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, November 18, 1998

• 1539

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I declare the meeting open.

I am aware that we have a lot of preliminary work to do to understand the complexity of these amendments, but we should resume without delay our consideration of the bill. If you concur, I would like to return to clause 9.

• 1540

[English]

I would like to return to clause 9, which we stood yesterday—namely to those two amendments, one in the name of the Bloc Québécois, on page 54, and the other one in the name of the Liberal Party, on page 55.

Before I do that, I have two brief announcements. I'll give the good news first. We will adjourn at about 5:50 p.m., because tonight the Parliamentary Association will hold its annual meeting, with elections, and many members have indicated to me their wish to attend that event and vote. It's an important business item, so we must adjourn in order to give members the time to get to the Centre Block.

Now the bad news. We have another bundle of amendments.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: It has been distributed to you by the clerk. I seek your patience and understanding. I will not proceed until all of you have that particular sheet in front, because today we will proceed both with the big book that we used yesterday as well as with the little book. There are two little books, but one of them is premature, so to say. The one we will use of the little books is the one that begins with L-1.1. At times you will hear the chair calling from the large book and at times from the small book.

I hope that for tomorrow, by virtue of some measure of patience, you will be able to insert them into your large book so as to facilitate your task. The clerk is suggesting that you use a three-ring binder; that's why each of those two sets of documents has a sufficient number of holes.

(On clause 9—Negotiation of agreement)

The Chairman: Now, on clause 9, may I invite Madame Girard-Bujold, if she would like, to move her amendment

[Translation]

on page 54.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquiere, BQ): Mr. Chairman, my amendment aims at deleting the words "the Minister may negotiate" and to substitute "the Minister shall negotiate". Therefore, subclause 9(1) would read as:

9(1) The Minister shall negotiate an agreement with a government or with an aboriginal people with respect to the administration of this Act.

In this way, we would be assured that the Minister will indeed negotiate.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam.

Ms. Torsney, please.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): This amendment is reflected in several other places in the bill as well, changing a “may” to a “shall”. One might wonder how you force negotiations. Since there are two parties involved, I'm not sure that it makes sense that you would force one party to negotiate whether the other party wants to or not. So the “may” is more appropriate in this case, and there could be some other changes, based on L-9.4, that might be more acceptable.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, throughout this bill we brag about working in partnerships with provinces, with first nations and all sorts of people, but we don't want to commit ourselves with words. In my view, if we leave "may negotiate", we are talking through both sides of our mouth, partnership on one side and no partnership on the other side.

• 1545

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Are there any comments or other questions? Are you ready for the question then?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: On page 55, we have an amendment in the name of Mr. Lincoln. We stood it yesterday.

If you're not ready, I'll return.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Are we standing this motion?

The Chairman: I understand that members are ready to proceed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

The Chairman: So we need a mover.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'll move this amendment. I'm putting this amendment forward in Mr. Lincoln's name. This is consistent with the government response, and it's to make sure that no other agreements undermine the minister's authority.

The Chairman: Yes, it is self-explanatory in its purpose. It's in addition to the other eight preceding subclauses of clause 9.

Ms. Torsney, would you like to comment?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'm hoping that the mover might consider a friendly amendment to this, and that would be to change it slightly so that it would read:

No agreement made under this section shall limit or restrict the carrying out of any action that the Minister considers necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act, including the conduct of inspections and investigations.

The Chairman: So you're suggesting the deletion of “interfere with, in any way,” and replacing it with “restrict”?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.

The Chairman: Would you like to comment on that?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It is in keeping with some other language that is in other pieces of legislation. It continues to reflect the intent of the mover's desires, but it is in better keeping with other language in other bills.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments? If not, are you ready for the question?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are we accepting the friendly amendment? What is the question?

The Chairman: I would imagine. It has been read. I would imagine that the friendly amendment is accepted.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, it is. I just wanted to clarify that.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question on the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

• 1550

(On clause 13—Contents of Environmental Registry)

The Chairman: We are now happily landing on clause 13, and the order in which we will proceed here is the following. We will start with an amendment proposed by Mr. Knutson, L-10.2, which is in the thin booklet. Then I'm informed by the legal clerks that if this amendment carries, NDP-16 and R-5 cannot be moved. They are overlapping and would become redundant by virtue of the fact that L-10.2 might be adopted. However, if L-10.2 is defeated, then NDP-16 can be moved, and if NDP-16 is defeated, then R-5 can be moved. In other words, these three motions are interlinked.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Chair, is that only on the assumption that the three amendments would essentially say the exact same thing? If they were different altogether, would that still be the case?

The Chairman: No, it's because they are, in meaning, thrust and substance, overlapping and touch the same lines, I'm told.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

The Chairman: So if that is acceptable, then I will invite someone to move the motion in the name of Mr. Knutson, which is L-10.2, reference 1597.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, I will be moving amendment L-10.2. However, there has been a suggestion for another friendly amendment—we are so very friendly—that would enhance this amendment in a very friendly way.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. You have the amendment before you, and essentially what this amendment is doing is just laying out other things that would be included in the environmental registry. However, it has been pointed out that documents have to pass two tests. They have to be published and made publicly available in order to be included in proposed paragraphs 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), and 13(1)(c), and some of these may not. So there is one suggestion to amend this.

At the top of L-10.2, it says, “Minister, including”. There has been a suggestion that it say:

Minister, and shall also include, subject to the protections set out in the Privacy Act

(a) notices of objection and any approval;

(b) any policy and every proposed regulation or order under this Act;

(c) documents submitted to a court by the Minister, relating to any environmental protection action brought under section 22.

• 1555

I can make copies of this amendment to the amendment in both official languages. I have one official language. I apologize, Madame Bujold; this was just given to me two minutes ago.

The Chairman: Well, I think that for an orderly and lucid procedure, we will have to have this translated first and perhaps dealt with tomorrow.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: All right. I apologize. I was just notified about it now.

The Chairman: It's too much language. There are too many lines of changes. If it were one or two words, that would be easily handled by the interpreter, but here there are several lines.

So the motion has not been moved, so there's no need to worry about that. We will put it aside until it is ready in both languages. We are not standing it. It hasn't been called; it hasn't been moved.

