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.

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to create regulatory powers in relation to air pollutants and greenhouse gases. I will note that these are not new powers, because they exist at present in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

To begin, I will say that, like my party, the Bloc Québécois, I support sending this bill to committee before second reading. Given that we are in the very first stages of consideration of this bill, this will give me an opportunity to inform the minister and the members who will be examining amendments to this bill about the health problems that are associated with certain toxic substances.

This bill is a statement of intent, in which the government sets out details of the regulations that it intends to make in the years to come and the timetables it is adopting for that purpose. I am indeed talking about regulations with timetables. This document shows that the government is wiping the slate, starting over at zero, and initiating a series of consultations in three phases which will, we are told, lead to mandatory standards being put in place by 2010 at the earliest.

The minister has not told us whether this “clean slate” means a slate clean of all the regulations we may have made since 2000. Regulations made since 1989 have been laid down and brought forward to protect both the environment and health. We do not know whether those regulations will or will not still be in force in 2010. We have no guarantee.

This bill amends the Energy Efficiency Act, and that is why I am speaking today. At first glance, we would assume that the proposed amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act are an improvement, because they cover substances that are not regulated and they raise the standards for other substances that are already regulated.

It is impossible to know whether this is genuine progress or simply an update to the standards that the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique regularly makes. One of the substances already regulated is tetrachloroethylene (TCE)—or perchloroethylene (PERC)—and I would like to talk about that. I will talk about that in a moment.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act already provides for the power to limit emissions of toxic substances and to fine those who exceed the limits and even provides for creating a tradeable permit mechanism. Unfortunately, if the past is any indication of the future, there is no guarantee that the new act will truly control greenhouse gases or air pollutants.

I would like to come back to the examples I just cited. Perchloroethylene (PERC), also known as tetrachloroethylene (TCE), is used as a degreasing solvent. This means that it is used in garages, but also, and mainly, in dry cleaning establishments. It is estimated that there are over 700 dry cleaners in Quebec.

PERC is extremely toxic. In 1989, it was one of the 44 substances placed on the Priority Substances List, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, because it destroys ozone. PERC, or tetrachloroethylene, is even the subject of specific rules enacted by the House of Commons on January 1, 2004.

PERC is toxic to human health and the environment. It is also carcinogenic. It is very volatile. It remains suspended in the environment and causes problems for the liver and the central nervous system. It has been found in the breast milk of women who work in dry cleaning establishments and even in food coming from adjoining restaurants. Studies have been conducted showing, for example, that if there is a dry cleaner in a shopping centre PERC has been found in adjacent businesses.

From January 1996 to March 1997, Environment Canada carried out a demonstration project on a wet cleaning process. However, the department did not invest sufficient funds and as a result the project was abandoned. It must be said that the toxicity of PERC or TCE has been known since 1989. In 2001, Environment Canada conducted studies and carried out interviews with people in the industry, including workers in the sector as well as the companies that produced PERC. Following those steps, the department ordered a reduction in the use of PERC. Alternatives procedures and technologies were supposed to be used because they are available. The companies were supposed to provide annual reports on their use of PERC and TCE in vapour degreasing.

Unfortunately, Environment Canada did not enforce that policy. Instead it came up with a new regulation in 2004, which limited the release of TCE and PERC in all solvent degreasing operations. That decision resulted in additional expense for equipment and operating costs for the big companies and substantial investments for the small businesses. Those small operators were short on resources. They were hard pressed then and they still are now. The new regulations would have required them to use new technology anti-pollution measures. How could they do that when they did not have the money to invest in machines worth more than $100,000?

So, we find ourselves today with a regulation that is not being enforced. It must also be said that the Department of the Environment did not send out the necessary inspectors to verify whether people in the industry, the big companies as well as the small operators, were complying with the regulations.

I would remind you that PERC is the odour that you smell on your clothes when you pick them up at the cleaner and that is the smell of degreasing. That is what is toxic and carcinogenic and that is what you should not smell.

There is an environmentally friendly dry cleaner in my riding. When I pick up my clothes, they do not smell like PERC because they have other ways to dry clean. Currently, businesses and small dry cleaners are not using the right equipment. They dispose of PERC directly into the environment—there is no monitoring. PERC is a greenhouse gas. It is a toxic gas.

My point is that it is very nice to start by putting forward ideas and conducting consultations. We know that the industry has been consulted, as have the people. However, those regulations, which were adopted at great cost, were never implemented. I wonder what the government will really do. They have introduced a nice bill. They will conduct consultations and implement it in 2010. Between now and then, people will be aware that they are working in places full of greenhouse gases. They have known since 1989. They are waiting for the government to act. Will the government wait until 2010 to do something?

