ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, February 15, 1999

• 1541

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

We welcome a new member to the committee today—welcome, sir—and we proceed with our work in the hope that the representative for the Bloc Québécois will arrive soon, because immediately after Mr. Lincoln's amendment on page 306, there are Bloc Québécois amendments to discuss.

Before we start, I have some brief announcements.

First, our most valuable policy adviser, John Moffet, had a car accident on Friday. He is all right, but he suffered badly. He had the presence of spirit or mind to pull up his legs and press against the dashboard, so that at the moment of impact he remained in his seat, but his knees exerted such pressure on his chest that he cracked or damaged some of his ribs. So we don't know when he will be able to come, but he said he will come as soon as he can walk without too much pain. He was going to attend the Canadian Ski Marathon, and he would have been the only person in this room who would have been able to claim being a coureur de bois at the end of two days. We hope he will be able to do that next year.

Now, there is a new small bundle prepared by the clerk, which is already in circulation. You may want to discard the old one.

You also have to keep in mind that we will proceed with clauses 100 to 103, on the export and import of toxic substances, which we discussed, as you will recall, 10 days ago, as soon as we have Mr. Moffet with us. The same applies to the whistle-blower clauses.

To conclude these announcements of information items, could someone in the committee move that this committee approves authority for Ms. Labelle, our research officer, to attend

[Translation]

the seminar organized by the Université de Sherbrooke, that I announced last week, entitled “À l'aube de l'an 2000: Vision d'avenir en environnement”,

[English]

so she can attend on behalf of the committee and draw the benefit of that particular event? The cost is $500.

An hon. member: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1545

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras, welcome to our committee. We're happy to see you again.

[English]

We start with page 306, because that's where we stopped the last time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): Sorry, Mr. Chair. If it's the pleasure of the committee, we'd like to stand down clauses 208 through 210.

The Chairman: Clause 308?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Clauses 208, 209, and 210.

The Chairman: All right, madam. Could one draw from that announcement that Mr. Lincoln is the object of very close scrutiny?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: For his good looks, no doubt.

The Chairman: He has amendments on those clauses—208, 209, and 210; that's why I'm asking.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We'll be looking, but who knows how closely.

(Clauses 208 to 210 inclusive allowed to stand)

The Chairman: Then we go to page 348. Will you please turn to page 348, where there are four options: three in the name of the Bloc Québécois and one in the name of the government. Perhaps we should give Monsieur Bigras le temps de le lire.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If people are trying to find their page in the small booklets, they are pages 48(d), (e), (f), and (g) en français.

The Chairman: Thank you. In the small book you will find... So there are actually five options, is that correct?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. I think (f) and (g) are English and French.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The first option by the Bloc Québécois is on page 348. The second, third, and fourth are on pages 48(d), (e), and (f).

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's (d) and (e), and then the government is (f) and (g).

The Chairman: Yes. The government option is 48(f) and (g). Thank you.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Do people need any comment on what a review officer is or how the review officer group works?

The Chairman: Sure. If Mr. Bigras is ready, he certainly can proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to postpone the study of that particular clause until my colleague can attend the committee meeting?

[English]

The Chairman: That's a reasonable request, considering the intricacies, so we will stand this clause 247 until...

[Translation]

Will Ms. Girard-Bujold be here tomorrow?

A voice: She will.

The Chairman: Thank you.

• 1550

[English]

(Clause 247 allowed to stand)

(Clause 248 agreed to)

(On clause 249—Remuneration and fees)

The Chairman: Amendment G-24.3.1 is on pages 49 and 50 of the small collection.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would be happy to move amendment G-24.3.1, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Could you please introduce it or give an explanation?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure. I wasn't sure everyone was there.

Basically, the effect of this amendment, were it to pass, would be to ensure that the Governor in Council in fact fixes the remuneration for the chief review officer. As it's written, it would perhaps create some potential for bias if the minister were to set the salary directly. By having that independence of the Governor in Council, you would make sure that the minister didn't, I suppose, alter the salary based on pleasure or displeasure. So it would be consistent with other areas in the government where we have this kind of function, and ensure the independence of the chief review officer.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): That's fine with me.

