Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, would you like to bring our committee up to date?

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

In order that we do not create a new amendment but modify the existing amendment, right there where it says “the following”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Is everybody following? We are now on page 15 of the amendments. We're looking at a revision that we will talk to Mr. Bigras about, but let's hear Mr. Godfrey first, please.

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

It would now say:

(a.1) within the limits of federal constitutional authority

and then continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can you go very slowly please, Mr. Godfrey.

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

Sure. Again, it reads:

within the limits of federal constitutional authority

It then proceeds:

limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, can you accept that as a friendly amendment?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on this amendment?

Just to review what is it going to say, then, this will be in line 32 on page 5, and it will say:

(a.1) within the limits of federal constitutional authority, limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released

and so on as written.

Mr. Cullen, are you with us on that one? Did you hear what we did?

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

Yes, I heard the amendment.

We've seen this before in bills where there is concern over constitutionality, so the bill gets written into it words similar to what Mr. Godfrey has said, “within constitutional means”. The courts will look at the substance of the bill, and if that substance is deemed unconstitutional, it threatens the whole process.

I'm really trying to get there on this one, sincerely, but I honestly believe this undermines our national efforts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on this amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It will be a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe your NDP one has been moved up.

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

Yes, it's dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's gone.

Are there any other comments on clause 6 as amended?

Yes, Mr. Vellacott.

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

I'm looking over this particular clause about regulations. The first line states that the government “may” make regulations. That's problematic for me and my colleagues. They “may” make regulations related to measures, to standards, to enforcement. On the use of the word “may”, obviously a good grammarian would know it suggests that the government may or may not, or may use other policy instruments to achieve these aforementioned measures and standards and enforcements.

Our government has put out a plan that would in fact make it mandatory, required, to strengthen the ability to reduce air emissions nationwide, to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The intent of this particular clause is to give the government the authority to implement regulations and other measures to control greenhouse gas emissions by building on the extensive authorities that already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The new government legislation on clean air would in fact provide a much stronger basis than what we have before us here today when it says “may”. Among other things, for example, the government legislation, contra what we have here, would require ministers of the environment and health to establish national air quality objectives, to monitor them, and to report on their attainment. It would authorize the development of regulations to reduce outdoor and indoor air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. It would authorize the development of emissions trading schemes, which have proven very effective in the United States of America and also in Europe. And it would give the government extensive information-gathering and reporting powers expressly tailored to greenhouse gases and air pollutants. I would think my NDP colleague Mr. Cullen would probably be agreeable to the fact that we need to make it more forceful, by way of not just simply a “may”.

Our government's proposed legislation as well, contra this particular piece here, would enable the federal government to enter into equivalency agreements that recognize provincial or territorial licensing or permitting regimes as equivalent, so long as those regimes are as stringent in terms of environment and health protection as national regulations are. That's our government's approach, which is something members from the Bloc Québécois should support, as it would enable the Province of Quebec to regulate its own polluters. But for that, the Quebec government would need to put in place legislation and appropriate regulations. I would be hopeful that Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lussier would support that at the time, because it's much stronger and it respects provincial jurisdiction as well.

The government plan, also contra this bill, would enhance the Energy Efficiency Act. It would give the federal government the authority to provide stronger energy efficiency standards for a wide range of consumer and commercial products, such as household appliances and electrical goods. That actually would directly impact on the health and the environment of all Canadians, which is something I believe and others around this room would agree that Canadians do want to see. We're waiting to see that implemented.

Finally, contra this particular proposed legislation, the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-30, would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to modernize government's ability. Bill C-288 doesn't do that. Bill C-30 would allow the government authority to regulate new motor vehicle fuel consumption. It is important to set that fuel consumption standard to help to ensure greenhouse gases from the vehicles that we buy.

The time for alternatives really has passed. The previous administration tried some voluntary approaches, and that's what we have here again in the word “may”. Unfortunately, they failed. We need a much stronger mandate than that, and the government plans to have regulations that do in fact put the onus, the liability, on the regulated community. To make those emission reductions that contribute to clean air, the air quality objectives must be set by ministers under the act, in a mandate fashion. In addition, under the notice of intent, the government is committing to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the short and mid-term, 2020 to 2025, and also for the long term, up until 2050.

