Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum.

Welcome to meeting 23 of the special Legislative Committee on Bill C-30. For those who haven't been in this room before, welcome to what's been called the war room, because this is where the war cabinet sat during the Second World War. After today's meeting, I'm sure it will be called the peace cooperation and collaboration room.

We will pick up from where we left off. Before we do that, I want to acknowledge that there's a group of young people in the room who've presented a card to the committee for its good work, for its hard work thus far, and I will present it to the committee officially but not until the committee is finished, which won't be today. It will be tomorrow or the next day, or whenever.

Thank you to the young people at the back of the room for their commitment.

That probably wasn't politically correct, but I've never been accused of that.

Anyway, we will start with BQ-14, at clause 27. It was moved yesterday by Monsieur Bigras.

(On clause 27)

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

I just have a housekeeping item. I know this room has a lot of history and it's deep and important, but the space is.... I know we have a few future meetings. Let's not meet here again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

No. This is a one-off because of our schedule. The caucus rooms obviously were full up and couldn't be configured in 10 minutes. But it's a point taken.

I guess while we're on the schedule, I should cover the fact that of course we're here until question period. We're here till 2 p.m. or slightly before, and we'll be back at one of our customary locations, room 37-C, at 3:30. Then we'll have votes. And then we'll be back until the committee has decided it's had enough.

So getting back to business, we are at clause 27, and BQ-14, which was moved by Monsieur Bigras.

Perhaps you could reintroduce that, Monsieur Bigras, for clarity.

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

I will not table the amendment again nor provide any explanations. Since the amendments we passed yesterday related to the Green Investment Bank of Canada, amendments BQ-14 and BQ-15 do not seem to be as relevant today with the creation of the bank.

Taking into account the creation of this independent institution, it is clear that the management of permits will not be the responsibly of the minister anymore, as stated in clause at 27 of the Bill, but of that institution.

Therefore, I am ready to withdraw amendments BQ-14 and BQ-15.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So we will withdraw BQ-14 and just not proceed with BQ-15. C'est ça?

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

I withdraw amendments BQ-14 and BQ-15.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, officially BQ-14 is withdrawn and BQ-15 will not be proposed.

(Clause 27 agreed to)

(On clause 28)

The one amendment I see there is BQ-16, which is on page 49.

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

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

I withdraw amendment BQ-16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So now we will call clause 28.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Sorry, but may I ask a question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

For the sake of folks who are following, I'm wondering if, perhaps through you, Mr. Chair, either the officials or the government members can give us a better idea of how this environmental damage fund is supposed to work. Will the funds be dedicated for one purpose or another, or will they be disbursed? Will they be general revenue funds?

I may have missed something in the section itself, but give me some insight, Mr. Chair. How will the money be spent? How much do they anticipate collecting?

I think there was a provision in the budget to increase environmental enforcement, which is a good thing in the wake of the experience in different provinces across the country with having seen the fallout effects of cutting, for example, environmental enforcement, water inspections, and so on. Those of us from Ontario certainly recall that.

Maybe the officials or the members from the government could explain to us, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet, could you offer some insight?

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

Sure.

The environmental damages fund is a discrete fund within the national accounts. The fund was established to allow for the collection of money and the disbursement of money to support environmental projects, a wide range of projects that could include reparation, that could include funding conservation groups.

It's not money that is part of the consolidated general revenue fund, that could go to the departments to shore up departmental resources; I think that was part of your question. It's not for that. It's actually to be disbursed for public use, for various environmental purposes.

So it is not established through this bill. It is a pre-established fund.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It must be implicit in clause 28, then, because I just reread it and it doesn't speak at all about how this money shall be spent. It says there will be “an account in the accounts of Canada”. It doesn't say at all how the money would be disbursed.

Are we to infer from this paragraph, proposed section 277.1, that this money could not accrue to the Receiver General for general expenses, for health care, roads, infrastructure, bridges?

[John Moffet]

This bill does not establish the account. The account is already established.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right.

[John Moffet]

As for the expenditures that the fund can support, those terms are established under the FAA.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Again, we imply here that this money will be earmarked specifically for environmental purposes, but should we not say so?

[John Moffet]

That's already stipulated in the FAA.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

For this specific account?

[John Moffet]

For this fund, yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much.

[Michel Arès, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment]

Mr. McGuinty, perhaps I can add something here.

When the previous Parliament amended the Migratory Birds Convention Act and CEPA, in the so-called birds oiled at sea bill, or BOAS, this provision, or a provision that was extremely similarly worded, was added to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. This will bring CEPA to where that Migratory Birds Convention Act is exactly. It doesn't do more and doesn't do less.

As John said, the fund itself is already created. It's not the provision's purpose to be a creating instrument.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.