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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in Bill C-30 about equivalency.

Would the Leader of the New Democratic Party be prepared to amend that equivalency clause to integrate a territorial approach that would enable provinces such as Quebec to implement their own greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, as the government is calling it. This bill amends three existing acts: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

We have been waiting a long time for the Conservative government to tell us what it plans to do to fight climate change and smog. We waited a long time because up to now, the policies of the Conservative Party, a political party on the verge of taking power more than a year ago, had nothing to offer in terms of measures or an effective plan to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol signed in that Japanese city in 1997.

The bill before us here today is a far cry from what we were expecting. First of all, we were expecting a plan and a bill that would integrate the targets for greenhouse gas reductions set out by the Kyoto protocol, especially during the first phase of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Similar to Bill C-288, which is currently in committee, we were expecting this bill to include a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012, compared to 1990 rates.

Not only does this nearly 36-page bill never mention Kyoto, it also never refers to this target for reducing greenhouse gases during the first phase of targeted reductions. I would remind the House that this target was endorsed by Canada.

The bill also contains nothing about the second phase of reductions or the government's intentions. The only target the government is proposing here today to fight climate change is a target somewhere between 45% and 65% in greenhouse gas reductions by 2050, as though we can continue to produce greenhouse gases without worrying about short-, medium- and long-term targets for reductions. This is no different than presenting a business plan to a board of directors of a private company—and I wonder what the government would do—with no short- or medium-term goals, but only one objective for 2050.

Personally, I think that board of directors would send its managers back to do their homework, so that they could present a realistic plan that respects the international commitments signed by Canada.

Not only does the bill set a target for 2050, but the reference level for this 45% to 65% reduction in emissions is 2003, rather than 1990 as set out by Kyoto.

What does that mean in reality? It means that we will start calculating the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2003, as if nothing happened in the provinces or certain industrial sectors before 2003. Yet the Province of Quebec—sadly, we are just a province, even though we are now a nation—is one of the first provinces to have tabled a plan to fight climate change.

Quebec is prepared to comply with greenhouse gas reduction targets that use 1990 as the reference year. But the government is proposing 2003 as the reference year, as if it were possible to emit more greenhouse gas before 2003. In addition, this bill does not provide for offsetting credits for industrial sectors that have reduced their emissions in relation to 1990 levels.

This bill therefore does not comply with the international commitments signed by Canada. In introducing Bill C-30, Canada has flip-flopped on its international environmental commitments.

This government has also decided to set aside something that is vital to Quebec: the principle of equity. Past efforts by the provinces and territories and by industries should be recognized under the government's bill, yet there is nothing in the bill that does this.

In addition, we are expecting major efforts in transportation, an important sector in Quebec. What is the government proposing? Essentially, it is telling us that the voluntary approach that the government has agreed on with the auto industry can continue on its merry way until 2011. After 2011, the government will consider regulations based not on the most effective criteria and standards in North America—those in California—but on standards comparable to those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

They have decided, in terms of automobile manufacturing standards, to use lower benchmarks, and thus lower the standards, when Canada should be using its regulations to raise them. Worse yet, we learned just this morning that the government will have two systems for the industrial sectors: one that will be based on the intensity of emissions and another on the absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

It has been decided in Canada to spare the oil and gas industry at the expense of the industrial sectors that have made some efforts in the past. This is the second unfair factor: after the territorial aspect, or the non-recognition of the efforts made by Quebec since 1990, this is unfair to the industrial sector, in that Canada's oil industry is being spared.

We are indeed in favour of referring Bill C-30 to committee, but we believe that fundamental improvements need to be made to this bill. Recognition of the Kyoto targets, especially in the first phase, must be seen in the very essence and spirit, the principle and preamble of the bill.

We need stronger commitments and an immediate plan that will allow us to take action in the second phase of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, a year from now, in Bali, when the international community will begin to reflect on the system that should be applied in this second phase. The only debate we are having in this House is on the reduction objective for 2050.

Let me say again: if executives were to present this plan to a board of directors, they would be sent back to the drawing board to come up with reduction targets for the short, medium and long terms.

I will close by addressing a major aspect that we will defend in the parliamentary committee: this principle of acknowledging the territorial approach. We have not, thus far, been able to achieve our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets because the proposed plans require reduction from coast to coast and Canada's economic structure differs from one province to another, while Quebec's energy policy also differs from those of the other provinces.

