ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 9, 1999

• 0920

[Translation]

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

[English]

I have a few brief announcements, one of a general nature and the other one pertinent to the committee's work, talking about next week and the possibility that we would want to sit for a few extra meetings, and the commitments made by some members of this committee on Monday.

I am wondering whether there is a disposition that, if necessary, we would sit twice on Tuesday and twice on Thursday, in addition to the regular meeting on Wednesday. It may not be necessary, but it may be necessary, in the hope we can perhaps complete our work by Thursday.

• 0925

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I think we should make an honest effort to be finished by Thursday, and if that means scheduling extra meetings, so be it.

The Chairman: So the clerk will send out the usual notice for your secretaries to include in your agenda.

The other announcement, to put it briefly, has to do with the prevention of World War III and the maintenance of peace in the world that everybody in this House is concerned with, and the visit next week by the Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He will be coming to Ottawa to meet with Canadian parliamentarians, and an occasion will be offered to meet him, hear him, and ask questions Monday evening at a dinner seminar. It is open to parliamentarians who wish to attend. If they wish to attend—and they don't need to join the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association—they just need to inform the secretariat of their intention to attend that dinner Monday evening at 7 p.m.

We have had extensive reviews of the records of what happened on November 4, going back to where we were last night. I can assure members it makes fascinating reading. It is in relation to Mr. Herron's two motions, the one that was discussed shortly before 4 o'clock and the other one that was discussed at 4:15.

In reviewing the record, it becomes clear that there was a vote on Mr. Herron's first motion, PC-1, part (a), and that vote was in the negative. Shortly after that there was a discussion on the subsequent motion by Mr. Herron, and it was during that discussion, 15 minutes later, that Mr. Herron asked that his motion be withdrawn. That didn't cause any problem because he had not moved his motion in the first place. This is for the record, to clarify where we are at in relation to Mr. Herron's motion on that day.

The clerk was up into the late hours last night and has put forward the following. There is the principle that the House cannot contradict itself in its decisions in its motions—and it is a very important one. However, there is also, according to the parliamentary legal minds, the principle of rescinding a decision of the House. That action, if taken, opens the ground for a motion that had previously been negatived.

In other words, in our particular situation here today, it would appear there is a procedure available to us to resolve the problem we were facing yesterday afternoon.

• 0930

Step one, it would require a motion that would rescind the votes taken on November 4 on that portion of Mr. Herron's motion, namely motion PC-1, portion (a), which read “that Bill C-32 in clause 2 be amended (a) by replacing line 6 on page 3 with the following: (a) take preventive and reme-”.

Copies are being made of this particular text to refresh your memories. If such a motion is moved and carried, it is possible, according to the rules of procedure as examined by our clerk, to move the motion the parliamentary secretary was attempting to move yesterday afternoon. Then we will be in business again.

Are there any questions of clarification the members of the committee wish to have as a result of this explanation?

Monsieur Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Could you tell us more precisely what motion you are talking about?

The Chairman: We shall distribute now the text of Mr. Herron's motion. You have already received the text of the motion moved by the government yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Could you tell us its number, please?

The Chairman: The motion we are discussing is found on page 4 for the French version and on page 3 for the English version.

[English]

The text of Mr. Herron's motion, as a refresher, is being distributed now. The motion the government is proposing is on pages 3 and 4. The floor is open to entertain a motion for the rescinding of that particular vote.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): I would make such a motion to rescind the earlier vote on Mr. Herron's amendment PC-1, referred to yesterday.

The Chairman: There is a motion by the parliamentary secretary to the effect that the votes taken on Mr. Herron's motion on November 4 be rescinded.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do I understand it has to be unanimous for this order to pass?

The Chairman: It's a majority vote.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I would disagree, because if we are to proceed in this manner it means every clause we have gone through for the last several months can be reopened and revoted on. It does not make any sense. The only way a clause can be reopened is if there's unanimous consent; otherwise we'll be here forever.

• 0935

The Chairman: There are concerns that we are on clause 2 by unanimous consent, as is normal procedure, and a vote to rescind a previous vote requires a simple majority.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I just want to help clarify the comments for my honourable colleague. That wouldn't necessarily be the case, because once a clause is closed and carried we wouldn't revisit it. It would only be for clauses that haven't been completed. In this case, we didn't close clause 2, so that would be a different issue. Do you know what I mean?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: To clarify, this clause has not been closed at any point.

The Chairman: Clause 2 had been stood and is still before us. There is still a very large number of amendments we are going to approach today. So the clause is still wide open for amendments that are already in our binder, and the number is fairly large.

Ms. Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If it would help members in their understanding of just what is open, since we did stand clause 2, there are a number of amendments, some of which would have been in a different order. If we had considered Mr. Herron's amendment today, as opposed to a previous date, government G-0.1 would have been ahead of his amendment because it was a G instead of a PC.

So in terms of timing, we certainly kept clause 2 open. There are a number of things that could have been reorganized in terms of priority, and the outcome would have been perhaps different today.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we can go back to where we were yesterday, namely page 3 of the large binder.

Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd be happy to move government amendment G-0.1. There are two effects of this amendment, based on yesterday's votes. This will be read as (b) and the numbering will be reordered, but that's for the legal minds to turn their attention to afterwards. It would take out “cost-effective” from administrative duties.

