ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 25, 1998

• 1543

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon and welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

We resume our work where we stopped yesterday.

I understand Mr. Gilmour would like to put forward a motion, for which I think a notice of 24 hours is usually required. We will at least make sure there is an opportunity for him to put it forward. If the committee is ready to vote on it, we can vote on it today. If not, it will be tomorrow.

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

This has to do with the number of amendments coming in. I've spoken with a number of people around the table, and I would like to put a closure of next Tuesday morning, before our 9 a.m. committee, as the end of time for the clerk to accept amendments. That would be my motion.

If it requires 24 hours—and I'll ask the clerk whether that is the case—then I'll move it ahead. Basically we had agreed that a week ago Monday would be the last of the amendments coming in. I think it's time to close that door. People have had plenty of time to bring amendments forward. This gives them until next Tuesday morning.

I therefore so move that.

The Chairman: All right. We will defer the vote until tomorrow to give the government members a chance to hear it and to mull it over.

• 1545

(Motion allowed to stand—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: I see in it an element of understandable urgency and impatience, which we all understand. At the same time, from a practical point of view, it may well be that when we reach further down in the system, in the examination of the bill, towards the end, there may be some members who will feel that there is a necessity to improve the bill that they couldn't foresee in view of changes that took place.

So I would urge you, Mr. Gilmour, also to give that possibility a thought, because it may also affect your own party's ability to move motions should you see that necessity yourself.

However, we will abide by the rule of 24 hours, considering the fact that the committee is incomplete in its usual formation.

Madam Torsney would like to speak.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I wonder, since we don't seem to have a quorum, if we could have a two-minute adjournment and come back and try to get all our members in.

The Chairman: We had quorum when I banged the gavel. I can see members of the committee outside the room. However, if you wish to have a two-minute break, we can suspend the meeting very easily.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: The meeting is suspended for a couple of minutes.

• 1547

• 1551

The Chairman: Order. We can resume this meeting.

We are still on clause 56. The adoption yesterday of government amendment 5.3 on pages 116 and 117 is of a nature that makes the following two amendments not movable—if there is a word like that—namely, the amendment by Madam Kraft Sloan on page 118, and the amendment by Mr. Laliberte on page 119. They cannot be moved as a result of the adoption of the government amendment.

Therefore, we can swiftly move to page 120, were there is a motion by Mr. Laliberte.

The floor is yours, sir.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Chair, I am prepared to move that motion, where the amendment says the notice “shall” specify.

The reason for this amendment is to clarify the content of the notices so that sort of a template or a formation of notices can be created, and a level playing field can thus be expected by business, and to let everybody know what is required. So once the industry and the government are aware of what should be specified in this notice, then it's an expectation from here on in. Otherwise, it's a guessing game if the word “may” stays.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I guess I have a different interpretation of what the effect of Mr. Laliberte's motion would be. That would mean that there would be no flexibility in the notice. In fact, if you were to change that to “shall”, you must include everything—paragraphs 56(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).

For some things, that might not be necessary, and the notice...you need to include everything you need to include, but you needn't include things you don't need to include, clearly. So “may” gives you the flexibility to specify the things that are appropriate.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, a brief reply.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I don't know if there's a hypothetical situation our experts from government here can give in terms of their experiences, but the notice may specify substance, processing, factors, a period of time, and the administrative matters. All those are pretty encompassing in any type of notice.

Is there any comment on that?

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, do you have a short comment?

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): The legal effect would be that the notice would be required to include all of these things. That's the legal effect.

Perhaps from a policy point of view Environment Canada may indicate why they wouldn't want to have all of those items in every notice.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, please.

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): I can comment.

I would like to echo Ms. Torsney's comments. I think it would be inappropriate to specify “shall”. As the two previous commentators have stated, this would require that every notice contain each of the items listed in (a) through (f), and in some cases, that might not be appropriate.

• 1555

For example, it might not be appropriate in all cases to indicate all of the factors to be considered in preparing the plan. One of the rationales behind pollution prevention planning, and indeed behind all of part 4, was to provide considerable flexibility to industry. Essentially it was to tell industry, okay, we want you to prepare a plan. You figure out what it is that you think is relevant. You figure out what you can do that is appropriate for your particular plant, for your particular circumstance, and you get back to us and tell us what you're going to do.

So in some cases, government might want to specify some factors, but they might not want to be really detailed. In some cases, they might not want to specify any of the factors that they think should be considered. Government might want to hear from industry about what factors they think are relevant.

So I can see circumstances in which you might not want to have all items (a) through (f) in a notice, and I for one would not want to bind government's hand in that regard.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Are there any comments?

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: At this stage I have to ask Madam Kraft Sloan whether she is ready to move her amendment on page 114, which was not moved yesterday.

What is your wish?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, before I go ahead and move this amendment, I would like to understand why the changes were made between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32, because all this does is revert Bill C-32 back to C-74.

The Chairman: It is the present understanding of the chair that the government amendment covers or takes care of the two amendments.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: To which amendment are you referring?

The Chairman: Well, you are referring to 120 and 121, I presume.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

The Chairman: Those two amendments cannot be moved because they've been taken care of by the government amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Which amendment are you referring to for my amendment, sir?

The Chairman: I am enquiring of you whether you are prepared to move L-13.5 on page 114.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're referring to my amendment L-13.5?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, where does the government amendment...?

The Chairman: It has no bearing on this.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I know. My question was, the purpose of this amendment is to revert it back to Bill C-74; why was it changed from Bill C-74 to this form?

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps the question to the officials should be this: How does clause 56 in Bill C-32 work, and why is that an improvement on the current CEPA?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No. My question is, why was it changed?

