ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 11, 1999

• 0910

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): We have a quorum. Good morning.

We have a few brief announcements.

[Translation]

The other day, Ms. Girard-Bujold spoke about a provision in the bill and suggested that change been made to the French and English versions. The department has drafted an amendment and the text should be distributed to you in a few minutes for your approval.

Secondly, Mr. Charbonneau wishes to speak on a point of order further to our meeting yesterday on aquaculture.

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we put a number of questions yesterday to the Secretary of State for Fisheries and Oceans regarding aquaculture. He testified along with a number of resource persons and the Commissioner.

We focused our attention specifically on the examination of the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy which was released in 1995. This strategy, especially part 2, contains many commitments. Among other things, it states “the federal government undertakes to...” and it goes on to list for at least ten pages the commitments made by the government. Following our review yesterday, we raised a number of questions and received a few answers and promises to supply us with the answers to some of our other questions at a later date.

In my view, our committee should simply ask DFO to provide a status report on the commitments listed in this strategy paper, which would give us a clear idea of where we stand on this issue. We have already partially covered the report as a result of our questions, and if we asked them to provide us with a status report on the commitments made in 1995, then we would have some idea of the situation.

I'd like to propose this morning that we formally ask DFO to produce a report on the commitments made in 1995 under the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy.

The Chairman: Are you prepared to move a motion to that effect, Mr. Charbonneau?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes.

The Chairman: Have you heard your colleague's motion, Ms. Girard-Bujold?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Yes, but isn't this something we discussed yesterday with the Secretary of State for Fisheries and Oceans when we talked about additional funding and the current situation? I believe they already promised to provide us with this information, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: This is a separate request.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but it ties in with everything else.

The Chairman: No, this is separate.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It is really?

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau has moved a clearly worded motion and I would ask him to repeat it.

• 0915

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I move that the committee call upon DFO to report on the status of the undertakings made in the Federal Aquaculture Development Strategy released in 1995. This doesn't preclude his responding to any of the other questions raised.

[English]

The Chairman: A motion of this kind requires two steps. The first is the unanimous consent that it be moved without the 24-hour notice, which is required by the rules but can be waived if there is unanimous consent. If there isn't unanimous consent, then the motion will be put at the next meeting, on Monday.

Is there unanimous consent that the 24-hour notice be waived?

I understand that there is. Fine. Are you ready for the question?

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Next, the clerk has circulated the paper prepared by Mr. Moffet entitled “Prior Informed Consent Provisions in Bill C-32”, plus the United Nations and UNEP document entitled “Final Act of the Conference of Plenipotentiaries”, and so on.

Those documents relate to clauses 100 and 103, to which we will return. The department has experts on this matter, and if the department is agreeable, we would deal with these clauses possibly next Tuesday.

Is that agreeable? Thank you.

(On clause 176—Determination of international water pollution)

[Translation]

The Chairman: The Clerk has informed me that he has given you a copy of the new wording of clause 176, as proposed by Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Have you read the amended text and is it more in line with what you expect to see in a proper French version?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: This is a technical adjustment, a technical improvement.

Mr. Cameron, are you happy?

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Environment Canada): Yes, I am.

The Chairman: Fine.

So Madame Girard-Bujold moves this text.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 176 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Before we start our marathon at clause 188, I would like to seek your assistance in looking, for the purpose of a cleanup, so to say....

• 0920

We have to ask the parliamentary secretary whether she is ready. We have this floating item, clause 247, which is the object of an amendment by Madame Girard-Bujold. Is it too soon to raise it now?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): No, it's fine with me if it's fine with the committee. But I have a third option that I'd like to distribute to members.

The Chairman: You do? In that case, in order to give people time to see and read it, we will.... Please feel free to have it distributed through the clerk, and then we'll discuss it when we come to clause 247, because then it's more complicated than we thought. Thank you.

(On clause 188—Reduction of export for final disposal)

The Chairman: We now find ourselves dealing with an amendment by Mr. Laliberte of the NDP, motion NDP-52.7. This is an historical moment whereby an NDP motion is moved by a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): This is indeed an historical moment for me personally as well. But I am pleased to move amendment 52.7 on behalf of my colleague from the NDP.

The Chairman: We did not know that the united right would reach that far to the left.

Mr. John Herron: That's the difference between being a progressive alternative versus....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Herron: My colleague, Mr. Laliberte, has left me with three points that he wants put forward: first, that it includes prescribed non-hazardous waste to the scope of reduction of export for final disposal; secondly, that it refers to the fact that prescribed non-hazardous waste can include admissible municipal waste. It is somewhat hypocritical not to include reduction efforts for Canada's municipal wastes that are shipped to the U.S. for dumping or incineration. So on behalf of the NDP, I am moving this motion.

The Chairman: Yes, parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't have a lot to add, except to point out that since you are getting into the area of municipal waste, there is joint jurisdiction. The provincial government has some things to say about municipal waste, and that may be of interest to some members of the committee.

The Chairman: It's really the consequences of waste as it leaches and penetrates into ground water or rivers that is the issue before us.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, no.

The Chairman: A particular problem is the Niagara River.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, Mr. Chair, it's the addition of prescribed non-hazardous waste that would be the addition of municipal waste.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So it's about exporting municipal waste to the United States, where there may be shared jurisdiction, shared facilities, or something like that.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to ask the parliamentary secretary, given that on page 131 the title actually refers to non-hazardous waste, why isn't it mentioned in clause 188? I think if Mr. Laliberte were here he would ask a similar question.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No doubt. But since this is a section that would deal with a variety of things.... You've seen in previous examples, where in differentiating between the different items within the group there might be one clause that affects one and one clause that affects the other. Mr. Laliberte might ask that question, but being a lawyer you probably wouldn't.

• 0925

Mr. John Herron: If I were a lawyer.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, you're not a lawyer?

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I would like to ask Mr. Moffet and Mr. Cameron for a clarification. I think the parliamentary secretary has a point that non-hazardous waste is municipal in scope, and provincial in jurisdiction as a result.

When I was in Quebec I was involved in a case where people were bringing non-hazardous waste, especially construction materials, from the United States into Canada at such a rate that the municipalities in the area were being flooded with the stuff.

I know the regulation that was made eventually to stop it was a Quebec regulation. While the federal government was responsible for checking the goods coming across the border, once they crossed the border into Quebec they became a provincial matter.

