the most persistent and bioaccumulative”.

The Chairman: “Virtually eliminate” has been dropped.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: “Bioaccumulative” is still in.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay, then I would like to have a subamendment, and that would be to amend it to say “acknowledges the need to virtually eliminate the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances and the need to control and manage”. So that would be considered a subamendment.

The Chairman: All right. Can we make a note, please? It's a subamendment to insert, after “need to”, “virtually eliminate”.

Did you say and/or, Madam Torsney?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, it's “virtually eliminate the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances and the need to control and manage”.

The Chairman: So she skips from “phase out” to “of” on the next line, so that it reads “acknowledges the need to virtually eliminate the most persistent”.

You have now a subamendment moved by Madam Torsney. Mr. Stoffer, I presume you would like to speak to the subamendment.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would it be possible, sir, to ask the clerk to read it all out one more time?

The Chairman: We certainly can do that.

Are there any further questions? If not, we will proceed first with the subamendment, and the clerk will read it.

The Clerk: If I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman, we should be reading now:

acknowledges the need to virtually eliminate the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances and the need to control and manage

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chairman: Now we'll go to the amendment. Could the clerk please read it?

The Clerk: It reads:

acknowledges the need to phase out the generation and use of the most persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances and the need to control and manage

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Next is page 382 and amendment NDP-53. Is that still necessary, in the light of what just happened?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That is correct, sir. I've been advised by my superior mind here to withdraw that last amendment.

Mr. Moffet, have you any comments at all?

The Chairman: It's withdrawn.

On page 383 is an amendment in the name of Mr. Lincoln, amendment L-19.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Would you excuse me half a second, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Sure.

Yes, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chair, I was under the understanding that this meeting was to go until 5.30.

The Chairman: Could we deal with this first, and then we'll adjourn?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chairman: Could we have some cooperation?

• 1735

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, could I ask somebody to move my amendment?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I would be happy to move Mr. Lincoln's amendment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you look at the preamble on line 25, page 1, it reads:

Whereas the Government of Canada will continue to demonstrate national leadership in establishing ecosystem objectives and environmental quality

What I am introducing is to say “establishing environmental standards, ecosystem objectives and environmental quality guidelines”. In other words, I am bringing in the words “environmental standards”, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And one would think that the federal government did these things.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Could I ask Mr. Stoffer whether we could have his indulgence and cooperation that we continue until the vote is called?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Until 6.30?

The Chairman: Until 6.30.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No problem.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you. Then we'll move on to the next amendment, on page 384.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm quite interested in moving forward as quickly as possible, but this meeting was scheduled until 5.30 and I, for one, have other commitments before the vote. I think there are other members who planned their schedule accordingly.

The Chairman: I don't know if much can be achieved if a vote is going to be called in 40 minutes or so.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: A lot can be done.

The Chairman: There is not much time. I think that whatever pressing, urgent business is awaiting members in their offices, it will be a very frustrating experience to dash there and then be called back by a bell. So I would suggest that we continue.

The next amendment is on page 384—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could we have a motion to adjourn then, please?

The Chairman: Yes, we can have a motion to adjourn any time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, I would be putting that forward, to adjourn at this point.

The Chairman: A motion to adjourn has been moved by the parliamentary secretary. Don't complain if we sit after Christmas. Those in favour please so indicate.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to put on the record that I don't think that comment was fair.

The Chairman: I meant, actually, Easter, so I withdraw Christmas.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't think that one would have been fair either.

The Chairman: Well, that's what I mean, though.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: The motion is defeated five to four. On the other hand, I don't see any point in proceeding with such a divided committee. Therefore there is no point in forcing the pace. We will resume tomorrow, possibly at three o'clock, if you don't mind, or as close to three o'clock as you can.

This meeting is adjourned.