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.
1 p.m.
An hon. member
A collector's item.
1 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
A collector's item, indeed.
The point of the effort today, though, and I think this is instructive for us as we go ahead with further debate, is to argue on the merits of the options available, as opposed to argue on who failed Canadians on the environment and when, because that's just a slippery slope for us to go.
The options represented on this particular amendment right here, on clause 38, as to whether it's better to trade a new section--which greenhouse gases would be controlled through there--or to use the section that exists right now.... We all heard evidence from different witnesses; there was a variance of views. We formulated our opinions on that. Let's just base our votes on that.
I encourage committee members to resist as much as possible...and to just deal with the merits of the argument.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Mr. Moffet, you have some input, and then perhaps we can get to the vote.
1:05 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I want to remind members, respectfully, that in fact this provision is independent of the creation of a clean air part or not. All this provision is doing is taking these substances off the list of toxic substances. It's doing so in conjunction with other provisions, which have not yet been voted on, which were stood at the beginning of the discussion of the bill, that would redefine those substances as air pollutants and as greenhouse gases.
The provisions that were reported yesterday, L-20, L-21.1, and L-19, do use those words. So essentially all you're doing is taking substances that have already gone through the process--set out in part 5--and have been classified as needing risk management of some kind...and today they're classified as toxic substances. Were this to proceed in the future, they would be called air pollutants or greenhouse gases. That can be done as part of setting up a clean air part or completely independent of a clean air part. Essentially all you're doing here is renaming them as air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very quickly, I have to ask this question and to follow up on Mr. Watson's comment.
The leader of the opposition now was the Minister of Environment for some time, and you had all these tools that you say are adequate today. Why didn't you get it done? Why didn't your party get it done when you were in government?
It's a valid question. If these tools were sufficient then, and you had all these targets, why didn't you get it done?
1:05 p.m.
An hon. member
That's not fair.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Mr. Jean, it is not necessary to answer that question. It's a matter of argument at this point, and we do need to move on. Thank you very much.
If there's no further debate, I suggest we move to the vote.
(Clause 38 negatived)
(On clause 39)
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Seeing no amendments to clause 39, and obviously there is a similarity to the previous discussion on clause 38, shall we move straight to the question?
Mr. McGuinty.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Once again, it's a major government amendment to take greenhouse gas and air pollutants out of CEPA. For example, it deletes several criteria air contaminants, Mr. Chair, like gaseous ammonia, ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds from CEPA, schedule 1. As a result, we are against clause 39.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Obviously, just to be consistent, this deals with the six Kyoto greenhouse gases, which it proposes to delete from schedule 1, and we're against that.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there any further debate?
(Clause 40 negatived)
(On clause 41)
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Again, this is another in a series of amendments that the government put forward to take greenhouse gases and air pollutants out of CEPA. It adds a new schedule 3.1 to CEPA, which lists excluded volatile organic compounds. We're against it.
In addition, the government's changes no longer make any sense due to the changes to clause 18 of Bill C-30, as amended over the last several meetings.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We are moving to a new clause 41.1. We are now into part 2.
I believe the officials are.... Are you going to reshuffle? Are you happy with your current official configuration?
1:10 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We're changing to part 2, amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act.
1:10 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, before you do that, the officials aren't here; they will be here for the 3:30 session. This is my responsibility. I told them they probably wouldn't be needed for this time because I had assumed you were going to go back and do the provisions that you had deferred, the definitions and so on that have nothing to do with the Energy Efficiency Act--in other words, complete CEPA as a whole.
