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, December 1, 1998

• 0906

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, and welcome to the meeting.

You may recall that in our last session we reached page 154, and as we broke up, there was an indication at that point from, I believe, Ms. Carroll, Ms. Kraft Sloan, or both that they wished to reopen clause 67, which they may request today when they join us in committee. At least, I was given notice to that effect, but I cannot proceed in their absence.

The clerk has distributed a new set of amendments dated December 1, and we will use that new set as a complementary set to the one in the binder. Apparently, there is an additional sheet, which will be distributed shortly, as part of this thin bundle, so to speak.

The road map for this morning is a rather complicated one, and I suspect that quite possibly we will proceed very slowly and will cover this morning much less than we usually do. Therefore, I would like to ask if there is a disposition of this committee to meet again this afternoon in order to complete the work we would otherwise have managed to do in the kind of meeting we have held until now for the reasons I just indicated. We have a very complex set of amendments that require a lot of attention and discussion, I suspect. Do I take it that there is a disposition to meet this afternoon?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: There is a disposition to continue in the afternoon at 3.30.

(On clause 69—Formulation of guidelines by the Ministers)

The Chairman: The first item this morning is on page 154. It's a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln. There is an identical one on page 155. Perhaps someone would move it.

• 0910

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the concurrence of my colleague from the NDP, because the amendment is exactly the same. Maybe I could move mine but ask that it be allowed to stand, please, because it refers to similar clauses that were allowed to stand in order to have a chance to look at them again. I would like to ask for the committee's approval for this to be stood. If my colleague from the NDP would do likewise, then maybe we could have these two amendments stood. I understand that I have to move it in order to ask that it be stood, so I'll do that and ask for it to be stood.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Because we have no other amendments to clause 69, I think the alternative is that we stand the clause. So we could move on to clause 70, if the committee were to agree. Then we wouldn't have to move them or stand them.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, if it makes it easier to ask for the clause to stand, then I certainly will withdraw my request to move.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney is refreshing our collective memory by saying that at the last meeting we had a motion on clause 69 by Mr. Laliberte, namely, on page 153, that was defeated. So the clause has been touched on, so to say. It has been entertained to a certain extent. So in order to stand both 154 and 155, I simply need unanimous consent, and that can be easily done. Is there consent to stand them?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Then we'll stand both.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you.

(Clause 69 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: I see that Madam Kraft Sloan has arrived. Before you arrived, I indicated that both you and Ms. Carroll had indicated an interest in reopening clause 67. Now that Ms. Carroll has joined us, perhaps we should give both of you some time to collect your thoughts, and then I will come back again.

• 0915

The next one is BQ-23, and we don't have the BQ here.

Now to clause 70, for which there are no amendments.

(Clause 70 agreed to)

The Chairman: There is one amendment to clause 71 by a colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Evidently someone is on his or her way, so we can come back to this motion, but unless it has no consequential effect, maybe we should take advantage of this moment to inquire, then, with Madam Kraft Sloan and Madam Carroll whether they wish to reopen clause 67.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I guess the concern I had around this issue—I know the committee carried the clause—was based on the assumption that the amendment I had, my amendment L-13.12, which Mr. Herron was moving, was exactly the same as NDP-27.

Well, the amendments are not exactly the same, and if we recall, earlier on we dealt with three amendments that had the same effect, which was to add “corporation” to the bill.

However, there were minor differences with those amendments, and I believe, Mr. Chair, that you had suggested to Mr. Herron that his amendment, L-13.12—and it gives me no delight in saying that this was Mr. Herron's amendment—was identical to NDP-27, Mr. Laliberte's amendment.

However, as you see, they're not exactly identical, and I think if we're going to use the same process we've already used in the committee when we were dealing with three amendments around the issue of adding “corporation”, that perhaps we asked the clause to be carried too early in the process.

The Chairman: Well, to simplify matters, in order to go to your motion L-13.12, Madam Kraft Sloan, in relation to subclause (2) in clause 67, all we need is the unanimous consent of the committee to reopen clause 67. If that consent is forthcoming, then we can reopen it.

Is there unanimous consent?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No.

The Chairman: There is no consent. So that unfortunately is not possible and therefore we have to move on.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Chair, is the clerk advising us that Ms. Kraft Sloan's motion is identical to...?

Is that the advice you're giving the chair?

The Chairman: No, that's not the advice the clerk is giving to the chair—and you may address the chair.

• 0920

The question before us is whether we can reopen clause 67. That is the only point that is before us. Once we open the clause, we can then examine which of the two motions we would discuss and put forward. But unless there is consent to do that, it is impossible to proceed.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I would just like to remind the committee that this issue, for lack of a better word, was somewhat contentious the other day. Remember that we actually passed that clause on division, and I spoke against that. I might remind my honourable friend and parliamentary secretary that I disagreed at the time and felt that the two amendments should have been able to be considered individually. I believe the interpretation was made that they were essentially the same.

If at that moment we had had the same ruling from the clerk that we have at this moment, then we would have been able to have an opportunity to visit both of those amendments. So I would say that we made an error in process the last time, and two wrongs definitely don't make a right here. We were wrong the other day. We just pointed out that we were wrong, and by not correcting that mistake we would still be wrong.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, your recollection and mine are exactly the same, and I agree with you. But you're dealing with a hypothetical situation now because, as you said, clause 67 was carried on division.

Mr. John Herron: On division.

The Chairman: Therefore, from a procedural point of view, the chair has the problem of reopening that clause, and it can be done if there is unanimous consent.

Madam Torsney and Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

To Mr. Herron, procedurally, if it's held that the amendments were substantially different—or were different, in fact, not even substantially—then there is still an opportunity to put forward the other amendment at report stage in the House of Commons.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I think what we are saying is that the clause was carried. Therefore, the only way it can be reopened is by unanimous consent. But the clause was carried because of a ruling made in error that these two amendments were exactly the same. That's why the other one wasn't moved, although there was the intention to move it. Surely, if there's a mistake made that led to the approval of the amendment, it vitiates the very reason we approved it. It seems to me that if the experts here gave us the wrong advice that these two motions were the same when in fact we found out they were not the same, surely the reason we carried the amendment in the first place is invalid. If it is invalid, it vitiates the carrying of the clause to start with.