The Chairman: You may ask that question yourself, perhaps, but I think it is quite legitimate for Madam Kraft Sloan to ask her question of whoever is willing to answer it on the departmental side.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (CEPA Officer, Department of the Environment): I'm willing to answer.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: There are a number of related changes relevant to the pollution prevention planning.

• 1600

The first is that when the minister has determined that a substance is toxic, they publish their final decision. At that point in time, the deadline for preventive and control measures, which is further on in part 5 under subclause 77(9), is a deadline to have a preventive and control measure proposed within two years. That starts ticking.

The ministers, at that same time, must make an immediate recommendation to the Governor in Council that the substance be added to the list of toxic substances.

Under what was then known as Bill C-74, there was a delay, I believe, of 60 days for the ministers to make that order. So the first thing Bill C-32 does is tighten up the amount of time it takes, if you will, to get a substance onto the list of toxic substances.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Isn't it the Governor in Council who puts it on the list of toxic substances?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Yes. The ministers recommend, and the Governor in Council puts it on.

The second change is that the authority for pollution prevention planning was determined to be appropriate only for those substances that had the benefit of Governor in Council's confirmation, if you will, of their toxicity. The deadline, however, for preventive and control measures starts not from when Governor in Council adds it to the list but when the ministers make their final decision.

If you will, the ministers' final decision is based on the scientific evidence. It doesn't have to be full scientific certainty. We'd use the precautionary principle. Adding it to the list of toxic substances, it's the Governor in Council taking that legislative step, if you will.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if that makes it clearer to the members.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But we have a significant deviation from Bill C-74, because for the past two years, for substances that have been identified as toxic—there are about 17 of them—there has been a recommendation. They've been trying to get them put on the toxic substances list. That's been a two-year process.

So the grave concern I have here is that while, in Bill C-74, once a substance was identified as toxic you had to start a pollution prevention plan, now we have a situation—it's already been demonstrated—where it takes two years, and we still don't have things put on the TSL. So in this situation, we have had a two-year delay, which hasn't even been satisfied yet.

My concern is that if the clock starts ticking and you have to act within two years, if I understand, with some kind of control measure, if we use the current example of the length of time it's taking these 17 substances that have been identified as toxic, if we use that particular example, we would have to invoke a control measure without having any P2 planning. This circumvents the whole notion of CEPA '98 being a pollution prevention planning bill. From industry's perspective, I would be concerned about having the opportunity to have P2 plans, which allow them to be more company-specific, as opposed to having a control mechanism forced on me because of the timing.

I still don't understand why this was acceptable in Bill C-74 but not acceptable in Bill C-32.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, would you like to answer?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I have a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman.

First, pollution prevention planning could be considered a preventive or a control measure under Bill C-32. Secondly, we have put the two-year deadline in place—based on recommendations coming from this committee—so that action is taken in a timely manner.

• 1605

My colleagues, who may know more about it, can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that with regard to the substances the member was speaking about, ministers have determined them to be toxic but have yet to make a final recommendation that the Governor in Council add them to the list of toxic substances.

This is why there is the two-year deadline and the order for an immediate addition to the list. We've tried to tighten it up as much as possible.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But I don't understand why you made this change between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32 that lengthens the time for P2 plans to be undertaken. Because if you allow for P2 planning to occur, once the substance has been declared toxic, then what you do is you have the company responsible already undertaking ways of understanding how this substance is used and ways they can deal with it. It only provides efficiency to the process. It starts to deal with substances that have been declared toxic to try to find ways to control them and to remove them from having harmful effects on the environment and human health.

I mean, you've been describing the mechanisms, but it doesn't seem to me you've explained adequately why the change was made from Bill C-74 to Bill C-32.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: That's precisely why we put an obligation on ministers to immediately make a recommendation to the Governor in Council to add them to the list of toxic substances. At the same time, the deadline starts ticking. The clock starts ticking for that deadline.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The Governor in Council still has to decide to add it to the toxic substances list. Once a substance has been identified as toxic, I don't understand why P2 plans can't be started. You've talked about things that move the process along a little faster in terms of having a requirement for the minister, but you haven't explained to me why P2 plans can't begin immediately once they've been identified as toxic.

If this is a good change, you should have a rationale for the change. I don't understand.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I don't believe there's anything else I can add other than that it was determined to be appropriate to give the Governor in Council the opportunity to confirm the ministers' decision of toxicity.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Why wasn't it considered to be appropriate to do it in Bill C-74, then? What is the change there? I'm trying to understand what the change is.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: There are, as members of this committee know, many changes that were made from Bill C-74 to Bill C-32. It's only natural, when we were given a second chance to look at the legislation, to fine-tune it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But you suggest that the starting point on this legislation was Bill C-74. Well, I suggest the starting point on this legislation was the committee's review, which happened in 1994-95. That was the starting point on this particular bill. There was the government response to the review. There was Bill C-74, and there's Bill C-32. And I don't believe that adequately explains to me why this particular change was made between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32.

The Chairman: At this point, we must move on.

We have Madam Torsney and then Mr. Moffet for a comment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm trying to clarify whether or not there's a motion on the table.

The Chairman: Well, there is an intention to get a motion on the table, and I understood that the decision by Madame Kraft Sloan to move a motion would depend on this exchange of information.

I'm acutely aware of the kind of vacuum in which we find ourselves, and I hope a decision will soon be made.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I also have one question.

The Chairman: Please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: When there's a finding of toxicity by the minister, when does the clock start ticking for the two years? Can the officials please clarify this?

