Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This is obviously an important amendment. I'd like to formally move Liberal amendment 21.1 and speak to it for several minutes. I would appreciate my colleagues' indulgence.
It's a very important amendment, Mr. Chair, and I think it will complete a series of three amendments we've put forward to try to piece together a comprehensive Canadian approach to climate change actions and certainly greenhouse gas reductions as they apply to our largest industrial emitters.
I'd like to go through the amendment almost page by page and break it down in terms of its scope and its purpose.
The first thing I would say is that obviously the purpose of the purpose paragraph is pretty clear for Canadians who might want to read it and for our colleagues here, but I think the key first part of this amendment, Mr. Chair, is that it will create Canada's national carbon budget and will create other carbon budgets that would flow from Canada's national carbon budget.
It's fairly specific in setting out, under proposed subsection 103.02(1), a definition of what the national carbon budget is. For each year from 2008 to 2012, it defines a budget that corresponds to Canada's domestic greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990 less 6%, which of course is our Kyoto commitment and our Kyoto target.
For 2020, 2035, and 2050 a carbon budget would also be developed by the minister, which would be less than the previous year's budget and would have to correspond with Canada's domestic greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990, less 20%—as it goes on to explain—by 2020, less 35% by 2035, and less 60% to 80% by 2050. That is the core target; that would be Canada's national carbon budget going forward.
Under proposed subsection 103.02(2), this amendment would also create for Canada sectoral carbon budgets as a subset or a portion of the national carbon budget, and of course it gives the power to the minister to determine who would form part of each sector, something I'll come back to in a moment in the amendment.
Proposed subsection 103.02(3) then introduces the notion of an individual carbon budget. Individual carbon budgets are portions of these sectoral carbon budgets, and again a subset of the national carbon budget. Individual carbon budgets would be determined by the minister for each large industrial emitter, but proposed subsection 103.02(3) also gives flexibility to the minister in the future for any other person that the minister might consider to be responsible for a part of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Following this proposed subsection 103.02(3) are a number of core attributes that speak to the question of allocation and how the minister might allocate these individual carbon budgets. They deal with a series of very important issues raised for us by expert witnesses, who spoke to the salient features of a strong trading system, in particular, that would reflect some important attributes.
The first is credit for early action. We want to make sure in this country that those large industrial emitters who just started doing it.... There are thousands around the country. We're not talking about the smaller ones in this case; we're talking about the dozens and dozens of our large industrial emitter group, of about 700 that have also taken a lot of early action.
They have done so because they subscribe to the Kyoto Protocol and they understand the targets. They've said they are going to do this because they are going to become more energy efficient and more competitive and because they recognize that we're moving into a carbon-constrained future. Proposed paragraph 103.02 (3)(a) talks about giving credit for early action to the person who has reduced greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and the entry into force of this section. It reflects the work that's gone on since 1990.
The second thing it does in the allocation of the individual carbon budget is take into account that in some instances some of our large industrial emitters have many plants and many facilities. They are not single-facility or single-plant entities, so we need to leave some room here to adjust and to allocate on the basis that some of these actors, some of these large industrial emitters, can transfer their emission reductions from one setting to another. This is also a central tenet of those who are proposing, from the corporate sector in Canada, to see a robust trading system, which is why it's reflected here.
The third thing it does, Mr. Chair, is allow for comparisons between large industrial emitters, but more importantly between emitters in the same industrial sector. It is important to treat all these actors, these emitters, fairly. You treat them fairly by having regard to their economic growth compared with their sector's average economic growth to make sure it is adjusted accordingly. That's an important part of this amendment that I wanted to home in on from the beginning.
Proceeding through the amendment, the minister, at least six months before a national, sectoral, or individual carbon budget applying, would determine that budget, would publish the budget or give notice of it in the Canada Gazette, and then we would go on to empower the minister to make regulations to decide how we're going to calculate the individual carbon deficit in this case. The deficit is the amount of surplus emissions above the individual carbon budget allocated.
We also here are trying to introduce into Canadian society the concept that, just as we had a fiscal deficit that our government and other governments have struggled to deal with and have eliminated, we now need to introduce into Canadian society, in our view, the concept of a carbon deficit, because we are working towards and heading towards a carbon-constrained future. This, we think, would help to introduce this notion of carbon deficit into the parlance, into the working knowledge of not just the large industrial emitters but also Canadian society.
It goes on to give authority to the minister to issue carbon permits to those individual emitters.
