Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I did actually notice that before and I had it written down to bring to the committee's attention, but would it be an idea to actually amend those particular paragraphs to include a regulation, rather than leaving it wide open for an order in council or whatever the case may be? What's the department's position on that? Would it make it more certain and more advantageous to have the act be consistent with that regard?

[John Moffet]

I don't think we've taken a position on exactly how that should work. I'm just, at the moment, trying to point out a consistency issue. I don't want to get put into the position of looking as though I support a basic model, which is a fundamental political choice, as opposed to structuring the act in that light.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But at this stage, it's wide open. We don't know how it's going to happen, do we? There's no consistency in acts.

Mr. Ares is from the Department of Justice, is that correct? What would be the legal ramifications from a legal perspective in this particular case if this act were to go into place without that consistency in the sections?

[Michel Arès, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

I'm afraid I can't answer that question right away, because a lot of amendments have been made. For example, with the use of the expression “carbon budget”, you need to do an in-depth analysis to see what the status is of the instrument created. That's why Mr. Moffet suggested inserting the word “instrument”, which in law is extremely neutral.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Oh, okay.

[Michel Arès]

I can't say anything more than a neutral term seems to be warranted here, for legal issues. I'm not talking from any other point of view, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Let me go back to the Liberals for a second. You were considering a friendly amendment to line 28, adding “regulation or instrument”.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It would read, “regulation or instrument made under the following”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Would it make sense? Because we made a lot of changes, to withdraw this and just propose amendment L-27.1, with all of that changed wording—which I have in my head.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Sure. We will withdraw it in the understanding that what we're bringing in now will cover two lines of the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You'll be modifying lines 28 and 29?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Lines 28 and 29

Rather than just doing.... What's the best?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It would be better if it were rewritten, obviously.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Then we'll write it up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So we will have to take a short break while you do that.

Write fast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay. A new Liberal amendment, which we will call L-27.1, is being distributed. I'll get Mr. McGuinty to read it.

Sorry, there's a point of order.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I would need the French version. I do not understand English well enough. It is important to have both the French and the English versions to be able to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm sorry, you will have to listen to the translation. Amendments are allowed to be put at the table or during the meeting.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Point of order, Mr. Chair. It's not appropriate. Anything distributed to the committee has to be in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

When a member moves a motion from the floor he can do it in the official language of his choice. Mr. McGuinty has provided the text in a case like this, which is perfectly within the normal rules of order. We rely on the translators to provide the other official language, and that has been the custom in the past.

Mr. McGuinty, could you read it fairly slowly, please, so the translators can make sure everybody understands?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes. This is amendment L-27.1, Mr. Chair. It is a new version. Everyone can follow along, please, with the English version.

I move that Bill C-30, in clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 35 on page 29 with the following....

Please ignore what is there under clause 34. That is to be removed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is this portion to be removed?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes. Clause 34: subsection 330 (3.1) of the act is to be removed and is to be replaced by the following, and it should go on from there to:

(3.1) A regulation made under subsection 93(1) or section 140, 167, 177 or 326 may be made applicable in only a part or parts of Canada including any province in order to protect the environment, its biological diversity or human health or to achieve national consistency in environmental quality. (3.2) A regulation or instrument made under subsection 93(1), 94(1), 103.02(4), 103.02(5), or section 167, 177 or 326 may distinguish among persons, works, undertakings or activities according to any factors that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, will allow for the making of a regulation that provides for satisfactory protection of the environment or human life or health, including

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

I will need to intervene and point out a line conflict that lines 21 and 22 have already been amended by previous amendments NDP-29 and L-26. So in order to conform, this amendment, instead of saying “by replacing lines 21 to 35”, would have to say “by replacing lines 23 to 35”, and the amendment would start at the number 326 on line 23.