ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 2, 1998

• 1536

[English]

The Chairman (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have a quorum and we can start where we left off yesterday. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

(On clause 77—Publication after assessment)

The Chairman: We were wrestling with a motion by Mr. Herron, who has slightly modified, I'm told, his motion since yesterday. You will find his motion in the thinner book. We are on pages 17 and 18 of the thinner book. Apparently you have replaced the word “elimination” with the word “prohibition”.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): That's right.

The Chairman: Perhaps you may want to bring the committee up to speed on your thinking.

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

I just want to make sure I find it in the small book again. It's on page 18?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, on a point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

I just want a clarification of voting membership. Now that Mr. Lincoln is an associate member of this committee, is he a voting member?

The Clerk of the Committee: No, Mr. Chairman. The only specific rights that an associate member has in the committee is to be appointed to subcommittees if the committee so creates. That's the only technical statutory right.

The Chairman: Would you read the names of the voting members, please?

• 1540

The Clerk: I'm working on that now. Mr. Chairman, the voting members are—I can only mention the members who are here, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Lincoln is here.

The Clerk: The members, as far as I can see, are Mr. Knutson for Mr. Assadourian, Ms. Carroll, Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Maloney for Mr. Gallaway, Mr. Jordan, Mrs. Kraft Sloan, Mr. Myers for Mr. Pratt, and Ms. Torsney.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How many members is that for the Liberal side?

The Clerk: That's nine. If they're all here, it's—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Who's replacing Mr. Assadourian?

The Clerk: That's Mr. Knutson.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Knutson is not here.

The Clerk: But as I say, they're not here, so—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But Mr. Lincoln is an associate member, so does that mean we're short a member now?

The Chairman: No, that's it. That's enough.

Mr. Herron, would you please proceed?

Mr. John Herron: Just to bring the members back up to speed in terms of where we were in our last episode with respect to the PC amendment, which is a new version of PC-16, we've gone with the word “prohibition”, which reflects the clause we referenced back in clause 93. That took care of the language component, which we were speaking to on the last day.

Currently a total prohibition is under the power of the minister in clause 93. The environmental NGOs stated that they were concerned with the location of this power in the bill. So what we're advocating is that when the minister has choices in terms of what action to take with a potentially toxic substance, total prohibition should be something that could be considered, as stated later on in the bill in clause 93. I would ask if the government side were to resist this point, is it an indication that the government has no intent ever to use total prohibition? If not, then it would be better for them to actually move it up on the front side to start off with.

I know my second comment may be controversial, so I'll mention it before we proceed too far. It's that there is a reference in this with respect to hormone-disrupting substances, and I understand that so far in part 5 the government side has made it very clear it's their intent to only have hormone-disrupting substances under part 3 with respect to information gathering. They do not want to empower the minister in any shape, way or form to be able to act by including “hormone-disrupting substances” under part 5, which is the actual chance for the government to act.

I have a question I'd like to ask the parliamentary secretary, through you, Mr. Chair. If the hormone-disrupting substances component of this amendment were not in PC-16, would she have any problem supporting the amendment? It doesn't give any additional powers to the minister; it merely puts that course of action higher up in the bill so that the minister “won't overlook it”, and it will address one of the major concerns that the NGO groups have brought forth.

That's my first comment, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I think I made my position quite clear yesterday that I don't support this amendment, so I don't feel the need to make any further comments.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, again through you, I didn't ask this question yesterday, so I believe this would be a new point. With respect to looking at the piece of legislation, at the concept of moving that power in clause 93 higher up in the bill to the juncture that we're looking at here in clause 77, does the parliamentary secretary have a problem with that component?

The Chairman: We cannot force the parliamentary secretary to speak on this unless there is a disposition to do so.

• 1545

Mr. John Herron: That's true. I think that comes back to her comment earlier about how you can't force anybody to negotiate.

My question to Mr. Moffet, in terms of having the power in clause 93 moved up here in clause 77, is would that have any ill-conceived effects on the bill? I think Ms. Hébert spoke to this yesterday. Could one of the two of you refresh my memory on that point?

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I don't think I spoke to this.

Mr. John Moffet (Consultant, Resource Futures International): I'm assuming we're talking about this amendment without any reference to hormone-disrupting substances.

Mr. John Herron: At this point, yes. That's my question.

Mr. John Moffet: If we take out that reference, I don't think this amendment adds anything to the powers of the minister.

Mr. John Herron: Right.

Mr. John Moffet: Those powers are clearly there in clause 93 of the bill. They can be exercised in addition to any powers that are conferred on the minister under the track one powers for virtual elimination. So I don't think this adds anything.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I wanted to highlight to my hon. member here who's proposing this amendment that the two sections in PC-16 have an (a) and (b) component, and each one of them is very substantial. He may want to consider them as separate, moving on (a) and then (b). I don't think they're linked together for any technical reasons, but the substance of each one of them may be votable.

I'd like to speak in favour of them, either one of them. I think it's certainly a major challenge of this act to be strengthened.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, what would be the advantage of splitting the amendment?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe if the people voting wanted to vote against the issue of total prohibition, they may also, in the same wash, throw away the hormone-disrupting aspect of it, which is totally different. If they're voting against the hormone disrupter, they're also voting against total prohibition. Those are two different contexts here.

The Chairman: It's up to the mover to split the motion. I don't see technically a difficulty in doing so.

So, Mr. Herron, it's for you to decide whether you wish to do so.

Are there any further questions? Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Yes. Perhaps I could ask Mr. Moffet or people from the department— The difficulty I have are the words “generation of a substance”, and I'll use mercury; for example, where mercury was released in the flooding projects in Quebec. That's generating. With this wording in the bill, could it be used, for example, to stop a dam, or in the use on lead, for example? We've taken lead out of paint, we've taken lead out of gasoline, but we still use lead. I'm having some difficulty in how far-reaching a way these words could be used.

The Chairman: You're referring to which portion of the bill?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: To the bottom line in (a), “use and generation of a substance”.

Mr. John Moffet: I don't know if I can answer your question directly in terms of what the precise implications of using the word “generation” would be. I would note, however, that this amendment appears to try to bring forward, to use Mr. Herron's words, I think, the powers that are provided under 93(1)(l). But I might observe that the powers under 93(1)(l) have to do with prohibition of the manufacture, use, processing, sale, offering for sale, import or export of the substance. So they don't actually reference the word “generation”.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: “Generation” is new, yes.

• 1550

Mr. John Moffet: So I find some anomaly there. I don't know what the precise implications of the word “generation” are. Perhaps somebody from the department could comment.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I would like to point out that yesterday Mr. Gilmour helped to defeat an amendment that would have taken “natural occurrences” out of there. We agreed to leave in the bill “taking into consideration natural occurrences”, so I don't think the case you bring up would arise.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron, the clerk informs me that if you were to split the amendment, the second half of your amendment, identified under (b), would have to wait for almost half a dozen other amendments that come after yours in the binder, because they would precede the lines that you are trying to deal with in part (b). You may want to make a decision with that in mind.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, what I would prefer to do is split the two amendments, but what I want to be able to add, for the sake of clarity— I don't want to make a different interpretation than what's already in the bill in regard to what the government has outlined in terms of total prohibition. I would like to make a friendly amendment to my part (a), as referenced under paragraph 93(1)(l). I'd like to add that to part (a).

The Chairman: After the word “substance”?

Mr. John Herron: After the word “substance”, as a definition.

Ms. Monique Hébert: If I might comment, as an alternative to that, Mr. Herron, you may just want to state in part (a) “or the total prohibition of the substance”. The definition itself, with its duplicating language to 93(1)(l), would then cover all of the possible uses. That would be easier to follow, and it has the same effect.

