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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did I beat Shannon?

[Shannon Coombs, Formulated Products Industry Coalition]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You know, asking for these kinds of details at this stage is ironic, given that the minister has tabled Bill C-30 and hasn't tabled any details about regulations. So I think this is an academic issue, and frankly, we should get on and vote on this.

The Environment

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the hon. member to recognize in Bill C-30 the elements that are necessary to have a biofuels industry. If Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, does not pass, we will not have the regulatory authority to blend fuels to have a biofuels industry.

I would encourage him to recognize the things that are presently in the bill and to make sure he protects those so that we can have a better environment and also a better economy.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in fact we are working with the large final emitters right now to look at regulations, so I look forward to working with the committee.

I would suggest to the hon. member that he recognize there are things in Bill C-30 that we would like to also protect, things like making sure that we address air pollution. Right now the bill that is in front of the House from the Liberals and from the NDP does nothing to address air pollution in particular. It also does not address indoor air pollution, which is a real issue in terms of the health of Canadians. I would ask him to do the same thing and work with the government to make sure that those issues are addressed and protected in Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the House of Commons voted to send Bill C-30 to a legislative committee to be completely rewritten. In committee we will be able to take the Conservatives by the hand, as we would with a child, and teach them how to make this bill effective in the fight against global warming.

Does the Prime Minister promise to respect the committee's recommendations, even if they involve Kyoto protocol obligations and serious limits on the biggest emitters?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Bill C-30 gives me elements I need to have the kind of policy—But it doesn't give you everything you need. It's incomplete.

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

You're saying you would prefer Bill C-30.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

There is, absolutely. If you're in industry and you're trying to figure out where government thinks it wants to go--which is quite an exercise--what you would be doing today is comparing the July 2005 Liberal notice to regulate to the Conservative notice to regulate. You're probably not paying any attention whatsoever to either Bill C-288 or Bill C-30.

I'm an exception to the rule. For ten years, every time we've done a project, I have been compiling a recommended package of government regulations and measures.

It happens that the package I would be a proponent of right now needs Bill C-288 to be passed...I'm sorry, I mean that it needs Bill C-30 to be passed. Bill C-288 is irrelevant, except that every time government debates Kyoto, government is not sitting down and saying what our target is going to be. So if you're seeing a continuation of the Kyoto debate, as opposed to moving on to what we are going to do, industry takes that as a delay.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Harvey.

Just to provide clarity, Bill C-288 is a private member's bill from Mr. Rodriguez, supported by his party, the Liberal Party, which was the former government for the last 13 years, when they had an opportunity to do something on the environment. The title of Bill C-288 is An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. As we go into the bill, what is that Kyoto Protocol? It's again clarified: “the Kyoto Protocol requires that Canada reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions during the period 2008-2012 to 6% below their level in 1990”.

We now know we're at 35% above that target. As part of the Kyoto Protocol, the previous government was supposed to report annually. The report that was due January 1, 2006, showed that Canada was on target to hit 47% above, and that it would cost billions of dollars to try to meet those targets. Clearly we were not able to meet those targets. Yet we have Bill C-288 suggesting that we continue to try to meet those targets when the previous government did not.

We now have a new government. We have a report from the environment commissioner, and I appreciate her being here today. She was here earlier when she introduced this report.

I really do appreciate, Commissioner, your challenge to this government and all members of Parliament to work together. That was my last question of you: do you believe we should be working together, particularly in a minority Parliament, because of the issue of the environment? And you did encourage us to work together.

In your report, you said:

At a government-wide level, our audits revealed inadequate leadership, planning, and performance. To date, the approach has lacked foresight and direction and has created confusion and uncertainty for those trying to deal with it. Many of the weaknesses identified in our audits are of the government's own making. It has not been effective in leading and deciding on many of the key areas under its control. Change is needed.

Mr. Chair, the government has made very clear to this Parliament that it was working very hard on a change--a change that would address climate change, a change in government focus that would address pollution levels--and thus we have Bill C-30, the proposed Canada's Clean Air Act. There were five hours of debate yesterday, and it will be debated and dealt with in the legislative committee. But at this committee now we are in the last meeting dealing with Bill C-288. So we have two opposing agendas. We have the government dealing with the environment, getting on with it and providing leadership. On the other hand, we have an opposition member providing a bill that would contradict what the government wants to do.

