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

• 1538

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Order, please.

In carrying out our business this afternoon, and being guided through this labyrinth of amendments by our clerks, the following sequence seems to be desirable. The first item on clause 73 would be the NDP motion 34. I am told that will come first because it applies to lines 36 to 43.

Second would be the motion by Mr. Herron because it applies to line 38. Third would be an amendment that is still in legislation stage, but if it sees the light of day it applies to line 38 as well, but also line 43. It would be in the name of the member for York North, if and when the light goes on. Do you agree with that?

I am corrected. First we will go with NDP 34. Second will be the Liberal amendment, if moved, which has yet to be distributed, I understand. Is it ready for distribution?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I thought it was.

• 1540

The Chairman: It is being distributed. Then we will go to the PC amendment in the name of Mr. Herron.

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

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, would you like to move your motion, please, on page 159?

We wait on the new members of the committee. If they find the proceedings a little bit unusual, we understand why, but that's the nature of this particular bill.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: All right. This motion is moved. There were some outstanding discussions from this morning dealing with L-13.14. This is a very similar motion.

The Chairman: It will come after yours if yours does not carry.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. I just didn't want to disrupt that process. I'll move it, and I think the motion is quite self-explanatory.

The Chairman: Since we have two new members of the committee, would you mind explaining it, please?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: All right.

We're dealing with subclause 73(1):

The Ministers shall categorize the substances that are on the Domestic Substances List by virtue of section 66, for the purpose of identifying the substances on the list that, in their opinion and on the basis of available information,

We are adding “are persistent, bioaccumulative, inherently toxic or hormone-disrupting” substances as determined by the regulations.

That expands the information to those specific toxic substances and I so move.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): No comment.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I just want to draw members' attention once again to the fact that in part 5 we do not have a definition for what hormone-disrupting substances would be.

I would not be in favour of this amendment for three reasons. One is that there is no definition for hormone-disrupting substances in this section—

The Chairman: Do you want the floor?

Could we please have no disruptions at this end? It's hard to understand what's going on at the other end.

Are there any comments or questions?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Would you please now take motion L-13.14.1, which has to be dealt with in conjunction with motion L-13.15.1 because the second is consequential.

The motion is in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan. Would you like to move it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: L-13.15.1 follows L-13.14.1, right?

When we originally drafted L-13.14.1...if I could just draw your attention to the book, page 161, L-13.15, this actually falls within the area that's going to be amended by L-13.14.1. When we originally sent it off to drafting, L-13.14 was to follow L-13.15, but because of the way it has come back from drafting, L-13.15 falls within it. So if L-13.14 is moved and adopted, do we go back to L-13.15?

• 1545

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's not going to be called out of order then?

The Chairman: No, because I'm told it is consequential.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you mean L-13.15?

The Chairman: Yes, L-13.15.1.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, I'm talking about L-13.15 on page 161. I originally had this drafted so that L-13.14.1 follows L-13.15. But the way it came back from drafting it encapsulates L-13.15 because of the dropping of an “or” on line 38.

The Chairman: It's up to the member to choose which of the two amendments she wants to proceed with because they both touch on line 43. They both touch on the same portion of the clause. So it's for you, Madam Kraft Sloan, to decide whether you're moving L-13.14.1 or L-13.15.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. I would like both of these to be moved, and I don't want to void the other, because we've had this problem before.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): If you don't get your amendment through, it would still be alive.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, but if the amendment goes through, I want to move both of them.

The Chairman: It seems to me you have to move L-13.14.1 first, which inserts a (c). Having done that, if it carries, the consequential amendment would have to be moved, L-13.15.1. Then finally, we would have to move to L-13.15 on page 161 because it is broader in scope than all three of them and goes beyond the scope of L-13.14.1.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So would L-13.15 still be in order if L-13.14.1 is passed? Yes? I'm getting a no over here.

The Chairman: It touches only line 43. Since she's touching only line 43 with this...

Mr. John Herron: I think it would have to be.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I've been turned down in the past through the same logic.

Mr. John Herron: I have PC-13 and PC-15 and they are the same.

The Chairman: It seems to me that L-13.14.1 is a subamendment to L-13.15. It modifies L-13.15 by adding (c). After “human organism”, it introduces a (c) that does not exist in L-13.15.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do I have agreement from the drafters that if L-13.14.1 is adopted I can move L-13.15? It's a very simple question.

The Chairman: You have to indicate what you want to insert here because the text doesn't add up. L-13.15 reads “inherently toxic to human beings or to non-human organism, as determined by laboratory or other studies”. That is one amendment.

• 1550

Then you are proposing in another amendment to insert after human organism the word “or” and to insert “(c) are hormone disrupting substances”.

It's for the member to decide which of the two motions she wants to put forward.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just want clarification from the drafters—

The Chairman: No clarification from the drafters is required if there is no clarity from the mover. The mover has to decide where she wants to advance her motion. The two texts don't correspond.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I had asked the drafters previously, if I moved L-13.14.1 and it was accepted, would I be able to move L-13.15. One of the drafters shook her head no, that I would not be able to move L-13.15. That's the only question I want answered and then I will know where to move. It's very simple.

The Chairman: The drafter can be asked until the cows come home, but that will not help because the texts do not correspond with each other—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then I'll move L-13.14.1, but if I lose L-13.15, I'll be very angry on a procedural issue.

