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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is this accepted? I'm assuming that after all that discussion there is no further debate. Are we ready for the question on G-4?

Just to be super-clear again, I'll read it one more time. The motion is that Bill C-30, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 5 on page 4 with the following:

(a) provisions, the effects of which will demonstrably provide an equivalent or superior level of protection of the environment and human health based on, among other factors, the quantifiable effects of the regulation on the environment and human health and the effective enforcement and compliance of the federal regulation; and

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There, that wasn't so tough.

Are we prepared to go back to amendment L-18?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Has this been formally moved yet, Mr. Chair? I didn't think so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

No, it actually has not.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

All right. I'd like to move it, then, with a slight amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Just move it as you wish it moved.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'll move it as I wish it moved. Thank you very much.

It would read, “made under subsection 93(1), 103.05(2),” and then it would read, “103.07(2)(b), 118(1)”. That would correct an improper reference to a particular passage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Did everybody have amendment L-18 in front of them when Mr. McGuinty was reading this?

What the amendment says now is that Bill C-30, in clause 5, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:

made under subsection 93(1), 103.05(2), 103.07(2)(b), 118(1),

And don't forget the commas.

Est-ce que c'est clair, monsieur Lussier?

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Clause 118 is not mentioned in the French version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It's already there in the French line of the text. It just wasn't touched in the amendment.

Is there any debate on this amendment?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a question to Mr. McGuinty, through you. Could he explain what this would accomplish? Then, could I have a response from Mr. Moffet, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. McGuinty, what would this change? What would this accomplish?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's a reference. It actually corrects the proper references pursuant to changes made under Liberal amendment 21.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Any further discussion or debate?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Moving on to BQ-5, Monsieur Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are withdrawing amendment BQ-5, given our agreement of a few minutes ago with regard to equivalency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, BQ-5 is not moved.

NDP-12.1, Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What this goes to is it deletes proposed subsection 10(8). This is around termination. As it reads right now,

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.

It gives an indefinite time to an equivalency agreement. It could allow it to never expire, and there may be instances when an equivalency agreement is not right or it was proven not to be particularly effective.

What sits right now in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm seeing some confused faces. Does everybody have NDP-12.1? It wasn't part of the original package.

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

Yes, but this was handed out a few days ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, you should have it, but I'm seeing some confused looks around the table. Is everybody happy?

Sorry, Mr. Cullen.

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

Certainly, not at all.

Right now, under CEPA, the section under termination—this is about timelines—it says right now, “ An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates five years after the date on which it comes into force or may be terminated earlier by either party...”. And this is giving the notice that we've already been through in discussion.

The new part of Bill C-30, which we wish to delete, gives it this open-ended timeline, that it could be never terminated, and we think the way CEPA is originally crafted is stronger because it puts this timeline.

Of course, parties can agree to extend if it's working to mutual benefit, but it just doesn't make sense to us to have an indefinite period of time for termination. CEPA is much stronger the way it was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet, would you have some comment on that, please?

[John Moffet]

Sure.

Two comments. First, I think I explained two of the reasons why the provinces, we understand, have been reluctant to enter into negotiations for equivalency agreements--namely, the lack of significant overlap and concern about the test. Another issue that has arisen is the mandatory five-year timeline in the act. As Mr. Cullen has indicated, some agreements....

The appropriate length of time for an agreement, I think we've concluded, would vary. In some cases, one might want them to be open-ended. In other cases, one might want them to be tied to existing federal-provincial arrangements, such as the Canada-wide standards regime established in 2000.

With a mandatory five-year limit in the statute, there's no way of matching some other regime that has a different time limit. There's also an obligation to renew agreements. One always runs the risk that an agreement might not be renewed, for whatever reason, at the appropriate time. Then there might be legal...I can't think of the right term; there might be an actual absence of regulations if the agreement isn't renewed at the appropriate time.

So the intention in Bill C-30 was absolutely to have a clear timeframe for an agreement, but to recognize also that the timeframe may differ from agreement to agreement, and that therefore the statute shouldn't stipulate the timeframe. That's the rationale for Bill C-30 the way it is now, for removing the five years.

I would also point out, respectfully, a technical problem with the amendment that's put forward. It would remove proposed subsection 10(8) in Bill C-30, but it actually would not reintroduce the mandatory five-year termination. So now, with this amendment, you would have a statute that says absolutely nothing about the termination of agreements.

In the bill as written, if you go back to the beginning of clause 5, you're replacing subsections 10(1) to (9) of the act, including subsection 10(8), which is the five-year termination. So then you wouldn't have anything; the result would be nothing about termination of agreements.

So if you want this, you need to change your amendment.

I've provided you with the rationale for the Bill C-30 provision. I'd be happy to answer any other questions on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.