Environment Committee on May 26th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting to order.

We were supposed to meet for four hours. We will continue until 8 p.m, if we have permission to do so, but we cannot go past 8 p.m. So we will not be having a four-hour meeting, but it will be close.

In case you are not aware, Mr. Longfield had some shortness of breath and was not very well at the end of last week. He went to the hospital and stayed there all weekend. He had a coronary stent put in and everything is going well. He was even able to vote earlier. It seems that he will be back at work on Friday. He will not be joining us today. Han Dong will be replacing him.

Welcome, Mr. Dong.

We also have with us, from the Department of the Environment, John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, whom we know very well, and Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing that amendment, who may then explain the amendment. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing, as was done, to the clerk of the committee. I'm told that you can actually submit an amendment from the floor.

I'll go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, unanimous consent is required to withdraw it.

Members are permitted to move subamendments, but they must be submitted in writing to the clerk, who will then distribute them. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and then the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House.

That's essentially how we proceed. Since there are a few amendments to clause 2, which is an interpretation clause, I suggest we postpone the study of clause 2 until the end. This allows us to see which amendments are adopted that could have an impact on the definitions that are in clause 2.

As a reminder, the interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill, unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, if you'll permit it, before we actually begin the formal process, I'd like to make a comment. I will be as brief as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Mr Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Chair, I have received some feedback, and I think it's important for the committee, as a group, to listen to that feedback. It is my understanding that a large majority of the briefs that were submitted, 62 of 70 briefs, were filed with us yesterday. That was obviously after the cut-off of last Friday for amendments. At least that's the feedback that I've heard.

I just wanted to say that the feedback further said that it almost felt like the committee was not serious in saying, “Please send us your thoughts. If you can't appear as a witness, please, we want to hear from you.” The person who contacted me said that they felt that the committee was rushing things and was not legitimately sincere in the process.

I know some might point out that my party is opposed to BillC-12. That may be true. You can hold me to account for that. My voters will—certainly some of those who feel strongly about it.

Mr. Chair, what I'm talking about here is the process itself. When people talk about cynicism and whatnot, I would simply point out that we raised these concerns very early in the process, when the committee chose to accelerate its study. In that compression, it seems that we've squeezed some people, in their minds, out of the process completely.

I would point this out, not to point the finger and wag it at people, but simply to say that we need to do better next time, Mr. Chair. I would ask all committee members to think about that feedback. Maybe you've heard directly from them, but having the majority of those briefs submitted so late in the process really irked many people, because it felt like we were never serious about listening to them in the first place.

I've raised that in terms of process. We can have debate over the product of this bill, but I think it's important that there's a trust that's given to us and that we honour that public process. Unfortunately, we did not pass that bar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's noted, Mr. Albas.

Ms. May, is this a point of order?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No. I wanted to comment on Dan Albas's comment. From a very different perspective, since I want urgent climate action, I also found it very distressing that so many witnesses weren't heard and that we closed out everybody other than the minister. The sum total of our study on this bill is seven and a half hours.

I know I'm not a member of this committee. I'll speak to that point later, Mr. Chair, but I think it really makes a mockery of inviting the public to send comments when amendments are due before the comments are received.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's understood.

We'll proceed now to clause-by-clause consideration.

As I say, we'll do clause 2 at the very end, because it's a clause that has definitions. We'll start with clause 3.

On clause 3, if no one objects, I'll assume unanimous consent.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

May we have a recorded vote, please, Madam Clerk, on clause 3?

(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 4)

On clause 4, there are some suggested amendments. We'll start with PV-2.

Ms. May, would you like to present the amendment?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, and first I need to put on the record a small reminder to the committee. I'm here because you passed a motion, a motion to which I objected. An identical motion was passed in every committee, so I am coerced to be here. You have probably no personal knowledge of this, because it's not personal to any one of you individually, but this process is one that reduces the rights that I would otherwise have to present amendments at report stage—substantive amendments to which I could speak at length.

