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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Bienvenue. My name is Laurie Hawn. I think everybody knows me, and I think everybody at the table knows everybody else. Welcome to the first meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

I'll just read you the letter I received from the Speaker. It says:Dear Mr. Hawn:

Pursuant to Standing Order 113, I am pleased to confirm your appointment as Chair of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act).

Yours truly,

Peter Milliken, M.P.

So that's what we're here for, and I thank you all for coming today. I know most of the rest of our colleagues have departed, but it's important that we get on with this important business and that we have an organizational meeting—which this one is—to set the standard routine motions and to chart our way for what's going to go on in the new year.

I will be ably assisted by our legislative clerk, Joann Garbig, and our committee clerk, Chad Mariage. We'll also have an array of experts and assistants on the legislative side or whatever other legal side, whatever we need, as we proceed forward.

As for why we're here, if you allow me a couple of minutes, we in this room, the 13 of us, directly represent about 1.5 million Canadians. On behalf of them and on behalf of the other 30.5 million Canadians, we're here, in my view, to stay focused on an aim to present to the House, at the end of this and in a timely manner, an act that will effectively and realistically promote the future of Canadians' and our environment. It's going to be an emotional issue.

There are going to be strong views on all sides of the issue. My job obviously is not to participate in the sharing of those views, but to try to keep the views focused and to try to keep the process moving ahead. I would urge everybody—and I know we will—to remain respectful of differing opinions; to give everybody a good hearing to debate aggressively and sincerely; and at the end of the day, to come to an agreement that will move the yardsticks forward for all Canadians. It may not be a perfect solution for anybody on any particular side, but if we can move the yardsticks ahead in a realistic and positive manner for everybody, then I think we'll have done our job.

A couple of pieces of information are going to be available to you, for anybody who needs a refresher. One is on amending bills at committee and report stages. The other is on the conduct of legislative committees. There are some differences between legislative committees and standing committees. You can refresh yourselves on those at your leisure.

The first order of business would be the routine motions. We'll just start on them by going from top to bottom.

The first routine motion would be on a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I'm looking for somebody to move that motion.

Mr. Cullen, if you can move it, we can then move to discussion.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party continue to struggle against the idea that they are little more than laggards when it comes to the environment. Whenever they make this claim, one of their senior ministers makes a public statement to remove any lingering doubts.

First, the Prime Minister suggested that it was difficult to predict next week's weather, so how could he possibly believe global warming was a threat to Canadians. Now the Minister of Public Safety was “begging for Big Al Gore's glacial melt when the mercury hit -24”.

The same minister went on to prove his utter misunderstanding of the pine beetle crisis and the impact that global warming had on it. I wonder if the same minister also still believes there is not enough evidence to prove that smoking actually causes cancer.

We are at the beginning of a legislative committee that will rewrite Bill C-30 and create what could be the most important environmental legislation in years. The NDP will fight hard to create hard targets and real timelines to ensure we change the course that Canada is on.

My fear is the Conservative members may have a lot of catching up to do. I strongly urge them to do much study over the Christmas holidays.

[Gordon Lloyd]

Bill C-30 has a very simple amendment to section 10. It basically says that instead of a province having to have the same regulation as the federal government, it has to do something that has the same effect. So certificates of approval or permitting that provinces use could be then recognized, which would make the provision much more effective. There's also an amendment that adjusts the timelines of how long an equivalency agreement would last.

That's a very simple amendment. There are two other even simpler amendments that I pointed to about reporting and dealing with flexibility in provincial regimes and recognizing those and being able to treat provinces differently, depending on, say, whether they're meeting Canada-wide standards. That's probably, in total, about one page of the vast amendments that are in Bill C-30. I think this committee could pick those three amendments out.

I remember when the minister was before this committee, Mr. Godfrey asked her if there were any areas specifically in CEPA that needed strengthening that she could point out and then you as a committee would work on them. I think those are the three elements in Bill C-30 that fit that description, that would be really good to have this committee work on in terms of their being good things for the environment and not have them caught up in what I think is going to become the political football in the discussion of Bill C-30. So I hope that answers the question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to share my time with Mr. Lussier.

My question is concerned mainly with the equivalency provisions in section 10 of CEPA and is aimed chiefly at Mr. Lloyd, in light of his brief, and at Mr. Teeter.