I'm wondering if the same case would apply the other way for export, where it's provincial up to the time when it starts to leave and when it gets to the harbour it becomes federal. If this were the case, the amendment would be valid and make sense. So I wonder if Mr. Moffet, Madam Hébert, or Mr. Cameron could shed light on it. Once it's inside the Canadian border, it's definitely provincial.

The Chairman: Can we have a quick comment, please?

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Mr. Lincoln, in my opinion it would probably be a valid exercise of federal jurisdiction under the international trade and commerce head of power.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Could someone explain to us the purpose of this amendment? I'm trying to understand the difference between the amendment and the original French text. The reference in the original is to “déchets dangereux destinés à l'élimination définitive” whereas the amended version refers to “déchets dangereux visés par règlement destinés à l'élimination définitive”. What is the scope of this amendment?

The Chairman: In the English version, the reason for the amendment is clearer, since it involves adding the words “prescribed non-hazardous waste”. It's somewhat more complicated in the French version.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Is it possible to be in favour of the French version, and opposed to the English version?

Some members: Oh! Oh!

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It seems to me in the case of hazardous waste you're trying to stop hazardous waste from our country from flooding other territories; in other words, you're transferring toxic pollution somewhere else. But why should we care if we export non-hazardous stuff somewhere else if the other country is prepared to accept it and it doesn't cause any problems? I suppose the qualifying words are “prescribed non-hazardous”.

I wonder if Mr. Herron could tell us what he is trying to achieve by adding “prescribed non-hazardous?”

The Chairman: Fair enough. Mr. Herron, would you enlighten the committee as to the intent of the motion to insert the term “prescribed” before “non-hazardous waste?”

Mr. John Herron: I would think we would like to retain “prescribed” as before. Mr. Laliberte's opinion should hold. I can't really give any further explanation.

The Chairman: That doesn't answer the question, but we understand that much.

Madam Carroll, followed by Madam Hébert.

• 0930

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I have to say I won't support this amendment, and as a former municipal politician, quite frankly, I think you're stepping into someone else's jurisdiction. I'm not even concerned about the province.

I might add for the record that while I'm more than pleased, on this side of the table, to see you bring forward the NDP motion, I am surprised there is no one occupying your chair to vote.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Just a clarification in relation to the use of the term “prescribed”. Under clause 3 of the bill, prescribed means as prescribed by regulation. So these would be substances that had been selected under regulations. Also, if you look at clause 191, there is authority there in the governor in council to establish regulations respecting waste and other materials, so that would seem broad enough.

Paragraph 191(h) is the very general provision, but there is also a more specific one under paragraph 191(f) “respecting conditions governing the import, export...of waste and material”. That would seem broad enough to enable the minister to develop regulations targeting specific types of non-hazardous waste in an export situation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Hébert.

Are you ready for the question, Madame Parliamentary Secretary?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: If people are going to be voting on something that is equivalent in English and French, in the second line in the French it should say

[Translation]

“de déchets dangereux”

[English]

in the first three words of the second line in French,

[Translation]

“visés par règlement”,

[English]

“prescribed non-hazardous waste”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet (Committee Researcher): I just thought it would be appropriate to comment on Ms. Carroll's comment that this is essentially a municipal jurisdiction. I think it's worth observing that this provision would apply to exporters of prescribed non-hazardous waste. So it does not apply to those who manage or generate non-hazardous waste.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Those who decide and make decisions—

Mr. John Moffet: No, it applies to exporters of non-hazardous waste only. That's the way it reads. The export of goods is a matter of federal jurisdiction and that's how this whole division is focused; it's focused on the import and export of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

To Mr. Lincoln, in order to answer the question of why the federal government might want to be concerned in this way about the export of non-hazardous waste, we need to go back to the concept of pollution prevention. If the federal government can encourage or require parties that generate waste to rethink the way they generate waste and reduce the amount of waste they produce, we will be promoting pollution prevention, which is the central focus of this bill. So I think this would enable the federal government to further the reach of its pollution prevention authority.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. Moffet is drawing the committee's attention to line 37 of clause 188, where it reads “the minister may require an exporter”. So it's fairly clear there.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I've always thought that companies wishing to export either hazardous or non-hazardous waste outside Canada needed to secure permits from their province. Provinces are authorized to issue export permits. I fail to see why we need provisions other than the ones already included in provincial regulations. Companies in my region are required to obtain permission from the province, and the federal government did not need to intervene in this matter.

The Chairman: Under our current system, the federal government has jurisdiction over export and import matters. If you want these to come under provincial jurisdiction, that's another matter. This is a federal issue.

• 0935

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I understand, but the company must first obtain permission from the province, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: If you want to rewrite the Canadian Constitution...

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, but that's my interpretation of things. International agreements are also in place. When my region wanted to export some waste, it had to ask the federal government if there was a company in Quebec that could handle this. The federal government submitted a request to the province, which then issued a permit for handling this waste. The province was responsible for issuing the permit.

The Chairman: Most likely two levels of government need to be involved.

[English]

Are you ready for the question? I think we have given it.... Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I must say that Mr. Moffet's argument is very convincing, because subclause 185(2) allows the minister to refuse waste or material that is imported into Canada, which is a federal jurisdiction. So the argument is that if we want to have control on imports in order to stop people from sending all kinds of construction materials, for example, or garbage into our country, then vice-versa, we have to be able to say, if we stop you from doing it, we won't do it ourselves. So I think on the basis of subclause 185(2) alone it would be justified, and I think Mr. Moffet's arguments are very convincing.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Yes, and they include non-hazardous waste in subclause 185(1).

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I think Mr. Moffet struck on something. As long as there are other places to dump, the decisions and efforts will go towards figuring out where those are. I think if we have a mechanism for closing that off, then companies are going to have to rethink the way they do things. I think pollution prevention is the key to this clause.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you look at subclause 185(1), it already talks about prescribed non-hazardous waste. I thought it was something new, but obviously it's already in there.

The Chairman: Ms. Carroll.

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

Since we are introducing something new—and I've listened well and wish to thank you, Mr. Moffet, for your background and resource—could the department give us their views on this?

Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): I can perhaps explain why we've structured the division this way. Our focus was on hazardous waste under the Basel Convention especially, and that's why we have put in the enabling authority for a reduction and phase-out plans. That would be our priority.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That said, is there not an inconsistency here? Is this not new ground for you?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: It wouldn't be inconsistent with Basel. It's an additional tool for our tool box.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, that's not quite correct, because if you look at subclause 185(1), it says:

185.(1) No person shall import, export or convey in transit a hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material, or prescribed non-hazardous waste for final disposal, except

(a) after notifying the Minister

So if it's logical for subclause 185(1), I don't see why it becomes illogical for clause 188. It doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I didn't say it was illogical, sir.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh, I'm sorry.