The question I've asked every witness to this point at the committee is this: do we believe we can meet these targets? Are they random targets, arbitrarily set, or are they scientifically set? Can we meet those targets in Canada? To this point, all but one witness has said no, we cannot domestically meet those targets. The only way we can meet those targets is to send billions of dollars out of Canada.

This government supports keeping that money here, developing technologies right here in Canada in order to be world leaders. That's my position and that's the position of the government, that we need to be clear leaders internationally.

Mr. Chair, I can see right now that I'm going to use my full ten minutes, so my apologies to Mr. Harvey.

We had a quote from Professor Villeneuve from the University of Quebec. He said: “In closing, I'd like to comment on the bill. This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998”—indicating that it was not a relevant bill. If the government had acted on the bill when it had a chance, then we may have had a completely different situation from what we're dealing with right now.

Professor Mark Jaccard somewhat agreed, but somewhat disagreed. He said, “When someone said, 'This is a good bill for 1999', I would say, 'No, it still doesn't give you enough timeframe.'”

We have professionals, scientists, saying yes, we all agree that we need to come up with a plan, but what's the best plan? Is Bill C-288 the good plan? It's not based on science; it's based on politics.

Bill C-30 deals with timeframes; it moves from voluntary to mandatory. It provides clear leadership in dealing with the issues of greenhouse gases. This is what I would encourage members to support, and not support Bill C-288. But that is my personal opinion.

My question to the witnesses, and the commissioner, would be deemed a political question, so I'm not going to ask it of you. I'm going to ask this of the witnesses--Ms. Donnelly, Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Hyndman, and the witness from Greenpeace. Do you believe we can meet the Kyoto targets, as recommended or required in Bill C-288, disregarding comments from Mr. Godfrey, who said that we must not be absolutely obsessed with the Kyoto target when we are dealing with Bill C-288.

Bill C-288 requires us to meet those targets. Do you believe we can meet those targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1999 levels? Can we do it domestically? Is it a realistic target?

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to support Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act

By introducing this bill, the government is laying the groundwork for one of the strictest atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gas emissions regulatory regimes in the world. Previous governments focused on voluntary measures. That approach failed. From now on, all industrial sectors will have to comply with strict regulations that we will enforce.

This evening, I would like to demonstrate to my colleagues how Bill C-30 can help achieve significant energy savings. Canadians are aware of steps to use energy more wisely. They know they can save money by keeping heat in their homes in winter, or cooling them more efficiently in the summer. And there is a growing awareness that saving energy also helps reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Many businesses and institutions have saved considerable sums by upgrading or retrofitting their existing buildings to promote energy efficiency. The University of Calgary put energy efficiency upgrades in place in 1999. Since then, it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by over 1,000 tonnes per year.

Ivanhoe Cambridge is one of Canada’s prominent property developers. Since completing energy efficiency upgrades in 2004, it has saved more than a quarter million dollars per year. The Toronto Dominion Centre in Toronto completed energy efficiency upgrades in 2001. It has saved over $4 million per year. These are big savings, Mr. Speaker. They are dramatic. They catch our attention.

But there are other more subtle ways to save energy and reduce emissions. There are ways to lower our energy use on a very small scale. But when you look at the big picture, these efforts quickly add up. They represent a potentially huge contribution to energy efficiency and cleaner air.

Every second of every minute of every day, Canadians are using very small amounts of energy called standby power on various devices. We use standby power in home entertainment products, such as home theatre systems, stereos, and DVD players. We use standby power in imaging equipment, such as printers, fax machines and photocopiers. We use standby power in computer equipment, including laptops, desktops, and workstations. We use standby power in cordless phones and battery chargers. And most of us are unaware of using that power.

A typical Canadian home has more than 25 devices that constantly use standby power. We use this electricity through standby power when the appliance is switched off or not performing its primary functions. It enables features such as clocks, timers, and remote controls.

Standby power consumption for most devices is small. It ranges from as low as half a watt to as much as 20 watts for some home entertainment products. But the number of devices drawing standby power is large. If you take the typical home, with its 25 devices consuming standby power all day and all night, and multiply by the number of homes on a city block, it is starting to add up.