The Kyoto protocol covered PERC and TCE. This bill does not. What am I supposed to say to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Cloutier? Mr. Cloutier has a degenerative nervous system disease because he worked with PERC all his life.

What am I supposed to say to a dry cleaner from Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines who is just waiting for us to help him? What am I supposed to do about that?

I have serious questions about Bill C-30. I am speaking on behalf of people in my riding who are suffering, who have problems and who are waiting for the government to act faster and guarantee that the law will protect them and their health.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other questions from any members?

Thank you very much. You can tell you came on a day when people's minds are somewhere else--in the House, with Bill C-30 being tabled today and being sent to committee later today.

I want to thank our witnesses. Your testimony is very welcome, and Tim has it all on tape, so it'll be part of our report.

Thank you very much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I'm going to be sharing my 10 minutes with Mr. Calkins.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I've found it informative.

Of course the government is supportive of CEPA and wanting to make it better. We believe that the equivalency agreements are important, and we want them to be able to be effective and used. In fact, the Clean Air Act, Bill C-30, which was mentioned a number of times—and Ms. Cobden, you mentioned it—will make CEPA much more effective than the equivalency agreements, with the changes that we're proposing.

I do have some questions here.

Ms. Broten, you made some comments that I'm a little puzzled with, and perhaps you could clarify them. You mentioned the “talk and log”. You talked about expensive and time-consuming meetings. It sounded like you want action and you want us to be effective. You talked about “the whole long process of multi-stakeholder meetings, scientific twists and turns, market scares, job blackmail, and a Harmonization Agreement”. It sounded like you don't appreciate the consultation process, which does take time.

For clarification, are you're saying that you find the process very long and time-consuming and you'd like it to be more effective?

[Catherine Cobden]

Merci. I will have to proceed in English, so please excuse me.

Our analysis, Mr. Chair, has shown that the regulation in Quebec would actually meet the new provisions under Bill C-30. In other words, if you were to look at just the regulatory.... As I mentioned, there are two provisions. There's the regulatory piece and then there's the “citizens' right to investigate” piece. So there is a legal view that there should be an ability for equivalency on the regulation level, as you have asked. The problem lies in that it's an “and”--and the citizens' right to investigate. So you need both.

In Quebec, they do not have that. We've been looking very diligently, through this forum that I've mentioned, to try to find a solution. We've been working with the Quebec government, we've been working with the federal government, to try to see what existed for this. Unfortunately, it's the current view of the federal government, as I understand it--anyone can correct me if that's changed--that there is nothing sufficient for that part. So that is the challenge.

In order to ever get the legislative framework fixed, what you would need to do is deal with the “citizens' right to investigate” provisions that I've mentioned. I don't know what the solution is to that. I'm sure there are some very bright legal minds that can come up with ways to not lose the intent, because I think it is really an important intent and I'm sure that my colleagues here would agree with me on that, but to not make it something that prevents you from actually getting an equivalency agreement in place.

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes. The other thing that Bill C-30 does is make it clear to authority that we think is already there that you could recognize--as Ms. Cobden called it--an equivalent outcome regime. Most provinces don't actually have regulations; they set permit standards. So as long as their permit standards have the same effect throughout their jurisdictions as the federal standards, we think that would legally meet any equivalency requirements. Bill C-30 makes it explicit that it would be equivalent.

[Cynthia Wright, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

The latest one that was approved was approved in the middle of October on mercury from coal-fired electricity facilities.

There were six substances originally targeted and about 14 Canada-wide standards developed. They're all beginning to report on how well they've been implemented. So reports are starting to come out now, but I think it's fair to say that many of them have been very successful. Most of them have resulted in changes to provincial permitting processes, various instruments to implement them, and for a number of them you see the attainment of the standards. Benzene was the first to attain the standards. Probably the particulate matter and ozone are the ones where you see less attainment or attraction towards attaining the standards, and I think that's what has prompted Bill C-30.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward and giving their presentations.

Once again, I would like to state, Mr. Chair, that some of our members of our committee are not present because they're debating Bill C-30. I hope to go back to the House as well to speak on it. But that's the situation we're facing at this very moment, because there was also legislation that was tabled by the government with respect to the Clean Air Act.

I am interested in hearing further from the witnesses, and maybe even from the government staff, on the benefits of the ministers' conferences and how they are in fact able to get to Canada-wide standards. How are they moving forward, and have they been working as of late?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to Bill C-11, which will indeed take effect in 2011, I will point out to him that there is nothing about hybrid locomotives in that bill. There is no stated requirement for all train engines in rail yards to be hybrids by 2011, and there is nothing about the type of oil to use in order to reduce sulphur and particulate emissions either. None of that is covered.

