HEAL Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Health
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 29, 2002
| ¹ | 1535 |
 |
The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC) |
| ¹ | 1545 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Merrifield |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Basil Stapleton (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1600 |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Regulatory Affairs, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health) |
| º | 1605 |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health) |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Dr. Claire Franklin |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
| º | 1610 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Dr. Claire Franklin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Fry |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| º | 1615 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1620 |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1625 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Dr. Claire Franklin |
| º | 1630 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
| º | 1635 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ménard |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| º | 1645 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richardson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Richardson |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Ms. Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
| º | 1650 |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| º | 1655 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| » | 1700 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1705 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| » | 1710 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
| » | 1715 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1720 |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| » | 1725 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1730 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1735 |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
Dr. Claire Franklin |
| » | 1740 |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1745 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Richardson |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| » | 1750 |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1815 |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint-Boniface, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
| ¼ | 1820 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Dr. Claire Franklin |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
| ¼ | 1825 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1830 |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
| ¼ | 1835 |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Claire Franklin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
| ¼ | 1840 |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
| ¼ | 1845 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1850 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
| ¼ | 1855 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
| ½ | 1900 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
| ½ | 1905 |
|
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
| ½ | 1910 |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Hedy Fry |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Geraldine Graham |
|
| ½ | 1915 |
|
Mr. Merrifield |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Speller |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Health |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, May 29, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1535)
[English]
The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'll call this meeting of the health committee to order.
Mr. Ménard has returned to us with his point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chair, I was expecting you to rule on the motion adopted to the effect that the minister should...First of all, let me say that we never tire of hearing from the minister. I was sure we had voted to call her back and that you had been entrusted with the task of seeing that she in fact made it back before the end of the session.
Was that in fact the case?
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I have to confess to you, my dear friend, that I have failed you in that I have failed to connect with the minister in the last 24 hours. It is still in my agenda to accomplish today, or maybe tonight, but I do not have an answer for you.
The other thing is you suggested we have until the end of the session to speak to her, but in fact if you wish to speak about the estimates, we really only have until Friday, because all comments about the estimates from us have to be in by the end of May. If we don't comment, it means we approve the estimates. If we don't approve the estimates for some reason, we have to comment by Friday, even if it's only in the form of a letter. So I had thought you meant to invite the minister to come before Friday.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, all of the permanent members of the committee were present when the vote was taken. We expressed a desire to have the minister put in another appearance. There's no mystery there. Now then, if you're saying that technically, this isn't possible before Friday, then I can understand that. To begin with, you're going through a rough patch right now. I can understand that you haven't been able to talk to the minister in the past 24 hours, but I wouldn't be so understanding if a minister got into the habit of not making herself available to committees. I wouldn't accept that. The committee has the right to call in the minister to testify. It's her duty to make herself available to us.
[English]
The Chair: Well, Mr. Ménard, I haven't had a no from the minister; it's that I have not re-extended the invitation based upon yesterday's intervention by you. Perhaps, if I get hold of her tonight, she could find some time for us. I doubt it would be two hours. The question is whether we have time in the next couple of days. It will depend on how we deal with this bill.
The second thing is, if you weren't too concerned about the date of May 31, might you consider seeing the minister beyond the date of the estimates? Perhaps I could get her to come in a couple of weeks. Yes? So either way you'd be happy?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm well-known for being flexible.
[English]
The Chair: I know, for example, Mr. Ménard, she probably will come when she brings the next bill, which I'm hoping will be next week. But it will be essentially on the bill, not on broad questions. But you want a special meeting with her for your questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We voted to do just that.
[English]
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Actually, it was a motion made by this committee that she come. I had a chance to talk with her about it shortly after, and she had no problem coming back. She didn't think there was a problem there at all. I just understood she was coming, and that it would be scheduled.
The Chair: I think she planned to come, but her scheduler was having trouble finding a spot for us. Then she sent us this letter that Mr. Ménard read yesterday.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: So what you're suggesting is tomorrow afternoon might be appropriate?
The Chair: It might be possible; I don't know. But Mr. Ménard has also said that if it is impossible before Friday, he would be willing to have this meeting with her after.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, if it's on the estimates, there's no real point, is there?
The Chair: That's right: if it's on the estimates.
¹ (1540)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: And that's what it is on, so....
The Chair: That was the subject of our invitation. However, it seemed to me the last time we had her on the estimates there was very little question about expenditures. Most of the questions, particularly from the opposition, were about the broad mandate of the department and her plans. Those kinds of questions could be asked at any time.
So I guess the question is whether Mr. Ménard and you and Mr. Bachand want to ask questions about dollar figures in the estimates, in which case it would have to happen before Friday. If you want to ask broad policy questions and plans, you could wait until next week or the week after.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, if we're going to be here.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: What I'm asking, Madam Chair, is that... Qu'est-ce que vous dites?
[English]
The Chair: No, he doesn't, I can assure you, Mr. Speller.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I want us to be very clear on this. I want us to discuss broad policy directions with the minister and I'd like to do that before the session draws to a close. I'm not demanding we do it tomorrow, but the minister wrote us a letter, one that I would qualify as almost impertinent, in which she claimed to not have time to meet with us. She needs to find the time sometime between today and the end of the session. This committee needs to be her priority, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I will try to contact the minister to see if in the next two days or the next two weeks there is a moment in time.... Now, it might be an odd moment in time. She might suggest, say, eight o'clock in the morning or seven o'clock at night or something. But the point is, I will ask her if she can come at any time to meet with the health committee and we'll see what she says. Is that okay?
Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
Back now to the work at hand. As is our custom, we'll try to clean up what we already did. You'll recall that while we have carried several clauses, we have a couple of leftovers. I refer you to page 54, PC-17. It's the new one. It says “New PC-17, page 54” and it was a loose sheet.
This one is existing aboriginal or treaty rights, that nothing shall abrogate or derogate from existing treaty rights. That is the essential question before us.
Mr. Bachand, would you present this, please?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I don't wish to focus on the subject matter of the amendment as such. I think it will be endorsed by everyone here. It calls for the recognition of the rights of Canada's first nations. I'm convinced everyone supports this amendment.
We're proposing a change in wording. In the initial amendment, the reference was to the recognition of rights. Let me dig it up, Madam Chair. As I was saying, it referred to recognition of these rights either by the government or by a court of law. As we know, within the British parliamentary system, which is also Canada's parliamentary system, several such cases are now before the courts. We merely want this to be a general principle, that is to say that we don't want to establish any kind of timeline. We merely want aboriginal treaty rights to be enshrined in this legislation. It's more a matter of convention that of political or legal recognition. The new PC-17 ensures that treaties recognized by the government and by the courts would be an integral part of the legislation.
Having said this, we don't want to limit ourselves to the provision. We want this clause on aboriginal treaty rights to be viable today. I am confident that it will be unanimously endorsed in deference to those who were here before us.
¹ (1545)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, although I'm not a lawyer, I do represent a riding that has the largest native reserve in the country in it. I have followed these issues and I've looked at this bill and I don't see, really, anything in this bill that in any way touches on treaty rights. I understand the interest of the honourable member to enshrine these rights within legislation, but I for one, and I think my community would agree, believe those rights are already there. You don't need to really enshrine them in certain pieces of legislation. They're there as a fact. They're already there. I would think this would somewhat take away from it.
The Chair: Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My colleague doesn't feel this is necessary because these rights are already enshrined in legislation. Why then are children mentioned in the bill? Why then the reference to pregnant women? Why the reference to the prenatal stage? When we refer to human beings, we include everyone, but we are being specific because this group could encounter specific problems. Therefore, where's the harm in specifically saying that first nations are covered? Given the history of relations between governments and first nations, I think that enshrining this in the legislation should reassure everyone. If it doesn't change anything, as my colleague Mr. Speller seems to think, then where is the harm? It would be a measure of added protection, because who knows what the future holds in store? We do know about the past. It is important to first nations that we recognize these rights.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm trying to get a handle on it. I don't think anyone is opposed to the intent of the motion.
On pesticides and how it would affect aboriginals, maybe I'm missing something. My question to André would be, in what way would pesticides have an impact on aboriginals under this piece of legislation? Is it something you're afraid of in the future? Is there something here that would have an impact on treaty rights and agreements that are already there?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: To begin with, this clause recognizes that aboriginals are likely, for a variety of reasons, to be one of the groups most affected by pest control products. We want to foster through this provision an awareness within aboriginal communities. I don't see that this takes anything away from the government, besides which I believe it provides assurances to first nations that when legislation likely to affect them is applied, they will have priority consideration. Therefore, I don't see how this amendment takes anything away from anyone. Quite the contrary, in fact. Again, I feel that aboriginal peoples have a unique way of life and that many of their communities contend with problems unlike ours in terms of the products covered by the bill.
[English]
The Chair: Don't you feel we've had enough on this? We've had about four speeches.
Mr. Ménard, you have one more.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: The question we need to ask ourselves is whether any provisions contained in ancestral treaties could prove to be incompatible with the legislation. I can understand our colleague being concerned, but perhaps officials could advise us on this matter. Are there any provisions that could possibly be incompatible? I'd also like an example of how legislation like this can afford this kind of protection, because as a rule, the legislator cannot adopt legislation for no reason. Therefore, if this provision adds nothing to the bill, then we need proof that it is relevant. Perhaps officials can enlighten us, Madam Chair. Can we seek their advice?
¹ (1550)
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other speakers?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You weren't listening! I asked you if...
[English]
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Ménard. I always listen to every word you say, but for a moment they were speaking to something.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I was wondering, Madam Chair, if officials could advise us on how the legislation might prove incompatible with treaties signed by first nations.
[English]
The Chair: Is one of the officials going to respond to this, as succinctly as possible?
Mr. Basil Stapleton (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): It had better be somebody else, then, I guess.
Really in terms of aboriginal rights and treaty rights I'm certainly not in a position to express a legal opinion at all, because it's not an area I'm familiar with.
I don't recall this actually having been considered as a policy matter for inclusion in this bill. As a result, we haven't had the occasion to actually research it or seek advice on it. I assume, though, that the lack of attention was probably because it was seen there was nothing in this particular bill that is designed to regulate pesticides that has a direct relevance to aboriginal rights as such.
When you boil this bill down and recognize at the end that basically in the criminal law there are really two prohibitions in it, one is against using an unregistered product and the other is against using a registered product in an unregistered way. On one side one would ask if there is any way that either of those prohibitions could infringe in any way upon an aboriginal right or an aboriginal treaty right. To my knowledge, no. But I can't say for sure because it's not my area of concern.
In terms of protecting the health and the environment of the people of Canada, that's done for everybody. That's not just done for individual groups. I'm afraid I can't take you beyond that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stapleton.
Seeing no further hands, I will call the question on PC-17.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Mr. Bachand has come to me with a similar but slightly different offer from the one he made yesterday. He said if we'll take his most important ones and debate them honestly and fully and vote on them, he will pull his remaining ones whether the first two pass or not.
Is it two or three now?
Mr. André Bachand: Maybe five. No, no, no.
[Translation]
Yesterday, we raised the matter of the definition of “formulant”, but the committee ruled. Several opposition parties thought that the matter of the definition had merely been set aside, but the definition proposed by the government was in fact adopted. The Chair asked if there was unanimous consent, but it was not forthcoming. That was the focus of PC-8. If the committee has no objections, we would like to revisit the matter.
We have two amendments remaining and both are extremely important, to our minds. The first is PC-30 concerning labelling. I recall a productive discussion that we had at the beginning of the week about informing the general public. Of course, this information would extend to the labelling of pest control products. Therefore, Madam Chair, I think it's very important for us to have a discussion on labelling. We can incorporate anything into the bill, but basically, the idea is to modernize legislation that is 30 years old and at the same time, ensure that the public is informed. The whole issue of re-evaluating the definitions needs to be addressed.
[English]
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Bachand, before you go into the substance, are you moving PC-30?
Mr. André Bachand: I'm going to finish in one minute.
The Chair: But don't you want to move it?
Mr. André Bachand: I need to move two.
The Chair: One at a time, of course.
Mr. André Bachand: Yes, I know, but I need to move two. That's why I'm--
The Chair: You're giving an introduction, okay. Go ahead.
Mr. André Bachand: I was, I think, making a good speech, but now I'm--
The Chair: I'm sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: I agree that labelling is important. Another thing that everyone seems to accept is that the bill does not contain any provisions calling for a review after a certain number of years. We're suggesting a five-year period, whereas some members of the government party are proposing ten years. I feel a legislative review is important and that is the gist of amendment PC-76.
But first, I'd like to discuss PC-30 on page 100 which pertains to labelling. Then we can tackle PC-76, if the committee has no objections.
Clearly, we know where the committee stands on this matter. Therefore, after we've had an opportunity to discuss these two particular amendments, I will be withdrawing all of them.
[English]
¹ (1555)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Based on the outcome.
Mr. André Bachand:Yes, based on the outcome.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Alcock is suggesting agreement with this process. However, he is asking that you start with 76 and then go back to 30.
Is that right, Mr. Alcock?
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Yes.
