ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 25, 1999

• 0824

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This may be the last time we meet to examine Bill C-32, although we can't be quite sure. We have a lot of work to do this morning.

[English]

If we apply all our skills, we could finish by noon. But there is a lot of work, and we will continue with what we started on Tuesday; namely, the preamble.

• 0825

Before doing that, I would like to ask the whip to distribute a clipping that appeared in yesterday's newspaper, which is only intended to remind us of the reality out there in connection with what we are doing in here. It is from yesterday's Globe and Mail. It is the result of a research. It is nothing extraordinary. Nevertheless, it is an indicator of the complexity of the subject we are dealing with.

I invite you to turn to amendment G-31.1.2, which is on the last page of the mini-package dated March 23. It's a government amendment. If this amendment carries, it has an effect on seven other amendments.

May I disturb those who are absorbed by reading the daily newspapers and ask that we concentrate on the subject matter before us? Thank you. This is important stuff.

Amendment G-31.1.2 touches upon amendment BQ-33 on page 385 of your binder, amendment L-20 on page 386, amendment NDP-55 on page 387, amendment G-32 on page 388, amendment L-20.1 on page 49 in the small binder, amendment NDP-56 on page 389, and finally, amendment PC-19 on page 390. I won't repeat them; this is just to indicate, in case some of these amendments are in your name, that this amendment touches upon seven other amendments.

Having said that, would the parliamentary secretary like to introduce it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would be happy to introduce amendment G-31.1.2, which, as you mentioned, is on page 23 of the package dated March 23, and I will not be moving amendment G-32, which is in your book and is one of the ones that you mentioned would be affected if this were to pass.

The effect of the amendment is to get the French right and make sure it is what is in fact in the Rio Declaration. It is an amendment that only corrects the French text.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Torsney.

Are there questions or comments on this amendment? Mr. Laliberte, please.

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

When you said it affects other amendments, I don't command the French language in any way that I'd be able to see the similarities or the effects on the English side, on the English interpretations. Could we ask for a translation or how it impacts on what we've already achieved on the English version? Also, what is coming up with the amendments by approving this?

• 0830

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): It would be really hard for us to look into the seven amendments one by one. Could I ask for you to get confirmation from Mr. Toupin, our legal adviser, and the other advisers who are responsible for drafting, that this amendment G-31.1.2, if passed—and I think it should be—does not impact on the substance of the seven others? If the substance of the seven others is not changed, if it's purely a question of drafting, *rédaction, then no problem. But maybe Mr. Toupin and others could tell us whether that is the case or whether by changing this we impact on the substance of the others.

The Chairman: It's my understanding that it clarifies the French version, but let's hear from Mr. Toupin.

Mr. Marc Toupin (Procedural Clerk): Essentially, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of issues the the amendment to the preamble in G-31.1.2 touches upon. One of them is the issue of l'absence de certitude scientifique absolue. There are a number of amendments you referred to earlier that deal with this issue.

As well, the other issue this government amendment seeks to clarify... One I've mentioned is scientific certainty, certitude scientifique absolue, and also the issue of cost-effective. This in essence just confirms that the government's intention, in my mind anyway, is to keep the language that currently exists, namely with regard to l'absence de certitude scientifique absolue, and the issue of cost-effective measures, which are referred to in the preamble as it exists.

These are two issues that are dealt with in the list of amendments you just referred to earlier. If committee members believe that these two issues, the issue of certitude scientifique absolue and “cost-effective measures”, should be changed, then their option would be to vote against this amendment. By voting against this amendment they could obviously propose other options, which are included in the package of amendments you have referred to, and various amendments have put forward various proposals to deal with these issues.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Therefore in the French version does mesures effectives mean cost-effective, or does it mean effective measures? That's the whole thing, because it seems to me if you say mesures effectives, you're not talking about cost. There's no relation to cost there; so I would imagine that means in English “effective measures”, not cost-effective measures necessarily.

Mr. Marc Toupin: Mr. Chairman, you may wish to ask for some comments from Mr. Cameron, but the way I read this, in the French text of the preamble as it reads now, the text refers to mesures efficientes, which is on page 1, line 34, and in the amendment currently before us the government is proposing an amendment to the French text that would make it mesures effectives. They are not changing the English version of the preamble, which currently reads “postponing cost-effective measures”. I interpret this to mean that the government wishes to proceed with the text as it reads, “postponing cost-effective measures” in English, and in French mesures effectives, and that they consider this a proper translation.

• 0835

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, then Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): If all this is trying to do is bring the French in line with the English, it shouldn't disqualify other amendments on this section, I wouldn't think. If we fundamentally change—

The Chairman: This is the key question, and this is something the clerk will have to re-examine.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I agree if it is just a matter of making sure that the French translation properly conveys the meaning of the English version and if, as Mr. Jordan has just mentioned, we can come back later to the amendments that will clarify the text further. I don't have a problem at all, as long as we can continue our examination of the Bloc Québécois amendment, in particular, which we consider important.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm in the process of recalling the last time we debated this issue. I believe the challenge was put to us by Mr. Charbonneau, who had highlighted efficientes in French and believed it should have been considered for the English side. And we don't have an option here. I don't know what the effect of the word efficientes brought over to the English side would be. We seem to have a one-minded track here of bringing “effective” in line with everything.

Plus, the other issue is that we have dealt with the cost-effective measures in another amendment. I wanted to remind the committee that we did deal with this issue, and to be consistent we may want to revisit the terminology used then.

The Chairman: We will revise our ruling in a moment, but let's hear the parliamentary secretary for a moment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Laliberte is correct. We did have some debate about this in the past, and the reason we are proposing a government amendment is in fact that it was always the government's intention that in the preamble—which, as we already discussed on another day, does not have any legal certainty—we did want to include the Rio Declaration, and the Rio Declaration does include “cost-effective”.

We removed all the “cost-effectives” in the operative clauses of the bill, but we wanted in the preamble to reflect the Rio Declaration in English and in French—and that's where we've made a change with this amendment. Canada had signed the Rio Declaration, and it was of value to put that, in its entirety and in the form in which we signed it, into the preamble.

The Chairman: Thank you.

This has been a very helpful round in also clarifying our thinking here at the table. Therefore what I announced a few minutes ago, namely the impact on the other seven amendments, is to be lifted. We will deal with those seven amendments as well. So we will first deal with this amendment, but we will still go through the other amendments, because this only has an impact on the French version—and in the light of the Rio Declaration, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated.

So things are going to proceed in the following manner: we will vote on this amendment, and then we'll start with BQ-33, L-20, NDP-55, and so on.

Mr. Lincoln, very briefly.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Briefly, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to belabour the point, but first I would like to know that the French version that is there now is the Rio French version. There must be one official Rio version, so that would be the simplest. If that is so, then it really clarifies a lot.

If you look at paragraph 2(1)(a), at the way it was translated, I think it's important to look at it so there's no confusion. Paragraph 2(1)(a) used to say “take cost-effective preventive and remedial measures”. And there it was prendre des mesures préventives et correctives efficientes. I guess efficiente” was a word that was used to translate “cost-effective” in the past. So I imagine the government has now found that effectives translates to “cost-effective”. It would be interesting to know that the Rio definition in French really says that. That would solve everything.

• 0840

The Chairman: It certainly would.

I'm glad you drew the attention of the committee to paragraph 2(1)(a), because probably that is the version we have adopted.

The declaration of Rio's fifteenth principle... The clerk was very fast here. Would you like to read it please?

[Translation]

The Committee Clerk: Here is principle 15:

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

[English]

The Chairman: So mesures effectives is the key word, then.

Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): What we are trying to do here in introducing this is facilitate the discussion in making sure that on both the French and the English side you have the exact words in Rio, and that's what we've provided for.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

The Chairman: We turn now to page 385. Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Our amendment concerns line 33 on page 1, where full scientific certainty is mentioned. We move that the word "full" be dropped since we think that full scientific certainty does not exist. This is more of a technical amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

I think it's important to note that this clause is a negative clause, so “lack of full scientific certainty” means you should take action. So I think lack of full certainty is an important principle. It's saying you don't have to be absolutely certain; you should take action anyway. So it's helpful in this instance to have “absolutely certain” because it emphasizes the point: don't go for absolute certainty; if you have some science that's lining up in this direction, go for it, make the decisions. So it's a signal to people that you don't have to wait for the absolute nth degree scientific study and the zillionth scientific study before you take action. Get going.

I think it's an important principle and it should probably be left as “absolute”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Adams.

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would point out that if what Mr. Bigras says is true, we can't be absolutely certain that it is true.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: He's a scientist.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We have a similar amendment to this one. I've tackled this one for ten months, and I still can't wrestle it down. I'm trying to use it as an example. Maybe somebody else can come up with a different example.

• 0845

I know the end run is to get measures to prevent. That's our end goal. But we have this test in between that lacks a full scientific certainty. Is it a higher measure that we'll never reach—the full scientific certainty—that we'll always go to measures to prevent anyway? Is there ever such a thing as full scientific certainty? Is that a measurement beyond, so that I can sleep well tonight knowing that we'll always take the measure to prevent, that full scientific certainty is—

The Chairman: The question Mr. Laliberte raises has been the subject of debates for months and years, maybe decades and centuries. So we are tackling something here that is not an easy item for which a quick answer can be provided. Evidently, the full scientific certainty with the word “full” before “scientific” poses a big question.