The Chairman: Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Further to what Mr. Herron has said, certainly there was confusion on the part of some of us, and I think it was reflected in a procedural move that was not anticipated. I think what is needed here is a little procedural generosity that might allow us to revisit so as not to make further errors, rather than to continue down an erroneous road.

The Chairman: I have to swallow here when it comes to procedural generosity.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would just like to reinforce what the other members around this table have said. Certainly, we have a precedent where we have voted on three clauses, and while they may have the same effect, they were worded differently. So I have some concern that we're not following the same process in this situation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte.

• 0925

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): As an observation of the processes that have taken place, my amendment dealt with clause 67 and so did L-13.12, but the process has been carried out in alphabetical order. Mine was dealt with prior to that, and with the responses I've had to my amendments, it might have been more advantageous to have the Liberal amendment come first at that time, as opposed to an NDP motion.

The Chairman: Yes, that's a fair point. I would think so.

Having heard all these interventions on a procedural point, I will consult the clerk.

However, I see Mr. Gilmour wants to make an intervention.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, with regard to reopening this, in my view we have dealt with the portion that is similar, so that should not be dealt with. If anything on this motion is to be dealt with, the only part would be the portion that was not dealt with by the committee. We have already dealt with the second part of the amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, that would be in total opposition to what we have done previously around the issue of corporation, where the whole amendments were dealt with and there were wording differences. The committee has already set as a precedent for process that amendments that were defeated that have different wording in them but have the same effect will still be dealt with by the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will suspend this meeting for a couple of minutes to arrive at a decision on the procedural point.

• 0927

• 0937

The Chairman: As they say in flights before taking off, fasten your seatbelts, and be ready for these Solomonic judgments.

Number one, as far as the chair can judge, there is a difference between the two amendments in question, not in substance but technically, because of the manner in which they are drafted. So we recognize here that from this perspective, from the manner in which the two amendments are drafted, there is a difference.

On the question of the sequence raised by Mr. Laliberte, the NDP amendment is first in the binder because it deals with page 38, whereas the amendment in the name of the Liberal member begins on page 39.

Thirdly, on the point made by the parliamentary secretary that this amendment could be put at the report stage, it is, in my judgment and in the judgment of the table here, very unlikely that it can be done, because the substance was debated when the NDP amendment came up for discussion, and therefore the Speaker would likely be ruling it out of order.

It seems to me that because of a technical mistake, going back to the difference in the way and the manner the two amendments are drafted, there are good reasons for proceeding and reopening this clause.

Again, I have to ask the members of the committee, because it is a decision for the committee to make, whether there is unanimous consent to reopen clause 67. Is there consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Yes, there is. Then the matter is reopened.

Thank you. The floor is to the mover.

• 0940

(On clause 67—Regulation of criteria)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move L-13.12 on page 142.

The Chairman: For the benefit of those who were not at the last meeting, you may want to explain its purpose, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This amendment would delete subclause (2) of clause 67. If one were to follow the debate from the last time, having this subclause here places undue barriers on decisions regarding regulations applicable to minerals and metals. The committee has concerns around this with regard to the effect on the environment and human health, and they feel that with this subclause in here it would create an undue level of concern around interpretation of this clause. It's also not very clear as to what it means, and certainly under the current decision-making process of the department, these things are taken into consideration. It was also suggested by the members around the table that these matters are covered elsewhere in this section and in the bill.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd just like to state for the record that I think subclause 67(2), as amended by Mrs. Kraft Sloan in the last meeting, should stay on the table and as part of the bill. If members need a refresher, it was that on line 13, after “unless”, we insert the words “in the opinion of the ministers”. That has been added to the clause as a result of the last meeting and Mrs. Kraft Sloan's amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think we should recall that a question was put as to whether subclause 67(2) was actually necessary in light of the rest of the clause, which gives plenty of latitude under paragraphs 67(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) for the ministry, the scientists, and everybody else involved to decide to take into account natural occurrences, if appropriate. In fact, I will remind the committee that Ms. Lloyd told us in so many words that she didn't feel it was necessary.

So in light of this, I feel this clause is definitely redundant.

The Chairman: Any further comments?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To whether this clause is necessary, I believe it was proven without a shadow of a doubt that it's not required in this act at all. As I have stated before, part 5 controls toxic substances, and this gives the minister an opportunity to put regulations in place. But subclause (2) is trying to control the regulations. It's counter to what the minister should be able to do.

I believe the substances that may arise from mineral or metal would be taken into consideration, as the hon. member Mr. Lincoln mentioned. Anywhere from paragraphs 67(1)(a) to (d), all those substances and properties, the natural occurrence, the characteristics—all that is in place already. Why do we have to qualify this? I believe it's going to create a legal headache in the future.

So that's my question for the legal minds here. Is this just creating a threshold for somebody to jump through in the future?

• 0945

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Further to our discussions of last week, I regret I didn't start the day early enough to have a look at Hansard, but I recall that both Mr. Cameron and Mr. Moffet lent considerable insight from the legal perspective on this. I wonder if they might be prepared to refresh us on the points that were made.

The Chairman: Do you have any comments?

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Environment Canada): Sure. Perhaps I could go first.

The comment I made the last time we were discussing this clause was that in my opinion it simply creates a factual threshold of whether or not the natural occurrence's properties and characteristics have been taken into consideration. It's a factual question to which the answer is either yes or no. If the answer is yes, then regulations can be made. If the answer is no, regulations cannot be made.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So it ups the threshold somewhat, does it not?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It is a test that would have to be met before the regulations could be made. How onerous the test is, however, perhaps others could comment on.

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

Mr. John Moffet (Consultant, Resource Futures International): No. My interpretation is the same.