What is this legislation, which I am very familiar with and have discussed previously, all about? What more does it do?

Perhaps we should put that in Bill C-30, because we did not in Bill C-11.

[Catherine Cobden, Vice-President, Environment, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by expressing our industry's appreciation to be addressing the committee on this important and timely examination you're undertaking with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

By way of introduction, FPAC is the voice of the Canadian wood, pulp, and paper producers, nationally and internationally, in the areas of government, trade, and environment. Canada's forest industry represents 3% of Canada's GDP and exports over $40 billion of wood, pulp, and paper annually. We're also one of Canada's largest employers, operating in hundreds of communities—mostly rural—and providing nearly 900,000 direct or indirect jobs across the country.

The forest sector has established itself as a leader on environmental issues. The operations have spent over $8 billion on reducing air and water discharges. Our most recent data show that the sector has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 30% since 1990; at the same time, we have reduced particulate matter by over 60%. We have an equally impressive track record on water, which I won't get into, as time does not permit.

We are very proud of our environmental track record. However, we recognize that the status quo is not good enough. We must do more to continually improve our environmental performance; and to do more, we need creative approaches built upon collaboration and cooperation with stakeholders, as well as federally and provincially. Through mechanisms like our Pulp and Paper Air Quality Forum, we have proven our capacity to work with a broad range of stakeholders in thinking creatively about solutions to very complex and difficult issues in a time of economic crisis for the sector. Indeed, the remarks I'll be making today draw very heavily from the work of that forum, and I look forward to sharing those.

We are a highly regulated sector in many jurisdictions across the country, and consequently we have a significant level of experience with respect to environmental legislation, both federally and provincially. CEPA has a significant impact on our members, particularly now that the Clean Air Act amendments have been included within CEPA.

FPAC would like to focus our comments today on one issue that is of overriding importance to our members, the equivalency provisions within CEPA. As a highly regulated sector, we are particularly sensitive to the increasing regulatory morass and complexity we're facing within Canada's landscape. To be very clear, FPAC does not challenge the federal government's authority to regulate environmental issues, nor do we advocate harmonization with provincial standards. We recognize that the federal government may wish to do more in certain provincial jurisdictions, and we also recognize that the provincial governments do share some of the burden of reaching and eliminating the complex environmental challenges we face.

However, we do advocate very strongly for efficient approaches that eliminate federal and provincial duplication. We firmly believe it is critical that federal and provincial governments work together towards that goal. We suggest that understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the existing provincial regimes is a key step in pursuing federal action. This understanding is certainly a necessary building block for ensuring regulatory gaps are addressed and that duplication is avoided.

CEPA 1999 does provide provisions to allow federal and provincial governments to sign equivalency agreements between them. We fundamentally believe that the original intent of these provisions aimed at simplifying the environmental landscape without weakening environmental performance. However, our experience to date has shown that the provisions, along with their interpretation, are significant barriers to achieving this important goal. I'm sure you're aware that only one province, the Province of Alberta, actually has an agreement in place with the federal government.

In the interest of the committee's time, I do not intend to review all of the legal intricacies of CEPA. I'm sure you're more than intimately familiar with them. I would also like to set aside Bill C-30 for just a moment.

So just in the context of the existing CEPA as it stands, there are two provisions for equivalency, which I think are important to highlight here. One, the provincial regulatory provisions can be deemed equivalent to regulations of the federal government and therefore could be eligible for exemption. Two, these provisions must allow for investigation of alleged offences or what we call the citizens' right to investigate. You need both of these criteria to be in place to get an equivalency agreement.

Bill C-30 proposes amendments to CEPA 1999 in this area, and I implore the committee to take a very close look at those provisions as you undertake your CEPA review.

The proposed Clean Air Act amendments shift away from a very strict regulatory-to-regulatory interpretation or focus toward the more outcomes-based approach, i.e., provisions, the effects of which are equivalent. FPAC strongly believes this is a clear and important step in the right direction, as it adds flexibility to the requirements and should not compromise the quality of the environment. Bill C-30, however, does not modify the “citizens' right to investigate” provisions.

I would like to lead you through a very short example around air quality that highlights the challenges and implications of CEPA 1999 and then also the proposed amendments for Bill C-30.

Based on comprehensive legal analysis, we have several stand-alone legal opinions, as well as consultations with the federal Department of Justice, Environment Canada, and five provincial governments—B.C., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. On the potential for an equivalency agreement with provinces for our sector, we have found that only Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador would be in a position to sign equivalency agreements under CEPA 1999 without tremendous and significant modifications to their existing regulatory regimes. If you add Bill C-30 amendments to this equation, what you get is Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia able to sign equivalency agreements, due to the shift toward the outcomes-based approach that I mentioned earlier.