The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Rick Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I just want to raise a technical or procedure question. If this goes through, will NDP-1 then not be considered? We are proposing that “effective” be considered in a preventative and remedial aspect.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, if this motion is carried, NDP-1 will no longer be before us, as well as L-1.1.0. Those two amendments will be wiped out if this amendment carries.

• 0940

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Is this the time to clarify our position and our intent with the motion, and beg for a little attention?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Taking out “cost-effective” wholeheartedly changes the whole context of this duty. I believe the committee and the members throughout the debate did have concerns about cost, because it's a very narrow duty to be cost-effective in the preventive and remedial measures. But our view is that effective preventive and remedial measures to protect, enhance, and restore the environment would increase the expectations of the government's duties, and also challenge them to be effective with the resources they have and the decisions they make. Otherwise, to take any preventive and remedial measure is a very big duty. But to be effective is a challenge, especially when you're dealing with enhancing, restoring, and protecting our environment. So that's why I stated my case that “effective” should be considered here.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I wanted to address this subject yesterday. I would like to hear his remarks again. I've forgotten what he said.

The Chairman: Memories are short, aren't they? Would you like to comment?

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Consultant): I don't know if your memories are short; I think I was just confusing yesterday.

I had some discussions about this issue with Mr. Cameron and Ms. Hébert after yesterday's session, and I think we are agreed that leaving the term “effective” in would establish a different test from what it would be without the word. Conceptually, I think it would be a higher test that the government would have to meet for the reason Mr. Laliberte explained. The government wouldn't be able to take just any preventive and remedial measure, it would have to take “effective” preventive and remedial measures.

The problem, from a legal perspective, as I understand it—and Mr. Cameron may want to add to my comments—is that “effective” would be very hard to define; therefore the committee would be establishing a very vague standard to which the government would be held. In general, as a principle, one should try to avoid establishing vague standards in law because then you don't know precisely how the law will be interpreted, either by the people implementing it or by the courts when the government's action has been challenged.

Ideally, we should try to make whatever law is passed by the House as clear and certain as possible. This would be a vague standard.

The Chairman: All right, thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Under the legal definition there's the principle of POG—peace, order, and good government. So how does the legal community define “good”? You can say government, and we can let our imagination run wild, but Canadians, democratic citizens of any democratic country, say “good government”. In environment, why can't we be effective?

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: My reaction to that is that the peace, order, and good government is vague. It has been the subject of considerable academic controversy and litigation. I'm not here to criticize the peace, order, and good government clause, but in my view, it's precisely that kind of controversy—litigation and academic dispute—that one should try to avoid when crafting a law that is designed to provide the government with clear direction in terms of what it needs to do to protect the environment.

• 0945

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 6 of the large book, where you will find a motion in the name of Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, what will be the French translation of the amendment we just passed?

The Chairman: The French translation of the motion we just passed?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We have just deleted the word “cost”.

The Chairman: No, it is the words “cost-effective”. As I have already said, the text of the motion is found on page 4.

Let us go to page 6.

[English]

Mr. Herron, are you ready?

Mr. John Herron: Is this the one on page 6?

The Chairman: It is on page 6, PC-2.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to be moving this because there's an error in it. Secondly, your thoughtful amendment yesterday accomplished everything I wanted to accomplish with this one.

The Chairman: So it's not moved.

Mr. John Herron: No, it is not.

The Chairman: Then, members, please turn to page 7, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It seeks to make it an administrative duty that the government establish nationally consistent standards of environmental quality. It just says that it has a duty to facilitate the protection of the environment, that it has a duty to implement an ecosystem approach, instead of endeavouring to do so. In other words, I'm deleting the words “endeavouring to”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there someone who will move the motion? Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I would move the motion on behalf of Mr. Lincoln, who is unable to vote and is therefore unable to move his motion.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're welcome.

A voice: We'll let everybody see that you're a squatter here.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: The motion on page 8 is identical to the one just passed in the name of Mr. Herron, so we congratulate Mr. Herron for having put it on paper. I now invite you to go to page 9, where there's another amendment by Mr. Lincoln, L-4.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, you will notice that there are two amendments, L-4 and L-4.0. I'll withdraw L-4 and move L-4.0, as I would rather move it. I'd also like to speak on motion L-4.0.

The Chairman: Let me ask for someone to move the motion on behalf of Mr. Lincoln, so that he can address his motion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd be happy to move the motion for Mr. Lincoln. We understand Mr. Lincoln's status and why I'm moving the motion on his behalf.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, you have the floor.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to seek a friendly amendment to my motion. I think that will make it much more acceptable to everyone. The motion now reads “to protect the environment, including its biological diversity,” and I'm adding to it so that it continues “and human health, from the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes.”

We don't want to stop the use and release of products or biotechnology, obviously, so I think I would like to seek a friendly amendment to add the words “adverse effects of” before the words “the use and release”. That is really what we are about: to try to stop the adverse effects, not the use and release of anything.

• 0950

So the full motion would read, “protect the environment, including its biological diversity,” which are the words that exist right now, and I've added “and human health, from the adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes.”

