Bill C-30 (Historical)

Canada's Clean Air Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act)

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to promote the reduction of air pollution and the quality of outdoor and indoor air. It enables the Government of Canada to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases, including establishing emission-trading programs, and expands its authority to collect information about substances that contribute or are capable of contributing to air pollution. Part 1 also enacts requirements that the Ministers of the Environment and Health establish air quality objectives and publicly report on the attainment of those objectives and on the effectiveness of the measures taken to achieve them.
Part 2 of this enactment amends the Energy Efficiency Act to
(a) clarify that classes of energy-using products may be established based on their common energy-consuming characteristics, the intended use of the products or the conditions under which the products are normally used;
(b) require that all interprovincial shipments of energy-using products meet the requirements of that Act;
(c) require dealers to provide prescribed information respecting the shipment or importation of energy-using products to the Minister responsible for that Act;
(d) provide for the authority to prescribe as energy-using products manufactured products, or classes of manufactured products, that affect or control energy consumption; and
(e) broaden the scope of the labelling provisions.
Part 3 of this enactment amends the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to clarify its regulation-making powers with respect to the establishment of standards for the fuel consumption of new motor vehicles sold in Canada and to modernize certain aspects of that Act.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the remarks and speech given by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. For the first time in 40 years, we had a green Christmas in Moncton. This worries me, because it is clearly one of the effects of climate change. I am sure the hon. member knows this and that he was appalled by the parliamentary secretary's comments when he said he would not adhere to the Kyoto protocol.

I have two questions. First of all, does the member believe that the Kyoto targets should be different for Quebec and why? Second, a work plan is now in place for the committee that is studying Bill C-30 and I know the hon. member supports that plan. Can he explain the Bloc's support of that legislative committee's work plan?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to distinguish between Bill C-30 on air quality and the measures announced by the government.

I would like the member to explain to me how the programs he announced—which are nothing more than recycled programs from the previous government—will enable Canada to reach its Kyoto protocol targets.

I have known about the programs and announcements he referred to for years. They were announced years ago by the Liberal government. This government's proposed strategy to fight climate change mimics announcements made by the previous government. I would like the member to explain to us how things that did not work under the Liberals will work under the Conservatives to help us meet our Kyoto protocol objectives.

I would rather see the member adopt a new approach. For example, he mentioned the WPPI program. He reminded us that the government is committing to allocating 1¢ per kilowatt-hour produced by wind energy, an amount similar to what the previous government promised. Why not double that financial incentive to 2¢ per kilowatt-hour produced rather than offer generous financial incentives to the Alberta oil industry? Since 1970, the federal government has invested $70 billion in Canada's oil industry. Instead of doing that, we should take the public funds allocated to the oil industry and improve programs for Canada's renewable energy sector. That is what the government should do to meet the Kyoto protocol targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the member for his question and in fact the participation of the Bloc in the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

The members well know that the plan is to deal with the health of Canadians and the health of the planet.

We well know that the science of climate change is certainly irrefutable. We have a very important issue globally and in Canada to deal with climate change and the health of Canadians. That is what our plan is. It is a plan of action. It is a plan to move from voluntary programs by the previous government which did not work. Ours is a plan of action; it is plan of notice of intent. We appreciate the involvement of the Bloc in the committee.

However, we need to move forward. I trust that in the spirit of cooperation we will strengthen the clean air act to deal with the issue of the health of Canadians and the health of our planet.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, Bill C-30 with the notice of intent to regulate deals with many of the questions that he has asked. The hon. member sits on that committee.

We are looking forward to receiving the cooperation of all members of the opposition to move forward on Bill C-30. It is a good piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the member sits within a party which when in government had 13 years of inaction.

I have asked his party, and in particular the leader of the Liberal Party who has presented today's motion to the House, why there were 13 years of inaction. If the environment is as important as it is and as all Canadians know it is, why did the Liberals not do something for 13 years? Why are they trying to stall and obstruct this government from moving forward on the environment? With Bill C-30 the Liberal members are trying to delay, delay and delay.

We are moving forward in cooperation--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and to participate in this debate.

I begin by thanking the environment minister for the hard work and the great achievements he has made. The government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and our minister, is making headway. It is a shock to the former Liberal government that progress can be made on this file. It is ironic and hypocritical that the Liberals present this motion to us today.

The motion presented by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville calls into question the government's commitment to the environment. That contention is just plain wrong. The government is committed to delivering real solutions to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. The government is about action and real change.

Canada's new government has said before that it accepts the science of climate change. We understand that it is real and we know that it is here. That is why we are taking real action to preserve our environment and to protect the health of every Canadian.

