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, February 9, 1999

[Translation]

• 0909

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Resuming consideration of Bill C-32, I'd like to welcome our colleagues who are joining us for the first time. If the Bloc Québécois representative were present, we could start with the amendment on p. 348. However, we'll come back to that later.

[English]

While you orient yourselves with the next motion, which is on page 325, let me make a few brief announcements.

• 0910

For those of you who are from the west, particularly from Alberta, because this is becoming a national issue, there was an article in the Globe and Mail by Paul Sullivan, in Vancouver, entitled “It's time to clear the air in Ludwig saga”. It's so rich with observations and environmental components that I thought you might be interested in seeing it. I'm asking the clerk if he would be so kind as to distribute copies to the members of the committee.

Secondly, the secretary of state for agriculture and for fisheries wishes to appear before the committee, together with the commissioner of aquaculture, whom you met last time. Is it agreed that we allow him to appear?

I suppose it is. The clerk is scheduling a meeting with him. We are trying to make it happen as soon as possible.

Yesterday we had a very successful lunch with the negotiators on biotechnology.

Next Monday is reserved for a luncheon meeting with Dr. Arthur Carty, the president of the National Research Council. It's mainly to discuss the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and its long-term predictions. Is it agreed that we meet on Monday for lunch? Agreed. Thank you.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thanks. I wonder if we're going to schedule future Monday meetings, because there are issues I'm very interested in, but at this point in the week I've already rescheduled things for Monday. Can we get some idea of whether we're planning things for March?

The Chairman: There are no ideas for March yet, so there are no announcements.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: We are not that far-reaching. We announce as soon as ideas and arrangements can be made. This, with Dr. Arthur Carty, was made on Friday.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: The chair will be away on Wednesday, March 3, and Thursday, March 4, and therefore it will be desirable that the committee make up for those absences. The chair suggests that we meet on Monday, February 15, and Monday, March 1, to make up for those two Mondays. Is that agreed? Agreed.

[Translation]

This coming March 12, the University of Sherbrooke will be holding a rather interesting conference, the theme of which will be a vision for the environment at the dawn of the new millennium. The clerk will be passing around some documentation and we will have an opportunity to discuss it tomorrow. We could pass a motion to allow those members who are interested to attend the conference.

[English]

The speakers include officials from Noranda Inc., Canadian National, Shell Canada, Alcan, Cascades Paper, and Environment Canada. It's a very interesting program, which will be circulated somehow or other as soon as possible. We were notified about it last week.

Pesticide management is a topic this committee is becoming increasingly interested in for a number of reasons that relate to health protection. It could be the subject of our next study when we finish with Bill C-32.

Ms. Labelle is preparing a paper for the committee members on pest management. If you have any aspects you would wish her to cover or suggestions you would like to make on her work as she prepares something for the committee members, please let her know.

• 0915

If we agree that this is to be our next study and this is not for discussion today, we'll have an opportunity to do that quietly later. Of course there will be some preliminary work to be done that we will also discuss in committee.

This is the end of my announcements. The government has produced another bundle of amendments in a very thin collection, which the clerk is about to distribute or has already distributed. I'm desperately prolonging this agony waiting for opposition members to appear so we can start with the next amendment, but they are not materializing, despite efforts.

In the absence of Madame Girard-Bujold, our next motion is on page 325. However, it is in the name of the government, which is visible and present. So we can start with the motion on the list. Once that is done we will go to 251, in the name of Mr. Laliberte. I wonder whether someone could call Mr. Laliberte's office to see if he is on his way.

In the meantime, please turn to the motion next to Madame Girard-Bujold, which we will stand and which you will find on page 325 in the binder. It was a request by Madame Girard-Bujold to correct the language and replace de with au in the French version. That has been done, I understand. Would you like to comment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the small bundle you referenced earlier that's before you that has G-19 with a little star or something on it, if this were to pass it would achieve the goal Ms. Girard-Bujold has identified to change “de Canada” to “au Canada” so it would be grammatically correct in French. I'm happy to move this motion.

The Chairman: O Canada without the musical accompaniment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: For that you should be grateful.

The Chairman: Perhaps someone will relay this conversation to Madame Girard-Bujold. From there we will move to page 251.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Do we need to vote on it?

The Chairman: No. It's a technical amendment.

Mr. Laliberte is on his way, I understand. We will stand 251 and 252. If we move to page 248, there's an amendment by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I think you'll see there were a number of amendments from all different parties on the offers to consult. We had some pattern of standing down all those clauses until a later date. So if we could hold down clause 121, that would be my preference. I'm not sure what Mr. Lincoln's might be.

The Chairman: Are you referring to clause 121?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm referring to clause 121 on page 248, L-15.7.

The Chairman: Standing.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

• 0920

The Chairman: Are you in agreement?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Yes.

(Clause 121 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: With the help of Mr. Laliberte, we can now go to clause 122, which you will find on page 251.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If we're going to stand clause 121, are we going to do amendments related to it, or are we just going to decide about this and then leave it open? How is it going to work?

The Chairman: As I understand it, you would like to stand clause 121, so we will just leave it in suspended animation.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So we're going to clause 122, is that correct?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I apologize.

The Chairman: This was a decision taken by the committee last week.

(On clause 122—Definitions)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, are you ready to move your motion on page 251, which is related to clause 122?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Yes. I so move.

The Chairman: Would you like to speak to it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is a definition of “disposal”. In this case it takes away “incidental to”. So it reads “a disposal that is derived from”. It merely takes the “incidental to” portion out.

The Chairman: Was this amendment suggested by the West Coast Environmental Law Association?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I didn't have a chance to look back to our source, but a large portion of our recommendations were coming from the west coast.

