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 3, 1998

• 0911

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We are resuming our review of Bill C-32.

Yesterday we stopped after completing our discussion on Government's motion, G-8, on page 193.

Today we are starting with amendment L-13.21, on page 194.

[English]

We now have the motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln, L-13.21, on page 194 of your binder.

(On clause 84—Action to be taken after assessment)

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, are you ready to move your motion?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): No, I won't move the motion. I'll withdraw it.

The Chairman: We therefore go to NDP motion 43.3, which is in your small collection. But Mr. Laliberte is not in the room, so it would be advisable that we put it aside until he arrives.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, Ms. Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Did we call the question on clause 83? It's my recall that we had defeated two amendments to clause 83, but that we hadn't closed the clause.

The Chairman: The clerk informs me that he has it as carried on his notes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you for reminding us. It does no harm at all.

If Mr. Laliberte is not here, we can't— Because there are two motions in a row in the name of the NDP, NDP-43.3 and NDP-44—

A voice: Are we on NDP-45?

The Chairman: No. I went to NDP-43.3 and NDP-44, and then, yes, eventually I'll go to NDP-45.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps I could suggest that we stand down clause 84 and move on to clause 85, and come back to clause 84 as soon as the NDP arrives.

The Chairman: If that is acceptable to the committee by consent, we can do that. We can stand clause 84 and move on to clause 85.

(Clause 84 allowed to stand)

On clause 85—Significant new activity

The Chairman: The floor is to Ms. Torsney, with an amendment by the government, G-9, on page 197.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would be happy to move amendment G-9.

• 0915

It's interesting that it is only in English, for those of you who are following along in French, because there was an unfortunate typo in the English where the minister was pluralized inadvertently. So the effect of this amendment, were it to pass, would be to remove the “s” and make it the single minister who may publish before the end of the expiry date.

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

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We'll take a moment. The interpreting service, the translation, doesn't seem to come through, according to some.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, while you're getting that, I have to inform members that I made a mistake; it's in another part that we didn't have it in French. It was in French with ministres, plural, as well. Hopefully that'll be the last time this happens this morning.

The Chairman: We'll have to suspend the meeting for a few moments until the technician arrives to correct the transmission of the translation in the other official language.

• 0917

• 0937

The Chairman: The system has been repaired.

[Translation]

We can resume working in both official languages.

[English]

I have to call clause 85 as amended by the parliamentary secretary.

(Clause 85 as amended carried)

The Chairman: Thank you. Would you mind now going back to where we were at the beginning of the meeting, namely page 195, NDP amendment 44.

(On clause 84—Action to be taken after assessment)

The Chairman: Are you ready to move your motion, Mr. Laliberte?

Sorry, NDP-43.3 first, in your small collection.

All right. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I will move this amendment, 43.3, and if you will allow me, I'll carry on and explain it.

We have the issue of hormone-disrupting substances entering the debate in the last day, and here's an opportunity in subclause 84(1), which reads:

84. (1) Where the Ministers have assessed any information under section 83 and they suspect that a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic

That is where we are adding:

or that is a hormone disrupting substance, the Minister may, before the expiry of the period for assessing the information

carry on with the necessary procedures.

• 0940

But this opportunity is again, as we mentioned yesterday— we had gone through clause 43, where the definition of hormone-disrupting substances was included in this bill, and in the following clause 44 we have also included an amendment that the minister shall study and research the issues surrounding hormone-disrupting substances.

To continue on this track and to allow the minister the powers to assess, this is an opportunity. The word says “may”: “the Minister may, before the expiry of the period for assessing the information”. So this is bringing on the journey of researching and studying hormone disrupters and to allow the minister the flexibility to consider a substance as a toxic substance or as a stand-alone on its own as a hormone-disrupting substance.

Hormone disrupters, as you must understand, were raised before us in this committee by witnesses who are advocates of child safety. In disabilities to children, it's suspected that hormone disrupters play a major role. There have been case studies and proof given that amphibians in their embryonic stage, in their tadpole stage, have been impacted. And in the development of a human at the critical stage, when the hormone disrupter affects the creation of that embryo, there has been overwhelming evidence that the feminization or the deformities are crucial in those important weeks.

So I call on the members to allow this motion to be included and to be considered. I think it is the moral thing to do to allow the minister to be able to act on any information that will be brought forward under the research and challenging studies that will be taking place.

The Chairman: Do you so move?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I have so moved.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'd like to speak in favour of my colleague from the NDP's motion.

The issue at hand is that so far we don't have anything under part 5 that refers to hormone-disrupting substances. Witnesses have said categorically that there is the concern for human health with respect to the immune, the nervous and the reproductive systems of human and non-human organisms. The member from York North mentioned yesterday that we're in 1998 right now and this is to review CEPA 1988. It probably will be next to a generation before we actually have a chance to permit the minister to act in a more advanced way.

