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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Could I ask Ms. Trombetti to comment on that from the view of the justice department?

[Oriana Trombetti, Acting General Counsel and Associate Head, Transport, Justice Canada]

I think a court certainly would want to hear an argument on what is an international best practice. Of course, different judges would interpret the term in different ways, so it leads to ambiguity, again, as Ms. Roy pointed out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to one of the operative words I used in presenting this amendment. This is an aspirational statement, as in we're going to aspire.

Preambular sections, and Mr. Jean knows this, are not enforceable in law ever. They are simply an indication of what this act would purport to do. What we're trying to set here at the very front end of the act in preambular fashion is that this country aspires to be the leading jurisdiction in the world that produces motor vehicles, the most efficient motor vehicles on the face of the planet. It's a commitment to be the best in the world.

Again, as I said in my opening remarks, at some point we have to start talking about what we can do and not always get hung up on what we can't do. It's precisely that defeatist attitude that the vehicle manufacturers in this country reject because they are competing so well. That defeatism isn't going to take our motor vehicle industry into the 21st century's highly competitive carbon-constrained future.

I could also, for example, put the question to the officials. Let's say we were to have other wording in the preambular section, wording, for example, that we're going to establish an ambitious and realistic standard for motor vehicles. What does that mean in law? Is it transparent? Is it predictable? Can it be nailed down? Do car manufacturers have a better understanding of what an ambitious and realistic standard might mean, for example, if we were to change the words? Could you help us understand that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ms. Roy.

[Guylaine Roy]

I think in that case you would have to say, as you said, it's guidance to the establishment of a standard.

My understanding is that the message here from the government is that it wants to do two things. It wants to make sure a standard is ambitious or is going in the right direction in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but at the same time it wants to make sure that it's balanced, that it will be possible for the industry with the technology that is coming up and so on to meet the standard. I think the message the government is sending is that you want to do two things. You want to have a standard that will help you reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tighten the fuel consumption standard, but at the same time you want to make sure the industry can do it, can have the technology to achieve the standard.

I think it's a balancing act. I would stop there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think there's something encouraging in the general conversation we're having around the table, in the sense that we've moved across the voluntary threshold into the legislative, mandatory, and regulatory areas. The reason I say we're encouraged is that it was not so long ago in the House--Mr. Watson can probably remind me of the exact date--that we brought forward a motion to do that, and it was voted down by many members in Parliament. Moving over there--being willing to commit to the notion of having a firm standard that industry will account itself to--is the first stage.

On the argument Mr. McGuinty has just made about seeking interpretation from the courts about what is meant by realistic or achievable or ambitious, I think a lot of those terms, particularly if we're talking about a preamble, are a rabbit's den. We're going to run down a rabbit's hole.

The point I would like to make to committee members is that as it exists right now, CEPA says in its preamble:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of endeavouring, in cooperation with provinces, territories and aboriginal peoples, to achieve the highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians and ultimately contribute to sustainable development

We have language like this in use in our acts as they are right now, acts that the government accepts and uses on a daily basis, so I don't think we should be too timid, in terms of the seeking to--as was written on the front page of the budget--“aspire”, or seeking to go.... I don't think there's anything binding.

There was one interesting point raised by my Conservative colleagues with respect to who sets and how it's set. We're not there yet, Chair, but I think it's instructive to where we're going and why we're supportive of this in the NDP. In amendment NDP-35 we talk about that process--about how we involve industry, the government, and the other sectors relevant to this issue in the setting of those standards and how they meet with international standards.

We have a disturbing trend in our auto sector right now; deals are being signed between Canadian auto companies and Chinese auto companies to produce low-emission vehicles. They would then be open to receiving a benefit from the Government of Canada for cars that were designed and made by a Chinese automaker. You can get to the absolute absurd if we're not on the leading edge of where the industry is headed. It's been a real struggle for our auto industry, particularly the big three, over the last number of years; we've all seen the news reports.

We have the concept of putting out the leading edge, the concept of saying we will aspire to make the best cars in the world, the most efficient and safest. The industry has experience in doing this in other measures, in terms of efficiency of the auto plants; a number of the plants in Ontario achieved the highest efficiency ratings for volume output, etc., and safety standards. We've done this before. The industry has come to realize that there are real costs in having an unsafe plant or an inefficient plant.