In choosing to move L-4.0 in preference to L-4, which didn't have the addition of pollutants and other wastes, I consulted with two legal environmental advisers, Mr. Moffet and Mrs. Hébert, who recommended to me that L-4.0 was more appropriate because it covers the general subject that CEPA is all about, in all its parts. In other words, it talks about toxic substances, pollutants, and other wastes. This is why I chose L-4.0, with the addition of “adverse effects of the use and release”. Maybe you can ask Mr. Moffet or Madame Hébert to comment if you like.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Would Madam Kraft Sloan move this friendly amendment?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I'd like to move this friendly amendment.

The Chairman: All right, so the motion is before us with the friendly amendment. Mr. Moffet, would you like to comment?

Mr. John Moffet: Well, just to clarify things for the members, Mr. Lincoln's motion has a number of effects. The first, of course, is to delete “endeavour to”, so as to make the duty more positive. The second is the addition of a number of additional obligations.

The first obligation is to protect human health as well as the environment, which in my view would be consistent with the thrust of the bill, which is designed to protect both environmental problems and human health problems from pollutants.

Secondly, he is adding the word “use” to “release”. I believe this would be consistent with the committee's earlier report, which focused on the importance of incorporating the concept of toxics release into the concept of pollution prevention.

And thirdly, he is adding “products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes”.

These issues, of course, are addressed in the bill in the latter part of part 5, with respect to export and import of certain wastes; part 6, with respect to products of biotechnology; and part 7, with regard to international air pollution, international water pollution, pollution from nutrients, import and export of wastes, and ocean dumping of wastes. I think what Mr. Lincoln is trying to do here is essentially expand the scope of this clause to address the main issues the bill addresses.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments or questions? Madame Torsney, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Instead of “the adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances”, I wonder if it might be more appropriate if it said “any adverse effects”. The implication of “the adverse effects” would be that all products of biotechnology have adverse effects, which wouldn't necessarily be correct. It should be “any adverse effects”.

The Chairman: Is that a friendly amendment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, it's an amendment. I'm not sure if it's friendly or not. That's for the receiver to decide.

• 0955

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the department a question about having “use” in the new phraseology? I'll use lead as an example, because it is on the current toxics list. Would that mean that lead could not be used as, for example, a ballast in the keel of a sailboat? Are we saying lead would not be able to be used at all? I just need some clarification on how broad this amendment is.

The Chairman: Who would like to comment?

Mr. John Moffet: Could I make a quick comment while the government is conferring?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Mr. John Moffet: I think Mr. Lincoln's friendly amendment to his own amendment, adding the words “adverse effects”, was partly designed to address the very concerns you're raising, Mr. Gilmour. The duty would then apply to protecting Canadians from the adverse effects, not from all uses.

The Chairman: I see Mr. Lerer nodding. Is that in the ballpark?

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I agree entirely with the interpretation just given, sir.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify the implication of Mr. Moffet's comment that lead in the keel of a sailboat wouldn't necessarily cause an adverse effect on the human health or the environment if it was properly encased, etc., let's finish the thought. Are you saying there wouldn't be a problem, unless there's proven to be a problem?

Mr. John Moffet: Let me answer the question in the most legalistic manner possible.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, good.

Mr. John Moffet: Assuming there was no adverse effect from a properly encased keel, my opinion would be that this amendment wouldn't preclude the use of that type of lead in a keel. I can't tell you whether a keel is a danger or not, though.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That would be the interpretation of the department as well.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just wanted to make a point following Mr. Gilmour's query. In the government response, it says:

The Government of Canada is of the same view as the standing committee, that the onus should be shifted more to the producer, the user, or the importer of a substance to ensure that substances do not pose an unacceptable risk to the environment or human health, rather than the onus being on the citizens to establish that such a substance is likely to have unacceptable consequences for the environment and human health.

So really, this just flows in the same pattern.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are we voting on the friendly subamendment first?

The Chairman: It was my understanding that the suggestion of the word “any” has been accepted by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then perhaps you could re-read the clauses.

The Chairman: The text, as agreed, would read: “protect the environment, including its biological diversity, and human health, from any adverse affects of” and the rest of the text.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just “the use”?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, “the use and release”.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I am offered an explanation that the NDP motion on page 12 and the PC motion on page 10 are not required because of the carrying of Mr. Lincoln's motion.

On page 13 there is an amendment proposed by the government.

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

I'd be happy to move government amendment G-0.2. It is being moved in the spirit of cooperation and clarity, as suggested by Mr. de Savoye when he attended a meeting earlier. Its aim is to clarify that we mean expeditiously and diligently, therefore making it more equivalent to the French text.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: On page 14 there is an amendment in the name of Mr. Gilmour.

• 1000

Mr. Bill Gilmour: This amendment was put forward by six separate groups of witnesses before us. What it does is emphasize the role of science in the policy.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I have none, other than to say that I don't know that this issue has not been covered off in many other places in the bill, so this amendment would not be necessary.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Any further comments or questions? Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I would just add that it would only then strengthen what is already in the bill.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Could you please move to page 15, a motion in the name of Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, we have two motions, L-4.1 and L-5, which cover the same section of the clause. I would rather move L-4.1, please.

The Chairman: Can I have someone move L-4.1 for Mr. Lincoln?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to move amendment L-4.1 on behalf of Mr. Lincoln.

