Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 24 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 8, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-32, respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development, met this day at 1:34 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are meeting today to deal once again with Bill C-32. The floor is open.
Senator Kenny: I have a motion that I should like to move, and I would ask the clerk to distribute it so that everyone has a copy.
I move:
That, in accordance with Rule 98 of the Rules of the Senate, the Chairman be instructed to present this day to the Senate the report of this Committee on Bill C-32, as agreed to;
That, in the event of unforeseen circumstances resulting in the Routine of Business not being called this day, the Chairman be instructed to present the aforesaid report at the next Routine of Business; and.
That, in the event that the Chairman is unable to present the report, the Deputy Chairman be authorized to do so.
Senator Nolin: May I have a copy of the report that we are discussing? I would like a French version of the report.
Senator Hays: While the report is being distributed, could the Chairman confirm that, when Senator Kenny says in the first paragraph of his motion "the report," he means the report that the committee agreed to earlier, which was to be reported to the Senate without amendment but with observations as left in the hands or directions of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman?
Senator Kenny: That is correct.
The Chairman: I take it that also includes the observations as part of it? Is that what is meant by "the report of this committee"?
Senator Kenny: Yes.
The Chairman: Who can vote and who cannot vote? Who are the seven permitted to vote on your side?
Senator Hays: Perhaps the clerk could read out the names of the senators from the government side who are here and are designated as members of the committee.
Senator Kinsella: I am an ex officio member, but I shall not be voting unless my colleague Senator Carstairs is here.
Mr. Till Heyde, Clerk of the Committee: The members of the committee are the Honourable Senator Adams; the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C.; the Honourable Senator Cochrane; the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.; the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick; the Honourable Senator Ghitter; the Honourable Senator Graham, P.C. or the Honourable Senator Carstairs; the Honourable Senator Hays; the Honourable Senator Kenny; the Honourable Senator Kroft; the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton or the Honourable Senator Kinsella; the Honourable Senator Nolin; the Honourable Senator Spivak; and the Honourable Senator Taylor.
The Chairman: Senator Chalifoux, you are here out of interest's stake, and we are happy to see you, but you are not voting. Is that correct?
Senator Chalifoux: Yes, that is as I understand it.
Senator Buchanan: There are 14, with two being ex officios; is that correct?
Senator Hays: No.
Senator Buchanan: There are 12 members and two ex officios.
The Chairman: There are twelve voting senators, seven on the majority side and five on the minority side.
Senator Buchanan: He read 14 names.
The Chairman: They are here and participating, but not voting.
Senator Hays: To clarify, it is my understanding that there is an agreement between the government and the opposition side that, when Senator Graham or Senator Carstairs on the government side wish to be present and to vote, or Senator Lynch-Staunton or Senator Kinsella on the opposition side, they notify the other side. Therefore, Senator Kinsella is here to participate in the meeting, but not as a voting member, if I understand him correctly.
Senator Buchanan: That is fine.
The Chairman: May we proceed? The motion is open for discussion. Does anyone wish to discuss the motion?
Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that fate has given us an opportunity here, unwittingly, I am sure, on the part of the member who moved the motion. Senator Rompkey keeps talking about how so much of the work of the Senate is done, and well done, by its committees. I have heard him stress that on several radio programs. He has mentioned, in particular, the Agriculture Committee. Now we have a situation with the Energy Committee, which for reasons that may be very well intentioned -- I am not imputing motives here -- has had to have its work cut short on a bill that, as I have reminded members opposite many times, was studied by the House of Commons for four years, with eight months of clause-by-clause study, while we had, I believe, 10 days in which to deal with it.
In the time since last week, my office has received many phone calls about this bill. In fact, some of my staff have been working at hours they should never have been working simply to deal with those phone calls. Over 5,000 petitions have been presented, and some are still out in the country waiting to be presented.
Perhaps more important is the fact that there are many clauses of the bill that we have not even had a chance to study. I would remind you of what I am sure you all know, that this bill exempts altogether most of the very relevant kinds of substances from the purview of the bill.
In the interests of a single window of opportunity, the biotechnology products, or the environmental assessments of the biotechnology products, were, in order to avoid duplication, hived off to the Department of Health. The Department of Health will now be assessing the health aspects of biotechnology products while the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, under the Department of Agriculture, will be looking at the environmental assessments. That is done to avoid duplication. I do not know what the definition of "single window" is, but it does not strike me that a body that has no capacity and does not do environmental assessments should be doing that.
I would add that regulations were published on July 3 to deal part of the bill that we had not yet passed, and I do not think that is the normal kind of event. They were published in the Canada Gazette on July 3. There was then a small item, item 547, giving statutory authority for those regulations, which had already been published in the Canada Gazette and for which public comments had closed.
We have not had a chance to talk to the Minister of Agriculture or to examine the officials of that department to determine what capabilities they have, or what capabilities the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has, to do environmental assessments. We have not heard from the Minister of Health, or any of the officials of the Department of Health.
