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

[John Moffet]

Again, I don't want to...because it's not in our role as officials. If you met me on the street, we could have a conversation as private citizens. As an official representing a department, I'm not going to comment on the fairness of one statement or another that characterizes one government's actions versus another government's actions.

I hope you can all appreciate the situation we're in and the role in which we're appearing before the committee today.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I understand that. The fact is that it came into force in 2004 but we've had it since 1997, and the emissions have skyrocketed instead of going where the proposal was supposed to go. I just wanted to make sure the question was on the table.

In regard to air pollution, could somebody please explain what is meant by “fixed caps”? And will the fixed caps as proposed under this new act be as stringent as in other countries that have fixed caps?

[John Moffet]

There were two questions there: what's a fixed cap, and how would the fixed caps, as set under this act, compare with those in other countries? The answer to the second question is that it's too early to answer that question. The answer to that question depends on what number this government comes forward with. What will the targets be? That's an issue for you to discuss with the minister and his cabinet colleagues.

A cap is a numerical limit on emissions. It could be set on a facility basis, on a sector basis, or on a multiple sector basis, but a cap is just what it sounds like: you can't go above this limit. That's what it means.

In terms of how it compares to other countries, as I answered earlier, it depends on what the number is.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

On page 29, in regard to the amendment to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, the current regulatory authority has not clearly addressed the use of such measures as formulas to establish fuel consumption standards. Does Bill C-30 go further than what we have now? Could you explain to us what exactly you're bringing forward now that is an improvement on what we already have?

[Guylaine Roy]

Thank you for the question.

The current act provides for the capacity to make regulations, but it's not clear that you can have a regulation that is built on a formula. I'll give a brief explanation of that.

In the United States, they have regulated standards for cars and light-duty trucks. The U.S. administration has just amended their regulations vis-à-vis light-duty trucks. In the past, there was one number—let's say, some litres per 100 km for light-duty trucks—that the industry had to meet to be below that standard for the production and sale of their light-duty trucks. The U.S. administration has looked at how to reform that standard. They came up with a formula to reform that standard.

What we're doing here in the amendment to the MVFCSA is covering the possibility that by regulation there would be a formula to set the standard for light-duty trucks or cars. It's to give the authority, to give precision to that authority.

The authority is there right now. We just wanted some clarification on the authority and what could be done through regulations. That's the reason the government has proposed that amendment.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Through Bill C-30 that will be strengthened.

[Guylaine Roy]

That's right, through Bill C-30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm sorry, your time is up. Time flies when you're having fun.

We'll go to Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much.

One gets the impression from the announcements the government has made over the last few weeks and months that Canada's Clean Air Act was something revolutionary and earth-shattering. Just to echo what my colleagues were saying earlier, we get the impression that what we're seeing are minor amendments or minor improvements to existing legislation.

I'd like to zero in on a couple of issues. In one case you were discussing how we have to look at outcomes and how that should be the focus, and then, almost in the same breath, you were saying that it's important to focus on regulating the design of products.

For example, you were talking about blended gasoline. It seems to me that we have the power to create ethanol mandates for gasoline. So why should we be concerned about blending procedures at an intermediary phase between the production and sale of ethanol?

[John Moffet]

Under CEPA, we could regulate blended fuels. However, we could only impose that obligation either on producers of fuel—i.e. the folks who take the crude out of the ground and refine it and turn it into gasoline and then stick it in a pipeline—or on the people who sell it at the gas stations. Neither of those people is responsible for the blending of fuel. The producers don't actually blend fuel because they put it in a pipeline that in some cases travels thousands of kilometres, and the blended fuel could be contaminated. If it's 5% when it goes in the pipeline, it could be 4% when it comes out, so that's not where it's done, and regulating them would be useless.

The alternative currently would be to regulate every gas station. We could do that, but you'd have to give us a whole lot of money to go and inspect a whole lot of gas stations. What we really want to do is regulate the point at which the fuel is blended.

All I'm saying here is that we don't have that authority under CEPA; Bill C-30 would give us that authority, the authority to target the regulation where it would be most effective.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Again, it seems like a very small incremental measure that is being sold as a revolutionary change of regulation.

I'd like some discussion on wood-burning stoves, because I have constituents who are interested in this issue. At the moment there is no regulation on wood-burning stoves, as I understand it.

[John Moffet]

There is no regulation at the federal level.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Under CEPA, would it be possible to tackle the issue of wood-burning stoves through regulation of ambient air or indoor air quality? Would it be possible to do that, rather than get involved again in the design of wood-burning stoves?

[John Moffet]

No. We can't regulate ambient air. Let's be clear—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, I mean regulate the emissions.

[John Moffet]

No. The only way we could do it under CEPA would be to regulate the use of each stove. If I own one, the regulation would apply to me; our enforcement officials would have to come and inspect my house and determine that I was using the stove in a way that complied with the law.

When I say Bill C-30 would give us the authority to regulate the product, we're not talking about instructing Vermont Castings to design a stove that looks like this and is made with these materials. What we're talking about is giving the government the ability to say, in the case of wood stoves, that you can't construct, import, or sell a stove that operates at less than x% efficiency. You can do it any way you want—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But most of the stoves are imported from the United States, and they're subject to EPA approval, are they not?

[John Moffet]

Actually, a considerable number of stove manufacturers operate in Canada, many of whom build very fine high-efficiency stoves. Quite a few don't, and we continue to import stoves that are built elsewhere and that may not comply with American standards, but there are no Canadian standards, so they can import them and sell them here all they want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madame Roy, I was interested to hear you bring up the U.S.A.'s reformed CAFE, applying a formula for fuel consumption by vehicle class. For the benefit of those listening, how is that different, if it all, from the California standard? Please talk about the different approaches.

[Guylaine Roy]

I'm not an expert in California standards, but generally I can say that the California standards regulate GHG emissions, while the U.S. standards relating to the fuel efficiency of cars or light-duty trucks are based on fuel consumption, so there are two different ways.

If you deal with fuel consumption, you deal mainly with carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas emissions that are carbon dioxide. That gas forms 95% of the gas emitted with fuel consumption, so it's almost a 1:1 relationship.

The California standards regulate all the GHG gases—carbon dioxide, plus two or three other gases—so that's the distinction between the two. The U.S. national administration regulates what they call “fuel efficiency”—it's miles per gallon—while in Canada the national legislation we have that hasn't been proclaimed yet would also regulate fuel consumption.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, it does. CEPA doesn't address fuel consumption; that's what you're telling the committee today.

[Guylaine Roy]

That's right. The way to regulate fuel consumption is through the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The proposed legislation addresses flexibility in applying the regulation. If I'm correct, that's by vehicle class or even by company. Is that a correct understanding?

[Guylaine Roy]

It's a complex formula. It's not by company. If we go with the formula, it's by the size of the vehicle. It's the wheelbased size of the vehicle, it's not by company.