The EU are making inroads in this topic. The Americans have endocrine-disrupting substances in two of their acts as well, their Clean Water Act and their Food Quality Protection Act. I see no reason for Canada, which is already a leader in this research and development of endocrine disrupters, not to have this included in their piece of legislation that refers to toxic substances.

On that point, Canada learned an awful lot during the Great Lakes issue with respect to the science on endocrine disrupters, where we already are a world leader in terms of research in this particular topic. And now we're in a situation where all we have with respect to this subject is purely cosmetics in part 3 because as a nation, given our experience in the Great Lakes, we are already doing research on this particular topic.

So I would ask the department, Karen, what kind of a problem would it present the government to have this included in part 5 of the legislation?

• 0945

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I think just from a practical point of view, endocrine disrupters are a new topic. The international community, in which Canada is participating, is developing screening and testing methods. That's certainly what the United States is leading in, developing a screening test. Right now there are no standard tests we can use.

To complicate it further, even though the United States will have the test in place within the next year or so, the EPA hasn't yet got its mind around what the results of those tests mean. They realize it's an issue, and the international community is looking at that. But we're not really at the point where we can take the test result and say what this really means, how it should be interpreted, and how to make regulatory decisions based on that. I think that's one of the main reasons we want the science, because it's the science that takes that information from these tests and tells us how to interpret it.

From a practical point of view, the test methods aren't there yet. Therefore, if we put it in right now, we wouldn't be able to do much with it. We may in a few years, but right now, just from a practical point of view, you wouldn't be able to deal with it.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I would like to add, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a number of things beyond what Karen has said.

I'd like to remind the committee that in this part of the bill, whether it is referred to or not, the minister does have the authority if there is an adverse health impact to act on a host of substances, not just endocrine-disrupting substances. The other point with respect to the international community is that I would like to remind the committee that this bill says the minister shall take into account international activities and regulatory decisions when they are taken through international organizations.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Unfortunately, I don't have my reference with me. I understand what you're saying, Mr. Lerer. The minister has to take into account what's happening internationally. At the same time, considering, as I think was pointed out yesterday, that this legislation now will stay seven long years before we can review it— That means seven years. At the pace the United States is moving now, in 1999 they will have to present a report, and the EPA will have to act on it. They are committed to act on it. The Europeans have passed a resolution in the European Parliament—admittedly non-binding, but usually these resolutions carry a huge weight amongst the member countries—that they will ban endocrine-disrupting substances.

If that is the case with our main partners and competitors on a very large scale—the United States and Europe—what harm does it do to our bill to include this? So you can say okay, the minister can take into account international activities. At the same time, do you find including this would disturb the bill in any way, or would it make it more environmentally friendly?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: With the authorities the minister has in this part to deal not only with endocrine-disrupting substances but with a host of other potential adverse effects, I believe that including endocrine-disrupting substances in the statute could inadvertently be exclusive to other issues that may arise over the coming years. The minister does have the power to deal with endocrine-disrupting substances.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: With all due respect, Mr. Lerer, I don't think you really answered my question. I know you said in some parts of the bill the minister has powers to act, and I agree with you. You quoted one in particular. At the same time, what I asked you is this: what harm does it do to make it more precise, given the fact—and we've heard what has happened in Denmark, Scotland, the United States, and Canada—that the leading scientists have said this is becoming maybe one of the biggest challenges facing us? What is the harm in putting this in? Can you tell me how it detracts from the bill rather than improving it?

• 0950

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I think that when the international community refers to the challenges, sir, what they are referring to is the fact that the science is young, the science is immature, and that all of us in every country that is concerned about this are looking for screening and assessment methods and for ways to interpret scientifically the results that are coming forward.

With regard to your specific question, my own opinion is that by putting endocrine-disrupting substances in the regulatory portion of part 5 without those scientific tools, that could inadvertently exclude a number of things. Yes, sir, I do. I do not think the environment suffers at all by not including it in part 5.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think that's putting it the wrong way. I didn't say the environment suffers by our not including it. Is it better off by our including it? I think that's the question. In August 1999 the EPA is required to develop a screening program for 15,000 substances that they are now looking at.

We are going to be left with legislation that we have passed without any reference in part 5 to toxic substances, which is the really key section of the bill. It seems to me this would be a very mild reference to include. It's not that the bill will suffer. Will it be improved? Will it be better off? That's the question.

The Chairman: Do you want to answer the question again?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I think I have answered the question, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe I can help here.

With regard to an endocrine-disrupting substance, in the year 2000 there's going to be this test that the U.S. is going to have developed with the help of Canadian scientists resident in Environment Canada, and we're going to have a substance that somebody can finally screen and nail down as an endocrine-disrupting substance. Now, that substance is an endocrine-disrupting substance that would constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. Would that be correct?

Mr. Karen Lloyd: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then that would be within the definition of “toxic”. That would be correct.

