ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 17, 1998

• 0927

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning everybody.

[English]

I welcome everybody in the room. We are resuming examination of Bill C-32.

About our work schedule this week, some members have quietly indicated to me, on a one-to-one basis, that tomorrow they would to prefer not to sit in the evening because of commitments made some time ago. The chair, in his tremendous flexibility—and for which he is well known—proposes then that we sit perhaps until 6.30 p.m. tomorrow and adjourn at that time until Thursday morning.

However, next week it would be helpful if members were to keep one evening free. I can understand fully that Wednesday evenings seem to be, for political and parliamentary reasons, busy, and therefore I would suggest that you look as an alternative to sitting Tuesday evening, if that makes it easier for you, for a hundred different reasons.

So unless I hear very strong protestations, you will receive a little note in the usual way, indicating that tomorrow we will adjourn at roughly 6.30 p.m. and that we will sit in the evening next Tuesday in addition to the normal times.

• 0930

May I also indicate to you that since we have reached the 280 mark with amendments, we will have to accelerate the pace and increase the number of meetings between now and Christmas if we are to get anywhere.

The second item has to do with the fact that we received late last night a number of amendments by the government, which made it necessary for the table officers and clerk and lawyers attached to the committee to work until 1 a.m. in order to do what was needed to make this meeting today possible.

Now, what's happening is this. There are amendments that are out of order as proposed by opposition members and by members of the committee on the government side. In addition to that, now we have government amendments that are out of order, which is an unusual achievement.

This poses, to any chair, a problem, a problem of trading off procedure with parliamentary justice, if you like. For this I need your cooperation in order to function. In other words, since on every side, including the government, there are amendments that are out of order, I cannot accept an amendment by the government that is out of order for discussion and then rule out an amendment by an opposition member that is out of order as well. You will see that point very clearly. We want to keep this committee in a cohesive condition, as has been the practice.

So I would propose—if there is, of course, consent—that we accept those amendments that do not touch on the royal recommendation, and only those amendments that do not touch on the royal recommendation—underlined five times—as being in order in order to facilitate the process of improving the quality of the bill, which means, then, there will be the same kind of parliamentary justice on every side of the House, and also with respect to government amendments. I'm referring to the new amendments from last night.

Could I, therefore, seek a consensus on the part of the members of this committee that we can proceed that way? If I don't hear an intervention, I will assume that I can proceed that way.

Mr. Gilmour would like to speak.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Could you explain? I did not understand what you were saying. We would accept some amendments, but we would not accept those that you said were—

I did not understand.

The Chairman: What I was saying is this. An amendment proposed by the government carries a certain weight and a certain assurance of being adopted by the fact that the government members have the majority on this committee, and therefore it would go through, provided, of course, it was accepted by the committee.

However, there are some government amendments that are outside the scope of the bill, and therefore, in order to make them acceptable for discussion and voting I'm referring, for instance, to the amendments from last night, on the appointment of inspectors, which would make it highly desirable to have. Nevertheless, from a technical point of view they're out of order. They're outside the scope of the bill—which, by the way, points to the wisdom of having this kind of legislation of bills sent to committee before second reading rather than after second reading.

• 0935

Some of you will recall the advantages of dealing with a bill before second reading, because then the bill has not been approved in principle by the House, and therefore there is not this kind of straitjacket imposed by second reading.

So we are in a post-second-reading phase, and we have amendments by the government, which are, in a way, in response to the comments and requests made by members of this committee. They're intended to facilitate.

Therefore, the chair has to put this problem to the members of the committee in order to operate with consensus in the hope that having done so, we can then of course have this consensus accepted in the House by the speaker when we report the bill to the House.

That is in essence why I'm putting this question to you before we start today, because we have some of these amendments before us for discussion this morning. I cannot entertain a government amendment without raising this problem and without also pointing to the fact that if we do that, then in all fairness it has to be done also for members' amendments that would also be considered outside the scope of the bill but that are already now a collection.

Madame Hébert is asking me to clarify the matter of the royal recommendation. The royal recommendation is that untouchable part of the bill that deals with the expenditures required in order to implement the legislation. That cannot be touched, absolutely.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I guess I'm wondering about a couple of things in terms of trying to achieve some clarity of what we're being consulted on. One, perhaps we could have some idea about quantity on both sides, and perhaps about quality on both sides.

The Chairman: It's not for the chair to comment on quality. As to quantity, there's a very limited number, but even if there were only two, I would have to raise this point and make the committee aware of this type of dilemma.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

And your main concern on the government side is related to enforcement officers?

The Chairman: The first amendment we would stumble into, so to speak, is the government amendment that deals with the appointment of inspectors, which we read this morning at 8.30 a.m., before the meeting was scheduled to start.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is there some possibility of understanding why that's outside the scope of the bill, or why it's too late after second reading?

The Chairman: Well, because it is introducing a definition of a certain role that is not a refinement of what is already within the definitions but is an additional element in the section of definitions. It does not exist at the present time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is there some debate amongst the lawyers on this point or is it pretty unanimous?