If you multiply that again by the number of blocks in your community, and the number of communities in Canada, the use of standby power, every second of every day, has become enormous. In Canada, some 5.2 terawatt/hours is used per year by appliances in standby mode.

Now, when you consider the number of countries that have a market for consumer electronics, the problem is very serious indeed. In fact, there has been considerable discussion and action at the international level to reduce the amount of energy that is used on standby power around the world.

In 1999, the International Energy Agency proposed a global one-watt strategy. Appliances using standby power would seek a standard of one watt per hour. This one-watt initiative was endorsed by the G-8 leaders at the summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July 2005. Canada is a signatory. At least six governments—Japan, Korea, the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand—have enacted or announced plans to regulate some aspect of standby power use.

It is time for Canada to join their ranks. Canada's clean air agenda sets in motion a series of initiatives that will meet the commitment we made at the Gleneagle summit. We will move to a one-watt target.

We will build on some of our recent successes. Natural Resources Canada administers the Energy Star program in Canada. The international Energy Star symbol helps consumers identify products that are among the most energy efficient in the market. Only manufacturers and retailers whose products meet the Energy Star criteria can label their products with the symbol.

Energy Star standards include standby power. Since 2001, Natural Resources Canada has promoted voluntary efforts by manufacturers and retailers on standby power as part of the Energy Star program. We will continue to promote consumer information through Energy Star.

But with Bill C-30, we will do much more. The revisions to the Energy Efficiency Act included in this bill will enable the government to deal with classes of products that use standby power.

In the coming months the government will meet with stakeholders who have an interest in standby power, and we will encourage the formation of an interest group to deal with the regulatory framework we want to create. We will develop standards for standby power, and test methods. We will use internationally recognized test procedures. We will evaluate the economic impact of the measures we will take. By 2008, we will have established regulations for a minimum allowable standby loss. These regulations will apply to consumer electronics, external power supplies, and digital television adapters. We will establish these standards to the same level as those implemented in California this year. In other words, they will be the best-in-class in North America.

By January 2010, we will have established regulations for a minimum allowable standby loss of one watt for consumer electronics, with an additional one watt allowance for clock display or other specific auxiliary functions. These standards will be equivalent to the current Energy Star levels.

In other words, we are taking the Energy Star standard—which is a tool to help consumers choose the most energy efficient product—and we will apply that standard to all consumer electronics. We will raise the bar on energy efficiency. Today's best practices will very quickly become tomorrow’s minimum requirement.

Every day, Canadian home-owners and Canadian businesses are taking important steps to use energy more wisely. You can see the results in their electricity bills and other energy costs. But every day, without realizing it, we are leaking small amounts of energy through standby power. These amounts may seem minuscule, but they add up. Nearly every household and every business uses standby power.

If we can use standby power more efficiently in every appliance, we can have a big impact overall. If all devices that consume standby power met the one-watt target, we could save about 3.9 terawatt-hours or the equivalent of removing over 480,000 households from the grid. Think of it: that is roughly equivalent to taking a city the size of Ottawa off the grid for home electricity use.

The regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act are the cornerstone of our proposals on energy efficiency. They will be cost-effective and provide lasting benefits, and they will help Canadian business compete in a global marketplace.

Let me close by saying we are focusing on much more than standby power consumption. More than 30 products now have regulatory standards based on the Energy Efficiency Act. Under the new regulatory agenda, there will be new minimum energy performance standards for another 20 products. These new products range from commercial refrigeration to traffic signals, from commercial clothes washers to battery chargers and from lighting products to industrial heaters. We will also increase the stringency of the existing standards for 10 products, ranging from residential furnaces to dishwashers to air conditioners.

Thanks to this legislation, Canada will be a world leader in terms of the number of products that are subject to energy-efficiency standards, and we will regulate 50 products, representing 80% of the energy used in households.

The savings from these standards are enormous and will help lower not only energy costs for Canadians individually, but also energy use on a national scale. And that means cleaner air. I urge hon. members to join me in taking the first steps in achieving this outcome and support a bill that will have such a major impact on energy consumption.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the detailed document introducing Bill C-30 announces three consultation phases, which brings us to 2010. I cannot believe that the previous government did not leave in its boxes some notes, some sheets, software with information that would allow the government to proceed much more rapidly.