Mr. Lerer, and then Madam Torsney.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Just through you, Mr. Chair, to answer Mr. Laliberte's question, the intent here as it is worded is that the need for full scientific certainty shall not be an impediment to taking the actions that... It is an exclusionary clause. The fact that you do not have everything shall not be an impediment to taking action.

The Chairman: And the key words, Mr. Laliberte, are “a lack of”. So your focus ought to be on the words “lack of” rather than “full”.

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think the other thing that's important to realize is that obviously the Department of Environment and the government are going to have some scientific information before... It's a science-based organization. They're going to have some scientific study that says there's a problem here, and they will take action based on that. But there are others who would say no, the government should have to do a zillion surveys. They have to show that it's full certainty before you're allowed to do something. And this is a signal to them that no, we don't have to wait until 850 studies are done or until everybody in the scientific world lines up in one direction. If we have some science, we can take action. So I think it does have to be “lack of full scientific certainty”.

The Chairman: To conclude the debates, we have Mr. Jordan and then Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Rick, I look at the climate change debate and the tobacco debate. The barrier that was thrown up was that there was not absolute certainty of the causation, we just said correlations. So I think this sets the bar lower by saying that.

If you took out the word “full”, I'm not exactly sure what the implications for that are, but it might be a greyer statement. I don't know.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The reason I said I'm trying to understand what it does is that postponing means reasons. So when you come to reasons, the first example I can come to is when my son tries to come up with reasons not to go to school. The end run is that we always want to get our children to school. So will he use the reason of full health, or just that he's not feeling good today? I think full health is a really high measure that will take our child to school more often. It diminishes the reasons.

So I'm speaking in favour of keeping “full scientific certainty” in there, because postponing is reason. So the fewer reasons there are in the bill to take measures to prevent, the more comfortable I'll be, and that's what my mind was trying to wrap around. So if my amendment does come around, I would have pulled it, and fortunately voted against my honourable member here.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's very helpful.

Monsieur Bigras and Madam Torsney will conclude the debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Before you put this amendment to the vote, I wish to say that I've listened carefully to the explanations of the Parliamentary Secretary and that you have given us a very good summary. Since this is a very controversial issue, scientifically and philosophically, I don't see why we should use that expression in the bill. I think it's important to remove the word "full".

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, then Mr. Lincoln.

• 0850

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are two things. Once again, this is the Rio Declaration, which Canada has signed, and now with the previous amendment, it's the exact declaration in English and in French. The second thing, to Mr. Laliberte's point, is that as long as he has some good health, in this example he would be sending him to school, but if he has a bit of a cold, you would still send him to school, because he is mostly healthy. He has a lack of full health—he has a cold—but he'll still have to go to school.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, to conclude.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I agree that it is part of the Rio definition. We don't contest that. At the same time, although we've signed the Rio Declaration, we're not bound to its exact standard. If we can go beyond its exact standard, that doesn't stop us. In fact it betters the Rio standard.

The key point is whether there is such a thing as full scientific certainty. By putting in the words “lack of full scientific certainty”, you automatically accept that there is such a thing as full scientific certainty. There isn't. That's the key element of science. Nobody knows absolutely that something is going to happen or not happen. We presume. It's almost a contradiction in terms in the definition itself to say there is full scientific certainty or lack thereof. By saying there's lack thereof, you admit that there's full scientific certainty. If there were, we wouldn't need the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle addresses itself to scientific uncertainty. I think scientific uncertainty translates the feeling much more closely than full scientific certainty, which doesn't exist in the first place. There can never be full scientific certainty on anything. That's why scientists have been debating all these issues forever.

The Chairman: I would like to put it to a vote, but the parliamentary secretary wants the floor.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are two important principles. One, this is a phrase that's in the negative. “Lack of full certainty” means you can still take action. Obviously there are people in this country who would demand that we have “absolutely full” certainty, and this is an important signal to them. The operative clauses of the bill in fact say we will use a weight-of-evidence approach. That's also important to making sure we are taking the information, weighing it, and taking action. It's the operative clauses of the bill that incorporate the principles Mr. Lincoln was articulating.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 49 in the small collection? This amendment is in the name of Ms. Carroll.

Would you like to move it, Madam Carroll?

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. I'll speak to that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Which package is it in?

The Chairman: It's the package dated March 16, and it looks like this on the front page. It's on the last page.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just for clarification, it's also the same amendment that's on page 389 of the big book.

The Chairman: Yes, that's correct, but Madam Carroll comes first, all right?

• 0855

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It is on page 389 and is amendment NDP-56. In speaking to this amendment, I want to cover a few areas. I'll attempt to be brief, but I do want to cover what I think are important points.

My amendment in effect removes the word “cost-effective” from the preamble of this act. The word “cost-effective” appeared in four locations within the body of the act. This is one. Three amendments from my government have addressed the other three locations, and the word “cost-effective” has been removed.

This reflects a concern or strong contention that to have “cost-effective” drive public policy and be a determinant where issues of health and safety of Canadians are concerned is not a motivation that leads us to the kind of legislation we're attempting to produce here, or hopefully in any other locale.

The concept of cost-benefit analysis has been discussed at length. We had considerable expert witness in that regard. As a result, we've had amendments brought forward from the government that have removed it from the body of this legislation. It does, however, now stay within the preamble.

My reason for moving this motion to have it removed from the preamble is to make sure we do not have inconsistencies. We have heard considerable discussion here that if we do not have the same language throughout the act, we will have inconsistencies that fly in the face of the spirit of the legislation.

I would draw to your attention that where there is inconsistency that leads to future litigious action and a requisite for judicial interpretation, the judge will look to the preamble of an act to determine what was in the minds of the legislators at the time they enacted that legislation. So the existence in the preamble of a phrase as pertinent as “cost-effective” will weigh heavily on the persons who will make final judicial decisions. I am very concerned in that regard.

When it comes to international law—and I have listened well to the officials who put forward the concerns about the Rio Declaration—I maintain where the bar is raised, we will not be flying in the face of an international agreement. In fact, where we have said we will reach for a higher standard, I do not believe that by putting that higher standard within our domestic legislation we will be negating our compliance with an international agreement.

I believe if we lower the bar, and by so doing say Canada will not implement the standard we agreed to internationally, we will be injecting into the international forum an inconsistency that is unacceptable in international law and to the reputation of this country, which enjoys a reputation for living up to its word.

So I do not believe we will contradict international law. I think we will stay very firm in constitutional law, and will assist in any domestic court that is compelled to have a litigious action decided. It is from those points of departure that I make this motion.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Carroll.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Obviously from my comments earlier on some of the other amendments, I'm not in favour of this. But I would direct members' attention to clause 47, which we amended at some point in the last couple of months. We inserted in line 8 the costs and benefits to the minister. That was in some guidelines about the use of powers. I think some of the points the member has raised are in the operational part of the bill, and that's important.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments? Mr. Lincoln, then Mr. Jordan.

• 0900

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, I back Ms. Carroll's comments 100%. I don't think we are tied into the lowest standard set by Rio or any other convention. Provided we go beyond it, that is quite in order. I think we've shown by the various steps we have taken under paragraph 2(1)(a), clause 47 and the various key clauses where we've removed “cost” in the operative clauses, it was the intention of this committee to do this.

If we leave “cost” here there will be confusion. As Ms. Carroll suggests, there might be an interpretation that we were speaking with contradictory language and conflicting language in the operating clauses and the preamble. I think it's really important that we remove “cost” from “cost-effective”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: We could get a legal interpretation of the role of the preamble if there is some confusion. Are we opening ourselves up to—

The Chairman: That lags with her presentation.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm just wondering if her assessment of it is accurate.

The Chairman: Why? It is accurate. Of course it is.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Rather than take shots at Ms. Carroll, I'd like to hear Mr. Cameron's interpretation of how much weight is put on the preamble itself in a legal case.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Environment Canada): Ms. Carroll has given a very clear explanation. I agree that the role of the preamble is to set out the principles of legislation that would be relied on as an interpretive aid in the event of ambiguity later on in the substance of the bill.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just in closing, it sounds like Mr. Cameron sort of approves this measure.

The Chairman: We don't want to put words in Mr. Cameron's lips. He has just commented on the clarity of Madam Carroll's intervention.

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are you still in mid-sentence or not?

The Chairman: No, that's all.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The three references to the effective use of powers and three references to cost were removed from the bill, so I doubt there's much confusion. Furthermore, in clause 47 we've also emphasized the benefits, and I think that's important.

(Motion negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Next is PC-19 on page 390 of the large binder, please. It's an amendment in the name of Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Essentially, I think I could move it. It is different because I removed “cost-effective” as opposed to just “cost”. Is that correct? Is it eligible to be voted on?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: I think we're already had the debate on this, but if for some reason the slight change in language would make the members alter their votes, we'll take a crack at it.

The Chairman: You heard the amendment.

Mr. Laliberte, please give the introduction.

• 0905

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I didn't finish my argument last time, so maybe I can... When I argued that lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason, I mentioned that the end run, the overall goal, is “measures to prevent”. “Cost-effective measures” is another test, which is unnecessary when in the title of this act is “prevention and the protection of the environment and human health”.