The Chairman: Once more, briefly, Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Cameron, why is it only on minerals and metals? Aren't there other substances arriving from other biota that should be considered under natural characteristics as well, which will only be given their tests under paragraphs 67(1)(a) to (d)? Why are minerals and metals given a special preference here?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That's really a policy question that I suggest perhaps Ms. Lloyd could answer.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): Perhaps I can attempt to shed some light on it.

This subclause relates to a statement in the federal government's toxic substance management policy that naturally occurring substances, radionuclides or metals, are not candidates for virtual elimination. This subclause, in setting up the regulations for criteria, is the first station on the virtual elimination track, and that's simply why special reference has been given to them.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 67 agreed to)

(On clause 71—Notice requiring information, samples or testing)

[Translation]

The Chairman: We have a motion from the Bloc Québécois on page 156.

Go ahead, Mr. Asselin.

• 0950

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Once again, we are proposing to amend clause 71 of Bill C-32 by substituting "the Minister may, for the purpose of" by "the Minister shall, for the purpose of". As this provision is now worded, the minister can opt for one of the measures described in paragraph 71(1)(a),(b) or (c). In my opinion, this is a drafting error. Paragraphs 71 (1)(a) and (b), which call for the publication of a notice in the Canada Gazette, have a direct impact on the provisions of subclause 71(a). Paragraphs 71 (1) (a), (b) and (c) describe the steps that must be taken to comply with subclause 71 (1).

The Chairman: Are you ready to move the motion?

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Yes, I am.

The Chairman: Thank you. So moved.

Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can you tell us this motion number and page, please, again?

The Chairman: It's page 156, BQ-23.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's clause 71, on page 41 of the bill.

If this amendment were to pass it would create an obligation to force others to generate new data, whether we needed it or not. It's the minister's opinion that we want the ability to take action without requiring all information, and that expensive testing and other information could be collected perhaps for no need. So “may” is preferable.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? No?

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, in my view, subclause 71 (1) is quite clear, but I believe an error was made when the drafters of the bill inserted the word "may" rather than "shall". The direct consequences of implementing subclause 71 (1) can be explained quite easily when looking at the steps the minister must take in accordance with paragraphs 71 (1)(a), (b) and (c).

I don't know if there is anyone in the public service who could come here to confirm to us that there should indeed be some obligation on the part of the minister. If amendments are made or if some changes are being proposed, a notice must automatically be published in the Canada Gazette. Neither the minister nor the department will be embarrassed if we specify that this is a requirement. If we want the provisions of subclause 71 (1) to apply, it must be clear that the minister is required to take the measures described.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

[English]

Are there other interventions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment. I believe the hon. member from the Bloc is right. I know the words “shall” and “may” prescribe to powers and responsibilities of a minister through an act, and this one, I believe, is a clear definition for the minister's responsibility. It's basically publishing and notifying, and a major part of this bill is for public knowledge, public information, and the public right to know. I believe it may have been, as the hon. member mentioned, an oversight at drafting, but it should give the responsibility to the minister to make this public.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

If there are no further comments, I will call the vote. Agreed?

(Motion negatived)

• 0955

[English]

The Chairman: Would you please move to the small package, motion L-13.13.2, in the name of Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Which small package?

The Chairman: The one dated December 1, with November 26 scratched out.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's not in the package, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: There is no page number. It's reference 1959 and it's in the small package.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, it's not.

The Chairman: Towards the end of the small package.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Actually, Mr. Chair, I believe this was an amendment submitted by Mr. Jordan, pertaining to recommendations Mr. Moffet had made. So perhaps Mr. Moffet or Mr. Jordan would like to—

The Chairman: Do you wish to move the motion?

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Yes, I move amendment L-13.13.2, and I would ask Mr. Moffet to give us the rationale.

The Chairman: The motion is moved. Mr. Moffet is asked to comment, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, for the clarification of members, it might be helpful not to look at 13.13.2 on its own, because it's really consequential to 13.13.3, which would delete clause 72. Therefore, you need 13.13.2.

So maybe they should have a debate about 13.13.3 first, unless you want them to speak to both of them at the same time. It's whatever the chair would like.

The Chairman: Amendment 13.13.2 deals with clause 71.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right, and the effect of it would be to delete a reference to clause 72, which 13.13.3 would do if it were to pass. So the “.2” part would make sense if you were to win on “.3”. That's why it's being proposed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Does that mean we are deleting clause 72 altogether, Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of...?

The Chairman: We are now putting forward for consideration the motion on the next page, L-13.13.3, which, however, is out of order, because according to the rules, if you want to delete lines 24 to 30 on page 32, namely an entire section, then you simply vote against it. According to the rules—it may come as a surprise—you don't need an amendment, and that is why we have called 13.13.2.

So those who want to delete lines 24 to 30 can do so by voting against that, which brings us back again to square one. I suppose I should put that to a vote, because if it is deleted, then there is no point in calling 13.13.2.

• 1000

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln on 13.13.3, which is not before us, actually, because it is out of order, but the clause is before us, clause 72.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to point out that if you look at the corresponding clause in C-74, because it's important to find out what the correlation is before members vote, you'll see that C-74 says the same thing:

the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the exercise of the Minister's powers

So I think this one goes much further than clause 72. Clause 72 says:

unless the Ministers have reason to suspect that the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic or it has been determined under this Act that the substance is toxic

So I think we are better off to delete the clause altogether.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln is drawing our attention to the wording of C-74 in order to vote on clause 72, which is part of the discussion. Bill C-74, as we all know, does not have lines 11, 12, and 13. Is there any comment on that change from C-74 to C-32?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are you referring to page 41, lines 11 to 13?

The Chairman: No, before us now is clause 72. But reference has been made to C-74 and the fact that in Bill C-74 that clause was drafted in a different manner.

Mr. Moffet, please.

Mr. John Moffet: Amendment 13.13.2 would delete the reference to section 72 in paragraph 71(1)(c), and then 13.13.3 would delete clause 72.

