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.

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

Not proposed. As the bill stands right now, a series of changes have been presented back to the House. Has Finance Canada been consulted as to the cost, economic or otherwise, of introducing that bill into law? Have you done a similar analysis on Bill C-30, as was done on Bill C-288?

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

That's interesting to me.

One of the witnesses who came before us while we were studying Bill C-30 implored us to consider the whole Kyoto Protocol and those types of messages, less as an environmental negotiation than as an economic one.

I'm becoming more and more concerned with our economic preparedness and the soundness of our analysis.

I have a question about Bill C-30. This bill was rewritten, as you know. Were you conferred or consulted with in terms of the economic impacts of the rewritten form of the clean air and climate change act?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought it interesting, Mr. Chair, that here the committee is hearing a critique on advertising that encourages Canadians to protect the environment and use energy more efficiently, and it's coming from a previous government that was involved in the sponsorship scandal. It's quite shocking, Mr. Chair.

I found yesterday's meeting.... I believe it was yesterday when we had a presentation on carbon sequestration and we were looking at solutions. The purpose of today's meeting, from what we've heard from the opposition, was to find out about the plan. But what we've seen instead are attacks on a genuine attempt to find out details of the plan and to find out how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How can we, as Canadians, as a Canadian government, and as parliamentarians, work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a clean environment for Canadians?

Unfortunately, we've heard some rhetoric here and very few questions for Natural Resources Canada. We heard that they wanted to have Natural Resources here, but they've had very few questions for them.

We've heard comments about meeting the targets, and I appreciate the questions on that. When we were dealing with Bill C-288 there was a comment made by Professor Claude Villeneuve, from the Université du Québec. He said he wanted to comment on the bill, and he was referring to Bill C-288, the Liberal Kyoto bill. He said, “This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998. Today the bill can't be valid if the tools to achieve the desired ends aren't available”.

What we've heard on Bill C-288, what we've heard on Bill C-30.... I asked every witness at Bill C-288 whether we can meet the Kyoto targets, and every one of them, except for one, said no, it's too late. And we know that, Mr. Chair. But the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up the environment.

This is what we heard yesterday from Grant Thomson. He's the senior vice-president of NOVA Chemicals. He said that he thought what the government has done is set very tough-to-achieve targets. He said if we were to sit back and look at this, and where we would like to have seen it, “They're probably tougher than what we were hoping to see three or four months ago.” He was referring to our targets. He goes on:

I think they've also set an aggressive timeline in terms of this policy. At the same time, they're trying to walk a tightrope, perhaps, balancing between improving the environment and at the same time trying to make sure the economic growth in this country continues.

My question for the department would be this. I have a minute or two left.

[Carol Buckley, Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources]

I'll speak to that.

The ecoENERGY retrofit program for homes, which was announced on January 21, 2007, is not associated with Bill C-30. It is not a regulatory measure; it's an incentive program. It received approval through a separate process. We have done analysis around its benefits and the costs, but it's not associated with Bill C-30.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My next question was to ask about the retrofit program that had been contemplated in Bill C-30. I'm assuming there had been no economic benefit analysis on a home retrofit plan done by anyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Dewar, excuse me for a minute. That has been answered. Basically, our answer was that Bill C-288 has been analyzed, but Bill C-30 has not.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd like to switch now to Bill C-30 and ask whether there has been any economic analysis done on the effects of Bill C-30. We know that the government commissioned a report on a private member's bill, Bill C-288.

[Cécile Cléroux]

We have done the economic analysis for Bill C-288. We have done the economic analysis for the regulatory framework. We have not done the economic analysis for the revised Bill C-30.

The Environment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto has just suffered through two consecutive smog days that are severely affecting the health of Torontonians.

Toronto Public Health estimates that 1,700 Toronto residents die prematurely each year due to air pollution but the Conservatives have announced a plan that will not get the job done on smog and climate change. This plan is no match for the breakthrough Bill C-30 as rewritten by the NDP-led all party committee.

Last week our leader called on all opposition parties to unite to force the new clean air and climate change act to a vote in the House. However, instead of using their opposition day today to achieve real results on smog and climate change, the Liberals have decided it is more important to protect their corporate friends.