The Chairman: That's surprising.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's surprising that it's fine with Mr. Knutson?

The Chairman: It's interesting that the minister could be suspected of bias.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The minister could appear before the chief review officer, so it would be more appropriate if you ensure independence.

The Chairman: Why was it written this way when the bill was printed in the first place? What's wrong with the minister today that wasn't wrong yesterday?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There's nothing wrong, but if some people perceive that the minister could be biased, that wouldn't be necessarily very helpful.

The Chairman: These representations are made by which department? Where does the pressure come from?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I think there are a number of amendments in the bill that are cleaning up some things that on second glance don't look as good as they could, so we are ensuring that we are as clean as possible and as clear as possible.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, there has also been an intervening court case by the Federal Court trial division. There's a judicial review action involving the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It's a case called Bell Canada and the Canadian Telephone Employees Association. In that decision, which was rendered after Bill C-32 was drafted, the trial division held that where an agency sets the remuneration of an adjudicative body and then appears before that body as one of the parties, that creates an apprehension of bias, which is unacceptable in law.

The Chairman: That is in the private sector, is it?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: No, sir, it was the Human Rights Commission that set the remuneration of the Human Rights Tribunal, and since the commission is one of the parties that appears before the tribunal, the court held that this created a sufficient apprehension of bias to render the decision in that case contrary to law.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1555

The Chairman: Would you please turn to pages 50(a) and 50(b), amendment G-24.3.1.1.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to move this amendment. This is another cleanup.

It's not necessary to include any conversation about their pension. In fact it would probably make sure that since the Governor in Council sets remuneration, it would be the whole thing, including the pension. It's consistent with the last one.

The Chairman: So this deals with the Public Service Superannuation Act, as it says in the clause.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It would delete that whole subclause 249(3). It's consequential to the last one.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

An hon. member: Where are we?

The Chairman: We're on pages 50(a) and 50(b).

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Within the bill, it's on page 176, lines 35 through 38.

Because we set remuneration, remuneration includes all parts of the salary and pension, so there's no need to make reference to the pension.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 249 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 250 to 262 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 263—Powers of review officer)

The Chairman: We're now on pages 51 and 52, amendment G-24.3.2.

The parliamentary secretary, please.

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

I'm happy to move amendment G-24.3.2. The effect of this, were it to pass, would be to make sure that we address the issue of the minister, who could also appear before the chief review officer. The person of the minister was inadvertently left out of the wording there. So the minister would also need proper notice, and so on.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 263 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 264 agreed to)

(On clause 265—Limitations on exercise of review officer's powers)

The Chairman: On page 349 in the larger book, there is an amendment by the government.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'm happy to move amendment G-24.4, which, as you've mentioned, is on page 349 in the large package.

The effect of it would be to delete lines 37 and 38 on page 179 of the bill. It was superfluous language, only in the English, so it makes sure that the English and French texts are more equivalent.

[Translation]

The Chairman: No problems with the French?

[English]

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1600

(Clause 265 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 266 agreed to)

(On clause 267—Rules)

The Chairman: The next one is on page 53 of the small package.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to move amendment G-24.5. The effect of this amendment is to delete the words “with the approval of the Minister”. Of course, if the chief review officer is independent and the minister could appear before the chief review officer, etc., the chief review officer should be able to make rules on procedure without any approval of the minister. It ensures independence.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I'm just trying to understand the elimination of “with the approval of the Minister” here. Why would this take place here? Does this exist in CEPA now?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, we're setting up some new information. If the minister could be one of the parties who appears before the chief review officer, and the chief review officer is supposed to be independent and has the appearance of independence, why would they need to check the rules of procedure through the minister, who could therefore appear before that person? It was just an inadvertent... They need independence.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): Just on the background on what the review officer is reviewing, Bill C-32 provides enforcement officers with a new authority to issue compliance orders. These are on-the-spot orders to correct the violation or bring somebody back into compliance. The review officer is set up as a quasi-judicial independent review body to review these orders, and presumably the minister could appear in defence of the order in front of the review officer.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We've had a change in terminology from inspectors to enforcement officers. This is not a pruning of the act to create an enforcement agency in the future that could fall in here as an arm's length away from government or anything like that, is it?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: No. It's simply to review the specific orders.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: You're not pruning the tree, so to speak.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: No.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Not in this clause.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Not today.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 267 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 268 to 272 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 273—False or misleading information, etc.)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 350 of the binder. Here there is a government amendment.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to move G-25.