The reason the members might want to consider this is because clause 72 imposes a restriction on the minister that was not imposed in Bill C-74, was not referenced in the government response, and, indeed, in my opinion, may be redundant, because the restriction is that the minister may not exercise the power under paragraph 71(1)(c) unless the minister has reason to suspect that this substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic.

Perhaps I could remind the members that subclause 71(1) restricts the minister's authority by saying that the minister may exercise that power for the purpose of assessing whether a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic. In other words, subclause 71(1) essentially says that the minister can only do this in order to determine whether a substance is toxic, which presumably the minister is only going to do if she suspects it's toxic, and that's essentially the same test that's put in clause 72. So I think clause 72 is redundant. But the explicit condition was not one that was indicated in the government response, and therefore I think it may be unnecessary.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But I wonder if Mr. Moffet has referred to section 18 of the current CEPA, which does in fact have this clause.

Two, I wonder if you could comment on the test in terms of whether it's a low test or a high test with regard to the reason to suspect. It's my interpretation that it would be a very low test.

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary has referred us to section 18 in the act, but the current act as I read it has the same condition in the first three lines of subsection 18(1) that are in the first three lines of subclause 71(1), but it doesn't add a separate section that is equivalent to clause 72 in bill C-32, and that's precisely my argument. Why do we need this separate clause when we have the essential restriction in the first three lines of 71(1) and, indeed, that mirrors the precise same restriction that was in 18(1) in the current bill?

• 1005

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It doesn't say “reason to suspect” in 71(1). It does in 72, which is the same as 18.

Mr. John Moffet: I see, okay.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's the reason to suspect, and that was my question about whether it's a high test or a low test.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask Mr. Moffet why in the margin in the one bill it talks about communication of information and in the other one it's exercise of powers? Why the change?

Mr. John Moffet: I can't explain why the change was put there. Clearly, clause 72 is an explicit restriction on the exercise of power.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Right.

Mr. John Moffet: In the existing section 18 in the existing CEPA, the restriction on the power or the condition is embedded in the operative section whose main function is to do with authorizing the minister to require users of toxic substances to communicate information to assist the minister in making a determination of toxicity.

I think the reason I raised this point to the members' attention is because I found clause 72 to be somewhat redundant. I was concerned also, to be frank, that I read this clause in conjunction with many other clauses in the bill that on their own don't appear to impose significant restrictions, but that impose, if you will, minor restrictions of the minister's authority to act. One sees these restrictions throughout the bill, and one is left with the overall impression that the intention of the drafters of the bill was to encumber the minister at every possible turn. I was concerned that this message was being sent by the numerous minor restrictions on the minister's authority, a restriction that was not, as I read it, explicitly in the original bill nor in the government response.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But it is in the existing bill.

Mr. John Moffet: It is, but it's written in a different way. It's not set out in a separate paragraph.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But how high a test is the concept of the reason to suspect?

Mr. John Moffet: I think Mr. Cameron should answer that question.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I ask Mr. Cameron, before you answer the question, first of all, why in the margin in one case in 18(1) of the present CEPA you talk about communication of information, why in Bill C-32 we talk about exercise of powers, and why Bill C-74 departed from 18(1) and yet it was brought back under Bill C-32?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Sure. Dealing first with the issue of the marginal notes, these are added administratively after the bill is drafted. When the department drafts the bill as it is introduced in the House, we make the suggestion for marginal notes, but through the committee process and through the legislative process as amendments are made it may be necessary to amend marginal notes. That is done administratively. It's not done by the department.

I would also add that the marginal notes do not have any legal force or effect. They're simply there as a means to guide in the reading, but they don't aid in the interpretation. They have no substantive effect.

In terms of the question of what the test for having reason to suspect would be, my response to that would be that I believe the courts would give a wide discretion to the minister and would not interfere in the minister's assessment of whether she—actually it's plural, ministers; whether they had reason to suspect a substance was toxic. So from that point of view, I believe the threshold is an extremely low one.

• 1010

In terms of the differences between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32, once again I'm going to have to defer to my colleagues from Environment Canada, since you're essentially asking a policy question.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Before somebody from Environment Canada answers, I realize the margins don't impact on the legal text. I know that. But surely, in the minds of the people who put this marginal note in, obviously they felt it was more a communication of information, and it had to do with the exercise of powers. I think this is what Mr. Moffet was referring to. This is why there is this hang-up. Maybe they could tell me why, when comparing the government response on C-74, they felt it was necessary to include this again, especially with the marginal note “Exercise of power”?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, C-74 would have required the passing of regulations to exercise that power in paragraph (c). When we looked at it in the interim between the two bills, it was thought to be more appropriate to go back to the model that's in the existing act, in subsection 18(1). The language that the parliamentary secretary mentioned reads “Where the Ministers have reason to suspect”. It's simply going back to the model in the existing act, rather than having to pass regulations before exercising the power.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But surely the existing act was the subject of a review for nearly a year and a half. We had a government response, and the government response under information gathering under toxic substances says, in paragraph 9.9:

9.9 The Government of Canada proposes to strengthen the information gathering provisions of CEPA requiring users...to supply available data needed to assess existing substances, and to carry out additional testing where necessary to conduct PSL assessments.

