ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 10, 1998

• 1532

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib)): Good afternoon, everyone.

[English]

Good afternoon.

[Translation]

We should get underway as quickly as possible, because we have a vote at 5:00 p.m.. We have quorum now.

[English]

We expect a vote at 5 p.m., or at least the bells, so we'd better start without delay as soon as we have a quorum, which we do have.

We are proceeding with the consideration of Bill C-32, and today we have as witnesses the representatives for the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Mining Association of Canada.

We welcome you. We are glad that you were able to come. We have a little system in place whereby an allocation of ten minutes is made and after eight minutes, once you have started your presentation, there is a small gentle little alarm signal indicating that there are two minutes left. We do that in order to leave as much time as possible for a meaningful question and answer period.

So with that brief explanation, who would like to start first? Mr. Perez, would you like to introduce the members of your delegation?

Mr. Alain Perez (President, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute): Yes. My name is Alain Perez. I am the president of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. With me is Jack Belletrutti, who works for the institute. He's from Shell, but he's seconded to our institute and he's a vice-president. Also with me is Judith Smale, who is legal counsel for Imperial Oil.

[Translation]

Before discussing the bill itself, I would like to say a few words about our industry and our association. After that, Jack will present our views on the bill in general and Ms. Smale will make a few more technical comments on one division of the bill, which we think contradicts other federal statutes.

• 1535

[English]

CPPI member companies operate 17 refineries, which represent 80% of the capacity of the industry in Canada and some 11,000 service stations. We employ over 120,000 people in our business and our sales revenues are $25 billion, of which $14 billion goes to excise and provincial taxes on our products.

We place a very high priority on protecting the environment. For instance, from 1993 to 1996 our members collectively have spent $1 billion on operations and maintenance directly related to environmental protection. In addition, we spend about $100 million annually in investment on capital projects that are tied to the environment.

We have published our first environmental report, which is an effort to invite scrutiny. We have copies available for you along with our annual report, and we shall be reporting our progress regularly. Jack, would you like to proceed.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti (Vice-President, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute): Thank you, Alain.

With respect to the bill, our members basically support the bill. We support the need for effective, clear and predictable legislative authorities to protect the environment and we support the principles of pollution prevention and sustainable development.

The bill has made progress more than ever before in these areas, and in our view is a significant improvement over the existing 1988 version of CEPA. The bill needs to be passed as soon as possible. We need a strong CEPA.

Some examples of where we see this progress are the inclusion or the acceptance of sustainable development principles, the provision for pollution prevention planning, some recognition of voluntary initiatives and improved cooperation between federal and provincial governments, which is consistent with the recently signed harmonization accord.

In the areas of fuels specifically, clause 140 of the bill expands the authority to regulate fuel components to cover both combustion and evaporative emission impacts on the environment. The 1988 CEPA could only regulate on the basis of combustion-related emissions. As some of you may be aware, roughly 50% of vehicle hydrocarbon emissions are evaporative, the other 50% come from the tailpipe. That's a rough approximation given the recent advances both in fuel and in vehicle technologies.

Furthermore, clause 140 of the bill allows for emission requirements to be specified in terms of fuel characteristics that are based on a formula related to the fuel's properties. This is new, and it gives refiners more flexibility in adjusting fuel components to meet emission requirements and, as a result, offer the potential for more cost-effective solutions.

Also, the bill allows vehicles and fuels to be treated as a total system within the act. As a result of the transfer of the motor vehicle emissions provisions from the Motor Vehicle Safety Act into CEPA, the authority now exists to specify both fuel and vehicle components—clause 140 for fuels and clause 160 for vehicles. This too can lead to more cost-effective solutions, which ultimately benefit the consumer.

Finally, with respect to fuels, the newly created authority to establish a national fuels mark or standard offers the ability to ensure consistency of key fuel performance standards in Canada. This is good for the environment and it's good for competitiveness. In this way imported fuels would be bound by the same requirements as Canadian-made fuels.

In our view, how anyone can say that the bill is not an improvement over the 1988 version is beyond us. We believe that environmental protection within the context of sustainable development is all about managing and balancing risk. How far we go and how fast we go is a decision that must consider all socio-economic factors: environmental, economic and social. The more we learn about environmental impacts the more complex and costly become the remedial solutions. The qualifications, constraints or barriers to action, as some have described them, are in our view a simple recognition of today's realities.

• 1540

The bill is far from perfect and can still be improved by making it more workable without sacrificing environmental standards. We offer some proposed changes to this effect. With the exception of a problem in clause 8 dealing with environmental emergencies, I won't go into all of them. They are included in our brief, and they have also been presented by other witnesses who have appeared before you.

So with your indulgence, I shall invite Ms. Judith Smale from Imperial Oil to deal with our concern on environmental emergencies. Once she is done, Mr. Perez will make a few closing comments, time permitting.

Ms. Judith Smale (Canadian Petroleum Products Institute): Thank you.

I wish to speak specifically about part 8, which deals with environmental matters related to emergencies. As written, part 8 would apply to substances listed by regulation that are released into the environment. It's very likely that oil would be such a listed substance. Our concern is that, as drafted, part 8 would apply to a release of oil from a ship. This creates an inconsistency with the scheme that currently exists under the Canada Shipping Act and the international conventions on oil pollution that Canada has acceded to.

CEPA would impose on both the shipowner and the cargo owner a duty to take immediate preventative and remedial measures to repair, reduce and mitigate any negative effects on the environment, and would render both parties jointly and absolutely liable, without limitation for restoration costs and government costs and expenses, to prevent and remedy environmental damage.

Under the Canada Shipping Act scheme, both the shipowner and cargo owner share responsibility for financing costs of clean-up and third-party loss and damage. However, under the Canada Shipping Act, the approach is a tiered approach versus the joint approach that's contemplated under CEPA.

Under the Canada Shipping Act, the shipowner is absolutely liable for the first so many dollars, up to a maximum now of $117 million Canadian as a result of Bill S-4, which received royal assent on May 12. Above the shipowners' capped liability, clean-up costs and other liabilities are funded through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund and the Canada Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund. Depending on the nature of the spill, these funds would be available to finance an additional $125 million to approximately $275 million Canadian for costs and liabilities. Both these funds are financed basically through levies on cargo owners on imports of oil.

The Canada Shipping Act doesn't specifically specify a duty on the shipowner to clean up. However, the shipowner's absolute liability for clean-up costs up to its capped limit, and the potential for increased penalty upon their failure to take remedial action, creates in essence an obligation to respond.

Subsection 42(3) of CEPA was inserted in the bill, we believe, in an attempt to channel claims resulting in discharges from ships through the Canada Shipping Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, but as drafted it's not sufficient. Under subclause 42(3), a claim for damages caused by a ship cannot be made under CEPA to the extent that a claim for damages can be made under the Canada Shipping Act or the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. However, damages, as referenced under subclause 42(3), probably doesn't include the preventative clean-up and restoration costs that are referenced back in part 8. Furthermore, subclause 42(3) doesn't exempt cargo owners from the responsibilities that exist under part 8 to take immediate preventative and remedial action, nor does it prevent an inspector from ordering the cargo owner to do so.

We recommend that a clause be added to the bill stating that part 8 does not apply to environmental emergencies caused by discharges of oil from ships. This would ensure that ship-source spills are handled in accordance with the scheme that's currently provided for under the Canada Shipping Act and the international conventions that Canada is a signatory to. This would avoid any confusion and inconsistency between two federal pieces of legislation. It would also ensure that the cargo owners are not potentially exposed to double liability—joint liability with the shipowner for the first $85 million U.S., or approximately $117 million Canadian, and then singularly as well responsibility for funding the international and national funds.

Our recommended wording for this provision is included in our brief. What we propose is that we add an additional application provision to part 8, which provides that part 8 does not apply to environmental emergencies caused or otherwise attributable to a discharge, or anticipated discharge, of oil from a ship, as defined under the Canada Shipping Act.

• 1545

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. Perfect timing.

Mr. Perez, do you want to conclude?

Mr. Alain Perez: Yes, very briefly.

It has been four long and difficult years since CEPA was first discussed, through the government response and the previous version of the bill. We see this bill in its current version as a strong step forward, as Jack has said. We believe it's time to move to pass the bill. During the next five years we shall be able to collectively assess its value and, at the end of that period, proceed anew with the next round of CEPA renewal.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We now we have the pleasure of hearing from the Mining Association of Canada. Who would like to speak?

Mr. Wayne Fraser (Chairman, Environment Committee, Mining Association of Canada): I will, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Would you like to introduce yourself, please?

Mr. Wayne Fraser: Yes. My name is Wayne Fraser. I'm the chairman of the Mining Association of Canada environment committee, and otherwise I'm director of environment with Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting Co., out of Flin Flon, Manitoba.

Accompanying me today is Leonard Surges, who is chairperson of the aquatic effects subcommittee of our mining association and is manager of environment at Noranda Inc., in Toronto; and Justyna Laurie-Lean, who has only one position in life, and that is vice-president, health and environment, with MAC here in Ottawa.

The Chairman: You have 10 minutes.

Mr. Wayne Fraser: It'll be very brief.

The Mining Association of Canada appreciates this opportunity to appear before the standing committee to discuss its views of the proposed new Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The association had earlier submitted to the standing committee written comments on Bill C-32.