The Chairman: In other words, L-13.15 and L-14.14.1 do not come together.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: They overlap.

Mr. John Herron: I think they're different clauses. One's on clause 73 and one's on clause 74.

The Chairman: It's not a matter of overlapping. It is a matter of one motion saying one thing and another motion saying another.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the way I had submitted it to drafting, L-13.15 preceded L-13.14.1. When it came back from drafting, L-13.14.1 is now before L-13.15 because they have deleted an “or” on line 38. So this encapsulates L-13.15.

All I want to know is if I move L-13.14.1 and it gets accepted, will L-13.15 still be in order? These amendments have been called out of order in the past. That's my simple question.

The Chairman: The simple answer is that the two amendments don't come together—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Fine. I'll move L-13.14.1 then.

The Chairman: —in a coherent text that allows us to make an amendment to the text before us.

Yes, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I wonder if we can solve the problem by making L-13.15 a main motion and then before we vote on it move L-13.14.1 as an amendment to the main motion.

The Chairman: You're talking about an amendment and then a subamendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I move L-13.15, and I believe Mr. Knutson is making a subamendment to my L-13.15, which is L-13.14.1. Is that right, Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Without committing myself on how I'm going to vote, if that will get us moving, sure.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, you are referring to part (b). Is that the subamendment you propose to move?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

The Chairman: So you are referring to part (b). What happened then to part (a)?

Mr. Gar Knutson: We can move it later. We're advised by counsel. I came with my lawyer. It's great.

The Chairman: That is easy.

Mr. John Herron: May I clarify a point, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: In a moment, Mr. Herron.

It is quite in order to move L-13.15 as an amendment. Before it carries it would be necessary for someone to move a subamendment by moving part (b) of L-13.14.1.

• 1555

• 1602

The Chairman: I apologize for the delay. It is important that we resume and proceed line by line, as the rules require. Therefore, the first motion that is put for a vote is the first half of the motion L-13.14.1(a), which envisages to replace line 38 on page 42 with the following:

the greatest potential for exposure;

Having done that, we will move to amendment PC-13, moved in the name of Mr. Herron. Having dealt with that one, we will then move to amendment L-13.15. We will then proceed to the binder, with the book as it is before us. However, we will have to deal with the second half of amendment L-13.14.1(a) in order to insert “hormone disrupting substances” if L-13.15 is adopted, because that is where it fits in.

So we start first with part (a) of amendment L-13.14.1, in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan. Would you like to move the motion and explain it, please?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I am moving part (a) of L-13.14.1. This replaces “the great potential for exposure; or” with “the greatest potential for exposure;”. It takes out the “or” because I would be adding a paragraph (c) later in this section. The paragraph (c) that would be added would read “are hormone disrupting substances.”

• 1605

The Chairman: In other words, this amendment paves the ground—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It paves the ground for a future amendment.

The Chairman: —for an amendment that is coming on page 161, under (c), in the second half of the same motion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, the one that is split.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We move to PC-13, on page 160.

Mr. Herron, would you like to move your motion, please?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I would, Mr. Chair.

The intent of this motion is to continue on the positive path that we set out earlier with respect to clause 3. It's relatively congruent with the amendment tabled by Madam Kraft Sloan. The component in (a) of this amendment—

The Chairman: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the first half of your motion in paragraph (a) has just been defeated. Therefore, it would be wise for you, and appropriate, to move the second half, paragraph (b).

Mr. John Herron: It's appropriate to move that?

The Chairman: For (b), yes.

Mr. John Herron: So the (b) component of the amendment is what I would be moving. We may need a grammar teacher, in effect, who will make a comment down the road, though.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, mine was actually ahead of Mr. Herron's amendment. My amendment on 161 deals with lines 41 to 43, while his begins on line 43, at paragraph (b).

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but that is a correct observation on a point of order.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I don't think that would be the case, because the issue here is really that the (a) component is only related to a grammatical situation given the fact that there would be the potential for a (c).

The Chairman: You're quite right, but the second part of your motion deals with line 43. To adhere to the system we have adopted strenuously so far, the amendment by Madame Kraft Sloan that deals with line 41 would have to come first.

Mr. John Herron: And then I can come back to mine?

The Chairman: If it does not carry, yes.

Therefore, we are now on page 161, on amendment L-13.15, in the name of Madame Kraft Sloan. Would you like to move it and please explain it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, Mr. Chair. Essentially, what this does is it adds “human beings”. As it is currently worded, things can be inherently toxic to ducks but not inherently toxic to humans. I think most Canadians would agree that this is a rather ludicrous assumption, so it's important to be able to add “human beings” in this particular section. That's the intent of this amendment.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I have comments on two things. First, I think we might want Ms. Lloyd to comment on the effect of this. Secondly, I just want to draw the member's attention to the fact that the current wording is in keeping with the government response, and the government response is fairly specific on this—but you might want to hand it over to Ms. Lloyd.

The Chairman: Would you like to comment please?

