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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I would like to call this meeting to order.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to meeting 25 of the special Legislative Committee on Bill C-30. We're getting close to the end here, and I appreciate your good work up to this point. Let's keep the same spirit going with this one.

I will have to ask the media to take their leave, if they don't mind.

To kick off, I'll just remind members that we are now at the stood clauses. The committee agreed earlier to stand a number of clauses, many of them substantive. So I would suggest that in taking up the stood clauses we consider the substantive clauses first, and once they're decided, then return to clause 2, the preamble, and clause 3, the interpretation clause.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The stood clauses, just to refresh your memory, are clauses 2, 3, 4, 4.1, 5, 5.1, 10, 10.1, 14, 22, 24, and 34.

We will be starting at clause 4. That is referred to by NDP-10, on page 15.

Mr. Cullen, how do you wish to proceed on that one?

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

This is one of those carry-overs, so it's consequential. We won't be moving it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

So amendment NDP-10 will not be moved.

As I see no other amendments on clause 4, is there debate on clause 4?

(On clause 4)

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are opposed to this clause because it would allow the minister to establish a national advisory committee to study greenhouse gases and CAC regulations. It's also not needed--and I think the officials can support this--because the minister can regulate greenhouse gases and CACs as toxics using the existing advisory committee provisions linked to subsection 93.(1).

Since the committee has already decided, I believe, to delete the government's proposal for parallel greenhouse gases and air pollutant systems in clause 18, with the passage of amendment L-21.1, this amendment is frankly no longer relevant and no longer needed. I think it would make Bill C-30 incoherent if it were to go through.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa first, and then I'll get some comment from the officials after that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, Chair, that's what I was going to ask for, comment from the officials. It's my understanding that this would use the current committee, and I just want to clarify with the officials if that's correct.

I don't think Mr. McGuinty is correct in his assumptions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet, would you care to comment?

[John Moffet, Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

Sure.

Mr. McGuinty is correct in the sense that this provision is no longer needed. This doesn't actually establish a new committee. What we were trying to do was ensure that the national advisory committee, which is a federal-provincial-aboriginal committee that advises on all decisions under CEPA, would also advise on decisions made under the clean air part; hence the reference to subsection 103.09(2).

Now that there's no subsection103.09(2) we don't need this amendment. This committee would continue to provide advice on regulations made under section 93, which would be the primary regulatory authority as the bill is now constructed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Just for clarification then--

[John Moffet]

We don't need it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

--we don't need it, but the committee already exists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Any further debate?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On what you're suggesting.... Bear with me, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

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

From our reading and what we heard from the officials just a moment ago, this clause references something that doesn't exist. Aside from differences of opinion over things....

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That's what we're trying to anticipate right now.

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

I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary needs to do some consultation, but it goes nowhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We just need to do it in the appropriate fashion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

For clarification, to the department officials, are you suggesting that clause 4 is no longer needed? That's what I thought I heard you say.

[John Moffet]

That's correct. It refers to a clause that no longer exists, so this clause of Bill C-30 is no longer needed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

(Clause 4 negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll now go to new clause 4.1, which is referred to by amendment BQ-4 on page 16.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not be moving the amendment because we already carried the Liberals' amendment yesterday or the day before. This amendment is therefore no longer justified.