Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mesdames et monsieurs, we have quorum. Welcome to meeting 21 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C- 30.

Would the members please take their places? We'll get started. We have a lot of work ahead, as we have been saying, so we probably need to pick up the pace just a little bit.

We'll start with a new clause, 8.1. I'll point out that there are three amendments that address it: amendment NDP-13, amendment L-19, and a new government one, which has just been distributed. All are very similar.

We'll start off with Mr. Cullen addressing amendment NDP-13, and we'll take it from there.

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

Mr. Chair, I know there have been some conversations between the parties to bring about, through this act, a concept that we think is long overdue. There's a need, particularly when you're talking about climate change, to look at significant areas within the country, to be able to designate those areas that are more greatly affected by what's happening to the planet's climate.

From my riding's perspective in northwestern British Columbia, we've seen the first onset of one of the fundamental changes with the mountain pine beetle epidemic that's going through our forests now, into Alberta, and coming across the boreal. It's a clear example of a place that has been identified by all sides of the debate as something significant, or a so-called “hot zone”, as used colloquially, as is the far north. The evidence that has been given to us at this committee and every committee I've sat on that's dealt with climate change has realized that when we talk about overall average temperature changes that happen on the planet, there's a disproportionate effect that happens in the far north in particular. An average two-degree rise across the planet actually can translate to a 10- to 14-degree rise in our northern sectors.

Now, imagining those types of climatic changes in our far north, they affect just about every facet of life in that region—cultural, economic, hunting, transportation, everything—and it creates an increased level of unpredictability. Therefore, from the community's perspective, and the government that is meant to represent that community, we need to act in a more urgent fashion.

We've moved an initial motion. We believe the Liberals have one as well. And there is one forthcoming that committee members have in front of them from the government that might allow us to seek a compromise position on this, which we would encourage.

I'm not sure which process is best in terms of looking at these. If it's the will of the chair and the committee to move straight to this new motion put forward, which I think is cleaner in language.... That's not to say that the language wasn't clean in our motion, but the notion of significant areas brought forward by the NDP is now being presented by the government.

I can't actually read the number this is listed as. I'm not sure that it's been given a number yet per se.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It's amendment G-1.

Mr. Warawa, are you prepared to speak to that?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, we've distributed to you, Mr. Chair, amendment G-1, to clear up the language of both the Liberal and NDP amendments. The amendments from the NDP and the Liberals are similar. We want to broaden the minister's ability to take certain actions in the designated areas, in significant areas.

This has been tabled. Hopefully, we will find acceptance of this. It brings us to the area we want. Both amendments, I think, are heading in the right direction, but there are some problems with the language. This cleans it up. So this is our amendment, amendment G-1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

The NDP amendment was first, the Liberal amendment was second, and the government amendment was last. So we should probably get comment from Mr. Godfrey or Mr. McGuinty.

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

Mr. Chair, we're not opposed to this at all.

I guess what we really need to understand—Mr. Warawa has given us a bit of the idea—are the ways, from a technical point of view, in which this might work better. I'm wondering if the witnesses have any comments on the preferability of one over another from a technical drafting point of view. I'm just wondering if they can help us understand how this works better.

We're not opposed. We're just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'll turn to Mr. Moffet in a second.

I'll just point out that we will deal, one way or the other, with NDP-13 and L-19 before we get to G-1, if it comes to that, with respect to withdrawing or—

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

And all three on the table in a common sense way, we discovered—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, and then we'll deal with the other two as appropriate.

Mr. Moffet, do you have a comment on that? And then we have Monsieur Bigras.

[John Moffet, Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

My apologies. I was talking to my colleague.

What was the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

To give the committee an understanding of the rationale behind G-1.

[John Moffet]

Essentially the concern is with the wording of NDP-13. We didn't express any concern to the government about the intent; we simply expressed a concern about the wording.

The major concern focused on--and I'm looking at NDP-13—proposed new subsection 53.1(2), which says:

Following the designation of a region as a “significant area” under subsection (1), the Minister may

Our concern was that you would then only be able to do those things after the minister had designated the region as a significant area. Our suggestion is that we not establish that legal threshold.

So the government's amendment says:

For any significant area designated...or any other area that the Minister considers appropriate

That gives the minister a little more latitude.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras, you had a comment.

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

I understand that members from three political parties support in principle the notion of significant area, but I still have questions about this.

I'd like to ask one of the movers of these amendments or Mr. Moffet whether they think that the designation of a significant area by the federal government is limited to land under federal jurisdiction or whether it can extend to land under provincial jurisdiction. Is it felt here that, because of this amendment, a significant area could very well be on provincial land and not simply be limited to land under federal jurisdiction?