I would like to note that Quebec, with its very comprehensive regulatory regime—it has a tremendous regulatory regime in place—would still not be able to sign an equivalency agreement. That's given as a result of the lack of “citizens' right to investigate” provisions. Quite frankly, this concerns us greatly.

The following are our recommendations for your consideration. We urge you to remain committed to simplifying the environmental regulatory requirements in Canada by addressing the legislative constraints that prevent the establishment of equivalency agreements. Furthermore, we urge the committee to support the proposed amendments, as they relate to equivalency, that were introduced in Bill C-30. While they do not go far enough, in our opinion, they do move us in the right direction.

As a supplementary to this, we do not know how the committee intends to deal with this, but we believe there would be some inherent value in the committee's coordinating its CEPA review activities and its Bill C-30 activities. I'm sure you have all sorts of thoughts on that, but this is an area that highlights, I think, the value of undertaking that.

We apologize in advance for not having any specific recommendations here, but we would like to ask the committee to undertake a study or further examination of what options may exist to support the citizens' right to investigate in concept. We really believe it's an important concept, but there must be a way to do this while providing flexibility for provincial jurisdictions in terms of this requirement. We haven't yet undertaken our resources to figure that one out. We intend to, and we would like to be able to present the results of that to committee, but we also suggest that you may have some study work or interest to study that particular opportunity.

We request that the committee recommend to the government that it draw on the experience of sectors that have already developed cooperative federal and provincial mechanisms. For example, I did mention the Pulp and Paper Air Quality Forum. For the last two years, we've been rolling up our sleeves with environmental organizations, aboriginals, five provinces, and the federal government, to figure out a path forward on air and climate change that makes sense for all concerned. We really hope those initiatives are not pushed aside with respect to a new approach to air.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I'd be happy to take any questions that the committee members may have. Thank you.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, since I have been involved in the issue of air quality in buildings and the environment for years. Thirty years ago, I started talking about hypersensitivity. I was in fact the first person in Quebec to talk about that. I am therefore pleased to speak to this bill.

We in the Bloc Québécois are asking the Conservative government to honour the Kyoto protocol and its 6% reduction target, within a plan that incorporates our international obligations. The Conservative government must also implement the action plan proposed by the Bloc Québécois to combat climate change. That plan is based on the principles of fairness and polluter-pay, it is based on a geographic approach and it includes a financial contribution to be given to the provinces and the Quebec nation by the federal government.

The federal government has rightly made commitments at the international level, but it must not undo that work by handing the bill to the provinces.

The Conservative government says that it does not want to send taxpayers’ money outside Canada. The Bloc Québécois certainly agrees with that. However, in the case of the oil sands, it seems to us that at present, the government is refusing to impose limits on the greenhouse gases produced by the processing of the tar sands into gasoline, into oil. The profits produced by the oil sands appear to find it easy to emigrate to other countries, particularly the United States. We could keep a bit of that money, and capture and bury the CO₂.

We therefore cannot say that this bill and what the government has in mind are for Canadians only. It seems fairly obvious to us that it is also designed with the big corporations in mind.

We agree with this bill, but it needs to be reworked and improved. We will nonetheless harbour a little hope that once this bill has been studied there will be some degree of quality left and there will be clear standards with regard to the Kyoto protocol. At that point, we will be able to say that we are doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada.

Certainly, we could look behind us and realize the extent to which nothing has been done, but there is still time to act. Nonetheless, this bill can be considered to be a drop in the ocean. We would not want it to be a smokescreen that will prevent us from joining the Kyoto protocol and adhering to its objectives.

Obviously, we agree with regulating air quality. We even think that this bill does not go far enough in that direction.

This is a fine thing, this 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 Air Quality Act). That being said, is this act really going to allow for regulation of the quality of indoor air—as my colleague opposite has said—the air quality that hypersensitive people need? Hypersensitive individuals are increasingly being recognized as people who have a need. I will return to this in a moment.

With regard to indoor air quality, it is absolutely necessary that we approve the LEED rating system and incorporate it into our laws and regulations. We will then benefit from all areas addressed by the LEED rating system: energy efficiency, indoor air quality, exterior environment, lower GHG emissions and sustainable development for buildings overall.

LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and is based on a rating system known as the Green Building Rating System. It was made in Canada—let it be known—by the Canada Green Building Council.

The government cannot say that we are sending our money elsewhere and that we are not doing anything for Canada by adopting the LEED rating system. It is very Canadian.

