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

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

The problem is there is a contradiction between the last “whereas” of the government, which sets an ambitious, realistic standard achievable within a North American market, versus the thing we just voted on, which is a fuel consumption standard that meets or exceeds international best practices. It seems to me it's got to be one or the other. It can't be both.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Let's vote. Question on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

If there's no further debate, we'll call the question on amendment G-2. All those in favour of G-2 will please so indicate.

Members will recall that at the outset I did give the rationale for how I'd be voting in a casting vote, and if the vote was on an amendment, the vote was going to be against it to maintain the status quo. Therefore, my vote is no.

(Amendment negatived)

(On clause 47)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There are three amendments, the first of which is amendment G-3. You should have it. It was attached to amendment G-2. It's a very short one.

The government moves amendment G-3.

Mr. Warawa, do you want to speak to that?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chair. It's a minor amendment, that Bill C-30, in clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 33 with the following:

47. Subsection 3 of the Act is renumbered as

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

I will point out that there is a line conflict between G-3 and L-31, which is coming up. As it stands, if G-3 is adopted, L-31 cannot be put, because they both amend line 2 on page 33 of the bill. If G-3 is negatived, then L-31 can be put.

Is everybody clear on this?

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

Can you repeat that one more time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

L-31 is the one I have. I believe L-31 is correct.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can you explain it again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There's a line conflict between G-3—the one that was just moved—and L-31. As it stands, if G-3 is adopted, L-31 cannot be put because they both amend line 2 on page 33 of the bill. Amendment L-31 amends more. If G-3 were to be negatived, then L-31 could be put. You can only amend one line once. It's just one line in L-31, but it does create the line conflict.

Is there further debate on amendment G-3? No? Are we ready for the question on G-3?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Amendment G-3 is not carried, so we'll move on to L-31.

Mr. McGuinty, do you want to proceed?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'd like to move it, Mr. Chair, and I'll ask my colleague Mr. Godfrey to speak to it, if I might.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

This is simply a more fulsome substitution for what was in the original government plan. That's why we're proposing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There's a page 2 to this, with two words that are missing from page 1. There should be two words after “Greenhouse”, at the very end. The last two words are “Gas Emissions”.

Is there any further debate on L-31?

Just to confirm, the last two lines of that amendment are “Industry Respecting Automobile Greenhouse Gas Emissions”.

Do you have something else?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Yes, and I realize this is what Mr. McGuinty was getting at.

I would like to put a friendly amendment forward under proposed subsection 3(3), where it now says at the bottom of the page “shall be published in the Canada Gazette within six months”. We would like to substitute “one year” for “six months”, and the rest of the paragraph continues as before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is everybody clear on that friendly amendment? It changes proposed subsection (3) to say, “Regulations made under subsection (1) shall be published in the Canada Gazette within one year after the coming into force”. The rest remains the same.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

We will support this amendment. However, we would have liked these regulations to take effect sooner, especially in subsection (3), rather than waiting for the end of the existing voluntary agreement between the automotive industry and the government.

I remind you that it was the minister of Natural Resources of the previous government who signed this voluntary agreement in which the automotive industry committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five megatons under the climate change plan that had been put forward.

I remind you that at the time — and we still believe in this — we wanted the agreement to be compulsory rather than voluntary. I know we are moving in this direction now, but since we do not yet have the reports on gains in greenhouse gas emissions reduction by the industry — these reports should be published yearly — we are unable to monitor what reductions actually took place. We have to believe the industry but it would be better to have these regulations right away rather than wait until the expiry of the voluntary agreement.

However, we will support amendment L-31.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

Just to be clear, Chair, are we speaking to the friendly amendment that Mr. Godfrey...? No?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It was a friendly amendment, so it's—

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

Is it deemed accepted?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes.

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

I would like to move a second friendly amendment, then. In some part it comes out of NDP-32, which we won't be moving. It will come at the end of proposed subsection (3), where we'll now have proposed subsection 3(4), which will state—and I'll hand the clerk some language on this—“Starting in 2001—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]