Environment Committee on May 26th, 2021

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

—can I ask what the rules are regarding when amendments have not been read? Does it violate parliamentary privilege to show those things? Again, we work quite hard to present these things. This was one of the first amendments we put in, and we want to be able to say that we actually did the work. Is this protected by parliamentary privilege?

I'd like you or the clerk to please let us know. We want to honour parliamentary privilege, if it is considered privileged.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's an interesting question. My gut tells me that you're free to share it, but I could be wrong.

Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Since it hasn't been moved, it doesn't belong to the committee at this point, so the member is free to do what he wishes with it.

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

Thank you. I appreciate the clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does anyone want to speak to clause 8 as amended?

Mr. Albas.

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

I simply want to say we're going to be opposing it as amended. It's unfortunate that the government did not seem to deem it important to include different factors, for example economic factors and some of the social factors. If you can watch any talk show or podcast that talks about these issues, there will be impacts and I think the onus is on the government, when it proposes a new rule or new regime, that there should be some factors in it.

Look, I have nothing against indigenous knowledge, although I will say that when we get to the definition of indigenous knowledge I might ask a few questions around that, but I go back to what MP McLeod said, that there wasn't a lot of work done to consult with first nations. There's not a lot in this particular clause that talks about social impacts, economic impacts or even national unity, and we think it's important that the government, when it's making these decisions, say to the people exactly what it means to them, because there will be some areas of this country that will be more affected than others. That's why Conservatives don't believe that the government or this committee has gotten this right.

I wish we had the ability to have a full debate on this, because our amendment, I think, would have at least allowed for those things to come forward. However, I respect the committee and we'll just leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I just want to make sure I'm not making an error here. My script asks me to ask the committee if clause 8 as amended should carry, but then after that decision, we go to a potential new clause 8.1. Is that the proper logic?

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

I would think not, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It caught my eye.

Could Maître Thivierge tell me if we need to go to PV-11 before I ask the committee if they want to adopt clause 8?

[Émilie Thivierge]

No. You need to vote on clause 8, and then PV-9 would create a new clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I stand corrected.

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll go to Ms. May's PV-11 to see if we add clause 8.1.

Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry for speaking without your recognizing me but I was in violent agreement with you, so I thought it would be all right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Whenever you're in violent agreement with me, you can speak up any time.

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

It seems like we were both wrong.

This amendment is to ensure that there actually is accountability in the legislation and it speaks to ensuring that the minister is ultimately accountable for coordinating the actions relating to the climate goals. You'll note the important use of the minister “must”. The amendment is:

The Minister must ensure that all measures and strategies within federal authority are implemented to ensure that the national greenhouse gas emissions target for each milestone year is met and that the national greenhouse gas emissions target for 2050 is met.

There are two important elements to this: ensuring that the minister has a responsibility for coordinating the various pieces that are required to achieve the goals of climate accountability and, by using obligatory language, the minister “must”.

Again, the amendment itself came forward in evidence from West Coast Environmental Law, but I also put it to one of our other witnesses, Professor Wright, from the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary. You may recall that I asked him if it wouldn't improve the legislation if we had more language such as “the minister must”. You will recall the conversation about justiciability and the best way to ensure that we had some accountability and some potential for citizen enforcement in the act.

It's not likely this would ever get to a court—courts hate this kind of thing. However, that's why the language is as forceful as it is and includes things that I'm sure any minister will want to be sure they are coordinating: all measures and strategies within federal authority implemented to ensure that the national targets are met.

That's as briefly as I can put it, Mr. Chair, and I think it does a lot to strengthen the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague from British Columbia for putting this forward.

Again, we have consistently tried to strengthen this bill by not putting the onus on one minister but to have the onus on cabinet. We believe that it takes an “all hands on deck” approach and a whole-of-government approach. Unfortunately, putting a minister such as Minister Wilkinson or future ministers of the environment and climate change on the hook for the actions of Crown corporations that report to other ministers, as well as the general departments that he or she is not responsible for, I don't think is a good approach.

I sincerely appreciate that the member is trying to raise accountability, but again, to be fair to that individual, they are not necessarily accountable. The Prime Minister and his or her cabinet are the ones who should be bearing the most responsibility. That is why Conservatives have continually said that if there is an action that's brought forward, it could be brought forward by an individual minister on the recommendation to cabinet, but it should be the cabinet itself that endorses, debates, deliberates and puts in place those mechanisms.

We will not be supporting this, but I applaud her thoughtfulness in trying to make sure there is accountability. Oftentimes, I do not see this government being accountable. It seems that it is more about putting out the announcements than necessarily seeing that what is implemented is done well and competently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Redekopp, you had your hand up.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

This is a question for the witnesses, for either Mr. Moffet or Mr. Nevison. Is this even doable? Can you have this?

Essentially, in my mind, this creates a super minister, because he's now responsible for everything within federal authority. As Mr. Albas just pointed out, whatever the jurisdiction, finance and transport and everything would come under this. Is it reasonable for this to even be implemented? Is there a precedent for this in other measures?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is for Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

That's a good question.

I'm not sure how the term “ensure” would be interpreted. As members are aware, there's an obligation in the act on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to consult with other ministers in order to ensure a whole-of-government approach.

Whether this would give the environment minister some extraordinary powers, I am not able to opine on, but I think the underlying objective here is clear that the minister needs to take as broad a suite of actions as possible.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Are you aware of any other legislation or departments where this type of wording has been effectively implemented?

[John Moffet]

I'm not personally, no, but I can't assure this committee that I've done a thorough review of federal legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

We will vote in favour of this amendment.

First, I'd like to remind everyone that several witnesses appeared before the committee and asked that Bill C-12 be reinforced. However, so far, the amendments we have passed don't do much to reinforce anything. I'm thinking that maybe now we have a chance to finally hear what the witnesses came before the committee to say. Partisanship aside, I feel this amendment can do just what it was meant to do, which is to reinforce this legislation so that it achieves the goals that were set.

I'd like to add that, in any event, the Minister of the Environment does not work alone. He also works with all the provincial environment ministers, who consult each other a lot too. That's why I'm not concerned about this giving powers to a “Superminister”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Seeing no further conversation, we now go to a vote on amendment PV-11, which proposes a new clause 8.1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9)