• 1610

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Once the ministers publish that decision, and at that same time they publish that decision, they are required to make an immediate recommendation to the Governor in Council.

Under the existing act, there were no deadlines, no requirements for an immediate order...and based on recommendations that came out of this committee to put some sort of timeframes and deadlines on for actions on toxics.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, please.

Mr. John Moffet: I thought I might try to clarify the practical difference between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32.

The practical difference has to do with the precise time, the trigger in time, for when the minister is authorized to require a pollution prevention plan. That time has been changed between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32. It has been delayed in Bill C-32.

Under Bill C-74, the minister was authorized to require a pollution prevention plan when she confirmed her decision to request cabinet to add a substance to schedule 1. Under Bill C-32, she now cannot require a pollution prevention plan until cabinet has approved that decision.

As Mr. Mongrain pointed out, an additional change was made to this bill, however, that requires the minister to make the formal request to cabinet to add a substance to schedule 1 simultaneously with her final public decision that announces she is going to make that request, whereas under the old CEPA there was no requirement that happened simultaneously. Indeed, under Bill C-74, the bill authorized a 60-day delay.

So that request now has to be made simultaneously. The issue nonetheless arises that there will be a delay between the making of that request and the decision by cabinet. It is that delay that is significant for pollution prevention planning.

I think the real issue is, how long will that delay be? If it is a short delay, then it's probably inconsequential in terms of the effect it will have on pollution prevention planning. If it's a long delay—a matter of months or years, as Mrs. Kraft Sloan suggested—then in fact it will, in my view, significantly impede the potential efficacy of the pollution prevention planning provisions. So the issue is, how long will that delay be?

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On the delay that Mr. Moffet refers to that's a significant delay, that relates to 17 substances, my question is, that is taking place under the legislation as it currently exists, is that correct? It's not taking place under what Bill C-74 might have introduced and it's not taking place under what the effect of this bill, as it is currently written in clause 56, would have.

Mr. John Moffet: That's correct—but this bill doesn't say anything about what Governor in Council must do.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But the clock starts ticking when she makes it public that she's asking cabinet.

Mr. John Moffet: But let's be clear about what clock we're talking about. There are two clocks here.

The clock you're talking about is the clock that provides for a two-year time period within which the minister must make her announcement about control measures.

That clock is not the clock that applies to pollution prevention planning. That clock starts ticking when Governor in Council approves the decision to add the substance to the list of toxic substances.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. And adding a clock in clause 56, in this clause, as it is in Bill C-32, is an improvement on the law as it currently exists on CEPA '88.

Mr. John Moffet: Adding the clock? In my view, absolutely. That was the recommendation made by this committee in It's About Our Health!. But again, that's a different clock from the one we're talking about here on pollution prevention planning.

The Chairman: Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Perhaps I could add to the debate here, Mr. Chairman.

• 1615

I'd just like to point out that in Bill C-74, as I read that bill, there was already a two-year timeline for the minister to come out with a proposed instrument in relation to a substance that had been declared toxic but had not been added to the list yet. So there is that two-year timeline.

As well—that's just in relation to the proposal—there is a further 18-month timeline, I think, to finalize the proposal and to actually come out with an instrument. So in total, you would have there 36 months. This is in relation to a control measure or an instrument.

I'm not quite sure, though—and perhaps the officials could clarify this—how that total 36-month timeline ties in with cabinet's authority to place the substance on the list. Are we looking here at 36 months? Is that the outside? Is cabinet obliged to do so? Can one come out with a proposal even though the list hasn't been added yet? How do these elements tie in?

The Chairman: I don't know whether you're asking the officials to answer questions beyond their scope. The operations of cabinet are extremely hard to predict.

Nevertheless, if you wish to be so adventurous, by all means, go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It's a little beyond my place on the food chain, sir.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I would like to add a comment from experience.

My experience is that a special committee of cabinet does meet, I think once a week, while Parliament is in session.

The other point I would like to make is that actually putting a substance on the toxic substances list is the official view of the Government of Canada, and given that there is a considerable investment that has to be made in devising pollution prevention plans, that delay, which can be very short—without getting into cabinet operations—provides the assurance that in fact that investment will be required.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, and then we will conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, there is no requirement in the legislation that gives a timeline on Governor in Council to respond to the listing. I think what's been happening here is that two issues are being confused. I believe the researchers, including Mr. Moffet, have been trying to separate the two issues.

One, we have a clock that ticks on a control measure. That's a whole different issue. I'm not talking about that issue. I'm talking about pollution prevention plans, P2 plans. I'm talking about the change between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32. There has been a significant change between the two.

In Bill C-74, once a substance was declared toxic the minister was able to require that P2 planning occur. In this revision, we have to wait for the Governor in Council to put it on the list of toxic substances. I still haven't gotten an adequate answer as to why that change was made.

We also cannot forget that these are two separate issues. They have nothing to do with each other.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Governor in Council is the master of its own decisions. The clerk of the Governor in Council committee decides what goes on the agenda. The clerk would move when he or she knows that item is ready for an affirmative decision, and therefore it has the consensus of all affected parties. Therefore, an item that does not have the consensus of all the affected parties does not get on that agenda until that level of consensus is reached.

Therefore, the question as to how soon Governor in Council would move is one that is open to all sorts of speculation. It can be short; it can be long.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I would like to ask you, Mr. Moffet, whether you feel this motion addresses what the chair has said, insofar as it would delineate what he's described as, “It can be short; it can be long”. Do you think the addition of (b) makes it clear?

