Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 26th, 2007

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If the purpose of this particular clause is to have research and studies conducted on the effectiveness of pollution control techniques, I believe that a number of relevant technologies do exist. I also believe that this verification could be done provided we want Bill C-30 to address greenhouse gases as well as different technologies. Therefore, we can arrange it so that the ministers in fact conduct research relating to greenhouse gases and the effectiveness of various techniques.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there further debate or advice or input from Mr. Moffet?

[John Moffet]

In response to Mr. Cullen's question, it's certainly my view that the addition of greenhouse gases is redundant, that the departments have the capacity to research, that the authority that's given in CEPA now to conduct research into pollution prevention gives us plenty of scope to research options for preventing the creation and release of greenhouse gases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

By the same logic, does that same authority allow the effectiveness and mitigation and control technologies and techniques related to pollution prevention? If it's unnecessary to do one, is it unnecessary to do the other?

[John Moffet]

Sorry, could you repeat that?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm sorry. If I understood your argument about the amendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet is looking something up.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My comments would probably be directed toward Mr. Moffet.

I'm wondering, Mr. Bigras, if I may—I quite frankly see the value of this particular amendment to include greenhouse gases and pollution as separate. That is BQ-7. I don't see the harm in it. I think it's good to deal obviously with both and to include both.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Do we have any further debate on that?

Mr. Moffet. We'll take our time.

[John Moffet]

I'm not sure I completely follow your question. I may have misspoken. But what I'm trying to suggest is that the amendment that Bill C-30 provides to expand the authority to cover pollution prevention would give us all the authority we need to also look at techniques and technologies for reducing or preventing the creation of greenhouse gases.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

My question is, without that amendment, does CEPA not have the authority, do the ministers not have the authority to conduct the research for the effect of some mitigation control technology? They don't have that authority now? It's a fairly general authority.

[John Moffet]

I think what the amendment does is try to make that authority explicit. We conduct that research now. Let's be candid; we conduct it now. The authority is implicit in many of the provisions in the statute. We're just trying to make it explicit.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

But once you start making that explicit, then why not make, as the BQ suggests, the reference to climate change explicit as well? It just seems to me, once you're making things explicit, if they have that—

[John Moffet]

My concern there would be that you'd be distinguishing research into greenhouse gas emissions as being something different from pollution prevention. The working interpretation that we have, at any rate, is that pollution prevention is broad enough to cover greenhouse gas reduction. If you set them up as two terms, then they're two different things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's precisely the aim of the opposition's recommendations. We also feel that there is a difference between air pollution and greenhouse gases. Basically, with this amendment, we want to emphasize that in recent years, techniques have been developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Since the Minister and his government intend to fight pollution by adopting Bill C-30, we're simply asking that they also address the problem of greenhouse gases. This would shed light on the effectiveness of techniques that will be developed. Therefore, if it hasn't already been done, why not include this in the act?

[John Moffet]

What I'm trying to say is not that the technologies are the same, but that the term “pollution prevention” is broad enough to cover toxic substances, solid waste, greenhouse gases, and energy waste. It's a very broad term that was defined through a process that the federal government and provinces agreed to about a decade ago, precisely so that it would cover all of these issues.

If you distinguish between greenhouse gases and pollution prevention, then you're implying that the reduction of greenhouse gases is not covered under pollution prevention. That's the only point I'm trying to get at here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I tend to agree, with respect, with Mr. Bigras.

I would refer everybody to page 2 of the act, the definitions section. We have two things defined: air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

With respect, I'm wondering if Mr. Bigras would consider a friendly amendment whereby we put in the use of those two terms, for consistency in legislation and also for an understanding of where the act is going.

I think Mr. Bigras is right on the mark here, and to put in wording to encompass those two terms, which are already defined in the clause—In essence, the amendment would be to prevent air pollutants and greenhouse gases, which I think would be consistent with what he would say. It would also be consistent with the definition section.

Would you be prepared to take a friendly amendment, Mr. Bigras?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

As I see it, we're trying to amend this bill to address problems such as climate change and greenhouse gases.

I don't see that adding the words “greenhouse gases” poses a problem. At the outset, Mr. Jean admitted that we spent weeks studying carbon storage technologies with a view to addressing the problem of climate change and greenhouse gases.

I believe we're on point by asking that we take a close look at existing technologies. In any event, whether or not one agrees with the different technologies, all we're asking is that the different techniques aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions be examined.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Regarding Mr. Jean's proposal to go back and affect some of the parts of Bill C-30 that deal with definitions, if you'll notice, in the ones from the NDP that we stood before, we made a number of amendments to restore a number of the pollution definitions in CEPA that Bill C-30 actually jeopardized.

We heard from a number of witnesses that when Bill C-30 started to tamper with those definitions, it very much limited the scope of government action. That was not something we were interested in.

So while I would imagine he's trying to make a friendly suggestion here, going back into the definitions portion is a whole new conversation.

My only comment, to follow up with Mr. Bigras, is that I think the intention of his amendment is good. I just want to make sure that what I'm hearing from Mr. Moffet is that this doesn't, in any way that was not intended, start to muddy the waters a bit on what government is meant to do research on.

I don't suspect that was Mr. Bigras' intention. I want to hear from Mr. Moffet if that's what I'm to understand his comment on the amendment was. Was he saying that if you make this type of push through Bill C-30 and amend it in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it then somehow restricts or limits government's work and research on other things by defining it suddenly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'll put that question to Mr. Moffet.