Then we go into the second part, the core part of the amendment, under the heading “Climate Change Plan”. Here, we believe, it is desperately required that a climate change plan be prepared for Canada every year by May 31 from 2013 until 2050. That would reflect the end of our first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.
We go on in some detail to talk about what should be in the plan. What should be in Canada's climate change plan? You will see under proposed paragraph 103.03(1)(a), for example, a description of the measures that would be taken to ensure that our greenhouse gas emissions are equal to or less than our established national carbon budget. If we turn the page, we talk about the kinds of measures that ought to be included: regulated emission limits and performance standards; market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets; spending or fiscal measures or incentives that could be used; a just transition for workers; other cooperative measures or agreements with provinces, territories, or other governments.
Under what I call key accountability provisions in this amendment, we want to know under this national plan, this climate change plan, how many greenhouse gas reductions have actually occurred in a given year and how many are expected to occur in a given year. We want to compare that to the levels in our most up-to-date emissions inventory for Canada. We think Canadians should know what the projected greenhouse gas emission level in Canada for each year would be, taking into account these measures that I've just spoken to.
It also compels the government, Mr. Chair, to compare those levels with any international commitments that we have taken on, so we get to compare our performance and measure it against our international commitments.
It goes on, of course, under proposed paragraphs 103.03(1)(d), (e), and (f), to further detail other parts of the plan, including, under proposed paragraph 103.03(1)(f), a statement indicating whether each measure proposed in this climate change plan has been implemented by the date projected in the plan. We think this goes hand in hand with driving up environmental accountability for all governments—this government and any subsequent government that might follow—given the urgency of the climate change situation.
Under proposed section 103.05, we go on to define large industrial emitters. It's clear that under proposed paragraph 103.05(1)(a) emitters are those that are part of the electricity generation sector, including those that use fossil fuels to produce electricity; under proposed paragraph 103.05(1)(b), emitters are those that are part of the upstream oil and gas sector, including those that produce and transport fossil fuels, but we've excluded petroleum refiners and the distributors of natural gas; and under proposed paragraph 103.05(1)(c), the third category of large industrial emitters are energy-intensive industries, including large emitters that use a lot of energy from fossil fuels for their manufacturing processes.
Moving into part 5.2, Mr. Chair, I'm not going to go into too much detail, but you see quite an extensive amendment that puts forward an air quality action, basically a plan. The purpose of this plan is to protect the health of Canadians and improve the environment by addressing the anthropogenic deterioration of air quality. We talk about standards, which are clear—I'm assuming most members have read this amendment—and we go on from there to make a number of very precise and specific recommendations in order to improve air quality in Canada.
Those are my remarks, Mr. Chair. I think this is something that is deserving of serious debate. We have certainly tried to weave through this final amendment, in conjunction with the first two amendments.... Taken together, the three of them really do form, we think, a very viable plan for Canada's large industrial emitters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, to get used to working in the context of an overall national carbon budget, to understand a sectoral carbon budget and of course their own individual carbon budgets. They're complemented and supplemented by some of the other measures we've put forward earlier—for example, a cap and trade system, maximum trading offshore, and so on, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Those are my remarks.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I do have a question, but I want to put my entire comments to Mr. McGuinty beforehand, before I have an answer. I'm very curious as to why refineries were excluded or any particular section was excluded.
I will say, first of all, if I didn't bring forward a challenge on the basis of a royal recommendation you'd be distraught over that, so I do challenge the admissibility of this on that basis and I want to go into an argument as to why.
Specifically, I am also surprised, and would be very surprised if the member from the NDP would support this, because proposed section 103.01 should in fact say, especially the vulnerable members of society and Canadians living in the north but not in case of economic hardship or if you live in Toronto or the oil sands because you don't deserve clean air.
I am quite concerned with that, because I think that all Canadians, no matter where they live, deserve the same quality of clean air. To suggest that some in one particular airshed should receive a lesser—or have us as parliamentarians achieve a goal towards a lesser air quality in one particular area of Canada than the other seems to me to be a constitutional question at the very least, but certainly one that I don't think any parliamentarian could support. This particularly applies in relation to proposed paragraph 103.02(3)(c): “the fair treatment of the person as regards the person's economic growth compared with the applicable average sectoral economic growth”. I am concerned with that particular proposed paragraph.
Proposed subsection 103.02(6) requires the minister to issue “a carbon permit pursuant to regulations made under paragraph 94.1(1)(a)”. Since the minister is required to issue, I can't see how that this would not need a royal recommendation.
