I have a question, Mr. Chair, for Mr. Moffet. Can you help us understand why, in the first instance, Bill C-30 has replacement wording for paragraph 46(1)(g) of CEPA? What was the import of doing so?
If you follow me, paragraph 46(1)(g) of the existing CEPA talks about “substances or fuels that may contribute significantly to air pollution”. Bill C-30 then strips away “substances”, talks about “fuels”, but then adds again “substances” and then adds the word “activities”. What is this trying to catch? Do you know?