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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 23, 2002

1120

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

The Chair

1125

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC)

The Chair

Mr. St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1130

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

1135

Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health)

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

1140

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.)

1145

The Chair

Mr. Basil Stapleton (Legal Counsel, Legal Operations Sector, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1150

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

1155

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

1200

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Basil Stapleton

The Chair

Mr. Basil Stapleton

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1205

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1210

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Basil Stapleton

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

1215

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health)

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Claire Franklin

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1220

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

1225

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1230

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1235

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

1240

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Herron

Mr. Speller

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Mr. John Herron

1245

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

1250

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1255

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

1300

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 080

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1120)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting is now called to order.

You have a plethora of paper in front of you. The key pile is this thick one you all have. As we explained in the last meeting, we have an experienced legislative clerk assisting us today, Ms. Susan Baldwin.

Ms. Baldwin has been suggesting to me how we might go about getting through these many amendments. She is suggesting that it is normal to do the title and the preamble last. She is also suggesting the list of definitions be done last. This suggestion is to make sure that when we finish this long process, the bill is well synthesized, the definitions fit, the title fits, and the preamble reflects what we have decided to put in the body of the bill.

With your permission, I will follow her suggestion and start with the substance, essentially what is clause 4 of the bill. We're actually going to be starting with clause 3 of the bill, but there are no amendments to it. So the first question before you will be, shall clause 3 carry? I'm just going to give you a minute to make sure you're with us.

Clause 3 is simply the statement that the act is binding on Her Majesty. It's one sentence on page 7 of the bill itself. Have your bill open on page 7 and your amendment package ready on page 42, and I'll ask again.

(Clause 3 agreed to)

The Chair: We'll move on to clause 4, which isn't quite as simple. On page 42 of your package you will see an amendment put forward by the PC's Mr. Bachand. There's a little complication here. I think you'll find this several times.

Mr. Bachand's amendment on page 42 speaks to the same part of clause 4 as does NDP-12 and the Bloc-5. Those three pages, pages 42, 43, and 44, have to be considered together, and you have to decide which one of them you want to have included, if any.

Supposing you decided in favour of Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis's motion. The process would be that you would pass hers and defeat Mr. Bachand's and someone else's.

Now you are looking at page 42.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Madame la présidente, un rappel au Règlement, s'il vous plaît.

Why are we on clause 4? There are a lot of amendments on clause 2 and also on the preamble.

The Chair: I explained that at the beginning. Our legislative clerk, who is highly experienced, suggested to me that we do not do the short title, the preamble, or the definitions at the beginning, even though they fall at the beginning. Rather, we should do them at the end.

She is suggesting the most efficient way to do this is to start with clause 3 and move through and then do those things at the end. That way we can be sure the bill is synthesized, that it makes sense from beginning to end, and that the title, preamble, and definitions reflect the decisions we've made as we've gone through the amendments.

Mr. Bigras.

Á (1125)

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you. I'd like to follow up on the same topic.

I believe you said it would be preferable to study the preamble at the end, but since amendments have been put forward to incorporate the precautionary principle into the preamble, which could have a significant impact on any executory measures to be included in the bill's provisions, I'm wondering if perhaps we shouldn't deal with this right now. In my opinion, this will affect the very spirit of the proposed legislation.

I'm simply asking the committee. Since the aim of the amendments is to incorporate the precautionary principle into the bill, shouldn't we settle this matter immediately?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand wants to comment also.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague Bernard. Several amendments, including these ones in particular, for instance BQ-5 on page 44, refer to the precautionary principle. If we could settle this issue right now and incorporate the precautionary principle into the preamble, we could dispense with several other amendments.

Madam Chair, I can understand your wanting to speed up the proceedings and to have this study go smoothly, but if we could resolve this issue here and now, because it goes to the very heart of the bill and to several of the amendments, I think it would be a positive step forward.

[English]

The Chair: So I have proposed one methodology and we've had a different suggestion from Mr. Bigras, backed by Mr. Bachand.

Is there anybody on this side who would like to comment? Seeing none, I don't know if I can just rule or if I have to have a motion to proceed one way or another.

Mr. Bigras, the legislative clerk is suggesting to me that the precautionary principle arises in a substantive way in several places in the bill and in these amendments, and she's suggesting that we do it in the substantive form and do the formal definition in the list of definitions at the end. So her position is the same.

I think I need some kind of a motion to proceed one way or the other.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): I move we proceed, starting with clause 4.

The Chair: Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Are there any comments?

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Chair, I'd like someone to explain one of the problems to me. Many terms are not defined at the outset and because we have not agreed on the definitions, there are bound to be problems. Accordingly, I think it's very important for us to agree on the terminology we are going to use, so that we are clear on the direction we want to take with this bill.

If we do not incorporate the precautionary principle into the preamble, we'll have to come back to it in the case of each and every amendment. Personally, I think it would be preferable to incorporate it into the preamble and to agree on some definitions, for the sake of clarity.

I propose that we proceed in this fashion, unless someone is able to convince me that this approach would be illogical.

[English]

The Chair: Will you speak again to this, Mr. Bigras?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes. I understand that my colleague Mr. St. Denis has tabled a motion. I don't know if we will need to vote on his motion, but I fully agree with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. Some definitions will clearly have an impact on the provisions. I think we need to deal with the preamble first, and then move on to the definitions.

The clerk has stated that the precautionary principle is not a substantive component of this bill. I'm sorry, but we've attended these hearings and we know that the precautionary principle is mentioned only once in the bill, specifically in clause 20, and that it is not referred to in the preamble. To my mind, that is something of a paradox.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary. Let's start by discussing the preamble, followed by the definitions. Then we can move on to the bill's other clauses.

Á (1130)

[English]

The Chair: According to the standing orders, we have to delay the title and the preamble to the end, but we could do the definitions, if people would be more comfortable with that. So what do you think?

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I think we should do as the chair has suggested.

The Chair: To start with clause 4 is the motion on the floor. Mr. Herron wants to speak to that motion.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): The point I would like to raise is that there's a sentiment among a lot of members on definitions to the effect that we do want to enshrine something like the precautionary principle throughout, to operationalize it in the act. I think it would be extremely helpful for members to actually know what definition we're in fact enshrining or not enshrining in a particular act. I think it would be more prudent to have that definition up front.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Seeing no further speakers, I'll go to Mr. Bigras again.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Could somebody tell me where it says we must settle the matter of the preamble and of the bill's title at the end? Is there some standing order that says we must proceed in that manner, or can the committee proceed in whatever order it wishes?

