Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 5th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I understand, I'm just advising that if we start crossing into policy areas—

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

I think the answer you're going to get from each of us will probably be an answer about the existing authorities under the statutes that are administered by each of our departments. The question of whether in totality those give the government adequate authorities I think is a question that's probably beyond each of the witnesses, and that indeed would have to include other authorities such as the fiscal powers within the Government of Canada.

In terms of the legal capacity to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from major sources in Canada, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides broad authority to regulate the six greenhouse gases that are currently named on the list of toxic substances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Did you want some of the others to answer, Mr. McGuinty?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Please, if they might, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ms. Buckley.

[Carol Buckley]

My area of expertise doesn't cover all the areas that would be required to meet international obligations, so I can't give you a complete answer. It's just not a fit. The Energy Efficiency Act, which I am here to speak to, wouldn't in and of itself give us the authority to meet the obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Madame Roy.

[Guylaine Roy]

I can say that the federal government has the power to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act and to introduce amendments, but the purpose of my appearance is to provide technical information on the amendments to that Act. I'm not able to go any further and to talk about international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The purpose is to provide technical information on the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How's my time, Mr. Chair? One minute left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

No, four seconds.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Very quickly, then, is there anything in Bill C-30 that corrects or provides for the new government any kind of new power that explicitly is there to meet our Kyoto treaty obligations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet, a short answer to that.

[John Moffet]

What I had tried to do was explain to you the ways in which Bill C-30 enhances the existing powers in CEPA. Those authorities can be used by the government to address emissions of greenhouse gases. In some cases those authorities expand the government's ability to regulate. For example, as I had described, there would be a capacity to regulate products that create emissions.

So to a certain extent, there is an expanded capacity. By and large what the amendments do is improve the government's ability to regulate in as efficient and effective a manner as possible.

I make those qualifications of effective and efficient regardless of whether the government's objective would be to meet Kyoto or not. With these amendments, the government would still be able to attain whatever objective it had set for itself in a more effective and efficient manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll move on to Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of all of my remarks will, ultimately, to understand why we need Bill C-30 to combat climate change.

On page 12 of your document, you talk about establishing a federal accountability regime for reducing our pollutants and greenhouse gases, and you tell us that we need Bill C-30 to expand powers and establish national objectives, which incidentally will take three years. This states: "...establish national objectives within three years...".

I therefore ask you whether it is possible to establish an accountability regime for greenhouse gases under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I suppose that, in recent years, the government has given you a mandate to establish accountability regimes. In the current context, under the present regulatory and legislative frameworks, can we come up with an accountability regime for greenhouse gases?

[John Moffet]

Thank you.

I'll answer in English, with your permission.

Under the current act, there are various authorities the government could use to put in place an accountability framework. The current act authorizes the ministers to establish environmental quality objectives, so the ministers could establish objectives under the current act. Under the Department of the Environment Act, the minister could presumably report on progress, if he or she chose to do so.

What this act does is it would require the minister to issue an annual report on air quality. It would require the minister to comment on the effectiveness of actions taken by all governments in Canada. It would require the ministers to identify any additional actions they're taking.

So while there would be discretionary authority that exists under existing statutes that would enable the government, if it so chose, to establish an accountability regime, this act would compel the establishment of at least a rudimentary accountability regime.

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

I have another question, Mr. Chairman.

Going back to page 17 of your presentation, you referred to the government's ability to establish emissions trading schemes. So I'm speaking to the representatives of Natural Resources Canada. I know you've previously stated working hypotheses and that working documents are available on the website concerning the implementation of an emissions trading mechanism. Under the present act, would we be able put an emissions trading mechanism in place quickly without having to go through Bill C-30? Is Bill C-30 essential in order to implement a domestic carbon market in Canada?

[John Moffet]

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the current CEPA, in section 326 provides the government with the authority to include regulations for tradeable-units systems in regulations it develops for toxic substances. So given that greenhouse gases are currently listed as toxic substances, the government could establish a tradeable-units system in any regulation it develops for those greenhouse gases. What Bill C-30 does is it improves the ability to set up an efficient tradeable-units system.

For example, ideally you would want to be able to impose an automatic penalty for a unit that is being traded under this system so that if a regulated entity was emitting x units over its allotted amount, it would know what the penalty would be. At the moment under CEPA, we can't do that. The bill would allow the minister to develop a regulation that identifies minimum and maximum penalties.

That's a long way of saying that, yes, we could establish an emissions trading regime. Bill C-30 would enable the government to establish a more efficient trading regime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You have 30 seconds.

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

That's short.

I'll ask you a question very sincerely. Ultimately, without Bill C-30, are we able to act more quickly and to regulate the major industrial sectors if necessary? Can we achieve the objectives of Bill C-30 more quickly either by regulation or directly through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Won't implementing this system under Bill C-30 ultimately delay compliance with Kyoto Protocol commitments rather than bring us closer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Answer briefly, if you could, Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

I think the answer is that Bill C-30 shouldn't have any impact on the timing of the government's action. The timing of the government's action is up to the government and the members of the House of Commons. Regulations could be developed under CEPA and then rolled over under Bill C-30, or if Bill C-30 were passed, regulations could be developed under Bill C-30.

We don't write regulations in a matter of a week or two. Regulations take months and months to write. Work has started already and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Your time is up, Monsieur Bigras, I'm sorry.

We'll go to Mr. Cullen and then to Mr. Warawa.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You can tell that the pace of this is quick. I'll try to keep my questions short, and perhaps the witnesses will do the same in their answers.

How far above our Kyoto targets are we right now? What's the latest number we have, by percentage?

[John Moffet]

I'm afraid I don't know. I can give you information on the act and what the act provides.

I'm not trying to duck the question; I honestly don't know the answer.