In the preamble, we should be very specific that “measures to prevent” should be the end run, and I think the honourable member's amendment should be seriously considered here. Unfortunately, we can't convince the government and certain parties on our side to see that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I want to put on the record that I'm not clear that we should be even considering this amendment in terms of procedure. Furthermore, I think this line has already been dealt with. Secondly, surely you would want to have “effective measures”, as opposed to ineffective measures.

The Chairman: I appreciate the comment that was made, but it is now before us.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up two points.

First of all, on thinking this thing out again, we have another conflict here. I'm trying to find the reference, but I'm almost sure Mrs. Kraft Sloan moved an amendment that was accepted, where assessment has to be taken according to the precautionary principle and the weight of evidence. I forget the reference now, but I'll find it.

That means the precautionary principle is a key point of assessments. Now we're bringing the “cost-effective measures” into that, because the only definition of “precautionary principle” is in the preamble. So it's far more than just a preamble. It's far more than just stating a general intention. It now brings a precautionary principle directly into the operative section of the bill.

Secondly, I would like to bring out that Canada certainly didn't speak with one voice in international fora. When they decide international agreements and conventions, it depends on the wishes of nations at the particular time, and who has the sway and who hasn't, and how the vote goes. But that is to show that Canada's intention is very different from, in many cases, that of Rio, which depends on the number of nations there and how the voting goes.

I have some references. The London Dumping Convention, which we were agreed on, says:

Appropriate preventive measures are taken where there is reason to believe that substances or energy introduced into the marine environment are likely to cause harm, even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects.

There's no relation to cost in there.

The Bergen declaration on sustainable development, in 1990, which led to the Bruntland report, and which Canada again backed officially, says:

In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason...

That eventually got into the real definition.

There is no reason why we have to take “cost-effective” and say that because of Rio, we have to accept it. This is the mantra. I think we have good reason to think we shouldn't accept it.

I was referring to what Mrs. Kraft Sloan brought up, clause 76.1:

When the Ministers are conducting and interpreting the results of

(a) a screening assessment under section 74,

(b) a review of a decision of another jurisdiction under subsection 75(3)...

the Ministers shall apply a weight of evidence approach and the precautionary principle.

By putting “cost-effective” here, what we are doing is, in a roundabout way, bringing “cost-effective” into a key section of the operative clauses of the act. What is more, by doing so now in the operative clauses, under clause 76.1 we have a conflict between clause 76.1 and paragraph 2(1)(a) and clause 47, where we're taking “cost” out.

• 0910

So we're saying, then, in clause 76.1, when we come to “assessment”, we're going to take “cost-effective” as the rationale, but when it comes to paragraph 2(1)(a), we say in the administration of the act that the Government of Canada shall just take preventive and remedial measures, and in subclause 47(1) and in all the other places we have taken “cost” out. So we are speaking with two minds in the same operative parts of the bill, and I think the only logical way is to take “cost” out.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like a recorded vote.

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

The Chairman: On page 391 is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gilmour, R-22. Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I will not be moving that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The amendment is withdrawn.

Would you please turn to page 393, an amendment in the name of Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: We wish to withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: All right, it's withdrawn.

Would you please turn to page 394,

[Translation]

where there's a motion by the Bloc Québécois.

[English]

It's an amendment on traditional knowledge,

[Translation]

traditional knowledge.

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, we move that the words "and the traditional knowledge of aboriginal peoples" be added at the beginning of line 21 on page 2. We wish to stress the importance of enriching ourselves with the traditional knowledge of aboriginal peoples in reaching decisions concerning the protection of the environment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Ms. Torsney, please.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if Mr. Bigras would accept an amendment to his amendment, which would be to have the amendment read:

recognizes the integral role of science, as well as the role of traditional aboriginal knowledge in the process.

• 0915

The reason this is being put forward this way is because we've used this phrase in several other places in the bill. It reflects the same sentiment. It's perhaps more consistent and more appropriately worded.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras concurs?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: You have heard the friendly amendment.

Mr. Coderre, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Does aboriginal people include Métis people?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, it includes Métis and Inuit.

The Chairman: Are you ready to make a decision?

(The motion is carried)

[English]

The Chairman: Page 395, a motion in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is NDP-57, and it's dealing with the same paragraph we just dealt with.

We are proposing to delete the last portion, which seems to be a qualifier. The matters to be considered in that process include environmental health risks, social and economic and technical matters. The preamble we just dealt with on measures to prevent... we were forced to accept that cost-effective measures be included in there. This one is a little bit broader, but there shouldn't be qualifiers for us to start a process in making decisions, and we're asking that that be deleted. I so move.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, I think your amendment would bring Bill C-32 in line with Bill C-74, the previous bill. Apparently that is how it was worded.

I checked with Madame Hébert, and she confirms that the amendment of Mr. Laliberte would bring this part of the preamble in line with C-74.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would not be in favour of this amendment. I think in fact any government making decisions will always be considering the environmental and health risks as well as socioeconomic and technical matters. It would be absurd to suggest that those things are not being considered. Technical matters—how best to deal with the problem, what are the options available. Of course that's going to be considered. Risks, sure. Costs and benefits are going to be considered for any action. I think it's appropriate that if the government is in fact going to consider those things that it be reflected here.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Herron.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I guess the conclusion, if I follow that argument, would be that the government must have been very absurd when they drafted Bill C-74 because they never bothered to refer to it. They just definitely said the process of making decisions relating to the protection of the environment and human health... I think if it's implied that the government will always look at the other matters anyway, and if this was sufficient in Bill C-74, I don't see why it was added specifically in Bill C-32, except if it was just to once again placate the industrial complex that loves all these little qualifiers so they can have something to fight on and introduce the whole cost effect in there. So I think there must have been a reason for adding these words in Bill C-32.

• 0920

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Hébert has an observation to make for the committee.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Yes, I'd just like to point out that this clause in the preamble, as it was formulated in Bill C-74, basically just recognized the role of science. It was the scientific clause, if you will. I'd just like to point out to the members that in the first clause of the preamble there is this reference to integrating environmental, economic, and social factors in the decision-making process. So it's already there in the preamble. I suppose it would just be reinforcing that notion if it were also repeated in the clause that is currently under consideration.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: The comment Mr. Lincoln made was where I was coming from. We didn't incorporate this language in Bill C-74 and it's there now. That wasn't done by accident, obviously. It was done for a very specific reason. I would think it would be wrong for them to call the drafters who worked on Bill C-74 absurd. What is the reason, if I could ask the officials, for adding this language in Bill C-32, versus Bill C-74?

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the bill that's before us is before us. To ask bureaucrats to explain political decisions for why a bill is a bill is really not appropriate.

The Chairman: So that's the answer. It is a political decision.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to clarify. I believe the parliamentary secretary uttered that beneficial matters should be considered here as opposed to only economic. In my view, economic matters could be interpreted as cost-effective measures. So in the previous amendment that we argued, why weren't beneficial effective measures considered when we voted that way? Beneficial is one eye open; cost-effective is another eye open. We can see the world in stereoscope. But if you close one eye, it's a two-dimensional world. I think this argument is deleterious to what we just argued on cost-effective measures. So I was enlightened that she uttered beneficial matters at this time, because we should have considered it in a previous argument.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: In my stereo view of the expression “cost-effective”, my health and the health of the environment would, of course, be considered cost-effective to me. I would be weighing cost and benefits. If you only want to see cost as negative, that's the member's choice. But I also see cost as cost in other ways.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we're saying here is that social, economical, and technical matters will be considered. It doesn't say they will be the only issues. But it only makes sense, in my mind, that these will be looked at in the broad picture. I really question where some of the members of the committee are coming from. I'll leave it at that.

The Chairman: It's your privilege. If you want to rebut, you can also do that. Is that it?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That's it.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, now we know this was a political decision to include these words. So if it was a political decision and not a technical decision to include these words, as opposed to Bill C-74, there must have been a very definite reason. If there was a definite reason, I think the point is well taken by Ms. Hébert. We've already seen it in the first “whereas” of the preamble, where we talk about social and economic factors, and social and economic resources. To repeat it here certainly leads to the conclusion that there must have been a very definite reason, which I can understand would bring the Reform Party to great glee, because of course environment and economics are seen in a very different light from my perspective. I think Bill C-74 was sufficient in that sense, and I don't see why it shouldn't remain the same here. It's a pity these words were added.

• 0925

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 396, an amendment in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That was already dealt with, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: On page 397, there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll withdraw this one. I believe it's been dealt with in the previous amendment that Mr. Bigras introduced.

The Chairman: The amendment is withdrawn.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if Mr. Laliberte might reconsider that decision and consider moving it with a friendly amendment, which would be, “and recognizes the role of traditional aboriginal knowledge” at the very end of the amendment. I, for one, would in that case be voting for it.