If I may, Madam Chair, in the discussion yesterday, the problem with 30 was that one clause in 30, on the labelling that releases all the ingredients, is the issue on how much we're going to release of the formulants or non-formulants. So we need to have that debate, which I believe is your PC-76 or whatever, the recent information, and then come back to the labelling one.
The Chair: PC-76 is about the term of review, Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Then I'm wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, if I understand my colleague correctly, the disclosure of information is a debate for another day. At this time, I'd like to withdraw my amendments. However, other opposition parties have similar amendments. Therefore we'll still have this discussion if they chose to present them. I have two amendments that I would like us talk about. After that, I'll withdraw all of my amendments. This doesn't mean that the issue raised by Mr. Alcock will not be discussed, since there are other similar amendments on the table.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Paragraph (f) of PC-30 says “a complete list, with quantity or proportion by volume, of every non-active ingredient in the product”. That's the release of formulants debate. If we're going to have that debate, we should have that debate, not have the debate on labelling. It seems the decision about how much is going to be released and not be released is a critical element that needs to be resolved before we decide how much we're going to put on the label.
The Chair: I agree with Mr. Alcock, but somebody could give me the number of the amendment that talks about formulants. Which one was it?
You have an amendment to that effect, Mr. Bachand--I think several amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: The reference here is to disclosure.
[English]
The Chair: Yes. What page is it on?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: The Bloc's amendment is on page 229. The PC's amendment is on page 227.
[English]
The Chair: That's about term of review, 227. No, he wants to talk about formulants. It's a different one.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: It pertains to the disclosure of... [Editor's note: Inaudible]... in the product composition.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bachand's, PC-67, on page 192, is the discussion about formulants. We'll start with that one, then we'll go to PC-30 about labelling, and then we'll go to the term one. I think if we solve those three major issues it will make a life a lot simpler to proceed through, knowing we can skip every PC amendment after that.
So I would ask you to turn to page 192, PC-67. It's Mr. Bachand's. It says:
“For greater certainty, the names and concentrations of active ingredients, formulants and contaminants and the results of the tests to establish an active ingredient's or product's efficacy and harmlessness to humans, animals, plants and the environment are all deemed not to be confidential business information or confidential test data.”
So this is the thing about openness versus confidentiality.
Mr. Bachand.
º (1600)
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Indeed, that's correct. What makes it interesting now to discuss PC-67 is that the committee has decided on a definition of a formulant. I recall the discussions that took place. We agreed on the need for a definition of a formulant because of the potential effect on human health and the environment. That's why we decided on a definition. Therefore, given that there could be possible effects on persons of all ages, born or unborn, or on the environment, the information cannot be considered confidential. The ingredients in a product that poses a potential threat to the environment and to human health cannot remain secret: that goes against the spirit of the proposed legislation.
Therefore, even if we disagree on the definition put forward by the government party and endorsed by the committee, everyone here agrees on the need for a definition because of the harm factor. If the possibility of some harm exists, then product ingredients cannot be secret. Amendment PC-67 makes it clear that the list of product ingredients cannot be confidential. That's all we're saying and given your definition of formulant, we're very pleased that this amendment was adopted.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Alcock is next. I should just point out to you that the next page has NDP-44 on the same topic, and the next page has L-10A on the same topic. So you're at pages 192, 193, and 193(1), which are on the same topic. We're now discussing, though, page 192.
Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think while we're trying to deal with each one expeditiously, there are certain issues that are the crux issues in terms of the debate. The reason there are a lot of amendments on this, I think, is because we heard a lot of testimony that was based on a fear. I mean this issue of clarity, exposure, transparency around the ingredients that were in these various pesticides was an issue an awful lot of the witnesses mentioned over and over again. There was a sense, and it's part of the discussion we had yesterday, that part of the trust-building and the trust in the agency and the work it was doing was inherent in the right to know.
Mr. Bachand, I disagree with you that the passage of the definition presupposes the passage of the revelation. The definition simply gives us a language to talk about it with, so it was necessary to have it. But as I understand, and I would really ask this question to the officials, this bill moves us further in revealing information that was before this thought to be confidential business information, so the debate here is how much of that information to reveal: at one extreme, everything; and at the other, current practices defined in the bill.
As I understand it, though, the argument against full transparency is that if we were to expose business information that was held confidential in larger markets, notably the U.S., it would be a disincentive for people to bring new products into Canada. Would that be a fair statement?
So the question I have for you is does this legislation mirror the levels of transparency that exist in those markets?
Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Regulatory Affairs, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): Yes, this particular motion is a good one to discuss, because it raises the two fundamental issues about transparency. We're talking now about the formulants. There's another issue in there about the test data, but I guess we'll talk about that separately. As far as the formulants go, at the moment, under current legislation, because the Pest Control Products Act has no provision whatever about this subject, everything is subject to the Access to Information Act. The names and concentrations of the formulants are considered confidential under that act.
What's proposed in the bill is that we would go part way in making that information no longer confidential. The formulants of concern, which would be identified on a list--and the plan is that they would be based on the U.S. EPA lists numbers one and two, but adding to them Canadian formulants--would no longer be confidential, so they could be on the label or anywhere else.
We do, though, in the definition of confidential business information in the bill, include the other formulants that are not considered to be of concern. But we have added a specific regulation-making authority that is specifically to exclude things from the definition of CBI, so that at a later date we could decide to make more formulants “not CBI”.
The main reason for going that route is we feel if Canada were to go further than the other OECD countries, particularly the U.S., it could be a disincentive to new products--presumably the safer ones--coming forward for registration in Canada.
º (1605)
Mr. Reg Alcock: Are the disclosure provisions equivalent to those in the U.S.?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: They would actually go slightly beyond what they have now. Right now they disclose only the very toxic ones on their so-called EPA list one.
They've been studying the issue for quite some time, and Dr. Franklin was speaking today to the person who was chairing the working group looking into that issue, just to find out exactly where they are on it. I don't know if you want to hear more from her.
Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): A working group in the U.S. examined this issue as to whether there should be full disclosure of inerts. Just so we're clear, three terms are used, and they're synonyms: non-active ingredient, inerts, and formulas. Those are all the same thing.
Over the last year they looked at whether there should be full disclosure of all of these formulate chemicals. The conclusion, which just recently has been put forward, was they should not disclose all of the formulate ingredients. Under the U.S. law they are in a situation where they cannot legally force that these be disclosed. So they're in a situation where there's not any agreement by this stakeholder group that they should move forward to full disclosure.
As Geraldine points out, what's in this bill would in fact disclose the formulates that are of toxicological concern both to health and the environment. So following what's in the current bill, there would be more disclosure of the formulates than there is in the U.S. OECD countries do not release that information either.
Mr. André Bachand: What about the 1966 court decision in the U.S.?
Dr. Claire Franklin: The environmental groups did try to say that meant they had to release everything. I think six products were part of that court case. The companies couldn't show they had held that information in confidence. So it was correct that information be disclosed, but that was not to be interpreted that they had then said that all formulate ingredients in all products had to be disclosed.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Wouldn't you agree that with this decision, it shouldn't be up to the public, environmental groups and parliamentarians to insist that product information be disclosed to the public. Rather the onus should be on companies to prove to the government that product information need not be made public. Wouldn't you agree? Increasingly, the precautionary principle should prevail. Why should it be up to the people who run the risk of encountering problems to demand disclosure of certain product ingredients? The burden of proof should be on the companies. They should have to prove that disclosure would hurt their business.
Would you be amenable to incorporating a provision to this effect in the bill? We are very receptive to changes to this amendment. Amendment PC-67, which affects PC-30, states that information on formulants is not deemed to be confidential, unless the minister directs otherwise. Why not go with this wording? Would anyone be adversely affected?
º (1610)
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Franklin, this will be the last comment, and then we'll call the question.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I will decide if I have a question or not, please.
The Chair: Ms. Franklin, could you answer Mr. Bachand?
Dr. Claire Franklin: Our idea was that if you laid out in the law exactly what's confidential and what isn't, it makes a much more predictable system, instead of having to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. As I said, we have in the bill that a certain amount will be non-confidential right away and more can be later, instead of having to deal with requests case by case.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Madam Chair. When one is asked to vote on a bill's clauses, one must understand the substance of the vote. Moreover, I remind you that we also have an amendment that deals with confidentiality on page 185.
I have a simple question for officials, one that is very important to the committee. As I recall, the Caccia report contained this recommendation. Those who have been examining this question for a year and a half wanted something a little more similar to this recommendation. Do you agree with me that the Environment Committee in fact wanted a provision similar to this to be incorporated into the legislation?
[English]
Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes, that's right. That report was studied in depth, and many of their recommendations were incorporated, but not all.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: It was a recommendation.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll make this quick, because I don't want to make the chair nervous this early in the meeting.
A voice: I don't understand why.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't understand why either.
At any rate, I think the intent of this is so we have safer products getting to the consumer and Canadians are safer. What would happen is if we have disclosure like this, the potential of safe newer products coming onstream might not be even attempted in Canada.
I think what we're really wanting would not be achieved by open disclosure--although who would argue that open disclosure isn't perhaps a good thing?
When you really understand what goes on, as far as competitiveness and what actually happens with companies looking at bringing new products into Canada, this would be a step backwards and not in the best interests of Canada.
I think it was explained fairly clearly. I only want to be on record as discerning it and encouraging people to vote against this.
The Chair: Thank you.
I think it's interesting that Mr. Ménard also brought forward page 185.
I think we'll vote on PC-67 and then we'll look at it. It's another way of getting at it.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Could you look at BQ-14 on page 185? It is another way to look at this. This allows for the fact that there is a fair bit of confidential business information. It says “a request can be made in writing but it shall be sustained only in relation to a situation where the public...”. I'm sorry, I'm getting the words mixed up. Anyway, it puts the public interest ahead of the commercial value of keeping the business information public. It means a judgment has to be made at the agency.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Who makes the judgment?
The Chair: The agency makes the judgment.
Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): I was going to ask a question.
What you're really suggesting though is we're going to go back to doing things on a case-by-case basis. It's what you're suggesting. We've suggested a case-by-case basis was not the way to go.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: As I understand it, unlike the PC's amendment, this one is restrictive in that the person invoking the confidentiality provision must demonstrate that this approach would affect the competitive position of his business. As the Chair was saying, a decision would have to be made as to whether this approach would be in the public interest. I'm a little leery of casting aside both the PC and Bloc amendments, because the confidentiality question must be addressed. Some clear parameters must be set, otherwise some abuse is possible.
I rather liked the PC amendment. This one, although it has its merits, is more restrictive.
º (1615)
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd like a comment from our witnesses. I would understand that you make the discretionary call on products all the time. It's what you're there to do in registration.
Ms. Geraldine Graham: As far as releasing confidential information, there are provisions under the Access to Information Act where people can request it. It doesn't happen often because people know the type of information they're likely to be able to get.
Even under the provisions of the bill, we do have provisions now to say certain things are no longer confidential. For other things that are still confidential, one can still make a request under the Access to Information Act and the same rules would apply as usual. This doesn't really add anything as far as that goes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I'd like to raise two things. One is to remind you, Madam Chair, since part of this discussion is on the definition of “formulants”, to come back to the issue I raised as a matter of privilege the other day over the definitions of “intentional” and “unintentional”. It doesn't have to be done now, but I don't want to let this discussion go on without actually coming back to it.
The Chair: If there's a natural pause in the meeting, wave at me.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Perhaps it should be something that follows this discussion. If we're dealing with formulants and disclosure and confidential information it might be appropriate.
I want to pursue the question of what's the best way for us as a committee to do what we want to do, which is to achieve the highest right-to-know standard. And obviously there are problems with the bill now.
We heard lots of testimony, so we've tried different approaches. The PC approach, which is similar to ours, is to define those things that cannot be treated as confidential. The Bloc's suggestion is to have a process so that it goes back to the agency and they have to deal with it. Obviously, I think the first way is the best way, but if we're looking for an alternative, which I think we have to as a committee, what is it?
We had witnesses from the CLC, and Reg will remember this. When they made the arguments around women they told us that there is now a process within government for a case-by-case analysis to deal with this issue of confidentiality.
It was Dave Bennett who mentioned that the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission now does precisely what you were talking about. There is a body that can actually professionally deal with the request. It can have an objective view separate from the objectives of industry and it can try to provide an independent scientific analysis of whether these are confidential market trade secrets or not.
Have we considered this at all, and if not, why not? Is it something we should then look at at some point?
When Dave Bennett testified before the committee he actually said to us that the Department of Health will not cooperate with this commission. It sounds like there's a willingness from the commission to actually play the role. He said, and I quote:
“But here comes the fight: Will Health Canada allow the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to review pesticide labels and data sheets? From what we understand, Health Canada is adamantly opposed to this. It wants to have its own system of handling confidential business information, and we know from past experience that this way of handling it is not in the public interest.”
I don't want to complicate things, but I'm wondering if we've lost the PC amendment and we lose the Bloc amendment.... I think we have to come back to this. I will suggest that we pursue an amendment--
The Chair: Before we get onto that, could we vote on amendment BQ-14? I think the discussion on that is finished.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: In line with Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' comments and the information from the CLC, I would suggest that people are handing in amendments fairly well every day. Perhaps somebody, with the help of the officials, might be able to work out some amendment that we could consider later that doesn't disclose quite as much information as amendment PC-67 and that isn't a case-by-case basis as amendment BQ-14, but rather leans on the process that these other people are suggesting. We could try it. I'm not going to rule it out because the submissions on this subject have failed to carry.