Conservatives are right when they say that the Liberals dragged their feet, that their speeches were extremely generous, but that concrete action was not forthcoming. Finally, they never really came about. Nevertheless, some work had been done. I know, through discussions I had with industry sectors, that negotiations were ongoing.

We do not want to go back to square one. Let us give ourselves not three years but rather six months to implement a series of standards for achieving the targets of the Kyoto protocol and also—we totally agree—for reducing air pollution, which is another matter.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak in this debate because I think that anyone who has children, nephews, nieces and loved ones, is worried about global warming. To stay calm, one truly has to live in a cocoon, somewhat the way Howard Hughes cut himself off from the world a number of years ago. To hear the Conservatives I am often under the impression they are completely cut off from the world, that they have stopped watching television and reading newspapers. There is danger in waiting. Experts—scientists in particular—are constantly telling us that.

It is therefore rather sad to hear what we hear and to see Bill C-30, which is obviously a tactic to postpone making decisions that will have to be made inevitably .

I regularly receive letters from young boys and girls in elementary and early secondary school, who write in near panic about the images they see on television and who are well aware that we are playing with their future. I imagine that all the members in this House receive such letters. I always try to reassure these young people by reminding them that we live in a democracy and that in a democracy usually the common good prevails. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been the case for the past nine months. That said, nine months in the history of Quebec and Canada is relatively short and everything can change if common sense ends up prevailing.

This bill, as I was saying, includes a series of regulatory powers that the government is giving itself, powers for which this type of legislation was unnecessary and that could very well have been included in the regulatory changes to the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This bill also has provisions on energy consumption labelling and the authority to make regulations on fuel consumption standards for new motor vehicles sold in Canada.

To achieve those ends, the government has introduced a bill that clearly must go through the usual series of steps: first reading, second reading, referral to committee and return to the House for adoption at third reading. Then, we will have to wait for the regulations. This bill, which outlines the government's intentions, details a three-stage consultation process. All that will lead, at best, to the coming into force of mandatory standards in 2010 and the achievement of Kyoto protocol targets in 2050. This is particularly disturbing.

What will happen after the next three years? We do not know. As they have done since they came to power in Ottawa, the Conservatives will no doubt find a way to tell us that, unfortunately, it is 2010 and greenhouse gas emissions have increased so much that the targets that had been set are far too strict. Now we have to find ways to reduce these weak requirements again, because we have to demonstrate economic realism. Meanwhile, the problem will grow.

When I hear the Conservatives say that it is the Liberals' fault, because they did nothing even though they talked a good game when it came to the Kyoto protocol, I think they are right, but that is no excuse to put off making the necessary decisions even longer. Neither is it a reason to throw out all the work the previous government had done.

As I said, I am convinced that, in a few years, the government is going to invoke economic realism and tell us that we bit off more than we could chew and we are going to have to take smaller bites. Clearly, then, the bill as it stands is unacceptable. We will support referring the bill to committee, because we have reached that stage. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, in a spirit of openness and helpfulness, will try to bring us closer to the Kyoto protocol targets with this bill. They will try to prevent this bill from serving primarily to buy time so that those in power can give their friends in the oil industry more tax breaks or more time before mandatory standards take effect.

As I said, we will agree to second reading so that Bill C-30 can be sent to committee. However, we are extremely concerned about both what is contained in the bill and what is not in the bill, in particular, anything about achieving the Kyoto targets.

Concerning the Kyoto protocol, I remind you once again that this government has only one concrete target, the year 2050. Earlier, my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi was showing a lack of optimism, but that would be understandable if he were 106 years old. He may not be sitting here in this House at that age, but he should at least still be able to enjoy some great years. One never knows with the advances of science.

It is certainly true that when he reaches the age of 106, he will have many more years behind him than in front of him. However, that would also be the case for me. In my opinion, we all have an objective interest in immediately ensuring that Canada not only respects our signature on the Kyoto protocol but that we take measures to reach the objectives of the protocol.