• 1620

Mr. John Moffet: No. What Mrs. Kraft Sloan's potential amendment would do is eliminate the uncertainty surrounding that delay. There still might be a delay between the minister's request and Governor in Council's decision to add the substance, but that wouldn't matter, because the minister would be authorized to require a pollution prevention plan as soon as she makes the request. She wouldn't have to wait. As Mr. Caccia has pointed out, that delay might be short and therefore insignificant; it could easily be quite long.

I understand that when a ministerial request to put an item on the agenda for the Governor in Council is made, the clerk of the cabinet provides some form of certificate, or a stamp, that indicates the request has been formally made. That certificate basically has a six-month time life, or a best-before date. If you go beyond the six months, then you have to make the request again, but for those six months it can be before cabinet.

I claim no expertise in cabinet affairs. The fact that the clerk issues a six-month certificate or stamp indicates there is some potential in the mind of the clerk that it might take up to six months to get before cabinet.

The Chairman: So here we are, facing a potential amendment that would do what is before you on page 114. To put it forward as an amendment—if that is the wish of Madam Kraft Sloan—I need the consent of the committee, provided Madam Kraft Sloan is inclined to do so.

Are you talking on this point?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Herron can go ahead, that's fine.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I think the intent of the government is to take out as much uncertainty as they possibly can, and I think this particular amendment, L-13.5, would, as Mr. Moffet stated, take out the uncertainty in terms of when cabinet would have an opportunity to reach decisions.

I think this particular amendment would definitely augment this piece of legislation, so I would encourage the member to put it forward.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'll move the amendment.

The Chairman: In order to so proceed, since we are moving back in the book, I'm told we have to have consensus to move the amendment. I assume there is consent to move that amendment.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: There is consent, so please go ahead. Would you like to move this, and perhaps summarize your points?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move amendment L-13.5. As I said earlier, this amendment restores this provision in Bill C-32 back to provisions in Bill C-74, which means that P2 planning would be required once the substances have been identified. It does not negate anything that is currently on the list of toxic substances, but it does get P2 planning moving forward, and I believe it fulfils the intent of CEPA '98, which is to focus on pollution prevention planning.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think it's getting abundantly clear that when the minister has analysed the toxicity of the substance, has declared it toxic and is seeking Governor in Council, why not allow the pollution prevention plans to take place? Why waste time, and health?

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd like to go back to my earlier comments as well, because as a member of this committee I've seen a number of industry witnesses come before this committee who are quite interested in acting on their own. We've seen a lot of people who have exercised leadership in that in the field of industry, and they've been developing new techniques and methodologies for pollution prevention. It seems to me this would give them the opportunity to get on with dealing with a substance that their company is involved with.

• 1625

If they have to have a delay of several months, a year or two or something like that, then it causes problems for them as well, and in this regard, they can develop a plan that is, as I said earlier, more company-specific as opposed to something that is merely a control measure imposed by someone else.

I think any of the leaders in industry would be quite happy with this provision to be able to show their leadership and to be able to show how they can actually take care of these issues themselves.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question? I presume you are.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, are you still willing to move your motion on page 115, or is that something you don't consider necessary any longer, considering the vote we had earlier?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would bring it back for a vote.

The Chairman: All right.

I need the consent of the committee to do the same as we what we did with the previous motion. I need consent to go backwards to page 115.

I assume the committee's disposition is to do so.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I invite Mr. Laliberte to move his amendment.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll move amendment 23. It simply states that the minister “shall” at any time publish in the Canada Gazette the notices of the pollution prevention plans that are required. I think the dialogue we've just had shows the urgency. It forces the minister to do this.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think the member might be interested to know that the perhaps unintended effect of his amendment would be in fact to require pollution prevention planning for everything when in some cases the government's decision on the substance may be to ban its use and production. If something is banned, would you really need a P2 plan for it?

That's through you, obviously, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I don't understand “banned”. Is that elimination, zero? I thought zero wasn't legal.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are various options available to the government to deal with substances. Some are in fact bans and some are pollution prevention plans.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, if it's banned, and that's the pollution prevention measure, then publish it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You may want to get further comment from the officials, but I understand you may be requesting something for something that no longer is needed.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was going to suggest a friendly amendment to the mover. Instead of just saying the minister “shall” publish, perhaps “at any time” should be deleted.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, I believe that's what the intention is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: My amendment reads:

56.(1) The Minister shall

It replaces line 9.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, I'm sorry. I thought it was just the change of “shall”.

• 1630

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: With respect to the parliamentary secretary's comments on this, obviously if a substance was deemed to be banned, that wouldn't necessarily take place overnight. That wouldn't happen the next day. Well, what would happen is that you'd have to phase in any kind of a ban, so you'd have to have a pollution prevention plan to actually phase that in.

So in light of that point, I think this is another good amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As it stands right now, pollution prevention is supposed to be the heart of what CEPA '98 is doing, and as it stands right now, we just have discretionary action as to whether we're going to have pollution prevention plans or not. So I would like to support this amendment.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 56 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 57 to 59 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 60—Requirement to submit certain plans)

The Chairman: We move now to page 121,

[Translation]

where we find an amendment from the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Page 121 contains the Bloc Québécois amendment pertaining to line 27 on page 35, in Clause 60. The bill stipulates that:

The Minister may publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate a notice requiring...

This provision in the bill should compel the minister to publish a notice that he has tabled. Throughout the bill, we constantly use the words "the Minister may", which leaves it up to the minister's discretion to decide whether or not to take action. We feel that the minister should publish such a notice and that the bill should read "the Minister shall publish" to specify that there is an obligation involved. It is only by publishing a notice or by publishing a change that the Minister intends to make that the general public is informed. That's why the Bloc Québécois is moving that this clause read as follows: "the Minister shall publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate".

