HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Á

1110

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

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

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

The Chair

Á

1115

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC)

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Basil Stapleton

The Chair

Mr. Basil Stapleton

Mr. Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Fry

Mr. John Herron

Á

1130

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

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

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Á

1140

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Á

1145

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

An hon. member

The Chair

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

The Chair

Á

1150

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Reg Alcock

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Alcock

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Â

1200

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Â

1210

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Dr. Claire Franklin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

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

Â

1215

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Basil Stapleton

Â

1220

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Graham

The Chair

Ms. Sonya Norris (Committee Researcher)

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Â

1230

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Â

1235

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Â

1240

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Monique Hébert

The Chair

Â

1245

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Mr. Joe Comartin

Dr. Claire Franklin

Â

1250

The Chair

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

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Geraldine Graham

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

·

1300

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Ms. Geraldine Graham

The Chair

·

1305

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. André Bachand

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 082

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this meeting of the health committee to order.

    I've had a request from Mr. Ménard, who is one of our regular members but is not on this pesticide panel. He wishes to raise a point of order.

    Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): On a point of order, Madam Chair, when the minister appeared to defend her estimates, at the end of the meeting, we passed a motion, unanimously as I recall, inviting the minister to appear again because there were points requiring clarification. When I arrived at my office this morning, I read a letter that had been forwarded to our clerk, which my fellow committee members no doubt saw as well, saying that the minister would not be accepting our invitation because her schedule would not permit it.

    First, I would like us to remember that it is not for the minister to decide whether or not to appear. When committees invite ministers, they have an obligation to make themselves available, particularly in the context of a parliamentary control concerning supply.

    I ask you to respond and give the minister notice that, if she does not make herself available, there will be subsequent operating problems. I find that this is an absolutely irresponsible act, that it is impolite and disrespectful. It is ministers' role to be available. If the minister finds that her workload is too great and she is unable to meet with her parliamentary colleagues in committee, it will be the Prime Minister's responsibility to find another minister.

    In the meantime, it is parliamentarians' responsibility to ask questions. That's our work, and I expect the minister to be available for as long as we invite her. I don't want to waste the committee's time: I know we have the pesticide bill. However, I'm saying this so that matters are very clear. Like you, I have always worked very hard to enable us to pursue our work in a pleasant manner, but when we receive a letter from a minister who says that her schedule will not allow her to come, I'm telling you that my schedule will not enable me to function well in this committee if hers prevents her from coming.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard. Is there something you want to do about this or that you want the committee to do about this? Do you have some kind of a suggestion that we could think about?

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, as committee Chair, you will call her and tell her that she must be available, that it's not a matter in which she has any discretion. When ministers are invited to do so, they must appear; it's not a discretionary decision. I don't see what can be a greater priority in a minister's schedule than to be accountable to Parliament. I'm telling you that, if she does not appear, we're going to delay consideration of the bill on reproductive technologies and I will make it a point of honour to ensure that the committee does not operate until she comes. I want that to be very clear. I find it unacceptable and irresponsible for a minister to say that she does not have the time to appear before the committee. It is a ministerial responsibility, and I don't see what can be a greater priority in the minister's schedule than to come and meet her colleagues in committee.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard is suggesting that I phone the minister and say the committee definitely wants to see her again. He is suggesting there will be some impact on the reproductive technology bill if the minister doesn't come. Is there any response to that?

    Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Chair, I remember that this resolution came from Judy and that there was some discussion on what would happen if the minister could not appear because of her schedule. The intention was to ensure that people from the department could come and meet with us. I believe this should be put in context. That was the intention of the person who introduced the motion, Judy's intention. That's what I remember.

[English]

    The Chair: That is absolutely true, but I'm just not exactly sure on the actual motion that passed. I have a feeling it said that if the minister is too busy, we will take the officials, but I'm not sure.

    You've raised your point of order, Mr. Ménard. Could we ask the clerk to research that and maybe come back to it at the end of the meeting? Is that agreeable to everybody? That way we won't miss moving through our amendments.

    Thank you, Mr. Ménard. You've put it on the table. We will deal with it later. Thank you so much.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we did stand aside clause 4 because we were expecting another amendment from Mr. Bachand. You'll remember we did not pass clause 4 yesterday. We did clauses 3, 5, 6, and 7, but we didn't do clause 4. The new amendment, which is new PC-17 on page 54, has come to you as a single sheet this morning. It is a clause about having nothing abrogating or derogating from aboriginal or treaty rights of aboriginal people.

    (On clause 4--Primary objective)

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, would you like to speak to this?

Á  (1115)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I believe the discussion took place. All that's needed is an amendment to make the act much simpler and really to ensure that the rights of aboriginals, of the First Nations, are respected. So essentially what we can see when we compare the old page 54 to the new is that we have merely simplified matters to be sure that aboriginal rights or the treaties of the aboriginal peoples are recognized, simply. You had a discussion on that, and amendments were put forward and debated at that time. The idea then is simply to take those amendments into account and to take a position.

[English]

    The Chair: May I please have the witnesses' comments on this?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham (Head, Regulatory Affairs, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): We haven't seen it yet.

    The Chair: Didn't you get the piece of paper with PC-17 on it?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: No.

    The Chair: The clerk assured me it had been distributed beforehand.

    We all have it, but I'm afraid the witnesses didn't get it.

    Do you have it now, Ms. Franklin?

    Mr. Stapleton, could you compare it to what is in the bill on this point? Is there much difference?

    Mr. Basil Stapleton (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): Actually, Madam Chair, there is nothing in the bill. This amends a previously proposed amendment. There is nothing in the bill about this matter.

    The Chair: Okay, so this is a new clause. Do you have any concerns about it? You've seen the earlier one.

    Mr. Basil Stapleton: In general, of course, there's always a concern about putting anything in a piece of legislation if you don't fully understand the intent and implications of it.

    I think it would be useful to at least hear from those proposing the amendment about what its purpose is. It was said to be for greater certainty, which suggests that section 35 of the Constitution Act itself is not certain enough in terms of protecting the rights. I'm not sure....

    The Chair: Would you like to research this, Mr. Stapleton, and we will set it aside and come back to it at a future meeting?

    Mr. Basil Stapleton: Well, I think it would be easier to do it that way rather than try to construe it.

    The Chair: Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): If I may, Madam Chair, the mover of this amendment has not explained why it's there. Is the amendment being moved now? If it is, the mover of the amendment can put the amendment and explain it.

    The Chair: I asked him to comment on it, which he did. I did not ask him to put it, because it's a new clause to the bill and I wanted to hear from Mr. Stapleton before we got this on the floor.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Well, Madam Chair, this is clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. If there's an amendment, the member can move it. It's not a debating society. If people can just throw out amendments and we put them on the shelf to deal with later, we'll never finish the bill.

    I suggest that if the member wants to move his amendment, he can move it and explain it, and we will debate it and deal with it right now.

    Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, we see clauses like this in a lot of bills. It's for the protection of the first nations in Canada. This isn't the first time that we are going to see this article put into the bill.

    So if you have questions about the protection of first nations, then you're right, we need to have a debate. But I think it's a tradition. It's in the law--in Bill C-5, for instance. These protections for first nations are there.

    So I think we should go with what the chair asks. We should have more details. We can debate with this information that we will have in the future. I don't disagree with you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Despite Mr. Lee's suggestions, I think we are just going to set this aside. Clause 4 has not yet been passed because we had to wait for it. It's now here. The witnesses don't seem to be very clear about whether it's good, bad, or indifferent.

    Therefore, I think we'll wait until Mr. Stapleton has a more formal opinion on it, which will probably be this afternoon, and then we can pass clause 4.

    We'll now move on to new clause 7.1.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Just on this point, can we ask Mr. Stapleton to look at it from the perspective of what's been happening in legislation that's been coming before the House for the last 18 months?

    I've had two other bills where this wording has been added. It is my understanding that it is now generally accepted government policy to put this into the legislation. The first nations have consistently requested that this type of wording be put in bills.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Comartin.

    We'll move to new clause 7.1. You are now on page 94 in your book. This is Mr. Merrifield's amendment.

    Mr. Merrifield, would you like to move it and speak to it?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I understood this was done last night. Didn't you finish page 94 last night? That was what I was told this morning.

    The Chair: No. We skipped past pages 94 and 95 in order to finish clause 7, but now we have to look at these two amendments, CA-9 and PC-29, because they would create a new clause 7.1.

