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.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
This was the language proposed to us by the legal people, so I'm not sure if that's what happens usually. They ran with it, and that's what they came up with.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
There are a few issues I'd like to bring to the committee's attention with respect to this amendment.
Again, I apologize for sounding a bit like a broken record, but in the context of an environmental protection bill, there may be some concerns about the breadth of this provision, which requires a review of both the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production. That's one concern that I would suggest the committee consider.
A second is a fairly minor technical one, and that is, essentially we would be inserting an obligation on Parliament to conduct a review in the middle of what is otherwise a regulatory authority in a statute. Perhaps that's just an inelegant architecture issue, as opposed to a substantive one.
The third one, and I say this with all respect to the committee, you can do this already. You don't need statutory authority to do this. Indeed, this committee's jurisdiction, as I've emphasized, goes well beyond the environmental protection compliance of CEPA and would be perfectly well suited to take upon itself at any time this sort of review.
February 26th, 2008 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I think Mr. Moffet may have answered my question. Basically, the committee could ask for a review of this at any time. With any legislation or policy change or direction, I think it's obvious that the committee, even the MPs responsible for that, are going to be--whether it's agriculture or environment--monitoring the thing. If there's something in there that's not working, that's going to trigger somebody to bring forth and request a review.
I think that Mr. Moffet's comments certainly reinforce my thinking. It's not that I have any opposition to a review at some point, but I think that to have this in there.... It can be done at an appropriate time, if necessary. I think this amendment is just unnecessary.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Although I agree that we, as a committee, have the jurisdiction, if we decide in the future to do this kind of a study, we all know around this committee how often the pressures of the day take over. Therefore, you perhaps don't look at what Alex is suggesting in his amendment.
I have a couple of questions, Alex. I'm certainly leaning towards supporting this motion. The minister did send this bill to this committee, and we do look at it from a somewhat different perspective from just the Environmental Protection Act itself.
What are you asking for in terms of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production? What is specifically your intent? If this passes and then someone has to look at it down the road--a committee has to abide by this requirement--just what is your intent? What are you asking that committee to review, more specifically?
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'll give you a couple of examples. Before I start, I'd like to say that I look upon this as a form of insurance. Once again, I think we can never be too cautious. It doesn't hurt to have some insurance to ensure that there is review.
I would look at it from the environmental point of view. I think we have to reassess or look at the whole idea of greenhouse gas emissions, because we are moving in that direction as a country. We should be looking at the impact on land and land use. Has it proven to be an economic stimulator in our rural communities, or has a large company taken over, which provided a few jobs but, as Dr. Klein pointed out in his caution, have other jobs been lost in the agriculture sector, for example?
I don't know. I think by having this, we can look at, specifically for me, the economic benefit to rural Canada. If the economic benefit isn't there, then we may have to do some modifications. Ideally, and we're all hoping, it will be.
This is just insurance to do studies of that nature. As time goes on, as we have the feelers out in our communities, there may be something, Brian, in Alberta for example, that's triggering a specific point that the people you talk to might want to have reviewed. I, or others, might hear something.
I don't think it impedes the bill coming into effect. All it does is say let's look at it under these two aspects and see what the evaluation is at a specific point in time.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I had the same question as Mr. Miller, but I just wonder, wouldn't this be the same as how we review PMRA--is it every six months? I'm not so sure....
I would prefer that if the committee, sort of being masters of our destiny.... If you put it in there, sometimes when it's obligatory it gets a fast shuffle, rather than if we decide we want to do the study. Maybe then we would do it a little more comprehensively.
I would suggest that maybe it's redundant. I don't think it's necessary. As Mr. Moffet said, why would we want to stick another requirement into parliamentary procedure?
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I don't want to tinker unduly with a motion that I think makes sense. I don't know if Mr. Atamanenko would be receptive to a friendly amendment in line four to delete “and economic” so it would be a review of the environmental aspects of biofuel production. Perhaps that's too dramatic a departure from the intent of the motion and he'd rather stick with it as is.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I think if we left it at “environmental” we might not address potential hardships for rural communities--we're hoping there won't be--or farmers. By leaving “economic” in there it will give us a chance to look at the whole aspect, not just the environment, and exactly what it's doing to our rural communities.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Despite the fact that Mr. Atamanenko is a nice guy, he doesn't like friendly amendments.
Mr. Bellavance.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I'm pleased to see that Alex is standing by his amendment as it is now worded. Personally, I think it is a very sound amendment. I disagree very much with what Mr. Lauzon said, based on what Mr. Moffet said as well.
Mr. Moffet said that the government has the latitude it needs to conduct studies. The committee also has the latitude it needs to hear from witnesses and to conduct in-depth studies. We know that putting this obligation in legislation will make a big difference. It will create an obligation not only for the government in office, but for successive governments as well. Moreover, this field is constantly evolving. In many cases, we're dealing with new, thriving technologies.
Therefore, it is important to establish benchmarks right away. In my view, this amendment allows us to consider all of the implications in greater detail. Making this step mandatory is not an impediment. On the contrary, I think this would be a big advantage for any government.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I've remained mostly silent on the amendments, but on this one there is a precedent that this committee set about two years ago with the PMRA. It took the action to call before that committee, every six months, a review of progress being made by the PMRA. For eight or nine years there was no progress. Only in the last two years have we seen the PMRA actually stepping to the plate and some real progress moving forward.
Alex is suggesting it be within the first six months, but thereafter every two years. I see nothing unreasonable about it. There are many issues that will come before the committee, and I don't think we need to create work, but in fairness this is something I can live with. It may be in the best interest of a lot of people concerned down the road.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
For all intents and purposes, it would be almost redundant or unnecessary to do it after six months. Maybe you would agree to a friendly amendment to do it every three years or something. Of course, if we saw issues in the interim we could call them at any time. As we said, we're masters of our own destiny. Why do we need to have this rigid timetable?
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
We sort of said every three years. If it's in six months or a year and then two years after that, I could probably live with it. But just to say in three years, I wouldn't be in favour of that.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Atamanenko, you raise a good point. Mr. Steckle raises a good point about the PMRA, but I don't believe it says that the committee “shall meet on a certain date with the PMRA”. Our last meeting with the PMRA was almost nine or ten months in the making. I think we could have some flexibility in taking out the “shall” on that. It would give more flexibility to the committee and wouldn't tie the committee's hands.
I don't believe we should be doing it within six months after the bill is passed; it should be within the year this bill is passed. On the other side, if you are going to do this the committee should look at it every year thereafter, not every two years.
On the last thing you should look at, Mr. Atamanenko, when you say “a comprehensive review of the environmental and economical aspects”, that's a very large thing for one committee to do. Maybe you should give the option to several different committees--perhaps the environment committee and the agriculture committee. I would look at tightening this up a little while still giving the committee the time and flexibility it needs. Then I could support it.
Conservative