Canadians demand leadership from the federal government, and that is precisely what they are getting now.

We understand that to make real progress on the environment, we need real cooperation on all fronts, between all parties and all stakeholders. If the member opposite really cared about the environment the way he says he does, he would be looking to cooperate. Instead, we are mired in the minutiae when we should be pushing the agenda forward, making a real difference for Canadians.

The motion brought forward today says, “the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action” Canadians covet on the environment. I can assure members it simply does not do enough.

The fact is that Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, is a necessary addition to CEPA. It would set in motion Canada's first comprehensive, integrated approach to tackle air pollution and greenhouse gases. In doing so, it would deliver better air quality for Canadians and it would take substantial aim at the issue of climate change.

Our proposed clean air act would create a new clean air part in CEPA that would provide a tailor-made approach to enable integrated regulatory approaches for the reduction of indoor and outdoor air pollutants as well as reduce greenhouse gases.

The proposed amendments to CEPA will require the ministers of environment and health to establish national air quality standards and to monitor and report annually on the status and effectiveness of the actions taken by all governments in Canada to improve air quality.

Finally, proposed amendments to CEPA will also strengthen the government's ability to enter into equivalency agreements with the provinces and their territories. This will prevent regulatory duplication by more clearly allowing for recognition of provincial permitting and licensing regimes for industrial facilities as equivalent, in effect, to federal regulations so long as they meet the same environmental objectives.

The hon. member's motion states, “our government must reconfirm Canada's commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety”. Had the previous government not left us in such a precarious position, perhaps we would have been able to do that by the 2012 deadline.

The debate is not on the merits of Kyoto; it is on the time required to achieve the objectives. The government must deal with the fact that we have lost 10 years due to Liberal inaction.

When Canada's new government took office a year ago, it quickly became apparent that our Kyoto commitments would be impossible to meet. Because of the previous government's inaction, today Canada stands at 35% above the Kyoto target, with only five years remaining to meet the imposed deadline.

Some critics, including the member opposite, have said that we should simply push harder and make our mission to meet the 2012 reduction targets, no matter what the cost. They are wrong.

Yes, we must act to put Canada on the path to achieving sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but in reality, years of inaction between 1997 and 2006 have left Canada in no position to do so.

Canadians can be certain, however, that this government is committed to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, but we intend to do so prudently while promoting sustainable economic growth and prosperity.

Canada's new government knows that Canadians are concerned about poor air quality so we have made it a priority to clean the air that Canadians breathe. By introducing Bill C-30 we have put forward a number of tools that will help Canada address its air quality by reducing greenhouse gas and smog emissions simultaneously.

Soon we will announce aggressive short term targets for industrial greenhouse gas emissions with sector by sector regulations, all coming into effect between 2010 and 2015. This is the first time that Canada has regulated reductions in both air pollution and greenhouse gases. Internationally, we are the first country to regulate all sectors in an integrated and cohesive manner.

Using existing authorities, we will regulate emissions from all major industrial sources: electricity generation, smelters, iron and steel, cement, forest products, chemical production, and oil and gas.

By giving clear direction we are providing industry with the incentive and regulatory certainty it needs to invest in greener technologies and to deliver early reductions in their emissions. While we have been listening to industrial concerns, we have also made it clear that the days for soft rhetoric are over. Making progress on the environment requires hard work and tough decisions.

We realize that the best way to reduce our global emissions is to address the issue here at home. Using taxpayer money to buy credits halfway around the world is not a solution. It is barely even a band-aid. So we have taken a number of steps and we have taken a number of approaches to be a constructive player in the international efforts to address climate change. We know it can be done because we have done it before.

In 1987 the Conservative government was instrumental in pushing for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Twenty years later, with 191 nations now signed on to the treaty, atmospheric CFC concentrations have either levelled off or decreased considerably. The Montreal protocol is widely viewed as an example of exceptional international cooperation. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has even called it perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date.

Our challenge has broadened since then. So too has our commitment.

That is why in addition to the proposed clean air act, we introduced a clean air regulatory agenda which supports effective regulations on both indoor and outdoor pollutants as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Under this agenda, we are providing stronger energy efficiency standards on consumer and commercial products. We have already established new emission standards for on-road motorcycles. We are paving the way for setting mandatory fuel consumption standards on vehicles that Canadians buy. We will also regulate 5% average renewable content in gasoline and 2% average renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil.

To help individual Canadians and communities do their part, we have already taken action by providing a tax credit to those who use public transit and by increasing the funding for public transit infrastructure.