We talked quite a bit to the officials at the Health Protection Branch of the Department of Agriculture during our committee hearings. During the course of those hearings, we heard that they were very concerned about the 200 to 400 per cent increase in biotechnology products.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, not to put too fine a point on it, that this committee has not really had a chance to examine the ramifications of this bill, a bill that will affect Canadians, both those who are living and those who are not yet born, and those from every region in the country.
The role of the Senate is to examine bills properly. I know there are timetable problems, and I know there are agenda problems. Nevertheless, if one really has the will, one can look at these problems as minor, compared to the role of the Senate, which is to thoroughly examine a bill of this nature. I do not believe we have had time to do that. It is absolutely self-evident that we have not heard all the witnesses. For instance, there are people from Manitoba who only recently have called our office wanting to appear, because this bill had not had enough publicity until recently -- and then perhaps not for the right reasons.
I wonder, therefore, if members of this committee are walking with their eyes wide open into a situation that is unfair to the Canadian people? I do not feel comfortable or sure that, as a senator, I have exercised my responsibility in looking at what might be the protection of the public interest and the protection of the health of Canadians.
Look at the other situation. In the House of Commons an all-party committee had a certain slant on this bill. It came to what was supposedly a compromise and, at the last minute, all kinds of amendments were thrown in. I am sure Senator Finestone was there, and many of those amendments were not amendments that had ever been discussed in the House of Commons committee during all their period of work, which had taken eight months.
I will conclude by saying that it was not our fault that it took four years and eight months in the House of Commons. We are supposed to be an independent body, but surely the balance between four years and eight months and what we have had, which is 12 days, is rather ludicrous, and not what the people of Canada expect from us.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chairman, thank you for sending me a copy of this report. I will restrict my comments to the aboriginal issue.
A quick glance at the comments and remarks of the majority, convinced further that my colleagues were wrong. In your majority report, you refer to paragraph 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and I quote:
In this Act, Aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
You mention it in your report. I have given you every possible opportunity. A witness came to explain that this was a mistake. I introduced an amendment that you rejected. That was your right.
During the clause by clause consideration of the bill, Senator Chalifoux added one thing. She had a conversation with the chairman of the Métis National Council. According to senator Chalifoux, the chairman would have contradicted the testimony given by the other representatives of the same council who appeared before us. I am not questioning the good faith and the statement of Senator Chalifoux. However, the committee is compelled to at least provide a forum to the chairman of the most important organization of the Métis community in Canada so that he can explain to us why it has granted the Government of Canada, in its bill C-32, the discretion to exempt the Métis people of Canada.
That is why I should like to introduce an amendment to senator Kenny's motion, in the first paragraph, on the second line, still in French, to delete the word "Today" and replace it by the words "September 22, 1999."
His last paragraph will now read as follows:
That, in accordance with Rule 98 of the Rules of the Senate, the Chairman be instructed to present Sept. 22, 1999 the Senate the report of this Committee on Bill C-32, as agreed to;
[English]
The Chairman: Senator Nolin, is the purpose of your motion to call more witnesses?
Senator Nolin: Yes, we would like to call at least one more witness. We have the affirmation from Senator Chalifoux that she spoke with the chairman of the Métis National Council and it was not necessary to include the Métis.
Senator Chalifoux: No, I did not say that. At this point in time we need to review it.
Senator Nolin: So we would do it later?
Senator Chalifoux: Yes. It would be done in the review.
Senator Nolin: I think it would be fair for this committee to reconvene and to ask at least that gentleman to explain why he contradicts the testimony of his own people.
Senator Chalifoux: He did not contradict them.
Senator Nolin: I am saying that. I am sure you can say to the contrary. We should permit that person to explain.
The Chairman: I am not clear as to your intention. If that is your purpose, when we basically adjourn the committee, then your amendment does not get you there. It says that we will not file the report until September 22. If this passes, will you have another motion to call witnesses?
Senator Nolin: Yes, I will ask the steering committee of this committee to reconvene the meetings on Bill C-32 and ask this gentleman to appear here. We are now dealing with the time.
Senator Taylor: I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman, that you can entertain a motion. However, if you have, you have. This committee has already ploughed this ground.
Senator Nolin: No, no.
Senator Taylor: I submit that it is nothing but a delaying tactic. As soon as we hear one witness, there will be others. I submit that the motion is out of order. There is already a motion on the floor.
The Chairman: As I understand it, it is appropriate to have an amendment to a motion.
Senator Taylor: Not on a motion to report. I don't think so. We have an expert here. The motion is to report the bill. That is clear. You cannot amend it after that.
The Chairman: It has always been my understanding that you can, but I am no Beauchesne, that is for sure.
Senator Spivak: Amendments are possible with regard to the time line -- not with regard to reporting, but with regard to when the report will be tabled.
Senator Nolin: On this point of order, it is important to say that Senator Chalifoux raised a new element when she referred to a private discussion she had with the chairman of the council. That is why I am asking for this amendment.