Might I point out that we apologize for an error in that particular brief, on page 3, where a phone number was inadvertently and mysteriously inserted into the last paragraph of the brief. We don't know whose number it is!

The association had also previously submitted a brief on the predecessor bill, Bill C-74.

We all recognize that Bill C-32 is large and complex. In preparing our comments, the association concentrated its review and developed positions on parts 1, 3, 4 and 5; on divisions 6, 7 and 8 of part 7 of the bill; and on a few sections of part 11.

The association has not studied or developed a position on part 2; on the confidentiality provisions of part 3; on the new substances provisions of part 5; on part 6; on divisions 1 through 5 of part 7; on parts 8, 9 and 10 and most of part 11. These portions of the bill are ones that either we believe would have less impact on our industry, or that deal with subject matters where we have little expertise.

Overall Bill C-32 has been greatly improved, and some of the areas of greatest concern to us in Bill C-74 have been addressed. The Mining Association of Canada therefore requests that the House of Commons proceed expeditiously with passage of Bill C-32 after consideration of the small number of additional improvements outlined in our brief, specifically dealing with equivalency provisions in clause 10, right of objection in clause 79, and establishment of a board of review under subclause 333(4).

The association is particularly encouraged by the specific mention in clause 47 of the cost to respondents of complying with information requests, as well as similar recognition of costs in other parts of Bill C-32. In our experience, poor planning and design in information gathering or other regulatory activity leads to unnecessary burden on industry, to poor-quality information gathered, and to poor compliance.

Resource constraints in government departments create pressure to reduce the effort expended on planning and designing surveys, regulations and other instruments; yet skimping up front only leads to higher costs and lower benefits later.

As part of good planning and design of instruments, consultation with other stakeholders is the key. Proper consultation can be costly and time-consuming, but again, leads to reduced costs and higher benefits. The association has gained extensive and valuable experience with constructive consultative processes, and seeks that approach in future.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

With that, we can now start the first round of questions. Perhaps Mr. Gilmour would like to be first.

• 1550

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thanks for appearing before the committee.

I believe it was late last week we had a representive from the automobile industry, and the subject was fuels, specifically the sulphur content in fuels. The discussion centred around the discrepancy or the difference in parts per million. My numbers may be a little off but I believe it was 30 parts per million for California, 150-odd for B.C., working up into the 500s for Ontario.

My question is, why the discrepancy, and are there moves afoot to find a level, whatever the level happens to be, whether it be 30 or whether it be 150, whatever the number? Perhaps you could comment from the oil industry's perspective on what it means.

Mr. Alain Perez: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

Sulphur in fuel is an issue that has been studied and debated for close to two years. We are now at the last stage of a process where a government working group, comprised of provinces and the federal government—actually three or four departments—will make a recommendation to either the minister or to cabinet and then their process of regulation will start and could take as little as a month. We could have a regulation in Canada before the end of the year.

We have a position on sulphur in fuel that I think is very clear. We're saying that the driver for sulphur-in-fuel levels is the compatibility of fuels and the future of ecotechnology. This is a very complex and difficult issue that has been studied for many years in the U.S. under the guidance of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are certain that before the end of the year the EPA will issue a recommendation and that they will regulate next year.

The reason they have to regulate next year is that under their agreement with the oil industry they have to allow four years for planning, finding the right technology and investing. This would bring those regulations down in time for the tier-two models in the fall of 2003. This long preamble is just to try to explain that the process is very much driven by discussions in the U.S. between the oil industry, the auto industry and the EPA.

We have contact with that process and we had invited Environment Canada to join the process. It didn't happen. Our position is that because they are the same cars and because consumers will need the same fuel to satisfy those requirements, we requested a policy of complete harmonization with the U.S. In other words, if it ends up being 30 ppm in the U.S., it should be 30 ppm in Canada. If it's 100 ppm in the U.S., it should be 100 ppm in Canada.

What puzzles me greatly, Mr. Gilmour, is that each time there is a meeting like this one, we're preceded by the auto manufacturers in Canada, who claim to have a dispute with them, when in fact we are accepting in advance the position that their parent company would accept in the U.S. I don't think it can be clearer in terms of position.

There may be other issues with other groups that we'd be pleased to discuss, but in terms of the oil and the auto industries, the CVMA cannot give you their story without telling you also that we accept in advance what GM, Ford and Chrysler will agree to with the EPA on a North American standard.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So we're all going down the same track together, basically.

Mr. Alan Pares: We should be.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: When are tier-two models coming on-stream?

Mr. Alain Perez: They're mandated to come on in the fall of 2003.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: This is what the Americans are moving— What number will the Americans end up with? Do you have any idea?

• 1555

Mr. Alain Perez: No. I don't know and nobody knows. That's why we request harmonization—because any number in Canada would be a guess. We'd have to guess what the U.S. number would be or we would end up with different numbers in Canada and in the U.S., which makes no sense. If the number in Canada is higher than in the U.S. for the concentration of sulphur, then the auto will not be able to work on that fuel, and if it's lower, it's going to put us at a disadvantage with the U.S. refineries. So that's why we're asking for that, and we're months away from that decision.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: In your discussions with the Canadian officials, are we on a parallel course? Are we going to be before the Americans, after the Americans, or, as you would hope, harmonized so we're all going down the same path together?

Mr. Alain Perez: I think I can safely say that our position is supported by Industry Canada and by National Resources Canada and is being debated within Environment Canada. The discussions we have had indicate they would like to take a different course, which would mean regulating ahead of the U.S. We have great difficulties with that—not with the levels, but with the timing.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So you would like to be with the Americans at the same time instead of first?

Mr. Alain Perez: Yes.

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

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): First of all, I would like to thank you for appearing before us to comment on Bill C-32.

Of all the witnesses we have heard in the last two weeks, I must say that you are probably the least critical of this bill. Since we are opposition members, you will understand that that leaves us somewhat unsatisfied.

In a number of respects, the two briefs you have tabled draw many comparisons between this bill and Bill C-74. Both the Institute and the Association said several times that this bill was a step in the right direction compared to C-74.

I may be mistaken, but I think this bill must be seen in the context of the international commitments Canada has made. I'm thinking, for example, of the commitment on greenhouse gases made in Kyoto.

I would like to know whether Division 5 on vehicle, engine and equipment emissions is something that will help Canada achieve its international objectives.

Mr. Alain Perez: We referred to C-74 several times in order to give you a complete picture. There have been three stages. There was the government's response in 1996 or 1995, which was supposed to be the basis of C-74, and which was generally supported by the industry, because there had been lengthy consultations and discussions. In our view, C-74 did not reflect the agreement we felt was contained in the government's response.

Between C-74 and C-32, there was a massive consultation process with all the industries. The reason we are not critical is that we had already expressed our criticisms and compromised on each clause in the bill. Bill C-32 is not the bill we would have drafted. It represents the compromises we made with the government.

On the more scientific question you asked, I don't think CEPA covers CO₂ emissions. The only emissions covered that would be in the category of greenhouse gases would be the NO_x, nitrogen dioxide, a greenhouse gas which could be regulated under this type of legislation. However, this cannot be done under the current CEPA.

• 1600

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My other question is about Part 8 which deals with environmental emergencies, and with which you seem relatively satisfied. Unless I am mistaken, you say that this part of the bill gives shipowners less liability, and provides for greater absolute liability. I am using your words. I would like to ask a question that may be sensitive, but I'm going to ask it anyway, because people raised it with me.

I was recently in the Magdalen Islands, and people asked me this question. I would like to know what impact this bill could have regarding liability in isolated cases—hopefully—such as the Irving Whale. I would like to know what type of impact this would have on an ecological and environmental catastrophe of this type.

[English]

Ms. Judith Smale: This is assuming a ship-source discharge?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes.

Ms. Judith Smale: Well, as it's currently written, it could be argued that it does have application, because it's so broadly written under part 8 as to relate to any environmental emergency relating to the discharge of a substance.

But properly the incident should be governed by provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, under the auspices of the Canadian Coast Guard, and with the involvement of, in the first instance, the shipowner, the shipowner's P and I club representative, and the coast guard. It should be funded by the shipowner in the first instance, and to the extent the damages are such as to exceed that, it would be funded through the international and national funds, which are funded by cargo owners.

What the Canada Shipping Act does is provide a very adequate scheme that's been ably dealing with those matters. So our concern is that as it's currently written, someone may argue that in fact CEPA as drafted now may have some application to the scenario you're referring to, but that results in confusion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte.

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

First, to the Petroleum Products Institute, your statement of managing and balancing risk is a highlight or an observation, but it also coins responsibility. This responsibility with the existing act and the new act before us poses a major responsibility under federal jurisdiction.

Under responsibility we also have enforcement. The issue is one of harmonization, as you've mentioned, between provincial and federal jurisdictions, but what is your view about the enforcement of clear, effective regulations as opposed to voluntary measures? Do you favour a strong federal regime of regulations and enforcement? What are your experiences and views on this?

Mr. Alain Perez: In general we do favour a national regime of regulation enforcement, because in our industry, most of these types of legislations have a competitive aspect to them. If you legislate on one substance, the people who have less of that substance in their product will have an advantage over the others. If you regulate the substance, you want that regulation to apply also to what can be imported from offshore; otherwise there will be a cost advantage to those imports. So in general, we believe that national regulations should be the norm and that they should be enforced.