If members want to turn to page 181 of the bill, there was an inadvertent error in both Bill C-32 and, interestingly, in Bill C-74. It clearly was a drafting error, because if you look at line 28, you'll see we actually had people committing an offence by complying with the act. So we need to delete those words and just put in some new words that will be clearer and more appropriate.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 273 as amended agreed to)

• 1605

(Clauses 274 to 279 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 280—Liability of directors)

The Chairman: Will you please go to page 352.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I will be happy to move an amendment, G-25.1. This is consistent with our other changes—changing inspectors, investigators, and all those people to enforcement officers. It's consequential to a series we have made.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I will not be moving G-26.

(Clause 280 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I don't mean to bring you back to clause 273, but I've been trying to put a legal oversight to this one. I beg for your forgiveness. I'm trying to understand it. This is false and misleading information. I had to read the whole thing; I couldn't read just the first three sentences.

It means that every person who commits an offence for the purposes of complying with this act and regulations provides misleading information. You can't be deemed to be providing misleading information if you talk about something else, but if it pertains to this act it's misleading information and is an offence.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe I can help out. Clause 273 will now say:

Every person commits an offence who, with respect to any matter related to this Act or the regulations...provides false information or files a document that contains false information.

What it said earlier was if you provide false information in order to try to comply with the act, you commit an offence. It just didn't make sense that you were trying to comply, trying to plant false information, and therefore you were committing an offence. Now it's very clear. If you provide false information, you've committed an offence.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I won't be providing false information.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Don't provide false information.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: But the old one had weight as well.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): It sounded too restrictive.

(Clauses 281 to 293 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 294—Subsequent applications with leave)

The Chairman: On page 356 there is a government amendment.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to move G-27, which corrects a drafting error.

If you turn to your bill on page 191 and look at clause 294, you'll see it says “Where an application made under subsection (1)”, etc. There is no subsection (1), so we need to remove that. Now it will just say “made under that section”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Are we on clause 293 or 294?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We're on clause 294, and it refers to 293.

The Chairman: One wonders what the drafters of the legislation were doing when they wrote it in the first place.

• 1610

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 294 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 295 to 304 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 305—Records of police forces and investigative bodies)

The Chairman: For clause 305 on page 358, we have a government amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to move G-27.1 and I will not be moving G-28.

Of course this is following through on our changes earlier with inspectors, enforcement officers, and other peace officers. It is to clarify the intentions of the committee.

The Chairman: So G-28 drops out.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right.

The Chairman: You heard the amendment by the parliamentary secretary to clause 305. This is consistent with previous amendments that were made almost a hundred years ago, when we were in the early stages.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 305 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 306—Government records)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On clause 306 we have an amendment, G-28.1, and we will not be moving G-29. Once again, it deals with the enforcement officer versus all those other people. It is consistent with previous changes.

The Chairman: So G-29 is dropped and what else?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: G-28.1 is moved.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 306 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 307—Disclosure of records)

The Chairman: On page 366, a government amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: G-29.1, and I'm happy to move that amendment. Once again, “enforcement officer” replaces “investigator, inspector and prosecutor”. I will not be moving G-30.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 307 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 308 to 320 inclusive agreed to)

• 1615

The Chairman: Could you please go to page 370. There is a government amendment. The parliamentary secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would be happy to move government amendment 30.1. The effect of this would be to change “investigator and inspector” to “enforcement officer”. I will not be moving government amendment 31.

The Chairman: Thank you. You heard the amendment by the parliamentary secretary. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I noticed in these amendments that the effects of the changes are to take out “analyst”.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: No, but in a number of the other ones, it was to remove “analyst”. What does an analyst do compared to inspectors and whatever?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, maybe I can clarify it. I think Mr. Gilmour is talking about clause 306. In fact we changed the order when we passed the amendment. It says “enforcement officer and analyst”. So while they were grouped with inspectors, analysts and investigators, we moved to enforcement officers and analysts. The analysts have all stayed in and peace officers are in, but investigators and inspectors are out.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Enforcement officers—in.