Moreover, the bill makes no mention of the first phase of reductions from 2008 to 2012 set out in the Kyoto protocol, nor of the second phase that was supposed to begin in 2012. Obviously, this was discussed at Nairobi. In addition, Bill C-30 contains a provision that gives the government the discretion to respect or not respect Canada’s international commitments in terms of the environment.

Could the facts be any clearer that they are providing themselves with both belt and suspenders in order to avoid our international obligations?

The government promised us a made in Canada plan, obviously to gain more time. Nine months after the Conservatives took power, we still have nothing. The Canadian and Quebec public are worried, young people are worried, with good reason, and even older people, like my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi and myself, are worried. As I said, it is no excuse to say that the Liberals did not implement the measures that were needed to achieve the objectives and that during that time emissions actually increased significantly, by over 25% if I recall correctly. It is the Conservative government that is in power now, and it is the one that must take responsibility and commit itself not only, as I said, to honouring Canada’s signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol, but to putting effective measures into motion quickly.

In this debate, we see that on the government side they are going to think about it. However, they do not seem to be giving any consideration to what has been done in other countries. For example, a number of European countries are on their way to achieving the Kyoto targets and honouring their signatures at the bottom of that international commitment, specifically concerning the use of better technologies.

We must therefore require industry and industrial sectors to use the best technology now available. Obviously, when there is no better technology that can be used to reduce greenhouse gases below a certain level, we could allow industries to purchase greenhouse gas credits at their own expense. That is the approach that has been taken by the European countries, and it has proved itself. I do not see why we would choose to take a different approach in Canada, particularly when we consider how far behind we have fallen.

In my opinion, we have to be very clear about this. There are things we can learn from countries that have achieved or are about to achieve the Kyoto objectives, and I believe that we must take our inspiration from them, and also from the territorial approach. This is something that is extremely important, particularly in Quebec, because our manufacturing sector has made significant efforts in recent decades. Those efforts have to be recognized for what they are and so Quebec has to be allowed to actually establish an emissions permit exchange—a carbon exchange, as I was explaining—for North America as a whole.

I will conclude, because I do not think that the Conservatives spend a lot of time reading the daily La Presse. Galbraith, the American economist who died not long ago, used to say that “Democrats only read Democrats, but Republicans do not read at all”. I am under the impression that it is somewhat the same situation in this House, in that the Conservatives do not read at all.

The report of Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the Wold Bank, was released barely two or three weeks ago, at the request of the British Prime Minister, who is an ally of Canada, particularly in its mission in Afghanistan. He is a traditional ally and the leader of a country which, in the past, has been the source of many of our traditions, including our parliamentary traditions.

A study was done and Prime Minister Blair is taking it very seriously. What does that study tell us? It predicts a series of catastrophes if we do not put a stop to global warming, meaning if we do not take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In conclusion, I invite Conservative members to take a look at the Stern report and to inform the Prime Ministerthat the reality of global warming and the effects of greenhouse gases has now been scientifically demonstrated, and even recognized in terms of its disastrous effects on the economy. This might lead him to think about taking a different approach.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to discuss Bill C-30. When this bill was first introduced, it was roundly condemned by all the environmental groups and all the parties in the House. That is why it has gone back to the drawing board after first reading. Even the Prime Minister has sent it there, basically so that a new bill can be built.

We Liberals will be supporting this effort to try to bring back some of the many advances that were made in this area by our previous government and to bring back some protection for Canadians.

I am not going to go through all the problems. They were very eloquently listed by the critic for the Liberals and I am sure others did so in their speeches today. There are problems with the lists in the new bill, the double lists that we do not need, and with the lack of equivalency in the new bill and the lack of reference in the bill to Kyoto. In the notice of intent to regulate, the fact is that there are no targets.

As the health minister said this morning, there are millions of people who are in trouble with bronchitis, respiratory diseases and heart disease, but this bill is leaving the problems alone for five years, and it will not be until 2012 that there even are targets. There is the three or four years of duplicate consultation that excellent government employees working in those departments have already done. There is the removing of greenhouse gases and pollutants from the list of toxins, needlessly calling into question the authority of the federal government to regulate, et cetera.