What you’re actually proposing to us this morning is to amend CEPA so as to integrate the provisions of Bill C-30. Without going into an exhaustive comparative analysis, I’d like you to tell us what the implications would be of amending section 10 of CEPA by integrating the principles of Bill C-30. What improvements would your proposal bring about?

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-30, 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).

[Gordon Lloyd, Vice-President, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll see if I can beat that, but I would like to know what the prize is.

My thanks for the opportunity to appear before the committee in this wrap-up session. There are four points I'll raise, all of which have been raised in testimony before with you.

On the first point, on December 1, CCPA wrote to Minister Ambrose, and we copied the committee with that letter. In that letter we recommended that there are three critical amendments that are in Bill C-30 that we think should be recommended and made to CEPA now, as part of this committee's review, and not get caught up in the debate that we think is going to be long and protracted and political on Bill C-30.

Those specific amendments related to, first, improving the equivalency provisions in CEPA's section 10, to support working more effectively in partnership with the provinces; secondly, improving section 330 to be able to deal with different air sheds differently, for example, depending on whether or not Canada-wide standards requirements are met in an air shed; and thirdly, improving CEPA's section 46 to allow for independent verification of reporting.

In my notes I've attached specific amendments out of Bill C-30 that we recommended that this committee recommend be made in the CEPA review. I think the benefits of these amendments are that they would provide an improved basis in CEPA to support managing greenhouse gases and air pollutants and would be able to do so probably more quickly than doing this through Bill C-30; that they'd be a step forward in the federal government working more effectively in partnership mode with the provinces, and I think that's important in all areas, not just climate change and air pollutants; that they'd also improve federal flexibility in dealing with different situations in different provinces, which I think is important in our federal-provincial jurisdictional system; and that they'd also improve public confidence in reporting.

My second point relates to virtual elimination. I think in the round table discussion on virtual elimination there was actually general consensus by all parties, even the government representatives who got involved in the discussion, on one point--and I hope that's picked up in the report from the committee--that virtual elimination and its associated requirements for establishing limits of quantification don't really make sense for trace contaminant levels of substances in products. There are other sections in CEPA that can be used to deal with that and that would make more sense to deal with them there, not under virtual elimination.

I think that consensus emerged for a number of reasons, but they included the fact that it's technically difficult to establish LOQs for contaminants in products; the fact that there are other powers in CEPA that could be used to deal with this issue more effectively in section 93; and also that we should try to have better consistency with the Stockholm Convention on POPs.

CCPA suggested specific language to fix that problem in what we tabled at that round table. Again, that language is attached in my notes. Although there was agreement I think by all with the problem and our statement, some felt that our language wasn't the best solution, and that's quite probably true. What we would suggest is that this committee recommend that the government use other provisions in the virtual elimination for contaminants and products and figure out what language their lawyers should recommend to incorporate in the act for that. They might want to use CCPA's suggestion as a starting point, but I imagine they'll be able to do better than we did.

My third point concerns looking for a possible compromise solution on the issue of “toxic” stigma. Industry raised a number of concerns--my association did, as did Shannon, who just outlined a few of them--about the reality of this problem. There were others who raised concerns about the constitutional risks involved in changing the legislation. Our recommendation was at the time, and still is, to remove the “toxic” term from the act, particularly in the operational provisions in part 5, and replace “toxic” with “substance that meets the criteria of section 64”, which is language that government lawyers seem to previously have thought was acceptable in the previous government's budget bill. But we do recognize that there were concerns that this could create some risk to the validity of the legislation.

We still support our original recommendation. We think our stigma concerns are real, and we note that those who thought there were risks did agree with us that, in the end, it was their bottom line also that the legislation would remain valid. But if it isn't acceptable to the committee to change the “toxic” language as we've recommended, then I think something else the committee should recommend in its report is something that I believe there was a lot of consensus around from all parties, and that's for the government to have to provide more context when a substance is listed on schedule 1 as toxic.

Sometimes listing might mean not using the substance at all. If that's the case, it should be clear. Other times, when risk management objectives or toxics are narrower, the scheduling process should also make that clear. The scheduling process, the listing process, should provide some context. There's a big difference between putting something on schedule I to mean, do not use the substance, versus, in other cases, to mean, manage the use of the substance to manage the risk that the risk assessment identifies. That's all jumbled into one and should be sorted out by more context being added.

My fourth and final point is to modernize the act so that, like Australia, Canada is better equipped to recognize positive assessments of other jurisdictions. The committee should recommend adding wording to the act to allow Environment Canada and Health Canada to benefit from assessments conducted by other countries to the degree the department believes appropriate, up to and including full acceptance of the assessment.