Also, the minister is required to “prepare a Climate Change Plan that includes”, and it goes on to talk about what it includes. One of those measures that it does suggest to include is—and I would refer you to proposed subparagraph 103.03(1)(a)(iii)—“spending or fiscal measures or incentives”, which of course would require a royal recommendation.
Then according to proposed section 103.04, which is punched out but on the next page, “Within six months after the coming into force of this section, the Minister shall, in consultation with other departments…develop a reliable methodology for estimating and auditing…”. Again this suggests, in my opinion, a royal recommendation.
Then, to geographically, as I said, divide Canada into zones because Canadians in one part of Canada deserve less of air quality than the other seems preposterous.
Again, with respect to proposed subsections 103.07(3) and 103.07(4), I would suggest both require a royal recommendation. In particular, proposed subsection 103.07(7), which I referred to, regarding “severe economic hardship” and proposed subsection 103.07(8) on the requirement of the minister to “monitor” would both require a royal recommendation.
On those bases and the basis that I think all Canadians should be treated fairly, I would suggest that this amendment should be challenged.
Finally, the biggest issue I have with this is that the large industrial emitters would receive administrative authority that would and could be executed in an unfair or arbitrary manner. I think it should be left to regulations in relation to that. Certainly regulations would entitle all Canadians, all industries, and all commercial activities to fairness. At the very least, I suggest it would be unconstitutional.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to speak to Liberal amendment L-21.1. This is probably the most complete motion that we've had to study to date in the context of Bill C-30, concerning the fight against climate change.
We like various elements in this amendment moved by the Liberals, including the importance of establishing short-, medium- and long-term targets. We realize in reading section 103.02 that these short-, medium- and long-term targets appear there. So we think and have always thought it important that targets of this kind be included in any plan for the fight against climate change.
We also see a clear and definite tendency to opt for a sectoral approach. Virtually all the parties, except the Bloc québécois, want to apply this approach, which, in this case, concerns a sectoral carbon budget. We therefore take note of this clear wish of the other political parties.
In addition, we see that there is an obligation under the act to submit a climate change plan. To date, there has been no regulatory or legislative obligation in this regard. Starting with section 103.03, we are creating an obligation to file a climate change plan and certain measures that we previously favoured, that is the mechanism based on market conditions, emissions trading, for example.
Further provision is made that the large industrial emitters will be subject to regulation, which we think is entirely normal, in view of the fact that these major emitters produce nearly 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve our climate change targets, among other things, what is indicated in section 103.02, we will inevitably have to impose those regulations.
I move that we take note of the fact that the Liberals want to adopt a sectoral approach, impose regulations on major industrial emitters and establish a carbon market as well as short-, medium- and long-term targets. However, we are moving a friendly amendment, with amendment BQ-6.1, “GREENHOUSE GASES, Territorial Approach,” which would create a new provision that would be inserted between parts 5.1 and 5.2, just after “ACTION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE”. This new part would bear number 5.1.1, would be entitled “GREENHOUSE GASES, Territorial Approach” and would create section 103.051, as a result of which:
||[...] on the recommendation of the Ministers, make an order declaring that the provisions of an Act or a regulation that relate to greenhouse gases do not apply in an area under the jurisdiction of a government, where the Green Investment Bank of Canada determines by notice in writing, on request from a province, that there are in force by or under the laws applicable to the jurisdiction of the government
A provincial government could very well opt out of the act or any regulations concerning greenhouse gases. However, the government in question would clearly have an obligation to introduce provisions designed to combat greenhouse gas emissions having an effect equivalent to the reductions required by the national carbon budget, as described in the three short-, medium- and long-term targets provided for in section 103.02.
Furthermore, before issuing the notice provided for in subsection (1), the Green Investment Bank of Canada must publish it in the Gazette of Canada within 60 days. There may be observations or notices. Following those observations or notices, the new notice is published in the Canada Gazette.
However, if some commitments or provisions made under the notice are not met, the notice could be suspended.
First of all, we do accept this as a friendly amendment in its current form.
Second, I would take advantage of having the floor simply to respond to a couple of the points. I'm afraid I didn't get them all written down, but let me deal with a couple of the points Mr. Jean made.
One was the comment about the royal recommendation.
Once again, the language that we find under the plan to which he referred and that he quoted—under proposed subparagraph 103.03(1)(a)(iii), “spending or fiscal measures or incentives”—that whole language of proposed section 103.03 is lifted from . The difference is that Bill C-288—and the language is exactly the same—says this is what we're going to do up to 2012 for the first Kyoto period; the language of this amendment picks up the story and reiterates exactly the same list of measures that may be undertaken: “market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets”, “spending or fiscal measures or incentives”, etc.