[English]

The Chair: I understand it's in the standing orders.

We do have a motion on the floor put by Mr. St. Denis to begin with clause 4, as we have already done. Ms. Sgro wants to comment on that.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Hold on just a second, please. I'll just withdraw it.

The Chair: Mr. St. Denis is withdrawing his motion.

Could I have a show of hands of those people who would be more comfortable starting with the definitions?

It is not a majority, but those people who didn't vote have indicated to me they don't really care one way or the other.

(On clause 2--Definitions)

The Chair: In order to keep the family happy, let us move to page 10 of your large package. There you will see PC-4, followed on the next page by NDP-4, followed by LL-2. Then there is a fourth one here called L-1 that has an impact, and it's on page 40. Perhaps the witnesses at the end of the table would tell us why they're proposing to put this in a different place in the bill as opposed to where it was originally.

Á (1135)

Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): Actually, it's because of a discussion we had with the drafters in the Department of Justice. They felt that in this case it wasn't really properly considered a definition but more an interpretation of the term “acceptable” in relation to health and environmental risks, so we put it as a new subclause.

The Chair: However, it is defined in the original bill.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: No, it isn't.

The Chair: I see. It isn't defined at all, and it is being suggested that it be defined.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Another point is that the term “acceptable risk” itself, the two words together, is not used in the bill. That was another reason it isn't really, properly, a definition. We use “health risks” and “environmental risks” and say whether they're acceptable or not, but that term as such is not used.

The Chair: Yes, but it's obvious that some of the members of the committee want it in and want it in the definitions section.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: It's still part of the interpretation, but it's just subsection 2(2).

The Chair: Would Mr. Bachand like to speak to his amendment and tell us why he put that forward?

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Of course we're very pleased to see that pressure is being exerted by a number of parties to incorporate the element of acceptable risk. Clearly, that should be included in the definitions.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, if I may continue with what my colleague was saying, the reason why “acceptable risk” has a definition, and why other parties have gone down that route as well to utilize a similar language, is that throughout the bill itself there's terminology in reference to “unacceptable risk”. Therefore, it provides clarity to that specific point, and I think it's quite salient as to why we should have a definition of that nature.

The Chair: Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): I wanted to argue the exact opposite, Madam Chair. I was thinking that to define something that is not actually used is very confusing, so why would we define acceptable risk when we don't ever use the term “acceptable risk” within the bill itself? To define something that isn't there actually becomes a bit of a red herring.

I think we can get that concept of what you refer to without using a definition and causing confusion by in fact moving L-1, which would basically be to talk about, for the purpose of this act, the health and environmental risks of a pest control, so you're discussing acceptable risk without actually defining it. People are going to start looking for it in the bill, and you can't define something that isn't there.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Forgive me if I made a mistake, Madam Chairperson, but I believe that although the term “acceptable risk” may not actually appear in the bill, the word “acceptable” certainly does many times in reference to products, in reference to actions, in reference to risk. So it's the use of both of those terms, “acceptable” and “risk”, that do appear in the bill and therefore it does beg for a definition.

The Chair: So you have four to consider; three of them are almost identical and there is a fourth one that Ms. Fry spoke in favour of that goes about it in a slightly different way.

Ms. Hedy Fry: They are not the same. There is something extra in our statement that talks about taking into account conditions or proposed conditions of registration, which is not in the others, and that's an important component.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: There are two points that I'd like to add on this particular aspect. One is that there's an augmented scientific capacity to this particular definition because the language that is utilized refers to a preponderance of evidence, which means critical mass of evidence, as opposed to merely the opinion of a minister, or something of the like. So it actually tries to enshrine more science in the aspect of the act itself.

The second thing, which is critical, is that a pillar of this act has to be protection of human health. If we utilize the terminology of “unacceptable risk”, we need to be able to show confidence to Canadians in what we deem to be an “acceptable risk,” and that's why not only we but other parties have advocated such an amendment. This amendment is also supported by the Canadian Public Health Association, so it's the learned opinion of health professionals as well.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Leaving aside L-1, we're looking at three amendments that contain the words “acceptable risk”. There is the Conservative amendment, which is different from the other two only because it doesn't use the words “future generations”. The NDP amendment and the Liberal amendment are identical. Is that not correct? If that is the case, then I would suggest that perhaps the Conservatives might like to withdraw their amendment and we'll vote on the one that is the most complete and comprehensive.

Mr. André Bachand: And it's which one?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Either NDP-4 or Liberal-2. So yours comes first... it's great, except it makes no reference to “future generations”. The next two are just a little more comprehensive.

The Chair: Numbers 11 and 12 are identical and they're a little longer than 10, so she's asking if Mr. Bachand would pull his back in favour of the longer version, which includes “future generations”.

Would you consider that, Mr. Bachand?

Mr. André Bachand: No.

The Chair: We've pulled back page 10, PC-4. You're now looking at NDP-4, which is identical to LL-2.

Yes, Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Madam Chair, I understand the issues in this. I wonder if I may be able to have Mr. Stapleton give me a view on the differences between the Liberal amendment on page 40 and the NDP one on page 11.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Mr. Stapleton, would you like to respond to that question?

Mr. Basil Stapleton (Legal Counsel, Legal Operations Sector, Department of Justice): I will in part, Madam Chair, but there are science aspects of this as well, which I am really not competent to comment upon.

To come back to the original explanation as to why we are proposing an amendment--a new subsection (2) rather than a definition--it is more than just form, I think. The drafters had a particular concern about defining a term not actually used in the act. This is opposed to the approach recommended here of indicating that in relation to a risk, “acceptable” means--and of course the alternative to that is unacceptable, and we don't need another provision to that effect... But in terms of its substance, the approach is really quite different from the definitions that are being proposed in a number of respects.

First of all, although it doesn't refer to the science that goes into the determination, clearly the substance of the act itself in those provisions that deal with how risk assessments are made make it very clear that it is a science-based approach. There is no scope for the minister to arrive at a determination of acceptability of risk except through the evaluation of the science.