    We're on CA-9, on page 94. Mr. Merrifield, go ahead.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think it's reasonably self-explanatory.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's vote on it. I haven't got my notes with me, and that's my problem. I was told it was looked after last night; that's why I'm caught at a disadvantage.

    The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question on CA-9, moved by Mr. Merrifield.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand, would you like to move PC-29 and speak to it?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Yes, Madam Chair. I'm somewhat in the same situation as Mr. Merrifield. I was not here yesterday, but my colleague Mr. Herron spoke about it, and I believe you began a discussion. Essentially, it's first of all an incentive. It's a new clause which is an incentive to have pest control products.

    If everyone is listening to me, of course, we will understand the amendment. It's an amendment on which everyone will agree, I'm convinced, if everyone takes the time to listen. It concerns “reduced risk”. First, when you look at the bill as a whole...

    An hon. member: Madam Chair, could you establish a little order around the table?

[English]

    The Chair: Are there any other speakers on PC-29?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: I haven't finished, Madam Chair, because everyone was talking at the same time as me.

[English]

    The Chair: Order, people. Mr. Bachand does not want to speak into a fog of noise.

    Mr. Bachand, go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Essentially, when you look at the bill as a whole, there is a quite clear tendency toward reducing the risk of pest control products. The proposed amendment to section 7 is to give the minister, first, the opportunity to conduct an expedited review of pest control products which might present a much lower risk for the environment, children, everyone. Furthermore, the minister is given quite a bit of flexibility since it refers to a time period of 12 months. But if the minister requests additional analyses, she may do so and may grant an additional period of six months.

    This clause clearly shows businesses that are studying or preparing to market pest control products presenting much lower risk that we are giving them a chance to do so much more quickly and to win the department's blessing sooner. So it's a clause that is complete in itself, which is an incentive and which gives the minister full power to expedite the marketing of a product with much lower risk than existing products. This therefore proves that we want to ensure that it is not a static bill, that there will be an evolution toward products with lower risk for human beings and the environment.

    I appreciate the support of all my colleagues.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: I would remind Mr. Bachand that yesterday, on page 72 of your package, we passed one that talks about expediting evaluations with respect to a pest control product that may reasonably be expected to pose lower health or environmental risks. We already passed one that puts that thrust into the minister's hands.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: However, what we're doing, Madam Chair, is we're giving a lot more details about the processes and time periods granted.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Herron.

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Perhaps I could add that this amendment really is about the future of Canadian agriculture in that regard. This is a hybrid amendment that has really been co-opted by other legislation that we have, States-side, and in the EU. It's ensuring that our farmers have access to the most modern, progressive products available on the market. Some of the language has been co-opted by folks like CropLife Canada and the Canadian Horticultural Council itself.

    That's why we're going in this particular direction. It's about the future of agriculture. Do we want our farmers to have access to the most modern, progressive products or not?

    Yesterday, you may recall, the CA were a little concerned about establishing a timeline on their amendment. The difference between the CA amendment and the amendment that we have right now is that our amendment provides for a provision for the minister to seek an extension. It gives that flexibility to the government.

    That's why I asked that question last night.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): That's specifically why we passed that motion yesterday, to deal with that. Certainly, we, on this side, are following up with the PMRA to make sure they follow up on that. In fact, I have another motion that's coming later on to make sure that the PMRA will then have to report back in its report, specifically dealing with reduced risk. I think that will certainly encourage them, along with the other announcements we made in terms of funding, to move very quickly on reducing risk.

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to support Mr. Bachand along the same arguments, that amendment L-3 is almost the philosophical approach. What his amendment PC-29 does is establish a process. Amendment L-3 does not do that. It simply sets out, as I say, a philosophical underpinning, but it does not establish a process. Amendment PC-29 is quite consistent, in fact, I would suggest even necessary, if you intend amendment L-3 to function properly, in the way it was intended when it was passed.

    The Chair: Dr. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): I accept what Mr. Comartin and Mr. Herron are saying. Because it's so detailed, would it not be better to adopt it as a matter of policy instead, rather than putting in this tremendous amount of detail into the bill?

    The only thing, though, is new subclause 7.01(6). It says the minister should ensure that the application for registration under this section is completed within 12 months. We already voted against that yesterday.

    Mr. John Herron: That's the provision for a particular extension. If you recall from yesterday in our dialogue, I asked the specific question. The only difficulty the officials had with respect to the CA amendment was the timeline. We've adopted a similar timeline in that reaction, but we also provided a provision in this bill, which the officials didn't flag yesterday, where the minister can actually seek an extension in that regard. Therefore, we didn't put them in a box where we had that question about what you would do if you missed a timeline. The minister could seek an extension.

Á  (1130)  

    Ms. Hedy Fry: So, then, do you have a problem with taking all this detail and putting it in as a matter of policy instead of in the bill?

    Mr. John Herron: My issue is that the officials yesterday--and they're free to comment, and I'm sure they will--said that for the most part they were okay with the CA amendment, except for the timeline. I've given them a caveat where they can find some space. If the officials were okay with it yesterday, then perhaps we can run with it for today.

    The Chair: I'm seeing Dr. Franklin shake her head.

    Dr. Franklin.

    Dr. Claire Franklin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Department of Health): I understand the desire. We are also interested in having reduced-risk products available. I would point out that we actually have a process in place. It's been in place since 1996, with a 12-month timeline, in an established policy. In fact, we are seeing that at least 50% of the products that come in are reduced-risk products.

    I don't feel we need to have something entrenched in legislation that will potentially lead to problems when in fact we already have these processes in place.

    Mr. John Herron: But I understand they never meet that timeline.

    The Chair: Well, I don't think that's true. She just said 50% of them are meeting the timeline, and of course they're--

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Fifty percent are reduced risk and we meet our timelines. The information that has been provided to various members on the length of time.... There are two partners in registering a product: what we have to do and what industry has to do. If we have a submission that comes in that's incomplete or there are problems with it on a science basis, the timeframe for registration will be longer. I think we need to be very careful with the kind of information.... In fact, for our reduced-risk products, the timelines are being met.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bachand, last comment.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: So, then, if that's a practice that exists, which, ultimately, from what you say, works well, why not put it into the act? Why haven't we made a practice official and sent a very clear signal? This isn't only an administrative question; it's now an act. We are so serious about products presenting reduced risk to human health and the environment that we put it in the act, but while allowing a certain degree of flexibility.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'll call the question on PC-29 now.

    A point of order from Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: On a point of order, I never had an opportunity to speak on this, and you call the end of debate. I don't understand that agreement.

    The Chair: Well, we had an agreement yesterday at one point that if it wasn't too controversial, we'd have two speakers, and if it was controversial, we'd go on. Once I recognized Mr. Bachand--he moved it--and I said last comment, your hand wasn't up then.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: It was before. You just didn't see it. I've been trying to get in on it. I think it's ridiculous if you're not going to let us speak on this issue.

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield wants to have a comment on this one.

    Go ahead, Mr. Merrifield. It's not going to change the result anyway, but go ahead.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, it's on the reduced risk, and it goes back to the one before it that I couldn't get my notes on. But I have them and I realize this is a product. Every one of the witnesses--not every one, but many of the witnesses came forward suggesting that this is something we should be putting in here. This speaks right to the complaints and the problems we saw with PMRA. I think this is an opportunity for us to actually do something with regard to some of the problems that were addressed by the witnesses--many of the witnesses. And I think it's something we should support and consider supporting. It has loopholes. It doesn't bind anyone, but it certainly gives the intent that PMRA has to deal with these reduced risks in a timely way, and it should be supported in the legislation.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    And now the question on PC-29.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Now we've finished clause 7.1.

    (On clause 8--Registration or amendment)

    The Chair: We're on page 97.

    Mr. Comartin, would you like to move this and speak to it?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, I would move it. It's an amendment to clause 8, as indicated, and it is really an additional test for the minister to consider when reviewing these particular decisions. The wording that's being added is “and there is no less harmful yet equally effective pest control product available”. I think we've heard from a number of the witnesses of the importance of this type of a test. It's appropriate that it go into this section to provide the minister with the authority in his or her department to be able to use that as one of the tests in determining whether the product is going to be accepted and registered.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Are there any other speakers to this amendment?

