Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  We do not need this clause.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  This clause simply extended the authority for pollution prevention planning orders to air pollutants and greenhouse gases, which in the original construction of Bill C-30 would have been taken out of the toxic substances list. Now that they are still toxic substances, we don't ne

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The short answer is yes, it has. A slightly longer answer is that in fact Alberta is the only province to get as far as saying we would like an equivalency agreement. We haven't entered into negotiations with other provinces and then had them fall apart, but other provinces have

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, sorry; obviously I've misspoken. The way Bill C-30 is written now, proposed subsection 10(8) says: An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates at the time that is specified in the agreement or by either party giving the other at least three months’ notice.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm going to seek legal counsel on that.... The preliminary view, I think, is that this does not require a termination date. Conceivably there could be an open-ended agreement.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No. CEPA imposes a five-year timeline.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  In Bill C-30, it's open-ended, a date in the agreement.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, and that's because of the way Bill C-30 is written. I apologize to members who are trying to follow numerous subclauses, but you have to go back to the beginning of clause 5 in Bill C-30, which replaces all of subsections “10(1) to (9)”. That's the first thing you've done: yo

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I may be entering too fully into the spirit of negotiation here, but I want to emphasize to members that provinces have told us that the more the act imposes rules from the outset, the more it appears that big brother is telling them what to do, and that's a deterrent to coming t

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Sure. Two comments. First, I think I explained two of the reasons why the provinces, we understand, have been reluctant to enter into negotiations for equivalency agreements--namely, the lack of significant overlap and concern about the test. Another issue that has arisen is the

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  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.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It's the way we read it as well.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm happy to respond to both of those questions. First of all, I do not want you to walk away thinking there is no basis for measuring equivalency under the current agreement. The point is that there is. The current agreement covers four regulations: pulp and paper effluent regu

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Amendment G-5? I don't have the numbers of the amendments, so I have misled the committee. I think I called this amendment G-6, whereas this is—