Evidence of meeting #35 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 chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jacques Maziade  Legislative Clerk
John Moffet  Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Émilie Thivierge  Legislative Clerk
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Angela Crandall

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Seeing no other hands up, we'll proceed to a recorded vote on NDP-1.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We now go to PV-3.

Ms. May, would you like to speak to it?

4:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Yes. Thank you.

Again, we're in the same rubric here of clause 4, and again, it's to add a specificity to what our international commitments are.

I appreciate your point, Taylor. Mine was more wordy above, and I hope that the NDP might support this one, in that what our international commitments are in respect of mitigating climate change are very specifically about limiting global average temperature and to try to hold that temperature increase to 1.5°C. Then it goes on to continue with the last bit “and of achieving net-zero...by 2050 and Canada's international commitments”, so it's to bring into sharp focus what we actually committed to do in Paris and embed that in the purpose of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Madame Michaud.

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment that Ms. May is proposing is a good one, but I want to point out that the following one, proposed by the Bloc Québécois, is almost the same, with one clarification. This is for the purpose of the bill to state that the objective is not simply to achieve net-zero emissions in 2050, but also to reach the 2030 targets in the Paris Agreement. This will be done through the implementation of accountability mechanisms in the legislation. The amendment is basically the same, with one additional clarification.

So I invite members to consider the following amendment because, as I understand it, if Ms. May's is passed, we will not be able to vote on the following one given that its purpose is to amend the same lines. Is that correct?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I understand. That's not what I was told, but it is what I thought. One moment, please.

Ms. Michaud, I have just been told that we can deal with both amendments. There is no conflict between the two. Amendment PV-3 amends line 15 and amendment BQ-4 amends lines 16 to 18. So there is no conflict.

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you for the clarification.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Bittle.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly, we oppose this, as the preamble already deals with it. The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, or CNZEAA, as some people have suggested to me—I hope that doesn't catch on—already reaffirms the goal of limiting global average temperature increases to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit that increase to 1.5°C.

We see it as redundant.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I have Ms. May and Mr. Albas.

4:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Sorry, I left my hand up for what I was going to say to Madame Michaud, which was that we were actually consistent and could adopt both.

To Mr. Bittle, the preambular language does tend to focus on 2050 and not on the immediate, which is why I'm betting that 1.5°C at this point would be wise.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Ms. May, can you take your hand down? That would be helpful.

Mr. Albas.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Briefly, to Mr. Bittle's comments, I wanted to see if we could ask the government officials.... My understanding is that the preamble is really there to kind of set the stage for the bill, but actually has no binding force.

It's much different when you mention something in a preamble than actually in the legislation itself. Could that be confirmed by the officials?

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Do any of the officials want to address that?

Mr. Moffet.

4:35 p.m.

John Moffet Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

I think that's better addressed by your legislative counsel.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I thought so.

Yes, Ms. Thivierge.

4:35 p.m.

Émilie Thivierge Legislative Clerk

I'm not sure I can be of much help. It would probably need a legislative counsel to explain it.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

My understanding is that when the statute is published, the preamble is taken out because it's not seen to have any force of effect to the actual statute.

The argument the government is making is that it's redundant, so I'm asking, is that the case from a legislative viewpoint?

4:35 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

I can answer that.

Statutes passed with preambles are published with their preambles. Preambles can be used in traditional interpretation, but they have less influence than a purpose provision, which in turn has less influence than a substantive provision that provides an explicit obligation.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Is it redundant, then? The government has structured the bill in such a way that there's allusion to it in the preamble, versus in the actual bill itself.

4:35 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

Clause 4 refers to international commitments. I won't speak for Ms. May, but I don't think the objective is to change those international commitments. It's simply to reinforce them. The way the bill is drafted, it refers to those commitments, which, as the preamble indicates, include joining the international effort to enhance efforts to take immediate action to minimize temperature increase. The amendment would refer to those obligations specifically, but wouldn't actually change them.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Okay. I may have other, similar questions, because there are a lot of preambles and I want to make sure we get this bill right. Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Ms. May is next, and then Madame Michaud.

4:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just—

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Chair, on point of order, I always enjoy Ms. May's interventions, but with respect to members of the committee and the back and forth, I know there are rules that we agree to. I don't know that the rules permit for the back and forth. I'm just putting that out there.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

You're talking about the back and forth with Mr. Albas.