Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that's an important point to make, because sometimes we forget, when we're talking about making a difference in our own backyard first, that when it comes to the environment there is only one backyard and that's the entire planet; and that the reality is that if action isn't taken globally, then even if we're exceptionally good on a local basis, those implications will obviously be felt by us over a certain period of time.

You mentioned the flow of air coming in from Iowa, as an example. Really we are not an island. Would you agree, and I guess I would put it to all, that we need to participate in international agreements and international efforts to reduce climate change--and obviously take local action, but be engaged on an international basis?

[Rob Peacock]

Agreed.

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

I make that point because it comes up commonly in the committee. I don't disagree with local action, but I think we need to think in that context.

There's something else that I think is important, and it's something that the committee is certainly seized with. It's on page 3 of the brief from the Lung Association. In talking about the amendments that Bill C-30 is proposing to CEPA and other legislation, you say:

Although all of the objectives of these amendments could be achieved by maximizing the use of existing acts such as CEPA, some amendments recommended by Bill C-30 strengthen the likelihood of better action; other proposed amendments risk reducing the likelihood of better action. It is extremely important that provisions under a Clean Air Act not weaken any of the provisions of CEPA.

I think that's an extremely important point you make, and you outline a number of ways in which we need to be cautious, moving forward, that we don't weaken the legislation.

The question I would have, then, is what most concerns you in looking at this? What stands out as the thing you're most concerned about in Bill C-30 in terms of undermining CEPA, the thing you think we should be most looking out for in the legislation as it's worded right now?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

I would be very cautious of taking away any toxins from the CEPA toxics list and putting them into a separate list. I would be cautious that your wording ensure regulation, as opposed to other softer words in there. A good point is the inclusion of the air quality component.

Certainly some of the specifications that are in the notice of intent that goes along with Bill C-30 with respect to the timelines for greenhouse gas emission reductions are very worrisome. Although those details are not in Bill C-30, they are obviously associated with it, because the notice of intent was promulgated at the same time as this act and refers to this act.

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

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You have a few more minutes, if you wish.

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

It's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Watson, for five.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last, but maybe least, I guess. And he's in my party, so go figure.

Welcome to all of the witnesses here today.

I'm from Windsor, Ontario, the actual smog capital of Canada. We're worse than Toronto in that regard, and apparently we're hurting the Maritimes, as you're saying here.

Let's start with something common to all of you. I think we can probably all agree that the raison d'être of each of your organizations is to tackle head-on the specific health challenges of Canadians, your focus being on the health of Canadians, correct? We can all agree on that?

We probably agree, then, that the primary focus of Bill C-30 should be the human health of Canadians. Is that a fair assessment as well? Do we agree with that? Does anybody disagree with that? No? Fair enough.

There's a lot of common ground, I think, in your presentations, but there was an interesting area of divergence. Two of you, in your presentations, didn't comment on Kyoto. Now, you did mention the benefits or the co-benefits, I think, in a broader sense, about greenhouse gas reduction and what that means for air pollution reduction, but you didn't offer the government advice with respect to Kyoto. I'm not criticizing your presentations, but I'd like to know why you didn't offer the government advice on Kyoto, when one of the presentations did.

[Rob Peacock]

I'm just pinch-hitting today for one other individual. We will provide as much information as we can, with respect. In fact, we have a conceptual framework for Canada in terms of asthma, COPD, and allergies, and we'll be drawing quite a number of bits of the 150 sources of information, much of it to do with health care related to air quality and so forth—it's all in here—when we submit our brief.

Will it touch on Kyoto? I don't suggest it will, at this point, but if we can, with our scientific committee, we'll try.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Well, I wasn't asking you to offer us advice on that, I was simply questioning why you didn't.

[Rob Peacock]

That's why.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay, fair enough.

One of you did offer advice to the government with respect to Kyoto, and that's Ms. MacKinnon.

Can you explain to me how a green project, say in Africa, helps? While it may help toward a Kyoto target, how does that help the human health of Canadians, which is the raison d'être of your organization, as we've agreed?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

If the green project in Africa reduces greenhouse gas emissions, all of these emissions, no matter where they're produced on earth, impact climate change globally. An emission anywhere impacts climate change everywhere. If that project reduces greenhouse gases, then we lower our risk from climate change, and we lower some of the consequences to air pollution, plus the other hazards of climate change as well.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So it would probably have a more marginal effect than, say, shutting down a coal-fired plant in southwestern Ontario.

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

The differences would be in how much greenhouse gases you reduced by doing both of those activities. If they were both the same, they'd have both the same effect. But shutting down a coal-fired power plant in Canada also reduces air pollutants in Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thereby enhancing the health of Canadians more directly.

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

Yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Our government is moving towards mandatory regulations for the auto industry beginning in 2011. We've signalled that it's important. You bring up the California emissions standard, which currently is being challenged in court on its constitutionality. If the standard is struck down in court, should Canada adopt that standard anyway? Do you know what effects that would have on the auto industry? Have you done any impact analysis on that, or can you offer any advice as to what that would mean?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

I don't know what impact it would have on the auto industry. I think they are able to meet those standards if they perhaps do some tinkering with engines and so on.

I think we should still aim to try to match either the California standards or even the U.S. federal standards, which are better than ours. If we wanted to do it as a staged approach, we could suggest the U.S. federal standards first, followed by California standards, as long as we move in the right direction.

The other thing that must go hand in hand with these individual standards for cars is some sort of mechanism to reduce the number of cars that we drive.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The U.S. federal reformed CAFE would be a step in the right direction, if that's where we chose to integrate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It's certainly in the right direction. I don't know enough about the auto industry to say if it's just as easy for them to make one big jump as two small jumps. I can't speak to that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

It's a question of tooling or retooling for market segments as opposed to one broad North American continental market. That's probably more the issue for the auto industry--that and probably technology and the ability to get R and D in certain timeframes into a vehicle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm sorry, Mr. Watson, that is five.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Time flies when you're having fun. Thank you.