Mr. Chair, in view of the obvious weakness in comparison to Bill C-288, we cannot support clause 6 of Bill C-288 because it misses the mark clearly. It is clearly an inferior piece of proposed legislation when compared to Bill C-30, the Conservative government's bill. We would very much prefer to have this entire clause 6 deleted from the bill, in view of its obviously lesser ability to do the kinds of things that need to be done for the protection of the environment and the health of all Canadians. We would definitely see that in the government's Bill C-30, as opposed to what we have before us now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey.

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

That was a very interesting discursion into another bill altogether, Bill C-30. I would simply say that's not the bill we're talking about today.

Secondly, if the member were to cast his eyes down to paragraph 6(c), he would see this particular clause actually does cover many of...for example, the whole automotive sector, with the phrase:

(c) respecting the use or production of any equipment, technology, fuel, vehicle or process in order to limit greenhouse gas emissions

So in general terms, it covers the more specific points he makes.

Thirdly, I would caution the member to be careful what he asks for, what he wishes for, because if he wants stronger regulation under Bill C-30, so that words like “can” are replaced with words like “shall”, we shall be pleased to oblige him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

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

I'll reply to his comment. In deference to my friend, I appreciate that indication of support. I suppose it's kind of pre-emptive here in some sense, but in fact there is stronger language in Bill C-30. It will get the job done.

In terms of my discursion, as you call it, my whole point was the issue that the Governor in Council “may”. There's too much latitude, we believe, when in fact we need a much stronger kind of approach, and it would be taken in the other bill.

In fact, that's why I made the contrast, Mr. Godfrey. I very much appreciate your support. I'm hoping you're serving on the committee, I'm not sure, but when you do—

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

It'll be a hell of a bill by the time we're through.

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

I'm sure it will be, yes. I do thank you for that indication of early support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments on clause 6 as amended?

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 7—Obligation to implement Kyoto Protocol)

Are there any comments?

Yes, Mr. Vellacott.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In respect to what we have before us in clause 7—there are three subclauses there— we do as members of the government side want regulations for greenhouse gases and also air pollutant emissions from all industrial sectors as soon as possible. It was referred to by my members previously, Mr. Cullen notably, a few minutes ago.

That being said, however, the reality is that it will not be possible in practical terms to develop requirements for both GHG and air pollutants for all industrial sectors—it would not appear to be possible—by 2008. Prescribing this as a deadline in the legislation would most certainly open up the Crown and all stakeholders to some very serious difficulties. That timeline severely limits the time for the Minister of the Environment or any other regulating minister to consider public comments and revise draft regulations accordingly. You'd get a rush to judgment, a rush in such a way that you'd probably have a disastrous Kyoto, because you'd get there really quick, and without the proper study, analysis, and systematic approach.

The way of doing things suggested in clause 7 is really not reasonable. I think we know what the proper timeframes to collect and consult and so on in this country require.

And I think it shows a disregard for a meaningful public consultation. Mr. Rodriguez appears not to have the degree of respect for public consultation that there should be when you're dealing with something this important, because we do need to get there.

It also seems to show no real knowledge of the federal regulatory process. I don't know who his advisers or speech writers were, if Mr. Rodriguez has that speech writer yet.

The timing difficulties related to making regulations are also complicated by subclause 5(5), by which the climate change plan tabled by the minister is referred to a committee of each house of Parliament for review. The practical consequence of that subclause 7(1) is that the committee review of the climate change plan would not change the regulation-making proposals, as the timelines to make the regulations are so very short.

For that reason, we have obvious difficulty with this particular clause, because I think we'd all agree that we need to get at those issues—the air quality issues, including smog.

In fact, Mr. Dion, the new Liberal leader, has actually acknowledged that the Kyoto Protocol does not deal with all air quality issues, including smog. That's something that clearly needs to be dealt with, and our plan would do it. In fact, Mr. Dion, interestingly--and this is right in the ball park here--has said that the U.S. has better smog regulations than Canada has.

So we would not be able to support this clause 7, and we would like it deleted from the bill. Our proposal in Bill C-30 actually deals with the reduction of smog, improving the quality of the air we breathe. In fact, the Canadian Lung Association has supported our efforts in that regard. Again, as Mr. Godfrey has tipped us off here, it's clearly the very piece of legislation to be passing for the health of the Canadian public.