ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 8, 1998

• 0909

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Order. We will resume our study of Bill C-32.

Let me commend for their punctuality Mr. Gilmour, Mr. Casson, and Mr. Charbonneau. As you know, we can only start when we have a quorum of five, and we would have a quorum of five if one member hadn't just left the room.

Now we have six or seven people, so we can re-establish our quorum. Thank you very much for arriving.

We welcome this morning Arlene Kwasniak, who is here to speak on behalf of the Environmental Law Centre in Edmonton, I believe. Is that correct?

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak (Staff Counsel, Environmental Law Centre): That's correct.

The Chairman: Some of us have heard your report and found it very helpful, but it is important that perhaps you put your thoughts on record here and give us a brief outline so that members then have an opportunity to ask you questions.

The floor is yours.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Thank you.

Given that my time is short, I'm going to very briefly outline some of the things that are in my brief, but first I do want to thank the committee for giving the Environmental Law Centre a chance to be represented at these hearings.

• 0910

One reason we were very anxious to come is that we are from Alberta, and we want the committee to know that there are points of view other than the ones that perhaps the Alberta government or Alberta industry might be presenting to the committee from that province.

The objective of the Environmental Law Centre is that environmental laws should be aimed at protecting the environment and not at protecting industry or protecting agriculture or protecting other things, even sustainable development. That's the way we approach our review of CEPA.

My presentation focuses on the harmonization clause in CEPA. However, it does touch on other aspects of the bill. I'm going to list those right now, but we can look at them later in questioning, because I understand I have only 10 minutes for my own presentation.

The other priority items for us are the residualization provisions in paragraphs 2(1)(m) and (n) and subclause 2(2); the definition of “toxicity”; environmental protection action; pollution prevention; the biotechnology and equivalency; and precautionary principle. In our brief we outline difficulties we have with these sections and we make suggestions as to how they might be improved.

Before I talk about harmonization, I do want to say one other thing. We have read a draft of the brief of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy, and we support their recommendations. So rather than just do what they did, we took some priority items and focused on them.

On harmonization, there is a serious problem with the bill because of the way it incorporates the idea of harmonization. If you read my brief, you might think it's a bit alarmist, but I think it's an alarming situation. This is because of the recent Sunpine decision of the Federal Court trial division. We all know that Sunpine is a decision regarding the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and not CEPA; however, the lesson that follows from that case is equally applicable to CEPA.

Just to briefly summarize it, the Sunpine case concerned the Sunpine forest industry, which wanted to build some bridges over navigable waters. It was subject to an environmental assessment under CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The assessment was carried out, the project went through screening, and was subsequently approved. It was appealed by an environmental association in Alberta and the Federal Court trial division basically found that the assessment did not follow the mandates of CEAA in that it did not follow subsections 15(3) and 16(1) regarding scope of assessment.

That's all well and good except that it caused this incredible uproar in Alberta and other places in Canada, in particular among industry—the forest industry, the oil and gas industry—and the provincial government, partly on the grounds that it would make harmonization talks a waste of time. Indeed, a lot of the criticism of this case, and what I think ultimately led to its being appealed, had to do with the charge that this case somehow had something to do with harmonization and duplication.

As a matter of fact, the case had nothing to do with it. There was not even an environmental assessment done provincially under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, which is the bilateral agreement between Canada and Alberta that would govern harmonization in our province, in addition to the accord, of course.

Since there wasn't one done even provincially, harmonization was just a red herring. Nevertheless, industries and the minister and other people went bananas over this.

• 0915

Then, of course, it was ultimately appealed. Sincerely—and perhaps I'm speaking only for myself—I think it's an embarrassment that it's been appealed, because it's going to put the federal government in the position where it is going to have to in some sense argue that it has less constitutional authority to assess than the Federal Court trial division has stated it has.

Back to CEPA. What are the lessons for CEPA? One lesson is that some industries and provinces will continue to stretch the application of terms like “harmonization” and “avoiding duplication” beyond their natural and legal meanings in attempts to erode and eradicate constitutionally and politically valid federal processes.

In other words, harmonization does not mean taking two processes and harmonizing them so that both levels of government are really fully represented in these processes; it means one process. According to some, that would mean the provincial process.

The second lesson is that laws that incorporate harmonization, such as CEPA, must both specifically limit the application of these concepts and be entirely clear as to what they mean, because I believe if they're not clear and limited, those who wish to push and expand the concepts to minimize and even eliminate federal authority will do so.

The third lesson is that if harmonization is going to be objectively carried out—and there are some good things about harmonization; I'm not completely against it—I believe it should be carried out by some independent agency, one that's not necessarily associated with either the federal or the provincial government. That's because obviously each level of government is going to be pushing its own interests.

So for the benefit of the environment and for the benefit of both levels of government, I think it would be better if there was some independent agency that would carry out the process. I don't have any suggestions as to what form this agency would take at this time.

With respect to CEPA, CEPA in paragraph 2(1)(l) states that the Government of Canada shall:

act in a manner that is consistent with the intent of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements entered into for the purpose of achieving the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada;

This incorporate words directly from the accord, so it's no question that this is what it was meant to refer to.

What does it mean to say that the Government of Canada shall act in a way that's consistent with the intent of the accord? As I indicated before, I think there's little doubt that in this political climate, the clause would be given a most broad interpretation to compel, shall we say, the virtual elimination of federal processes in favour of provincial ones.

Objective two of the accord, which is delineating the respective roles and responsibilities of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments within an environmental partnership by ensuring that specific roles and responsibilities will be generally undertaken by one order of government only, will overshadow the other objectives.

I refer here to Hydro-Québec, because in that very important case, which should have breathed all kinds of new life into CEPA, and could, it did make it clear that the regulation of toxicity and others is a matter of shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government.

It was urged by many in the environmental community that the Supreme Court of Canada find that CEPA was valid by virtue of the POGG power—peace, order and good government—but the Supreme Court declined, primarily because that would have given the federal government exclusive jurisdiction. This is what the Supreme Court said. They found that the ability to regulate toxic substances was valid under the criminal power, which would be shared with the regulatory powers of the province.

