Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Godfrey asked at least three questions, and I would like to have an opportunity to complete my answers before you recognize another member of the Committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I apologize, Mr. Bigras. I didn't realize you weren't finished.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

The second important question asked by Mr. Godfrey had to do with the credits trading system. He wanted to know whether this amendment could compromise that system. The answer is no. In fact, the amendment actually refers to paragraph 3(12) of the Kyoto Protocol, which deals specifically with the emission credits trading system. We decided to include it in our amendment because we, too, want to ensure that an emission credits trading system will be put in place.

In fact, Mr. Godfrey talked to me several days ago about the potential problems that this amendment could pose with respect to international trade. I would like to know what his reference is in that regard. If he can demonstrate to me that this amendment could contravene WTO rules or certain other international trading rules, I will be very pleased to discuss it with him. However, I do not want to engage in a discussion without there being some substance to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, I'm going to go to Mr. Vellacott, then Mr. Cullen. Then if Mr. Godfrey wants to answer your question, he certainly can.

Mr. Vellacott, are you ready? You could start again, please.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Right. I appreciate his completion there.

As I was saying before, we can't support this particular Bloc Québécois amendment, simply because regulating climate change is far too important. It's about having some national standards to ensure that all Canadians have the benefit of clean air, clean water, and clean land. No matter what province they have these in, they should have equal protection. It's not about hiving it off for one province or the other. We think there should be the national standards to ensure that all Canadians have that benefit.

So it would be difficult in light of that to support this amendment, which doesn't appear to do this. We'd like to see it done nationally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. We go to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It seems a bit of a crossroads with respect to this bill. I'm not blessed or cursed with the joy of being a lawyer, and trying to understand—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. We have an environmental NGO that is coaching the Liberal Party. I just want to get a ruling. Is that appropriate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe that's appropriate. Anyone can bring in people, whoever they want to bring in the room, to help them. Obviously it's for the members to ultimately make the decision and vote.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Fear not the environmental community, Mr. Warawa. They're good people.

The question I have, at NAFTA.... I'm not sure we're going to get advice on NAFTA, unless Mr. Godfrey or others have particular legal counsel on it right now.

In terms of that first consideration and concern, I think there's some validity to it. In reading the amendment as it is, I think maybe there's other wording or another place to achieve what Mr. Bigras is intending.

It seems to me that in limiting the amount of greenhouse gases released by each province, and by applying it to each province, it sounds, with that wording, that the jurisdiction then falls to the federal government, in either some negotiation or conversation or potentially. Maybe the ability of the federal government to suggest to each province that this is your limit and you will go by that limit is a wording question. As written, that would be challenging, politically. That's the question we have in front of us.

With respect to the constitutionality, Mr. Bigras has some advice suggesting that it is constitutional. We've received some advice otherwise. This is the problem with lawyers in constitutional matters: you run down a rabbit hole pretty quickly.

I am concerned. I'm not sure I've seen enough clarity that if this were invoked I could return to British Columbia and say, no problem, the feds won't come and tell you what your limits should be. I'm trying to understand if that's not the case.

I'd be open for more arguments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen and Mr. Bigras, I will let you bring this to a close. You can sum up all these questions that were being posed.

I believe Mr. Godfrey is next, then Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We're obviously trying to work forward in a positive way, Mr. Chair. I think we might want to reflect on some words that would reassure us on the constitutional side. I believe there are some discussions going on right now, and we may come up with words that would make the point that this has to be done within the Constitution.

Certainly it's interesting that the assertion of federal authority found in the Hydro-Québec case may give us the cover we need. Mr. Bigras was kind enough to share the constitutional reference from the Library of Parliament. He reminded us of that issue that we talked about in terms of the use of the word “toxic”--giving us that power, or “peace, order, and good government”, for the federal government to take necessary measures.

We could also remind ourselves that we're not the only legislative players in this process. The committee can move a set of amendments that would then be subject to further amendment at various other stages of the process, whether it's at third reading or in the Senate. We don't have to come up with a definitive answer. If we could find a form of words that simply said “within constitutional limits”, I think that would probably cover off the concerns I raised about international trade. That's really a constitutional measure as well, as to who is responsible for negotiating international treaties.

We may be working towards a solution. I think I'm rather inclined to support this amendment, perhaps amend it a bit to provide greater clarity on the constitutional side, but reassure that there are various safety nets down the road that could help us out and give us a more definitive answer than we can provide today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

Mr. Chairman, my question is really addressed to Mr. Bigras.

It seems to me that we should be limiting the greenhouse gas emissions, not of a province, but rather of the industries operating inside that province.

