Environment Committee on May 31st, 2021

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

The minister would be able to unilaterally—of course, after consultations with other members of cabinet—have complete discretion over that. Is that correct?

[John Moffet]

Over the content of the...?

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

Over the interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026.

[John Moffet]

That's correct—after completing all of the consultation obligations in the act associated with the completion of the plan, which, as we'll get to when we get to the rest of the act, includes consulting other ministers, provinces, indigenous peoples, the advisory body, etc.

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

One of the key components is “transparency and accountability”. That's what the bill purports to have. In this, it sounds like the minister himself or herself, whoever ends up submitting this 2026 interim objective, will be able to decide. Is that the case?

[John Moffet]

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that the minister is given any different powers associated with establishing this objective from the establishment of the milestone-year targets or the plans. The obligation rests on the minister, but that obligation has to be discharged via a process that is established in the act. Because the objective is part of a plan that is associated with that process, the process is exactly the same. It's up to you to decide whether it's adequate or not, but it's exactly the same for the objective as it is for all of the other components in the bill.

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

Okay, but clause 8 specifically says that, when setting targets, “the Minister must take into account the best scientific information available”.

The objective, though, does not carry any such requirement, does it?

[John Moffet]

That's correct. Clause 8 does not apply.

As we've already discussed, both the preamble and the purpose provision in the act refer to urgent action “in support of achieving net-zero emissions” and complying with “Canada's international commitments”, but you're right. I think that clause 8 itself and the specific reference to “best scientific information” does not refer to the interim objective.

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

Thank you, Mr. Moffet. You've been very helpful.

I have one last question at this time. Assuming that no other amendments related to this particular NDP-2 amendment come forward, what do you think the impact of NDP-2 will have on the act if it's adopted as presented here?

[John Moffet]

I think it's pretty straightforward that the plan that has to be established for achieving the 2030 target, which we know will be the NDC, among other things will have to contain a number for 2026.

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

Okay, so it's a number, but what it's based on we just don't know because it doesn't apply.

Thank you very much. I'm going to let other members capitalize on some of your time. I'm sure that they have questions as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I think yours was the last intervention.

We'll go to a roll call vote on this amendment, NDP-2.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Now we go to CPC-8. I believe it's Mr. Albas who will be presenting that amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CPC-8 again follows up with the approach the Conservatives have taken. I hope that people don't deem that this is a Conservative way of doing it. I think this is just a good proposal to make sure that we have an “all hands on deck” approach when it comes to our net-zero and climate commitments.

This, Mr. Chair, would make a simple change. Right now, it's the Minister of the Environment or whomever would be designated under C-12 under future governments. Whoever that designated minister is really is running the show for the most part. We believe that the minister can play a very important role by forming much of the work to bring to cabinet, but ultimately, the Governor in Council should be establishing alongside that.

I would suggest that we want to see every minister around that table receive a presentation from the designated minister and have a good debate over it, because this is a big country with different aspects of climate change as it affects different regions. We all know this. Have every minister express their point of view and then have a consensus—a whole of government, if you will, Mr. Chair—where they rally around a particular issue and then present that to the Canadian public and to representatives in Parliament. We believe you would have a much stronger structure and a much better buy-in from the cabinet.

Mr. Chair, without further ado, I would just hope that honourable members would say that this would be a positive change to C-12, to see more than just one lonely minister out there trying to deal with these issues and making most of the decisions based on various factors, whether the advisory committee or different components, or from what they've heard from their provincial or territorial partners. To have a verbose discussion at cabinet and to have it ratified by the Government of Canada as cabinet is what the essence of this amendment would do.

I hope members might decide to change their minds from previous positions. Perhaps Mr. Longfield, now being back, might have a new perspective on it and might want to vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

We'll go to a roll call vote now.

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

I want to inform you that we have attempted to get permission from the House of Commons to continue today's meeting past 5:30 p.m. Unfortunately, due to a lack of resources, that will not be possible, but we have asked to be able to extend Wednesday's meeting until 6:30 p.m. So that's to be continued.

I urge you not to schedule any additional activities or meetings for Wednesday until 6:30 p.m., which is two days from now. That is the status of the situation. Today we will end at 5:30 p.m.

We will now continue with amendment PV-14, proposed by Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is quite similar to the one that snagged us into some dispute and confusion last meeting. It's to adopt recommendations from a number of environmental law groups. It happens that West Coast Environmental Law staff lawyer Andrew Gage was the one who testified before us. He represents the views, as I've been reminded recently, of a large collection of climate groups and environmental law groups.

Under subclause 7(4), we've already made the amendment changing five years to nine years, 366 days. As I understand, the expectation is that at report stage it can be changed to 10 years. This is a parallel proposal and I think it's quite consistent, although I don't see an identical Liberal amendment coming up soon thereafter. I'm a little worried about this one, but I certainly hope it will be passed, because it is consistent and gets down to the emissions reduction plans that attach themselves to the targets. It is for subclause 9(4), which currently reads:

(4) The Minister must establish each subsequent emissions reduction plan at least five years before the beginning of the year to which it relates.

I'm hopeful that we can change this from five years to 10 years. Again, I note that it's the intention of the majority of members of the committee that subclause 7(4) be changed from five to 10 years, so surely the subsequent plans should be targeted to the same year. I hope the amendment as drafted for 10 years will meet with the approval of the majority of committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. May.

I don't see any raised hands, so we'll take a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

My understanding is that amendment G-7 will now be moved by Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I'm pleased to introduce a motion to add new subclause 9(5) to the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This provision will require the Minister of Environment to take into account UNDRIP, the submissions and advice of the advisory body and any other relevant considerations when establishing the plan. This motion, therefore, ensures that various factors will be taken into consideration by the minister when establishing an emissions reduction plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do any committee members wish to discuss the amendment?

I don't see any raised hands.

So we'll take a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4.)

(Clause 10)

We will now go to clause 10 and amendment BQ-10 from the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately, we are abandoning amendment BQ-10 and would rather proceed with amendment BQ-11. There was a small issue between the two, but I understand that if we forget about amendment BQ-10, we will need to discuss amendment G-8 before returning to amendment BQ-11.

So I would like us to consider amendment BQ-11 before we vote on amendment G-8, since it changes the same lines, as it would be dropped if we passed amendment G-8. We have inserted changes into the legislation so that the accountability mechanisms allow for true accountability and transparency.

So we are forgetting about amendment BQ-10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Thivierge, do we need unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw an amendment?

[Émilie Thivierge]

No. In fact, it was not submitted until it was proposed by the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're right.

[Émilie Thivierge]

We will simply withdraw amendment BQ-10.

However, amendment G-8 comes in the bill before amendment B-11. Amendment G-8 should therefore be discussed first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there no way to change the order, even if there is unanimous consent?

[Émilie Thivierge]

In fact, this may create some problems. Since amendment G-8 has no impact on amendment BQ-11, it wouldn't be a problem if both were proposed.