The Chairman: The current amendment is to the effect of changing the second-last and last lines to read “the role of traditional aboriginal knowledge”. Mr. Laliberte, do you have any comments?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. The reason I was more enlightened by the previous amendment is that it dealt with the entire jurisdiction of Canada. This one was designed originally in dealing with aboriginal lands, and we have a specific definition in our act here on aboriginal lands; it's specific to reserves. I'd rather see aboriginal knowledge used for the betterment of the entire jurisdiction of Canada, not only within the jurisdiction of aboriginal lands, as defined in this act. You have the Inuit and Métis jurisdictions, you have the non-treaty, non-reserve lands, and those should be considered as well in the context of a Canadian nation.

The Chairman: So you wish to move your amendment as...

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, I'm just asking what the intention of... It's very specific. This amendment took out “federal lands” and we went directly to aboriginal lands, to bring aboriginal knowledge to be specifically used in that area. But the previous amendment that we included means the whole jurisdiction of Canada would consider traditional aboriginal knowledge.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: While the member is clearly correct, there is also an opportunity in a preamble to articulate and emphasize an additional view, and for added emphasis there would not be a problem in including an additional “whereas”. I think this issue has been fairly important to the committee, and separating out a specific need with regard to aboriginal lands is a nice thing to do. But if you don't... Clearly, they are already covered in the previous amendment, but it's not a problem to emphasize the point.

The Chairman: May I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that we are discussing this in a vacuum, without an amendment before us, but I hope we can bring this unusual situation to an end soon.

Mr. Lincoln.

• 0930

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Laliberte's point is well taken, that here he was trying to focus on all aboriginal lands. Now that the issue of aboriginal knowledge has been covered for the whole of Canada, I think it's important to keep that in, because this talks about federal and aboriginal lands; it's not just aboriginal lands. I think this item is extremely important, because it says “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that its operations and activities on federal and aboriginal lands”. If we were to pick up Mr. Laliberte's new amendment, what it would do is reinforce the issue of aboriginal lands, but it would delete the reference to federal lands. So I think we should just leave well enough alone.

The Chairman: Is there any suggestion that “lands” be deleted?

Mr. Joe Jordan: It would delete the word “federal”, not “lands”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: His amendment doesn't refer to federal lands.

The Chairman: That's fine.

Mr. Laliberte, would you like to comment now?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In our amendment there are two parts. In part (a) we're just plucking “aboriginal” out of the present “Whereas” item and adding it to another clause we're creating, that aboriginal knowledge be used when operations activities on aboriginal lands are used. So it's very specific in light of what the witnesses presented to us. They wanted to have aboriginal knowledge being used in their activities on their lands, which was a very honourable way to do this. But now what we've done is we've accepted aboriginal knowledge on the whole jurisdiction of Canada, which is a highlight. I think they'd be much more honoured. It broadens the horizon.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just wanted to say that I stand corrected. Activities on federal lands are included. I'm sorry.

The Chairman: Fine.

Is this amendment then going to be moved, Mr. Laliberte? Is it your wish to move it while keeping the comments that have been made in mind?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No. I believe I'll accept that the role of science and aboriginal knowledge will be dealt with in the process of decision making for the entire jurisdiction of Canada. That's the way I interpret that clause, so I'll be comfortable with that.

The Chairman: So you're not moving the amendment.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No.

The Chairman: You're not moving it. So it's withdrawn. Thank you.

Would you please turn to page 398, an amendment by Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We'll introduce that amendment. In essence it will read:

Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control and management of toxic substances and products of biotechnology and the phase out of persistent toxic substances;

I so move.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if the member might be interested in a friendly amendment that reflected one that I think Mrs. Kraft Sloan made earlier, that is, after the word “and” it would read “any adverse effects of products of biotechnology”. I think the adverse effects were the critical issue.

The Chairman: That is on the third-last line. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Do you have the one Madam Kraft Sloan made?

The Chairman: It is just a recollection. It's not precise. Would you repeat it?

• 0935

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think it is in paragraph 2(1)(j), under administrative duties. I think it is on page 211 of the large book. I believe Liberal L-4.0 passed, and the expression was “and any adverse effects”. It wasn't as it appeared exactly in the book. It was changed, so that it said “from any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances”.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe we can accept that friendly amendment.

The Chairman: The friendly amendment has been accepted. The motion has been duly moved. Are you ready for the question?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are we voting on the amended amendment?

The Chairman: We are voting on NDP-59 with the accepted friendly amendment whereby after the word “and” on the third to last line, the following would be inserted: “any adverse effects of”. Are you ready for the question?

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if you might turn to Ms. Lloyd or Mr. Mongrain. There's no plot. We're just trying to make sure that the language is consistent, if the member is interested in having it be consistent.

The Chairman: Consistent with what?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: With Mr. Lincoln's or Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment from the other day.

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): The motion Mr. Lincoln put forward the other day, which was carried by the committee, talks about protecting the environment “including its biological diversity, and human health, from any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes”.

So I think what Ms. Torsney was saying is that it would then be “Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention”...

Ms. Paddy Torsney: “Of the use and release of toxic substances and products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes”. It's just a question of whether or not you want the language to be similar.

The Chairman: We want to make sure that we have understood the friendly amendment, unless it has been changed in the last few minutes, namely, it has been suggested that on the third-last line, after the word “and” and before the word “products” we insert “any adverse effects of”. Is that correct?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That is correct. We were just checking with Mr. Laliberte as to whether he would want this to read “Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control and management”... It's just that we lost “pollutants and other wastes”, and I didn't know if you wanted it in there. I was trying to figure it out. But it probably could go just as you read it if Mr. Laliberte is happy with it.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, I don't think what you read was exactly correct.

The Chairman: That's why we're checking it.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I give you what I put in the other one?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It was what Ms. Lloyd read. It would read “Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats”, etc., “the control and management of toxic substances and any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes”.

• 0940

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That's correct.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That's correct.

The Chairman: As we understand it here at the table, after the word “and” on the third-last line, the insertion would be “any adverse effects of the use and release of”. Then it would continue with the text in print “products of biotechnology...” etc.

Mr. Lincoln, would you please read again the text you read a moment ago?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Laliberte wants to comment.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If I can kind of morph the two issues here. It says “Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats of biological diversity through pollution prevention”. I'd like to keep that statement succinct, then go into Mr. Lincoln's friendly amendment and end with “and the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”. That's the part. Insert your previous change into a prior text.

The Chairman: After the word “substances” on the third-last line, we need clarification on the friendly amendment that is being proposed. Could we please hear it again?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think Mr. Laliberte wants to jump into these new words after “pollution prevention”.

The Chairman: Let us start after “pollution prevention”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: You would say “through pollution prevention, and any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances”.

Mr. Moffet has pointed something out to me. Could I read it again please?

The Chairman: Yes please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It would read “pollution prevention, the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes and the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”.

The Chairman: Thank you. That is fairly clear.

The parliamentary secretary I suppose is in the full picture on this proposed amendment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm having a little bit of trouble on the last part, but I'm conferring with my counsel.

The Chairman: I must indicate to the committee that it is difficult to proceed this way and I hope there is a friendly conclusion to this. Otherwise, we'll have to move on. We will wait for the officials.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is Mr. Laliberte interested in keeping that last part? We're totally fine to the end of “the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes” and can totally accept it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Totally.

The Chairman: Would you indicate where the problem lies with the last line?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My problem is with the very last part, if it's still included and I wasn't sure, “and the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”.

• 0945

The Chairman: Well, that is the point Mr. Laliberte made a few minutes ago. It is very close to his heart.

Mr. Laliberte, would you please clarify.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I guess I should have kept quiet. I seem to have put a highlighter on this issue. I'm not going to pull that part out. I have to keep in “the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”.

I wanted to ask Mr. Moffet something. There was a terminology used here and it may conflict. After we were considering it, you suggested to Mr. Lincoln's friendly amendment “the control and management of any adverse effects”. Control and management would refer to the adverse effects as opposed to the toxic substances, because we go on to say “of the use and release of toxic substances.” To say “control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances;” really stretches it out. I want to know where the control and management fell. I think it was referred to by you.

The Chairman: We'll let Mr. Moffet think it over.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm wondering if Mr. Laliberte would be happy if, after that “and” that's currently there, it in fact said “and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances;”.

The Chairman: Would you please repeat it, “and the virtual elimination of...”?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: “...of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, I think that's—

The Chairman: Just a second.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You don't have “bioaccumulative” in that one.

The Chairman: It perhaps does not require a reply by Mr. Moffet to a proposal that is now new.

Mr. Laliberte, does this change proposed by the parliamentary secretary meet your... Instead of “and the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”, she proposes to insert “and the virtual elimination of persistent biocumulative toxic substances” at the end. Those are the changes she proposes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, it really qualifies “virtual elimination”. I believe it did not exist in the preamble at all, and it would... Using “phase-out” is pretty specific.

The Chairman: I think we have to stop trading horses at this point. We either stick as close as we can to the amendment that is in print before the committee, or there can be very small changes, as the phrase suggested by the parliamentary secretary some fifteen minutes ago, when she suggested “any adverse effects of” after the word “and” before the word “products”, on the third-last line. Beyond that, the chair is not willing to create a confusion here. I'm asking now for some discipline, so that we can move on.

Mr. Laliberte and Madam Torsney, could we now come to a conclusion between your negotiations?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Should I read the expected friendly amendment? It says:

Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention,

This is where the double repeat of the control and management of use is questionable. I'm not sure that's required.

