Evidence of meeting #17 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Do you mean you put the (1) right after the 9? But it doesn't....
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
You're basically asking the Governor in Council to pass the regulations as well.... Anyway, it's just....
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We have four brains here that can work on the drafting, and then I will supervise and be sure it's correct.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I did well in English, Mr. Godfrey.
Are there any comments? Does everybody understand what we're doing with NDP-3? We're adding below line 31 in the English part. As for where (1) and (2) end up, we'll make sure that it makes sense.
Mr. Cullen, go ahead.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I thank Mr. Godfrey for his intervention, and the language we can clean up.
This allows committee members some level of comfort, because we heard--in various iterations of climate change legislation--when the business community has testified, they've often lamented the lack of certainty that comes from government in making their long-term investment plans, whether it be major manufacturing, the auto industry, or energy production. The reason this clause exists, in allowing such long timelines in advance, is to send those signals clearly to industry: this is where the target is going to be; make your modifications and investments now.
If this is the effort we need to take on in order to reverse course, then we have to eliminate all of the excuses or reasons--depending on your perspective--that we have heard as committee members and governments and the Canadian people for too long. So this is an important one that allows certainty in the broadcasting of a clear signal to industry to make the investments required to change course on their pollution. Regardless of the government's comfort or discomfort with the bill, I'm sure they can support and confirm that level of certainty, having heard from many in both the business and environmental communities.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, I remind Mr. Cullen that is already happening. There is a certainty with the Turning the Corner plan by regulation, and what he's proposing is to provide a great deal of uncertainty for industry and moving forward.
My question refers to his date. He has a date of December 31, 2008. I remind him we are in March 2008. Our Liberal members know how long it takes to move a regulation. Our Turning the Corner plan is a regulatory framework--and it takes time.
I think Bill C-377 is a very poorly written bill, and we're having to basically rewrite it. We already have a good plan in place, and so I'm not particularly interested in helping Mr. Cullen try to make a very bad bill palatable.
This is a very important point. In his amendment is a proposed date of December 31. It's not realistic. It's a bad bill, but you still have to have some realistic targets and dates set.
I guess my question for Mr. Cullen is whether he honestly thinks you can legally get a regulation in place in that short period of time. The answer, I could tell him, is absolutely not. It's not realistic. What magic is he imagining here?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm glad the parliamentary secretary asked me this question, for two reasons.
I think one of my favourite moments was when we had his boss here some months ago, and I asked him why, after two years of being in power, there hadn't been one single regulation issued by his government to deal with greenhouse gases--in two years, which is a healthy amount of the time to issue any regulation. Since then we're still waiting.
There's a framework rumoured to come out, with an issuance of a regulation meant to be happening this summer. This is saying that the regulation--whatever government comes up with--must take us to the 2015 mark to allow business a minimum of that level of certainty. Those regulations are coming forth from his government. I don't trust the regulations to pick the right target and appropriate timelines. That's what this bill is ensuring for Canadians.
In terms of the pacing and timing of how long it takes, we're now sitting in March, and he's saying that unfortunately it's impossible to get to a regulation by December. Meanwhile, his government's planning to issue them in June. So it's either one story or another. Either his government is issuing these regulations or it's not. If it is able to issue regulations, as it's been claiming all of today and many days prior, then clearly this bill fits nicely in with its plans. What this bill does, though, is use a science-based model rather than some fancy hocus-pocus to decide on where the target should be.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Obviously, Mr. Cullen--and I consider him a friend when we walk away from this committee--is passionate about the environment, so I'm not trying to discredit him at all, but he obviously does not know how a regulation is formed.
My question would be, through you to one of our supporting staff, who can tell us how long it takes to form a regulation? There is a procedure to follow. There's a process, and in my understanding it's about 18 months. There has to be a notice of intent to regulate. There's the gazetting process. Our government tabled a notice of intent to regulate in April, and then there's this process.
My question, then, through you, is to the staff. Who can guide this committee? What's the process to get a regulation in...?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
It's the environment legal team.
Could you identify yourself for the committee and answer Mr. Warawa's question, please?
5:10 p.m.
Michel Arès Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment
Good day, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michel Arès and I work for the Justice Department at Environment Canada's Legal Services.
Unfortunately, I must give a lawyer's answer to Mr. Warawa's question. It all depends on the regulations. According to government policy, draft regulations must be published 30 days in advance in the Canada Gazette and comments from the public must be considered.
Depending on the complexity of the regulations, what is at stake, who is consulted, and what they're consulted upon, it may take three months, one year, two years. It's not really a legal question.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment
That's why, Mr. Chair, I apologized beforehand.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
No, it wasn't, and I have a further question.
Thank you for answering. It provides a very general context. Your answer was that it depends on what's being considered as regulations.
What we're considering here is a huge form of consultation with industry at setting targets that are going to be stringent greenhouse gas targets to deal with on an international stage, but affecting Canadian industry. Do you see that as a three-month process? I don't, and I'm thinking this is quite complex, to be setting these international 2050 targets that are going to affect every sector of industry in Canada. To do it properly would take a while.
Your answer was very general: three months to two years. Do you have a feeling of how long it may take for what's being proposed in Bill C-377?
5:15 p.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, I stand by what I said earlier.
This is not a legal issue, it is a process. It may take a long time, but it may be short. I don't think I can vary what I said earlier.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you. I understand where you're coming from, and the point I've made is that it's valid. It's nice to be wishful, but you have to be realistic.
Of course, my critique of Bill C-377 is that it is empty, hollow, and not realistic. If Mr. Cullen wants to go ahead with a date of December at the end of this year to have regulation in place, that is not realistic. To present this bill with some credibility, I recommend you change the date.