Mr. John Herron: Okay, then I would like to do that.

The Chairman: So would you read to us what it is you're planning to do?

Mr. John Herron: I wonder if I could suggest asking Ms. Hébert to perhaps do that for me in that regard.

Ms. Monique Hébert: On the third line of part (a) of the amendment, you would state “substance”. You would eliminate the words “production, use and generation of a”. From line 2, it would read “subsection (4.1), the total prohibition of the substance.”

[Translation]

In French, I imagine the wording would be: “l'élimination totale de la substance”. The definition of the word “elimination” would contain all the possible uses of the word.

[English]

The Chairman: That only simplifies the text. Mr. Herron, are you sure you want to split the motion? If you do that, your second half would have to be put much later. You appreciate that, right?

Mr. John Herron: I think everybody in this committee is going to be very patient in general, so I'd be willing to wait if that were the case.

The Chairman: All right. Then would you mind repeating your amendment as suggested by Madame Hébert in the full form, namely part (a), please?

Mr. John Herron: Down the line, I would have a chance to get to it, though.

The Chairman: No, not necessarily. It may be wiped out. That's why I'm alerting you.

Mr. John Herron: I'm still willing to split it. Otherwise, this is a constructive thing that doesn't give the minister extra powers. It just gives her a course of action, so it brings it forward. The only reason the government would want to defeat this is that they have no intention of ever using it and want to hide it in the bill.

The Chairman: Fine. Would you like to read your amendment for the members of the committee, then?

• 1555

Mr. John Herron: It reads:

subsection 4, virtual elimination, or under subsection (4.1), the total prohibition of the substance.

The Chairman: In other words, paragraph 77(2)(c) on page 45 of the bill would read:

recommending that the substance be added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 and, where applicable under subsection (4), virtual elimination, or under subsection (4.1), the total prohibition of the substance.

Is that what you're moving?

Mr. John Herron: Fine.

The Chairman: Is that understood? Are there any comments?

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a two-part comment. The first is the language would be not be parallel in fact to clause 93. Secondly, this member would be voting against it knowing full well the government has in fact prohibited the use of substances in the past. So the motive attributed to me earlier would be incorrect.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We go now to L-13.17, I believe.

Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Before we begin, Mr. Chair, I have two amendments to this amendment. I'm deleting L-13.17—

The Chairman: Those are not amendments. You're modifying your amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm modifying my amendment.

The Chairman: On which line?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: On (iii). I'm deleting that.

The Chairman: Entirely? Both lines?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. And on (ii), I am adding “human”—“inherently toxic to human and non-human organisms”. I'm putting it in line with the one we passed yesterday. So (ii) would now read:

inherently toxic to human and non-human organisms, as determined by laboratory, or other studies.

The rest of the sentence is deleted.

The Chairman: So there is a period after “studies”?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And we're adding “human”.

The Chairman: You're deleting the words after “studies” and you're inserting “human” in the first line.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chairman: Fine. Would you like to explain your amendment, please?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Essentially, what this amendment does is it brings it in line with the amendment I made yesterday, which was to suggest that not only are substances inherently toxic to ducks, but they can also be inherently toxic to human beings.

• 1600

In (b), which is further down in the amendment, I'm taking out the words in the bill “primarily human” to say “human activity”.

The Chairman: What is happening to (b)? Is (b) being changed?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No.

The Chairman: It remains intact.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But the effect in the bill is to delete “primarily human”.

The Chairman: That's the effect on the bill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chairman: It seems to me you are inserting “human” in this—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, no, no—

The Chairman: You're doing the opposite.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm inserting “human” in (ii).

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then further down in the amendment itself, it says

(b) human activity is causing or contributing to the presence of the substance

So what this does to (b) in CEPA, in the legislation before us, is it deletes “primarily”.

The Chairman: Do you so move?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I so move.

The Chairman: Madam Girard-Bujold, Mr. Laliberte, and Madam Torsney.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I would certainly like to follow, but in the French version, I simply cannot find subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii). I cannot follow the discussion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I'm going to ask Ms. Hébert to read the proposed changes in French. Ms. Hébert, please.

Ms. Monique Hébert: With your permission, I will try. However, I would like to draw one clarification to Ms. Kraft Sloan's attention.

[English]

Mrs. Kraft Sloan, if you're deleting (iii), then you should bring forward the “and” that links (a), which isn't in your amendment, and (b). That would have to be placed at the end of (ii).

[Translation]

The amendment in French would read as follows:

a) que la substance peut avoir à long terme un effet nocif sur l'environnement parce qu'elle est persistante et bioaccumulable au sens des règlements, qu'elle présente, d'après des études en laboratoire ou autres, une toxicité intrinsèque—

And this is where the change comes in, Ms. Gérard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Does what you said in English appear in the French version?

Ms. Monique Hébert: The French version is laid out differently.

The Chairman: We are about to clarify the changes for you.

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

The Chairman: If you listen, we will point out the changes in a moment.

[English]

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Hébert: The French and English versions are presented differently, and the subparagraphs do not appear in the French version of the bill. I suppose it is a question of drafting style.

The Chairman: The word “human” has been added. We will repeat the amendment.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I could not find subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), but I had no trouble understanding what she said.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to remind the hon. member that in clause 73, the reference to “inherently toxic to human beings” was used, as opposed to just “humans”, if you want to keep consistency.

The Chairman: Yes, it's for the mover to do that. It's up to the mover. Thank you for drawing her attention to that fact.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. In seeking clarity, I also wanted to point out that L.13-15 said “human beings or non-human organisms”. Furthermore, the bottom part of the amendment needs to be changed in (b). I'm not sure if the goal is just to remove “primarily”. In fact, if you wanted to do that, I'm not sure why in (b) on lines 3, 4, and 5 in the bill on page 46 you didn't just say, “the presence of the substance in the environment results from human activity”. I'm unclear as to whether there's some other goal. “Since human activity is causing or contributing to the presence of the substance in the environment” is different from “The presence of the substance in the environment results from human activity”.

Mr. John Moffet: I think I can explain.

• 1605

I think what Mrs. Kraft Sloan is attempting to do is, whereas paragraph 77(3)(b) at the moment establishes a threshold that the presence of the substance must result primarily from human activity, she wants to lower that threshold, not raise it, so that the condition is simply that human activity is causing or contributing to the substance.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's not that it's primarily from human activities. It's a higher bar of proof. But certainly human beings do contribute to the presence of it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So then my question to Mr. Moffet is, why wasn't it left as (b) and just remove the word “primarily”?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If you just remove the word “primarily”—

Mr. John Moffet: You would raise the bar.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: —you would raise the bar. But also it says “is causing or contributing to” as opposed to just “causing or resulting from”. So “contributing” is softer than “resulting from” and “causing” is sort of similar to “results”, and “contributing”, as Mr. Moffet says, lowers the bar. So there's a lower burden of proof here.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Since we have attempted to make sure this bill is in keeping with other policies of the government, I wonder if we can get some comment as to how this would fit with the TSMP.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): I have the TSMP in front of me. I'd just bring to the committee's attention, Mr. Chairman, that it states on the top of page 4 that:

A substance that meets all four criteria— in other words, that is persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic and primarily the result of human activity, will be targeted for virtual elimination from the environment—

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is policy, but I would like to point out the difference between legislation and policy. The government develops policy, but Parliament makes legislation. Sometimes Parliament will take the leadership in having a higher standard for what is practised in this country, and sometimes legislation and Parliament should guide policy.

The Chairman: All right. Are there any further questions or comments?