The clean air bill seeks to regulate motor vehicles. But what about off-road vehicles, locomotives, pleasure craft or transport vessels? In addition, the Minister of Transportation told us that he wants to reduce sulphur emissions of boats, but he did not say that he wants to reduce GHGs. There are also buses, trucks, road trains and tractors. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Then there are cranes, construction equipment, planes, snowmobiles and ATVs.

Why not add lawn mowers, too? A two-stroke lawn mower used for one hour causes more pollution than an automobile travelling from Ottawa to Toronto.

Furthermore, this legislation absolutely must include a verification and improvement program covering existing and future motor vehicles for as long as they are in use. Even though some cars do not pollute at first, they might do so eventually if they are not monitored. This has to be an integral part of the legislation. Another verification program is needed for all the other existing combustion engines, otherwise we are improving one aspect and ignoring the rest.

There needs to be an integrated system for industry. This is very important because this integrated system could also be a standard for the major oil industries. In accordance with our international commitments and air quality standards, greenhouse gases and air pollution have to be reduced at the same time. Such an industrial directive already exists in Europe and it works quite well. This directive, initiated by Great Britain and adopted by all the European countries, is called Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, or IPPC.

This directive establishes a series of modules including assessment of emissions and local and international impact, and it takes into account global warming, the ozone layer and all waste management provisions. In our society, waste is a major source of pollution.

An integrated system is a must, because the IPPC is a sophisticated tool. It monitors all industrial emissions.

Every industry has a code and a potential for reducing pollutants, whether for global warming or garbage or the ozone layer. Even visual pollution, the risk of accidents and noise are taken into account.

We need to acquire some tools and not reinvent the wheel, which is what this bill does. Clause 46 speaks of reviewing things and holding consultations.

I want to remind hon. members that things have already been done elsewhere and that it would be a good idea to adopt those measures instead of reinventing the wheel and putting off good regulations to 2010.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, the clean air act, but I wonder why such a bill has been proposed by the government since the previous Liberal government had the most aggressive plan of the G-8. As the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment, I challenge anyone in this House to name one country that had a more aggressive plan than Canada.

In April 2005, the previous government unveiled project green. It is somewhat disingenuous for the Conservatives to suggest that somehow we did nothing for 13 years. It is an absolute farce. Had they read and had they in fact continued on the road with what this government had started, we would be much further ahead today than this hot air plan that we are getting from the government.

The first myth we hear from the Conservatives is that we were going to buy hot air credits from Russia. That is nonsense. All the credits were Kyoto compliant. The second myth is that we do not support this because we are not putting any money into this. Last year we had the greenest budget in Canadian history of $10 billion.

The government is proposing to take action but it has done nothing for the last 10 months. When it unveiled this clean air act, it was recycling some of the things that we had proposed had it not been for the federal election. We do not need to do some of these things because the legislation is already there. I will talk about CEPA in a moment.

In September 2005, the previous Liberal government proposed adding six greenhouse gases, GHGs, to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999. They included carbon dioxide, methane, fluoro carbons and sulphur, but unfortunately an election came. These GHGs were included in the Kyoto protocol. Our government was committed to ensuring that we reached our targets.

Now some people said that those targets were not possible. They are not possible if we do not do anything. We had an aggressive plan. The former minister of the environment, now the leader of the official opposition, went to Montreal to COP 11. I had the privilege of chairing a session of parliamentarians from around the world at the G-8+5. We were able to get an historic agreement. We were able to get countries onside with regard to the post-Kyoto period.

Regrettably, the official opposition at the time, the Conservative Party, said that it did not believe in Kyoto. It was because some of those members, I believe, belong to the flat earth society. They do not believe the earth is round. If they do not believe in the science then naturally they would assume that this is not a real issue. They should tell that to the natives of the north. They should tell them about the melting of the polar ice cap or the floes that are now happening. My good friend from the Northwest Territories will certainly attest to the fact that we are finding problems in terms of habitat. Polar bears are now being disoriented because of the melting.

It may be good for some of us not to have to walk in the snow in the south but it is a tragedy for those in the north. I have to say that I believe this is the most important issue facing Canadians and in fact people around the world. We need to deal with this.

The government proposes this clean air act and yet that is the party that has always opposed Kyoto and always said that we could not do this and we could not do that. The reality is that we did a lot of very positive things.

We had an agreement in the 14th MOU with the Canadian manufacturers of automobiles. The government claims that this was a voluntary measure. We had 13 MOUs with the auto sector and every one was fulfilled. In fact, in the 14th one, we can measure the trajectory to ensure that the measures to reduce GHGs by 5.3 megatonnes would occur. If this did not happen, we could bring in and use a regulatory back stop, but the reality is that we have not had to. To suggest somehow that there is a problem, when we have already had 13 MOUs that were lived up to, I am not sure what the issue is.

