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.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
One would have an advantage, since if we adopt one, the other one isn't necessary.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let's proceed to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now go to PV-9. It's already been deemed moved, so I'm asking Ms. May if she would like to speak to it.
6:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Just parenthetically, because I didn't speak to the others, Mr. Saini's amendment, by the way, is consistent with the Paris Agreement, which already requires that any time we put forward a new target, it ratchets up from the previous one. I'm certainly happy to see it in the act, but I wanted to note that the Paris Agreement already does that.
On changing targets and certainty and uncertainty, I just reflect on our history. When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he changed our target in 2006, in 2009 and in 2015. None of those occasions involved any parliamentary input or public consultation. Also, it was Canada's unique contribution to undermining the comparability of different targets that Canada, in 2006, stopped using 1990 and interjected 2006 and then 2005, undermining the entire scheme of what was under development since I had started working on the negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1990. It was the intention that we would always use a 1990 base year. I've heard that come up a few times, so I just throw that out there.
I'm speaking briefly to this one because I'm so pleased to see that there is G-4, a government amendment. It will achieve the same thing that was recommended by West Coast Environmental Law and many other environmental law groups that appeared before the committee, which was to say that if we're looking at immediate ambitions, net-zero legislation should provide enough certainty and clarity regarding our mid- and long-term targets that we plan ahead, and planning ahead would be to set greenhouse gas emissions targets at least 10 years beforehand. That's what PV-9 achieves.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I should mention that if PV-9 is adopted, G-4 can't be moved because, as you said, they're identical. If PV-9 is negatived, so is G-4, for the same reason.
Yes, Mr. Albas.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Unfortunately, I wasn't quick enough on the uptake to talk about BQ-9, but I will speak in regard to it as well as PV-9.
We believe quite honestly that there needs to be a whole-of-government approach. Instead, here, both of these amendments would be set in place by the minister. We believe the minister plays a key role but not the only role, and that's why Conservatives will not be supporting this particular amendment or the previous one.
Thank you very much.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Seeing no further hands, I will go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That means we skip over G-4. Is that correct?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If PV-9 is adopted, G-4 cannot be moved, but PV-9 is defeated....
6:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's even though it's identical to the one you're about to pass.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the committee has already decided it would not change to 10 years, so to me it doesn't seem that we can now have the committee argue or debate over the exact same extension of time.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's right. It says that if PV-9 is negatived, so is G-4, for the same reason, so am I correct, Madame Thivierge, that we now go straight to G-5?
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, that was not my understanding at all. Maybe we can just tap the brakes here.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We have two amendments that have identical wording. My intention was to vote in favour of G-4, assuming that if this one failed, that one would come forward.
I don't know if, by unanimous consent, we can go back and have another crack at it, or if we can bring G-4 forward, but I'll look to you for direction.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'll ask the clerk, but do you not need unanimous consent to reverse a vote?
6:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, may I have the floor to speak to my amendment after it's been defeated?
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have Mr. Baker first and then you and then Mr. Saini, just to maintain the order.
Mr. Baker.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Chair, you know I respect you very much, but I didn't hear you say that if we voted down amendment PV-9, we couldn't consider amendment G-4.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Didn't I say that? Generally, I read what's in front of me, but is that—