Since the lion's share of CEPA can be seen as addressing matters over which both the federal and provincial governments share jurisdiction, we believe this clause can be used in effect to eliminate federal authority wherever it is asserted in an area of shared jurisdiction.

• 0920

In fact, I think it could even be more powerful than the equivalency provisions. The equivalency provisions at least require some paper, such as an equivalency agreement, but the harmonization clause appears not to even require that. It would just be that wherever there are two levels of government that could do it, then perhaps only one level of government should do it, and the way things are going, I think that's going to be the provincial levels.

We understand that there has been a suggestion to the committee that the clause in the CEPA bill be amended to read, “The Government of Canada shall endeavour to operate in a manner that is consistent with the intent of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements”, and so on.

We find that this clause really doesn't do the trick, because I don't think a requirement “to endeavour to operate in a manner” is really anything much less than a clause that requires you to operate in the manner. It still requires a positive action to do it.

Instead, we would suggest either just deleting the harmonization clause and letting the harmonization accord do the job, or having something different, which would be:

Have regard to the intent of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements entered into for the the purpose of achieving the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada. However

—stating positively—

nothing in this clause 2(l)(1) shall be construed so as to abrogate or diminish Canada's right or authority to pass or implement legislation, policies or programs within any areas of federal constitutional jurisdiction.

That is all I have to say on harmonization, at this point. I believe my 10 minutes is up, but if you want, I could go through some of the other areas.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Okay. I'm going to go through some of our priorities.

I'd like to just focus a bit on the environmental protection action next. Clauses 22 to 38 of the bill establish an environmental protection action. However, we believe these sections place so many insurmountable barriers that any right to such action is illusory.

There are many barriers listed in the act, but I want to focus on the ones in paragraphs 22(1)(a) and (b), which limit the right to commence an environmental protection action to circumstances in which, in effect, the minister broke the law by either failing to observe—

The Chairman: You're now drawing your material from page 9, for the information of members who wish to follow you.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Thank you very much.

So the minister broke the law either by failing to follow the mandates with respect to the provisions on investigations, which require the minister to carry out an investigation, or by acting outside of jurisdiction by acting unreasonably, actually violating the principles of natural justice and duty to be fair.

In either case, it would be highly unlikely that a minister would simply admit to either of these, so it would be up to the citizen who is trying to bring the answer to get a court to agree that the minister either failed to observe the provisions regarding investigations or failed to follow the rules of natural justice, and duty to be fair.

Given the fact that our courts defer so much to the decisions of statutory delegates, unless the minister was just flagrantly not paying any attention to the law at all, I think it would be highly unlikely that a court would ever find that this precondition to carrying out this action has been met.

• 0925

So I would suggest that these sections either be amended to take away the various insurmountable barriers or just be deleted, rather than give the impression that this statute creates a remedy that isn't there.

On pollution prevention—and I'm still on page 9—I will simply say that we agree with the standing committee's report, It's About our Health, that pollution prevention plans for substances determined to be toxic should be mandatory. Moreover, we would suggest that CEPA state that pollution prevention activities be contained in the NPRI.

On the precautionary principle, as was stated by other speakers, we also would like to see the term “cost effective” eliminated from the precautionary principle.

We note that STOP yesterday pointed out that the word “cost” does not appear to be in the French version of the bill. When I talked to the STOP representative, he thought the word efficientes could be interpreted as “effective” and not necessarily “efficient”. I would certainly prefer to see the word “effective” and not necessarily “efficient”, because then you bring in all the economics that might make it so that a precautionary principle would actually not be adhered to as it should be.

I will briefly mention the rest of them. I'm on page 7.

On residualization, paragraphs 2(1)(m) and (n) and subclause 2(2) would make it so that, in any case, there's another federal statute that deals with a matter, that it is highly unlikely that it would end up to be regulated under CEPA. That is because it would appear to give the minister who administers the other legislation a veto power over the initiation of something being under CEPA.

Now, CEPA is a statute that is meant to protect our health and environment. It is natural that any ministry or department that has something under its control and jurisdiction will be an advocate for what it has under its control or jurisdiction. Thus the Minister of Energy will certainly be pushing and advocating energy interests, the Minister of Agriculture, agriculture interests, and so on and so forth.

I think it's unlikely that the fact that something is administered under, say, an agriculture statute means it's going to follow that the health and environmental interests are fully spoken for. So we suggest that the residualization provisions be deleted.

For CEPA toxicity, like other representatives of environmental organizations we suggest that the definition be amended to specifically allow for a finding of inherent toxicity and to facilitate finding endocrine disrupters as toxic.

I'm now going on to page 10.

On the virtual elimination definition, we would like to see this definition changed so that it would require the elimination of production, use and release, because this is a more restrictive concept. We feel this more restrictive concept is even more necessary to be adopted than when first proposed by the public interest community in view of evidence that hormonal alteration and endocrine disruption can occur as a result of exposure to substances at much lower levels than previously thought to pose a danger. Thus, what might appear to be immeasurable, even though it can't be measured, might still pose a danger.

• 0930

Two more things. Later on page 11 we address biotechnology and equivalency. The current CEPA requires that any new product of biotechnology regulated under any other federal act undergo an assessment of human health and environmental effects at least equivalent to that under CEPA. The provisions in the bill weaken the current equivalency provisions by stating that the notification and assessment provisions not apply in respect of biotechnology products assessed under any federal act for toxicity. In other words, the need for specific CEPA equivalency has been dropped. Moreover, the minister administering the other act may determine whether the weakened equivalency provisions apply.

We would ask that subclauses 106(6) to (9) be deleted so that all new biotechnology products fall under CEPA, or at minimum, delete these subclauses and restore the current CEPA equivalency provisions for biotechnology.

Finally, with regard to screening the domestic substances list, there's a new provision in CEPA, a welcome addition, that requires the screening of the DSL for persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic substances. However, we would ask that it would be amended to add screening for substances that are potentially hormone disrupting.