This forces us to stand the entire clause 13, because the other two motions—the NDP and the Bloc motions—hinge on the outcome of that particular motion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: L-10.3 as well?

The Chairman: No, no. I'm talking now of L-10.2 for the time being, and NDP-16. Oh, yes, L-10.3 deals with clause 13 too, so for the same reason—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: L-10.3 is put aside for now?

The Chairman: Yes.

I would appreciate it—and I hope I'm not sounding too pedantic here—if in future these so-called friendly amendments were to be delivered a few hours before the meeting starts so that we can handle it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I just got it.

The Chairman: Well, whoever is in charge of it.

So we put aside clause 13.

(Clause 13 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to)

(On clause 16—Voluntary reports)

The Chairman: On clause 16, we have a new government amendment in the small collection.

Madame Torsney, would you like to explain it?

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

Of course this reflects some amendments we made yesterday to include an enforcement officer in this grouping as well.

The Chairman: So we are in the enforcement officer regime, are we? Fine. Everybody understands the motion? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, yesterday I made a recommendation that Mr. Moffat look at putting together a report on different clauses of CEPA 1998, the bill that's before us, in regard to whistle-blower protection to see how we can make it better in line with Bill C-20, on the Competition Act. It has whistle-blower provisions, and it is before the Senate. So I'm asking that clause 16 be stood until we get the report completed.

The Chairman: You're referring to Mr. Herron's motion on page 67?

• 1600

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Well, if Mr. Herron is satisfied with that.... There are other provisions in CEPA 1998.

Mr. John Herron: We will not be putting forward the amendment on page 67, for some of the reasons that Ms. Kraft Sloan stated.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You look forward to Mr. Moffat's report; is that what you're telling me?

The Chairman: Excuse me, I have some news to convey to you before you get too excited on this item.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: It is in relation to Mr. Herron's motion on page 67. I am told that the scope of this amendment goes beyond what is in the bill. In other words, it seems to extend to provincial employees.

Therefore, Mr. Herron, I would like, as the chair, to be convinced by you that that is not the case. I'm asking you to perhaps reflect on this and express your views at the appropriate time, if you wish to do so, or to formulate an amendment that can be accepted for the reason just given.

It is with regret that I say that. If you would like to reflect on that, perhaps when we revisit clause 16, you might be able to reword the motion, which has not been moved, and therefore it's not before us. It is just a comment that you may want to take into account.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you.

So do we have consensus to put aside clause 16 as amended so far, and then we'll bring it forward at the appropriate time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

(On clause 17—Application for investigation by Minister)

The Chairman: The first motion for clause 17 is in the thin collection, followed by the motions on pages 69 and 70 of the thick book, respectively in the names of the NDP and the PC parties, Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Herron.

The clerk has kindly prepared a sequence for these amendments, because, again, they overlap in language and lines. If the motion L-10.4 by Mr. Knutson is carried, then the motions on pages 69 and 70 cannot be moved. However, if it is defeated, then the motion of the NDP can be moved, and if that is defeated, then the motion in the name of Mr. Herron can be moved. However, should the NDP motion be adopted, then the motion of the Conservative Party cannot be moved. So one excludes the other. As you can see, there is here a cascading effect.

• 1605

So we'll move then on the first amendment, in the name of Mr. Knutson, reference 1599. You have the text before you; it is on page 3.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move this amendment. What this amendment does is include a corporation as someone who might be able to apply for an investigation. What would be amended here is, right after “17. (1)” in the first line, “person” would be included, because a person refers to both an individual and a corporation. Then “corporation” would be added, and then in line 38 on page 16, “corporation” would be added again.

The concern here is that there are some NGOs that are corporations without share capital. They would be allowed to apply for an investigation. If you take a look at the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, it allows for this sort of procedure as well.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we probably want to get some comment from Mr. Cameron as well, but it's my understanding that because “person” does include a corporation and there are other references to corporations, it would dramatically change the concept of a citizen suit.

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Environment Canada): Yes, that's correct. Certainly my understanding was that the policy intent here was to make this a citizen suit. By changing “individual” to “person”, you would be broadening the scope of individuals, as Ms. Sloan indicated, to include corporate bodies as well, which would be able to both apply for an investigation and launch a civil suit under section 20.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): As I understand the interpretation of this—and I think it's on the right track—if we're here to strengthen and provide a means of protecting our environment, regardless of whether it's an individual or another corporation that might be protecting its industry's reputation, they may call an investigation of a fellow corporation. As an example, the NGOs or the organizations will have an opportunity to do this. There are also municipal organizations that incorporate, and they may need to do this as well.

We should boldly go into it. It's an opportunity to enhance the bill. Fear not.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Maybe Mr. Cameron can help me out on this.

If you had a local naturalist group that was incorporated, how would they enter into a civil suit? It would seem, particularly at the grassroots, that these organizations are at the edge of understanding of what's going on in their communities and they're very concerned about environmental degradation. Certainly they're well positioned to bring civil suits across, probably more so than individuals in a lot of respects, because of their interest, their focus.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: In such a case, the normal practice, I would think, would be for the board of directors to pass a resolution authorizing the executive director, or if there were a president of the corporation—usually it's an executive director in that kind of body—to file the suit on behalf of the organization.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But it seems to me that you're asking an individual to step out as an individual, without the resources and the backing of the organization. I would have a lot more comfort knowing that one of these organizations was able to bring about a civil suit as an organization, and not put the onus on an individual, which would seem to me an additional barrier for taking actions in this regard.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Well, fair enough, but part of the flip side to that is that competitive corporations may be able to use these mechanisms against other corporate competitors. So by eliminating the category of people who may apply for an investigation, you've closed the door to corporate infighting, if you will, between corporate competitors. You've created a level playing field by saying, “This is a citizen suit. This is a right we're giving to individual citizens, without the extra trappings of corporate bodies.”

• 1610

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are you suggesting that corporations would bring about frivolous suits?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I'm suggesting that option would be impossible if we were to keep the current wording in the bill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Well, I think there's enough wording in the bill in.... Anyway, we'll have that debate a little later on these upcoming clauses. My concern is that there are enough barriers for community organizations and such to undertake suits without them having to put the onus on the executive director.