The Chairman: Please read what you are proposing, without comments.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So after “pollution prevention,” it would say:

the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances in the products of biotechnology and the phase out of persistent toxic substances;

• 0950

My original question to Mr. Moffet hasn't been answered. Is “the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release” a correct statement, or are we putting a comma before “any adverse effects”?

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): Mr. Chairman, to be grammatically correct, we would not have a comma. The sentence would read, “the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release...”, etc.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: We will soon read the text as the clerk has written it out, in order to make sure we are all on the same wavelength.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to draw Mr. Laliberte's attention to the fact that “pollutants and other wastes” seems to have been dropped from his description. If we are trying to get the language close to being perfect in everyone's understanding, then it was my intention to include the concepts that Mr. Lincoln and Ms. Kraft Sloan had introduced.

The Chairman: Will the clerk please read the amendment as it seems to be standing now?

The Clerk: At least as I seem to see it, Mr. Chairman, it says:

Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances and products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes and the phase out of persistent toxic substances, and the virtual elimination...

It's still a big mess, isn't it?

The Chairman: No, I'm sorry. I think we have to revert to Mr. Laliberte's original amendment, and decide whether he's willing to accept the small, friendly amendment proposed by Madame Torsney, because we are rewriting too much text.

We can try once more, with the help of Mr. Moffet. Go ahead.

The Clerk: All right:

Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances and products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes and the phase out of persistent toxic substances;

The Chairman: All right, that seems to hold. It's not wobbling too much, but we'll see.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just for the record, there is an additional “and” that is unnecessary, and that would be after “substances”. It should say “toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes”.

My only final comment would be that it would be my preference to have “and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances”. I can assure the member that I would support that. Otherwise, I can't.

The Chairman: That would be instead of “phase-out”. It will be read again.

The Clerk: Once again:

Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology pollutants and other wastes and the phase out and the virtual elimination of bioaccumulative toxic substances.

• 0955

Mr. Marc Toupin: Persistent bioaccumulative.

The Clerk: Give me that again, Marc.

Mr. Marc Toupin: Persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances.

The Chairman: You heard the amendment as concocted by all concerned. Are you ready?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I apologize, but there are two issues on the table. One, the clerk, perhaps inadvertently, read both “phase-out” and “virtual elimination”; and two, I'm not sure that Mr. Laliberte was agreeing to virtual elimination, in which case I'd need to make a subamendment.

The Chairman: You're right, and that is what he said earlier.

Is that correct, Mr. Laliberte? Is that still your view?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe “phase-out” is pretty specific on what we want to do; “virtual elimination” can be a process towards phase-out, and on the journey of protecting our environment the government can accept that.

The Chairman: Let's hear now the friendly amendment that Ms. Torsney has in mind.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So I will assume the amendment that's been proposed has been read with the last line reading “and the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”. It would be my subamendment that it would in fact say “and the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances”.

The Chairman: We have that version already, and it's now a question of whether Mr. Laliberte accepts it or not. We could proceed in the following fashion: that we go with the amendment that has the phase-out of persistent toxic substances... no, it's the reverse—we go with the subamendment by the parliamentary secretary that has the “virtual elimination of persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances” first, and if that does not carry then we go to the amendment that reads in the same manner except for the last line, where it would have “phase-out of persistent toxic substances”, in those two steps.

I will take first the subamendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary, which differs only on the last line from the one before you in print up to a point.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Are we voting on my amendment first and then—

The Chairman: We are voting on your amendment first, but with the subamendment by Madam Torsney that changes the last line, namely, instead of “the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”, the “virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances”.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think we don't necessarily have to do it in this way. Can I offer a third way? Why don't we let Mr. Laliberte go with his version of it and then as a separate amendment, as opposed to a subamendment, the parliamentary secretary can put it forward, or I will, because we don't necessarily have to do it because this way it's all or nothing.

The Chairman: The difference is on the last line. Therefore I don't think that procedurally I can consider the change to the last line as a separate amendment. To me it is a subamendment, but I may be corrected.

The clerk is seeing a way out along the lines suggested by Mr. Herron. I stand to be corrected. So we can put first the amendment by Mr. Laliberte.

• 1000

The clerk is now saying that the original ruling by the chair is the one we should go by, namely that we should put first the amendment on the last line to this amendment as proposed by the parliamentary secretary, where she inserts before “phase-out” the words “virtual elimination of persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances”. If that does not carry, then we will go back to Mr. Laliberte's full amendment, which then ends with “the phase-out of persistent toxic substances”. That is the difference between the two.

I'm seeking now the cooperation of the committee in order to move ahead. If that is reasonably clear in your mind, and I wouldn't blame you if it is not, would you please now vote on the text of Mr. Laliberte as it is before you except for the fact that the last line would read “the virtual elimination of persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances”.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 399, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln, L-22.

Would you like to withdraw it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think my admendment might be redundant, so I won't move it.

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 400. If you don't have a page 400, the clerk would be glad to distribute a copy.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, you have the floor.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): We move that the federal government agree to disseminate information and seek the participation of the public, after having first negotiated and agreed on those obligations with the governments concerned. This amendment is important because the provinces often have international commitments imposed on them that are negotiated unilaterally by the federal government. The Kyoto agreement is a good example of a situation where the federal government negotiated last-minute commitments with the provinces.

We therefore move the following addition, in line 46 on page 2:

in particular, by the dissemination of information and the participation of the public, after having first negotiated and agreed on those obligations with the governments concerned.

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

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

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, please.

[English]

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

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Not on the last day?

The Chairman: I can't believe it. Any other comments?

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: May I ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us why she is opposed to it?

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, please.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Last time I checked, it is the federal government's responsibility to sign international agreements, and while we work in cooperation with provinces and aboriginal governments, we have the ultimate responsibility for international agreements.

• 1005

An hon. member: Well said.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I have my chocolate back?

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold, Mr. Gilmour, and Mr. Laliberte.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It's true that the federal government is responsible internationally for decisions respecting the environment, but I think it should act in cooperation with the provinces and aboriginal nations. It should be quite natural for it to sound out the provinces and get the support of the provincial governments regarding decisions it makes internationally. I don't think that this approach is inconsistent with the responsibilities of the federal government.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Madame Girard-Bujold pointed out, the Kyoto agreement is a prime example of where the government failed to negotiate with the provinces in good faith. They went to Kyoto, struck a deal, and now have to come back and try to force the provinces, which have to implement the deal to carry it out.

What this piece of legislation would do is simply have the government deal with the provinces in good faith first. I think it's a good amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte and then Mr. Herron.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to suggest a friendly amendment.

I believe the international obligations under our federal jurisdiction are in the right order with respect to the environment. Adding “in particular, by the dissemination of information and the participation of the public, and its respective governments” might be a lot more conclusive, because even in the Kyoto protocol we have now and the Kyoto process, public participation and information is non-existent. We have issue tables, and the public at large is not privy to that information or empowered to make changes to contribute to the betterment of the greenhouse gas emissions in this country and the world.

I believe the negotiation and the agreed-upon obligations should be in a broader context to include the public in the information and participation, and also their respective governments. I believe that's all you need to do. I believe this whole bill is trying to go into the public right to know and also to respecting each other's governments. Because the way it reads now, “after having first negotiated and agreed on those obligations with the governments concerned”, the governments concerned could be the international obligations. It doesn't refer to provincial or aboriginal governments. We're concerned about our Canadian public and our respective governments.

All I'm asking is that this amendment might be considered “in particular, by the dissemination of information and the participation of the public and its respective governments”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, please.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: I might allow Madame Girard-Bujold to comment on the subamendment first. Is that permissible? No?

You don't want to comment on that?

Essentially, Mr. Chair, I would concur with Mr. Gilmour and Madame Girard-Bujold, given the fact that in this federation it's very difficult to implement anything on a macro-level unless the provinces are engaged and committed to following through with the process. Kyoto is an example, but also the Auditor General stipulated back in May of last year that the Government of Canada has had great difficulty in terms of implementing its environmental international protocols, and one of the reasons for this is because they haven't been able to get the provinces onside after they've signed on to them. So stipulating that they engage provincially on the first hand I think would be a better direction to go.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, this motion would even have the effect of giving the federal government greater weight when it negotiates in the international arena. I don't understand how the government can claim the contrary, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Torsney, please.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure.

I have a couple of points. One is that CEPA is not the tool we use to sign international agreements.

• 1010

With regard to how we use this bill to implement CEPA, there are many references to consultation with provincial and aboriginal governments and the public, and we will continue to do that, but CEPA doesn't give us the tools to sign international agreements. So on the comments about participating with the provinces and the public before you go, and post-Kyoto and any other agreement, we're always endeavouring to include opposition parties and others in a cooperative spirit, but it doesn't mean...

I think the effect of this, were it to pass, would not be a positive move.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, please.

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'd like the parliamentary secretary and her colleagues to understand that we know it's Canada that must sign international agreements. We're not denying that. It should, however, before signing international agreements, such as the Kyoto agreement, consult the provinces and the territories. This would be very wise on its part and on the part of the Department of the Environment, because the agreement it signs also commits every province and territory.