I would like to ask Mr. Bigras about the intent of his amendment. Why does he want the limits imposed on plants or companies in a given industry sector to vary from one province to the next?

My second question relates to clause b) of this amendment. Do the provinces not already have the power to take any measure they consider appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions? I'm thinking of Quebec, for example, which has already developed and implemented an excellent plan.

Do you not think paragraph b) of your amendment is somewhat unnecessary?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, a number of questions have been raised. If you can try to clarify them as much as possible, that would be greatly appreciated by the members.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to compare my legal opinion with another opinion. But I have no choice but to conclude that the one I have is the only one available, and it comes from Parliament.

I just want to point out that this legal opinion is based on a judgment involving Hydro-Québec in a criminal law matter. Our legal opinion as a whole is based on a ruling by the Supreme Court in the late 1990s.

My third point has to do with defining a specific area of application — in this case, a province. There is a need to ensure a certain equity in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions. There has been a 7 per cent reduction across industry sectors in Quebec since 1990, which cannot be said for industry sectors in the rest of Canada. That approach, as reflected in the second part of our amendment, would give the provinces the opportunity to lay out their own action plan on climate change.

That way, we probably would not be imposing as strict rules on some industry sectors in Quebec, which have already reduced their emissions by 7 per cent; on the other hand, there would be stricter rules for other economic sectors in Quebec, such as transportation. That is where we would have to focus our efforts in Quebec. Under this amendment, the provinces would be responsible for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent within their borders, but they would be free to determine how to meet that target and to implement whatever regulations they deem to be appropriate.

I was listening to Mr. Vallacott's comments earlier. I realize that we need to have a national plan and national targets, but this amendment will not do away with or replace what is already in the bill: it only adds an option, and I want to stress that point. In no way is it our intention to impose or implement this approach all across Canada. Our intention is clearly not to follow the European model, which is a territorial, province-by-province approach, but rather, to allow the provinces to pass their own regulations, to make an international commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, and to put strict standards into practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras. I would just like to point out a couple of things.

First of all, the Library of Parliament does not give a full legal opinion on any item. They simply give their opinion based on what they read. In terms of a solid legal opinion, I don't think that would be correct.

Secondly, Mr. Godfrey has pointed out that there are, of course, some other safety nets here when we get into the legal realm of constitutional law. They basically are report stage, third reading, and of course the Senate, at which time more of the legal constitutional issues can be dealt with. Our job here is to approve an amendment or oppose an amendment, to have a vote on that, and to move on. I don't think any of us here are constitutional lawyers or qualified to get into that.

I just clarify that to try to hopefully bring this to a close.

Mr. Cullen, you did have a comment at this point.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm battling with this one, because we're trying to keep strong intentions toward making this bill effective and possible, but I still have two problems. One is that as a fundamental, in listening to folks much brighter than I am on how to make this thing possible, the territory approach is not the best approach. It walks us into a conversation and a constant fight between the feds and the provinces, and the provinces and the provinces. If Quebec's industry is performing better than other industries in Canada, a sectoral approach, an industry-by-industry approach, will still do the Quebec industry well. If they're 7% below in all those things Mr. Bigras has said, then Quebec has nothing to worry about.

As a concept, approaching climate change and greenhouse gas emission reductions by province opens this up. I'm not so sure about the constitutionality one way or the other. I agree with you, Chair, that at this table we don't seem to have the current advice to know. If it throws the bill into jeopardy, though, I have concerns.

More importantly, as a theme and an approach to how we're actually going to fix this problem, it feels to me that we'll get distracted by provinces setting limits either in conjunction with the federal government or by themselves, rather than through the industrial approach, which was what most of the witnesses talked about. This allows the cement manufacturers to compete all together. It allows all the energy producers to compete against each other, with hard targets. That was a way to actually move the entire country forward, including Quebec.

I just don't think the provincial approach is one. As much as I'd like to support Mr. Bigras and his efforts, I just can't see approving it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

First of all, I'm going to remind everybody that the clause begins with “may”—“The Governor in Council may”—so there's no obligation on the Governor in Council to take a territorial approach. I'm also going to suggest that when it comes time to vote on the amendment, I would put forward a subamendment—just to give everybody a heads-up here—that would mean paragraph (a.1) would begin: “Within the limits of federal constitutional authority” and then “limiting the amount of greenhouse gases”, etc. Simply for greater certainty, I'm proposing that as a subamendment.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You mean, within the government—

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I don't know where the best place to insert that would be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will have to deal with Mr. Bigras' motion that's on the floor, but the subamendment will come first.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Maybe you can give us an idea of where those words might best be inserted.