Would it be illogical for me to assume that when C-74 was drafted—it seemed to be much closer to the government response—the drafter's edit of C-74 looked at the government response and said the government response was strengthening the information gathering. They therefore changed the provisions of CEPA 88—which would make a lot of sense to me—and now, having decided to sort of dilute the bill, we've gone back to CEPA 88 because we felt this was weaker than the government response. In other words, which one is closer to the government response, C-74 or the present C-32? Maybe Mr. Mongrain could answer that.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I think it's a more difficult test. There are more administrative steps to pass regulations before exercising the power. In the way in which it is drafted in Bill C-32 and the existing act, ministers only have to have “reason to suspect”. As my colleague from the Department of Justice indicated, it makes it easier to exercise these powers. The powers in paragraph (c) are for the generation of new data, for very expensive toxicological testing. It only stands to reason that the ministers would have reason to suspect that the substance was toxic or capable of becoming toxic.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Are you suggesting that in C-74 we made a mistake in the approach we took?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: There was a decision made to go back to the existing model because it was found to be confusing to pass regulations to exercise that power. There was greater comfort with the model we had lived under and are living under with the existing act.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney, followed by Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Jordan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To build on what Mr. Mongrain says, it sounds like this is actually an improvement in that the power is in the bill, not in some secondary set of regulations that haven't been passed yet. The combination of 71(2) and 71(1)(c) are in fact an improvement over the existing CEPA, and the language is more similar to the existing CEPA. C-74 sounds like it was a bit of a mistake.

• 1015

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If you read this section, clause 71 says:

71.(1) The Minister may, for the purpose of assessing whether a substance...or for the purpose of assessing whether to control...a substance

Then:

The Minister may...publish in the Canada Gazette”

But if you listen to paragraph 71(1)(b), the minister may publish in the Canada Gazette a notice requiring any minister described in the notice to provide any information and samples on information on the substance. So wouldn't it be appropriate that the minister be allowed to send a written notice to a company for sampling, to give them the benefit of a doubt?

If I were a company, I'd prefer that as opposed to going directly to publishing publicly. Maybe the minister may send me a letter first, and I might be dealing with substances allowing me to do toxicology tests. Otherwise if you don't do this, the minister may publish it publicly anyway and ask for information specifically. But this is a benefit of a doubt for a corporation or a company to be allowed to do a test and be accountable and provide information for the minister while she's assessing.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The way I read “The Minister may”, if you were to put “shall”, you're telling the minister she has to engage in a series of steps before she can do anything. So I think at the end of the day it comes down to the political will of the minister whether something is done or not.

I wonder if I can ask the lawyers in terms of the legal test or how high the bar is when we say “have reason to suspect”. I'm trying to determine exactly why that's in there.

Obviously what the minister is doing is requiring these industries to engage in significant expenditures. Without that clause, what recourse would the companies have, and with it, is it an out for the minister? Does the minister just say, well, I thought shoe laces were toxic, or does the court then look at the reasons why the minister thought that? What exactly do we have in this bill?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: On a judicial review application, the test would be whether or not the ministers exercised their discretion reasonably. That would allow the court to make a determination of whether or not there was some evidence before the ministers when they reached their conclusion. As long as the decision reached by the ministers is a reasonable one, it's my position that the court would give a broad latitude to that determination. So, as I indicated earlier, I believe it's a fairly low threshold.

That's not to say it can be abused. There must, of course, be some reasonable evidence for which the ministers can reach that decision. But I believe it's a fairly broad discretion they have.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Does the company comply and then complain, or do they complain and delay compliance? How does that work?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: One could bring an application for judicial review at any point in time in the process. Whether or not they'd be able to use that as a delay tactic is another question. It would depend on whether they'd be entitled to an injunction. Injunctions are rarely granted. There has to be some proof of irreparable harm.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Would they have that recourse anyway, though?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes, that's in the Federal Court Act.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To clarify for Mr. Laliberte, paragraph 71(1)(c) is linked to clause 72, and clause 72 is linked to paragraph 71(1)(c), so paragraphs 71(1)(a) and (b) that he was referencing earlier are not linked to clause 72.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I apologize. I haven't been following the debate that closely because I've been looking at some other amendments I have coming up.

But when I read this clause, it seems to be indicative of things that keep appearing in this bill that seem to be an insult to the Minister of the Environment, where they're constantly reasserting what the minister should be doing as the Minister of the Environment. I think the Minister of the Environment knows what he or she should be doing as the minister. So whenever I look at these kinds of clauses, I find them to be rather insulting, which is not to say they don't have an impact or a limited impact, but that's my observation. Thank you.

• 1020

The Chairman: This debate has been quite interesting and has ranged over several clauses. We must now pull in our oars and make a decision. If there are no further interventions, I would first call clause 72, which is linked to clause 71. I'm told by the clerk it can be done, considering the way the text is written.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want reaffirm my observation to the parliamentary secretary.

I believe, on paragraphs 71(1)(a) and (b).... I was saying clause 72 says the minister may not exercise anything dealing with paragraph 71(1)(c). The minister can publicly ask for information to help her—in this case our present minister—in assessing toxicity of a substance, and one of these is a provision that she has to ask for written notice requiring a person to conduct toxicology tests.

Why wouldn't we allow her to do that without clause 72? She can still do it publicly under the Canada Gazette. This is a written notice, a kind of benefit of the doubt, to any person or corporation out there, to send them a written notice before going public. It's an option she has.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Just so I understand the debate here, are we debating whether the minister has permission to send a letter?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: She can't exercise sending a letter, unless....

The Chairman: Are there any comments on Mr. Laliberte's question?

If not, I would ask the committee to focus on clause 72. The amendment by Madam Kraft Sloan, since it deals with the entire clause, is out of order and the alternative, if there is one, for the members of the committee is to simply vote against clause 72, which would have the same effect as Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment L-13.13.3.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's Mr. Jordan's amendment.

The Chairman: All right. I stand to be corrected. I'm just going by the written text.

Mr. Jordan's amendment is out of order. People who wish to do so can vote against clause 72, and that is the first one I'm going to call. Having dealt with that, we will decide what to do next with L-13.13.2.

(Clause 72 agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I see that five members voted down the motion, whereas only three voted in favour of it. Some members abstained, as is their right. We mustn't presume that they were either in favour of or opposed to the motion. Five members opposed the motion, three voted in favour of it and the remaining members abstained.

• 1025

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's not right. Five members opposed the motion, while six supported it.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I only saw three hands go up.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, there were six.

[English]

The Chairman: The clerk tells me you have had difficulty counting the votes, so we will repeat the count again and ask people to raise their hands clearly to remove any doubt on the vote that just took place on clause 72.

