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

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Mr. Saini.

Let me remind committee members that, if we pass amendment G-3, we will have to drop amendment BQ-8, because both amendments seek to amend the same line.

Who wishes to discuss amendment G-3?

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

I think Madam Michaud actually had her hand up first.

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay.

Madam Michaud.

May 26th, 2021 / 6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to mention that, in response to a question I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the House of Commons, he replied that the government was going to include its new target in the legislation. When this committee met last week, in response to a question I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, he replied that the government would include its new target in the legislation. I see that the government is not doing that.

Today the government refused when the Bloc Québécois extended a hand to include a target in the legislation using a 1990 base year. We have taken note of that. We have also noted that the NDP has said that there's no point including a target in this legislation. Given that Canada has to provide its nationally determined contribution, NDC, the amendment carries no added value. I believe this is a way the government has found to not include its own target in its own legislation, and that is distressing.

I wanted to get that on the record for this committee. All it does is replace a clause in which the government was going to set an unknown target within six months of the law going into effect with a clause stating that the government will set a target by November 2021, regardless of what the target is.

I find it extremely distressing that the government is not keeping its word. They committed to it twice in public. This is the way they have found to get out of it.

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to take a slightly different perspective from that of Madam Michaud, but I do appreciate her input on the subject.

Let me first start with a question for Mr. Moffet. The first part of this amendment reads:

(1.1) Each greenhouse gas emissions target must represent a progression beyond the previous one.

Usually, when we say we're going to reduce something by a certain time, one would expect that there would be a logical progression. Is there anything specific in this particular part of the amendment that is not redundant?

6:10 p.m.

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

John Moffet

It's argued that the amendment is not redundant in the sense that the bill requires setting multiple targets en route to 2050, but there is nothing in the bill, without this amendment, that requires that each successive target be more ambitious than the previous one.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Yes, but the only kinds of spikes that I would imagine we would see would be from a technological shift, where suddenly you would have a major drop. Is the government anticipating that there could be a sudden spike the other way?

6:10 p.m.

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

John Moffet

I'd remind members that the bill is primarily focused on political accountability and speaks to the obligations of future governments, which would have discretion to set whatever interim target they chose. This provision would require that each such target be more ambitious than the previous one, notwithstanding technology or production levels.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Again, Mr. Chair, I would simply say that I think most people would consider that if we're looking at net zero as being a fruitful goal, there would be step-by-step processes, whether they be through technology or through some sort of regulatory tool, that would encourage those emissions to move on a downward slope. Quite honestly, going back to my earlier discussion, Madam Michaud mentioned the desire to have specific targets put into place here. That is one method of certainty, but I would simply suggest that instead of picking one particular target, there does seem to be, in this particular motion, more room given for the government to keep moving the goalposts.

For example, we've seen this minister under [Technical difficulty—Editor] three different versions of the carbon tax. Originally, under the previous Minister of the Environment, Catherine McKenna, it was, no, no, we're not going to be raising our carbon tax past 2019. It was going to stay at the $50 level that was agreed to by all provinces. Well, it was not all provinces, as one province opposed it from the beginning and then others dropped out of the program. Then there was a switch in the announcement of last year, a switch again in the budget, and then a switch again. Our targets and our approach on carbon pricing are sure sending shock waves of uncertainty.

We won't be supporting this amendment, but we agree that there should be some solid deliberation. Everyone should know what those targets are, instead of there being a constantly moving target. That seems to be what this government continually does, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's to please some sort of electoral vote that the Liberals are seeking, rather than trying to get everyone to work together toward some common goals.

Mr. Chair, I hope you're not shocked, but Conservatives will not be supporting this one. Quite honestly, we think a lot of this is just prescriptive and gives the government more room to move around.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, do you want to add something?

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Yes, I would like a clarification.

You said that if G-3 passed, we would not be able to go to a vote on BQ-8. Is that correct?

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, that's right.

Mr. Bachrach.

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I understand correctly the spirit of this amendment, in the unfortunate scenario that the government were to miss one of its targets, it would not lower its sights. It would commit to working harder and getting back on track towards the various targets it set. The intention is that the pace of change accelerates over time, and doesn't decelerate, so that we're in good shape to hit those targets and get to where we need to be by 2050.

That's my interpretation of the progression beyond the previous one's language. Maybe I would ask Mr. Saini if that was the intention behind the amendment. That was my understanding.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Yes. It's to prevent backsliding, but we've also seen the same type of language used in other cases—in Norway's climate change act, in the U.K.'s climate change act and in New Zealand's climate change act. There is this progression to make sure we're continually doing better and being more ambitious than we were before.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Redekopp.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

I want to talk a bit more about what Mr. Albas spoke of. I want to remind you of Dr. Henry from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and of our discussion about moving goalposts and changing goalposts. It's very important that businesses have some certainty in the emissions targets we have. My concern here is that this will allow the government and future governments to play around with those targets and move them around, which will cause great stress for businesses as they're trying to plan. He talked about the ripple effects. We also spoke about that with Pulse Canada, as well as about how it affects our export markets as well.

That would be my concern here, that we're just opening up the door for additional targets and changes to the targets, which will create uncertainty. It will make it difficult for businesses as they try to invest, if they're aiming at this goal and all of a sudden it changes again. That's my concern with this part of the change.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Let's vote on G-3.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

BQ-8 is off the table, so we'll now go to CPC-3. If CPC-3 is adopted, BQ-9 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.

Mr. Albas, would you like to move CPC-3?

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

We are striving to make the process better. We believe that by having more views at cabinet, so that everyone takes a turn discussing, deliberating and then, perhaps, modifying, there will be a better result. I think this would improve the process greatly, so I would ask all members to support having all hands on deck in our federal cabinet when it comes to achieving net zero.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Is there anyone else?

Seeing no one else, we'll go to the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We'll now go to BQ-9. If BQ-9 is adopted, PV-9 and G-4 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.

Ms. Pauzé, it's your amendment. Would you like to introduce it?

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Actually, I am introducing BQ-9. We're asking that the target be set once every five years. It needs to be after the 2025 target, because to set the target five years before 2025, we would have had to set it last year. That's why we're proposing that it be after 2025. Unlike other amendments, we're proposing that it be set every five years.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Any further conversation?

Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

I have a question for the clerk with regard to this. I think I have the idea, but I want some confirmation.

When you have a duelling banjo of amendments, like these two in particular, and they're both seeking to amend the same thing, how do you choose? Is it by which amendment was submitted first?