I think Mr. Herron had a question.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron and then Mr. Moffat.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, picking up on what Mr. Laliberte said, I would think this is an opportunity for us to do it right the first time. The comment made by Mr. Cameron was that there would be a roundabout way for NGOs or community organizations to still have a citizen suit, but I thought we were supposed to write legislation that does it the right way the first time. So instead of being aware of a roundabout way, why don't we give them a direct way, so that we don't have barriers to individuals, NGOs, or community organizations who are concerned for where they live? This makes a lot of sense.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffat, please.

Mr. John Moffat (Consultant, Resource Futures International): I want to take issue with the advice Mr. Cameron provided. He suggested that the wording of the current bill would preclude corporations from launching suits against each other, but his prior sentence suggested that a non-profit corporation would be able to designate an individual to take the suit as an individual. Similarly, IBM could designate an individual to take a suit. So the logic is flawed in that argument.

The real reason to extend the protection to corporations is to provide a corporate veil to individuals working for NGOs, to protect them from the possible consequences of paying expenses in lawsuits that are unsuccessful. In my opinion, the potential for costs to be awarded against individuals would significantly deter any individual working for an NGO from bringing a lawsuit. Whereas if they were able to bring a lawsuit under the corporate umbrella, then the corporation would be subject to the cost order. If the cost order were so high that they couldn't pay it, then of course the corporation would be allowed to claim bankruptcy, but that wouldn't extend to the individuals.

I don't think the existing provision precludes the kind of abuse you're talking about. The real issue here is about providing protection to individuals who want to access the courts.

The Chairman: Are there any further interventions?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would remind committee members that the government response and the red book commitments were for citizen suits as well.

I'm not sure if the officials had any other comments.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Mongrain and Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Senior Policy Analyst, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to confirm what the parliamentary secretary indicated. Page 27 of the government response states that the government proposes to amend CEPA to include a right for citizens to take civil action against a party. It's quite explicit in its limitation to citizens. That's the government response to this committee's report.

Mr. John Herron: I would argue that we probably haven't followed through on every recommendation in that book.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte and Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to remind the members that, again, in Ontario, the Environmental Bill of Rights allows for corporations to file for this investigation. This is only a means of investigating; it's not proceeding with any action at all. This particular clause 17 is on investigation of offences. So don't get offended.

• 1615

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If we want to talk about citizen suits, who better to represent citizens than public interest organizations that work with people on the ground in the community? These organizations, as Mr. Moffat has pointed out, provide power for individuals, because they can come together collectively and share the resources, the research, and their concerns. They can become empowered by working together.

So this is a powerful thing that we're allowing and encouraging for citizens, and it gets rid of the barriers that are imposed if people are fearful of being ordered to pay court costs. Mr. Moffat adequately points out that we would be strengthening opportunities for participation of citizens by allowing this amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to echo Ms. Kraft Sloan's comments in that I'd like to remind committee members that this isn't just NGOs that we're speaking about. It could be groups of concerned citizens within an area who are trying to coalesce around a certain issue. Even though there is a provision for citizen suits, sometimes that can be somewhat daunting. If they had the collective energies of a community organization, as a group, that would be a good thing. It would be tearing down barriers.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But you should also be clear that your suggestion would not open it up to just the kinds of organizations that you like. It also opens it up to some organizations that you might not like, such as foreign companies that have become fairly popular, or unpopular, with the committee. If you open it, you open it very wide. So you have some other things to consider. You don't have the choice here of just saying, “By the way, it's a person, and it's only the persons we like.”

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have a small problem with that, because I'm not assuming that a public interest group is a public interest group that I like or dislike. A business corporation is not a business corporation that I like or dislike. I have in my riding a lot of profit-oriented corporations that I like an awful lot, and there are some community-based organizations that really give me a rough ride, so my feeling about them might be less friendly. I don't think it's a matter of liking or disliking an organization or a group of people who decide to come together.

As Mr. Moffat pointed out, if IBM or another for-profit organization wanted to bring a suit against a competitor, they could just designate an individual. It doesn't stop that from happening.

The Chairman: It seems to me we've had a good airing of the pros and cons. Everyone has had a good intervention. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We go now to amendment 16.1 by the NDP, on page 69.

Mr. Laliberte, would you like to move the motion?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I move it.

The motion speaks for itself in terms of the debate we had just prior to this. The additional point I'd like to raise on this is that “applicant who is at least 18 years of age” would refer to of course an individual, not a corporation, but the corporation may also be defined as a resident of Canada. So the multinational aspect of this issue may require a Canadian presence, or at least registration.

• 1620

Further to the issue, it was brought out by industry representatives that if a corporation were to file an investigation on another similar corporation, it may be for the reason of protecting their industry and the reputation of their industry. That should be taken into account, and not in a light discussion. Corporate economic strength depends on environmental integrity in their specific industry—the water, the fish, the land, the air—and if one corporation is unduly polluting a region, it could be compromising another industry's livelihood or community.

So I don't think we should look only at the bad side of this issue. It's also a protective side for corporations, and they asked for this.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I would like to pick up on Mr. Laliberte's comments in that one of the principal points of discussion on the previous amendment referred to the concern over the possible intervention from outside Canadian borders. Potentially this amendment addresses that particular concern, so if that held back some members on the last vote, this would be a better amendment to follow suit with.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Are there any questions or comments? Are you ready for the vote?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, you are the lucky next one. Would you like to move your motion on page 70?

Mr. John Herron: Sure, yes, I can move it. From a grammatical perspective, the language in it enhances the amendment moved by my honourable colleague with the NDP. It does have the “resident of Canada” component, which we spoke to the last time, and I would ask members to support the amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments?

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to respond about the invocation of the government response on this. Because the government response proposes to amend CEPA to include a right for citizens to take civil action, this doesn't necessarily mean individuals. Citizens' groups do represent citizens.

An hon. member: It's not a technical term.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Other people may want to reconsider that, because this is in line with the government response. It goes back to what I said earlier, that certainly a lot of these organizations do represent citizens at the grassroots level, and “citizens” happens to be plural. We're not talking about just individuals.