The Chairman: Are there any comments? The parliamentary secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

First of all, let me draw members' attention to the fact that this is out of the original act, as I understand it. Perhaps the officials can comment further, but occasionally there are incidents where in the normal operation of, for instance, an outboard motor you might have a little bit of... No? Why don't we just turn it over to the officials now?

The Chairman: All right. Which one?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'll just very briefly explain for the members' benefit how the ocean disposal system works, since it's the first time we've looked at an amendment to this clause. These provisions allow Canada to meet its obligations under the 1972 ocean dumping convention. For the most part, they come from the existing act. What this allows for is the disposal at sea of certain materials, and the applicants have to apply to the government for a permit in order to do so.

• 0925

What we're doing in Bill C-32 is modernizing these sections so they bring Canada into compliance with the 1996 protocol to the London Convention. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, the definition of disposal comes from the existing CEPA. The amendment proposed by the NDP would have the result of forcing all discharges that are normal to the operation of a ship to come under this ocean disposal section. That would require the operator of a ship to apply for a permit.

Perhaps I'll give you an example or two of some of the incidental disposals that result from the normal operation of a ship. These include discharge of bilge water, cooling water, and the hosing down of the decks. All of these activities are already covered under the Canada Shipping Act and are regulated under that piece of legislation. The approach we've taken in CEPA to not cover these activities is consistent with the London Convention. It's actual disposal of materials such as dredge material that makes up the vast majority of items.

The Chairman: Were you present in Vancouver when this committee held public hearings and heard from the local people about the rather disturbing activities that take place, without permit, by ships that operate under the Canada Shipping Act? These ships do wash into the harbour and carry out cleaning operations, which the local people found extremely distressing.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I was not, sir. That would be the responsibility—not to be in your meeting in Vancouver, but the enforcement against such ships—of the coast guard.

The Chairman: Those were the comments that were also raised.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I guess I have a concern with the insertion of “incidentals” here, and Mr. Laliberte's amendment would remove “incidentals” from this clause. My concern is what “incidental” means. We're not talking about just the normal operations of ships and air craft, etc. So it's really hard to understand what is meant by “incidental”; how it's being defined. Is it really environmentally benign?

So I would share some of the concerns of the chair and the member opposite on this.

The Chairman: What Madam Kraft Sloan just said is also consistent with the committee's recommendation 106, which recommended removing exemptions for incidental disposal. Those of you who are members of the committee will recall recommendation 106.

It could well be, Mr. Mongrain, that the Canada Shipping Act you refer to is inadequate in enabling the prevention of certain activities that are related to disposal.

• 0930

Mr. Steve Mongrain: These activities are regulated. I don't have intimate knowledge of the operations of the coast guard.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could quote the section in the Canada Shipping Act that you think is strong enough to make up for this particular passage.

Parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. There are two things. Certainly from work that has been done in my riding I know there are a lot of initiatives to deal with some of these normal operations of shipping that are taking place, both in the U.S. and Canada. Companies like Zenon Environmental are creating new processes for them to clean up their act.

If the Shipping Act governs these issues and should, why don't we encourage either the committee that is responsible for that, if it's transport, or the minister who is responsible for that to enforce or clean up their sections of bills that govern those activities and focus on what this bill can do in the areas it should be regulating? We certainly don't need to reinvent the Shipping Act within CEPA.

The Chairman: That's a fair question. Possibly the answer lies in the fact that the Shipping Act is oriented to shipping and facilitating shipping as much as possible. This bill is oriented to preventing toxic substances from being discharged and released into the water. Evidently the orientation of the two bills is quite different. The Shipping Act does not intend to prevent pollution.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well it should.

The Chairman: It tends to facilitate shipping.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would argue that if it's doing something harmful to the environment, we should change the Shipping Act to encourage it to do the right things. There's no point in setting up two regulatory environments for one activity.

The Chairman: In a perfect world that ought to be the case, Ms. Torsney. Unfortunately, reality is not—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Why don't we get copies of the Shipping Act, the regulations, and the London Convention and clarify this point further for the committee either tomorrow or Thursday?

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: As I understand it, there's an international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships. The Canada Shipping Act is the statutory instrument we use to meet that international commitment. We would be quite happy to bring in copies of the convention and the relevant parts of the Canada Shipping Act.

The Chairman: But the convention is not necessarily operative in Canadian law. I think the parliamentary secretary's suggestion to look at the Shipping Act is much more practical, and we will do that. We will set aside this amendment for the time being.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: We should also go back to discussions under the review. When the whole issue of disposal at sea was discussed at length, we decided it was essential to keep the ocean dumping provisions in CEPA to protect the environment, because the evidence before us was very plentiful.

One of our members, Mr. Drominsky, went to Vancouver to take a survey, if you will recall. He made a report before the committee. As you suggested, the purposes of the Shipping Act are very different from control of pollution through dumping. We decided that disposal at sea and ocean dumping, which were put into CEPA in the first place in 1998 for the very reason of protecting the marine environment, should be kept. If they should be kept, they should be kept properly. It's very obvious they were put there for that very reason.

The hearings we had on this question were very clear, on both the east coast and the west coast, that the infringements had been plentiful and that people were just dumping willy-nilly, and that the right way to enforce it, because of the nature of the toxic pollution that was being created, was through the ocean dumping provisions and that we should keep them in CEPA, rather than delete them.

• 0935

I think you will find that in the government review, if my memory serves me right, we have kept the ocean dumping provisions, so the government response will certainly address it. I don't have it now, but I'm sure we should refer to that as well. So if we have made that decision, then we have to make sure that these provisions are the best we can find, the best we can arrive at.

