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.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm fine with her going first. I believe she had her hand up.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
I also wanted to point out that, before the break, Mr. Bachrach was able to speak while I was waiting for my turn.
First, I have to say that I'm surprised at the vote on PV-9, given that it says the same thing. They didn't want to vote on the Green Party one, but they were willing to vote on the government one. Is it for ideological reasons? I wonder.
If you read the amendment carefully, you see that it proposes that the Minister set the national target at least 10 years before the beginning of the milestone year. However, in the definitions on page 2, we see that the milestone year is 2030. In other words, since it says that this must be done 10 years before the beginning of the milestone year, it should have been voted on in 2020. However, it is now 2021. It doesn't make sense.
Earlier, you voted against BQ-9, when the solution was there. They are proposing 2025, but BQ-9 says “subsequent to that of 2025”, because if it says it has to be done at least five years before the beginning of the milestone year, it has to be after 2025.
As things currently stand, it doesn't make sense. PV-9 and G-4 did not make sense. Targets would have had to be set in 2020. We want to see a reference in the definitions to a milestone year in 2025. Otherwise, the way things are going, nothing will happen until 2025.
Liberal
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I agree with some of what Madam Pauzé just said. I think our goal at this point is to move forward together in the spirit of co-operation, recognizing that we still have a lot of amendments to get through. I believe, in reference to Mr. Albas's point, that there's a difference between obstructing a committee's work using the rules of procedure and people making an honest misinterpretation of the procedure, and that we should have the will of the committee heard. The alternative is that we amend it at report stage, which will take the time of everyone in the House. I think it would be much more efficient for us to simply deal with it here.
I will move an amendment from the floor that Bill C-12, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 4 with “greenhouse gas emissions target at least nine years, 366 days, before”.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
On a point of order, Chair, since we're waiting, I wonder if I can talk to Mr. Bachrach, with your permission. It's something very simple.
Instead of nine years and 366, would he consider making it 10 years plus one day? That would be easier for the public to consume.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Well, I guess if I had thought about that, then that would have achieved the same thing, but I worry now that we're starting to split hairs. Maybe “starting” isn't the right word.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Albas
As the chair's away, I'm assuming the chair. I would just ask all members to wait until the chair returns.
NDP
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm told that if we want to get it back to 10 years, at report stage, we have to adopt something like nine years, 364 days. In other words, we have to have something that we can amend back to 10 years.
Mr. Bachrach, that's your proposal, I believe.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's correct. I've now moved that amendment. It's nine years, 366 days.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll debate the amendment and vote on it. Then we'll continue with the speakers list.
Does anyone want to speak to Mr. Bachrach's amendment?
Mr. Baker, do you want to speak to the amendment? Go ahead.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I think this is a really important issue. I'm glad we're spending time on it to ensure that the bill reflects the will of the committee. To ultimately reach net zero by 2050, this and I think future governments will need to take action to reduce emissions urgently in the short term but also take steps many years in advance to allow us to achieve the necessary emissions reductions in the medium and long term.
The G-4 amendment—or what Mr. Bachrach has now proposed, which changes the time period by a day—would ensure that greenhouse gas emissions targets after 2030 have to be set at least 10 years, or in this case 10 years and one day, in advance, instead of five years in advance as is currently provided by the bill. This would ensure that the government starts planning for future targets and taking action further in advance. It would provide greater certainty for others who also need to plan. It also aligns with Canada's current practice under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
I support what Mr. Bachrach is proposing, and I hope the committee members—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. May, do you want to speak to this particular amendment? If it's to something else, we'll have to come back to you.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I wouldn't try to speak to anything else. Because my amendment was identical, I think I'm within the ambit of the motion this committee passed to point out that neither my amendment, nor Mr. Baker's amendment, nor Mr. Bachrach's amended version has the problem that my friend Monique Pauzé suggested they might have.
You need to look at the previous sections to realize that in talking about subsequent national greenhouse gas targets, we're referring to subsequent to the 2030 target. It does not have the problem of creating a pretty historical imperative to do something that can't be done because of timing. Starting with subsection 4, we're talking specifically about subsequent milestone years. Milestone years are defined not in a hypothetical way, but specifically from 2030, so we're now talking subsequent, in 2035, 2040 and 2045.
I'm not trying to amend Mr. Bachrach's motion. I would have done it differently. I would have said the subsequent milestone year must be defined in 2025, etc. However, it's good enough to go ahead procedurally. I just didn't want people to worry that we were creating an impossibility by passing a motion now and fixing it at report stage, which would require the government to have access to a Back to the Future kind of time machine.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thanks for that clarification, Ms. May.
Ms. Pauzé, do you have anything to add?
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I wanted to speak, but Ms. May explained the issue well.
I felt I had been misunderstood. We're voting on a target for the year 2030, which is already in the bill. If the target has to be set 10 years earlier, it would have to have been set in 2020.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Albas, would you like to speak to Mr. Bachrach's amendment?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
First of all, look, putting this in order, which is substantially the same business that went on prior.... I'm not casting stones that I don't believe are warranted, but I can't believe we're entertaining this, for two reasons. First of all, there's the premise of it. The rules are done this way so there's certainty that everyone will have process, ensuring that if you fail on one measure, another party can't steal the same measure and then vote for it. Ms. May put in her amendment prior to the government. She was organized. She put it forward, and the government obviously thought at one point that it was a good idea. Again, that's how the process is.
I don't know if the NDP and the Liberals had some sort of plan here that they would vote it down. However, if they did side together to vote it down and they're playing the game, this is the natural result and they should know better.
Mr. Chair, you've already said to everyone that we'll have to do this in the House of Commons later and hand over this—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It can be done. It's not up to me, but it can be done. It can be done only if Mr. Bachrach's present motion, which is nine years and 364 days, is adopted. Then that could be changed to 10 years. However, if we don't adopt Mr. Bachrach's motion, we can't add 10 years at report stage.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
We're going to have the same amount of work, but I would just say, Mr. Chair, that this cuts both ways and confuses things. I'm not in opposition of democratic principles, but I believe that if you have some, you have to maintain them and show respect for all sides. The rules must be maintained.
Mr. Bachrach might find that it's just inconvenient, but if the dog eats your homework and you can simply ask to have that revised and do a do-over.... I guess that's something that can be done, but I don't believe this is the proper process, Mr. Chair.
I believe that if Liberal members and the NDP had wanted to see 10 years, they would have supported Elizabeth May's motion on this. They would simply have said, “Hey, let's get it in the bill. Who cares who gets the credit?” I don't think Ms. May would have substantially run around saying, “Look at me. Look at me. Look at what I did.” I think she would understand quite clearly that the committee decided to make an amendment to the bill regardless of how my party or others voted.
Mr. Chair, I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed in today's process. I will try to get over it. Believe me, I will not be going home and brooding over this, but I think that members, by being cute.... Look, three lefts may make a right, but it doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. I would say instead, next time, vote for the first amendment that supports what you think is important for the bill, rather than going along partisan lines.