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): I can explain the basis for why the section is worded the way it is. The whole point of categorizing the 23,000 substances on the domestic substances list is to have a fast-track way of identifying those that should go to a screening risk assessment. From the environment side, those substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic should be the ones kicked into the risk assessment. They should be the ones we give priority to. From the human health side—and this is the part (a) that refers to Health Canada's responsibilities under this—they believe they should fast-track the ones that humans will receive the greatest exposure to. Those substances that hit those triggers would then be kicked into the risk assessment. That's where you would look at toxicity to humans, which is why it's structured the way it is.

• 1610

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But if the substance is inherently toxic to a duck, one might assume it's inherently toxic to a human being. Why wouldn't we include humans with non-human organisms?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: That would come later, once you've identified the substances that would have the greatest potential for the maximum exposure to Canadians. Once you've done that and you have your list of I don't know how many substances, you would then look at the toxicity to humans. But that would be in the screening assessment as opposed to the categorization.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If all we're talking about is categorization here, why can't we categorize things that are inherently toxic to human beings? I'm an environmentalist and I have a deep reverence for non-human nature, but I also feel human beings should be at least on the same level when it comes to categorization of toxic substances. If something is inherently toxic to a non-human organism, it seems to me that, at some level, it's going to be inherently toxic to human beings as well. I can't understand why we can't categorize for something like that.

The Chairman: All right. It will be for the committee to discuss and decide.

Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I'm trying to understand Ms. Lloyd's explanation. I'd like her to explain to me how the inclusion of a reference to human organisms would weaken the bill or make it unacceptable.

[English]

Ms. Karen Lloyd: I think the main way would just be by the length of time it would take to get to the screening assessment stage. This way, from the human health point of view, if you're going through 23,000 substances, looking at where the ones are that we're mostly going to be exposed to, and you're picking those off the list and are then going to do the assessment, you just look at inherent toxicity for those. If you make the change here, you'll have to add that to all of them. That would considerably slow down the process, and I'm not sure there'd be any benefit to it.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? Madame Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Moffet, could you give us the benefit of your insights on this?

Mr. John Moffet (Consultant, Resource Futures International): I understand what Ms. Lloyd was suggesting. It strikes me, as a non-scientist, that it's probably easier to categorize something with respect to its inherent toxicity to non-humans. Presumably, there are more tests. It's easier to do tests on non-humans. I'm not sure, though, what the precise implication of the amendment is. The amendment says to “human beings or to non human organism”. I would have thought that if it passed one of those tests, we could move on to clause 74. We wouldn't have to wait for the full testing to be done.

But on the scientific side, I would defer all my comments to the government experts.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

The Chairman: Any further questions? Mr. Laliberte, briefly, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to strengthen the argument that the issue is optional, whether it's human or non-human. Madam Lloyd said paragraph (a) covered that first part for humans, but it doesn't specifically say that. I would be much more comfortable with the amendment going through as it is. I think it makes a lot of sense.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

• 1615

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mrs. Lloyd, I'm looking at the government response. Could you tell me where it is in the government response that we talk about managing risks posed by toxic substances? I don't see any specific reference to non-human activity or non-human applications versus human applications.

Mrs. Karen Lloyd: It's on page 69 of the government response.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Page 69?

Mrs. Karen Lloyd: Yes, in the top paragraph.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But where does it talk about “non-human organism”?

Mrs. Karen Lloyd: About “non-human”?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Lloyd: It says “environmental organisms”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I always thought I was part of the environment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I also thought humans were part of the environment. I don't see anything there. And if we go further down the page, in part (B) it says, “Canada can profit the most from those severe actions taken on the basis of human or environmental health reasons.” So I don't see what is contradictory to the inclusion of humans.

Mrs. Karen Lloyd: Part (B) is specifically dealt with in the bill, in clause 75. We do look at the decisions of other jurisdictions there, and that's what that refers to.

The Chairman: John Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I want to ask a question of the government scientists. It strikes me that the amendment that is being proposed would strengthen categorization provisions if it is conceivable that a substance could be toxic to a human but not to a non-human. Is that conceivable?

Mrs. Karen Lloyd: Yes.

Mr. John Moffet: So if that's conceivable, then by not putting humans in this test, are we cutting off a subset of substances that might otherwise be captured by this categorization process?

Mrs. Karen Lloyd: I think the philosophy behind it is that you won't be excluding them. To have a problem, you have to have exposure to them. If you've already screened in the ones to which you have lots of exposure, then by just looking at the toxicity of those ones, you should capture them.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I come back to the government response, because it seems to me that it's written in a way whereby it's very hard to say it's specific in that case. If you look at page 68, at part (A)—you said we're talking about (A), not (B)—“Substances meeting persistence or bioaccumulation or other criteria”, it says:

For some time now, those substances that persist in the environment, and accumulate in fish, wildlife and humans and produce toxic effects have been a focus for the Government of Canada and were the major factor behind the TSMP.

That does specifically refer to humans, and it continues:

The Standing Committee's recommendations intended to make these substances priorities for action. ... Other surrogates in addition to persistence and bioaccumulation are pertinent indicators of potential human exposure.

The Chairman: What is the question then?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The question is this. Is there a specific reference to humans in the opening paragraph of part (A) on page 68?

• 1620

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

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Yes, humans are mentioned there. Was that the question?

The Chairman: The answer is yes, it's there.