The Chairman: Does that answer your question?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Close enough, yes.

The Chairman: Close enough. Thank you.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'm thoroughly confused.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, you asked what does an analyst do.

The Chairman: Yes, I know.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It's a generic term for somebody who can help an enforcement officer. For example, a lab technician might accompany an enforcement officer on a particular case to take chemical samples. So we use the term “analyst” for that function.

The Chairman: A person usually wearing a white coat.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 321 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 322 agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we come to clause 323 and an amendment by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, I wonder if we could stand down clause 323 so we can take a closer look at Mr. Lincoln's amendment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask for the same, because clause 330 has a cross-reference to 93(5), which was stood, so I think we should leave it for now and take the two together. I think clause 330 should be stood.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We're on clause 323 first.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, clause 323.

(Clause 323 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 324 to 329 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 330 allowed to stand)

(Clause 331 agreed to)

• 1620

(Clause 332 allowed to stand)

(On clause 333—Establishment of board of review)

The Chairman: We come to clause 333, with amendment R-21 by Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: What page are we on?

The Chairman: We're on page 211 of the bill, page 378 in your binder.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to require the minister to establish a board of review when a notice of objection is filed in relation to action taken under subclause 90(1). This was moved by the mining association, or brought forward in our hearings.

The Chairman: What would be the effect of this amendment?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It would establish a board of review when a notice of objection is filed.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, since a notice of objection is almost always filed whenever there is a rejection, it would perhaps tie up resources. I think giving the minister the flexibility to call for a board of review when and if needed is probably a better way to go at it. So I don't support the amendment.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 333 agreed to)

The Chairman: We now move to clause 334 and amendment BQ-32 on page 379.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I think this could be viewed as similar in scope to the issue that was before us in clause 247, so probably you want to stand this one down as well.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras, do you agree?

[English]

(Clause 334 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 335 to 342 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 343—Permanent review of Act by parliamentary committee)

The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 380, amendment L-17, by Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to move this amendment. It's pretty self-explanatory. It essentially reduces the review period from seven years to five years.

In support of the motion, I think it accomplishes a couple of things. We're on what, 11 years since CEPA of 1988? So these things take a lot of time.

I think if you look at what a review is supposed to do, the first thing is that it's supposed to review the effectiveness of the regulations. I think that's perfectly appropriate. But it also reviews the scope of the regulations. I think in our review here, endocrine disrupters weren't really an issue two years ago, and seven years is just too long a period of time. Five years is a more realistic timeframe, given the pace and the scope, the way things are changing.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I certainly would be at the pleasure of the committee on this. I would just remind members that we changed some amendments earlier that put a seven-year deadline on the categorization of the domestic substances list, which would include, of course, as science develops, things that are endocrine disrupting.

So five or seven years...? It was five in 1988; it's seven now. It's your call.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, your amendment applies to the entire act, right?

• 1625

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, as it should.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments? Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I would encourage members of the committee to support Mr. Jordan's amendment. We had a five-year review process under the old act, and it's going to be almost ten years before we get new legislation. If we look at seven years, God knows how long it will be.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 343 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 344 agreed to)

(On clause 345)

The Chairman: I'm advised that we turn to page 54(a) in the small package, a government amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would also be 54(b) en français. Of course since this in fact is 1999, we would want the CEPA Act to be called CEPA 1999, assuming it gets passed this year.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 345 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 346 and 347 agreed to)

(On clause 348)

The Chairman: We're still on the small package, page 54(c).

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And 54d) in French.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to move the government amendment 31.0.2., that clause 348 be amended by replacing line 35 on page 214 with the following:

1999 apply, with any modifications that the

If this were to pass we would of course have the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, assuming it will pass this year.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 348 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 349)

The Chairman: We move now to page 54(e), a government amendment.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd be happy to move this amendment, government amendment 31.0.3, which again would refer to the act by what we hope it will be known as, which is Canadian Environment Protection Act 1999. Clause 349 is to be amended by replacing line 4 on page 215 with the following:

1999 apply in respect of this act

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 349 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 350 to 356 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: Yes, Parliamentary Secretary.

