Environment Committee on May 31st, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone.

Welcome back, Mr. Longfield. It's great to see you. We're all so pleased that things went so well and that you were absent for only one meeting and you're ready to get back in the saddle and ride along with us here.

Madam Clerk will check with House resources along the way to see if there's any possibility of meeting for three hours, as we had wanted to do through the motion we adopted. Right now, we only have two hours. Things can possibly evolve. I'm just giving you a heads-up on that.

Also, I want to make a couple of brief comments about the rules.

Number one, a ruling from the chair on any amendment or subamendment is not subject to debate. A member who disagrees with a ruling may challenge it, and a vote on the challenge will be held immediately. There's no debate. If you disagree, say that you disagree and that you challenge the chair, which is your right. If that's the way we go, then we'll have a quick vote without debate.

The other thing is that at the last meeting I may have been a bit liberal with the time. I'd like to remind myself and members about the routine motion the committee adopted with regard to amendments from independent members.

Madam Clerk, would you please read the motion that we adopted a while back, which I have not been fully respecting?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

Certainly.

The motion you're referring to is “in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills”. The first sections, (a) and (b), discuss the independents' ability to present motions of amendment and have them deemed moved. The last section deals with clause-by-clause consideration:

(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. This means that on amendments proposed by Madam May, Madam May gets to present them and discuss them, correct?

[The Clerk]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

We had a very long session—

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

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

—I just wanted to ask you a quick question in regard to the suitability of a challenge to the chair. I'm not challenging the chair in any way, shape or form, but I think it's important to just ask this question.

I'm not of the ilk that believes that when you challenge the chair.... It should actually be to challenge a chair's ruling. That is what I think it should be. If you really want to challenge a chair, you should just vote the chair out and put in someone you like. None of that is on discussion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, no. I meant to challenge the rulings.

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

Okay, but if that does come up, I would imagine that, just for better understanding and building goodwill, to ask a question as to how you justify a ruling I think is important. Quite honestly, I think that when a member of Parliament writes an amendment to a bill, particularly when it has gone through the law clerk and all the work that this entails, they should be able to receive an up and a down whereby members can not like the amendment or bill but at least can have a vote on it.

Let's say that theoretically, later today or at another clause-by-clause meeting, you say that you're ruling this particular thing out of order. I do hope that you would entertain a question or two just so we can understand that ruling, rather than immediately jumping to conclusions and challenging the chair. I think that's probably a better thing for you, and I think it's better for each of us as parliamentarians to understand the rationale for why you would not accept something. Maybe it's on advice from the legislative clerk. Maybe it's something that you just had in your own head. I would hope that you would entertain and respond to a couple of questions just so we can move on.

Again, we may all agree, or someone may have a question. I just hope that we would still be able to do that, much like we did in the last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

First of all, if I have to make a decision to render an amendment unreceivable, I always give a reason. I elaborate the reason.

Now, Madam Clerk, would questions amount to debate or would that just be a normal course of events? My understanding is that if we start going back and forth, that's debate.

Is it admissible, Madam Clerk, for a member to say “I don't understand specifically why you said this in your decision”? Is that considered debate? That would seem reasonable, as long as we don't start arguing the point.

[The Clerk]

That's it exactly. If there's a question or two, that's okay, as long as it doesn't become debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. Okay. Again, it's reasonableness.

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

Can I ask another question, then? Quite honestly, a challenge to a chair actually has to emanate from a member, and sir, I don't think you would challenge yourself, so just to be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, but I might give you ammunition to challenge me.

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

—clear, although I asked a number of questions, the words “challenge the chair” in terms of a formal motion never came out, so I would hope that we would not be viewing something as debate unless someone specifically said, “I move to challenge the chair”, etc., and then that would go to a timely vote and it would not be debatable. I think that's what you're trying to say.

In regard to Madam May, you said you took responsibility for.... To me, it seemed that the committee motion....

For goodness' sake, if someone has gone through the work of writing up an amendment and if perhaps some clarifications are in order and other members of Parliament want to ask, “Does your amendment mean X or does it mean Y?”, I would hope that having her respond, as long as she is not filibustering but is actually engaging in good faith, would qualify as well. It would be the same with any member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, that's not what I was referring to. Absolutely, when Ms. May has an amendment, she can speak to it and discuss it with members. I don't think that's a problem. I was just reminded that when it comes to non-Green Party amendments, only members of the committee can speak to them.

Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Yes, that's the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, but if it's Ms. May's amendment, we'll have back-and-forth. No worries.

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

I wanted to make sure, because I may disagree with many or—so far, it seems—with all of them, and hopefully Elizabeth won't hold that against me long term, but by the same token, if we've given her a process, with a member's rights.... I know that she takes issue with the process being done this way and with not being able to do it in the main chamber, and again, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the clarification from you and the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, that won't be a problem.

(On clause 9)

We were at, if I'm not mistaken, amendment NDP-2, with respect to clause 9.

Mr. Bachrach, would you like to speak to that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move Ms. Collins' amendment. The amendment reads as follows, for those who are following along online. I move that Bill C-12, in clause 9, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) The emissions reduction plan for 2030 must include an interim greenhouse gas emission objective for 2026.

Mr. Chair, from the beginning the NDP has called for a 2025 emissions milestone. We heard from so many witnesses who clearly indicated the importance of such a milestone, as well as from the world's leading scientists, who have been clear that it is not enough to wait until 2030 to be accountable. The minister, however, has made it clear that he is not willing to accept a 2025 milestone, and we believe that this compromise solution, in addition to the additional reports between now and 2030—the progress reports and the environment commissioner's reports—and the fact that the 2030 target will be reviewed in 2025 will provide additional accountability in the lead-up to 2030 and will strengthen this bill. The bill has taken so long to make its way through the House that 2026 is not that far in the future, and this is, we believe, an important accountability measure. I hope that my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment.

I'll leave my remarks at that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I will remind members that after speaking, they should take their hand down so as not to confuse the chair.

Mr. Redekopp is next.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to question the word “objective”, because I notice that in previous clauses, the word “target” has been used. If we use “objective”, is that confusing things, and should it say “target”? Maybe Mr. Bachrach has a comment on that. I'm questioning the use of the word “objective”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.