Ms. Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I was a bit taken by surprise, I suppose, because I always thought the criterion in paragraph (A) really had a quantitative element to it, the greatest exposure to substances that are common out there in the environment. Human beings are exposed to them in material quantities. It's my understanding of inherent toxicity that it's not necessarily a quantitative measure we're looking it in this case. I was wondering if indeed therefore exposure to humans was being captured under (A).

The Chairman: Thank you. It seems to me that we've given this item sufficient exposure, and if you are not in disagreement I will put the question.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I wanted to ask Mrs. Lloyd about the example she used about what is toxic to humans but may not be toxic to non-humans. When she said yes, I'd like to see what example there was.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Thalidomide, but that's a drug. Mr. Mongrain was just mentioning the substance of thalidomide, which is obviously a case where humans are affected, yet on most of the animals that were tested when the drug was being produced it caused no effects. And there are several substances that we are now looking at on the priority substances list that will be toxic. Many of them will be toxic from a human health point of view, but will not be toxic to the environment, and vice versa.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: PC-13 is no longer necessary and no longer in order.

Mr. John Herron: PC-13 is no longer necessary?

The Chairman: No, the second half has been covered by this amendment.

Mr. John Herron: No, it hasn't. Is there still a portion of it, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: This part is in order. No, I'm sorry; I stand to be corrected.

• 1625

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, amendment L-13.14.1 would come before the Tory amendment because it's the same thing and they both start on the same line, and because of alphabetical reasons we go for mine first. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Herron?

Mr. John Herron: Only so that mine would not be out of order, because there is still a component in my amendment that would be in addition to yours.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You can split yours.

Mr. John Herron: I'm warm and fuzzy to that, as long as he is.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You can split yours.

Mr. John Herron: As long as I can split mine, then it's cool.

The Chairman: For greater clarity, and in order to clean up this infernal clause, clause 73, we have to now move on with an amendment to line 43. The one that is before us will be the Liberal amendment. I apologize, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: That's fine.

The Chairman: It is the one referred to in L-13.14.1 where there is an insertion of (c).

Mr. John Herron: I'm assuming that if L-13.14.1 carries, my amendment would still be able to be split, with the addition at the end of PC-13.

The Chairman: I doubt it very much.

Mr. John Herron: Why?

The Chairman: It would take care of your amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, I can take out “non-human organism” if that helps. Just the addition of (c) is all that my amendment could be, or (c).

The Chairman: For your motion to be in order, Madam Kraft Sloan, it would have to be an addition of a line 44 that would read: “By adding line 44 on page 42 with the following: (c) are hormone disrupting substances.”

That is the only way it can be accepted in a proper fashion. If you are willing to move that, we can proceed. If not, we cannot.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I had someone talking to me.

The Chairman: Could I have attention when the chair speaks.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry.

The Chairman: It's complicated enough without having to repeat the same statement.

Madam Kraft Sloan, we cannot accept your amendment as it is now. We can only accept it if it is in the form of an addition that becomes line 44 so that the amendment would read: “By adding line 44 on page 42 with the following: (c) are hormone disrupting substances.”

If you're willing to make that amendment, we can proceed. If not, we cannot.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We need the word“or” and then that's fine.

The Chairman: And we need the word “or” to make it adjustable.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine, and actually, Mr. Chairman, I recommended that a couple of minutes ago.

The Chairman: Then please proceed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would move that my amendment now read, starting on line 44:

or (c) are hormone disrupting substances.

• 1630

It's a requirement to add hormone-disrupting substances as one of the areas of categorization of the domestic substances list.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Ms. Torsney had her hand up.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. This is just to clarify once again that there's no definition of what these would be in this part of the bill. I don't support the change.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments? Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would like to maybe ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify that there is no definition here. I think Mr. Herron is just waiting and—

Mr. John Herron: I'm dying.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —dying for the minister to be challenged to create a definition for this part. I think that's what's coming up.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe I could remind all members that the minister had an amendment to define hormone-disrupting substances in part 3, but the committee chose to use a different definition. So actions have consequences, I suppose. Nonetheless, I don't support this.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron and Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I think we have an opportunity here to have the best of both worlds in terms of this. It may actually be a government-friendly amendment in terms of the comments you just made in terms of the perhaps preferred definition with respect to hormone-disrupting substances. This is an opportunity for us to not tie the hands of the minister.

Right now, we've taken the trouble in a previous clause, clause 3, to actually put forward a definition of hormone-disrupting substances. That's now a component of what the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act is.

I think it's laudable that we've taken the initiative to gather information on a particular subject that's important to Canadians' human health. But ultimately, I think sometimes in society individuals are very skeptical about governments that seem to be running around collecting information on things, but then don't do anything with the information they actually gather.

Look at what we're doing right here by adding this. We could do it in an amendment afterward. Perhaps it will be on a friendly amendment basis, but we'll determine that later on. We're actually giving the minister complete flexibility in this. We need to create a category for hormone-disrupting substances whereby:

(1.1) The minister shall by regulation define the term “hormone disrupting substance” for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c).

I would suggest that possibly that regulation could even be the definition that the parliamentary secretary might desire.

I would think it would be better for us to use the definition we put forward in part 3. But it makes no sense for us to have a situation where we gather information and don't do a thing. Then we don't have a classification. I think this would just be a very good thing for the minister to do. We're not challenging the minister. It's not that aggressive. It's just a matter of giving her an opportunity to put forth a definition by regulation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

We'll go to Mrs. Kraft Sloan, followed by Ms. Torsney.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is Mr. Herron then suggesting he recommend a friendly amendment to my main amendment of adding his subclause 73(1.1)?