We also announced a number of other initiatives that will help to reduce emissions at home, at work and even in our communities.

In the last two weeks alone, we invested $230 million in the research, development and demonstration of clean energy technologies. We announced more than $1.5 billion in funding for the ecoenergy renewable initiative to boost Canada's renewable energy supplies. We unveiled our plan to invest approximately $300 million over four years to promote smarter energy use and to reduce the amount of harmful emissions that affect the health of Canadians. Without a doubt, action by our government on the environment has been driven by our goal to protect the health of Canadians.

We took action to help ensure that mercury switches are dealt with safely before cars are recycled and scrapped. This alone will prevent the release of as much as 10 tonnes of mercury being admitted into the atmosphere.

It is obvious that Canada's new government is committed to the environment by our action alone. It is clear that we are taking concrete action to address climate change. Quite frankly, by any standard of comparison we are moving quickly with action and not the hollow promises that we saw from the former government.

We have a plan, we intend to stick to it and we will achieve the plan.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is tremendously important that we begin to tackle this problem and that voluntary compliance is not enough. We actually have to regulate. Those regulations have to be enforceable.

The Liberal private member's bill on greenhouse gases has no effect. If one does not comply, there is no compliance mechanism. There is no problem or consequence. It is like a speeding ticket with no fine, or one does a crime and there is no time. That is why we think it is important in Bill C-30 that there are compliance mechanisms to force industry to follow the regulations to be presented.

We have said very clearly that the reductions we will propose for the industrial targets will be greater than those promised but never delivered by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in power. We have also said that on air pollution issues like SOx, NOx and VOx, particulate matter, indoor air quality, the quality of the air we breathe and the huge effect it has on asthmatic children have to be among the best in any jurisdiction in North America and in fact the world. Those are the two big commitments we are making.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to identify myself with your remarks on the passing of the Hon. Lloyd Francis, the former member of Parliament for Carleton and Ottawa West, a riding I am privileged to represent. On behalf of my constituents, I wish to acknowledge his great service not only to our community but to Canada. Mr. Francis was a great man and was a great adviser to me on a number of key issues over the last year.

I was most fortunate to have met Mr. Francis and to have known him. I want to pass on my party's condolences to his wife and family. I attended the memorial service for Mr. Francis. It was not really a funeral but a celebration of not just one life well lived, but of probably about 12 lives well lived. He was a great man. I want to acknowledge his great contribution.

Let me begin my remarks today by saying that I believe that climate change is a real and serious issue facing the world today. It is undoubtedly the biggest environmental threat we are facing.

Let me also say that this government recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is all about a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and, most important, for us right here in Canada.

While we share the disappointment of many Canadians and people from around the world that the former government did not meet its obligations or accept its responsibilities, let me indicate that Canada's new government will take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time as we make our air more breathable.

That brings me to my next point. I am glad the Liberal Party brought forward this motion today because it is an opportunity to remind the Liberals of their shameful record of 13 years of inaction on the environment.

To make things worse, the track record of the Leader of the Opposition is very regrettable on environmental issues. People do not have to go far to read about his party's record. Let us look at the quotes from the 2006 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It states:

In 2005, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment...found that actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were ad hoc, lacked an overall strategy, and did not have an accountability framework. Environment Canada, in a risk assessment..., found that there was no central ownership of the initiative, leading to non-integrated policies.

That is from Chapter 1, page 10. The report goes on, stating that:

Canada is not on track to meet its obligations to reduce emissions...The [Liberal] government's own 2004 data revealed that our greenhouse gas emissions were almost 27 percent above 1990 levels and were rising, not declining.

The levels were going up, not declining. That statement is from the overview chapter, page 8.

Clearly, this is a sad track record of failure on the environment from the party opposite. To have the Liberal Party now lecture the House on environmental policy is like a Liberal trying to lecture other members on ethics. That party has no credibility.

Then there are the confusing statements from the Leader of the Opposition himself. On September 17 he told the globeandmail.com, “We don't know if the greenhouse gas emissions went up when I was Minister of the Environment...”. Less than three months later he told the Globe and Mail, “Greenhouse gases are going up, that's for sure”. These are not my quotes. These are quotes from the leader of the Liberal Party.

I must say that I am in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on one point. He told Canadian Press on January 17, about action on the environment, that “...I would agree with you that it wasn't enough”.

This lack of action on the environment is something I like to call the Dion gap. It is a gap between what we were supposed to be doing to reduce greenhouse gases and where we actually are.

The Liberal Party is a party of power, a party dedicated to staying in power and nothing else. That is why the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to the important issue of the environment.

