Evidence of meeting #25 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Very good.
Are we ready for debate on amendment L-27.1?
Mr. Jean.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't know if the department needs a few minutes to look at the ramifications of this, but I would like an explanation from them as to what, in essence, we're trying to say here.
To start with, I apologize, could you just give me the amendment that has to be taken out as a result of the replacement of the previous lines under the other Liberal amendment?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
That's right up at the top of the amendment: “That Bill C-30 in clause 34 be amended by replacing lines 23 to 35 with the following”. Then go down to the line where it says “section 140, 167, 177”. The amendment then would start at “326 may be made applicable”, etc.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
So sections 140, 167, 177 cannot be included within this?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
No. They have already been amended by a previous amendment, so this amendment starts at the number 326 on line 23.
Mr. Moffet, are you prepared to comment on that?
March 29th, 2007 / 12:40 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Sure.
There are two parts to this, new proposed subsection 330(3.1) and new proposed subsection 330(3.2). The first part, (3.1), reverts word for word to what's in CEPA now in terms of the authority to establish regulations that set different standards within different geographic parts of Canada, based on health and environmental considerations.
The rationale is that, as discussed in previous committees, in order to achieve consistent environmental or health quality across Canada, it may be appropriate to set different emissions standards or other regulations.
As an example, air quality in the Toronto-Windsor corridor is worse than air quality in the Yukon. So it may be appropriate--this doesn't require anything, but it may be appropriate--that an emitter in the Toronto-Windsor corridor be subject to a more stringent emission regulation than the same emitter in the Yukon in order to achieve the same outcome of environmental or health quality.
This amendment wouldn't change that at all; same wording, as I read it.
New proposed subsection 330(3.2) is a slight modification to the provisions in Bill C-30, going beyond the current authority to establish geographically differentiated regulations and allowing the government to differentiate among regulatees on other grounds, including, for example, the age of a facility.
As an example, it may be appropriate--again, not necessary, but may be appropriate--to say in a regulation that a new electricity generating plant shall be subject to standard A, whereas an existing electricity generating plant should be subject to a slightly less rigid standard, and be given x number of years to come up to the more stringent standard. That would simply be recognizing the economic reality that some of the investments required to improve air quality may be significant.
Again, there's no requirement to have that type of differentiation; it simply would authorize that type of differentiation. And CEPA does not currently authorize that type of regulation. That didn't cause us a problem when we were regulating, over the past 15 years, emissions of toxic substances. Now that we're entering the world of regulating criteria air contaminants in greenhouse gases, which in many cases involves regulating basic combustion processes, we're talking about affecting major pieces of capital equipment. Again, it may be appropriate to have some differentiation based on things like age or technology.
So that's the rationale for the Bill C-30 provision. The Liberal provision is simply a corrective to make sure that this new authority lines up with the new regulatory provisions that have been created as a result of the amendments passed in the previous couple of days.
That's my explanation of what's going on.
I would beg your indulgence, Mr. Chair, and point out three technical problems, simply drafting problems.
First, I believe the reference to subsection “94(1)” should be “94.1(1)”.
Second, halfway down the page, you refer to “in the opinion of the Governor in Council”. Some of the regulatory authority that has been established would be ministerial regulatory authority. Thus, it should say “in the opinion of the Governor in Council or ministers, as the case may be”.
Finally, to be consistent with the first line, which says “A regulation or instrument”, the fifth-last line should say “For the making of a regulation or instrument”.
Those corrections are just for consistency. They wouldn't substantively change anything.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I would like to go back to proposed paragraph 330(3.1). According to you, if a large emitter is located in a province that has an equivalency agreement, what would happen? Would this large emitter be subject to federal regulations?
12:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
The emitter in the province would not be subject to any federal regulation that is the subject of an equivalency agreement.
Just to be clear, an equivalency agreement doesn't necessarily encompass all federal regulations; it has to specify the regulations. The Alberta equivalency agreement specifies four regulations, not every CEPA regulation. Yes, it exempts. The federal regulation “stands down” is the term; it doesn't apply. The facility would have to comply with the provincial legal regime--whether it's a certificate of approval, a regulation, or what have you--not the federal regulation. This, then, becomes irrelevant for that facility.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As much as the last clause that obviously mirrors this and that passed a couple of days ago when the Liberals put it forward, this again troubles me very much. I would like more certainty.
As most people know here, when courts interpret this later on--which I'm certain, based upon the amendments I've seen come forward from the Liberals and the NDP, they will--they will have many challenges. I would like what they mean by “persons” to be on the record for judges who interpret this in the future. Does it mean a person, depending on whether they're a Liberal or 63 years old or 22 years old, can have a different requirement? What is “works”? What is an “undertaking” or “activities”? I understand generally what you're trying to do, but I would like to have more certainty as to what you are suggesting would come forward on this. It just says, “may distinguish”.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, all of this wording comes from the government's own drafting, so if the parliamentary secretary has difficulties with the wording that he drafted and his government put forward, maybe he ought to take it up with his parliamentary secretary colleague from the environment and find out why the wording is.... The wording is perfectly clear, and I think it's time to move on.
I'd like to call the question, Mr. Chair, if we could.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll move a friendly amendment with those changes that were suggested by Mr. Moffet in terms of making it align with the “or ministers, as the case may be”, with the connection to the Privy Council in proposed subsection 330(3.2); “regulation or instrument”, the piece that was mentioned prior; and I'm trying to recall your third....
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, it's the rendering of “94.1(1)”, and that we call the question.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I can understand how the member is saying it comes from the government's own words--in a separate section that deals with a separate set of factors--but I would like to hear from him what he means by “persons, works, undertakings or activities”. If he's not prepared to answer that, I understand why he might not be, but it is a question.
In fact, I would put it to the department: what do they see as this interpretation's meaning?