Evidence of meeting #10 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 air.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
What are the best actions the government could take, at a federal level obviously, respecting jurisdiction on provincial and municipal land-use policy to incent that type of development?
Unit head, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
We have had a lot of debate on that in Montreal. The major issue is how to finance public transit.
If you look at Europe, or even in the States, the major funds come from upper government. In Europe, at least 85% of the cost for subways, trains, comes from the states' upper levels.
We had a lot of discussion with people in Montreal with respect to this report. We presented each part of Montreal. What did people tell us? They said they want to be on public transit if it's accessible, secure, comfortable, and on time.
We don't have this system on the west island of Montreal or in the east part of Montreal. We've started to build trains in Laval, but the major issue is always money, money, money. As you know, the municipal fiscalité is insufficient to finance that.
When you do that, we also have to control who runs—
Unit head, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
So we have to do that at the same time.
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC)
Okay. Thank you very much.
Sorry, we will have to move on.
Mr. Bigras, you have seven minutes, please.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Drouin, I have read your brief. What I took from it is that you are proposing what amounts to a change in philosophy in all areas. And I applaud you for that.
I am going to focus on the transportation sector, since that is where you put most of your emphasis in the presentation. In the government's notice of intent concerning Bill C-30, I read that:
Canada's new government will continue to develop and implement regulations to reduce smog- and acid rain-forming emissions from vehicles, engines and fuels in alignment with the standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Here is my question. You talked throughout your presentation about standards adopted by the European Community. Do you feel that the EPA standards are adequate to deal effectively with smog, among other things?
Unit head, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
I am not aware of the specifics of the EPA standards, but I do know that they are stricter than what currently exists in Canada. I would recommend the California Air Resources Board standards for motor vehicles. I think Canada should follow that model. The standards control nitrous oxide emissions, the NOx, breathable particle emissions, and some volatile organic compounds, to name a few. These three constituents are mainly responsible for smog in the summer. In summer, smog is photochemical, associated with nitrous oxides mixed with volatile organic compounds, the sun, and heat. That is how ozone is produced. In the winter, smog is not made up of ozone, but fine particulate matter, the 2.5s.
What must be added—and what I read in Bill C-30 will allow this—is that we can also regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That is what we must do, as California did by adopting the 128 gram per kilometre standard, and as the European Economic Community did last week, by adopting the 120 grams of CO2 per kilometre standard.
That will help, but it is not enough. Why? Every year, in Montreal for example, 40,000 vehicles are added to the metropolitan vehicle fleet. In five years, that will represent 200,000 additional vehicles. So, yes, work must be done on vehicle technology, but also on the means of transportation. People must be encouraged to use other means than theirs car to go to work, especially in large urban centres that are densely populated. I am thinking namely about the 10 Canadian cities where 85% of the population is concentrated. That is what we explained a little earlier. So there must be action on both levels at the same time.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Excellent. On page 6 of your document, you say that it is necessary to “set quantifiable objectives for ambient air and for the release of air pollutants and GHG into the air.” You also say we need specific timelines. The only timeline I see in Bill C-30 is one that takes us to the year 2050.
Do you think there should be quantifiable objectives in the shorter term, especially regarding GHG reduction?
Unit head, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
Absolutely. What we studied were the best international approaches and I will repeat the two examples: California, and the European Economic Community. We heard from experts who presented all of that in Vancouver, as part of NERAM, the Network for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. What we are seeing globally are three- or five-year targets, step by step, with the obligation to achieve results, I think that is much more concrete for Canadians, because we see a real political will to take action and achieve results. A timeline spread over 50 years is quite long.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Does Quebec have regulations on air quality, and since when has it had them?
Unit head, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
Yes, Quebec has regulations, which are currently under review.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Okay. In what year, approximately, were the first regulations adopted?
Unit head, Urban Environment and Health Department, Direction de santé publique de Montréal
In the late 1970s, or the early 1980s. We also have regulations for the community of Montreal, the Communauté urbaine de Montréal.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Freeman, you mentioned equivalency of regulations, a topic that comes up often in your brief.
Here is my initial question for you. Within your group, is there any disagreement, in Quebec, regarding changes to this equivalency system? If that is the case, I would like you to name the dissenting groups.
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
My organization is Environmental Defence Canada, and I represent the views of my organization. I'm not sure if that answers your question.
There is an existing model that works in CEPA, which is tried and true in the courts—it's the equivalency model—and I don't see any reason to change that model. It's a model that can be very effective for implementing air quality objectives in this country.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Suppose we were to call for an amendment to the act to force the federal government to comply with stricter regulations in force in one province or another. Do you think this equivalency principle could work in both directions?
Mr. Drouin just said that Quebec adopted a clean air act in the late 1970s. The act's regulations are currently under review. So they are reviewing existing regulations. Do you think that Canada could draw some inspiration from that? It is not simply a case of saying: “Canada knows best.”
A clean air act is being reviewed some 30 years after its initial adoption. Do you think the principle of equivalency should work both ways?
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
You are thinking of a pull-up fashion. Absolutely, and under the equivalency model in CEPA, provinces are free to have more stringent standards. Any jurisdiction in Canada is free to have a more stringent standard than the federal standard. What the equivalency model ensures is that no provincial jurisdiction falls below a certain standard. But certainly those jurisdictions are free.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Should the federal act include standards that are as high as those in a province where the standards are enforced? Do you understand what I mean?
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
We would certainly advocate that standards be reviewed every five years, both emission standards and ambient air quality standards, with a view to maintaining the leading standards globally, and certainly the leading standards in North America. Those would include provincial standards. There is certainly that potential for a provincial jurisdiction with a higher standard, as you are describing, to pull up the federal standard.
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC)
Thank you very much for that.
We'll have Mr. Cullen for seven minutes, please.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Freeman.
There has been much talk about cleaning up the air by the government under Bill C-30, yet when we look through the bill and through the notice of intent, I can't really find the specifics of the actual standards that will be implemented. Am I missing something? How clear is this bill, as it is presented right now—and Dr. Drouin has made a good case for the need to have better air quality standards in terms of health costs and benefits and the rest—on the standards that are being set?
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
The bill, in proposed section 103.07, which is on page 13 of the bill, sets air quality objectives within three years after the coming into force of the act.
NDP
Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada
We get air quality objectives, but there is nothing in the bill that talks about the enforcement of those objectives. There is nothing in the bill that talks about what kinds of emissions standards will go into meeting those objectives. So what we're in essence left with is some kind of statutory recognition of what will probably be something along the lines of the Canada-wide standards.