ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 17, 1999

• 1537

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to today's session. We continue our study of Bill C-32. Today we welcome students from the Forum for Young Canadians.

[English]

We are very pleased to have in this room a group of students from various high schools whose names are: in Regina, F.W. Johnson Collegiate; in Chatham, John McGregor Secondary School; in Hamilton, Columbia International College; and in Edmonton, Ross Sheppard Composite High School. Respectively, they are represented by Eric Ward, Erin McLean, Hui Zhong Li, and Anna Lundeen.

Would you please rise so that we can all see you and applaud your presence?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: You have come a long way, and we are very glad to see that you are interested in environmental and sustainable development issues. Welcome.

After this happy introduction, now the bad news. It is quite evident, even for blind man, that we will not finish this week and that we have to sit next week. Therefore I'm offering two options: either we sit Monday afternoon and twice Tuesday, hopefully finishing on Tuesday, although we can't be certain; or if you don't approve of that formula, we can sit twice on Tuesday and once on Wednesday, keeping open the option for Thursday if necessary.

• 1540

We still have a long way to go, and it is becoming necessary to make these announcements so that you also can plan your life for next week. So I'm inviting comments indicating preferences.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Are we still going to meet twice Thursday, meaning tomorrow?

The Chairman: Yes, if your commitments permit, of course. Until we have a quorum, we can't start. We'll try to start at 3 p.m., or 3.05 p.m., or 3.10 p.m., or as soon as you arrive, but we will have to adjourn at 4.45 p.m.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Good, that's fine.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Yes, I think we all want to get this through. I would suggest that if we get into the latter part of next week, though, we wouldn't want to have anything beyond Thursday morning, because members will be—

The Chairman: Perish that thought.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Yes, but life being life, I think we're probably going to end up being here, so let's plan for it.

The Chairman: Well, I'm beginning to think we might be sitting here until Christmas. Perhaps with some determination, however, we might not.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): So why don't we sit Monday afternoon and Monday night?

The Chairman: Because I don't believe in sitting Monday nights with this kind of stuff. I don't think we get things done. There are also a number of caucus committees already scheduled for Monday night.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would rather meet twice next Tuesday.

[English]

The Chairman: All right, well, it is understandable that there would be fluctuations in preferences. We will leave it to the clerk to send out a notice tomorrow, after hearing perhaps individual preferences at the time when we break up this meeting. We can then get a better reading and not tie up this committee meeting in matters of this nature.

An hon. member: Tomorrow, do we have two meetings?

The Chairman: Tomorrow we have two meetings, yes. Thank you very much.

(On clause 81—Manufacture or import of substances)

The Chairman: Today, we again start with clause 81 and the amendment prepared on page 190 of the package, in the name of Mr. Laliberte, the member for Churchill River. It is amendment NDP-42.

Would you like to introduce and move your amendment so that we can move ahead?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Yes, Mr. Chair, I would introduce amendment NDP-42. In effect, subclause (10) would now read:

(10) On the request of any person to whom subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) applies, the Minister may, by order,

—and “, by order,” is the change we're asking for—

waive any of the requirements to provide information under that subsection if

The words “by order”, as we all are very well aware by now, trigger public notice and public participation. Prior to any waiving, the public's right to intervene could take place, as opposed to prior examples, in which the minister can publish a decision. This would be done before the decision is made.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Have you moved it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So moved.

The Chairman: We had a fairly extensive discussion of the concept attached to this amendment once already, so you're familiar with that.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was going to say the same thing, Mr. Chair. We had this debate on NDP-49, which would have affected clause 106. I think we went through the extensive information around publication—which is covered, of course, in subclause (11)—and what kind of process this triggered, so I think we're probably ready for the question.

The Chairman: So could you indicate your position?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I remain against it.

• 1545

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions? You heard the comments by the mover and then comments by Madam Torsney.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: I invite you to move to page 191, to Mr. Laliberte's motion, NDP-43.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I will move amendment NDP-43. It would in effect, the way it is written, delete lines 12 to 18 on page 52:

(b) the substance is to be used for a prescribed purpose or manufactured at a location where, in the opinion of the Ministers, the person requesting the waiver is able to contain the substance so as to satisfactorily protect the environment and human health; or

This is the issue of containing. The clause we're dealing with is substances and activities new to Canada, and by deleting this I think it would protect us from accidents or leaks that may happen in laboratories or in places of business. We are requesting that this be deleted and the minister go through due process for requesting information.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

Again, this amendment is very similar to NDP-49.1, the first part of which would have had the same impact. So my decision on that one would remain the same, and it is that I would not be in favour of this amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm trying to see if Mr. Lincoln has an amendment that overlaps here.

The Chairman: Not to my knowledge, but I will check. The answer is no.

Any other questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I have a question to the government officials who do administer this section of the act. Under present situations, how many requests are being waived under this subclause? Is it viable? Is it needed? Or is the concern I've been raising about accidents and leaks being covered or compromised by deleting or not deleting this subclause?

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer, please.

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): This is a waiver of information requirements. It does not absolve the minister of making the determination regarding accidents, or emergencies or spills. It is simply a waiver of information requirements.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought the member's question had to do with the number of occurrences, and I believe we've had this debate before. There is a concern that with this particular clause the number of occurrences aren't that many. So it seems to me there should be an allowance for public comment on this, and if we can't get that, then maybe this should be deleted from exemption of information.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, the answer is that this particular clause is used infrequently.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if this clause is used infrequently, then what is the harm in allowing for public comment on an exemption of an activity with such great importance?

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: This is not about a process for allowing public comment, this is about eliminating one option on waiving information. Again, the debate last time was that if the minister feels she can make a decision without seeking additional information, she can make that decision and it would apply in all three of the instances.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it's the same issue we had before us the last time, and we lost the amendment to have public comment on this clause. So if this is an infrequent occurrence of extreme importance to the Canadian public, there should not be an exemption for information on this.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We're on NDP amendment 43, which is not about public comment.