Mr. John Herron: I'm suggesting that's a possibility I'd like to do. But I'd like to hear from Paddy Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. I just wanted to reiterate that I did not support adding a (c): “or (c) are hormone disrupting substances”. Mr. Laliberte, I was just pointing out what I perceived to be a tad absurd in what would be subclause 73(1.1), and that was any amendment that would give the minister a liberty you didn't choose to accept in the past. So I'm just pointing out the absurdity of subclause 73(1.1). I was not commenting on changing definitions or anything like that; it was strictly to point out the obvious.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

• 1635

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to point something out, and maybe ask the professionals on this side. There was a substance—thalidomide—that was discussed. Is that a hormone disrupter?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: I don't know. It's a drug. I don't know if it acts through hormones. It wouldn't be dealt with under CEPA anyway.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It would not?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: No. It would be under the drug act.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. I was asking a question before, and it's still lingering, because I had asked for an example. I guess it's not relevant in CEPA. I thought thalidomide was a hormone disrupter as well.

We should include hormone disrupters in this section as well. If we disrupted the minister's course of action, I don't want to apologize, but I feel we should be working in the best interests of Canadians' health. The environment should be foremost, as opposed to political interventions or political scores.

The Chairman: So far we have only an amendment to the effect of inserting line (c), as moved by Madam Kraft Sloan. There is no amendment before us giving the minister powers to define hormone-disrupting substances.

Madam Kraft Sloan, then Mr. Herron, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think Mr. Herron's idea makes a great deal of sense here. I think it gives the minister an opportunity, through the regulatory process, to achieve a definition of hormone-disrupting substances, and if he's willing to advance that subamendment to the main amendment, I would be willing to support it.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think maybe we'll take this opportunity to make that friendly amendment. I think since the government has taken the initiative, upon some positive reflection, to make amendment to the initial bill that came forward to include that in clause 3, it would be a natural progression for us to have some flexibility for the minister to make a definition. I'd be pleased to make that friendly amendment to do so. I can't believe the government would not want to have a chance, in a very flexible form, to have an amendment in clause 5.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I look forward to that speech in the House.

Mr. John Herron: You're going to get it.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, do I take it then that your subamendment is to the effect of adding to the amendment by Madam Kraft Sloan the portion of PC-13 that is identified with subclause 73(1.1)?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chairman: The subamendment has been moved. We shall take the subamendment first and then vote on the amendment.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chairman: We now move to the amendment. The main amendment is in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, your motion is on page 162.

• 1640

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll move the motion. I believe it's changing the context of subclause 73(2), and it will read:

(2) A substance that is identified as referred to in subsection 73(1) shall, unless the substance is already on the Priority Substances List, be added to the Priority Substances List.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: With respect, I would suggest to Mr. Laliberte that this amendment is problematic. If I could draw the member's attention to the way this very convoluted part works, clause 73 requires the ministers to categorize substances. Clause 74 then requires ministers to conduct a screening of those substances without having to put them on the PSL. Subclause 77(3) says:

(3) Where, based on a screening assessment conducted under section 74, the Ministers are satisfied that

(a) a substance...is

(i) persistent and bioaccumulative...and

(ii) inherently toxic

the Ministers shall

add the substance to schedule 1. In other words, subclause 77(3) requires the minister to move the substance straight from the screening in clause 74 to the list of toxic substances, without having to go through the intermediate step of putting the substance on the PSL.

I believe Mr. Laliberte's amendment would actually require the minister to add a step and slow down the process of getting to the end result, which is controlling the substances on the list of toxic substances.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Before calling clause 73 for adoption, I would like to ask Mr. Cameron this question. Subclause 73(2) begins with the term “Despite”. The question is whether the text preceding subclause 73(2) requires the term “Despite” to be there. There does not seem to me to be any conflict or contradiction between the first part, subclause 73(1), and subclause 73(2). You may want to tell me if there is a conflict that I was not able identify in reading this particular clause. I don't think the word “Despite” is of any relevance except from a drafting point of view.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Environment Canada): I was just consulting with the Environment officials to find out what their intent was. I agree with you, sir. I'm not sure the opening words—

The Chairman: It's been brought to my attention that it is not in the French version.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes. I'm not sure the opening words “Despite subsection (1)” are in fact required.

The Chairman: Fine. We'll leave it at that.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Do you want to change those words?

The Chairman: I just indicated this fact and I will leave it to the drafters to do it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. Then my answer would be “carried”.

(Clause 73 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 74—Screening level risk assessment)

The Chairman: The first amendment is in the name of Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'll withdraw this amendment, or not move it.

• 1645

The Chairman: It is not moved on page 163. Thank you.

The next one, PC-15, is not moved.

Mr. John Herron: That's right.

(Clause 74 agreed to)

(On clause 75—Definition of “jurisdiction”)

The Chairman: We now move to the motion in the name of Mr. Laliberte on page 165.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This motion deletes from lines 42 to 46 after “toxic”:

unless the decision relates to a substance the only use of which in Canada is regulated under another Act of Parliament that provides for environmental and health protection.

