Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 29th, 2007

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

Mr. Chair, that was my point in relation to proposed subsection 10(8). I just wanted to make sure we had something at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So as Bill C-30 is presently drafted, Mr. Moffet, there would be no reference to time limitation on an equivalency agreement signed with the province?

[John Moffet]

No, sorry; obviously I've misspoken.

The way Bill C-30 is written now, proposed subsection 10(8) says:

An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates at the time that is specified in the agreement or by either party giving the other at least three months’ notice.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is it possible to have an equivalency agreement without a time limit built into it?

[John Moffet]

I'm going to seek legal counsel on that....

The preliminary view, I think, is that this does not require a termination date. Conceivably there could be an open-ended agreement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

There could be an indefinite agreement, and the parties shall revisit, etc.

So right now, in the construct we have, under both CEPA and Bill C-30, leaving aside Mr. Cullen's amendment for a second, it is possible, conceivably, to have an indefinite agreement?

[John Moffet]

No. CEPA imposes a five-year timeline.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right, right.

[John Moffet]

In Bill C-30, it's open-ended, a date in the agreement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right.

That's fine, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

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

As a point of clarification, maybe through the clerks, if we remove this proposed subsection about the open-ended timeframe, do we not revert to what exists within CEPA as it is right now? We've eliminated this, but CEPA has within it subsection 10(8).

[John Moffet]

No, and that's because of the way Bill C-30 is written. I apologize to members who are trying to follow numerous subclauses, but you have to go back to the beginning of clause 5 in Bill C-30, which replaces all of subsections “10(1) to (9)”. That's the first thing you've done: you've gotten rid of them. Then you're replacing them.

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

If we take Mr. Jean's comment and someone wishes to choose to move a friendly amendment to replace it with what is originally in CEPA, which has this five-year window, we'd be open to that, because it replaces what we and I think others have concerns with—which is this open-endedness—with what we've been relying on in CEPA, which is a five-year window for agreements.

As it is written right now, yes, an agreement can be written with no termination ever. With the nature of the things we're talking about here, large polluters or air pollutants, five years is a long time; things change—technologies change, requirements, international agreements. A lot can happen in five years with Canada's position and in its relationship with the provinces on what we're trying to get done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

I may be entering too fully into the spirit of negotiation here, but I want to emphasize to members that provinces have told us that the more the act imposes rules from the outset, the more it appears that big brother is telling them what to do, and that's a deterrent to coming to the table.

An alternative could be to amend subsection 10(8) in Bill C-30 to require that an agreement specify a termination date. Then you wouldn't have a five-year, which might be inappropriate in some cases, but you would have the assurance of some kind of termination date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras was next, but he's not at the table, so Mr. Cullen, go ahead.

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

Just for efficacy's sake and to be clear—because we had some contrary advice that removing this would allow us to revert, but we take the position of the deputy as well—this would read as: “That Bill C-30 in clause 5 would be amended by deleting lines 31 through 34 on page 4, and in their place...”, and then there would just be the text originally from CEPA: “An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates after five years...”, and we can read that into the record, if we want to move on. We can provide text, but it's the text from the original CEPA agreement. It's at the committee's discretion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It would be considered a new amendment. You could withdraw NDP amendment 12.1—

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

Surely. My apologies to the committee, but we were given advice that you can simply move this out and it reverts back. But clearly now, when you remove it, because of what the government did at the very beginning of this section by cancelling all of this, we have to re-introduce the termination clause that was originally in CEPA; and that we're willing to do as a new amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The advice then, is—at your call—to withdraw amendment NDP-12.1 and have a new amendment—

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

Yes. This is not an attempt to drop a new amendment on the committee; this is just a clarity piece.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I understand.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have here a copy of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, in which I read the following:(7) An agreement... terminates five years after its coming into force or by either party giving the other at least three months' notice.

I would like to know if during the negotiations with the provinces in view of reaching an equivalency agreement, this five-year time frame hindered the negotiation of equivalency agreements.