In committee, we will be working on having this territorial approach recognized within Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville on his victory in Montreal on the weekend. He won because of his passion and credibility on the issues of the environment and sustainable development. He made the environment the main pillar of his program and rightly so in light of climate change. It is in the spirit of this victory for the environment that we will be studying Bill C-30 starting today.

What is our approach? The role of the official opposition is to be responsible and take action based on principles. Our role is to identify—together with the other opposition parties, the government and the environmental NGOs— practical solutions that will improve this bill.

We are not insisting on the fact that this bill is a Liberal initiative so that we can take all the credit. That is not how we do things. What we will insist on is that this bill be the best possible bill for the environment, for Canadians, especially with regard to the fight against global warming.

What is at stake here in this bill is nothing less than the greatest challenge facing humanity today, the first order of business: dealing with global warming.

Our position since the government first introduced the bill has taken the following lines. First, that this bill is not necessary and that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act contained all the necessary power to combat climate change and, indeed, air pollution.

Second, which I think was demonstrated by the minister's speech, with all respect, that to bring the two elements together is deliberately confusing. Air pollution and climate change are not the same thing. They can be linked and they can be related but they frequently and most often require different strategies and different solutions.

Climate change is primary, a precondition for every other policy that any government would want to bring forward. If we do not deal with it first and foremost, we will not get around to the rest of it, whether it is air pollution or anything else that the government might bring forward.

Our third criticism is that this bill is not Kyoto compliant nor is it even Kyoto relevant. There is no reference in the bill or the notice of intent to regulate to Kyoto standards. It is important to consider the bill and the notice of intent to regulate as a package.

Fourth, there are no short term goals for greenhouse gas reductions. We are not talking intensity. We are talking reductions. There is no reference to Kyoto's first implementation period of 2008 to 2012. There are no regulations for greenhouse gases coming into force before 2010, unlike project green which saw regulations, not voluntary measures, coming into place for large final emitters by 2008.

The fifth point is that goals for greenhouse gas reductions in the medium and long term are not ambitious enough.

The sixth point is that the bill, as written, actually weakens the Canadian Environmental Protection Act by creating unnecessary and ambiguous alternate lists for greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

The final point is that the provincial equivalency agreements are not as strong in the proposed bill as they are currently under CEPA.

Our original intent was to vote against the bill at second reading since we could not accept its fundamental principles or the accompanying notice of intent to regulate. Our current intention, now that the bill is at first reading and can be amended, is to produce amendments which meet our original criticisms, as I have outlined, and work with the government, opposition parties and environmental groups to produce a serious piece of legislation.

I will not today speak to the air pollution sections because we can work to improve those sections. However, air pollution is not where the problems lie.

I will begin by simply suggesting the key deletions that need to be made to this bill. First, the changes that weaken the provincial equivalency provisions of CEPA and, second, the creation of unnecessary new categories of greenhouse gases and air pollutants and the parallel regulatory authorities created along with those categories that put the federal power to regulate these substances at risk.

As to the targets and purposes of this legislation, for Kyoto, Bill C-30 must be amended to make explicit reference to Canada's obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto protocol. This should include a reference to Canada's 2008 to 2012 target from article 3, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto protocol of a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below Canada's 1990 level.

For medium and long term targets, Bill C-30 must be amended to include a long term target for Canada of at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. For the periods 2015 to 2050, interim targets should be established at five year intervals, with a 2020 interim target set at a level of at least 25% below the 1990 level.

Through Bill C-30, the following principles should be added to the preamble of CEPA. Canada's climate policy must be guided by the ultimate objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change. This means keeping global average temperature increases under two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels.

Canada needs to commit to doing its fair share to combat this global problem. We need the use of hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions that increase in stringency if the science shows that further efforts are needed. There should be no trade-offs between cleaner air and greenhouse gas reductions.

For more detail, we need some sectoral amendments. For heavy industry, we need an amendment requiring the governor in council to limit greenhouse gas emissions from heavy industry through regulations that take effect no later than January 1, 2008 for the period 2008 to 2012. The amendment must include a hard cap on emissions that impose a Kyoto target on heavy industry. This means working toward a reduction to 6% below industry's 1990 emission levels for all final emitters. We need an auction of permits with the option of revenue recycling for economic efficiency.

