Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Could I make a friendly suggestion? If the objective is to include “provincial, territorial, and aboriginal governments”, then you could just limit it to the term “governments”, which is a defined term in CEPA to include provincial, territorial, and aboriginal governments. So you could just use one word instead of the—

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes, that's a fair point, and we don't have a clear policy as to the inclusion of Métis, so maybe I'll retract my friendly suggestion.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  There are approximately 80 substances on schedule 1 so far, and growing.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  This amendment would have very broad implications for the management of substances under CEPA. We have a number of concerns about the wording of the provision. First of all, the provision starts with “the Minister shall require”, so it's not clear who would be required to do the assessment.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, except that as you say, this turns on BQ-6. I will explain it to members. BQ-6 would provide a mechanism for identifying a province that has legislation in place designed to attain the 2008-2012 Kyoto targets, and it would then enable the Governor in Council to make an order declaring that the provisions of an act or regulations don't apply in that province.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It's nice to know somebody relies on my—Maybe you could have a word with my wife! I don't think the addition of these references to these provisions substantially changes the thrust of the overall amendment.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I don't think there are interpretation problems with the language. It's a bureaucratic and political hurdle that the minister has to cross before designating the area. Again, I would remind members that what we're getting at here is not massive new power; all we're getting at is the ability to do research and gather information.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The way Bill C-30 works now is it would give the federal government authority to regulate emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases across Canada. That would possibly be restricted in the event that the Bloc's motion, which was stood yesterday, is approved. In that case, federal regulations for greenhouse gases and air pollutants would not apply in a designated province.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, I don't think so. You're right. There are no obligations here to consult. But if I may, let's just remind the committee of what the implications of designating a significant area are. There's no massive new power to intervene with new regulations here. It's to “identify priorities for research” and to “establish information-gathering requirements”.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  My apologies. I was talking to my colleague. What was the question?

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Essentially the concern is with the wording of NDP-13. We didn't express any concern to the government about the intent; we simply expressed a concern about the wording. The major concern focused on--and I'm looking at NDP-13—proposed new subsection 53.1(2), which says: Following the designation of a region as a “significant area” under subsection (1), the Minister may Our concern was that you would then only be able to do those things after the minister had designated the region as a significant area.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  At the risk of going out on a limb, I would like to make a suggestion based on my concern that the term “air pollution” is used throughout the bill, and if you make this amendment, you would then have to, for the purposes of clarifying, make it throughout the bill. An alternative approach—you're all going to yell at me—would be to go back to the definition of air pollution and clarify that it includes climate change.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I understand that. That would simplify everything, because then you don't have to change the term as it appears everywhere. If you change it once, then you have it automatically everywhere.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, and I'm not here to replace the parliamentary secretary, but the words we're focusing on are “air pollution”, “air pollutants”, “climate change”, and “greenhouse gases”. What we're saying is that for legal purposes, for the purposes of the statute, air pollution includes the effects of air pollutants—smog, acidification of lakes, eutrophication of lakes, and so on—and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, namely climate change.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If I could, I'll just explain it. It's our view that they are—