An hon. member: He said “consistent”.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: You said “consistent”. Oh, great.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I apologize for employing a double negative. I know you're used to hearing negatives from this side.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. Sorry.

The Chairman: So we have this qualification that it is consistent.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 188 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

• 0940

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think you have amendment L-16 that relates to clause 188.

The Chairman: Yes, but I am advised that because amendment NDP-52.7 was carried, amendment L-16 is no longer before us. It touches on the same line.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was not necessarily in favour of L-16, but we've had a process in place where if someone wasn't here and a debate was about to take place about something they were a proponent of, we waited until they attended or had Mr. Herron substitute for them. I just think we've been a tad inconsistent. As I say, I'm not in favour of L-16, but I think we should have probably held off consideration of clause 188.

The Chairman: Oh, we certainly would. But I will ask the clerk to provide the rule as it deals with amendments to the same lines.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My question isn't about the rules. I appreciate the rules. I'm just suggesting that because of the implications of that, someone might have raised that issue and held off the debate on clause 188 until Mr. Gallaway was in attendance, because that's what we've done continually for Mr. Laliberte and for Mr. Lincoln as well. Again, I'm not in favour of amendment L-16. I just think that if we had been consistent with our previous practice, we would have given a chance for Mr. Gallaway to debate his amendment here before us and had a discussion about perhaps both of them.

The Chairman: No. I'm sorry, but I don't like the insinuation that is being advanced here. Today, in the absence of Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Herron is taking his place and is offering that. At the beginning of the meeting the chair was informed that if this motion carried, then the following motion, whoever it belongs to, would not be before us because it amends the same line.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm not sure you mentioned that.

The Chairman: So I proceeded on the assumption that like other motions, this may not carry. Now I find myself in the position of having to rule in light of a surprising event that an NDP motion that was moved by the Progressive Conservative member did carry.

In all fairness, then, if this is going to happen again and could be objected to, I want to warn you that we have a similar situation popping up very soon in relation to the next motion, 52.7.1, because if that carries, then Mr. Gilmour's motion cannot be put for the same reason. So we have a number of these linked items, and if you want me to suspend them all, we'll come to stagnation.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm not sure that was what my request was, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Then what is your request?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My request is to note for the record that in the past we have had discussion about the effect that passing one would have on the other, and we are now having that discussion. We didn't have it before we considered the vote on Mr. Herron-Laliberte's motion. It's just simply to say that as we've extended some courtesy to the opposition, it might have been an opportunity to extend the courtesy. Again, I don't want amendment L-16, so I'm quite happy with the outcome.

The Chairman: But it is not a question of courtesy. This is the first time we are coming across linked amendments whereby if one carries, the following one would not be put.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: We had some of those before Christmas as well.

The Chairman: No, I'm sorry, this is the first time, as far as I can recall. So I'm in that position. If you want me to raise it when the member for Sarnia—Lambton is in attendance, I will be glad to raise this issue again.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I'm having trouble understanding what the linkage is, because what L-16 is doing is carving out the United States. NDP-52.7 doesn't make L-16 redundant. So is the idea that once we amend the line, we can't have another amendment that affects that amended line?

• 0945

The Chairman: The clerk, please.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stephen Knowles): Mr. Chairman, you're amending the amended line. The appropriate position would be to see if it perhaps could be moved at another place in the bill, for example.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chairman: So we will raise L-16 when the member for Sarnia—Lambton is with us.

Would you please move then to page 289? I'm alerting you that it is linked to 290, in the name of Mr. Gilmour. So I'm alerting you that if this carries we will not deal with 290.

(On clause 189—Movement within Canada)

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, would you like to move this motion?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, Mr. Chair. I move the motion NDP-52.7.1. It refers primarily to the issue of prescribed fee, and the concern of the member was whether the government could define what “prescribed fee” could be. Could this be an overall fee, a shipping fee, a storage fee, a licensing fee? What is the prescribed fee, or could there just be an excessive cost recovery or a tax grab by the government? I think it's very progressive for the NDP to worry about tax grabs.

The Chairman: May I remind members of the committee that this amendment was suggested by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.

Are there any comments? The parliamentary secretary.

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

The effect of this amendment, were it to pass, would be to delete cost recovery, which I think would be something that most people believe would be a helpful tool in ensuring that the user pays for the privileges that the user gets. So I would not be in support of this amendment.

The Chairman: All right. We've heard the parliamentary secretary. Are there any comments? Any questions?

(Amendment negatived [SeeMinutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: This having been defeated, we can put R-20.

Mr. Casson please.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we've all been in this committee a little too long with some of the things that are going on here today. Anyway, we'll keep going.

We had a similar amendment to subclause 185(1) and we withdrew it. Now maybe somebody can refresh my memory as to why we did that, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can.

The Chairman: Please, go ahead.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Because the principle by which we design the fees is already stipulated in another part of the bill—and I can't explain fully why you might have withdrawn it, but you might have thought it was covered in another section.

Mr. Rick Casson: I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It's not moved. Thank you.

(Clause 189 agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we move to page 291, and we will stand it for the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Page 292—sorry. The parliamentary secretary.

(On clause 194—Application)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Maybe I'll move this in Mr. Gallaway's absence—it's amendment L-16.1—and ask Mr. Cameron to give a further explanation. We're on clause 194 on page 291.

The Chairman: Thank you. The motion is moved.

Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: The effect of this motion would be to remove from part 8 of the bill emergencies caused or otherwise attributable to a discharge of oil from a ship. I am informed by my colleagues at the Department of Transport that all aspects relating to discharge of oil from a ship are governed by parts 15 and 16 of the Canada Shipping Act, and that the provisions in part 8 of CEPA would duplicate the same provisions that are already in that legislation. Therefore, in order to avoid that duplication, this motion, which would take that situation out of the CEPA, seems to be appropriate since it's already covered under other legislation.

• 0950

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, if I may—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: —there's an existing fund, the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund, which has I believe about $250 million in it for such eventualities, and it falls under that Canada Shipping Act regime.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can I question what harm there is in leaving the clause just as it is? If we talk about the pollution fund, it was a great help in the case of the lifting of the Irving Oil barge. We're still arguing with them, and I don't think having a provision in CEPA would do any harm.