• 1550

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, I've already made that point. And I made that point in our debate the last time we had this discussion. So there should not be an exemption around information for this particular clause, in light of the fact that it's infrequent and is of great concern to Canadians.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any other points? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I believe if the members familiarize themselves with clause 81, it's dealing with subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4). This is notification of significant new activity. I'd also raised the question yesterday as to whether the prescribed fee was being implicated in this by waiving these opportunities. These are new activities in Canada. We do have opportunities to protect ourselves under this act. I believe if a minister waives, the way I read it is that in her opinion the waiver is able to contain the substance. That's where the crux of my concern was. If it's the opinion of the minister that the person applying can contain this, then she'll waive notification and information requested from her department.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, followed by Madame Hébert.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Once again this is about a waiver of requirement for information. The information would be sought because the minister's trying to make some decisions about these substances and their use in Canada. The process of accountability and public information is also covered in subclause 81(11) because the information is being published. That's specifically who was asking for the waiver and the type of information that was being waived. The minister remains able to not waive the information when she chooses not to waive a request for further information, or in the case where she's quite ready to make a decision, can make a decision without the need for a hold-up of additional information. That decision, once again, can be a negative decision.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Mr. Chairman, by reason of yesterday's discussion on parallel provisions in the part dealing with products of biotechnology, it just occurred to me that basically this scheme is that when you have a new substance coming into Canada or a new activity in relation to a substance, you are required to notify the minister and provide the prescribed information. And the minister will assess that new substance or new activity. Of course, under paragraph 81(10)(b) these are the exemptions. If you look at clause 83, the ministers carry out the assessment of the information that is provided in relation to the substance or new activity. Therefore I'm wondering...if one looks at paragraph 81(10)(b), there would be no information provided upon which to make the assessment.

The Chairman: Are you asking a question? Have you completed your comments?

Ms. Monique Hébert: I'm just saying if one looks at clause 83, it does say, “or otherwise available to” the ministers. Now, that situation would seem to be covered by paragraph 81(10)(a); that there is sufficient information and it is not needed to carry out the assessment. I'm wondering therefore what is the purpose of paragraph 81(10)(b) in light of the fact that the assessments are carried out on the information provided?

The Chairman: Thank you. Maybe Ms. Lloyd can clarify that question.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

The way it works is there are new substance notification regulations that list out what a company must supply for information. What this does is say that if there are instances where they can contain the substance, and to do that they have to provide information on how they're going to contain it, which is a fairly onerous package, on top of that they still have to submit the information on the toxicity, because that's how we determine whether the containment is appropriate for that type of substance.

The reason it is rarely used is that the data required is so onerous that it's just easier to give us the data we asked for to begin with. So I think it's good to have there, because if they do have that information and they choose that option, then fine. But it only says “the Minister may waive any of the requirements”, it doesn't say all of the requirements. In reality the requirements are larger. That's why it's rarely used.

• 1555

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further comments? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: My concern with this—and I'm just raising it with the committee—is that this deals with waiving information on a substance as long as, in the minister's opinion, it could be contained. This substance could be highly toxic, could be highly detrimental to our environment and our health, but as long as the minister is concerned, and in her opinion it's contained, she can waive the information. And it doesn't trigger the whole process under new activities.

This, under new activities, begs for this subclause to be deleted. That's the whole reason the new activities clauses exist in this bill—for information, and access to information, for the minister and directly for the public.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Ms. Lloyd, could you comment on that last statement? Is that in fact correct?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: No, it isn't. The company is still required to notify. They have to submit the data on the toxicity. They have to prove, to convince us, that it can be contained. And the level of information required to do that goes up with the degree of toxicity of the substance. The minister still has to assess within the time period that's required and do everything that you have to do with a new substance. This doesn't change any of that.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to augment my colleague's statement and give you an example. The first thing is that this is not a waiver of the minister's obligation to make a decision. For example, if you have a shopping list of information that is normally required, and the first thing you look at, for example, is acute toxicity, and the minister makes the determination, “This is acutely toxic, therefore I am going to make a decision to do whatever it is that I'm going to do”, the chronic information may not be required for that particular substance because you've already made the decision that it's not going to be allowed in that contained circumstance. That is why the waiver is used in the reality of the world.

So what you have is a shopping list of information that would be required in all circumstances. Given that the information that allows the minister to make a decision has been assessed, there is no need for the other information, and therefore you waive it. That is the circumstance under which this is used. Once again, it is in no way a waiver of the minister's obligation to make a decision.

The Chairman: Thank you.

For the benefit of the students in the room, what is being discussed here is an amendment by Mr. Laliberte, who is proposing that the following be deleted from the legislation, namely the portion of the bill that says:

the Minister may waive any of the requirements to provide information under that subsection if

...

(b) the substance is to be used for a prescribed purpose or manufactured at a location where, in the opinion of the Ministers, the person requesting the waiver is able to contain the substance so as to satisfactorily protect the environment and human health;

Can we now come to a conclusion of this discussion so we can take a vote? Or are there any further questions or comments?

If there are no further questions or comments, are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We're now on page 192 in English, 193 en français.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to move government amendment G-8. This is being moved in parallel with one that was moved on clause 106 to correct an oversight, and that was that corrections received under subsection (13) should have been included in the bill instead of just subsection (14).

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions? If not, are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1600

The Chairman: Shall clause 81 carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, Mr. Lincoln has amendments on this clause.

An hon. member: What number?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Lincoln has amendments L-13.19, subclause 81(3), and L-13.2-something, subclauses 81(7) to 81(9).

A voice: It's L-13.20.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Lincoln said he wasn't going to move L-13.20.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: All right, but L-13.19, I believe, is still part of his package for consideration, which affects subclause 81(3).

The Chairman: I'm informed that his decision was not to move it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: He's not moving L-13.19?

The Chairman: L-13.19 is on page 185.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm told that his amendment L-13.20 was not going to be considered for motion.

The Chairman: That's another story, but as far as L-13.19 is concerned, our records indicate it was not moved. Whether his intention was to move it at a later date I cannot vouch for.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a memo.

The Chairman: If Mr. Lincoln wants to move it tomorrow—I understand he will be back—then we will seek unanimous consent to reopen this clause. If he does not require that, then we are not going to do that. He actually called it, because it was my understanding there was no other amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can we not have a vote on carrying the clause?

The Chairman: There's no need to have a vote on carrying the clause. There was a voice vote and it was done.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Did we do PC-18.0.0.1?

The Chairman: Sorry...?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I voice my objection.

Mr. John Herron: Did we do PC-18.0.0.1?

The Chairman: Yes, I think we did yesterday.

Mr. John Herron: I think we did, but—

The Chairman: It was wiped out by another amendment.

Mr. John Herron: It was wiped out?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chairman: If Mr. Lincoln indicates the necessity of moving his amendment, which our record shows is not his intention to do, then I will ask the consent of the committee tomorrow to reopen it. At this stage, I think we are just engaging in a hypothetical discussion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it's not a point of order, but it's a clarification of the process. Why do you call for carrying a clause if we're not allowed to vote on that?