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If there's an opportunity to add “human beings or non-human organisms”, then that's fine. But as to the other changes on the bottom half of the amendment, both (b) and the last sentence, which is not in keeping with what is currently in the bill, I wouldn't be in support of the last half of the page. But if the goal is to put “human beings or non-human organisms”, that's fine. I don't know if there's an opportunity to split it or what.

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to delete the final sentence of this so that it remains consistent with what's in the legislation thus far. But I stand in adding “human” to (b). I really do think that if things are inherently toxic to ducks, they should be considered to be inherently toxic to human beings.

The Chairman: Would you then please read for the committee the modified amendment you propose to put forward?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The amendment I'm putting forward is:

(i) persistent and bioaccumulative in accordance with the regulations, and

(ii) inherently toxic to human or non-human organisms, as determined by laboratory or other studies, and

(b) human activity is causing or contributing to the presence of the substance in the environment,

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify, at the end of (i) the “and” is needed, but also at the end of (ii) an “and” is needed. Furthermore, in order to mirror the language that was used in L-13.15, it must say “inherently toxic to human beings or non-human organisms”.

• 1610

So I want to clarify that, and again, I have a question as to whether it could be split from the bottom part, which would be (b).

The Chairman: What is your wish, Madame Kraft Sloan, in connection with (b)?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have conferred with my colleagues, and I would be willing to split (b) from it and consider (b) in a separate vote.

The Chairman: All right. We can proceed then with two votes, the top half and the bottom half.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I want to clarify for the francophones in the room who are following in French— I'm not sure if it has ever been made clear in terms of the process, and I think you should make sure it came through in the same way. That's all.

The Chairman: The first vote would be on the top part, which means excluding the portion (b).

[Translation]

The English and French versions match perfectly.

[English]

So we would proceed with a vote on the top half, excluding (b). Is that understood? Fine.

Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Subparagraph (a) of the French version is really quite different.

The Chairman: I have not read the French version. Ms. Hébert did so earlier and Ms. Girard-Bujold said that she had understood it that time.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The French version reads as follows:

(3) Les ministres doivent inscrire la substance sur la liste des substances toxiques, s'ils sont convaincus, en se fondant sur l'évaluation préalable:

At the end of the English version of subclause 77(3), I cannot find anything that corresponds to the words: “en se fondant sur l'évaluation préalable” in the French version. I cannot find that in the English text. Where is it?

The Chairman: Ms. Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Here again, the two languages have used a different approach, and this has produced different results. However, if I understand correctly, Ms. Kraft Sloan would be prepared to strike out that part of subclause 77(3) which states: “The ministers shall add—”.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, she said she was going to delete— and these two would be treated separately.

A voice: So (b) is a separate motion.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I thought she wanted to make it discretionary, though—“shall propose”.

[Translation]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think Ms. Girard-Bujold is right, Mr. Chairman. Adding the words “en se fondant sur l'évaluation préalable”, is a significant addition which does not appear in the English version at all.

Ms. Monique Hébert: The bill states:

[English]

77.(3) Where, based on a screening assessment

It's just not part of this amendment. They started at a different level in this clause.

Mr. John Moffet: I can try to clarify.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan is now proposing two separate amendments. She is splitting her amendment.

So her first amendment should be read with the first four lines in subclause 77(3) in the French version as they are in Bill C-32:

[Translation]

(3) Les ministres doivent proposer la prise de la mesure énoncée—

• 1615

[English]

So keep those lines as they are and then go to the (a) in amendment L-13.17, as changed orally by Mrs. Kraft Sloan, as explained by Ms. Hébert.

So do not read, for the purpose of the first amendment, the first three lines in L-13.17 in French. Instead, read the first four lines in subclause (3) in Bill C-32. D'accord?

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe I could just say that the effect of the amendment, should it pass, is simply to add “human beings” next to “non-human organisms”. So on whatever line it appears, that's simply the goal.

The Chairman: That's very helpful, thank you.

I would like to discourage in future, after this amendment is dealt with, the practice of oral amendments because it is very time consuming and it creates difficulties.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman. No one has answered my question. Nowhere in the English version can I find the equivalent of the expression “en se fondant sur l'évaluation préalable”.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you look at the English version of subclause 77(3) of the bill, you will find the following:

[English]

(3) Where, based on a screening assessment conducted under section 74

[Translation]

That is the translation of the words you are looking for.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. You are very kind.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Don't mention it.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Madame Girard-Bujold, my French is very, very bad. I apologize. I didn't realize there was such a problem in the French.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Has Mr. Lincoln clarified things, Ms. Girard-Bujold?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's fine now, thank you.

The Chairman: All right.

[English]

You have the substance. The essence of the amendment was put forward by Madame Torsney a moment ago. We are voting on the top half of this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we go to the second half. Amendment L-13.17(b) is before you. Any questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: What is next?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: As much as I'd like to go on to the next one, I think there might be some assistance for the people who are keeping the records if the clerk were to just read the amendment that has passed, just to make sure, because we've been having some trouble with the blues and what have you. I could do it, but if you want to do it—

The Chairman: All right. Would you like to go ahead?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Fine.

It was moved that Bill C-32, in clause 77, be amended by replacing lines 42 to 45 on page 45 to read:

(i) persistent and bioaccumulative in accordance with the regulations, and

(ii) inherently toxic to human beings or non-human organisms, as determined by laboratory, or other studies, and

The Chairman: Fine. That corresponds with our record. Thank you.

The next amendment is on page 175, I believe.

• 1620

NDP-37 cannot be moved because it has been touched upon by the preceding amendment L-13.17. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chair, I know the committee would have voted in favour of this, so can I just hold that vote and use it later on?

The Chairman: Maybe.

Mr. Laliberte, are you ready to move your amendment on page 176, please?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I move it. It's very self-explanatory. I believe we've been plowing through this issue. If you want me to continue to speak in its favour, I will do so.

The Chairman: Please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe subparagraph (ii) does not exist in the French version and probably requires some addition at the end of the underlined portion on page 176.

The underlined portion is the new addition in French and English. It simply reads:

(iii) a hormone disrupting substance, as determined by regulations.

This would be a mandatory proposal section:

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

(a) a substance may have a long-term harmful effect on the environment because it is

(i) persistent and biocumulative

(ii) inherently toxic— and

(iii) a hormone disrupting substance, as determined by regulations.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Any questions or comments? Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's just to simply point out that not all hormone-disrupting substances, as they are understood to this point, are persistent and biocumulative. It would add a test that I don't think the effect of which would be satisfactory to the members and their goals.

The Chairman: Any other comments?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What persistent hormone-disrupting substances— I've lost track here. They're not following on top of each other. Each of them is specifically different.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, they are. It says “and”, “and”, “and”. That means you would have the one test and the second test, and then you're adding a third test, which would be in competition with the first two tests potentially, or at least the first one.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Speaking to the scientific side of our table here, where would the persistent organic pollutants that are identified as the dirty dozen, so to speak— Some of these are extremely toxic, but they're also identified as hormone disrupters. Maybe the scientific side could speak to this. How would this relate to this “and”, “and”?

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd, please.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): Ms. Torsney is correct in that this is looking at substances that are persistent and biocumulative, and they're inherently toxic, and now this would add “and an endocrine disrupter”. So you take all the ones that you have that are persistent and bioaccumulative and toxic, and now out of those you want to take the ones that are endocrine disrupters. That's what the wording you've proposed would do, which may not have been your intent. So it does add that extra step and you end up with a smaller pile of substances in the end.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, perhaps the member would consider a friendly amendment and have an “or” inserted where appropriate.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's why I sounded kind of surprised with your definition that not all these substances were bioaccumulative or inherently toxic. I think our intention is to create a category so that the ministers will take into account hormone-disrupting substances when they're making proposals and assessments. Adding the word “or” on the previous line would resolve this issue.

