Evidence of meeting #20 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I think from a very strict legal reading that could be the consequence, and that's what I'm trying to avoid. However, if this amendment were to pass, I don't think it would have significant practical unintended consequences. From an official's perspective, I think we could live with this.
What I want to make clear is that the objective here is to expand the government's authority to research police and prevention techniques and technologies defined as broadly as possible.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was going to say that in the preamble the consistency that I was trying to suggest is, let's be consistent throughout the act. As somebody who has actually practised and litigated probably 100 different types of acts, consistency is the key. We have a definition section, and I'm sure Mr. Cullen may have amendments there, but even in the preamble we talk about air pollutants and greenhouse gases. I refer you to the preamble, clause 2. We talk about it consistently throughout.
Now if the definition clause that Mr. Cullen is bringing forward has some changes on that, then I think we have to look at that differently. Certainly consistency in the act and what Mr. Bigras was originally anticipating to propose I think is very good.
I just think the one thing that should be done is it should be consistent with the definition section. If the definition section changes, then of course, we have to go back to this particular clause and deal with it accordingly. To be blunt, I can't imagine what judge would read it that strictly, but I'm sure there are a couple somewhere in the universe, but it certainly states there are two particular things we want to regulate and it's consistent throughout the act in the regulation of it.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My only problem with the friendly amendment is that I don't think it works with the wording. You had, “to prevent pollution and greenhouse gases”. The way the paragraph reads is, “and control technologies and techniques related to pollution prevention and greenhouse gases”.
I don't think your friendly amendment would follow.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Just to clarify, I think the intent of Mr. Jean is that after the word “techniques” it would read “related to air pollution”. You'd put the word “air” before the word pollution. It would be “related to air pollution and greenhouse gas prevention”.
Is that your intent?
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Is that what you're suggesting would be more appropriate, Mr. Godfrey?
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think it was simpler to do what the amendment did, “related to pollution prevention and greenhouse gases”. I understood Mr. Jean was suggesting “to prevent pollution”. Maybe I misunderstood what you said as your friendly amendment.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I think we have the correct wording.
Let me cover this. There's a friendly amendment proposed to Mr. Bigras, who does not accept it as a friendly amendment. Are we prepared for the question on the amendment?
Mr. Warawa.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I appreciate the intent of Mr. Bigras, but as the department has shared with us, the wording doesn't make sense as to what's been proposed. If we can get the wording that is satisfactory to Mr. Bigras, it would be helpful for us to move ahead in a logical way. If he's not happy with the friendly amendment as proposed by Mr. Jean, then I would ask that we do—
The purpose of this is to strengthen, and what we're hearing from the department is that it's not strengthening, it's causing confusion. We need to get the wording right before we move ahead. Could we have five minutes to work with Mr. Bigras and, I hope, get a wording that will achieve what he's asking, but also make sense?
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
The other option, of course, is to move a subamendment that could be voted on.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay.
Mr. Bigras, would it be okay to meet with you to get wording that would be satisfactory to both of us, as opposed to my moving an amendment, and if that's not accepted, then you—?
I think we want to find some common ground. Could we break for five minutes?
7:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We may have to order more cookies, but we're suspended for five minutes.
7:39 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Order, please. Gentlemen, ladies, let's resume.
Monsieur Bigras, what have you and Mr. Warawa discussed?
7:39 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I get the feeling that we may be slowly getting somewhere. We've agreed on a friendly amendment, one that Mr. Wawara could have moved himself.
We're proposing that the words “air pollutants” be added after the words “pollution prevention”.
The amended clause would now read as follows:
(5) The Ministers may conduct research and studies relating to the effectiveness of mitigation and control technologies and techniques relating to pollution prevention, air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
So then, the wording would be: “[...] pollution prevention, air pollutants and greenhouse gases.”
Is that your friendly amendment, Mr. Warawa?
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Yes. Again, just to clarify the exact wording, I'd just like to read it out. It would read, “to pollution prevention, or air pollutants and greenhouse gases”.
Is that the agreement?
7:40 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
The wording would be “pollution prevention, air pollutants and greenhouse gases”, not “pollution prevention, air pollutants or greenhouse gases.”
It's not “or”, it's “and”.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
No, actually, I think the translation probably is. If we add the first part of the sentence, I think it makes more sense: “effectiveness of mitigation and control technologies and techniques related to pollution prevention, air pollutants and greenhouse gases”. Is that correct?