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

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

Have there been any consultations with the provincial environment ministers concerning the measurement of air pollution rates? You mentioned that the government will be evaluating the effectiveness of measures taken by each of the provincial governments. Have there been any negotiations with the provinces, consultations with the environment ministers of each province, to inform them that, in future, they'll have to provide air pollution reports?

[John Moffet]

Within the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, there are active working groups dealing with air pollution, looking at the various types of air pollution that each province monitors. There have been efforts under way for at least a decade to try to harmonize the way in which information is collected and reported.

With respect to the current regulatory initiative that was outlined in the notice of intent, there have been ongoing consultations since last summer between the federal and provincial governments on various details of the notice of intent.

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

Is Statistics Canada engaged in collecting air quality data?

[John Moffet]

Statistics Canada plays a very important role in the development and maintenance of the database on greenhouse gas emissions. Statistics Canada plays a less central role in the collection of information about air pollutants. I think that's primarily because the provincial governments and the federal government have been collecting that information for quite a long time, and therefore were working with some relatively old systems. The national system for greenhouse gas inventory was developed in close collaboration with Statistics Canada.

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

Would you be surprised to learn that some studies conducted by the Fraser Institute show that air quality in the major cities is improving?

[Phil Blagden]

Maybe I can address that—

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

Perhaps Ms. Roy could respond as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You have 40 seconds.

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

I have information to the effect that the air quality of a number of major cities has improved over the past 10 years. Do you have any similar information?

[Guylaine Roy]

I believe the Health Canada official is in a better position to answer that question than I am.

[Phil Blagden]

You can look at air quality in different ways. A number of pollutants have seen dramatic decreases since the 1970s. With sulphur dioxide, we've been extremely successful in reducing that pollutant. Ozone is a problem. It has stayed more or less the same, or in some cases has been increasing as an issue.

The key thing about air pollution is that we know a lot more than we did before; we know a lot more about its health effects. So there's the issue of how bad it is and the issue of how bad we know it is.

But for a number of pollutants, yes, if you look at the measurements, several pollutants have decreased since the 1970s. The pollutants of greatest focus in terms of smog are PM and ozone. PM has been more or less flat, though it depends on what part of the country you're in. So all of these things vary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Paradis.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I'll continue.

A little earlier a question was put to Mr. Jean concerning additional recovery powers in the context of deposit-refund systems.

What does that mean in concrete terms? Do you have any examples of what that might mean?

It's on page 6, if you want to refer to it.

[John Moffet]

I apologize if I've misled the committee. Slide 6 summarizes the authorities that are currently in CEPA. So CEPA currently provides the government with the authority to establish a deposit refund scheme. The simplest example that we all know of is the deposit refund scheme existing in most provinces for cans, beer bottles, etc. CEPA provides the authority to establish that sort of a scheme as a means of addressing toxic substances.

Bill C-30 does not change that authority at all. What it does is amend the authorities respecting tradeable emissions units, which are different. Under a tradeable emissions scheme, a source would be given a certain number of units of emissions that it would be entitled to emit. If it emitted more than those, it would have to—If I emitted more than Ms. Roy, and she emitted less than her allotted level, then she could sell her units to me. That way, in total, we would come out at the right level. And she has an economic incentive to continue to lower her emissions. If I'm simply stuck because I have old technology and can't afford to upgrade, then I'll buy the emissions units that I need from her.

So what we've done is we've made a few modest amendments to those authorities to make that system work more efficiently, if we were to set it up.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That's fine. Thank you.

I understand from your answer that the industry would be regulated. We were talking about large industries here in Canada. So I was referring to the declaration of intent. You said that we were currently working to set targets, work that you can't necessarily outline. However, I'd like you to explain more what that would mean in concrete terms so that we can have a clear understanding. What does that mean for the industry? What would happen in concrete terms?

[John Moffet]

Again, I can't go much beyond the notice of intent. But the government's objective, as outlined in the notice of intent and as reiterated in the minister's speeches since then, is to establish a suite of regulations that would address all of the major industrial sectors in Canada. Those regulations would identify both an emissions reduction target or a maximum amount allowed on a sector-by-sector basis, together with a timeframe—i.e., sector B must achieve this target by that date, etc.

It will be more than a couple of lines long, but that will be the heart of the regulations, and they'll be developed on a sector-by-sector basis.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do I have a little time for one final question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, you have 40 seconds.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

The question is for Ms. Buckley.

I found what you said earlier about the amendments that should be made to the Energy Efficiency Act were very interesting. I understand that you will also be able to regulate energy consumption. That's often a form of consumption that's neglected, one might say.

Do you have any examples of the kinds of appliances that would be subject to regulation and how they operate?

[Carol Buckley]

Sure, I have lots of examples. They include lighting products, in all sectors; commercial clothes washers; commercial dishwashing machines; all of the electronic equipment that we use in our home, and the standby associated with it that we hope to be able to regulate; mercury vapour ballast lighting, which is not currently regulated at all; HID ballast, which is not currently regulated at all. So those are lighting technologies. Commercial boilers are not regulated at all at the current moment. Traffic and pedestrian signals—if you think of their usage across Canada—are not currently regulated at all. Then there are torchiere lamps using CFL lighting; external power supplies; low-voltage, dry-type transformers. So there's a long list of 20 to 30.

I can make the list available if it would interest you around the committee to have more details on this type of thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, if I could, just with what's in front of us, and to understand what you would understand to be in front of us, would you characterize what we have in front of us as a plan for climate change or a series of regulatory augmentations?

[John Moffet]

What we're talking about today is a bill that contains a number of amendments to three statutes. I understand that in the media and in some of the rhetoric, the Clean Air Act has been conflated with the government's plan. I'll let the members from the government party expand on what the government's plan is or may be. But at a minimum, I think it's fair to say that the government's plan includes all of the actions articulated in the notice of intent, which explains how regulations will be developed, what regulations will be developed, and what other actions the government will take.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

But you would agree with me that characterizing Bill C-30 or what's in front of us now as an action plan for climate change would be a misstatement, that what it is, in fact, is a series of amendments and changes to augment CEPA or to improve existing legislation.

It may be a rhetorical question.

[John Moffet]

I don't want to get involved in a discussion about what it is and what it's not.