And I believe that's it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You certainly handled a wide range of, and far-reaching, aspects related to the bill. It may be a surprise for you to learn that yesterday in committee the minister assured this committee that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are going to be substances that this bill could handle, could envisage controlling. We also discussed the precautionary principle.

Are you aware of the fact that the precautionary principle definition from Rio, as approved in Rio, includes the term “cost effectiveness”, as we learned yesterday?

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Yes, I am aware. I am also aware that during the Rio discussions, prior to the Rio declaration being called, it was called the “Earth Charter”, and all the early drafts did not have in them the term “cost effective”. Indeed, my recollection, having been working with the Government of Canada on its position, was that it did not have the term “cost effective” either. But there are other statements of the precautionary principle without those terms. Indeed, we have a brief somewhere in my office that lists those. When I get back to Edmonton I will send you a copy where the principle is stated in other forms, if that would be of use.

The Chairman: Yes, please.

We'll start with Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the committee, and thanks for your presentation.

I want to refer to the virtual elimination definition on pages 10 and 11. We've heard quite a bit from other witnesses about the definition of that and the problems that could occur by not having it tightened up.

It seems to me that in your recommendation, if virtual elimination means the elimination of the production of a product, then the rest of all of that eventually would become redundant, because we won't be producing them, and thus we won't be able to export them or use them or whatever.

• 0935

But the minister yesterday explained—and Mr. Chairman, help me if I'm wrong here—that zero wasn't a legal definition. They couldn't use zero. They have to be able to measure it, I believe, to be able to put a restriction on it.

You mention here also natural leaching in processes of chemical and organic breakdown. Are you referring to things that are completely out of the hands of man, or something that's subsequent to some action? What are you referring to?

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I am referring to subsequent to some action. I am worried about mincing words in definitions here. It's a question of whether something is a direct cause or an indirect cause. Certainly there would have to be some human activity that caused it, but if the direct cause was something that was natural, then perhaps it could be argued that it doesn't fit under the definition.

Mr. Rick Casson: When you say “natural leaching processes”, can you give me an example of what you're thinking of?

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Oh, I don't know; something from a landfill, perhaps.

Mr. Rick Casson: That type of situation.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: With respect to the issue on zero discharge, I'm afraid I don't really quite understand why it's not legally definable. I guess I don't understand why zero discharge means just taking it out. I mean, it still is possible that there still might be some of the chemical in the environment because it might be impossible to get rid of it. It might be produced as a byproduct of something else, or perhaps there might be fugitive emissions. But I don't think that makes zero discharge an impossible legal concept. Anything can be defined legally.

Mr. Rick Casson: Well, you would think, but that's what was indicated to us yesterday.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you.

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]...but perhaps you could help me with one word, on page 8 in your definition under the toxics section: “tetrogenicity”.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I had a feeling someone was going to ask me that. This morning I was searching through the little books I brought along. I actually took that from CELA's brief. I went through CELA's brief and the World Wildlife Fund's brief to make sure I captured all of those words.

I will find out what it means and pass it on to you. I'm terribly sorry.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Not a problem. I meant to ask the representatives from WWF what that meant and didn't get a chance.

Perhaps we can go back to this discussion on virtual elimination. I wanted to pose it in the area around endocrine disrupters. Now, some witnesses who have come before the committee have suggested that the way the bill is currently drafted, there is absolutely no problem in capturing endocrine disrupters as a particular substance. However, other witnesses, including you, say that CEPA needs to be strengthened in order that we're able to regulate endocrine disrupters. I'd like you to comment on that.

Secondly, if we have a definition of virtual elimination that says it's below a measurable amount, but the measurable amount is defined by regulation, and we know that technology and science advances so that what we can measure changes, and we know there's always a lag with the regulatory process....

The other thing about endocrine disrupters is that there seems to be no minimum amount. It's the timing of when they affect the fetus.

• 0940

First of all, perhaps you could go over what you have said in your brief regarding endocrine disrupters and what it is we have to do in CEPA. Secondly, on the issue of the definition of virtual elimination, if an endocrine disrupter from the research that's coming out suggests that there is no minimum amount, it's just the timing, then how can this definition actually assist in the capture of endocrine disrupters, and what is it we have to do? There's the point that Mr. Casson brought out, this whole legality about zero discharge and NO^x.

If you can make sense of this rambling question, I'd appreciate it.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Regarding virtual elimination, as I think I mentioned earlier, there might be amounts that cannot be measured, or are immeasurable according to some regulatory definition, though they might still, if not by themselves then in combination with other substances, lead to alteration of hormones, which is what the evidence would suggest. So as long as there is a definition of virtual elimination that still allows releases, although they may be minimal, there could still be potential for endocrine disruption.

Another problem would be that the definition of virtual elimination as it is right now seems to be tied to the idea of harm. It may be really difficult, if not impossible, to determine how that would relate to endocrine disruption, especially if we're taking a substance-by-substance approach to virtual elimination. It may be that one substance in itself does not cause harm, but perhaps one substance in combination with another will cause harm.

With respect to your other question regarding timing, I'm a bit puzzled. Perhaps you could repeat that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's my understanding that when a substance that is an endocrine disrupter enters the womb where the fetus is developing, at a certain stage of development it affects the neurological development of the unborn child. It affects the sexual organ development. It affects the endocrine system. It affects all of these things that will start to play out as the child leaves the womb and develops into a mature adult. There are deficiencies in intellectual capacity. There is an increase in aggressive behaviour and certain problems with the reproductive tract.

The suggestion is that it doesn't appear that there is a minimal amount, so it's not the amount but the timing that's at issue. I'm just wondering how CEPA can deal with this particular issue.

• 0945

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: That's actually a very excellent point. It might be safe or cause no harm at time x but is not safe at time y, at a certain amount, which would lead me to say that virtual elimination must mean elimination and not virtual elimination, as it's now defined.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There are stronger definitions of virtual elimination.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Yes—eliminating the production and use.

