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.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Sure. I'm having a lot of trouble with this technology.
I don't know who is next, but anyway—
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
It's whoever you say should go next, Mr. Chair.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, but I'm trying to be fair.
To go back to what I said, Mr. Saini, if CPC-4 is adopted, PV-10 and G-6 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
Does that clarify things? Okay.
The speaking order I have here is Mr. Albas and Ms. Saks. If that's not correct, let me know.
Go ahead, Mr. Albas.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you. I'm sure if MP Saks has a point of order, she will simply voice that, and then I would let her assume the floor.
CPC-4 is a short amendment. It just says that the Governor in Council must take into account the best scientific information. Again, this is just a different approach to what is offered in Bill C-12 thus far. The cabinet itself must take into account the information that one minister.... As important as the minister of the environment and climate change is, I would also remind you that the government has created flexibility. It can appoint a different minister if it wants. The Liberal members might want to speak to exactly why they might switch that.
Ultimately, we believe that in order to best tackle climate change, it's important to have all hands on deck. Having the cabinet itself—the Governor in Council being its formal name—take into account the best scientific information when it is going about what is envisioned in clause 8, I think, would be a very good approach. I would encourage all honourable members to support this approach—even just once. Just once, say “yes”.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will speak to Mr. Albas's amendment in an attempt to ensure that we don't have the inside baseball situation we had the last time. My understanding is that on one hand, if we were to vote in favour of amendment CPC-4, it would then take out PV-10 and G-6. However, if we opposed it and then went on to amendment PV-10 and opposed PV-10, what would happen to G-6?
I'm a chess player—I'll admit it. I just don't want us getting into the same difficulty that we had before, and I want to make sure there is absolute clarity among all the members of the committee regarding the consequences of each step going forward. They are interrelated.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's right, so if CPC-4 is adopted, PV-10 and G-6 cannot be moved.
Let's say CPC-4 is not adopted. Then we would go to PV-10. If PV-10 was adopted, G-6 and CPC-5 could not be moved, as they amend the same line.
7:20 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I don't agree with your interpretation. I feel that, if we pass CPC-4, we could also vote on PV-10 because it does not seek to replace the word “minister”, but rather to replace the verb “take into account” with “base”.
If we pass CPC-4, the subject of the verb “take into account” would therefore be “Governor in Council”, but then we would have to be in favour of the verb “base” or retain the verb “take into account”, which is already in the bill. I don't believe that passing CPC-4 cancels out PV-10.
7:20 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Actually, a line cannot be changed more than once. Even if you are wanting to change a different word, once a line has been changed, it can no longer be changed.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Thivierge.
I hope that answers your question, Ms. Pauzé.
I see no further conversation. We can therefore go to a vote on CPC-4.
So I would ask Madam Clerk to proceed to the recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We can now consider PV-10. I'll just repeat that if PV-10 is adopted, G-6 and CPC-5 cannot be moved.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
7:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With all due respect to all members, I'm going to repeat again that this is an issue unlike others. If it's like anything, it's more like COVID: the science has to dictate our actions. The political targets aren't political. Failure is not an option. If we fail to achieve what we committed to do, which is to hold on to a livable world, humans.... This is not rhetorical language. It is a scientific reality that this is an existential threat to our civilization. If we get it wrong, there are no do-overs. If we get it wrong, there'll be nobody around to write the history books to tell us how badly we've done here. We actually have to adhere to the science. The notion that in setting a target, the minister must only “take into account” the best scientific information available is an abomination. The minister must base the target on the best scientific information available.
As I said, we didn't say to Theresa Tam, “Sorry, Doc, you want us to stand six feet apart; we'll give you three, and that's more than the Conservatives would give you.” That's not an answer—and sorry for the little jab to my friend Dan and others—but that seems to be the prevailing approach: that that is the bar and we have to do this for the purpose of an election.
No. We have to get this right under the terms of the science, and I can promise you that the atmosphere is not interested in negotiating with humanity. We are not in the driver's seat here, except to control our own actions. We know very clearly that holding to 1.5°C is not easy. It will require much more of us than we currently are contemplating, but to have a target that is taking into account the best scientific information available was found by many of our witnesses.... We didn't have that many, but certainly the climate action groups and specifically West Coast Environmental Law said that to best ensure that targets and plans are based on science and independent expert advice, climate accountability legislation should ensure that “targets and plans are based on the best available scientific information”.
I recognize that there is a line conflict, and this has been noticed by other members of the committee. It is possible at this point, but not later, to amend PV-10 such that it can be very easily folded into G-6, but that would require someone other than me. I'm not allowed to amend my own amendments, but someone else could. It would certainly make sense to say the minister must “base the target on” the best scientific information available” in G-6 and then, for paragraphs 8(b), 8(c) and 8(d), that the minister must “take into account” the other factors. Clearly, our targets must be based on what science demands we do, not just on factors out there that must be taken into account.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
7:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I think, following on what Ms. May has said, and I take her point, the advantage of G-6 is the inclusion of indigenous knowledge and the importance of that. I think that as a committee we all appreciate how important it is that the bill include reference to that in a meaningful way. I certainly take her point, and I'm a bit worried that we would end up in some of the procedural weeds that we just got out of if we mix and match. I'm going to support G-6, and for that reason, I regrettably won't be supporting this amendment.
Thank you.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I see no more speakers, so we'll vote on PV-10.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to amendment G-6.
Before I ask Mr. Saini if he wants to move the amendment, I'll let the committee know that if G-6 is adopted, CPC-5 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
Mr. Saini, do you want to move G-6?
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
This amendment would ensure that the minister takes into account other factors, including indigenous knowledge and submissions and advice provided by the advisory body, when setting the greenhouse gas emissions targets. It would strengthen the act by requiring the minister to consider additional factors, with the best scientific information available, and international commitments with respect to climate change.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
I suspect that this will pass and I won't get an opportunity to speak to how we could have made this section more comprehensive. A lot of the witnesses supported that particular position.
I find it interesting that the government has put indigenous knowledge into this section, as it had no conversations prior to tabling this legislation. No indigenous witnesses came here to represent the different groups. Again, the continued symbolism, as opposed to having a real process, is a concern.
Certainly we believe that better decisions would be made in this section if we included understanding the impacts. This doesn't mean you don't move forward with the best scientific advice, but this section will lack an understanding that even your minister said was important. We learned with the plastics ban that there was no assessment of what the impact was going to be.
Part of this addition is okay, but part of it was done without appropriate consultation. It's missing a lot of things that might be important, so we will not be supporting it—or at least I won't be.
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Seeing that no more members would like to speak to this, we'll go to the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, given that G-6 passed and now CPC-5 is no longer movable—