Dr. Castonguay.
º (1620)
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): I was under the impression, Madam Chair, that there was a deadline for submitting amendments. Is that not in fact the case? We could spend the whole summer here receiving amendments. I'm just trying to understand.
[English]
The Chair: I was under that misapprehension as well, but every single day I get new amendments, and the government is the body that is putting in the amendments as well.
So we have to keep it open. When we started I had a bunch dropped on my table every day.
Mr. Bob Speller: The government has been helping Mr. Bachand draft his, but they certainly weren't government amendments.
The Chair: In any case, the legislative clerk has explained to me that I cannot stop amendments if somebody wants to make one. Most people have been fairly restrained, and that's good.
Mr. Bob Speller: Judy was saying.... Isn't there something in here about a reading room? I think there was a lot of leeway given in terms of making sure that information was available. So that's certainly part of what you should be saying also. The government has come forward and made this information very available.
A voice: That's more than a reading room.
Mr. Bob Speller: A reading room is a lot better than what we had before.
The Chair: Seeing that we've dealt with the two key ones here, I think we should deal with the other ones on the same subject. Look on page 193 for NDP-44: that has been debated in this round. Since it's very close to Mr. Bachand's, I'm going to call the question. Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis has stated her position.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: You have L-10A, which is also on formulants, page 193.1. This is one the government submitted late.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.):
Madam Chair, it's simply a matter of ensuring some consistency with the definition of the words “formulant” and “contaminant” agreed to earlier. It's simply a matter of replacing the definition in both the French and English versions with the following:
| of the formulants and contaminants in a pest control product, other than those |
Mr. Réal Ménard: We don't have this amendment.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Your friend received a copy of it yesterday.
[English]
The Chair: The government is now saying we can put the word “formulants” in here, because the other one just says “ingredients including contaminants”. This one says “ingredients including formulants and contaminants”, so there's a little expansion here.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Who moved it?
The Chair: Madam Scherrer.
Are you ready to vote on L-10A?
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Let us go to the five-year review on page 227. There are only two more and we'll--
º (1625)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Can we deal with my point of privilege now, since we were just on formulants?
The Chair: I thought you did when you explained about the CLC and all that.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, no. It is my point of privilege I raised yesterday about the concerns with respect to the definition, the adopted amendment on formulants and the concerns about what it actually means. I raised it yesterday when I said I wasn't sure we got--
The Chair: It is about the definition.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The definition of formulants.
The Chair: Okay. I'd like to hold that and carry on with Mr. Bachand's, because when we finish his and the related ones to those two we're going to do, I'll come back to you. Is that okay? We'll then have a sense of forward motion, I think.
Mr. Bachand, would you agree to go to page 227, which is the five-year review? There are some attached to it, but we'll deal with yours because the others say essentially the same thing. So page 227 is PC-76 and it suggests that the review period be five years instead of ten. I think it's pretty clear, Mr. Bachand. Do you need to speak to it?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, nowhere in this bill is provision made for a review. I have discussed this matter with several of my government and opposition colleagues and I have concluded that five years would be an appropriate timeline. Government members seem to favour a ten-year review period, but we feel that ten years is much too long. Therefore, we're requesting a five-year review period. Surely we can agree on five years, or on something similar. Bill C-56 makes provision for a three-year review timeline. We waited 30 years for that legislation. Could we agree on either five or six years? We should be able to come to some kind of agreement without hitting ourselves over the head with these amendments. On this side, we all agree on five years. What do members opposite think?
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: The purpose is to ensure that we don't go thirty years without.... Can the officials speak to this in terms of whether there are any unique conditions in this particular business that make a five better than a ten or a ten better than a five?
The Chair: I think Mr. Speller has been indicating he knows something about this subject.
Please go ahead.
Mr. Bob Speller: Sorry. I just wanted to inform the chair that I also had an amendment on this same one.
The Chair: There are several. One is ten years--
Mr. Bob Speller: Mine was ten years--
The Chair: --and three are five years.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Is there a view to review current--
The Chair: Is there a current review proposed in the bill?
Voices: No.
The Chair: And it's about a ten-year review. I think we know the parameters here. We will go to yours. Yours is in the package now?
Mr. Bob Speller: Yes.
The Chair: Good.
Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I have a question on it. I understand there's a five-year and there's a ten-year, and that's what we'll be debating.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I want to know from the perspective of the witnesses which of these two they would recommend and why?
Dr. Claire Franklin: I'll comment. I don't believe it's my position to recommend, but I will comment that one would consider reviewing the statute if you felt that things were changing so that you wanted to be able to capture the changes that were ongoing.
Five years seems to be a relatively short time period, because what we have in any bill, and particularly a bill like this, are authorities to do a number of things. The details are in regulation or in directives so that the rapidity of the bill doesn't need to be as fast. We have a capacity to be able to stay up to date, for example, on the scientific developments through means other than going back and amending the bill every five years.
So in terms of the broad authorities, it's unlikely there would be significant change in a five-year period, whereas over a ten-year period it may be not unreasonable to consider there would be sufficient changes. The structure of the bill is such that in terms of the changes and the concern that people have, as we do, that we should be able to keep up to date with the science, there are better ways of doing that in the way in which this bill is structured.
º (1630)
The Chair: Thank you.
Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, I'm trying to act as a facilitator, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has stated. We can negotiate and discuss each amendment, but can we come to an agreement? If we can't agree on the timeline for a review, so be it, but if we do agree, then we can either accept, or reject, certain amendments. We prefer five years, while you want to go with ten years. Is there room for some kind of compromise? We can continue to examine each amendment separately, but is there some possible way for us to agree?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller: Let's go with eight years.
Ms. Hedy Fry: What about seven?
Mr. André Bachand: Seven, yes, let's go with seven.
The Chair: Would you like to make an amendment?
Madame Scherrer is making an amendment to PC-76 in the text.
Go ahead.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I'd like to propose a seven-year timeline, since we agree on the principle. I don't want to spend the night here!
[English]
The Chair: There is an amendment on the floor from Madame Scherrer to change the number five in PC-76 to seven.
Do you want to speak to the amendment?
Ms. Hedy Fry: No, I don't want to speak to the amendment.
The Chair: The amendment's on the floor now. Madame Scherrer has made it.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Once we agree to the time only, we have an amendment that has entirely different language from this one. If we vote for this, then we're accepting it without having discussed the amendments that we have on the floor, although we have to bring--
The Chair: I see.
Mr. Bob Speller: We'll vote it down, then we'll bring in one that says seven years.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes, that's good.
The Chair: Then we win and they lose again.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Let's vote it down and see what happens. Otherwise, we're going to be here forever.
Mr. Bob Speller: You get the same thing.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We're prepared to withdraw our amendment if...
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to know what's the big deal. Five years seems like a reasonable proposition. We've dealt with a whole lot of issues over the last few days where we've been told don't worry, that's probably taken care of, or don't worry, that's not going to happen.
What if something unforeseen happens? What if we were wrong? What if the bill doesn't do what it was supposed to? What's wrong with a five-year review so you can then at least as the Parliament of Canada address those concerns? Why seven years? Why ten years? How is it going to hurt us? How is it going to inhibit the work of the department?
Ms. Hedy Fry: Why not one year?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The second point I wanted to make is I want to plead for five years. I think that's a bare minimum. For other bills--for example, reproductive technologies--we said three years. It's a brand-new area, but still we felt that was reasonable.
Second, I wanted to say I thought the only problem with the motion before us is the fact that it leaves the review to a committee of the House or of the Senate or both houses. It seems to me that we'd want this to be in the purview of Parliament and the House of Commons.
The Chair: I'm calling the question on the subamendment for seven years, unless Madame Scherrer wants to pull it back.
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I'm not going to pull it back. Go with this one first.
The Chair: Okay. We'll vote on PC-76.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: What is the number of yours, Mr. Speller?
Mr. Bob Speller: It's L-13.
The Chair: We're on L-13. Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: Let me get my stuff together.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, there are two amendments in your package that deal with this issue.
º (1635)
The Chair: There are more than two.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Under the one you're talking about, L-13, one has to be put in under clause 80, and the other one is new clause 80.1, which deals with the time.
The Chair: That's the one I'm going to do right now, because we're on to timelines.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Then I will move new clause 80.1, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Speller is moving an amendment.
Mr. Bob Speller: It's on new clause 80.1. It changes it to seven years.
The Chair: We have a subamendment on the floor changing the ten years to seven years, which has been moved by Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: Can we go back and do it the other way?
The Chair: You always vote on the subamendment first and then on the amendment.
Mr. Bob Speller: I'm on L-13. What are you on?
An hon. member: I'm on L-13 too.
The Chair: Yes, we're on the same one. There aren't two. The other one in the book is the French version.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Now we'll do L-13 as amended.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, that's on page 224.
The Chair: Yes. You've moved it, and you can speak to it.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I move that Bill C-53 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 59 the following, with the marginal notation “Permanent review of Act”:
“80.1(1) The administration of this Act shall, every 7 years after the day on which section 1 comes into force, stand referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for that purpose.”
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any comments on this?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Why not go with seven years? Why do you insist on ten years?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry: There's a second part to that, Madam Chair. Shall I finish the second part of L-13?
The Chair: Excuse me, there's something wrong with the translation. We didn't get that translated. Did anybody hear the translation of Mr. Ménard's remarks?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: Is there something wrong in the translation booth? We're not hearing anything. Can somebody check?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to know if Ms. Fry's amendment maintains the ten-year timeline, or whether it opts instead for a review after seven years?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry: We just amended it to seven.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Merrifield.
I'm sorry, did I cut you off? Did you want to talk more?
Ms. Hedy Fry: That is under the heading “Permanent review of Act”.
The second one is under the heading “Review and report”.
The Chair: Yes, we see it.
Ms. Hedy Fry: It says:
“(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons, the Senate or both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon, including a statement of any changes to this Act or its administration that the committee would recommend.”
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Does this mean that it could only go over to the Senate for review?
The Chair: They'll give it to whichever body has a committee that's free to do it as quickly as possible. That's how they do it.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: So we don't care if it's....
The Chair: This is trying to give the House leaders as much flexibility as possible.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. I'm just looking for clarification. This means it could go just to the Senate.
The Chair: That's right; or it could go to a joint committee, or it could go to a House committee.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Can we propose an amendment so that clause 81.1 concludes with “as the House of Commons [...] may authorize”? The words “the Senate or both Houses of Parliament” would be deleted. This way, the review would be conducted solely by a House committee, without the involvement of a Senate committee.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard is putting forward the suggestion that we restrict reference of this act to a House of Commons committee.
Mr. Réal Ménard: We don't want to work with the Senate.
º (1645)
The Chair: There's nothing wrong with it. I mean, it's legal, Ms. Fry.
Yes, Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: I think it's very appropriate, frankly. I think it should come back before the people who represent people.
I think the purpose of this is to deal with citizen and public concerns about pesticides. I think it's wrong.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Ménard has put the subamendment on the floor. He has spoken to it. Mr. Alcock has spoken to it.
Are you ready for the question on the deletion of “the Senate” or “both Houses”? Are you ready to vote? Those in favour? Six. Those opposed? Six. It's a tie vote.
I vote in favour of this subamendment, so it carries.
(Subamendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
An hon. member: You're in trouble now.
The Chair: I'm always in trouble.
What is the next one?
The main motion is L-13, as amended twice, with “seven” and with deletion of “the Senate”.
Mr. Bob Speller: I want a recorded vote on it.
The Chair: Okay. Do you want a recorded vote on the subamendment, or on the motion we're going to take as amended?
Mr. Bob Speller: No. Could you hold on for half a second?
The Chair: The vote is actually taken on the subamendment. We'd have to take it on the motion as amended.
Mr. Bob Speller: I want a recorded vote on the subamendment, please.
The Chair: Is that all right?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It has happened before. You called it yesterday.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Ms. Sgro cannot vote. The vote is taken. She cannot vote if the vote is taken.
The Chair: Didn't she vote last time?
Voices: No.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Réal Ménard: It's taken. It's taken. Be fair.
The Chair: Yes. When you retake a vote that has already been taken, you can't all of a sudden bring someone else in to vote on the second round.
An hon. member: Let's be fair.
The Chair: Yes, let's be fair.
Those in favour of the subamendment eliminating “the Senate”? It's a recorded vote.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I didn't think you could call for a recorded vote after voting.
The Chair: You can. It happens all the time because people decide after they lose that they want it.
Mr. Bob Speller: If the Senate sees us doing this, they'll ship it back to the House and we'll have to look at it again.
Mr. Réal Ménard: The vote is taken. The chair has voted. The vote is taken. Don't be a bad loser.
Mr. Bob Speller: No, it has nothing to do with that.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I think you have a hand up here to speak with regard to the vote. Mr. Richardson had his hand up.
The Chair: What is the problem, Mr. Richardson?
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I voted.
The Chair: You voted yes when you raised your hand.
Mr. John Richardson: Yes.
The Chair: You voted yes when you called it out verbally. Is that right?