The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: I can only say generally that the problem of duplication between two statutes is that it would cause uncertainty in the sense that if there's an incident, which legislation would apply? My colleague from the Department of Justice may have a legal comment; he may not.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I'd like to draw to members' attention that under subclause 200(2), it's basically a residual clause that denies the governor in council regulatory authority over matters that can be regulated elsewhere, which could be the Canada Shipping Act. As a result, it seems to me that particular potential for conflict could be resolved under subclause 200(2).

The Chairman: The point being that this has been taken care of in section 200.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Yes.

The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, because the whole issue of residualization within the federal government has not been settled yet, and we still have those clauses to come back to, I think perhaps we should stand this clause as part of that particular package.

The Chairman: Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I was about to ask our colleagues from the Department of Justice to say whether legislation that duplicates, strengthens or weakens the case for potential civil suits...but Mrs. Kraft Sloan's suggestion is a good one and we can obtain that information later.

The Chairman: It seems to me that Ms. Hébert's comment on subclause 200(2) puts the matter neatly to rest and resolves it once and for all. However, if you wish to postpone it, we can revisit it at a later date. So we will set it aside for further discussion, unless you wish otherwise. Agreed?

(Clause 194 allowed to stand)

(On clause 196—Guidelines and codes of practice)

The Chairman: We'll move now to page 292, a motion in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, I'll move NDP-52.8. The member is essentially changing the wording in the current draft from “may” to “shall”. I think that's relatively self-explanatory. It's similar to a number of amendments we've tabled before.

• 0955

The Chairman: Thank you.

The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My only comment is to say that “may” offers the minister a certain discretion in whether or not he or she would want to issue guidelines, and discretion is sometimes a good thing.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there further comments or questions?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 196 agreed to)

(On clause 197—Consultation)

The Chairman: On page 293 there is an amendment in the name of the member for York North.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, this is part of the shall/may offer-to-consult package on which we have yet to have final agreement, and I would request that this be stood with all of those others.

The Chairman: The request has been made that the amendment be stood and not moved for the time being.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think the request is that clause 197 be held over.

The Chairman: Yes. All right.

Then I suppose we would do the same with Mr. Lincoln's amendment.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It is not only clause 197; there are several of them, Mr. Chairman.

(Clause 197 allowed to stand)

(On clause 199—Requirements for environmental emergency plans)

The Chairman: I believe we then jump to page 297, an amendment in the name of the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I'm confused. You seem to be deferring consideration of many clauses.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll alert the committee that if the motion is adopted, then amendments L-16.3 and L-16.4 cannot be moved. If it is defeated, then they can be moved.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I want to replace “may publish” with the expression "shall publish" so as to impose on the minister the obligation to publish a notice in the Canada Gazette. I propose the following wording:

...the minister shall publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the minister considers appropriate a notice requiring the person or class of persons to prepare or implement an environmental emergency plan.

The Chairman: This would then imply an obligation on the minister's part.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Exactly.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: My comment would be that certainly we have other amendments that are being considered in this section, and if that was the only effect the member wanted, I'm not sure why just that one line wasn't written into the amendment.

What is in fact before us is quite a rewrite and quite a change that would knock out potential amendments from other people on the committee if it were to pass. I'm sure there must be some other reason why this entire section has been rewritten by the member opposite, although I don't know what it is.

The Chairman: You have heard the essence of the amendment by Madame Girard-Bujold. It is fairly straightforward. Are there any questions or further comments?

(Amendment negatived)

• 1000

The Chairman: We can therefore move to page 298 and amendment L-16.3, moved in the name of the member for York North, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In the current sentence, Mr. Chair, it says:

prepare or implement an environmental emer-

This amendment would change the word “or” to “and”, making it read:

prepare and implement an environmental emer-

It would be difficult to implement a plan if you hadn't planned it. Likewise, if we have plans, we really should implement them. Therefore, the effect of this amendment is to encourage both planning and implementation, not one or the other, which is why we had to defeat your amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Parliamentary Secretary, do you have any comments?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, I think Mrs. Kraft Sloan has been quite clear.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We now go to page 299.

Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if carried, amendment L-16.4 would effectively require the preparation of environmental emergency plans before listing. These plans could be prepared once they were listed, but they could also be encouraged beforehand. This just reverts to the same wording that was in C-74, and it follows along arguments that I've made all through this process on virtual elimination plans and pollution prevention plans.

It's still not really clear to me why this was changed between C-74 and C-32. I still have not received an adequate answer. If people want to go through the paragraphs and paragraphs of discussion on this in our Hansard from previous sessions, they're certainly welcome to do that.

The Chairman: All right. This is a fairly straightforward proposition too. It is bringing the bill in line with its predecessor, C-74, giving it the same wording.

Are there any comments, Madam Parliamentary Secretary?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't have too much to say, Mr. Chair, other than that I don't support the amendment. That's all.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I want to understand why the government doesn't support this amendment. We've never really gotten an adequate response on this issue. This issue has come up again for the third time. For the record, I'd really like to understand why this change was required, particularly in light of the fact that this amendment restores it to C-74, which reflected the government response.

The Chairman: Perhaps there could be an explanation provided by our witnesses.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, the bill is a different bill. There are some things that are better and there are some things that are different. I don't know that there's a need to belabour the point. We certainly have a lot of other clauses that are before us, and all I can say is that we don't support the amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand not giving a reason for a big change like this. C-74 reflected the government response, but now we're being told that we don't need to discuss this because we have all kinds of other work, that we're supposed to accept it without any explanation at all from the officials who are supposed to be here giving us these explanations. To say today that we don't even need to discuss this, that we're against it, let's raise our hands and vote, is, I think, preposterous. We should get an explanation. We should find out why the government has changed it. There must have been a reason. If they can convince us that the point is carried, why they changed it, that's fair enough. But if they can't, maybe some people will be convinced to vote for the amendment.

• 1005

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, Mr. Chair, I certainly wasn't suggesting that Mr. Lincoln or Mrs. Kraft Sloan could not continue to debate the merits of their amendment. I was simply stating the facts, as Mrs. Kraft Sloan has identified, that there have been other debates in a similar context. My point is merely that this is Bill C-32; this is the bill that is before us. We do not support the amendment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask—

The Chairman: Just a moment—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Excuse me, I would like to ask—

The Chairman: Another time, another time.

Mr. Herron and Madam Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: They can vote against it, or for it, or however they wish.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If my colleague from the NDP were here, I'm sure he might ask Mr. Moffet or Madame Hébert their opinions on whether this removal from C-74 weakens environmental standards in Canada and whether this would prevent or contribute to pollution.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I might be able to answer that.