Mr. John Herron: Citizens? Okay.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 17 agreed to)

The Chairman: We have no amendments on clause 18.

A voice: Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Oh, yes, we do.

Since we do, the chair will suspend this meeting for five minutes to give people a chance to stretch their legs. We'll resume at 4.30.

• 1625

• 1639

The Chairman: Order, please.

The parliamentary secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if at this point there might be an opportunity to skip down a few clauses and begin at clause 39, since some of the issues that people might want to give some further thought are in the clauses prior to clause 39.

I think PC-8 would be the first amendment, but we'd have to do a few clauses before that.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why my colleague wants to go to section 39 and jump over the preceding clauses. Does she have a specific reason?

• 1640

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, sure. It's because if people want some time to think about all the issues that relate to citizen suits and public participation, then they should probably think about them as a group, rather than dealing with individual clauses, some of which have amendments and some of which don't.

So actually, even though I've just told you clause 39, I think clause 43 would be the first clause we would go to, not clause 39. We'd start with part 3, so we'd stand part 2 at this point.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm not sure what the whole process is. I know the exercise is to move through the book, and we've been given this bundle in a packaged form. That's how we've been reviewing, and it's kind of awkward to jump ahead.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It would be up to the committee members, but my understanding is that sometimes, when you want to consider one part of a bill, you might want to consider that whole part together. A number of members expressed interest in going to part 3, and I'm interested in seeing if other members might be interested in doing that. That would begin at clause 43.

The Chairman: Can we assume, Mr. Laliberte, that you're willing to start in clause 43, at the beginning of part 3, and we will return to this clause at an appropriate moment?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: When is this appropriate moment? Is it another cup of coffee or another couple of weeks?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, it's not for me to decide when the committee is meeting, but this bill has 358 clauses and we have over 400 amendments, so when things are grouped together, it's not necessarily impossible to go to an entirely other part. There's an opportunity to do that with part 3.

The Chairman: Yes, there is merit in the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary to give members time to reflect on the remaining clauses in part 2 and move to part 3 for the balance of the afternoon.

[Translation]

Madame Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary has not been able to convince me that we should skip over all these clauses. I would prefer to consider them right away.

[English]

The Chairman: I need unanimous consent to do that, and I would seek the consent of the committee to proceed in this manner. Can we elicit consent to do that? Madame Bujold, would you like to reconsider?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the member from the Bloc Québécois.... It's my understanding they have not put forward too many amendments to part 2, and it's perfectly conceivable that we could start with part 10 or part 5. It's not an impossibility that a committee can move down to different parts and move forward with the bill.

There aren't many Bloc amendments to that part, and for the good order of the committee, if 99% of it wants to do something, we should try to work together.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Even if I didn't have any amendment to move, I wouldn't see any reason to jump over so many clauses. I have not been convinced by her reasons.

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I can appreciate trying to do amendments that are grouped together. The problem is we were not notified in advance that we were going to do this. I do have a lot of amendments being brought forward. Some of these amendments have been drafted by other individuals. I have taken an awful lot of time to prepare amendments as far as I think I will have to go. It's not possible for me to prepare every single argument for every single amendment that I am bringing forward.

I had no notice that we were going to do this, so I'm not entirely sure that I have all my documentation. As you have noticed in this committee hearing, I have a tendency to argue my point in many different ways, and that requires a lot of preparation.

• 1645

I can understand the logic of trying to do certain things in a certain order, but having some advance notice would be very helpful, because these arguments are very difficult, complex arguments to make, and I want to make sure I'm well prepared to do that. And I believe the other members may be in a similar position.

The Chairman: All right. Well, we don't have unanimous consent. Therefore we will move on with the next clause, which is clause 18.

(On clause 18—Investigation by Minister)

The Chairman: In your small collection, there is motion L-10.5, in the name of Mr. Knutson.

Would you like to present it?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): This gives the minister 20 days to acknowledge receipt of the application.

The Chairman: It's pretty straightforward.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's a very minor one.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just have one question. It's not necessarily a problem, but I just want to understand what this addresses. Does it address a specific problem? Is there a concern about timelines? What is the purpose of it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, not that I would ever cast aspersions on any minister of the Crown or department, but it just prevents undue delay in responding to an application.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And 20 days is the magic number?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, 20 days is somewhat.... There's no magic in the 20 days.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: There are references further down, in some of the other amendments, to 20 days, and I was not sure if we were doing decades of the rosary or what. I just wondered why 20 and not 10, or 30 or 50. It just struck me as interesting that there was a theme running through of 20 days.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd have to check my numerology or study of mysticism to figure out why 20 and not 21 or 19.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's a number you often see in courts and civil procedures.

I emphasize that this is quite minor, and if people are uncomfortable with it....

The Chairman: But you're moving your motion?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Sure.

The Chairman: The motion is moved. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 19—Progress reports)

The Chairman: On clause 19, again, in your small collection, there's a motion by Mr. Knutson, L-10.6 on page 5.

[Translation]

Mr. Knutson, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: If it's possible, can I hear from the officials on this?

All right, I'll move it, at the risk of looking really silly when I have to vote against it. But I'll move it.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): We won't notice.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I so move, and I'd like to hear from our good friend from Justice.

• 1650

Mr. Duncan Cameron: This an appropriate question to ask Environment Canada, so I'll turn to those officials.

Ms. Karen Lloyd (Manager, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): There's one comment I could make. I suppose you run the risk.... Not that we may ever do it, but when it says, “provide the applicant with a written estimate of the time required”, that may lead the department.... Because they're not always sure whether it's going to take a few weeks or a few months, they might overestimate the time it takes so that they won't be wrong.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, “estimate” is a good, fuzzy word.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a question about the earlier part of the amendment. Changing the fact that the minister shall report to the applicant “every 90 days” to “within 90 days” would suggest that initially you respond within 90 days, but let's say it's a very complicated situation and the investigation is going to take six or nine months. This amendment, in that first part, would actually reduce the frequency with which the minister has to get back to the applicant. Because of the use of the word “every” in the bill as it currently is, there's a trigger every 90 days.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If this is a proposed friendly amendment to take “within” and change it back to “every”, that's cool with me.

