Environment Committee on May 31st, 2021

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

All right, what I'll do, Mr. Chair, is just listen to some of the debate. I may jump in, but my thoughts are not with the subamendment and more with the original amendment, NDP-2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Is there any debate on Madam Michaud's subamendment?

I'll give the floor to Ms. Michaud, then Mr. Bachrach.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

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

I would just add that, as Mr. Bachrach mentioned earlier, I think the original intent of the NDP and all parties was to strengthen the legislation.

That's why I think that “interim … objective” is not binding, whereas “target” is more binding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

My question to Madam Michaud is this. Given what we heard from Mr. Moffet, I'm curious what additional stringency calling it a “target” would provide. I believe that Mr. Moffet has laid out the distinction between this interim objective and the target, which is that the target gets its own plan and the mid-term objective is referred to in the 2030 plan. I think that's the main difference there. However, it seems that if we were to switch to a 2026 target, there would be other required amendments so that the bill could be consistent. That's my challenge.

This is the language we've supported, with the mid-term objective. I think if we went back to square one and the NDP had written this legislation from the beginning, it would look very different, as I'm sure it would if the Bloc Québécois had written it. At this point, we're trying to come together and find enough agreement that we can pass a bill that achieves the main objective of some semblance of accountability.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Seeing no further comments, we'll go to a roll call vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We now go back to the amendment.

Mr. Albas, you wanted to speak to it.

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

Yes. Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. I'll start again with asking a few questions of Mr. Moffet.

For the word “interim”, my understanding is that unless there is a definition outlining what “interim” means, it's the regular usage of the word. We can pull a dictionary off of the bookshelf and look it up “interim”. That's what would apply here. There's no other meaning to it under this act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is this a question?

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

Yes, it's a question.

[John Moffet]

Yes, I think that's the correct way to understand the term. It doesn't have a specific meaning in the act.

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

Okay. As my colleague pointed out earlier, when we're talking about “target” and “objective”, it's the common parlance or understanding of the day. There's no legal description. That's what you were saying earlier. I just want to make sure that I'm absolutely correct on that point.

[John Moffet]

Yes. I think you have to read the whole collection of words: “interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026.”

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

Okay, and there's no other reference in the bill to the word “interim”. This is the only usage that's there.

[John Moffet]

To my knowledge, that's correct. I have a team that can double-check in the next few seconds.

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

Yes, if you could, ask them to do that just to confirm.

In regard to NDP-2, I have a quick question. Is there any impact on our nationally determined contribution within our international requirements in regard to an interim greenhouse gas emissions objective? Does adopting this language in the bill do anything that impacts our international commitments whatsoever in regard to a nationally determined contribution?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that a question for Mr. Moffet?

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

Yes. They're all for Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

I think it would provide additional specificity to that NDC, because the NDC is more than just a number. The NDC is the number for 2030, the target, if you will, in common parlance, plus the measures that will be put in place. In Canada's case, it would likely include some form of a trajectory.

The inclusion of an interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026 would provide some additional specificity that could be included in that NDC. It doesn't change the international commitment that we've made to have an NDC, and it doesn't undermine any of the commitments we've made regarding the kind of detail that would be part of the NDC that we submit to the United Nations.

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

Who would decide? On the term itself—“interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026”—who would decide what's in that? As Mr. Redekopp said earlier, there's a lot of specificity in regard to what goes into a target, so who would arbitrate what goes into that report?

[John Moffet]

I'm sorry. The report or the interim objective...?

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

The interim emissions objective.

[John Moffet]

The way the amendment is written is that the emissions reduction plan would contain that objective. The obligation to establish a plan is in subclause 9(1), and that obligation is on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who must in turn consult with other relevant federal ministers in developing each plan.

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

Okay, but there are no formal requirements as to what the specificity of that particular interim objective would be.

[John Moffet]

No.