I would like to ask for the legal perspective on this. Why is this clause in there? Why does it say “unless a decision relates to a substance”? We're asking for it to be deleted, but why was it included in here?

Ms. Monique Hébert: This question might best be directed to government officials because I think it's a matter of policy. The effect of this wording is to confer residual status on CEPA, that is, you won't review decisions of other jurisdictions where they relate to matters that are governed by other federal legislation. That is in a sense a residual status clause for CEPA. It is a matter of policy.

Perhaps the government officials could field your question, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think they're looking at the policy. Perhaps they can answer.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): I can perhaps shed some light. Other ministers, other departments, have legislation that can look at substances. They're accountable, so it's their responsibility. A pesticide or a drug is an example where it would be the Minister of Health who has responsibility for the Pest Control Products Act, or the Food and Drugs Act if it's a specific drug. It would be his or her responsibility to look at decisions made in other jurisdictions to restrict those particular substances.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In our proposal the minister would review the substance. I think it would be in order, regardless if there are other jurisdictions, to at least review it in the whole process. I think the process of the act takes in jurisdictional issues here. But she won't be subject to review if this sentence is in there unless the decision relates to another substance. Why couldn't she review it?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: If you read on in the clause, it's to review the decision to determine whether the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic, as defined by this act. So we would be going beyond the jurisdiction of CEPA if we were required to look at decisions on pesticides, or drugs for that matter.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll just hear out the parliamentary secretary here.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

• 1650

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, if this amendment were moved and passed, it would cause the minister to review things for which she's not even responsible. Somebody else is already doing that. Somebody else already has the responsibility to do that.

It's a question of resources. I'll remind committee members that we just gave the government seven years to get through a whole lot of stuff, and if you were to move your amendment and it were to pass, you'd actually say not only will you do everything you're supposed to do, but, by the way, you're going to review thalidomide again for the Minister of Health and you're going to review pesticides you're not concerned about being used under this act. It would waste resources.

The Chairman: Are you saying that this does not give a residual power to other departments?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm saying there is a process and a responsibility for the other ministers to do their job under their acts. Why would you put in a duplicative power for this minister? If you look at line 43, you'll see that it says “a substance the only use of which in Canada is regulated under another Act”. It's a substance that's being used in a health environment that has nothing to do with CEPA, and you actually would say, by the way, you also have a legislative responsibility to go and check what Health is doing. Why?

The Chairman: It's there in case the other legislation is weaker than CEPA.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You would have the opportunity to review it if it were being used in another way that would be affected by CEPA.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Would you like Mr. Cameron to comment further?

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I simply would agree with what the parliamentary secretary has said, that the purpose of this clause—and I'll defer to some extent to my colleagues from Environment on this—is the policy purpose, that given the limited resources available, we're not interested in reviewing decisions that fall within the mandate of other ministers. In that sense the parliamentary secretary is dead on.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Moffet, could you give us your opinion on this clause, please?

Mr. John Moffet: I think my opinion is the same as the one Ms. Hébert provided.

Just to remind members, this is essentially the third track that It's About Our Health! Towards Pollution Prevention recommended. It recommended that the minister be required to look at decisions made in foreign jurisdictions. This last part of subclause 75(3) would restrict that track by saying that the minister shall not look at decisions made by foreign governments if that decision relates to an issue that has been regulated by another federal department. So it restricts the ability of the Minister of Environment to act under this track.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if Mr. Moffet could explain to me, then, why there is a specific reference on line 43 to “the only use of which”. It's not something that's changing the use. It's that the only use is governed by some other act. She still has the opportunity to use her powers under this act if there were a different use being applied to the substance. Is that not correct?

Mr. John Moffet: That's correct.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So it's not residual.

Mr. John Moffet: The minister's ability to act is restricted, I agree, where the only use is regulated by another act, but the other act only has to provide for environmental and health protection. It doesn't have to provide for equivalent environmental and health protection or for better environmental and health protection.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Do we have an amendment on the floor?

The Chairman: Yes, we do.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't think he actually moved it.

The Chairman: Are you suggesting that it be stood?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm at the pleasure of the committee as to whether or not it should be stood, but you'd be standing the whole clause 75 because there has been no amendment to it.

The Chairman: Fine, we'd be glad to stand clause 75.

Mr. Charbonneau.

• 1655

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'd like us to resolve an issue that could come up again later. Why is “capable of becoming toxic” rendered in French by “le ministre examine”?

[English]

The Chairman: Would you please explain that in the answer?

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, occasionally the French and English versions of an amendment may seem totally different because of the line that is being changed. While the two versions may appear very different at first glance, the final result is the same in both languages.

The Chairman: Is that a satisfactory response?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Not at all.

The Chairman: No?

The Clerk: That is how it works in theory.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's not all that important. We can come back to this point later.

The Chairman: We'll do that when we come to clause 75.

[English]

(Clause 75 allowed to stand)

(On clause 76—Priority Substances List)

The Chairman: We have amendment L-13.16.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have amendment L-13.16 and a new amendment, L-13.16.2, which is in the small package. The page isn't numbered, but it's prior to page 17. Maybe it's page 16, I'm not sure. I would ask that amendment L-13.16.2 actually be named subclause 76(7). It would appear in the bill on page 45 after subclause 76(6). Is that clear to everybody?

