Evidence of meeting #17 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was renewable.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I just want to say that one of the concerns that I think a lot of us do have, as MPs, with regulations is that central bureaucracies in this town—it doesn't matter the department or the political stripe of those in office—are trying more and more to take authority into regulations. That does concern me. I just want to say that on the record.
In principle, we've had the discussion in terms of the authorities of executive council. But from my experience over a number of years and from that of a lot of others, I think there does seem to be a move for central authorities, through the Privy Council Office and other means, to have more regulatory decision-making than legislative decision-making.
I just want to point this out as a concern that I think a lot of us certainly have.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Are there any other comments?
So amendment BQ-1 is on the floor.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Now, amendment BQ-2 doesn't have a conflict, so it can be put on the floor. Amendment BQ-2 doesn't affect clause 5, which we were talking about earlier, so we have the go-ahead.
Okay, BQ-2 is on the floor. Are there comments?
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe everyone will be pleased and satisfied, because this amendment broadens the scope of the regulations, thereby giving more powers to the minister and to the government. I guess that is good news. In essence, we want the government to be able to regulate the submission by fuel producers, importers and retailers of information on the environmental impact of their biofuels. Since there is nothing about this in the bill as it now stands, we are adding some clauses that would allow the government to request the submission of information regarding the environmental and energy balance sheet, the life-cycle analysis, and the social and environmental impact of fuels to be subject to regulations. These provisions are aimed quite simply at allowing the government to demand that companies proposing an alternative fuels project submit information on the environmental impact of their project if it were carried out.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I'd appreciate hearing from the departmental officials. One might suggest that as well intentioned as this amendment is, it's a little bit superfluous or just a restatement of what's already contained in subparagraph 140(1)(g)(iii). I just wonder if my thoughts in that regard are simplistic.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We'll put that question to the witnesses.
Mr. Moffet, Ms. Baxter? Anyone?
11:10 a.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I would make two comments with respect to this proposed amendment.
First of all, indeed, some of the authority that would be added here we believe would already be covered in subparagraph 140(1)(g)(iii), which would authorize the Governor in Council to issue regulations that would require proponents of fuel to submit information about the adverse health or environmental effects. And those adverse health or environmental effects could indeed relate to any point in the life cycle of the fuel. So that would cover proposed subparagraph (iii.2) and part of proposed subparagraph (iii.3), which refer to environmental impact. So I would respectfully suggest that part of the amendment is superfluous, to use your words.
I guess there are two other concerns. One is that some of the terms used here are somewhat vague, and I appreciate that they're intentionally broad. For example, the term “environmental balance sheet” is not a term of ours that officials in the Department of Environment would be used to, nor is it sufficiently precise that a potential regulatee would know that they might be subject to this provision, which is sort of a fundamental principle of drafting.
A third concern has to do with the final amendment here, which would give the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health the authority under CEPA, which is an environmental protection statute, to recommend regulations regarding social impact. Again, I would echo the comments made by Mr. St. Amand. While this is undoubtedly well intentioned and is potentially well within the purview of this committee, I would request that the committee keep in mind, when dealing with all these provisions, that we are dealing with amendments to CEPA, not to an agricultural statute and not to a trade statute. These are amendments to an environmental and health protection statute. So the scope of that statute is very clearly constrained to protecting the environment and health and not to addressing social objectives or economic objectives. Certainly we have no history of using CEPA to collect social information or economic information, and one might argue that this amendment would go well beyond the scope of the statute the bill is amending.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
So if I understand correctly, with this second amendment--after line 33 on page 2--there's no conflict with my proposed amendment. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
So in other words, if I vote for this and it's passed, we can still discuss my amendment.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Moffet, we are not to blame if a bill to amend the environment legislation is before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. The government opted for this course of action.
In terms of the social and environmental impact, I think we can look to other countries for examples. Heaven help us if similar things happen here in Canada. Clearly, there are social and environmental repercussions when countries decide to cut down forests to plant crops that will be used to produce biofuels and when entire populations are displaced. The entire ecosystem is thrown off balance by decisions like this. I'm not saying that this catastrophic scenario will play out here, but our party is asking that the government be allowed to go a step further when projects are proposed. It is critical that it have a idea of all possible repercussions if questions were to arise.
The current bill is vague. This amendment, however, clearly spells out the types of requests that the minister can make. I think it is an advantage for any government. I will never be the federal agriculture and agri-food minister, but perhaps some of my colleagues at the table will hold that office one day.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I wonder if André might be able to explain the reason the Bloc wants the additional points added. He alluded to it in his last point on damage elsewhere, clearing forests, or whatever.
While he's thinking about that, Mr. Moffet, you raised a point about this bill being here, which we raised at the first meeting. I believe I said at the time that this bill was maybe somewhat misplaced at this committee, because it was here perhaps more for the political purposes of the minister than to deal with the legislation.
Is that what you're implying in your statement? We wonder why it is here as well. The minister gave a wonderful speech in his presentation. To me, it seemed more for political purposes than legislative, but that's not unusual from that crowd across the way.
I wonder if you have any comment.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Let's not get too political with our comments. We're here to try to do some work.
We'll hear from Mr. Moffet, and then I'll go back to you, André.
11:20 a.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I certainly won't comment on why the bill is here or whether it ought to be here, and I apologize if that was the way my comments were interpreted. I was simply asking the committee to remember that the amendments that are before you are amending a statute that has, as its particular purpose, the protection of environment and health.
The committee may be perfectly suited to look at those amendments. I'm simply saying you need to look at them and interpret them in the context of the statute that is being amended in the first place.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I've commented on this. As Mr. Moffet just said, this bill must take into account environmental impacts. I believe my amendment does just that. Therefore, I think we should proceed to vote.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
With all due respect to my colleague, I think the aim of the bill is to change the regulatory framework, not the government's policy on the environment.
I think what we're trying to do here is change a regulation, not reflect or change environmental policy. As my colleague across the way says, maybe we're reading more into the regulations change than what's really there.