Yes, Chair.
This amendment came directly from some witness testimony we had in terms of the principle of substitution that exists in other acts and bills within Parliament.
I'm very curious to hear what committee members think about bringing in that same principle of substitution.
This is something we often, very conversantly, use with toxics and the need for industry to look for substitutions, where those may be deemed suitable. There's a balance that says there should not be an inordinate economic burden placed upon the company in seeking that substitution. It's connected to some of the other things, and as I said, it's more familiar there.
We think there's some application to bringing that same principle in line with the concepts around climate change in this government's bill, and probably more specifically to the air quality aspects of Bill C-30.
If there's a contaminant being released in Canada's atmosphere and it is affecting Canadians in a harmful way—which I know the government has claimed great concern over—then if there's a substitution available to that company, the company seeks to substitute it. It's one of those things where you catch the pollution before it even starts. It's much more cost-effective, rather then trying to catch it once it has been released out of the stack.