    Seeing none, I'll call the question on NDP-21.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: NDP-22.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: This is an amendment to clause 8 as well. Although somewhat similar to PC-29, it's an amendment to a different section. Again it provides the minister with authority above and beyond what the draft bill provides for. It sets in the one-year time limit to establish an expedited process. That's what is in proposed subsection (1.1). And then in proposed subsection (1.2) again we're setting out a list of tests that have to be met in order for the product to be expedited. Those are set out in (a), (b), (c), and (d), authorizing and setting up a framework within which the minister and that department would function under the expedited process.

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): You note it is similar to one that's already been turned down, but I don't understand it where it says, “the Minister shall, utilizing public comment”. Is that legal terminology? How do you determine whether she's met that test or not?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: If you moved an amendment that it's consultation, I would be prepared to accept that.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: But still, fuzzy, soft terms like that have very little place in legislation, it seems to me.

    I have to vote on it first. Sorry.

    The Chair: Are there any other comments?

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: On PC-30, Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    As committee members can see, clause 8(2) concerning labelling is really too simple and insufficiently detailed. We therefore propose that the committee immediately include guidelines on the labelling of pest control products in the bill. At present, the minister can specify labelling conditions, but we have no guidelines, no detailed parameters. That's why we propose that we adopt a series of assistance measures to ensure that labelling informs people: we're talking here about telephone numbers, percentages of active and inactive ingredients and so on. This is a very complete provision. Even if we state these elements in the act, the minister will have room to manoeuvre, but, in this way, we will nevertheless ensure a minimum amount of information is included in the act when it is passed.

    As you know, Madam Chair, a number of witnesses requested that information be available to users, on risks and perhaps even on the benefits of or reasons for using a product. Since we are concerned with products which may be quite toxic, we want to ensure that, under the act, people are provided with detailed information that enables them to use a product correctly or to refuse to use it. This is important, if we're talking about allergies, for example.

    To sum up, the clause concerning labelling is too vague, not detailed enough and does not go far enough to guarantee that we're going to address the information problem.

Á  (1140)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

    I wonder if the officials can comment on this, because it's quite a lengthy amendment. It's more than two pages.

    Ms. Graham.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: There are quite detailed specifications for labels in the current regulations, under the current act. In our view, that type of detail should be in the regulations. We will be updating those regulations when the new act is passed. The public will be consulted, and the regulations can be amended, if necessary, to bring them up to date.

    So we can make sure all these things are covered when we do that.

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm referring right now to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the 1999 version, section 46. There are at least ten specific provisions in that act that set up a test. So we've already set this pattern in that environmental piece of legislation.

    It seems to me the same argument Mr. Bachand was making a few minutes ago was probably made when those provisions were put in and accepted by this government. I fail to see why it has to go to regulations when we're trying to say to the Canadian public, “Trust us on this bill. We're going to do what we say we're going to do in regulating pesticides and products related thereto.”

    So we have that as another example of where this government has provided that type of structure within a bill, where we wanted it to be detailed. There's no reason why we wouldn't do it here and all sorts of reasons why we would. It would communicate very clearly to the industry that this is the type of test they're going to be faced with; these are the types of requirements they're going to have to meet; and, to the bureaucracy who are supervising, that this is the way we want it to go.

    That's a very clear message. It's a much stronger one if we put it in the legislation instead of simply leaving it to the regulations.

    The Chair: Ms. Graham again.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: There is a big difference between pesticides and chemicals regulated by CEPA. Every label for a pest control product is reviewed by the agency before it's allowed. That gives a chance to make sure all the necessary precautions and everything are on it. Plus, as I mentioned, there already are regulations in existence. It's not a matter of saying we're going to do it. They already exist.

    The Chair: Are those regulations as detailed, and do they have these components to them?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes, they do cover all those things.

    The Chair: Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I don't think the issue is whether or not there are regulations in the actual bill. I think they should be in the bill. If you're serious about sending a message, it solidifies it.

    It's not that we're talking about two different things. We're all agreeing that it should be there. It's now a decision on what kind of pressure we're going to put on industry to comply. I think it is important to send this message.

    The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: My question is for the experts here. If we have to make amendments concerning labelling and that's in the act, does that cause a problem? If it's in the regulations and there are amendments to make, is it possible to do so in an ongoing and regular way?

[English]

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: They do need to be updated from time to time, which is another problem with having the details in the bill. That's true.

    The Chair: They'd be updated by the officials, as opposed to any parliamentary....

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: They go through the regulatory process with consultation through the Canada Gazette and with approval by the cabinet committee.

    The Chair: I mentioned to the officials yesterday that our problem is this bill seems to me to be mostly about chemical companies and farmers. Some 80% of Canadians live in cities. About 80% of our witnesses on this bill were asking us to do something about the cosmetic use of pesticides, and most of them were from urban settings.

    We understand from Mr. Stapleton that we really can't legislate in the area because of federal, provincial, and municipal splits of power. Somehow or other, I think the committee would like to do something for the average urban purchaser of pesticides, because 80% of the folks live there.

    I'm wondering if this labelling issue isn't one way we could do that. We could stand up on our hind legs and say no, we didn't ban the cosmetic use because of constitutional things, but we did put in these really strict rules about labelling. If you buy a product, read the label, and follow it, you will be a lot safer than perhaps you were last year.

    Do you know what I mean?

    I understand it's more convenient for you to have it in the regulations, but we need to say something to the 80% of Canadians who live in the cities and suburbs. I'm wondering if this is the place to say it or if there's another place you can suggest. We want to be able to say something to our voters.

    Ms. Fry.

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Hedy Fry: On page 7 of the bill, if you recall, Mr. Herron put forward an amendment under paragraph 4(2)(c) that we accepted. It talks about encouraging public awareness in relation to pest control products by informing the public, by facilitating public access to relevant information, and by public participation in the decision-making process.

    That is a concept that covers it. Couldn't you then put it in the regulations? You've made the statement here that you're going to do all that, and then the regulations will tell you how you do it. The regulations could be open to changing, upgrading, and updating each time, rather than making it so fixed in the bill that you have to go and amend the bill every time you want to change something.

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    The regulations don't belong to us as legislators. We can do nothing, or virtually nothing, except in a revision of the act. We must ensure that we are setting parameters, particularly for a question such as this.

    In amendment PC-30, we're not giving the regulations, but rather guidelines for future regulations. Does what is written here, which concerns guidelines, cause us a problem? I don't believe so. Could someone tell me whether he's against making sure we have complete and more detailed information? We're parliamentarians, legislators.

    I ask you the question again. Do we have a problem with these provisions? No. Do we think that they're going to complicate the lives of public servants? Certainly not, because we're giving them parameters. Madam Chair, I would like to ask the people here with us whether, in their view, this amendment could be a cause of problems with regard to future regulations, in view of the fact that the regulations will be amended after this act is passed.

[English]

    An hon. member: You have both official languages, and all that information is on the label. Somebody is going to have to read it.

    The Chair: It seems like Mr. Lee wishes to enter the debating society that he didn't seem to think too much of a few minutes ago. I'll be glad to hear from him.

    Mr. Derek Lee: It's going to be required anyway, in the regulations.

    The Chair: Anybody else? Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I fully recognize that it is valid to want to inform the public, and I also think that this is becoming increasingly important, from what the people we heard said.

    I was joking a moment ago in saying that you really need a big bottle to do that, but I have a problem: I'm not sure we're really achieving the objective we're after, which is to inform the public, by requiring that the label include everything that's written here. I don't know whether our objective of reaching the user public is really achieved by setting an obligation to put this on a product label, on a small bottle or something else. We're of course going to go through it, in English and in French...

    We're really structuring it by saying that it has to be on a label. The Web site may not be there either. When you look at the telephone number, the directions for use... I completely agree on the principle that people must be informed, especially the user who's going to take something off the shelf. Is this how we should do it? That's really a major question mark in my mind. By requiring them to put it on the label, I get the impression I'm not achieving my objective. I don't read the entire bottle before doing it. The label is a problem for me.

[English]

    The Chair: Can I interject here? I don't think we should limit ourselves to our usual understanding of a label. A label is often something that is glued onto a bottle or a can. I would remind you about other things that have possible health and environmental risks, such as prescription drugs. Nowadays the prescription drug you get often comes with two or three pieces of paper saying to be careful.

    So we're not just talking about a little sticky thing on the side of a bottle. We're talking about the information the manufacturer is compelled to send out with his product, which might be on a free-standing card that is attached by a string to the top, or if it's a big thing, it might be on the side of the container.

