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

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

Yes, that's correct. The second one....

To continue along with Mr. McGuinty's point, the only thing I would suggest is that Europe has also thrown down the gauntlet to say that the 20% is almost a base. If other countries come on board for something more aggressive, then the European Union has also thrown in some conditions to move to 30%. So a challenge has been issued by Europe that Canada would do well to take up.

They have also, under France's direction, started to work on having import taxation on countries that do not find themselves under Kyoto, which I think should give the government some pause. It seems a serious consideration by France and the European Union.

The second one, I believe, is a friendly amendment. It follows right in the same section, Chair. It moves the 2050 target from this notion of a range to a fixed target of 80% by the year 2050.

I can make arguments to that, but I move it as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It was self-evident, so I'll just go back to Mr. McGuinty and see if that is accepted as a friendly amendment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

My solicitor, Mr. Godfrey, will speak to that.

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

Like previously, we certainly wish to be ambitious, but also we want to be realistic. So we've given ourselves, as Mr. McGuinty said in the previous discussion, room to manoeuvre. Clearly these targets can be adjusted as we go along. However, partly because of work done by, I guess, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which talked about a 60% target and not even using 1990 as the baseline, we would very much like to be able to accept that as a friendly amendment. But concern and prudence for giving ourselves a bit of room to manoeuvre, as we have done on the 2020 target, means that we can't accept this, much as we'd like to, as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen, do you have more amendments?

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

Yes, I have a last one. We'll keep pressing for what we think is right.

This speaks more to Mr. Jean's “air quality”. This is an amendment that in a sense replaces NDP-17. It affects some language. I have a copy here for the clerk to distribute. It takes up at the point of proposed section 103.07. This goes to the measure of national mandatory standards for air quality.

We heard from witnesses—and for some of us, having studied this for a while, it wasn't a surprise, but for many Canadians following the deliberations, it was surprising—that in Canada, while there's a thing called Canada-wide standards, and many might be led to believe that Canada-wide standards means this is the standard of air quality that each region or area must come to, in effect they're completely and purely voluntary. We know the nature of voluntary action when it comes to cleaning up our environment. It doesn't get us very far. It actually sends us backwards.

On the amendment that we'll be moving, there are several pieces of substance. It does two significant things. One, it moves to national mandatory standards that then will take place in geographic zones. This is generally the way to think about air quality, that there must be standards met by each of these zones. It then adds in a sectoral element if a zone fails the test. If there's a national standard that's been agreed to and a standard agreed to in that zone, but the zone fails the test after a six-month testing, it then bumps down to the actual emitter level for them to start to clean up their act.

So if an area such as, in Mr. Watson's case, around Windsor, if that's taken as a natural climatic airshed zone and a standard is set for air quality, which I know is an issue in Windsor right now—and I don't mean to pick on Mr. Watson—and that standard is then broken, it then moves down to the actual emitter's level, the point-source emitter's level, to say we have broken the standard for these specific air quality elements.

These elements, just to keep this in mind, Chair, are all named and delineated in this bill already. This is something the government is moving towards. They've named the actual pollutants. It says it bumps down to the emitter level and then the emitters must come on board and start to limit those very elements that the government has already named in their bill. We think this does much to strengthen the efforts that the government has already made on air contaminants. It moves further than amendment L-21.1, which we have here before us. It both cleans up this portion of the bill and also, if I may, cleans up the air.

I believe the clerk has copies of it. They're being copied. I won't say any more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll take that as a straight amendment. You're not proposing it as a friendly amendment. Or are you?

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

Yes, this is a friendly amendment, Chair.

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

I think it would be helpful for our people to see it. We like the drift of where this is going, but I think it would be responsible of us to see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I agree. We'll suspend for five minutes or however long it takes to get the paper out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey, you now have the proposed NDP amendment. Have you had a chance to look at it and comment? Over to you.

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

We have seen versions of this.

We accept this because it is a fuller version of what we were trying to do. Again, it's more ambitious, but we think it's helpful and we accept it as a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That is accepted as a friendly amendment.

This section is getting bigger.

Mr. Warawa, you're next up.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the work that has gone into the presentation we have just received from Mr. McGuinty.