The Chairman: We can go over the discussion that took place between 8.15 and 8.45 a.m. In the end, having listened to all the points that were made, as chair I concluded that the course of action I should take would be to put the issue to the committee and seek consensus for this kind of approach so that we can accept the amendments and we can accept them regardless of where they come from.

• 0940

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So now we're being asked that if we want to accept them on the government side, then we need to accept things that might otherwise be considered out of order from the opposite side.

The Chairman: Correct.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Did I understand you to say that if we feel it's an improvement on the bill—and you talked about consensus—and there is unanimous consent, we can still move ahead with these endorsements, or are they just to move all together? If the committee should move unanimous consent to consider it—

The Chairman: What I am seeking here from the committee is the consent that we apply the same rule to everybody, regardless of the source of the amendment. There are amendments that are slightly outside the four corners of the bill. There are amendments that are fully outside the four corners of the bill.

Nevertheless, in order to give scope and access to the government amendments, then it is desirable to apply the same rule to amendments that are already before us in the collection but not coming from the government.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, I understand that. What I was saying was that regardless of where it comes from, whether it's government or opposition, and outside of royal recommendation matters, if there was an amendment judged by all the bodies here and all the members to be beneficial to add to the bill, regardless of whether it's slightly or a little more outside the scope of the bill, by unanimous consent, can we move it?

The Chairman: That would cover that situation, by this kind of consent that I am looking for, and that I am seeking now from the committee.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would like to move that we—

The Chairman: We don't necessarily need a motion—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. Well, you have my consent.

The Chairman: —but we need an indication of consensus so that we can proceed with that understanding.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Could I have an indication of the number we're talking about? Are we talking half a dozen or are we talking fifty?

The Chairman: To my understanding, we have, in this respect, a small number. We haven't counted them exactly, but it is a limited number. It's the principle that we are discussing.

The clerk advises me that there are about twenty.

I see some nodding expressions here.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, since we did not get these amendments, we were not able to review them. When we review the bill clause by clause, will we be able to present the amendments for each clause as we go on? We could then evaluate them one by one, because we did not have time to review them.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Bujold, then it becomes a personal discussion, and it becomes a discussion that can be related to parties on preferences, which would not be conducive to harmony in this committee. I would prefer to discuss the principle now, get the views of the committee, and then when we come to the amendments, if members do not approve of the amendments, members will vote against them. There is always that option.

Any further questions?

Then I will assume that we can proceed and accept amendments from the government and members that are—technically speaking, at least—just outside the scope of the bill.

I hope you will also appreciate the fact that this is a measure that we'll allow to entertain amendments that are, of course, very relevant to the bill. It does not mean that amendments can be put dealing with matters that have nothing to do with the bill. I hope you fully understand the fragility of the path we are undertaking, but it is intended to accommodate the amendments that were presented last night and that are causing this discussion in particular.

I thank you for your cooperation.

• 0945

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to understand the process of who deems them “outside the scope of the bill”?

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, that is the task of the chair, and whenever we come to that, I hope it will be well reasoned and acceptable.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to know the rules—who is doing what and who is interpreting what.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Today we would be well advised to start with clause 3, and stand clause 2 as amended, in order to let some visibility surrounding clause 2 improve and facilitate our capacity to see through it at a later moment.

If members are agreeable with that, then I would ask them to turn to clause 3, which is the clause that deals with definitions.

(Clause 2 as amended allowed to stand)

(On clause 3—Definitions)

The Chairman: In the collection in front of you there are amendments, beginning with the first amendment, NDP-12 on page 32. It deals with line 25 of page 5. It is an amendment that introduces an addition of a climatic nature.

I would invite Mr. Laliberte to please move the amendment and give a short explanation.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd be happy to move the amendment.

As you'll notice, line 25 is just a deletion of “or”, replacing it on line 29. This is the definition of “air pollution”. With air pollution, paragraph 3(1)(e) tries to infer “climatic procedures”, but it doesn't come out and say it. That's why we're adding paragraph (f), saying, “interferes with normal climatic procedures”, and being up front with it.

So the amendment is including, under air pollution, “interferes with normal climatic procedures”.

The Chairman: Are you proposing to move your other amendment after this, the one related to (a)? I'm advised by the clerk that it would be desirable that you move both.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: They're both included, because the (a) part just transfers the “or”, which had closed off this definition.

The Chairman: Fine. So you moved (a) and (b).

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if the member might not think it's a bit redundant, given that climatic procedures are included in other components of the five listed, (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). Because “alteration of an ecosystem” would, of course, include climatic procedures.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: As I said in my statement, paragraph (e) tries to define that, but it doesn't. If it jumps out at you, it means you have to beg for it in paragraph (e).

• 0950

So by adding (f) in there, it distinctly says “interferes with normal climatic procedures”, and everybody is rest assured, even if English is your second language— and I'm not sure what the French interpretation is on the other side. I would just beg for consensus from the committee that we be up front and allow climatic procedures to be included in air pollution.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I guess I'm still not quite sure what “normal climatic procedures” means. I think en français it's conditions, which is different from procedures. Maybe those two have to come into alignment.