I am not going to talk about that. I am going to talk about some of the successes of the past, successes that we have to try to get back to in order to limit greenhouse gases in the way they were being cut back in the past. Canada's greenhouse gas intensity is already 13% below 1990 levels. The Liberal government was able to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in 9 of the last 10 years. The environment minister mentioned these past programs in the opening speech on this topic, so I am going to follow up in the rest of my speech by giving more details in that area.

I do not think it is any secret, and all scientists agree, that under the Liberal government Canada has cut thousands and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases. During those years, as we know, Canada also had, under many parameters, the best economy in the world. This of course paid great dividends to Canadians and allowed us huge increases for students, for the biggest environmental budget in Canadian history and for seniors, health care, equalization and transfer payments, foreign aid increases, research and development increases, and increases in funds for the disabled.

Of course when the economy is so good, it also leads to huge increases in greenhouse gases if there is no action, and of course there were huge developments like the oil sands going on in that period. I am not sure what the exact figure was. It was perhaps 150% or 200% in greenhouse gases being produced by the country, but having this successful and expanding economy also gave us the largest challenge of any nation in the world in trying to reach our Kyoto targets.

That was why we developed a very aggressive plan. Today I am going to break down the plan into a series of plans. In spite of this increase of 150% or 200% or whatever it was in greenhouse gases at the time of the economy going so well, we still kept it down to roughly 135% of the previous amount. So far, the major and very complex programs that took so long to carefully put in place and negotiate are on the verge of reducing greenhouse gases more substantially toward our targets if they are kept in place, but we see that has not been the modus operandi of the present government. I will outline these plans quickly because if I do not I will be not be able to get them all in.

These plans are basically two-pronged. First, we have been dramatically cutting emissions in reducing the use of energy. There are a number of programs for that. Second, there is support for renewable technologies. The new technologies do not emit any or as much of the greenhouse gases.

Much of this was achieved by our new Liberal leader when he was environment minister. He got great credit from environmental groups and across the nation for being able to achieve this and overcoming the difficulty of working with finance ministers, which we know is always difficult to achieve. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville was able to achieve the largest environmental budget in the history of Canada. It was hailed by environmental groups in Canada as the greenest budget.

The environmental budget was composed of initiatives that I will break down into about 20 plans. The first one was a $1 billion green fund that would support green projects to reduce greenhouse gases. It was a catalyst for new technologies. We cannot compare that $1 billion to any other programs of that magnitude that have been announced today. Once again, under the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, it was a huge increase.

The second plan was up to $2 billion for partnerships, which would lever up to $4 billion. These numbers are huge in cutting greenhouse gases and reducing pollution. That involved partnerships with other levels of government. This problem is so big it cannot be done by just the federal government. Once again, there is nothing from the new government to match what the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville achieved in this area.

Plan three provided $200 million for quadrupling the wind power incentive Canada. That was enough for a million programs, which is another under the great stewardship of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Plan four involved $97 million for renewable power production. Some examples are support for small hydro, for biomass and landfill gases. What is happening in this area now? Nothing new.

Plan five was incentives for biomass. In that area there were a number of incentives. As members know, we have supported a number of new ethanol plants. Not only do they cut greenhouse gases but they offer big support for our farmers. This gives them another area in which to sell their products, again under the great stewardship of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Plan six was the quadrupling of the EnerGuide. Another $225 million were provided to improve the energy efficiency of houses. It allowed Canadians to participate. The government itself cannot deal with this huge challenge. Why would it have been recommended that the program be quadrupled if it was not working? There were 500,000 homes in Canada in the program. Some parliamentarians spoke about not hearing of Canadians cutting greenhouse gases, but 500,000 Canadians, half a million of them, were aware of it. In fact, the government has now cut that program, which is incomprehensible to all members in the House.

The Conservatives are saying that there is too much greenhouse gas emissions or too much pollution and then they cut the programs that are cutting them. That is like saying that we found starving children with not enough food and we will solve the problem by taking some of their food away.

Plan seven under the previous minister of the environment, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, provided $200 million for sustainable energy, science and technology. When research and development are slashed for things such as this in this country, like the last budget did, it will be very critical to the future of our children.