(Clause 72 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 71 agreed to)

The Chairman: We move now to motion L-13.16.2 in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan, from your small collection.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is Mr. Jordan's again.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, are you ready to move the motion?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We have BQ-23.1.

The Chairman: You're right, we have a motion before that.

(On clause 73—Categorization of substances on Domestic Substances List)

[Translation]

The Chairman: On page 157, we have motion BQ-23.1 presented by the Bloc Québécois. Are you ready to move your motion, Mr. Asselin?

Mr. Gérard Asselin: We move that Bill C-32, in clause 73, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 42 with the following:

73.(1) The ministers shall, on or before January 1, 2001, categorize the

No date is mentioned in the current version of the bill.

We are also proposing a second amendment to this clause. Will each amendment be dealt with and voted on separately?

The Chairman: If you could...

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I think we should start by discussing the advisability of inserting the words "on or before January 1, 2001" and then go on to consider part (b) of the amendment which is much longer. If that's not possible, I can move both amendments at the same time. Could you tell me if part (a) and part (b) of the amendment will be voted on separately?

The Chairman: I have been told that we can proceed separately. You have already moved your motion respecting part (a) of the amendment.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: That's correct.

The Chairman: Fine.

Please go ahead, Mr. Lincoln.

• 1030

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Although it seems like a good idea, I think the date January 1, 2001, is unrealistic, given the complexity and nature of what we're discussing.

I'd like to ask Mrs. Lloyd if she feels putting a reasonable deadline on it, whether its 2001, 2005 or whatever, is a good idea. If she had to set a deadline, what year would she put in? She's smiling, so it must be a good question.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): It's an excellent question.

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd, would you like to answer?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: I'd love to. I certainly agree with Mr. Lincoln that looking at 23,000 substances in a two-year period would be totally unreasonable. I think people need to appreciate that this will require looking at the domestic substances list of 23,000 substances and determining whether they are persistent bioaccumulative and inherently toxic. Just the data collection for that alone is a horrendous task and will take far more than two years, let alone analysing the data when it comes in. For numerous substances there won't be information, and we'll have to work with experts to figure out how to deal with that. What's reasonable? I would say a minimum of seven years, and that's a guess—23,000 substances.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I have an amendment on the following page. I just want to have some assurances that if this amendment doesn't go through we will still be able to discuss my amendment.

The Chairman: If it doesn't go through, the answer would be yes. That's my understanding.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So we're not going to carry clauses and all kinds of things then?

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Ms. Lloyd, in terms of identifying 23,000 substances, I can see that would be a very daunting task to do in very short order. You said seven years might be a more appropriate number. Is there anything inhibiting us in terms of not having to reinvent the wheel? A lot of this science has been done on a number of these substances by our American cousins, or maybe even the EU, where they have environmental protection programs that would be at least congruent or would work from a Canadian perspective as well. Wouldn't that help fast-track the timeline?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: It would, and that is how we would collect the information.

Mr. John Herron: We would still need seven years to do it.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Yes. It will take a lot of time.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, briefly, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Somebody ought to give it to the private sector.

Is there any knowledge about the American side where they have about 86,000 substances and they are pushing it through over a two-year period? Is it because of a lack of resources on our side or a lack of will?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: They aren't doing anything to the extent of what we're doing here. They have looked at their 86,000 substances or are starting to. The criteria they use are very different, and we are already working with them and sharing information. We'll definitely not be duplicating anything. The numbers they choose for persistence in bioaccummulation are different; ours are more stringent. So we will share where we can.

The Chairman: Are we ready for the question on part (b) of Mr. Asselin's motion?

Yes, Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Perhaps I don't appreciate the extent of the work to be done, but it seems reasonable to us to allow two years for this and to set the deadline for January 1, 2001, even if this means having to make some minor adjustments.

• 1035

We would be willing to consider other possibilities, but we believe it's important to set a deadline. It would be ridiculous to give ministers seven years to categorize these substances. Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that in seven years, your mandate as well as that of your successor will have expired? It makes no sense, in my view, to allow seven years for this process. Perhaps we should look to the private sector to compile this list, but we need to move more quickly than this.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

[English]

Madame Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Herron.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm trying to ascertain if we are going to move forward with an amendment to have the date no later than January 1, 2005, or is that being rejected by—

The Chairman: No, there is no amendment before us at the present time, except for the one by Mr. Asselin for January 1, 2001.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could I ask Mr. Asselin to accept a friendly amendment to have the date January 1, 2001, changed to January 1, 2005?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: If we push the timeline back to 2005, that will give the ministers six, almost seven, years to compile this list.

[English]

The Chairman: These things have to be thought through a little bit more carefully than just by bargaining dates. It is a question. The answer has been given.

Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. John Herron: I have two questions. First, how long have you been working on this list so far?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: It's never been a requirement up until this point. This is new to CEPA, so we've just started in the last year.

Mr. John Herron: In the last year. Okay.

My second comment was similar to Ms. Kraft Sloan's. I'd like to go back to the aspect of what gets measured, gets done, and I think having my time line is constructive. However, I can see that 2001 is

[Translation]

perhaps not enough time to get the job done.

[English]

I'd like to have the chance to support the amendment, but I think 2001 is too fast-tracked. If there were a friendly amendment tabled, that would be acceptable for perhaps the government or Ms. Lloyd. If there was something that would be a little bit more pragmatic, I'd like to be able to support that. If you would like to table a similar amendment, then I could support your amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Asselin and Madame Torsney.

[Translation]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to convince my colleague Mr. Asselin that the idea was indeed sound. Ms. Lloyd seems to think that it would be useful to set a deadline.

However, we can't compare ourselves to the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency has 20,000 employees and a budget nearly ten times greater than that of Environment Canada. Indeed, excluding the atmospheric service, the department's budget totals $250 million. Its capabilities are limited.