If you look at the standard applied and reflected in the proposed subsection (2), it really is a very high. The minister has to determine that there is reasonable likelihood of there being no harm.

But the standard also requires that the minister take into account the proposed conditions of registration because, as we discussed last time, registration decisions are made in relation to proposed uses of a product. One cannot adequately evaluate the risks associated with a product without taking into account how the product is proposed to be used and whether in fact it is possible to impose conditions on that use that will prevent the risk of harm.

So to eliminate from the definition any reference to the conditions of registration is actually to require the minister to take an approach that is only halfway towards the goal that has to be attained. You really cannot assess the acceptability of the risks except in the context of the proposed use, which obviously involves the conditions of use, the restrictions placed on the use, the label requirements, and so on.

That is why we think the proposal we have to add a subsection (2) is more relevant--more accurate in fact--and provides as high a level of protection to health and the environment as possible, short of an outright ban on all pesticide use.

There may be something on the science side that officials would like to add.

The Chair: So we're weighing the merits of NDP-4, LL-2, and L-1 later in the bill.

Would anyone else like to comment on those? You are going to have to pick one of them to support--or none.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, I'll get right to the point. I admit that I would rather deal with NDP-4, because it includes the notion of “future generations”. If we work on this amendment, I will likely move a sub-amendment to replace these words with the word “children”. Allow me to explain why.

Several of the groups that testified before the committee stressed the importance of tests aimed at assessing risk in terms of childhood learning disabilities. Therefore, to the extent that the tests to assess risk were directly associated with future generations, and more specifically with children, I think we would achieve our objectives by taking this action, particularly as a European Commission clearly stated in February 2000 that risks and parameters should be assessed on the basis of the impact on children. Therefore, I would rather we focus on NDP-4, Madam Chair.

Á (1150)

[English]

The Chair: Are you moving NDP-4?

Ms. Judi Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has just moved NDP-4. It is now on the table.

Mr. Bigras has suggested a subamendment. Is your subamendment that we add the word “children”, and if so, where? Mr. Bigras, where do you want to add the word “children”?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I move that amendment NDP-4 to Bill C-53 in clause 2 read as follows:

“acceptable risk” means that a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that there is very low likelihood of harm to human health, particularly to children, or the environment.”

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to drop “future generations”? It's not the same thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, I want to replace the words “future generations”.

[English]

The Chair: Do we really have to comment about every word, Mr. Herron? This is about the word “children”.

Mr. John Herron: I'm not talking about that.

The Chair: This is what's on the floor right now. It's a subamendment that replaces the words “future generations” with “children”.

Mr. Herron, what is it you want to say about this subamendment?

Mr. John Herron: I think you could blend these two amendments. The issue is the preponderance of evidence. I think you could insert the first sentence of the aspect that Ms. Wasylycia-Leis wants to add and inject that into the second part of amendment L-1.

The Chair: Amendment NDP-4 is on the floor. We have a subamendment that replaces the words “future generations” with “children”. In order to get this moving, I'm going to call the question right now.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll now vote on NDP-4.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Would you agree with me that LL-2 was sufficiently similar that it was lost at the same time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We have L-1, which speaks to the same thing, and I think Mr. Herron wants to speak to it.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I'll move that amendment.

The Chair: We should get it on the floor. Sorry, Ms. Fry. Thank you. That amendment is now on the floor. Mr. Herron wants to comment.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, the issue we were trying to utilize in the definition that was just lost was the aspect of trying to ratchet up the science and provide more certainty. So I'd like to replace the words “reasonable certainty” with the words “preponderance of evidence”. But I can't move it.

The Chair: I was just going to say that.

Do you move that amendment, Mr. Bachand?

Mr. André Bachand: Oui.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand wants to amend L-1 by replacing “reasonable certainty” with “preponderance of evidence”. Does anyone want to comment on that suggestion? Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I would like to stick with the term “reasonable certainty”. I would also like to add an amendment to this motion.

The Chair: We have one subamendment on the floor.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I'll speak to that one then. I think the term “reasonable certainty” gives you far more room to manoeuvre. Everyone loves to believe in hard science. The point is that you may not have any preponderance of evidence today that proves something could harm someone down the road. It may only turn up 20 years from now. But if you use “reasonable certainty”, it means that some people may already be beginning to question it, and that gives you a lot more room to manoeuvre. The term “reasonable certainty” gives you that ability to move further within that, as opposed to simply depending on very hard science.

Mr. John Herron: I couldn't agree more with Madam Fry, except that I believe “preponderance of evidence” means a critical mass. It's heading in that exact same direction. I think “reasonable certainty” is a type of threshold. I'd like to seek guidance from the clerk in terms of whether there is a difference in definition between “preponderance of evidence” and “reasonable certainty”.

Á (1155)

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): It's a difficult one to call, if you ask me. I think it would probably be better to get the opinion of a scientist to see what the difference is, exactly where the bar lies, whether it's “reasonable certainty” or “preponderance of evidence”. I don't think it's that evident.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): In considering both of those phrases, it seems to me that the “preponderance of evidence” points to the science, whereas “reasonable certainty” is opinion. That the minister or staff could decide with “reasonable certainty” is based on opinion, whereas the “preponderance of evidence” points to some mass of data.

So I think I would support the use of “preponderance of evidence” in amendment NDP-4.

The Chair: Ms. Graham, could you comment on that? I think what we're trying to find out is which phrase sets the bar higher.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: In my opinion, “reasonable certainty” sets it higher because you have to be able to say you are reasonably certain that there will be no harm. Other provisions in the bill make sure it is done with the science approach, so I think that's a separate issue.

“Preponderance of evidence” seems to be a very loose term. “Reasonable certainty” is also used in other countries in legal documents, and it is the working definition in practice.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other questions on that? If not, I'll call the question. You will recall that it is the insertion of the words “preponderance of evidence” in amendment L-1.

(Subamendment negatived)

The Chair: We still have amendment L-1 on the floor. Seeing no further subamendments, would anyone like to comment on amendment L-1? If not, I'll call the question.

Do you want to speak to it?

Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes, Madam Chair.

I just want to look at the question in amendment NDP-4 and add “future generations”, so that it reads “that no harm to human health, future generations, or the environment will result”. I think “future generations” is a stronger word than “children”. “Future generations” includes a pregnant woman as well.

