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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We're moving on to clause 24, which is addressed by amendment L-23.

Mr. McGuinty or Mr. Godfrey.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Once again, this is a consequential amendment that refers back to changes we've made, Mr. Chair. I'm going to read the actual amendment L-23.

After the word “following”: “(d), subsections 103.05(2) and 103.07(2)(b) and paragraphs 209(2)(a), (b)”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is that with or without the brackets?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I was lazy there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is it clear? Do you want me to read it again?

The new amendment L-23 is that Bill C-30, in clause 24, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 27 with the following:

(d), subsections 103.05(2) and 103.07(2)(b) and paragraphs 209(2)(a), (b).

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm going to ask for one more minute to go through it, the same as I did last time. I see a reference to the same clause on the carbon budget that was struck off last time. I only want to make sure we're in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay. We will suspend for one or two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Let's reconvene. We are still at amendment L-23.

Mr. Jean, go ahead.

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

After reviewing all the clauses again, I do not see the relevance of referring to the carbon budget again. It was put forward last time, and the Liberals removed it. I'm wondering if we could hear from the department first, and then possibly the Liberals would consider removing the irrelevant section again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet, do you have a comment?

[John Moffet]

I would make the same comment again. I don't see the connection to the carbon budget. I see a direct connection to the authority under proposed paragraph 103.07(2)(b), which refers to establishing air emission standards, but here we're talking about researching causes and remedial opportunities for environmental emergencies. I'm not sure I see the connection to the carbon budget per se.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty or Mr. Godfrey, would you...?

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

The previous one was connected to fuel efficiency, and so on. I suppose that we're.... Because the carbon budget has so many references to large final emitters--big industrial groups--this one seemed to us more pertinent, because these are the same entities that are likely to have accidental releases, and therefore we thought that it connected more directly. We could see the point of the previous deletion, but this one seemed to be more in the same realm because of the possibility of the 700 largest emitters having an accidental release, which might require some more research.

Whether it's a result of there being a carbon budget is a moot point, but it is, we thought, more germane.

[John Moffet]

The authority to conduct research under CEPA into environmental emergencies is extremely broad and already applies to all the LFEs or large industrial emitters. What this does is act as a notwithstanding clause. It's saying that despite what you've done under these other provisions, you can still do research, so we have to ask ourselves if there is something we could do under the carbon budget itself that would create an emergency?

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

I think that makes sense. In our desire to be complete....

We will pull that specific reference to the carbon budget, otherwise known as proposed paragraph 103.05(2), and examine it. If something emerges, we'll examine it at report stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Then are you proposing a friendly amendment?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Should I read the friendly amendment first, before you comment?

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

I do have a comment as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead.

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

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought you were going to read it first.

I don't want to leave something on the table and eliminate it if there's a practical solution to it, but what was the thought process when the Liberal Party proposed this? Is there any possible connection between emergency solutions and the carbon budget for large final emitters? I just don't see any kind of possible connection of any practical relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead, Mr. Godfrey.

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

It wasn't my wish to take up the time of the committee unnecessarily. The connection exists because the carbon budget does deal specifically with large final emitters, and they're the folks who might well have an accident. We accept that possibility as remote; therefore, not to delay things further, we will remove that section.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Then the new amendment with its friendly amendment would be that Bill C-30, in clause 24, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 27 with the following:

(d), 103.07(2)(b), and paragraphs 209(2)(a), (b),

Is that clear to all?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 24 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 34)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Moving on to clause 34, and we are at L-27, which I don't have a page reference for. I'm pleased to note there aren't many brackets in this one. I don't have a page reference, I'm sorry--L-27, clause 34.

Mr. McGuinty.