The Chairman: So moved. Would you like to speak to the motion, Mr. Lincoln?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think amendment L-4.1 does what paragraph 2(1)(l) is trying to do as written, except that it's much clearer. It has the same intention, the same spirit, except that when you read paragraph 2(1)(l), “act in a manner that is consistent with the intent of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements entered into for the purpose of achieving the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada”, it's quite a mouthful, and you wonder what the heck they're talking about. A lot of people have commented that this thing is very confusing, very long-winded, very wide-open.

I'm suggesting we say in there “continue to seek the cooperation of provinces”. That is what it's about. I've added “and aboriginal peoples in resolving environmental issues requiring interjurisdictional solutions”, which is much more straightforward, which covers the point we are trying to make in paragraph 2(1)(l). I think the wording is much clearer to everybody and achieves the same aim.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Parliamentary Secretary?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the member could provide some further comment on how this would be different from paragraph 2(1)(d).

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, perhaps I could throw the ball back to the officials and ask them why then we need paragraph 2(1)(l) at all. In fact I think the parliamentary secretary is quite right. I would be quite happy myself if we could include under paragraph 2(1)(d) “aboriginal peoples” and then delete paragraph 2(1)(l) altogether, because she confirms that paragraph 2(1)(l) is redundant. Then I'll be very happy with that, because we've done everything in paragraph 2(1)(d) that paragraph 2(1)(l) does. We would add “aboriginal peoples”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

• 1005

Are there any comments? Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, I guess I have two points. The first is with respect to aboriginal governments. They're included in the definition of “government”. That's a minor point.

In regard to the key point raised by Mr. Lincoln, about the difference between paragraph 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(l), there are a couple of—

The Chairman: It was raised by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Steven Mongrain: If I recall, the parliamentary secretary's point was that Mr. Lincoln's amendment was very similar to paragraph 2(1)(d). Mr. Lincoln, if I understood his question correctly, asked what is the difference between paragraph 2(1)(d) and paragraph 2(1)(l) in the bill? Is that correct?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. What I'm saying is that if we agree that paragraph 2(1)(d) and my L-4.1 are the same, why do we need paragraph 2(1)(l) in the first place?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: There are a couple of points or additions in paragraph 2(1)(l) that are not in 2(1)(d), the first being “achieving the highest level of environmental quality”. I think that's an important point. The second point is that it adds a little bit of precision related to intergovernmental agreements.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The cat is out of the bag, because I don't see see why under paragraph 2(1)(d).... Let's face it, we are acting in cooperation with the governments to protect the environment, and you could say “and achieve the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada”, if that's a problem. But I think what you want to do is to enshrine intergovernmental agreements that so far are not statutory. We've been told by the government on repeated occasions when we've questioned government officials that it's purely a political instrument. That's why we feel that something much more, that seeks cooperation of the provinces, which is what we want to do anyway, would achieve it.

So if you would suggest it to us, I think it would be great if we add “to achieve the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada” to paragraph 2(1)(d).

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Members may recall we had this discussion many months ago, when officials first appeared before the committee in May on Bill C-32, and I believe it was Mr. Knutson who drew to our attention to some of the problems with paragraph 2(1)(l) as it's drafted in the bill.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That was a long time ago.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: A very long time ago, sir. But I remember it clearly.

We agreed there were some problems with paragraph 2(1)(l) as it is proposed in the bill, and in a letter that goes back to June of last year, Mr. Lerer's predecessor wrote to the committee providing some language to correct that problem. It retains the notion of intergovernmental agreements and the notion of the highest level of environmental quality without making it legally binding upon the government. So it addresses Mr. Lincoln's concern about making such agreements statutory.

I recall that the language provided endeavoured to exercise its powers in a manner that is consistent. The Canadian Environmental Law Association, when it appeared before the committee, had a similar amendment that used the words “with regard to”, which I believe is in Mr. Lincoln's L-5 amendment. The government is comfortable with the CELA language, our proposal, or a mix, as long, of course, sir, as it reads properly and makes sense.

• 1010

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If there's a concern on the part of the government to enshrine intergovernmental agreements in statutes, I'm wondering why it's necessary to specifically mention intergovernmental agreements in this section and not see Mr. Lincoln's option as a preferred option when he talks about interjurisdictional solution. I think there's a wide range of things that can be looked at when we're entering into the issue of interjurisdictional areas.

So I would wonder why the officials might not see Mr. Lincoln's amendment L-4.1 as the preferred solution in light of the amendment of adding highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada to it.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think it's important to point out, Mr. Mongrain, that CELA had two options. The one you talk about was very much a second option. The first one was to delete it because they don't like it. I've spoken to them many times, and of course they don't like it. They felt if it's a case of losing it all, then you make it as palatable as possible, but their first choice is certainly not to have it at all.

That is the first choice of most of us who feel that no matter what wording you use, you enshrine it. You put a duty to the government to have to respect an agreement that is not statutory and that is political. It seems to me that what I had suggested does it all. I don't mind if you change paragraph 2(1)(d), to amplify paragraph 2(1)(d).

But first of all, I'd like to come back to aboriginal governments. If you look at the definition, it talks about aboriginal governments. But we're not talking about aboriginal governments here; the aboriginal people have just a few governments, they don't have many governments. Most of them don't have governments. What we're talking about is people on reserves and so forth who don't have a government and see themselves as a people—in other words, first nations. That's why the wording was “peoples” instead of governments.