• 1630

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I certainly know in the small package we have changes to schedule 3 because they would be consequential to some amendments that are still before the committee. I suppose there are two options: we can pass the rest of the schedules because there are no suggested amendments, or break and come back fresh tomorrow, hopefully, on those clauses.

The Chairman: Perhaps we can choose the latter course of action.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't think there are any consequential amendments.

The Chairman: We can do them after dealing with the amendments...preceding it.

What happens to schedule 1?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are no changes suggested to any other schedule, so we could pass the rest of the schedules.

The Chairman: All right. Shall I call schedule 1?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a question? I understand the minister can change that schedule as substances come forward and are tracked as being prohibited or restrictive. If we enshrine them in the legislation today, does that mean that those that come up tomorrow will have to be subject to an amendment to the act? Why do we include the schedules automatically in the act? What is the legal reason at this time?

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's done so when the bill receives royal assent and is eventually proclaimed into force, the cross-references to the schedule will take effect on that day, instead of having to pass additional regulations at the same time. So the full package of the legislation will operate on the day it's proclaimed into force. That's the reason.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It almost enshrines new substances into the act right now, so additional ones or changes would have to be made by future regulations. Is that the case?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: They would have to be made by either the minister in some cases or by regulations in others, that's correct.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, if a substance were to be listed between now and proclamation, what would happen?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: In my judgment, rather than coming back to Parliament to have it added to the schedule, we would prepare a submission to the Governor in Council, and that regulation would take force on the day set for proclamation of the whole legislation. So it would be added to the schedule at that time.

The Chairman: Would you do the same for substances that are added over the next five years or so?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is correct, sir.

The Chairman: That is your normal procedure?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is correct.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But in the case of substances the minister can add and change, would she issue an order?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is also correct. There are various schedules, and they have different mechanisms for adding items to the schedules. In some cases it's the Governor in Council route, in other cases it's ministerial. When the authority to add items to schedules is created in the law, you would turn to that enabling power to find out whether it's ministerial or Governor in Council. Then that process would have to be followed to make those additions.

• 1635

The Chairman: That's very helpful, Mr. Cameron.

Looking at schedule 1, can you explain to the committee why lead is still in its limited form on the toxic substances list and not in its complete formulation, so to say? It's limited, if I understand correctly, to atmospheric releases, and not only that, but from secondary lead smelters. One wonders what happens to primary lead smelters. Lead is becoming known as one of the most damaging substances to the neurosystem of humans, and particularly children. Could you tell us why lead in all its forms is not on this list?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I'm sorry, I'm not competent to answer that question.

The Chairman: I would like to bring this fact to the attention of the committee, because lead is used in pellets and is allowed in imported ceramics. There is not an outright ban, as there ought to be.

It's interesting to note that lead is banned, I'm told, completely in Denmark and The Netherlands. Here we are only putting it on the list for limited atmospheric releases.

It's important that we familiarize ourselves with what goes on in these schedules, because that's where the action is in the end.

Look also at methyl bromide, which is also in article 22 of schedule 1. It is not something you fool around with.

(a) quantities that may be manufactured or imported

(b) prohibition on manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, import or export

What is the difference, Mr. Cameron, in your opinion, between (a) and (b)?

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: On my reason for asking in the first place whether we should enshrine these schedules in the act or let the minister, if we enshrine them in the act it almost gives the signal that legislators have agreed with the schedules at this point.

If you look at schedule 1 and take lead or mercury as examples, lead is very restrictive—limited atmospheric releases from secondary lead smelters. But when we look at the list of substances requiring export notification you find lead arsenate, mercuric chloride, mercurous chloride, and in 21 and 22, tetraethyl lead and tetramethyl lead.

In other words, we are making a distinction between what we ban under schedule 1 and the notification for export, which seems to go a bit broader because we obviously want to have control over these substances.

The whole argument about lead, arsenic, and mercury is going on right now, and some countries are going much further. If we acknowledge this list today in the legislation, it seems as if in 1999 we're quite satisfied this is up to date. That really was the gist of the question before.