We also need a linkage to other Kyoto compliant emissions trading systems. For vehicles, we need an amendment that would require the governor in council to impose regulated vehicle emission standards set to match or exceed the California vehicle standards, with those regulations coming into force for the 2009 model year.

On energy efficiency, a preamble should be added to the Energy Efficiency Act that supports setting continuous economy-wide improvement targets in energy efficiency in Canada, with two new sections to be added to the Energy Efficiency Act. First: the governor in council would be required to prescribe energy efficiency standards for all energy using products that are responsible for significant or growing energy consumption in Canada. Second, the governor in council would be required to review all energy efficiency standards within three years after they were introduced or amended and every third year thereafter. Through this review, every energy efficiency standard must be made to meet or exceed the most stringent levels found in North America.

On the issue of governance, we need a budgetary policy that would require the Minister of Finance to table an analysis of the projected greenhouse gas impacts of the Government of Canada's budgetary policy, disaggregated by measure, at the same time that the minister tables the annual budget.

Finally, we need the creation of an emissions reduction agency that would draw on the model of the California air resources board and create an arm's length agency responsible for climate research, regulation and the development of science based, interim, greenhouse gas targets for Canada.

With this package of amendments, we would turn Bill C-30 into a real bill for climate change and a real bill for air pollution reduction. However, we must remember that the first order of business must be global warming and climate change without which no other government activity will matter if we cannot start by saving the planet.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all of the hon. member's questions raise exactly the point as to why we should get this bill to a legislative committee as quickly as possible to address these issues.

I would submit to him that we should not have to choose between regulating air pollution and regulating greenhouse gases. What we have learned from other jurisdictions and from the measures put in place by the last government is that it is not enough. We did not go far enough. We definitely did not go far enough when it comes to air pollution.

We know now that taking an integrated approach to addressing both of these issues is key to the health of Canadians and key to the health of our environment, because one technology to reduce greenhouse gases may in fact result in increased air pollution, and vice versa, depending on fuel choices and many other related issues.

On the issue of Kyoto, Bill C-30 is a piece of domestic legislation so that Canada can finally make emissions reductions here at home. Obviously the discussion at the committee will involve whether or not this legislation is going to contribute to our overall Kyoto compliance and how, but what I will say is that we can finally say something positive to the international community, and we did deliver this positive message in Nairobi, which is that because Canada is finally moving toward mandatory, regulated emissions reductions, we will be able to make a contribution to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases. We also delivered the message to the international community that we will also be reducing air pollution, which is obviously a priority for all of the member countries as well.

Again, in Nairobi, Canada was one of over 162 countries that led us to a consensus, and the consensus was that the Kyoto protocol needs to undergo a review. Canada supports a review of the Kyoto protocol to make sure that as we move forward to the next compliance period we make sure that we do not make the mistakes that were made previously.

We also introduced strong accountability frameworks around some of the international programs that the member raises. Again, the member needs to make a distinction between taxpayer funded programs and programs that are market driven. The Kyoto protocol has some mechanisms that are supposed to be used by the market, but the previous government was using taxpayers' dollars to invest in those projects. We believe that if it is industry led, that is fine.

The bottom line is that under the Liberal plan the taxpayer was paying and under the Conservative plan the polluter will pay. That is the substantial difference.

On short term targets, I welcome input from all parties leading up to January and through our legislative committee to help us set short term targets that are achievable and that will not ruin our economy but will instead encourage our economy to make a transformation into a green economy. I would thank the member for whatever he would like to add to the committee.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

That 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), be referred forthwith to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today in my capacity as Canada's Minister of the Environment to speak to Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, which marks a bold new era of environmental protection as this country's first comprehensive and integrated legislation to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases.

I welcome all who are present today to discuss Canada's clean air act, understanding that our commitment to a better future for all Canadians is unwavering.

The environment is a sacred trust, bestowed on us by our ancestors to embrace and preserve for our country's future. Canada's new government intends to uphold this responsibility, which is why it is important that consideration of Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, begin as soon as possible.

The environment is a concern to all of us. Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants transcend borders and affect the health, environment and well-being of all Canadians.

Since taking office, our government has undertaken a number of important environmental initiatives. These include: action to reduce the release of mercury into our surroundings; reductions to the release of toxic substances from base metal smelters; new tax incentives for the banking of environmentally sensitive lands; funding for the development of renewable fuels; and the introduction of new infrastructure funding dedicated to public transit, as well as tax credits for the people who use public transportation.