I think what we're trying to do is to accept the sense of what the government wants to do without enshrining the intergovernmental agreements, which we agree are not statutory and are political. What is the best way of achieving this without trying to be didactic or anything; that's not the intention.

The intention is to try to find a wording that meets the objective of what the government is trying to do in cooperation with the provinces. It seems to me we could pick paragraph 2(1)(d) and my wording, and amplify paragraph 2(1)(d) to bring in aboriginal peoples, to bring in highest quality standards, just the same as the wording “environmental issues requiring interjurisdictional solutions”, with a wording that achieves the same thing without enshrining intergovernmental agreements. This makes it much clearer, it doesn't refer to these accords, and we come to the same point, except that in statutory form it doesn't spell out the agreements.

I wonder if Mr. Cameron would agree that if we brought in paragraph 2(1)(d) it would achieve the same thing.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Environment Canada): I think paragraph 2(1)(l) is very specific, Mr. Chairman. It was put in for purposes that are very specific and differ from the intent behind paragraph 2(1)(d).

We've been circling around the harmonization accord, and I think paragraph 2(1)(l) is specific to the policy intent underlining the harmonization accord. So from that perspective, paragraph 2(1)(l) is needed for purposes of reflecting the government's policy commitment to the harmonization initiative.

The Chairman: Parliamentary Secretary.

• 1015

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Let me say the government would in fact support amendment L-5, which could be before the committee, I suppose, and that support is based on the discussions this committee has had previously. Second, the current paragraph 2(1)(l) is quite different from amendment L-4.1 as it is proposed. The concept of acting in a manner with regard to the intent of intergovernmental agreements does not, in fact, enshrine those intergovernmental agreements in the manner the member has suggested.

If the member is going to propose an amendment to paragraph 2(1)(d), that certainly could be something people would consider, but I would perhaps suggest that if you were going to do that it would be both the governments and the citizens to protect the environment, rather than necessarily one specific group of citizens that should be singled out over other citizens.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I think it's important to distinguish between a statutory instrument and a policy approach. If we consider the life of CEPA, what we have before us is amendment: it's a new CEPA, CEPA 1998, which changes CEPA 1988. This is ten years. This bill still has to go through the Senate and it still has to be proclaimed.

We are witnessing a decade of activity on this particular bill. The next CEPA is going to go through a similar sort of review process. It may be a decade and a half before the next CEPA comes into effect. Here we are, enshrining in legislation or showing in legislation a commitment to a particular policy initiative. The policy initiative itself may change. I have a great deal of concern about articulating in legislation a commitment to a policy initiative that may or may not still be in effect a decade and a half from now but certainly is going to preclude the government from acting in a different way.

We have subagreements on the harmonization accord, which we have yet to see any substantive information on. We don't know how these agreements are going to play out, how this process is going to play out. The committee did some work on this last year. It's a very controversial area, with a great deal of concern about the harmonization agreement. I have a real difficulty as a legislator to give articulation to a government commitment on a particular policy within legislation that we're going to have to live with for a decade and a half.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Parliamentary Secretary, please, and Madam Carroll.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, perhaps because CEPA 1999 will in fact be a piece of legislation that will be useful as future agreements are signed, and as things change, and it's kept broad, that is why in fact the drafters used the words “intent of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements” and did not in fact write in this bill the intent or even just skip that part and put the harmonization accord of 1998. That wasn't the intention. There certainly could be other agreements and arrangements that are entered into in the next fifteen years, or ten years, that this piece of legislation would have the ability to reflect the intent of.

There is nothing in here that says it is that specific accord that is being enshrined in the legislation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Carroll, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, if Ms. Torsney hasn't commented, but I'll take the chance.

Mr. Cameron, the use of the word “intent” in the legalistic interpretation—what does that word convey or not convey? Can you give me both? How does it impact on that clause?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It impacts on the clause by saying that the government.... First of all, you have to read the clause as a whole.

• 1020

We don't parse out individual words. But in trying to answer your question, I would point out that what we would be doing under the revised version of paragraph 2(1)(l) is that the government would first of all “endeavour” to act, rather than the current wording, which says “shall” act. In other words, we propose to soften the language somewhat to address the legal concern Mr. Knutson raised some time ago.

Furthermore, how shall we endeavour to act? We shall endeavour to act in a manner that is consistent with the intent of the government at the time the government enters into these intergovernmental agreements. In other words, we will follow through on our commitment.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Can I interrupt you there, just for a second? Is not the use of the word “intent” to convey what was in the mind of the legislators at the time they enacted the legislation?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Actually, I believe it's to reflect what was in the mind of the government at the time the government entered into the intergovernmental agreements.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lerer wants to say something.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Just to add to my colleagues, the intent of the word “intent” that is spoken about in this phrase is carried through later in paragraph 2(1)(l), and that is “for the purpose of achieving the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada”. That is the intent of the accord or agreement that has been signed or initialled by nine of the provinces, the two territories, and the federal government.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, to cut the debate short, I think in these things eventually you have to compromise and take what you feel is second best. So in the spirit of compromise, I would like to take advantage of the parliamentary secretary's suggestion. If somebody would withdraw L-4.1 and move L-5, then we'll go on to L-5.