There are a few cases where we promote voluntary measures, usually because regulations are not the ideal vehicle for government intervention. One example I can give you, briefly, would be what we have been doing up to now in the area of climate change and CO₂ emissions, where we have not just subscribed to the voluntary challenge but have been in the forefront and have succeeded every year in voluntarily exceeding those expectations.

• 1605

But this touches operations that we manage in Canada. When it comes to our product—because they can come from offshore, because you have the competitive aspect—usually we believe a regulation is more of a level playing field than voluntary measures, but a balance of both exists. We've been successful, I think, in dealing with both with the government.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: All right.

To the Mining Association, Mr. Fraser, I'd just like a clarification on your presentation. On page 3, on waste and recyclable material, you raise a concern about “the imposition of unnecessary excessive costs and the acquisition of feed of secondary—”. I don't understand that perspective. Could you clarify that for me?

Mr. Wayne Fraser: I will turn that question over to Len.

Mr. Leonard Surges (Mining Association of Canada): Thank you.

In our view, recyclable materials are an important source of feed to Canadian smelters. They represent a resource, not a waste. We believe the government should encourage recycling, and that the imposition of added costs to recyclable materials, which do not apply to virgin materials, in fact works as a disincentive for recycling.

I might further note that there are some trade implications. The United States, which is our major trading partner for these recyclable materials as well as other commodities, does not in fact apply the same regulatory controls, does not have the same requirements for notification, and does not apply movement controls. Nor do they have a similar cost recovery scheme for the administration of those controls. The end result is to favour American-source recyclables staying in the U.S., and it tends to discourage their recycling in Canada.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What kind of material are you talking about—waste material, toxic waste material, recyclable ore material? It's such a broad—

Mr. Leonard Surges: I'm talking about recyclable material. One very good example is the end-of-life lead acid battery, because it's really a resource. It's a system with very nearly a closed loop. In fact, two weeks ago I heard an official of the U.S. EPA describe the recycling rate as being about as good as it gets.

That's a material that secondary and primary smelters in both Canada and the U.S. compete for. Clearly, the bulk of those end-of-life batteries are in the major urban centres, centred in a few locations in Canada, and more in the U.S. So Canadian smelters, including our own in New Brunswick, and including secondary smelters in Ville Sainte-Catherine, Quebec, in Mississauga and elsewhere, need to compete for materials originating in the U.S.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I want to pick up on the questions that Mr. Gilmour made and the discussions I had with respect to sulphur content. Currently, California has a much more stringent sulphur regime than other parts of the States. Initially I was wondering how they were able to get an alternative source of fuel. I guess the initial reaction is that it's easy to do so because it's only 30 million out of 280 million people, so they can make enough to be able to cover that without driving up the cost, because the price isn't that different from the middle states to the west. New England is very competitive, and that's more because of competition in numbers, I would think, from a supply and demand aspect of it.

• 1610

I can see where it makes a lot of sense to have a harmonized approach. If Canada were to have an alternative, perhaps, as I say, a lower number than the Americans end up having, given that the population of Canada is similar to what the population of California is, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that we would be able to source product from the States in order to be able to keep our Canadian producers honest from a price perspective? They only have to produce a little.

Mr. Alain Perez: Just to make sure I understand the question, it would be a case where the sulphur levels in Canada would be lower than those in the U.S.

Mr. John Herron: Right.

Mr. Alain Perez: And you're making the analogy with California, which has been able to source itself.

Mr. John Herron: Right.

Mr. Alain Perez: California has been at 30 ppm now for several years. There have been several implications in California, which are now visible. The price has stayed consistently higher, and it's not cost related, because manufacturing that product may cost 1¢ or 2¢ more—U.S. cents.

Mr. John Herron: Pardon?

Mr. Alain Perez: It costs 1¢ to 2¢ more, when in fact prices have been up to 20¢ more. The last time I checked, they were 7¢ or 8¢ more than New York harbour prices, for instance.

So you have a large price discrepancy, which is really due to reduced competition. There are no more independent marketers in California and the number of refineries has been reduced, so you could say that the refiners that have stayed in California are doing very well.

This is pretty much what we describe as the scenario that would happen here, and it's interesting that in this type of argument we have some very solid allies in the independent marketers' association. IRGMA, which represents the independents and the importers, has been lobbying with us jointly at the same meetings, hand in hand, over the past three weeks, in all the branches of the federal government, to explain to them that this case would reduce them to nothing. They would not be able to compete with the larger refiners.

I represent refiners, but I represent two types of refiners: the big three—Petro-Canada, Esso and Shell—as well as Chevron, Husky, Parkland, Sunoco, and Ultramar if the joint venture goes or doesn't go. These are the people who are very nervous about a scenario where they would be facing imports from the U.S. done by the majors—

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]— California, and they would be in a very difficult position in regard to competing with them. So that's the case we're representing for the industry.

Am I answering your question?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

Second, can I have some more clarification with respect to ship-source pollution? Could you clarify why you would not want CEPA to be applicable in the event of an emergency? That's a component I caught in part of your brief.

Ms. Judith Smale: Currently there is a scheme and there are provisions under the Canada Shipping Act that deal with emergencies, clean-up, liability and compensation in the event of a ship-source spill. The scheme that is contemplated under CEPA is inconsistent with and contradictory to the scheme contemplated under the Canada Shipping Act.

Under the Canada Shipping Act, because of the tiered liability approach, the shipowner pays the first amount to a capped amount, and then the funds that are funded by cargo owners pay subsequently.

What's happened as a result of that is that the shipowners are the people who respond and have the initial responsibility to initiate a response, either together or on their own with the coast guard. There is an international insurance industry with representatives that have sort of grown up around that, that are at the site and can be on the site to do the response.

To have CEPA, as it's drafted here, apply to a ship-source incident and impose on a cargo owner—which is all of the provisions of part 8, which include a statutory obligation to clean up—results in the cargo owners being put in a position under CEPA that they're not in under the Canada Shipping Act, and that is to respond in the first instance to clean-up, which is often the most expensive part of the incident in terms of costs.

• 1615

And it puts them in a position where you're suggesting that not only should they fund the funds—which was intended under the Canada Shipping Act and Canada's international commitments—but they should also fund the initial part. What the Canada Shipping Act contemplated was that both shipowners and cargo owners would share in the costs, but in this kind of tiered approach versus a joint approach.

I think the application of CEPA to something like that, that joint liability and responsibility, is inconsistent and creates a considerable unfairness that was never intended under the international conventions on cargo owners.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We now have Mr. Knutson, followed by Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Just briefly on that last point, Ms. Smale, what's the department telling you when you take this concern to them?

Ms. Judith Smale: I haven't spoken to all of them them, but in speaking with—

Mr. Gar Knutson: What's Environment Canada saying?

Ms. Judith Smale: I haven't spoken directly with Environment Canada. I have spoken with counsel for Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans.

And I say I don't know only because I'm not sure of the person's position. He has been seconded at some point to Environment Canada and sometimes to Fisheries and Oceans, and I'm not sure in which capacity.

But the response that I've had when speaking to these individuals has been, yes, it should stay with Canada Shipping Act.

With the last bill, when they inserted subclause 42(3) as a means of attempting to channel what was intended to be the shipowner liability through to the Canada Shipping Act— I point out to them that as drafted it isn't sufficiently broad to cover off that duty that's still sitting under part 8. They say, “You're right, it's not. Make sure you send your briefs and your speaking notes to us.”

So the reaction, I believe, has been agreeable and onside, and we've pointed out something that they never intended to have happen.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay. So they're going to fix it. That's what you think?

Ms. Judith Smale: Yes. That's what I believe.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Either we're going to fix it or the government's going to fix it. Somebody's going to fix it.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: I have spoken to officials in Environment Canada about this problem. They haven't gotten back to me yet. They promised that they would look into it and let us know what they conclude, but it hasn't happened yet.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right.

I wonder if I could ask the mining people—and the oil people may have an opinion on this—about the whole issue of the definition of virtual elimination, which has been a serious concern of the environmental groups. They're saying that to have some various dangers, like chemicals or materials or whatever, not eliminated entirely but just eliminated to the point wherein any measurable quantity upon release— They're saying that is not a very good definition of elimination.

For example, as technology develops and we can measure release better, that will in fact change the law. Their point seems to be that a better strategy would be just to prohibit the use of these “super nasties” and that if we didn't use them we wouldn't release them and they wouldn't kill anybody.

I just wondered what your views are on the definition of virtual elimination.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean (Vice-president, Health and Environment, Mining Association of Canada): It's not an easy subject.

First of all, to clarify our understanding of the way the bill is written, there would only be one number set by the minister as the target for virtual elimination, and as measurement technology changes, the minister may or may not change it. Similarly, as knowledge and understanding of the substance may change, the minister may make changes. So that by itself wouldn't change.

I think a lot of the substances that are of concern are not substances that are released. Because they are used in a planned way— Very often, these are combustion by-products or process by-products. Therefore, banning their use would not provide any effective mechanism.

• 1620

We as an association have always taken a strong stand, on principle, that we believe the approach to toxic substances and to environmental issues in general should be risk management, based on risk assessment, and that there isn't any quick and simple shortcut to that. You cannot separate certain substances on the basis of a few hazard characteristics, as some falling in one category and others in another, and making an easy cut. You still have to do a certain amount of analysis of understanding in what circumstances it may be a problem. There may be substances that in almost all potential uses present a risk that you may want to eliminate.