The opposition has criticized Canada's clean air act, but have yet to identify one single clause in the act with which they disagree. Instead, the opposition has introduced two private members' bills that ignore the issue of targeting air pollution.

Not surprisingly, after decades of neglecting air pollution, the state of the environment this government has inherited from the newly elected Leader of the Opposition jeopardizes the health of every Canadian, but especially the most vulnerable in our society, our children and seniors, who suffer disproportionately from smog, poor air quality and environmental hazards.

Our government shares the concerns of Canadians about the environment and the quality of the air that we breathe.

Addressing only greenhouse gases is not enough. We must also address air pollution. Poor air quality is not a minor irritant to be endured, but a serious health issue that poses an increasing risk to the well-being of Canadians.

Again, Canada's clean air act is the first legislation to address both air pollution and greenhouse gases in an integrated fashion. Greenhouse gas emissions degrade Canada's natural landscape and pose an imminent threat to our economic prosperity.

Canada's clean air act represents real, concrete action to achieve results through mandatory, strict regulations.

We are sharply focusing our efforts on addressing the greatest threats to the health and well-being of Canadians. We need tough pollution regulations that measurably reduce asthma, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer by improving both indoor and outdoor air quality. This is why our government will take unprecedented action to regulate indoor air pollution, the second highest cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.

Canada's clean air act is the first legislation to recognize that most sources of air pollutants are also sources of greenhouse gases and they must be addressed together. Canada's clean air act proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Consumption Standards Act.

Canada's clean air act contains crucial new provisions that will expand the powers of the federal government to address the existing inefficient voluntary standards and move to strict enforceable regulations.

By strengthening and bringing more accountability to our existing laws, Canada's clean air act requires the Ministers of the Environment and Health to: establish, monitor and report on new national air quality objectives tied to the health of Canadians; report to Parliament on the effectiveness and the progress of our programs; and move from voluntary to mandatory, enforceable regulations.

Canada's clean air act is needed to ensure that renewable fuel requirements can be implemented in an efficient and effective manner to provide cleaner fuels for our cars. A biofuels industry will lead to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution and unprecedented economic opportunities for Canada's agricultural industry.

The government is also consulting on options surrounding an emissions trading regime.

That is why the government, through Canada's clean air act, is consulting on options that allow trading and that align our compliance regimes to support the implementation of a trading system that results in the lowest cost opportunities for emissions reductions for industry.

We have been clear that any trading system must be market driven, not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Unlike previous governments, our government will not purchase credits or create an artificial trading market subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

The second key difference in our approach on clean air lies in our focus on mandatory, strict regulations. Past governments relied on voluntary measures, satisfied that industry could set its own standards.

The environment commissioner confirmed that this is not acceptable or workable and condemned the former environment minister, the newly elected Leader of the Opposition, by stating that the measures were “not up to the task of meeting the Kyoto obligations”. She went on to say that the Leader of the Opposition's efforts were inadequate, lacked accountability, and would have never reduced greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 targets.

Canadians will be glad to know that those days are over. From now on, all industry sectors, including the auto sector, will have mandatory requirements, and we will enforce those requirements. Our plan puts the health of Canadians and the health of our environment first.

Any polluters that go over their air pollution targets will be fined and all money will go toward an environmental damages fund.

We also have an ambitious long term target aimed at absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, up to 65% by 2050, as recommended by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The previous government signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol without an implementation plan to achieve results. That inaction and those empty promises have left Canadians with a 35% increase in greenhouse gas emissions above the targets set by the Liberals.

We must move beyond the arbitrary and unattainable targets set by the Liberals and work together at setting achievable targets. We must lead the world by example and show them that through government cooperation with industry we can make vast improvements for the health of Canadians and the health of the planet while still maintaining one of the most robust economies in the world.

By spring 2007, the government will announce short term targets for air pollution and greenhouse gases, and industry will have to meet these regulations within four years.

Our approach also encourages technological change. Technology plays an essential role in reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and provides us with huge economic opportunities.

We will also introduce mechanisms to encourage and facilitate investment in new technology, but we will not use a carbon tax, because the only people who end up paying are Canadian taxpayers and we think that they have paid enough through their health. Under a Conservative government, it will only be the polluter that will pay.