Fortunately, there is a new government in Canada. We are the first government in the history of Canada to say that we are going to start regulating industries, not only for greenhouse gas emissions, but also on the important issue of air quality in Canada.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition has had some problems in the Liberal Party with the efforts that his party made in this area. The Liberals had an opportunity to act. They failed to do so. In the dying hours of a 13 year regime, a regime that had been found guilty of corruption, money laundering and stealing money from taxpayers, so guilty that the Liberals had to return more than a million dollars in cash to the public purse, to say after 13 years that in those final hours they were finally ready to act is simply not credible.

It is very interesting to read the text of the motion by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that regulations through CEPA are the only way to go. The Liberals did not go there in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. They had the chance to act and they did not.

Is that not just like the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that does not like transparency or accountability, a party that prefers to work in the shadows? That party would prefer that cabinet, behind closed doors, make these decisions rather than have important legislation on the statute books of this country. That is exactly why we brought forward some of the toughest legislation ever tabled in the House on greenhouse gases and air pollution, Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

What has been the response of the Liberal Party? For a long time, Mr. Dithers, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was running the show over there with the Liberal Party, and now he has been replaced by Mr. Delay, the Leader of the Opposition, with his sidekick, the member for Ottawa South. They have no interest in getting things done for Canadians. In fact, they want long, drawn-out hearings on Bill C-30, months of hearings, in fact. They want to study and have meetings, events and conferences rather than get to work.

While Conservatives voted for getting down to work and a quick session, Liberals voted for time extensions. Why? Perhaps the quote from the Liberal environment critic, the member for Ottawa South, says it best. He asked the committee studying Bill C-30, “What's the rush here?” Let me tell members what the rush is: greenhouse gas emissions are a priority. It is important that we tackle this problem as soon as possible, not as soon as possible plus 10 years.

Canadians sent us here to work together with all parties to get the job done on the environment. Some parties in the House, I think, get it more than others. Others clearly have not got it. The Liberal Party is the party that does not get it.

I think this motion is an attempt to derail the toughest regulation of greenhouse gases in Canadian history, and we are leaving behind the important issue of air quality, especially in regard to indoor pollutants. I think it is important that we do not lose any time and that we get to work on Bill C-30. Commensurate with that study in committee, the Department of the Environment and the federal government are actively working on the numbers and targets and the architecture and design to make this system work.

Tomorrow, some of the world's leading scientists will gather in Paris to outline what will be some very significant additional scientific research, something that will only encourage us to do more, not just around the world but hopefully here in Canada.

I look forward to receiving the contents of that report. From what I have read so far in reports, we hope to learn from world renowned scientists, and regrettably, the news is not good. Global warming and climate change are serious issues. Not only do they face us here at home, but they must bring the entire world community together.

For far too long, Canada has not accepted our responsibility when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This government intends to do something about it. Clearly, the Kyoto protocol is a 15 year marathon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When it was signed in 1997, when the starter's pistol went off in that race, the Liberal Government of Canada began to run in the opposite direction. That is shameful.

As a result, we have a lot of catching up to do. It will not be easy. It will take focus. It will take Canadians working together. It will take members of Parliament from all political parties working together.

But I believe the challenges of global warming and climate change are the challenges of the 21st century and we must respond. We must respond by also addressing clean air. We can do both at the same time. Let us respond without sending $5 billion of taxpayers money to Russia, to China and to India, which will not help the quality of air in Canada at all.

This government will act. The government will deliver real results on the environment for Canadians. We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the next generation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes. I have two last thoughts, in the time left.

Mr. McGuinty today brought a motion forward. The original intent, it seemed, when the former Liberal government made this commitment, was to have an independent commissioner, one who reported directly and was removed. We'll be making suggestions to bring that right into the review process of Bill C-30, the government's bill. We think this is potentially an effective tool.

I know you can't comment on that, it being policy. My question is this. Looking at some of the comments your organization, the Auditor General's office, made about the employment insurance account—that government is consistently taking too much in—I'll quote:

[To allow] the Account to accumulate a surplus beyond what could reasonably be spent for employment insurance purposes, given the existing benefit structure and allowing.... In our opinion, the government has not observed the intent of the Employment Insurance Act.

Where's the line? Where is the line between commenting on ineffective government spending, or promises made and not kept, and advocating for policy options, which in Ms. Gélinas' last report she commented on, saying on climate change that the government had not taken it seriously enough yet and needed to ramp it up? Where is that line?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I won't make a comment about the nuisance.