Mr. Chairman, in reviewing Bill C-32, we are always losing a lot of time recommending that we will replace the word "may" by "shall" or, in this case, the expression "may publish" by "shall publish". We should agree that the enforcement of a bill is mandatory.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin. Are there any questions or comments?

Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: While I appreciate perhaps some of the intention of Monsieur Asselin, I'm not sure if there's an unintended consequence of what his action would do—that is, by changing it to “shall”, the minister would in fact have to publish all the pollution prevention plans submitted, which obviously could be a pretty lengthy document, in the end. So she has the option of publishing things she wants, and he would be in fact forcing the publication of everything.

The Chairman: Doesn't the clause refer to a notice rather than to a plan?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: We're talking about a notice.

[English]

Mr. John Moffet: I think there's a slight correction to what Ms. Torsney's suggesting.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, sorry; she'd have to get them.

• 1635

Mr. John Moffet: Yes. What this amendment would require is that every member who has been required to develop a plan would then have to submit the plan to the government. That is quite contrary to the intention behind the design of this part of the bill, which is to allow the minister to require companies to develop plans, but to then only ask companies to submit a declaration to the effect that they have developed and implemented their plan, but not to actually submit all of the details of the plan.

There can be only two reasons to ask companies to submit the plan. One would be as subclause 60(1) is currently crafted—that is, to help the minister with her assessment of the substance and not the determination of what control measures might be appropriate.

The other might be if the minister wants to review the plan and second-guess it. But the fact of the matter is, the government doesn't have those resources and doesn't have the intention of second-guessing, because that would go contrary to the spirit of this part of the bill, which is to allow industry the flexibility to come up with options and solutions on their own, without having government look other their shoulder and second-guess technical decisions that have been made by companies.

I think that would be an unfortunate implication of this amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that Mr. Moffet is trying to complicate things and I'm wondering whether he's not trying to justify his work. The bill states that "the Minister may publish, in the Canada Gazette... a notice". We're clearly talking about a notice here, not all of the plans or endless paper-work. I think that when the government intends to make changes or do something, it should publish a notice. This is already being done in some cases.

When Mr. Moffet starts talking to us about plans coming I think he's trying to scare us and I think he's exaggerating. We're simply talking about a notice in the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, Mr. Moffet did not speak simply to justify his being here or his work. He provided us with his point of view, as he has always done.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: That's the impression I got.

The Chairman: We are of course free to disagree with him, but it is not appropriate to accuse him of making useless comments.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: That's what I felt; however I could have been wrong.

The Chairman: All right.

[English]

Are you ready for the question, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I guess with this motion, the fact is, the minister, with the amendment, shall publish a notice. Is that the case? In the next motion that's coming up—and I think that's what Mr. Moffet was getting at—it's shall publish a model plan.

Mr. John Moffet: No. With respect, you have to read the entire sentence. This clause is written as one sentence. So if you change the verb from “may” to “shall”, you are modifying the entire sentence.

The implication is not just that when the minister wants to issue a notice she must put it in the Canada Gazette. That would not be the legal implication of this amendment. The “shall” would modify the entire sentence, and would require the minister to publish notices requiring all persons who have been required to prepare plans to submit those plans.

In my opinion, that would be the legal implication of this amendment. You may want to ask Mr. Cameron if that's his view as well.

The Chairman: Anyway, I think we have X-rayed this section quite thoroughly. There are two interpretations of the impact of the words “may” or “shall”. That is a question of how one reads this particular clause, either in a broader sense or in a narrower sense.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

• 1640

(Clause 60 agreed to)

(On clause 61—Model plans)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, I would invite you to present the next amendment in the name of the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: We are moving that line 3 on page 36 be amended in Clause 61. This clause states:

61. For the purpose of providing guidance in the preparation of a pollution prevention plan, the Minister may publish in the Canada Gazette or in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate a model pollution prevention plan or a notice stating where a copy of the plan may be obtained.

We are suggesting that the clause read: "The Minister shall publish" instead of "The Minister may publish". By doing this, the minister would be obliged to publish a model plan or a notice.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Again, I would like to speak in favour of this motion. This highlights the opportunity and the responsibility the minister has to create a level playing field. We may have industry out there that may have model plans, and the department itself may have model plans, but a relatively new industry, or a new company coming in, can depend on these model plans. You have to publish them. If the minister doesn't publish them, then it's subject to somebody searching it out. So publish them, please.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I wonder if I might be able to ask Mr. Moffet if he thinks this would be feasible if it were to read “shall”.

Mr. John Moffet: I think you're putting me in a difficult position, because the feasibility of this has to do with whether the department is capable of publishing model pollution prevention plans. I know for a fact that the government has the intention of publishing some model pollution prevention plans, and has already done considerable work in developing such plans, but I'd rather not be put in a position of providing an opinion about the capacity of the department to do something.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Could one of you tell me, in your estimation, when you talk about model pollution prevention plans, what we're talking about if the minister were to publish model plans? Are they by sector of industry? Can you estimate how many would be needed, and what the scope of this stuff is?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The department, as Mr. Moffet has indicated, has already started work on developing model pollution prevention plans. The ones I am aware of are sector-specific, and we've been working with industry on them, working with those leaders who have demonstrated success in pollution prevention planning.

As to the numbers, I think our intent would be develop them—and it is an emerging field—as needed. If ten years down the line there's a requirement to refine and develop more model plans, then one would hope we would engage in that activity.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: Perhaps I could clarify this.