One point that I won't mention, but I think should be included in your report, is the point I made in the discussion a week or two ago on tools. We recommended the committee ask government to consider adding some specific clauses to the act that promote considering the use of industry responsibility programs such as Responsible Care, but within an overall regulatory framework. From the discussion with the committee, I think it's pretty clear those recommendations aren't likely to be part of your report.

I think the smart regulation report was right. Despite the fact that these kinds of changes are needed, there doesn't seem to be the political will, and I think that was evident in the discussion here, to go forward with them. I think that lack of endorsement for the approach of supporting industry responsibility programs is disappointing. Supporting them would assist industry to be partners with government when companies show leadership and high performance. I would encourage differentiating between companies that do show high performance and those that don't. Hopefully the discussion will revisit that today, and my conclusion that you're not going to have that in your report will be revisited.

Finally, I think most of the testimony, if not all, stressed that the act needed to be fine-tuned, not fundamentally changed and rewritten, as it was in CEPA 1999. We certainly support that approach, and we think it's particularly important to maintain the strong foundation for the categorization architecture and the ongoing assessments that will be the second phase of that project. We are a world leader in this. It would be wrong to change the foundation that this world leadership was built on and would cause an awful lot of confusion.

Thank you for the opportunity of hearing all of these discussions, and I look forward to a discussion today and to your report.

Did I beat Shannon?

[Shannon Coombs, Formulated Products Industry Coalition]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament.

It's a pleasure to be here today for the wrap-up session of the CEPA review.

As part of our previous presentations to the committee, we have two issues that we wish the committee to include as part of their recommendations in the report to Parliament. Our two key issues would require amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

My name is Shannon Coombs and I am the president of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, a national trade association whose member companies make consumer products such as ant traps, disinfectants, soaps, and detergents. Today I'm here representing FPIC, the Formulated Products Industry Coalition. As stated in our June and September presentations, our unique industry coalition of 15 trade associations was formed in 2001 when the Food and Drugs Act became subject to CEPA.

What do FPIC member companies do? They provide food, personal care products, household cleaners, cosmetics, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals to Canadians. We represent over 750 member companies, and we're a $66-billion-a-year industry, employing 375,000 Canadians. I have provided a list of the associations in our coalition to the clerk in both official languages for your consideration.

As background for our issue--and I'm going to try to capture this as quickly as I can--substances and food in the Food and Drugs Act products are captured under CEPA. Why? In 1999, parliamentarians requested that CEPA be the safety net for all environmental assessments, which includes a health assessment of substances.

In section 81 of the act there is a requirement for other acts that have pre-market assessments to meet or exceed CEPA's environmental assessments. Other acts had two years to meet that requirement, and if they did, they were scheduled for exemption under CEPA. If they did not meet it, then CEPA would be the act to govern environmental assessments, and that's under the new substances notification regulations. Other pre-market pieces of legislation, such as the Seeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, and the Pest Control Products Act, meet CEPA's requirements and were scheduled for exemption. But the Food and Drugs Act did not meet the requirements of CEPA, and therefore environmental substances in Food and Drugs Act products are subject to CEPA's regulations.

We've been working under this regime for the past five years, and we believe CEPA is the most appropriate legislative authority for these substances. Although our member companies have been subject to rigorous pre-market assessments and/or notifications under the Food and Drugs Act, being subject to CEPA was new and challenging. Despite the learning curve, FPIC has recognized that CEPA's systems and regulations provide predictable, rigorous submission reviews to member companies and protection to Canadians and their environment.

So why do we need a change to CEPA and why are we here again today? When the Food and Drugs Act substances were captured under CEPA, it left in limbo a list of approximately 9,000 substances that have been used safely and effectively by Canadians for almost 20 years. These substances are in limbo because they're considered new, not existing under the act, and this needs to be remedied. I'll refer to the 9,000 substances as the “in commerce list”. Substances on this list are such things as pharmaceutical actives, cosmetic ingredients such as extracts, surfactants, food colouring, flavourings, lard, starch, kiwi essence, oil of lemon, etc.

We ask the committee to recommend to Parliament the following: acknowledgement of the in commerce list as a list of existing substances under the law by creating a provision in CEPA to recognize them as such. Why? Existing substances is a practical way to go. The substances and the products have provided and continue to provide benefits to Canadians. They have been in commerce for almost 20 years, and clearly they're not new, but existing.

