Evidence of meeting #25 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.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I certainly could use some help understanding what this means, Mr. Chair. I don't understand what this means; I've no idea what this means. It must refer to something previously that I don't understand, because I have no idea what is meant by “An agreement shall establish a manner of determining whether the terms and conditions of the agreement are being fully met”.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Amendment G-5? I don't have the numbers of the amendments, so I have misled the committee. I think I called this amendment G-6, whereas this is—
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
My apologies. I'm actually not making up amendments on the fly, here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
That's okay.
So there's a question from Mr. McGuinty as to what amendment G-5 means.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
As to what it means. I apologize, could you...?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I do.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It reads, “An agreement shall establish a manner of determining whether the terms and conditions of the agreement are being fully met”. I don't know what that means; I haven't got a clue.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
To be completely candid, we're just seeing this language for the first time, as well. It's my assumption that the intention here is to ensure that each agreement would specify a mechanism, presumably including the kinds of things that have to be monitored, the kinds of indicators to be looked for, and which both parties would look at to confirm the agreement is being met on an ongoing basis. So it's not just a matter of whether we are entitled to enter into an agreement, but when we're into it six months, a year, or two years down the road, is there still equivalency—because of course the environment doesn't remain static.
If that's the objective, I think it goes some way to addressing the fact that each agreement will be distinct; each will address the particularity of the province, the particularity of the provincial legal regime, and the particularity of the environmental issue or issues that are subject to the agreement, and speak to the fact that each agreement therefore will have to be customized to a certain extent.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Moffet, I understand that in plain English we're really trying to say any equivalency agreement that is struck should include some method of determining whether or not the terms and the conditions of the agreement are being fully met. Is that what this is trying to do?
It's to make sure that inherent to the actual equivalency agreement or inside the equivalency agreement, one of the points of agreement is that we will have some method or some manner of determining whether or not the terms and conditions of the overall agreement are being met. Is that right?
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
It's the way we read it as well.
Conservative
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
From what I understand, an equivalency agreement has been signed with Alberta, but it does not at the moment contain any mechanism for compliance verification. My understanding was that you wanted such a mechanism to be included in equivalency agreements, so as to ensure that the commitments on the part of the provinces, as well as on the part of the federal government be respected. Is that the case?
Furthermore, I would like to know what means the federal government has as its disposal to end an equivalency agreement and based upon what criteria it can do so. In the context of our BQ-6 amendment, we suggested several days ago that the written equivalency notice provided for in subsection (1) be revoked with three months' written notice by an independent organization. This was the organization we wanted to establish.
In the end, it would be the Green Investment Bank of Canada, by virtue of what was passed in the context of the Liberal amendments, which would now be responsible for determining if the agreement is consistent or not, or perhaps even if it should end. Did we not decide to charge this independent organization that we have created with carrying out this evaluation? These conformity mechanisms now come under it, do they not?
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I'm happy to respond to both of those questions.
First of all, I do not want you to walk away thinking there is no basis for measuring equivalency under the current agreement. The point is that there is. The current agreement covers four regulations: pulp and paper effluent regulations, pulp and paper defoamer and wood chip regulations, secondary lead smelter regulations, and vinyl chloride release.
There's an annual report prepared jointly by the federal government and Alberta looking at the performance under the Alberta regulations, and this is being addressed.
The point I was trying to make is that the law, the statute, does not require it. To date you've left it to the good judgment of the officials. This would require us to do the right thing. We have done so, but this would require us to do it if you adopt the amendment. That's the first point.
Your second question was about the basis for terminating the agreement. On the amendments in Bill C-30, not new amendments but the Bill C-30 provision, clause 5 that amends section 10 of CEPA includes subsection 10(8), which states that
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.
If the federal government decides that the province is no longer enforcing its rules or has changed its rules, the federal government could terminate the agreement. In addition, the federal government in an urgent situation could always issue an interim order under CEPA to address an urgent issue.
Finally, under amendment G-5, the agreement would have to establish the manner of determining whether or not the agreement is being met, and it could include the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism. I again think amendment G-5 would address a number of the concerns committee members have raised this morning.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm wondering if I could move a friendly amendment to proposed new subsection 10(3.1).
I wonder if Mr. Moffet could—
