Evidence of meeting #23 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 products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
One more time. It is simply a consequential amendment. It now reads:
93(1) or section 167, 177 or 326
as again required by L-21.1.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Any debate?
I will allow it, because we're moving so fast. Go ahead, Mr. Moffet.
12:40 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
My understanding was that the Liberal amendments to clause 18 created additional regulatory authorities. I'm wondering if this clause should be extended to those new authorities as well.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Can you give us some examples of where that might be, or what we'd have to refer to, to make this more complete?
12:40 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I could give you an example, but I don't think I could do so comprehensively in the....
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Chair, rather than trying to fish around right now, why don't we stand this one until we better understand? We very much appreciate anything that will make this more consistent.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I had not finished calling the vote, so that was closed.
L-27 and clause 34 are stood. Is that agreed?
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
(Clause 34 allowed to stand)
I will call clause 35.
Mr. Godfrey.
(On clause 35)
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Our objection here is that this adds new regulations for greenhouse gases and CACs to a list of other CEPA regulations, this time pertaining to an exemption from the Statutory Instruments Act, and it's redundant. This change would only be necessary if the committee opted to regulate GHGs and CACs separately from other toxins. But we on this side do not wish to do so; therefore, we are against this clause.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Do we have any amendments? Further debate?
I'll call the question.
(Clause 35 negatived)
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Because there may be questions, folks, let's make sure that hands are up or down, as you really intend.
(On clause 36)
Mr. Cullen, NDP-30, I believe, is in the same category.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I would like to add a friendly amendment to reconcile, one more time, the numbering, because it refers to sections that would have been created in the government's original version of clause 18. So we need to change our amendment L-28.
What we need to do, as things now read, is to change what reads “103.07(6) or (7)” to “103.07(2)(b)”.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay. I will just read amendment L-28 again.
It now says that Bill C-30, in clause 36, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 30 with the following: “103.05(2), 103.07(2)(b)”.
Is there any debate?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 36 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 37 agreed to)
(On clause 38)
We will now move on to clause 38.
Mr. Cullen.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think some debate on this is important, Chair.
We have grave concerns about clauses 38 all the way through 41. When this act was released back in November, and through December, we had great caution, and then subsequently we heard from a number of witnesses about the impacts of repealing schedule 1 in the act. I wouldn't mind hearing from Mr. Moffet on this as well, and I suspect other members of Parliament around the table...particularly those who are involved in the CEPA review right now, on the importance of schedule 1 and the importance of being able to define greenhouse gases under this schedule, because schedule 1 allows the government to do a certain number of things. It calls upon the government to do a certain number of things.
One of the primary concerns with this—and we appreciate what the government is attempting to do—is that it opens up, as some witnesses have told us, the potential for litigation, that the issue around CEPA and around schedule 1 has been brought to the Supreme Court. One of the justices in part of that ruling has since retired and indicated to this committee that reopening that debate opens up the chance for potential further litigation. This is not to suggest that most companies and industries dealing with the law would seek litigation, but there are always actors unwilling to do the right thing or to change some of their practices, and as such they will press for litigation knowing that these things, particularly when you need to go to the Supreme Court level, will take a number of years. During that time, essentially nothing will happen, because the law is under review and being appealed to the court.
While the government may have had some noble intentions in this, we believe, and we heard from witnesses as well, this would be the wrong course of action. So we will be voting strongly against this and would appeal to other members of the committee to do the same, and not, through trying to do something positive, unleash something that could be very detrimental even if it was unintended.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm just curious. First of all, are you worried about the constitutionality of the section, or whether or not people should have the right to due legal process? You talked about dragging it out in the courts. Are you worried about people having the right to have due legal process, or are you more concerned with the constitutionality? I think the legal process people in this country should be respected and should continue to be able to have that, notwithstanding that it may drag out, unfortunate as it may be in the circumstances.
I did have a question on the constitutionality of the section, and I directed it to the department. I would suggest that we should hear from them in that regard, because I had the same concern.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
To answer that portion of the question about whether I am worried about lawyers suing the government, no. I'm sure they will continue to do so whether this committee passes this section or doesn't pass this section.
We're not looking to curb anyone's constitutional right to litigate. I'm sure the bad-acting companies in this country that choose that course of action rather than cleaning up their mess will choose to continue to do that. But what we've seen here is a potential for unintended consequences.