The Chairman: All right. It's unanimous consent that we withdraw L-4. We now need a mover for L-5.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I'll move that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Moved by Mr. Jordan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can I just make one comment? There's been some debate about just cleaning this up slightly. The words “in a manner” are not necessary, so I would ask the member if it would be acceptable to say “endeavour to act with regard to the intent of intergovernmental agreements”, because “a manner” is redundant. It's not necessary. It's grammatically poor.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In accepting to do this, I followed the CELA recommendation. To them, “in a manner” was very important. That's what they recommended, and I think we should just leave it as it is and take a vote on it.

An hon. member: I thought she said she'd accept L-5; now she's changed her mind.

The Chairman: Please.

Mr. Lincoln, is there anything else you would like to comment on?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No.

The Chairman: So the motion is before us in its full form as printed on page 16, without any deletion or modification.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's grammatically silly.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would feel remiss if I didn't point out that I do not believe this is properly drafted. I believe it is not grammatically correct in its current form. I believe one either acts in a manner, or one acts with regard to. But I do not believe one acts in a manner with regard to. Therefore, I think we should consider picking one version or the other. Keeping all of these words in place does tend to confuse the language grammatically, in my opinion.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: You see, Mr. Cameron wins all the battles. Okay, we'll do that.

• 1025

The Chairman: The motion before us is without the three words on the first line, “in a manner”, so it reads “endeavour to act with regard to” and then the rest of the sentence.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Through a little sidebar we had a few seconds ago with my colleague from the NDP, I would like to ask the officials something. When I read the current drafting, “to act in a manner” is stronger than to “endeavour to act”. I kind of like how it's written right now.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Herron's suggestion was the subject of our debate many months ago, in May. The current language causes legal problems. As it's proposed in the bill, it could make the harmonization accords legally binding. That's not something either the federal provinces or the provinces desire—or this committee, I would imagine.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Would someone move the motion on page 17?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I so move.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan moves motion L-6. Mr. Lincoln, would you like to introduce it?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The intent of the motion is to delete the words “in order to avoid duplication”. In all the testimony we have received before this committee, for I don't know how long, witnesses have underlined time and again that there is no proof at all that there is duplication. There's been no study on duplication; there's been no conclusive study that duplication exists. In fact, many environmental groups feel that duplication, if it does exist, is not a bad thing anyway, because it provides a safety net.

If you take environmental assessment where sometimes there is conflict, when one drops the ball the other one picks it up. We could quote the case of the Oldman River and different cases where at least two levels of government are better than one because sometimes neither of them acts.

So the intent of my motion is to go straight to “in a complementary manner”. In fact, if we say “in a complementary manner”, I suggest to you that “to avoid duplication” is unnecessary and completely superfluous. If you say you act to complement, obviously you avoid duplication. So I would go straight to “addressed in a complementary manner in order to provide effective and comprehensive protection”.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would not be in favour of this amendment. Since the government took office in 1993 it has tried to operate to avoid duplication. I think the clause is sufficiently broad to allow for the possibility at the beginning, where it talks about the extent that is reasonably possible, that we're still protecting the environment and providing effective and comprehensive protection but we would not specifically try to create duplication.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mongrain, briefly please.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have just a point of clarification. This clause only applies to areas of federal regulation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Mr. Lincoln.

• 1030

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: On this comment that we have tried since 1993 to avoid duplication, I would suggest that evidence is very clear that in a lot of the agreements that have been passed on there's been no action at all. There's been no reporting to the federal government. In fact, I was just reading an editorial in The Globe and Mail as recently as February 25, 1999, on environmental indiscretions, showing how the Ontario government has given instructions to its provincial inspectors not to enforce all kinds of regulations. This avoiding of duplication is just a way to sort of escape. If we say it's complementary in the first place and it's a comprehensive and effective protection, that should be sufficient.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Once again, looking at the whole clause, this is about all areas of federal regulation for the protection of the environment and human health. We tried to avoid duplication across government departments as well, and clearly that is the concept that is discussed in this area.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Please go to page 20, amendment BQ-7.

[Translation]

Let us turn now to the Bloc Québécois' motion on page 20.

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we are proposing to delete the words "and cost-effective" in sub- paragraph 2(1)(n), line 13 on page 4 of the bill. It is in the same spirit as the NDP's amendment on clause 8.

The Chairman: Your motion is well understood.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This sub-paragraph should read as follows:

(n) endeavour to exercise its powers to require the production of information in a coordinated manner;

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

I would like to draw members' attention to the fact that G-0.3 is very similar, so of course I would be supporting this.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just on a matter of procedure, what happened to NDP-8, which is a line before 15? Does it have a history?

The Chairman: It is my recollection, Mr. Laliberte, that NDP-8 is identical to BQ-6, which was defeated.

• 1035

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. I was following this list. This is the correct list of motions that survived the first round.

The Chairman: BQ-6 and NDP-8 are identical. BQ-6 was defeated. Therefore, the same fate applies to NDP-8.

We now have before us BQ-7, which is identical to G-3.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 23.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are proposing an amendment to the French version of sub-paragraph 2(1)(o) which read as follows:

(o) endeavour to apply and enforce this act in a fair, predictable and consistent manner.

I propose to the delete the words "endeavour to" and replace them by:

(o) apply and enforce this act in a fair, predictable and consistent manner.