The Chairman: Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: This amendment assures the applicant that there is an accountability mechanism. It's not that the minister can give a status update every 90 days, but the minister has to identify to the applicant what they estimate to be the time required to complete the investigation. It's not a matter of what I've been telling my constituents lately: “I'll call you later, because I'm in CEPA hearings around the clock.” It's giving them your best estimate of the time it will take to be able to complete the investigation. So it provides them accountability.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Keep in mind that “within 90 days” means once, and then after the completion, within another 90 days, there's the written estimate. If we change “within” to “every”, then we change considerably the impact, the scope, and the purpose of the amendment. So I need to understand very clearly here whether we are operating with the motion as written before us on page 5 or whether the suggestion of replacing “within” with “every” is accepted by the mover. I need some clarity before I entertain any further discussion.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: That is exactly the point I was going to speak to. If the government identified a situation where it would take a lengthy period of time in order to resolve something—let's say they projected possibly even 12 months—it would be a very positive accountability mechanism to at least have periodic updates. We're not talking about every week here; we're talking about a quarterly basis. So I would think that Mr. Knutson's original language of “every” would be more accountable to the public. So keeping “every 90 days” in would be a good thing.

The Chairman: But the original language is “within”.

Mr. John Herron: Oh, okay. Then I retract what I said.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: So you prefer “every”.

Mr. John Herron: Exactly.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, could you please indicate to the committee the amendment you are proposing—whether you are pursuing the amendment as written or whether you are replacing “within” with “every”?

Mr. Gar Knutson: The latter.

• 1655

The Chairman: So we are now discussing the amendment of Mr. Knutson in which the word “within” is replaced by “every”.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Then I have a question. Maybe what we need to do is clarify for all the committee members how this whole system works.

The Chairman: All right. We will ask Mr. Knutson to do that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a question for the officials before I answer your question.

We've changed “within” to “every”. Is there difficulty with providing an estimate of how long an investigation will take to complete? Does the department think that's a difficult burden, in the interest of transparency?

Ms. Karen Lloyd: It just might be difficult to come up with an estimate that would be real. Sometimes it may be difficult to know whether it's going to take you another three months or another six months, so the expectations you might give the person....

The Chairman: Then the estimate could be as broad as saying “within the calendar year” or “within the next 10 years” or “within the next 100 years”.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Think of the perspective of the applicant. They've written, they've applied, and they're not hearing. They have no idea how long it's going to take. Don't you think it would make them feel better?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Is this after 90 days? Is it your intent that there be an initial 90-day period before the estimate has to be provided?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, right.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wanted to draw the mover's attention to the fact that the impact of this word change also removes the last part of clause 19, which says that no report is required if the investigation is discontinued before the end of 90 days. I wondered if there was a significance in deleting that as well. There might not be; I just wanted to clarify.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I wasn't intending to affect clause 19.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: To change that part of it, you mean, because this amendment affects clause 19.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Sorry. What were you saying again?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The last part of clause 19, lines 24 and 25, make reference to the fact that no report is required if the investigation discontinues before the end of 90 days. I'm not sure if it's significant or not, and I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that that language has been dropped out in this amendment as well.

Furthermore, in terms of actual functionality, say somebody makes an application; the minister reports every 90 days on the progress of the investigation and the action, if any, that has been taken; and if it's longer than 90 days, the minister is going to provide a written estimate of the time required to complete.

What's the intent? Is it to give them some indication, as you say? In which case, practically speaking, what do they do when they say, “This is a really complicated problem. Are we being held to something or are we not being held to something? If I'm going to overestimate, does that make me work toward that overestimation, or does it make me get my work done in a timely manner?”

It's just a question of practicality. It doesn't make a huge difference to me.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The point is somebody applies and they wonder how long it's going to take. This clause would force the department to give the applicant an indication of how long they think it's going to take. Not with Environment Canada, obviously, but with some departments, sometimes an ordinary citizen....

There's nobody here from CPP, right?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gar Knutson: It takes a long time. Do you know how long it takes to get a CPP disability application? It takes a long time, and part of the frustration is you don't know how long it's going to take.

This would just be one tiny, little change in the interest of dealing with Canadians and letting them know how long their application is going to take.

• 1700

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just to reiterate, I don't necessarily have a problem with the wording; I'm just trying to clarify. Since we changed the wording at the beginning to “every 90 days”, unlike with CPP, they're going to get some indication of how the investigation is going and the action that has been taken, if any. And hopefully the applicant will be also getting some indication of whether it's a complex or a simple thing or whether people are dragging their feet or not.

Yes, an estimate certainly provides some kind of accountability and perhaps some fairness or appropriateness in getting back to people, but on the other hand, as in the case of the CPP, they just say, “Sometime in the next six years, we'll get back to you.”

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, it's awful.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, that's not necessarily helpful.

Mr. Gar Knutson: As I said, if people are uncomfortable with this change, then fine.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Again, I'm not necessarily uncomfortable.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): The last few lines in clause 19 the way it's written are:

...but a report is not required if the investigation is discontinued before the end of the 90 days.

In other words, if it's longer than 90 days, the minister shall produce a report. This amendment gets rid of that.

The way it's written now, a report will be produced after 90 days. The way the amendment is written means that report is then replaced with a written estimate of time.

Mr. Gar Knutson: You have to read it in conjunction with clause 21. If the investigation is discontinued, in clause 21, the minister has to prepare a report. So that's not changing. If the investigation is discontinued, then clause 21 kicks in.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: I have a possible friendly amendment to Mr. Knutson's amendment, and that is to go with the current wording of clause 19 with the exception of, after the words “progress of the investigation”, insert “and, if possible, a written estimate of the time required to complete the investigation”. Then continue with the rest of the wording.