    To me, it's not our problem. Our problem is only whether or not we think these are things consumers should know. How it is given to them by the manufacturer becomes the manufacturer's problem.

    An hon. member: Can we hear from the officials?

    The Chair: Yes, we'll turn to the officials now.

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: I was just going to say that the labels on pesticides are very comprehensive. They include an incredible amount of detail and often they do have to go into an attachment, and that's part of the definition of a label. It is something, as I said, that's being done now. It's not that there's a problem with the labels on pesticides being not detailed or comprehensive at the present time.

    A voice: They're not read.

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Given the amount of information that's listed here, is that consistent with the information that is currently made available?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: I think what's made available includes this. There's more, too. That's the trouble with trying to put details like this in the act. One would have to go over every word with a fine-toothed comb and compare it with the current regulations and the current labels. The labels are approved during the registration process in each and every case, to make sure they do have all the information. Sometimes there's certain information that's specific to a certain type of product that you want to have on that label, over and above anything else.

    The Chair: I wonder if it would help if we add the words “at least”, so it says “with at least the following”. That means if there's extra information that is deemed necessary later on....

    Some hon. members: It's there.

    The Chair: Actually, the last clause covers that idea. It says, “any other conditions relating to the label...that the Minister may specify”. So that gives you the opening to add.

    An hon. member: There you go.

    The Chair: This is our first debate on labelling.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I know, but we had similar comprehensive amendments yesterday, and I thought we'd refused because there was more information that needed to be there and there was no sense in putting it in legislation when we were going to do it in regulation anyway, which would make it a lot easier to amend and change.

    The Chair: Well, that is true, but we're not always consistent, Mr. Speller. This is known as a freewheeling committee.

    Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I just have another question for Ms. Graham.

    If I understood your answer, you said you think the current system provides all this information and potentially additional information. I would ask you to look at PC-30, the second page, paragraph (f), where it says “a complete list, with quantity or proportion by volume, of every non-active ingredient in the product”. Is that currently provided?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: No, it isn't. We're going to get to the discussion, when we get to clause 43, on whether the formulants should be disclosed or not. At the present time, it's just the active ingredient and some of the formulants of concern that have to be put on the label.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Some of that information is disclosed, but would this materially change current practice?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: It would, yes.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: So is it necessary to have the debate on that also, while we're dealing with this?

    The Chair: At one of the meetings you missed--I think it was the very first day, last Thursday--we had a debate on a very close vote on the inclusion of formulants, and it carried.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: But that was just in the definition of pest control product. We haven't got to clause 43, which talks about what's confidential or what isn't.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: This would be consistent with that; is that what you're saying?

    The Chair: With having the definition only, but not with the decision about whether formulants have to be disclosed by the manufacturers.

    Mr. Herron.

    Mr. John Herron: I believe, Madam Chair, if you seek the advice of the officials, they will say, about the aspect Mr. Alcock just raised, that the industry submits that information. So it's not anything new. I'd like to highlight the point that earlier the officials had said, and we had acknowledged, that it would be done in regulation. If that's what we want to do, let's enshrine it into law.

    The third point I would like to suggest to members is that we can't consistently work our way out of a job here either. We're here to do legislation. If we leave everything to the Langevin Block on regulations, where do we become accountable?

    The fourth point I want to be able to highlight is that by enshrining this into the act on labelling--I think the chair made a very astute comment--we make this our signal that we recognize Canadians need access to this particular information. If you're going to do it in regulations, what harm is it to put it into the law? I'd ask members to look at this very seriously and support this particular amendment.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Mr. Alcock, then Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Tempted as I am to respond to the list in the preamble there, far be it from me to be against enshrining certain things in law to prevent the erosion of the House. That's certainly an area I have some interest in. At the same time, in a world that's moving as fast as ours, when you enshrine things in law you create huge problems living in the real world. You've always got to watch the balance here.

    But that's not the point I'm making on this particular amendment. If we are going to have the debate yet--if the disclosure or non-disclosure of formulants is coming later here--if we haven't had that debate yet, passage of this makes that debate redundant, because we'd be sitting here saying we're going to disclose it. So we need to be clear and either have that discussion now or put this over until we do.

    Mr. John Herron: We've already passed one.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: No, I'm told we passed a definitional clause, not a--

    Mr. John Herron: The definition passed afterwards. We actually had one aspect passed earlier on that precipitated the need to have a definition. We're into formulants twice now. This was the will of this committee, heading in that particular direction not once but twice. Ms. Fry's definition was the one we accepted.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: So if we're going to have that discussion, is now the time to have it?

    Mr. John Herron: We've already had it.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: You say we've already had it; others are saying we haven't.

    The Chair: No, we haven't had that, and I'm wondering about standing this until we get to that clause, because this is a very key issue. I'm sure industry will go absolutely crazy if all their formulants are listed on the label; therefore, we have to have that discussion fully, and it has to be informed by the suggestions that are made around that clause.

    Would you agree--this is going to be highly contentious, and I really don't want to break a tie again; I don't want to get into that spot if I can help it. I'm going to suggest that we take PC-30 and insert it in the clause where we talk about disclosure. Is it clause 43? Or we just stand it and the clerk will figure out where it comes back in, but then it will tie into that discussion of the impacts on industry.

    Does everybody agree to that process?

    Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Chair, you didn't give me a chance to speak.

    The Chair: I'm sorry. I forgot about you, Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I want to go back to my point. First of all, I think we had some consistency yesterday in rejecting these amendments that had long lists that weren't complete. In fact, at the end of the day you said “and anything else”.

    I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do with legislation. I think we have to be fairly exact on what we do. This bill will be here for awhile and will take some time to amend, if we ever want to do so in the future.

    Secondly, I argue for regulations because the government sits down at a table with all the stakeholders to talk about the regulations and how they might impact on each and every one of them. If we just do this today with a quick amendment, we will risk making mistakes.

    The Chair: Your intervention agrees with my idea that we shouldn't deal with it too quickly. We should put it aside until we have a fulsome discussion and we can all do a little bit of research. I doubt we'll get there this afternoon.

    Ms. Sgro.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Madam Chair, we're at the point today where we're trying to do clause-by-clause. I think we attempted to have some of that discussion earlier, and whatever we had earlier was the culmination of some of the things we have before us.

    If we get too many things in the legislation, if there's an opportunity to change something, we'll have to do it through legislation that takes years. The regulations allow you the flexibility to change something if some issue is raised, especially if the issue is important. If we have to back into the legislation to change it, it'll take five more years, if it ever gets around to happening.

    I think we're far better doing it in the regulations. We should move on it, or we're going to be here for four more days dealing with the same discussion.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Chair, I agree with your comments. Maybe we should take a closer look. I just wanted to make sure I had my chance to speak before we moved, since I was on the agenda.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Speller. I did forget you after Mr. Alcock.

    So Mr. Speller agrees. We'll take amendment PC-30 and insert it in another section, where we're talking about the disclosure required of manufacturers, because this has a big impact on them. We'll stand it until the clerk has decided and advises me where it will come up. Thank you very much.

    We'll move on to NDP-23.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, this is a proposed amendment to clause 8, to set the test for the minister to refuse to register pest control products--this is an addition after subclause 8(4)--unless they meet the test.

    In subclause 8(4), the minister has to take into account that the product does not affect health or environmental risk to an unacceptable level. That's the test.

    Subclause 8(4.1) would add a test by comparing it to other products that were less harmful but equally effective. So it would be a two-part test. The first would be acceptability on health and environmental risks. The second part would require the minister to look at other products. If there were any that were equally effective but less harmful, he would be required to refuse the registration of that product.

    The Chair: Dr. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Yesterday we spoke for a long time on the issues of the substitution principle and comparative analysis. We came to the conclusion we shouldn't mandate it because it would be time-consuming, and if we put it in the bill we would have to mandate it for every single blessed thing.

    I thought we dealt with a similar amendment yesterday and came to the conclusion we would not accept it, for those reasons. I think the witnesses told us very clearly that that would really mandate us to do it to every single thing. We're really mandating comparative analysis and substitution, and it would be difficult to mandate that in a bill. It's really time consuming. Everyone is worried about getting moving, in terms of timelines, yet we're now looking at making this very unwieldly.

    The Chair: Are there any other speakers to NDP-23?