The Chairman: That's difficult to be imposed—if I may interject here—due to the fact that we are told that endocrine substances do not have a persistent characteristic but have an effect that is unpredictable, that comes and goes. They are neither accumulative nor persistent, apparently.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I'm sorry; your question is...?

The Chairman: I'm just trying to clarify what we're having difficulty with in tackling this issue of endocrine substances. They do not seem to fit in the required definition.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Okay. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are you familiar with any legislation in Europe or the United States dealing with endocrine disrupters?

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I have looked at what is in the United States, and I understand that right now there's a document that's been put out for public review on screening for endocrine disruption under, I believe, the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The Chairman: Thank you. We have to move on.

Madame Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Gilmour.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam, at point 2 (b) of your brief, you talk about harmonization. You recommend the establishment of an independent organization to administer and supervise the harmonization. You say that there are three lessons that one must draw from past experiences. Why would you want us to establish an independent organization? How do you see the membership of that organization? What would its goal be? Which powers would be devolved upon it?

[English]

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I will first tackle why there should be such an organization. I believe the accord, as it is now and as it is now being administered, will result in one process and one level of government's interests being addressed fully and the other ones' not. In the usual case, it will be the provinces'.

I think there should be independence to ensure that both federal national interests and provincial interests are carried out through one harmonized process if we're going to have one process, and I just can't see how that kind of objectivity to do that can be effected if only one level of government is carrying out the process. For example, under the environmental assessment subagreement, the lead role will most often be given to the province. So I think we need that kind of independence to ensure that the federal interest is spoken for.

As to who should do it, I have not yet thought of a model. I would suggest it not be the CCME, because they have no particular mandate or accountability, at least right now, but perhaps something more like the Environmental Protection Agency if it could be assured the required independence from either level of government and funding.

• 0950

Thirdly, you asked who should be on it; that, I don't know. Perhaps there could be a system of appointment from provinces and the federal government. I don't think they have to be elected.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Gilmour, please.

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

At the top of page 8, you state:

Section 65 of Bill C-32 sets forth a definition of “toxicity”. This section should be amended to specifically allow for a finding of inherent toxicity....

Could you define “inherent toxicity”? The difficulty I have is seeing how we would get that in the bill. What would be your definition?

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I appreciate that there has been a lot of time spent on trying to define “inherent toxicity”. I don't know if it's possible to define it in so many words. I suggest that it would just be defined in terms of characteristics. That's how I suggest it be done—“inherent” or “intrinsic” toxic properties. Then I have a list of acute lethality, chronic/sub-chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, tetrogenicity, genotoxicity, or hormone disrupting.

As I said to Ms. Kraft Sloan, I have to admit, I copied these off other briefs where they were trying to capture anything that could be inherently toxic so that there would be a limit of the kinds of substances that would fall under that characterization. That's the idea. You don't just say “inherent” or “intrinsically toxic” and leave it at that. I think that lets in way too many substances. So they have to have certain characteristics. The characteristics, I understand, can be identified without having to have all of the elements of a full-blown risk assessment, as it is in current CEPA or in the bill.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I ask that because we've had other witnesses saying that the stronger we get the bill, the easier it is, and the stronger are the regulations. I see getting a definition of “inherent toxicity” having a very broad definition; hence the regulations would be vague or unclear. So I appreciate your clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

I wanted to follow up on the issue of endocrine disruption, because certainly it's something I'm learning about for the first time, and I gather from some of your comments that you're learning a little bit about it, too. It's an emerging science.

My colleague was talking about some of the timing of it. I'm not sure anyone really knows all the details of it.

I look at this list and see what you've listed under subclause 65(2) and think, wow, we've put in this group of items for defining toxicity, and something else comes along that's not endocrine disruption but some other thing that affects us. Why would we want to write a piece of legislation that includes all of these various components, that includes hormone disrupting, which isn't really clear yet but sounds likes it's going somewhere, and then all of a sudden we're faced with a bill that doesn't list this new thing that could happen to our bodies based on some substance being there?

So I think, well, does paragraph 65(c) cover everything? Is it not possible that there's an interpretation that whatever this new emerging science is, it says “constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health”?

You know what? Make it as broad as possible. I dealt on the justice committee with cases where we had listed items in human rights legislation, for instance, and because we missed one item, the court said, well, you didn't define that. You defined it in a bunch of other ways but you forgot to define it in that way. Therefore, you got too specific but didn't include this other one, so we're going to let that one through.

• 0955

So if you really want to capture hormone disrupting, maybe the answer is to leave it under paragraph 65(c), and in paragraph 77(3)(a).... By the way, you put (4), and I don't think there's a (3), so I'm not sure. But maybe I'm just missing (3).

Again, it's broad enough, and there's a way to deal with it. Maybe that's a better approach than getting specific and including something that hasn't quite been defined yet.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I certainly agree with your comments in that I think it's very important that the legislation be broad enough to keep up with science. We don't want to always be following science—and not just science but also harm to the environment and human health. If my proposed definition doesn't do that, then I would happily retract it and attempt to amend in any way possible so that it would do that.

One way of doing that might be to add a provision “or as provided for in the regulations”, but that might even be too limiting, because that might be interpreted only in view of what came before it. I think as you were suggesting, that's what happens with human rights legislation.

It's a difficult problem, but I take your point, and I'll think about it and see if I can up with anything that's more encompassing.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I guess the second part of it would be that if hormone disruption is to be included in paragraph 77(3)(a), as you've identified, why isn't carcinogenicity, tetrogenicity and all those other things? Why aren't they listed?

By the way, “tetrogenicity”, I found out, relates to the disruption of the development of the fetus.

So I would think those things are pretty darned important too. Why don't we list those in 77(3)(a)?