With things such as pesticides that you're spreading—that is their use, dispersion—obviously use becomes a critical issue, but there are substances that are much more complex in their cycle and in their range of uses, therefore we feel that the minister will have to use judgment, good science, and good understanding of the issues. I don't think there's a simple way.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Doesn't that go to the point of what gets on the list? It doesn't go the point of whether we eliminate it entirely or whether we eliminate it beyond some measurable amount.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: The way the act is written now, the minister has the flexibility to set that target and to take whatever action is necessary.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The minister has the flexibility to set what target?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: The minister can set a virtual elimination target for releases.

The minister can also ban the substance. He can ban specific uses of the substance. He can ban particular processes. The minister has considerable flexibility.

Yes, that scares industry too, that the minister has so much power, but we accept that it is necessary. I don't think you can say the minister can only handle in one certain, absolute way, with no flexibility, substances that are put on a certain list.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If we took out the word “measurable” in the virtual elimination section, would that be a concern to you, and if so, why?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: You're saying, approaching some number set by the minister.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm saying we would just eliminate it, period; not eliminate it below some measurable quantity, just eliminate it.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: But what if you can't? If you can't measure it, you don't know whether you've eliminated it. If it's a by-product or an incidental by-product in a process you don't know, if you took the word “measurable” out of the current definition—

Mr. Gar Knutson: So you don't have the tools to measure it, but you know it's there and you know it may accumulate somewhere, in the Arctic, and there might be some small parts of toxins that are accumulating, say, in the food chain in the Arctic, for example. Just because you can't measure it at the factory level, do you think that should allow the firm to continue to produce it, by-product or otherwise?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: I'm not sure how the firm could stop.

Mr. Gar Knutson: They could stop by changing their process.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: In some cases that may be possible. I don't think you can eliminate the process of combustion in general, and some substances, in some minute quantity, are going to be— With things like wood fireplaces, are we going to prohibit wood stoves because we want to prohibit the generation of dioxins and furans?

There's nothing in there that says the minister cannot set the number lower if he or she believes it is accumulating in the Arctic food chain. If it is bioaccumulating by magnifying in the food chain, it will be measurable somewhere.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: With current measurement technology, I don't think there's any non-measurable substance that is causing significant effects.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The way I read the clause was sort of measurable at the firm level, not measurable in the Arctic level.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: I don't think it's that specific. The minister sets a number, a target, a goal—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Below any measure—

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: —and that may be ambient; that may be for particular processes. This is not the only clause. As I understand it, the minister sets a target for what Canada wants to accomplish and then has all the regulatory powers to regulate processes, regulate production, regulate products, and so on, to accomplish it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: This last point, if you don't mind my changing the subject, is on the gasoline issue.

The point of the petroleum industry is that we should regulate with the same timing as the Americans. Are we talking about a national standard, or are we talking about a U.S. standard, say, to the state of Michigan or to Ohio? Presumably the Americans in California are ahead of us right now.

Mr. Alain Perez: Is your question what would be the standard in the U.S.?

• 1625

Mr. Gar Knutson: In terms of timing, are you saying go at the same time Washington goes, or go at the same time Albany goes in New York?

Mr. Alain Perez: This time they will all go at the same time, because what's driving the regulation is the introduction of new cars, and those new cars will be introduced everywhere. They're called the tier-two vehicles and are mandated to come out as model year 2004 in the fall of 2003, therefore it will be a national regulation.

It's not a question for us of picking and choosing which state; it'll be a national regulation.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, please, followed by Mr. Jordan, Mr. Gallaway, and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): We've heard from the environmental groups here, and we've heard from many business groups and industry groups. Those I've heard myself—and I've heard a few—include the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada, Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and today the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Mining Association of Canada. You all say to pass CEPA right away. You like it.

In fact, the institute says it is stronger than the other one. You like the harmonization package. You don't like citizens' suits and you would like to have it changed. In the case of the institute, you say one of the things you like about it is the harmonization package and the new regulatory policy of 1995.

When we heard the environmental groups, they told us exactly the reverse. They said Bill C-32 is much weaker than the present act. They don't like harmonization because they think it dilutes the minister's authority. They think the citizens' suits provision is too weak. I'm sure if there were a question about the regulatory policy, knowing how hard they fought against Bill C-62, which was called the Regulatory Efficiency Act, they would be just as upset about the policy of 1995.

So who should we believe? There's a complete dichotomy, a complete contradiction in all areas.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: I can offer an opinion. I can't do any better than that, but I think there is really a difference in philosophies here.

A lot of the things the environmental groups that appeared as witnesses before you didn't like had to do with anything that was not in the command and control domain. Strong command and control was, in my view, what they were seeking.

What we like about the bill is that it acknowledges other means of providing environmental protection and is moving toward principles like sustainable development, pollution prevention, acceptance and recognition of voluntary pollution prevention planning, and emergency response planning. We see this, quite honestly, for the first time, as a movement in trying to acknowledge other means of achieving the goal. When it comes to the bottom line, that is why our industry is in favour of it, and I think that probably applies to some of the others.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In Bill C-32 it says:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainly shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation;

Do you agree with that, gentlemen?

Mr. Alain Perez: Yes.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: How do you reconcile this with the new policy on regulations that came out in 1995, which says that before authorities propose new regulatory requirements or changes, they must have evidence that a problem has arisen, and that when health, safety, and environmental risks are involved, they must consider whether the relative and absolute risks posed are such that intervention is required at this time? Then it says it must be demonstrated that the new regulatory requirements will help solve the problem and will be cost-effective, and that there must be a cost-benefit analysis before any of this is done.

• 1630

Don't you think there's a severe contradiction, in both the language and the spirit, between one and the other?

Mr. Alain Perez: There's a question of philosophy here, Mr. Lincoln. The regulations have a long, tedious process that sometimes opposes branches of government and sometimes opposes the federal and provincial levels. CEPA, after all, is an enabling legislation. Once it's passed, it does nothing for the environment, and tier regulations under CEPA stop acting.

So you should consider that the process that has led to Bill C-32, including the harmonization accord, which I know is not popular everywhere within the environmental community, is a document that Industry Canada can live with, that NRCan can live with, and that the PCO views as a balanced document. So instead of fighting regulation for years and years, the process of regulating is going to be a lot smoother.

On your first question, the fact that the minister can use a precautionary principle—and that's a paramount principle in CEPA—gives him or her a lot of leeway in what can be done.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, it's exactly my fear—and I think you're right on—that the act without the regulations is meaningless, really. It's just a bunch of pages with writing on it. And all of it has to do with regulations.

You enunciate a principle. On the other hand, you're making regulations so difficult—almost impossible—to achieve, according to this document, that really, I don't see how the minister can achieve it.

I'm going to ask you to tie this into two clauses that appeared in Bill C-74 and appear also in Bill C-32; I wish they had appeared in Bill C-74 and not in Bill C-32. In subclause 2(2), for the first time now, compared to the old CEPA, we not only have the two ministers, Health and Environment, but we have also another vetting minister involved. Add to that subclause 94(5), where the Governor in Council can exempt any activities—import, export, manufacture, use, processing, transport, and everything else—from CEPA if the Governor in Council judges that this should be so.

Don't you think this in effect makes it that Bill C-32 and Bill C-74, as far as that goes, certainly give far more flexibility and leeway and are weaker, from the point of view of a regulatory instrument, than the existing CEPA?

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: I would say that I don't see the added flexibility in the bill as a weakness. I see it as additional choices that can be made, depending on the issue being considered. I don't see it as a weakness in that sense. It's in fact adding flexibility and adding authorities, if you like.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Adding authorities to subtract.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: We compared Bill C-32 to the current CEPA, and we did not see any weakening. In fact a lot more ministerial power is explicitly built into Bill C-32. There are areas where the minister is more constrained, in the sense that the minister is constrained to do certain things. For example, in part 5, the minister now must categorize the domestic substances list and pay attention to assessments by other jurisdictions and so on. So there are quite a number of things built in.

• 1635

We have our experience with the regulatory policy of Treasury Board in its actual application. I don't think it precludes regulations being made in the face of uncertainty, at least in our experience. There is a best effort made to estimate cost and benefits, and it acts on that basis.

I have not seen any instance where the government really wanted a regulation where they were prevented or slowed down by the regulatory policy. We sometimes wish they were. Doing what's cost-effective is right in the precautionary principle such that in the case of uncertainty, you apply the cost-effective measures, you don't go out on a limb. We've interpreted the precautionary principle to mean that the action you take will be commensurate with the degree of danger and the degree of certainty you have in that danger. So it's more of a sliding scale since you never have 100% certainty or 100% uncertainty.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I have a last question.

The Chairman: One short last question, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Don't you agree that clauses and wordings are put in with a reason? I don't think they're just put in just to look nice. Why would the government provide for subclause 93(5) in part 5? With this, effectively, if the government wanted to use it, the Governor in Council would really negate the whole of part 5, which is really the key part of Bill C-32. That's toxic substances. It's the whole part. This applies to the application of this part and any regulations made under it. Wouldn't you say there must be a reason why this was put in?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: Can you read out that part, because I can't identify the clause you mean?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It says:

(5) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Ministers, make regulations providing for the exemption of the following activities from the application of this Part and any regulations made under it.