Since these substances have had pre-market assessment and/or notifications, they need some form of environmental assessment. To ensure this happens, we're suggesting that the government categorize and prioritize the in commerce list, and then if needed, provide screening-level risk assessments, just like the completion of the first phase of the categorization and screening of the domestic substances program.

Key sections of the act for which we're looking for amendments are sections 66, 73, 74, and 81. That was what we tabled to the committee in September as the first place to start with respect to amending the legislation. I have submitted those sections to the clerk.

Another key issue for FPIC, and our second issue for the committee's recommendation, is the use and the meaning of “toxic” in the CEPA legislation. We ask the committee to consider removing the word “toxic” so that there is clarity and understanding with respect to how substances are assessed and managed under the act. If the risk assessment of a substance meets the definition, it's placed on schedule 1 and then some type of management for that particular use will be evoked. As stated in our May submission, the challenge has been around the misunderstanding of the term “toxic”. It's our belief that Canadians, regulators, and non-governmental organizations interpret CEPA toxic substances as being intrinsically toxic.

We have provided some examples. CFCs, which destroy the atmospheric ozone, have been used in the past in asthma inhalers.

Ammonia, which I know the committee has had a great deal of discussion about, is also on schedule 1, and carbon dioxide is on schedule 1. It was put there so that greenhouse gases could be managed, but it's not intrinsically toxic.

To support this issue of misinformation and miscommunication, we have provided two examples to the committee of how the term “toxic” has been misinterpreted. One was from an advocacy group that lists on a website all the substances on schedule 1 as being toxic and not to be used. The first on their list, of course, is ammonia, which they say is used in glass cleaner and should be avoided. The second example is from the B.C. Buildings Corporation Cleaning Management, which cites that all substances that are on schedule 1 should not be in any products.

The CEPA toxic issue is not new. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, at a previous environment committee, also recognized the issue and asked for change.

Since this review could make this happen, we've requested that the committee again remove the word “toxic” from the legislation. We're suggesting wording that was proposed in the last budget bill, which was Bill C-43, section 15. The change would leave the definition of toxic exactly the same in section 64, but the title of the section would be changed to “assessment and management of substances”. Since Bill C-30 has been tabled, it is our interpretation that the government doesn't need the word “toxic” to regulate, since they're taking regulatory action on the substances under the new definition of air pollutant. So calling section 64 “the assessment and management of substances” accurately reflects what CEPA does.

As well, in our previous testimony we also challenged the committee and the government to provide effective communications around the results of categorization. On Friday, the government delivered a comprehensive program for substance management in Canada. It builds upon the current rigorous science-based regulatory regime. There is a website that's available--chemicalsubstances.gc.ca. We believe this is a really good opportunity for Canadians to review what the government is doing with respect to substance management.

I think all MPs should be pleased with the result of categorization and the next phase. I don't believe the CSDSL, the program, is any part of that effort. It was members of this committee who included the CSDSL requirement in the last review of CEPA. We're now leading the world in how substances are being reviewed and managed. I think that's something we should all take credit for. It's a very good initiative.

Again, for us the challenge is communication. I know that some of the substances that have been talked about have been noted in the newspaper, in the media reports. For example, PFOS has been cited as one of the things that needs to be phased out. It's been targeted as something that's in consumer products—for example, in windshield wiper fluid. PFOS is not in windshield wiper fluid. The government has on their website a very good explanation of what PFOS is in, how they have reduced the use of that, and the amount of PFOS that's actually in Canada. This can be found at chemicalsubstances.gc.ca.

In summary, I'd just like to say that it's been a pleasure working with all of you over the past six months. We believe this process has been a very open and transparent review of a very important piece of legislation. We would ask that you take on our challenges and provide the recommendations to Parliament to amend the legislation. Our collective priority, of course, is to ensure the protection of Canadians and their environment.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to the two comments made, first from Mr. Bigras, absolutely, I do agree that Bill C-30 is far superior. Bill C-288 does not meet the targets that Canadians want in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants. That's why I'm so excited about Bill C-30, and hopefully there will be good healthy discussion on that, and your support on that—or his support, speaking through you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Rodriguez did make a comment that he's consulted with the commissioner. As I said, she was here as a witness two days ago and those questions were not asked of her regarding this motion. He said he has consulted her. I would ask, through you, for him to table her letter. He said she supports this. I would ask for her written response that she supports this, because I don't believe she does. I believe this is a policy on the fly, which the Liberals are famous for, and it gets the government into big trouble; it got them into trouble. We will not do that, Mr. Chair. We will do things properly.