I think if the clerk talks to the clerk of the Bill C-30 committee, they'll find that the first one you mentioned, 5:30 on Monday evening, won't work. We actually have a meeting booked this Monday evening at 5:30.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that scientific evidence tells us to act as soon as possible. That is our goal.

The committee studying Bill C-30 met on Monday and we saw that the Liberal Party is not comfortable with the idea of working harder and passing Bill C-30 as soon as possible. It wants to analyze and conduct more studies. That is not the best course of action in a file that is so important for Canada.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We'll be meeting on Bill C-30 Thursday morning, if I remember correctly, but not in the afternoon, so that may be an option.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Next week we will begin the CEPA review. Tuesday has been mentioned as a problem day. Therefore, we'll maybe try to look at what we can work out.

I think the clerks can talk about when the meetings on Bill C-30 are, and we'll try not to conflict.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

First of all, it may be important to remember the initial suggestions that were made. Without it being stated officially, everyone agreed that the government wanted us to consider the bill quickly because it is urgent to act soon. The government even wanted to complete the study of bill C-30 within a mont and a half. The Liberals wanted to do a more in-depth study of the bill, which could have taken another three months, or even four, far longer than what the government proposed.

We need to come to a consensus and adopt a compromise, which would be to study the bill for five weeks and use the two break weeks to digest the testimony we will have heard. If we feel that we need to hear additional witnesses, nothing prevents us from sitting during the break weeks to hear other witnesses and put the finishing touches to our study. These two extra weeks would mean the study would be completed by March 19. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and midway between the four months that had been proposed and the government's position, which was a month or a month and a half. Overall, we will have studied the bill for approximately two months.

I would remind the government that we are about to a move to a vote. The government asked the opposition to show some flexibility and some openness. That is what the opposition, the Bloc and the others have done over the last few hours. I hope the government will show some consistency; you wanted to move quickly, and we accepted your arguments, even though we may not necessarily have wanted to. We did so because we believe it is important to accelerate the process and work more intensively.

I hope we will be able to reach a compromise and bring everyone on side, one that will give us the flexibility we need. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to vote in favour of a motion forcing us to table a report by March 19. It can't just be a difference of two weeks. I don't believe that two weeks' difference should be enough to prevent us from reaching some consensus. Between a three-month difference and two weeks, I think a compromise... We have to be willing to compromise, take this seriously and provide a reasonable timeframe. I think two months is reasonable and acceptable. The government was saying a month and a half a few hours ago, while the Liberals seemed to have a more ambitious plan.

A good compromise has been suggested. The committee should function in this non-partisan way. If we can't compromise now, I really wonder how we will do down the line. Unfortunately, we will have to vote against this motion, and some people will have to explain why the committee failed to come to an agreement on this two-week discrepancy, considering our agenda and the action plan to be considered under bill C-30.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the comments from Mr. Bigras. I think it's showing he does want to move forward and is listening to the urgency of the situation. So I appreciate the comments. It's trying to find the middle ground, and I support that, but it's not my motion. It would be Mr. Cullen's motion, and it's his decision as to whether or not that would be considered a friendly amendment.

I think we need to be flexible, too. If we have a target of dealing with Bill C-30 in a timely fashion, and not trying to stall, which I suspect could be interpreted as what's happening here.... If this is moved forward quickly, and, still being flexible, we found that we needed to hear from another group of witnesses and we went into the March break week, I would suggest that we seriously consider it.

At this point I understand, Mr. Bigras, that what you're saying is we now lengthen it two weeks and we have the March break, and before we go clause by clause we give ourselves the chance to digest past information and current information, and then move forward aggressively so at the end of March we would be done. What you're proposing extends it approximately one month, but I think it's a compromise position and still deals with things on the issue of Bill C-30 on an urgent basis. I think it's a good compromise.

Those are my comments.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the point I'm trying to raise here is that it would be really helpful for us as legislators to see what the plan looks like when its constituent pieces are put together. Because I would dare submit now, given the state of Bill C-30 and what we might possibly do to it, that this Bill C-30 does not make a climate change plan for this country. It's not even close.

So I need to hear more from the government, from the parliamentary secretary, perhaps through the minister in due course when he shows, how this connects and what part of the puzzle we are dealing with so we can know. When witnesses show up here, trust me, they're going to raise these questions. They're going to ask these questions whether we want them to or not. They're going to be asked to comment or they're going to want to comment themselves on how Bill C-30 does or does not connect to the National Energy Board's recent review of energy policy in the country. They're going to ask how it connects, Mr. Chair, to a fourfold or fivefold potential increase in the oil sands, and that's what I'd like to hear more about.

Thank you.