If there's a carcinogenic substance we could screen right now that would constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or human health, we can deal with carcinogens under the definition of “toxic” that's in this bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That is correct.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are other substances we can deal with in this bill that have an adverse health effect on Canadians. We can deal with them under the group that are toxic.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, we can.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Would it be necessary, then, to identify all the kinds of adverse health effects in a long list, while excluding anything that might be found next year—let's be clear, they're only working on endocrine-disrupters for 1999—when we could get a screen next week that hasn't even been found yet for things that would have an adverse health effect on us, and we're not listing that in this bill? But if it has an adverse health effect, we could deal with it.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, absolutely.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: One might ask why you would list one specific group at the risk of excluding a whole bunch of others and why it would be at all necessary to include hormone-disrupting substances in this group.

I think we should call the question.

The Chairman: We have Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. John Herron: I think we should discuss this issue a little bit more.

I don't know if we got a direct answer to Mr. Lincoln's question with regard to what harm would be caused to the bill by including this in the clause. What harm is there to the bill?

• 0955

In terms of the honourable parliamentary secretary's comments about why we would want to include a specific reference to endocrine-disrupting substances, I'd also like to argue—and I think Ms. Lloyd will be able to expand on this point—that due to the hit-and-run nature of hormone-disrupting substances, they can only be detected at certain times and they're not necessarily persistent and bioaccumulative, and if a fetus is exposed at the wrong time in terms of its reproduction, there can be serious health implications with regard to its immune, nervous, or reproductive systems, and human or non-human organisms can be affected.

Could you comment, firstly, on how the bill would suffer, and secondly, in terms of the hit-and-run nature of these substances in that they may only be detected for certain periods of time and that a limited amount of exposure can actually be negative to human health.

I'd also like to remind the parliamentary secretary on this particular point that even if we do have a test discovered within about a year and a half, there's a seven-year review mechanism in this piece of legislation, so we will not necessarily even have a chance to see this within another decade.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I have a point of clarification, through you, Mr. Chair, which is that the bill requires—and it has been a practice from the time of CEPA 1988—that an annual report be made to this committee and to Parliament on the activities undertaken under CEPA.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Laliberte. Please compress your comments.

Mr. John Herron: Maybe one way we could make an amendment on that particular issue, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that the honourable parliamentary secretary could do that with regard to carcinogenics. We're talking about hormone-disrupting substances.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Include it under “toxic”, just like hormone disrupters are.

Mr. John Herron: But what about the hit-and-run nature in terms of it being persistent and bioaccumulative?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: You said that some of them are hit and run, and there's no doubt that they are, but there are other chemicals that are also hit and run. There are carcinogens that are hit and run. That's not unique to hormone disrupters. It may be—I was going to say “more difficult” but perhaps “equally difficult” is a better way to put it—equally difficult to pinpoint the exposure and when it happened and when you'll get the effect with endocrines as with carcinogenic compounds. So it's not necessarily unique.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Laliberte. Could you please compress your comments.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't see how we can say the bill treats carcinogens. We can say the bill treats toxic substances.

I spent a lot of time with Dr. Theo Colborn, and I'm sure you have too, and what we've read and heard from people like her is that the biggest challenge facing us today in the area of the environment is hormone-disrupting substances. I happen to be very strongly convinced of what she says.

Today people in the European Union and the United States are saying let's concentrate on this, like it's a potion or a soup. Just the other day the Minister of Health, pushed by Greenpeace, had to declare that we had better look at plasticizers in toys—I don't know if I'm pronouncing the word correctly—called phthalates. But all this time we ignored it.

There was a motion in front of the House a year ago, and I happen to have voted for it. It was presented by another member, a private motion, and we said we were going to look at it. But now it has suddenly become a big issue, because that is a hormone-disrupting substance.

I feel that a reference in the bill doesn't detract from anything. I don't see how this makes the bill weaker or changes the nature of the bill. It just puts an accent on something that is very important and that is at the forefront today of the environmental challenge. So that is a point I would like to make.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte.

• 1000

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to make a couple of points. One's a question, and then I have a closing statement, so to speak.

I'd just like to ask something of our representative here from the government. The definition of “toxic” as highlighted by the parliamentary secretary is thoroughly covered in the bill, but “toxic” goes to an extreme. The evidence that's brought forward by hormone disrupters is that the vulnerability of the womb may not be considered when dealing with the definition of “toxic” that exists in this bill. It deals with the danger caused to Canada and to human health, human life. Is the vulnerability of the womb and the embryo stage of development taken into account? Is that definition then covered?

Mr. Karen Lloyd: Definitely, yes, it is.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So you're saying that hormone disrupters are covered by the powers of the minister.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Oh yes. They would definitely be considered under the definition of “toxic”, in the effects on both the environment and human health.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So why aren't we putting this in part 5 at all? Why is there resistance from the government to keep hormone disrupters away from part 5? Why are you only satisfied with research and development, when specifically clause 84 says the minister may consider, along with toxics, hormone-disrupting substances in this country.

