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

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

Can I not hear from the department in relation to that? We heard generally a couple of problems.

We've brought up three clauses so far in the last 20 minutes; every one of them had an error. Every single one of the Liberal amendments had an error. In this particular case, I'm asking for some clarification from the department in relation to their interpretation. I think that's a fair question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I am compelled to allow debate to continue.

Mr. Moffet, could you be as brief as possible?

[John Moffet]

This amendment uses the same language that the government used in Bill C-30 to refer to “persons, works, undertakings or activities”. “Person” is a legal term of art, the addition of which, of course, refers to a human person or a corporate entity. The reference to “works, undertakings or activities” was to ensure that the scope of this authority would be interpreted as broadly as possible, so that regardless of the focus of the regulation under other parts of CEPA, the administrative discrimination authority that would be provided in proposed subsection 330(3.1) could apply to those regulations. The intention is to make this as broad as possible.

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

But you said “discrimination”.

[John Moffet]

That's the legal term that refers to the power that's being created here--administrative discrimination. Ordinarily, one would regulate like things in a like manner. You need authority to administratively discriminate among like things and you need to stipulate the basis of that authority. That's what we've done here, so you could geographically differentiate as long as you came up with an equivalent health or environmental outcome. You could differentiate on the basis of the age of the technology or the age of the facility, if that is appropriate, to achieve the ultimate environmental objective.

We have a health and environment test here, and what we're doing is specifying the grounds on which regulations could differentiate among regulatees.

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

So in essence, I understand it not to be a consistent application across every province. Each province could be treated, in essence, differently. For each area of each province, depending on the industry or the age of the facility, just about anything could be.... So there's not a regulated standard for everybody across Canada. People would be treated differently, depending on where they are from, and in essence almost any different factor.

[John Moffet]

I can't tell you what will happen or would happen. We've never used this authority. Whether we ever will, I have no idea. That will be determined by the government of the day.

This provides the authority to make that discrimination, provided we meet the test of ensuring consistent and common environmental and health outcomes. We can't use it willy-nilly. We would have to use it only if justified for the purpose of achieving a common outcome.

Again, the air quality, the Toronto-Windsor corridor--we're trying to achieve the same quality of air everywhere. If the air quality is worse in one place, it may make sense to have different emissions standards for the people in that area, with the objective of ensuring that the people in that area have the same air quality as the people in the Yukon and northern Saskatchewan. The outcome has to be the same.

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

Okay, I understand.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

No further debate?

Are you ready for the question? We will vote on L-27.1, as amended. All in favour? Opposed?

We have a tie.

In the event of a tie, as previously stated at the beginning and as previously done during this session, I am compelled to vote against the amendment to maintain the status quo. So my vote is no.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Shall clause 34 carry as amended?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

For clarification, you said “as amended”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There were previous amendments adopted--L-26....

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That's correct. Thank you. I just wanted clarification.

(Clause 34 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Now we're going to go back to clause 2. The first amendment relative to that is amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Cullen, when you're ready.

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

We'll not be moving amendment NDP-1, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

And NDP-2? The same? Okay.

Are you moving amendment L-3? I recognize what you're doing here, but we need to.... Amendment L-3 is still on the....

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

We are withdrawing L-3 and we are tabling L-3.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, amendment L-3.1 has just been distributed.

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Having just received this, I'd ask for a temporary suspension so that we can actually see what this is. Or maybe we should permit the Liberals to present it first and then break.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can we time this break, Mr. Chair, to two minutes? Two minutes is enough time to read--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Well, there has been abuse of the breaks on all sides, so let's just try to go through this as quickly as we can.

I'm going to ask you, Mr. McGuinty, to cover L-3.1. The government side would like L-3.1 presented.

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

Mr. Chair, the reason we always delay on the presentation of preamble is to reflect accurately, in describing what we're doing here, the changes that have been made. That's why we're now reverting to the preamble: to try to capture what we've been doing here. What L-3.1 does is pick up on points that the various parties have made, and it attempts to consolidate that in a coherent preamble.

The first item that is added reflects the Liberal proposal on having a national carbon budget.

The second paragraph actually uses the language of the government itself in the original preamble to Bill C-30, recognizing “that air pollutants and greenhouse gases constitute a risk to the environment and its biological diversity and to human health...”.

The third paragraph is a direct reference to concerns of the Bloc:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that air pollution and greenhouse gases are matters within the jurisdiction of both the Government of Canada and governments of the provinces;

The fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs reflect the united concern of the three opposition parties—actually, I would say the united concern of all parties—both with the phenomenon of climate change and its risk to humanity and to Canada, while recognizing as well the duty of a country like Canada to take responsibility, given that it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and that we are experiencing severe effects of climate change already in the Arctic. I think all of us would agree to that.

The sixth paragraph is a specific reference that brings together at least the three opposition parties in their commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; the Kyoto Protocol, which was ratified by Parliament in a majority vote; and the recognition that when Canada undertakes international obligations, it must do its best to meet them, with reference specifically to the 2008-2012 first Kyoto period and a reiteration of the commitment we made to getting to 6% below 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels.

Then, under subclause (2), the eighth paragraph, which is a particular reference to a concern of the NDP, as reflected earlier in our conversations, it's the principle of substitution, which they have made a particular cause of theirs, I think.

So what you have here, Chair, is an amalgam of various points of view raised around the table. We think it accurately reflects the changes we have actually finished making.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Did you want to address point one, Mr. Cullen?

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

Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief.

The particular—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think there was a consensus that before we began debate we were going to allow the presenter to present, which has been done, and then at this point we would have a short break so that we could prepare and then come back and have healthy debate.