A number of governments have already published model pollution prevention plans and various guidance documents around the preparation of pollution prevention plans. The U.S. EPA and a number of the American states have such documents. Some of them are sector-specific, as Mr. Mongrain has suggested, and some of them are substance- or process-specific, and therefore cut across a number of sectors.

• 1645

I know the national office of pollution prevention is looking at both models, and has every intention of publishing some such documents.

So I'm not sure what the implication of moving from “may” to “shall” is in practical terms.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 61 agreed to)

(On clause 62—Guidelines)

The Chairman: We go now to page 123.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to suggest that Mr. Herron also has an amendment on clause 62, and there are three amendments on 62. I would like to ask our consent to stand the whole of clause 62.

The Chairman: They are all the same. They are virtually identical, yes.

Is there consent to stand clause 62?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would like the mover of this amendment to indicate why he has stood this clause.

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, we have already discussed the matter and decided to stand some other clauses and amendments. The suggested amendments to clause 62 pertain to certain clauses that we had decided to stand and we would like to have a little bit more time so that we can discuss them.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Lincoln referring to amendment L-13.7 on page 123?

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I don't understand why Mr. Lincoln is asking that we stand this clause.

The Chairman: Three identical amendments have been suggested, namely L-13.7, L-13.7.1 and NDP-26.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I would like to ask Ms. Kraft-Sloan if she agrees.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin would like to know whether Madam Kraft Sloan is in agreement.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I am. I had already mentioned it, Monsieur Asselin.

The Chairman: Is Mr. Laliberte in agreement?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I would be in agreement.

The Chairman: Well, then, I suppose we have consent to stand this clause to a later date.

(Clause 62 allowed to stand)

(Clause 63 agreed to)

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

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, given that there's a proposal to reverse the order of clauses 64 and 65, how are you going to handle that, exactly?

The Chairman: I propose to handle it in the order that the book is organized, because that is the easier progression, but I'm open to suggestions in case there is a better way to do it.

It is important to keep in mind that there is a road map prepared by the clerk for us, in handling clause 64.

• 1650

Because of the scope of the various motions, we would start with Bloc Québécois amendment 21.1.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: The Bloc Québécois is moving an amendment to clause 64(2), lines 15 to 22 on page 37.

[English]

The Chairman: You'll find this on page 13 of the slim book in front of you. That would be the first amendment, followed by government amendment G-5.4, Liberal amendment 13.8, and Bloc Québécois amendment 22, in that order, because they touch on the same lines.

Then I will keep you in suspense as to what happens if any of these are passed or defeated, because it would take up a lot of time to describe the whole scenario, but there are consequences that follow as to which relevant motion to this clause would then be, or could be, or could not be, moved.

Our first step would be to approach these four motions, beginning with the Bloc Québécois amendment, followed by, I repeat, G-5.4, L-13.8, and Bloc Québécois amendment 22.

Could I therefore invite Mr. Asselin to move this amendment, please, 21.1.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: The amendment in BQ-21.1 suggests a change to lines 1 to 14 on page 37, in clause 64(1). We are suggesting the following wording:

64(1) Subject to subsection (2), "virtual elimination" means the discontinuance of the production, use, release, export, distribution or import of a substance or group of substances.

[English]

The Chairman: You've heard the motion. It has been moved by Mr. Asselin. Are there any questions or comments on this definition of “virtual elimination”?

Mr. Asselin, would you like to speak in favour of your motion?

[Translation]

Would you like to make any comments about your motion?

Mr. Gérard Asselin: No, Mr. Chairman. We have the wording of the amendment before us. Since we're all big boys and girls, we can read. Moreover, you all heard me read it. Since there are no questions, I would conclude that it is sufficiently clear. I would ask that we vote on it.

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Laliberte, did you want to intervene?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. Maybe just for further clarity, Mr. Moffet or the government members can speak on the difference between these two.

The Chairman: Between which two?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is dealing with Bloc 22, right?

The Chairman: Bloc 21.1, on page 13.

Are there any questions or comments while we wait for Mr. Laliberte to collect his thoughts?

Mr. Laliberte, the floor is yours.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm ready for the question.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1655

The Chairman: We are now back to page 126 in the binder, G-5.4. Who is ready to move this amendment?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If members are on page 126, or G-5.4, the effect of this amendment would be in fact to switch what is in current Bill C-32, clause 65 up, so that the definition of toxic comes in the first part of the bill, since this is part 5, controlling toxic substances. I think it brings greater clarity to what this part is trying to do and what will fall out from that.

Of course, later on we have an amendment that would switch clause 64 down to 65.

Just for greater clarity, unfortunately in the English version there is an underline in that first sentence, which of course is not necessary.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Well, we'll forgive you for that.

Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I would just like to point out to members of the committee that because this particular definition of toxic would be repositioned under clause 64, it might be useful to consider all of the proposed amendments to the definition of toxics.

In this regard, I refer to L-13.10, which is one of them, as is NDP-26.1. In fairness, I think maybe all of the definitions that seek to modify the definition of toxic should be considered together.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, can I make a suggestion?

The Chairman: Just a moment.

Maybe we will see how the process of handling the amendments goes, and then we'll see whether or not this is necessary.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Perhaps what we could do is ask the parliamentary secretary to hold her amendment for the time being for the purpose of going through all the amendments on clauses 64 and 65. Then we could vote at the end of the process, after we've done all the other amendments to clauses 64 and 65, to then make the switch at that point in time.

The Chairman: Well, I would prefer, since this motion has been moved, to deal with it. If it is adopted, then we have a definition, you see, and then there is no need to go over all the others.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just in terms of order, I would think that since G does come before most of the other parties, and on most of the other amendments, then you would.... No; the effect is the same. That's all I'm trying to tell you. This would be dealt with and then you would deal with all the others as a result.