Also, in paragraph (c), which my amendment also includes, it says the minister may:

request any person to provide any additional information or submit the results of any testing that the Ministers consider necessary for the purpose of assessing whether the substance is toxic or— is a hormone disrupting substance.

It stops with “a hormone disrupting substance”. So you have “toxic” and you have “hormone disrupting”.

We are convinced that we have overlooked hormone-disrupting substances until now. You're saying they're toxic, but we're saying they're not. They have a variance. They impact an embryo. They can be toxic. They can kill. But they also have the ability to deform or to change the embryo, to deform or to change our basic species. If you look at the definition of “hormone disrupting”, that's what it says, so that's what the concern is. Why can't the minister consider this in this clause?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: But the minister already does. That's the point. If there's information available when we're doing a risk assessment on any chemical, we don't exclude certain parts of the package. If there are data on the toxicity of the substance, regardless of the end point, it is always considered.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: If I may, Mr. Chairman, part of the standard toxicological assessment includes multi-generational studies and reproductive effects. That's a standard toxicological end-point.

The Chairman: Could you conclude, Mr. Laliberte? There's one more speaker.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to say that if there are tadpole tests—

Ms. Karen Lloyd: There are.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —and if there is proof that this substance is an endocrine disrupter to tadpoles, isn't that enough scientific evidence—and I think it's been around a long time—that it could be considered in part 5?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: But it already is.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Where?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Under the definition of “toxic”. If we have a toxicity study available when we're doing assessments of any substance, that study would be considered in the inherent toxicity part of the screening assessments that we're required to do for the 23,000 chemicals on the DSL. It would always be considered in a priority substance assessment. If the data are available—and there are data available on endocrine disruption—they will always be considered when we determine whether a substance is toxic or not.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So why are you not recommending to us that we cannot include this amendment for toxic and hormone disrupters?

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, the officials cannot recommend. They are here to explain the legislation. They're not here to make policy, so could you please conclude?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is certainly a major topic, and I wouldn't want to take it lightly in terms of how we proceed, because it should be taken very seriously. This is a very crucial part to us, this inclusion of hormone disrupters in this bill in order for the minister to take these into consideration and make an assessment. And the ability to ask for new information is also crucial.

Mr. Chairman, is it possible to ask for a recorded vote on this one?

The Chairman: Yes, it is possible.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Then I will ask for it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Torsney.

• 1005

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly listening to about 40 minutes of debate on this issue has been quite interesting. Of course, the most interesting part was that the member opposite doesn't think hormone-disrupting substances are toxic, which was a revelation to me.

The government believes the definition includes hormone-disrupting substances, and the debate is not about hormone-disrupting substances and whether or not the government will take action on them. The debate is on whether or not superfluous language is necessary, and specifically why it would be limited to something that's an emerging science, to the exclusion of other existing science and topics that are pretty important to my health and the public health.

I would hope the government would be screening for carcinogens and whatever science comes up tomorrow that we don't know about yet, like hormone-disrupting substances. The government has the ability to deal with hormone-disrupting substances. It is working on the issue with the Americans and the Europeans. It is concerned about the issue, and this bill already includes our demand to the government to do further research. “Toxic” includes hormone-disrupting substances. We do not need superfluous language in the legislation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, and then we'll proceed with the vote.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: First of all, I don't think we're doing it to the exclusion of anything else. Everything else remains in the bill. On the thing about the language of hormone-disrupting substances being superfluous, I'm sure if Dr. Colborn were listening she would be just amazed.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: —

[Editor's Note:Inaudible]

—be amazed if it were toxic too.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are we ready for the question? Mr. Laliberte, do you want to record a division?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. I just want to clarify to the parliamentary secretary that the hormone disrupters, as defined here, don't specifically say “toxic”. There is no connection between our definition and the “toxic” definition that exists here. We have to consider that there is dire need to make sure hormone-disrupting substances are defined in part 5. There is no direct connection. That was my interpretation.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Clause 64 of the bill.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm saying that in my interpretation, the definition of toxicity does not include hormone disrupting. The parliamentary secretary and representatives of the government have made sure the definition of hormone disrupting does not enter part 5. Here's the last opportunity to do so.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Clause 64 defines toxicity, and that includes hormone-disrupting substances as well as carcinogens.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 5)

• 1010

The Chairman: On page 196, NDP-44, are you ready, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The amendment states that clause 84 be amended by replacing line 13 on page 55 with the following:

(3) The Minister may, by order, vary or rescind a

So the whole subclause would read:

(3) The Minister may, by order, vary or rescind a condition or prohibition specified or imposed under paragraph 1(a) or (b).

