Evidence of meeting #24 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
First of all, Mr. Cullen, do you accept those as friendly amendments?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, I think there's some merit. At first I was a little concerned that we were going to name specific provinces, but now that you've opened it up, I'm sure Saskatchewan has something to say about this as well as Ontario.
On the idea to open it up to the Minister of Industry and the provinces and territories, obviously some will have a great deal more interest than others in harmonization of policies, laws, and investment of public dollars. So we would be open to both.
We wouldn't mind seeing specific language on this. We have some harmony around the table, I believe, so we don't want to disrupt that harmony with this motion.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I can certainly read something, Mr. Chair. It's ready to go and reads:
5. Prior to the publication of a proposed regulation under section 4, the Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry shall undertake a regulations design and development exercise which includes participation from provinces and territories, labour organizations, environmental organizations, companies and other interested persons.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
We're done with debate on it.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 48 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Thank you.
We're on new clause 48.1, and there are two amendments. The first one is NDP-36.
Conservative
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'd like to move L-31.1. I'll ask my colleague to speak to this one.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The idea is to simply have greater transparency for consumers in fuel efficiency ratings. This is an idea that has been developed already in things like EnerGuide, which does a rating. We are essentially proposing that we establish a rating system that deals with two criteria.
First is the vehicle's performance relative to the best and worst in its own class--for example, if it's a small compact. Second is how it ranks with the best and the worst overall for fuel efficiency. It's simply a labelling scheme to allow consumers a better choice, as they have with appliances, for example.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I have a question for the department. Can we hear how this differs from what we currently do? This is a case of somebody jumping to the front of a parade and trying to look like they're leading something.
Catherine Higgens Director, Environmental Initiatives Division, Department of Transport
If I could offer a clarification on what the current practice is with labelling under the voluntary CAFC program, Transport Canada issues labelling guidelines on an annual basis. Those labels, with the current guidelines that were issued this year, refer to information that is specific to that vehicle. It provides that information in fuel consumption terms--litres per 100 kilometres.
We are aware of the recent rule-making by EPA in the U.S., where they have changed their labelling format. We're examining that change to assess its usefulness and appropriateness in a Canadian context. We will be exploring that with industry. There will be a period of time when we're examining it again. It could be incorporated in future guidelines for the labels. Currently the status quo is that we issue labelling guidelines annually and we adjust them with evolving situations.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this is an excellent amendment. Consumers are entitled to make better informed decisions. We should provide as much information as possible. This reminds me of GMOs. Why should citizens not have access to better information at the time of making a choice? More and more people today want to clearly see the fuel efficiency rating when buying a car.
It certainly is a very good thing to make this rule compulsory.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
There is no further debate on L-31.1.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay. That's the right answer. Thank you.
(Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to)
(On clause 51)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We have one amendment, BQ-17, which is going around now, I believe. Does everybody have BQ-17? Oh, it's coming now.
Monsieur Bigras will brief us on that momentarily.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move that Bill C-30 be amended, by replacing lines 28 to 39, page 35, with the following:
51. Section 39 of the Act is replaced by the following:
39. This act comes into force 30 days after the bill introduced in the 1st session of the 39th Parliament and entitled An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clear Air Act) receives royal assent.
Mr. Chairman, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act — and the officials might confirm this — has been in existence since 1980, unless I am mistaken. Is this correct?
Director General, Environmental Affairs, Department of Transport
It has been in existence since 1982, but has not been proclaimed. It was passed, but has never been proclaimed.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
The amendment that we propose today would ensure that the act passed in 1982 will come into force 30 days after royal assent of the bill introduced in the 1st session of the 39th Parliament. We want to move forward. We want the 1982 Act to come into force.
Thank you.