Agriculture committee  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.

Agriculture committee  Mr. Easter, the issue you raise goes to the heart of a fairly long-standing and fundamental constitutional principle regarding the separation of powers as between Parliament and the Governor in Council. Essentially, a statute can, within the scope of the statute and within the constitution, provide authority to the Governor in Council to regulate; it can instruct the Governor in Council to issue regulations on a particular topic.

Agriculture committee  It's the part that refers to subsection 140(3). That is amended in the government's bill as well as in the Bloc's amendment.

Agriculture committee  Yes, but.... I'm sorry, let me.... Subclause 2(7) would actually replace existing subsection 140(3) in CEPA. It takes an entire subsection out of CEPA. In order to understand this, you actually have to look at CEPA itself. We've included the relevant provisions in the binder we circulated to members.

Agriculture committee  Yes, sir.

Agriculture committee  Actually, Mr. Chair, I was going to respectfully request that for a different reason it may be appropriate to defer consideration of clause 2. It has nothing to do with the amendments that have been proposed, but the final provision in clause 2 would actually delete a provision that exists in CEPA.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Can you clarify where we are?

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  May I explain what this is here for?

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Mr. Chair, I'd like to explain the rationale for the clauses that this amendment would remove or the lines that this amendment would remove. With the way part 5 of CEPA is currently constructed, the government can regulate products that contain a toxic substance and that then emit a toxic substance.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. This definition defines greenhouse gas emissions very specifically to include total annual national emissions, whereas the bill uses the term greenhouse gas emissions in numerous ways: in ways that could be applied to individual facilities, to sectors, etc.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  This amendment uses the same language that the government used in Bill C-30 to refer to “persons, works, undertakings or activities”. “Person” is a legal term of art, the addition of which, of course, refers to a human person or a corporate entity. The reference to “works, undertakings or activities” was to ensure that the scope of this authority would be interpreted as broadly as possible, so that regardless of the focus of the regulation under other parts of CEPA, the administrative discrimination authority that would be provided in proposed subsection 330(3.1) could apply to those regulations.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That's the legal term that refers to the power that's being created here--administrative discrimination. Ordinarily, one would regulate like things in a like manner. You need authority to administratively discriminate among like things and you need to stipulate the basis of that authority.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I can't tell you what will happen or would happen. We've never used this authority. Whether we ever will, I have no idea. That will be determined by the government of the day. This provides the authority to make that discrimination, provided we meet the test of ensuring consistent and common environmental and health outcomes.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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.