I guess that would trigger a whole different responsibility by simply adding “may”. I believe if there's a legal definition required, we can certainly get it from our experts here.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Cameron, could you explain the legalese of what “by order” changes?

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): Certainly. If the decision to vary or rescind is made by order, it would trigger the prepublication requirements in clause 332 of the bill on page 210, and would allow for a 60-day comment period during which time any person may file with the minister a request for a board of review.

The request takes the form of a notice of objection, and in the notice of objection the requester may ask for the creation of a board of review to be established under clause 333 of the bill. The minister would have to consider whether to create such a board, and if she decided to create such a board, there's a whole process set out in clause 333 for how the board of review would operate. The board of review would make recommendations to the minister.

It's a fairly elaborate legal process, which is why it's been limited to only certain decisions of the minister under the legislation—those decisions being considered the most important ones, if you will.

With respect to the decision under subclause 84(3) of varying or rescinding a condition of prohibition, it was felt this was not of the same order of magnitude as the other decisions for which a board of review would be possible. But in the interest of having transparency in the bill, there's a requirement you'll see on page 55 that where the minister does specify, impose, vary or rescind any condition of prohibition, that decision shall be published in the Canada Gazette. So by making this decision other than by order, it's not to say there won't be transparency, but there may not be an appeal process through the possibility of a board of review.

My final comment would be simply to point out that any person who, as a result of reading the notice in the Canada Gazette or otherwise, takes issue with it would be entitled to seek judicial review of that ministerial decision under the Federal Court Act.

• 1015

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): If I may add, Mr. Chairman, publication in the Canada Gazette would also trigger publication in the Environmental Registry.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We're on page 196, please, and it will be NDP-45.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I will move amendment NDP-45. By replacing “Governor in Council” with “the Minister” you would then have:

before the expiry of the two years, the Minister publishes in the Canada Gazette a notice of proposed regulations under section 93

The Chairman: Any questions or comments? Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I want to inform committee members that it's the GIC who technically puts the regulations in place, and the effect of this where it's passed would be actually to have the minister second-guessing what the Governor in Council does. I'm not sure the member realized that, and I don't support it.

The Chairman: Any further comments? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd request information on the existing CEPA, what it states in there and what has been the experience by the officials.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's subsection 29(4). It's on page 19 of the current act and the language is identical.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, the current act has exactly the same language.

The Chairman: We are informed that the current act has the same language, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll still keep the motion in place, because if you look at the subclause, the reason we put it in was additional expiry of the prohibition and I believe the minister could make the necessary publishing. I don't think the Governor in Council necessarily has to do it; the minister could do it on an expiry prohibition.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 84 agreed to)

The Chairman: We then move to L-13.21.1.

(On clause 87—Amendment of Lists)

The Chairman: On clause 87, in the small package we have a motion, L-13.21.1, in the name of Madame Kraft Sloan.

• 1020

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to ask Mr. Moffet to explain this. I don't know why it was put forward.

The Chairman: First of all, it would be helpful if someone were to move this motion. Mr. Jordan, I understand that you were co-sponsoring this amendment? Is that correct?

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Sure, I'll move amendment L-13.21.1.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet (Consultant, Resource Futures International): I apologize, this is a complicated motion and I will try to explain the background. You may need to ask me questions as I go through.

If I can recall the members' memory to the report that this committee made, “It's About Our Health!”, one of the recommendations the committee made had to do with what the report called “ significant new uses of a substance”. The committee's rationale at the time was that the government will look at existing substances and new substances based on existing knowledge and existing uses and make a decision about which of those substances should be placed on the PSL and which of those substances should be regulated and how they should be regulated or otherwise controlled.

The committee was, however, concerned that those decisions are made on the basis of current information, and the committee therefore said let us put the onus on users of substances to tell us, the government, when they are doing something new. It is conceivable that a new activity would lead us to change our opinion about the significance of that substance. A new activity that we cannot foresee right now may in fact change the risk associated with that substance.

Since we don't know what that activity is, and we don't know what each user out there is doing, let us put the onus on users.

That was the origin of the concept of significant new use. That concept has been translated in part into Bill C-32. The way it has been translated is essentially captured in subclause 81(3). What that subclause does is say that users have to report significant activities, but that obligation is qualified in two respects. They have to report significant new activities with respect to (a), substances that have been designated as being subject to that requirement—that's the first condition—and (b), with respect to new activities that have been so designated as being subject to the requirement.

In other words, it is not a complete reversal of the onus onto the user; the government has to predesignate the circumstances in which this obligation will apply.

The government is able to do that designation with respect to new substances relatively easily, because when it receives notice about a new substance, it determines whether the substance should be addressed, and it can also make a determination about whether it wants to receive information in the future about new activities and about the kinds of activities that it wants to receive information about.

What Mrs. Kraft Sloan's amendment does is address existing substances, and it says to the government, you must review all of those existing substances with a view to deciding whether or not you want to designate that substance as being subject to the significant new activities provisions. That's the background and rationale for this amendment.