Any industry that goes over its greenhouse gas limits will have the option of paying into a Canadian technology fund to comply with the regulation. The money paid into the fund will be reinvested in technology to reduce greenhouse gases.

The third key difference in our approach on clean air is that we are taking action right here in Canada. Canadians will be able to hold our government and industry accountable for achieving results.

We will be accountable to Canadians by reporting on our progress in a public annual air quality report and we will be held accountable through measurable outcomes linked to the health of Canadians. We will also be accountable to Parliament by mandatory annual reporting to Parliament on our actions and their effectiveness to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Rest assured that Canada will continue to be a constructive player in global efforts to address climate change, but we need to clean up our own backyard and set an example for the rest of the world. We will set an example by leading here at home and we do not plan to do this by purchasing international climate change credits to meet unachievable targets as a substitute for a concrete regulatory agenda to reduce Canada's own emissions.

This government has charted a fundamentally new course on the environment. Canada's clean air act and Canada's clean air regulatory agenda will set strict, enforceable regulations that will result in concrete, realistic action to protect the health of Canadians and the environment for generations to come.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will do better than just tell the hon. member what will happen next week, I will tell him how we will conclude this week.

This afternoon we will be on the report stage of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Friday the House will be adjourned for the Liberal leadership convention, and we will all be watching that with interest.

On Monday it is my intention to call ways and means Motion No. 12, a motion to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading. We will continue that week with Bill S-5, on tax conventions, and Bill C-34, on the first nations education agreement.

On Tuesday we will then consider the third reading stage of Bill C-24.

Later on that week it is my hope that we will begin the debate on the marriage motion. I will continue to consult my colleagues with respect to a date for the final vote on that. After that it is my intention to proceed with Bill C-28, the budget tax measures.

I hope that is of help to the hon. member.

[Matthew Bramley]

No, we do not. We have published an initial reaction to Bill C-30, which is available on our website. I invite all members of the committee to consult that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The point I'm making is that Pembina has presented itself as being non-partisan and they've come up and said they strongly support Bill C-288.

Do you strongly support Bill C-30?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On Bill C-30, have you strongly come out and said a yea or a nay?

[Matthew Bramley]

What I've said publicly on many occasions is that the notice of intent that accompanied Bill C-30 foresees Canada's emissions remaining above current levels until at least 2020, and possibly 2025, which, when combined with the government's refusal to purchase international credits, adds up to a refusal to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think the parliamentary secretary's question has anything to do with Bill C-288, since he has just asked the witness a question about Bill C-30.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Have you made a comment on Bill C-30, the government's bill to deal with climate change, which would set targets to be announced in the spring of 2007? Would you have a position on that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this round table.

In my presentation I will be focusing on one topic, the question of tools for CEPA, and I'll really only be talking about one tool, industry responsibility programs. This is something that I think isn't used as much as it deserves to be used.

Last May when I appeared before you and discussed our CEPA review submission, we suggested that CEPA should explore differentiating between good and poor environmental performers more than it does, and using the act to support the use of what we called industry responsibility programs in order to recognize and encourage good-performing companies. We think those companies should be treated differently and more favourably than poorer performers. Guidelines and, in particular, pollution prevention planning requirements in the legislation could provide a means to do that, but that isn't being done nearly as much as it should be today. There may be other means as well, but those are the ones we'd like to focus on.

Criteria for using what we're going to call industry responsibility programs and the principles governing their design have already been well established, with broad acceptance by industry and NGOs. In the late 1990s, the New Directions Group put together a paper, “Criteria and Principles for the Use of Voluntary or Non-regulatory Initiatives (VNRI) to Achieve Environmental Policy Objectives”, which addressed and, I think, very successfully resolved a lot of these issues.

There's very broad consensus about going ahead on this approach between industry, government, and environmental groups. In fact, the federal government essentially adopted the New Directions Group principles in its Policy Framework for Environmental Performance Agreements, which it put out in 2001. In CCPA's view, that was a very good framework, but unfortunately we don't feel it's been applied as broadly or as often as it deserves to be.

There has been a number of successful examples of industry responsibility programs. From a chemical industry perspective, our Responsible Care initiative that I have previously described to committee members, I think quite a bit, we believe is a leading example. It applies to the chemical industry, and not broadly, but other sectors also have similar programs that they try to model after it.