Speaking to the Liberal amendment L-21.1 and also to subsequent friendly amendments and amendments, I am concerned about the road we're heading down. I'm going to use an analogy of playing the game of sudoku. The point I want to make is that the key to proceeding is starting off down the right path and putting in the correct numbers. I'm concerned about the pathway we are heading down with the recommendation of amendment L-21.1.

Mr. McGuinty started off sharing.... Under his targets, he actually shared the Kyoto targets. He said it's “our Kyoto commitment and our Kyoto target”. I believe that's what he said, and we all know what happened with that target and commitment. Unfortunately, it was 35% above that; it was off—way off.

What I would like to do is back up, take a look at what the government is proposing in Bill C-30, and make sure we are heading down a road that will achieve what hopefully all of us want. I know it's what Canadians want. It's a cleaner environment. It's reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It's lower air pollution levels so that we have clean air, clean water, and clean land, not by voluntary measures but by mandatory regulations through all sectors. We've heard, Chair, through witnesses, that approximately 50% of the pollutants come from the manufacturing industry, the large final emitters. The other 50% of greenhouse gas emissions come from us as consumers, and we need to know and to make sure that we are focusing on all sectors and achieving what Canadians want us to achieve.

I'd like, then, to share what is in the Clean Air Act. Again, we're starting with proposed section 103.01. What is in Bill C-30 is this:

103.01 The purpose of this Part is to promote the reduction of air pollution and to promote air quality in order to protect the environment and the health of all Canadians, especially that of the more vulnerable members of society.

This is called part 5.1 of the Clean Air Act. That was the purpose that I just read, proposed section 103.01. What is being proposed in Bill C-30 is focusing on both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

What's being proposed in amendment L-21.1 is just on greenhouse gas emissions; it's not focusing on the quality of the air that Canadians breathe, so it's only dealing with half of the problem. I believe that example shows us clearly that what's being proposed in the Liberal amendment L-21.1 is not taking Canada where Canada needs to go in cleaning up the environment.

As we move on to proposed section 103.02, which is the general description of Canada's Clean Air Act, proposed subsection 103.02(1) says:

Either Minister or both Ministers, as the case may be, may issue guidelines for the purposes of the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Part for which they have responsibility.

It says “either” minister.

Proposed subsection 103.02(2), which is the consultation part, reads:

In exercising the powers under subsection (1), either Minister or both Ministers shall offer to consult with the government of a province and the members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments and may consult with a government department or agency, aboriginal people, representatives of industry and labour and municipal authorities or with persons interested in assessing and controlling air pollutants or greenhouse gases.

There it is again dealing with both issues—the air pollutants, air quality and greenhouse gases—which, in effect, create climate change.

Proposed subsection 103.02(3) reads:

Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent either Minister or both Ministers from exercising the powers under subsection (1) at any time after the 60th day following the day an offer is made under subsection (2).

Proposed subsection 103.02(4) reads:

Guidelines issued under this section shall be made available to the public, and the Minister who issued the guidelines shall give notice of them in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that that Minister considers appropriate.

Those are the guidelines for consulting the public.

Already, Mr. Chair, I feel it's a far superior form than what's being proposed by the Liberals in their amendment L-21.1.

Proposed section 103.03, “Information Gathering”, regarding research, investigation, and evaluation, reads:

For the purpose of assessing whether a substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including an air pollutant or greenhouse gas,

—there it is again, Chair—

either Minister may

(a) collect or generate data and conduct investigations respecting any matter in relation to the substance;

(b) correlate and evaluate any data collected or generated under paragraph (a) and publish results of any investigations carried out under that paragraph; and

(c) provide information and make recommendations respecting any matter in relation to the substance, including measures to control the presence of the substance in the air.

Now, we go into proposed section 103.04, dealing with the notice to the minister, and it reads:

Where a person

(a) imports, manufactures, transports, processes or distributes a substance for commercial purposes, or

(b) uses or releases a substance in a commercial manufacturing or processing activity,

and obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that the substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, the person shall without delay provide the information to the Minister unless the person has actual knowledge that either Minister already has the information.

So there's an obligation to provide notice to the government, to the minister. I believe, again, that is far superior than what's being proposed by the Liberal amendment L-21.1.