• 1025

The Chairman: Madame Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My question is to Mr. Moffet.

Is the intention to replace subclause 87(3) with subclause 87(2.1)? It would be the next clause in the bill. Is the specific intention to make it a joint ministerial decision between Health and Environment, or is it supposed to be just the Minister of the Environment?

Mr. John Moffet: I understand there are two questions.

First, as for whether this is to replace subclause 87(3), I don't believe so. That's not the way the amendment reads. This subclause 87(3) authorizes the minister to amend the domestic substances list. That's not inconsistent with this amendment. This amendment says that you must review the DSL and determine the substances. Then you go to subclause 87(3). Under the authority of subclause 87(3), after having reviewed the list, you can designate which of those substances on the list are subject to the significant new activity reporting obligations.

The second question, as I understand it, was whether this should say “the Minister” or “ the Ministers?”

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That's correct.

Mr. John Moffet: I need to be clear that I can't speak for Mrs. Kraft Sloan, as this is her amendment. It strikes me that it makes sense that the ministers should review the substances because they each have certain scientific capacities in terms of the kinds of issues they would review the substances for. The Department of Health typically looks at potential impacts on human health. The Department of the Environment typically looks at environmental impacts. So it strikes me that it makes sense for Mrs. Kraft Sloan to have included “the Ministers” instead of just “the Minister.”

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's just that it's inconsistent with the entire clause. In clause 87, all of the references are to “the Minister”, because she has control of the domestic substances list.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Look at paragraph 87(1)(b).

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But in relation to the domestic substances list, the activity is of “the Minister,” not “the Ministers.” Perhaps the officials could comment on how this would operate and how subclause 87(3) would operate.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Yes, I'll leave the explanation of the operation to my colleague.

For clarification purposes, I wanted to draw the attention of the committee to the information-gathering provisions in clause 70, because that's another way by which things are flagged. Clause 70 says:

70. Where a person

(a) imports

—it goes on, but the important part is on page 41—

and obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that the substance is toxic or is capable of becoming toxic, the person shall without delay provide the information to the Minister

That's another avenue for receiving information so that specific action can be taken. That's an obligation on the user. It's an onus on the user.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: Yes, I acknowledge what Mr. Lerer has said. When the committee prepared the report *It's About Our Health!, it recommended that both a significant new use provision and the provision to which Mr. Lerer just referred be included in the new bill. It explicitly did so because it was concerned about the limited information-gathering power that the Department of the Environment has. This was not intended as a slight on the Department of the Environment.

The thinking was that many companies that utilize potentially toxic substances in Canada are multinational companies, or they certainly have business affairs with companies or counterparts in other countries, so they may therefore have access to information about the nature of the substance that the department does not have. Therefore, if a scientist in their company in another country comes to the conclusion the substance is potentially toxic, the committee wanted the company to have the obligation to report that information.

• 1030

The committee also wanted to avoid the situation that has confronted governments in North America and Europe with respect to the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry claimed that it had no obligation to report scientific evidence it had in its possession about the potential harm related to their substances. The committee wanted the companies to have the obligation to report that information. That's the genesis of the clause to which Mr. Lerer refers.

The significant new use provisions were intended to be even stronger so that the company would have an obligation to report a significant new activity regardless of whether or not the company had conducted scientific research or was aware of scientific research that led to the conclusion that the new activity would infer that the substance is toxic.

The committee was saying that this information should be given to the government. The government could then make the decision about whether that activity is something we should take seriously, research, and look into to determine whether the activity would lead to a finding of toxicity.

As I recall, the committee wanted both provisions. It believe they supplemented each other rather than duplicated each other.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Was there a question?

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to propose a subamendment to this amendment, please. I move that after the words “shall examine” we put “within two years from the time of Royal Assent of the Act.”

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madam Girard-Bujold, are you having a problem with the interpretation?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I didn't understand, Mr. Chairman.

After the word "shall examine", he wants to add "within two years of the time of Royal Assent"? Is that correct?

The Chairman: That's right.

[English]

Well, you've heard the amended amendment, so to speak. I don't have any other speakers on the list. Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm questioning how it would work if it were two years. We have just given the government seven years to screen substances and put them on the DSL. I would think they would be doing this kind of analysis at the same time. I wonder whether two years would sort of cause people to run helter-skelter in different directions. It might not necessarily be terribly helpful. I'm not sure if the member wanted to think about that.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, it seems to me you get seven years to put things on the domestic list. After you put them in, you screen them and do a review. This was the intent of this clause. It wasn't to start reviewing before you've put it in.

We've given this seven years, sure, but surely the two years would start after the list is built. That's the intent of this thing. The minister shall examine the substances on the domestic substances list by virtue of clause 66.

The Chairman: The two years are added to the time required. This is in addition to the substances list.