Mr. John Richardson: Yes.
The Chair: Is there some problem with it?
Mr. John Richardson: I was under the impression, after what was said, that someone said it was the wrong way to vote.
An hon. member: No, it wasn't.
Mr. John Richardson: I was only voting with my colleagues along this row here. It's as simple as that.
The Chair: They split on either side of you and made it problematic. It was done both by hand and by voice. I don't think we can undo it now.
An hon. member: We only need your vote.
The Chair: I vote yes.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: As far as Ms. Sgro's vote, I asked the legislative clerk. She said it's the same as in the House. You're there when the vote is called. You can't come in later and vote.
Mr. Bob Speller: It was a recorded vote.
The Chair: No. The vote was called earlier, when it was a show of hands, and she wasn't here.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Those are the rules.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): For Heaven's sake, I guess I have to stay on the floor over here. Is that it?
The Chair: The question is on L-13, as amended twice.
Mr. Bob Speller: Can we have a recorded vote on this?
The Chair: You want a recorded vote? Well, I would have been happy even to see the number of hands of people present.
Mr. Bob Speller: I want a recorded vote on it.
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6—See Minutes of Proceedings)
Ms. Judy Sgro: Madam Chair, I have a point of order. The concern I have, and I think most of us have, is that it's not like this bill came here yesterday and we haven't been debating it. It's been ten years in the making, trying to get a balance between the stakeholders and everybody else. Everybody seems to support it because there's a balance between everybody.
My concern with where all of these amendments are going is that we may tip the balance and end up with no legislation. We wanted transparency, we wanted to protect the communities, we wanted to protect the children. This is ten years of consultation, and if we're not careful with what we're doing, we're going to destroy that balance between all the stakeholders. I'm concerned about that. I think we all have the same issues here. We want to make sure we have a balanced bill, but let's be very careful here as to what we're doing.
The Chair: I fail to understand how changing ten years to seven and eliminating the Senate has anything to do with that balance.
Ms. Judy Sgro: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what we're doing in general. We're supposed to be staying pretty focused on what it is we're here for.
The Chair: Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Can I speak to that?
Judy, that argument has been used several times. If that's what the process here is, where what we're doing is having the staff go out and consult with the stakeholders to reach a balanced view, and that's inviolate, what the hell are we doing here? What's our role? I think our role is to judge that compromise and those accommodations that have been reached, and make a further judgment based on what we believe to be in the best interest of the people we represent. To suggest that we can't do that I think is simply wrong.
Ms. Judy Sgro: I'm not suggesting that. We're doing clause-by-clause now.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Excuse me, just give me a minute.
This particular clause talks about the reviewing of legislation that is important, where there's a significant public concern. I didn't get into it because we were trying to fast track all this, but there is act after act after act where we have put in two- or three-year reviews, much less five- to ten-year reviews, when there is a substantive concern about a big change and whether or not it's going to work. I agree with what Dr. Franklin said about the additional timeframes here because of the complexity of this, but to say we shouldn't review it and it shouldn't leave the House I think is wrong.
º (1650)
Ms. Judy Sgro: No, no. My comments were meant in general to the whole piece of legislation, not pertaining to five, seven, or ten years. It was the whole issue of the value of us getting this forward and into the House and passed.
The Chair: We're all of that mind, Ms. Sgro.
The next one is PC-30 on page 100.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: What was the outcome of the vote, Madam Chair? The last amendments were defeated. What about this one?
[English]
The Chair: It carried, seven to six.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I see.
[English]
The Chair: PC-30 on page 100 is the labelling issue.
Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: We've already touched on this amendment, Madam Chair. I don't want to go over the same ground again, but I would like the committee to take a few moments to consider it. It concerns the issue of labelling and of imparting information to users across the country, in urban as well as rural settings, on commercial, personal or cosmetic pesticide use.
I realize that many elements of PC-30 give rise to a consensus, whereas there are questions about some of the other components. However, it was my understanding on Tuesday that we all agreed on the need to focus further on the labelling issue in the bill.
Fifty per cent of the country's population lives in four cities. While we need to work with our farmers, we also need to take into consideration our urban population. This amendment would ensure that comprehensive information is available to pest control product users. That's our objective. Some of you have placed your trust in the regulatory process. I tend to agree with officials that PC-30 in no way detracts from the regulatory process. Rather, it provides some minimum labelling parameters. Adopting PC-30 would ensure that the committee shows some awareness of public education and information, given that the bill does not provide a great deal in the way of active information.
You will recall that we adopted an amendment calling on the minister to table his report for the record, a report that would be made public only if there was some possibility of harm occurring. It would be a passive element of information. Labelling is an active means because it keeps purchasers of pest control products informed on a day-to-day basis. Both active and non-active ingredients should be listed on labels because as many witnesses have indicated, non-active ingredients may also be toxic and allergenic. I trust we can thoroughly debate the matter because this is important. If some things are troubling you, let's discuss them. We need a clear provision respecting public information and labelling.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I think we all agree on the need to keep members of the public properly informed about the products they use.
However, from a practical standpoint, I would prefer to see a provision like this in the regulations, in light of the rapid scientific changes that often occur. Any new information would require changes to the labelling, and this is much easier to accomplish through the regulations. It's not necessary in that case to revisit the legislation to incorporate this new information and make the necessary changes. That's why, in my opinion, this should be covered in the regulations. That's my opinion but I can understand that some people may feel differently.
º (1655)
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: I don't think we can support this amendment as it's currently drafted, because of that clause. Having had the discussion on disclosure and having basically rejected full disclosure in favour of the more balanced regime that exists in the bill, this labelling clause, by sort of a back door method.... It says that on the label you're going to have “a complete list, with quantity or proportion by volume, of every non-active ingredient in the product”. That would disclose what we've already said we're not going to disclose.
The Chair: Are you proposing an amendment, Mr. Alcock?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Well, that would require an intellectual agility that is lacking right now. So I'll let somebody else who is more creative do that.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We support the wording of the amendment, but if it's not adopted, what would the bill contain by way of a provision to address the matter raised by André? Can someone answer that question?
[English]
Ms. Geraldine Graham: In actual fact, the existing pest control products regulations include most of the information that's here. They exist now. We plan to review them after the bill is passed. In looking at this a little more carefully today, there are some things mentioned here that aren't currently in the regulations. For instance, there's a reference to integrated pest management. I would be very concerned about just putting that in the bill now without consultation with the provinces.
We had a conference call with the provinces after the bill was introduced and they expressed a lot of support for the bill. They said they were anxious to work with us on some improvements to the regulations, especially the labelling, because they had ideas about that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not sure of the connection you're trying to make and I want to be certain that I understand you. How would it be in a province's best interest to keep information from the consumer? Clearly, isn't it in their best interest to have consumers as informed as possible at the outset through labelling provisions?
[English]
Ms. Geraldine Graham: They would support that, but to determine exactly what the law should say about what should go on the label and how that should be determined, because we participate in integrated pest management strategies that are developed mostly by them. They're the ones who are thinking about how pesticides are used. They also have a concern in IPM project programs. A lot of times you want to use rates that are lower than what's on the label, and that's an issue they very much want to look at in the context of the regulations after the bill is passed. As you know, we've consulted with provinces and other stakeholders on many of the provisions in the bill. We have not consulted on this.
The other point I want to make is that the regulations do exist, and we know that pesticides on the market, both for agriculture and domestic uses, do comply with those regulations, because we review the label before they're approved.
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would like some clarification, because I think in the absence of anything else this resolution has to be supported. If there's another way then we should look at it. The only other model we really have is the whole question of WHMIS, and I referenced this earlier.
We heard some testimony about how, at least for chemicals in the workplace, there must be appropriate labelling of all ingredients, and there must be data sheets on the impact. The whole complete system is already in operation with respect to chemicals in the workplace. What we heard during the committee was that surely we should be looking at applying the same model to pesticides, which have a much broader ramification in terms of once they get into the environment and how they can damage people's health.
I guess I'm asking this question of Reg. If this isn't the acceptable way, did he see that as an alternative, and would he support an amendment in that regard?
» (1700)
The Chair: Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument raised by the officials, particularly when you're looking at something that will not be changed for a minimum of seven years, and realistically not for a time after that. To pass a limit that is this specific, with that much legislated requirement, in a world that is evolving all the time I think is a little counterproductive.
It's in the flavour of the same disclosure argument, right? So we're talking about two things. We're talking about testimony that comes based on the experience with the old act, and now you're coming forward with a new bill, which has enhanced provisions for disclosure and regulatory powers around the minister determining labelling.
Is there any evidence that insufficient information is provided with labelling, given the restrictions of the legislation? What was done before may be too constrained because the act didn't allow for release. What would lead you to not put information forward under the regulations now that you have new authority to disclose?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: Well, yes, as far as the labels go, the main issue is disclosure of the formulants. We're dealing with that. Consequentially, then, we can make sure that information goes on labels.
As far as other aspects of the label go, I don't know that there have been complaints.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Do you currently release information on the impact the product may have on the health of individuals?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: That's listed on the--
Mr. Reg Alcock: So you do that now?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Given that the system works, then I don't see any need to enshrine in legislation something as rigid as this. I guess that's the conclusion I would come to.
The Chair: We'll vote on PC-30.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: NDP-22A is on the same subject. We could deal with it at the same time. It's on page 102.1. It was an addition; it's called NDP-22A, on page 102.1. It ties product safety information to the WHMIS system. That's what Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis is suggesting.
Perhaps I could ask, Ms. Graham, before we get into this, if you considered the WHMIS system.
Ms. Geraldine Graham: Actually, we did look at it when we were drafting the bill. The WHMIS system has two main components: the labelling and the MSDS. As far as the labelling goes, their requirements are less stringent than what is currently in the pest control products regulations.
As far as the MSDSs go, they have a system where they have requirements for the MSDS. If companies want to keep things confidential that are supposed to be disclosed according to their system, they can get the question reviewed by this Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. We looked at that regime to see whether it might be applicable to pesticides, but we decided again, instead of this case-by-case decision, we would say the formulants of concern are non-confidential so there's no chance that industry can claim they shouldn't go on the MSDS. Then we put provisions in clause 8 to require the MSDS to go to workplaces where pesticides are manufactured or used.
So we think we have a better system here. But the new part is the MSDS, and it is brand new. That will be reviewed when pesticides are registered, as we do with the labels, so we can make sure they are correct. We have no need for an “after the fact” review.
The Chair: Are there any other speakers to NDP-22A?
Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis, it is yours. Go ahead.
» (1705)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This is a fallback resolution to the one we just defeated. It's another attempt to elevate the standard of “right to know” in this bill, and I don't think we've accomplished it. I hear what the officials are saying, but we heard so much testimony that in fact we weren't absolutely ensuring that all the information that was pertinent for making decisions in the workplace or out on farms or generally in our communities was being provided. This is an attempt to ask, if we can't get full labelling, what's the next best mechanism? I'm suggesting we at least follow roughly the same process that now takes place with the workplace hazardous materials information system.
During the testimony on this bill, it was pointed out to us that the 1992 Parliament accepted a committee recommendation that pesticides come up to the same standards for industrial chemicals as WHMIS. They didn't say bring pesticides under WHMIS as a system, but at least they recommended that there be equivalent standards. So if we can't get equivalent standards any other way, I think the best we can do is at least go this route. And as I suggested earlier, there is a complementary process dealing with confidential information to at least ensure there is an ongoing active process involving those companies that feel their information is a trade secret, when it might not be.
The Chair: Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, I have a question.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I understand the idea and I would be tempted to support the amendment, but don't provinces apply their own standards? Why do we need standards like the ones you're proposing? Doesn't this involve some kind of risk? Why do we need standards like this? What about provincial standards?
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't think we'd end up with a jurisdictional problem on this one. Now there's a general standard with respect to workplace chemicals. There is an accepted understanding of the process, and I think it's working well. I think there's cooperation with the provinces and that they would see this as a reasonable approach. If we can't find another way to do it, it gives the same guarantees to people and to the public at large.
The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question on NDP-22A on page 102.1, moved by Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: I believe that deals with all of Mr. Bachand's amendments and the related matters that were put forward by others.
I did promise Ms. Wasylycia-Leis a moment; she has a point of personal privilege she wishes to raise.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I wanted to go back to the definition that we passed on formulants.
The Chair: How is that a point of personal privilege?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The point of personal privilege is that I don't believe we were given full information and may have been given actually wrong information before we made the decision.
This is pertinent to what I believe was Hedy Fry's amendment that formulant means any component of a pest control product that is added intentionally to the product and that is not an active ingredient.
We raised specifically questions around what does it mean to say “intentionally”. What does it mean to be unintentional about something? How does this make any sense in defining a formulant?
I think we were given reassurances that anything unintentional was not of serious concern. I'm not suggesting that Hedy Fry gave me wrong information. I'm suggesting that the general information I felt we received about this whole issue was not complete.
I raise it because in fact in discussing this matter further since the committee meeting, it was pointed out to me that unintentional substances or ingredients include PCBs, HCBs, and dioxins. If that's the case, I think we've made a very wrong decision without complete information. That's the point of privilege. I think we ought to at least know what is included in “unintentional”, because in fact if it's not part of the formulants then we don't have the same controls and the same way to protect people's health.