The Chairman: I called the clause. I asked, “Shall it carry?” And some voices said carried.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And some voices said no.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I did not hear the nos. Were there nos?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Me.

The Chairman: There was a no. Well, then it will be carried on division.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, I'll just make the point that on all the clauses we've gone through, I'm not aware of any where we have had a division. It's been carried by the committee.

Mr. John Herron: We actually have one. I almost had a little temper tantrum. I remember precisely. I was grumpy back in 1902, when we first started this bill, and it was carried on division.

The Chairman: Anyway, there may have been more than one.

(Clause 81 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 47—Guidelines)

The Chairman: The next amendment before us would be BQ-18 on page 105.

[Translation]

Motion by Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: One moment, Mr. Chairman. I will get back into context.

This amendment deletes the words "il propose" from the French version in order that the Minister consult the provincial governments. The passage would read as follows:

• 1605

(2) À cette fin, il consulte les gouvernements provinciaux ainsi que les membres du comité qui sont des représentants de gouvernements autochtones;

That is the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Hébert is reminding me of the fact that we have here a few amendments that come under the heading of “shall offer to consult”. There is some work in the system being elaborated upon for amendments in this category, so I'm coming rapidly to the realization that perhaps we should deal with this amendment and the other amendment in the same category of consultation.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think all the amendments are on the table for all of this clause and we're quite prepared to deal with them.

The Chairman: When we were discussing clause 200 yesterday morning we set aside.... An effort is being made to come forward with an appropriate language on consultation, unless I'm suffering from hallucinations, which is quite possible.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could have an indication of who might be doing that.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, am I suffering from hallucinations?

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): Partial perhaps, Mr. Chair, but they're good hallucinations.

I undertook to come back to the committee with some recommendations regarding subclause 200(2), which had to do not with the matter of consultation but with the conditions or the test that the bill would set out under which another act or regulation would apply rather than CEPA.

The Chairman: Thank you. Then we can proceed.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, like you, I was of the opinion that a number of amendments in this vein had been suggested and passed. If you wish to go on, we will. Therefore, I move my amendment.

I want the words "il propose" to be deleted from the French version, which would then read:

(2) À cette fin, il consulte les gouvernements provinciaux ainsi que les membres du comité qui sont des représentants de gouvernements autochtones;

I move that, instead of saying "il propose de consulter", it say "il consulte". The Minister shall do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Kraft Sloan.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that Mr. Lincoln is working on some negotiations around the “shall offer to consult” clauses. Mr. Lincoln is not here, and we've shown respect to other members who have amendments in particular areas, especially when we see this as a very strong thread through the entire bill. It's not just amendment by amendment, but it's certainly a theme that is being addressed. I know that Mr. Lincoln is working on this, and while we have not shown respect to Mr. Lincoln in allowing him to vote, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we at least show him respect in dealing with the issue he has been working on for a very long time.

The Chairman: When Mr. Lincoln's amendment comes up for discussion we will stand it. In the meantime we have a Madame Girard-Bujold amendment here that we can deal with, because this is her amendment; it's not anybody else's.

• 1610

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the indulgence of Madame Girard-Bujold because I know these clauses are of concern to her as well and it's difficult to separate these issues out. Even though they are separate amendments, it is the same issue; they are intertwined. I think in order to properly deal with these things we need Mr. Lincoln here, and I would ask that these be stood down for now.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. In terms of process, we have in the small package on page 3 amendment L-13.4.0, and it affects lines 1 through 26. So there are two things. It would be my opinion that we probably need to deal with that one first. Second, the debate about amendments BQ-18, L-13.4.1, and NDP-20 would be academic, depending on the outcome of amendment L-13.4.0.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This amendment is out of order, I was told.

The Chairman: That amendment is out of order and therefore it cannot be dealt with, because it deals with the entire clause, you see.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We had this debate a while ago. I apologize.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What's the status of Ms. Carroll's amendment, then? They keep coming back in a package. It's amendment L-13.4.0.1 on page 4.

The Chairman: It was modified, I'm told, and we carried it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It just came up in the March 16 package, so I wanted to be thorough.

Then I'm quite prepared to talk to Ms. Girard-Bujold's amendment that is before the committee, and in the course of that I'll also mention why I would not be in favour of it, as well as the next two that are coming, because it is all related.

In my mind, consultation is a two-way—

The Chairman: Just a moment. We're going a bit too fast for the chair, because we are still determining whether this amendment should not be stood in the light of the package of amendments that has been prepared on this particular subject of consultations.

On a point of order, yes, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's not a point of order, but at the risk of participating in your hallucination...we were always standing these shalls and mays. Am I now finding out that we had no strategy? I assumed that somebody was looking at this.

The Chairman: Work has been initiated by Mr. Lincoln on this—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chairman: —and he was telling me the other day that he is proposing an amendment that would be hopefully satisfactory to the department. So with that in mind I think we should, regardless of the proponents, leave the topic aside for a moment and come back to it.

[Translation]

One moment please, Madam. Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, you are not suffering from hallucinations. In all respect for the work currently being done by Mr. Lincoln, I would like, if you permit, that this clause be allowed to stand.

• 1615

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is the request to get unanimous consent to withdraw this motion at this time and stand the clause?

The Chairman: I thought we lost that.

I would seek the unanimous consent of the committee to stand this particular clause and the following clauses that deal with the subject of consultation. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): No.

The Chairman: The senator says no.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We don't actually need unanimous consent. We need unanimous consent to withdraw this motion, but we could ask to stand clause 47 by a vote.

The Chairman: The clerk will indicate the rule that guides the clause.

The Clerk of the Committee: First of all, Mr. Chairman, do we have unanimous consent to...?

The Chairman: No, we don't.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If you take them separately, I think you might find a solution.

The Chairman: Yes, but we still have to dispose of this particular motion, for which we are seeking unanimous consent to withdraw. Perhaps Mr. Gallaway would like to give his reasons for not consenting.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Well, Mr. Chairman, when unanimous consent is sought, there is no need to give reason. I'm opposing unanimous consent.

The Chairman: Unanimous consent is usually sought in order to develop cooperation and a certain positive attitude around the committee room in order to get things done. We are now going to engage in a procedural exploration that may take up a considerable amount of time. In the end, it would therefore be counterproductive. It would be more conducive to get things done by consenting than by withdrawing the consent, so that we can move on to other clauses.