The Chairman: If there is a disposition on the part of the mover to accept this friendly amendment, then we have to ask that it be put in writing and translated, and we'll have to defer any further action on it. So I'm leaving it with you to decide on this aspect, because we are introducing several subspecies to this amendment.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Having listened to Mr. Pratt, though, I would draw attention—sort of inappropriately—to the next amendment, which achieves a similar goal with the exception of “if possible.” So it might be that we'd accomplish both what Mr. Laliberte was hoping to accomplish and what Mr. Knutson is hoping to accomplish, in keeping with the spirit of how the current legislation is written. We might be accomplishing all three things if we went to 16.2, the NDP amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fine.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You're supposed to read it first.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That was a recommendation of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment. I withdraw my amendment with the intent of supporting—

The Chairman: Since this motion has been moved, we need unanimous consent for the withdrawal of this amendment. Is there consent to withdraw it?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you. The amendment is withdrawn.

• 1705

We'll then move to page 71, motion 16.2.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I will move this, and for the benefit of the committee members, I will read it out so that it can be interpreted in your wisdom. Clause 19 currently reads:

After acknowledging receipt of the application, the Minister shall report to the applicant every 90 days on the progress of the investigation and the action, if any, that the Minister has taken or proposes to take,

—and this is where it replaces it now—

and the Minister shall include in the report an estimate of the time required to complete the investigation or to implement the action,

—and then it continues back to the act—

but a report is not required if the investigation is discontinued before the end of the 90 days.

A voice: Well done.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte. Are you so moving?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I will move.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? It seems to be pretty straightforward.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd just draw members' attention to the fact that “if possible” is the only difference that Mr. Pratt had included in his. I'm not sure if that's important to people or not; I just thought I would draw their attention to it.

The Chairman: Thank you. It has been drawn to the attention of the committee.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I understand the intention. I don't necessarily accept it, because it defeats the whole purpose. I believe the minister can report. If it's not possible, you can report that it's not possible.

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we have here quite a labyrinth of amendments. To simplify matters, please turn in your thin book to amendment L-10.7, reference 1600, page 6.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, actually I'll be addressing these motions. Notice I haven't said “move” yet. I will not put L-10.7 forward, because it's captured in L-10.8.

The Chairman: All right. Please proceed then with L-10.8 on page 7.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Since there wasn't consent to stand this entire part, I wonder if there's perhaps consent to stand this clause and move on to clause 23.

The Chairman: Is there consent that we stand clause 22?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, fine.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the same question again: why?

The Chairman: Why?

Mrs. Paddy Torsney: Why? Many amendments have been proposed to this clause and some of them we only got this afternoon. We would like the members of the committee to have time to really consider them before putting them to a vote. We could now

[English]

proceed with clause 23.

• 1710

The Chairman: The clerk informs me that when it comes to standing one particular clause, that does not require unanimous consent. It can be dealt with by way of a vote. Therefore, failing consensus, it is possible to make a decision by way of a vote.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): By majority?

The Chairman: Yes. So I'm asking the committee whether you wish to have a vote.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I didn't understand your explanation, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I only said that to stand a particular clause, unanimous consent is not required; it can be done by way of a motion carried by the committee.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Could you tell us to what section you are referring, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead.

[Translation]

The clerk of the committee: Mr. Chairman, paragraph 700(1) of Beauchesne states that:

700(1) A clause may be postponed, upon motion, provided that no amendment has been made thereto and no amendment thereto has been defeated [...]

In short, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent is required to stand more than one clause. But to stand only one clause, a motion to that effect can be made, discussed and voted on.

The Chairman: Ultimately, it is a matter of courtesy.

[English]

The Clerk: Citation number 700 from Beauchesne's reads:

A clause may be postponed, upon motion, provided that no amendment has been made thereto....

The Chairman: There was no amendment here, so it is possible to have a vote on the disposition of this clause as to whether we'll proceed now or later. But I don't see any motion yet, so unless there is a motion, we will move ahead.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would like to put the motion forward that we do stand clause 22 and move on to clause 23, and I'd like that to go to a vote.

The Chairman: We have received a motion to put aside clause 22. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Chair, with regard to section 700, there are amendments proposed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Nothing has been moved. I didn't move my amendments.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I said “proposed”; I didn't say “moved”. In all fairness to our colleague, she might want to read the section again before the motion is put.

A voice:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Well, no, because indeed, if she had proposed an amendment, then we couldn't proceed.

The Chairman: She has not proposed an amendment so far. We have only a motion by Madame Torsney before us, and we'll proceed with a vote, unless there is an intervention.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, what I said was I would like to address the following two motions. That does not mean I am moving those motions.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I want to clarify that.

The Chairman: We are aware of that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: After hearing the concerns we have with this clause and also the wish that the parliamentary secretary had to move on entirely past this part, maybe we should consider adjourning the committee for everybody to investigate all these amendments.

The Chairman: No. In all fairness, it ought to be outlined, and I should have done it with Madame Girard-Bujold, if I can have her attention.

• 1715

[Translation]

I'm sorry.

[English]

I should have brought to her attention that on this particular clause, we have not one, not two, not three, but nine amendments, and they have been brought forward very recently. They are all in this thin book. So a request to suspend it, it seems to me, is reasonable, because it has come forward in good part in this book. Therefore it would be desirable, for an orderly procedure at least, to put it aside.

However, Madame Bujold doesn't seem to share this view, so I will proceed with the vote, unless she wants to make an intervention.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, the BQ amendments 11 and 12 are not in the small book you are talking about, but rather at pages 74 and 75 of the larger book.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, L-10.8 is in this book.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but at pages 74 and 75.

[English]

The Chairman: And L-10.9 is also in this thin book.

A voice: It's also in the big package.

The Chairman: It's in both?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: Well, I've seen it only in here.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Torsney, and then we will take a vote.

[Translation]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would now like the question on my motion to be called.

[English]

The Chairman: Are we ready for the vote on Ms. Torsney's motion?

(Clause 22 allowed to stand)

(On clause 23—Limitation period of two years)

The Chairman: So we'll go to clause 23. It would appear that the first motion is L-11 on page 78.

Mr. Gallaway, would you please take the floor?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: This amendment provides a clear five-year limitation period to the act. The reason for such a limitation period is that the reality is that most commercial enterprises—companies—only keep records for a defined period of time. Without this five-year limitation period, companies could be forced to deal with environmental protection action suits that resulted from actions long in the past, for which they no longer have records.

The reality of the need for a clear limitation period is recognized in legislation generally, and the same, I would suggest, should apply in this act regarding the right-to-sue provisions.