When it agrees to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage within a given period, as it did in Kyoto, it has to be able to count on the commitment of the provinces in order to achieve its objective. Otherwise, the objective may just become wishful thinking and the government may not have the tools to achieve it. When compliance with the Kyoto agreement is assessed, it will be seen that the Canadian government did not achieve its objectives because it didn't have the necessary means of control and had signed an agreement without consulting the provinces.

No one's in a better position than the provinces and the territories, whether Quebec, Ontario or the Northwest Territories, to make commitments concerning the environment, to comply with the international agreements signed by Canada, including the Kyoto agreement, to prepare reports indicating to the Canadian Department of the Environment that they've fulfilled their duties and have adopted legislation in order to achieve the objectives sought.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

The parliamentary secretary, please.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

To be clear, while there are many international agreements that this bill will help us to implement, including the London Dumping Convention, the Basel Convention, the PIC convention, the Canada-U.S. hazardous waste agreement, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, when we get at the biodiversity agreement, this bill does not give us the authority to sign international agreements. So while we may agree with all those sentiments, this bill does not give us the power to sign international agreements. What it does is the reverse. This bill is helping us to implement international agreements.

The Chairman: May I add also that the provinces were represented in Kyoto, as well as industry and other interested parties.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1015

The Chairman: Shall the preamble as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the declaration of the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Are we dealing with schedule 6?

The Chairman: No, not yet. I'm just dealing with the top four lines, above the preamble. It's called the declaration. It's those four lines below Bill C-32 and the long title.

Now I invite you to turn to schedule 6. We have quite a number of amendments there as a result of Tuesday's discussions. You will recall that we had a number of amendments on Tuesday.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like you to clarify the subject of the vote you took a little while ago.

The Chairman: It was about the declaration of the bill.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'd like to express my dissent, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: On the declaration?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

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

[English]

The Chairman: Please turn to the first amendment related to schedule 6. It is an amendment in the name of Mr. Lincoln. It has no number, but is referenced as 2298.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the clerk could just distribute copies. There seems to have been some mix-up. I also wonder—

The Chairman: They have been distributed, but we will try to do it again.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, just while we're dealing with schedule 6, I wonder if we could get the manager of the program, Mr. Jim Osborne, to the table.

An hon. member: Is he Ozzy's brother? No? Does he know Ozzy?

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, you may wish to move the entire amendment, or you may want to split it into parts (a) and (b).

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'll move the entire amendment.

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Lincoln, go ahead, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, we had considerable discussion on this the other day, so I won't belabour the point.

I would like to move an amendment that removes the words “is expected to” from the third line of item 3 in schedule 6, replacing them with “shall”, so that it says:

applicant shall formulate and implement a waste

I think the very fact that it talks about “collaboration with relevant local and national agencies” speaks for itself. In other words, it's after collaboration.

And again, the word “should” in the second-last line is also replaced by “shall”, for the same reason we discussed yesterday.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, I would remind you of the fact that we have at least three members on this committee who were not present the other day. Therefore, it would be desirable for you to give a quick explanation for these amendments, because I'm sure they would like to know.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The point I was making the other day was that we are now talking about a permit, permit issuance or renewal in regard to the various questions that are related to clause 3, which relates to waste prevention at source, by asking the applicant to formulate and present a waste prevention strategy, which includes waste reduction targets, audits, etc. This is conditional to collaboration with relevant local and national agencies.

• 1020

In Mr. Mongrain's point of view last week—and he will speak for himself—the counterpoint he was raising to substituting the words “is expected to” by “shall” and the word “should” by “shall” was that because many of these circumstances of waste are under the jurisdiction of local or provincial governments, it would be very difficult for the federal government to insist in this schedule on a certain direction by the applicant, because in some cases this would be out of the applicant's control.

What we are asking really is for the applicant to formulate and implement a waste prevention strategy. It seems to me if we ask for that prevention strategy in definite terms, we at least insist that the applicant must do it after collaborating with local and national agencies. If he's expected to, what happens if he doesn't turn it in? In other words, we've got two classes of people: the people who produce a waste prevention strategy, and the other ones who are expected to but don't.

I also made the point the other day that the word “shall” in the second-last line is really related to permit issuance or renewal, which is subject to compliance with this requirement. In other words, we are not talking about the substance of it itself in the second-last line; we're talking about permit issuance or renewal. I think that should also be a much more direct provision rather than a conditional provision.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, would you like to comment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wondered if we could turn to Mr. Osborne, who had quite a few comments about the this amendment and the others that will be before us.

The Chairman: Mr. Osborne.

Mr. James M. Osborne (Head, Ocean Disposal and Shellfish, Marine Environment, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first amendment, to replace “expected to formulate” with “shall”, has the effect of requiring that small harbour authorities or larger ports put in place a pollution prevention strategy and waste reduction strategy, and to implement that strategy when they really have no control over the implementation. They have absolutely no control over the implementation of the control of storm waters, sewage, or the runoff from a city going into a harbour. To require them to develop that strategy and then try to implement it without having some control does not seem a rational approach.

I agree with the concept of trying to reduce those sources to the marine environment, because until we can reduce those sources we will always be dealing with the possibility of contaminated sediments in harbours for dredging. Ninety percent of the waste that is disposed of in Canada is dredge spoil from the essential maintenance of harbours and channels for the safety of navigation.

There are cases within the ocean-dumping provisions where we do issue permits for the disposal of fish waste from the processing of fish, where the client, the applicant, has direct control over waste reduction. In that instance, we do insist they look at waste reduction. But for the majority of the work, which is the dredging work, there is little or no control by the applicant. I think we would be creating a situation that would be untenable for the applicant.

• 1025

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Osborne.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Osborne, if you look at the French version... maybe we could say the French version is right and the English version is wrong. In that case, maybe the people who drafted it drafted the first version first, because the first version doesn't give that latitude. It doesn't say “is expected to”; it says “must”. So did we make a slip in the French version or the English version?

The Chairman: Mr. Osborne.

Mr. James Osborne: I think the slip may well have been in the French version, sir, rather than in the English. There are some differences between the French and the English versions. In reading these two sections in both French and English... I did a comparison yesterday of both. The English version is almost identical to what we have in the 1996 protocol to the London convention, which we intended to duplicate here in this schedule. The French version is not identical to what was in the 1996 protocol in French.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask you about this very thing. Number one, are the words “is expected to” included in the protocol?

Mr. James Osborne: Yes, sir.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Secondly, what does “is expected to” really convey? What happens when somebody doesn't have to collaborate with the local government, and in cases where there's jurisdiction of the federal government, and the person says, well I'm expected to, but I can't, for a completely extraneous reason? Doesn't that then give a loophole in the requirement that lets people escape when there is no substantive reason for them to do so?

Mr. James Osborne: Sir, I can report to you on what the current practice is with the issuing of ocean disposal permits in Canada, and what the intended practice is for the future, and that is that where the applicant would have some control over implementing a waste reduction strategy, for example in the operation of a fish plant where the amount of waste produced could be reduced, then we expect them to do it, to put in place that strategy. However, for the majority of the volume of material that is disposed of in Canada, where there is no control by the applicant, we don't expect them to go and put in place that kind of strategy.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, wouldn't it then be better to say something like “where the applicant has a legal jurisdiction over the issue of waste”, or something of that nature, where the applicant has a legal jurisdiction of the source of the pollution or something, which would then not leave a loophole?

It would admit that in some cases the applicant doesn't have that legal jurisdiction and in other cases it does. If the applicant does, then he's subject to formulating a pollution prevention waste strategy and implementing it.

Mr. James Osborne: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Good. Great. Fantastic.

I don't know what the legal language is exactly, but you appreciate... That's great.

Now, regarding the second point about the permit, that section regarding the permit is not part of the protocol language.

Mr. James Osborne: No.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And if it's not part of the protocol language... I was making the point to Mr. Mongrain the other day that, looking at the wording here, “permit issuance or renewal should be subject to compliance with this requirement”, it seems to me if you change the first one, and you are issuing a permit because the person has a legal requirement anyway, then you could put in “shall”, because you don't have any problems anymore.

• 1030

Mr. James Osborne: I stand corrected in agreeing with you that it wasn't part of the protocol. The protocol does in fact state that the decision to issue or renew a permit should be subject to compliance with the requirements. So that is part of the protocol, and it is “should”.

If you give an option with your first change, which I agree with, that only where there is a—

The Chairman: What change are you referring to, Mr. Osborne?

Mr. James Osborne: It's the change where the applicant has legal jurisdiction over the waste. If you put that in and you're allowing only for that case, that they shall develop the waste prevention strategy, then with regard to the permit issuance and renewal, you have to put the same qualifier in, that is, “shall”, because otherwise it would apply to everybody.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, you don't, because it says “compliance with this requirement”. The requirement is qualified anyway. Do you follow? I don't think you would need to do that.

Mr. James Osborne: Okay.

The Chairman: I think there is agreement on the second part of the amendment, so we'll split the amendment into two parts.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: We agree on both.

The Chairman: Fine. There seems to be agreement on both.

Mr. Mongrain, is there something of great important that you have to add?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Don't spoil it, Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): I would not do that, Mr. Chair. I would not spoil it at this point in time.

I'm simply indicating that we've just worked out some language that I hope would be acceptable.