Madam Torsney and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: For the benefit of members and others, the other option would be to actually have the vote and see what the results of the vote would be. The effect of this either being negatized or supported would affect the outcome of two other amendments that will be coming before the committee, should it in fact be negatized.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): What's “negatized”?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, first of all, this clause will have to be stood down. Mr. Lincoln has an amendment in this clause, so we will not be able to deal with this particular clause. That whole issue is before us—

The Chairman: We're talking about this particular amendment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I know we're talking about this particular amendment.

I'd like to also remind the member who has denied unanimous consent that the committee allowed for time for the member to return to the committee so that he could come in to speak on amendments that he wanted to bring before the committee. I also understand that a good deal of the committee's time was devoted to bringing in experts to deal with certain issues that the member wanted to bring before the committee.

I'd also like to reiterate that Mr. Lincoln is a member of very high stature who has been denied the ability to vote on this committee, which is incredibly disrespectful of the member. I would like to encourage the committee to respect—

• 1620

The Chairman: This is another issue.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I know, but it's certainly related.

The Chairman: We are not discussing Mr. Lincoln right now; we're discussing the question of unanimous consent. I'm sure the member for Sarnia—Lambton is aware of the time that was devoted to his particular motion and so forth. Is the member for Sarnia—Lambton willing to provide consent?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: No.

The Chairman: He's not. All right. Then the clerk informs me that we will have to deal with this particular amendment, but then we can suspend the balance of the amendments for this particular clause 47 by way of a vote.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Could I speak on a point of order, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Lincoln is a member of the committee, how can he be denied the right to vote, or who denies him the right to vote? I'm not sure how that transpires. Isn't that what Mrs. Kraft Sloan said?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: He's an associate member.

The Chairman: He is not a member of the committee.

Mr. Rick Casson: But has he not had the opportunity to vote on some occasions?

The Chairman: Yes, on certain occasions in replacing Madam Kraft Sloan, and that is determined by the whip.

Mr. Rick Casson: That's determined by the whip, okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me to clarify a few things.

If I had known at the outset that Mr. Lincoln was in the process of preparing a document concerning these amendments, I would have said, Mr. Chairman, that I allowed my amendment to stand. I was not aware of this because I was absent two or three times.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think unanimous consent is necessary. I got the information I wanted and I may say that my amendment is stood. Unanimous consent is not necessary. Information required for me to act was missing. Now that I have this information, I am acting by requesting that my amendment be stood. That is all.

The Chairman: I agree completely with your position and I understand it. However, it is a question of procedure. As soon as a motion is made, there is a problem that we try to resolve by seeking consensus; however there are difficulties.

Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just before what I gather you might be doing now or would be doing soon, which is taking a vote on this amendment, I wanted the opportunity to speak against the amendment.

The Chairman: We will certainly have a full normal discussion. Madame Girard-Bujold made an intervention on a point of order, which is fully understandable.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I would like to have the floor again, if I may. For some time, this committee has been sending us all over the place. I am totally confused. Something occurred and I wasn't informed of it. Now that I have been informed, I am acting.

There are people here who could act diplomatically and understand such things.

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, I am listening and I understand you very well.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It is also out of respect for Mr. Lincoln.

The Chairman: It is very unfortunate that a committee member has decided to deny you consensus. It would have been elementary, a simple gesture of politeness, but I cannot force the member for Sarnia-Lambton to behave how you wish and also, I think, in accordance with the wishes of most of the members of the committee here today.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, you cannot oblige me to do it, but I hope that Mr... I forget the name of the riding....

The Chairman: He is the Member for Sarnia-Lambton.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: All right. I could ask him to listen to what we are saying. If he wants the Act to have a little common sense, he will have to accept, up to a certain point, the arguments we raise. Thank you.

The Chairman: That is a very good question. The member for Sarnia-Lambton is perhaps ready to reply.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Chairman, when unanimous consent is sought it may be given or it may be withheld, and I find it unusual that we're having this debate about the reasons. You will observe in the House on a regular basis that unanimous consent is withheld and there is no debate about that. Now I've withheld my consent. I'm not here to answer questions. It's not question period. That's all I would say.

• 1625

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: A little while ago we had a debate on some amendments that actually included democratic accountability, making the system work a little bit better. I think my colleagues from the Reform and I thought that was a very good thing. I noticed that just a few moments ago we had four young individuals from a program that I'm very fond of, the Forum for Young Canadians, and they were here to watch the parliamentary system work. I would like to mention to the honourable member that you might have actually broken the spirit of these four young minds, and that's the reason why they left.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour, and then we will have to proceed with this clause in the normal way.

[Translation]

I am very sorry, Ms. Girard-Bujold, but we do not have unanimous consent.

[English]

Mr. Gilmour, on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, that we have a point. Mr. Gallaway has refused unanimous consent, which is his right. I would suggest that we move forward under the parliamentary rule.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, I invite you, if you will, to repeat your intervention regarding your amendment.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that I am very disappointed. There are reasonable people around this table. I think that, throughout our study, the people from all parties, even if they did not share the same volition, have always agreed to do certain things. If we had wanted to make use of our power to refuse, we would have done so, but we would have been very open to discussion. I do not understand why Mr. Gallaway is not open to discussion.

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, I ask you to use only the name of the riding.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I am very disappointed that the Member is stubbornly refusing the open-mindedness that everyone else around this table would like. If you want me to continue, although I am very disappointed, because we are doing work that will perhaps improve such things. I am very disappointed to be obliged to ignore work that is currently being done. If the Honourable Member wants to continue in this vein, I will move my amendment, but I won't be happy about it.

The Chairman: We understand you very well, Ms. Girard-Bujold, and invite you to make your intervention, if you please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sloan, we have the floor.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: No, we are now no longer on a point of order. We are now with a motion by Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is designed to delete the words "il propose" from the French version of clause 47, line 13 on page 29; the provision would then read as follows:

(2) À cette fin, il consulte les gouvernements provinciaux ainsi que les membres du comité qui sont des représentants de gouvernements autochtones;

That is what I move, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci, Madame Girard-Bujold.

A point of order.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's fine, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney, please.

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

I would not be in favour of this amendment BQ-18, the effect of which would be to remove “offer to consult”. I think consultation is a two-way street, and to force a consultation before the minister exercises her power would not be a workable situation. We have indicated our goodwill, but if the other parties do not agree to participate, the minister has to move on and make some decisions. Clearly, we've written language that will satisfy the spirit of our desire to consult with the other provinces, but we'll allow the minister the opportunity to act if the other parties don't choose to participate.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Torsney.