The Chairman: Madame Hébert, please.

Ms. Monique Hébert: In environmental terms, I think it is a weakening of the bill. Just to explain, because it's not obvious from the wording of the amendment, Bill C-32 would allow for the minister to require emergency planning for substances that have been placed on the list of toxic substances in CEPA. This requires an order from the governor in council. What was in Bill C-74, and what Mrs. Kraft Sloan's amendment attempts to do, is broaden that list of substances. Now the minister, under this amendment, would have authority to order emergency planning, not only in relation to the substances actually placed on the list of toxic substances, but for those that were found after the assessment to be toxic, which the minister has recommended to the governor in council be placed on the list but which have not yet been listed. So those are substances in limbo, if you will. They have been found to be CEPA-toxic, but they technically are not on the list. Under Bill C-32, the trigger for the planning is the listing itself, not the nature of the substance.

The Chairman: We have Madame Kraft Sloan and Mr. Lincoln.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The point I was trying to make in earlier interventions on similar amendments with virtual elimination planning, with pollution prevention planning, was that CEPA 1988 came into force 10 years ago. We have no substances on the toxic substances list. If this amendment does not go through, we have no substances listed. Therefore, there is no trigger for pollution prevention plans, or virtual elimination plans, or environmental emergency plans. And this does substantially weaken the bill, because this is a further requirement, a further hurdle, and it's a hurdle that has not been met.

I still have not received an answer as to the reason for the change between Bill C-74 and Bill C-32. It's a simple request, a request that has been made over and over again, and I have not received an answer other than “We don't support it.”

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mrs. Lloyd to explain why it was deleted from the C-74 text and the text change.

The Chairman: Mrs. Lloyd, would you like to reply?

Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I cannot speak to the change between C-74 and C-32. The bill we are here to try to explain is Bill C-32.

I would like to say that Madame Hébert made it very clear what the amendment would do. It would change the authority of the minister for requiring these plans and provisions, and she would be able to demand those only at the time of the listing on the toxic substances list. That would be the effect of the amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lerer.

[Translation]

I'm sorry, Mr. Serré. Did you wish to say something?

[English]

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it's probably a point of order I want to raise, and I had asked the member, Mr. Herron, not to leave before I made my intervention, but he left anyway.

• 1010

I'm just wondering if it's within the rules that a member representing one party can sit in two chairs. He sometimes represents the PCs and he sometimes represents the NDP. The two parties most of the time are philosophically opposed. I would kindly suggest that if the NDP think these issues are serious enough, they would have somebody to represent them. I am uncomfortable with the fact that one member would represent two parties at the same time and express different views.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Serré.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would request that this be stood and that we get an answer from the department as to why the change was made between Bill C-32 and Bill C-74. If no one here is able to give us that answer, surely there is someone in the department who will be able to give us that answer.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan and Mr. Lerer concurred with the intervention made by Ms. Hébert earlier. That is an important intervention that in a way indirectly explains there is some rationale, and you can draw your own conclusion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I withdraw my earlier comments.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Just on a point of clarification, certainly officials can come here and explain how things work, how they have worked, and how they could work, but to request that the officials comment on political decisions on what is or isn't in a bill versus things that may or may not have been in a bill in the past is perhaps directed toward the wrong person or people.

The Chairman: Mr. Lerer was perfectly correct in maintaining a very technical line, and in that respect he has done so.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The reasons we have been given for certain amendment changes and positions have been based on environmental and health considerations. I thought perhaps this might have been based on environmental and health considerations, as opposed to political considerations.

The Chairman: They can be one and the same. I wouldn't like to draw a line between the two.

The wish has been expressed that we leave this matter for a later date. The motion has been moved and it requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent that this matter be stood?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Ms. Kraft Sloan wanted it stood.

The Chairman: Fine. We still have the matter before us. Are there any further comments or questions?

(Amendment agreed to)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could I just verify that count? I don't think it was correct.

I would like a recorded vote. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson was only a member of the committee after the vote, the clerk informs me.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sir, could I have a recorded vote, please?

The Chairman: The vote actually has been carried.

You can have a recorded vote.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Herron informed you earlier that he had to leave for 10 minutes to take an urgent phone call. I insist he be here when we vote.

The Chairman: I can appreciate Mr. Herron's situation, but we can't suspend the meeting until a member returns.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: There's something else, Mr. Chairman. When the vote began, the member at the far end was not in his proper seat.

The Chairman: You're right.

• 1015

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I don't think he should be allowed to vote.

The Chairman: You're right, he didn't vote but now the parliamentary secretary is calling for a recorded division and we must oblige him.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That's not right.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: A point of order.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If the vote had taken place—this is a travesty, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

You could call for a nominal vote and we could just pack the place with 15 people.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, it has to be who was eligible to vote at the time of the motion. Otherwise, we're going to wait for Mr. Herron.

The Chairman: The vote has taken place and the amendment has carried.

A request has been made for a recorded vote. I thought a recorded vote was a method that could be put again. I'm informed by the clerk, however, that I was wrong in that assumption; therefore, the recorded vote is too late to be requested. It had to be requested at the time of the vote.

The chair has to inform you that the vote has taken place. It is five to four and the amendment is carried.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I disagree. I guess we'll check the procedure then.

The Chairman: There's always the possibility for a recorded vote, but it requires unanimous consent. There is no unanimous consent. In that case, we will proceed with the next amendment.

There is still one amendment to clause 199 on page 300. This is an amendment by the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is similar. The provision should read "the notice shall specify", instead of "may specify". I'm referring to line 37, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: There's one more amendment on clause 199, in the name of Mr. Laliberte, on page 301.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd like to move it and speak against it. Then it will be on the table, we can have a vote, and move on.

The Chairman: We need a mover.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I moved it and I'm speaking against it.

• 1020

The Chairman: The floor is yours.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: The effect of this, were it to pass, would be to require all emergency plans to be submitted, and I'm not in favour of this amendment. There you go.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 199 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 200—Regulations)

The Chairman: So we will move to page 302, an amendment in the name of Mr. Laliberte.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, could we get some indication of when the opposition parties are going to submit members to the committee to move their amendments?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Since Mr. Laliberte isn't here, could we hold this over until the next meeting?

The Chairman: Yes, we could. We also have a motion from Mr. Lincoln.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to request that my amendment be stood. It's in line with all the various clauses about residual powers.

The Chairman: All right.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Chairman, is the request that we stand down clause 200?

The Chairman: Yes, there is a request, and we will set it aside.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think you will see that we also need to stand clause 207, because once again the NDP is not present to move their amendments.

