Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Is there anyone else?

We should thank Mr. Godfrey. We've had a history lesson and gone back to the 18th century and so on, and there will be a test at the end, so we'll be posting the marks.

On the amendment, may we proceed without my reading it? Everyone knows where the amendments LIB-4 and LIB-5 are now literally one, where they have been put together. I would like to vote on the amendment first. I call the question on the amendment to clause 6.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to )

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll now go back to clause 5 very briefly.

The Conservative members wish to vote “no” on that. There were four abstentions on that, so I would need unanimous consent for them to record those four votes as being opposed.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

(On clause 7--Regulations)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have amendment NDP-2 on page 9.

There is a line conflict with BQ-2. If NDP-2 is adopted, then BQ-2 cannot be proceeded with. With the line conflict, BQ-2 can only be proceeded with if NDP-2 is not adopted.

Mr. Cullen, I would ask you to tell us about NDP-2.

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

Thank you, Chair.

These amendments come directly out of the testimony we heard from a number of the constitutional experts we brought before us.

I will be brief, yet I will ask for the committee's indulgence in some ways, because this is one of the more substantial pieces we're looking at today.

There are three specific concerns that we were able to find in the testimony. We've looked through the testimony significantly. The first piece of change is a reference to CEPA, particularly section 93 of CEPA.

Under the current writing of the bill, the regulation was deemed to be too broad in its authority. As committee members know--since we've referenced it many times at other hearings--section 93 allows us to focus in on the intention of the bill. It focuses on the government's power and the limits of the government's power to make regulations. It's referenced upon CEPA, which has already passed a challenge at the Supreme Court, and it is also what we borrowed from when we went through a similar exercise on Bill C-288. That's the main piece in limiting government regulatory power.

The second piece--again, we got this from the constitutional lawyers who came in front of us--was the specific legal wording to suggest that using the words “regulations under this or any other Act” anchors this legislation, which is a criticism that was first put to other standing pieces of legislation. This is not a stand-alone piece. It fits in with things that have already gone through--a constitutional challenge like CEPA and other things.

Third and equally important, to allow for greater certainty in subclause 7(2)--if committee members are following--around provincial and federal jurisdictions, the bill required greater clarity around what the provincial and federal governments were allowed to do, particularly, obviously, the federal government. The language we put into it, “any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions”, is again very similar to Bill C-288. This would move the current subclause 7(2) completely out. It will later come up for the committee's reference in clause 9.

We think these amendments are strong, obviously, and speak directly to where some of the concerns were raised. This is the essence and the role of committee, to make sure that bills are as constitutionally sound as possible and reference current law.

The last thing I'll say before I relinquish the floor is that the very first portion of this title under NDP-2, the very first quotation that we come across, “regulations under this or any other Act”, acknowledges a government power that exists already. We're being in a sense overly explicit to say that the regulations the government may come forward with....

The government members of this panel have often said that the plan could be too wide-scoping, could be too this, that, and the other thing. Bill C-377 never purported to outline the exact plan and the exact measures. We've all seen the charts of solutions. Bill C-377 was never intended to do that but rather to set the general direction for the government and allow the government to use the powers it has, be that a cap and trade system, be that auto emission regulations, or be that the various tools that are at the government's disposal. All of these amendments clarify those tools.

The government will find some comfort in this amendment, and we look forward to their support of it as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just so everyone is following, this amendment goes right after the first line, “The Governor in Council may make regulations”, and so on, all the rest then being replaced.

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

Correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my NDP colleague for opting for a more consensual approach, one that is respectful of provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to move a friendly amendment to amendment NDP-2. Immediately following “this or any other act ”, I would add “within the limits of federal constitutional authority”. Basically, I would move the portion of text in subsection (b) which reads “within the limits of federal constitutional authority” to the beginning of the provision. Subsection (b) would then start with “limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released”.

The amendment would then read as follows:

regulations under this or any other Act, within the limits of federal constitutional authority

(a) limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released into the environment;

(b) limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province by applying to each province the commitment made under section 5 [...]

And so on.

Mr. Chairman, there is no guarantee that the territorial approach will be applied by the federal government. However, there are aspects of this amendment found in Bill C-288. They make Bill C-377 somewhat more asymmetrical than we initially considered it to be.

If this friendly amendment is deemed in order, I think members would agree to it. In any event, it seems clear to me that BQ-2 will be defeated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So that everybody understands the friendly amendment that's just been accepted, the words, “regulations under this or any other Act, (b) within the limits of federal constitutional authority”, simply move up to follow there, and then we carry on.

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

And that applies to everything that follows.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

So that friendly amendment has been accepted.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I was just going to point out for the record that in our Turning the Corner plan we have before us some very specific regulations--development for that--to achieve the very same goals we have in the amendment the NDP have put on the table here. In terms of a regulatory framework for greenhouse gas emissions and the approach for determining those reductions, those targets, it's all here on page 9 and following in the regulatory framework for air emissions. It's under the greenhouse gases section in the table of contents.

So the approach is there for setting targets for existing facilities and for new facilities. There is a compliance mechanism here as well. There's talk in terms of all the detail of that.

It's kind of an overlap, a duplication, if you will. I guess the NDP wants to propose it, but it is not necessary, in view of the fact that we already have something black on white in respect of that. It's laid out in the Turning the Corner plan to achieve the goals in a very specific way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments?

We have the amendment then, and I think everyone understands that that goes right after “any other Act”, and we simply move the first part of (b) up to fit after that.

Those in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 9--Canada to meet its commitment and targets)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have a sequence of amendments here. We have LIB-6, page 12; BQ-3, page 13; NDP-3, page 14; and NDP-4, page 15.

Let's deal with LIB-6 on page 12 first, please.

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

Mr. Chair, the point of this is simply, again, to incorporate events that have occurred since the original drafting of the bill with regard to the UNFCCC. What we've done is simply amplify it.

So the phrase now says:

Ensuring that Canada's positions in all international climate change discussions and in all negotiations with governments and other entities, particularly discussions and negotiations

--there's a typo in English there--

resulting from decisions of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC and of the Conference of Parties serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, are fully consistent with meeting the commitment made under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6.

Again, it's consistent with what we've talked about previously. This is just building in that reference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. I think we'll deal with these one at a time and explain them as we go.

First of all, we have Liberal amendment 6 on page 12. Is there any debate, comment on that, please?

Mr. Vellacott.

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

I think there are some complementary changes required that this may not take into account here, some of the G8 major emissions initiative. They're dealing with climate change right now, and they're considered partners, at least to advance the discussions, and then those processes will feed into the United Nations to advance, in effect, a global framework with some of the world's largest emitters.

We're already committed to developing those global kinds of frameworks for climate change, and that involves all of the world's emitters. I think our pressure as a government in terms of bringing in those other partners has been pretty evident. It's played out in the media; it's been widely recorded.

I think, in view of that, I would have to disagree with the proposed amendment by Mr. Godfrey.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'd just like to get the correct wording here. I think it's a little different from what's being proposed with that friendly amendment from Mr. Godfrey.

What I have is:

other entities, particularly discussions and negotiations resulting from decisions of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC and of the Conference of Parties serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, are fully consistent with meeting

Were there other items that you added to that?

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

No, what I'm saying is that at line 21 in the bill, it picks back up to say:

meeting the commitment made under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6.

So I was trying to read out the whole thing as amended. That's what the extra bit was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

And this was added to that clause.