» (1710)
The Chair: Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think what I wanted to say is that we're talking about two different things. What we brought forward was a definition for the word “formulant” under the definitions piece. It means any component of a pest control product that is added intentionally to the product and is not an active ingredient, and that still stands.
What you are talking about are things like PCPs and dioxins. They are really almost a contaminant, for want of a better word.
You can't put in a contaminant under the definition of formulant. If you want to add contaminant, I would like to suggest a way in which we could add contaminant under a different part of the definition and get in that whole contaminant issue. And if you don't mind, I'd like to suggest it to you, not formally but only to suggest that for instance under clause 2, line 17, where we're talking about pest, what we mean by the active product, that we add “contaminant” in there and that would cover as well the ones you're concerned about, the dioxins and such.
So I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying if we're going to talk about a formulant, let's say what a formulant is and let's talk about it, because that's an intentional thing that people add, and then get your concern into another area of the bill.
The Chair: I think, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, your concern was noted by the witnesses, because today they brought forward an amendment that we have already passed, L-10A, which said: “of the formulants and contaminants”. We just passed that, and it was to get around your concern about intentional additions as opposed to unintentional. So they've even listed here formulants, which are intentional, and contaminants, which are not.
Ms. Hedy Fry: You see, we're talking about the definition. She's gone back to the definition piece, Madam Chair. That's what she's referring to.
The Chair: She spelled it out. What I'm saying is we've expanded it.
Ms. Hedy Fry: We've used the word “contaminant” and we want to put it into the definition so that we would be consistent. If everyone would humour me, I am suggesting that where we have “pest control product” on page 6, instead of making the amendment that we replace line 17 and add the word “formulants”, I would like to see added at line 17 the words “that consists of an active ingredient, formulants and contaminants”. Then we get in your concerns.
If you remember, we had changed that to say: “derived through biotechnology, and its active ingredient and formulants, that is manufactured, represented,”. I'm adding the word “contaminants” there, Judy, and I think that might resolve your problem.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Correct me if I missed something. You aren't recommending that we deal with the current definition that we've approved, as a committee, which is--
The Chair: The formulant doesn't include contaminants. The formulant is something that is added, and they want to add it. But the contaminants are the things you're worried about.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Contaminants are a real concern, and we could put it in there.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm still concerned that I haven't found a way to cover off all non-active ingredients. I thought we had a way to do that, which was rejected, and that was to actually use the words to spell out “non-active ingredient, including”, and then make sure you said solvent, dilutant, agitant, emulsifier, and other components that were not primarily responsible for the effects of the product. That would have done it.
Now we have a new definition and now we want to throw something under “pest control product”. I'm worried that we haven't really--
Ms. Hedy Fry: But it adds what you want. You're concerned about the contaminant. You can't put the word “contaminant” in with a formulant under the definition of “formulant”. So get the word in by saying “an active ingredient”, then “formulants and contaminants”. That's what I'm saying. So you're listing it.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't understand, then, what was wrong with the original proposal saying “formulant” means “non-active ingredient”, and then....
Ms. Hedy Fry: Because we voted against it and we came up with an agreement that we all voted for, a definition of “formulant”. You didn't like “unintentional” in that. We're saying that we want that to be clear, that a “formulant” is something that's added, that the person knows they're adding it.
A “contaminant” is a totally different definition. So put in “contaminant” as a separate item and that gets to your concern about dioxins and PCPs in here
I'm agreeing with you.
» (1715)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like to believe that; I just can't--
Ms. Hedy Fry: Read it. Read the bill.
The Chair: Dr. Fry, would you put that wording forward as a formal amendment? We'll vote on it and get that taken care of.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes.
The Chair: So can we give it a number?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Can we get any documentation on this so we know what we're talking about?
The Chair: We carried PC-11 already, which was one amendment to that clause on page 27, and I will accept this as a subamendment to that. It's amendment LL-11A.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: As I said, I'd love to believe that this is the way to address my concerns, but I'm not convinced. The advice we had through the hearings was to be very clear about defining “formulant” in terms of it being anything that is not an active ingredient. That didn't come out of thin air. The U.S. pesticide law actually says that a formulant is any ingredient that is not an active ingredient. So if that's the law of other lands and it's been recommended by groups who know what they're talking about, why are we playing with that when that gives us the certainty? What's wrong with simply saying “a formulant is any ingredient that is not active”? We know that--
Ms. Hedy Fry: Judy, can I ask you to turn to page 6, line 17 in your bill?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have it.
The Chair: Or page 27 in your package, either way.
I am now accepting this amendment from Ms. Fry, as dictated. I believe the clerk has written it down and we're going to call the question on this.
Okay, Ms. Fry, you could read the amendment. You could read the whole clause.
Ms. Hedy Fry: On page 6, line 17, we're now adding an amendment--LL-11A--that after “biotechnology” will be inserted: “that consists of an active ingredient, formulants and contaminants and that is manufactured, represented, distributed or used as a means for directly” and so on, with the rest of that definition.
The Chair: That is the amendment that is now before you. We had already amended that clause to a degree; now we're amending it again with this addition.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
» (1720)
The Chair: On the other question, I allowed this discussion because Ms. Wasylycia-Leis raised it as a point of personal privilege with new information she had. However, it was actually going back to the discussion on definitions, which we had finished. To actually go back there and have a chance of changing the definition of formulant, we would have to have unanimous consent. Do I have unanimous consent to go there?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: I hear no, so I can't do it. So that now is over.
We are now ready to return to where we were yesterday. We're probably going to be stopped by the bell, but we are actually on page 133, with PC-42, except PC-42 has been pulled. Mr. Bachand is pulling PC-42.
Page 134 is being pulled. PC-44 is gone. PC-45 is gone. PC-46 is gone.
CA-9 is the next one. Before we start that, Mr. Merrifield, I would like to announce that we've now finished clauses 4 and 8.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
There's a question from Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just wondered, given our discussion yesterday about putting a completion date on the re-evaluation process, if there would be a willingness to.... I have an amendment proposed, and obviously it hasn't been circulated. I'm wondering if we can keep that open. I would suggest an amendment that calls for the process to be completed in a two-year timeframe.
The Chair: I think we had that full debate yesterday, did we not? I'm going to go forward, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
The Chair: We are now on page 138.1, with CA-9A.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: I think he already has one, and then you.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Just to add to the movement here, page 144, LL-12, and page--
The Chair: Can you wait until we get there, Mr. Alcock?
Mr. Reg Alcock: They can be withdrawn. Just take them out. We excluded all those PC ones. We can exclude those two--
The Chair: They were in order.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes, I know. But before we get there, I just wanted to get more out.
The Chair: On page 138.1, Mr. Merrifield, go ahead.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay.
The Chair: I'm sorry, there's a second point of order. Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't think we should go too fast. Before calling the vote, you should be certain that everyone has understood clearly. Our job is to vote on matters that we understand clearly. I caution you about going too quickly and about not doing a proper job as legislators. Let's stay calm, take our time and understand what we're being asked to vote on. I find you're a little too eager.
[English]
The Chair: I understand that, Mr. Ménard, but that's probably because you haven't been here for the 16 hours we've already been doing this.
Mr. Réal Ménard: That's probably because you are a little bit exciting. Control yourself.
The Chair: I'm always exciting, never excited.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Je peux comprendre.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is something I think a number of the opposition parties were having a difficult time with; it's on the timelines. We wrestled with this one yesterday for quite some time, trying to decide whether we can do a re-evaluation in a year. I think one of the arguments was that we should have put it into the bill, that there would be a timeline of one year or whatever. I can understand the difficulty.
On the flip side of that, I think we all should be very careful of what is potentially going to happen, because we understand that re-evaluations take some time. But we've had witnesses--correct me if I'm wrong--400 and some re-evaluations. All those re-evaluations that are prior to 1995 are to be done and completed by 2006. If that's the case, we're going to see a considerable shift in the productivity of the PMRA. So what this does is insist on a time schedule: Just tell us.
The Chair: It sets it.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's right. And I think it's the least we can ask for. It gives the minister a year after the enactment of the bill to come up with the timeline, so that we know.
The Chair: We'll ask the minister to do it and to set her own timelines and get them into the regulations. This means that we don't put it in the bill; somebody puts it in the regulations.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: All it does is insist on them coming up with a timeline so we understand when it will actually happen, but it doesn't set it. That is the very least we can do in the piece of legislation.
» (1725)
The Chair: Seeing no hands, I'll call the question. Those in favour of CA-9--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Just give them some time. They're not comfortable. It's important enough to take the time, because we went through a half hour or more discussion on it yesterday.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Is this CA-9 or CA-9A?
The Chair: It is CA-9A on page 138.1.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I can't understand why anyone would be opposed to a timeline being set up by the minister. It's not saying what the timeline will be; it's only saying that a timeline will come forward.
The Chair: Yesterday we talked about timelines in the bill and specific lengths of time decided by this committee and put in the bill. This is the opposite; it's asking the minister to please make some decisions in the regulations.
An hon. member: Question.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr. Clerk, we will have a recorded vote on CA-9A.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: The motion is lost. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
That finishes clause 16 amendments. Shall clause 16 carry?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could we just hold clause 16 and I could just--
The Chair: If it's about timelines, no, because we defeated every possible timeline yesterday and now we've even defeated giving the minister the right to set some. So I think the subject is closed. We've defeated every possible combination there, so I think to raise it again.... We had a big long discussion about it yesterday. I'm going to ask them to--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just clarify. You're saying there probably will be no interest on the part of the committee to look at putting an end point to the re-evaluation process so that we don't just say the minister shall initiate within a year, but we'd also say the re-evaluation should be done within two or three years. I would suggest two years, but--
The Chair: I think with the explanations given by the staff and the varying kinds of studies that have to be done on these things, the committee has pretty well decided not to put any timelines on it.
Would you agree with me that's what you heard yesterday? That's what I heard.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.
The Chair: People don't even know what I'm talking about.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Ms. Fry, did you want to put timelines?
Ms. Hedy Fry: I actually looked at some of the evidence later on and saw that no other jurisdictions have set those kinds of end timelines. We'd be the first one to do so.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This isn't about setting timelines; this is about even setting a schedule so that we know how--
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I think we already voted on this timeline question. Let's move on.
The Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like a recorded vote.
(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 5)
» (1730)
The Chair: There is one amendment in clause 17. It's NDP-32.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, would you like to explain this?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I know this is one you'll all want to support. It's a housekeeping amendment. In CA-4, the one from the Alliance, we passed the amendment about OECD and allowing for an applicant to submit review data from an OECD country. This amendment simply requires that we include all data, not just any data.
The Chair: It's the opposite.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry, “any”, not “all”.
The Chair: You're proposing “any”, not “all”. It's really just grammatical.
Mr. Bob Speller: Have you read the translation?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, that's a problem. It's my fault. Ignore it.
The Chair: Is there something wrong with the French version? Dr. Castonguay.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: It's not been translated.
The Chair: The only change she's suggesting is to the English, to make it conform to the French. That's all it is. The French says “any use” and the English says “all uses”. She's saying make the English say “any use”, as does the French.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The French doesn't say “any use”.
The Chair: It doesn't say “any use”? You should have told me.
It's singular.
Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Could I ask a question of Judy, Madam Chair?
Judy, I hear what you're saying. My only question about changing “all” to “any” is that this would be an impossible thing to deal with, because the United States uses the same product for different uses, so we cannot ban the use based on what another group is saying. So I think “all”, meaning all that is going on in Canada, is stronger than “any”.
You can't control the “any”, because “any” use would be any reasonable use of it or any reason other people think it should be used in other jurisdictions, in other countries.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. The intent is to apply the data that has been acquired through another country in the OECD to the knowledge and information we're using here. So it's basically saying look at all of them; look at any of the uses as a result of their analysis. So it gives us the fullest range.
Ms. Hedy Fry: I think “all” is stronger than “any”.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This does make it strong. I won't try to disguise that fact. It makes it stronger, and I think it's useful to have the data used for a whole range.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on amendment NDP-32, changing “all” to “any”.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Amendment PC-47 is pulled, and that closes clause 17.
(Clause 17 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: Clause 18 has no amendments. I can hardly believe it.
(Clause 18 agreed to)
(On clause 19--Burden of persuasion and consideration of information)
The Chair: The first one on clause 19 is amendment PC-48, which is pulled, and amendment PC-49 is pulled.
We're now at amendment NDP-33, on page 143.
We're just moving right along here, thanks to Mr. Bachand.
» (1735)
Mr. Reg Alcock: Those were good amendments, though. I might have voted for those.
The Chair: Oh, don't say that out loud.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you have amendment NDP-33. I'm sorry, this is the precautionary principle, and we have had a full debate. I'm going to rule this one beyond. Essentially, the question has already been decided by the committee.
Next is amendment LL-12, from Mr. Lincoln. Does anyone want to move it for him?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Amendment LL-12 is followed by amendment L-7. The only difference between the two of them is the reference to different sensitivities to pest control. I'm just wondering if the--
The Chair: Amendment LL-12 isn't even on the table unless you move it. We could go directly to amendment L-7, if you're happy with amendment L-7. This is Mr. Lincoln's--
Mr. Reg Alcock: I understand. My original intention was to withdraw amendment LL-12 by doing this question. I don't want to go through the process of debate and passage without--
The Chair: Why don't you raise your question? At least we're on a similar area.
