Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I apologize for being difficult, but what is the final word? Is it “and” or “or”?

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Well, I don't know whether the CIBC could. Presumably that depends on the CIBC's charter. But L-19.1 is clear that the consultations are about either creating or designating, so the amendment has, I think, been drafted very carefully not to predetermine the nature of the organiza

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'd like to bring two points to your attention. First, the working interpretation of the departments is that “air pollution” is broad enough to cover the effects on climate of both air pollutants like smog, etc., and greenhouse gas. So like the previous one, I would ask you to

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  We made these changes for very technical legal reasons, to correlate to some existing statutory language in the existing act. I'll ask our counsel, Michel Ares, to explain.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Maybe I can elaborate. As Monsieur Ares explained, the test for fuels is “contribute significantly to air pollution”. So we have similarly limited the power to gather information about fuels to fuels that may contribute significantly to air pollution. But we didn't want to have t

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Good question. The limitation is that the activity would have to contribute to air pollution. To be candid, we haven't thought through exactly how we would circumscribe that, except that it would be focused on air pollution. Also, I draw your attention to the fact that there a

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Mr. Chair, may I take the opportunity to reiterate the officials' concern. Our concern is not at all with the objective of trying to maximize the ability to gather information about climate change. Our concern is with the actual impact of these three words, “or climate change”, w

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, and I'm not here to replace the parliamentary secretary, but the words we're focusing on are “air pollution”, “air pollutants”, “climate change”, and “greenhouse gases”. What we're saying is that for legal purposes, for the purposes of the statute, air pollution includes the

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  To reiterate, it's our view that the adverse impacts of GHG emissions are encompassed in the definition of air pollution in paragraphs (a) through (e).

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If I could, I'll just explain it. It's our view that they are—

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I understand that. That would simplify everything, because then you don't have to change the term as it appears everywhere. If you change it once, then you have it automatically everywhere.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  At the risk of going out on a limb, I would like to make a suggestion based on my concern that the term “air pollution” is used throughout the bill, and if you make this amendment, you would then have to, for the purposes of clarifying, make it throughout the bill. An alternativ

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  My apologies. I was talking to my colleague. What was the question?

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Essentially the concern is with the wording of NDP-13. We didn't express any concern to the government about the intent; we simply expressed a concern about the wording. The major concern focused on--and I'm looking at NDP-13—proposed new subsection 53.1(2), which says: Follo

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The way Bill C-30 works now is it would give the federal government authority to regulate emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases across Canada. That would possibly be restricted in the event that the Bloc's motion, which was stood yesterday, is approved. In that case, f