As we proceed on to proposed section 103.05, this is dealing with notice requiring information, samples, and testing. It reads:

(1) For the purpose of assessing whether a substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including an air pollutant or a greenhouse gas,

—there it is again, Chair—

either Minister may

(a) publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister publishing the notice considers appropriate a notice requiring any person who is described in the notice and who is or was within the period specified in the notice engaged in any activity involving the substance to notify that Minister that the person is or was during that period engaged in that activity;

(b) publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister publishing the notice considers appropriate a notice requiring any person who is described in the notice to provide that Minister with any information and samples referred to in subsection (2) that may be in the person’s possession or to which the person may reasonably be expected to have access; and

(c) subject to subsection 103.06, send a written notice to any person who is described in the notice, and who is or was within the period specified in the notice engaged in any activity involving the importation or manufacturing of the substance or any product that contains or may release the substance into the air requiring the person to conduct any test that the Minister sending the notice may specify to the notice and submit the results of the tests to that Minister.

Mr. Chair, I could go on, but I believe very clearly that this is the direction, the road, that Canadians want us to go to. They want us to deal with both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on all sectors, Mr. Chair. I think this is the way we need to go and back the train up, so to speak. Amendment L-21.1 does not take us anywhere near that direction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Monsieur Bigras, you're next on the list.

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

I don't have any comment to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, back to Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to comment on this because of something that Mr. McGuinty said. He said that the refineries were going to be excluded, and as was pointed out by one of my colleagues, indeed it may be that he was trying to exclude them from being double-dipped.

I want to make sure I get on the record that the Library of Parliament does an excellent job at what they do. They provided me with a report on Canadian oil production and refineries—selected statistics. It came as a shock to me, quite frankly, to find with respect to some of the refinery data that, in particular, nine refineries are in Ontario and there are only six in the entire west. I'm hoping that it's not his purpose to exclude refineries, especially given that when we look at it more particularly, carbon monoxide in tonnes in Ontario is almost three times that of Alberta. In Ontario it's two times as much oxides of nitrogen. Total particulate matter is three times more. There's four times more particulate matter in 10 microns or less. There's four times more particulate matter in 2.5 microns or less, and sulphur dioxide of 10 times more in refineries in Ontario than in Alberta.

I want to clarify what is said on the record, because of course judges look at and hear what we say. I want to make sure that the clauses in particular are just making sure there's no double-dip of refineries and it's being fair to all industrial emitters, because he did indeed say that refineries would be excluded. I do want that confirmed on the record by Mr. McGuinty if that's his intention. Certainly refineries in eastern Canada, and in Quebec in particular, pollute much more than the ones in the west.

I'd like that on the record, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

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

I thank Mr. Jean for his comment.

To reply, it's simply a classification issue. We wanted to make sure that under proposed paragraphs 103.05(1)(a),(b), and (c), the classification was correct. In the normal understanding, upstream oil and gas does not include refineries or distributors of natural gas or petroleum, but that is included as part of the energy-intensive industries. So it's captured under (c), but for that very purpose—in case there was any ambiguity—to make clear that they were only being dealt with once. Of course, we do recognize that many of those refineries are in eastern Canada. They will not be excluded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

All right, are we ready for the question on L-21.1, as friendly amended by both the Bloc and the NDP?

Mr. Jean.

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

On a point or order, I did ask for a confirmation in respect of my suggestion that it might require a royal recommendation. I would prefer to have that on the record, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Now that you've done that--you didn't word it that way before, so I was waiting for you to do that--what we have here are the elements of a plan, not the plan itself. Again, it goes back to the elements of something that may show up when the plan is developed. If it becomes part of legislation or regulation that does specify spending, then at that time it may require a royal recommendation.

I'll go back to Mr. Godfrey's point about Bill C-288, which did have specifics, or elements, in it that were similar and was ruled by the Speaker of the House not to require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I'm going to follow that precedent, and my ruling is that this does not require royal recommendation and is therefore admissible.

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

I would like to rebut, Mr. Chair, very briefly.

Proposed section 103.03 requires—t's a “shall” for the minister, not a “may”, Mr. Chair, and I think that is the difference between the two rulings.

As well, it says “shall” indeed, and then it continues on under proposed item 103.03(1)(a)(iii)—the same proposed section that says “shall”, not “may”—to say “spending or fiscal measures or incentives”. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that indeed it would require royal recommendation based on the “shall”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I take your point. What the “shall” says is he “shall” prepare a plan, which includes some or all of these. It may be no funding; it may be funding. When it becomes a plan that does specify funding specifically, then it may require royal recommendation, again following the precedent.