• 1630

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): In an ideal world, the amendment could be considered to have an interesting scope, but we know how things can work out. We want to ensure here that the federal Minister's intention to consult be clearly included in the Bill. In English, the expression is not may offer, but shall offer. In French, it is "propose de consulter". Things are clear.

In the amendment, the wording is "il consulte". When the other party is consulted, is that party present? If a group of Aboriginal people fail to attend the consultation, or if one or two provinces do not respond to the consultation, someone could always intervene and say that the Minister did not consult them. It would not be the Minister's fault, it would be because the other party did not attend the consultation.

What we are legislating here is the responsibility of the federal Minister. The Minister is expected to be truly serious, and it is specified that the Minister is obliged to offer consultation. Even if the other parties do not attend, the Minister will have done what is required. This is why I am against the amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Mr. John Herron: I just have a quick comment on this. I agree with the intent of the honourable member's motion to ensure that the provinces have the right to actually play the role. Ms. Torsney's argument at the end of the day I think is stronger in that regard, that sometimes you can't get two parties actually at the table talking. It is unfortunate that we didn't have a chance to be able to find a third way, another option to address the language we were debating.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I was just going to say to the honourable member, we will have that opportunity in Mr. Lincoln's.... Actually, the clauses we were standing were “may offer” versus “shall offer”. Taking the word “offer” out is something completely different. I think we can move ahead and vote on this one without compromising the others.

The Chairman: That's correct. In any case—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's part of the same discussion.

The Chairman: —are there any further points? Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Could I hear from the department on what the effect would be of mandating the government to talk to the provinces? What is that really doing?

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, there's a legal consideration here that's been alluded to by Ms. Torsney and Mr. Charbonneau, which is to say that if the law required the Minister of the Environment to consult, but the other parties were unwilling to participate in that consultation, then the process comes to a standstill because the obligation would not have been discharged. Therefore we feel it's important to have the offer, to give the minister the opportunity to discharge her obligation.

The Chairman: Thank you. Any further questions? Any further interventions?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 47 allowed to stand)

On clause 64—Toxic substances)

The Chairman: I invite you now to turn to page 6 of the small collection, to a motion in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Yes, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Does this affect my two amendments, new L-13.10 and new L-13.10.1?

• 1635

The Chairman: Apparently it does. If this carries, it will have an impact on your amendments.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are these the new line numbers based on the change, or the old line numbers?

The Chairman: It says “as numbered in Committee”, if you read carefully the handwritten portion of the page.

Mr. Laliberte, would you like to proceed?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think the motion is self-explanatory. We're adding—I'm not sure what that number is now. Is it clause 65 or is it 64? Did it move up?

The Chairman: I'm reminded that it has been changed to 64 as a result of an amendment some 100 ago when we were still very naive.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So it's the old clause 65 that's being changed here. All we're doing is adding (1) beside old clause 65 and sliding in:

(2) For greater certainty, this Part applies to inanimate substances, including inanimate products of biotechnology.

The government people have said that some of these are labelled chemicals, so this is for greater certainty. I don't anticipate any opposition.

The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions? Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was just suggesting that we turn to Ms. Lloyd.

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: I think it's quite clear in the first line of old clause 65, the new clause 64, where it says: “For the purposes of this Part and Part 6”. This is the definition of toxic, and I don't think adding this would add any greater certainty to that fact. So anything that's covered under parts 5 and 6 this definition applies to.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: The amendment doesn't add anything, Mr. Chairman, because inanimate substances, including inanimate products of biotechnology, are already covered by virtue of the definition of substance in clause 3, which refers in the opening lines to “any distinguishable kind of organic or inorganic matter, whether animate or inanimate”. So the concept of inanimateness is already covered off in the definition of substance.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to add to that explanation, in the second-last part of the amendment we have “inanimate substances”, which would, I think, add further confusion to the whole issue of substances being inanimate versus animate products of biotechnology.

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

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I beg to differ again. Seeing that we made the effort of making the amendment, I have to stand up for it. It says:

For greater certainty, this Part applies to inanimate substances, including inanimate products of biotechnology.

That's inclusive. It's for greater certainty. It's like when you're driving down a road and you want to make a left turn, you always shoulder check for greater certainty. We had that whole debate. That's the whole reason “inanimate substances” came back in here.

• 1640

The Chairman: Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm quickly turning to part 6, and there may be something I've missed, but it says:

104. The definitions in this section apply in this Part.

“living organism” means a substance that is an animate product of biotechnology.

So if someone can help me find “inanimate” as a part of this definition I would be quite happy.

The Chairman: Can you help?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: We had this debate when we were debating part 6, the biotechnology section. The animate products of biotechnology are covered in part 6, the inanimate are covered in part 5.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: And both are covered in the definition of substance that is in clause 3.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, where is inanimate covered in part 5?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: It has to do with the definition of substance, which is in clause 3, which covers all animate and inanimate.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the most eloquent explanation I have heard of this was by Mr. Moffet when we had this debate originally.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I'm just getting even, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Madam Hébert.

Mme. Monique Hébert: I remember that debate quite well, and it seems to me that one of the problems that surfaced at the time was that part 6 obviously would apply to animate products of biotechnology, and there was a great deal of concern over whether CEPA would apply to inanimate products of biotechnology. It's absolutely true when you read the definition of substance under clause 3, that inanimate products of biotechnology are covered under the definition. However, to those who are untrained in the fascinations of CEPA, this greater certainty clause might be helpful just to provide that clarification. It is a greater certainty clause, it just confirms what is already there.

It is already there by virtue of the definition of substance; however, it might help people who are more lay to understand the intricacies of this bill. If inanimate substances is a problem, one might want to consider a friendly amendment here just to state for greater certainty that this part applies to inanimate products of biotechnology. That would resolve any problems created by reference to inanimate substances. But again, from a legal perspective a greater certainty clause doesn't add anything that isn't in the bill, it simply provides clarification.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If there's a move to amend this to have it read that “For greater certainty, this Part applies to inanimate products of biotechnology”, then one might argue that in fact it would say that “For greater certainty, this Part applies to substances”, which, guess what, it already does. So what greater certainty does superfluous wording add to any bill?

The Chairman: Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm told that part 6 deals with living organisms that are animate products of biotechnology. Part 5 deals with inanimate products of biotechnology?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: That is correct.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But I have to go back to the substance definition to understand that, and the problem is that there is a biotechnology section but it only deals with animate substances.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Therefore I think having something superfluous may add greater clarity, because it certainly is confused in my mind.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Once again, Mr. Chairman, the best explanation I've heard of this, and the clearest, came from Mr. Moffet during the original debate.