The Chairman: Certainly the evidence was devastating, I must tell you that, both in Vancouver and in Halifax. What we heard there was not the sort of thing that can easily be forgotten or set aside.

The parliamentary secretary wishes to speak.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm not sure if we are in fact going to have this discussion today or if we're going to have it with all the information in front of us, but let me just say to Mr. Lincoln's point that I don't think anyone should be under any illusions that we're somehow dropping these provisions out of CEPA. In fact we're including them and strengthening them. What's before us and being discussed today is a further amendment that would make fairly dramatic changes.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to leave this committee thinking we're somehow gutting the section that related to shipping within CEPA. That wouldn't be correct.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's very helpful.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Another concern I would have around maintaining “incidental” as an exemption is that would sort of fly in the face of the pollution prevention principles and the recommendations for reverse onus that this committee had made in the document It's About Our Health.

There has to be clearly a good reason for ocean disposal, and if individuals are going to receive exemptions for things that are incidental, it's not clear whether they are environmentally benign or not. There should be a good reason, as I think we stated a number of times. If anyone is going to dump anything into the ocean, they have to prove that it's safe and they have to prove they're doing it for a good reason, whereas “incidental” seems to just allow things to happen and we're not entirely sure exactly what is going to be happening with these things.

The Chairman: All right. There is enough material here to guide the officials for the discussion on this subject, following the suggestion by the parliamentary secretary. So we will stand this particular clause, as suggested, and we will revisit it as soon as possible.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 122 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: We will move to a motion by Mr. Herron, page 253.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Logistically, do I need to move the motion on page 252 before it's stood?

The Chairman: No, we'll just put it aside with 251 so that we can revisit it tomorrow, or Thursday, or whenever we can.

(On clause 127—Minister may issue permit)

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, on page 253, are you ready?

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to move amendment PC-18.1. Essentially what this amendment does is ensure that the minister issues a permit for disposal at sea only after he or she is satisfied that there is no other alternative method to dispose of this substance. So again, we just want to make sure that the minister has explored all possible avenues before a permit is issued.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Was that yes to me or yes to Mr. Herron?

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, is that your message?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary wishes to speak.

• 0940

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd like to direct the members' attention to schedule 6 on page 226 of the bill. At the top of the page there's item 6, which we believe addresses the issue Mr. Herron is trying to tackle. For further comment we can hear from the officials.

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

Mr. John Herron: I think the comments made by the parliamentary secretary are accurate, so with unanimous consent I will withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: Did you move it?

Mr. John Herron: I think so.

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We will now go to page 254. This still relates to clause 127.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm not sure if Mr. Laliberte is planning on moving this, but my comments on this amendment would be the same as those I gave on Mr. Herron's intervention.

The Chairman: In other words, you're saying to look at item 6 on page 226.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, would you like to have a look at that item at the top of page 226? Paragraph 127(2)(e) of your amendment applies to item 6, the one related to recycle or re-use.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just trying to—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe I can help.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —accommodate both. The “accompanied by evidence” would then trigger item 6 of schedule 6, so I don't think it's contradictory. I don't think it's dangerous to have it in there.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: What would Mr. Moffet have to say about that?

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Consultant): I think the relevant subclause in the bill is 127(3), which requires the minister to comply with schedule 6. So when determining whether or not to issue a permit, the minister has to comply with the criteria and considerations articulated in schedule 6. This would require, among other things, that applicants demonstrate they've given consideration to a hierarchy of waste disposal options and, in item 6, that the minister shall refuse a permit “if opportunities exist to re-use, recycle, or treat the waste or other matter without undue risks to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs”. So my view is that the amendment would be redundant in the sense that it's already covered under subclause 127(3).

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What I'm trying to suggest here is that if I as an applicant am looking for a permit and I know that the minister is going to ask me about recycling and re-using, why wouldn't I include in my application evidence that it is unsafe and unfeasible to recycle and re-use? Then the minister doesn't have to come back to me to prove to her or him that item 6 could refuse my permit.

• 0945

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If you were working in this field or if you were working with someone who was giving advice about this, for them not to read schedule 6 would be to give you really bad advice. You would, in fact, if you were trying to get a permit in a timely fashion—which most people would—look at both parts. You couldn't look at only one section of it without looking at schedule 6. You wouldn't be doing your job. It's an integral part of the bill and the issues are clearly laid out.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I will in fact go further. Paragraph 127(2)(b) requires that applications for a permit must “contain the information that may be prescribed or that may be required by the Minister for the purpose of complying with Schedule 6”. And then subclause 127(3) says the minister has to comply with schedule 6. So the minister is going to, and in fact already does, have a form that requires applicants to provide the minister with information sufficient to allow her to make the decision as to whether schedule 6 has been complied with.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, if you're satisfied, I'll be chirpy.

The Chairman: All right. That means the motion is not moved. Mr. Laliberte, can we take it that you don't move the motion?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I won't move.