The Chairman: Just a moment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, just to make it clear, it should be clause 76, subclause (7).

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, clause 76, subclause (7), thank you.

Just to clarify, I have two amendments: one is on page 166, L-13.16, an amendment to subclause 76(1); the second is L-13.16.2, which is in the small package, and I'm asking that it be numbered subclause 76(7) instead of 76(1).

The Chairman: I wouldn't worry about those small numbers.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It affects the order.

The Chairman: The important point is that you can take first L-13.16, which replaces lines 1 to 8 on page 44. Having dealt with that, we will be able to deal with L-13.16.2, which deals with line 12.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Essentially, the intent of this amendment, Mr. Chair, is to have the minister develop a process for prioritization in action. It is understandable that there are a lot of substances on the Priority Substances List that have to be dealt with. This essentially sets out a process as to how these things will be attended to. It helps with accountability, planning, etc.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions with regard to the amendment on page 166? If not, are you ready for the question?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's my understanding that the effect of this amendment, were it to pass, would be to skip a quicker screening assessment that's available to the minister.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I just wanted to suggest that I agree with the interpretation of the parliamentary secretary. My concern about this is the same one that I articulated with regard to Mr. Laliberte's amendment. This would appear to me to require that substances identified under clause 73 be put on the PSL when in fact under subclause 77(3) there is a mechanism in the bill to move substances straight from clauses 73 and 74 to schedule 1 without putting them on the PSL. This would mandate that intermediate step, and I think that would be unfortunate.

• 1700

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's my understanding that this amendment identifies a process for which these things will be done as opposed to—

Mr. John Moffet: I'm concerned about the clause that says “and the substances shall be included”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: The next motion that comes up is on page 167 in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you. I'll move the motion. It deals with subclause 76(1) and reads as follows:

76(1) The Ministers shall compile and may amend from time to time in accordance with subsection (5) a list, to be known as the Priority Substances List

It goes on to say that:

the Ministers are satisfied priority should be given in assessing whether they are toxic or capable of being toxic

We're adding:

including substances identified as referred to subsection 73(1).

Subsection 73(1) would be the domestic substances list.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I'll just reiterate. I think this has the same effect and I have the same concern. This would require substances identified under the screening processes to be put on the PSL. That's not necessary because subclause 77(3) allows them to go straight to schedule 1.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to clarify this again. Are you saying subclause 77(3) precedes all of this?

Mr. John Moffet: No. Let me take you through it one more time. Clause 73 requires the ministers to categorize substances. Clause 74 then says the ministers shall screen all of those substances that have been categorized to determine whether they're toxic or capable of becoming toxic. Then subclause 77(3) says where, based on that screening assessment, the ministers are satisfied that the substances are persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic, the minister shall add the substance to schedule 1. That's the plain language version of the legalese here.

In other words, go straight to schedule 1; do not go to the PSL first. Schedule 1, let me remind you, is what provides you with the authority to regulate and invoke pollution prevention plans, and so on and so forth. That's where you want to go as quickly as possible.

I suggest your amendment would slow down the process with respect to the subset of substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic.

The Chairman: Since I do not hear you moving this motion, do you still wish to move this amendment, Mr. Laliberte?

• 1705

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm trying to interpret what Mr. Moffet just said. I don't think it necessarily limits the minister to jump through an extra hoop here. It's just saying it amends it to close any gaps here, and the domestic substances list is the one moving forward here. I'll let the motion stand.

The Chairman: You're entitled to disagree. Are there further questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

The Chairman: The following motion, which appears on page 168, is from the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we are proposing to amend line 10 of clause 76 (2) on page 44, which contains a reference to the priority substances list. Since provincial and aboriginal governments may have already drawn up a priority substances list, we propose that “the Minister shall offer to consult with the government” be replaced by “the Minister shall consult with the government”.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

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

[English]

The Chairman: You've heard the motion. Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I would reiterate what I've mentioned on other amendments of this sort that were proposed. The effect of this amendment would be to force consultation, and one might argue whether that is ever possible with two parties.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's normal.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So “shall offer”—the offer is out there.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I don't understand why the parliamentary secretary feels that “the Minister shall consult” implies somehow that the Minister is required to initiate consultations. The words “the Minister shall consult” imposes no such obligation on the Minister's part.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We disagree.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: What you are suggesting doesn't fit. It doesn't convey the right meaning.

[English]

The Chairman: All right. There's a misunderstanding. It happens in the best families.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: We disagree over the wording in the French version, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I can see that.

(Motion negatived)

[English]

The Chairman: We move to page 169, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the concurrence of my colleague from the NDP who has moved a similar amendment on page 170. We ask for this clause to be stood because all previous clauses of this nature have been stood so far. I think he has agreed to that before.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I would agree. At some time we'll have to deal with it. I guess the snow is coming as well.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, if you're standing the clause, could we stand—

The Chairman: We're not standing the clause; we're not moving the amendment L-13.16.1.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can we move them at a later time?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, we will. I have an amendment I will stand for now too.

• 1710

The Chairman: We can certainly suspend the moving of these two amendments on clause 76, which will make it necessary for the chair not to call it; otherwise we'll require unanimous consent to reopen it. We therefore have two amendments that are not being moved: L-13.16.1 and NDP-36.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: L-13.16.2?