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

I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying. It's quite true that it could widened to include the pollution. Indeed, I invite him to table an amendment, when we review Bill C-30, to make that part of the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and we can debate it then. I'm not saying I'm opposed, but I think the government's strategy since this morning has been to try and refocus the debate on Bill C-30, when in actual fact, we are examining Bill C-288.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I never did mention Bill C-30, but I'd like to thank the NDP member for pointing that out to the committee. I'm just trying to compare and contrast the government's plan, Mr. Chairman, with the plan that would be put forward by this bill. I think it's completely appropriate to be discussing the opposing points of view.

The government does have a plan to develop medium-term emission targets for 2020 to 2025 for the sectors I just mentioned. The advice should recognize the outlook for Canadian economic growth and the government's intention to build upon the emissions intensity approach with targets that are ambitious enough to translate effectively into a fixed cap on absolute emissions.

The national emissions target should be adopted within the range of a 45% to 65% reduction from 2003 levels by 2050 and should include scenarios for how this target could be achieved, including the role of technology and capital stock renewal. In providing this advice, the national round table should also examine the medium- and long-term targets and policy approaches under consideration or implementation in other countries.

That's a much more logical approach than rushing blindly ahead with this bill and with this clause within this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I would encourage my colleagues to think about that.

So I won't be able to support this particular clause in this bill.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to Mr. Calkins, a reading of what is planned to be developed in Bill C-30, since we're talking about Bill C-288.... I know the government wants committee members to work together. Reading out a list of what the government has proposed in a completely different bill seems to me out of order when we're talking about Bill C-288.

We've been through this a number of times. If we're looking to waste time, then this is a way to proceed. I'd encourage all the committee members to raise valid arguments in debate, but not to delve into other bills. Let's talk about what's at hand.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In respect to what we have before us in clause 7—there are three subclauses there— we do as members of the government side want regulations for greenhouse gases and also air pollutant emissions from all industrial sectors as soon as possible. It was referred to by my members previously, Mr. Cullen notably, a few minutes ago.

That being said, however, the reality is that it will not be possible in practical terms to develop requirements for both GHG and air pollutants for all industrial sectors—it would not appear to be possible—by 2008. Prescribing this as a deadline in the legislation would most certainly open up the Crown and all stakeholders to some very serious difficulties. That timeline severely limits the time for the Minister of the Environment or any other regulating minister to consider public comments and revise draft regulations accordingly. You'd get a rush to judgment, a rush in such a way that you'd probably have a disastrous Kyoto, because you'd get there really quick, and without the proper study, analysis, and systematic approach.

The way of doing things suggested in clause 7 is really not reasonable. I think we know what the proper timeframes to collect and consult and so on in this country require.

And I think it shows a disregard for a meaningful public consultation. Mr. Rodriguez appears not to have the degree of respect for public consultation that there should be when you're dealing with something this important, because we do need to get there.

It also seems to show no real knowledge of the federal regulatory process. I don't know who his advisers or speech writers were, if Mr. Rodriguez has that speech writer yet.

The timing difficulties related to making regulations are also complicated by subclause 5(5), by which the climate change plan tabled by the minister is referred to a committee of each house of Parliament for review. The practical consequence of that subclause 7(1) is that the committee review of the climate change plan would not change the regulation-making proposals, as the timelines to make the regulations are so very short.

For that reason, we have obvious difficulty with this particular clause, because I think we'd all agree that we need to get at those issues—the air quality issues, including smog.

In fact, Mr. Dion, the new Liberal leader, has actually acknowledged that the Kyoto Protocol does not deal with all air quality issues, including smog. That's something that clearly needs to be dealt with, and our plan would do it. In fact, Mr. Dion, interestingly--and this is right in the ball park here--has said that the U.S. has better smog regulations than Canada has.

So we would not be able to support this clause 7, and we would like it deleted from the bill. Our proposal in Bill C-30 actually deals with the reduction of smog, improving the quality of the air we breathe. In fact, the Canadian Lung Association has supported our efforts in that regard. Again, as Mr. Godfrey has tipped us off here, it's clearly the very piece of legislation to be passing for the health of the Canadian public.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I'll reply to his comment. In deference to my friend, I appreciate that indication of support. I suppose it's kind of pre-emptive here in some sense, but in fact there is stronger language in Bill C-30. It will get the job done.