The Chairman: Are you ready for a comment on this definition? No. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1700

The Chairman: For those of you who are dying to know what has been the substance of the confabulation at this end of the table, we are examining the status of the other two amendments. The legal clerk and I are coming to the same conclusion—namely, that L-13.8 and BQ-22, if they are to be considered, would have to touch upon other lines than the line being touched by the amendment just passed in order to be acceptable.

Therefore, we invite the movers of these two amendments to consider the possibility of drafting a new text—if they wish to do so, of course.

Having pronounced that kind of wisdom, I hope it is acceptable to the committee.

We now move on to the next one.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair—

The Chairman: Yes, yes, we're coming—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm withdrawing it.

The Chairman: Well, that is very helpful.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you. I always like to be helpful to the chair.

The Chairman: It's gratefully accepted.

Shall clause 64 as amended carry?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a point of order. Since everyone has all the documents in front of them, and the bill, I'm wondering if it might not be possible to consider that all of the opposition and Liberal amendments to clauses 64 and 65 be read in the opposite order so that we can deal with 13.10 and we can deal with NDP 26.1 and 22.1 and so on without killing more trees.

There'd be five. We could deal with them as if they are dealing with clause 64, and then when we deal with the new clause 65, then we would deal with BQ-22 at that point. I think that might be simpler.

• 1705

The Chairman: Well, that could be very helpful.

Now, we have adopted a definition of virtual elimination by way of having adopted the motion that was just passed. We now will stand clause 64 for the time being and move to clause 65 so as to deal with the new amendment that is in the thin book as prepared by the government, which replaces page 131 in your binder.

In other words, the amendment in the binder on page 131 is replaced by pages 14 and 15 in the thin book.

(Clause 64 allowed to stand)

(On clause 65—Toxic substances)

The Chairman: I would ask if the government is ready to move that amendment so that we can proceed in an orderly fashion.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, I am happy to move this amendment.

The Chairman: Would you please elaborate and explain it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure.

Again, the effect of this amendment, should it be passed, would be to move the current clause 64 into clause 65. Unfortunately, we have a mystery underliner, and the underlining is unnecessary at the beginning in the English copy. Furthermore, it changes and clarifies the issue so that the (a)'s and (b)'s are changed, and we get a new (3).

• 1710

It is in keeping with the government response on risk assessment versus hazard assessment, and deletes this confusion that many members had talked about with perhaps an inconsistency between what was in the bill before, paragraphs 64(1)(a) and (b).

The Chairman: For the benefit of the committee, the main point is that now we are dealing with virtual elimination.

On the reference to ministers, would you please indicate to the members of the committee what that means, according to the definition.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, we have the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health.

Oh, and the reason those s's are underlined is to distinguish between the old government 5.5, because there was a mistake in that. It had minister in the singular. That's why those are underlined.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could the parliamentary secretary tell us where L-13.10.1 would fit?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That would also be added after this one passes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is not an amendment to that?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Because it seems to me, Mr. Chairman—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think we should add it.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, I agree.

If we talk, in subclause 65(1), of quantifications specified, it seems to me we'd have to know what the quantification is. If the definition is accepted afterwards, what happens if it's rejected? Then we don't know what the quantification is. We should do them both at once.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm quite happy to have the two move at once, if that's the pleasure of the committee. I think at that point you might want to ask the officials exactly how this would work.

We have presented some charts and things to help people understand this part.

I think Ms. Carroll is going to move 13.10.1.

An hon. member: No, she's not.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, in answer to your question, L-13.10.1 would follow after, if the government amendment is accepted.

The motion has been put forward. Are there any questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This whole switching of 64 and 65 is confusing everybody.

The Chairman: Therefore, I would urge you to stick to the side title so that it will make it easier. Forget the numbers and just stick to the “virtual elimination” subtitle in this particular case.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just to clarify this, if this amendment goes in, then we can't deal with clause 65 at all?

The Chairman: No. We are still dealing with 65.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If we approve this, 65 as presented here.

The Chairman: I've kept clause 64 open for that purpose, in case some amendments are not disqualified by the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: And this would be the same as well?

The Chairman: Yes; that, I would imagine, is the same procedure. I will be guided, of course, by the road map that has been prepared by the clerk for us, depending on whether this amendment is adopted.

If, however, you want to know more precisely what is before us here, then if G-5.5 is adopted—

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The new one?

• 1715

The Chairman: —the one dealing with virtual elimination—the whole apple cart will be swept away and L-13.10 is wiped out—not L-13.10.l but L-13.10—NDP-26.1, NDP-26.2(b), and PC-11 would be all wiped out.

However, the clerk informs me that a revised amendment that would refer to the new lines, and that do not touch on the same lines this amendment touches upon—and I apologize for the complication of this phrase—could be acceptable, depending on how it is drafted, of course.

The main point is that if the government amendment is adopted, it certainly wipes out all the existing other amendments that are relevant to the same clause.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Now, Madam Torsney wants to speak.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify, when you say “wiped out”, you just mean there would be sort of a technical problem because of the way they're written. It doesn't mean we couldn't deal with the substantial part of what they're trying to achieve. It's just a question of the numbers at the top of the line, is it not?

The Chairman: No, no, it doesn't have to do with the number at the top of the line; it has to do with the fact that the government amendment would replace the substance of the other amendments.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I guess what I meant about the numbers was that, for instance, if we were to look at 13.10, the problem with looking at it in its substantive part, which would be of course everything after “toxic substances”, would be that the numbers, lines 23 to 34 on page 37, wouldn't be technically correct.