The Chairman: We'll take these one at a time. We are standing clause 200.

(Clause 200 allowed to stand).

The Chairman: Clause 202 is waiting for a discussion on the Moffet amendment, which is amendment M-3 in the small package.

Can you bring us up to date on the status of that particular issue? I understand it's about the whistle-blower.

Mr. John Moffet: Early on in the process of reviewing CEPA, Mrs. Kraft Sloan asked me to look at the whistle-blower provisions, and in particular to address the issue of whether they could be extended to or beyond federal employees.

I provided the members with a memo dated December 17, explaining the whistle-blower provisions in CEPA. Bill C-32 has four of these provisions: clauses 16, 96, 202, and 213. As I said, the main concern raised by Mrs. Kraft Sloan was that these provisions protect only federal employees and not all employees. What I did is compare these provisions to provisions that have been inserted into Bill C-20, which amends the Competition Act. Bill C-20 contains whistle-blower provisions that go beyond federal employees and apply to all employees. What I have done in these “M” amendments is duplicate the wording of Bill C-20 in the appropriate clauses in Bill C-32.

• 1025

Last week the Senate committee that was reviewing Bill C-20, the Competition Act, sent the bill back to the House with concerns about the whistle-blower provisions on which I've based these amendments. Their concern was essentially twofold. First, they had a technical concern, because the whistle-blower provisions in the Competition Act explicitly refer to certain penalties. I did not duplicate the penalty provision in these amendments. Instead, a violation of these amendments would simply be addressed through the general penalty provisions in CEPA. So the concern that was raised with regard to the Competition Act does not apply. In fact, the Minister of Industry has sent back these whistle-blower provisions without the reference to the penalty provisions. So they now look exactly like this.

The other concern that was raised in the Senate was that Chief Justice Dubin had conducted a study for the Department of Industry and had concluded that whistle-blower provisions would probably not be very effective for competition law. The Department of Industry and the Competition Bureau have chosen to disagree with Chief Justice Dubin and have insisted on going forward with these provisions.

It is my opinion that his views were restricted to competition law. He said nothing about whistle-blower provisions in general. He simply said that they wouldn't be very effective in the case of competition law. He wasn't saying that whistle-blower provisions in general don't work.

So the state of play, if you will, with regard to the Competition Act is that the Minister of Industry has resubmitted a slightly modified version of his whistle-blower provisions in Bill C-20 and has sent them back to the Senate and asked the Senate to reconsider them. Those amendments mirror the amendments that are now before this committee with regard to.... Mr. Cameron appears to disagree, but that's my view.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Ms. Hébert.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I just briefly looked at the debates in the House of Commons when they were reconsidering the whistle-blower provisions that had been struck down by the Senate, and one of the concerns had to do with their application to matters that wouldn't constitute an offence under the act but that were contrary to the act. There was some concern about the breadth, the generality, of that language. As a result, the clauses were reworded in the House of Commons to tighten them up and to limit the protection to matters that were offences under the act and not merely contrary to the act. I don't believe that nuance is present in the proposed amendment here.

Mr. John Moffet: If I could explain the basis for that distinction that was made in the Competition Act, that is because the Competition Act contains civil offences and criminal offences. The concern was that an act that is contrary to the Competition Act may be an action that has simply been ruled on by the Competition Tribunal but that has not yet been adjudicated. The concern was that something that would be in violation of a decision by the Competition Tribunal could then be subject to a criminal penalty, and that would not be appropriate because it wouldn't have been a criminal offence that would have been attached to a criminal penalty.

• 1030

With respect to CEPA, we don't have that distinction between civil and criminal penalties. Any offence of CEPA is a criminal offence. That's why I didn't think the distinction was appropriate.

The Chairman: All right.

Parliamentary secretary.

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

I wonder if we might consider all four clauses at the same time, and since we've now had some chance to hear various perspectives, consider them perhaps sometime next week. The four clauses, as Mr. Moffet has identified, are 16, 96, 202, and 213. So if people are going to study what's been said today to see if any further changes are necessary, they should consider all four clauses at the same time, and we should open the debate as one separate unit.

The Chairman: That's very helpful. We shall so do.

Mr. Herron, welcome back.

Mr. John Herron: I'd like to apologize for my absence of the last few moments.

Today our party is dedicating our supply day to the issue of poverty within this country. We currently live in a relatively affluent nation, and given the high proportion of the citizens of this country that are forced still to live within poverty, I think it was a very constructive topic that our caucus chose to use for its supply day.

I do apologize to the hon. member for my absence, but in regard to the comments that were made with respect to my absence by someone who hasn't participated in this committee before, and considering the role I've played within this committee with my attendance, I don't think that's professional or necessarily very parliamentarian. So I would suggest to the member that before he makes comments of that nature, he just might want to find out why someone was outside of the room.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you. Your intervention is perfectly in order and understandable.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I think I have a right to respond to that, Mr. Chairman. I did not make comments about his absence. I had the courtesy to tell him before he left that I was going to mention his name. My referral was not to his absence. My comments were about the absence of the NDP, who are proposing numerous amendments and don't have a member to propose those amendments for them. I think that's unparliamentary.

The Chairman: It may be necessary to keep in mind that when we were in the opposition we faced similar situations as well, particularly when we were 40, in the years between 1984 and 1988, and that technique was adopted and not objected to by the then government. There may be a day when we will be in opposition again; therefore a long-term approach to this matter in charitable terms would not harm.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, for the record, I wanted to say that the NDP member, Mr. Laliberte, has been a very committed member of this committee. He has provided many useful and thoughtful comments on debates. He has done a lot of work in preparing amendments for CEPA.

I would also like to say that our Progressive Conservative member, with the emphasis on “progressive”, Mr. Herron, has been acting in a true parliamentary style, because committee work is an area where members from opposite sides of the House can come to work together on issues.

Environment is certainly not a matter for the left or the right; it's a matter that transcends political sides. So we have to congratulate Mr. Herron for putting partisan issues aside and speaking in support of Mr. Laliberte's amendments.

• 1035

Thank you.

(On clause 207—Application to Government, etc.)

The Chairman: It is now becoming an interesting political science debate, but we had better go back to our assignment: the amendment on page 305. Now that you are with us, Mr. Herron, would you like to move it?