Are there any further questions? Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: Perhaps I might clarify. I'm not sure that Mr. Lincoln has explained the implications of his subamendment. As I understood his subamendment, it would require the ministers to examine all substances currently on the DSL. They're already there, as Ms. Lloyd emphasized a number of times. There are approximately 23,000 substances on the list now. This would require the government to examine all of those substances within two years of royal assent to the act.

• 1035

The provision Ms. Torsney was referring to is the amendment that this committee has already made to subclause 73(1), which is the categorization clause in which the ministers are obliged to categorize all substances on the DSL.

As the parliamentary secretary correctly pointed out, this committee has passed an amendment that will require the ministers to complete that categorization within seven years. As the parliamentary secretary has correctly concluded, the ministers would then now have a dual-track obligation with respect to the DSL. First, they would have to examine all substances under this new amendment within two years. Second, they would have to categorize them all within seven years.

I take it your point was that in practice it doesn't make sense for them to do both the categorization and the examination within the same timeframe. Was that your point?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

Mr. John Moffet: Maybe that's something we should ask the officials about.

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Certainly, I think if you put in a timeframe of two years, what you would get in the end wouldn't be terribly useful. The idea of indicating which of the 23,000 substances on that list you may have a concern about and which ones had new activities happening with them really would require that we knew quite a bit about the substance and how it's currently used in Canada.

Unfortunately, if you've ever taken a look at the domestic substances list, it's not a wealth of information. It has a huge quantity range. It could go from 1,000 pounds to 10,000 pounds, or kilograms, I guess. They always go in increments like that. And the data is ten years old. So it's very difficult to know, until we've done the categorization, which substances we may have a concern about.

I would have thought that what would be useful to meet the intent the standing committee had at one point was this. Say we assess substances through the DSL, the screening assessment process, or even just from inherent toxicity. Say we found them not to be toxic. But if we now have enough information to know that maybe if there were a new use they might be toxic, then I could see that you could flag them after having gone through that process. But I can't understand how you would do it otherwise.

So if you could somehow link that you flagged them after that or when you've looked at inherent toxicity and done a screening assessment after a PSL— I can think of one or two examples of substances we've called not toxic after a priority substance assessment in which it would be useful to know that if it were a close enough call, then certainly, if there were perhaps a new use, they would be toxic. So if you could somehow link that, then I think it would be a useful exercise.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Are you saying that it should be seven years? Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just before she answers that, can I ask another question?

The Chairman: Just a moment. Let's complete this exchange. Would you mind answering the question, Ms. Lloyd?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Pardon me? What was the question? Was it Mr. Lincoln's?

The Chairman: It was the question by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Yes, but unfortunately, as for substances that are on the PSL, we would have concerns about where you would add them later. That's if you can somehow capture that one as well and not limit it. I certainly think for the categorization of the DSL, it's a good way to link the two.

You would then capture the ones that get it through the screening assessment. It would be very hard to flag others that didn't hit the screening assessment unless you based it strictly on inherent toxicity. That's something we'd have to work out. You'd have to link the two, I think. They could be done at the same time. This is as long as you could then still capture your concerns later in future PSL assessments as well.

Mr. John Moffet: But you can do so under subclause 87(3), which gives you a blanket authority to do anything you want.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Well, there you go.

The Chairman: We'll go to Madame Torsney, followed by Madame Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I guess then my question is that if subclause 87(3) gives you the power to do what you want to do, then I'm sort of hearing that subclause 87(2.1), as proposed, would be unnecessary.

• 1040

Mr. John Moffet: May I respond? The reason for proposed subclause 87(2.1), as with a number of other amendments that have been brought forward, is to change the bill from general authority, which, yes, allows the government to do what it wants. But we have to recognize that the government can't always do what it wants. Its resources have been cut by 30% in the past few years. It simply doesn't have the resources to do everything that the members of the government who are sitting before us today would probably want to do if they had all the resources that were available.

Subclause 87(2.1) would require the government to do this. It would examine all of these substances. It would therefore require the government to do what's required in order to give teeth to this significant new activity provision set out in subclause 81(3). Otherwise, those provisions could remain toothless. That would defeat the intention of the committee when it made the recommendations about significant new uses.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I just clarify that? The intent of having this passed is to force the government to— This is really about appropriating new resources? You're saying you want to pass this, but they don't have the resources to do this. If the objective is to force the government to assign more resources to the department so they can do this, I have some question about whether it would work. Surely there are other ways to get resources into the department to do the things that committee members would want it to do.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll go to Madame Girard-Bujold, followed by Madame Carroll.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like Ms. Lloyd to clarify a point for me.

You have said that there are presently 23,000 substances on the domestic list. Is that correct? I am not sure whether I understood. That's a huge amount. But you have also said that the content of this list has been neither analyzed or classified for a long time with respect to the nature of the substances. That would mean that you are not up to scratch on these substances. You have no chart to refer to as to whether they should be removed from the list, amended or reanalyzed. That's what you have told us, if my understanding is correct.