• 1625

The Chairman: All right. Mr. Laliberte has accepted the suggestion of preceding his amendment with the word “or” before subparagraph (iii). Do you have any further questions? Do you have any comments?

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: The next one is PC-17 on page 177.

Mr. John Herron: PC-17, I believe, would be exactly what we just did on NDP-37.1 verbatim. Given the result of the last vote, and the fact that the government doesn't seem to have much of a desire to put hormone-disrupting substances in part 5 of this bill, I think it would not be worth me presenting this at this point.

The Chairman: Thank you.

That would take us, then, to page 178. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Chair.

I know we don't want to do any oral amendments or changes to our amendments as they sit. However, given the position of the government on endocrine-disrupting substances, what I'm suggesting in amendment L-13.18 on page 178 is that we delete paragraph (a). So the changes to this clause would begin on line 15.

Again, Madam Girard-Bujold, this is constructed differently en français, but I have a colleague who will do the translation en français pour vous. I am struggling.

So, Mr. Chair, paragraph (a) is deleted from this amendment, so the amendment would start on line 15 in the bill.

The Chairman: Unfortunately, you can't move it, because there is an amendment that would come before yours.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

The Chairman: NDP-38 deals with line 14. Therefore, we would have to give precedence to the next page, 179.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, Mr. Chair, I think I would have to agree with you, except I think there was an unfortunate verbal editing of the amendment that is going to be before us on L-13.18. Really, if I'm not mistaken, the intention of the mover was to remove the last part between the commas in paragraph (a). I think the mover would still want the words “persistent and bioaccumulative” in paragraph (a), as they are currently in the bill, to remain in the bill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, my amendment wouldn't start until 15, which is below paragraph (a).

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Fine, either way.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm not taking paragraph (a) out of the bill. I'm leaving it alone. I'm not amending it.

• 1630

Mr. Chair, actually, I will need an “and” in mine. Therefore mine is identical to the NDP's. So mine would go first.

The Chairman: Yes, that's quite true.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can I proceed with mine, then?

The Chairman: Yes, you can proceed with yours.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. So it actually starts on line 14 by adding an “and” to paragraph 77(4)(a), which is currently in the bill. Paragraph 77(4)(b) would then read:

(b) human activity is causing or contributing to the presence of the substance in the environment,

This is the same rationale as the one I articulated earlier for a similar amendment. Then paragraph 77(4)(c) would be deleted.

The Chairman: Fine. The motion is in order. Have you moved the motion?

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I would like to ask this of Mr. Moffet, the officials, or both.

Say the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or substance. There's a screening process that takes place. I would assume that might be part of that screening process. I'm wondering what the effect is of having that in there. If mercury, which is a naturally occurring substance, is spilled from a truck on Highway 401, is this tying the hands of the minister?

Mr. John Moffet: In my opinion, it certainly is. The effect of paragraph 77(4)(c) is that the ministers would not be required to propose virtual elimination if the substance were a naturally occurring substance. If I could just clarify one point for the members, let's recall that virtual elimination is defined in the bill not to mean total elimination, but virtual elimination of releases. So we're not talking about eliminating naturally occurring substances from the environment. Of course, the minister can't require that. This would take out, from the virtual elimination track, even the possibility of virtually eliminating releases of naturally occurring substances.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Is chlorine a naturally occurring substance? And mercury would be one.

Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chair, I might disagree with your answer on chlorine, but I think the question should be posed to the scientists.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Are we providing an out here such that anything that could arguably occur naturally is just completely off this track? Is that what this is doing?

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): I'd like to respond to that, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Paragraph 77(4)(c) says:

(c) the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or substance,

This essentially says that those substances not naturally occurring are not candidates for virtual elimination. They're not candidates for virtual elimination.

However, I would like to remind the committee that simply by not being candidates for virtual elimination, which is simply one track the minister can take, we're not in any way limiting the authority or the power of the ministers to take regulatory action under clause 93, which includes paragraph 93(1)(l), which was discussed previously.

Mr. Joe Jordan: What was the rationale for the carve-out?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: The rationale for the carve-out is that naturally occurring substances, in terms of setting an LOQ, or level of quantification, because they are naturally occurring, their level in the environment across this country will vary immensely depending upon naturally occurring processes.

Those naturally occurring processes could be the content of metal in the rock or the presence of forest fires or a host of things. They vary tremendously because of geography. They vary tremendously because of processes that go on every day in the environment. We are not limiting the authority of the minister at all to take action.

• 1635

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lerer.

Any further questions? Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Sorry, Mr. Lerer. I'm listening very carefully, but I'm going to where it says:

(4) Where the Ministers propose to take the measure referred to in paragraph 2(c) in respect of a substance and the Ministers are satisfied that

(c) the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or substance,

the Ministers shall propose virtual elimination of the substance under this Act.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That's correct. If we take a look at paragraph 77(2)(c)—and they are cross-referenced to each other to make sure there is no confusion—this measure would recommend that the substance be added to the list of toxic substances in schedule 1, and, where applicable, for virtual elimination. The intent of paragraph 77(4)(c), then, is to say that those naturally occurring substances shall not be candidates for virtual elimination. That does not mean we are eliminating in any way the authority of the ministers in clause 93 to regulate.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can I put the question another way to you, Mr. Lerer or Mrs. Lloyd? If this paragraph 77(2)(c) hadn't been in this clause at all, would it detract from the bill? Would it make the bill of lesser importance? Would it make any difference?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I believe it would scientifically, sir, in trying to determine a level of quantification for a naturally occurring substance, given the variability that one finds for naturally occurring substances, either because of the vast geography of this country of ours or because of naturally occurring processes. I will talk about one, which is forest fires.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Don't paragraphs 77(2)(a) and 77(2)(b) just take care of it in any event?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, sir, I do not believe it would solve the technical problem of setting a level of quantification.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, you can have one more question.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I read this as a layman. If you read paragraph 77(3)(a), we talk about whether the ministers propose to take a measure in respect of a substance and the ministers are satisfied that the presence of the substance in the environment results primarily from human activity. So if it doesn't result from human activity, it ain't there. This is where I find this redundant, because the ministers have to be satisfied that the presence of the substance results primarily from human activity and is persistent and bioaccumulative according to the regulations. If those criteria are already there, surely the other one is self-explanatory. You don't have to really stick it in.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I believe in terms of the clarity it is required, sir. For conducting the scientific assessments in establishing what action it's going to take, I believe it would be very difficult without this clause to establish a level of quantification that one could use as the ultimate objective for virtual elimination, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lerer. Can you clarify for me this question? Paragraphs 77(3)(a), (b) and (c) deal with persistency with bioaccumulation, with the presence of a substance primarily from human activity and then not naturally occurring radionuclides. The word “toxic” is missing in these three components. Is there a reason for that? Is it covered by any of these three items, or is it covered somewhere else? Is it covered in paragraph 77(2)(c)?

• 1640

Mr. Harvey Lerer: It is covered under paragraph 77(2)(c), sir.

The Chairman: Thank you. Was there a question for Mr. Moffet? Could we now conclude our discussion, please?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: There is one last question. I want to be satisfied. You talked about the level of qualification. The level of qualification refers to releases, okay?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, sir.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Releases are qualified by the substances in paragraphs 77(2)(a) and (b), so I don't see what application the level of qualification has and how paragraph 77(3)(c) interacts with it in that sense.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If you will recall the discussion on virtual elimination, the level of quantification is the ultimate objective of the entire policy of virtual elimination. That is the goal we are seeking to achieve over a period of time by taking measured steps. What I'm saying is that for naturally occurring substances, precisely because they are naturally occurring substances, defining that ultimate objective, defining that goal would be technically difficult, if not impossible, in terms of a national program.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: You're almost proving my point, rather than the other way. If you say we can't quantify it, then why do you put it in there? It seems to me you really make me believe more than ever that it shouldn't be there.