The Chair: Ms. Fry has proposed a subamendment--that is, the addition of the words “future generations” after “human health”. Are there any comments?

(Subamendment agreed to)

The Chair: You're now looking at amendment L-1, as amended.

Did you want to comment on that amendment?

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Yes. This is an amendment that they see should be in “Definitions”, and I really question whether it should be there. I don't see the need, although it's not that I'm necessarily against it; it's just that there are a lot of these amendments that are going to come up this way.

The Chair: I'm calling the question on amendment L-1.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: We now move on to page 13 of your package of amendments. We're looking at amendment NDP-5, which I don't think conflicts with any others.

Â (1200)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, it's a separate one. It's its own little self.

The Chair: What is the purpose of this? Perhaps Ms. Wasylycia-Leis would like to explain why she wants to put this in.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia Leis: I'm moving that--

The Chair: Move it and explain it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll move it and explain it. It's a concern that we heard throughout the hearings on this bill. It reflects the belief that the PMRA should actually be referenced in the act and defined in the act. Currently there is no reference at all to this agency, which in fact will execute much of the work of the act.

So it's my belief that since it is the PMRA that will actually manage the regulation of the pesticides in Canada, the act should reference the power of the PMRA and do it as one way to hold government accountable.

The Chair: She wants to add the definition just to be clear about which agency we're speaking of.

Is that right? Okay.

Are there any other comments on amendment NDP-5?

Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Could Mr. Stapleton tell us if there's a problem?

[English]

Mr. Basil Stapleton: It's problematic in a number of respects. First of all, it presupposes that the agency actually exists in law, which it doesn't.

The Chair: But wouldn't it if this amendment carried?

Mr. Basil Stapleton: No.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Basil Stapleton: This wouldn't create an agency. It would simply define the term. The group of health officials who actually administer the act in the minister's name are known collectively as the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. But in fact they are not a separate entity from the Department of Health. They are just like the therapeutic products branch, for example. They're like any other branch of the Department of Health that has responsibility for administering an act under the Minister of Health. They have no separate existence; they have no separate mandate. They are simply the people who--

The Chair: Are assigned.

Mr. Basil Stapleton: —do the work. The people are assigned duties that relate to the administration of the act. As a matter of convenience, they're called an agency. They could be called the pest management section--

The Chair: Branch.

Mr. Basil Stapleton: —the pest management directorate, whatever. So to define the term and to appear to give it a legal existence, a corporate existence, I think would be quite misleading, and it really wouldn't serve any purpose in any event because it's the minister who has the responsibility, it's the minister who administers the act, and the officials in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency simply exercise authority under the Interpretation Act, the same as any other public official administering legislation.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm glad Madame Scherrer asked that question, because we would be talking about something that doesn't really exist in the normal understanding of the term “agency”.

So can we call the question?

Did you want to speak again, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate the point made. However, it's through this bill that in fact we're trying to ensure more accountability and recognition of the role that the PMRA plays, and to address the frustration that I think we've all felt with this process, that we're not really getting access to information and able to hold the government to account.

I want to point out to the committee that in order to deal with the consistency throughout the act, later on we will propose an amendment that's on page 43, which actually replaces the word “Minister” with the PMRA, so that it would be clearly reflected within the act that decisions are being made by the PMRA. It doesn't take away any authority of the minister--that's still a given--but I think it's one way to deal with a critical matter before us today.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

I'll now call the question on NDP-5 on page 13.

(Amendment negatived)

Â (1205)

The Chair: Would anybody like to move LL-3?

Mr. Bob Speller: I so move.

The Chair: You're moving LL-3?

Mr. Bob Speller: Yes. What page is it on, by the way?

The Chair: It's on page 14. Would anybody like to speak to LL-3?

Mr. Bob Speller: Is it LL-2?

The Chair: No. We're on LL-3 on page 14.

Mr. Bob Speller: No, I'm not moving that, because I don't know whose it is.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's ours.

The Chair: Is there anyone who would like to move LL-3, which is before you on page 14?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I so move.

The Chair: Would you like to speak to it, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Certainly.

The questions before us today are to ensure the greatest regulatory approach imaginable. We heard over and over again throughout the hearings about the consequences not only of immediate exposure but aggregate exposure, the cumulative effects of pesticides in human beings and in the environment. So I think it's important that we actually reference the term, define it, and see it as a useful tool.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Amendment LL-3 is now on the table. If there are no further speakers, I will call the question.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're now on page 15, amendment BQ-2. This is another one where there are several suggestions about this section. Amendment BQ-2 is not in conflict with but it speaks to the same lines as PC-5, which is on the next page. You have to understand that if you pass BQ-2, you eliminate PC-5.

Mr. Bigras, would you like to move and speak to BQ-2?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, I move that Bill C-53 be amended by replacing lines 30 to 33 on page 4. At present, the bill contains a reference to the Access to Information Act regime. We feel the definition of “confidential business information“ should be amended so as to apply solely to the following information:

Information that would be truly prejudicial to the financial or competitive interests of the person to whom it belongs.

Some caution is warranted when information is conveyed. We simply want to make that clear.

On page 4 of the bill...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, can you just give me a summary? Are you promoting greater disclosure of business information, more transparency, or less?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, pursuant to the Access to Information Act, certain documents of a very specific nature may be disclosed. Therefore, we want it to be clearly stated that this information should not be “prejudicial to the financial or competitive interests of the person to whom it belongs.”

Â (1210)

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I'd like to hear Mr. Stapleton's views on the proposed amendment. I'm trying to understand what this would mean in terms of the bill's current provisions. Would you care to comment?

[English]

Mr. Basil Stapleton: Yes, the information that's referred to here is what's called third-party information that is protected under the Access to Information Act, and that does include financial and commercial information if the disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the interests of the party. If that information is requested under the Access to Information Act, the third party who provided it or to whom it relates has the opportunity to provide information to the minister as to the prejudicial effect the disclosure would have on the party. If in fact the third party succeeds in meeting the criteria that apply under the Access to Information Act, then of course the information is not to be disclosed.

To remove the Access to Information Act reference and to substitute “is truly prejudicial”... I'm not really sure what “truly prejudicial” means. The third party has to establish or has to meet the criteria under the Access to Information Act in order to protect the information from disclosure anyway. In my view, that means the third party would have to establish that it would be truly prejudicial to disclose the information.