The Chairman: That is an item that may be discussed by translators in terms of the weight of the two terms, but that can be corrected if necessary. First let's have a disposition of this amendment.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Before you vote on the amendment, I think the point is well taken that either Mr. Laliberte means, in English, “climatic conditions”, which is the sense of it in French, or “procedures”, which is a very different thing. I don't know what climatic procedures are, really. Maybe he could explain to us, if he means climatic procedures, what it means, or if he means conditions, what that means.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

Can you briefly explain the term “procedures”?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Looking at the two definitions, the French and the English, I would agree that “normal climatic conditions” would synchronize the two definitions more.

The Chairman: So you're saying the French version would prevail in this particular case and would have to require a change in the English version.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I'll concur.

The Chairman: That can be technically be achieved if the amendment is adopted.

Are there any further questions? If not, are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We move now to the next amendment in our collection, 33.

Would someone please explain it on behalf of the government?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

It's at this point, with the permission of the committee, that I would seek unanimous consent for a series of amendments that would in fact replace, in a number of occasions in the bill, the concept of “investigator” with “enforcement officer”, in the interests of ensuring as few trees die as possible. There are probably about thirty places where this would occur, if not more.

The Chairman: Why don't you do it in reverse, Madam Torsney—namely, moving this amendment? When that is disposed of, then what you're proposing would almost become a consequential amendment. It's not, but you could perhaps smuggle it in that way.

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

The Chairman: You're looking at page 33, are you?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. It would add a definition of enforcement officer, and following this, as you mentioned, there would be a number of consequential amendments that I would move to seek unanimous consent on.

I will move this one now, G-0.4, on page 33.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You have a question, Ms. Bujold?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes. Madam says she wants to replace the notion of “investigator” by that of “authority's agent.” I would like to know why she wants to replace the term “investigator” by the phrase “authority's agent.” What is the rationale behind this change? How will this change the bill? What does it specify? That is what I would like to know.

• 0955

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you very much for the question.

The new category of enforcement officer is designed to in fact implement the committee's recommendations in their report on enforcement, and to make all inspectors and investigators peace officers under the bill. It creates a new category, which would implement the committee's recommendations to the government.

The enforcement officers could be made peace officers as a result of this amendment going through, which would give them added powers.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This is not clear to me. An investigator is not a peace officer, I believe. Would he have investigative powers in addition to others? By changing the term, are you giving another meaning? Are you giving him additional responsibilities? I do not understand why you want to change this term. I do not understand.

An investigator has the power to investigate. When you say an “authority's agent,” what additional powers do you associate with this change of title? In French, “enquêteur” and “agent de l'autorité” do not mean the same thing.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps we could seek further comment from the legal counsel.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): In this committee's report on enforcement, it was recommended that investigators and inspectors under the act be given the status of peace officers, for two reasons. First, it would allow those individuals to obtain general warrants under the Criminal Code, and secondly, it would allow them to conduct arrests without warrant. That was recommendation ten of this committee's report.

The government, in its response to this committee, indicated that we would take measures to amend CEPA to implement that recommendation. And the way in which we've chosen to do that is to collapse the two categories, inspector and investigator, into one new category, called enforcement officer.

As you'll see in the package later on, when we get to clause 217, this bill will deem enforcement officers to be peace officers, with full peace officer status.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Would you like now to make reference to your omnibus application of the measure?

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

As I mentioned earlier, and inappropriately, there are at least 100 references to “inspector” throughout Bill C-32, and by using a blanket motion, we would make all the necessary changes. It's a bit like search and replace on your computer. It would also change the 20 occurrences of the term inspector.

I understand under Beauchesne's that we would need unanimous consent of the committee. I have spoken to the members opposite to ensure that they understand what is going on.

The Chairman: For the guidance of committee members, you are referring to the list on page 219.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. It is government motion G-10.6.

The Chairman: Would committee members please turn to page 219 so as to fully appreciate what the parliamentary secretary is bringing to the committee's attention?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's on pages 219, 220 and 221.

I think the members would agree we would save trees, in English and French, if we were to agree to a blanket motion.

The Chairman: In French, it is page 222, I'm told, and page 223 as well.

Are there any questions of the parliamentary secretary?.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If we're making these changes, on page 153, line 20, when the definition of “inspector” comes up, is there anything proposed in that?

Line 20 in the act reads:

For the purposes of this Act, “inspector” includes an investigator.

So when you're dealing with the definition of inspector, are you now changing something for enforcement officer?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So you'll come up with something new there?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The other one was “analysts”, which somehow is deleted in this dialogue. What's happening with them? Are they cut from the budget?

• 1000

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. Analysts would remain as they are, I'm advised.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Other questions? If there are no further questions, we'll put the motion.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We now come to page 35, an amendment by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would actually like to move this to part 5. I believe there is an amendment in the package that has this coming into part 5. It was my understanding that we cannot add this to clause 3 because we can't add new definitions, we can only amend definitions.

Is that correct?

So I'd like to deal with this in part 5.

The Chairman: Well, Madam Kraft Sloan, part of the ruling, and part of the consensus arrived at a few minutes ago—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I know.