In other words, was deemed to be in order by the Speaker of the House, so we used it as the precedent for using the same language while extending the principles out from 2013, so that the royal recommendation.... We were very careful about putting it that way. That's the first point.
On the second point, on air quality, I think we're probably going to have a more extensive discussion with the help of our friend Mr. Cullen in a moment, but I'll simply expand a little bit about what we're doing here.
Essentially the proposed bill speaks of objectives; it does not speak of standards. What we wish to do is be more ambitious in this passage and to speak of standards to be established for the country.
The basic format is taken from what happens currently in the United States, so the question that Mr. Jean was raising about zones very much picks up on the language of airsheds, which is used in the United States. We're doing this partly because where there are airsheds that cross borders, it gives us interoperability; we will be able to talk to our American counterparts for these airsheds and deal with those quality issues.
Simply, there are two points. The zones make sense because that's the nature of pollutants: they take place over certain geographic areas. They're not like greenhouse gases in that regard. As well, we have tried to make this consistent and interoperable with the American regime because we think it will allow us to recognize the reality that often those pollutants come from south of the border and we would want to be able to work cooperatively with them.
That is a beginning of the discussion on air quality, although it's a very important discussion that I think Mr. Cullen is going to want to pursue at some other length.
Look at that opportunity.
First of all, before we get in, I think we'll talk about the air quality thing last. There are a few amendments, small but important, that we're looking to change.
First of all, on the notion that has been put forward and that Mr. McGuinty spoke to earlier, the NDP members are supporting this because we feel quite honoured for having had it lifted from many of our plans that have been iterated over the last three or four years. As far back as February 2005, we put a plan forward that talked about many of the elements here in this L-21.1 package. We're encouraged to see many of those elements here today.
There are, as I said, a few important things that we want to change. The notion of having national standards and national goals shouldn't put too much fear into the government, as this is something they have claimed they wanted to do from the onset when dealing with this issue—perhaps not the onset, but soon after realizing that there's a need for this to happen. I'm not sure, perhaps that happened between ministers, or perhaps at some point the government had an awakening and a realization that this is important.
Mr. Jean has raised some concerns that he might want to modify some elements in a friendly amendment fashion, but I'm not sure that's the route we're taking today. I would suggest that the opportunity for courage exists here.
The amendment...let me start with a friendly one first, Mr. Chair. It might not be viewed as all that friendly, but we'll see how she goes.
In subparagraph 103.02(1)(b)(i)—I never thought I would actually speak in these terms, but a couple of years in this place will do that to you--the specific matter is the target being set for 2020. In this section as it sits rights now, the Liberals have shown us a target of 20% by 2020. We heard from a number of witnesses that...the problems we've seen with the Conservative plans or suggestions to this point of 45% to 60% reductions by 2050, or those notions contained in Bill , are that they assume a business as usual case for too long, and then some imagined precipitous drop off a cliff in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. That's just not the way this has worked in any country to this point. There is a gradual decline or decrease. We want to put the country on the trajectory that we want to get to, which we believe is in the 80% category by 2050.
As a friendly amendment, let me start with this one first. We'll keep these separate. I have one that will follow.
Under that section it's very simple to change the 20% to 25% for 2020. We have elements of this Liberal motion contained both before and afterwards. This is a compilation. It seems it's easier for the committee to grasp in the compiled form, so that's fine, but this element and a couple of other important ones are critical for us.
I appreciate the effort, Mr. Chair. I wish.... Yes, I really do appreciate the effort.
In crafting this plan, we have come up with what we believe are staggered, transparent, and predictable targets for the country. We are using 1990 as a baseline to be perfectly consistent with Kyoto and also to work in harmony with most of Canadian society that's involved, most of the large industrial emitters, because they have, of course, been using 1990 as a baseline themselves.
We're looking to show a ramping up here in the short, medium, and long terms. The reason we believe it is possible to ramp up is that once we actually harness the technological know-how, the investment, and the reinvestment of the green investment account moneys being held in trust for each of the separate large industrial emitters, we believe we are going to unleash the full force and effect of the market in such a way that, as time goes on, we're actually going to be in a much better position to accelerate our reductions.
It's a question of capital stock rollover. It's a question of retrofits. It's a question of many measures that will flow from these targets, from the plan, and from the two previous amendments that connect with this third one.
