Evidence of meeting #20 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Oui.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand Mr. Jean's confusion. I'm not sure why we'd make that particular change if what we mean is what was said the first time. Perhaps there has been some change.
There are two points I want to raise as we consider these changes. One is that we don't have this translated. Some of these are of some substance, so we might need a bit of time to make sure what we're being asked to vote on is what we understand. If the translation is being done, then that's fine.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
My understanding is that it's not necessary to translate it when it's changed in committee as we go along.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
It could be in either language. It's not required to translate it to move it and vote on it in committee.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to understand that better.
While I have this, there is no green investment bank of Canada. I understand the concept and I understand that negotiations are going on, but this obviously seems contingent upon something in the future that we haven't created yet. There may have to be some changes to this to reference those parts of the act that I think the Liberals were hoping to change with this green investment bank.
I don't want to state the obvious, but the only reason I raise this is that we have some changes we want to make to the green investment bank. If we can't get them, then we're not into it. Voting for this is suddenly contingent upon this new item of debate.
While I appreciate the spirit of what's going on here in terms of people modifying their amendments and trying to seek some common ground, we want to make sure we always understand what we're voting for. At this point, this one gets a little tricky for me to understand it. Once we get through some of those questions, I want to get back to this equivalency conversation, because it's extremely important to us.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Perhaps I could ask Monsieur Bigras to address the relationship between this and amendments L-19.1 and L-21.1, because that's where the GIBC comes up, I believe.
7:55 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
There is in fact a connection with the Green Investment Bank of Canada. If a province were to decide to adopt certain measures and if these were equivalent in terms of emission reductions, the province could issue a notice. The latter would be evaluated by the Green Investment Bank of Canada which would then make a ruling. Amendment BQ-6 notes the following:
(2) The independent body shall publish a notice referred to in subsection (1) before it is issued, or give notice of its availability, in the Canada Gazette [...]
Therefore, a province wishing to adopt greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures could submit its plan to the GIBC. The latter would first be required to publish a notice in the Canada Gazette and, within 60 days after publishing the notice, it would be required to file comments or a notice of objection with the province. Within this 60-day period, the GIBC would publish a summary of the follow-up given to the comments. In shorts, comments could be filed regarding the notice. A decision could then be made. The written notice under subsection (1) could be revoked upon prior notice given by the GIBC.
The purpose of this approach is to allow a province that has decided to put forward a climate change plan in keeping with the aims of a national body to carry out its plan, provided the anticipated results are deemed equivalent to the ones the national body hopes to attain.
We're talking here about providing some flexibility and the possibility of maximizing every dollar spent on addressing climate change problems. We're proposing a decentralized approach that allows Ottawa to retain some oversight responsibility. Perhaps later we can think about a penalty regime.
Regardless, this approach would allow the provinces to implement their own plan. It's not a question of assuming that every climate change proposal submitted by a province would be acceptable under the national program. Proposed measures would need to be evaluated by this national body, in this case, the GIBC. There would be a consultation process and the notice would be published in the Canada Gazette. Comments or notices of objection could be filed, following which a ruling would be made.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chairman, with respect, seeing as the clerk referred me to Marleau and Montpetit, one of my favourite nighttime readings to get a good sleep, a royal recommendation would be required, depending on the definition of the green investment bank. It would certainly according to page 711 which says:
An appropriation accompanied by a royal recommendation, though it can be reduced, can neither be increased nor redirected without a new recommendation.
It goes on in paragraph 3 to say:
A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. An amendment which either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's on page 711, paragraph 3.
Mr. Chair, going on, I cannot see how a green investment bank would not fit in at least three of those qualifications for inadmissibility. Therefore, if a green investment bank, depending on the definition of it, is inadmissible, then this clause is inadmissible.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
But the first reference to the green investment bank would be in amendment L-19.1, which simply says that there shall be negotiations with the objective of creating or designating an independent agency to be known as the Green Investment Bank of Canada.
So the objections that Mr. Jean raises are solved by L-19.1, which simply says that there shall be negotiations with the objective of establishing such a thing. So the BQ amendment can't come into force until there is a green investment bank, following a period of consultation, so there is no spending.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, with respect, I think paragraph 3 on page 711 needs to be taken into consideration in regard to the green investment bank in the Liberal amendment. I do not think it meets the qualifications of not being inadmissible, because it extends the object.
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Can I ask my Liberal colleagues if there's another amendment coming that this is contingent upon, or is it just standing alone?
The Bloc one is obviously consequential to that—
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Yes.
Well, let me ask Mr. Moffet or somebody down at the other end of the table. In the previous one we talked about the objective of designating an independent agency—I'll go by the word “create” for the moment—to be known as GIBC.
Could the CIBC become the GIBC?
8 p.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
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 organization. It could be an existing one that's designated. Somebody else could create one that would then be designated. Or the government might choose to create one. The authority to create isn't in here; it's just the authority to consult on possibly creating or designating.
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
My inclination is to go back to what I ruled on the other one, about the fact that it's simply a negotiation. We're not presupposing the outcome of the negotiation. It's not actually creating a body; it's negotiating to discuss identifying or creating, which would be consistent with the last one.
Mr. Cullen. And then I'll come back to you.
8 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Because this amendment has now become connected with one that's further on, just by language, if Mr. Bigras were open to the concept of potentially naming this green investment bank that we've yet to potentially designate or create, that it would be this or some equivalent body, just to free up our process here—Because within this there are some other questions of equivalency that I'm still concerned with.
It doesn't necessarily tie our vote to this bank, because as I said earlier, we haven't bought into the process entirely yet. It's hard to vote for one that's directly connected to something that's still in play. If we can open the language somehow—I don't know if there are considerations, or maybe it's open enough as it is, that there's this duty to consult about the creation of this thing.
I'm just trying to find a way through, find a way that we can get to some resolution on this.
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Monsieur Bigras, would you be amenable to that kind of wording that talks about the GIBC or some equivalent body?
8 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
In a previous amendment, we proposed that an independent body be created, namely the Green Investment Bank of Canada. Had we felt differently, we would have gone along with the original wording.