We want to make sure that this legislation can be enforced at the administrative level. We should then require the Government of Canada to apply this act in a fair, predictable and consistent manner instead of only endeavouring to do so.

The Chairman: Thank you. The motion of Ms. Girard-Bujold is similar to motions L-8 on page 24, NDP-10 on page 25 and PC-3d) on page 26.

[English]

Any comments or questions? Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: It's my opinion that this clause does not impose a duty on the government to apply and enforce the act. This clause is about how the government shall apply and enforce the act. This clause is requiring the government to endeavour to apply and enforce the act in a certain way. So the amendment would not create a direct duty on the government to apply and enforce the act, period. It would create a direct duty to apply and enforce the act in a fair, predictable, and consistent manner. I think that's an important distinction, which I think may be a little bit different from the one the member implied.

Personally, I have some concerns about making that a stronger obligation, because I think fairness, predictability, and consistency are policy objectives to which presumably everybody here would agree, and certainly the government members would agree, but they may be difficult to achieve at all times. I would be concerned about creating an absolute legal obligation to live up to those policy objectives at all times. Therefore I would urge the members to consider retaining the concept of “endeavour”.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I put this same amendment forward. In my sense, obviously, it was to refer to fair, predictable, and consistent manner. The first line only was referred to in the amendment because we were deleting “endeavour to”.

At the same time, I think if any duty should be direct, it should be that to be fair, to be predictable and consistent in the enforcement of the act. It seems to me that a government doesn't have the choice but to be fair, to be predictable, and to be consistent in enforcing and applying an act.

To say that the government should endeavour to, should the government endeavour to, and then if fairness is not achieved recommend what's fair? I think the government has to apply in fairness and be predictable and be consistent. I don't think there should be any room for manoeuvre. After all, it's a value system really we're talking about; it's not a strict application. Fairness and consistency and being predictable are values that are judged in a reasonable form; people don't expect the impossible. But surely the spirit, the intent, the way the government carries itself, would decide. And I think it should be much more direct than “endeavour to”.

• 1040

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd like to ask Mr. Moffet if the act currently ensures that the act will be applied and enforced, or if it's necessary to have another clause to address this issue. You're talking about two different issues: the fact that the act has to be applied and enforced, and then the way in which the act will be applied and enforced. My first reading of this was that it dealt with the way it would be applied and enforced. I want to ensure that the act actually will be applied and enforced.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: To clarify, this clause, in my opinion, does not create a positive obligation to apply and enforce the act. That's not the purpose of this clause. But the bill has three hundred and something clauses, many of which create a positive obligation on the government to do something: the government shall create a PSL, the government shall assess those substances on the PSL, and the government shall assess the substances on the PSL within a certain period of time. Those create positive obligations on the government to act in accordance with the provisions in the bill. I think that's where you find that positive obligation on the government. I don't think we need another clause in this front end. I think that would be redundant.

I'm going to have to read those clauses to give you an answer. Sorry, I can't answer that right now, but I will do so.

May I beg your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to respond to Mr. Lincoln?

I appreciate the principles, the sentiment that you expressed. I wanted to observe that fairness, predictability, and consistency, while objectives to which presumably all members of the committee would agree, in my view might be extremely difficult to interpret legally. I would be concerned that a person or a company that has been subject to regulatory action or enforcement action could say that they weren't treated fairly. We have no idea what fairness means. That could lead to an extended legal battle, which in my view would undercut the objective of taking action rapidly and efficiently to protect the environment and human health.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I wonder if Madame Hébert would venture into this lukewarm water. “Endeavour” was prevalent in this whole duty aspect. “Endeavour” seems like an adventurous undertaking. I think when you're dealing with duties of the government it should be quite specific, and applying and enforcing this act in a fair, predictable, and consistent manner begs to be highlighted. The “endeavour” part was like Columbus; he was endeavouring to find India, and look where it got him. “Endeavour” is quite an adventurous undertaking. It doesn't necessarily lead you to the fair, predictable manner. You could be misguided, the compass could go wrong, the budget could run dry, but it might be an excuse.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I don't agree with Mr. Moffet's interpretation. I would think that it's important for Parliament to clearly direct the government to apply its laws fairly. To do otherwise might leave the impression that for the Government of Canada there is room to act in a manner that is perhaps unfair, depending on the circumstances and so on.

• 1045

I think it's quite appropriate for Parliament to insist that in applying its laws, the Government of Canada act fairly, consistently, etc. And if parties feel they are being dealt with unfairly, well, there are remedies to deal with that today. I don't know that this would give them any greater cause of action than they already have at law.

The Chairman: Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, certainly Mr. Moffet has caused me to reflect. I will stand by my commitment to Mr. Lincoln that I would support this, whether it's L-8 or BQ-8 or NDP-10. It's all the same motion. Mr. Moffet has caused me to reflect, but I will stand by that commitment.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To try to convert Mr. Moffet, peace, order, and good government has certainly provided a great lullaby for many legal mothers, I should say, out there to put people to sleep and rest assured that you can comfortably be assured that the government is doing its job efficiently. But “endeavour” kind of waters the whole process down. I just wanted to say he's challenging government to do a good job, to be fair, to be predictable and consistent. We should not shy away from that. I think that's what puts me to sleep at night. I just wanted to say that. So have a good sleep.