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: That's a good suggestion, unless, as I recall, that section is the POPs section, and they would always fall under that.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: So unless they're always persistent and bioaccumulative and so on and so forth, which they might not be, I would suggest they would be added too. I think my brief should be amended to do that, thank you.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just building on what the chair had mentioned as well, I guess the problem with endocrine disruption is that if you did include it as (4) or (3) or whatever, and they were in fact found to be sometimes not persistent and bioaccumulative, because of the way this is listed, you have an “and” at the end of subparagraph 77(3)(a)(i), which would rule it out, in this case.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Excellent point. So it should be “or”, or something on considered reflection, to fix that. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): The chair had to go to introduce private members' legislation in the House. He'll be back in about 10 minutes.

I'm wondering if there are questions from other members.

[Translation]

Madam.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You talked about the environmental protection measures. You say that there are so many nearly insurmountable obstacles that if clauses 22 to 38 cannot be changed, they should be struck off the bill. How would you recommend changing those provisions in order to keep them and that they prove proactive in face of the infractions that you described?

[English]

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: I would like that too, and if you want specific wording for an amendment, I will certainly provide that. I'll put it down on my list. Generally, I would think that citizens should just be able to bring an action where there's evidence that there's been an offence. There shouldn't be these obstacles. There shouldn't have to have been a request for an investigation that wasn't carried out.

• 1000

There are these provisions in other legislation, including U.S. legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The evidence is that these are not abused. Environmental groups don't spend all their time starting actions.

Of course, if a court did find some proposed action to be frivolous and vexatious, I think there are measures in our legal system that could be taken to make sure that those actions are dismissed.

I just don't see the need for the obstacles. However, I will provide specific language.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Was there any other member who had a question? Then you'll indulge the chair, who has a few questions?

I'm looking at your introduction about the Environmental Law Centre. It says your lawyers are advocates for the environment. You serve the interests of the public, and you work on behalf of members of the public, environmental organizations, and that type of thing.

Whenever we have had witnesses come before the committee, and certainly during the CEPA review itself, we have had strong presentations on behalf of public interest organizations and environmental law associations to ensure that CEPA has good citizens' rights and public participation elements within it.

As I read your section on environmental protection action, it seems that what you have said here is that unless we can fix it, just get rid of those sections. That seems like a rather harsh statement for an organization that is well known in its fight for environmental rights and protection of the environment on behalf of the public. It seems a fairly extreme position to take, to say to delete this section.

I'm wondering if you can comment on that.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Thank you for your question. I know that I and my organization might take some heat for that recommendation, but we feel that the way environmental protection action now is written, it is really just an illusion of a right. We feel it is better for the public that this be deleted rather than have an illusion that there is something there that is not. We think it is better that a citizen not have to go through all the trouble of trying to commence an action and having to jump through those hoops than for it to be there. We would rather see it gone, in the public interest, than to have it in its present form.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Now, there is a seven-year review for the new piece of legislation that is before us. Do you feel it's better, if this section cannot be amended the way you have requested, that it be deleted, or that it be left in and then in the seven-year time period tried to be amended again?

I guess the concern is that once you take something out of a piece of legislation, you may have lost it for good, lost the possibility of having it, even though you're feeling that it might only be considered to be a ruse, an empty promise.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Again, I appreciate your question, and it certainly is a very difficult one.

• 1005

If it were still a five-year review or, say, a three-year review, then perhaps a wait-and-see attitude might make more sense, but it's seven years. I don't really think I should back down on this one. I think in its present form, it does not offer citizens relief. A citizen would do better attempting to commence a private prosecution and see how that goes, even though, of course, such action could be taken over.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I appreciate your strength of feeling about this section.

Are there questions from other members?

[Translation]

Madam.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like to discuss the recommendations in your brief about virtual elimination. You want us to strike out paragraph 64(1) and replace it with:

64(1) In this Part, "virtual elimination" means the elimination of the production, use, release, export, distribution or importation of a substance, by virtue of human activity, whether direct or indirect.

Why are you proposing this wording? Why do you think it is preferable to the one that is in the bill right now?

[English]

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Thank you for your question.

There are several problems with the way in which the bill currently characterizes virtual elimination. I do itemize them here. I think the most important is that it still does allow releases up to a detectable amount, using current technology, into the environment.

The public interest community for the longest time has been urging for a definition of virtual elimination that requires that these substances just be eliminated, taken out of production, use and so on. That is what led me to this definition.

As well, if you want to know some of the process I went through, I read briefs of other organizations and worked with them, trying to capture what I thought was the best of them. I tried to be as encompassing as possible so that I could put it all together in one definition.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like to know why it's important that this paragraph be worded the way you suggest. As you know, this bill is meant to modify another act and its provisions will be in effect for several years.

Your concern appears to lie in the future. You fear that some new substances that might be detected won't be included in this law. Is that why you want to change the present wording? Is it the way the bill is worded that disturbs you?

[English]

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: It is the way it's written.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

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

I want to ask you about the precautionary principle. You had included this section at the end of your brief. I'm just wondering if you could go over how the precautionary principle can be strengthened in the act itself, not just the preamble.

You have listed some things here on the final page, page 13. Anything you've already gone over, you don't have to repeat, but if there are some things you feel you might have missed on how to strengthen the precautionary principle in the legislation itself, please do so.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: The things I have gone over would require changes in the substance of the legislation to ensure that the precautionary principle as amended would become part of the substance of the law. Those were toxicity, virtual elimination, screening the DSL, and requirements for pollution prevention.

• 1010

If I said other things, I would not be able to offer you wording right now. In “new substances”, or “nutrients”, I probably would have to go over these provisions and see exactly how the principle could be operationalized, as one might say, through the act itself to get it moving from just the preamble into the substance.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): It's my understanding that the chair has just finished introducing his private members' legislation, so he should be back shortly, within a minute or so.

We have other witnesses from the government who will be coming forward. I might recommend that we have a short coffee break, because I think it might be helpful for the chair to be here.

I want to thank you very much for making the long trek here from Alberta. We appreciate your brief and your comments this morning. Thank you.

Ms. Arlene Kwasniak: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): We will now break for about four minutes and then resume, whether the chair is here or not.

