I'm going to direct this towards the government benches, and maybe the parliamentary secretary can clarify it.
I've heard—and this is going to mystify Canadians—that air pollution is a broad definition that includes things like air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
To the parliamentary secretary, were there any considerations taken by the government, when drafting Bill C-30, that this opened up the potential to not be able to apply CEPA to counteract any business or anybody emitting greenhouse gas emissions?
It's a good point. There should almost be a “do no harm” policy in the things we're doing with our clauses. When the government put Bill C-30 together, we believe there was some harm done to the effectiveness of CEPA. We'll get back to those. We have stayed a lot of those amendments. We're going to remove them.
Is it the government's position that this amendment by Mr. Bigras does harm to the effectiveness of the government to carry it out under these two very similar but very different definitions: one, air pollution being a broad category; and two, air pollutants being something under that in conjunction with greenhouse gases?
I take Mr. Moffet's position. If you add on “climate change or greenhouse gases”, it seems you'd almost have to amend the whole bill. That does more harm than the value of including this amendment. I'm still trying to understand what the value really is.
Did the government consider any of the legal implications of starting to change some of these definitions, which they did, in Bill C-30 ? If they did, what did they consider in terms of Mr. Bigras' amendment?