Evidence of meeting #22 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We start standing on our heads in a minute.
Is it the desire of the committee to stand this one too?
Go ahead, please, Mr. Blagden.
3:40 p.m.
Phil Blagden Manager, Air Health Effects Division, Department of Health
I can speak to the policy intent of it. It refers to products that may release. Whereas CEPA has been focused on substances, there is an intention throughout Bill C-30 to allow it to also address products that release substances without necessarily containing them. We are aware of a couple of instances in which that could come into play.
That's the overall intention. I can't speak to the legal aspects of it, but it was to make it possible for the regulation of products that may release, as opposed to products that simply contain.
March 27th, 2007 / 3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The minister has shared the examples of a woodburning stove or a gas-powered lawn mower, products that would release but that could not be regulated without this change. I think we could move forward. I think it's a very good obvious amendment that needs support.
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Hear, hear!
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there any other discussion on clause 17?
(Clause 17 agreed to)
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We'll need to wait for Mr. Moffet. Do we know if Mr. Moffet is close or not? I'm hesitant to start on the next one, because it's going to be a big one.
3:40 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice Canada
Yes, he's on his way, actually. That's what I can say.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Because the next one is quite large, I think it's probably prudent that we suspend for a couple of minutes and just wait for Mr. Moffet. We will suspend.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We will reconvene. When we left, it was agreed we'd go back to clause 15 now that Mr. Moffet is here again.
(On clause 15)
Mr. Moffet, Mr. Godfrey has a question on clause 15. There are no amendments to it, but he has a question.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Clause 15 proposes restricting the authority of inspectors to go onto private property. My understanding is that what we're dealing with now is the current inspection regime under CEPA and how wide-ranging the inspection authority is of the inspector in terms of private property. The clause book tells us that this amendment would have the effect of restricting the ability of the inspector to go onto somebody else's property. This would have narrower authority than is currently the case under CEPA.
The question I was asking is this. Has something happened, using CEPA, where we've had bad cases, where inspectors have gone ballistic and done God knows what? Why are we doing this? Why would we want to restrict their ability when we want to be able to give them appropriate authority without violating human rights unduly?
3:45 p.m.
John Moffet Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
You hit on the exact issue in the last clause.
This amendment wasn't made as a result of specific incidents that have arisen during the course of enforcing CEPA. However, since CEPA was developed, of course, charter litigation has evolved and Justice Canada's understanding of permissible compliance promotion, compliance enforcement activities, has evolved.
We inserted this amendment at the recommendation of Justice Canada. It's essentially their view that this codifies the maximum extent of rights that it would be appropriate for the federal government to have under this type of statute.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My next question would be this. To what extent are these search provisions, if I can describe them as such, found in other bits of legislation, environmental or otherwise? Is Justice Canada attempting to do adjustments wherever it can as these pieces of legislation come up, or were the search provisions under CEPA unique?
3:45 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice Canada
There are only one or two provisions in the bill that are amended. One is in the clean air part, part 5.1, because that's the scope of the bill. No other statutes are amended through this bill.
3:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I think the answer is that we don't know. We can try to get back to you.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I was trying to decide whether it was a general policy that Justice Canada would clean up things in light of an evolving charter, understanding that they're taking advantage of the moment.
3:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
We don't know the answer to this question. I apologize, and we'll try to find the answer for you tomorrow.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to be clear, we're entering the debate on clause 21 right now.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, really, Chair? That's unacceptable, and you should clamp down on that.
