Environment committee  I think my role is to explain the consequences of the amendment. In this case, the amendment would change the scope of the right in the bill considerably. It's contrary to the entire approach that's been taken in drafting these provisions. The bill proposes that the right would be acknowledged for all individuals living now.

Environment committee  Thanks, Chair. Under the federal Interpretation Act, unless a term is explicitly defined otherwise in a statute, then it is to be defined according to the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act provides that the term “person” in French and English has the broad definition that I just described.

Environment committee  The term “particulier” was the term that the Department of Justice drafters used. It is a term that already appears in the French text of the existing—

Environment committee  Okay. The term “particulier” is the term that the Department of Justice drafters used in drafting this amendment. It is a term that is already used in other provisions in the existing CEPA to refer to humans, so it would be a consistent usage of the term throughout the act.

Environment committee  If there's any way to go back to “particulier”—

Environment committee  Yes, and that's under the federal Interpretation Act, Mr. Chair. It's codified in law that it gives that broad interpretation.

Environment committee  Can you hear me now?

Environment committee  I apologize for not intervening before the vote. I think I was on mute. I just want to point out that the consequence of changing the terminology from “individual” to “person” means that this right would be extended to corporations as well as people. That was not the intention of the government in introducing this right.

Environment committee  I think Laura Farquharson may be able to respond to that.

Environment committee  This is a standard process whereby we identify issues that various stakeholders have addressed and that officials have addressed. We then go out and talk to Canadians and we commit to follow up. Exactly what the follow-up will be will depend on what we hear and what decisions the government makes.

Environment committee  Laura could comment.

Environment committee  I think the answer we gave was that, as a matter of policy, we would.... Well, we are committed and on record as saying that we will develop a policy about how to implement the watch-list. That said, as we proceed into clause-by-clause study, there is openness on the part of the government to maybe providing some clarity with regard to the authority to add or remove substances from the watch-list to address the concern that you identified.

Environment committee  Mr. Chair, again, maybe I could start. I think there are two sets of issues there. One is what kind of substances we would think about adding to the watch-list. That goes back to the answer I gave to MP Deltell about the difference between a hazard-based and risk-based assessments.

Environment committee  For the substances of highest concern, the regime we are proposing is that specific actions would have to be taken for those substances. In order to define what those substances are, the bill provides authority for the government to develop a regulation to define those. At the moment, the bill says essentially, at a minimum or for example, that group needs to include virtual elimination, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc.

Environment committee  I don't want to respond directly to government intentions about hiding or otherwise from public concern. I can tell you that both departments have collaborated in launching a broad-ranging review of the new substances regime for living organisms. I think it is also important, however, to maybe spend a little time—perhaps not today, but in subsequent meetings—in actually digging into exactly how the living organisms regime works—