Mr. John Herron: It is in that spirit of parliamentarianship that I'll be moving this particular amendment. It's one that's a little bit different from my politics, but what it refers to is a removal of the exemption that crown corporations have from federal standards. For a person or private sector operation in a province or territory, or a person or company under a global trade agreement with lesser standards than CEPA, this makes it illegal to have a separate set of rules to follow. Industry repeated that it wanted less duplication or overlap and a levelling of the playing field. Establishing different sets of rules removes a level playing field.

Mr. Laliberte goes on to say that he is sure his Reform colleagues can appreciate the significance of this motion.

So I'm moving NDP-52.13 on Mr. Laliberte's behalf.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any comments, parliamentary secretary?

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I think our officials have some things to add. I would just suggest that I'm not in favour of this amendment.

Mr. John Herron: Okay, then let's vote.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Herron wants us to vote, so let's just vote.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would just like to hear what the effect of this amendment would be.

The Chairman: Yes, we are waiting for—-

Mr. Steve Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, we have an official here from Treasury Board. Is it possible for her to come to the table?

Mr. Chairman, I've been informed she can't come to the table.

An hon. member: Why not?

The Chairman: Would you like to assist her?

Mr. Steve Mongrain: The only thing I can add is that the intent of the provision is to provide a level playing field for crown corporations.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Why is the wording in the French and English versions different? In the English version, we have (1) (a), (b) and (c), whereas in the French version, everything is combined into one paragraph. Why is this?

The Chairman: The meaning is likely the same.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but nevertheless...

The Chairman: We're not dealing with a translation here. As we discovered the other day, there are two teams in charge of drafting legislation and each one works independently.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Why can't they work the same way?

The Chairman: The important thing is whether the two versions correspond.

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Lincoln and Mr. Charbonneau.

• 1040

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to understand Mr. Mongrain's remarks. If I understood his remarks correctly, he's saying that Mr. Herron is right in his amendment that to bring crown corporations in levels the playing field. In other words, a crown corporation shouldn't be treated differently from any government agency. We are applying the act the same way to them. Is that what you were saying?

Ms. Monique Hébert: Yes, making them public.

The Chairman: He certainly implied the desire to introduce a level playing field, if I understood him correctly.

Madame Hébert and the parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Just a clarification. I believe the level playing field he was discussing here is crown corporations competing with the private sector. Under the bill, the way it is, you can regulate the crown corporations under the federal house provisions, but if you're developing your regulation, where a crown corporation is involved, you cannot regulate to a higher standard, if you will, than the standard that would apply in the private sector. So it puts a lid on the standards that can be developed under the regulations so that the crown corporations competing with the private sector have no greater burden to discharge, if you will, than the private sector would.

The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, please.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just want to reiterate that I'm not in favour of Mr. Laliberte's motion and that crown corporations are in fact included under subclause 207(2), with some greater explanations, and that the effect of this motion, if it were to pass, would be to delete several lines related to those requirements and how they operate vis-à-vis private sector companies. So back to Mr. Knutson's desire to call the vote.

The Chairman: Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: I wanted to make a comment about the concept of ensuring that crown corporations plan a level playing field with respect to the private sector when it comes to environmental practice. I think we're learning that a very powerful tool with respect to changing business practice can be the behaviour of the public sector in general. Public sector procurement practices can have a significant impact on changing markets and driving markets in the direction of producing green goods.

So I think there can be an environmental rationale for at least allowing—nothing in here requires—the government to impose more significant environmental requirements on creatures of the state in order to achieve a greater public policy purpose.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, we'd have to agree with Mr. Moffet. I think there are opportunities and indeed responsibilities where the federal government should be showing leadership, and Mr. Moffet has indicated a number of very good examples. If these are indeed agencies that have been established by the Government of Canada, this means they are then for the public. They should not just be looking at economic bottom lines, but they should be looking at social good bottom lines, which include environmental sustainability and things like that.

So I'm very supportive of what Mr. Moffet has said and I support the amendment.

The Chairman: Certainly an important principle is emerging here.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The committee remembers when the Toronto Atmospheric Fund was before us. They talked about the retrofit and the economics and that sort of thing. They told us their calculations showed the payback was between three and four years, and I think left to pure economics, businesses like one year.

So I think there's an opportunity here for the government to demonstrate that these technologies can be economic, but you have to take it away from the pure economics. You have to be able to put it in an environment where other things can be considered. I think there's an opportunity for us to lead by example here.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Surely there's a big distinction between subclauses 207(1) and (2). Really, crown corporations under subclause 207(2) are put on the same level playing field as private corporations, and yet they're not private corporations. They are taxpayer-funded corporations, which are answerable to Parliament in a much more stringent way than, for instance, a private corporation that has to fund itself.

• 1045

I think this is the distinction the amendment would make to put the crown corporations on the same footing as federal departments, so that private industry is on a different level. I think that's quite logical.

The Chairman: Thank you. Any further comments? Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, I would like clarification from the lawyers here. It makes a statement here that it “shall not impose any requirements on them that are more stringent”, yet this is in the bill. I believe that would be taken out if the amendment was passed.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Correct.

Mr. Rick Casson: If we pass this amendment, does the bill, as it's presently worded, give crown corporations an advantage because it only states “more stringent”? Could they work under less stringent...? What I'm asking is, does the bill as it's worded give crown corporations an advantage over the private sector in comparison to this amendment?

The Chairman: Who would you like to answer?

Mr. Rick Casson: I don't know who, or maybe that's what you were trying to state, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. John Moffet: One of the purposes for this part of the bill is to actually address a gap that exists in the law, which is that.... Let me step back a bit.

The federal government has limited jurisdiction over environmental issues and the province has some jurisdiction over environmental issues. A private company is subject to both federal and provincial laws. A federal undertaking—and there is some question in this area, but say for purposes of exposition—has a more limited set of obligations, those imposed by the federal government.

So whereas the provincial government may have regulated issues related to waste or discharge of non-toxic pollutants, a federal undertaking would not be subject to those requirements. A federal department would not be subject to those requirements. This is designed to fill that gap. This is designed to allow the federal government to impose equivalent regulations and codes of practice on its operations to ensure that they are subject to the same requirements that a private sector actor is subject to.

Mr. Rick Casson: Are you referring to the bill as it is?

Mr. John Moffet: The bill as it is. The general purpose of the bill is to fill that gap. The specific question we're looking at is of course subclause 207(2). And let's just be clear. This doesn't require the government to regulate crown corporations at all. What it does is it allows the government to regulate crown corporations. Then it says, but if you do regulate them you can't regulate them anymore stringently than they would be regulated if they were private companies.