So I don't know what would actually be accomplished by substituting this. In fact, it is not the intention here to depart from the normal protections that are provided by the Access to Information Act, in any event.

Ms. Graham has some additional observations, I think.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: I believe the amendment proposed would also delete reference to subclauses 43(4) and 43(5), which we have put in there explicitly to limit the amount that can be protected. So I think this amendment would have the effect of making it less transparent, rather than more.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Amendment PC-5 is on the next page. It changes the words “four or five” to “four and five”.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is PC-6, on page 17.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: We withdraw the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: PC-6 is being withdrawn. We're always grateful for small favours.

PC-7, on cumulative exposure, is on page 18. It is identical to LL-4, so since there's no one to sponsor LL-4, I'll ask Mr. Bachand to move PC-7.

Mr. André Bachand: I so move.

The Chair: Would you like to speak to it?

Mr. André Bachand: Yes.

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, it's important to stress in the bill that when different products are combined, additional danger can ensue. We propose the addition of the following definition:

“cumulative exposure” means exposure to more than one substance with a common mechanism of toxic action.

Let me give you an example. Take Javex and ammonia. There's no problem when these two substances are used separately. However, when combined, they produce an explosive, toxic mix.

We want the bill to focus not only on one substance, but on the effect of combining two or more substances. Hence our reason for moving this amendment.

Â (1215)

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Does the term appear in the bill?

The Chair: Does the term “cumulative exposure” appear in the bill?

Ms. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): If I may comment, the term “cumulative effects” appears in the bill. It's correct to use the term “effects” when we're talking about the mechanism of action. Exposure and mechanism--that's not an appropriate thing, but it is in there. This particular one, as exposure, is not in the bill, so it would not need a definition for that. But “cumulative effects” is on page 14.

Mr. John Herron: Is there a definition for cumulative effect?

Ms. Claire Franklin: No, because it's in as a statement under clause 11.

Mr. John Herron: Perhaps we could help you get one, then.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: The way it's worded it actually says, “that have a common mechanism of toxicity”, so there's no need to define it. It's all there; it's self-evident.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll now move to page 20, ladies and gentlemen, on PC-8, which has to do with the definition of a formulant.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's similar to my amendment.

The Chair: They're pretty close; not identical. Would you look at both of them so you can decide if you want them, and if so, which one you want?

The word “formulant” is in the bill.

Mr. Bachand, would you like to move this?

Mr. André Bachand: Yes, please, and Mr. John Herron will probably want to speak.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Madam Chair, when the environment committee spent nearly a calendar year reviewing the pesticides permit process we have in the country, the aspect of formulants was really one of the most critical aspects that we discussed, and there had to be more clarity in terms of us knowing the toxicity of formulants themselves.

As you know, throughout this act the term “formulants” is used extensively. Given that the term is used extensively, it would only be prudent for us to have a set definition. It really does in fact follow what we voted on and approved just moments ago in a previous amendment. So that's the purpose of moving this definition of formulant.

When you talk about the controversial issues in pesticides administration in Canada, the top four or five issues, the word “formulant” comes in, and this is why we have it here.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Did you want to comment on this, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I want to support it strongly. It's similar to the one I proposed on the next page.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Yes, we pointed that out.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to make the case to colleagues that this is a very important addition to the bill. We heard many presenters raise the whole issue of the need to include a definition of “formulants” because of their toxicity, and I think they use the word “synergistic” nature. To me, this is fundamental to the bill.

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We need it in terms of greater transparency and public accountability. We need it in terms of fitting it in with, as we go on through the bill, the following definition of “confidential business information”. We need it because it's imperative that we have some way to have public disclosure of formulants, which are complex by their nature.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, these two definitions are similar. What do our scientific experts have to say about this? How important are they to this bill? I'd like to hear your opinion, since I'm looking at two definitions.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Graham.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: I'll just make a couple of comments. The term “formulant” is actually only used in one spot in the bill and it's the marginal note on page 33 where we are talking about the confidential business information. We describe formulants there as the components that are other than the active ingredient. That really is the most comprehensive way of referring to them. When you start to try to put a lot of words around it, you risk narrowing the definition.

But the other comment I wanted to make is that our definition of “pest control product” is very broad. It means the product. It means everything that is in the product, and so when we say “product” throughout the bill, we are talking about the product and everything that's in it. This means you have to evaluate everything to do with that product and all the components in it. So in my view, it's better not to start trying to put a specific definition in, because you risk narrowing it rather than making it broader.

The Chair: I'll ask a question on that. You used the words, “you have to evaluate” everything in it, which means that the scientists who are, say, preparing for registration have to evaluate. But do you also have to disclose to the public what you found out was in it?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: The disclosure is dealt with in subclause 43(5), and when we get there we can discuss that. What is in the bill now means you have to disclose the components that are of toxicological concern, and those would be listed on a list.

The Chair: But not all the elements of the formula?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes. If one wanted to change that, it would need to be done in clause 43.

The Chair: The order is Mr. Bigras, then Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, while the two definitions are similar, amendment PC-8 does not contain the word “adjuvant”.

Ms. Graham, how would you feel about incorporating the word “adjuvant” into this definition? What impact would this have, if a definition of the word “formulant“ was provided?

[English]

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Adjuvants are a type of component that could be in a product. The components other than the active ingredient in a product have many functions. The names used to describe those functions make for a long list. You risk leaving one out if you try to define them. But if you define the pest control product as the whole product, no matter what is in it, then you've covered everything.

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Where in the bill is the word “formulant” defined?

[English]

Ms. Geraldine Graham: It's not defined. It's only the definition of pest control products that includes everything.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: I understand, but on which page, and in which clause?

[English]

Ms. Geraldine Graham: It's used in a marginal note on page 33. That's the only place in the bill where the word is used.

The Chair: I don't mind taking some time over this issue. As Mr. Herron points out--and I think so too--this is one of the substantive political issues in this bill. I am trying to understand what this is about.

