Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2008

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

It just amplifies the middle bit; it tops it up.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, so we're not dealing with amendment BQ-3.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Why are we dealing with amendment LIB-6 before BQ-3?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Because it comes before the Bloc amendments.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I understood it was under.... We're on clause 9.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Clause 9, and we're dealing with line 20.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, I've got it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other comments? Is there any other debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Now we'll go to amendment BQ-3 on page 13. If amendment BQ-3 is adopted, then amendments NDP-3 and NDP-4 cannot be proceeded with as they are.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If I'm not mistaken, amendment BQ-3 proposes to do away with subsection (c).

In that case, I would withdraw amendment BQ-3. However, I would like to suggest an amendment to subsection (c). After the word “repealing”, I would add “in conformity with section 7” before “the necessary regulations”.

May I move an ad hoc amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So you would add after paragraph 9(c). You would carry on with paragraph 9(c) as it is, and you would then add. Is that correct, Mr. Bigras?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You want to have conformity with clause 7. That's what we're looking for.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Precisely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Does everybody follow that process? That basically comes afterward. It is in line 31. In the English, after “repealing”, we add “in conformity with section 7”.

We have to fix the French and English, but does everybody understand what the motion by Mr. Bigras is?

You're withdrawing amendment BQ-3 and replacing it with this amendment.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's right.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Say that again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We take amendment BQ-3 and get rid of it. We replace it, adding on to paragraph 9(c). The wording in paragraph 9(c) stays as is and we add “in conformity with section 7”.

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

And then carry on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

And then carry on, yes.

This becomes an amendment to paragraph 9(c).

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Paragraph 9(b) stays exactly intact, as it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes. Mr. Bigras' motion deals only with paragraph 9(c).

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

With the adoption of amendment NDP-2, we are amending section 7 which deals with the process of limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province. Section 7 allows for that possibility. In section 9, we want to ensure that the regulations are made in conformity with section 7.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just that little addition, then, is what we would be voting on now.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.