We arrived at a 20% number because we believed it would be a realistic number for Canada, and we arrived at 35% for the same reason. We left a range of 60% to 80% to 2050, hoping that we would achieve an 80% reduction by 2050, but allowing for a margin after we actually, in a sense, shifted the ship of state in a different direction by harnessing the full power of the market, which is unstoppable once it gets going.
We think that by giving the 20% and 35% targets and then giving 60% to 80% as a range for 2050, we're really putting transparent and predictable targets here for the country and for each of the actors that would end up with their own individual carbon budgets.
I think we would have some difficulty, Mr. Chair, in increasing this number, for fear that it would not fit with so many of the achievable outcomes that we heard about from different expert witnesses. I know Mr. Cullen mentioned there were some witnesses who spoke about more aggressive targets.
In closing, I will say that we thought there was some importance in holding fast to the 20% number for 2020 because of all our discussions with the European Union officials and the new measures launched by the United Kingdom. The European Union has achieved a negotiation outcome in Europe, in the EU, of a 20% reduction by 2020 spread across all 26 member states, so we wanted to keep this number symmetrical with the European Union market.
I asked the Minister of the Environment to give us some indication when he came to another committee recently, Mr. Chair. I do believe there was talk at the G8+5 of holding to the 20% target by 2020, although the minister was not capable of revealing that to us and did not table any documents to indicate what he had talked about there.
That's the reason, Mr. Cullen, that we have kept to these numbers. We think it is an achievable number and we think these are predictable and transparent and in lockstep with the international community.
Yes, I have a last one. We'll keep pressing for what we think is right.
This speaks more to Mr. Jean's “air quality”. This is an amendment that in a sense replaces NDP-17. It affects some language. I have a copy here for the clerk to distribute. It takes up at the point of proposed section 103.07. This goes to the measure of national mandatory standards for air quality.
We heard from witnesses—and for some of us, having studied this for a while, it wasn't a surprise, but for many Canadians following the deliberations, it was surprising—that in Canada, while there's a thing called Canada-wide standards, and many might be led to believe that Canada-wide standards means this is the standard of air quality that each region or area must come to, in effect they're completely and purely voluntary. We know the nature of voluntary action when it comes to cleaning up our environment. It doesn't get us very far. It actually sends us backwards.
On the amendment that we'll be moving, there are several pieces of substance. It does two significant things. One, it moves to national mandatory standards that then will take place in geographic zones. This is generally the way to think about air quality, that there must be standards met by each of these zones. It then adds in a sectoral element if a zone fails the test. If there's a national standard that's been agreed to and a standard agreed to in that zone, but the zone fails the test after a six-month testing, it then bumps down to the actual emitter level for them to start to clean up their act.
So if an area such as, in 's case, around Windsor, if that's taken as a natural climatic airshed zone and a standard is set for air quality, which I know is an issue in Windsor right now—and I don't mean to pick on Mr. Watson—and that standard is then broken, it then moves down to the actual emitter's level, the point-source emitter's level, to say we have broken the standard for these specific air quality elements.
These elements, just to keep this in mind, Chair, are all named and delineated in this bill already. This is something the government is moving towards. They've named the actual pollutants. It says it bumps down to the emitter level and then the emitters must come on board and start to limit those very elements that the government has already named in their bill. We think this does much to strengthen the efforts that the government has already made on air contaminants. It moves further than amendment L-21.1, which we have here before us. It both cleans up this portion of the bill and also, if I may, cleans up the air.
I believe the clerk has copies of it. They're being copied. I won't say any more.
I appreciate the work that has gone into the presentation we have just received from Mr. McGuinty.
Speaking to the Liberal amendment L-21.1 and also to subsequent friendly amendments and amendments, I am concerned about the road we're heading down. I'm going to use an analogy of playing the game of sudoku. The point I want to make is that the key to proceeding is starting off down the right path and putting in the correct numbers. I'm concerned about the pathway we are heading down with the recommendation of amendment L-21.1.
Mr. McGuinty started off sharing.... Under his targets, he actually shared the Kyoto targets. He said it's “our Kyoto commitment and our Kyoto target”. I believe that's what he said, and we all know what happened with that target and commitment. Unfortunately, it was 35% above that; it was off—way off.
What I would like to do is back up, take a look at what the government is proposing in Bill , and make sure we are heading down a road that will achieve what hopefully all of us want. I know it's what Canadians want. It's a cleaner environment. It's reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It's lower air pollution levels so that we have clean air, clean water, and clean land, not by voluntary measures but by mandatory regulations through all sectors. We've heard, Chair, through witnesses, that approximately 50% of the pollutants come from the manufacturing industry, the large final emitters. The other 50% of greenhouse gas emissions come from us as consumers, and we need to know and to make sure that we are focusing on all sectors and achieving what Canadians want us to achieve.