The process we are now in is novel. It was created when Stephen Harper was prime minister. It was to punish me for the 432 amendments I brought forward to try to get changes to the omnibus budget, Bill C-38. We won't get into details, because there isn't time, but surprisingly, the same process continues under the Liberals, to deprive members of smaller parties of rights we would otherwise have.

I need to put that on the record, because no doubt at some point, as I speak to my 37 amendments, you may wish I wasn't here, but I am here because you have created a situation that coerces me to be here, and my amendments are deemed to be put forward because I don't have the right to put them forward myself and I don't have the right to vote on them.

I must speak to them briefly, but I will say that I sent to the clerk of the committee and to committee members a list of witnesses who could have aided this committee, including the Minister for Climate Change from New Zealand, the Hon. James Shaw, who just brought forward a climate accountability act in New Zealand; and the head of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University's law school.

There was some decision made behind closed doors by other members of this committee to move so quickly that those witnesses could not be heard. There were no indigenous witnesses live before committee, no young people live before committee, and no presentations by climate scientists on the reasons for urgency.

I turn quickly to my amendment here. By the way, Mr. Chair, I think that when the Government of Canada under Stephen Harper looked at the first initial of my party name in English, it decided, “Oh, we can't have a Green G when we have a Government G,” so that's why it is “PV” for Parti vert.

This amendment is to correct a scientific inaccuracy that is embedded in this legislation. It is embedded in the title of the legislation. It is embedded in the preamble. In other words, it cherry-picks the science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in order to focus on net zero by 2050, without focusing on the reality that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that to hold to global average temperature increases to 1.5°C—which is the goal of the Paris Agreement—and as far below 2°C as possible, the window on that will close well before 2030.

Again, I'll probably have another opportunity to explain this, but when we say that if we have 1.5°C that will mean we're at net zero by 2050, that's true. It is not scientifically accurate to say that if we can get to net zero by 2050 we will have 1.5°C secured. The IPCC has been very clear that without dramatic reductions immediately, in this decade, the window on 1.5°C will close, and close forever, before we get past 2030.

That's why the purpose of the act, to be consistent with the Paris Agreement, must include the notions of urgency and immediate and ambitious action. That's the purpose of the amendment I suggest for line 13. It would ensure that when we talk about the targets, we talk about near-term targets, not only the one for 2050. I hope this amendment will meet with the approval of the majority of members of this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone who wishes to debate this amendment?

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Very quickly, Mr. Chair, we believe that amendment NDP-1 addresses this same issue and does so in an effective way, and unfortunately we cannot support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else?

No. Shall we vote on it?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just so that I know, Mr. Albas, is that going to be all the way through?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I think so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, that's fine. It's just so I know where we stand.

Can we have a recorded vote on amendment PV-2, please?

[Jacques Maziade, Legislative Clerk]

Mr. Chair, before going to the vote, you might want to inform the committee members of the impact on the following amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm so sorry. I didn't see it. I apologize.

Committee members, we'll get into our groove quickly enough.

If PV-2 is adopted, NDP-1 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line in French.

Thank you very much, Mr. Maziade.

We can do the roll call vote now.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

That means we move to NDP-1.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to present Ms. Collins' motion, NDP-1.

It's in the package. It's very much in the spirit of what Ms. May put forward. We prefer the more concise wording, and I'll leave it at that for now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a question, through you, for the legislative clerk.

I'm sorry. I missed earlier, with PV-2, which consequential amendments that would change. Are there any in NDP-1 that would relate to other parts of the bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would somebody like to answer that?

I'm just going amendment by amendment.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I can try speaking to it, Mr. Chair.

I believe, Mr. Albas, that the two amendments deal with the same part of the bill in a very similar way, with slightly different wording. We just voted down Ms. May's amendment, and we're now dealing with our version.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay, so it wasn't consequential. That is what I was asking.

I just got it from somewhere. It was not where I thought I would get it, but thank you. I appreciate it, Taylor.