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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be sharing my ten minutes with Mr. Harvey.

I would like to focus on the burden of proof, but I would first like to start off by addressing some of the comments that were made by the witnesses.

Thank you for being here today.

This is relevant, in that Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, proposes amendments to support third party auditing of information before submission, thereby enhancing the authority for the Minister of the Environment to utilize this information for the purpose of maintaining a national pollutant release inventory, NPRI, with a reliable baseline level of information on releases of substances.

It also proposes to extend the current authorities under section 71 of CEPA 1999 to the Minister of Health in order to improve the efficiency of using these authorities. These authorities allow for the collection of information and the requirement to conduct tests in order to determine if a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic. I think that's very good news.

I have a question regarding the burden of proof. I would like to hear some discussion, and I'd ask you to keep your answers short.

Regarding the burden of proof, which is more effective, industry or the government? Where should the burden of proof lie? Which is the more cautious? What are the pros and cons of each method? Could you comment on that?

Ms. Coombs said she believes it's a shared responsibility between industry and the government. I believe Ms. Ginsburg said industry should be responsible and should demonstrate the safety of the substance first.

Could all the witnesses provide comments on the pros and cons of both? What are your recommendations?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be calling that debate that the hon. member just mentioned in due course.

Today, we will continue the debate on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act.

There is an agreement to complete Bill C-25, proceeds of crime, tomorrow. In a few moments I will be asking the approval of the House for a special order in that regard.

When the House returns from the Remembrance Day break, we intend to call for debate a motion in response to the much anticipated message from the Senate regarding Bill C-2, the accountability act. As well, we hope to complete the report and third reading stages of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act.

Thursday, November 23 will be an allotted day

I want to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading.

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

And accountability.

In other words, if you put a target off, as Bill C-30 does, until 2020, 2025, 2050, and you neglect the bits between now and then--known as phase 1 under Kyoto, for example--is that helpful, if you don't start with immediate accountability, immediate targets?

The Environment

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the opposition to read sections 27, 29 and 33 of Canada's clean air act, which allow for a North American trading system. Like the acid rain agreement, what we need is a North American solution. We are therefore consulting industry and the provinces regarding short term targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be sharing my ten minutes with Mr.Vellacott.

I appreciate the comments from each of the witnesses here today. Dr. Stone and Mr. Rutherford started with the science of climate change. I think we all agree we've moved beyond that. There is a sense of urgency. We are experiencing climate change, and what we're looking for are solutions.

Mr. Rutherford recommended that we have to be efficient and look for efficiencies. He also said that you'll leave it to others to figure out how to do it, but you're challenging us.

What we have today is that the Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-30, our Clean Air Act. It will likely be going to a legislative committee where it will be dealt with. Here in the environment committee we are dealing with Bill C-288, a private member's bill introduced by Mr. Rodriguez.

I find it interesting that Mr. Villeneuve made the comment that Bill C-288 would have been a good bill in 1998, but it's too late. The response to that from the Bloc and the Liberals was laughter. We do have urgency; we are looking for solutions.

On Saturday I was at a town hall meeting. There was a discussion very similar to what we are experiencing here this morning. There was a feeling of urgency within Canadians on climate change and a desire for the Government of Canada to do something immediately, mid-term, and long-term.

My questioning will be directed toward recommended actions we can take that will be effective and efficient.

Mr. Villeneuve talked about the ten tonnes of reduction per person to meet the targets being suggested here. Mr. Villeneuve, could you elaborate on the ten tonnes per person? You said it's impossible to achieve.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Watson's arguments make no sense. He says that there is no guarantee that the government will not introduce new environmental legislation.

I do not want to make this political, but according to the Conservative Party's election platform, the only commitment that they made was to introduce a bill on air quality, which is Bill C-30.

In view of what Mr. Watson has just said, I have every intention of checking with my House leader to enquire about the government's agenda. I will ask my House leader if the government House leader has any other bills related to the environment.

If we follow that reasoning, then we should not even study Bill C-30 in committee, since there might be an election in May. So there would be very little time to move Bill C-30 along to report stage.

That makes no sense, Mr. Chairman. We have deadlines to meet, and the number of meetings that we have planned will allow us to deal with Bill C-288, amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and — I hope, for the government's sake — Bill C-30 as well.

With things as they now stand, we will not need to add any extra sittings.

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

I do not see why we need to add another sitting, at this time, since we have until May for CEPA, particularly since the government should be delighted that we will be dealing with the Clean Air Act and Bill C-30 as soon as a committee has been struck.

I think this fine balance will allow us to deal with Bill C-288 and respect our deadlines for the CEPA review, while allowing us to study Bill C-30, which is what the government would like us to do. To continue the discussion would be...

I do not know what the government is looking for, but it is clear that we have all of the time we need to do it and we can meet all of the regulatory deadlines.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, what we're talking about in this motion is that for the next five weeks, starting next week, we already have the witnesses contacted. We can keep up that momentum, so it's not a lot of work.

We have been accused of maybe not working that hard. We do work hard.

I think it was somebody about the Liberals....

We can really earn our pay, Mr. Chair, and we can show as a committee that CEPA is important. We're only talking five weeks of working really hard. I'm willing to do it. As for the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-30, we don't know when that will start, but it may be starting after this.

So what we're talking about is an extra meeting per week, and we keep the CEPA review going. I think it's a priority. We need to do it. It's a legislative requirement, and it shows good faith.

Do we support dealing with toxic substances or not? I sure hope we do.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

And what about Bill C-30?

Canada's Clean Air Act--Speaker's Ruling

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Speaker for his ruling. I accept it totally. As it turns out, it is really somewhat inconsequential, since Bill C-30 was dead on arrival in Parliament.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member forMississauga South on October 19, 2006, concerning the premature disclosure of 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).