[John Moffet]

The way Bill C-30 works now is it would give the federal government authority to regulate emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases across Canada. That would possibly be restricted in the event that the Bloc's motion, which was stood yesterday, is approved. In that case, federal regulations for greenhouse gases and air pollutants would not apply in a designated province.

Is your question about how this amendment would interact with your amendment? If your amendment is not passed, then there's no provincial–federal jurisdiction in the way you described it. The federal government would have the ability to regulate GHG and air pollutant emissions across Canada.

I think we would have to do a little more analysis to look at the precise implications of the Bloc amendment in terms of whether it would preclude the minister from designating as a significant area an area in a province that had been identified as not being subject to federal GHG regulations.

I apologize. I think I understand the question, but we'll have to do a little analysis. Can we undertake to do that and get back to you as quickly as we can?

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

I reread the Liberal and NDP amendments, but I see nothing here about a provincial consultation process before proceeding with the designation of a significant area. I see no consultation process put in place from the time the minister deems that a region could be designated as a significant area.

Am I mistaken here or could the federal government almost unilaterally designate a significant area without having consulted a province? This is very far-reaching then. We're not talking about cooperation, even in the amendments that have been tabled up until now. Am I wrong, Mr. Moffet?

[John Moffet]

No, I don't think so.

You're right. There are no obligations here to consult. But if I may, let's just remind the committee of what the implications of designating a significant area are.

There's no massive new power to intervene with new regulations here. It's to “identify priorities for research” and to “establish information-gathering requirements”. The significance of designating an area under this provision doesn't lead to massive new federal authorities to intrude into a province. This is really a means to say a particular area is an area of concern and that we want to do more research and gather more information about it. It doesn't change the regulatory authority of the federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Just to concur with that, when we initially put this to design, it wasn't any intrusion on any area or lake or park or designated spot within a province or any other territory or jurisdiction. It was to allow the government to identify what was actually going on and to help better identify what's happening in particularly sensitive areas.

The areas most commonly referred to are the far north and the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence region. By population and pollution impact, they have been the places where we have been most lacking in terms of information and research. I think there's something significant when a population realizes this and such areas have been identified as areas of concern. If the science tells us that, which it is doing particularly in the far north right now—that's the one I'm focused on—then there clearly needs to be a greater call to research and understand the problem, particularly to get at the source point of the problem or where it's coming from.

We have to remind committee members that a lot of this pollution not only doesn't know provincial jurisdictions, it doesn't know national boundaries either. The effect is happening in these places in particular.

When we talk about climate change...I would invite all committee members to come and visit what a forest looks like when a beetle has gone through it. It's something to see, and it's important to the people of that region. I can tell you for certain that to have some acknowledgement of that, and to then have assistance with the research component at the very least in order to overcome the problem they're facing....

An imbalance is what typically happens with this type of cause and effect. We've seen this in Africa. That's where the greatest effect will be happening in terms of economic punishment and climate change. We've also seen it in the far north. Ironically, both regions have the least political clout, if you will.

Neither the government's amendment nor the original one the NDP put forward says the government can come in and start to tell the provinces what they must and must not do. This provides a focus and says there must be greater research put into a particular area because it is an area of greater sensitivity. That's acknowledged by the science, not by the politics. At the end of the day, that's what is most important about this particular issue. As often as we can, we should not allow just the politicians to make decisions as to what areas are going to get funding or which ones get attention. We must allow the scientists to say that these are the areas of greatest concern and we should direct attention and research and funding in those directions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thanks. I'm sensing some emerging consensus here with Mr. Jean.

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

I would follow up in relation to Mr. Bigras, and I would agree with him. More specifically, I think first nations people have to be and should be consulted in relation to this. We don't know the effect of designating a significant area. I would suggest that the effect or the results will change over time.

I think first nations should be consulted because they have a different value system as far as the land is concerned when compared to this government or anyone at this table. The reality is that not only should provinces and territories be consulted, but first nations should be as well. To miss that opportunity, I would suggest, would be to ignore the facts of their significant contribution to our culture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you for that. We did have a bit of a suggestion I think that if there was some consensus amongst the majority of the committee that one of the three of these would suit the whole, we would move forward on it.

Mr. Jean.

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

I do have a suggested friendly amendment to the government's bill. It takes into consideration Mr. Bigras' concern and my own in relation to first nations, if indeed the government amendment is considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We can't do that at this point, because right now the NDP amendment is before the committee.

Mr. Cullen, what would you like to do with your amendment?

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

We'd like to move right to the government amendment as it is, G-1.