Environment Committee on May 12th, 2008

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

Bill C-33, yes.

[Michael Martin]

—yes, would have been subject to a strategic environmental assessment, but I would have to defer to the Privy Council Office as to the specific status of that bill, of that assessment, and whether it could be tabled or not. I simply don't know the answer to that question, sir.

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

Mr. Chair, if that strategic environmental assessment is contained in Bill C-33, I would like the committee to be informed and the assessment to be tabled here, at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I certainly will ask that question, Mr. Bigras, and the clerk will get an answer for us.

Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Martin, the Minister of the Environment of New Brunswick tabled two documents here earlier. Have you seen the document entitled “Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment ”?

[Michael Martin]

No, I'm sorry, I have not received a copy of that document.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Well, then, I would like to read you an excerpt: “For the past year the major work of the council has been related to the federal regulatory framework for industrial air emissions.”

Did you take part in those discussions with the provincial ministers?

[Michael Martin]

I have participated in some of those discussions, yes.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Now, there are two major files that are raised in those discussions between the federal government and the provinces. There is the matter of clean air and the four pollutants that will be regulated, and then the issue of wastewater that will be dealt with shortly.

How can you explain that, in your presentation, you said that the task of regulating the 323 discrete substances covered by the National Pollutant Release Inventory and the 60 elements found in the appendix is an insurmountable one? How are we to interpret that when an official from the department in Sweden told us that her country has done so in little time? Are you in the process of reinventing the wheel with respect to those 400 products? Has not Sweden not already established standards? Is it normal to be in such a situation, where Canada has to reinvent the wheel to set objectives for those elements? Sweden has already had functional objectives in place for a number of years.

[Michael Martin]

I have to confess I'm not an expert on the Swedish situation.

I certainly did not use the word “insurmountable”. I simply said that if the bill required us to launch a regulatory exercise to make regulations in each of these areas, there are 323 items in the National Pollutant Release Inventory, and therefore to make regulations affecting each of those would be a very extensive exercise.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

You also spoke about a national strategy versus a federal strategy. You say that it will not be easy to drawup a national strategy, because you will again have to consult with the provinces and all relevant stakeholders to set those objectives and targets. With regard to your national strategy, did you ever address that around the table with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment? Have these always been federal objectives? Did anyone ever say that we needed a national strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[Michael Martin]

I'm not sure if the term “national” is actually defined in the bill. The bill is intended to be binding on the federal government, as I understand it. I wouldn't want to try to interpret what the term “national” implies here.

My point was not the use of the term “national”, but rather that the bill as I understand it—and my understanding may not be complete, of course—would suggest there would be goals and has this very prescriptive list at the end where the federal government would use its federal regulatory powers in each of these areas. That naturally would have implications for the provinces, some of whom may have regulation in these areas already. It would depend on the subject. I'm simply saying it would have an impact and potentially some significant implications for them.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

The Swedish representative told us that there was a central authority responsible for managing the objectives established in Sweden, and that the central authority delegated powers to regional and municipal authorities. The cental authority in Sweden also reported to the European Union. They have reached an agreement. How many countries have come to such agreements? Some fifteen countries have reached agreements in very little time, in under two years, regarding common objectives or the sharing of objectives in Europe. How can you explain that in Canada, ten provinces and three territories cannot agree on which objectives to set?

According to your document, we can expect unending negotiations and discussions. Why can we not take action?

[Michael Martin]

I think we can examine the experience in the area of the environment in terms of federal-provincial cooperation. I think there have been many successes in terms of that cooperation and collaboration. It is a collaborative effort, however, and it simply takes time.

I was simply posing the question again related to how these national goals would connect to measures that would then be backed up with federal regulation, and working through what the implications of that would be. With provincial consent and collaboration, that could well be a viable option, but that would, I guess, depend on the particular problem and the spirit of collaboration that existed in discussing the item in question.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

You said that you were considering the model. Are you considering the Swedish model or Canadian model?

[Michael Martin]

I have read a bit about the experience in Sweden. It's my understanding that Sweden is a unitary state, but again I'm not an expert on that.

In terms of the question of subsidiarity within the EU, again I'm afraid I'm not an expert in that area.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Than you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

I'm not aware of any other questions, so I'd like to thank our guests for being here.

Thank you for keeping your colleague up so late, Ms. Ambassador.

[Ingrid Maria Iremark]

She has probably gone home now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, I would think so.

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin, for appearing as well.

The meeting is adjourned.