• 1012

• 1019

The Chairman: We'll continue our session.

Welcome to the officials from the Department of the Environment, led by Mr. Lerer, who probably would like to introduce the officials with him.

Before giving him the floor, I would draw your attention to the fact that the amendments, which Mr. Lerer is bringing today to the committee, are intended to get some thinking going on on the part of committee members, who may then wish during the weeks ahead to also draft their own amendments.

• 1020

These are, let's say, the initial wave, and they will probably indicate to us the result of further elaborations, either by the department or by cabinet or both. Probably Mr. Lerer will be able to tell us the origin of these amendments so that we can better understand where they come from and the reasons that led to the decisions to proceed with them.

The floor is yours, Mr. Lerer, and again, welcome to the committee.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee.

The first thing, as you said, Mr. Chairman, is that I'd like to introduce to you my colleagues—Duncan Cameron, who is with the Department of Justice and is legal counsel for CEPA, and Ms. Karen Lloyd, who is the manager of the CEPA Office within Environment Canada.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. What I would like to do, if I may, is not only draw your attention to the package that I have presented to you this morning but also remind you of the briefing binders that were provided to the committee some time ago.

These briefing binders are a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. When these were first tabled, Mr. Chairman, you called it a monumental piece of work, if I recall. I think we'll leave it for the committee to decide whether it's monumental or just mountainous, but what I would like to do is explain the briefing books, if I may, and then talk about some of the amendments.

All of the amendments, save one, that I will be describing today are already contained within your briefing packages. They are all technical in nature, save one that arose out of a specific question from the committee earlier, and they are all meant to clarify or correct language errors within the bill.

I would ask the committee to turn to the handout I gave them. The first one deals with clause 26.

Just to explain what I've done here, once again, these are excerpts from the briefing books, from the mountain of paper you've received. The first title you would see—and in the briefing book, it would be on the left-hand page—would show you the clause that currently exists in Bill C-32.

On the next page, there is an explanation of that clause. If there is a suggested amendment, that amendment is what we in the department would call “drafting instructions”, and a proposed text. What is happening at this point in time is that Justice drafters are working on specific legal language that fits within the context of the bill, which we would be able to present to you.

That is the way the briefing book works. What I've done here is selected those parts of the briefing book that have already suggested amendments.

What I would propose, Mr. Chairman, is that I will go through a couple as examples, and then the committee can decide whether we need to go through the full amount. I would use half a dozen examples to give you the tenor of the kinds of things being suggested.

Is that suitable, sir?

The Chairman: Would you please clarify again how you've organized each amendment?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: You have here, on page 1, reference to the bill number. Then the title is “Proposed Addition”. What does that mean?

• 1025

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That is an exact replica of what is in Bill C-32. It's a change to the current act.

The Chairman: In other words, this is the equivalent of an amendment, a proposed addition?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: It is the wording that exists in Bill C-32. There is a current act, and what we are doing on the first page is giving you the exact clause that is in Bill C-32.

The Chairman: Why do you call it “addition” if it's not an addition?

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): It is an addition to the CEPA Act passed in 1988.

The Chairman: So it is an addition.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes.

The Chairman: So then it is in the act already, in the bill.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes. What you're seeing on the first page is simply a reproduction of the clause that is in the bill before you. We are going to explain, in the second page, a suggested change to the current wording that is before you that we have caught as a result of our review over the summer. It's a technical change that needs to be made to this piece of legislation.

The Chairman: So page 1 reproduces the bill as it stands now.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That is correct, sir.

The Chairman: And you call it “addition” because it adds something to the existing law, not to the existing bill.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That's correct, sir.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to say there's CEPA '88. What we're seeing in front of us is as it is in Bill C-32, which is an addition to CEPA '88. The second page is where you're going to amend this text of Bill C-32. So these are all new amendments.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: The ones that are before you are all new suggested amendments that are technical in nature.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And they have to be passed by the committee.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: They would have to be considered by the committee. They are all in your briefing packages.

The Chairman: Moving on to the second page, what you have under the heading “Proposed Text, as Amended” is a repetition of what you have on page 1, right?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, sir. The “Proposed Text, as Amended” is the change we are suggesting be made to Bill C-32 for technical reasons.

The Chairman: Then why don't you underline what you're changing? Wouldn't that make it easier for us to understand?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, it would, and we will.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I make a suggestion, then?

Maybe before we start discussing it you could just suggest to us a way to highlight certain words in the clause, and then we can focus on the part that's different from here to here.

For instance, in subclause 26(1), it looks as though there's something about “to the Minister” as opposed to “in the Environmental Registry”. So before we do the explanations, if we could just focus on the words to look at we'd be clearer.

Does that work for you?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: As I suggested, I have brought all that are within the briefing book, and what I am suggesting is that I would just run through a couple of examples to show you the tenor—they're all in the briefing book—and explain some of them. Then it would be the decision of the committee as to whether they wanted to go through that.

Then there is a specific one I wish to discuss, which results out of a question that was asked in a previous committee meeting.

Let's turn our attention to the pages that refer to clause 26. Clause 26 deals with the civil suit provisions that are in the bill. Currently, as the bill is worded, the plaintiff in an environmental protection action must give notice using the environmental registry, which will be created by Bill C-32 should it be passed by Parliament.

• 1030

This is a wording difficulty, because the plaintiff has no access to the environmental registry; only the minister does. So we are suggesting an amendment that clarifies that wording, that the plaintiff has an obligation to inform the minister and the minister has an obligation to make that available in the environmental registry. That's the kind of wording change to clarify the bill.

Another example refers to subclause 77(2). What this subclause does is set out the actions for the minister to propose following the assessment of a substance. If you go through the current wording, you will notice that in paragraphs 72(2)(a), (b) and (c), the intent was that the minister had to choose one of the options. What we are suggesting to the committee is that it consider replacing the “and” with an “or”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madam Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You say "Proposed Text, as Amended". I have two English versions here, but no French version.

[English]

Mr. Harvey Lerer: My apologies; that was a photocopy error.