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for having raised this important matter as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform for his comments on October 23, 2006.

In raising this question of privilege, the hon. member for Mississauga South claimed that a breach of the privileges of the House had occurred as a result of the premature disclosure of Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act. He stated that copies of the bill had been distributed at a press conference held on October 13, 2006 by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. The bill itself was not introduced in the House until October 19, 2006.

In response to this question of privilege, the hon. government House leader contended by Bill C-30 had a much broader scope than the document tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South. He noted that the bill proposed amendments to three statutes rather than only to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. He went on to indicate that, even with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Bill C-30 proposed amendments not identical to those in the document referred to by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

In response to this intervention, the member for Mississauga South stated that the basis of his complaint was not that the two texts were identical, but that they contained, “substantively, the same critical provisions”.

This is not the first time a question of privilege has been raised about the premature disclosure of a government bill. In cases where prima facie cases of privilege have been found, there has been divulgation of the actual bill prior to members having been made privy to its contents. Members may wish to consult the ruling delivered by Mr. Speaker Parent on February 21, 2000, at pages 3766 and 3767, of the Debates where such an issue is discussed.

When looking carefully at the document provided by the hon. member for Mississauga South, it is evident to me that it is not a copy of the bill which the government placed on notice. In addition to the differences pointed out by the hon. government House leader, an examination of the two documents shows numerous other differences. These include not only differences in the organization and numbering of its parts, but more extensive textual differences as well, since there are various provisions in the bill not found in the document provided by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

I have also looked at the press release issued by the Sierra Club in conjunction with the October 13 press conference. The press release clearly indicates that the Sierra Club's comments relate to, “...an August version of the proposed amendments...”. The Sierra Club further notes in the press release that its comments on the legislative proposal will remain valid, and again I quote, “...(a)ssuming that this draft is what is introduced into Parliament...”.

The fact that the document distributed by the Sierra Club contains blacked-out passages also indicates that the document as circulated by the government was a consultation document and not an advance copy of Bill C-30.

As has been noted in previous Speaker's rulings, the government is free to consult whomever it wishes in preparing legislation for submission to the House. It is not for the Chair to determine what form these consultations may take or what documents the government may circulate for comment.

The key procedural point, as I indicated in a ruling delivered on March 19, 2001, at pages 1839 and 1840 of the Debates and to which the government House leader made reference, is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House. In the present case, I can find no evidence that there has been any premature disclosure of a confidential document to which the House has priority. I, therefore, must rule that no breach of privilege has occurred.

I would again like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for his vigilance in drawing this matter to the attention of the House.

The Environment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader has again asked me to refer Bill C-30 to a committee before second reading. We are prepared to do so, and I hope that the opposition will contribute positive and constructive ideas to such a process.

The NDP leader has tried to do that with a private member's bill, and I am waiting for members of the other opposition parties to do the same. When criticizing a plan, it is important to have a plan of one's own.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we met with the promoters of the Montreal carbon exchange. In order for this market to be truly effective and flexible, it requires the support of the House for the clean air act. This legislation will establish the responsibilities and the review required to obtain real reductions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the member across the way thought-invoking. Most of what he shared I found dishonest or misleading. He started by speaking about waiting for the plan and saying that we do not have a plan.

That is not true. Last Thursday, a week today, seven days ago--and I believe he was in the House--Bill C-30 was tabled. Actually, if he would take the time to read the Order Paper and Notice Paper, he would see that Bill C-30 is on page 22. I encourage him to look at that. The fact is that I encourage him to read the bill, our clean air act.

He talked about the transit tax credit and said it may not work. That is his premise: that it may not work. In reality, the Bloc and the Liberals have joined together to obstruct Bill C-30, the clean air act. This is an act that will move--

Canada's Clean Air Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the Chair of this point of order. I would like to take a moment to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga South on October 19, 2006. The hon. member alleged that the government was in contempt of the House due to the premature disclosure of Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

After reviewing the document that the hon. member provided to support his argument, it is clear that the document provided by the hon. member is not the bill introduced by the government on October 19. I will give the House a number of examples.

The title of Bill C-30 is “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)”, whereas the title of the document provided by the member for Mississauga South is “An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to add provisions providing for clean air”.

Consistent with the title, Bill C-30 consists of three parts: amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act; and amendments to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Act. The document provided by the member for Mississauga South only refers to amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Not only do we have documents that have a different title and would be dealing with different pieces of legislation, but there are numerous other differences between Bill C-30 and the document provided by the member for Mississauga South with respect to the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

For example, Bill C-30 includes amendments to sections 72, 93, 95 and 98 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that are not referenced in the document provided by the member for Mississauga South.

In short, the document provided by the member for Mississauga South is simply a different document than Bill C-30 and it is not a document that the government ever intended to introduce in Parliament. I therefore submit that no contempt or breach of privilege exists.

However, there is more.

Members of the House may recall the Speaker's rulings of March 19, 2001 and October 15, 2001 when you ruled that there were prima facie contempts of the House when the Liberal minister of justice at the time and her officials briefed the media on the details of bills prior to the bills being introduced in Parliament. In those instances, the improper disclosure of information was in relation to bills that the government at the time intended to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling of March 19, 2001, you stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The previous findings of contempt in relation to the premature disclosure of government legislation concerned the disclosure of legislation that was put on the notice paper and intended to be introduced into Parliament. Here, there are no suggestions that the document provided by the member for Mississauga South was put on the notice paper and, indeed, it was never intended to be introduced in this House.

Therefore, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no contempt of the House and I look forward to your ruling.