The Chairman: Not moved.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, dealing with schedule 6 again, so that when the minister is considering that, she'll take into account the applicant's adherence to the pollution prevention principle, and that's required under subclause (2). It's just replacing line 41 on page 93 with the following:

Schedule 6 and shall take into account the applicant's adherence to the pollution prevention principle and requirements under subsection (2) and any

The Chairman: Please, Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly the pollution prevention principle could be one of the minister's considerations, and given the tone of this bill it would in all probability be one of those, but schedule 6 even defines more clearly some of the issues. If you look at the end of page 93 of the bill, which is the end of clause 127, it clearly says she has to “comply with Schedule 6 and shall take into account any factors the Minister considers necessary”. So I'm not sure why the member would want to limit the minister and why you don't think it's absolutely covered.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any further comments?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We're not deleting any other factors. We're just simply asking that the pollution prevention principle be given life on the regulation side and the allowing of permits and consideration. It lets pollution prevention blossom, so to speak, instead of being kept on a shelf.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The gardener in me loves that concept, but I don't support the amendment because it's already well articulated within the bill. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I would just like to make a comment with respect to this amendment. When the committee did its report on It's About Our Health, and even in the previous amendment, even in this bill, the committee said it was incumbent on us to enshrine the pollution prevention principle within the regulatory body of the bill. I think that's what Mr. Laliberte's trying to do here, and it would follow the preamble of the bill.

• 0950

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): No.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions? This clause was also the object of comments by the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): There's just one point I want to draw to the members' attention. This would simply require the minister to take into account pollution prevention principles, thereby operationalizing it under the disposal at sea part of CEPA. However, the same ground is covered somewhat under schedule 6.

The point I want to make to the members is that schedule 6 can be amended by the Governor in Council, whereas if it's in the other parts of CEPA, of course, it would require a parliamentary amendment. That is the only point I want to draw to your attention.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 127 agreed to)

(On clause 133—Publication in the Canada Gazette)

The Chairman: Would you please move to page 258?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That is our motion.

The Chairman: Yes, it is.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I will so move. It simply changes 10 days to 60 days. We feel 10 days is insufficient time for public comment. I have no prior knowledge of the workings of Environment Canada. I'm sure they have a reasonable explanation for the 10 days, but I beg for their support on 60.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: May I explain the inner workings of why it is 10 days?

Other parts of the bill have a 60-day comment period. The ocean disposal division is slightly different for a variety of reasons. If I can walk you through the steps, perhaps it'll become evident why the provision states 10 days.

When a person applies for an ocean disposal permit, paragraph 127(2)(d) requires that the person include with the application evidence that the notice of the application has been published in a local newspaper. So this is the first step for an applicant. We want the local community to know what's going on in the marine environment where they live.

This is also the type of information we would put on our environmental registry, which will be Internet-based, so it goes beyond the local community.

As the application is processed, I understand it also goes on to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act registry and whatever associated public notice requirements that go along with that. So on average the window for comment, even before the permit has been proposed by the minister, is within the range of 90 days. Once the minister publishes her intent to grant the permit, that triggers a formal 10-day notice-and-comment period. So while the provision in the act says 10 days for notice and comment, the actual public window for comment is far in excess of 10 days.

• 0955

The Chairman: But can you explain the rationale for 10 days? That's what Mr. Laliberte was asking you.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Because the window that already exists is 80 or 90 days, 10 days seemed appropriate to provide to the public that has already had a chance to comment. It's a two-tiered or two-step process. If members of the public aren't satisfied with the consultations and discussions that have taken place prior to the issuing of the proposed permit, the 10 days provides that formal window where they can file a notice of objection.

As to why it is 10 days and not a different length, 10 days seemed reasonable.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I also draw members' attention to paragraph 127(2)(d), which talks about the method for providing information to local people.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain has already done so.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. It's a local newspaper that's—

The Chairman: That's what he did.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: But still, the rationale for 10 days is not explained. There is also no explanation for the 60. What is so crucial about 10? There must be a reason.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could we get some more information about why 60?

The Chairman: Yes, we could do that, but it may be faster to get—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The combination will be 150 days, which I think is half a year.

The Chairman: It would be helpful to know the rationale for 10. There must be a reason for its having found its way into the bill. There must have been some sort of conclusion that 10 is a reasonable length of time, and not 15 or 20 or 5.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: As I indicated before, Mr. Chairman, on average these permits take about 90 days to process. Given the 80-day or 90-day window of opportunity for public comment, we thought we would add an additional 10 days for the formal comment on the proposed permit, so you have an entire window of 90 or 100 days. It seemed reasonable. It's a new opportunity for public comment that doesn't exist in CEPA 1998.

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

An hon. member: Could we read the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Read the amendment, sorry, yes. Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, 10 days doesn't seem like a great deal of time to me. People won't have time to learn about it and as we say at home, to change their minds. Sixty days would be too long. Could we compromise and agree on 30 days?

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Do you so move?

Mr. Denis Coderre: I so move.

The Chairman: We are now discussing the subamendment by Mr. Coderre for 30 days.

Any comment? Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It considerably lengthens; that is self-evident.

The Chairman: Any other? Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I would agree with one moon.

• 1000

The Chairman: All right. The one moon subamendment is before the members.

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

(Clause 133 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 134—Notice of objection)

The Chairman: Now we move to page 259. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just in terms of process, I had overlooked amendment G-14 on page 256. It was in the book. I didn't know what to do with that one. It dealt with clause 128, which is before this one.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We carried it already.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: Clause 134, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I move amendment NDP-52.1.9. It's “shall be filed within”...I think the going rate is 30, so I'll slide in 30 days there and bypass the subamendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre, are you in the mood for making another Coderre subamendment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We did.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I did. I did 30 already.

The Chairman: The clerk says it is in order that you do it the way you have just done, Mr. Laliberte.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 134 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Therefore the amendment by Mr. Herron is no longer needed.

At this point, may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether she is ready to proceed with clauses 140 to 145.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. Thank you.

The Chairman: Too soon? All right, we will postpone that.

Would you like to turn to page 265, please. Mr. Laliberte.

(On clause 149—Definitions)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This one seems to be exempting. Should I move it and raise a question, or can I raise a question before I move it?

The Chairman: You can raise the question before, if you like.