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: On NDP-24, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, this specifically addresses the use of products where they're being sold directly to consumers for lawn, garden, or other cosmetic use. It only allows them if they're going to replace an existing product and it's shown by the applicant on a preponderance of evidence that the product--perhaps this addresses Dr. Fry's comment--poses a lower risk of harm to human health, future generations, etc. The burden of proof is going to shift here, Madam Chair, to the applicant. As I say, that would be an addition to when the minister, under subclause 8(4), is considering the application and would deny it if the test could not be met.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

     The Chair: We're now on NDP-25. Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    What we are doing here is introducing a non-essential test. If the product were not essential for the protection of public health or for normal agricultural use, it would be banned.

    Madam Chair, we heard a great deal of testimony from individuals who had been severely negatively impacted by the use of these products when there was no valid health reason for using them. I recall one gentleman whose wife was basically confined to their home and using oxygen regularly because of exposure to some of these products, which were being used simply to make somebody's lawn a little greener.

    We're introducing a standard that would have to be proven by the seller of the product, which is that it's essential for either health or agricultural purposes. So it does not impact negatively on the agriculture industry. We recognize that there are still some problems in that area in terms of wind drift, but it would at least address the concern of the agricultural community. Obviously, it addresses the issue of public health. We have seen many cases--and, I'm willing to prognosticate, we will see many more cases as our science develops--of the negative impacts on public health.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Are there any other speakers to NDP-25? Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: What's normal agricultural use?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I think we heard from some witnesses of the....

    Mr. Bob Speller: I asked that question when they were before us. I'm wondering what you....

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I can't remember who the witness was. There was at least one who came forward and indicated there are standard practices. I suppose it would be that type of test, a standard practice within the agricultural industry in terms of the use of these. To give you an example, if you were going to suggest that you use DDT at this point, that's no longer a standard practice in this country, so it wouldn't meet the test.

     (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Next is NDP-26.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, this one addresses the use of these types of pesticides on parks, golf courses, and sports fields, or for other recreational use. This is where it differs from some of the earlier proposed amendments. It would be banned unless “the product poses a lower risk of harm to human health”, etc., than what was previously used. It's designed to deal specifically with the use of pesticides in areas where it clearly is non-essential and where there is a great deal of exposure to the general public and in particular in those areas, other than maybe the golf courses, where young children are going to be exposed to these types of chemicals.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Are there any other speakers to this?

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I have a question. In the regulations right now, do we restrict, based on where a product is used, in any way now?

  (1210)  

    Dr. Claire Franklin: Every registration is for a particular product at a certain rate at a certain site. The decision would be taken on the particular site. It could be a golf course. It would be looked at.

    The challenge, with the various recommendations coming forward, is that it be done simply because it's a certain site. It's not based on a decision on a by-product basis. The use is part of the federal decision.

    The broader decision at a provincial level or a municipal level is to say it will not be used on golf courses. It will not be used in public areas. The different layers of jurisdiction are very important in achieving the kinds of results that may be able to take a wider ban on products, but not at a federal level with the criminal basis for our legislation.

    The Chair: Are you saying it wouldn't be on the label that it is not advised for use on playgrounds or something like that?

    Dr. Claire Franklin: No. If it were not acceptable, it wouldn't be registered.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: It is on the label as to whether it can be used there or not. If it's not on the label, then it cannot be used.

    The Chair: Do people understand it if it's written in that form?

    You can use this on your lawn, but if your place isn't listed, then it's forbidden. It doesn't make sense to me. Usually, it's the other way around.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: No. The way pesticides are registered is a product is registered at a specific application rate for a specific site. It's illegal to use it on any site not listed on the label.

    The Chair: I see. Okay.

    On NDP-26, seeing no further speakers, I'll call the question. Those in favour?

    Oh, sorry, Mr. Comartin wants a final comment.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I have a comment about the whole issue of the legal opinion we've had from Mr. Stapleton. I suppose I want to get this on the record at this point. I think Dr. Franklin raised it again.

    In terms of the use of this bill and law, I want to say it is not the opinion I have with regard to the constitutional framework that we operate under within this country. It's not one that's shared. I'm saying this because of some of the other pieces of legislation we've dealt with in the last 18 months since the last election.

    At the environment committee, we've heard a great deal of opinion from national experts on constitutional law that Mr. Stapleton's opinion doesn't hold water. We've heard it from university professors; we've heard it from Supreme Court justices and retired Supreme Court justices; we've heard it from the Canadian Bar Association.

    The use of the opinion as a basis for rejecting these types of amendments, where we can't move into banning cosmetic use of pesticides at the federal level, is one I want to be on the record as saying I repudiate and do not accept, Madam Chair.

    When we hear the comment that we can't use the criminal law power, there are several others we can probably use based on the decisions of both Hudson and the Supreme Court in the Hydro-Québec case. It's quite clear, in those cases, the Supreme Court of Canada is sending a very clear message to us on the level of government that is prepared to protect the environment.

    It's what we're talking about when we're talking about the types of amendments we've put forward here. When we're talking about protecting the environment, they're going to let any level of government do it. It came across very clearly in Hudson, as opposed to the interpretation I see from Mr. Stapleton. It has come across very clearly there. Hydro-Québec is the same thing.

    We do have the jurisdiction to pass these types of amendments and changes to the law to protect the public when it comes to environmental issues. It is what this is about.

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Madam Chair, I think there's a fundamental difference--and I would like to have Mr. Stapleton's opinion--between Hydro-Québec's judgment and that of the Town of Hudson, to the extent that the Town of Hudson referred to the fact that the Town of Hudson came under the Quebec Cities and Towns Act. So towns are creatures of the provincial government, and that's the entire difference between the Town of Hudson's judgment and that of Hydro-Québec, in my opinion. That's personal and debatable, of course.

    My question is for Mr. Stapleton. Isn't this ultimately an indirect way of prohibiting the use of certain products, whereas we clearly said, in your view, that use was a provincial responsibility? So aren't we using what is really a federal power, the approval power, to bring about a certain form of prohibition under this amendment? Ultimately, couldn't this clause be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?

  (1215)  

[English]

    Mr. Bob Speller: Given Mr. Comartin's derogatory remarks about the witness's testimony, I want to give him an opportunity to respond.

    The Chair: About the witness's opinion, it's an intellectual disagreement.

    Mr. Stapleton.

    Mr. Basil Stapleton: Quickly, the simple point I was addressing was to explain the basis of the minister's testimony before this committee that the criminal law cannot be used to criminalize activity because it's frivolous; it's as simple as that.

    There is no suggestion that the criminal law cannot be used to address a matter of significant concern to health or the environment. Nobody is denying that. In fact, if we took that position, there would be no authority whatsoever to be here discussing federal pest control product legislation. So I think we have to be very clear about that.

    The point I was making was a very narrow one. You invited me to respond to testimony you had received that I guess had suggested, among other things, that the minister and the department were taking the position that there was no authority at the federal level to regulate the use of pesticides. I think that was the point that was clearly made in the testimony. Obviously that led you to some uncertainty and confusion as to why we're even here.

    I made the point that there has been federal legislation regulating the use of pesticides since 1927. So that's not even an issue. The question is, what authority is available at the federal level, and to what extent can it be used for the purpose?

    We looked at various types of authority that are available that are of limited use. The most general one that is available, and in fact has been used not only in relation to the regulation of pesticides but in relation to health protection legislation generally in Canada at the federal level, is the criminal law power. Of course, I've made it very clear over the years that the fact that you can use the criminal law power to address significant concerns to health and the environment does not mean you can extend that into use for purposes other than addressing significant concerns to health and the environment.

    With respect to the Town of Hudson case, for example, the question was not really put before the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether there was federal authority to regulate the use of pesticides; that was a given. The question before the court was whether the municipality could do that.

    What the court said was, based on the provincial legislation and on the interpretation of it, particularly of the general welfare type of authority in the Cities and Towns Act, there was indeed authority for municipalities to regulate the use of pesticides, not necessarily or at all for the purpose of health or environmental protection, but on the basis of the well-being of the community, which is a whole different basis.

    That's why I thought it was important to explain as well that the reference in the earlier testimony about the jurisdiction being based entirely on the protection of health was misleading. At the provincial and the municipal levels, that is not the basis on which they have to rely for their authority to regulate pesticides.

