Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Germany's system is quite different from ours. The provinces there have much more power in the relationship.
I'd like to focus, really, on the U.K. or perhaps New Zealand.
5:30 p.m.
Climate Program Director, Ecojustice
The U.K., with the devolved powers, is different. It's an apples-to-oranges situation. Taking a step back, the bigger point is that there will always be these more difficult challenges in terms of the constitutional arrangements between different state actors. It prevents a complete copy and paste from the U.K. to Canada, but I think the fundamentals of the U.K. climate act hold, particularly if we brought in the improvements we've suggested around having more information about the measures the provinces and territories would be taking.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Perhaps a made-in-Canada model, as the legislation proposes, with a nod to the U.K. model would be a preferred situation.
5:30 p.m.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
The U.K. legislation specifically says that, if the U.K. government is including measures that relate to the authority of Scotland or Wales, it's required to consult. The process is set out.
I think the concern here is that, if you create an act that deals with the difficulties of talking with provinces by just pretending they don't exist, we're not going to meet our targets.
5:30 p.m.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
The importance of transparency around.... We need to talk to the provinces and we need to ensure that the measures the provinces are doing are celebrated and put front and centre in our plans. It's very helpful.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
I understand.
I'd like to touch on one more aspect of that to expand this, to unpack this a little more.
Clause 10 includes implementation with provinces and territories and first nations. The U.K. and New Zealand have a more direct route to implementation in dealing with first nations. I didn't hear much comment about that in terms of clause 10 in a review, either from Mr. Andrews or from Mr. Gage.
5:30 p.m.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Are you talking about subclause 10(3)?
5:30 p.m.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
It's actually one of the problematic sections, I think, in the sense that by saying the plans “may contain” other information related to these other levels of government, businesses, etc., and indigenous governments, it allows the government an out for accountability. Ultimately, the federal government has to be the one to.... If it's a true accountability act—saying that the government is accountable for ensuring that somehow, with all the different pieces in play, it has a plan as a country to get to its targets—by saying "may" rather than requiring that the government actually identify which measures it's relying on, that actually undermines the accountability considerably.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Again, it is a much more complex relationship than a simple unitary system where there is an opportunity for collaborative work.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, that's really the only key question I had. I wanted to clarify that.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That was a good question. Actually, all members have asked good questions.
I would like to thank our witnesses. We have had a great discussion and it has allowed us to deepen our knowledge and broaden our view of the bill. Thank you so much.
Let me remind members that the committee is going to meet twice this week. The next meeting will be on Wednesday, May 19, at 2:30 p.m. It will be a three-hour meeting and we will have two groups of witnesses.
This concludes today's meeting.
Does anyone want to move to adjourn?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
On a quick point of order, you've said 2 p.m. I'm just double-checking—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I will now propose that we adjourn, and we'll see you at 2:30 on Wednesday.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
There seems to be unanimous consent, so thanks again to the witnesses and have a wonderful evening.
Thank you.