• 1645

Mr. John Moffet: I don't know if I can reiterate my explanation, but if I may remind the members, the confusion we had before and that we still have I think derives from the title of part 6, which the government agreed to change. It no longer will read “biotechnology”, so it will clarify that part 6 applies to animate products of biotechnology, and the objective in making that change was to alleviate this confusion.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Could we have a change to the—

The Chairman: We now have another matter before us. It's an amendment by Mr. Laliberte.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: I'd like you to turn to page 7 and....

[Translation]

Yes, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: If you will allow me to withdraw this amendment, please.

The Chairman: No problem.

(The amendment is withdrawn)

[English]

The Chairman: We go to page 8 and we see amendment NDP-26.2.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I won't introduce this one.

The Chairman: And you don't plan to introduce it later either? It's not before us, correct?

I invite you to move to page 9. It's an amendment in the name of Mr. Herron, PC-11.

Mr. John Herron: After some thought, I think I don't have any intention of moving this motion.

The Chairman: I'd like you to move to 5.b. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This is the same as new L-13.10.

The Chairman: It is new L-13.10, yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would like to move this amendment and I would like to amend it by saying “or its biological diversity”.

The Chairman: Instead of “and”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, “or its”, which is in line with—

The Chairman: In the second line, replace “and” with “or its”.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you. Would you like to introduce it in detail?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We've had this discussion before and it has been supported, so I would just like to move it and get on with the vote.

The Chairman: Any questions?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1650

The Chairman: I invite you to turn to page 9.a. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The intent of this amendment would be to remove “human” from old paragraph 65(b). So under old clause 65 it would read:

(b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or

This means we would include non-human life.

The Chairman: Yes. That's it?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's it.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Torsney.

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

We had some of this debate before, and Ms. Lloyd was explaining how the three-step process works and who's responsible for what. So I thought we might turn it over to her.

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd, please.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: Old paragraph 65(a), part (a) of the definition, deals with effects on the environment, which is what Environment Canada assesses. Paragraph (b) Environment Canada also assesses, because it covers things like stratospheric ozone depletion and ground-level ozone formation. Paragraph (c) deals with effects on human health, which is what Health Canada assesses.

So in reality, already under paragraph (b) that is what Environment Canada does. We already do assess the effects on the environment. It's not just a human health statement the way we interpret the clause as currently written. Certainly if you delete the word “human” it will just point out that the wording then would be different from the wording in the rest of the bill. I don't think the word “life” ever appears by itself. It's always human life that's referred to.

The Chairman: Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I would think that non-human life would be affected by things like ground-level ozone. When I take a look at this I see paragraph (a) as having a direct effect on the environment, whereas paragraph (b) suggests that there is an effect on the environment upon which life depends, so it's an indirect effect. Therefore because life forms other than human life forms are affected by ground-level ozone and other things like that, I think it would be better to delete the word “human”. Also, if this is not in line with other parts of the bill, I would suggest that there is a consequential amendment to make it consistent with other parts of the bill.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could I just reiterate that, as Ms. Lloyd has suggested, there are two stages of testing done in the first place by Environment Canada. I think the desire to have environment in its biological diversity emphasizes the need to consider other aspects of life. But including human life in paragraph (b) emphasizes that the effect on the environment has an impact on humans. If it's a bit of a rallying call for some people, then that's advantageous in getting them to take action.

So whether you put it in or not, it seems to me a further emphasis that would be desired, that it does in fact focus on human life.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The deletion of the word “human” doesn't preclude the inclusion of human. It reinforces our relationship with the entire natural world that we have to respect, non-human species as well as human species. That is an important element of sustainable development, the equity. It's not only intergenerational and intragenerational, it's also inter-species equity that we have to be concerned with.

The Chairman: In other words, it broadens the scope of the clause.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Exactly.

• 1655

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 64 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: I invite you to move to page 130, an amendment by Mrs. Kraft Sloan, L-13.9.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that I had withdrawn this.

The Chairman: So your intention is to not move this.

(On clause 68—Research, investigation and evaluation)

The Chairman: I invite you to move to page 145, an amendment in the name of Mr. Laliberte, NDP-28.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm cautious to move this one because it's a “shall”. Shall we wait?

The Chairman: Shall we dance?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: May we continue?

The Chairman: It's in a different category of “shall”.

An hon. member: It's a “shall” game.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I was just looking at the amendment itself, I didn't look at the context of it. It's now bringing the issue of responsibility back to the minister.

The Chairman: Before you proceed, I must alert Mr. Herron that this amendment is identical to his. It will be either one or the other.

Mr. Laliberte, please continue.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is denoted “Research, investigation and evaluation”:

For the purpose of assessing whether a substance is toxic or is capable of being toxic, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including a substance specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1, either Minister shall

—and this is where a responsibility will lie with “shall”—

(a) collect or generate

information and correlate and provide information. That changes the whole context of the responsibility of the minister. I shall therefore move that “shall” be included, as opposed to “may”.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Laliberte.

Madam Torsney.

• 1700

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could get some clear opinion about whether new L-13.13 goes first, in fact. It's on page 10 in the small book. It is on lines 23 to 46, and this is also on line 23.

The Chairman: This is an earlier draft, and the amendment by Mrs. Sloan on this subject is at a later line.

Mr. Laliberte, you have explained your amendment.

Madam Torsney, would you like to intervene?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Let me just focus on the fact that the “shall,” if it were to appear in this sentence, would in fact demand that the minister collect and generate data, correlate and evaluate any data in (b), and provide information and make recommendations in (c). In fact, with “shall collect”, instead of a shopping list of information, it forces her to collect all of those things. Some of those things the minister may not need, and some of those things the minister may need.

Surely it would be contrary to the precautionary principle to demand the generation and collection and correlation of a lot of data, some of which would be unnecessary, which would be the effect of the member's amendment, were it to pass. So “may” would be probably his preference.

The Chairman: There is a lot of activity going on. Could we bring it on surface so that we have the benefit of members' comments, if any?

Are there any questions or comments on this amendment? No? I thought there was a desire for further questions. We are on NDP-28, on page 145.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary because we are talking about the collection of data, investigations and analysis. Clause 68 says:

68. For the purpose of assessing whether a substance is toxic or is capable of being toxic, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including a substance specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1, either Minister shall:

I say that, to collect the necessary date, this must be done. Mr. Chairman, I find that the amendment moved by the New Democratic Party ensures that, during collection of data, all the data are in hand.