Mr. Reg Alcock: As I say, I'm quite happy to go with amendment LL-12, but I want to ask the question--
An hon. member: Do you have it in French?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes, it's in French. It's on page 144.
I'm just asking a question. I'm not moving it.
The Chair: He's not moving it yet. He has a question to see if he wants to move it.
Ask it, Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes.
About this reference to the different sensitivities to pest control, is that considered a relevant factor? Is that covered in amendment L-7, or do you--
Ms. Geraldine Graham: That was already in the bill, so that's why it's not mentioned in L-7.
Mr. Reg Alcock: That's fine. That's all I need. LL-12 is gone, and we're on to L-7.
The Chair: L-7 is before us. Who is moving that?
Ms. Sgro, go ahead.
Ms. Judy Sgro: I don't need to; I think it speaks for itself fairly clearly. They all have it. I move amendment L-7.
The Chair: Again, it's about aggregate exposure.
Ms. Judy Sgro: It's about additional protection for the children, to improve protection in and around our schools; it's specifically related to the children issue.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Just a second.
The Chair: Mr. Alcock.
Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd just like to come back to the earlier question, this issue of sensitivities. I'm told that it's included in a different part of the bill.
Dr. Claire Franklin: Yes, but it would cover it. The purpose of this amendment relates to the fact that we did not have in the original bill “aggregate” and “cumulative” to be considered for non-food use. In fact, we agreed that although we did it, we would put it in so it would be visible. We've already voted on this exact same one for new products; we're simply putting this one in again so it's covered for products that are re-evaluated. It's really a housekeeping one, just to make sure it's covered for re-evaluation.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
» (1740)
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I believe that L-6 on page 116 was consequential too. Do you remember when we were on that...?
The Chair: L-6 on page 116 is consequential, and we stood it aside, so we'll take the vote on L-6 now that L-7 has passed.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: That ends clause 11, which we stood down as well.
(Clause 11 agreed to)
The Chair: Good, we keep finishing them off.
We're now on NDP-34 on page 148. Now that we've passed L-6 and L-7, NDP-34 can't be put because there's a line conflict, and PC-50 on page 149 comes out.
We're at CA-10. Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is to recognize that the Minister of Agriculture should be consulted, as pesticides affect those industries pretty significantly. It's just a matter of recognizing it, a minor thing in a sense, and I don't think it goes against the intent of the bill at all. That's all it amounts to.
The Chair: Are there any questions? Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: Rob, I think you'll remember we've had this debate already. I just don't have as much faith as you that it would be an easy process to consult with the Minister of Agriculture. Generally, what it means is you have to go down a whole bunch of layers, and it would really slow down the system. I don't think we want to go back to that sort of system. We have a changed system now, and probably we need to work within this system.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would disagree with you. I think it's important to recognize how it impacts on those industries and he should be consulted.
Mr. Bob Speller: Yes, but I think that's already done.
The Chair: I think that we'd all agree about meeting with the minister, but it's way down the layers of the bureaucracy and working its way up, with these people all getting together the whole way before the ministers even talk about it. That's what he's talking about.
Anyway, I'll call the question. Two opinions.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: A recorded vote.
The Chair: People who vote against this, what could you possibly conclude?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would say if you can't recognize the value for agrifood or agriculture, then let's have it recorded.
The Chair: That's not the conclusion I would draw from voting against it, though. Are you sure you want a recorded vote?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Bigras, do you have a piece of paper that you're substituted? You can't vote unless you do. Where's your whip?
An hon. member: Call the question.
The Chair: Could somebody take care of Mr. Bigras' credentials, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Motion CA-10 is defeated. That takes us to NDP-35.
Judy, would you like to speak to this?
» (1745)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure.
This is a pretty straightforward amendment, changing the word “may” to “shall”. The intent is to make it mandatory for the minister to consider the risks and values of other products registered for the same use when executing evaluations.
The Chair: It is on page 20 of the bill, line 11: the minister “may, in accordance with the regulations...take into account...”. It means the minister may choose to or may choose not to. “Shall” would mean the minister....
Pardon?
Ms. Hedy Fry: She's mandating.
The Chair: Yes. “Must” is even stronger. “Shall” is--
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I think we discussed this yesterday, if you don't mind, this concept of mandating substitution. We all had a vote on it and we've all moved on. This is a part of that same question.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: PC-51 is withdrawn.
NDP-36. Judy, would you like to explain this?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are we on NDP-36?
The Chair: Yes, NDP-36.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I know you had the debate yesterday with my colleague, the environment critic, about cosmetic use, and I know the committee voted against our recommendation. However, I present this as an alternative proposal. It would actually allow for a gradual reduction in the risk of pesticides registered for home, garden, and recreational use, as well as for a phase-out of these products by applying the same requirements to the assessment on re-evaluation or special review. It's a compromise.
The Chair: One currently has one number on it.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, it's adding after that.
The Chair: You're going after that. Okay. This is a new sentence that adds into subclause 19.(5)--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, it's a new subclause.
The Chair: Oh, I see, it's a new one. But I don't see how these words do what you're saying.
Mr. John Richardson: On 121, the overkills.... I came in late, I gather.
The Chair: We're on page 154. I think we're past 121, Jack.
Judy, can you explain? These funny words don't do what you say.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]
The Chair: Shall we just forget it? She was talking all about.... Cosmetic use has nothing to do with it.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's quite simple.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: It doesn't seem to be.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But if I give you the argument, you're just going to rule the whole motion out of order, because it deals with two parts of clause 8 that we've already dealt with in terms of cosmetic use. It is referencing earlier discussions and is a further attempt to propose phasing out the use of pesticides for cosmetic and recreational purposes.
The Chair: Okay, so it's out of order. The only reason it's out of order is that it refers to things we've already voted down that don't exist any more. We won't vote on NDP-36, because it's not in order.
Amendment CA-11 is on page 155. Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is one that even this committee is going to have a difficult time saying no to.
The Chair: I've heard that song before.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Really all this is about is the minister being able to expedite an evaluation of a product that would reduce risk to human health, reduce target organisms and potential contaminants to groundwater and surface waters. It's just allowing safer, better products to come onto the market and prioritizing those and allowing the minister to push those along a little faster. I can't see how this committee would say no to that.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
» (1750)
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(On clause 20--Cancellation or amendment)
The Chair: On clause 20, PC-52 is pulled. LL-13 is Mr. Lincoln's. Does anybody want to move it?
Mr. Reg Alcock: It's withdrawn.
The Chair: Mr. Bigras, on BQ-12 on page 158.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.
The amendment seeks a clarification. We find clause 20(2) somewhat ambiguous, to say the least, because of the reference to threats. We want to clarify the wording of this provision so that from the moment a pest control product is considered a threat, preventive action is taken immediately. The wording proposed in the amendment is clearer and calls for immediate action. The clause, as now worded, says the following: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty...”We find this wording very ambiguous. The proposed change would clarify matters.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on BQ-12? Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Is this particular clause in the bill not the definition of the Rio precautionary principle referred to elsewhere? This definition is one and the same.
[English]
The Chair: It's not in the form of.... You mean the precautionary principle?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Yes.
The Chair: This is not the definition. This is saying in this circumstance, take a precautionary approach. That's how I would describe this.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Can I ask a question of Mr. Bigras? Reading this new subclause 20(2), I don't even understand how it differs from what is defined as a precautionary principle in subclause 20(2). How does it differ? I don't see any difference. It says the same thing: a lack of scientific evidence is not a reason for you to postpone cost-effective measures to prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation. You're talking about preventing as well. So you're saying the same thing here. I'm sorry, but you have to really explain to me why this is different, because I don't see that it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, it's clear to my mind that my proposal, as worded, is much clearer that the roundabout way the government is seeking to achieve the same objectives, if Ms. Fry reads the text correctly. The parliamentary secretary and the Chair are not exactly wrong. We're proposing that in the case of the binding provisions, the precautionary principle be applied. We're seeking greater clarity, but we would also like to see this reflected in the binding provisions. That's our objective. In this respect the Chair is quite right in so far as the interpretation of this amendment is concerned.
[English]
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We're now on NDP-37, page 159 of your package.
Mr. Adams, do you have a package? You need it.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): I have the package, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I'm in good shape, thank you. I know exactly where we are--BQ-12, I think.
The Chair: Now I see the food has arrived.
Mr. Peter Adams: Excuse me, NDP-37.
The Chair: Seeing I gave you half an hour the last time and I stayed too late, I'm going to give you the choice now of whether you'd like to have maybe five minutes, ten minutes, get your food, come back and use it.... So it will be about ten minutes, then, people, and then even if we're not finished eating, we'll carry on. And the witnesses and the staff are invited to share it.
When I say staff, I mean committee staff, not minister's staff.
» (1755)
¼ (1811)
The Chair: This meeting is reconvened.
I want to make a little announcement, which some of you may know about and others may not. Apparently there's been some kind of breakdown in the air-conditioning system. I have asked around, and they tell me it will probably take a minimum of 48 hours until it's fixed.
With that in mind, I would suggest to you this building could be pretty hot by tomorrow at 11 oclock. My feeling is if we could possibly finish tonight--I don't know if these windows open--it might be a smart thing to do, as opposed to sitting here in the heat tomorrow.
We're at NDP-37. I'm going to call on Ms. Wasylycia-Leis to introduce this.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The proposed amendment sets out a timeline for re-evaluation and also consequences if the re-evaluations are not completed within five years.
We've had some of this discussion already. This isn't the ideal situation, but I think it's important to deal with the issue of timelines wherever we can. I think this recommendation is necessary, given the seemingly never-ending evaluations some pesticides currently undergo. It would prevent some possibly harmful older pesticides from staying on the market because their re-evaluations are never completed. So I urge your support.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Next is amendment NDP-38, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I can't accept this one because it's about the precautionary principle. This one is out of order.
(Clause 20 agreed to)
(On clause 21--Confirmation)
The Chair: We're now on clause 21, with amendment NDP-39.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This amendment requires the minister not to re-register products if there are other equally effective products of lower risk, which is something that would be determined based on mandatory comparative assessment.
The Chair: I think we had this debate yesterday.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Amendment PC-53 is removed.
Amendment NDP-40 is next. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You're going to let me keep that one, are you?
The Chair: Oh, wait a minute. It's the precautionary principle again. I have to pull that one.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's two strikes against me. It's not only “precautionary”; it has the “cosmetic” word in it. That's two bad words.
The Chair: Amendment PC-54 is withdrawn.
(Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to)
(On clause 23--Non-payment of fees, fines, etc.)
The Chair: We're on clause 23 and we're on page 165 of the package, amendment L-8. Who's moving this?
Mr. Reg Alcock Mr. Simard is.
Mr. Simard is moving it? Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Simard?
¼ (1815)
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint-Boniface, Lib.): Yes, it's a great amendment.
No, I won't. Do we have a ventriloquist present?
An hon. member: Bob is going to move it.
The Chair: Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Chair, under clause 23 the minister may impose additional sanctions if the registrant doesn't pay a fee, a fine, a penalty, a charge, or a cost, such as refusing to consider future applications from the registrants. This gives him, Madam Chair, the power to do that, but it also ensures that the registrant is informed if such action is taken. I think that was one of the concerns that was out there. So that's what this does.
The Chair: It puts more sanctions in the minister's hands.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 23 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 24--Amendment with consent)
The Chair: We're moving to page 167, with amendment NDP-41.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This amendment deletes the words “with the written consent of the registrant”. We're recommending this because it gives the minister control to amend the registration of a pesticide. It's our belief that registrants should not have the power to deny amendments to their products' registration. I think it's in keeping with the need for us to pursue as much transparency as possible.
The Chair: Do the registrants have the power to protest if the minister amends...?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: This was put in so that if they did agree, these amendments could be done quickly. If they don't agree, the minister can still go ahead with a special re-evaluation and impose that requirement on them, in which case they have to be given a chance to make their representations and the consultation. But if it's just a very small amendment that can improve the product, and they agree to do it without going through the whole process, this was just intended for that.
The Chair: That's what your bill says. So they're suggesting the minister may amend anyway, Judy. I don't understand why we need this.
Ms. Geraldine Graham: This makes it even easier, in some cases. It will be quicker, in some cases, if they agree. If they don't agree, we can still do it. We can make them do it.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 28--Minister to consult)
The Chair: We're now on clause 28 and page 168 of your package.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, it's NDP-42.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This amendment simply deletes the word “significantly”. Just to briefly make the case, it's our belief that determination of the significance of health and environmental risks should not be made prior to public consultation. I certainly believe in determination of risk, but not in terms of significance. So it's a small amendment that we think would make it a bit tougher.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Yes, it's really quite simple, but what in fact is the meaning of the word “significantly”? No parameters have been set, and we don't know what the regulations will look like. I think we can agree on the words “increased [...] risks”. We know that we don't want increased health risks and the word “significantly” should therefore be deleted. In terms of the bill's principle, this would be much clearer. The issue is clear: if the risk increases, then the process stops. How would a judge interpret the word “significantly”?