Under the circumstances, I think Ms. Lloyd's proposal that we give ourselves seven years is reasonable. We need to give ourselves time to do a good job. If someone were to propose setting 2005 or 2006 as the deadline, I would support such a motion and I am confident that all committee members would support it as well. At the very least, we would have a realistic and reasonable timeline.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Asselin, followed by Ms. Torsney and Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I realize that if I insist on the year 2001, my amendment will be voted down. Rather than risk that and our having to go back to amendment L-13.14 where Ms. Kraft-Sloan also proposes "on or before January 1, 2001", I will withdraw this date. I would agree to changing the timeline to the year 2005.

The Chairman: Then you are amending your motion.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Yes, I would like it to read "on or before January 1, 2005".

The Chairman: "On or before January 1, 2005".

Mr. Gérard Asselin: That's correct.

• 1040

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If I could just clarify something, assuming this bill gets passed in early 1999, that means you actually have 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The expert counsel has suggested they need seven years, so I think you're actually looking at 2006 or 2007. Alternatively, you could just go for seven years after royal assent. You would then actually reflect the counsel that was given by the experts who are doing the work. I also remind you that there's a clause later in the bill that calls for a review of this legislation after seven years. As part of that review, you could figure out whether or not you met your timelines.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, followed by Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, January 1, 2005 is six years away, whereas initially, it was felt that seven years would be needed to complete this task. Six years is not an unreasonable amount of time. It's somewhat like the gestation period of an elephant. In my view, this is a very acceptable compromise.

[English]

The Chairman: My apology, Mr. Gilmour. You'll be next, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

In defence of Ms. Lloyd, when she was talking about seven years, she said it's a guess. We're talking about a fairly significant budget item and whether or not it's in fact doable. If we're going to establish a timeframe, then in fairness we need the department to come back to us in a couple of days to tell us what it's going to cost, what it's going to do, and if it's doable. This is not something for which we can just bounce numbers back and forth across the table. To my mind, the department needs some time if we're in fact going to tie this into legislation.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would be willing to change the timeline in my amendments. It's a similar amendment to that of Mr. Asselin, so I just want to put that before members.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, did you want to speak?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm a little confused about what's on the table right now. Is there a friendly amendment to make it seven years or not?

The Chairman: We have a modified amendment by Mr. Asselin, to the effect that the date reads January 1, 2005, as I understand it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd be happy with a friendly amendment that goes for seven years after the bill is passed. I don't think 2005 cuts it.

The Chairman: We can't keep rewriting amendments. We now have one reading 2005—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So the answer is no.

The Chairman: —and it seems to me that we have given enough time to this item for a vote. But I will entertain brief interventions.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a subamendment, so that it reads “seven years after the date of royal assent”. I think that makes a lot of sense.

The Chairman: All right, you've heard the subamendment by Mr. Lincoln:

The Ministers shall, within seven years after royal assent, categorize the”

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I would like someone to clarify something for me. If the text were to read "seven years after Royal Assent is given, the ministers shall categorize", would the ministers have to wait seven years before starting to categorize the substances, or could they get on it right away after the legislation has been passed and given Royal Assent? In that case, they would have up to seven years to comply.

• 1045

From the translation, one could infer that the ministers might not get down to work until seven years after the bill had received royal assent.

The Chairman: Common sense will have to prevail. The ministers won't wait until the last minute to start categorizing 20,000 chemical substances. They will get on it right away.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Could someone reread the text of the amendment?

[English]

The Chairman: The clerk draws to the attention of the committee that

[Translation]

The original text is not much clearer than what you just said.

[English]

Anyway, this is beyond our scope, and I hope you are ready for the question.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just want to clarify that for the technical language to reflect what Mr. Lincoln was trying to achieve, I think it should say, “seven years after the coming into force of this Act”. It's just technical, but that's how the language should read.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): If I may, Mr. Chairman, there's a vast difference between royal assent and the coming into force of legislation.

The Chairman: Yes, that's very true. There is a big difference. That's a very important point. In other words, it's proclamation that counts, isn't it? Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Monique Hébert: Royal assent means when it is adopted by Parliament. When it comes into force—according to this bill, in any event—would usually require cabinet action proclaiming that.

The Chairman: Are you suggesting that the amendment should read “by order of the Governor in Council”?

Ms. Monique Hébert: No, I'm suggesting that the committee might want to consider “after the date of royal assent”. It is more certain. To begin with, there is only one date for royal assent, whereas there can be numerous proclamation dates, depending on parts of the legislation.

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, I think the members are saying that the ministers shall, within seven years after the coming into—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, that's not what I said, Mr. Clerk. My amendment talked about royal assent. If we are to change it, then we should discuss it. I said “after royal assent”; I didn't say “coming into force”.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question, as put forward by Mr. Lincoln?

Mr. Clerk, could you please read it again?

The Clerk: It would read:

The Ministers shall, within seven years after royal assent has been given to the bill, categorize the”

The Chairman: That's the text of the amendment as it stands now. Are there any further, final comments? If not, are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are we voting on the amendment?

The Chairman: We're voting on Mr. Lincoln's subamendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Does the subamendment to part (a) of amendment BQ-23.1 carry?

(Subamendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We can now proceed with part (b) of the amendment put forward by the Bloc, BQ-23.1.

• 1050

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: We are proposing that clause 73 of Bill C-32 be amended by replacing lines 35 to 43 on page 42 with the following:

List that, on the basis of available information and in accordance with the regulations, are persistent or bioaccumulative, inherently toxic or have the effect of disrupting the endocrine system.

In passing, we inadvertently omitted the words "toxicité inhérente" from the French version of the amendment.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a point of order. I'm not sure how it works when you split an amendment, but Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment deals with line 31, while this is dealing with line 35. So I'm not sure if you have an obligation to go to Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment first.

The Chairman: All right, there is a point of order by Madam Kraft Sloan that needs to be dealt with.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but there has been a lot going on here. I was told by the drafters that if we passed the amendment as put forward by the Bloc member, then we would not be able to call my amendment. My amendment is on page 158. I apologize. I guess I was asleep at the switch or trying to deal with a hundred other amendments that I've got coming up, so I was not aware that we split this amendment.

