Fear not the environmental community, Mr. Warawa. They're good people.
The question I have, at NAFTA.... I'm not sure we're going to get advice on NAFTA, unless Mr. Godfrey or others have particular legal counsel on it right now.
In terms of that first consideration and concern, I think there's some validity to it. In reading the amendment as it is, I think maybe there's other wording or another place to achieve what Mr. Bigras is intending.
It seems to me that in limiting the amount of greenhouse gases released by each province, and by applying it to each province, it sounds, with that wording, that the jurisdiction then falls to the federal government, in either some negotiation or conversation or potentially. Maybe the ability of the federal government to suggest to each province that this is your limit and you will go by that limit is a wording question. As written, that would be challenging, politically. That's the question we have in front of us.
With respect to the constitutionality, Mr. Bigras has some advice suggesting that it is constitutional. We've received some advice otherwise. This is the problem with lawyers in constitutional matters: you run down a rabbit hole pretty quickly.
I am concerned. I'm not sure I've seen enough clarity that if this were invoked I could return to British Columbia and say, no problem, the feds won't come and tell you what your limits should be. I'm trying to understand if that's not the case.
I'd be open for more arguments.