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

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

Just for the record—we'll get to this later, I hope, as well—it's some 28% above. But 6% below is what we were intending to do.

I'm looking at the Commissioner of the Environment's audit of Canada's efforts around Kyoto and climate change, and I'll quote from page 13:

The government urgently needs a believable, clear, and realistic plan to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It must establish and commit to short- and long-term national goals.

Are there any short- or long-term—or medium-term—national goals in this document that you gave us tonight?

[John Moffet]

The bill itself does not articulate any specific emission reduction goals.

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

So for the government to claim—It's often been asked the plan, about seeking a plan for climate change, and the government has often referred to this bill as the plan.

With no targets at all, notions of a cap-and-trade system, or notions of meeting our Kyoto Protocol, it's baffling to suggest that this is a plan. This is an act that affects aspects of CEPA, but it doesn't lay out a single target for any major polluter in Canada. It creates more ability, but—It's frustrating.

Through the amendments right now, previously under CEPA, to regulate greenhouse gases, did that decision eventually have to go to the cabinet level to be regulated, to be capped? When was the final decision made? If the government were at any point to say we are going to cap emissions for a certain industry or a certain sector, if you're doing it through CEPA, does that eventually end up on the cabinet table?

[John Moffet]

Most likely yes. Technically, that's not necessary in that a regulation is administered by the Governor in Council. Typically, however, a regulation with that magnitude of significance would be discussed at cabinet.

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

Under the toxics regime, how many chemicals actually ended up going through cabinet and receiving virtual elimination under CEPA, under the number of years, ten years? How many times did cabinet actually decide to regulate a toxic to virtual elimination?

[John Moffet]

There is a regulation called the prohibition of certain toxic substances regulations. Technically, that's not virtual elimination, which is a very specifically defined issue.

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

Yes, so specifically virtual elimination, how many toxics actually made it through the cabinet process?

[John Moffet]

One.

Perhaps I can just explain that the prohibition regulations actually go further and ban a substance, whereas virtual elimination is not banning a substance. And quite a few substances have been banned under CEPA.

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

Consultations are important. How long have we consulted with industry when it comes to this issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions?

[John Moffet]

The Government of Canada?

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

The Government of Canada.

[John Moffet]

Well, the Government of Canada and the Canadian public have been discussing this issue for—

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

No, no, the Government of Canada specifically through your departments having round tables, consultations, direct consultations with industry about the emission cuts that were being proposed or suggested: how long have we been doing it? Has it been months, has it been years?

[John Moffet]

Years.

[Guylaine Roy]

As I said earlier, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act wasn't proclaimed in 1982. It was passed by Parliament, but not proclaimed. Since then, there has been a voluntary standards regime for the automotive sector.

The government announced regulations for the automotive sector in October, and consultations started with the automotive sector that same month. I wanted to clarify that.

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

It needs to be understood that under previous governments and this one, consultations with industry have gone on for years.

You mentioned something important, Mr. Moffet--that the act right now allows a minister to force companies to prepare a plan for emission reduction but does not set the amount.

Am I hearing that right?

[John Moffet]

One of the authorities in the act, under part 4, allows the Minister of the Environment to require, for example, a company that's emitting a substance--

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

Like GHG.

[John Moffet]

Yes. So if the minister chose to use that authority, the minister could tell company X, lower your GHGs; you must prepare a pollution prevention plan taking into account the following objectives.

The company would then have to prepare a plan, provide a summary of the plan, and then report annually on progress toward the plan.

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

With a target? Can they say to company X, you go out and reduce this many megatonnes?

[John Moffet]

Not using that authority; using the regulatory authorities, the government could issue a regulation and say, you must reduce by x%.

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

How long has the ability for the government to do that existed within the legislation?

[John Moffet]

The six greenhouse gases were added to the list of toxic substances in November or December of 2005.

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

Have you been asked to prepare any type of contingency plan for the targets that are required to meet the Kyoto Protocol, under Canada's commitments? Has the government come to you and said, please prepare the numbers for transportation, for industry?

[John Moffet]

I can't comment on the government's current plans for regulation.