Plan eight was the green municipal fund. It is a great success story, as everyone in the House knows from their own communities. For over a decade the leader of the NDP was very complimentary of this program. The former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was a real champion in funding this program for municipalities across the country, as was the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. Again, thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases were cut.

What I am most proud of, in the tough times when a number of areas had to be cut to put this country back in order, when there were huge deficits, the Liberal government did not cut the green municipal fund. In fact ,it doubled it.

Plan number nine had funds for brownfields. What has the new government planned to clean up the brownfields and to match the vision of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Plan 10, made in Canada, was to cut greenhouse gases with clean power generation. This has been inspired through tax cuts. Again, we put the capital cost allowance for clean power generation up from 30% to 50% under the inspired leadership of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

I have seven more plans but I see that I will not have time to finish them so I will just mention what they are. Plan 11 was clean coal, plan 12 was biomass, plan 13 was carbon sequestration initiatives, plan 15 was landfill waste projects, plan 16 was east-west grid, plan 17 was EnerGuide for low income Canadians, plan 18 was for large final emitters supporting 5 megatonne cuts, plan 19 was auto emission reduction, plan 20 was the one tonne challenge, plan 21 was Biocap and plan 22 was solar.

Those are the reasons that we had the greenest plan in history. The environmental budget was the inspired leadership of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville when he was the environment minister. We are nowhere near that but we will do everything we can to work, hopefully, with all parties in the House on this new act to achieve some reductions in pollution and emissions, which is what all Canadians have demonstrated they really want.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's first question was on the Kyoto protocol.

Right now in the environment committee we have been debating Bill C-288, which is the Liberal re-enactment of their Kyoto plan.

For 13 years the Liberals did absolutely nothing on the environment. They received a scolding by the Commissioner of the Environment. We have now heard that they are not going to be able to meet those Kyoto targets. This is what our environment minister has said very clearly. We would like to but unfortunately, the situation left by the previous Liberal government has left the environment in a real mess here in Canada.

This government is taking action. We are not going to continue on with the Liberal plan of inaction. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is part of Bill C-30 that we are debating today.

The experts who have come to the committee have said that we cannot meet those Kyoto targets. We need to set new targets. Those new targets will be set in spring 2007, which is just a few months away.

I encourage the hon. member to work with us to set those targets. Let us have realistic targets that will reduce greenhouse emissions and reduce pollution for the health of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canada's environmental performance on air quality has lagged and there is a need for the Government of Canada to take stronger action to protect human health and the environment. The impacts of poor air quality continue to be a concern for Canadians. Smog can worsen existing heart and lung problems and contribute to thousands of premature deaths yearly. Acid rain remains a serious threat to biodiversity, the forests and fresh water ecosystems.

The levels of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are simply not acceptable. Our new government has introduced Canada's clean air act, Bill C-30, to strengthen the Government of Canada's ability to take coordinated action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Mandatory regulations will replace the voluntary approaches that have failed in the past. We will ensure the regulations are enforced and their objectives are achieved. We will focus on improving the health of Canadians and their environment. Compliance options are one of four components of our proposed regulatory approach. Emission targets and timelines, monitoring and reporting and equivalency agreements are the others.

Our government is meeting almost every day with industry and the provinces and territories to develop the regulatory framework. By spring 2007, our objective is to have finalized initial discussions on a number of important issues, including short term reduction targets, compliance and reporting options and timelines.

Regulations will set realistic emission targets that will reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions across the country for the benefit of the health of Canadians and our planet.

To minimize the cost to industry of complying with regulatory requirements, the Government of Canada is considering a number of compliance options. The objective is to provide industry with the flexibility to choose the most cost effective way to meet its emission targets. These include emissions trading, offsets, opt ins and a technology investment fund.

Emissions trading would allow facilities the flexibility to meet their emission reduction target in three ways: by reducing their emissions to the level of their target; by reducing their emissions below their target then sell or bank the surplus emission reductions; or emit more than their target and buy emission reduction credits from the other entities. Emission trading does not replace regulation. It gives facilities more flexibility in how they can meet their regulatory obligations. As a result, emissions trading can reduce the cost of achieving a given target.