In my party, we walk the talk. Next week the NDP will use its opposition day to call on the government to bring forward the clean air and climate change act to Parliament for debate and a vote.

Thirteen years of Liberal inaction is not an excuse for falling further behind. Toronto families and all Canadians are counting on us to finally get the job done.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this government is acting to reduce smog, to reduce pollution in every industrial sector, including in the oil sands. If we left it to the Liberal business as usual approach, these emissions would rise by 300%. That is unacceptable.

Maybe the member from British Columbia could tell us why he voted against mandatory national air quality standards in Bill C-30. Why did he vote against mandatory public reporting on air quality? Why would he allow a politician behind closed doors to exempt certain parts of Canada from clean air? Shame on him.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the member for St. Paul's said last year, we had one smog day in 1993 and we had 48 last year. That is the Liberal record on smog and pollution.

It could get worse. The Liberals want to take out mandatory national air quality standards from Bill C-30, mandatory public reporting on air quality. The worst is that they want to allow the minister to exempt some Canadian--

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is a smog day in most of southern Ontario and it is only the beginning of May.

Sadly, the Liberal leader does not think that we have a problem. He has said that our air is one of the cleanest to be found in a developed country. Tell that to my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex in southwestern Ontario.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House about the detrimental changes by the Liberal Party to Bill C-30 when it comes to clean air?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Sure. Indeed, Canadians spend 90% of their time indoors, so it's not just a theoretical issue; it's something we have to be concerned about. And there are many threats to indoor air quality, including radon, which is a radioactive gas substance, mould, and other issues that have impacts on health outcomes.

What I can tell you is that part and parcel of Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, there is a section on indoor air quality. It's our view that this is certainly part of the act that should be supported by all parties because it's the first time the federal government has aggressively tackled indoor air quality. Outdoor air quality is the sexy issue, perhaps, but indoor air quality might make as important an impact or an even more important impact on health outcomes in many different communities.

So we do have a plan of action. Part of it has to do with getting the data to find out where certain areas are suffering from poor indoor air quality and then coming up with a plan in terms of how we build our buildings and how we build our houses to make sure those can be improved upon.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue our focus on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

This morning we completed the debate at report stage on Bill C-10. That is a bill to introduce mandatory penalties for gun related crimes and other violent acts. Our government proposed amendments at report stage to restore what the Liberals had gutted from the bill at committee, mainly those aspects that will ensure violent criminals actually serve time in jail. We will be voting on these amendments next week.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-22, which is the age of protection legislation, followed by Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation that would require criminals who are convicted on two separate occasions of a violent crime to prove to the court why they are not a danger to the community.

Next week will be strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It effectively kicked off today when Bill C-16, the fixed dates for elections act, received royal assent.

On Monday we will resume debate on Bill C-43. That is the bill that proposes to give Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate.

Our government will be introducing a number of new measures in the House of Commons next week, which I will address at the appropriate time.

Of course, we still have Bill S-4, the bill to establish Senate term limits, which has been languishing in the Senate for almost a year now. It would be nice if the Senate passed that. It would be nice if the Liberal senators could get on with it, so that we could actually have that bill here in the House of Commons as part of our focus on democratic reform next week.

Tuesday, May 8 and Thursday, May 10 will be allotted days.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 I would like to conclude debate tomorrow on the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I would like to conclude debate on May 11, 2007 on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Subject to an agreement with other parties, there may be interest in concluding debate at second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax bill, as early as tomorrow.

On the question of Bill C-30, we see elements of that legislation that we brought forward that are very valuable relating to biodiesel, alternative fuels and so on, and we will seek ways of introducing that in the House of Commons. However, we have absolutely no intention of bringing forward the Liberal carbon tax plan, which is now at the fore of that bill, which would establish an unlimited right to pollute for polluters. All they would have to do is pay and they would have an unlimited right to pollute. That is not our approach. We are bringing in regulations to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases. That is our approach.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the leader of the government advise the House of the agenda he intends to follow for the rest of this week and through next week?

Could he also confirm to all members of this House that he will give high priority to Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act?