• 1005

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to ask why an exemption is being provided here, and pollution sources seem to...

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Are we at 265?

The Chairman: We are at 265, yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Have we stood 262? I mean, then we shouldn't deal with 265.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, we're in the same section.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln has a point. We are supposed to deal with fuels and all of that. Then we had better put aside the amendment by Mr. Laliberte on page 265, and the one on page 266.

We'll have to move to clause 166, I presume, right?

The Clerk: Yes.

(On clause 166—Determination of international air pollution)

The Chairman: Would the committee please turn to page 267. There is here an amendment by Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): My amendment would change the words on line 20 on page 117 of the bill from “reason to believe” to “evidence.” It strengthens the role of science: rather than “reason to believe”, we have solid evidence. It's stronger, and I believe that's the reason it strengthens the bill. I would so move.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: While I'm certainly in favour of strengthening the role of science, I don't support this amendment because I think “reason to believe” provides some good flexibility that would be helpful in this case.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: I see Madame Girard-Bujold in the room. Let us first proceed to clean up clause 166, and then we'll go back to Madame Girard-Bujold's amendment, as suggested by the clerk.

We have again on clause 166 an amendment by Mr. Herron. Are you ready with your amendment, Mr. Herron?

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

The Chairman: Sorry to have disturbed you in your contemplation of nature, Mr. Herron, but we are there.

Mr. John Herron: I'm not all there today, I have to say, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I assume Mr. Herron's moved this amendment, so we're discussing it. The effect of this, were it to pass, would be to change the word “create” to “contribute”. So that would be “to contribute to air pollution...” and “air pollution that violates...”, etc.

Mr. John Herron: Right.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think CELA was the proponent of this.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to move my motion—

The Chairman: Yes, the west coast.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And the west coast.

• 1010

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, are you still moving that amendment?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I am.

The Chairman: You still feel it's a good idea?

Mr. John Herron: Yes.

The Chairman: All right. Would you like to speak to it?

Mr. John Herron: Actually, I think the parliamentary secretary did just fine.

The Chairman: All right. Congratulations.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You're congratulating him for recognizing that?

(Amendment agreed to) [SeeMinutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We move now to Mr. Lincoln's amendment on page 269.

The Clerk: Mr. Lincoln cannot move it.

The Chairman: Nevertheless, it is in his name. It would require a colleague to move it on his behalf and then we will ask Mr. Lincoln to explain it. Is there anyone who would move it?

Madame Carroll moves the amendment. It's before the committee.

Mr. Lincoln, would you like to address it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could you just give me a second, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Parliamentary secretary?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I think you will see that both the amendment on page 269 and the amendment on page 270, and in fact the one on page 271, are back to this issue of consultation with other governments. Maybe we could just stand down all of these till tomorrow perhaps.

The Chairman: All right. It has been so suggested. Is that all right with you, Mr. Lincoln?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

The Chairman: It is acceptable? So we will stand amendments on pages 269, 270, and 271. So we are standing down the entire clause.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could I just draw members' attention to the fact that the amendment on page 272 is not being moved and instead the new G-14.1 is being moved, so that when you get to that study point tonight you might know where you are.

The Chairman: So G-14.1 is now—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: New G-14.1.

The Chairman: There is a new one.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But it's on page 28 of some small package at some point.

The Chairman: Thank you for alerting us. In a small package, fine. So clause 166 will be stood and then we can go back to Madame Girard-Bujold's motion.

(Clause 166 as amended allowed to stand)

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Since the motion hasn't been translated into French, I would rather we put off considering it until tomorrow.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Yes, Mr. Laliberté?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just for bookkeeping and to lighten your load, I would withdraw the amendment on page 270.

The Chairman: On page 270, the motion is withdrawn. Thank you.

Then we could move to the motion by Mr. Herron on page 275 to clause 167.

• 1015

(On clause 167—Regulations)

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, we are waiting.

Mr. John Herron: Is it my amendment? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was speaking to my legislative assistant. Which amendment are we on at the moment?

The Chairman: We are on page 275. The amendment is in your name, PC-18.4.

Mr. John Herron: This amendment was contingent on the one we just passed. It uses the same kind of language, “contribute to air pollution referred to in subsection”. It's supposed to be complementary to the amendment we just passed.

The Chairman: Let me look to the parliamentary secretary for a comment. Please go ahead.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'll give a nod of confirmation that it would be a consequential amendment to 18.3.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 167 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 173—Interim Order)

The Chairman: We'll now move to page 276. There is an amendment by Mr. Laliberte to clause 173.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to request that we stand this amendment. It deals with some other residual status clauses we haven't dealt with yet, so we'd like to stand it and take a second look at it. It deals with affected governments.

(Clause 173 allowed to stand)

(On clause 176—Determination of international water pollution)

The Chairman: That would mean that we would move to page 277. There is an amendment to clause 176 in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Liberal amendment 15.12 is on the same issue of consultation.

An hon. member: Do you want it stood or what?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

We could go to page 281, NDP-52.3.

The Chairman: So we are standing the amendment and moving to page 281 as suggested by the parliamentary secretary. We are still on clause 176. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chair, just to do some cleaning up, we'll withdraw our amendment on page 278.

The Chairman: The amendment on page 278 is withdrawn. Thank you.

What is your wish with regard to the amendment on page 281, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I wish to move this amendment and to ask for clarification of the language. I don't know who would wish to speak, maybe our researchers.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, are we considering the amendment on page 281?

The Chairman: Yes. Do you want to move yours as well?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I could do that, but perhaps I could just help out the member from Churchill River. The effect of his amendment, were it to pass, would be to delete or take no action at all. He might argue that the language was not necessary and that he had a good amendment.

