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.
7:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
All right, 2011. We won't go back in time on this one. If there's no ambition at this committee table, then it's—
7:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
7:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Aspire. It's in your budget, for goodness' sake.
So it's:
(4) Starting in 2011, the fuel consumption standards prescribed under this section shall be benchmarked against leading standards in other jurisdictions, considering technical feasibility.
I'll make that language available.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Would Mr. Cullen consider a friendly amendment to his friendly amendment? After “technical feasibility”, it would add “economic impacts and motor vehicle safety”.
7:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, we've seen this type of language before, and we've had testimony that suggests the creation of some loopholes in this. We think “considering technical feasibility” is speaking directly to the considerations within the sector to be able to move ahead with these types of changes. If there is some consideration of a long start-up time or other things that Mr. Watson and others have raised, “technical feasibility” covers it off, so I'm going to stay with the friendly amendment we have.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm just trying to understand. You don't accept this as a friendly amendment?
7:15 p.m.
NDP
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I'm sure this has been riveting television, but we have to move on.
Actually, we're going to call for some professional opinions.
Madame Roy.
7:20 p.m.
Director General, Environmental Affairs, Department of Transport
Maybe I should just clarify the plan for the regulations under the MVFCSA, just to give some clarification. As the government has indicated, the plan is to have regulations in force after the expiry of the MOU for model year 2011. To arrive there, the plan is to have regulations in the Canada Gazette Part II by the end of December 2008.
Just to give you an idea of the regulation-making process, there is a consultation paper; a consultation period with the industry, provinces, and stakeholders; Gazette Part I publication of the regulations; another period of comments by various stakeholders; and then publication in Gazette Part II by the end of December 2008 for the model year 2011.
Already that plan for the steps to having regulations by the end of December of 2008 is quite tight. It takes time to do all of that. I'm just trying to point out that to have regulations made under this act published in the Canada Gazette--I don't know if it's Part I or Part II here--within one year could be tight, depending on when the decision comes into force, because to have all of that work done, the whole regulatory process, in one year.... I have some doubts that this can be done.
The second point is that normally in legislation there's no reference to a document that will be there for a certain period of time. An act is there for a long time. So to have a reference to a document that will be there until 2010 is awkward in legislation.
I just wanted to flag that there are some challenges with the timeframe--of course, depending on when the act comes into force--and that the regulatory process takes time. The reference to the fact that the regulations would apply after the MOU is also not something you would normally see in legislation.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
7:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So we're back to the friendly amendment on this proposed subsection (4) that I moved?
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Correct. You have proposed it as a friendly amendment, but it has not yet been accepted as a friendly amendment.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The NDP friendly amendment has been accepted by us. That much we agree on. The return ball, so to speak, was not accepted by them, which referred to economic impacts and motor vehicle safety, so we're back to where we were with the friendly amendment, which we accepted.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
So, Mr. Cullen, are you accepting their friendly amendment to your friendly amendment, or not?
7:25 p.m.
NDP