In an emission trading system the environmental objective is set by regulators, not by the market. The government is consulting on options surrounding an emissions trading regime. That is why the government is proposing, through sections 27, 29 and 30 of Canada's clean air act, to ensure that we can make regulations that are flexible enough to allow trading and that align our compliance regime to support the implementation of trading systems.

However, any trading system should be self-supporting and not reliant on taxpayer dollars. Our government will not purchase credits or otherwise participate in the emissions trading market.

Offsets are emission reductions that take place outside the regulated sectors or activities. They are usually verifiable projects that result in emission reductions beyond a baseline and are additional to any other regulatory requirement.

To ensure real emission reductions have taken place, Canada's new government will ensure that the requirements for monitoring and reporting emission reductions are rigorous and verifiable.

Opt ins are entities that are not covered by the regulations, but that choose to voluntarily adopt targets. Entities that exceed targets could earn and sell allowances, but would not be penalized for failing to meet the targets. Opt ins could be a vehicle for municipalities and other non-regulated entities to be a part of our clean air regulatory agenda.

Offsets and opt ins will work well within an emissions trading system. Offset emission reductions generate tradeable credits that can be sold by the offset owner to the regulated facilities, which the use of credits can then be used against their regulatory obligations.

Both offsets and opt ins broaden the scope of emissions trading to otherwise non-covered facilities. By broadening the pool of emission reduction sources, compliance cost can be further lowered. More participants also help to develop a more robust emissions trading market.

We are also considering a mechanism to credit early actions taken before targets enter into effect. One key mechanism to be considered is a means to facilitate industry compliance with the regulatory system that will be the establishment of a technology investment fund.

A technology investment fund is a compliance mechanism where a facility can pay a contribution rate per tonne of emissions to achieve compliance. The emission credits from these payments would not be tradeable or bankable. The funds generated would be used to accelerate technological development within the regulated sectors to promote long term emission reductions, particularly in the development and deployment of technologies that have the potential to achieve the greatest emission reductions.

We are committed to consultations, negotiations and collaboration to ensure that the most effective regulatory system is developed and implemented. We have and will continue to involve stakeholders throughout the development process to ensure that regulations achieve real results for Canadians, but do so in a way that minimize the cost to Canadian industry.

We will continue to work with the provinces and territories toward a single harmonized system for mandatory reporting of all emissions and related information. This system will underpin the proposed regulations. It will also respond to industrial concerns that multiple measurement methodologies and multiple reporting regimes would cause an unnecessary and costly administrative burden.

At the end of the day, our regulatory framework will be guided by what is needed to protect the health of Canadians and our environment.

Bill C-30 is a good bill. I encourage all members of the House to support it. When it goes to the legislative committee, I encourage healthy debate.

We have heard from the environment commissioner how important the environment is. To this point we have had obstruction from the Liberals. I hope that ends. I hope we now move past that. The leadership race is over for the Liberals. They have a leader, who is the former environment minister under whom emissions rose 35%. We heard a week ago that a 47% increase was their ultimate plan, then buying down those emission increases by sending billions of dollars out of Canada. The number have heard is $20 billion.

That is not what Canadians want. They want a government that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and cleans up the air that we breathe. Bill C-30does that. It gives Canadians what they want.

I encourage every member in the House to support Bill C-30, and I am open to questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about dry cleaning solutions and engine cleaners. All these pollutants will affect the quality of the air we breathe, both indoors and outdoors. If she has read the clean air act, then she is aware that we are the first government in Canada to provide not voluntary measures but regulations to the clean air act that would require clean air both indoors and outdoors and with greenhouse gas emissions.

The members asks for regulations in that way and that is exactly what the clean air act does. It addresses greenhouse gas emissions, the air quality we breathe and the water. If the clean air act, Bill C-30, would provide regulations to deal with what she has asked, why would she not support the clean air act? It does not seem to make sense. On one hand she asks for these regulations to be provided, which the clean air act does, then she says she does not support it.

Also, she is not correct when she says it will not be until 2010. She has heard announced many times, providing she has listened while in the House, that it will be in the spring of 2007, just a few months away, not 2010.

I encourage her to read the act and answer this question. Why would she not support the bill that provides exactly what she has asked for?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

moved for leave to introduce 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).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)