The Chairman: Can we have Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Gilmour, and Mr. Jordan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm very supportive of what Mr. Lincoln and what Mr. Laliberte have had to say. The concern I have is that the interpretation of this clause might be used against the ability of the government to act in achieving environmental protection and human health, because if an individual or corporation can go into court and challenge the consistency and fairness from their perspective of how they're being treated, I have a great deal of concern that it may cause some roadblocks. But I am still concerned about the issue of enforcement.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cameron, perhaps you'd care to wade in and give us the benefit of your understanding as to whether “endeavour to” or “apply” is stronger.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Certainly. I do not share Mr. Moffet's concern that the removal of the words “endeavour to” would be problematic. I'm confident that the government will apply CEPA in a fair, predictable, and consistent manner, and making an explicit duty for the government to do so neither causes me legal concerns, nor, I understand from the Department of Environment, does it cause them any policy concerns either.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: No, that's fine.

The Chairman: Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to clarify, PC-3(d) is the same amendment as well.

The Chairman: Yes, we mentioned that earlier already, as well as NDP-10.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I invite you to move to page 27.

Madam Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, we propose to add a sub-paragraph 2(1)(p) that would read as follows:

(p) take into account the traditional knowledge of Aboriginal peoples.

This amendment arises from the comments I made the other day. I believe it is very important to enshrine that principle in an Act that will affect Aboriginal peoples who do not have a government to represent them, as Mr. Lincoln said. It is important to take into account their traditional knowledge.

• 1050

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Parliamentary Secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

It's my information that in fact this concept was already incorporated into paragraph 2(1)(i), so it's already in the administrative duties and this would be unnecessary.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: My recollection is there was an amendment—I believe it was Mr. Lincoln's amendment, but I don't know who put it—that incorporated the concept of traditional aboriginal knowledge in paragraph 2(1)(i), and it was voted on and accepted by the committee. That is my recollection, sir.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could you read it to us, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes. The clerk has brought forward amendment L-3, which was adopted in November. It reads:

(i) apply knowledge, including traditional aboriginal knowledge, science and technology, to identify and resolve environmental problems;

This would be in clause 2, in replacement of lines 27 to 29 on page 3.

During the discussion, I'm informed, the text was slightly modified and the adopted amendment reads as follows:

(i) apply knowledge, including traditional aboriginal knowledge, science and technology, to identify and resolve environmental problems;

All right, we are back again to Madame Girard-Bujold's motion.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but could you read again the motion that has been passed?

The Chairman: Yes, I shall read again the French version:

i) mettre à profit les connaissances, y compris les connaissances traditionnelles des Autochtones, et les ressources scientifiques et techniques pour cerner et résoudre les problèmes relatifs à l'environnement;

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: This satisfies me. I can then withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: You agree?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes. Wasn't it already passed?

The Chairman: Yes. Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Is there unanimous consent for the withdrawal of Madame Girard-Bujold's motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I invite you to go to page 28. It's a motion in the name of Mr. Gilmour.

Please go ahead, Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would expect the government would welcome this amendment, as it's consistent with what's been in the red book in many instances on fair and open government. This simply puts transparency into the document. I think it's pretty straightforward.

The Chairman: Any comments or questions? Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Through you, Mr. Chair, is it the intention of the Reform Party to have enforcement done in an open manner?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Well, we're talking about this particular one at the moment.

• 1055

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Might I suggest that it might not be as workable as it would seem.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I don't think there's any difficulty there.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps we could turn to our officials about enforcement and how they....

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain, do you want to comment?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The first one, Mr. Chairman, is Bill C-32 breaks significant new ground in transparency. There's pre-publication of proposals. It requires the government to set up an environmental registry. There are all kinds of mechanisms in the bill that are specific and require openness.

The government I think would be worried, however, about an administrative duty that was linked to enforcement where there's a need for intelligence gathering and investigations that are not necessarily done in an open manner. The results are transparent, but the conduct of an investigation certainly is not something we would want to publicize to those being investigated.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: My question to my Reform colleagues would be is there a particular instance that you could site as an example of why you would want this included in terms of open manner? Mr. Mongrain's comments seem to make some sense to me.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I would suggest that this simply emphasizes what Mr. Mongrain is saying. If it is an open and transparent document, this simply emphasizes that in fact this is the way business will be carried out, in an open and transparent manner.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Please turn to page 29.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, there are two motions that cover the same clause, so I won't move. I will withdraw L-9 and I would like to move L-9.0, please.

The Chairman: Would someone please move L-9.0?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd be happy to move L-9.0.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary so moves. On page 30, L-9.0 is moved by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's very plain. It's to delete subclause 2.(2).

The Chairman: It's the deletion of subclause 2.(2).

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Which wasn't present in Bill C-74. It's a new departure, so we suggest that we delete it.

The Chairman: Any comments or questions? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There was a ruling yesterday on deletions. Is it complete clauses that there was a concern about in regard to deletions? This would not be deemed as a complete clause.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Laliberte, you're right. That applies to complete clauses.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. We have NDP-11 that's coming up. Does that mean we're out of consideration if we delete this one?

The Chairman: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to draw it to the members' attention. They may prefer NDP-11.

The Chairman: It's only fair that you would at least draw the attention of the members to the existence of NDP-11.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1100

The Chairman: All right. It's 11 o'clock, and the next committee has arrived.

The meeting is adjourned.