So I think when you're saying “they're wiped out”, you would ask the members to go back and change the numbers, whereas instead, we could probably just deal with the substance of what they were trying to achieve.

The Chairman: I think it could be a little bit more complex than that. This is the kind of question that would encourage any other chair with a good sense of survival to adjourn the meeting, but he won't, because it might be better that we sweat it out here.

I don't know, quite frankly, at this stage.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

If we were to consider government 5.5, and then Liberal 13.10.1, we might be able then to have already been at the point of adjournment, and then maybe the clerks could get back to us about whether they would actually need to rewrite all those amendments or if we can consider them in their substantive form rather than....

The Chairman: That was actually the hope of the chair as well.

At the present time we have, however, one motion only before us, and one that we can deal with, which is plenty in itself.

I would ask again whether there are any comments or questions.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was going to ask if the parliamentary secretary would be interested in any amendments to subclause 65(3).

Just so that we have clarity on the fact that we're talking about taking steps to achieve virtual elimination, or the implementation of virtual elimination, I would ask that perhaps on the second line in subclause (3), after “Minister shall prescribe”, we could add “, at each step,” the quantity or concentration of the substance. That would be one amendment.

The second amendment to this amendment would be, “in doing so, may take into account any factor or information provided”, and so on.

The reason I would request the second amendment is that if we have the word “shall”, it's my concern, and certainly that of the legal counsel I've consulted, that we would be tied up in court over a lot of challenges to this section of the act.

Because it says the minister “shall” take into account the factors, it may be in the opinion of some individuals that those factors haven't been taken into proper consideration. So we may find ourselves undertaking a lot of court challenges.

• 1720

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Might I suggest that the information the member is presenting might be better dealt with tomorrow in another amendment? Because if this were to pass, this would be G, and then there'd be another L.

So perhaps we could deal with that tomorrow and deal with this amendment that's before us right now. There would be an opportunity to have it written out very clearly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If we could just deal with G-5.5 as it is now, it would be easier for me—and then 13.10.1.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: With this definition, it virtually changes from the other one. Now, could anybody explain where the source of this definition came from? Of all the submissions we've made from the witnesses up until now, I have no reference or no record of where the source of the proposed definition comes from, or the reasons why. There's a level of quantification there. How does that...?

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: First of all, the goal is to address the concerns that were raised by many people who came before the committee. That's what these changes do.

Second, Mrs. Kraft Sloan wanted me to let you know that it's in the toxic substance management policy, which again the committee had a desire to reflect in the legislation it passes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So how would this take into effect now when you're dealing with hormone-disrupting substances, when level of quantification may require time, space measurement? It changes the whole aspect of measurability here.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The issue of how to deal with hormone-disrupting substances would in fact be in looking at toxic substances, which is in a definition we passed earlier that you might be making amendments to tomorrow—or trying to.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to agree with the parliamentary secretary that when we start talking about endocrine disrupters, we can take a look at the toxics section, and the definition of toxics in the act. This section just specifies objectives of where we want to go. You are ultimately going to zero, but if you take a look at subclause (3), this is in the implementation of virtual elimination, and this specifies the timing and how you get to where you ultimately want to go, from what I understand.

That's why I had sought some clarity on that. But I'm happy to move my definitions tomorrow.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I guess in terms of a statement that was made through witnesses, how does this compare with the IJC expectations for the definition?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, there was never really a definition clearly defined in the IJC, and I think in terms of the definition we have in front of us, it reflects government policy, as the parliamentary secretary has said, through the toxic substance management policy. I think there are some very good elements in this definition.

The Chairman: I'm not sure, Mr. Laliberte—and here I'm just thinking out loud, as you were, posing your question—whether the nature of endocrine disrupters lends itself to an approach through a virtual elimination as set out here. It is a category that has such a different characteristic and that's so difficult to identify that it may require a different approach.

However, having said that, which is neither here nor there, we have now a motion before us. I would invite any further questions or comments.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, I know the parliamentary secretary is quite confident that she'll get both through, but ultimately it's difficult to vote on one without knowing that the other one's in. So I think the two should be combined right now.

• 1725

The Chairman: What do you mean by “two”?

Mr. John Herron: Voting on 13.10.1 as sort of a friendly amendment to government—

The Chairman: But 13.10.1 would follow.

Mr. John Herron: However, if we vote on them separately—

The Chairman: We can't vote on two at the same time. One has to be moved and dealt with, and then the other.

Mr. John Herron: But unless you know what the definition—

The Chairman: Well, you might ask that question of the parliamentary secretary to get that assurance now.

An hon. member: Don't worry about it.

Mr. John Herron: Forget it. It's okay.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What, there's no opportunity to make a subamendment?

The Chairman: No.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps Mr. Herron would like to move this amendment, but I'd be happy to support it so that he could sleep well tonight. It's Liberal 13.10.1.

Mr. John Herron: It would be my pleasure, on behalf of the Hon. Jean Charest—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Your leader is Joe Clark!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Herron: I was joking.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We won't tell Elsie.

Mr. John Herron: That's why the “L” was there.

I move L-13.10.1 to augment G-5.5.

The Chairman: Are there questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I don't know if you're planning on breaking at 5.30 p.m. If so, there are three more minutes.

Given the slowness of the pace, have you given any thought to scheduling evening meetings for next week? Because there's a lot of people in this room, and some of them might have to arrange babysitters.

Mr. Cameron probably has family commitments.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Herron is hoping for family commitments.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Is that right? Great.

The Chairman: We thank you for your suggestion, and we'll take it into account.

This meeting is adjourned for today.