We are now doing the same process for the efficiency of the vehicle itself when we say we not only want to be good, we want to be the best, because that factor of pollution, of what happens when a car is in use, has become a cost of doing business. It's become a cost of operating the vehicle, and it's a serious cost, both in pollution and to the consumer who eventually drives that car for the rest of the car's life. In the process we were very clear in making sure we had something set up that met with some industry acceptance in terms of how the designs were put in place, but the concept of benchmarking ourselves to where the best is happening in the world is an encouraging one.

I encourage committee members again. We have language and acts right now in Canada that talk about endeavouring to be at the international best standard. If we're quibbling between what the Conservatives have brought forward and what the Liberals have brought forward in terms of that language, seeking whether one is more vague than another or whether one might be more open in a court to interpretation one way or the other--and no offence is intended for our witnesses today--I think it's a rabbit's hole. I don't think we're going to get a conclusive decision that “most ambitious” or.... That won't serve us.

We're submitting a process that will allow us to establish what that means in real terms. Industry is involved in it, as is government. We think that's a strong safety catch to make sure that we're making things that are realistic and achievable, but that also seek to be the best. The auto sector has experience in doing that in other terms, but not yet in the terms of making the most efficient vehicles. This is why we'll be supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We've had a good healthy discussion. As the members know, there is what I believe a better preamble. It's interesting. The last time I sat around a legislative table was about a year and a half ago. The Liberal government at that time assured us that the preamble was enforceable. Now we've heard that the preamble is not--it's there to give guidance--which is in fact the way it is. It's very interesting how positions change.

Chair, as we've heard, we need to have an ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need a preamble that properly represents a balanced approach and what is realistic, practical, and possible.

At this point, Chair, I would like to move an amendment. I believe we have distributed our amendment. I would be moving to amend Liberal L-30. After the word “adding,” it would read the following before the heading before section 1:

Whereas the Government of Canada seeks to achieve sustainable development by integrating environmental, social, and economic factors in the making of all decisions;

Whereas the Government of Canada is determined to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and significantly improve motor vehicle fuel efficiency;

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to regulating the fuel consumption of motor vehicles;

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the motor vehicle industry operates in an integrated North American market;

And whereas the Government of Canada seeks to establish an ambitious and realistic standard for motor vehicles that is achievable within a North American market and that significantly contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

That is my motion, Chair, as I think it is a more appropriate preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You are amending L-30 essentially with the contents of G-2. Your amendment to L-30 would also drop the “Whereas”, “And whereas”, “Now, therefore” that's currently in L-30.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That is correct, Chair. I think clearly this is a much more appropriate preamble--a preamble that provides balance and is ambitious moving ahead.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa, that is not admissible because it's word for word from another amendment. It's not admissible as a subamendment to a current amendment. We have to deal with the current amendment first.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

What you're suggesting, Chair, is that if it was not word for word, it would be admissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You're not amending L-30. You're replacing L-30 with G-2. That is what you're doing. A subamendment would amend a current amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

You're suggesting you can't amend their amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

A subamendment would amend that. What you're doing is just taking out theirs and inserting G-2.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

With some minor changes. It's not word for word.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm sorry, I have ruled it's not admissible as a subamendment in the form you have proposed it. If there was some coming together of subparagraphs in those amendments, then it might be admissible.

We'll suspend for a moment.

The bells will be ringing momentarily. We are suspended until after the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we'll commence again.

We were at the new clause 46.1, and I believe we are going to hear another subamendment from Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Also, thank you to staff for this dinner, and a very healthy one at that.

I have provided a subamendment because there were concerns expressed regarding the second “Whereas” phrase. So what I would like to do--to provide an improvement to what's being proposed--and what is on the table is a subamendment that would remove the second “Whereas” phrase and in its place insert those that are on G-2.

I could read them, but I don't think that's necessary.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So what Mr. Warawa is proposing is a subamendment to L-30, which would be fine down to the first “Whereas”, ending at “emissions”, would delete the second “And whereas”, would insert the five “Whereas” clauses of G-2, and then finish off with the “Now, therefore, Her Majesty” of L-30.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That's correct. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That is correct.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I just wanted to make sure I was on the list, Mr. Chair, but I am next, so thank you very much.

I wanted to speak just a little bit more about the actual Liberal amendment before the amendment, and the other portions that are included within that, and about something that Mr. McGuinty said.