As to whether it's best for us to enshrine it in legislation or leave it to the minister to update and do it by order, what difference in time would there be? That's what I would like to ask Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I have two comments. I just want to draw members' attention to the description of schedule 1 on page 217. The substance that appears in bold has been determined to be toxic and added to the list. The (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are, and I'll read it into the record, “the type of regulation applicable to those substances listed in non-boldface below each item”. That describes the types of regulations that are in force now.

• 1640

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, I realize that.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Okay. I wasn't sure if that was clear.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I guess the second question is whether it's necessary for the committee to pass the schedules, whether it can be left to the minister or Governor in Council, depending on the type of schedule, until the act is proclaimed in force. If I may confer with my colleague from the justice department...

Mr. Duncan Cameron: The items on schedule 1 are the toxic substance list. They're the substances that have already been determined to be toxic. I can't imagine why this committee wouldn't want to pass that schedule. I can appreciate the arguments about completeness and that's a separate issue, but this is the list as it exists today.

The Chairman: Yes, we appreciate that, Mr. Cameron. It's only distressing to learn that when it comes to 6, 7, 8, and 9—asbestos, lead, mercury, and vinyl chloride—in each case it is limited to atmospheric releases from certain sources. In the case of vinyl chloride, that may be satisfactory. I don't know exactly the scope of that exclusion. But certainly when it comes to 6 and 7 it is a pretty weak description; the limitations are far-reaching.

As to whether we should approve the schedules today or next week, it doesn't make much of a difference, because they can be approved very quickly. It's only that it's quite educational to go through them one by one and to realize that the lion is not roaring so loud as one may think.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief comment to make with respect to what you have said. I also feel that point 7 is somewhat limiting with respect to lead, especially since Health Canada has already indicated that some toys may contain lead. I don't understand why there would be such limitations in point 7. It seems to me that it is up to us to include... As far as I'm concerned, this second aspect should be included by the committee and we could certainly make amendments.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Hébert, nice to hear your voice.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Research Assistant): I'd like to point out, Mr. Bigras, that it may be that lead is regulated through another Act, the Dangerous Goods Act, I believe. Here, we are dealing with the environment in general. Therefore, it may well be that there are broader regulations under the Dangerous Goods Act.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Now what I would dearly love to know is what the difference is between secondary and primary lead smelters. Maybe secondary means very little, I don't know. Is there anyone in the room who can enlighten us as to what secondary implies by comparison with primary lead smelters? One would be inclined to think that the real action is with primary lead smelters, but that may be the wrong conclusion.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I gather there are questions about asbestos, lead, and mercury. There was a question on schedule 3, lead arsenate. Why don't we get back, if anyone has any other questions, rather than everybody groping?

• 1645

The Chairman: Madame Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, to get back to Mr. Lincoln's question, whether if the list were passed as is, it would be more or less the parliamentary seal of approval. If you look at schedule 1, basically those are the toxic substances for which the government wants to have management or control options. Therefore, one needs to determine what the option is before it can get on this list, presumably. They don't list, as a rule, unless they have the management option in place. This can be contrasted with schedule 3, which is a list of prohibited substances. You simply can't use those. As I say, unless you go the prohibited substances route, the other schedule is for those for which the government would like to have the management options.

I suppose one needs that regulatory backup in order to place the substance on that particular schedule.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I realize these have been regulated the way it is now, and that we're enshrining what is there now. But what I was wanting to find out from Mr. Cameron or Mr. Mongrain is if you take lead, mercury, or one of these substances, and the minister, by order, wanted to go beyond, what is a procedure to enlarge the scope of these definitions by regulations? That's what I'm trying to find out. What I was thinking is if you give the parliamentary seal of approval, can the minister, by order, tomorrow morning say that he wants to broaden the definition of “lead”? What would be the process, and how long would it take?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, in the case of schedule 1, you have to go back to the enabling provision, the statute that describes the process for getting onto the list. In the case you've referred to, Mr. Lincoln, it's clause 90, where we have a section that says:

Subject to subsection (3), the Governor in Council may, if satisfied that a substance is toxic, on the recommendation of the Ministers, make an order adding the substance to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1.