Our Responsible Care program has also been the underpinnings of a memorandum of understanding or agreement the CCPA has had for about 10 years that involves the federal government, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and there are also public interest group representatives on it as well. The performance results of Responsible Care and what we look at through our memorandum of understanding are set out in the attachment that I've provided to the committee. I think it's been given to you.

I'll not go through this in any kind of detail. I'll leave that to you.

The first chart is an overview of our performance, both for the listed air pollutants in Bill C-30 and greenhouse gases. Looking at the percentage changes, both since we started tracking in 1992 and more recently last year, I'm sure you'll agree our performance is good. Similarly, I've talked about our climate change performance before this committee in the past and I think it's also good. There's more detail provided in the accompanying charts that back up those figures, and it also shows that generally our record is that we exceed our projections.

As I said, industry responsibility programs have also been used beyond the chemical industry. Probably the best broad example of a successful program is ARET, the accelerated reduction/elimination of toxics initiative, which concluded in the late 1990s. More recently, Ontario and Alberta have tried to develop programs along these lines: in Ontario, the environmental leaders program; and in Alberta, their EnviroVista program.

Problems with these types of programs to date have arisen when, in an effort to ensure that only the true leaders participate, sometimes overly restrictive and burdensome bureaucratic entry criteria are imposed by government. That makes it unattractive for companies to participate, and it would actually penalize and certainly not reward high-performing companies.

It might be worth paying some of this extra price if there were true benefits from these programs, but often there's only very vague recognition rather than any real benefit, such as a better permitting procedure or something like that. Ontario and Alberta are currently struggling in trying to address these issues in their respective programs, trying to create meaningful differentiation and real rewards for high-performing companies.

I think the federal government had the lead in this about five or six years ago, but I think it has been overtaken by the provinces now.

Encouraging industry responsibility programs through CEPA would, I think, also be very consistent with the 2004 Smart Regulation report. The report stated:

The federal government should develop a framework to guide the design and use of instruments and ensure that instrument decisions are appropriately challenged throughout the policy development cycle. The government should accelerate efforts to make the regulatory community more aware of the various instruments. Legislative constraints in creating mixes of policy instruments and using performance-based regulations should be eliminated.

I think we have an example of the legislative constraint in CEPA that I'll talk about later.

The Smart Regulation report described the challenge the federal government faces in being innovative in the use of instruments related to regulation. They noted the many benefits of choosing the most efficient instrument to accomplish legislative objectives, and they also noted the federal government has a strong tendency to choose only traditional instruments such as regulation, as opposed to a combination of instruments that would involve regulation, but also involve other approaches such as economic incentives, information, and challenge programs--the types of things we're referring to as industry responsibility programs.

A few of the more interesting recommendations in the Smart Regulation report were recommendations 22 and 23. These outline a need for the federal government to develop guidance and a framework on the use of various instruments and when they might be most effective, and the need to develop better understanding in the public service of the range of instruments available to respond to policy issues.

Over the years, we've had many discussions at CCPA about our success in Responsible Care. The question often emerges, why doesn't government do more to recognize this type of good initiative? That's a question that I think MPs and this committee should address in your CEPA review report. We would be very interested in the answer.

CCPA believes the reason that government doesn't recognize programs like Responsible Care, and its record is that often agencies like to simplify the world into what we would see as the false dichotomy of so-called voluntary versus regulatory programs. They dismiss anything that is not a standard regulatory approach because it is only voluntary: do it if you like. But Responsible Care is far from that. It's a program that goes beyond what is required. Our actions under Responsible Care are mandatory among our members. They involve reporting and verification, including independent verifiers. We think Responsible Care is the kind of initiative that can be considered in developing regulatory frameworks and linked to CEPA in various ways, such as pollution prevention planning.

Since the Smart Regulation report, has anything changed? We don't think so. We see no improvement in the administration of CEPA towards the kind of innovation the report recommended. The Clean Air Act and the notice of intent are probably the most recent examples. These do not look for innovative approaches beyond traditional regulation, and miss opportunities to use different tools that might be more effective. They do not provide in any way for recognizing high performers.

The government is proceeding to work with sectors like ours as if Responsible Care were irrelevant. This type of approach undermines the ability of our association to expand the application of Responsible Care to other companies. This is an example of the government missing an opportunity to reinforce high performers.

