Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That's correct. It refers to a clause that no longer exists, so this clause of Bill C-30 is no longer needed.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Mr. Chair, perhaps I could just start at the beginning and explain the initial rationale for the amendment to Bill C-30, in clause 5. It is indeed as all three members who have spoken have emphasized. To make explicit the desire that the test for equivalency be an effects-based

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I want to try to be careful. I'm not posing objections. I'm trying to identify implications of the language that may be positive or negative, depending on your view. I'm not taking a position on this. I commented on three phrases. One is “demonstrably provide”. That is a differe

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'll take your guidance, but it's a package. The whole clause is a package. You can try to put everything in one single subclause. The final clause that is in here is the authority for the minister to draft regulations, or for the Governor in Council to draft regulations respecti

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—

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  My apologies. I'm actually not making up amendments on the fly, here.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  As to what it means. I apologize, could you...?

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

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  To be completely candid, we're just seeing this language for the first time, as well. It's my assumption that the intention here is to ensure that each agreement would specify a mechanism, presumably including the kinds of things that have to be monitored, the kinds of indicators

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  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  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  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.