It's by way of that order, which is an Order in Council, that the substance becomes added to the list.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Cameron, I realize that. What I'm trying to find out... Maybe I'm not explaining myself too well. Lead is already on the list. It's been seen by the minister as being a toxic substance. But when we regulated, we restricted the definition of “lead” to a certain parameter, which was the emissions from secondary smelters. That's what we've done; we've regulated that way.

What I was going to ask is do we have to go back to the Governor in Council to seek an order to amplify the prohibition against lead, mercury, or asbestos, or can the minister, given that lead has already been signified as being toxic as a substance, produce an order saying we'll amplify lead to prohibit it from X, Y, and Z? That's really what I was trying to find out.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, the question of toxicity, once it's been added to the list of toxic substances, is not in question. So it can cover more uses of lead. But for the minister to take action, she would have to recommend regulations to the Governor in Council to regulate that activity or use of lead under proposed section 93.

So in regard to the question of whether it's toxic or not, in all its uses and forms, the substance is determined to be toxic. Different control measures, appropriate to different uses, would require Governor in Council approval, as is the case under the existing act.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So we can't change this; we can just make sure it's accurate, in terms of what—

The Chairman: You can only comment.

Mr. Joe Jordan: —Bill C-88 has now, plus any changes that have happened since then.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): If I may add, Mr. Chairman, regardless of the questions, all you are being asked to do is say that this is the list of toxic substances and this is a true representation of the regulations that are in place. You are making no comment as to whether you agree—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Then I'll ask you that question. Is it?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: —or to their completeness, other than the questions you are asking here.

• 1650

Mr. Joe Jordan: But is it accurate?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: It is.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So what amendment are we making in schedule 3 then? We're putting things on that have since been declared...

Mr. Duncan Cameron: The government motion to amend schedule 3 was consequential to the changes we put forth to implement the prior informed consent convention. Currently schedule 3 has two parts. What we have done to the government motions to amend sections 100 to 103 is to recognize that the prior informed consent convention deals with three categories of substances. So we created a new schedule that has three parts to it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chairman: Joe, it's before us and it is an opportunity to express support or surprise or dismay or disappointment.

For instance, one can express only support for the way item 4 is described, chlorofluorocarbons. It is a very strong description of what is being done to chlorofluorocarbons, and we all know the reason why.

But then one can express only dismay, considering also that in previous reincarnations of this committee a lot of time was spent on lead, including lead in pellets for the protection of wildlife. The reassurance was given on several occasions, and I see members who remember nodding, that lead in pellets would be eliminated because representation was made to us, and Parks Canada made a commitment to eliminate or to prohibit, in the parks and areas under their jurisdiction—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Shotgun shells?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think it has been made.

The Chairman: For hunters who would use lead pellets, and so on. Yet we see no reference to other uses. As Monique Hébert reminds us, that would be under the dangerous goods, perhaps. Is that where it can be found?

Ms. Monique Hébert: It's the Hazardous Products Act, really. Those are products that might be regulated or prohibited basically to protect human life. This is where toys would more properly be regulated, whereas in the case of lead pellets, lead sinkers, basically they have that environmental dimension to them. We're trying to preserve wildlife, and so on, that may be eating the lead pellets. Therefore CEPA would have a role to play in this case.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Is there anywhere where—

Ms Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): In the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: In the Migratory Birds Convention Act and in wildlife areas that in fact has been done. It would not be listed on the schedule because it was not done under CEPA.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But is there somewhere where all these regulations concerning these products are in one place, or is it a case of a little bit here, a little bit there? Because what we're dealing with is rather confusing.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Actually, it is somewhat fragmented. If it is a consumer good, chances are it would be regulated under the Hazardous Products Act. Just like CEPA, it has that residual status, and it may well be that regulations have been passed elsewhere to deal with this situation.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, it is a rather confusing thing.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

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

There were a number of us who were quite involved with the lead pellet and lead sinker debate. There is another thing, for members who were involved with the review. We made a special trip through the north, and one of the very strong sets of testimony we received in the north related to arsenic. I don't see where arsenic is listed here. Is that listed under some other act? How is arsenic dealt with? Because there was a recommendation in It's About Our Health that both ministers identify the measures they planned to apply to arsenic by December 1995. Yet I don't see it in any of these schedules.