The Chairman: All right.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps the easiest way to handle this is to read clause 3 of schedule 6 in its entirety.

I've never seen your eyes go that big, Mr. Chair.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Please slow down where the changes are inserted.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

In general terms, if the required audit reveals that opportunities exist for waste prevention at source, an applicant shall formulate and implement—

The Chairman: Please slow down.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

a waste prevention strategy where it has jurisdiction to do so (in collaboration with relevant local and national agencies) which includes specific waste—

The Chairman: Slow down, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: Fine. Go ahead.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's all the same for a little bit, and then it reads:

reduction targets and provision for further waste prevention audits to ensure that these targets are being met. Permit issuance or renewal shall be subject to compliance with this requirement.

The Chairman: That's fairly straightforward and very simple.

You heard the proposed amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin, please.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, before you put this amendment to the vote, I'd like you to assure me that when our committee has finished its examination of Bill C-32, a complete review will be done.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I'd like all the amendments to be reviewed because it's a mess...

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: A dog's breakfast.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: This committee doesn't have an easy job of it. There was the committee, the subcommittee, the amendment and the subamendment. It's confusing.

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that, when examination of Bill C-32 by the committee is over, there be a complete review of the sections in Bill C-32 and of the amendments we've agreed to, to make sure that the English and French versions tally and that those who have to enforce the provisions of this bill do not choose the side of the page that suits them best. An anglophone will read the English side and maybe decide that the English version suits him a bit better.

• 1035

All public servants should be bilingual so that they could compare the English and French versions. But to avoid any ambiguity or any misjudgement, and to avoid someone's being able to choose the version that suits him better, I hope someone will make sure the two versions of Bill C-32 tally before it is finally passed on the third reading.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin. I'd like to reassure you by saying that similar concerns have been expressed repeatedly by Messrs. Lincoln, Charbonneau and Coderre, and a hundred or so times by Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Cameron, on behalf of the Department of Justice, can affirm that this will indeed be the case.

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that we will be looking at the legislation, and if between now and report stage we identify any inconsistencies between the English and French versions, the government will be bringing forward technical amendments to clarify that.

The Chairman: Merci, Mr. Cameron.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: You have a small collection of amendments, beginning on the front page with one that has been proposed by Madame Kraft Sloan dealing with schedule 6. We first need a mover.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, before you go to Mr. Lincoln, may I ask a question, please?

The Chairman: About what?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'd like to raise a point of order. When you speak in English, Mr. Chairman, I have to wait till the interpreters translate your comments and I'm never able to react immediately. That's exactly what occurred a little while ago, when we agreed to the preamble and I thought we'd only agreed to a part of it. I never heard you say that you were moving that it be agreed to in its entirety. The two languages never match up.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that it's not your fault, but I'll have to ask you to return to this vote because I didn't know that the motion was to agree to the preamble at the same time.

There's too long a lapse in time and that prevents me from reacting immediately when the vote is taken, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.

The Chairman: Thank you for reminding me of this problem concerning interpretation. Do you want us to put this amendment to the vote again?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, please, Mr. Chairman. This would be preferable.

The Chairman: It was the last amendment?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, and I hadn't even been able to react, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It was agreed to by the large majority of the committee members, but it can be done.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'd just like to be able to mention...

[English]

The Chairman: On the request of Madame Girard-Bujold, I'm asking the committee for cooperation in repeating the vote because the speed of the translation was such that she was not able to be ready when the chair called the vote on the last amendment. So I hope there is no objection in repeating the vote on the last amendment.

Madame Torsney.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There's a bit of a problem. She seems to be saying that she's having trouble with the vote on the preamble.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, with the last amendment and another one before it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. I thought it was about the vote on the schedule.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I never heard this amendment put to the vote.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: All right.

The Chairman: We're going to stay the vote on the motion by Mr. Lincoln and accept Ms. Girard-Bujold's request.

(The motion is agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you.

• 1040

[English]

The bell is going to ring for 30 minutes, so we have time to continue our work at least for a while.

We have an amendment before us that is moved by Mr. Lincoln on behalf of Madame Kraft Sloan. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think this amendment speaks for itself. Mr. Osborne is such a logical person and very amenable to what makes sense, so I think he would look at this in a very friendly light. If you look at the amendment, we are talking about clause 4, “For dredged material, the goal of waste management should be to identify and control the sources of contamination”. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we are subject to different jurisdictions. At the same time I think we are talking—

A voice: They're saying it's okay.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, great. Sorry.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We're not going to do this all the time. Don't interpret them completely.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Please turn to the next page for the next amendment, which is also in the name of Madame Kraft Sloan. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: On clause 8, if there is agreement, we can then move to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: The third amendment by Madame Kraft Sloan has to do with the French version.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Do you mean the third amendment on clause 10?

The Chairman: It's on clause 8, and it's on the third page. Is there concurrence on the part of the parliamentary secretary? Apparently there is.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: The next amendment is on page 4. It deals with clause 10. Do we have a mover?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I so move.

The Chairman: Is there concurrence on the part of the parliamentary secretary? The answer is no.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: May I ask Mr. Osborne why he would object to the upper level of the action list being set in a very direct and cooperative way to avoid acute and chronic effects on human health? Why should it be qualified?

Mr. James Osborne: Mr. Lincoln, I agree with the intent. However, there's no way I could be absolutely certain that we would avoid any acute effects. Given biology as it is, we may have some. Our intent is to set that upper level to try to avoid any acute effects, and we're doing that using the best scientific information we have and a weight-of-evidence approach. But we still may have a minor effect.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Osborne. I would like to call a vote on this.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, just—

The Chairman: Very briefly.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I know you're egging for your great party there, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: No, we're just coming now to the final—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I know. It's important.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, very briefly, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you look at the French again, Mr. Osborne, there's a double directive in there. It starts with

[Translation]

"A national Action List shall be developed"

[English]

“The Action List shall specify”.

[Translation]

A bit further on, it says:

In selecting substances for consideration in the Action List, priority shall be given to toxic, persistent substances...

[English]

It seems to be far stronger than the English side.

[Translation]

It reads: "The upper level is set so as to avoid" and not "The upper level should be set".

• 1045

[English]

Why don't we go with the French? Then we won't need an amendment.

[Translation]

Yes, it's true. Of course!

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could move to the ones we do support, and we could give Mr. Osborne some time to think about this while we vote in the House.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could tell us which ones she would support, and then we can—

The Chairman: Let the chairman do that. Can I now suggest that we stand this particular amendment so as to give Mr. Osborne time to examine it in both versions, English and French?

We will then move to the next amendment by Madame Kraft Sloan on clause 12 and ask if there is concurrence on the part of the government to this amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: There is concurrence on the government's part on clause 12. Mr. Lincoln, would you like to move it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I so move.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: The next amendment is on clause 13. Is there concurrence on the government's part?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: There is. Mr. Lincoln, would you like to move it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I so move.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but you're going so quickly that I don't know where we are at all anymore.

The Chairman: I'm the one who should be sorry. I'll slow down.

The next amendment is by Ms. Kraft Sloan and it deals with Item 13 in Schedule 6. Is the government prepared to introduce it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No.

The Chairman: You don't concur?

Do you want to move the amendment, Mr. Lincoln?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, I move the amendment.

The Chairman: Forgive me.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If you wanted to come back in our discussion, we could move on to the ones we do agree with.

The Chairman: All right.

[Translation]

We'll stand examination of this amendment and go on to the next amendment by Ms. Kraft Sloan, concerning Item 14 of the Schedule. Does the government concur? Apparently it does.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I so move.

The Chairman: You so move.

(Amendment is agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: The next amendment is by Ms. Kraft Sloan and Ms. Torsney and it also concerns Item 14.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On line 7, yes, the government agrees.

A voice: Where are we?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Clause 14, line 7, page 228.

The Chairman: I have line 6.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, sorry.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's line 6.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. On all of the 14s we're okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Does the government concur?

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To have a winning vote on the record, I'd like to move this one.

[Translation]

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte moves this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Mr. Herron is going to move the next amendment, concerning the same item.

Voices: Oh, oh!

(Amendment is agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We go on now to Item 17. The government tells me it does not concur.

• 1050

(Item 17 is stood)

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think there are probably about 10 minutes left to the bell. Perhaps two things could happen. One, we could all move to the House, some of us making a pit stop—

Mr. Gar Knutson: It will ring twice at 15 minutes, and it hasn't done that yet. There are at least 15 minutes left.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: —or we could move into a discussion. Or we could offer Mr. Lincoln a chance to discuss it privately and then come back. We can do whatever you like. I just want a pit stop.

The Chairman: Was there an indication that the government wanted to reopen clause 3?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: Would you like to do it now?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. Mr. Chair, it would be the government's desire to reopen clause 3 and to rescind the vote that was favourable to the government on amendment G-2, which was on page 46 of the big book.

The Chairman: Could you give the reasons?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The reasons are that the definition of “substance” that was contained within the bill originally would be a better definition than the definition we adopted. This is on page 9.