—this is the whole of part 5—

(a) the import, export, manufacture, use, processing, transport, offering for transport— disposing or releasing into the environment of any substance or a product containing any substance;

It seems to me that this is huge. In other words, the Governor in Council has today the power by just the fiat of the cabinet to say that tomorrow morning any part of part 5 can just be kind of exempted. Unless I read it wrongly, that's what it says.

Mr. Alain Perez: We trust the cabinet to make the right decisions.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That's more than some of us do.

The Chairman: The question probably is: isn't that so?

Yes, please.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: That is the same as in Bill C-74, it's not a new clause. I was surprised that I hadn't caught it before, but it is roughly the same.

Throughout the act and in most acts there is a provision for the minister to add, subtract, regulate, or exempt. So it provides flexibility. Where the minister has an existing regulation, they can either redo that regulation to give it a narrower scope or provide an exemption through another regulation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, followed by Mr. Gallaway, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

Ms. Smale, I want to take a look on page 4 of the brief. There's the clause where you talk of the right to sue being maintained, and so on and so forth. That's a very similar recommendation to that made by other groups.

This is a point of clarification. You're saying that you want to make the government a mandatory party to the suit. Am I correct to interpret that as saying that rather than just having a citizen sue you, you want the government to sue you if an action is brought? Is that correct? You want us to be party to the suit.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: No. I want the government to be a defendant just like the company is. This is what that refers to.

• 1640

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Again, that same sentence appeared in other briefs as well. One of the things I'm kind of struggling with is that as we move away from command and control— I mean, this committee itself recognized that the government's resources in terms of enforcement were not all they should be. So that just seems to be a direction in which we are going for a variety of reasons.

We're going away from an environment where the government would set standards, would tell you how to meet them, and then would check up and make sure you met them. This is where we have authority and responsibility. We're moving then toward—I don't like the term “voluntary”—non-regulatory methods whereby consultation standards are set and then the business itself has a great deal of flexibility as to how it meets them.

I just have trouble reconciling with that that now you want to drag us in on the lawsuit. We seem to have had our authority diminished, and you want to up our responsibility. I just don't know. Is there a quick explanation for that?

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: My understanding is that the purpose of the environmental protection section in the bill has to deal with the non-enforcement of government laws. So it has to deal with the non-enforcement of regulations. So if a company is sued because the government hasn't enforced a regulation for whatever reason, then the government has a responsibility along with the company who perhaps is alleged to not have complied with it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Would you see, then, coming out in the suit a clarification of whether the company was negligent or whether the government was negligent? That would get clarified in the suit, then.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Here's the other thing that I'm just wondering. Consider the recommendation of an absolute limit of five years. I have a little bit of trouble with that because I'm just thinking that we really don't know that much about the health effects of emissions. Is that simply a way of trying to get some sort of certainty around the issue, or is there a reason for the five years?

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: What's important is that there be a time limit. It all has to do with practicality. If an incident is alleged to have occurred 20 or 25 years ago, it's quite likely that the data needed to put together a defence are probably not there.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. So five may not be the absolute number.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: No, it may not be five. Maybe it's ten or seven.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Let's turn 90 degrees then, because I want to talk about the sulphur thing too. I'm on the gas committee. We produced our report today, and that was one of the areas I looked at.

Am I fair to characterize the situation this way? I wonder what seems to be driving this. You mentioned the tier-two emission standards—these are tighter emission standards—in the United States. Are automobile manufacturers trying to meet those standards by forcing cleaner fuel as opposed to investing in R and D in terms of emission technology? I realize that you're in a biased position, but is that one of the factors that's happening here?

Mr. Alain Perez: I would say yes, and I would say it's fair. It's their duty to try to minimize their costs. We heard the argument many times that they have done a lot and that it's time for us to do something, which I think is not a fair way. In the end, it's a process between two industries, and the government intervenes when there is no accord and when it's researching cost-effective solutions. So the government has absolutely an essential role there.

The debate is very complicated in the U.S., as you can imagine, but it has been taken very seriously by our parties. EPA is absolutely on top of that. They have done many reports. We're confident they will come up with something. All we're saying is that we want the same.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Your member companies are multinational, so you're probably very familiar with that.

Mr. Alain Perez: Some of them, a minority of them.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The reason I ask that is to know whether you have a sense of what direction they're going in the States. What's going to be the level?

Mr. Alain Perez: I can tell you the range. The range is between 30 ppm and 150 ppm. That's the range, because 30 ppm is California's—it's almost the extreme adaptable—and 150 ppm is roughly the proposal of the American Petroleum Institute, our counterpart. So it's almost certain that the EPA ruling will fall within that range.

• 1645

Mr. Joe Jordan: Is there a time line on that?

Mr. Alain Perez: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Is it 2004?

Mr. Alain Perez: The regulation in the U.S. must be in place in the year 2000. The reason for that is this is such a drastic change that new technology is required and so they're allowing one year to confirm the technology and three years for investment.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's your position that to be ahead of our international partners disadvantages us.

Mr. Alain Perez: Yes.

Actually, the report you have issued today has one recommendation that sounded to me like maybe wishful thinking—

Mr. Joe Jordan: We're going to help you pay for it.

Mr. Alain Perez: That's fine—that you understood well the impact that regulating ahead of the U.S. would have on the independent marketers.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, we tried to flavour that in there.

Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Next is Mr. Galloway, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by the chair.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Smale, I have a couple of questions on the clauses following clause 22 and thereafter, under Environmental Protection Action.

You work for a company that has a long history, certainly in the community that I represent. I can think of a situation where perhaps there's an allegation that 80 years ago the corporation you represent quite innocently dumped what was called, I think, filtration mud on vacant land that was far away from anything.

The Chairman: Mr. Gallaway, I would urge you to concentrate on the bill and relate your questions to the bill before us. I've allowed you lots of latitude in previous meetings, but now I have to draw to your attention that we are examining Bill C-32.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I understand that. I'm drawing an analogy to a clause of Bill C-32, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: All right. As long as you come back to Bill C-32, that's fine.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

In any event, my concern is that under this act the chairman wants us to talk about—and I'm just drawing this analogy—under this provision, how do you see a person— For example, if there is in fact what I would call an alleged environmental breach of the act that has occurred sometime in the past, how do you start defining the lines on this?

I've referred to something that may have occurred 60 years ago, but people are only becoming perhaps aware of it today. How does this act apply in a situation where there is perhaps what is now a wrongdoing that was quite innocent in the past? How does this section apply today?

Ms. Judith Smale: I think what you have to remember, as well, is that isn't the only piece of legislation or law that governs an environmental releases situation; there is a huge body of common law and other laws there.

With respect to an incident that occurred 67 years ago, the issue becomes, was there a nuisance at the time, and what was the standard of law at the time, and who should be responsible?

There is a whole body of common law and jurisprudence that deals with that as well, to which, incidentally, there are also limitation periods that have been applied and that come into effect, again recognizing that you can only ask someone to defend themselves and come forward for a certain period of time if you don't have the information with which to do it.

Again, what we're dealing with here are violations in this piece of legislation. The situation you're talking about may not even involve that.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: All right.

Ms. Judith Smale: So I think you have to remember this is one piece of legislation that's covering a piece of it; there's another huge body of law out there that deals with the issue as well.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: One of the things that your association and, I believe, others who have appeared before this committee have referred to—and you make it in recommended amendment—is setting an absolute limit of five years after the time of the alleged violation. What does the act say now?

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: There's no time; there's none.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: All right. Then, if I could draw the comparison, what is the statute of limitations in the common law?

• 1650

Ms. Judith Smale: It would be six years for a civil court.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay.

Secondly, Mr. Perez, today there's been—and it's been raised here—a lot of talk about gasoline pricing. I wonder if you can tell us, because it's been raised by a number of people around this table— we had last week the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association here, which stated in response to a question that a move to go to California-style sulphur levels would raise the price of gasoline 1¢ per litre, according to a study. Could you respond to that in terms of whether you agree or disagree with the previous witness.

Mr. Alain Perez: Whether I agree or disagree, I may not be credible in the numbers if I speculate, but I can give you the history in California, where it started with 20¢ U.S. per U.S. gallon. A U.S. gallon is three and a half litres. It has gone down to 7¢ and up to 14¢ and is now hovering around 7¢ again. So on average I would say you'd add 6¢ to 8¢ U.S. per three and a half litres. So that's like 12¢. I would say that in California the consumer is paying 3¢ to 4¢ more because of that quality of fuel. And it's not the quality of fuel, because if it was made everywhere in the U.S. the cost would go down. There would be no supply shortage issue, or difficulty of supply or difficulty of import, and then you would have the price reflect more closely the cost, and in that case you would talk about a couple of cents.

So it will be between 2¢ and very many cents, depending on how it's done and what is the situation elsewhere. If it's 30 ppm all over North America, it will stabilize around 1.5¢ to 2¢ more.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the brief from the CPPI in regard to the Canada Shipping Act or the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, I'm not familiar with these particular acts and I know that subclause 42(3) does say, when you're referring to damages, that you would be exempt if they're being collected under these other acts. So do these acts then actually give explicit wording that refers to having to pay for prevention clean-up and restoration costs?