Â (1225)

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, we're not excluding anything. Both our amendment and that of the NDP include the wording “or other components”. Therefore, we're not excluding anything. There's no danger of that happening. On the contrary, a detailed definition would prevent us from excluding certain substances.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand, the question is not which one of these two we use. The issue is whether we think the word “formulant”, which is not used extensively in the bill, only in a side note, is sufficiently important to have in the list of definitions. That's the issue, not which amendment, NDP or PC.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: That's what I was doing, Madam Chair. Two of the amendments suggest a definition of the word “formulant”. I'm talking about the substantive form of the amendment. Nothing is excluded. On the contrary, we prefer a far more comprehensive amendment to explain clause 43 which comes later in the bill. There is no danger of forgetting anything. Several witnesses raised some concerns about solvents, thinners and so forth. Therefore, we've included “or other components” to cover all the bases. We simply want to be certain that this definition is incorporated into the bill. It doesn't detract from any other provision.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to add something to that.

[English]

There are amendments coming up that we're going to be debating. The word “formulant” is going to appear on numerous occasions. If we know that this definition is very broad and not narrow in scope, as my learned colleague has just outlined, if it won't do any harm and might actually do some good to have a definition in place, I think it's worthy of committee members' support.

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Inasmuch as the term “formulant” is used, it's not defined as extensively on page 33. It's not covered on page 6 under the definition of a pest control product. It doesn't really expand on the formulant to the same degree. I think the inclusion of the word “formulant” as described in PC-8 is quite useful.

I would suggest that this is a useful addition to the definitions and we should support it.

The Chair: I'm wondering whether to call the question now. Suppose it's defeated and then you pass an amendment that uses the word, or vice versa. Suppose you pass it and you don't pass the amendments that use the word. I'm wondering if we should set it aside.

Mr. James Lunney: Let's pass it. What's the hang-up about passing it?

The Chair: Do you want me to call the question?

An hon. member: Is there opposition around the table? I'm not hearing any.

The Chair: I'm having a question because I'm hearing all proponents of this definition. I didn't hear anybody speak against it.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I would follow your recommendation on this one. I believe there are still some questions on this side that are not clear, and we're trying to understand better. If we come to it later, we'll have more understanding, and I believe we'll have a better chance to arrive at a conclusion.

The Chair: Is it agreeable to the committee that we set this aside until we get to the first amendment that uses the word “formulant”?

Judy, did you want to comment on the idea of setting it aside?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Anything to make sure that we don't lose the possibility is fine with me.

I just want to say two things. One, it would also set aside my amendment on page 21, and if we lose one, I'd still like to have another chance at it. I'd also like to point out that in a few more amendments from this one we'll be dealing with one that does include the word “formulant”, so it's coming up very quickly.

Â (1230)

The Chair: We're going to set aside PC-8 and NDP-6.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're now on page 22, looking at PC-9, which is about “harm”, “harmful”, and “harmfulness”. Mr. Bachand, would you like to move that?

Mr. André Bachand: Of course.

The Chair: Before Mr. Bachand begins to talk, PC-9 and NDP-7 are on the same point. I'd like you to examine both of them and decide if you want them. If so, which one do you want?

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, in the case of two or more amendments pertaining to the same subject, without referring to any one amendment in particular, we can discuss underlying principles to determine whether or not we agree.

I think we all agree on incorporating a definition of “harm”, “harmful” and “harmfulness”. This does not detract in any way from any of the bill's other provisions and in fact it makes the bill much clearer. If we agree on this, for the sake of cooperation, we can decide either to go with our amendment, or with the NDP's proposal.

A definition provides added direction for applying the bill's provisions.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I certainly support the inclusion in the bill of a definition of harm, harmful, and harmfulness. I would suggest to my colleague from the Conservatives that the second one we'll be dealing with is a little more comprehensive, but it's very important that we have something in the bill that specifically defines these concepts.

I think we're all searching for ways to be very specific, very concrete, and very precise throughout this bill because it is so open to the possibilities of interpretation. Everybody who came before us asked for this. They wanted to be sure they could always access information according to their concerns, and the more detail we give the better. It is important to list toxicity. We heard a lot about endocrine disrupters, reproductive impacts, neurotoxicity, and so on, all terms that can be spelled out and dealt with in regulations.

I don't know if we need to get hung up on the fact that they're not defined here; we can deal with that later. I think for the sake of this broad issue...this is fundamental to the bill itself.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: What in effect is the difference between “harm”, “harmful”, and “harmfulness” and “environmental risk” as defined here and “health risk” as defined here? The whole concept of a harm to human health includes toxicity, endocrine disruption, modulation, carcinogens. All that is included in “harm to human health”.

An hon. member: Where? In the bill?

Ms. Hedy Fry: In the bill, on page 5, under the definitions of “health risk” and “environmental risk”. What you're doing by adding “harm”, “harmfulness”, and “harmful” is really repeating what those two say separately. What you're also doing, which concerns me, is giving equal weight to human health and the environment, which I think is a very difficult and slippery-slope thing to do. You've said here “without limiting the generality”--oh, sorry, it's on the PC one that you have added “giving equal weight to health and the environment”.

I'm suggesting this is redundant because “harm to human health” means all the things you've listed here and more. I think the problem of going ahead with a list is that you miss something out anyway.

I would like to ask for Ms. Graham's comment on my question.

Â (1235)

Ms. Geraldine Graham: As far as the last point goes, it's true that you may have “without limiting the generality”, but there is a danger when you have a list like this for it to become almost an exclusive list.

Mr. John Herron: Are you talking about the PC one or the NDP?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: The NDP.

The way “health risk” is defined, now that we've added the definition or the interpretation of acceptable risks, I think it's really all there.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis wants to respond.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We have to deal with this amendment now because we're going to keep hearing time and time again that if we list things in the bill, we run the danger of limiting action to those listed items. I think that's a fallacious argument. In each case we're listing without limiting. We're putting in examples because it means something to human health.

It's very important to be specific because we don't have anywhere in this legislation the enunciation of the term “endocrine disrupters”. That's not always recognized in every part of the scientific and medical community. It is still something that is, by certain interests, treated as invisible. I think we have to be very clear. If we're talking about some new and emerging reactions to toxicity as a result of pesticides, we'd better be sure we do whatever we can in this bill, which is supposed to be pioneering and setting the way for the next 30 years.

The Chair: Are there any other comments to this?

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I believe Ms. Fry covered this subject when she talked about the definition of “environmental risk” and “health risk”. I think you should call the vote on the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers... First of all, let me point out that I asked the clerk why the PC amendment, which is close to the NDP amendment, always comes first. This is the advantage of having your amendments in early. If you have your amendments in earlier, that's where they come in the order of sequence, if things are similar. I didn't know that, and maybe you didn't either.