Another example would be in subclause 77(4), which deals with the proposal for virtual elimination of releases. Subclauses 67(1) and (2) carry out the intent; however, there has to be parallelism in the regulation-making authority in paragraph 77(4)(c). What we are doing is proposing parallel language.

For example, in the proposed text what we want to do is use parallel language such that (4)(c) would read:

the natural occurrence, properties and characteristics of the substance in the environment have been taken into account

which would include metals as well.

So that is a question of parallelism in the clauses.

The Chairman: What page are you reading from right now?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Sorry; page 5-54, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Madam Carroll, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Sorry, gentlemen, but I'm going to ask you to go back to the first one. Now that I've finally gotten onto the system, I'm with you.

The first document refers to page 2-46. You were saying that now the plaintiff in an environmental protection action can give notice to the minister, and because they didn't have access to the environmental registry in the past, this puts an onus on her to do so and respond. Right? May I ask why they didn't have access and why they cannot have access?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: They have access in the sense, of course, that they can read the material on it, but they don't have the ability to make additions to the registry. That is done by the minister. So all we've done here is to say that the notice shall be given to the minister, and upon receipt, the minister shall put that notice on the registry.

The Chairman: Monsieur Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Why are you saying that there will be no access? There will be access. We are here to clarify things today, not to make them more complicated. There will be access.

• 1035

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes, absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Then it's the opposite.

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: They will not have the ability to make additions to the registry.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

Mr. Harvey Lerer: My apologies for muddying the waters by the use of that language.

The Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Perhaps I could turn your attention, without going through all of them, to another example of the kind of amendment you will find in your briefing book. Turn to the page dealing with clause 81, on page 5-88.

What has happened here is that in subclause 81(15), the intent was that the subclause reference subclauses 81(13) and (14), and what we are doing is suggesting that this be added. Right now it says only under subclause (14).

The Chairman: Any questions? No?

Please proceed, Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Another example would be on page 5-170. It deals with the list of substances authorities.

My apologies, Mr. Chairman. I thought this would be simpler.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: This is not user-friendly. I don't care if it's technical or not, I want to know where we are and what we're talking about, because I can handle technical.

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Lerer is announcing numbers, and we can read numbers. He announced 5-170. We can all read what 5-170 is. Now Mr. Lerer can proceed.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It had appeared to me that the methodology we were using was that the first page was as it appeared in the current CEPA and the second page was where the change was made. Well, we have 5-170 as the page that appears in CEPA, and 169, which is a prior page, where the change is made, so....

The Chairman: That's what happens in the best of families.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, where does it go in our book? It gets very confusing. I agree with Madam Carroll.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If people are making a comparison, in your bill it's on page 71.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize if this is not user-friendly. I thought this would be easier than actually going through the complete briefing package, and I simply excerpted from them.

The Chairman: Fine, but we can follow you, Mr. Lerer. We'll take a little bit longer, but that's all right.

• 1040

Can you please give us now an explanation of what you are attempting to do here?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question, please?

The Chairman: Why don't we hear Mr. Lerer first?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My only concern is that there's a process going on here that some people aren't quite understanding. Can I just clarify it?

All of these pages are in those books already.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You've just chosen to highlight some of them as an explanation. So we don't have to put these into our book; they are already there, except for one, and you haven't got there yet.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Right.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: The other thing is that my proposal to the committee was that I wouldn't go through all of them, because you already have them, but just give you examples.

The example I now wish to bring forward is the one that deals with clause 101, which is on page 5-170.

There is a specific wording amendment here in order to enable CEPA to be in compliance with the international convention on prior informed consent. If you turn to the proposed text on page 5-169, subclause 101(3) would be amended to ensure, for the first proposed export, that the clause would include, at the very end, “in every calendar year after”. That is in order for us to be in compliance with the ratification of the prior informed consent amendment.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? No questions?

Go ahead.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: The rest of the amendments, except for one that I will specifically speak to, are technical amendments of that nature. As you go through the package, you will see that we need to remove an “s”, because it's only the minister, not the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health.

There will also be amendments where you will see that we have used language where, say, the intent was that we've created a new classification called “investigators” in our enforcement provisions. It is intended that investigators have all the powers of inspectors, plus the power to have warrants and the power to issue summonses. What the bill does now is that it is inconsistent in the way it does that, by definition, and we are going to provide an amendment to define that as an umbrella definition so that it doesn't have to be repeated throughout the bill.

Those are the kinds of amendments that are currently in the briefing books provided to you.

My apologies for any confusion we've caused.

The Chairman: Can we agree that you have apologized enough, and that for the balance of the year, assume that you are exempted from additional apologies?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Regardless of what I say or do, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes. I think it will keep your morale high.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I will try to use that licence with discretion, sir.

The amendment that is not in the briefing book is at the very back of your package. It is related to a letter, dated May 26, from my predecessor, Mr. Glenn Allard, to the clerk of the committee. It was in response to a question raised by Mr. Knutson during one of the hearings. It specifically refers to paragraph 2(1)(l) in the bill. It's on the first page of the letter.

• 1045

Paragraph 2(1)(l) in the bill says that the minister shall “act in a manner that is consistent with the intent of intergovernmental agreements”. Mr. Knutson asked, “Doesn't that make harmonization legally binding?”

We consulted with our colleagues in Justice, and they agreed with Mr. Knutson's interpretation that it could be interpreted that way. Therefore, we have suggested, on the advice of the Department of Justice, that an amendment be sought to change 2(1)(l) to “endeavour to exercise its powers in a manner that is consistent”.

That is the extent of the amendments you have received, either in your briefing book or by letter from the Department of the Environment.

The Chairman: Are there any questions for Mr. Lerer?

This morning, Mr. Lerer, we were told by a representative from the Environmental Law Centre in Edmonton that this entire paragraph should be deleted, because—to quote her directly—“it does little, if anything, to release the federal government of the responsibility to act in accordance with the Accord”.

