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.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
As I understand what you're saying, after the implementation or the passage of the bill, a review would be taken within a year, and after that, every year, you're saying.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I think it's important that we give it flexibility and take “shall” out of there. Otherwise it will be similar to what we had with the PMRA. If the committee gets busy, it needs to be 13 months. But if we pass the motion as a committee, and you get unanimous consent, it is setting the precedent that we need to be doing this within a certain time.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll tell you what I'm thinking here, guys. We're after noon, and we have the young farmers.
Mr. Atamanenko, if you're open to working with Brian or others and reworking the wording to some degree, when we come back after lunch we can put that on the table, if that's all right with you.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Maybe Brian and I could change that and come to an agreement.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
With that, we'll break. We'll shoot over to the corner of Queen and O'Connor and be back here for 1:30.
Alex.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
That leaves us only half an hour after we get back.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Actually, after we get back, there's only one amendment left and then the other clauses that weren't amended. I'm hoping that things will move fairly quickly.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I may have some amendments from the floor, Mr. Chair.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I call us back to order.
Because we're missing some committee members and in particular two who were working on clause 2, the NDP amendment 2, we will stand that, if everybody consents, until Alex is back. So let's stand the discussion on clause 2, and we'll move on to clause 3.
André, since Alex is not here, we are going to stand his until he comes back and we'll continue with the clause-by-clause consideration.
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5)
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, clause 5. We have BQ-4 as an amendment.
Monsieur Bellavance, if you wish to put that on the table....
1:30 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you.
You may see some similarities here with the amendment to clause 2 that I moved earlier. However, I think it relates more to clause 5. I am confident that committee members will appreciate the relevance of this amendment.
As it now stands, the bill allows for fuels and biofuels to be treated differently, based on different criteria, such as emission levels, the amount of raw materials used or the chemical composition of these fuels.
In our view, the proposed amendment to clause 5—again, it is a case of giving some power to the government, which should please you—calls for different handling of biofuels, according to much broader environmental criteria.
WIth respect to my amendment which calls for an environmental and energy balance sheet, a life-cycle analysis and consideration of the social and environmental impact, earlier a number of arguments were voiced. I have no problem with people arguing their case, but I would like to reiterate my position. As far as I'm concerned, it is important for the government to ensure that biofuel production is a safe process and that means allowing it access to more in-depth analysis of the potential impact of biofuel production.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just for information for those of you who came in late, we started right at 1:30, so we stood your amendment, and we'll come back to it as soon as we get through the rest of the stuff. We just thought we'd get on with our work.
So we're on BQ-4 on clause 5, and those were the comments from André. Any other comments?
Mrs. Skelton.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
I'd like to ask Mr. Moffett for comments on this, please.
1:35 p.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would make the same comments that we made with respect to the previous Bloc motion, BQ-2. I'll just repeat them, if I may have your indulgence.
Amendment BQ-2 is about reporting. These provisions would be added to the various considerations that the government could take into account when developing regulations. So they are not mandatory by any means. Nothing in section 330(3) would be mandatory, but they would be factors the government could take into account. So the Bloc amendment would add three additional considerations, and I'll just speak to each of them.
The first one is proposed paragraph 330(3.2)(j), the environmental and energy balance sheet. The concern that we have as officials has to do with the vagueness of the terminology used here. There's no principled opposition, but I'm frankly not sure what this would add to the legislation, given that environmental balance sheet is not a term of art. As for energy balance sheet, we're not sure what the precise considerations would be that this would enable the government to account for.
If the objective is to allow the government to account for the full range, for the full spectrum of possible environmental implications, then we already have that authority in CEPA. Indeed, the essence of CEPA is to provide the government will a full range of authority to address environmental and health impacts of products, including fuels.
I would make the same comment with respect to proposed paragraph 330(3.2)(k), with a similar comment, although life-cycle analysis is becoming a clearly understood environmental term of art. Again, I would emphasize that CEPA already provides clear authority to regulate throughout the life cycle of a product.
I would make the same point with respect to proposed paragraph 330(3.2)(l) when it refers to environmental impact. That's exactly what CEPA is focused on. So it's not clear to me that this provision would add anything to the act. Indeed, by adding these provisions here you might raise an issue of statutory interpretations, in the sense that if it's necessary to add this clarity here, perhaps in some way this implies that this authority does not exist already in CEPA elsewhere. It would be our position, and it has been since CEPA was first drafted in 1988, that this full life-cycle approach is implicit in the act.
The final point I would make is with respect to the word “social”. Again, CEPA as an environmental protection statute does not currently, nor is it intended to, enable the government to establish different regulations based solely on social considerations. Indeed, one might argue that at least some parts of CEPA--for example section 93, in part V, the toxics provisions of CEPA, which this provision would affect--are premised on the criminal law head of power. I think it is fairly clear that one wouldn't be able to establish a criminal law based on a regulation that differentiates among regulatees strictly on the basis of social considerations.
So just to reiterate, I think there's a potential redundancy with respect to most of the proposed amendments here, some vagueness, some possible confusion that they would create with respect to the authorities that are already implicit in the act, and certainly with respect to the world “social”. I think the amendments would take us well outside the existing scope of the statute.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Moffet. I had asked a similar question on amendment BQ-1. Now in this case this applies beyond just fuel as well. We are talking other substances and other activities, which could include farming, as far as the CEPA is concerned.
1:40 p.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Absolutely. Indeed, this amendment would amend section 330 of CEPA, which in turn refers to regulations made under four different parts of CEPA: section 93, the toxics provision; section 140, the nutrients provision; section 167, international air; section 177, international water; and then also the fuels provisions. So this would have broad implications. It does not add new regulatory authority. So it is not extending the regulatory authority of the government. That regulatory authority already exists in the statute. What this does is add a number of considerations that the Governor in Council may take into account when regulating. So it's not new or expanded regulatory authority; it's just clarifying the nature of that regulatory authority.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So when you talk about nutrients and water, manure-spreading would definitely be affected by what we're discussing here in amendment BQ-4.
1:40 p.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Yes.