[Translation]

The French version of this provision appears on page 8 of the bill, and the amendment is on page 47.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask Ms. Lloyd if she could confirm the gist of this, because I've been reading it and reading it and it gets very complicated in the end. I want to make sure of what you're trying to do. By leaving it as it is, it would stop you from dealing with the constituent parts of a substance or a mixture. Is that correct? The intention, then, is to bring (e) back into the main body, so this would allow you to deal with them. Could you tell me what would happen if you left it the way it is today, as we've adopted it?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Our concern is, if you look at the two lines that are between (d) and (e), that leaves the exclusions. The way we amended the definition of “substance” was to move (e) above, so that companies could then report mixtures. We're very concerned that if they can report mixtures, we would be unable to get the type of information we currently get, which is on the constituent parts of the mixture. Those may be the things we're concerned about. If they only report on the mixture, we may not be able to find out the types of things that are in it and the toxicity they might have.

We're also concerned that because of the difficulty of testing mixtures, there would be more applications for waivers. We don't want to be put into that type of position either. What we really want is information on the different parts that are new, so we can assess the chemical properly.

• 1055

It was definitely an error on the part of our office that the motion was put in.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I understand that. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense. But I wanted to know, when we move it back, does that mean that a company will not report a mixture as such?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: They would have to report the parts of it that are new, which is what they do now.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So you don't see it as a lack regarding the mixture, which is a combination of these constituent parts that are new, that they wouldn't report this?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: No. This only affects the new substance notification reporting. We certainly do assess mixtures in the existing substances program.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay.

The Chairman: In light of the explanation given, is there unanimous consent of the committee to reopen this clause so we can examine this amendment?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Would we have the opportunity to reopen the preamble if we give consent to this one?

The Chairman: There is no unanimous consent to reopen it. Then the matter is—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think we can have a vote to reopen it, can't we?

The Chairman: No, it has to be unanimous consent.

I will ask again, is there unanimous consent to reopen clause 3?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, could I make one suggestion? I must say my first reaction would be the same as what Mr. Laliberte's was, but I think there's a very big issue there. I was wondering if you could allow us some time to maybe discuss it, so that we don't make a final decision—

The Chairman: We will come back here after the vote. The time is up for us to move to the other room. As soon as the vote is over, I urge the members to come back as quickly as possible to this room.

We will stand this item together with the other few that are left. We can complete our work before lunch if the members come back after the vote.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Can we go back to the vote I referred to in connection with the preamble and the declaration? I didn't properly understand the subject of the vote, and I'd like to express my dissent concerning the preamble.

The Chairman: We've already noted your dissent.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's nice of you.

[English]

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned until after the vote.

• 1057

• 1133

The Chairman: We can resume once Mr. Lincoln resumes his seat.

There has been some work done during the vote and some language has been proposed on the amendments that were stood. Before going into those, though, we were discussing the question of the unanimous consent required to reopen clause 3, as requested by the parliamentary secretary.

After he resumes his seat, I would ask Mr. Moffet if he would please give a brief input to the committee on the particular reordering of that section.

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the government believes it made an error in its earlier amendment to the definition of “substance”, and it wants to correct that error. I share the government's concern and would urge the committee to correct the error.

• 1135

The error would have had the unfortunate result of restricting or potentially restricting the government's ability to obtain and assess all of the information it requires with regard to new substances. The correction the government is proposing would resolve that problem.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

I will ask again whether there is a consensus to reopen the clause.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

(On clause 3—Definitions)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My motion is to rescind government amendment G-2 to clause 3. I think that's all I have to say.

The Chairman: That's very succinct and convincing. You heard the motion. Those in favour, please so indicate.

(Motion rescinded—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On schedule 6)

The Chairman: Would you please turn now to page 4 in the small collection of amendments? On the first page, there is an amendment in the name of Madame Kraft Sloan that we stood earlier. It deals with schedule 6,

[Translation]

Item 10, on page 226.

[English]

Apparently there is some language that is being suggested, and I believe Mr. Lincoln would like to start.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: From what I understand, the suggestion would be that the words read:

The upper level shall be set so as to avoid, as much as reasonably possible

Is that the intention? I think I would be prepared to accept that as a friendly amendment.

The Chairman: The clerk will read it again.

The Clerk: I'll reread the entire amendment as I understand it, Mr. Chairman:

a lower level. The upper level shall be set to avoid, as much as reasonably possible

Should “acute” be removed?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just hang on a minute.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Did I hear the clerk say “should”, or is it “shall”?

Some hon. members: “Shall”.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Good.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: The next amendment that was stood is on page 7, and it applies to clause 13.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In the same way that the first “should” was already accepted as “shall”, this would change the second “should”, three lines from the end of the item. I understand that the government is prepared to accept a friendly amendment—which officials have suggested—that would read:

shall, where it is reasonably possible to do so, define the nature

• 1140

As you will recall, Mr. Chair, the amendment said “shall, where appropriate”. It will now read:

shall, where it is reasonably possible to do so

—instead of “appropriate”.

The Chairman: So it will read:

shall, where it is reasonably possible to do so, define the nature, temporal and spatial scales and

You have heard the friendly amendment.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'd like to ask Ms. Hébert or Mr. Moffet to tell me what this amendment adds. Why add the expression "where appropriate"?

The Chairman: This expression appeared in the first version that was proposed.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Okay.

The Chairman: While this isn't the exact translation, in French an expression meaning "where it is reasonably possible to do so" will be used.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: All right.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: There are two more on this. They're on the second-last and last pages, regarding clause 17.

First we will deal with the clause 17 amendment proposed by Madame Kraft Sloan that deals with line 1 in English and lines 1 and 2 in French.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chair, there is wording that has been suggested. With it, I'd like to check with the officials to see if I reflect their suggestion. It now says “should” in the wording of the clause, and we had suggested that it be changed to “shall”. I would like to move the amendment that would now read:

A decision to issue a permit shall be made if all impact revelations are completed

—and we have added some words—

where reasonably possible, and the monitoring requirements are determined.

That is because in one case the evaluations are the jurisdiction of the applicant or the obligation of the applicant, and the second one is for government to determine.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. The qualifier that has been inserted is one that appeals to reasonable possibility, and it is inserted where you just indicated.

You have heard the revised 17.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: On the last page, again on clause 17, go ahead, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I thought that was it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: No, this time it is on line 5.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I see. I think we had agreed that this one was okay. I thought we had passed it.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We did not pass it, but it is okay.

• 1145

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would so move then, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Without any indication of friendly amendments, it is so moved. Any comments? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Schedule 6 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

[Translation]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No.

[English]

The Chairman: Carried on division?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I request a roll call vote.

[English]

The Chairman: All right.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at the report stage? That's a difficult decision.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

A point of order, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We've had, as you said, over 100 references to the French and English interpretation. Would the last motion that was made order a reprint... could there be a qualifier of French and English interpretation there? Is it common knowledge or is it something we should explicitly...

The Chairman: It doesn't harm to have this clarification, if you like. I think the clerk will take good note of your suggestion.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you.

It was already suggested by the staff and the clerk, he tells me.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I wasn't sure where it's appropriate, but certainly if we're reporting back to the House we should probably commend all the staff from both the committees branch and the department for all their hard work, and the staff of all the members of Parliament who have put a fair bit of effort into this bill. We commend them for their diligence. And of course we commend the chair for his hard work in keeping track of this crazy process.

• 1150

[Editor's Note: Applause]

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, it's very kind of you, and everybody, to put it in those terms. In order to do what you just suggested, there is going to be a restricted party in honour of the staff and the officials in this room, the people who have worked very hard for the last several months. This reception will take place in a location that has already been indicated by e-mail. It is, as I said, limited only to officials of the department, the staff, and the assistants. We will meet therefore in that room for a short celebration. And the members, of course, are holding this event in honour of the officials and the staff who have been extremely helpful in guiding us through this ocean.

To that effect I need, however, the approval of the committee to cover the necessary expenses.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I thank you all very much. On behalf of I think everybody, in expressing the gratitude for the patience that has been displayed in the work and in the weeks and months past, I would like to hope that the bill will remain intact at the report stage as far as its strong components are concerned. It would be most undesirable if it were to be weakened.

It is also desirable that this bill be the object of examination, as it will be in the Senate, of course.

I'm told by the clerk that this committee held 58 or 59 meetings, 37 of which were on clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The clause-by-clause work consisted of roughly 93 hours. It may seem to you actually more than that. Some people claim that this bill has received the lengthiest scrutiny in recent parliamentary history, which I doubt very much. If you'd like to consider this as a very recent record, it may well be, but in the long term there have been more excruciating experiences.

I'm told we have had some 560 amendments that were drafted, and not necessarily all examined. The gun control legislation, Bill C-68, I'm told, by comparison logged only 519. This may ring a bell.

In thanking you all for your patience and cooperation, I would like to say that this was certainly a remarkable experience for all of us, newly or not newly elected. We have covered a lot of ground. I think this is a triumph for the parliamentary system and its mandate to look at legislation and, where possible, attempt to improve it.

We will see each other in a few minutes in order to have a nice hour of a social nature together. Again, on behalf of my colleagues around the table, my heartfelt thanks to the officials of the department and to the parliamentary library people who are here, the clerk and and his assistants, the research people, and of course, including in all that, Mr. Moffet, who modestly looks to the ground as usual, and to the assistants who are in the room who have helped the members during this month.

• 1155

This meeting now stands adjourned. Happy Easter.