The Chairman: —was intended exactly to make it possible for motions of this nature to find their place in clause 3 as a definition, which would now be possible—as a motion, of course. Therefore, you would be fully entitled to make the motion at this point and seek the committee's support, so to speak.

Do you prefer to wait until later?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I do.

The Chairman: I will have to call on subsequent motions on this subject now.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to deal with it in part 5.

The Chairman: Fine. The motion had not been moved, and therefore it can be postponed.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): But, Mr. Chair, your comments still would stand, under the discussion we had earlier, that we could add definitions that would be perhaps outside the normal scope of the bill at this time.

The Chairman: The committee has indicated that it is well disposed to do it at this time. In the case of Madam Kraft Sloan, she wishes to move it at part 5, which we can do.

This takes me then, in the collection of amendments, to page 38. It's a government amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, this would in fact delete the definition of inspector, which would be in keeping with the previous amendment we have made.

The Chairman: Caused by the amendment that you have already moved and that was accepted by the committee?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: Well, then, the same applies to page 39 in the French version.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: Oh, sorry. I missed, by simple oversight, pages 36 and 37. Before proceeding, we have on page 36 a motion by Mr. Herron.

I would like to enquire, Mr. Herron, whether you would like to move it now or at a later date.

May I also draw to the attention of the committee the fact that Mr. Herron's motion and Mr. Laliberte's motion are almost symmetrical and overlapping. They may want perhaps to combine forces and take a joint initiative, I don't know.

Mr. Herron, the floor is yours.

• 1005

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, with respect to our motion on page 36, we would like to defer it to part 5 as well.

The Chairman: You want to delay it?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chairman: Fine. The motion not having been made, that is possible.

Mr. Laliberte, would you do the same?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: For the purpose of reference, people are talking about this “part 5”. What number is that? I'm trying to find it.

The Chairman: Part 5 begins on page 37. It would be dealt with probably on that page.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So it's page 92 of the amendments that would be the specific one that's coming in.

The Chairman: On page 92 there is a government motion as well, which you may want to examine at the time and decide what to do with your motion.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. So if the definition that's there is not sufficient to our interpretation of it, we could amend it.

The Chairman: You can still put your motion forward at that time.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: We will do the same for both Mr. Herron and Mr. Laliberte as we have done for Madam Kraft-Sloan.

That will take us then to page 40.

Do I assume, Madam Torsney, that you have already—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would like to withdraw that.

The Chairman: You would like to withdraw.

Is there consent of the committee to allow Ms. Torsney to withdraw the motion on page 40?

Would you like to move to that effect?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm not sure I actually moved it, so I'm not sure I need to withdraw it, actually.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, for your guidance, whenever we come to motions that you deem not necessary to be put forward, you don't have to withdraw them. All you have to do is say that you do not intend to move it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: This applies to page 40?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, and page 41 in French.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, are you then not calling, and therefore we are not proceeding with, what is on pages 38, 39, 40, 41, 42—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No—sorry—I think we've passed pages 38 and 39. I'm not putting forward 40 and—

The Chairman: No, we haven't. We are enquiring whether you want to—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would like to move G-0.5, pages 38 and 39, as I thought we had agreed. I'm sorry.

So I would like to move those.

The Chairman: The deletion on pages 38 and 39.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Correct.

The Chairman: The motion by Ms. Torsney is for the deletion of lines 20 to 22 on page 8. We are still on the inspector item.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We're deleting the definition of inspector because we have replaced that with enforcement officer.

The Chairman: Fine.

Are there any questions on this motion to delete those three lines?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: So that is for pages 38 and 39. What is your wish on pages 40 and 41?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would not like to move page 40 or 41, which would be G-1.

The Chairman: So pages 40 and 41 are not before the committee, period.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

• 1010

The Chairman: How about pages 42 and 43?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would like to move pages 42 and 43, which is G-1.1. This of course would remove the definition of investigator, and that would be very similar to the definition change we deleted on inspectors.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We now come to page 44, a motion by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This would amend the definition of pollution prevention by adding the word “substances”.

The act is about pollution prevention, and most of the things we deal with are substances. Unfortunately, that has not been included in the definition. So I'm adding “substances” to the definition.

The Chairman: Are there any questions on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We come now to page 45, a motion under the name of Mr. Laliberte.

The floor is yours, sir.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The main context for this amendment is to include in the definition of pollution prevention the principle of toxic substance use reduction, which further enhances the precautionary principle.

As you read into the amendment, a lot of it is including and redefining or enhancing the precautionary principle. The main context is, of course, the principle of toxic substance use reduction, which is not included in here at all. So I would so move.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would have to say to the member, through you, Mr. Chair, that pollution prevention would suggest to me that we would be trying to ensure there was no creation of waste. I'm wondering why this definition needs to be expanded to include things like recycling and dealing with waste. It seems it was a bit of a gift to those who want to pollute, if you include these.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Can I have your question again? You're wondering why recycling is included in this?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right. If you're trying to avoid the creation of waste in the first place, why would you expand the scope and talk about dealing with waste products? I think the definition is fairly clear as it is, and you're sort of weakening it here. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not.