The Chairman: Any comments?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Lincoln was very clear in his statement.

The Chairman: Do you agree with him?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No, sir, I don't.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to ask Mr. Lerer about the reference to forest fires. What was that? I only caught the tail end of it.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: One of the clearest examples in the literature is that forest fires, by the fact that they are burning, cause contaminants to appear in the air. One of the most well-known facts is that just by having a forest fire one releases dioxins and furans into the environment.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So what does that have to do with this? You can't virtually eliminate a forest fire. If you live in a forest and you virtually eliminate a forest fire, it's going to flare up and burn your ass.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Having experienced both of those conditions, Mr. Laliberte, my comment speaks to that point exactly. Since one is trying to define a level of quantification, which is the lowest level one can hope to reach, because these things are naturally occurring, they vary throughout the country. Some years are more forest-fire active than others. It would be very difficult to set an ultimate objective without this paragraph.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Regardless of the minister, if you see a forest fire, the ultimate objective is to put it out. That's total elimination, so that's fine. How can somebody put a lawsuit on you for trying to totally put out a forest fire? That's the same thing here. We're trying to virtually eliminate, but ultimately it should have been total elimination.

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll have Mr. Moffet, then Mr. Jordan.

Mr. John Moffet: I would like to follow up on Mr. Lincoln's question to further clarify the issue.

Mr. Lerer, you're suggesting that it would be difficult to establish a level of quantification, an LOQ for a naturally occurring substance, precisely because they are naturally occurring and because there are therefore releases of those substances into the environment from natural phenomena.

• 1645

My question has to do with the concept of LOQ. I understood that LOQ referred to a measure of a release of the substance from the emitter. If my factory is releasing a substance, can't you establish an LOQ and measure that LOQ in the smokestack? If that's the case, what impact does a forest fire or any other natural release have on your ability to measure the release and determine whether it attains the LOQ that you've established for me? I sense a confusion between ambient conditions and release conditions.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If I may, Mr. Chair, it is a measure, and it is a measure of release. The level of quantification in the new section 65 winds up being the ultimate objective of the virtual elimination provisions in the bill. Yes, it is possible to set that number, but since it is the ultimate objective—and the variability I've talked of before—does one want to have by statute an ultimate objective that is as variable as that of which I speak? Remember, “level of quantification” is simply a scientific number based on the ability to measure things in a way that is sensitive but readily available.

Mr. John Moffet: If I may, LOQ is then defined as a measure of a release, and it's defined to mean the lowest amount you can measure by routine—

Mr. Harvey Lerer: It's routine by sensitive methodology.

Mr. John Moffet: So you could take out your routine best available technologies to measure the dioxins that are coming out of my stack.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes.

Mr. John Moffet: You know what that number is, because you know what that technology can measure, so what is technically to impede you from telling me that's my emission limit?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: There is nothing to technically impede you from setting that as the number. The only thing I would remind you of is that clause 65 sets out that being below the level of quantification is the ultimate objective. In the ambient environment, because of natural processes, you could wind up with that situation.

Mr. John Moffet: So is this really a fairness issue? Are you suggesting that it would be unfair to impose that limit on me when my factory might be in the middle of a region that has routine forest fires and where there may be dioxins floating around in the air all the time? Why should I be subject to that release?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I'm not saying that at all. Because of the difficulties that I have tried to articulate, what I'm saying is that if this was in fact the decision that had to be made, the authority to make such a decision exists already in clause 93.

The Chairman: All right, let's conclude.

Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: My concern is that you say it doesn't restrict the power of the minister. But if it's a naturally occurring radionuclide or substance, you can't put it on the TSL or on the virtual elimination track; it would go onto track two.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If I may, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing to limit putting these substances on the toxic substances list.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You can't put it on the virtual elimination track.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: You cannot put it on the virtual elimination track, but there is no limitation on declaring it to be a toxic substance, on putting it on the toxic substances list or, therefore, on taking any action under clause 93.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But you would be putting it on track two, on which you're essentially talking about life-cycle management. You told us you can't put it on track one, which is virtual elimination, and you're not going to be able to ban it. What we're talking about is life-cycle management then, and we're dealing with highly toxic substances that we're only going to manage.

• 1650

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If I could clarify, there is nothing that limits track two substances from being dealt with in any manner, including banning, under clause 93. There is nothing that limits that authority under track two.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then there shouldn't be anything that would limit us from deleting this clause, so it can go in the virtual elimination track, because banning is far more severe than virtual elimination.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I'll leave you with that judgment. All I am saying is not being on the virtual elimination track does not limit in any way, shape or form the authority of the minister set out in clause 93.

Mr. John Moffet: I think the difference Mrs. Kraft Sloan is looking for is that track one, as triggered by subclause 77(4), requires virtual elimination. If a substance goes on track two, you don't have to virtually eliminate, but as Mr. Lerer has emphasized, every one of the control and regulatory measures articulated in clause 93, including total, partial, and conditional prohibitions, is available to the minister; she just doesn't have to invoke those measures. That's the difference.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Exactly, and if they tell us banning is possible, then I suggest virtual elimination is less severe than banning.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte will speak on page 179.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll introduce the motion for the amendment. I believe it's very straightforward in what we want to do. On line 14 we are proposing to add “and”. On line 17 we would take “and” away. Then we're asking that lines 18 and 19 be deleted.

The Chairman: Would you explain the effect of this amendment, please?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is a similar situation of making an exemption. We believe we debated this in dealing with minerals and metals just recently, and by eliminating this— Also, paragraph 77(4)(c) raises the issue of this naturally occurring radionuclide or substance. I have a lot of concerns about the nuclide aspect of this in dealing with tailings.

When you look at the presence of the substance in the environment, it is primarily because of human activity. It exposes radioactive waste in certain mines, and a lot of these mines have been practised because of a crown corporation that went headlong into producing an industry that did not necessarily know the results of leaving tailings in huge tracts of lakes similar to what the Deline are experiencing in Great Bear Lake. We have Uranium City and Gunnar mines. They are looking at Athabasca Lake, where the tailings were pushed right into the lake. I have a major concern that this would create an exemption for this site of activity. They are human activities, but the substance that is being exposed is naturally occurring.

I propose this be deleted from here so the minister can act or make a proposal toward virtual elimination.

• 1655

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

You've heard the explanation. Are there any comments?

Mr. Jordan and then Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just want to get some handle on the scope of this issue.

This is a little bit hypothetical, but in the list of toxic substances, how many of them would be naturally occurring? Do you have a ballpark figure or any idea what we're talking about here? How many potentially toxic substances are going to escape virtual elimination because they're classified as naturally occurring?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I have, and I believe you have as well, schedule 1 on page 217 of Bill C-32. You can see that many of the metals are listed. I'll point to 7 and 8. Lead and mercury are listed and then the specific things that are prohibited because they are listed. Asbestos is another. Those controls are there.

The Chairman: Did that answer your question, Mr. Jordan?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you have any further questions?

Mr. Joe Jordan: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I was listening to Mr. Laliberté, who seemed to be opposed to the wording of subparagraph 77(4)(c), which states:

[English]

(c) the substance is not a naturally occurring radionuclide or substance,

[Translation]

He says there are some situations in which substances that were originally artificial, industrial or mineral in nature now no longer are. In French, this matter was settled by referring to “une substance ou un radionucléide d'origine naturelle”. I think you could solve this problem if we could find an equivalent to that in English. Once we establish that it is not naturally occurring, you have the answer to your question.