• 1655

The Chairman: There is item 13 in schedule 3, which refers to lead arsenate.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right. But it's not arsenic as it refers to the conditions we saw up north, where it was leaching into the ecosystem.

The Chairman: Anyway, look, since we have to deal with schedule 3 for approval, I would suggest that we leave the schedules for approval all together when we clean up schedule 3. This is a matter of a few minutes, but let's keep this schedule open for further comments. At least we have an opportunity to say something.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, one of the officials was going to address my question.

The Chairman: Was there an answer?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: With respect to arsenic, yes, sir.

The Chairman: Yes, please go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It's been declared toxic by the ministers of environment and health. I'll have to check: it's either very close to being added to the list of toxic substances or it may have been since the bill was printed. But I know the recommendation has been made to add it to the list of toxic substances. It's one of 18 substances, sir.

The Chairman: The recommendation was by the department, or by...?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: By the ministers.

The Chairman: The two ministers.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I believe so, yes.

The Chairman: Considering the nature of arsenic, would you know why it has taken ten years to arrive at that historical moment?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I do not, sir.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Arsenic in what form?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: We'd have to check.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thanks.

The Chairman: Yes, if you could give us an update on arsenic, that's fine.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I think we're grinding down here to the point where I'm questioning what my role is as a legislator. For example, I don't really consider myself as any kind of an expert in polybrominated biphenyls, or any of the others on the list. And I don't think that's our position. Our position should be to review the legislation, but the ministers are the ones who have all the experts in their areas. I don't think it's up to us in this room to be going through each item and suggesting what should be added or taken away. I think it's for us to put the tools for the department to do that.

The Chairman: Very true, Mr. Gilmour.

What you have here now is an opportunity to get an idea as to what has been achieved in the last ten years. It gives you an idea of what is in and what is out. And it gives you an idea to draw a general conclusion that may allow you, in question period or in a speech or through other means, to comment on the progress made on listing toxic substances. So an overall review item by item can give you that overall picture.

It's true that we are not elected to determine the chemical formula for polybrominated biphenyls. Nevertheless, these are the unexpected professional surprises that come with being a parliamentarian.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Also, Mr. Chair, often the Reform Party talk about concerns that are coming from the grassroots. Mr. Gilmour was quite involved in most of that review process, and we heard witnesses come forward a number of times to talk about some of these chemicals that were raised today. We're just wondering what happened, as representatives of the grassroots, of course.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It depends on where you come from. Lead in shot was banned in British Columbia several years ago.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then very good for British Columbia.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: So it depends on which part of the country you come from and which part you represent.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Absolutely. And I represent a part of the country where it wasn't banned.

The Chairman: Now if you look at item 13 on schedule 1...

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry. To clarify again, it's been banned for the country under a different piece of legislation.

The Chairman: Who says that?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That was the wildlife management... What's it's called?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My concern is that maybe we could be organizing the questions so that we're getting accurate information and exchanging accurate information here. So if people have questions about polybromide or whatever, let's just get them on the table and stop the guesswork and let's get them forward.

• 1700

The Chairman: The suggestion I would make, which is in line with your intervention, Madam Torsney, is that we conclude for the day at this stage and we leave the schedules open for further inquiries of the officials when we come to schedule 3. If none, they will be adopted very quickly.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Please, if people have questions let's get them so that we can get the expert testimony and get the information rather than coming back tomorrow, or five days from now, and finding out a whole other list of questions exists.

The Chairman: Fine. We reached the schedule faster than we expected.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, no problem.

The Chairman: It's no surprise that we are somehow at this stage. Tomorrow morning, if Mr. Moffet is around, which I doubt, we will be able to deal with the clauses on whistle-blowing and substances, export and import. If he's not available then we will go back to clause 2, probably, and we'll have a good discussion there. If not, the parliamentary secretary is premature, then we'll go to another clause for which we are ready to cross the river.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So if Mr. Moffet is here tomorrow we'll be dealing with the PIC issues and the whistle-blowing, and if he's not we're going to start with clause 2.

The Chairman: It doesn't look likely, so we'll have to select the clauses that can be discussed at this point, with the concurrence of the government.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: All right.

The Chairman: It being five o'clock, this meeting stands adjourned. I thank you very much.