Because PC-9 is here, we have to vote on it first. PC-9 has been moved by Mr. Bachand. It's on the floor.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I just have a word of caution on this amendment. I would agree with what has been said. I think it's already in the bill. But if you're considering passing this, you're talking about the potential of a negative effect. Well, that's pretty loose, and it could be used as quite a weapon. So I would caution us in using it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Seeing no further hands, I'm going to call the question.

Oh, the mover has the chance.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, even though we submitted our amendments before the NDP, if the committee has no objections, we could vote first on NDP-7 given that it is a very complete amendment. We could then turn our attention to the PC amendment, if the chair agreed.

[English]

The Chair: The next time we have a grouping, I will ask if you'd like to give Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis first crack at it. This time your amendment has been moved and is on the floor, so we'll vote on it. Those in favour of PC-9, raise your hands.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll move on to NDP-7. Is there any more comment on this idea of defining harm, harmfulness, etc.? Seeing none, I'll call the question. I wish you'd put your hands up clearly, because it's really difficult.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're on CA-2. The legislative clerk is advising us that this amendment is essentially out of order. It is beyond the scope of the bill, as well as being quite a change to the interpretation clause. It contradicts the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading; therefore it's inadmissible.

Â (1240)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd like an explanation of that from them, if that's what they're saying.

The Chair: No, it's the people at this end of the table.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay, I would like an explanation from this end of the table, because I don't think that's very valid. The minor use is something that has been talked about by many of our witnesses, and this just puts some definitions into it.

I think what we should do with this, Madam Chair, is put it off for now, as we did with the other one, PC-8, and wait to see what kinds of amendments are able to pass in the bill later. That would determine whether we need a definition or not. Is that fair enough?

The Chair: It's definitely out of order. The clerk tells me she and her superior had a discussion particularly about this.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Who's her superior?

The Chair: It was with one of the table officers of the House, because it concerned her.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: In relation to the preamble of the bill, I would argue that point.

The Chair: I don't think you get a chance to argue.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I just did.

The Chair: I've ruled according to what they've told me. Amendment CA-2 is out of order. That makes it easy.

Because CA-3, CA-7, and CA-8 are consequential, they are also inadmissible. They're not next anyway.

PC-10, on page 26 is the next thing. It is actually the use of these numbers that is one of the main things that puts it out of order. Mr. Bachand, I'm sorry, PC-10 is also out of order for the same reason: because of the use of those very clear numbers of cumulative hectares.

Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Chair, just to let members know, I have an amendment later on, which actually, I believe, is in order, that moves this to the regulations. It's a lot more flexible in the regulations. You can change it in the regulations; if you have it in the legislation, it's going to be a lot more difficult to deal with. We do deal with it later on, and I believe it's in order, given that I haven't been told it isn't. So it will come.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Can we have a ruling in writing?

Mr. John Herron: There is a second lifeboat.

Mr. Bob Speller: There is a second lifeboat. We see the importance of making sure we--

The Chair: Yes, it's not that they want to ignore minor use; it's the way this is written out.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: As long as we have an explanation in writing, then we can go through it.

The Chair: Yes.

We have now PC-11, which I don't really understand. Would you like to move it, Mr. Bachand, and explain it, please?

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: It would be my pleasure, Madam Chair.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: I think we just had this debate not so long ago. It's the same debate--le même débat; the same subject.

Â (1245)

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: It's simply a matter of incorporating formulants and active ingredients and of including a much more detailed definition of these substances. We discussed this when we considered another amendment.

[English]

The Chair: This is the first time it has been proposed to include the word “formulant” in a clause of the bill. Who will tell us if in fact we want to have that definition? I'll ask Mr. Herron, who seems to have the history of this idea, to perhaps be a little clearer. Why do you think it isn't in the bill, and why would you like to see it in the bill?

Mr. John Herron: One reason is the all-party committee on the environment. When we reviewed pest management in the country, really, one of the most crucial issues was the assurance of protection of human health. We wanted a requirement to not just always speak about the active ingredients but also the formulants, which quite often have a potentially more detrimental effect on human health and the environment. It's really what all the health professionals have always argued, and they want to enshrine the capacity of the Government of Canada to provide that information when appropriate.

The fact that we know this term so well really does speak to the point that this has been one of the more crucial issues. There's a lot of flexibility right here. It speaks specifically to the active ingredients and the formulants.

The Chair: Why do you think it isn't in the bill?

Mr. John Herron: There could be an argument made by officials--and I know they're about to leap in to say, “It's there!” This comes down to...I'll use the Gar Knutson approach on amendments. The Gar Knutson approach would be, if it's already there, then what's wrong with actually saying it?

It's that “active ingredient” and “formulant” speak to that particular point. If it won't do any harm, it might do some good. Let's include it, and let's move forward in this particular direction. It really does speak to the very point of ten months of work of the environment committee.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: If I could get an answer to my question, then I could wrap up, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I just wanted to say that what you say makes sense, but I would really like to hear from Ms. Graham on whether there is a reason this could cause a problem.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: I just wanted to draw your attention to part (b) of the definition of “pest control product”, where we do mention an active ingredient separately. That's because with the pesticides you have the end-use pest control product that contains the active ingredient and then many formulants. Not only do you have to register the whole end-use product, but the active ingredient has to be registered separately.

The Chair: Once again, though, you're on registration, which is of interest to you at your end, but what about the public? Do they get to know what all those formulants are?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: With the provisions in the bill we'll be coming to they will get to know more. As I said, if we want to discuss whether or not to disclose all the ingredients in the product, that's a different issue and will come up later. Whether the word is in the definition or not makes no difference to that.

I'm concerned about using the word “formulant” in the definition of “pest control product” because that means whenever you talk later in the bill about registering pest control products, it could have the effect of someone having to register all the formulants separately.

We want it to have that effect when it comes to active ingredients, but not with each individual formulant. We want to evaluate them and determine that their risks are acceptable as part of the end-use product, but the active ingredient has to be done separately. That's a further control.

The Chair: You do have in the bill that level of control for the active ingredient, right?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes, plus the end-use product. Whenever we say “pest control product” in the bill, it means the whole end-use product and it also means the active ingredient. That's why we've done the definition that way.