I would like to know, more fundamentally, why you would like to eliminate subparagraph 77(4)(c). What is the problem with it?

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm not trying to pretend what the legal definition of that line and a half is. I'd ask the legal opinion of it.

If you include that section as it is now—we're proposing it be deleted—the substance is not a naturally occurring nuclide or substance. What is that saying, to answer Mr. Charbonneau?

Mr. John Moffet: Paragraph 77(4)(c) carves out from track one all naturally occurring substances. So track one is the track under which the minister must prescribe virtual elimination. That's the key difference between track one and track two. Track two is the track where the minister has a broad range of authority to control the use, production, and emission of substances subject to life-cycle considerations. She is given a wide range of authority that includes, as Mr Lerer has pointed out, the authority to ban a substance. But the difference is that she may use that authority. In track one she is obliged to virtually eliminate a substance. That's the power of track one. That's the essence of the recommendations that were made by this committee in It's About Our Health!, that the minister should be required to virtually eliminate certain substances.

• 1700

The effect of paragraph 77(4)(c) is that it makes the subset of substances that are subject to track one a smaller subset of substances. Specifically, it removes all naturally occurring substances and radionuclides from that subset that might be subject to track one.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I happen to agree 500% with Mr. Moffet. I've been persisting in this since we discussed natural occurrences before. If today you had this clause in the bill and lead and mercury had not been banned, wouldn't it be more difficult to ban lead and mercury with this clause in than with it not in?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: In my view, no, sir.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Why?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: How can you say that? That's what it says here.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If the weight of evidence respecting the science were there—and it is a weight-of-evidence approach—and the requirement to ban to protect the environment and human health were there, that regulatory authority exists. My belief is that given that weight of evidence, the government would act.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Lerer, I will remind you that I mentioned MMT the other day, where the government didn't act. They backed off by saying they didn't have the weight of evidence. But the other day we heard from two of the foremost scientists and medical people on MMT, who testified to us that the weight of evidence is very preponderant.

There was a big workshop in Arkansas last year on manganese that showed manganese can be very dangerous. As Dr. Mergler said if you add a little bit to gasoline, maybe it doesn't have any affect, but the cumulative effect on young children and elderly people is very significant.

Who decides that weight of evidence? That's the point. There is the weight of evidence in the minds of a lot of people, but the government says “Oh, well, we're not satisfied yet. Prove it to us conclusively.”

By putting this in, surely you make the onus far less onerous on the government than it would be otherwise.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: With respect to your question of who decides, the ministers decide whether they will propose to the Governor in Council whether something be added to the toxic substances list.

In my experience, ministers get their advice from government scientists—this is a scientific question—but I've never known a minister to be limited by the advice they get from within the department. They would, in my experience, seek broad scientific advice from a number of sources.

Who decides? The ministers decide whether to propose to the Governor in Council and then the government makes a decision on the regulation.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you have one naturally occurring substance that is potentially very harmful to human health, such as lead and mercury have been, such as manganese could be tomorrow, and such as the big debate on chlorine, and you have this clause in, surely it is less onerous to administer, to decide, because you have this escape clause than if you don't have it.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: First, the determination of toxicity happens before the virtual elimination track kicks in, and as Mr. Moffet said, with virtual elimination there is an obligation, but on track two there is no limitation whatsoever on the authority to act.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Laliberte, briefly, please.

• 1705

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I wanted to round off the discussions. Mr. Charbonneau raised a question. A lot of concern does arise with this line and a half. It specifically deals with radionuclides. Radionuclides are a natural substance, but how come it brings it out and puts it in the spotlight here separately?

I think Mr. Moffet raises something here. The highlight of this line and a half is that it does not specifically say if it's ambient or a release. It totally puts them off track.

If it's an ambient situation, nobody is going to argue. It's the release that's the major control here. The natural substances are in Mother Earth. We're not going to argue about this. The problem is our human activities are causing releases of these naturally occurring substances that are toxic.

The Chairman: Do you want to comment on this?

Mr. John Moffet: I think Mr. Laliberte has correctly interpreted my earlier statements. This subclause has to do with virtual elimination of substances whose presence results primarily from human activity. So this subclause has to do with virtually eliminating releases of substances whose presence in the environment primarily results from human activity.

In other words, we're going to virtually eliminate the contribution of human activity to the presence of those substances in the environment. Obviously, we're not going to do anything about their natural occurrence, but we're going to virtually eliminate human contributions via releases of those substances.

The effect of paragraph (c) is again to restrict the scope of this subclause and therefore to restrict the scope of track one, to limit it so that the minister will not be required to propose virtual elimination.

To go back to Mr. Lincoln's question about lead, I completely agree with Mr. Lerer. The minister would have full authority under clause 93 to ban the substance. The difference is that she could choose not to. If we took out paragraph (c), the minister would be required to ban lead.

The Chairman: Is it clear now?

A final question, Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I wanted to re-emphasize what Mr. Moffet has been saying—

The Chairman: We don't need that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I just want to emphasize it one more time. I think it's really important to understand that when you are required to do something, it is a totally different situation when you have to go back to Governor in Council and a whole array of things may or may not be done. In the situation that's already been mentioned around lead and certainly the situation Mr. Lincoln has raised around MMT, there has been too high a barrier to act.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, would you like to move the second half of your motion, PC-16?

Mr. John Herron: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Or do you want to leave it for the report stage?

Mr. John Herron: I don't know if my life expectancy is such that I am going to make it there for that part of it, given the number of amendments we have.

The Chairman: What is your choice?

Mr. John Herron: My choice is to move the amendment.

The Chairman: Would you like to explain it for the new arrivals to committee?

Mr. John Herron: Absolutely. Essentially, the intent of the second half of the amendment is to make the bill progressive, which is what I thought was the intention when we originally were progressive enough to include endocrine disrupters under part 3.

• 1710

To date, we don't have anything related to hormone-disrupting substances. The amendment, as laid out under my paragraph (b), permits the possibility for the minister to act as opposed to just merely collect information. I think it would be a shame for us to miss an opportunity and not have this put in part 5.

So again, I'm starting to get a sense that the government doesn't want hormone-disrupting substances in part 5 in any way, shape or form, which I think is bad for the environment and bad legislation.

The Chairman: Does that conclude your perceptive remarks?

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I want to clarify. Did he or did he not take out (b)? I lost him.

Mr. John Herron: No.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, (b) is back in. It was out earlier, but it's back in.

Mr. John Herron: It's back.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

(Amendment negatived) [SeeMinutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Page 180, please, the government amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move amendment G-6.1.

We have pulled G-6.1 on pages 180-181. On pages 182-183, you have G-7 before you. The effect of this—

The Chairman: Are you moving G-6.1?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, I'm moving G-7.

The Chairman: Then we are on page 182 of your binder,

[Translation]

on page 183 in the French version.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: This is a technical amendment. There are a couple of components to it. One of course is at the end of (b), the first line, in English, where it adds an “s” to “Minister” because that was necessary. It also deletes superfluous language that was included unfortunately in Bill C-32, and, finally, it improves on Bill C-70.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? Everybody is clear on it?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I just ask a question? I'm not sure we closed clause 76.

The Chairman: No, we have not called it yet.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm effecting a change on clause 77.

The Chairman: Have we called 76?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm happy to do both.

The Chairman: Yes, it is still stood. For now we are dealing with your amendment on clause 77.

(Amendment agreed to) [SeeMinutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 77 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 78 agreed to)

(On clause 79—Plans required for virtual elimination)

The Chairman: Page 184.