The Chairman: The next one is L-13.16.2.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could we stand this one as well, Mr. Chair, because we're going to stand the clause?

The Chairman: Can I ask the three members when they would intend to come back to their amendments, if we stand them?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When we deal with the whole question of residual.

The Chairman: All right. L-13.16 is not moved.

(Clause 76 allowed to stand)

(On clause 77—Publication after assessment)

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would like to make an amendment to clause 77, which would be to switch on page 45, line 31 in English and in French, the “and” that currently exists at the end of that line to an “or”. It's on page 171 of our books and it's G-6.

The Chairman: And that precedes PC-16, does it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: You have a motion by Ms. Torsney on page 171 of the binder. Any questions? Any comments?

(Amendment agreed to—SeeMinutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Then we have another motion, I believe by the member for Fundy—Royal, replacing line 35 with the language indicated on page 17, amendment PC-16 in your additional book.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Under subclause 93(1) the government has the power to propose a total prohibition of a substance. What I am advocating here is that it only makes sense to move the power that exists later on in the bill into this section in terms of the choices the minister may have when deciding the options she may utilize. It does not change the powers of the minister, since she already has the power to do it. It merely reminds the minister that this option is also available.

• 1715

I'm advocating this because there was a concern when we heard witnesses from a number of the environmental NGOs that in the circumstances where total prohibition would be the best choice, the minister would not utilize the power she has in subclause 93(1), given that it wasn't included in this section. That's my initial comment, so I'm moving this motion.

The Chairman: Have you addressed both parts of it?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Could we have some comments?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just before we turn to the officials on this, I wonder if the member opposite has defined “total elimination” somewhere, since it would be a new term. I'm also wondering why he linked his bill solely to paragraph 93(1)(l) in the second part of it.

Mr. John Herron: On the definition that applies, I think there's a definition under subclause 93(1).

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry. Is there a definition of “total elimination”? Just before the member—

Mr. John Herron: There's a definition of “total prohibition” under subclause 93(1).

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's not what you've written; you've written “total elimination”.

The other thing I just want to draw to your attention is that clause 93 deals with the Governor in Council and the clause we're dealing with deals with the minister's powers. So you might want to reflect on that over the next couple of days—tomorrow, tonight, as you wish.

The Chairman: I think we have enough time before the vote to conclude on this.

Mr. John Herron: If her concern is with respect to the word “prohibition” versus... What was the word used in subclause 93(1) exactly again?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Your amendment uses “total elimination” and we don't have that defined anywhere.

Mr. John Herron: Instead of “prohibition” we should use the same language as in subclause 93(1), which is “elimination”. It's the other way around—sorry.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So you want to change “total elimination” to “prohibition”.

Mr. John Herron: Correct.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Secondly, you've linked your amendment to paragraph 93(1)(l). I have a question as to why only “(l)”. I also have a question on why you want to link this amendment and clause 77 when the minister has responsibility to something in clause 93 where the Governor in Council has the responsibility and the power. There seemed to be some concern about that in certain circles, and you might want to leave it with the ministers.

Mr. John Herron: Could I talk about where those certain circles might be? Could I ask for the interpretation from Mr. Moffet on that point?

The Chairman: Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I'd just like to point out that when Mr. Herron seeks to define “Proposal for elimination”, which would be his subclause 77(4.1), he goes on to state the ministers may propose a regulation under subclause 93(1); therefore it's still within the minister's usual realm of responsibilities to make proposals to Governor in Council, who could take the action. It's quite consistent with other provisions you find in the bill where the ministers recommend and cabinet acts.

Mr. John Herron: That was a thoughtful intervention. Thank you, Ms. Hébert.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The parliamentary secretary doesn't seem satisfied that we don't have a definition of “total”.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We have an amended amendment apparently. I don't know what we're dealing with.

• 1720

Mr. Rick Laliberte: But “total prohibition” is not identified or defined in here. Why is it not?

The Chairman: We have only the text as it is printed before us.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: On the intervention made by the parliamentary secretary with respect to utilizing the word “prohibition”, would there be a problem from a procedural perspective with utilizing that word for the sake of consistency?

The Chairman: If you so indicate, there's no problem, but you have to indicate your intention.

Mr. John Herron: I would like to change the word to reflect the exact wording that is in paragraph 93(1)(l).

The Chairman: Would you please read it so everybody understands what you are changing?

Mr. John Herron: Clause 77 would be amended by replacing line 35 on page 45 with the following

subsection (4), virtual elimination, or under subsection (4.1), the total prohibition of the production, use and generation of a substance.

That is exactly the language the government uses later on in the bill.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just so the member opposite understands my intention, I don't support this even if it's changed. Secondly, your paragraph 77(4.1)(d) includes hormone-disrupting substances, which again wasn't reflected in changes the committee has made. I'm not sure how much you want to change it, but I'm trying to tell you I still wouldn't support it.

Mr. John Herron: I'm not necessarily totally shocked.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So can we just call the question?

Mr. John Herron: No.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. John Herron: No.

The Chairman: All right. If you're not ready for the question, and in view of the vote, we will stand adjourned until tomorrow afternoon.

The meeting is adjourned.