Environment Committee on May 31st, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will have a vote. Whoever is interested in sustaining my decision vote “yes”, and if you disagree with my position vote “no”.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now go to PV-18.

Ms. May, would you like to present PV-18?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although it's unusual, I want to parenthetically appreciate Mr. Albas's effort to belatedly have debates on key concepts in Bill C-12. The process here has been offensive to full public engagement in the development of this legislation. I'll just put that on the record.

This next amendment seeks to make it clearer what the minister does in an emissions reduction plan. The current version, just to refresh your memories, under subclause 10(2), titled “Explanation”, states:

An emissions reduction plan must explain how the greenhouse gas emissions target set out in the plan and the key measures and the strategies that the plan describes will contribute to Canada achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

That would be amended in my proposed amendment from an explanation to a demonstration. It would be that an emissions reduction plan “must demonstrate” how the greenhouse gas emissions target set out in the plan and key measures will contribute to achieving net-zero.

Again, parenthetically, net-zero by 2050 is not our goal, not if we want human civilization to survive. We must ensure significant cuts before 2030 to meet the Paris objective, which is referenced in this bill, but the bill is not constructed around it.

In any case, this is one small change that I hope the committee will consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have a question for Mr. Moffet. It seems to me that “demonstrate” and “explain” are very similar. From Mr. Moffet's perspective, if this amendment is adopted, how would it change the way the minister in the office relates to this legislation?

[John Moffet]

I need to be careful. I'm not here to provide the committee with legal advice, and I'm not here on behalf of the Department of Justice.

It's our view from a policy perspective, in discussing this with the people who will be responsible for implementing the act, that “demonstrate” and “explain” have very similar meanings. Indeed, the similarity becomes even more apparent when you read, in my opinion, the French provision.

“An emissions reduction plan must explain how … the strategies that the plan describes will contribute to Canada achieving net-zero emissions …”.

The word “précise”, I would suggest, is a little in between “explain” and “demonstrate” in English. In other words, there would not be a substantive difference in terms of what the act would require the plan to contain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. May, go ahead.

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

I have a comment on Mr. Moffet's comment on the French translation. What I was hoping for is “démontrer” as opposed to “expliquer”.

However, if my amendment is satisfactory to the department—it's not diluting the bill and the way they want it—perhaps this is an opportunity for the Liberals and NDP to prove they haven't made an advance decision that no Green Party amendments would be accepted, and they could accept this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If there are no other comments, we'll go to a vote.

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

Thank you. The amendment is defeated.

We'll now go to CPC-9.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to move CPC-9, and hopefully we'll have some support from the committee to actually pass this.

I'll use an example of why we need to really understand the implications of what we're doing. We know there is a climate emergency and that we need to take action. For example, if our action causes all of our agricultural industry to shut down and creates starvation, understanding the implications of our actions is absolutely critical.

We had a number of witnesses who spoke for including some economic analysis in terms of what we're doing, including the minister. Let me quote from him:

The focus needs to be on ensuring that we actually understand what science tells us we need to do to ensure this world is a liveable [place], and [to do] that in a manner that takes into account economic and social [as to] how we actually make the progress.

I could go on, but I will be respectful of the committee's time. I have four pages here of testimony from witnesses. As you know, we didn't have a lot of witnesses, but they all supported the idea of a government making decisions with a full understanding of what they're making decisions about.

Again, I hope that perhaps, unlike our other amendments, we might see support for this, because it will make it a better bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly Canada has been described as a big country that is difficult to govern. That's why many people refer to the first job of a Prime Minister as maintaining national unity. Many prime ministers have worked very hard to do that.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, if we don't take.... Again, we've heard many times at this committee during our hearings that what gets measured matters. What you measure in terms of impacts, etc., will have an effect. I believe that for full transparency and accountability, the government should be including many of the measures that Mrs. McLeod mentioned.

I would hope that all honourable members would hear that there is a desire from various regions to know exactly what the plan is and what the impacts will be on their sector. As parliamentarians, we should always strive to get that information and to make sure it is a deciding factor, both from a social employment level, but also in terms of its potential impacts on national unity.

If we all want those good things to happen, I think we should include them in the emissions plan to make sure that those things are taken into account. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

We'll go to the vote on CPC-9.

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

(Clause 10)

Do the members of the committee support clause 10?

I don't see any hands up, so we will proceed with the vote.

[Émilie Thivierge]

Mr. Chair?

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

Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry. Go ahead. Did I miss something?

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

Yes. I wanted to speak to clause 10. Are you going to go through the clause 10—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm so sorry. I didn't think there were any....

