Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I would debate your point. Several previous governments, not just the most recent one, have done a variety of things to reduce air pollutants. Through the acid rain strategies, we have had great reductions in SOx pollutants—sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides. Through the U.S.-Can

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  —and mercury and a number of different chemicals have been put on the CEPA toxic list. Benzene is now out of fuels; lead is out of fuels.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No, the Montreal Protocol has to do with stratospheric ozone levels and CFCs. That's another example, although CFCs do not impact air pollution so much.

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

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

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I don't know what impact it would have on the auto industry. I think they are able to meet those standards if they perhaps do some tinkering with engines and so on. I think we should still aim to try to match either the California standards or even the U.S. federal standards, w

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I think that if you're talking about federal-provincial relationships, that's outside the purview of where the Lung Association would make recommendations. What we're aiming for is that we have, across Canada, good regulations everywhere to reduce air pollutants and even greenhou

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I would be very cautious of taking away any toxins from the CEPA toxics list and putting them into a separate list. I would be cautious that your wording ensure regulation, as opposed to other softer words in there. A good point is the inclusion of the air quality component. Cer

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If the green project in Africa reduces greenhouse gas emissions, all of these emissions, no matter where they're produced on earth, impact climate change globally. An emission anywhere impacts climate change everywhere. If that project reduces greenhouse gases, then we lower our

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The differences would be in how much greenhouse gases you reduced by doing both of those activities. If they were both the same, they'd have both the same effect. But shutting down a coal-fired power plant in Canada also reduces air pollutants in Canada.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Gosh, I could quote you some of the days, which are increasing every summer, when they have levels of smog that have triggered an air quality alert in Toronto, for example. The numbers are increasing. I think that has to do with our increasing trend of warmth, which has to do wit

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I think you have to do both.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  What we have under CEPA, I think, doesn't use the word “effects” or “regulations”. Regulations are one of many options that CEPA allows for. Whether they're used or not is sort of secondary to the act. Of course, we all want the correct effect, but having gone through many exampl

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That's right, as long as the regulatory level is low enough to improve and protect of air quality.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It depends, I guess, if you're talking about now or about what we would like it to be.