The current clause, as it appears, provides only what I would refer to an illusory limitation period—that is, two years after the person became aware of the incident. I would suggest there will always be someone who could be described as new, who was not aware of the incident. So I would suggest that this bill be put in line with most other legislation, where there is in fact a defined limitation period. That's what this attempts to do.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Are there any comments or questions?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wonder if we could have Madame Hébert or Mr. Moffat comment on the implications of this particular motion.

The Chairman: Madame Hébert.

• 1720

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Firstly, one of the things I noticed with your proposed amendment, Mr. Gallaway, is that the five-year final limitation would not be subject to the stop-the-clock provision in subclause 23(2). One can see a situation where, four and a half years after the incident, the plaintiff becomes aware of the violation and therefore wants to take action. However, the stop-the-clock provision wouldn't bring things to a standstill; the five-year limitation period would run out without the benefit of the stop-the-clock provision.

It seems to me that a way around that would be to modify subclause 23(2) to ensure that the stop-the-clock provision applies to both limitation periods, for one thing. This wouldn't unduly place the defendant—the offender—at a disadvantage, because it is still within a reasonable timeframe.

As to a firm five-year limitation period, it's quite possible that a lot of these violations may not be discovered for quite some time—in particular, for instance, sites that may have been contaminated in remote areas. People are not likely to come across those for some time to come. In those situations, because of the firm five-year limitation period, there would be no recourse under the circumstances.

Placing it within two years of the date of the plaintiff's awareness is rather open-ended, admittedly. However, the other way around, with a more firm limitation period, chances are that some of these violations will go without any sort of remedy or corrective action.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffat.

Mr. John Moffat: I have a brief observation. The limitation period currently in Bill C-32 is one of the limitations that was recommended by the parliamentary committee when it wrote It's About Our Health! It similarly is one of the limitations that is in the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights. If I can remind members, the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, including all of the limitations in it, was developed essentially on a consensus basis on the part of NGOs and corporations, precisely the corporations Mr. Galloway is concerned about here. In that instance, those companies and their representatives were willing to agree to the two-year limitation without the additional five-year limitation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Perhaps Madame Hébert and Mr. Moffat could answer a question for me. According to this amendment, it says that no environmental protection action should be brought more than five years after the date on which the offence was committed. So what happens if you have a situation where there's a burial of hazardous waste?

The Chairman:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. So this is an issue for citizens.

The Chairman: Madame Hébert answered the question, but—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you. I may have been in la-la land at the time.

Ms. Monique Hébert: It happens after 5 p.m.

Simply, there is a great deal of difference between the date of detection and the date of violation. Of course to have your limitation period run from the date of violation is a much firmer deadline. Date of awareness, though, is far more open-ended.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I must lend my support to the concern about the amendment, because it's very specific in saying that the limitation is five years after the date of the offence. We are aware that in some situations in regions of Canada, such as the Sydney tar ponds, the DEW Line issue, the Deline, the Athabasca region, and the landfill sites of a lot of municipalities, the offence could have taken 10 or 15 years, but the investigation may be required now, because of leakage. It just defeats the whole purpose, and for the wrong reasons.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Gallaway's motion is very similar to ours on page 79, and the suggestion to have a final period was put forward by no fewer than nine different groups of witnesses.

• 1725

I would use the example of the Expo lands in Vancouver. When they had Expo '86, they got into some contaminated sites, but there had been as many as four different industries there during the time, and they couldn't track it back. That's getting into the ridiculous of going back a century, but I believe the witnesses were very correct in stating that there needs to be a timeframe, and I support Mr. Gallaway.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: We'll now proceed with the Reform motion on page 79, R-8, in the name of Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It's very similar to Mr. Gallaway's, so I don't think we need to go into any more discussion.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Did Mr. Gilmour actually move the amendment or not?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I so move.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I want to inform my honourable conservative friend—and I believe Mr. Cameron may be able to confirm—that the existing wording comes from the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, proposed by our friend and colleague, the Progressive Conservative premier, Mike Harris. So I think the existing legislation already in the bill would actually do us better.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: We're just checking the actual wording.

Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: There is a similar provision in section 102 of the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Chairman: Similar to what?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Similar to the two-year limitation period. It is not a five-year limitation period.

The Chairman: Fine, thank you.

Are there any comments?

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have a point of clarification. I want to confirm whether they are united, whether Mr. Herron has agreed with Mr. Gilmour or has disagreed with Mr. Gilmour. I'm not sure it was very clear.

Mr. John Herron: I'm in disagreement with my conservative friend, Mr. Gilmour, on this one occasion.

The Chairman: All right. Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 23 agreed to)

(On clause 24—No action for remedial conduct)

The Chairman: Now we go to clause 24, and we have amendment L-11.1 in the thin collection, in the name of Mr. Knutson.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'll be moving this.

The Chairman: Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: While everyone flips to the right page—

The Chairman: It's page 9.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: —I'm wondering if we might stand clause 24.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fine with me.

The Chairman: Could you please give an indication, for the benefit of the members of the committee, in answer to the question: why?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I guess that age-old “because” doesn't really count here. Does “because” work for you or not?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It never really worked with my sister, and I always tried it with her.

Mr. John Herron: My question to our honourable parliamentary secretary is this: is there a hurry for us to get to a particular clause?

• 1730

The Chairman: There's no hurry as far as the chair is concerned, but it would be helpful if we were to hear an indication as to why this ought to be postponed. I'm sure that, either by consensus or by way of a motion, it can be dealt with, but....

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If the committee would like to proceed, I'm quite happy to entertain that, if there is an amendment.

The Chairman: Well, if Mr. Knutson is not ready to move the motion, there's nothing I can do without that. We'll have to put it aside. We are not suspending it; we are just not dealing with it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would like to clarify something. Based on the Beauchesne's decision that we had on another clause, if we don't have a motion moved.... Or is it that we don't have an amendment already?

The Chairman: It would be in order to move a motion to suspend for the time being this particular motion, as we did earlier. That motion would have to be put to a vote, as we did earlier as well.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And in terms of the timing of my motion, I need to do that before an amendment is moved. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Before it is moved, yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Right. Well, then I would like to put forward a motion, which I gather would become votable, that we stand clause 24.