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's unfortunate that many of the amendments either did not get a chance to be heard or were just simply shot down.

I would simply say, on behalf of the Conservatives, that we do think, especially for the last amendment moved by MP McLeod, this is incredibly important—that the government “must balance meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets against social and economic factors, including impacts on employment, different sectors of Canada's economy and national unity.”

Unfortunately, we are proceeding with a clause 10 that does not strike that balance, Mr. Chair, so Conservatives will be voting against this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else?

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 11)

We will go now to clause 11, amendment CPC-10.

I have to mention that if amendment CPC-10 is adopted, then amendment BQ-12 cannot be moved as they amend the same line.

Is it Mr. Albas who is presenting CPC-10?

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

Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.

First of all, colleagues, as you know, I've been a big fan of a slightly different approach than the government has taken in regard to Bill C-12. For those who are watching, Bill C-12 takes a particular path where the individual minister is designated. In this case, it's the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We think that a better response is to have that designated minister bring it to cabinet, so that there can be a full debate at the cabinet table where relevant ministers and departments—in fact, all of them, Mr. Chair, the Governor in Council, as it's called—would have an opportunity to debate and to refine exactly what is being debated. That would achieve more buy-in.

As you know, Mr. Chair, a criticism of government is often that it exists in silos. Sometimes people will ask me,“You know, Dan”—they usually call me Dan; they don't usually call me Mr. Albas like they do here—“why isn't one department speaking to another?”

We've seen multiple cases of this during the COVID crisis, where it seems that one department is doing something without coordinating with another one. It can be very confusing to the public. We, as Conservatives, believe that climate change is real. It's a serious issue that requires a serious response. There's no better way to get a whole-of-government and “all hands on deck” scenario going than by having all the cabinet ministers debate, refine and then stand behind it.

Right now, Mr. Chair, whether a minister wants to or not, they have to because of cabinet solidarity support for Minister Wilkinson, who is the designated minister. We want to have it so that every minister can have their say at the cabinet table, not simply defend a plan that was made by a sole, isolated minister who perhaps went and discussed with other departments. It doesn't necessarily dictate that it's a whole-of-government approach or that those conversations are complete and represent all parts of the country. Instead, Mr. Chair, we're relying on a minister who.... As we know, it's very difficult to get a memorandum of cabinet through. Without having that buy-in from the Governor in Council, we don't think you'll get as good of a result.

We believe, as Conservatives, that a different approach is necessary, which is having a full discussion at the cabinet table and a ratification that every minister can stand by. They would probably be better informed when they speak to their constituents. They won't be left saying that they don't necessarily support something, but because of cabinet solidarity they just simply say they support what the Minister of Environment or in this case, the designated minister, says on this.

Mr. Chair, we heard from witnesses like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, an eminent national stakeholder representing hundreds, if not thousands of chambers. Even in the small District of Summerland, all of the businesses in the district are members of that Chamber of Commerce. Probably, Mr. Chair, they would want to know that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is being heard. It is their voice here in Ottawa. They came and did a very thorough discussion, as did many other stakeholders, including the Cattlemen's Association, Pulse Canada and others.

I hope that this particular argument I'm making today will not fall on deaf ears once more.

Mr. Chair, perhaps Mr. Saini, who is so thoughtful and considerate, might decide that today is the day he will side with Dan, as my constituents call me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't see any other—

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

Maybe someone might just decide that they want to debate this and thrash it out. That would be good for democracy, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does anyone want to thrash this out?

I don't think anyone is in a thrashing mood. We'll go to the vote.

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

Now we'll go to BQ-12.

Madam Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My explanation will be simple. Clause 11 states that the minister may amend a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. This is a bit annoying because initially, the minister and the government said that they wanted to include in the legislation their new target, from 40% to 45%, but they didn't. Instead, they said that the target would be the nationally determined contribution, or NDC, that the parties to the Paris Agreement send every five years. It will be sent by November 2021, according to what the government says.

According to this clause, are we to understand that the NDC itself could be amended or that the NDC figure in the bill could be amended without affecting the Paris Agreement?

In my opinion, if there is a failure, we must change the means, not necessarily the target. You can go and change the plan of action, and that's what we're proposing. The minister can change the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but not necessarily the target.

Could Mr. Moffet clarify this for me?

In the government amendments we saw earlier, the government decided that the target would be the NDC, but it doesn't exist yet, as I understand it.

Does that mean that with clause 11, the minister will be able to amend the NDC?

I just want to make sure that my question is understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Moffet.