We had 700 final emitters, the largest ones in the country, and we made an agreement with the 700 largest final emitters. Again, we hear from the Conservatives that this side did not do anything. Maybe they should talk to some of their friends in the flat Earth society because maybe the doubters over there just do not get it. They do not get it that the environment is extremely important and that we need to take action. What they have proposed under the clean air act is not action. It has a 2050 target. They now want to add things that they opposed back in September 2005, the things that this party proposed. Now they are saying that they are not bad ideas but that they need to change things because they do not have the proper tools. However, they do have the proper tools.

The amendments they are proposing to CEPA are completely and utterly unnecessary. We already have the vehicle but the members across the way said that it does not work so they opposed it. While they were opposing that vehicle, they have not read and do not understand what we already had in place. We do not need more legislation. We already have the legislation that we had adopted but the Conservatives refuse to use it.

We have a Minister of the Environment, and I do not know if she can spell the word, but she has not articulated a plan that will address the pressing needs. We were the government that dealt with taking 95% of sulphur out of gasoline. We were the government that was well respected on the international stage because of what we had done. As a member of Globe International, G-8+5, which is global parliamentarians for the environment, when I go to international meetings they now ask me what has happened in Canada when we were making such progress, moving forward, had the legislation and had the people on side.

We did not need to go to court as they did in California with the auto sector. We had an agreement on the reduction of 5.3 megatonnes. While the Conservatives were fiddling over there, we were taking action. While they were complaining, I did not see a plan during the federal election on the environment. I guess that is why we did not see anything until recently in the House called the clean air act or, as I like to say, the hot air act.

There is no question that we had programs. The present government is the one that gutted programs that we had brought in. In the one tonne challenge program, everyone had a responsibility to participate and to be involved. What did the Conservatives do? They cut it.

We did environmental audits so people could improve their homes, whether it was insulation for their windows, their doors, new furnaces, et cetera, but suddenly in the middle of the night the program was cancelled. Not only was it cancelled, it was not grandfathered. I, and I am sure others in this House, had constituents phoning and saying that they had just spent the money they thought they would be getting as a rebate and now suddenly they have nothing. We had to investigate this because the government was not clear. It talks about a clean air act but it cannot even come clean in here about the programs it gutted.

The real spokesperson on the environment is the Minister of Natural Resources. I went in October to the ministerial meeting in Monterrey, Mexico where all the environment ministers from the G-8+5 were there except our minister. It was the Minister of Natural Resources Canada who was the lead spokesperson. That is a travesty.

I will say again that everywhere I go around the world people are asking me what has happened. They want to know what happened to the leadership and the vision of the Liberal government in the past that took the lead and was the lead at the COP 11 in Montreal. I say that the best the Conservatives can up with is a hollow clean air act. I must say that it makes me very sad when they will not even try to embrace the positive things that were done and that because they were done by a previous Liberal government they must be bad.

However, according to those around the world, they were excellent and Canadians thought they were excellent.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his comments. I also want to thank him for working so closely with the leader of the NDP to come up with the solution to the logjam that we found in this Parliament on issues related to the environment.

We all know the importance of Bill C-30. This was the attempt by the government to get these important issues on the agenda of this Parliament, but we also know that this bill was going nowhere, that it was ill-fated, and that the opposition parties could not support the legislation, but we could not miss that opportunity in the House.

The House needs to take some action on the environment and meeting our Kyoto obligations. I am glad that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the leader of the NDP put their heads together to come up with this process where, before second reading, the legislation can be referred to a committee, and there all parties in the House can bring their ideas to the table. We can then build a piece of legislation that truly reflects the urgency of this issue.

We cannot afford to see this matter delayed and the House has to take action. I am very pleased and proud of the action that was taken here in this corner of the House to ensure that in a non-partisan way, this agenda can go forward.

I wonder if the member might just comment further on that process whereby all the ideas that pertain to this important legislation can now be debated because of the referral to committee before second reading.

The Environment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it. I am really not sure whether I should take what the leader of the NDP said personally.

It was at the request of the leader of the NDP that the government agreed to put Bill C-30, the clean air act, before a parliamentary committee at second reading. Because we want to make concrete progress, we invite the constructive participation of all opposition parties. I would encourage the leader of the NDP to return to that constructive tone.

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill on air quality would amend three existing statutes, the first of which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Based on our observations, however, these are not new regulatory powers that the government plans to grant itself, because they already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The bill would also amend the Energy Efficiency Act. We find it strange that this amendment is being introduced after the EnerGuide program was eliminated. The third part of the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

The Bloc Québécois currently supports sending this bill to committee before second reading. In our view, the amendments proposed by Bill C-30 are unnecessary. They would only slow down the process of taking concrete action against climate change. This is simply a delay.