Ms. Judith Smale: Yes, the Canada Shipping Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act— The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act now has been amended, so when it comes to liability and compensation it's now following the same scheme as under the Canada Shipping Act.

There are two parts, part 15 and part 16 of the Canada Shipping Act— Part 15 deals with oil pollution. Part 16 is entitled, I think, Civil Liability and Compensation for Pollution, and it provides specific statutory liability for shipowners and sets out a scheme of what they're liable for and specifically for clean-up costs and preventative— I think it's worded, “measures for the prevention, mitigation, remediation and restoration of the environment”; and those would be clean-up costs incurred by the minister, by response organizations and others. And it also deals with loss and damage to third parties. In there as well it makes specific provision for implementing the international conventions that deal with the compensation, the funding and the administration of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Thank you very much.

In the Mining Association's brief—and I'm just wondering if any of the other witnesses may want to comment—you have been talking about the evolution of Bill C-32 and you feel that this represents a great deal of progression from, for example, CEPA 1988— or there have been changes to Bill C-74. You talked about the extensive consultation with stakeholders, and I was just wondering what kind of consultation you engaged in with Environment Canada. Could you tell us a little bit about that consultation process.

• 1655

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: We submitted when Bill C-74 was tabled; it was thought it it would pass at that time and we and a number of other associations submitted briefs. I think the total recommendations in that were quite extensive, and we were then asked over the summer or fall of 1997 to try to come up with some horizontal issues, things that were cross-industry, major. Then there were a number of meetings held with Environment Canada where we discussed these and argued back and forth over them. I understand there were also meetings with provincial governments; I know there were, but I'm not sure whether it was within the context of the CEPA, FPAC or CCME or where. And there were also meetings with environmental groups as well, but they were not done together. They were done one on one with each group.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: I think I would add that this process with Environment Canada was probably one of the toughest I've ever been through. I think when we went in there, in terms of the horizontal issues that were mentioned, there were well over 100 items we felt needed to be changed. And we felt quite strongly about them. But by the end of the process I think there were less than 20. And on virtually each of those 20 it was conceding a point where the department felt it was appropriate, but we never got exactly what we wanted on virtually anything. It was always ensuring that environmental protection wasn't compromised, which is one thing we didn't want to do at all. We also wanted that.

So where we landed was basically in areas of a little bit more flexibility, so that things could be done a little bit more cost-effectively and that the role of science would become a little bit more prominent in the act. But it was reduced from well over 100 to something like ultimately 17 or 18 amendments that eventually were actually put in the bill.

I also know there was a consultation with the provinces. There was consultation with environmental groups as well, and those were essentially the three constituents that were part of the discussion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But you said there weren't any meetings where you all sat together around one stakeholder table or anything like that.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So how many meetings did you end up having with Environment Canada, would you say?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: If you really want a number I could go back through all my notes, but I think there were two or three meetings where we sat down. There was one meeting that happened in the railway station, and there were a number of officials present and we went through the issues and discussed them thoroughly. So there were basically two that I can remember. There may have been three, and my memory's not that good.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: There were several meetings where individual associations spoke to the department. We had four that not only dealt with fuel issues but to some extent dealt with some of the other concerns as well, which would be some of the horizontal issues where they affected us.

Mr. Alain Perez: Those were very long sessions, day-long sessions, where Environment Canada would come with their lawyers and Justice lawyers, and we would come also with our lawyers because we would go really into the details of what every word meant. So those were very difficult discussions.

What you have in front of you, Madam, is a consensus between the provinces, industry and Environment Canada and Industry Canada. They were the main parties to it. Obviously there is no consensus with many environmental groups, and I understand your concern there. But it's a consensus that has been achieved through compromise for a long time. It took Environment Canada a long time to get to the table—a long time. The first—

The Chairman: We don't want to go into the details, the history. Can you complete your round?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. I have one more question.

The Chairman: One brief question, please.

• 1700

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was just wondering how you saw the precautionary principle operationalized in the bill and if there were some examples of that. It's not enough to suggest it in the preamble, when we talk about the precautionary principle. It's important to take a look at how this is operationalized in the bill itself to really give it meat.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: Well, I can only comment on the areas I'm familiar with, but I think the toxic substance management policy and the way it is incorporated in part 5 are based on that principle, where you ensure you take action before you have— You know, you don't wait around for the dead bodies.

That to me is evident in the requirement that any action taken by other countries, any strong signals out there that there may be a problem where action should be taken, the government will take action on. That is not in the current CEPA. Also, I see the provision for the virtual elimination of certain substances as flowing out of the precautionary principle in a sense.

On the other parts, I guess the information-gathering provisions have been considerably strengthened and formalized compared to the current CEPA, and that's probably the most substantive, real difference in how it will operate in that area.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But when you spoke earlier, you suggested that the definition was the definition you preferred. Someone said that in the case of uncertainty, you would take cost-effective measures so you'd see this full definition of the precautionary principle operationalized in the bill itself.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: With these kinds of principles, it's hard to—

In my opinion, it seems to form a background. The Rio Declaration, the kinds of thinking that went into the Rio Declaration, and some of the management of toxic substances that was part of the Rio agreement I see as underlying a lot of the philosophy in Bill C-32, but I couldn't point you to specific clauses and say here's principle 15, there's principle 14, and so on. I'm not sure I could do that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, I was referring to the precautionary principle as defined in the preamble.

I'm wondering if anyone else wants to comment on that.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: Maybe I could make a general comment.

The way I see the precautionary principle being applied is that first you look at what the scientific data has to say about the issue, and probably nine times out of 10, that data will not give you a definitive, final answer. It is then the duty of the government to decide when there is enough information that they feel fairly comfortable that some action is needed, and that action would be a precautionary action that would then probably lead to some kind of regulatory action.

The idea of cost-effectiveness, I would hope, would come into play when a decision is made on what to do in terms of remediation. Cost-effective remedial solutions would be sought. That's where I see that coming into play.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can you see this operationalized in the bill then? Mr. Perez?

Mr. Alain Perez: I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean how do we see that being operationalized, like examples?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, in the legislation that follows the preamble, the other clauses of the bill. Do you see provisions in the bill that—

Mr. Alain Perez: Well, it's in the preamble, so it will govern all future regulations on environmental protection.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, the argument can be made that what's in the preamble needs to be articulated within provisions of the bill; otherwise it's just a nice philosophical stand.

Mr. Alain Perez: Oh, I see.

We asked that question many times by saying we would like to see in the body of the legislation some of those principles, and we were always told that what's in the preamble governs everything. So I'm accepting that also for your point. Those were discussions between Justice lawyers and other lawyers.

I have no doubt that what's in the preamble will govern all the actions of the minister in the future.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Thank you.

• 1705

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

We can launch a quick second round with Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lincoln, but allow a couple of brief questions from the chair for the Mining Association.

Mr. Fraser, you are recommending, under controlling toxic substances, the removal of lines 17 and 18 in subclause 77(8). Why do you recommend that? What is the advantage?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: This is referring to—

The Chairman: It's on page 3 of your brief—the last bullet.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: This is because right now, in the clause on right of objection, if the minister decides that the substance is not toxic under CEPA, there is a right of objection. If the minister decides that the substance is toxic, there is no right of objection. By removing the specific reference to where it is found not toxic, you allow the right of objection to apply in both cases.

The Chairman: And what is the advantage in your particular sector?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: A lot of our substances can be found toxic, and we would like to have the opportunity to have the assessment assessed by an independent board of review, or at least to file objection to a particular portions. I mean, that's a hypothetical one.

The Chairman: And slow down the process?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: That would not be the objective. Of course the other side would always suspect that, but we would like to have the right of defence, yes.

The Chairman: It's interesting that in your conclusion you urge the committee to proceed expeditiously with the passage of the bill. Evidently you see in this bill an advantage on the existing legislation. What are the advantages to you? If you want speed, there must be a reason.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: What we don't want is continuing— I mean, we've been in this review process for the last three years, or maybe longer.

The Chairman: Well, not in this committee.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: In this committee, yes.

The Chairman: No, not in this committee. This bill has been received by the House in the last three weeks.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: No, the review of the current CEPA has been in process for some time now.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: I think it's three years, but it may be longer than that, since the first hearings of this committee on the review of CEPA. We feel that it's been going on, and if we now start another round and make a lot of changes to Bill C-32—

The Chairman: But you're not uncomfortable with the present legislation?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: I think it's workable. I mean, I wouldn't throw myself out the window if you stuck to the current legislation. There are certain improvements in Bill C-32—things like clarifying information provisions and so on—that I think are an obvious advantage, but it's not a—

The Chairman: Fair enough. I appreciate your answer.

All right. Mr. Bigras, followed by Mr. Lincoln. Second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like a brief clarification about the Mining Association of Canada's brief. It relates to your comments on Division 8 on waste and recyclable material. You think these provisions are an improvement compared to those contained in Bill C-74. You also say that this Division could be a realistic framework for managing transborder movement of hazardous waste and recyclable material.

However, you say that we must eliminate some obstacles to recycling. Do you think that paragraph 185(1)(a) on paying the prescribed fee, is an obstacle to recycling?

[English]

The Chairman: Could we have a brief answer, please?

