Evidence of meeting #25 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
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, sorry, amendment G-5.
It would be as follows: “(3.1)”, and then strike out all the rest that follows except forA province which wishes to take advantage of equivalency shall provide a report annually to the federal government outlining how equivalency was met, outlining the amount of increase and/or reduction method to reduce in the sector of industry applicable and any other matter considered relevant to the parties to measure the results.
I think we need some sort of reporting. Wouldn't that make more sense than having an agreement to agree?
There are two things I have difficulty with. The first is—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Mr. Jean, sorry, that is a brand-new amendment. We would have to deal with amendment G-5, because you've thrown out amendment G-5 and introduced an entirely new amendment.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My difficulty, Mr. Chair, with this is that an agreement to agree, first of all, is nothing, in essence. It's an agreement to agree, but I am concerned about the consistency from province to province.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I understand that, but procedurally you're not amending amendment G-5—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand. I'll withdraw my amendment to amend, but I am concerned about that. I think an agreement to agree has many, many problems.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I understand. Let's deal with amendment G-5, and if amendment G-5 doesn't work, then you have the option of proposing another amendment.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just want to let the opposition know where we're coming from. We don't want an agreement to agree. We would like some tougher language on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
It almost sounded like we had an agreement to let it be an agreement to agree, but....
Mr. McGuinty.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Moffet for his explanation. Just to recap, I understood that in the existing equivalency agreement with Alberta, for example, there was discretion vested in the officials to make sure there was compliance, that there was some method of evaluating whether or not the equivalency agreement actually had the effect it was intended to have. Is that right, Mr. Moffet?
But now what we're talking about is trying to close, in a sense, a small loophole, which is to take away the discretion of the officials to decide how they would evaluate, yes or no, whether the same effect is occurring. We want to build into the agreement itself a method of determining whether or not the terms and conditions of the overall agreement are being fully met. Do I understand that correctly?
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Essentially, there is a slight nuance. The current agreement does have such terms in it. We didn't have to have those terms by law. This would require us to include similar terms in all future agreements.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I would propose a friendly amendment to amendment G-5 that I think would make it very, very clear. It should simply read: “An agreement shall include a method of determining”. Establishing a manner of determining is fine, but simply include a method of determining whether the terms and conditions of the agreement are being fully met.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Could Mr. McGuinty read that into the record again? “An agreement shall....”
Liberal
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay, instead of “establish a manner”, it would say “include a method” of determining. That would be acceptable.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
That's a weighty role you're imposing on me.
The word “manner” is used in a number of places in the act, so that's one we're more familiar with, but I don't think we can identify any serious issues this would raise for us in interpreting or applying the provision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Okay, it's still accepted?
Are we prepared for the question on amendment G-5?
Amendment G-5 now reads that Bill C-30, in clause 5, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 4 the following:
(3.1) An agreement shall include a method of determining whether the terms and conditions of the agreement are being fully met.
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Now we will go back to amendment G-4.
Do you want your staff to carry on discussions and we'll press on, or do you want a suspension? Are you saying you wish to suspend or to carry on?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Let's reconvene.
We are on amendment G-4, and I believe Mr. McGuinty may have an intervention.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
We've all had a chance to discuss this, and I'd like to put a friendly amendment forward. It would be important for Mr. Moffet to hear this, and staff as well.
I am working on amendment G-4: “That Bill C-30, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 5 on page 4 with the following...”. Does everyone have that?
Going to the third line, which begins with “amongst other factors, the quantifiable effects of the regulation”, we would insert, after “regulation”, “on the environment and human health”.
I'll repeat that. At the third line down, it would read: “amongst other factors, the quantifiable effects of the regulation on the environment and human health” and would continue with “and the effective enforcement”.