When you talk about the end-use product, the minister has to have a reasonable certainty of no harm from the whole product. There's no getting out of making sure that the formulants are not causing any harm.

Â (1250)

The Chair: So in the end you know and the minister knows, but what about the people?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: We're not going to register each formulant separately. That's the harm of putting it in the definition of a pest control product. Later, when we use the term throughout the bill--

Mr. John Herron: We're not talking about registration here.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: But the term is used. This is a definition, and we have to think of how...

Mr. John Herron: That's right. We're not talking about registering the product.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes. So if a pest control product means a formulant, every time you use “pest control product” throughout the bill and talk about it having to be registered, you're saying a formulant has to be registered.

Mr. John Herron: If the government has gone to the trouble and taken the energy to separate the whole product, to speak to the active ingredient, why would we not want to speak about the other half of the equation of the formulant? It makes no sense to actually talk about one half. If they've carved out that initially, it just makes sense to have a definition for formulant.

It was a categorical recommendation of the environment committee. They spent a good chunk of the year on this. I just think it's the right thing to do. As you said, this was on the radar screen before we even headed into the act. Of course, we're a little bit negligent, at least, in not having a definition to speak to the issue.

The Chair: Yes. The explanations I'm getting seem to be to protect the registration process; to make sure it's above board and everything is looked at; and to protect the minister's right to be sure that what she's allowing on the market is okay. But without these other parts of the formula, it seems to me it could get in the way of us letting the public know what's in those things. I don't think the public wants to go to the reading room.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: That's dealt with in clause 43, and that's where it can be debated. The question is whether to disclose all of the components or not. That's certainly something you should debate.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a question for Ms. Graham. You said the way the definitions are set out in the bill now, by implication, would cover formulant. As I understand it, the definition is clear in defining active ingredient, but we're not talking about non-active ingredients, because those ingredients themselves are possibly toxic and synergistic and therefore need to be part of any kind of protective measure for consumers.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: They are covered in part (a) of the definition because it says, a product that is manufactured, etc., to control pests. Those products that are manufactured and sold are formulated products that include the active ingredient, plus anything else that's in there. When you register the product, you have to determine if that whole product has acceptable risks.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Ms. Graham, am I to understand you're basically saying that if you use it in the definition, you must register every single formulant? Is that what you're suggesting?

Ms. Geraldine Graham: If it's worded in such a way that “pest control product” means this and this, and one of the things is formulant, it could have that effect.

Mr. John Herron: We're not at registration yet. You're mixing two issues.

Ms. Geraldine Graham: But you're using it. The term “pest control product”, as you know, is throughout the bill. It's used more than anything else, so one has to think about that when you define it.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm trying to understand this. I don't see any reason yet why it shouldn't be in the bill. We are talking about some non-active ingredients that might be even more toxic and harmful for some people than the actual main, active ingredient.

If it said those ingredients were included by implication, why wouldn't we include the definition and the references to the bill? We can deal with the registration issue when we come to it. That's not an insurmountable barrier to the necessity to have at least some reference in the bill.

Â (1255)

The Chair: Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the formulants are there because they potentiate the product or in some way contribute to the bioactivity. Therefore I think it's appropriate to have them included, both here and in the definitions.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question. We're on PC-11. Those in favour, please signify; those opposed please so indicate.

We have a tie. I'll vote in favour of the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're on NDP-8.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think that's basically dealt with now.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, can you explain this?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's really the same issue. It's just another way of saying... I think it's taken care of. I just want to get a clarification.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm not going to carry on with clause-by-clause when one of the voters has left, particularly when the last vote was a tie. It shows how very tight these decisions are. However, it's a couple of minutes to one. We're supposed to end at one o'clock, and I have a matter of process to put before you.

We haven't done too badly from the point of view that we didn't get started until about--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Excuse me, can I finish? Then we can adjourn.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just want to withdraw my amendment. It's off the table, so you don't have to worry about coming back

The Chair: Just a minute, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

One can see with the time left before the House rises for the summer, and with the prospect of the assisted human reproduction bill coming to us, that we need to put in some time on this. We're starting to get moving through these amendments. I'm going to suggest we meet on Monday and put in one of our long sessions, with appropriate food and appropriate breaks, and I'm going to suggest, so that people can travel on Monday, that we start at noon and work into the evening--say, approximately noon until 8 p.m.

How many people could be here, say, from noon until 8 p.m. on Monday, with appropriate breaks?

· (1300)

The Chair: Ms. Sgro and I will take care of this bill. Is there nobody else?

Mr. Herron, you could; Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis could; Mr. Bigras couldn't.

Can I then ask you for suggestions as to when you can give us, say, seven or eight hours in a row? We have our usual meeting Tuesday at 11. Would you like to go through the rest of that day? How many people would be free to carry on from 11 to 1 and just keep going right through until, say, 7 or 8 p.m., with the exception of votes, on Tuesday? Is there anybody who has a 3:30 meeting on Tuesday at a different committee?

An hon. member: We might have the fisheries committee.

The Chair: Is it clause-by-clause? If it isn't, this takes precedence.

I'm not seeing a lot of creativity around the table.

Ms. Sgro, do you have a suggestion?

Ms. Judy Sgro: If we're not able to do it on Monday, could we not start at 9 on Tuesday morning?

The Chair: There could be a problem because other committees are sitting, and it's difficult to get a room. The clerk knows he can get a room on Monday, but the problem is whether he can get a room on Tuesday at 9 or 3:30 when the other committees are sitting. That's why Monday is the best day to meet.

As Mr. Speller has suggested, what about starting Monday at 3:30 and going as long as we can? We can bring in dinner. Let's say 3:30 until 7:30 or 8. Is that okay?

How many are in for that? Mr. Speller, you can.

Mr. St. Denis, you can't?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm a conscript.

The Chair: Oh, you're a conscript. Well, if the Alliance doesn't want to get their amendments through, that's up to them. But I have a majority that can come. Is it your constituency day?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, it's another issue.

The Chair: Could you send Mr. Hilstrom?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I can try.

The Chair: I think we'll say that, because I feel this is really piling up on us. We'll start at 3:30 on Monday, and we'll knock off a bunch of this. After that we'll reassess whether we have to extend hours on Tuesday.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.