• 1015

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just to deal with the recycling aspect, under pollution prevention, “recycling, changes in treatment processes, regulatory mechanisms, effective use of resources” is a further definition. I don't see why you would interpret that as opening it up for industry. I believe it's clarifying the process of recycling.

As well, with “minimize or eliminate”, I guess there's the whole aspect of the problem we have with “virtual elimination” and “elimination”. It's starting to try to push industry in this bill to have more powers, as opposed to—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe we just disagree.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Pollution prevention, as included in the bill now, without the amendment, means:

the use of processes, practices, materials, products or energy that avoid or minimize the creation of pollutants and waste and reduce the overall risk to the environment or human health.

That's what's in the bill now. What we're proposing is that pollution prevention means:

the use of processes, practices, materials, products and/or energy that avoid, minimize or eliminate the creation of pollutants and waste and that may include recycling, changes in treatment processes, regulatory mechanisms, effective use of resources, the principle of toxic substance use reduction, material substitution and/or other methods to reduce the overall risk to the environment or human health.

Pollution prevention, and the whole aspect of precautionary principle and sustainable development, is being expanded in this definition. You would minimize and eliminate the creation of pollutants and waste, which may include recycling changes in treatment processes. Waste is created in a number of ways through the whole process, but recycling is encouraging a recycling process, and that would endeavour to do this.

In the principle of toxic substance use, reduction is an overall goal.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Two things: one, now that we've added Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment, “substances” is to be in there as well; and two, while I don't disagree with the concepts you want to achieve, which are good, the problem is, the definition is tight, even clean, if you want, and I'm not sure whether the things you're trying to achieve might be achieved in a different place than in the definitions section.

But that's my opinion. Obviously, you might have a different option.

I don't know if anyone else has anything to add.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We now move to pages 46 and 47, G-2.

Madam Torsney.

• 1020

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move this amendment. It's actually a technical amendment. By making these changes we would close a potential loophole that could have been used. It basically adds an “and” and the combination of substances.

The Chairman: The only change is the word “and”, as far as we understand it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. It moves the “and” to the proper place.

The Chairman: Have you so moved, Madam Torsney?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, I have.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Any questions? If not, are you ready for the vote?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We are now on page 48, an amendment to be proposed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this amendment is identical to the government amendment we just had, so it's not necessary to proceed.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6—National Advisory Committee)

The Chairman: Page 49, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: This amendment refers to adding the precautionary principle to the particular phrase. In the committee's report, “It's About Our Health!”, it was established that it's imperative that we enshrine the precautionary principle in the administrative duties, or institutionalize it in the bill itself and not just in the preamble. In order to be consistent with the intent of the preamble, we're recommending that this is added at this time.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If I'm not mistaken, I think the chair has an amendment that will be moved in clause 2, when we come back to that. Should we deal with them both at the same time? Is there that potential?

The Chairman: This is an amendment to clause 6. We don't see that as a source of any difficulty.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

I have a question for the member. I'm not sure if the first word should be “in” giving its advice instead of “on” giving its advice. I'm not sure if it makes a huge difference, but it might be clearer grammatically.

Mr. John Herron: If you're proposing a friendly amendment with your support for the amendment, we could abide by that.

The Chairman: Having made a literary adjustment to the proposed amendment—from “on” to “in”—are there any further questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1025

The Chairman: We have another amendment, which is by the government, on page 50.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I would be happy to move this amendment. In anticipation of Nunavut coming into force, probably about the time this law comes into force, we thought it would be appropriate to move this amendment and include Nunavut to ensure that they have a representative on the national advisory committee.

The Chairman: Are there any questions on the inclusion of Nunavut? None.

Are you ready for the question?

Please indicate—

Mr. Laliberte, when I ask the question, “Are you ready for the question?”, I wish you would intervene. Please go ahead.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I was just trying to catch up to the motion there. I was wondering if the Yukon was included. I guess it is, in the following clause. That answers it.

The Chairman: Fine.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: The next amendment is by Mr. Gilmour, on page 52.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I move the amendment. The purpose of my amendment is that the bill is unclear on the representation of how they should come. My amendment simply says that the provincial government people shall be appointed by provincial governments, and the same with the aboriginal communities. It just clarifies that the representation from those people, or from their area, will be appointed by the people from that area.

The Chairman: Are there questions?

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have perhaps just a comment. In fact, I think what recommendation R-3 on page 52 does is really put into the legislation in fact exactly how the government currently operates in terms of the selection of committee members. So I'm not sure if it's necessary. It is in fact how the government is operating at this time.

Was there some concern that brought this about?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It clarifies, as you say, what the government is already doing, but it actually states what the process is.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? No.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Page 53, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll withdraw that amendment.

The Chairman: All right.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to)

(On clause 9—Negotiation of agreement)

The Chairman: There is an amendment by the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, you have the floor.

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

• 1030

We have been praising ourselves from the beginning by saying that this legislation will be enforced in partnership. I would therefore like to remove the word “may” to say that the government “must” negotiate with a government or aboriginal people to reach an agreement on the enforcement of this legislation. I believe this would be more normal. Instead of saying “may negotiate with a government,” it should read that it “must” do it, that it will negotiate with a government or aboriginal people to reach an agreement on the enforcement of this legislation.