Mr. John Herron: I can't move PC-18 because it was consequential to PC-16, which crashed and burned, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We then move to L-13.18.1 in your small book. It's being distributed now.

• 1715

Madame Kraft Sloan, would you like to explain your motion?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is on clause 79 on page 49. What this essentially does is restore Bill C-32 to Bill C-74. It follows on the same logic that I had undertaken earlier on a discussion around P2R2 planning. This would require the deletion of subclause 79(4) in virtual elimination planning so that we would not have the time delay that was inserted into Bill C-32, which was different in Bill C-74; the time delay did not exist. So there would be a requirement to begin the preparation of virtual elimination plans as outlined in Bill C-74. You wouldn't have to wait until they're on the list of toxic substances, which is a requirement for Governor in Council to do, and so on.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I have a brief comment.

The Chairman: Could we please have order here. There is too much disturbance.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The time delay is limited to the period from when the ministers are required to make an order recommending that the substance be added to the list, and the requirement is to do so immediately. What this does is provide Governor in Council confirmation that the substance is toxic, and considering the amount of investment associated with the preparation of these plans, it seems to be a reasonable requirement.

The Chairman: A requirement by whom?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: A requirement in the bill, sir.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, it's a reasonable requirement—

Mr. Steve Mongrain: To wait until the substance is on the list of toxic substances.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But the minister has already recommended. The substance has been categorized, screened, assessed, and it's been recommended that it be put on the list of toxic substances. The minister has found it toxic. I would assume that there were some scientists involved in making the assessment that it was toxic.

I don't understand why there has to be a further delay for cabinet to go through the final listing process. We have substances that have been identified and recommended as toxic that are still not on the toxic substances list, and that's a two-year period. I know there is an automatic requirement that the minister go forward with the recommendation now in this bill, but we still have a political process where the Governor in Council gets involved, and I know a lot of industry witnesses have come before us and said science is a very important aspect of determining toxicity and whether substances are considered toxic. So it seems to me that there's an incredibly unnecessary delay, and all we're doing is asking for it to be reverted back to Bill C-74.

Are you telling me that you made a mistake in Bill C-74?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: We've made some changes from Bill C-74 to Bill C-32.

• 1720

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: When I asked you this question on P2R2 planning, I never got an answer on why it was changed. If, as you say, it is an expensive process to undertake the development of virtual elimination plans, and if we should wait for the Governor in Council to give careful consideration to this, I'm sure those conditions still existed when you drafted C-74. The difference is there between C-74 and C-32, and I'm not sure the answer you gave me is a good enough answer for this one.

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

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to speak in favour of this motion, because I think it makes a lot of sense. In terms of deeming that a substance is toxic, the decision is a matter of science. Once the science actually makes that determination, it should behoove us to slow down the process for political interference.

I think it's very similar to what we would see in terms of scientific listing in endangered species in terms of actually having political interference with respect to a decision that COSEWIC would actually make. I doubt the 25 or 28 members of cabinet—or whatever the size of the cabinet is—are experts on toxic substances, so I think we should keep it to science. In this way, it makes a lot of sense.

The Chairman: Madame Hébert would like to comment.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Chairman, if this proposed amendment were adopted, virtual elimination plans could certainly be required far earlier in the process. It's anybody's guess as to when a substance might actually be placed on the list of toxic substances. Indeed, there is no obligation on the Governor in Council to act on the minister's recommendation to place the substance on the list of toxic substances. As a result, this could have long-term implications for the virtual elimination of a substance if it hinges on listing it on the list of toxic substances.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: There is a point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of us have been working on this bill for quite a long time. A number of us have been hearing witnesses for months on this bill.

The Chairman: That's not a point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is a point of order, Mr. Chair. We have members sitting on this committee who are using—

The Chairman: I know what you're driving at and it is not a point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: —cell phones and who are working on computers. It would be really nice to have everyone's attention on this bill.

Thank you.

The Chairman: That was not a point of order.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 79 agreed to)

(On clause 80—Definitions)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, are you ready to move amendment NDP-38.1?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to move the amendment, which would be to clause 80, which is under the heading “Substances and Activities New to Canada”.

To bring up to date the committee members who may not have been aware of the developments to this point, we have a definition before us that was adopted by this committee in a previous part of this bill. The definition reads:

“hormone disrupting substance” means a substance having the ability to disrupt the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action or elimination of natural hormones in an organism or its progeny that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis, reproduction, development or behaviour of the organism;

• 1725

Hormone-disrupting substances were a major issue brought to us by health advocates and child disability advocates. These people brought up this point for us to address this and protect our children and their health.

The role we're playing here so far is that we've asked the minister, under this definition, to research and study hormone-disrupting substances. What I'm proposing here under clause 80 is to have an opportunity of controlling toxic substance so that for any substances or activities that are new to Canada, when the minister has sufficient evidence in her studies and research, this definition would be a flow to this section and would follow through. It would make the most common sense to have it here.

Since I've seen some reluctance on the part of the government to have it included in previous sections in this part, this would be appropriate under “Substances and Activities New to Canada”. If endocrine disrupters are identified as new substances, their harm may not be as evident in the definition for us to be made aware of the toxic level for somebody to be poisoned or become cancerous because of this substance. It could be a small, minute substance that could cause the hormone disruption when the embryo is being developed at a critical stage in a mother's womb or in any other organism.

I just raise this point as a highlight to the members who are new. We do have this definition in the act already, but it's not specifically in this part. I would beg the committee members to look favourably at this as putting it as part of substances and activities new to Canada.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Now we have Mrs. Kraft Sloan, Mr. Charbonneau, and Ms. Torsney.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

I would be very pleased to support this amendment. I'd like to point out to committee members that the United States Environmental Protection Agency, as a result of the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act, an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act, is required to develop a screening program for implementation by August 1999 to determine whether substances have an effect on humans that are endocrine disrupting or hormone disrupting. They're going to be looking at a total of approximately 15,000 chemicals. They're going to be screened, as I said, for endocrine-disrupting effects by the end of 1999.

So I think this is an important amendment for this committee to consider. We're always talking about harmonizing and making sure we're on a level playing field with the United States.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau, please.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to ask Mr. Laliberté to kindly repeat his explanation from the following point of view. You say there is a similar definition elsewhere in the bill. Why do you want to insert it again here? What makes you think that it does not apply here? If this provision already appears in the bill, why should we be focussing on this issue again?

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, the definition exists in part 3 of the bill under “Information Gathering, Objectives, Guidelines, and Codes of Practice”. When that was included, we also had a following amendment brought in by the government that asked the minister to do research and studies toward hormone disrupters.

Following on, as clause-by-clause developed, we reached part 5, which is the specific part dealing with controlling toxic substances. We have had reminders by the parliamentary secretary that this definition does not exist in this part. It may not have been appropriate to bring it into the first part of part 5, but I think it would be very appropriate to put it under clause 80, where it deals with “Substances and Activities New to Canada”. If the minister is going to research and study hormone disrupters, this is the track for bringing them under control. This would be a part and a process. There's a journey for these. If we have hormone disrupters coming into effect in this act, they should not get clogged in part 3 as part of just information gathering; they should be able to be followed through and journey toward a controlling of these substances.