The bill is designed to minimize risks and to ensure less harmful products. I don't think that removing the word makes a great deal of difference, but as far as the scope of the bill is concerned, it's significant. It might prevent some problems with the interpretation of the clause. Again, we need to see the full complement of regulations. However, the fact remains that this is a very simple amendment.
¼ (1820)
[English]
The Chair: Essentially, this is a phrase that simply removes the word “significantly”.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Correct.
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Practically speaking, what difference would it make if this word were deleted from the clause?
[English]
Ms. Geraldine Graham: I think if you take out the word “significantly”, it would mean you would have to go through the consultation even on a minor-use label expansion. I guess putting it in there means that when it's a major new use you consult, as well as a new active ingredient.
Dr. Claire Franklin: Resource implications would be huge to have to consult on every single....We make 3,000 decisions a year. It would really have enormous ramifications.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: I really don't understand the explanation. That' not what I understand when I read the article. It's not a matter of increasing use for other purposes. We're not talking about use, but about health and environmental risks. A pest-control product may be used for a purpose other than the one for which the product was registered. However, if there is an increased risk, then we need to stop using the product. That's how I understand it. If a product is approved for agricultural use, that doesn't mean it can be used for residential purposes. If the risk increases, then the product should no longer be used. It's not a question of using it for some other purpose.
[English]
Ms. Geraldine Graham: The risk is a function of exposure and the hazard. If you're talking about an expansion of use of the same active ingredient, by definition the risk does go up somewhat. But if it's a very small minor-use label expansion, that's where the need to consult would be excluded. If it's a major-use expansion you would consult, and you would consult on every new active ingredient.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: On which definition did you base yourself?
[English]
Ms. Geraldine Graham: The definition of which?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: What is the meaning of “significantly increased” risks? Are we talking about acceptable risks? What then?
[English]
Ms. Geraldine Graham: They would still have to be acceptable, or else it wouldn't be--
The Chair: Ms. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, when Mr. Bachand spoke earlier to support Judy, he said you want to use a less risky.... “Less risky” still means risk. If you remove “significant”, you're saying that everything is going to be under scrutiny and that the minister will have to consult on everything because there is nothing that has no risk at all. I'm telling you here that Aspirin has risk. If you take away “significant”, you're removing that ability to look at whether you do this on specific ones you think have some significant harm or whether you do it on everything. Actually, they're different.
Mr. André Bachand: We agree to increased risk. That clause said that we agree to increased risk. Is that the purpose of the bill?
Ms. Hedy Fry: That's not what it says to me.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: With the deletion of a single word, the clause is more in keeping with the principle of the bill.
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry: That's not what I read it as saying.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Further to your point, we did try to get a definition of “acceptable risk”, and we lost.
Ms. Hedy Fry: We got “unacceptable risk”.
The Chair: We lost “unacceptable risk”, but we defined--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's in there, but not in the definition section, right? Wasn't that the problem?
Ms. Hedy Fry: Everything, Madam Chair, is about risk management.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it? I thought it was about health promotion.
Ms. Hedy Fry: It's about health management.
I'm going to speak as a physician. As a physician, whenever I see a patient who is sick, I have to decide whether I give them Aspirin, a huge antibiotic, or a mild antibiotic. Every time I do that I ask myself, is the disease worth the consequences of the medication, or should I let the patient just go around with a sore throat for five days because it's worse? You always have to weigh that. It's always balancing. You have to decide what kind of risk is unacceptable in terms of the well-being of people, and that is what this is saying. You have to keep balancing what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of well-being.
That's why we refer to “unacceptable risk”. There are some things we will not do, things we find totally unacceptable. The balancing is always there. I don't know of anybody, at least in medicine as a physician, who does not practise risk management in everything they do. Otherwise you won't give anybody any products at all, any drugs, if you don't do that.
¼ (1825)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But this isn't taking any action other than informing the public and ensuring that there's a process for some follow-up to a drug or a pesticide that has some risk. It's not about banning in this case, and it's not about de-registering. It's not about anything other than informing and educating the public so people can then make choices based on the information. That's the intent of this whole exercise, to in fact allow people to make decisions based on all the information and, as much as we can, have a government that follows the “do no harm” principle.
The Chair: I think we've had a full discussion and an explanation from the witnesses. I'm going to call the question on NDP-42.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We're at PC-55, which is pulled, and PC-56, which is pulled.
We're at a new clause, 28.1, with BQ-13. Mr. Bigras.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, this proposal seeks to amend Bill C-53 by adding a new clause after line 23 on page 24.
We are proposing a major shift in direction. We feel the time has come to recommend that a number of studies be conducted and that alternatives to the use of non-organic pest control products be examined.
Need I remind you that many groups made a similar recommendation to the Standing Committee on Environment when it examined this issue. At a standing committee meeting, witnesses requested that funds be freed up to conduct research into organic alternatives. I recall the names of some of the groups. They include Nature-Action Québec; Action Chelsea pour le respect de l'environnement; Citoyen(ne)s pour les alternatives aux pesticides; and last, but not least - and I'm sure Ms. Fry will appreciate this - the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. All of these groups spoke out in support of doing research into organic alternatives to pesticides.
I believe this is the right course of action. If we really want to initiate significant change, we need to allocate funding to research into credible alternatives.
[English]
The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I can appreciate the intent of the amendment, but I don't see what this has to do with the bill.
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: In any event, we have not given the PMRA a definitive structure as of yet. We can't bring this up here. We haven't yet provided a definition and since we have said that it doesn't have a legal basis, we can't include it a reference to it in the bill.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: In that case, perhaps I could go along with a friendly amendment calling on the minister or the department to undertake an in-depth study at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps she would agree to sponsor a friendly amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Seeing no further hands, I'll call the question on amendment BQ-13.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to)
The Chair: There are a few more with no amendments submitted.
Ms. Judy Sgro: What about clause 28.1?
Mr. Peter Adams: She called it.
The Chair: I did clause 28.1. The amendment was defeated, but--
A voice: There was no amendment.
Mr. Peter Adams: My vote was in vain.
The Chair: Of course. I see. Okay, thank you anyway.
(Clauses 30 to 40 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 41--Authorization)
The Chair: We're now on page 178, amendment L-9, because amendment PC-59 on page 174, amendment PC-50 on page 176, and amendment PC-61 on page 177 are pulled.
Who is moving that? Dr. Castonguay moves amendment L-9.
¼ (1830)
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Yes.
The Chair: Is Dr. Castonguay speaking to it?
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Yes. Instead of “may”, the minister “shall”.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 41 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 42--Register)
The Chair: We're on clause 42. PC-64 is pulled; PC-65 is pulled. You're on page 185 with BQ-14. No, we just did it--
A voice: No, that was negatived.
The Chair: We already did it, it's gone? Page 186 with BQ-15, did we do it? No, we didn't.
Mr. Bigras.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: We're on page 186. We skipped amendment BQ-15.
[English]
The Chair: We haven't done it, so you have to speak to it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
We are proposing that clause 42 be amended after line 19. We are calling for a “comprehensive data bank” to be compiled. Basically, this would involve setting up a register that could be accessed by the public, namely ordinary citizens and in particular professionals, one that would provide information about alternative solutions available. The data bank would be used by members of the public as well as by professionals, among others.
The report prepared by the Standing Committee on the Environment had recommended an electronic data bank. This amendment doesn't go quite that far. I took a more conservative approach with this amendment because I hoped it might be adopted. As I said, it calls for a data bank, perhaps eventually an electronic data bank of alternative solutions, to be compiled.
[English]
The Chair: Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: The substance of this is great, I agree with it, but I think that Mr. Merrifield will be pleased to know that what I wanted to suggest is that we're talking here now about other management areas of pests, and I think we should look at having Agriculture Canada do that. That would be a very nice thing for them to do, to take care of that and put their resources into it. Instead of putting it in a health bill, I think we should let Agriculture Canada deal with it, and we don't need legislation to do that. They will be able to do it as part of the educational and informative process they do.
So I think I agree with it, but let's give it to Agriculture Canada to look after.
The Chair: Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: So you agree with the concept.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Mr. Merrifield, you know there is so much money that's--
The Chair: Mr. Bachand has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: We seem to be restricting this bill to certain categories of individuals. We're talking about a data bank that could be accessed by everyone, whether in Toronto or in Sainte-Marie-de-Beauce. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to this data bank containing information on pest control products. Besides, that is the focus of this bill. From a health standpoint, we have a duty to assume our responsibilities. Health is not the specific domain of any one department. It affects everyone. I think this amendment by my Bloc colleague is extremely reasonable. It's a matter of keeping the public informed.
¼ (1835)
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: I understand your arguments and I understand the point of view that it could be done without the legislation. What are the implications of it being legislated?
Ms. Hedy Fry: You can't tell provinces they must collaborate. You can't do that in federal legislation. You can't do it in legislation.
Mr. Peter Adams: No, Madam Chair, it's different to say you don't need it and you can't. Can we or can't we?
The Chair: The thing is the federal government through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency would set up a website or something, and hope that if anything is found out by the provinces the provinces would send the information in to be added.
Mr. Reg Alcock: A national program....
The Chair: Is that right, Mr. Bigras, that we would get it set up but if they knew anything they could add to it? Is that it?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, the provincial government is supposed to be responsible for product use as such. As for awareness, there is nothing preventing the federal government from informing the public about certain methods and certain products. The government already does that. Unless I'm mistaken, Environment Canada is currently conducting a public awareness campaign on pesticide us. The provinces have not challenged these campaigns in court. We're talking about a data bank. Rarely am I in favour of a national data bank. This public data bank would be established by the government and I don't have any problem with that.
The paradox, Madam Chair, is that my colleague opposite agrees on the principle, but doesn't want it enshrined in the legislation. If she agrees on the principle, I don't see why she should object to incorporating it into the act.
[English]
The Chair: Dr. Franklin, is it true that people will be coming in with alternatives? In other words, they'll be applying to you for permission to use as a pesticide certain substances that are alternatives to non-organic pesticide products. Will they not have to apply through you to have something registered?
Dr. Claire Franklin: If it's a pesticide product, it would have to be registered.
The Chair: So in the case of some new, more acceptable products, which we're all hoping for--there can't be that many of them yet--wouldn't it be possible to put them on a website?
The reason I ask this is because last weekend I went home and told my gardener he was never to use another pesticide on my lawn or garden. He almost fainted. He phoned me this week to say he has asked all around and nobody knows what he should buy. So I have to tell him what to buy. But I don't know what he should buy either.
I'm thinking that if Health Canada, through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Tell him to buy a lawn mower.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I'm thinking there must be other Canadians out there who don't know what to buy, so somebody should put this information on a website.
Ms. Geraldine Graham: There is a lot of information about what pest control product to use on what. But when you're talking about alternatives, it's not always products.
We do work with the provinces on compiling this information. We have a healthy lawns website, which we've created with the provinces. But putting it in federal legislation is the thing. We do lots of things with the provinces along these lines, but it's just the idea of putting it in here. That goes for agriculture and other things. It depends on the sector you're talking about, etc. But to actually put in the legislation that we're supposed to do this with the provinces, that's just not the type of thing this legislation is about.
The Chair: I was going to amend it to get the provinces out of there and just say that Health Canada should set up this website.
Ms. Geraldine Graham: We can't do that. We have to do it in collaboration with them because they're the ones with the expertise on what to use on what.
¼ (1840)
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 42 agreed to)
The Chair: We have a new clause 42.1 with NDP-43 on page 188.
Judy.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You won't understand this unless you look at the bill. Paragraph 42(7)(e) references consultation and uses the words “when proposed for public consultation”. The purpose of this amendment is to add another clause to provide an obligation to carry out such consultation.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(On clause 43--Confidential test data)
The Chair: We're now on L-10 on page 189.
Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Chair, this replaces lines 36 and 37 on page 32. I think this gives some comfort to the industry, which is a little bit apprehensive of what I think we would all agree is a major step forward. People will not be using this information, for instance, to register their own generic pesticide. Anybody who wants to view the information will have to take an oath, and every person who makes a false statement is guilty of an offence.
The Chair: They are pretty healthy fines, too, Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: I think people could take this product overseas and register it, for instance. So you really have to put teeth in it.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We are now on page 191, amendment CA-12.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is just a little one. It tweaks it a little more than the last one and gives a third party, under the Access to Information Act, a little more comfort. There's a little more opportunity for industry to feel they're not going to be abused under the process.
The Chair: You don't think the other one defines this well enough?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's a step in the right direction. I'm sure you'll consider this one as well, the same as you did the last one.
The Chair: But we have to really find it, you see. It makes it hard. Have you found it in your bill, people?
Ms. Hedy Fry: We're placing it after (b) and adding (c).
¼ (1845)
The Chair: The only thing of any importance is (c).
You're not worried about the disclosure thing or the businesses...? This looks like it opens up the information to more businesses instead of shutting it down. I thought you wanted to protect these businesses.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Actually, I just spoke to CA-13 instead of CA-12. I'm sorry.
The Chair: This is a very strange one from the Alliance.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're withdrawing that one. I thought I was speaking to CA-13.