Now, if this amendment has been split, as it has been, does this mean to say then that my amendment on page 158 is out of order? I had been advised by the drafter that mine would not be able to be called.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order,

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Lincoln.

• 1055

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think if the Bloc amendment was carried in a split way, 73(1)(a) and (b), it is better for the amendment that Mrs. Kraft Sloan put forward, because then the Bloc amendment deals with just one motion in Mrs. Kraft Sloan's bill, namely the date. The rest of the substance is reflected in Bloc (b). So so long as Bloc (b) hasn't been brought up, her amendment is valid, and I think she has every right to bring it up.

The Chairman: We are coming to that conclusion, too. Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I knew your wisdom and intelligence would arrive at the same conclusion. But that's not what she thought.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, that's not what I was advised, and I asked the question whether my amendment was exactly the same as the one that was before the committee by the Bloc.

The Chairman: The amendment by Madam Kraft Sloan covers a broader base than the second part of the amendment by Mr. Asselin. It has 73(1) and in addition 73(1)(a) or (b); it's not quite clear which, but it consists of two parts.

Therefore, Mr. Asselin, I must give at this point precedence to Madam Kraft Sloan's amendment, L-13.14 before being able to call part (b) of your amendment.

[Translation]

You have the floor, Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois could have moved the two amendments respecting subclause 73 (1) simultaneously. In part (a), we are proposing that the deadline be clearly stated, while in part (b), we are calling for certain changes to paragraphs 73 (1)(a) and (b). We have combined the amendments under BQ-23.1 which is in two parts. That's why I asked the Chair earlier if I needed to move both parts of the amendment simultaneously. The committee elected to consider one proposal at a time and to hold two votes. Both the Chair and the committee agreed to this.

I moved the first part of the amendment, we discussed it and we voted on it. I would now like to move the second part of the amendment.

• 1100

I don't think it will have any affect on Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment which calls for adding something to subclause 73 (1). My amendment concerns another part of this subclause, specifically paragraphs 73(1)(a) and (b).

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan, by virtue of the fact that Mr. Lincoln's subamendment carried, the motion in your name now needs to be rewritten. It is no longer possible to put that motion, since the committee has agreed in substance to change the first three lines of your amendment. In other words, the text of the amendment in your name is in need of being modified as a result of the action of this committee. Therefore, I would urge you to redraft your amendment in a manner that reflects the situation we have reached at the present moment in committee.

The second half of your amendment overlaps, or is very similar in substance, with the (b) portion of the Bloc Québécois amendment, and I find it extremely difficult not to proceed with Bloc Québécois amendment (b) as it stands here before us by virtue of these considerations.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman...

The Chairman: One moment, please.

[English]

Are there any comments? Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I've just consulted my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to suggest a solution which might help us to decide whether it would be a good idea to consider Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment first. If the committee and Ms. Kraft Sloan are amenable to this, we could consider her amendment first and vote on it, since it will affect our amendment, particularly as regards paragraphs 73(1)(a) and (b). We could settle the question of subclause 73 (1) before moving on to consider the changes we are proposing to paragraphs 73(1)(a) and (b).

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, the chair is more than happy to accept your suggestion, as long as you realize that if we proceed with Mrs. Kraft Sloan's amendment in L-13.14, should that amendment with the necessary adjustments be adopted, then we could not come back to your part (b), because the two overlap and therefore her amendment would dispose of your amendment. As long as you are aware of that fact, we can proceed that way. I need an answer from you to the effect of whether you are still of the opinion—

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: No, I was prepared to postpone consideration of part (b) of my amendment so that we could consider Ms. Kraft Sloan's amendment first, but if we can't come back to our amendment later, forget we ever suggested that. Let's proceed to vote immediately on part (b) of our amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: In that case, I have no option, as the chair, but to continue with part (b) of BQ-23.1. This is the motion before us. Those of you who are in favour of an alternative approach—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order—

The Chairman: Just a moment.

• 1105

All right, in view of the advanced hour, I propose that we do this: we discuss and vote on the second half of the Bloc Québécois amendment, paragraph 73(1)(b). If it carries, then of course it resolves the whole issue and wipes out L-13.14. Should it not carry, though, if during the hours before we resume in the afternoon the text of L-13.14 is modified in a manner that can be acceptable, then when we resume in the afternoon we could examine a modified amendment by Madam Kraft Sloan.

We will now complete our work by dealing with the second half of amendment 157 in the name of the Bloc Québécois, paragraph 73(1)(b). Mr. Asselin has read the text and he has moved this portion of his amendment. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to highlight and bring to your attention for us to be consistent in our terminology.... In his amendment he has used “disrupting the endocrine system”, and we've used “hormone-disrupting substances” as a definition.

The Chairman: That's a very good observation, but it is up to the mover to take that into account.

Are there any other questions or comments? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would also like to point out that since we are dealing with part 5, there is no definition for either hormone-disrupting substances or endocrine system-disrupting substances.

The Chairman: There is one that we adopted in part 2 or 3—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That was for part 3.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That is just to clarify.

The Chairman: Fine. Are there any further comments? Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: More importantly, we mustn't forget to insert the words "toxicité inhérente" in the French version. This was an omission on our part.

The Chairman: The French version should be corrected, but not the English version.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: The words "inherently toxic" are contained in the English version, but they were omitted from the French version. It's a matter of ensuring that the two versions match.

[English]

The Chairman: That's a good point.

• 1110

All right. I am informed that Mr. Asselin is of the view that the text in English should be adopted and the French adjusted to it.

Is that the correct understanding, Mr. Asselin?

Mr. Gérard Asselin: C'est ça.

The Chairman: Fine. Well, then, with that clarification, which will mean a correction to the text in French, we then have the motion before us. Are there any further questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We will resume at 3:30 p.m. in room 371. This meeting stands adjourned.