• 1730

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Torsney, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I just want to seek clarification on the section we're dealing with. I think the member wants to put this forward for anything between clauses 80 and 89. This would only be necessary—I checked through the book and the only amendments I have before me that would be relevant for this would be NDP-43.1, 43.2 and 43.3. So I'm not sure, in terms of order, if— I mean, the goal of the member opposite would be to pass this, assuming the other amendments would pass. I don't know if there's a process that would clarify the order in which this should go. I just wanted to—

The Chairman: The process is based on the best judgment of the member who moves the amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: If you feel it should be inserted somewhere else, please feel free to suggest so.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. I guess I was just pointing out that it would be necessary to have a definition in clause 80 only if there were to be any amendments to clauses 81 through 89. There are only three amendments that would be before us, since I checked through the package, that would affect the need for this, and they would be the three that are in that small package—43.1, 43.2, 43.3. I just wanted to focus people on the fact that it may not be necessary unless those other ones pass.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Herron.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I hope what the parliamentary secretary was searching for was some way to reach a consensus on including this. And if this was the case, maybe we should try to find that accommodation, because otherwise I think we're going to be left behind.

I should mention that besides the United States, the European Union—the European Parliament—in October of this year passed a resolution, admittedly non-binding, to phase out hormone-disrupting substances. They asked that the Parliament develop a list of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. They recommended phase-out of current uses and refusal of marketing licences for new endocrine disrupters. They recommended additional research on the effects, and the development of a standardized testing regime. So I think we can see the trends in Europe and the United States. This is taken very, very seriously. And I think if we can find some sort of consensus to include this in part 5 in some way or another, it will be well worthwhile.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron, followed by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. John Herron: If we went back into the blues, we'd see that throughout the testimony we've heard on this particular section, there's usually a reference every time the words “hormone disrupting” or “endocrine disrupting” appear. The parliamentary secretary usually likes to remind us those words would not be in keeping with the order of the bill, given that we do not have a definition under part 5 for hormone-disrupting substances. That being the case, this would be an opportunity for us to provide that elusive definition, so when those words come up in future amendments, we would have a definition—and she wouldn't have to remind us that we don't have a definition under part 5.

• 1735

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

In response to Mr. Lincoln and to Ms. Kraft Sloan, it's of course Environment Canada scientists who are working with the OECD and with the U.S. EPA on some of that very research that is being undertaken. In fact, as far as I understand it, this will be the only piece of legislation in Canada that exists—-assuming it gets passed—that obligates the government to do research, and that specific obligation is on endocrine disrupters. I think that's a progressive achievement for the committee and I think that should be noted.

So we are achieving some of the objectives that have been articulated in this last round. Nonetheless, I'm not in favour of this particular amendment that's before us, NDP-38.1.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Laliberte, briefly, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to clarify the parliamentary secretary's concern. It does deal with some amendments that'll follow, but the definition must fall under clause 80, because it's a new substance and it's new activities in Canada, which would mean the minister's research and studies as well. This would bring this definition into this bill. Subsequently you'll see an assessment of that information and an end assessment and then action taken on that assessment.

I think, with her nodding of her head, she's in full favour of this journey.

I'll just explain one more time to let everybody know that this is a very crucial part of our bill. We have been challenged by advocates of child safety, child disabilities. This has caused feminization of embryos, it has cause deformities in frogs and other amphibians, even deformities in fetuses, and if we do not address it beyond research and opportunity for anybody else to do this, then we would have—

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Briefly, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Just to dovetail on the remarks made by my colleague from the NDP, I think alarm bells should actually go off in people's heads here. We have a piece of legislation before us that obviously a number of individuals think needs some enhancement or is rather flawed, given the fact that we have in excess of 400 amendments.

I'd like to remind the parliamentary secretary that a great deal of those amendments are reference to the fact that it is constructive to the betterment of human health to include hormone-disrupting substances in this bill and give the minister an opportunity to act. That means putting it in part 5. I think alarm bells should be going off in people's heads when we have 400 amendments on a piece of legislation. A great number of them are related to this particular subject. Those individuals who are concerned for human health would like to have this in part 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan, to conclude.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would also like to point out that a lot of those 400 amendments are similar and they come from different parties around this table. So it's quite obvious that's not just one ideological point of view, nor is it just one particular interest group that's bringing these very important issues before this committee.

Secondly, I would like to point out for committee members that there was a requirement in the old CEPA that we have a five-year review. Well, that was CEPA 1988; this is now 1998. This is a decade or more before we're going to see new legislation. This CEPA has a requirement for a seven-year review. I would ask the committee members if we're going to have a generation of Canadians who have to wait before we have adequate regulations and legislation to deal with this very important issue.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 80 agreed to)

• 1740

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a point of order. Although I too have amendments for clause 81, I wonder if we could stand down clause 81 and move on to clause 82.

The Chairman: Yes, we can stand clause 81. We need a consensus to stand clause 81.

(Clause 81 allowed to stand on division)

(Clause 82 agreed to)

(On clause 83—Assessment of information)

The Chairman: The next amendment, and that will be the last amendment for tonight, NDP-43.1, is in the name of Mr. Laliberte. Perhaps we may now put both amendments, if they are not too long, to conclude this clause.

Mr. Laliberte, would you like to present your amendment?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, I'll carry it forward since there's an existing definition of “hormone disrupting”. If somebody loses their way in this bill, I'm sure they'll find some reference somewhere.

On clause 83, on Assessment of information, it says:

83.(1) Subject to subsection (4), the Ministers shall, within the prescribed assessment period, assess information provided under subsection 81(1), (3) or (4) or paragraph 84(1)(c) or otherwise available to them in respect of a substance in order to determine whether it is toxic or capable of becoming toxic

We're adding “or whether it is a hormone disrupting substance.”

This is the crucial part. The definition was required, but I must ask that the committee members seriously look at this. We have asked the minister to research and study hormone-disrupting substances. If she finds that this information of hormone-disrupting substances is a detriment to our health and our environment, here's an opportunity in a clause for assessment of this information. It gives her the power to assess the information that will be provided to her.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to this issue and adding “a hormone disrupting substance” to the piece of legislation, it would be a very good idea for the government to exercise the precautionary principle when they're writing the legislation— not just for the people to follow the legislation. We could actually utilize that concept at this point in time.

There was a comment made by the member from York North when she touched on the fact that this is 1998, and CEPA was brought in in 1988 and it took 10 years for us to get to this stage. Without a seven-year mechanism, we could be another decade before we actually have a chance to revisit this issue.

Passing environmental legislation necessarily hasn't been the hallmark of this current government. We're in the sixth year of its mandate and we've yet to see a major piece of environmental legislation passed, other than the MMT, and that didn't quite work out all that well— for $16.5 million of taxpayers' money. It would be more prudent for us to be able to add “a hormone disrupting substance” at this juncture.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: In terms of the way this clause would operate, the minister would be evaluating whether things would also be toxic, and toxic could include hormone-disrupting substances, because of course toxic would include all things that would have an adverse health effect. It would include things that are carcinogenic and other things that the committee would hopefully care about as much as they care about this issue, and there are tests for that.

So I would suggest to the member opposite that it would be unnecessary to include this.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1745

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, would you mind concluding with the next two motions, please, in your name?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, we'll continue. It's another opportunity to assess this information. I'll move this motion and bring to light that I had a chance to talk to the minister yesterday. She did not seem to be too unhappy that we have a definition in the bill. I hope she doesn't hold a grudge on this whole situation.

The Chairman: Would you mind moving the motion?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It doesn't seem appropriate that we would have a ministerial opportunity to conduct research and development on a very crucial part. It's true that hormone-disrupting substances may be toxic, but we are defining them as a cautionary substance that could cause irreparable damage to the human species. That's why we'd like to ask for an assessment of information here, to move the motion.

The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions?

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 83 agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, would you mind if we stop here and move your next amendment tomorrow morning?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Certainly.

The Chairman: There is another amendment before yours. We have to go back to amendment L-13. So we would be wise to adjourn now and resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.

The meeting is adjourned.