How is it that you don't have this information? Why was there no follow-up? Why were they not analyzed progressively as the science test developed? What happened? It will take more time to analyze the substances on the list. I simply don't understand. It would be lamentable if we were to function like that in our private lives.

[English]

Ms. Karen Lloyd: The list has only been in existence for 10 years.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Ten years is quite a long time, Ms. Lloyd.

[English]

Ms. Karen Lloyd: It is.

The reason for the priority substances list is to give priority to the substances that we think require assessment and may be posing a problem to the environment and/or human health in Canada. So that has been one way of trying to pick off the major concerns.

Certainly, what's been built into this bill is now requiring us to look at the rest of the list to see which substances are inherently toxic and persistent and bioaccumulative. This committee has now put a seven-year timeframe on looking at those 23,000 substances. That requirement was never there before, but it is there now.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This is why this list must be reviewed as quickly as possible In view of the way things are developing at the present time, we will lose control. We are already behind the ball, and we will continue to fall further behind.

[English]

The Chairman: Next is Madame Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I think the PS makes an interesting comment. I wish perhaps I had thought this through earlier in the process. We have to be very careful here that we stay within the parameters of this bill, which fits the resources currently existing in Environment Canada. I guess that's what we have before us. So we ought not make any recommendations such that we would enhance a bill in a way that would call for an equal enhancement of the department.

It's a good point.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): We have an amendment here that would involve considerable human resources, and perhaps other resources, if it were passed. If my understanding is correct, this would require an enormous amount of work in two years.

• 1045

I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether there are any alternatives. Is it possible to have specific substances on the list reviewed without having to necessarily review the whole list in two years or within a given period? Does the law provide other means to have a given substance or group of substances reviewed at the request of individuals, groups or stakeholders? If that were the case, this might provide an avenue that we could explore.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau is putting this question, I suppose, to Ms. Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Well, I think the simplest way to accomplish the task would be to link it to the fact that we have to categorize the 23,000 substances and screen them. Therefore, while we're doing that, we can then determine whether they need to be flagged for significant new activities in the future. This is the only way we would have of knowing whether or not we have a concern.

So once we've done the categorization, we could do this. We could do them at the same time. That's what I meant to say.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Is this categorization presently carried out or not? You have said that the list contained 24,000 entries. Are they grouped into categories? How does this work?

[English]

Ms. Karen Lloyd: No, they're not categorized as of yet.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Are the entries listed in alphabetical order or otherwise? There are no categories. How does the list work?

[English]

Ms. Karen Lloyd: No—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It would be more helpful if you would explain it to us, instead of laughing.

[English]

Ms. Karen Lloyd: That would be a lot easier. But the way it works is that they have to be categorized as to whether they're persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic. That's what we haven't looked at, and that's what this bill is requiring. Our department is just starting to undertake that process.

While we do that, we could then flag the ones that are of concern. Maybe we'll find they're not toxic under CEPA now, but there's enough of a concern that if there were a new activity, they might be toxic. Those would be the ones, I assume, that we would want to indicate to get the new information on when it becomes available. Or we would require industry to report to us. I think that would meet the intent.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You have said that the process is only beginning. We are reviewing a bill. We have to have the means to do so.

Even if Mr. Charbonneau says that is going to cost money, where is the problem? The costs will increase if we start analyzing all of that under such conditions. I think it is important to do it as quickly as possible so we know where we are going and so that we can make some progress.

The way we are going, the review of this bill is pretty vague. We are floating, and even "surfing". Therefore, I think that we need to find a way to examine this bill in detail. This would provide us with a means to do so.

[English]

The Chairman: The chair feels that this motion, in view of the fact we have a vote, is raising a number of questions on which we should perhaps reflect. We'll vote at our next meeting. I therefore propose we adjourn.

I propose also to you for your consideration, of course, the fact that it would be desirable next week for you to include in your plans the following meetings of this committee so there's an orderly approach to our time and the way we spend our lives on the Hill.

For Tuesday, I would propose that we sit in the morning and the afternoon. On Wednesday, we'll meet in the afternoon. Next Thursday, we'll meet possibly in the morning and afternoon. The clerk will be available to receive comments from members who may wish to suggest changes to this possible schedule.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, I'd be quite prepared to keep the schedule we had of one meeting per day. The difficulty I have is that when all the opposition members asked for the minister to appear before the committee, it was decided that there wasn't enough time, and we couldn't add any more time. However, when it comes to this bill, the government is prepared to find the time. So I'm quite prepared to stay until Tuesday morning, Wednesday afternoon, and Thursday morning. Let's leave it at that.

The Chairman: This meeting stands adjourned for the vote. We'll resume Tuesday morning.

The meeting is adjourned.