The bill is also accompanied by a notice of intent, which lists the regulations the government intends to adopt over the next few years and the deadlines it has set for doing so. This document shows that the government is starting from scratch and beginning a new round of consultations in three phases leading to new standard that would not be mandatory until 2010.

Bill C-30 in its current form is unacceptable. It practically means the end of the Kyoto protocol objectives. The bill would incorporate into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the statement that respecting Canada's international commitments on the environment is a matter of government discretion. We agree with referring the bill to committee before second reading because that will give us the latitude we need to consider the admissibility of amendments to this bill.

We will work in good faith in this committee, but the Bloc Québécois will make no compromises because respecting the Kyoto protocol targets is what is important. We will also present amendments to address the fairness of the polluter-pay rule, Canada's respect for its international commitments and, most of all, the urgent need for action to fight climate change. I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc's priority is still Bill C-288, which clearly respects the Kyoto protocol objectives and for which the legislative agenda is controlled by the opposition and not by our government.

Thanks to past investments by the administrators at Hydro-Québec in the area of hydroelectricity, Quebec has a non-polluting electricity production network. Quebec's plan mainly targets transportation and pollution reduction in certain industries.

As far as transportation is concerned, the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to create the regulatory power to impose mandatory vehicle consumption standards on the industry by 2011, after the voluntary agreement expires. This does not seem soon enough.

The government has announced that Environment Canada and Health Canada also intend to hold detailed consultations with the provinces and industry starting in the fall. This consultation is late. It is planned in three major phases: the first will end in 2007, the second in 2008 and the third in 2010. Therefore, no regulation will come into effect before 2010.

What is important to the Bloc Québécois is that targets are established. These targets are in our report on the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2004, production of greenhouse gases in Quebec was about 12 tonnes per person, or half the average rate of production of 24 tonnes per Canadian. As for the other provinces, per capita emissions totalled almost 69 tonnes in Saskatchewan and 73 tonnes in Alberta, or five to six times greater than in Quebec.

If we compare increases between 1990 and 2004, we note that Quebec emissions have risen by 6% since 1990, compared to 39.4% for Alberta and 61.7% for Saskatchewan.

As I was saying earlier, opting for hydroelectric energy certainly was a significant factor in Quebec's enviable performance. However, the collective choices made by its citizens, industries and the National Assembly also made it possible to achieve these results. The Quebec pulp and paper industry alone reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 18% between 1990 and 2005.

The excellent performance of the Quebec manufacturing sector also made a substantial contribution to Quebec's positive results. Between 1990 and 2003, this sector reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 6.8% and emissions arising from industrial processes by more than 15%. These reductions were made possible by significant strategic investments by Quebec companies in innovative technologies allowing them to improve their processes and their energy efficiency.

The Minister of the Environment refuses to acknowledge the efforts made by Quebec or the value of the Quebec plan. It was again obvious in Nairobi, where she failed to mention Quebec's green plan in her official speech to the international community.

Rather than revise its international obligations by calling the Kyoto protocol into question, the Conservative government must implement the climate change action plan. That was the Bloc Québécois' proposal, founded on the very important principles of equality and polluter pays. With respect to the polluter pays principle, studies have been done on Canada's emissions and it is generally accepted that responsibility for reducing emissions should be shared non-proportionally based on population or gross domestic product. It should be shared by the provinces and the territories. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a three-part approach to distribute the burden across Canada and give each province quotas to comply with.

The European Union succeeded in reaching an agreement on distributing greenhouse gas emissions among 15 European countries. The negotiations took two years to achieve concrete results. Each country has its own targets to reach.

In Canada, negotiations went on for almost five years and were suspended. We have not yet reached a compromise on distributing responsibility among the provinces and territories.

According to this three-part approach, Quebec's goal would be 0% relative to 1990 levels. The province could therefore simply address its 6% increase since 1990 to reach its goal: 1990 production levels.

Other provinces' goals are much higher because of their energy choices.

In conclusion, over the next few weeks, the Bloc Québécois will propose amendments to this bill.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on Bill C-30, the clean air act. It is a major step in meeting Canada's new government's commitment to introducing an environmental agenda that is national in scope, achievable and will provide the foundation for improving the health of Canadians and the environment of Canadians for generations to come.

It is through this act that we can address a problem that has a profound impact on the health of Canadians and, as Minister of Health, that obviously is a prime objective for me.