    The Town of Hudson admitted that in fact it didn't have actual or concrete evidence of a threat of harm to health or the environment. It didn't need it, because that's not what its bylaw was about.

    At one point it attempted to support the bylaw as an exercise of the authority to regulate with respect to toxic substances, and it had to withdraw that defence for two reasons. First of all, the provincial act required that, before a bylaw was adopted for that purpose, the approval of the provincial minister had to be obtained, and they hadn't obtained the approval of the provincial minister. Furthermore, they also admitted that in fact they intended their bylaw to extend beyond toxic substances. In other words, they didn't want to have to prove that a substance was toxic in order to be brought under the ban, and of course it not being a protection of health or environment bylaw, it didn't have to be confined to toxic substances.

    Unfortunately, from my days as a law professor, I'm programmed to speak for 50 minutes, so I will recognize your admonition and stop right there. This is clearly not an issue that is simple, but I did want to make clear the basis on which you had requested my advice and the basis on which it was given.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question on NDP-26.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: I'll call amendment NDP-27.

    This again is “non-essential use”, etc. Do you need to speak about this, or can we just vote?

    Mr. Comartin?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It's a combination of two of the other ones I've spoken to.

    The Chair: Exactly.

    Seeing no speakers, I will call the question on NDP-27.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Amendment NDP-28.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, this puts an additional responsibility on the proponent of a product to continue to monitor the product on an ongoing basis and to report to the minister any adverse effects. Part of the problem we know historically we've had is that products have been licensed and approved for use in the general consumer community; then we have subsequently found out they have a problem. Part of it, Madam Chair, from my observation over the years, is not only the product itself, but, as it mixes with other products, the chemical soup we've created for our society over the last 30 to 50 years only produces its evidence after it's been used in the general environment. We end up being guinea pigs.

    The section I'm proposing here in effect requires the proponent of that product to set up a monitoring process and report back on a regular basis to the minister if there are adverse effects identified.

    The Chair: Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I'm just wondering how this differs from clause 13, which requires the same thing. I'm wondering, Dr. Franklin, if you can explain.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes, this mandatory reporting of adverse effects is covered by clause 13 in the bill.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Does that clause cover historic and not future...?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: No, it's not historical. This obligation would apply as long as the pesticide is registered. It also applies to the applicants while their product is being reviewed.

    The Chair: Is there a difference, Mr. Comartin, in what clause 13 says and...?

    Mr. Joe Comartin: In my reading of clause 13, I disagree. My reading of clause 13 is it does not look forward. It simply is the information that has to be given at the time of the making of the application.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: No, because it says “or a registrant” in line 17.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: But it's “any prescribed information”, so it's information that's in existence at the time of the application.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: No.

    The Chair: Maybe Sonya can make a comment on this.

    Ms. Sonya Norris (Committee Researcher): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    There are two differences I can see. One is that the regulations would define the kind of information that would have to be reported on a mandatory basis. This stems from the reference to “prescribed”. Prescribed means prescribed by regulations. The second thing is that clause 13 would require more entities to report on a mandatory basis than would Mr. Comartin's amendment.

    Mr. Comartin's amendment would require information on environmental faith and adverse effects. It would stem from the legislation, whereas clause 13 would be defined in the regulations as to the kind of information that would have to be reported.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any further comments?

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I assume we don't know what “prescribed information” is, since we don't have the regulations at this point.

    The Chair: That's right.

    Well, they have regulations, but I would assume they're going to be updated after this bill is in place.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: And there's no indication here for a requirement for monitoring in clause 13?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: That's in clause 12, actually. The monitoring can be made a condition of registration.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: It's not mandatory.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: No, that is done on an as needed basis, if there is a need for monitoring. But the obligations in clause 13 will make the registrant responsible for finding out what's happening with their product all around the world, not just in Canada.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: In saying that, again, we don't know what the regulations are going to be or how they might be changed on an ongoing basis.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: That's a new area of regulation we are already working on. We'll be discussing it with the advisory council once we actually have the authority to make the regulations when the bill is passed.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: This does not meet the requirements for what we wanted to be mandatory. Without my knowing what is going to be prescribed information, it doesn't help me or give me any sense of confidence that the monitoring is going to continue on or that this specific test on the adverse effects of the product, both historically and in the future, is going to be reported back on a regular basis to the minister.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question on NDP-28.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    (Clause 8 allowed to stand)

    The Chair: That finishes clause 8, which we have stood, and there are no amendments to clause 9.

    (Clause 9 agreed to)

    (On clause 10--Specification for unregistered products and uses)

    The Chair: We'll move on to clause 10. Amendment PC-31 is out of order because it's beyond the scope of the bill, as it deals with importing food, which is not mentioned in the bill. You can't inject a new subject matter into the bill through an amendment, so PC-31 is out of order and inadmissible.

    (Clause 10 agreed to)

    (On clause 11--Health risks to be considered acceptable)

    Mr. Reg Alcock: The next amendment, Madam Chair, is withdrawn.

    The Chair: LL-11 on clause 11 is withdrawn, according to Mr. Alcock, and I'm sure he has it on good authority.

    We now have PC-32. Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was so prepared to speak on the previous amendment that I'm less prepared for this one. Essentially, it's the concept of...

[English]

    The Chair: I'll give you a minute, Mr. Bachand, because it's in some conflict with L-5, which is the next one in the book.

    Could you all look at that? Compare PC-32 with L-5 and figure out what you want to do about it. It might change the wording if we passed PC-32, so we have to consider them together.

    Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Madam Chair, L-5 simply proposes that the word “globale” be used simply because that word is used more regularly in the French version.

[English]

    The Chair: Exactly. It's just changing one word, and that word appears in both the bill and in Mr. Bachand's amendment. We could look at L-5 first as a subamendment to PC-32.

    (Subamendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Now, in PC-32 the word “totale” becomes “globale”. Are you ready, Mr. Bachand, to speak to PC-32?

  (1230)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: I'm very pleased, Madam Chair. I was sure you were going to set my amendment aside in view of the amendment just passed. I was sure that, under the procedural rules, my amendment would fall because L-5 was passed. I'm pleased to see it hasn't fallen and that my amendment is automatically amended. That's what I understand.

[English]

    The Chair: Your amendment is amended, but it hasn't passed yet.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: What I mean is that you amended my amendment automatically by agreeing to the previous amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: He's putting it forward, but I want to hear why we should support it.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: It's simply that we should provide more details on the most sensitive receptor. We're setting another parameter which explains that, when we talk about aggregate exposure, we're referring to the most sensitive receptor, be it children, pregnant women, waterways, etc.

    So there's an additional guideline. We're talking about aggregate exposure, yes, but about the most sensitive receptor. So we have just supplemented it. We need a basis. What's lacking in the clause is a basis saying what aggregate exposure we're talking about. So we're saying: “of the most sensitive receptor to the pest control product”. Now we're certain of having a complete basis for analysis and decision.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any comments?

    Ms. Graham.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: The different sensitivities of groups is covered in subparagraph (iii) of that same paragraph. I guess it was our view that we were separating out the issues. In subparagraph (i), we have the aggregate exposure; then in subparagraph (ii), the cumulative effects; and then the different sensitivities in subparagraph (iii), rather than combining the two things in subparagraph (i).

    The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: What I understand is that you agree to my amendment because it is consistent precisely with group 3 where the various sensitivities are identified. When we talk about the most sensitive receptor, we can immediately refer to group 3 to determine which groups are the most sensitive. So there's a consistent logic in the clause.

[English]

    The Chair: Are there any other speakers to PC-32?

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: We defeated the main amendment, so now we have to pass L-5. That will now amend the bill, as opposed to the amendment of Mr. Bachand.

    (Amendment agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: All we did the first time was amend Mr. Bachand's amendment. It failed to carry, so it's gone. Now we have to amend that same word in the bill.

    An hon. member: What did we do just before that?

    The Chair: We amended Mr. Bachand's amendment with L-5, so when we defeated Mr. Bachand's amendment, we had to amend where that phrase appears in the bill.

    We now have PC-33 on page 113.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, I'm convinced that committee members have read all our amendments and see they make sense. We're still talking about the most sensitive receptor, so my previous argument is still valid. What we're adding is the entire question of formulants. So the entire argument is what we're repeating. That's why I said it holds together: we have to have a comprehensive vision of the amendments as well. We're talking about the most sensitive receptor and, more specifically in PC-33, we're adding the question of formulants. We know that a number of witnesses told us about certain dangers, allergens and so on, in the formulants. So here we're simply referring to the most sensitive groups because we know that the very sensitive groups are not necessarily active products, but a child or a pregnant woman may react to the formulant. So we're trying to retain this logic between the previous amendment and this one.