In terms of my discursion, as you call it, my whole point was the issue that the Governor in Council “may”. There's too much latitude, we believe, when in fact we need a much stronger kind of approach, and it would be taken in the other bill.

In fact, that's why I made the contrast, Mr. Godfrey. I very much appreciate your support. I'm hoping you're serving on the committee, I'm not sure, but when you do—

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That was a very interesting discursion into another bill altogether, Bill C-30. I would simply say that's not the bill we're talking about today.

Secondly, if the member were to cast his eyes down to paragraph 6(c), he would see this particular clause actually does cover many of...for example, the whole automotive sector, with the phrase:

(c) respecting the use or production of any equipment, technology, fuel, vehicle or process in order to limit greenhouse gas emissions

So in general terms, it covers the more specific points he makes.

Thirdly, I would caution the member to be careful what he asks for, what he wishes for, because if he wants stronger regulation under Bill C-30, so that words like “can” are replaced with words like “shall”, we shall be pleased to oblige him.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I'm looking over this particular clause about regulations. The first line states that the government “may” make regulations. That's problematic for me and my colleagues. They “may” make regulations related to measures, to standards, to enforcement. On the use of the word “may”, obviously a good grammarian would know it suggests that the government may or may not, or may use other policy instruments to achieve these aforementioned measures and standards and enforcements.

Our government has put out a plan that would in fact make it mandatory, required, to strengthen the ability to reduce air emissions nationwide, to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The intent of this particular clause is to give the government the authority to implement regulations and other measures to control greenhouse gas emissions by building on the extensive authorities that already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The new government legislation on clean air would in fact provide a much stronger basis than what we have before us here today when it says “may”. Among other things, for example, the government legislation, contra what we have here, would require ministers of the environment and health to establish national air quality objectives, to monitor them, and to report on their attainment. It would authorize the development of regulations to reduce outdoor and indoor air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. It would authorize the development of emissions trading schemes, which have proven very effective in the United States of America and also in Europe. And it would give the government extensive information-gathering and reporting powers expressly tailored to greenhouse gases and air pollutants. I would think my NDP colleague Mr. Cullen would probably be agreeable to the fact that we need to make it more forceful, by way of not just simply a “may”.

Our government's proposed legislation as well, contra this particular piece here, would enable the federal government to enter into equivalency agreements that recognize provincial or territorial licensing or permitting regimes as equivalent, so long as those regimes are as stringent in terms of environment and health protection as national regulations are. That's our government's approach, which is something members from the Bloc Québécois should support, as it would enable the Province of Quebec to regulate its own polluters. But for that, the Quebec government would need to put in place legislation and appropriate regulations. I would be hopeful that Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lussier would support that at the time, because it's much stronger and it respects provincial jurisdiction as well.

The government plan, also contra this bill, would enhance the Energy Efficiency Act. It would give the federal government the authority to provide stronger energy efficiency standards for a wide range of consumer and commercial products, such as household appliances and electrical goods. That actually would directly impact on the health and the environment of all Canadians, which is something I believe and others around this room would agree that Canadians do want to see. We're waiting to see that implemented.

Finally, contra this particular proposed legislation, the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-30, would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to modernize government's ability. Bill C-288 doesn't do that. Bill C-30 would allow the government authority to regulate new motor vehicle fuel consumption. It is important to set that fuel consumption standard to help to ensure greenhouse gases from the vehicles that we buy.

The time for alternatives really has passed. The previous administration tried some voluntary approaches, and that's what we have here again in the word “may”. Unfortunately, they failed. We need a much stronger mandate than that, and the government plans to have regulations that do in fact put the onus, the liability, on the regulated community. To make those emission reductions that contribute to clean air, the air quality objectives must be set by ministers under the act, in a mandate fashion. In addition, under the notice of intent, the government is committing to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the short and mid-term, 2020 to 2025, and also for the long term, up until 2050.

Mr. Chair, in view of the obvious weakness in comparison to Bill C-288, we cannot support clause 6 of Bill C-288 because it misses the mark clearly. It is clearly an inferior piece of proposed legislation when compared to Bill C-30, the Conservative government's bill. We would very much prefer to have this entire clause 6 deleted from the bill, in view of its obviously lesser ability to do the kinds of things that need to be done for the protection of the environment and the health of all Canadians. We would definitely see that in the government's Bill C-30, as opposed to what we have before us now.