This is the meaning I wanted to give to this modification.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam. Are there any questions?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It is not a question but a comment; I believe another amendment is proposed on this clause.

[English]

I'm wondering if it's possible that we might set aside clause 9 and come back to it. I think now that I made a mistake in not asking for that earlier. We now have an amendment, so we'd have to seek unanimous consent to—

The Chairman: No, it has not been moved yet, so there's no need to withdraw it. If Madame Bujold is willing to set aside this motion for a discussion later on the request of the government, that can be done.

Are you agreeable?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, yes.

[English]

The Chairman: We have her consent, so this motion is set aside for the time being.

Page 55, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Because Mr. Lincoln is not able to vote on this committee, I'm going to have to move his amendments.

This amendment, I believe, brings this—

The Chairman: Excuse me.

Madam Torsney, you have a point of order?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. On a point of order, this is also in clause 9. If we were going to set aside clause 9, I wondered if we wouldn't deal with all the amendments to clause 9.

The Chairman: If there is consensus on the committee to put aside clause 9, we can put it aside. It's up to the committee. There was consent that we put aside clause 9 for a later discussion of these two amendments, one by Madam Girard-Bujold and the other one by Mr. Lincoln, as presently being mentioned.

(Clause 9 allowed to stand)

(On clause 10—Non-application of regulations or orders)

The Chairman: We have several amendments, beginning with the one on page 56.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I know the member for Sarnia—Lambton had requested that we call him at another committee so that he could come and move his amendment. I'm just trying to set that process in motion.

It seems it's fairly similar to PC-5 and R-4. In fact, it might be identical. No, it's slightly different.

I don't know if there's a process such that we could consider them all together until Mr. Gallaway arrives.

The Chairman: There are several amendments on clause 10, at least four. We can proceed with Mr. Herron's in the meantime.

I might draw the attention of the committee to the fact that when we come to several amendments in a clause, if a latter part of a clause is amended, it may be necessary then to go back and discuss an earlier part of the clause in order to correct it, or to bring it into line. Therefore, the chair may at times have to take a committee by the hand, so to speak, when it comes to certain clauses where several amendments do apply that have a repercussion on the preceding portion of the clause.

I realize this is rather abstract, and perhaps even beyond human comprehension. Nevertheless, I want to warn the committee members that there may be occasions when this will have to be done.

• 1035

I'm now calling the next amendment, which appears on page 57 under the name of Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of this amendment is to coincide with the intent of the federal government to cooperate with our provincial cousins in the aspect that it is important for us to have strong environmental legislation, and that we should not ever defer down to the lowest common denominator syndrome, which we've spoken to often in committee.

This amendment is a request to include performance and intent in equivalency agreements, not that the provincial provisions be identical exactly to the federal ones, but if the legislation that the provinces may ultimately have on the books is equal in performance and intent—they may not be literally the same—there's no need to have overlap and duplication in that regard. It tries to make it more cooperative with provincial legislation.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder, Mr. Chair, if we could have the legal counsel for the department explain exactly what the effect of this might be.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, would you like to comment?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: My comment would be that I'm not sure what “in intent and effect” would mean in law. We're talking about a criminal law here, and I'm not sure these terms are sufficiently precise.

I'd also comment that provincial jurisdictions do not have the constitutional capacity to enact criminal law the way the federal government does. Therefore, one might find that the effect is quite different at the provincial level than it is within CEPA.

So for those reasons, I would suggest that these words lack precision and perhaps go beyond what's constitutionally viable.

Mr. John Herron: My comment, Mr. Chair, would be that, in that case, from a legal perspective, if the federal statute were to have, let's say, a so-called heavier hand, then it would not be equivalent in performance and intent, and the federal jurisdiction would therefore supersede. So I don't think that necessarily would be the case.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: This amendment is very similar to ours on the next page. In fact, we're talking about Mr. Herron's words, “intent and effect”, and ours, “intent and when carried out”.

Actually, we had “performance” in there, and then the legislators took it out.

So it's very similar. The concern we had— and in fact there were about ten different witnesses who had difficulty with the fact that the way it is written, it just means the two bills, provincial and federal, will be the same. It doesn't say anything about the performance content.

That's where Mr. Herron is coming from, as are we, but we're looking for the legalese to make it fit. The word we were looking for was “performance”, but it was removed.

Perhaps, Mr. Cameron, you could suggest something that might fit.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, just before you go to Mr. Cameron, I think in clause 2 there's a discussion about nationally consistent standards.

Probably the things you're trying to achieve here are actually dealt with in another section. In fact, by doing what you're doing, if you were to achieve these, both R-4 and PC-5, you might actually result in watering down the legislation instead of raising it to a higher standard.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I would simply add that I believe the current wording in the bill is precise as is needed to capture the policy intent that's being discussed here.

The term “equivalent” is quite clear, whereas when we modify it by the phrase “in intent and effect”, I'm afraid that's where I think we've introduced an element of uncertainty.