Mr. Leonard Surges: I think, to be clear, it's an obstacle to recycling within Canada, but the fact is that it creates a preference for materials originating in the U.S. to be processed there, rather than imported into Canada and creating or maintaining jobs here.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: That is a very nice text, but you do not make any recommendation. Are you recommending changes? Are you recommending that paragraph 185(1)(a) be removed?

• 1710

[English]

Mr. Leonard Surges: I think there may be two possibilities. Certainly one of them would be to eliminate paragraph 185(1)(a). However, I think that would be for materials destined for recycling. We don't have any objection to cost recovery for materials destined for final disposal.

Secondly, of course, the actual impact of this provision depends upon regulations made to define in fact exactly what will be considered a hazardous waste and what will be considered a hazardous recyclable material. So there is some opportunity there, perhaps, for in effect deregulating certain types of materials that pose a low risk and can be safely recycled.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Herron, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to follow up on my exchange of points with Ms. Laurie-Lean. What I was trying to point out is that there's a tremendous dichotomy between the various groups that have appeared here—one side, industry and business, and the other side, the environmental groups. You could almost cut it with a knife, the differences are so pronounced.

I think the point they're trying to make— And I agree with you we should take the exemption clause. It appears in CEPA 1988. It's slightly modified here, but it appears right through Bill C-74.

Where you look at the overall context, what they're trying to say, if I understood them right, is that when you compare this act to CEPA 1988, first of all, we have the harmonization agreement included, and that, depending on your point of view, is a good or a bad thing.

Then in paragraph 2(m), under the administrative duties, the bill applies— “are addressed in a complementary manner in order to avoid duplication and to provide effective and comprehensive protection”. So CEPA, instead of becoming the primary act, becomes complementary.

Then they introduce a third minister, a specific minister, who is brought in to jointly determine whether the measures that can be taken under the other act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter, as opposed to CEPA, which was almost a horizontal act before applying to all ministries.

If you tie this in to this exemption clause, and if you look at clause 330 under “General Regulation-making Powers and Exemptions”, which actually applies to all the parts of the act, and where the Governor in Council may set “the minimum, average or maximum quantity or concentration of the substance; and the method of determining such a quantity of concentration”, etc., those are very broad powers, which again can be viewed two ways.

It can be seen as progress if you say it is. For example, it says here that the Governor in Council can make regulations “in respect of any person or class of persons”. I take it they could say the Mining Association of Canada has the right to do voluntary programs, but XYZ firm cannot do it because they're a bad actor. So you could see that way that it's a good thing.

But the other side of the story is that it gives tremendous— If you add all these things together, there's so much flexibility that this in fact negates the equivalency clause. You have the equivalency clause, and you have the other minister in there. You have the complementary nature of the intervention of the ministry.

Don't you think we are placed before a dilemma, where the environmental groups are saying to us, “There are so many weaknesses in there, that if we had to take this the way it is without changes, we would rather stick with the old CEPA”, and you are saying, “Pass it quickly, because it's a big step forward”?

We agree that there are a lot of good things in here. But is not the big nub of the problem all these clauses that, from your perspective, certainly give more flexibility—introduce another minister; introduce the harmonization clause? From the perspective of the environmental groups who feel they're already losing a lot of ground in all kinds of things, they are very scared of the whole package.

• 1715

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: You're asking a big question. I don't think I can comment on why in this instance there is such a dichotomy between environmental groups and industry.

Probably a number of factors led to the consultations not being particularly constructive. I think it deteriorated into position-taking way back three years ago, and we could never get out of that. Our experience in other instances is that where there's true, constructive consultation, we can come to a consensus and we don't see things that much differently.

As to whether the bill is too broad, provides too much opening, that is also scary for us. Flexibility is a two-edged sword. I'm not sure in a bill this all-encompassing and this large you could have less flexibility. I think the minister does need it.

In the case of our particular industry, we view as a benefit the ability of the minister to apply things selectively or to not have a level playing field in contrast to the CPPI. Our members' operations vary greatly. Their hydrology, geology, everything, is so site-specific that having one blanket regulation, identical for everyone, would simply not be workable. What has ended up happening is either no regulation or as it is now, which is primarily a provincial jurisdiction.

It is a Canadian tradition, if I may say so. We've had that experience with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That is a very enabling act, and the actual workings of the act were put in the regulations, and until the regulations were developed, it was not at all clear how that act would work. The Fisheries Act, again, is a blanket prohibition with a whole bunch of exemptions. But I'm not a lawyer and I can't tell you whether that's a good idea or not.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If I could ask one short question, it seems to me that our benchmark here in this committee was the government response to the report It's About Our Health!.

I'm going to ask you and the others from the institute, how do you see the act relating the response?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: It's close.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Do you see it as very close to a response?

Ms. Justyna Laurie-Lean: No. From our reading of the government response—and everything can be read many different ways—Bill C-32 is closer to it than Bill C-74 was. We could not identify any significant discrepancies between the two.

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: We would agree with that statement.

Mr. Wayne Fraser: I was going to make one comment, if I could, on our relationship with the environment community.

We on a project basis, we on a corporation-by-corporation basis, and certainly we as an association, try very hard and work very closely with many of the environmental groups. They come to our meetings, we go to theirs. We hear their concerns, and they hopefully hear ours. We've had some real success stories, but not always. The day we all agree, I think it's time for us to sit back as well and ask what we did wrong, because there has to be a certain amount of confrontation in order to be constructive.

But, clearly, there has been a remarkable change in where we sit today with many of these groups as compared to where we were even five years ago.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Next is Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. John Herron: I want to clarify a point that we discussed a couple of times, and your recommendations, too, on the citizens' right to sue or a statute of limitations kind of thing; if the right to sue provisions are maintained, they can be made more workable by setting an absolute limit of five years after the time of alleged violation and by making the government a mandatory party to any suit.

My interpretation of this, when I first thought through what you were trying to look at, was that you don't want to have the potential for a lawsuit hanging over your head indefinitely. But because some environmental concerns take a little while to actually ascertain whether it is an environmental problem to start with and then maybe who perhaps caused the infraction to take place, I think it would be more prudent to say five or ten years, whichever number we come up with, after we know, in fact, or we believe an infraction has taken place.

Is that your initial— When we had a briefing before, that's what I thought we were looking at. So after knowledge that there has been a violation, five years starts kicking in—not five years and, if you didn't get caught, then you're okay.

• 1720

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: I think the five years referred to five years after the event is alleged to have occurred. So if an event occurred 20 years ago, and three years ago someone discovered it, that would be outside the five years.

This is there for persistent non-enforcement. That's the area where it applies. It's a regulation that's in place that a company is alleged not to have obeyed, as a result of the government not enforcing it, as a result of non-enforcement. It's a pretty restrictive area.

Mr. John Herron: I actually agree with the concept of putting numbers to it, but just because there is— Mr. Gallaway's example is probably an extreme, but for us to ascertain if there is—

If I think of a gas tank leak, it may take five or six years before it finally shows up in the water table, and then there may be two leaks from another gas station around the corner. So before they can figure out that there has been a leak and maybe who's to blame for it, it may take six or seven years for them to sort that out or to actually discover that an infraction has taken place. So five years would be too constrictive on that basis. Five years may be okay after they've ascertained that a violation has taken place; 80 years is extreme.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: Yes, I just wonder if that would be a case of persistent non-enforcement by government or if it would be a violation of a regulation. If it's an accident, it seems to me that's a different category of situation.

Mr. John Herron: I know there can be accidents. With the gas tank leak, for example, people may not exactly know the extent of the leak itself, and it may take in excess of five years from when you know it happened. Maybe they can trace back through their records to when they thought they had some problems, but before it's actually discovered to be a problem—

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: Well, what we're really looking for is reasonableness here, and I think we both want that, so whatever comes out on that basis is really what we're looking for.

Mr. John Herron: All right. Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, could I ask you to compress your question? Mr. Gilmour would like to move a motion and I have an announcement to make. Please go ahead.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To the petroleum, in controlling fuels and setting standards of fuels, you mentioned that a quality of petroleum standards can be achieved, but in achieving a higher quality, is it a labour-intensive cost? The raw product seems to come from the same source, right? But for us to get a better-quality fuel with less, is it a high cost of manufacturing, developing, and producing? What do you calculate that difference at? What is it?

Mr. Jack Belletrutti: It usually amounts to a different processing scheme. Quite often the tougher the standards get, the more processing is needed, so it becomes a cost item in terms of processing capabilities. Or it may require capital investment to bring in new processes to achieve the objective that your existing processes can't accomplish.

So it's generally capital intensive, and usually there's an increase in the operating costs associated with making the product. It's not labour intensive per se. We don't have to hire more people to make a higher-quality product; we have to process differently. I think that's really the answer you're looking for.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. The other question I had was for the Mining Association.

Are the uranium companies a part of your association, or is that a different entity altogether?

Mr. Wayne Fraser: They aren't part of our association, so we aren't speaking and can't speak for them.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: You can't?

Mr. Wayne Fraser: No.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you very much.

We are now approaching the moment when the bells will be ringing, so I will conclude this portion of the meeting by thanking the witnesses today for appearing before us and for their input aand very helpful answers. We thank you very much for that. We hope to see you again.

