Evidence of meeting #6 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.
Conservative
Conservative
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
In recent polling, Canadians have shown that the environment is their number one concern. But in the follow-up questions in relation to their place of employment and concerns they have, they are, I guess, trying to find the middle ground instead of having what you'd call a sledgehammer approach to dealing with the environmental concerns—climate change, air pollution, and so on. Maybe you could elaborate on that and what the government is planning to do.
We have the oil sands in Alberta employing thousands of people, the auto industry in Ontario, and the fishing industry in Newfoundland. I'm sure the people involved in all these industries are concerned about the same things we are. But we have to try to deal with this in such a way that people can still have a place to go to work each day and be able to contribute to society in other ways. So could you elaborate a bit on the approach the government is planning to take with regard to that?
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Canadians want real, decisive action. They want it concrete, they want it achievable, and at the same time they want it realistic.
I don't think it's always a choice between jobs and the environment, but we have to be cognizant of the reality that there can be effects on the economy. It could be in the short term, it could be in the medium term, or it could be in the long term. There are a lot of benefits that come with significant action on the environment, benefits to human health, which can contribute significantly to the costs on business in this country.
So I think we want to see a realistic approach that recognizes that, really, greenhouse gases are all about human activity. They're about transportation for Canadians and goods and services for Canadian families. They're about the energy we all use in our homes, in our businesses, and in our hospitals. That's why we have to present a realistic plan.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Minister, we'll cut it off there, please.
Mr. Godfrey for five minutes.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Welcome, Minister.
I'd like to ask a series of technical questions about the regulatory regime that might accompany Bill C-30. What I want to know is this. If Bill C-30 does not pass, under the notice of intent to regulate, could most of the major elements outlined in the notice of intent to regulate be achieved by the current CEPA legislation?
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
We could move forward, but not in nearly as effective a fashion on the greenhouse gas emissions side. It would be incredibly problematic on the clean air side. Without Bill C-30, we would not be able to on the energy efficiency side and we would not be able to on the biofuel side. We would not be able to pursue the plan that we envisage.
I am not going to come here today and make a pitch for Bill C-30 and talk about failure. I believe this Parliament and this committee can accept the challenge and accept their responsibility to move this forward. I really believe that.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Could we regulate indoor air quality under CEPA if we didn't have Bill C-30?
February 8th, 2007 / 10:05 a.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Not effectively, no. I'm not talking about an effective regulation.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
No? That's not the same answer we got previously from the officials.
Could we regulate motor vehicle and engine emissions under CEPA?
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Industrial emitters, both for greenhouse gases and air pollution. Could we regulate them under CEPA?
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I think there are significant challenges without Bill C-30. We want the best, most realistic approach. Let me give you an example.
On the provincial equivalency we're talking about NOx and SOx and we're talking about air pollutants. The capacity for us to deliver on provincial equivalency has a huge effect on it. For example, in Ontario—
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay, but the basic question is whether or not they could regulate under CEPA.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I want to explain this for you. I want to explain this for Canadians. I want to explain this for this committee.
For example, the capacity to engage in provincial equivalency agreements is hampered—
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I wasn't asking about provincial equivalency agreements; I was asking about large final emitters.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I'm saying that if we want to stop the duplication of regulation, we could not. Many provinces don't use regulation on NOx and SOx.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I wasn't asking about that; I was asking about final emitters.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I'm telling you that they use them. If one province has higher standards than the ones we've been proposing or has equal or equivalency standards, we would not be able to come to an effective provincial equivalency regime without Bill C-30.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
It does contain equivalency for regulation, but many provinces don't use regulation. They use licences or they use permits. They will use certificates of approval that cannot be effectively managed without Bill C-30.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Could we achieve emissions targets and timelines under CEPA?