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

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Noted.

Mr. Redekopp, is it on the amendment?

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Yes, it is.

To my friend, Mr. Albas, it's two rights that make a left, or two lefts that make a right—whatever.

I'd like a process explanation for my benefit. I'm sure there's something in the rules that talks about something being substantially the same. If you say nine years and 365 or 366 days, that's substantially the same as saying 10 years. Is that just something that the clerks have to recommend, or would you, as chair, make that call? That's something I'm not really clear on.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

The legislative clerks advised me that someone can make an amendment that is nine years, 366 days—or 364 days or whatever—and that can be considered as an amendment and voted on. At report stage, the House can decide, “Well, you know, that doesn't really make a lot of sense, so we're going to bring it back to 10 years.” That's what I've been told by the legislative clerks.

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Would the clerks confirm that it is not substantially the same?

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

They confirmed that it can be done. You can ask them if you want, but that's what they've told me every time we paused to discuss it.

I'll ask Mr. Bachrach, because I want to make sure I'm not confused about whether it's 364 or 366. Mr. Bachrach, could you read—

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

It's 366, as I read it.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Albas's point is well taken, and I stand properly chagrined for not having hit the brakes and clarified the rules. I think all of us have learned something about a fairly esoteric aspect of this procedure, but the goal here really is to not let the procedure stand in the way of the will of the committee, and it does feel that if we were simply to move on....

I would point out that G-5 requires us to vote on G-4. If we don't adopt G-4, or something along those lines, then G-5 no longer makes any sense, so it is important that we deal with this, and I appreciate the time that the other members of the committee have given to this. I think the majority of the committee feels that this is an important aspect of the bill and would like to see it adopted.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Can you just read the amendment you're proposing?

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Sure. It would read, “greenhouse gas emissions target of at least nine years, 366 days before”.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay, so we're all on the same page.

We'll go now to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

It's adopted.

We'll go now to G-5.

Mr. Baker.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm introducing this motion to add new subclause 7(5). It's complementary to the one that requires targets to be set, the one we just passed that requires targets to be set 10 years in advance or, now, 10 years and a day in advance.

It requires the minister of the environment to publish, within a year of setting the target for the 2035, 2040 or 2045 years, a high-level description of the key emissions reduction measures to achieve that target, as well as the latest projections of greenhouse gas emissions. This will, for example, ensure that the target set for 2035 in 2025 is accompanied by a high-level description of the measures and projections to reach the 2035 target.

Basically, this would ensure that future governments not only set targets in advance but publish plans so that they can be held accountable for achieving those targets.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment?

Mr. Albas.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask Mr. Moffet a question.

Isn't a lot of this material already made public through other reporting mechanisms?

7:10 p.m.

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

John Moffet

It's correct that we have obligations under the UNFCCC and under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that result in various reports. There are no such regular requirements for plans as contemplated by this provision or the bill as a whole, however.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Ultimately, would you say that most of the material that would be captured by this is already publicly available but would be packaged so that the average Canadian would be able to see it in one source? Does this substantially increase the transparency? Are we talking about 90% of this being publicly available? Or 80%...?

7:10 p.m.

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

John Moffet

At the moment, we don't have anything like this particular provision, where there would be an obligation nine years in advance of a target to publish a high-level description of the overall approach the government intends to take to achieve that next target.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

How much description—how much prescription—is at a “high level”? What does “high level” mean?

7:10 p.m.

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

John Moffet

Well, the amendment that's been proposed describes “high level” as something that is similar to Canada's nationally determined contributions.

There is guidance under the United Nations framework convention about what a nationally determined contribution submission should include, so it's considerably more than a number. I can't recall the exact number of pages, but our most recent nationally determined contribution—maybe Mr. Nevison will correct me—was in the five- to 10-page range of information.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that a lot of this information is already publicly reported. I'll leave it to individual members to decide if there's actual value in this. I get the sense, though, that this is the government trying to.... As MP Jeneroux noted a number of times, people just didn't seem to be responding to the bill, so I think the government is trying to say, “Look—we're beefing it up.”

I don't know. I'll leave it to the individual groups and individuals across Canada to decide if this is actually a meaningful measure or not. The Conservatives will be voting against this, because we don't think there's a great deal of extra value being generated by this amendment.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

We will call the vote on amendment G-5.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Now we will go to clause 7 as amended.

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 8)

I just noticed that Mr. Drouin has joined us.

Mr. Drouin, Welcome to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

We will proceed with clause 8 and amendment CPC-4, introduced by the Conservatives. I would like to point out that if CPC-4 passes, we won't be able to consider PV-10 and G-6 because they seek to amend the same line as CPC-4 does.

I believe Mr. Albas will be introducing CPC-4.

Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

7:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Chair, I have a procedural point. Under the terms of the motion the committee passed, I just want to make it clear that the custom in other committees is that I'm allowed to speak to my amendment, even though it would be negatived if something was passed in advance.

Thank you.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I follow. After clause 7 is adopted, you're saying you have—

7:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I have an affirmative right to speak to every amendment in a way that other committee members aren't, because I'm required to be here by the motion passed by committee, and I have a right to speak to each one of my amendments, even if they are out of order.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Are you talking about this going forward? You've been speaking on your amendments, haven't you?

7:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Yes. It's just as we get to PV-10. That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, when you were describing all the things that were happening, there was something wrong with my earphone. It was very fuzzy. I'm wondering if you could just say that again so I can be clear on it.