• 1725

Then there is a brief intervention by Mr. Gilmour, and then I would like to make an announcement on another matter related to Bill C-32. But let's proceed with Mr. Gilmour first.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

The motion's in front of you and it's very similar to what we're dealing with tomorrow, which is a follow-up to the situation of the natives who were affected by the uranium mining in the north. What I'm proposing is a one-day session with Atomic Energy to bring us up to speed on, when they sell a reactor, what kind of groundwork they do beforehand, if any. Again, it's a one-day session to get these people before committee, and I'm asking for the consent of the committee to do so.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is it necessary to pass the motion now?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yes, just to set it up for some time in the fall.

The Chairman: To open the discussion I need a motion to put it on the floor.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So moved.

The Chairman: Fine. The motion is before us.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that rules of committee state that you have to give notice 24 hours in advance. So I can't support the motion coming before the committee at this time. Perhaps we may want to delay it for a day.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Apparently that's not so.—

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]— second bet. We're just looking to have a witness appear before the committee. That seems pretty harmless to me.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Our assistant said that the 24-hour notice does not apply, and the fact is that we have a quorum now. We may not have a quorum tomorrow, and that would push it off to the fall.

The Chairman: The clerk is reviewing the rules for that particular item.

The Clerk of the Committee: We do not have a motion requiring notice, Mr. Chairman. We never adopted one.

The Chairman: No motion has been adopted requiring the 24-hour notice, the clerk informs us.

Are there any further interventions?

Mr. John Herron: —

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]—

The Chairman: Are there no further interventions? In that case I will put the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now, the committee will remember that when we had the meeting a couple of days ago with the waste industry, the definition of waste was discussed, and in that discussion also was the question of whether the definition should be in the bill or whether it should be in the regulations, the advantages of either one or the other approach. The whole question of the writing of regulations emerged again.

You may recall that the first time we stumbled on the question of regulations was when the department was before us. When we inquired what is the regime that governs the writing of regulations, they informed us that there is a directive from Treasury Board. Subsequently the clerk obtained for us the Treasury Board directive, which was sent to each one of us a couple of weeks ago or so. It's called regulatory policy 1995 and it is issued by the Treasury Board. Apparently the regulations are written—when they are, of course—according to the criteria contained in that particular document.

So it seems to me that it would be desirable for us, as we make our way through the bill, to also have an understanding of how the regulations will be written. Therefore, I would, if the committee agrees, with the help of the clerk of course, make arrangements for the committee to bring before us the officials from Treasury Board and Environment Canada who deal with regulations so we can fully understand the implications of this policy, which is fairly recent, and of which the impact is not fully appreciated unless we have an excursion in that direction.

• 1730

Could I have an indication from the members of this committee as to whether there is an inclination to do so?

There's no objection. In that case, we will make arrangements to that effect.

I can promise you some very dull cut-and- dried meetings, because that subject is not an amusing one. Nevertheless, it's a subject we need to have a handle on if we want to understand, first of all, just by way of an example, whether the definition of waste ought to be in the legislation or in the regulations, but many other items will also flow from that.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I just get a quick point of clarification here? I don't have any particular problem with Mr. Gilmour's motion, but I thought we did have something in there that said you had to give 24 hours. Sometimes we leave committee early as we have other places to go, so can we spring stuff at any time like this? Is that the way this works?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It has never been done in the past; we used to give 24 hours.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's not an indictment of this, but I'm just wondering.

The Chairman: That's why we had a discussion, although it was a very brief one.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So as a committee we never adopted the notion that you give 24 hours. It was just a bit of a safeguard. We all like to think we're doing wonderful things here, but there are clearly political implications to some of these things.

The Chairman: Perhaps we should adopt this kind of provision. I was firmly under the impression that we had this provision, as was Madam Kraft Sloan, but the clerk looked it up in his book and he informs me that there is no such provision.

However, the committee is the master of its own operation, and if you wish to put forward a motion now that from now on such a provision will apply in relation to future motions, no matter where they come from, we could have that provision.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, why did we have this provision in previous sessions? I brought motions before the committee that had to have a 24-hour period of notification. I'd like to know why this rule doesn't exist now.

The Chairman: It was in the last Parliament when we did that, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So when we were elected last year, all of a sudden the standing rules of the committee changed?

The Chairman: I don't know. All I know is that when we did that, the rule was applied in the life of the previous Parliament.

Mr. Clerk, would you like to clarify this for us?

The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, at the first meeting of the committee, a number of routine motions were adopted, but it doesn't appear that this one was.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Why wasn't it adopted? Why wasn't it on the list?

The Clerk: This was the organizational meeting of October 7.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I wasn't aware we had to adopt a motion like this. I was operating on the assumption the same sorts of rules we had the last time would apply.

The Clerk: Usually the clerk—I may have brought this rule with me—would bring Mr. Chairman a list of routine motions adopted the last time, but this one doesn't seem to have been adopted. These would be the usual kind of rules, like 10 minutes for witnesses and that sort of thing, the composition of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, and the number of witnesses per organization who will be paid for by the committee. It's this kind of thing. They have to be renewed by the committee at the beginning of every session, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Could we have a motion then, without it applying retroactively of course, so this will govern our proceedings in the future?

I have two speakers: Mr. Gilmour and Mr. Herron.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I wrote this down just so we would have something in front of us, but if you will recall two days ago, the chair just verbally said that we had the natives in town who were affected by the uranium mining, so let's get them in front of us. We all agreed. It wasn't written down or done as a formal motion, but we agreed. I could have just brought this formally, but I don't think we want to hamstring the committee.

• 1735

Mr. Joe Jordan: I agree. It's not an indictment of your motion at all, but thinking ahead, if we don't have that rule the whip's office is going to be making sure that— you know, they'll be trying to manage my time.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I don't have any problem with it. It's just that we've been more informal than in, for want of another word, the other more confrontational committees. They get all the rules set in place because they're throwing spears across the room.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't want to make the motion that we do that.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, then Madam Kraft Sloan. Then, if someone wishes to move that motion, we can still do it.

Mr. John Herron: I'll pass.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You can have the 24-hour rule but the committee can decide, with unanimous consent, to do anything it bloody well pleases, so it means it doesn't have to abide by those particular rules. In this situation, as a parliamentary secretary, I would have appreciated prior notice if something like this was coming before the committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour gave the notice to the clerk.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I got it right now. In fact, I was on my way to a meeting with the minister and if I'd left two minutes earlier I would not have seen it.

The Chairman: That is why it was distributed, with that thought in mind. But the meeting had first to listen to the witnesses and then we went into this matter. And before the witnesses were given a farewell, the motion was distributed to members of the committee. It was with that thought in mind.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's not notice.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, did you have something to say?

Mr. Joe Jordan: No, I'm fine.

The Chairman: We have, then, a motion that we'll give this instrument to this committee so that in future it will have this provision. It's in the hands of the members of the committee.

Mr. John Herron: If there is a concern, maybe it can be raised and then we can address it. Mr. Gilmour's motion is pretty benign; he's just asking for the appearance of a witness. I don't think there is any malice here. If we think as a team that we want to give it 24 hours' advance notice, we can vote on that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: In other words, it is— I need to think about that, too.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, is it not fairly routine for issues relating to who is going to appear before committee to be brought to the steering committee to deal with? Is that not the proper place for these types of motions to be dealt with?

The Chairman: They're always dealt with in the full committee, questions of that kind. This is not a large committee like foreign affairs, so it might as well be dealt with by the entire committee. Also, because it is a small steering committee, it is at times very hard to hold because of getting a quorum and getting the numbers.

Mr. David Pratt: My concern, I suppose, is that a lot of us have different projects that we'd like to move forward, and rather than dealing with them piecemeal, there might be some wisdom to putting them all in the hopper and—

The Chairman: Yes. The only reason we are having the meeting tomorrow is because witnesses have cancelled. Otherwise, that slot tomorrow would not be available. That's why I explained it on Monday as the reason we were taking advantage of that fact: we have no witnesses for Bill C-32.

This motion, then, has been dealt with, and so that the clerk has that motion passed and adopted, the question is whether the committee wants to have a resolution whereby a 24-hour notice is required from now on. That's entirely up to the committee. There are advantages in having it and there are also disadvantages, as you will probably appreciate.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't want to move the motion. I don't want to go on the record as somebody who's trying to push that through.

The Chairman: Fine. Then, if nobody wants the motion—

Mr. David Pratt: I'll move it.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt is moving the motion.

Mr. David Pratt: As Madam Kraft Sloan has indicated—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You don't have to, unless you want to.

Mr. David Pratt: No, I'll move it anyway, because I think that if the committee wants to do something badly enough, it will do so by unanimous consent. In any assembly, I think, there's good reason to provide for notice for motions.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I think it's very standard. I'm in a committee that functions very harmoniously with this rule, and if tomorrow we want to bypass it, we just ask for unanimous consent.

The Chairman: It's suspended.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And if I recall the previous environment committee, it had a 48-hour notice.

• 1740

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt has moved a 24-hour rule for motions that will be put in future.

Is that your wish, Mr. Pratt? Is that how you're wording it, 24 hours?

Mr. David Pratt: Yes, 24 hours.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But the committee could overrule that with unanimous consent?

The Chairman: Yes, it can always overrule it, right?

The Clerk: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It can always overrule it. It can suspend its own rules.

You heard the motion. Is there any discussion? If not, I will put the motion.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.