• 1020

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I thought I moved it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But you didn't explain it is what I was just saying.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I asked the researchers to explain, because it's dealing specifically with the English version, and I don't know what exists in the French because I haven't quite mastered that language yet. If it were in Cree I could help you, but it refers to the English version here, and I'm asking for help.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't think it makes much sense. I just don't follow it at all. Surely the minister shall decide. She's got two options: whether to take action under subsection (2) or take no action at all. How can she decide whether to take action and take no action at the same time? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I don't know what the purpose is.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, do you have anything to say?

Mr. John Moffet: To clarify, on Mr. Lincoln's question, I believe the effect of the amendment would be—if you look at the last line, line 11—to put a period after (3). So the sentence would read: “...the Minister shall decide whether to act under subsections (2) and (3).”

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I see. I get you. So the rest of the sentence would be deleted? Oh, yes. That would make sense.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm more than happy to call the question on this amendment that's before us, but I did want to make one procedural clarification, and that is that the new government amendment 14.2 is on page 47 of the small package that was distributed last week. I would also like to move that motion. I just don't want to get knocked out of precedence, because it relates to some earlier lines.

The Chairman: It relates to an earlier line, yes. That's a very good point.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's page 124, line 42. Maybe we can vote on them at the same time.

The Chairman: I've made a procedural mistake and I apologize. You're quite right, we should have dealt with the amendment G-14.2 on page 47 first.

Mr. Laliberte, I apologize to you, but we have to reverse our sequence here.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I understand.

The Chairman: Therefore, I would ask for your indulgence that we proceed first with page 47.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Before we do, if you look at subclause 176(4), which we've been discussing... Don't get impatient, please.

The Chairman: I didn't say a word.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Keep your cool.

If you look at the French and English, they are very different. The English talks about paragraph 1(a) and whether the minister actions under subsections (2) and (3), and the French makes no reference to any of that.

The Chairman: Madame Hébert.

• 1025

Ms. Monique Hébert: I believe, Mr. Lincoln, it's stated differently but it boils down to the same thing. If you looked at the French and wanted to say something comparable in English you would say “in cases where there are no international agreements with that particular country then the minister can intervene in his or her discretion”, and this is what the French says. It says—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, but it doesn't make any reference to any sections or paragraphs, and in English it does.

The Chairman: The last three words

[Translation]

are, in the French version, “la présente section”.

Ms. Monique Hébert: The French version of subclauses 176 (2) and 176 (3) says the same thing, although not as clearly.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I just like to say that some trials have dragged on for a long time precisely because of problems like this. I want the French and English versions to correspond exactly. If we want to say the same thing, then the text should read the same way.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, you heard the interventions by Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Coderre. Evidently there is a wish here for greater precision in the language. You have to perhaps examine it and inform the committee at another meeting as to whether you will improve the text so that the two versions are as precise as possible.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Environment Canada): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll look into that matter.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: When we read

[English]

“the Minister shall decide”, it's a thing.

[Translation]

While the French version says that “l'intervention du ministre est facultative”, this means that the minister may intervene, but doesn't necessarily have to. My concern is that disputes could arise over different interpretations. That's why the two versions must be identical. I'm not opposed to this motion, but I want assurances that we won't end up in court for no reason.

The Chairman: Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I agree with Mr. Coderre. I can understand why the French version is worded this way, but I'm concerned that there could be some legal challenges because this version is not as clear as the English one. The overall meaning is the same, but the French version lacks clarity.

Ms. Monique Hébert: While I don't disagree with you, I have to say that we resorted to a variety of approaches and methods throughout this process and I wouldn't necessarily be concerned about amending this particular clause. I'd be concerned instead about amending a number of other ones. In my view, it is pretty clear and its meaning is more or less the same as in the other version, whereas the same cannot be said for several other provisions.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I agree with you. Before we adopt the final version of the bill, we must be certain that all of the clauses have been properly translated and that the French and English versions have exactly the same meaning. I have noted that the French and English versions of several clauses are dissimilar.

[English]

The Chairman: It's important to stress the fact that these are not translations. I'm told that these are two separate writing teams and therefore the one version is not the mirror image of the other, as one perhaps would expect it always to be. I'm told that sometimes of course things like this can happen.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, just before the horse dies from being beaten to death, I think our legal counsel has suggested that they're going to look into this issue.

If Madame Hébert has additional areas she wants them to look into, I think it would be appropriate to provide a list. She just referenced many other places that need to be changed.

I think we've in effect agreed to Mr. Laliberte's motion, which would be to delete those words, but I'm quite concerned that in terms of order of priority and focus we need to be on subclause (3), which is on page 124, and amendment G-14.2.

• 1030

The Chairman: You made two observations. On the one where the horse was about to be beaten to death, Mr. Cameron doesn't look like that, but maybe he feels like that. But we will definitely look forward to his work in removing gaps between the two versions. And as to dealing with subclause (3), we will do that today, but we will keep this clause open because we will want to see the new version when it comes forward.

So we will abandon now subclause 176(4), and we can move to G-14.2, which is on subclause 176(3), on page 47 of your small collection—the small book, not the big book.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'll move new government amendment G-14.2. This would be a consequential amendment to clause 56, which talks about pollution prevention plans. So that would be the first part. Given the comments of the committee, I think they would be in support of this, in terms of other factors.

On the second part of the amendment, which relates to subclause 176(5), perhaps we can also get further comment from our officials.

The Chairman: You're now moving the amendment on page 47.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's page 47 in English and page 48 in French in the small package.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there comments by the officials?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Only if the committee needs them.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I would simply point out that the second part of the motion is consequential to the first part—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Because it relates to regulations.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: —because it relates to regulations.