• 1040

Intent is a very difficult concept, legally, to nail down. It's what the courts try to determine.

The Chairman: Do you have any comments?

Mr. John Herron: “Equivalent” means “exact”, and the purpose of it is to have parallel, cooperative pieces of legislation as opposed to having the exact phrase.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: But equivalent is not “identical”; equivalent is “the same as”.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chairman: Do you have any further questions on this refinement of the word “equivalent”? If not, are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Page 58, there is an amendment under the name of Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: As we'll go through the same process, I'm sure, I'll withdraw.

The Chairman: It was not moved, so it was not necessary to withdraw. Thank you.

We then have, in the same order, on page 59 a motion by Mr. Lincoln on clause 10. Then there is one by the PC Party and then there is one also by the Bloc Québécois. So we have three motions on clause 10.

We'll start with Mr. Lincoln's.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: On behalf of Mr. Lincoln, this clause sets out the legal requirement, the legal criteria, for equivalency agreements. What this amendment would do would be to ensure that any jurisdiction, in order to be seen as having equivalency, would have to have citizen suits and whistle-blowing provisions. This just brings these things into the legal requirements for equivalency agreements.

So that's on the issue of citizen suits and whistle-blower.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I have a question. If this were to pass, what other consequential amendments would be necessary to make it effective?

I wonder if our legal counsel, Mr. Cameron, could give us a comment on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: What would be required is that the province would have to have in place provisions for an environmental protection action similar or equivalent to those that we have in CEPA, and the same for whistle-blower clauses.

So it would be a question of whether or not we'd be able to enter into these equivalency agreements, because as I understand it, there are very few provincial jurisdictions that have those provisions in place.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry; I didn't catch the last bit of what you said.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Ontario, for example, has these clauses in place, because they come straight out of the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights. So if these clauses are added, then conceivably we'd be able to enter into an equivalency agreement with Ontario, but in another province—Saskatchewan, for example—I don't believe there are these provisions in place at the provincial level, and we'd be foreclosing the possibility of entering into an equivalency agreement with that province.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then maybe we would be encouraging provinces to have adequate protection for people. I mean, if you're going to enter into an equivalency agreement with a province, you have to ensure that the agreements are indeed equivalent, and that not only are you looking to achieve certain kinds of things but they also have to be done in a certain kind of way, and protection has to be available to individuals, just as they are in federal suits. Otherwise, you don't have equivalency agreements.

The Chairman: Comments?

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I'd like to intervene here.

What it does is very narrowly define the kinds of equivalency agreements, or the provinces you could have equivalency agreements with.

• 1045

Perhaps Ontario does, but other provinces do not have these provisions—or I am not aware of them—and you would be restricting the ability of the federal government to enter into equivalency agreements with the provinces.

That would be the effective of this clause, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, maybe we should have certain kinds of standards when we're undertaking equivalency agreements for environmental protection.

The Chairman: Are there further questions or comments?

Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): What would limit the federal government to, for example, pass a provision like this, and for those provinces who are already on board and have equivalency, then it's fine, and for those who don't, then you would go and say, look, we have this provision at the federal level, and what can we do in order to make sure you comply, or what can we do in order to make sure you have something similar to that of the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's not what we could do, it's what the provincial legislature could do. They would have to enact corresponding provisions provincially that would mirror, or be equivalent to, the civil suit and whistle-blower protections we have in this bill. Until they do that, they are excluded from the possibility of entering into equivalency agreements.

Mr. Mac Harb: Precisely. So the inclusion of this amendment in the bill would not harm you, in any way, from trying to persuade provinces to also have a provision that is similar to the federal level, would it?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: It wouldn't harm trying to persuade the provinces. I mean, it would be a provincial responsibility to pass legislation that would do it. What it would do is that it would, at this point in time, to the best of my knowledge, essentially cut off discussion about entering equivalency agreements with the provinces. We be forbidden by law, by this bill, once it became law, from doing that.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan followed by Mr. Herron.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, maybe it would encourage provinces who wanted to undertake equivalency agreements with the federal government to have progressive environmental legislation in their provinces, which I would think, Mr. Chair, illustrates a good federal leadership role.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron and Mr. Lerer.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to echo the words Ms. Kraft Sloan has just stated, that this is an opportunity for the federal government—and I am speaking to it because my amendment is essentially what Mr. Lincoln has tabled as well—to show leadership in terms of the provincial legislatures wanting to have pieces of legislation that are equivalent. This would challenge our provincial cousins to bring in progressive legislation, such as in the case of Ontario, so the other provinces would come on side.

So I think it's a chance for the federal government to challenge our provincial cousins to step up along with them. I think this is a chance for the federal government to do its job.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I'd like to remind the committee that equivalency agreements also pertain to aboriginal governments—and I am not sure; I'll perhaps turn to Duncan here—and the powers in terms of aboriginal governments as they are defined under this bill as well. The bill provides for equivalency agreements with government, and we include aboriginal governments in clause 6.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): To me, if we have thought highly enough of raising the bar to this level to include it in our own legislation, why would we be reluctant to ask the provinces to come on board?