  (1235)  

[English]

    The Chair: Dr. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: It is not about his motion, Madame Chair.

    The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry, okay.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: I didn't want to speak to it. I wanted to speak to something else, a consequential piece based on what we passed earlier, so I'll wait.

    The Chair: We have PC-33 on the floor. Are there any speakers to this amendment? Seeing none, I'll call the question.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Dr. Fry, did you want to raise something?

  (1240)  

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Yes, on clause 11. If you recall, we passed amended clause 7 with regard to aggregate exposure and cumulative effect. This is consequential to that--paragraph 11(2)(b). We would make the consequential changes there, and in clause 19.

    The Chair: Do the officials know what you're talking about here?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: It's on page 116, amendment L-6.

    The Chair: Thank you for being alert to it.

    On amendment PC-34, Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The idea is essentially to add a new subparagraph on the endocrine effects of certain products. We have certain examples of this, among other things, in certain American statutes such as the Food Quality Protection Act, which clarifies this additional risk for persons and groups at risk. So we want to ensure that the endocrine effect is taken into consideration in the analysis. We have an example of this with our neighbours to the south. This is a protection element, but especially an additional analysis element. There are no problems with regard to endocrine effects; there are none, but we are nevertheless going to ensure we go a little further because there may be an additional risk among the groups at risk, a list of which we now know. This is an additional check which prevents no one from achieving the information objective.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other speakers on amendment PC-34?

    Seeing none, I'll call the question.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: On amendment NDP-29, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The amendment is fairly straightforward in that it adds to subparagraph 11(2)(a)(iii) the words--

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin, you weren't here yesterday. We had about four debates on this concept of the ill and those with environmental disabilities. First of all, there was the question of how ill, and second was the question of who's environmentally disabled, which has not been defined yet. There are several court cases out there about it.

    Anyway, the summation of all that is that the committee denied several earlier amendments because they had those words in them.

    I should just tell you that.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you ruling it out of order?

    The Chair: I was hoping you might withdraw it, knowing it's going to fail to carry.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sure my colleagues would hit me viciously about the head and shoulders if I did that, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Well, understand why I'm just going to go forward and call the question. We did have quite lengthy debates, with your colleague speaking passionately to these points.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sure she did.

    The Chair: I'll call the question.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Amendment L-6, I believe, is one of those cleanups to make the bill sequential or something.

    Our own lawyer has something to say here.

    Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): I don't purport to know much about procedure, Madam Chair; however, this is consequential to the amendment that has yet to be passed.

    There is one that has been passed already, but there is another one that has yet to be passed.

    The Chair: Is that amendment L-7? The point is, where did we put L-7? It came yesterday from the government.

    Ms. Monique Hébert: You put it in clause 19, I believe, Madam Chair, which is--

    The Chair: Do you know what page that is on?

     Ms. Monique Hébert: It's on page 146.

    The Chair: Shall we take L-6 out and put it in with page 146? We'll put L-6 aside until we get to the correct page in the package. That's what I'd like to do. That's what the clerk is suggesting, so we'll move L-6.

    We'll move to PC-35, which is the addition of one word.

    Mr. Bachand.

    Maybe we could all look in the bill and see where it goes and see if it's agreeable or objectionable.

  (1245)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Unfortunately, I wasn't here yesterday, but I've just been informed that a similar amendment was negatived yesterday. Essentially what we wanted to do with amendment PC-35 was to add the word “children” to clause 11 in the following lines: “...to take into account potential pre- and post-natal toxicity...” So the “greater than 10” rule would also apply to children. I've just been informed that an amendment to this effect was negatived yesterday.

[English]

    The Chair: I think we had quite a debate about this yesterday as well. I'm going to call the question on PC-35.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: I actually can't myself remember the argument, but I know it was decisive.

    NDP-30 is the same thing. It's identical. We've already decided the question, so that one's withdrawn, or rather not put.

    NDP-30a. Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: This is simply a one-word change. Instead of having “or”, we're requiring it to be “and”. The tests would be the “effects on human health and safety and the environment”.

    The Chair: So “human health and safety and the environment”, as opposed to “or the environment”. Is there any argument about that?

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: The conditions of registration would be specific. It could be one or the other or both, but I think the “or” is correct.

    The Chair: The “and” would say you have to prove both.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: Always both, yes. But this is additional conditions to make monitoring be done, so they would be specific to what was required. It could be both, but it might be one or the other.

    The Chair: But I see what Mr. Comartin's saying. They could give you the information with regard to the environment and omit to give it to you on health and safety. He's saying that if they have information, they have to give it to you on both.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: This is a condition of registration that would be very specific. For example, sometimes the registrants are required to monitor groundwater or any number of things. They're very specific that we're giving the registration, but it's conditional on such and such monitoring being done. If they don't comply with that, their registration can be cancelled. That's a further provision in the bill. So it will be very specific. It could be on some health matters or environmental matters or both.

    The Chair: Why wouldn't you put “and/or?”

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: They never do that. The drafters refuse to do that, and the “or” really means an “and/or” to them.

    The Chair: Okay. Is that agreeable to everyone?

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I suppose what we're trying to do is to require the minister...even though the introductory paragraph is permissive, if they're going to require the registrant to provide this information, that they provide it in all the areas, not just in one or the other. I understand what the staff person is saying, but from our perspective we would be saying to the minister that if you're going to be asking for this, you should be asking for human health and safety and the environment. I can't see how one can exclude the other.

    The Chair: Dr. Franklin.

    Dr. Claire Franklin: It may be that the specific reason for doing it is completely unrelated to health. It may be strictly something that's related to environment, so that it would be unreasonable to say that they have to provide something for health when in fact what we were asking for would be related to some environmental end point that we would be looking for.

     So I don't think it precludes that there may be some instances where we would want information on both, but it would force a requirement for something that would be irrelevant in some cases. That's why the “or” is actually more inclusive and has better scientific capacity.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Mr. Lunney

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): I think inasmuch as this request has come from the minister, something has obviously triggered concern, and it's likely going to be in one or the other, or if it's both, it would be specified as both. So I think the use of the word “or” is appropriate in this case.

    The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call the question on amendment NDP-30a.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: Now we have to formally stand clause 11, because we took one of them and put it aside.

    (Clause 11 allowed to stand)

    (On clause 12--Additional information)

    The Chair: Now we're on amendment PC-36, on page 121.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, the citizens of this country must be able to file a written revision request with the minister concerning tests and similar matters. The minister will be free to decide whether or not it is necessary to proceed with a review. This simply gives people the opportunity to make their arguments in writing concerning the necessary of a revision or review. Yes, the minister will decide. However, there is still this aspect of democracy, that is the power of the citizen to address the authorities. It must be clearly understood. If someone who has problems says he demands that such and such a product be reviewed, his chances of success will be slim.

    But consider the example of a father or mother who is having problems as a result of a pest control product being spread in his or her neighbourhood. At that point, the scientific community may reject all that out of hand, but if that citizen is able to outline his or her problem to the minister, the minister may agree to examine the situation.

    This is a democratic exercise which, as in the case we're speaking of and based on a single example, often enables legislators and the community to look into the problem together. A specific case in one corner of the country may be the alarm bell that affords the opportunity to examine a much more serious problem. So we're giving citizens the opportunity to inform and sensitize the minister.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to express my support for this because it seems to me it's an obvious argument in terms of democracy functioning here, where the entire body politic has an opportunity to raise these issues.

    More specifically, though, in terms of the particular types of problems that we are faced with in dealing with negative impacts, allowing the individual citizen to bring forward to the minister's attention and requiring the minister to respond to that seems to me a way of making this bill much more effective, when it ultimately becomes law, in its application and its daily use.

    Again, from some of the witnesses we've heard around this area and the amount of work that has gone into dealing with this issue by communities and individuals across the whole of the country, it seems to me this opens a window of opportunity for them to have a continued involvement in the application of this bill, and hopefully for their own personal health and safety.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I would simply like officials to tell me if it's not already covered elsewhere, as in subclause 17(4), which states:

(4) Any person may request a special review of the registration of...

    I would like to have their comments.