Senator Taylor: If I may say so, that has been discussed. There could be umpteen private discussions raised. I am just saying that that is a red herring that you are using to try to reopen the discussion.
Senator Nolin: The Constitution of this country is not exactly a red herring. Would you like to argue that question? It may take a few days.
The Chairman: We should move along.
If this is an amendment to a motion, it is in order and I welcome discussion on it.
Senator Taylor: Can I call the question on the amendment?
The Chairman: It is traditional to have a discussion. Do you wish to close debate on the amendment?
Senator Taylor: I move that we close the debate.
Senator Buchanan: I have a right in this committee to speak and I want to speak. He has already spoken, and I have a right to speak and I will speak.
I certainly agree with Senator Nolin's motion. He has a right to make the amendment to the motion. He is just extending the time for tabling the report to September 22. That is fine. That gives us an opportunity.
Let me tell you what is new. Since we last met, I travelled to various parts of Nova Scotia. I went to the tar ponds. I drove to the tar ponds and took pictures of the tar ponds and of the new school that is under construction. I spoke to the present member for the Sydney area.
As I say, I went to the tar ponds and reviewed the situation there. I have pictures. I will have those pictures before the committee when we next meet, so that the members can actually see the problem with the tar ponds and the fact that it is something that must be addressed by this committee, and not just thrown away, the way we did it before.
I would be happy to provide names of people who would provide testimony on that situation.
The Chairman: The debate is not on the calling of witnesses. The debate is on the question to extend the time.
Senator Buchanan: We have some new information here.
Senator Kroft: Can we call the question, please?
Senator Buchanan: I am in the middle of a debate here, senator.
Senator Hays: We are out of time. This committee must rise shortly and I would like to have agreement to give Senator Buchanan a full and fair opportunity to speak.
The Chairman: This is a point of order.
Senator Hays: We can continue this debate when the Senate rises. Obviously Senator Buchanan has many important things to say, as perhaps do other senators. We do not have time to deal with them in two minutes. I ask that the committee express itself on the matter of meeting when the Senate rises.
Senator Buchanan: You are cutting off what I have to say.
Senator Hays: You can have full and fair opportunity to be heard.
Senator Buchanan: Debbie Kelly of the Nova Scotia Health Council asked to come to this committee.
Senator Hays: I would ask the Chairman to rule on this before two o'clock.
The Chairman: I have been asked for a ruling, and the request is that I cut off debate. Is that what I am being requested to do?
Senator Hays: I am not asking that we cut off debate, but rather that we provide a full and fair opportunity for senators to be heard. In order to do so, it will be necessary for the committee to reconvene when the Senate rises. Otherwise, we will be cutting off debate.
The Chairman: There is a motion that this committee reconvene when the Senate rises.
Senator Kinsella: A point of order was raised by Senator Hays. On his point of order, other senators may speak.
The Chairman: I am just trying to be clear. Senator Hays, at one moment you ask for a vote and at another you ask for a hearing.
Senator Hays: No, I have not asked for a vote, I have asked for a ruling on a point of order. I am not asking for a vote.
It appears that Senator Buchanan wants to contribute to the debate on the amendment. The Senate sits imminently. In order to provide Senator Buchanan and other senators with a full and fair opportunity to be heard, I would like your ruling that this committee adjourn to a time when the Senate rises today so that the members can be heard and that this debate can continue at that time.
The Chairman: That calls for an immediate ruling of the Chair.
Senator Kinsella: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the rules that govern the proceedings of any standing committee of the Senate are the same rules that govern the proceedings of the Senate.
Pursuant to the Rules of the Senate of Canada, when a question is raised as to a point of order, as has been done by Senator Hays, it is the prerogative of the Chairman of the committee to determine when he or she has heard enough argument to help the Chairman of the given committee make a ruling on the point of order that was raised.
We must be perfectly clear that it will be up to the Chairman to determine when he has, in this instance, heard enough argument.
That point having been made, I wish to address the specifics of Senator Hays' point of order to help the Chairman in making its determination on the matter.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, the Senate sits at any moment. I move the adjournment to the call of the steering committee. That is a non-debatable motion.
Senator Buchanan: Just a moment.
Senator Kenny: This committee cannot sit when the Senate is sitting. I have just moved adjournment to the call of the steering committee.
Senator Buchanan: Just a moment.
Senator Kenny: I am sorry, the motion is non-debatable.
Senator Buchanan: You do not run this committee.
The Chairman: It has always been my understanding that that motion is not debatable.
Senator Kenny: It is not debatable.
The Chairman: That is my understanding. The motion is then that we adjourn this meeting that we are having now?
Senator Kenny: I move that we adjourn this meeting to the call of the steering committee.
The Chairman: Let me understand that. Do we not have to give notice to members to ensure members are available? Can we call it in 10 minutes, when no one is available?
Senator Kenny: The steering committee will determine when it meets next, as it chose to meet today.
The Chairman: We are out of time. Let us vote on that motion.
Those in favour? Those against?
I declare that the motion is carried.
The committee adjourned.