I'd like, then, to share what is in the Clean Air Act. Again, we're starting with proposed section 103.01. What is in Bill C-30 is this:
|| 103.01 The purpose of this Part is to promote the reduction of air pollution and to promote air quality in order to protect the environment and the health of all Canadians, especially that of the more vulnerable members of society.
This is called part 5.1 of the Clean Air Act. That was the purpose that I just read, proposed section 103.01. What is being proposed in Bill C-30 is focusing on both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
What's being proposed in amendment L-21.1 is just on greenhouse gas emissions; it's not focusing on the quality of the air that Canadians breathe, so it's only dealing with half of the problem. I believe that example shows us clearly that what's being proposed in the Liberal amendment L-21.1 is not taking Canada where Canada needs to go in cleaning up the environment.
As we move on to proposed section 103.02, which is the general description of Canada's Clean Air Act, proposed subsection 103.02(1) says:
||Either Minister or both Ministers, as the case may be, may issue guidelines for the purposes of the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Part for which they have responsibility.
It says “either” minister.
Proposed subsection 103.02(2), which is the consultation part, reads:
|| In exercising the powers under subsection (1), either Minister or both Ministers shall offer to consult with the government of a province and the members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments and may consult with a government department or agency, aboriginal people, representatives of industry and labour and municipal authorities or with persons interested in assessing and controlling air pollutants or greenhouse gases.
There it is again dealing with both issues—the air pollutants, air quality and greenhouse gases—which, in effect, create climate change.
Proposed subsection 103.02(3) reads:
||Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent either Minister or both Ministers from exercising the powers under subsection (1) at any time after the 60th day following the day an offer is made under subsection (2).
Proposed subsection 103.02(4) reads:
||Guidelines issued under this section shall be made available to the public, and the Minister who issued the guidelines shall give notice of them in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that that Minister considers appropriate.
Those are the guidelines for consulting the public.
Already, Mr. Chair, I feel it's a far superior form than what's being proposed by the Liberals in their amendment L-21.1.
Proposed section 103.03, “Information Gathering”, regarding research, investigation, and evaluation, reads:
||For the purpose of assessing whether a substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including an air pollutant or greenhouse gas,
—there it is again, Chair—
||(a) collect or generate data and conduct investigations respecting any matter in relation to the substance;
||(b) correlate and evaluate any data collected or generated under paragraph (a) and publish results of any investigations carried out under that paragraph; and
||(c) provide information and make recommendations respecting any matter in relation to the substance, including measures to control the presence of the substance in the air.
Now, we go into proposed section 103.04, dealing with the notice to the minister, and it reads:
||(a) imports, manufactures, transports, processes or distributes a substance for commercial purposes, or
||(b) uses or releases a substance in a commercial manufacturing or processing activity,
|| and obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that the substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, the person shall without delay provide the information to the Minister unless the person has actual knowledge that either Minister already has the information.
So there's an obligation to provide notice to the government, to the minister. I believe, again, that is far superior than what's being proposed by the Liberal amendment L-21.1.
As we proceed on to proposed section 103.05, this is dealing with notice requiring information, samples, and testing. It reads:
|| (1) For the purpose of assessing whether a substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including an air pollutant or a greenhouse gas,
—there it is again, Chair—
||(a) publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister publishing the notice considers appropriate a notice requiring any person who is described in the notice and who is or was within the period specified in the notice engaged in any activity involving the substance to notify that Minister that the person is or was during that period engaged in that activity;
||(b) publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister publishing the notice considers appropriate a notice requiring any person who is described in the notice to provide that Minister with any information and samples referred to in subsection (2) that may be in the person’s possession or to which the person may reasonably be expected to have access; and
||(c) subject to subsection 103.06, send a written notice to any person who is described in the notice, and who is or was within the period specified in the notice engaged in any activity involving the importation or manufacturing of the substance or any product that contains or may release the substance into the air requiring the person to conduct any test that the Minister sending the notice may specify to the notice and submit the results of the tests to that Minister.
Mr. Chair, I could go on, but I believe very clearly that this is the direction, the road, that Canadians want us to go to. They want us to deal with both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on all sectors, Mr. Chair. I think this is the way we need to go and back the train up, so to speak. Amendment L-21.1 does not take us anywhere near that direction.