The Chairman: The motion has been made that we stand clause 24. Are there any questions or comments?

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Ms. Torsney doesn't seem to understand the word "why". So I'll ask a more precise question. For what reasons exactly do you move this?

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney chose not to answer the question.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It is ridiculous, what is going on here. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand how this is possible. We are here to consider the bill clause by clause, according to a process that has been agreed. It is preposterous for people to do whatever they like. I think we should stick to the decisions we made at the outset, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Madame, you have good reasons to ask the question and Ms. Torsney has her own reasons for choosing not to answer. This is the situation. I cannot compel Ms. Torsney to answer.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I can still say what I think. She said earlier that we have some 300 amendments and, all of a sudden, she interferes with our consideration of these amendments without giving any reasons. So, I want to give her a piece of my mind and this is what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, I understand.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Perhaps I can point out that I had suggested earlier to the committee that we move to an entirely new part, which would have also seen us move forward quickly, and Madame Bujold objected to that. In terms of the process, I am still moving forward and am quite prepared to continue moving forward quickly. I simply request that we stand this clause, which is also part of the process of moving forward.

Mr. David Pratt: And fully within the rules.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And fully within the rules. Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

• 1735

The Chairman: You have a motion before you to stand this clause. Are you ready for the question?

(Clause 24 allowed to stand)

(Clause 25 agreed to)

(On clause 26—Notice of the action)

The Chairman: Would you please move to page 80? On clause 26, there is a government amendment.

Madame Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move this amendment to clause 26. Several points would be changed, and I wonder if we could have our legal counsel clarify that.

The Chairman: The amendment is moved. Could we please have Mr. Cameron comment?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Certainly. This amendment is necessary to recognize the fact that it is the minister who is responsible for adding information to the environmental registry, not individual applicants or individual citizens. Simply we are changing words here to indicate that upon filing a civil action, the applicant will provide notice to the minister of that action, and the minister shall put that notice on the environmental registry.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just trying to read the amendment. Could you give us a second just to translate what he's saying and what's written?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: In the meantime, could Mr. Moffat give us his thoughts on this issue?

The Chairman: Yes, he could.

Mr. John Moffat: I don't think I can add much to what Mr. Cameron said; I'm sorry. It's essentially a technical correction.

The registry is set up as a mechanism for the minister to promulgate information, so this clarifies the way information regarding environmental protection actions would be placed on the registry—namely, that information has to be placed on the registry by the minister, and not by any other party.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Madame Girard-Bujold.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification. It says in French: "Dans les meilleurs délais suivant la réception de l'avis". Why isn't there a specific time frame? I would like to know the difference between a specific time and "les meilleurs délais".

The Chairman: Very good question, Madame Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Cameron or Ms. Torsney, could you provide explanations?

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's simply to indicate that the minister, upon receipt of the notice, will immediately put that notice on the registry.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is this answer satisfactory? No?

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, I'm not satisfied with this answer.

The Chairman: So you have difficulty with the words "meilleurs délais"?

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, could you explain why the word "meilleurs" is being used?

Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, in fact the main part of amendment G-5 does not deal with the issue of time. That is not the change that's being made. Two amendments are coming up afterwards that deal with the issue of time.

• 1740

The amendment contained in G-5 simply clarifies the process for putting these actions on the registry. It does not deal with the timing of those amendments. It does include a time, but that time is included in the current legislation.

The reality is, a plaintiff can't do something to the registry. Only the minister can do something to the registry. The time issue is in the next two amendments.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, my colleague states that the time frame is set out in the bill. But usually, when an amendment to a clause is moved, the new words are underlined. You have underlined the words "Dans les meilleurs délais". Does it mean that these are the words you intend to change? I want to know what the words "les meilleurs délais" mean. Why don't you specify a precise period? This is what I want to know, Mr. Cameron and Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Well, that's certainly an option, but “as soon as possible” means “immediately”, and I would assume that's faster than most time periods we could pick. If we were to say 10 days, chances are we could do it faster than that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to ask a legal opinion. There's a change in subclause 26(2). You are adding paragraphs 26(2)(a) and 26(2)(b), but in subclause 26(2) you are specifically saying, “In an environmental protection action”. Is that limiting anything here? Is there a focus on not making it beyond that? Are there reasons for this?

The Chairman: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: There's no substantive change. It's simply, as we've already indicated, a reflection of the fact that the court may not order a party to the action to give notice in the registry; it's the minister who has control of the registry. Therefore, by creating paragraphs 26(2)(a) and 26(2)(b), we've divided that into the two-step process that the applicant will first provide notice to the minister, and then second, the minister will provide the notice on the registry.

In every other regard, the wording here is identical to that in subclause 26(2) of the bill.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, in French, the terms "dans les meilleurs délais" don't mean right away or as soon as possible. In my view, this wording does not set any limit. I want clarification. Mr. Cameron has not been able to provide clarification.

The Chairman: If you want, you can vote against the motion.

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, people always say that we should improve and clarify the wording of bills. In my view, this is an important matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold is asking whether this wording can be improved. Of course it's up to the mover to make that decision. If not, we'll have to proceed with a vote.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I prefer to proceed with the vote, thank you.

An hon. member: Call the question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: There is no...

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I did not say that I want the amendment I moved to be changed. I want the question called on the original language of the amendment I moved.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: At the outset, the plaintiff is given 10 days. To be fair, shouldn't the minister be given 10 days as well?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Again, through you, Mr. Chair, to the member opposite, one might wonder why you would want to put in 10 days if it was in fact feasibly possible for the minister to do it that very same day or the following day or as soon as possible; 10 days might be too long.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: But it says, “no later than 10 days”.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, I'm not dealing with that concept; I'm dealing with the earlier one. The other 10 days comes up in some other amendments. I'd just like to have the amendment as it is.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1745

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: I think we will adjourn now and resume tomorrow morning with clause 27.

Mr. John Herron: Tomorrow will we go back to the ones we stood earlier?

The Chairman: No, we will resume at clause 27.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Unless you want to resume at clause 43.

Mr. John Herron: What happens after we—?

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.