Environment Committee on May 26th, 2021

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

I mean in terms of Ms. May and her not being a member of the—

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

If I'm here because you passed a motion that I object to vehemently and that reduces my rights, then the decision not to allow me to speak to something when I've been asked whether it's redundant or not and whether the preamble has force of law or not.... Chris, honestly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's Ms. May's amendment, so I think it would be useful if we heard from her to help us understand a bit better.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Sorry for losing my temper, Mr. Chair, but it's been years of having to run from committee to committee because every committee passes an identical motion under the fiction that the committee is in charge of its own process and the master of its own process. The notion that every committee in the House of Commons simultaneously came up with identical language to reduce my rights doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I apologize, but I've been through almost 10 years of larger parties reducing the rights of a much smaller party. We don't have very many rights.

To speak to this briefly, I want to thank Dan, because again, it isn't redundant to put it in the legislation. John Moffet's summary is correct. In terms of “Statutory Interpretation 101” in any law school in this country, everyone knows the preamble has very little impact and can be used only for statutory interpretation. If the matter goes before a judge, the judge will take note of what's in a preamble, but it doesn't have the impact that putting it in the legislation has.

I would think the Liberals on this committee would be proud to embrace 1.5°C, just as a matter of historical record. During COP21 in Paris, the first minister of environment of an industrialized country to say that the text of the Paris Agreement should include 1.5°C as a goal was Catherine McKenna. She was the first, and everyone else followed. Now we are running to net zero by 2050 instead of saying firmly and clearly that this legislation should be about holding to 1.5°C.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Madame Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to add that I agree with Ms. May and Mr. Albas; it is not redundant to add this clarification. Clause 4 of Bill C-12 clearly has more force than the preamble. Net-zero emissions and meeting the commitments of the Paris Agreement are at the heart of the bill, so I see no problem in repeating it in this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I know that Ms. Thivierge can clarify this, to help our understanding.

[Émilie Thivierge]

In the Interpretation Act, section 13, which deals with preambles, reads as follows: “Le préambule fait partie du texte et en constitue l'exposé des motifs.” In English, it reads:

“The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.”

That's what the Interpretation Act says about the preamble.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I see no more hands up, so we can proceed to a roll call vote on amendment PV-3.

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

We'll go now to amendment BQ-4.

Ms. Michaud, would you like to tell us about your amendment?

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

As I said earlier, I wanted to make it clear in the legislation that the objective is not solely to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, but also to achieve the 2030 target. Then, in order to ensure that we achieve that target, we need accountability mechanisms. I just wanted to clarify that little addition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Any further comments? I see none at the moment.

So we can proceed to the recorded vote, Madam Clerk.

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

Does anyone have anything to say about clause 4?

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll simply say we're going to be opposing this provision in it, but I do appreciate some of the arguments that were made by other members for examining this clause.

I think some of the illustrations we received from Mr. Moffet, as well as from the legislative clerk, will be helpful for our deliberations in future clauses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I see no other members interested in speaking to this, so we'll go to the vote on clause 4, as amended.

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

(On clause 5)

There are no amendments to clause 5. Does anyone want to speak to clause 5?

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will be opposing it. Simply put, we believe that a whole-of-government approach is required to deal with climate change, but we will be having some specific proposals later on in the bill that will outline what we believe the relationship between the Governor in Council and the minister responsible should be. We don't believe the government got it right in this regard, so certainly Conservatives will be voting in opposition to the clause as it is written.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else? Okay, we'll proceed to a vote.

(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 6)

Clause 6 will get more interesting. We have amendment BQ-5, and if BQ-5 is adopted, BQ-6 and PV-4 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.

Would Madame Michaud like to speak to BQ-5?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to speak to amendment BQ-5. I want to move directly to amendment BQ-6.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So you are withdrawing your amendment?

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

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Madam Clerk, do we need unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment?

[Émilie Thivierge]

That is not necessary, because Ms. Michaud did not introduce her amendment. She referred to it, but she did not introduce it. So it is not necessary to have unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's an important distinction.

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

Mr. Chair, just in regard to this, I know some people are eagerly watching this. I just want to make sure they understand that it's up to members to decide whether or not they want to proceed with a particular motion. I know that in my case, we submitted amendments quite early on and we actually heard testimony that changed our minds on our approach, so we submitted others. Conservatives certainly will be seeking amendments, but we won't actually be putting forward every one of them.

I just thought that would be a helpful little tip for those who are watching the proceedings today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. It is helpful, for sure, to understanding the process.

We'll go now to amendment BQ-6. If BQ-6 is adopted, PV-4 cannot be moved as they amend the same line.

Would Madame Michaud like to speak to BQ-6?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We want to specify that the target is net-zero emissions as soon as possible, that 2050 is the final date, but that our objective is to get there quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Any other comments?

Mr. Bittle, the floor is yours.