Evidence of meeting #25 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vehicles.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
Will Parliament receive regular updates, or will there be public reporting of progress or of these things happening?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
The act requires a pre-publication prior to entering into an equivalency or an administrative agreement, and it requires those agreements to be published as well. Then there is a regulatory process specifically for equivalency agreements, whereby those are published on the laws page under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Conservative
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
How can the provinces be confident that there won't be mission creep or that there won't be a step toward federal override rather than genuine equivalency? Who's the arbiter if there's a dispute, if a province is claiming that they have performance and they're meeting these objectives and the federal government maybe thinks differently?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
The agreements must be negotiated between a province and the federal government in order for there to be an equivalency agreement and for the agreement to stand down.
Liberal
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, if you will permit.
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I'll go first. I'll do three minutes, and then the member will go second.
Equivalency agreements, which are at the heart of the bills we're considering today, require strong collaboration between the federal and provincial governments. Earlier, the minister spoke about her efforts to maintain dialogue with the provinces. Can you give us some examples of your interactions with your provincial counterparts on this issue?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
I'll answer the question in English. I think it'll be easier for me.
There are existing equivalency agreements in place with Alberta with respect to methane, and with other provinces. For those agreements, whenever a new regulation is in place, there's always an opportunity to negotiate an equivalency agreement if the provisions of the act are met. An equivalency agreement, as the minister mentioned, can be entered into where equivalent regulations or equivalent laws are enforced in a province or territory or aboriginal government jurisdiction, and where there are provisions that are equivalent to the investigation provisions under CEPA as well.
In cases where there are those provisions in a provincial law, the federal government can negotiate an agreement under certain regulations under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and those regulations would be stood down in that particular jurisdiction.
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
My next question is about tax credits.
Bill C–15 includes measures to increase investments in clean energy or renewable energy projects, a sector which constitutes a blind spot in the Conservatives' strategy.
Can you take 30 seconds to talk about these tax measures and the positive impact they would have on the Canadian economy?
Alison McDermott Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
The climate competitiveness strategy announced in the budget confirms and strengthens a number of these investment tax credits. In particular, it confirms the implementation of the clean electricity tax credit and the expansion of eligibility for the clean technology and clean technology manufacturing tax credits, among other changes.
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you.
I'll pass the rest of my time to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thanks, Eric.
I know the minister didn't have time to answer my question before, so I'm going to dig into this again.
Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we've typically had chief review officers. They can issue compliance orders and such. They've been under various acts, which is why, in omnibus fashion, those acts are all being amended to accommodate the creation of the Environmental Protection Tribunal.
I'm trying to understand why the department put this in an omnibus bill. Does it require more of our care and attention in terms of knowing why a new tribunal is being created, and the nature of that tribunal?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Thank you for the question.
The amendments MP May is describing are in division 32 of part 5 of the budget implementation act. Those amendments are purely administrative. The Environmental Protection Tribunal has been operating as such under the federal identity program of the Treasury Board Secretariat since 2019. Since that time, there's been an agreement with the administrative tribunals support service of Canada to provide administrative services to the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada.
The amendments—and it is a series of quite a few—are, in essence, to formalize the existence of the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada in CEPA and switch the name of “chief review officer” or “review officer” to “board member” of that tribunal. They are purely administrative changes. The responsibility of the review officers and the chief review officers is not changing. They are currently able to review compliance orders and administrative monetary penalties issued by enforcement officers, who are employees of Environment and Climate Change Canada. They have certain powers to adjust those compliance orders or administrative monetary penalties. Those authorities are not changing. The powers are not changing.
In essence, this will allow the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada to continue operating, and for there to be clarity. It has been operating as such since 2019.
Liberal
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go back to section 596.
What was the purpose of the five-year limit that had been set for the agreements? Also, in your opinion, what is the impact of abolishing this limit? There used to be one, but now there isn't. We're trying to understand why.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
As the minister said, the five-year term has been around for a while. Removing this duration is intended to allow agreements to continue to operate and to reduce the administrative burden in situations where modelling or other factors indicate that the equivalency agreement can last longer.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Wouldn't it be preferable, for example, to increase the term from five years to 10 years, or even 15 years?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
With regard to the duration of the agreements, it will be on a case-by-case basis. The appropriate duration will really depend on the regulations or legislation in effect in the province. It may be that the five-year term is appropriate for certain types of instruments. However, the federal government thought it would be preferable to have the flexibility to negotiate the time limit with the province.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Under the current wording, who can terminate an equivalency agreement? Do both parties have to agree?