[English]

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: It's slightly different. In subclause 17(4), a special review can be requested by members of the public. If people had concerns or information, that would be a good route to go. If we had the information, perhaps it wouldn't be sufficient to actually initiate a special review right then, but it could cause a decision to impose monitoring in that way.

    I'm not sure we need another route for the public to submit information and concerns.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call PC-36.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: That ends clause 12 amendments.

    (Clause 12 agreed to)

    The Chair: I think if we're smart, in the next few minutes we could get to the end of clause 15, because there is only one amendment for 13, one for 14, and one for 15.

    We'll quickly go to PC-37, which is on clause 13, and we'll ask Mr. Bachand to speak to it.

    (On clause 13--Mandatory reporting)

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I understand correctly, we're going to eat.

    When we look at clause 13, which concerns the applicant, we see it is very short. We want to ensure it is lengthened, for a good cause, of course. We're giving a lot more details on mandatory reports and on the way to operate. I know that everyone knows clause 13 by heart...

[English]

    The Chair: This is very complicated. It brings in species at risk and almost everything else.

    Are there any other speakers? I'm going to call the question on PC-37--did you not finish, Mr. Bachand?

    Mr. André Bachand: No.

    A voice: I hope not. I didn't understand where you were going with it.

    The Chair: I thought he had finished.

    When you pause like that, I assume you're finished.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, when I pause in this way, it's because I'm mixed up in all the amendments. May I continue, Madam Chair?

    I'm going to go quickly because I know some of my colleagues want to speak.

    I know that my colleagues, including those of the government party, took the trouble to read and study this amendment last evening and night. Essentially it provides much more detail and structures...

[English]

    Am I right, Bob, or what?

    Mr. Bob Speller: You're right.

    Mr. André Bachand: I know you. You and Claude Boulay are good friends.

[Translation]

    I'm joking.

    Madam Chair, I don't want to take any more time; I know that everyone wants to take a break.

    In clause 13, we're providing a much more vigorous follow-up in the analyses. In our opinion, this clause is not detailed enough, not complete enough. So we're proposing, as we did in the previous amendments, a series of provisions with much greater procedural detail.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

     Seeing no other speakers, I will call the question on PC-37.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    (Clause 13 agreed to)

    (On Clause 14--Determination by Minister)

    The Chair: And PC-38 is in clause 14. It's the only amendment.

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    As I said this morning, all our amendments are logical when one reads them from start to finish and is fully familiar with the bill.

     With respect to re-evaluation, you see that clause 14 talks about a special review; further on there are amendments that simply mention re-evaluation. As far as we're concerned, we don't want to separate the two; you will see the subsequent amendments further on. So we're saying that the re-evaluation of registration will be proceeded with without separating the re-evaluations considered special and those that are not. In short, this amendment precedes a series of other amendments. That's really in the procedure? Why proceed with a special review? Why a special review?

·  (1300)  

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Madam Chair, I would like to have the experts' opinion. I believe there is a difference between the two. What I understand is that, in the case of a request for a special review, authorities can proceed much more quickly than in the case of an approval and re-evaluation process. Am I right in thinking that? I would like to hear your comments.

[English]

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes.

    The Chair: He wants something more thorough. We know it's different. He wants a more thorough thing than a special review.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: Yes, but if you get an adverse effects report, it's going to be on one particular area, so it's more likely that it would trigger a special review.

    Also, there are a number of amendments coming up on this theme that seem to want to incorporate or consolidate and not have a distinction between re-evaluation and special review. We think it is a good idea to have that, because, as you said, you can concentrate on the one area that seems to be a problem and get that done.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Seeing no further speakers, I'll call PC-38.

    (Amendment negatived--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    (Clause 14 agreed to)

    (On clause 15--Public availability)

    The Chair: In clause 15 we have just one amendment, PC-39.

    Mr. Bachand, you're on page 15 of the bill, lines 30 to 34.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, the purpose is simply to add the words “make public his or her conclusions” in English and the word “conclusions” in French. I don't know whether the translation is correct, but I trust the drafters. We're simply talking about making the conclusions public. It's something that's not currently in the clause.

[English]

    An hon. member: It is there.

    An hon. member: No, but he's taking out the qualifications.

    The Chair: Yes, exactly. He's suggesting the minister has to make public conclusions after one of these special reviews has been done, no matter what the conclusion--

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Precisely.

[English]

    The Chair: --whereas the bill says only if she comes up with the idea that it's a significant health or environmental risk and it is in the public interest.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: We stop after the word “conclusions”.

[English]

    The Chair: Dr. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, I don't have a problem with what the honourable member is proposing, but I wondered if I could actually clarify it a bit better with a further amendment. I would suggest that you replace line 30 on page 15 with the following:

    

place his or her conclusions in the register and shall then make public his or her conclusions if, in the

    So you want to place it in the register first and then make it public.

    The Chair: It's agreeable?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: So you're saying that everything will be made public. Do we agree on that? There will be no discretionary element making it possible to make it public or not make it public.

[English]

    Ms. Hedy Fry: I want the rest of the sentence to stay: “if, in the Minister's opinion”.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: So it changes absolutely nothing.

[English]

    The Chair: The essential amendment is the deletion of that.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: What we want, Madam Chair, is to ensure that the minister makes his conclusions public. That's all. Clause 15 talks about informing people where there are risks. Why not inform people when there are no risks?

[English]

    The Chair: Apparently this amendment that's been suggested is not really amending what he wants. He wants to leave the bill as it is and then eliminate certain lines. You were going to add another step into it.

    Ms. Graham.

    Ms. Geraldine Graham: I just wanted to point out that we do make a distinction in the bill between making things available to the public, usually through the register, and making things public. Making public means sort of an announcement. You would do that if you find there is a significant risk and you want to alert people.

    What is missing there is putting other conclusions into the register so that they are available for people to look at or get a copy of, if they want to. So that's the distinction we're making.

    The Chair: You're not mentioning the registry. Dr. Fry might want to. Dr. Fry, if you want to think this over, you can bring an amendment this afternoon that adds that as a separate line. Let's leave that thought with you and you can tell us what you conclude, but for the moment we want to vote on Mr. Bachand's....

·  (1305)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: If I correctly understand what Ms. Fry is suggesting, Madam Chair, the idea is to ensure that the information is in the register, but to give the minister...

[English]

    The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Bachand, we're not speaking about that now, because the clerk has told me that's a completely separate idea and it would have to come in a separate amendment. So right now we're dealing with only what your amendment says.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: Why is it a different question? We're just talking about the question of the register. I think that goes with the very idea of the proposed amendment. What Ms. Fry is suggesting, and what I clearly understood as well, is that the information be made public. We're talking about an advertising campaign, but I agree that the information should be made available, of course. That's the purpose of the amendment; that's precisely in...

    I suggest, Madam Chair, that we vote on Ms. Fry's amendment. I absolutely agree with it.

[English]

    The Chair: We'll have our own lawyer speak to this now.

    Ms. Nancy Miller Chenier (Committee Researcher): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my understanding that Madam Fry wanted to retain the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b), whereas Monsieur Bachand's amendment would have eliminated those conditions. I think you might want to tread more carefully here.

    The Chair: That's what the clerk is saying, because the essential premise of Mr. Bachand's amendment is to get rid of the conditions the minister has according to the bill as written, and Dr. Fry does not want to get rid of those conditions. The other thing is that each of these two ideas is amending the main clause. Dr. Fry's is not amending yours. So Dr. Fry would have to present her own later, and yours is going to be voted on as it is, which essentially eliminates the last few lines, 30, 31, 32, 33.

    Pardon me?

[Translation]

    Mr. André Bachand: What I mean is that it must be clearly understood that what we want to do--and we are prepared to work to amend our amendment; I find there's no problem with that--is to ensure that all the information is public, available.

[English]

    Ms. Hedy Fry: Madam Chair, might I just clarify?

    Voices: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    The Chair: You're all yelling at me at once. Stop. I have to listen to the clerk.

    It being now 1:05 p.m., we can set this aside until we see what Ms. Fry does and come back this afternoon to do it.

    I also had a report from the Bloc that Mr. Ménard didn't want us to discuss his suggestion around the minister until he can come back. So we won't do it now, as I suggested. We'll do it at the beginning of the next meeting at 3:30 this afternoon in room 253-D, Centre Block.

    I thank you for your serious and hard work, people.

    This meeting is adjourned.