The Chair: Next is amendment CA-13, Mr. Merrifield. Now you can give the same speech.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's the one I was speaking to. It's a small one that gives a little more comfort zone under the Access to Information Act. I'm sure I'll have no problem with this one.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: We mustn't go at it too hard.
[English]
Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's allowing an avenue of appeal under the Access to Information Act, rather than to the minister.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Next is NDP-45, Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis, on page 199.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think you'll want to pull that. It's consequential to NDP-44.
(Clause 43 as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 44 agreed to)
The Chair: Next is amendment NDP-46 to add a new clause, 44.1.
This is the whole labelling issue. Did we not debate this at length and vote on this? I think we've already ruled on this.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Isn't it different enough that we should vote again?
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: This is a pest control product use inventory. We haven't debated this. This is amendment NDP-47, an additional clause 44.2, on page 36 of the bill....
Amendment NDP-47 is out of order? Wait a minute, why is that amendment out of order?
Okay, the reason is that it would cost a lot of money to start a national pest control product use inventory and track those uses, and so on, and have all this information available. The bill did not conceive of this; therefore the bill did not conceive of this extra expenditure of money.
When the amendment goes beyond the conception of the bill and the amount of money that they think it will cost, then it becomes outside our purview as well. So amendment NDP-47 is not accepted. Such motions may be presented at report stage and may be selected by the Speaker if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation. But you can't do that in committee--okay, Judy?
Amendment NDP-47 is gone.
Mr. Peter Adams: The Queen will be here in October.
The Chair: I was just going to say, you should write her a note now.
Amendment NDP-48 is out of order for the same reason.
On amendment NDP-49, Judy.
¼ (1850)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's not out of order?
An hon. member: It's the same type of amendment.
The Chair: I'm not sure. It looks pretty expensive.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It doesn't have as much money attached to it.
The purpose of this amendment is just to allow for better information on infants' and children's diets in Canada, and to then better monitor the exposure from the food most eaten by infants and children. We're recommending that the studies be conducted regionally because of the variations within Canada of children's diets.
I think that supports another amendment, by the PCs, amendment PC-71.
The Chair: According to your knowledge, does the Minister of Health have the authority to conduct studies on these kinds of things, in which case it would come out of some budget for studies? If the answer is yes, then this is not out of order, because the minister has a budget for that kind of use. But this is “The Minister shall”. That's okay?
If that's what the committee wants the minister to do with some of his--
Ms. Geraldine Graham: This is the type of thing again that goes into working with provinces and poison control centres. There actually is a federal-provincial group working on something called “ProdTox” to get this kind of thing not just for pesticides, but for drugs and other chemicals. So it seems outside the scope of this legislation, really.
The Chair: Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, the last part of this, which starts with “The Minister shall make aggregate data from the registry available to the public on...”, I just think--
The Chair: We're on amendment NDP-49. That one was ruled out of order. We're on this one.
Are there any comments on amendment NDP-49? Seeing no hands, I'll call the question.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: On amendment NDP-50, I don't see any note.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Again, this is back to children and trying to deal with the impact of pesticides on babies and children. I think this section is required to try to ensure special attention to the protection of babies and children in all decision-making as to the pest control products under the act.
We've actually taken the wording from the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act, where it applies to determination of threshold effects from pesticide residues on food.
The way we've drafted it, it would apply not only to food, but to all pathways.
The Chair: Ms. Graham, do you see any problem with NDP-50? It seems to me to be a reiteration of what--
Ms. Geraldine Graham: It seems to duplicate the new subparagraph (2)(ii) that we put in a few days ago, so we essentially already added that.
The Chair: But does that say “a reasonable certainty that no harm will result”?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes.
The Chair: (Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
¼ (1855)
The Chair: NDP-51. I'll ask the clerk to tell me whether or not this is outside the act.
It's the same reasoning. They think the minister probably has money that is allocated to planning, and such a plan could come out of that budget.
Any comments?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: It's provincial jurisdiction, though, the use reduction plans and that type of thing. That's getting into the provincial.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: So now there are no sections 44.1, 44.2, 44.3, 44.4, 44.5, or 44.6, so I don't have to declare them carried.
(Clauses 45 to 66 inclusive agreed to)
(On Clause 67--Regulations--Governor in Council)
The Chair: Clause 67 has L-11. Did we discuss it?
A voice: No.
The Chair: Mr. Speller has this one.
Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, this addresses the concerns, I know, of a number of people, and it was certainly brought up by Rob earlier, about respecting minor use. What we do here is to provide an opportunity for the government to sit down with all interested parties, which I think is the best way to do it, and to bring in regulations regarding minor uses.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Then we have LL-14, if anybody wants to move it. I see no mover. I'm sorry, I've already ruled LL-14 not introduced.
We have to go to CA-13(a), which seems to be on an extra piece of paper that came in today. It's on page 211.1 and is sponsored by Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is just a minor change that I know no one will have trouble with.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Rob Merrifield: You threw the NDP a crumb, so I'm sure this is going to fit in very well. It's respecting timelines for registration. That's all it is, respecting timelines, re-evaluation and special review.
The Chair: We've already decided, but we'll give it a vote anyway.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: You mean you don't want to respect the timelines?
The Chair: LL-15, is there a mover? I see none.
CA-14, Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This is a long one and I know you're not going to pass it.
The Chair: Why don't you pull it then?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, this is about harmonization and I think it's important that we recognize that we're part of a larger area than just Canada. We have to understand that we trade with many different countries and we are competitive with many different countries, especially in agriculture. I think this respects international standards, and harmonization with those countries is something we should consider.
The Chair: We could get into a big debate about trade and trade law here.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Or you could just pass it.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 67 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 68 to 79 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: We're now on clause 80. We're at NDP-52 on page 217.
½ (1900)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Basically this amendment is similar to the one the PCs had put in but are not moving, which sets out a timeline. This amendment just adds the notion of performance to matters of administration and enforcement as part of the reporting process. So it's performance, administration, and enforcement.
The Chair: It adds the word “performance”. We have a report on the administration and the enforcement of this act, and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis wants to add the word “performance”.
Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, L-12, the amendment that is going to be brought about by Mr. Speller, is going to deal with exactly that, with performance. It's talking about registration of pest control, posing of lower risk, re-evaluations, etc. It lists it a lot better in terms of what the purpose of the act is.
I just think that is going to be saying the same thing. It's about the performance of what they've been doing.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: We're now at L-12. Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much.
I don't think I could have said it any better than the honourable Hedy Fry. I would put this forward to make sure that in fact this report does contain a status report respecting registrations, including registrations conducted within the last year and those that have lower risk.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: Now we're at NDP-53. It's in conflict with L-12, so we can't debate that one.
Next is CA-15. Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This one is requesting an annual report to the Parliament of Canada. It just adds more accountability to this whole area.
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield, we're just making sure it isn't a conflict.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: We're just suggesting that the regulatory agency file annual reports and be more accountable. That's what this is all about.
The Chair: With respect to the objectives established in the corporate business plan?
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes.
Ms. Hedy Fry: It's not a statutory agency. It's within the Department of Health.
The Chair: It's not a corporation either.
Ms. Hedy Fry: It reports to the minister. It's not a statutory agency on its own. So this doesn't apply.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
(Clause 80 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 80.1 agreed to)
(Clauses 81 to 90 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: So this is it. We've done everything.
½ (1905)
Now, I know it's pretty exciting to get to the end of the package, but you'll recall we didn't do the title or the preamble.
Ms. Graham wants to interject something here.
Ms. Geraldine Graham: Madam Chair, Mr. Stapleton told me the research staff informed him there might be an error in the lines of one of the amendments. Is it something we need to correct?
Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Actually, the amendment was to delete three lines. It modifies, I think, clause 42. It's L-10A, an add-on, so it might not be in your package.
The Chair: I wonder if we could do these amendments to the preamble while the witnesses and our own legal staff are looking up this business.
The Clerk of the Committee: Ms. Brown, there's one other thing I wonder if we could do simultaneously. The department has provided us with answers to questions on the main estimates, and I'd just like to distribute them to the members so they'll have them before they leave.
The Chair: Okay. Members, you will be getting some more paper from the clerk because you asked specific questions of the department at the time we had the minister in for the estimates.
In the meantime, members, if we could go to the preamble, you are going to look for the amendment near the front of your package called CA-1, which is on page 2. Mr. Merrifield wants to present the Alliance's first amendment here.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: This in the preamble would suggest there are benefits to different industries in Canada: forestry, agriculture, and other sectors. We need to put that in the preamble if we're going to have a balanced bill. This is why pesticides are here in the first place. They help us become competitive as a nation. It's nothing but common sense to put something like this in the preamble of this bill.
The Chair: Did you want to speak to CA-1, Mr. Speller?
½ (1910)
Mr. Bob Speller: We already have that review in there. I agree with it, but it's already....
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Scherrer: It says “whereas it is recognized that the use of pest control products has been beneficial to human health in many respects...” I would certainly not incorporate these words into the preamble.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.
(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd like a recorded vote on that.
The Chair: You're the only one who voted for it.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I want a recorded vote on it. This is ridiculous.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let's have it.
The Chair: Mr. Merrifield has asked for a recorded vote on CA-1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 1)
The Chair: The next one is PC-2, which is pulled.
Then we have LL-1. Did anybody want to move it? It's the precautionary principle, so we can't do it now. BQ-1 is also the precautionary principle.
PC-3 is gone.
On NDP-1, we've already discussed this. The whole problem was defining how ill is ill and who has environmental disabilities, and we agreed that's too fuzzy. There isn't a normally accepted definition. NDP-1 is out of order.
NDP-2 is all right. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The purpose of this amendment is to encourage alternative strategies and products for pest control. Obviously, we feel this would reduce risk to human health and the environment.
The Chair: Dr. Fry.
Ms. Hedy Fry: The substance of this is good, but why have it replaced? Why not just put it at the end of line 36?
The Chair: So you're suggesting an amendment in the positioning of this.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. I'll accept it as a friendly amendment.
Ms. Hedy Fry: Very friendly, Judy, always friendly.
The Chair: Does it fit grammatically at the end of the line? Does it read smoothly?
Ms. Hedy Fry: Just add the word “and”.
The Chair: Is that all right, Ms. Graham?
Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes.
(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: NDP-3 can't be used because it has the precautionary principle in it.
And that is it. That is every amendment, ladies and gentlemen.
We're not finished yet. We stood clause 2, but we had the debate on the issue that is left there, which was opening up the definitions again.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I have the bill reprinted in the correct form?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the title and the bill carried, and that it will be reported to the House and be reprinted.
You were so great today. Thank you very much. The other thing is, you've saved yourself four hours tomorrow in the heat.
However, if I could speak for one moment to the committee.... Yes, hurray. Thank you to Mr. Bachand in particular.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: He saved us a whole bunch.
Those of you who are regular members of the committee, I wonder if you could put your mind to something for a minute. You'll be aware that AHR passed last night in the House, and that in fact if we were prepared we could start it tomorrow.
This was my plan. My plan was to start it with two questions. One was, do you want to hear witnesses? The second one was to have a look at a comparative chart that would show where the new bill differs from the committee's report. The problem is the chart is not ready for tomorrow, because it's not translated, and the discussion about witnesses I'm not sure about. But I'm wondering if we might--I think it's highly doubtful--get the officials in to introduce the bill. The minister's staff could probably tell us that better than anybody.
You know how we're in a hurry with this bill, at least to get moving on it. Do you think the officials could come and do that first introductory meeting tomorrow? They know the bill inside out.
½ (1915)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's do it next week and get it done.
An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible].
The Chair: Tough work? That's what May and June is here.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let's do the hard work and start the clause-by-clause tomorrow--
The Chair: Let me put it this way. Do you think it's in the minister's interest for us to get started as quickly as possible, and might she nudge them to agree to come at eleven o'clock?
You think maybe.
Okay, can I put everybody on alert? If we can't get this introductory meeting over with tomorrow, there won't be any meeting notice. If we can get some action out of the department to be here.... Okay, there is a notice for a meeting tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, the usual meeting time. If we can't get something organized by then, you will get a notice that it's cancelled.
So about 10:30, would you ask your staff to check their e-mail? You might get a day off. But if you do, you'll probably have to work twice as hard next week, unfortunately.
And would you think about the issue as to whether you want witnesses or whether you feel you've heard enough witnesses on assisted human reproduction? We are going to have to make that decision pretty quickly.
Mr. Speller.
Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to inform you that probably I will be removed from this committee very shortly, and I want to take this opportunity of congratulating you for moving this bill through committee; it was difficult at times. I also want to thank the clerks and the library staff and the witnesses for their help in this committee.
It's been a very challenging time for you, Madam Chair, and I certainly want to congratulate you for the work you did.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.
Thank you also to those people who have been our guests today.
Thank you to Mr. Bigras, and perhaps you can relay our thanks to Mr. Hilstrom and Mr. Herron for assisting us in our deliberations. Of course, my normal thanks go to all my regular members of this committee, who worked so hard and with such generosity. Thank you very much.
Thank you to the witnesses and good luck with your agency, even though it's not an agency.
Thank you to all the regular staff.
Thank you to Ms. Baldwin. Hurray for Ms. Baldwin, who helped us through it.
This meeting is adjourned.