If what you say is so, Duncan, then why have we even put it in our own legislation?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I'm going to turn to the department to answer that, because it's essentially a policy question.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Rather than a legal question.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: What we've put into the bill provides for the signing of equivalency agreements with the provinces in terms of the environmental protection regimes they have. We have, I believe, one equivalency agreement, with the Province of Alberta. That is the only equivalency agreement we have.

With these additional provisions that are being suggested by amendment, not only for the provinces but also for aboriginal governments, the provinces and aboriginal governments would have to pass legislation that would meet these conditions. That is the logic associated with it.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

• 1050

The Chairman: Are there any further comments? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We now go to page 60, and the motion by Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. John Herron: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I believe the results sought by the amendment on page 60 are met with the amendment on page 59. This amendment is therefore no longer needed.

[English]

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

We now have an amendment that has been proposed by the Bloc Québécois for clause 10, amendment 9.1.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is for providing financial compensation to provincial governments and aboriginals who reach a parity agreement with the federal government:

a) for the implementation of objectives, programs or operations under the parity agreement;

b) for investigating violations of the local environmental law in areas of its jurisdiction.

This amendment would therefore provide compensation to the provinces for the costs incurred by the enforcement of this federal law on their territory.

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, I am sorry, but having reviewed the motion, I must declare it out of order. As I said before, when an amendment involves a withdrawal from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it must be declared out of order. I am really sorry.

[English]

As I indicated earlier, when we discussed the acceptance of amendments, I indicated the fact that amendments that would touch on the royal recommendation cannot be accepted.

That is a very firm rule, I regret very much, Madam Girard-Bujold.

We now have to go back to an amendment in the name of Mr. Gallaway, on page 56.

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

I will move that amendment, numbered L-10 and found on page 56. It is a proposed amendment to clause 10.

The reason for it is to deal with the idea that provisions in this bill that allow for the treatment of provincial requirements as equivalent to federal requirements to be workable need to be based on considerations of whether the federal and provincial requirements are equivalent in terms of performance and intent, and not on the federal and provincial provisions having to be identical in terms of wording.

For example, different jurisdictions may have different requirements for measurement methods for emissions, or may define things such as pollution prevention, for example, with some differences. But allowing for this, presumably, is the intention of the legislation. All I'm saying is that it would be clarified by the suggested amendment.

• 1055

The amendment should also presumably go toward addressing concerns by some environmental groups that the equivalency provisions would lead to adoption of lower standards.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would just suggest that the debate we had on amendment PC-5 would be very similar. In fact, some people might argue that if this were to be approved, we could actually get less stringent guidelines across the country, and that would be something that might not be what this committee would want.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 10 agreed to)

The Chairman: I intend to adjourn very soon, but we could perhaps deal with the amendment on page 61 to clause 12. There is no amendment to clause 11.

(Clause 11 agreed to)

(On clause 12—Establishment of Environmental Registry)

The Chairman: We have one amendment, after which we will conclude for this morning.

The mover is the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, it is your turn.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is designed to include an aboriginal directory on the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's environmental protection.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My main question is, Pourquoi?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Why? Because directories are mentioned in the legislation. There is no indication, however, that there should be an aboriginal environmental protection directory. Dealing with aboriginals, including the aboriginal cause are mentioned, but there is no directory for the aboriginal people. We feel it is important to have access to an aboriginal and Great North directory.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But why not also a directory of the other ministers or jurisdictions?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but this is about including a directory. There is no directory. We always talk of the provincial directory, the Canadian directory, but there is no mention of an aboriginal directory on the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's environmental protection. It is really to be more specific, to include it in the legislation.

[English]

The Chairman: It's a sign that we should adjourn—Mike is tired.

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Maybe I can give a little friendly advice on this one.

Putting this particular inclusion on clause 12, which deals with an overall statement on what the registry is, facilitating access to documents, maybe it be best included in clause 13, where it states what the registry should include. I think an amendment on my part as well will come forth in expanding what that should include. I think that's what Madam Bujold is attempting here.

Amendment 62 does not include Indian Affairs in the aboriginal index. You're specifically pointing that out, and I agree with that. But as Madam Torsney has said, why not include other ministries? That would be a solid question when you deal with clause 12, because it deals with the definition or the overall intent of the registry. When you bring the issue to clause 13, that's defining what should be included in the registry. I think that might have relevance there than in 12.

• 1100

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Madam Girard-Bujold, do you want to comment on that suggestion?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I want to leave it where it is, and I want us to vote on the amendment. I insist on presenting it, and on the committee addressing this amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Fair enough.

Are there any further comments or questions on this motion? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 12 agreed to)

The Chairman: I now propose that we continue tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. Could I urge committee members to arrive such that we can start possibly on time? I apologize for the delays today, but tomorrow we'll try to do better.

I would like to bring to the attention of members of the committee the latest report, dated November 12, prepared by Madam Hébert and Kristen Douglas. It's entitled Bill C-32 and the Government Response. It's certainly a document that's worthwhile taking into account.

This meeting stands adjourned. Thank you very much.