The Chairman: Yes, thank you.

Are there any questions or comments?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: When you're calling the vote on this question, I wonder if you might also call it on amendment NDP-52.3, because I think you might see some similar support for both of them. It would speed up the process.

The Chairman: That is on which page?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's on page 281. It was the one that was sort of open.

The Chairman: Yes, that is to be before us very soon.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To clarify, I understand amendment G-14.2 is well in order for a vote, but on page 281 again, did we want to address the legal concerns first before we put that to a vote?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The issues of French and English are not what's before us on page 281, on amendment NDP-52.3. So I'm happy to support it if you would like it to have support. It doesn't preclude Mr. Cameron coming back and telling us that everything is fine or something needs to be changed in the future.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: All right, so be it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'd like your assurances that I have understood your motion correctly. Are you simply trying to clarify the measures set out in the bill, including the fact that it recommends that the Governor in Council make regulations aimed at preventing or reducing water pollution? You are not recommending any additional measures or any changes to the meaning of this provision. All you are doing is clarifying the measures that the minister must take into consideration.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It also refers to

[English]

pollution prevention plans. It's consequential to a section we passed earlier, clause 56. It's very clearly stipulating the process.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I see, the objective is to clarify the wording used. Thank you.

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

• 1035

[English]

Are there any other questions?

I would like to ask this question. Preventing is fine, of course, and controlling is necessary at times. However, what does correcting convey? Correcting means reducing or augmenting. Does it mean changes upwards or downwards? It seems to imply, as a verb, a move that could go in two opposite directions. Also, controlling is not very reassuring, but nevertheless it's sometimes inevitable in serious circumstances. So perhaps I should focus on the verb “correcting” and ask Mr. Cameron to indicate what interpretation might be given by the courts to that verb.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I think it's clear from the context that the word “correcting” here is used as a synonym for ameliorate or eliminate, because it modifies the words “water pollution”. When read together it's my interpretation that those regulations would be for the purposes of removing and correcting the problem caused by water pollution.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are we going to Mr. Laliberte's, or did we just do that as well?

The Chairman: We did that as well.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Do you want to leave clause 176 open afterwards?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So Mr. Laliberte's motion passed.

The Chairman: We will go to Mr. Laliberte's motion on page 281. The government is in favour, I understand.

Mr. Laliberte, do you want to speak to it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I think I've made the motion already. I'll just leave it at that.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 176 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: We'll stand the clause for the further final step and move to page 282, clause 183, a motion by Mr. Laliberte.

(On clause 183—Interim order)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is a similar amendment to what we stood on page 276. Can we stand this one as well? It's consultation with other governments, and this one is specifically with other ministers.

The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm happy to follow the wishes of the committee on standing it or not standing it, but I would like to clarify that this is not about other governments. It's other ministers of the crown, so it's internal to the federal government. That was the case in the other issue as well. I would think that consultation with other ministers to determine other acts would be something the member would support.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, that is a compelling point. I think it would be wise to proceed with it today.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It would delete paragraph 183(4)(b). You're maintaining the other consultation.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: How broad is the term “ministers of the crown”?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's federal.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's specifically federal?

The Chairman: Oh yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The one that refers to other governments is paragraph 183(4)(a), and you're leaving that in your amendment.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll so move then.

The Chairman: All right, it's so moved. Are there any comments or questions?

[Translation]

Mrs. Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but could Mr. Laliberte repeat his motion. Is he proposing that we adopt the amendment on p. 282, or is he proposing a sub- amendment?

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It would take paragraph 183(4)(b) away. I believe it's the same in the French version. It doesn't take the whole clause away. It would make it:

(4) The Governor in Council shall not approve an interim order unless the Minister has, within 24 hours after making the order, offered to consult with all affected governments to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the significant danger.

• 1040

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This appears to be part of the whole issue of residualization with CEPA, and I'm wondering if this should be stood down because we haven't had final discussions on that issue yet.

The Chairman: Madam Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify, this is related to consultation within the federal government, and surely this would be an appropriate thing to include—subclause 4(a) and (b) as it is written. It's a responsible thing. The other residualization related to other governments, I think.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold and Madam Kraft Sloan.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The amendment that he is proposing contains no indication that he wishes to delete paragraph 183(4)(b). Paragraph 183(4)(a) is not a summary of paragraphs 183(4)(a) and 183 (4)(b). I wasn't aware that he was proposing that the final paragraph be deleted.

The Chairman: The French version is drafted somewhat differently.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That isn't it. By following up the expression "au danger en question" by a period, Mr. Laliberte is indicating not only the end of paragraph 183 4)(a), but also the end of clause 183. I understand now. Thank you.

The Chairman: It's clear to you then. Fine.

[English]

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe we should just have a clarification from Mr. Moffet. This is dealing with the interim order the minister would be exercising, and if you look at the amount of consultation that would take place, not only with affected governments... I believe when dealing with international you'd be dealing not only with provincial governments but governments external to us. If you start consulting with ministers, there are many ministers of the crown, and this process might take a while when you're trying to deal with an interim measure.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to go back to my earlier statement. This is part of the whole residual issue we've been debating on committee, and we've been standing those other clauses down. It would be the deletion of paragraph (b), which is consulting with other ministers of the crown to determine any action to be taken under any other act of Parliament, which is part of the whole residualization issue. We've been standing those down.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to clarify that I originally suggested standing this one down, but—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, stand it down.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —I was counselled otherwise.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think if we're going to be in keeping with what we have been doing with this particular issue, we should stand this clause down.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I would agree.

