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

Evidence of meeting #3 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was air.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Committee Business

Technical Briefing on Bill C-30

MPs speaking

Christian Paradis

Francis Scarpaleggia

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage

John Moffet Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

Carol Buckley Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

Guylaine Roy Director General, Environmental Affairs, Department of Transport

Phil Blagden Manager, Air Health Effects Division, Department of Health

Catherine Higgens Director, Environmental Initiatives Division, Department of Transport

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Just to be clear, because I'm not sure it was entirely clear through the discussions, right now, at this point, there are not ascribed to that notice of intent any actual targets. The minister has yet to articulate those, correct? I mean in terms of long-, medium-, short-term targets for any industry. At this point, those are yet to be ascribed.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

The notice of intent outlines a long-term national target of between 45% and 65% national reductions by the year 2050.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

But in terms of near-term targets, say within the Kyoto period or the medium-term period, those are yet to be articulated, correct?

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

Correct.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Okay.

I would just like to re-establish that on January 1, 2008, for large final emitters there were in fact regulations to come in place, and that now we do not have any reduction targets for that date. In other words, we did, and now we don't.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

The previous government was in the process of developing regulations: is that the question?

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Well, that they were to come into force on January 1, 2008.

February 5th, 2007 / 8:20 p.m.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

They weren't yet law—

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

I appreciate that, because we're no longer in government.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

—so they weren't coming into force. But that was the projection.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Right.

I also wanted to establish that Kyoto came into effect in 2004. Is that correct?

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

Internationally, yes.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

The international agreement came into force in 2004.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

Yes.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

So certainly it would be unfair to characterize that there were 10 years of not acting on Kyoto, if it came into force in 2004. Again, that's a rhetorical question, I know.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

I'll leave it to the members of the committee to make that characterization.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

The other point I would make is about indoor air quality. I come back to this, because I think this is an incredibly important point for the purposes of our process. Indoor air quality can already be regulated, and I don't disagree that it may be a nice augmentation. We talk about definitions and maybe increasing them. Greenhouse gases, by definition, are already listed as toxic substances. It would be fair to say that these augmentations will maybe slightly enhance our ability to meet targets should we choose to go after them, but really, in large part, those are already there.

You agree with that statement, I presume.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

I'm not sure what the statement was; I'm sorry.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

It's that what is in front of us may slightly improve our ability to get whatever targets we were going to be able to achieve, but in actual fact, the vast majority of the tools we need to meet our targets are already in place in CEPA, in existing legislation.

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

I'd like to be very clear here. I appreciate that members are trying to characterize what the bill is. My colleagues and I are here to tell you what the bill does. I think it's up to you to characterize it.

Is it a slight improvement? Is it a worthwhile improvement? Is it a waste of time? Those are conclusions for you to draw. We can tell you what the bill does and what it doesn't do, and that's all we can tell you.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Yes.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn

Thank you very much.

Mr. Manning.

Conservative

Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as a follow-up, we signed on to Kyoto in 1997. Is that correct?

Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment

I think that's right.

Conservative

Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL

So from 1997 until 2004, even though it didn't come into effect until 2004, we had seven years, pretty well, to start acting, as a government and a people, on the Kyoto Protocol.

Wouldn't it be a fair statement to say that somebody didn't grab the ball and run with it for seven years, so trying to straighten it all out in two years kind of makes this a bit more strange? We're throwing out a lot of “fair statements” here, so I'm just wondering if that would be one.