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

[English]

Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding of the process. Perhaps we could have Ms. Lloyd explain it, so that people would realize what unnecessary information they could be generating by the inclusion of “shall”.

The Chairman: Who was the lucky person?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Ms. Lloyd.

The Chairman: Ms. Lloyd.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: It's my day.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: And you have a new budget for this.

Ms. Karen Lloyd: So now I can do it all.

Certainly when we're doing assessments of substances, depending on the nature of the substance, you need different types of information to do the assessment. If you put in that the minister “shall” do this, it would require that we do all of these studies.

Certainly if you look at the substances we assess on the priority substances list, we rarely need additional information. So if we had to go out and collect all of this, in addition to what we've already got, it would take years longer to do the assessments, because we'd have to wait to get the research done and then assess it all. It would force collection of information we don't need.

• 1705

By keeping the “may” in, it allows us, if we need new information, to pick and choose the bits we need and use this clause to go after that information. But if we don't need information to call a substance toxic now, then we don't have to get it. So the way it's written is to allow us that flexibility.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Any questions? Are you ready for the question? Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I'm voting-ready. I know where I'm going.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 147.

Mr. Laliberte, do you want to move it? Some time ago you indicated in the negative.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I had saved this one. Maybe I can ask the drafters what their interpretation of the difference is between “without” and “but not”.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think when Mr. Laliberte chose not to move this last time, we had a debate about how this language would not be consistent with drafting conventions that the government uses in writing legislation: “but not” is just not used in government; “including, without limiting” is better language. And that's what was said last time.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Since I'm trying to get the French to use English too, I won't move it. I'll save it. If we have a spark of genius between now and report stage, it might haunt you.

Mr. John Herron: You're negatizing it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll negatize it, yes.

The Chairman: All right, we will now proceed. Thank you.

Please turn to page 11.a, an amendment in the name of Madam Kraft Sloan, L-13.13.0.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is an amended amendment that I had proposed earlier. I had been working with Madam Lloyd on this. It's come back in three different stages, and I just want to ensure that all the pieces are here in the amendment, because this isn't the way we sent it in. I believe there are pieces of this amendment missing. I don't see them all here. Mrs. Lloyd confirms that. So I don't want to do this. I thought we could deal with it today, but it looks like we're going to have to stand the clause down for now.

The Chairman: So you'd like to set it aside.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, please.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think the request is to set aside clause 68 at this point, which, unless there's unanimous consent, would need a vote, because there's an NDP amendment that would come in its place, and we've already started making amendments to this clause.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, I asked to set the clause aside.

The Chairman: We'll certainly set aside this amendment; that would be no problem.

Where do we go from here?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The clause.

The Chairman: There's another amendment there, so we'll stand the clause.

(Clause 68 allowed to stand)

• 1710

(On clause 69—Formulation of guidelines by the Ministers)

The Chairman: Is Mr. Lincoln ready to deal with the amendment on page 154 that deals with clause 69?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like to ask anybody to move L.13.13.1. I'd rather move the new L.13.13.1.1, please.

The Chairman: All right. That is on page 11.e.

Just a moment, the clerk tells me that there is an NDP amendment just before that. Is it identical? Yes, it is. Mr. Laliberte, would you like to move your amendment on page 155?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a point of order. Just so we don't get into another clause 47 situation, I wonder if Mr. Lincoln is aware there was a request to stand clause 47 until some later work was done or something, and this clause would be very similar. So before we start amending clause 69 or putting forward and considering parts of the amendments, the committee might want to consider whether or not this would be similar to clause 47 and they wanted to stand the whole clause down. That would be up to them. It's not my personal request, I'm just relaying information.

The Chairman: Fine. Mr. Lincoln has been informed as to what happened earlier. Now we are dealing with a clause for which he would be ready to move his amendment. But first, I'm informed, would come the amendment on page 155, if Mr. Laliberte is willing to move his. If not, we will then proceed with L.13.13.l.l.

We stood this amendment some time ago.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just in the same frame of mind Mr. Jordan was in a while ago regarding these “may” and “shall” issues, that some stroke of genius was going to deliver some kind of report or enlightenment to our committee, and looking at Mr. Moffet and Madam Hébert, it wasn't charged on them. So it was deemed that Mr. Lincoln was challenged to come up with some sort of perspective on this. Maybe that should be clarified before I move this. Is something coming to enlighten us? If that's the case, I will stand this again.

The Chairman: Are you referring now to clause 200?

• 1715

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think he's referring to the debate on clause 47, and that's what I was trying to flag. Before people start amending something, you should either ask to stand down the whole clause or start amending, and then the process of standing down the clause gets a little more complicated.

The Chairman: Madam Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that I believe it's no longer a work in progress but a completed work, because I'm just going through the smaller package dated March 16, and there are a number of amendments proposed by Mr. Lincoln in relation to the “shall offer to consult” clauses. So I think the amendments are here before the committee. It's just a question of whether or not the committee would like to proceed with them at this time.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm ready to proceed on mine. I don't see why I shouldn't proceed.

The Chairman: We have two amendments that are virtually identical, NDP-33 and L-13.13.1.1. If Mr. Lincoln is ready to proceed, we can discuss them both at the same time, if that is the wish of the committee. Mr. Laliberte's amendment touches on line 25, which precedes line 34 in Mr. Lincoln's amendment. So we'll deal with Mr. Laliberte's amendment first but discuss both amendments at the same time so as to get the complete picture. It's page 155 for Mr. Laliberte's amendment and page 11(e) for Mr. Lincoln's amendment.

Mr. Laliberte, you have the floor.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I won't move the amendment.

The Chairman: All right. We will take it from there. We will go then to line 34 and see whether Mr. Lincoln is prepared to move his amendment. We need someone to move it on his behalf.

Mr. Jordan has moved the amendment. It's before the committee. Please proceed.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I wasn't here for clause 47.