With CEPA under review, it would be useful, I think, to determine if the act has built in appropriate guidance and flexibility for the government to work with the full range of instruments, including industry responsibility programs.

In terms of guidance, we think the act could be improved here. We would urge the committee to recommend that the government consider adding some specific sections to the act that promote considering the use of industry responsibility programs but within the overall regulatory context of CEPA.

In terms of flexibility in the legislation, we think that is actually there but it's not being used. Pollution prevention planning is a tool in CEPA that could be used more, and more effectively, to support and promote industry responsibility programs. Environmental objectives could be set for our sector as factors to be considered in developing pollution prevention plans. What companies are already doing, such as under Responsible Care and our MOU and under provincial regimes, could be recognized under the pollution prevention plans.

We believe that for sectors like ours this would work very well. If the approach fails to work, or sectors don't have the kind of infrastructure and performance record that Responsible Care has given ours, perhaps regulatory approaches would also be warranted where necessary. But the government has not used its pollution prevention powers in the fashion that I've described. We're not sure if the powers in the act are the problem--we don't think so, because we think they're there to be used as I've described--or if it's a question of political will. I think that's where the real problem lies, and I think that's also what the Smart Regulation report was reporting to.

To conclude, CCPA urges that the committee recommend that CEPA be used to differentiate between good and poor environmental performers, and use the act to support the use of industry responsibility programs, such as Responsible Care, to recognize and encourage good-performing companies.

This approach would assist industry to be partners with the government when companies show leadership and high performance. From CCPA's perspective, our member companies, with their commitment to Responsible Care and their performance record, provide an example of the type of companies where such recognition would have been earned. Such an example would also encourage more companies and sectors to adopt initiatives similar to Responsible Care. We think that would be a significant environmental improvement in itself.

Thank you. I look forward to the discussions.

[Dr. David Sauchyn, Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to participate in your study of Bill C-288.

The preamble to this bill accurately describes climate change as one of the most serious threats facing humanity in Canada, one that poses significant risks to our environment, economy, society, and human health.

First, I want to make the observation that scientists do not believe in global warming. They don't have to. Global warming is not a religion. Global warming is a fact. It's not a question of whether you believe or not. The evidence for global warming is extensive, conclusive, and overwhelming. There no longer is a scientific debate about global warming. The debate has shifted to the analysis of the appropriate institutional, corporate, and individual responses to climate change.

As Dr. Burton pointed out, there are two categories of response, and those are mitigation and adaptation. My message will be similar to Dr. Burton's, although I take the slightly different approach in that I'm going to provide a review of the objectives of Bill C-288, and in particular, relative to the other proposed legislation, Bill C-30.

I'd like to congratulate the proponents of Bill C-288 for their attempt to restore Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. This international treaty is a first and major step in the effort to control greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby the rate of global warming. It establishes a common language, targets, and objectives. A single protocol supports international collaboration and cooperation. We have research projects in Chile and Ukraine, and I can tell you that because they are parties to the Kyoto Protocol, it very much facilitates our international research because we are speaking a common technical language.

A made-in-Canada solution, on the other hand, separates us from a process that was developed and monitored by an international body of scientists and decision-makers. Furthermore, the Kyoto initiative will lead to further action beyond 2012, and Canada must be involved in this further planning of science and policy to deal with the causes and impacts of climate change.

In terms of more meaningful and effective targets for controlling greenhouse gases, Bill C-288 is a major step forward relative to Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act. As climate change policy, Bill C-30 has three major flaws. First of all, Bill C-30 suggests that climate change is an air quality issue. It is not. Embedding climate change in the Clean Air Act is avoiding the real issue. Secondly, Bill C-30 sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions for the 2050s. This implies that by meeting these targets we will somehow bring climate change under control by the middle of this century. This approach demonstrates a misunderstanding of the climate system. The climate of the mid-21st century is being determined today by emissions of greenhouse gases. This is because there is a lag of several decades between activities that modify the atmosphere and the full response of the climate system. As the preamble of Bill C-288 states, the problem of climate change requires immediate action.

I refer to these flaws in Bill C-30 only because Bill C-288 addresses these and avoids them. However, there is a third shortcoming of Bill C-30 that is perpetuated by Bill C-288. Both of these bills address only a small component of Canada's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Bill C-288 explicitly deals only with paragraph 1 of article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol. There are 28 articles in the Kyoto Protocol, and article 3 alone has 14 paragraphs.