The health of Canadians is affected by the quality of the air that we breathe. The clean air act also provides Canada with a realistic and, we believe, an affordable plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously. Our government's objective is to minimize or eliminate the risks to the health of Canadians posed by environmental contaminants in the air. It goes without saying that clean air is important and imperative to the health of all Canadians.

I represent the constituency of Parry Sound—Muskoka. I also consider myself a so-called green Conservative. My constituents are concerned about clean air and clean water but they are also concerned about the water levels in our constituency that are directly affected by environmental change.

People want to see action. They have heard lots of talk in this chamber and elsewhere at the federal level and a lot of talk by the previous Liberal government but they have seen no action. As the hon. member said a few moments ago, what we have seen from the previous government and the previous environment ministers has been an increase of 35% or more above the Kyoto targets in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a sorry state of affairs, which is only exceeded in the embarrassment by the fact that the United States of America under George Bush was able to do better than us here in Canada under the previous government. The Auditor General has said that the previous Liberal government should be ashamed of its record and she condemned it for it. I believe we can and we must do better.

As a starting point, Bill C-30 rightly draws attention to the fact that we must challenge the old ways of doing things, ways that have produced no tangible benefits, and voluntary approaches that have produced more hot air than true commitment and results. We must follow up with action to address air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously and directly.

Unfortunately, as I said, we have been lulled into a false sense of security, which was created by the former Liberal government when it agreed to unrealistic targets that were impossible to achieve. The clean air act is the first step toward a true regulatory agenda that can and should be supported by all members of Parliament in order to protect the health and environment for future generations and a legacy that can be built upon to create better progress and, of course, be supported by a sound economy.

While I would like to focus today on a number of key areas that highlight the importance of the bill, I would also like to say that it has been designed to meet objectives which I believe are shared by most members of the House. The first of these objectives concerns the protection of the health of Canadians.

The clean air act recognizes the fundamental relationship between environment and health and identifies the health of Canadians as a key driver behind the regulation of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

As we all know, the quality of the air Canadians breathe is vital to their health. The air quality bill will lead to solutions that will improve the health of Canadians, and it recognizes the importance of protecting the health of vulnerable populations.

Air pollution can affect us all, no matter who we are, where we live, or how healthy we are. The World Health Organization recently estimated that air pollution caused two million premature deaths every year around the world.

Using data from eight Canadian cities, Health Canada scientists estimate that of all the deaths in these cities every year at least 5,900 deaths could be linked to air pollution. Research also shows that poor air quality sends thousands of Canadians to hospital each and every year.

There has been an increase over the past few decades of certain diseases affecting Canadians. It is a well-known fact that the prevalence of asthma among children has increased over the years. According to the 1996-97 national population health survey, over 2.2 million Canadians have been diagnosed with asthma. Asthma, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease afflict over 3.7 million Canadians.

Breathing problems are not the only thing we should be concerned about. Air pollution also affects the heart. Cardiovascular disease is responsible for 40% of all mortality in Canada.

These illnesses are exacerbated and, to some degree, are caused by air pollutants.

Most people think only in terms of outdoor pollution but I want to talk today about the air we breathe indoors, where we spend as much as 90% of our time.

One particular indoor air pollutant is radon, which occurs naturally in the ground in many areas of Canada, particularly northern Canada. This is an air pollutant for which this government is planning immediate action. Radon is the largest source of radioactive exposure to Canadians. New scientific evidence demonstrates an elevated risk of levels of radon found in many Canadian homes. Exposure to radon accounts for 1,900 lung cancer deaths every year in Canada and is second only to tobacco smoke as the primary cause of lung cancer.

The government is currently preparing to roll out a new indoor air quality guideline for radon as a basis for taking action to reduce expose and associated health impacts. The clean air act would provide important authorities which can be used to ensure that we have the tools to effectively manage and promote the actions required to reduce or eliminate this health risk.

Clearly, we have to take steps to reduce all the potential factors that increase the incidence of illness and death, especially in our children.

Canada's clean air act will give us the powers and the tools we need to deal with sources of indoor and outdoor air pollution.

Our proposed new clean air act, the centrepiece of the clean air regulatory agenda, would also amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and strengthen the Government of Canada's ability to take action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases, as I said, simultaneously, and provide explicit authority to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases without requiring that they be designated as toxic substances.

In the past there has been opposition to designating greenhouse gases as toxic, which impeded constructive discussions about their management. Canada's new government would no longer have to wait for an air pollutant to receive an official toxic declaration.

I believe all governments must act effectively and in unison with their respective jurisdictions but clearly there is a need for national leadership. We must put politics aside and finally move forward on real concrete solutions so we can manage air quality and service Canadians today and in the future.