So there's no guarantee under this that they're going to be regulated at all. There's no guarantee that they're going to be regulated as strictly as the private sector. What the bill does is say that if you regulate them, you can't regulate them more strictly than the private sector. What the amendment would do is leave that issue open. They can be regulated, period. They could be regulated less strictly; they could be regulated more strictly.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

As a brief parenthesis, we are very happy to see in the room a former chair of this committee, Mr. MacDonald. We welcome you in the room. He served in a very distinguished manner for several years.

Madame Girard-Bujold and Madame Kraft-Sloan.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I have a small problem, Mr. Chairman. In the English, the reference is to substituting lines 17 through 28, whereas in French, the reference is to substituting lines 15 to 17. To my mind, lines 15 to 17 in the French version correspond to clause 207 (1). This does not include up to line 26.

• 1050

I don't understand. You're telling me that one small paragraph summarizes all of this, but the amended French version does not include paragraph (2), which is included in the English version of the amendment.

Has the French version been drafted in such a way as to include everything set out in the English version? I don't quite understand.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I can see your point. As you know, the two versions are drafted differently. In English, there are always more paragraphs and so forth than in the French version.

Having said this, I believe a portion of the French version of the amendment has been omitted. In my view, all of paragraph (2) should have been deleted because as I understand, Crown corporations are included in paragraph (1), without the restriction imposed in paragraph (2).

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's my point.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Therefore, the amendment should call for lines 18 through 26 to be deleted.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's correct, up to line 26.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Right.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Then it is redundant.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold. We will take your point under consideration.

[English]

How do we handle it? Do we rewrite the amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I think this amendment should stand until the wording can be improved upon.

[English]

The Chairman: The amendment you say applies to

[Translation]

lines 15 through 26.

[English]

All right. While we mull over and meditate on the technical point raised by Madame Girard-Bujold, which has to do with the text, I will recognize the interventions because we are approaching 11 a.m.

Madame Kraft Sloan and Madame Carroll.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's important to note what Mr. Moffet has said around the gap issue. We certainly want to make sure government agencies have the ability to be regulated and don't fall through the cracks, so to speak.

I think it's also important to note that while there are leaders in the private sector on environmental management, we would certainly not want to have any kind of a ceiling put on what government agencies can actually do. This really has to go back to the leadership issue. We have to go back to the issue that suggests we're not only concerned with economic imperatives; we also have to think of the public good and how these agencies can act to move us toward ecological sustainability.

The Chairman: Madame Carroll and Mr. Charbonneau.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm wondering if I could have some input from the department with regard to Mr. Moffet's comments.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Mr. Moffet's explanation of the section, where he said it is intended to fill a gap that existed and provides and allows for the ability to regulate, and then stipulates that crown corporations, if they are regulated, shall not be regulated more stringently than the private sector, is entirely correct.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay. Stay with me.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Sure.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Moffet talked longer than that, and I understood that part. Then he's suggesting the possibility that while this amendment does not create an onus on crown corporations to act differently, it creates a potential there for leadership. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Harvey Lerer: Do you mean with the amendment?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes. I'm not asking whether you agree with the “ought” here; we're not talking about a value judgment. I'm merely asking whether you agree the amendment would do what he says it would do.

Mr. Harvey Lerer: I'm not sure if I understood that component. I'm more than willing to hear it again, but I would ask you to consider as well that regulation is most certainly not the only way corporations, crown corporations or government departments show leadership. In fact, with the regulation being the baseline in many instances, environmental leadership is shown by going beyond the regulatory point of view.

• 1055

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

The Chairman: While we are examining the substance of this amendment, at the same time we are examining the point raised by Madame Girard-Bujold that very clearly indicates we are discussing an amendment that is before the committee in an inordinate and incomplete fashion. Therefore, we are discussing an amendment that is not well drafted for the attention and discussion of members in both languages, or either language for that matter. We have a problem.

We will not be able to take a vote on this amendment today, but we will at least complete the discussion for the time being.

We have Monsieur Charbonneau, Monsieur Lincoln, Madame Girard-Bujold, and Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We have yet to hear an explanation that would compel us to vote against this amendment. We're told that we should oppose it, but why? Why would including the Crown corporations listed create some kind of environmental problem? Why would adopting regulations affecting them cause a problem? Regulations of this nature would not be detrimental to them; the purpose of such regulations would be to ensure a level playing field.

If there are some government officials who have sound reasons for opposing this amendment and are not here or don't wish to supply us with an explanation, we have no way of knowing their position. If there are some government officials, for example from Treasury Board, who have a problem with this amendment, then they should speak up so that we can hear what they have to say. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Following up on what Mr. Moffet said, I'd like to remind the committee why we've come to this point in the discussion. When we reviewed CEPA, we heard from witnesses. They cited as an example a federal airport. Provincial regulations would not apply to this federal facility. Therefore, there was a kind of regulatory vacuum. On the one hand, we had the federal regulations, which may or may not apply within a province, and provincial or municipal regulations, which did not apply because the facility in question was on Crown land.

The reason for including this provision was to allow the government to adopt regulations that applied to federal agencies to cover circumstances where the latter are exempted from the application of provincial and municipal regulations.

[English]

It is to put them on a level playing field. So we are saying that in effect we would have the power to regulate the ministry of transport and the ministry of the environment, but not CBC in the same circumstances. Why should the CBC, which receives funding from taxpayers, or any other crown corporation, be different from a government agency? I don't see the logic of it at all.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I don't have a problem with the English version. It's the French version that's wrong. Something is missing. I'll trust Ms. Hébert to make the necessary changes to the French version. On that basis, I'm prepared to vote.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold, for your cooperation. We will now proceed to vote.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I've glanced quickly at the text, and I think the change you desire could be incorporated simply by specifying that lines 15 through 26 could be replaced. This would include paragraph (2). The reference to it would therefore be deleted.

• 1100

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Could you also give some thought to making the French version correspond to the English, that is include a reference to (a), (b) and (c)?

Ms. Monique Hébert: That's a different matter.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The meaning would be the same, except that the wording would be identical in both versions.

Ms. Monique Hébert: As I was saying, the drafting approaches are totally different. This is apparent throughout the bill. It's always possible to make some changes here and there, but the fact remains that throughout the bill, we're dealing with totally different approaches to drafting.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I wouldn't want there to be any confusion should someone challenge one of the bill's provisions. I want the wording to be similar precisely to avoid any confusion. I'm prepared to vote now. I trust your ability.

Ms. Monique Hébert: Fine.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 207 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: We will adjourn until Monday.

Thank you.