To this brief I have appended other articles of the Kyoto Protocol to remind the committee that Canada is also obligated to address climate change and its adverse impacts, including capacity-building and adaptation measures, facilitating adequate adaptation to climate change, cooperating in scientific and technical research and developing systematic observation systems and data archives, reducing uncertainties related to the climate system, and addressing adverse impacts of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various strategies.

We're also obligated to implement education and training programs and to strengthen national capacity, to facilitate public awareness, and to share the proceeds from certified activities to assist developing countries to meet the costs of adaptation.

I'm making the same argument we just heard from Dr. Burton, which is that we have a policy vacuum in this country with respect to the impact of and adaptation to climate change. There are no references in either Bill C-30 or Bill C-288 to these important obligations.

Canada needs a comprehensive climate change strategy to avoid the adverse consequences of climate change. Besides the mitigation of greenhouse gases, a comprehensive strategy should address our understanding of the climate system; the influence of human activities; the impacts of climate change; the risks and the opportunities; and the necessary adjustments to public policy, resource management, engineering practices, and infrastructure design.

By focusing public policy on only one of these five components of a climate change strategy, Canada is at risk of failing to meet its treaty obligations, and in general, Canada is failing to deal with climate change.

I want to conclude by describing the impacts of climate change in my home region, the prairie provinces. I'm with a research institute called the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, or PARC, based at the University of Regina. PARC was established with funding from the federal government and the governments of the prairie provinces. We were asked to research the impacts of climate change on the prairie provinces.

Currently, PARC is responsible for preparing the Prairies chapter of the national assessment of climate change that the Government of Canada will release next year. Therefore, I can tell you with confidence that the climate of the prairie provinces is changing dramatically. All the weather records show this. Summer river flows are declining as the Rocky Mountain glaciers are disappearing and as warmer winters are producing less snow and ice for the spring runoff.

The growing season is getting longer and warmer; however, the productivity of the forests and the farms is constrained by declining water supplies. The recent weather has included the worst drought since the Prairies were settled by Europeans. It also has included the worst flooding. The drought of 2001-02 cost the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan $3.6 billion. This is in reference to the adaptation deficit Dr. Burton mentioned.

Ecosystems have begun to change. There are threats to the integrity of the ecological services that support agriculture, forestry, the recycling of water, and the traditional lifestyles of our first nations.

The Rocky Mountain pine beetle has devastated the B.C. forests. This year it skipped over the Rocky Mountains. It now exists in Alberta, and there is a real threat that the boreal forests of Canada will be devastated by the pine beetle because it is surviving the warmer winters.

Finally, these shorter winters are also a problem for northern industries that require frozen ground to move materials and supplies. We are losing the advantages of a cold winter in the interior of Canada.

These are just some of the changes that Canadian scientists have documented for our region. Please note that I made no mention of air quality. The impacts of climate change are occurring first in the Arctic and the Prairies, where air quality is just fine, thank you, except for maybe Calgary or Edmonton.

The rate of climate change and its consequences will almost certainly accelerate through the coming decades, and until we are able to retard the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, as a Canadian citizen and a climate change scientist, I am deeply concerned by actions that would have Canada undermine our international treaty on climate change. I'm also deeply concerned by the lack of action to deal with the climate change and impacts that are presently occurring.

Our children and their children urgently need your leadership to create public policy that will reduce greenhouse gases as quickly and as much as possible. However, we also need your help to enable individuals, institutions, communities, and industries to adapt to the impacts of a rapidly changing climate. These impacts are already serious, and we are already locked into more severe impacts in the immediate future.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just speaking to the management of the substances, I get quite excited about a piece of legislation, Bill C-30, Canada's new clean air act--which is going to be discussed--and how it relates to CEPA and what we're discussing right now. It proposes to add additional flexibility in regulation-making authorities. The bill would allow regulations made under specific parts of the act to distinguish among persons, works, undertakings, or activities in order to protect the environment, human life, and health on the basis of factors such as quantities of releases, production capacity, and technology or techniques used. It proposes to extend authorities related to products that contain toxic substances, including specific air pollutants and greenhouse gases, to products that may release such substances during the course of intended use. So it's quite relevant and exciting.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask our department staff, has the government consistently met its deadlines on substances entering the commerce before proper assessment or without proper assessment? Have we met those deadlines?