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
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I mean, to keep it open, would it offend you to go back to the vaguer notion? It could be called the GIBC, or it could be called, ultimately, whatever it wants to be called.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I did. As I read this proposed section again—I don't need to read it in the record for the third time—it does talk about qualifications, and I don't see how amendment L-19.1 isn't a qualifier if there are going to be actual negotiations between the provinces and the federal government.
I don't see how we can have any of these discussions until we formalize what the green development bank is, until it's brought before this committee—which I think is inappropriate, because I think it's part and parcel of something else—and dealt with by way of vote, and it's decided whether or not Mr. Cullen is happy with the green development bank and what it is, or whether Mr. Bigras is happy with it or we're happy with it or Mr. McGuinty's happy with it. But right now, we're talking about a bill that refers to something that has no definition, and we don't even know what it is.
But certainly I would suggest it's inadmissible, based upon Marleau and Montpetit, page 711. I don't see how it can't be.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I've already given you my impression on that one, but we're not quite there yet.
Monsieur Bigras and then Mr. Cullen.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand, Mr. Chairman, but in the original version, the expression “independent body” wasn't defined either. Now we've given it a name, and I don't see how that makes the amendment any less admissible. Maybe Mr. Jean doesn't like the name. But it's only a name.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, with respect, I'm not suggesting that the government has a problem with this mechanism, but we don't know what the mechanism is. We don't have any definition or parameters to understand what it is. So we're asking to vote on something that doesn't have any parameters to define what it is. It talks about a mechanism, which, in my mind, means it's going to do something. I would like to know what the members of the other parties think it's going to do before we decide on whether or not it's even appropriate to decide. And I think we should stand it down, at the very least, to get on to what the green development mechanism is going to be about.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I will go back again, Mr. Jean, to the ruling that I made on the other one about negotiating without presupposing the outcome of the negotiation. I see this as being the same or very similar.
Monsieur Bigras.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Could we take a five-minute break to take stock of the situation? Perhaps we could come back with a motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Mr. Cullen had his hand up before that.
Did you want to comment before we break?
NDP
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand Mr. Jean's concerns, in that the Green Investment Bank of Canada is not defined as such and that this creates a dilemma of sorts. Therefore, I ask that BQ-6 stand until such time as we have discussed other amendments. Shall we move on to the next amendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We started successfully with clause 6, so I'd like to keep moving on to the things we can tick off and put in the done box.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
(On clause 8)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
There is one amendment to clause 8, which is BQ-8 on page 25.
Monsieur Bigras, or Monsieur Lussier.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I move that Bill C-30, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 5 with the following:
“air pollution or global warming;”
What we're saying is that while substances as well as fuels can certainly contribute significantly to air pollution, consideration should also be given in both cases to global warming.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
To Mr. Moffet or any of the officials, could you comment on that, please?
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
I'd like to bring two points to your attention.
First, the working interpretation of the departments is that “air pollution” is broad enough to cover the effects on climate of both air pollutants like smog, etc., and greenhouse gas. So like the previous one, I would ask you to think about whether this is potentially redundant.
Second, certainly the departments are focusing their work on more than global warming. We're focusing on the effects of climate change, of which global warming is just one of the potential concerns.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
After going to Reykjavik several years ago, I'm wondering whether “climate change” would be better terminology than “global warming”, because obviously climate change is in our north. I know it's a result of global warming—but that's just my two cents' worth.
Just to make the terminology consistent, I think “climate change” is more consistent than “global warming”. I don't know how that transfers into French, but certainly climate change is a terminology used consistently.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I refer back to it. It's one of these amendments of which I'm trying to understand the benefit versus the water-muddying potential. The intention seems clear, but in terms of process for this committee, is this something we want to be involved in? You almost want to cast back through the bill to find places where it says “air pollution”.
As it is right now, we find it acceptable to start including “global warming”. It seems to open up how this air pollution is different from something else. It's not, from what I'm hearing from Mr. Moffet—We might end up voting for this, but I would caution against continually adding in terms—particularly if there's no need to—if it's clear as it is.
Maybe Monsieur Bigras can clarify—this is meant with all good intention—what addition this brings to the bill, to give me greater understanding.