Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2021

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

Yes, just briefly, I certainly appreciate MP Bachrach's intervention. Earlier we had a debate over including the importance of time limits. One of the concerns was from the Liberals, and I believe from him, and the reason they didn't support it was that the times didn't jibe, that they may preclude and cut off information from being posted.

This is where I see in the regime that perhaps there are some cracks here in what Mr. Bittle has put forward. I do recognize that MP Bachrach believes that his motion will improve upon that, but to me this doesn't seem to be a framework that has been fully thought through, and the information that people may be receiving may not be complete.

Therefore, the question is, why do it in that way? Why not have different times? I think this is a political agreement that has been made to make everyone appear that they have a win rather than actually improving the legislation. That being said, I will let other members share their views.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Actually, I just answered my own question, so I don't need to ask it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good.

Seeing no other hands, I call the vote.

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

The amendment carries. We're now on CPC-13.

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, again, we've sincerely listened to the testimony and consulted with various stakeholders and individuals on our own time outside the committee process. One area that I do think could be greatly improved.... This will be a discussion at COP26 in Glasgow as there is more discussion about non-anthropogenic sequestration, as well as emissions, etc. This is something that I'm sure many members may, from their own experience in their constituencies.... This has come up to me in my capacity as the shadow minister of the environment and climate change, where constituents have called MPs and asked for some particular information, for example, Canada's sequestration through natural means. There are duelling reports between the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources. They don't line up. The information and the years that are collected are not presented in the same formats. It makes it incredibly difficult for people to have an assessment.

Let's get to the rationale for it here. It's that Canada has a unique geography. As the second-largest land mass, we have, from coast to coast to coast, incredible natural habitat that we believe needs to be conserved. I know that the previous Harper government made large commitments and did a lot on conservation. I've heard many stakeholders say that was good work, and I've seen this government make commitments. That work is still in progress, according to the minister. But again, we don't see it reported like they do in the United States every year, an actual report that underlines in one report what the....

Again, this is what, essentially, my amendment would do. It proposes that Bill C-12, in clause 14, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following:

(a.1) a summary of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions released into or removed from the atmosphere because of non-anthropogenic factors;

This would tell us if Canada is doing better in protecting, in showing that trusteeship of these wonderful lands, whether they be grasslands in the Prairies, whether they be wetlands in various provinces or whether they be the tundra. There are many, many things that the government does right now, but it does not report in a single report those emissions and those sequestrations so that the average Canadian can pull that out or call their member of Parliament and their member of Parliament can go right to that report and give it to them.

As I've said, this is something that is going to become more and more under the attention of the upcoming Glasgow COP26, as they start to discuss. This is more about giving the information so that Canadians can know, in a simple form, where the pluses and the minuses are, whether or not those assets that are largely, I believe, both provincial and federal Crown lands, those forests, tundra, grasslands and wetlands are being preserved, and what the status of it is. I do think that this is an important step, because the science is out there. It is being done. It could be compiled in an easy-to-access way. This is something that, internationally, is going to receive more and more focus. We should be anticipating that so we can actually come to the table and actually be able to talk with up-to-date information.

I believe that this is an area that the average Canadian citizen would do well from. This is something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Environment and probably even the Prime Minister would need to be briefed on. We would be able to make better policy decisions, I believe, by the collection and the reporting in a common structure.

I would just ask all honourable members to look at this. It is a very balanced amendment. It talks about a basic reporting structure for, again, emissions released into or removed from the atmosphere. This would give the opportunity for conservationists, as well as the layperson, to get that information in a timely way. It's something that I believe government already has, and it could do a lot more by simply presenting it in a common format.

I will leave that there. Hopefully, it will get some support. I do know that every party has made conservation commitments. This is more about having those numbers at our fingertips so that we can better communicate to our constituents about this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Moffet, do you have your hand up?

[John Moffet]

Yes, I do, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair.

This may be inappropriate, but I think it's important to note that this amendment from a wording perspective will not accomplish what Mr. Albas suggests it would. The terms “anthropogenic” and “non-anthropogenic” have clear meanings in the international climate change community. Anthropogenic means emissions and removals that are caused by or for which human activity takes responsibility. When we are obliged to report on anthropogenic sequestration, we are absolutely accounting for the trusteeship that you refer to. Non-anthropogenic means activities that occur with no human influence whatsoever.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for that clarification.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe we're also looking at definitions later on. We would include a definition so that people would know exactly what we're speaking to.

Again, Canada's land mass is the second largest in the world, and we don't report in a common structure about this. On non-anthropogenic, Mr. Moffet may be of the opinion that it is not a factor that we should be looking at. I think there is a greater public need—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think I'm going to cut off debate between members and the witness—

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not debating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I'm not saying you are.

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

I'm simply raising my points to the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think we'll move on.

Madam Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

For example, would this amendment determine if the promised two billion trees can capture CO₂?

Perhaps Mr. Moffet will have to answer this question. His answer will help me decide how I'll vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

No, this would not cover that. That would already be covered under our obligation to report anthropogenic sequestration. Planting a tree is a human activity, which then results in the sequestration, which we already report on pursuant to UNFCCC guidelines respecting so-called LULUCF, or land use, land use change and forestry. That information is actually reported on, on a regular basis and in a standardized form, in our reports to the United Nations.

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

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

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

Again, Mr. Chair, I just want to make it abundantly clear that I'm talking about assets like non-managed forests. I'm talking about natural climate-based solutions—or not solutions, already existing nature, and reporting on that through this bill.

Mr. Moffet described it as maybe being inappropriate. I wouldn't say inappropriate. I would simply say that it's a little surprising, but that's where we have discussions like this. I would like to hear from Mr. Moffet, because I'm not referring to two billion trees. That's clearly anthropogenic. I'm talking about a report, for the purposes of this bill, that is specifically a summary of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions released into or removed from the atmosphere because of non-anthropogenic factors. I'm speaking about non-managed forests.

[John Moffet]

That's an important clarification. The focus of this bill is on government accountability to change emissions, increase sequestration and reduce emissions, in other words, to take policy action to change what occurs. Things that occur outside of human influence are not subject to the accountability, to the focus of this bill, which is for us to take responsibility for emissions and to reduce them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

With regard to forest fires, for example, we're not really responsible for forest fires that release carbon.

Is that correct, Mr. Moffet?

[John Moffet]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Mr. Albas or Mr. Redekopp.

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

Who would you like to go first? Mr. Redekopp?