The Chairman: Subparagraph 183(4)(b) is very clear in that respect, it seems to me, and I will have to come to that conclusion as well. Therefore we will stand this amendment until we come to a resolution of a previous clause in the bill, namely the residual powers.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(Clause 183 allowed to stand)

• 1045

The Chairman: Clauses 184 and 185 were carried the last time, so we will go to clause 186.

(On clause 186—Prohibition—import, export and transit)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I move amendment NDP-52.5. The amendment changes the word “may” to “shall”. The amended clause would read:

For the purposes of implementing international agreements respecting the environment, the Minister shall, with the approval of the Governor in Council and taking into account Canada's international obligations, prohibit, completely or partially and under any conditions that may be prescribed, the import, export of transit of waste or material referred to in subsection 185(1).

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would not be in favour of this amendment because by changing the word “may” to “shall” you're taking away the discretion of the minister to deal with unique situations as they might arise.

The Chairman: Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I'm not a very good Scrabble player and maybe I need French lessons. I wonder if the use of the word "agrément" in the French version is appropriate? Wouldn't "approbation" be a better choice of words? It would earn you fewer Scrabble points, but it would be clearer. I'm going to go to sleep a little wiser this evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm certain our interpreters are having fun conveying my words.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron will take note of what you said.

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I believe it's the proper term. However, my French is also not as good as others'. I'm certainly willing to check with the French drafters on that.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments on this amendment by members of the committee? Mr. Laliberté again.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The parliamentary secretary alluded to outstanding situations or circumstances. I'm not sure if that's acceptable in terms of allowing the minister to decide on those situations. If the approval of the Governor in Council is required, those situations could be taken under that account.

If it's international obligations we're obligated to, or the situation is being created by those obligations, those would certainly be in account as well, but if we're protecting the environment, what else should we be allowing the minister to consider into this before she prohibits completely or partially?

The Chairman: Any comments? Any reply?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: None other than to say I think the minister deserves discretion in protecting the health and safety of Canadians. If the member doesn't feel that way, vote for his amendment. I'll vote a different way.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 186 agreed to)

• 1050

The Chairman: There is, as you know, a debate on water exports taking place in the House, which has already started. Some members have expressed their intention to speak. We will adjourn very soon in order to make it possible for others who are interested, including myself, to follow it.

Perhaps, Mr. Laliberte, we could call your amendment to clause 187 on page 286.

(On clause 187—Publication)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll so move. It deals with publication. I would replace lines 19 to 23 on page 132 with the following:

After the Minister receives a notification of the proposed import, export or transit of a waste or material referred to in subsection 185(1), the Minister shall publish by a means of communication capable of reaching the communities that will be affected by one of the activities referred to in subsection 185(1) and in the Canada Gazette, or in any other manner that

This is a direct issue of the public's right to know. Communities in an area where the waste or export transaction might take place should be duly notified.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You might want to turn it over to the officials to comment on exactly how this particular clause would work, but my main comment is that I don't support the amendment as it's written.

The Chairman: Are there any comments by the officials?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: If I may, Mr. Chairman, this is the type of information we would put on our environmental registry, which will be Internet-based and capable of reaching communities. Also, there's a consequence associated with the member's amendment, because it appears to require publication in the Canada Gazette. As it is proposed in Bill C-32, it says “in the Canada Gazette, or in any other manner”. By requiring publication in the Canada Gazette, it puts a significant financial burden on the department. The Canada Gazette costs, I understand, anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 per page. Some of these notifications, including the detail, run to 20 pages in length. We receive about 6,000 applications per year. It would be a significant burden on the department.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We would rather use that money for enforcement.

The Chairman: Are you finished, Mr. Mongrain?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Yes, I am, sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe publishing in the Canada Gazette is already in there. All we're adding is “reaching the communities that will be affected”.

The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The bill as it's currently worded says “shall publish in the Canada Gazette, or in any other manner”, and the member's motion that's before us in fact says “and in the Canada Gazette”. The “shall” affects the publication in the Canada Gazette as well as in the communities.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, the motion still states “and in the Canada Gazette, or in any other manner”.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It says “the Minister shall publish... in the Canada Gazette”, so you could be correct.

The Chairman: Yes. The amendment reads “and in the Canada Gazette”.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

• 1055

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, clause 187 in the French version reads as follows:

...le ministre rend public, par insertion dans la Gazette du Canada, ou de toute autre façon qu'il juge indiquée,...

The minister has no choice; he must publish this information in the Canada Gazette. I fail to see why Mr. Mongrain is raising the issue of costs.

[English]

The Chairman: That's an interesting observation by Madame Girard-Bujold, Mr. Mongrain. The French text is visibly offering both options.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's the same in the English version.

The Chairman: “in the Canada Gazette, or in any other manner...”

[English]

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Are you looking at the bill, sir, or the amendment?

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The bill stipulates that this information shall be published in the Canada Gazette, or in some other manner.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The other version says the same thing.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The French version is very clear. Mr. Laliberte wants assurances that the minister will publish this information either in the Canada Gazette or in some other manner. I fail to understand the purpose of Mr. Laliberte's amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: But the text of the bill is very clear in saying either/or, en français.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To clarify it for everybody, I think the issue at hand is not the Canada Gazette or any other manner; the issue is Mr. Laliberte's motion on “means of communication capable of reaching communities”. Certainly with Mr. Manley's initiative to connect all communities to the Internet system, the registry being available on the Internet achieves his goal and the bill is clear as it is currently worded.

(Amendment negatived)

Clause 187 agreed to

The Chairman: We will resume tomorrow afternoon. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.