Do you have any comment?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: The comment I have on the harmonization effort overall is that there is nothing in any of the harmonization text that would allow anyone to veto any obligation the minister wanted, and any ministerial decision.

It is not a legally binding agreement, as we've set out in the intent, and it is, in my view, very positive in that it emphasizes that in today's world, with the environmental issues we deal with, intergovernmental cooperation and partnership is of the essence in order to have effective environmental protection.

That is my view of what that means, sir.

The Chairman: So you don't feel that this amendment would release the federal government of the responsibility to act in accordance with the accord.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I believe what it does is reflect the agreement in the accord, which is to seek intergovernmental cooperation, but there is nothing in the accord that would in any way provide for another jurisdiction to veto an action that the minister decided she wanted to take—nothing at all, sir, in my view.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions of Mr. Lerer?

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: In terms of the process, when we go through clause-by-clause will you or somebody from the department be here for clarification as we're going through?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I expect that, without apology, you will be hearing from me quite a bit, Mr. Gilmour.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer, do you have any further comments?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, I do not, sir.

The Chairman: Does that complete your presentation?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That completes what I was asked; my understanding of the initial part. I am, of course, here at your pleasure.

The Chairman: Can we expect further goodies from you, further amendments?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: As always, lawyers within the Department of Justice and within Environment Canada are combing the bill with a fine-toothed comb. If there are further technical amendments, we will suggest them to you at the appropriate time and the appropriate place, sir.

The Chairman: Well, then, thank you very much.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: You're welcome, sir.

The Chairman: We appreciate very much your further involvement and we thank you for your appearance this morning.

• 1050

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Perhaps just for clarification for the whole committee on the process—and I'm talking about amendments and then going to House—we do our amendments to the bill, and we can do those either here or in the House, but you can't do the same amendment both places.

When the bill goes to the House, and if we change something in the bill that the minister doesn't agree with, does the minister have the right to change that from what the committee has said before it gets to the House? What is the process?

The Chairman: At report stage, that can be done, definitely.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

The Chairman: Now, colleagues, the clerk will distribute in a matter of minutes the summary of submissions on Bill C-32 as prepared by both Ms. Labelle and Ms. Hébert. Actually, it is not a new document, but it may have gotten lost in the summer, so it is being distributed because some members have made a request.

In addition to that, Ms. Hébert has prepared a bundle of suggested amendments resulting from preceding hearings and interventions by members, which you may want to have with you next week.

Furthermore, as a result of yesterday's intervention by Mr. Charbonneau, we have this proposal to meet, for one meeting, with the Museum of Nature representatives and those from Canadian Biodiversity, who would like to bring this committee up to date on their efforts in not only linking but also integrating what is now separate information across the country on botanical and animal world data collections, activities of museums and the like. It is an initiative that might be useful for you to be brought up to date on, and it could be done in one session.

Would there be sufficient interest so that we could hold this meeting the week of October 26 as just one session? Can the clerk be authorized to proceed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So authorized. Thank you.

Madame.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I'd just like to explain about the document I prepared on possible amendments. Basically, it deals with two series of amendments. One is to enlarge whistle-blower protection and the other has to do with changes that appear in Bill C-32 that were not in Bill C-74.

I looked at these amendments. Those that I felt weakened the legislation, I set out in here. So this would bring us back to the Bill C-74 level. I want to caution you, however, that this is not to be taken as an endorsement of what was in Bill C-74, because there may still be problems with those clauses. I'm just saying where, in my opinion, the version one finds in Bill C-32 is worse than Bill C-74. So it's just restoring to Bill C-74 without fixing any pre-existing problems in Bill C-74.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm just wondering, if there's a document that's been prepared that highlights where Bill C-74 might have been better, is there a document that's been prepared that highlights where Bill C-32 is better? I mean, if things are being balanced, then we might want to highlight where Bill C-32 is better than Bill C-74.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Well, one of the things that comes to mind, for instance, is in relation to the national inventory of releases. It's been given a firm legislative basis here, whereas it was discretionary in Bill C-74. However, because they are good, I didn't think it necessary to point them out to the committee at the clause-by-clause stage. But definitely there are improvements in Bill C-32 that were not in Bill C-74, but they are in the minority, if you will.

• 1055

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It would be interesting, because certainly any piece of legislation is the result of negotiations, and sometimes you give to get.

Thanks.

The Chairman: The clerk is reminding us that in the spring we received a letter from the North-South Institute here in Ottawa. In a report they produced for 1998, there is a chapter on sustainable development, and they would like to bring that chapter to our attention in the form of a session, one session as well.

I'm asking members of the committee whether they would be amenable in the week of October 26 to have a session with the North-South Institute to discuss that chapter.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, in earlier meetings we discussed some priority items—for example, Buenos Aires and sulphur. I'm just wondering how those sessions would fit with this particular request.

The Chairman: Buenos Aires is being organized by the clerk.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: For what date?

The Chairman: The week of October 19.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And it's going to be the morning of October 22?

The Clerk of the Committee: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is that a joint meeting with Natural Resources?

The Chairman: No, but we could certainly invite them to join us. That's a very good idea.

I'm now seeking a view on the North-South Institute and the chapter on sustainable development.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Just one other point: Are we meeting during the week of October 26?

The Chairman: Not on Bill C-32, no.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do we have any other meetings booked the week of October 26?

The Chairman: We just approved one with the museum.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Well, let's be careful. That's fine, if you want to do one more.

The Chairman: We will be careful—but it's fine.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Absolutely. Remember those fine particulate matters, and we have to deal with sulphur.

The Chairman: It adds to the collective knowledge of the committee, this North-South material, about which several members are very keen, I understand.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I share Madam Kraft Sloan's concern that rather than going piecemeal at meetings, we see the whole list so that we can see what we have in the order and where we can put them in.

The Chairman: It was distributed last week—or yesterday, sorry. It's the first item at the top of page one.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Perhaps the officials from the department can be freed, as they may wish to go. I'm sure they're enjoying this, but....

The Chairman: It's okay? Fine.

Well, then, this meeting is adjourned.