In order to make quite sure we have an explanation of this, I want to find out from Mr. Cameron what his interpretation is between the phrases “shall consult” and “shall offer to consult”. Do you feel they have the same impact or a different impact? If they have a different impact, what is the difference in impact in the view of the Minister of Justice between “shall consult” and “shall offer to consult”?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Mr. Chairman, as I explained before, if the obligation is “shall consult“, then if the other party you're consulting with doesn't consult back, so to speak, the process can come to a standstill, which is why having “shall offer” allows the Minister of the Environment to discharge her obligation by making the offer.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So would “shall offer to consult”, in your view, be stronger than “may consult”?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It would be stronger in the sense that it would create an obligation, whereas the word “may” would simply enable a discretionary power.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is it an obligation to offer or an obligation to consult?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: If the wording is “shall offer”, then it's an obligation to offer.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The sense of my amendment, Mr. Chair, is not to quarrel with the “shall offer to consult”. Leave it there. At the same time, give the minister some prerogative to take action. It seems to me that you could just float an offer to consult and the other people don't respond, and the offer just stays there. I know the officials will tell me that in some cases, such as toxics, there's a two-year limit in the bill. At the same time, the offer could stay there for a year and a half, and there are other clauses of the bill where there's no timeline anyway. If we refer to subclause 332(2) and subclauses 77(5) and (8), why did we pick 60 days as a reasonable time to offer to consult?

• 1720

In the case of the public, if tomorrow the minister makes an assessment as to whether such substance is specified as toxic or is capable of becoming toxic, I as a member of the public am given 60 days to file an objection, to request a board of review. I have to state the reason for the objection, which has to be a substantive reason for objecting, within 60 days. That “I” is a member of the public without any resources, any environmental group, any person. It is so again in subclause 77(4). You will find it again in subclause 332(2), where the members of the public have 60 days after the publication of an order or regulation to establish a board of review.

So we felt that in the case of a government, surely with all the resources a government has, it would be fair enough to offer to consult, to provide an obligation for the minister to offer to consult, but certainly some result must happen and this government must say within a certain amount of reasonable time, and we picked 60 days because that's the leeway the public has been given. So we felt it was fair. But the idea is not to circumscribe the offer to consult; it's to circumscribe the open-ended way it's written so that it can't just float around there indefinitely. So we felt—

The Chairman: This would prevent impotence.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

The Chairman: Is that the conclusion of your—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, so far.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Should we refer to this as the Viagra clause, then, perhaps?

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Do you mean the difference between a flexible offer and a firm offer?

The Chairman: Are the officials stunned, or have they recovered?

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Department of the Environment): We have to take our pills, Mr. Chair.

An hon. member: Maybe you do.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Even medication doesn't help, Mr. Chair, if there's no interest.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I apologize for making light of this, because this is a very serious issue. Certainly I know that a number of members on this side of the committee have been very concerned about the “shall offer to consult” and “may offer to consult” provisions, and I know that Environment Canada has a strong interest, and we want to ensure that we encourage that.

The Chairman: Are no other people willing to speak?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 69 as amended agreed to)

• 1725

(On clause 75—Definition of “jurisdiction”)

The Chairman: Please turn to page 165.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think there would be some attempt to go in order of the information and agenda that was given to us, so we could dispense with clause 75, which would be amendment NDP-35.1.

The Chairman: I called page 165 in the name of Mr. Laliberte. Do you wish to move it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I would move this. This would clarify the relevance of CEPA, and the “unless the decision” part has drawn a concern for us. That's why we're proposing that the following be deleted:

unless the decision relates to a substance the only use of which in Canada is regulated under another Act of Parliament that provides for environmental and health protection.

For implications the government members may want to speak, but we are speaking in defence of CEPA and saying this is a worthwhile bill for the environmental health protection.

The Chairman: Madam Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

I think the operative word in the lines the member is seeking to delete would in fact be “the only use”, so instead what Mr. Laliberte would try to achieve with this would be in fact something that would force duplication and overlap. It wouldn't get us anywhere and would tie up the resources of the department when there is no other use in Canada.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In asking the implications, I was looking at the environmental representatives here. In what case would “the only use” be referred to, and why would CEPA not be relevant in substances toxic or becoming toxic?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chair, these provisions require the minister to review decisions taken in other countries where a substance is restricted for environmental or health reasons. The effect of Mr. Laliberte's amendment would move Environment Canada into the realm of reviewing decisions on drugs, perhaps even foods that were banned for health reasons, areas where we simply don't have the expertise. It's much more appropriately left in the hands of the responsible ministers and responsible departments. We all have our jobs to do, and this provides an important requirement for our minister to review those decisions that are similar to the types of decisions that are taken under CEPA.

• 1730

The Chairman: Thank you.

Who was next? Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: When Ministers are referred to in the Bill, are these the Ministers of the Environment and Health? Yes? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm trying to find something here on this, and I'm not sure that I have my information handy.

So you had stated this would force us to deal with substances that had been banned in OECD countries for health and environmental reasons.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: That's essentially correct. It requires our minister, when she is notified of a decision in another OECD country or, I may add, a decision of a government in Canada....

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: To add to my colleague's comments once again, the effect of the amendment would be to extend that to force the Minister of the Environment to consider decisions internationally where the only use of the substance in Canada, for example by a drug, is regulated under another act. That would be the effect of the amendment, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about substances that have been banned by the OECD, or another government in Canada, that affect human health and the environment and that probably should have some CEPA oversight? And I'm not talking about pharmaceuticals, I'm talking about toxic substances. I'm talking about substances that would normally be controlled by CEPA.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, we would do those anyway, those that are controlled through the minister under CEPA. Where those are not normally controlled under CEPA and where their only use is under another act of Parliament—for example, a drug, or a food for that matter—the effect of the amendment would force the minister to consider those as well.

The Chairman: Any further questions? Yes, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: How many drugs or foods are there that are toxic or capable of becoming toxic? If the two ministers shall review the decision, the Minister of Health is in this context as well. Why aren't you satisfied that under the review this would be taken into context anyway, but it doesn't protect or delete any minister commenting on the toxic substances?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Chairman, those are done through the other acts with the responsible ministers accountable to Parliament for their action. If it happens to be under the Food and Drugs Act, it is done by the Minister of Health. The effect of your amendment would be would be to demand that the Minister of the Environment also do that, when in fact, in the case of drugs, it would be the accountability of the Minister of Health under the Food and Drugs Act.

The Chairman: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 75 agreed to)

• 1735

The Chairman: As the last item for this afternoon, I invite you to move to page 169.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, given the lateness of the hour and the fact that this meeting is scheduled to 5.30 p.m., I wonder if we might adjourn.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And given the fact that it's St. Patrick's Day.

The Chairman: That is a more convincing reason, I suppose, unless the parliamentary secretary wants us to come back after Easter.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, I'm quite prepared to do lots tomorrow and on Monday.

The Chairman: In the name of St. Patrick we will adjourn.

Yes, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We didn't confirm Monday, did we? I thought you were going to discuss it.

The Chairman: There is already an indication by two opposition parties that they will not be available on Monday, so we'll have meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday, and if necessary Thursday.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you.

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.