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.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Yes, but could I just ask Mr. Moffet something, through you, Chair?
I think that clarifies it. Do you see a problem with that?
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I apologize for being difficult, but what is the final word? Is it “and” or “or”?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
It's a comma. What I heard, en français et en anglais, was “to pollution prevention, air pollutants and greenhouse gases”.
So then, the wording in French would be “[...], prévention de la pollution, aux polluants de l'air et aux gaz à effet de serre.”
In Spanish, I can't help you.
So that is your friendly amendment. Is it accepted, Monsieur Bigras?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay, we'll get into the practice of holding our hands up for a couple of minutes, or long enough that the clerk can make sure he has everybody.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
That wasn't so tough. Take the rest of the day off...not so fast.
Now, do you want to go back to the new clause 5.1? There's an amendment to what you would have. Of course, the amendment is not moved until it's moved at the committee.
Monsieur Lussier.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose a few minor amendments. I'd like committee members to agree to this friendly amendment.
I'm referring here to amendment BQ-6 which proposes to add clause 5.1
For starters, in line 4 of the French version of subsection 10.1(1), I would like to replace the word “déclarer” with the words “peut déclarer”. Accordingly, in line 2 of the English version of the same provision, I'd like to substitute the word “may” for the word ”shall”.
Moving on to my second proposed amendment, the French version often refers to “l'organisme indépendant”. I'd like to replace this with the words “la Banque d'investissement vert du Canada” or, as it is called in English, the “Green Investment Bank of Canada”, or GIBC. The expressions “organisme indépendant” appears several times in the bill. We'd like to see this expression which appears in subsections 10.1(1), 10.1(2), 10.1(4), 10.1(5) and 10.1(6) as well as in paragraph 10.1(6)(b) replaced by the expression “Banque d'investissement vert du Canada.”
As for paragraph 10.1(1)a), we're proposing a minor change. The amended version would read as follows in French:
(a) d'une part, des dispositions visant la lutte contre les émissions de gaz a effet de serre qui ont un effet équivalent aux réductions requises par le budget carbone national telles que décrites à l'article 103.02.
The referenced provision would now be 103.02, not 103.071.
Does everyone have a clear understanding of the proposed change? On the back of the sheet, you will find the amended wording and different referenced provision.
Lastly, we are proposing one final change: in paragraph 10.1(6)(a), we're suggesting that the words “on request from the province in respect of which the notice was issued” be deleted and replaced with “on request from either of the parties to the agreement”. Consequently, instead of limiting this power to one province, it would be extended to all parties to the agreement.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm just wondering about the translation. My French is very bad, so I won't try to attempt that, as my translation might be lost.
In proposed paragraph 10.1(6)(a), are you suggesting that, for instance, a municipality could be the body that is considered to be carbon neutral? Could a municipality in fact receive an order from council on application?
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
No, because previously, the provision said “on request from the province”. Now, we're proposing that it read “on request from either of the parties to the agreement”. I believe the parties to the agreement are the federal government, the provinces and the territories.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm just trying to understand, because I don't. Does this mean that under your proposed section 10.1, a municipality, as a government, could apply for an order declaring that the provisions of the act don't apply there?
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
There is no mention made of municipalities, only of the provinces.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
No, but then I don't understand your proposed subsection 10.1(6). You're suggesting that in proposed paragraph (6)(a), you would take out the reference to the provinces and substitute instead—
Bloc
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
To my mind, it's clear that the provision does not contain a reference to municipalities. Immediately following the reference to the Green Investment Bank of Canada, subsection 10.1(1) notes the following: “determines by notice in writing, on request from a province, that there are in force by or under the laws applicable [...]”. Consequently, the reference is to a request from a province. Unless I find out that municipalities are included in this amendment, I really don't see where you're going with this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I'll go to Mr. Cullen in just a second, but my understanding is that by “either of the parties”, we mean either the province or the federal government.