Evidence of meeting #37 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
So amendment BQ-30 is not automatically out of order, but it will have to be amended.
You can now introduce amendment BQ-15.
6:30 p.m.
Bloc
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Yes. It's brief. BQ-15 would change the clause, but I don't think it would take CPC-13 out of consideration, because [Technical difficulty—Editor] part of a report. Could you look into that?
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The clerk told me that, unfortunately, you're not correct on that. If you wish, I can have her explain it. It's because CPC-13 has some of the same lines, apparently.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I think it could still be included. Perhaps we'll let the committee debate Madam Pauzé's amendment and then I can make my case at that point.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
If the committee decides to pass it, I'll have to make that argument. I do think the bill could be strengthened when it comes to reporting on a summary of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions released or removed from the atmosphere because of non-anthropogenic factors.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, but this is what the clerk is telling me.
Go ahead, Madam Pauzé.
June 2nd, 2021 / 6:30 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Earlier, we were talking about a report on the consultations. But a more important report is the one that will describe the progress and will contain data on the measures and the real reductions. Then, that report will have to be evaluated, in the same spirit, by an independent authority.
Amendment BQ-15 seeks to amend the provisions about the progress report in order to make it into an annual report. The wording of the bill provides for a genuine evaluation only two years after each milestone year. We have not discussed this yet, but we are of the opinion that the interval is clearly inadequate. The government already receives data on Canadian emissions on an annual basis. It can therefore report on them annually.
Moreover, if you look a little further ahead, you will see that amendment G-11 somewhat confirms that. Unfortunately, in our opinion, the government's intention lacks rigour and transparency, because a summary of an inventory is not a report, just like an objective is not a target. That does not even count any snags in collecting data on greenhouse gas emissions [Technical difficulties]. It should be reported on as often as possible. We need an annual report.
Our amendment even gives the Minister two years after the act comes into force to start implementing the action plan. If you are following us properly, you will see that our other amendments provide for the Minister's annual report to be subsequently evaluated by the Commissioner. I repeat, this is important. Otherwise, the Minister would do his own evaluation. That is why it's important for us that the Commissioner evaluate the report, as we will be proposing a little later. The Commissioner is an independent authority, so Quebecers and Canadians will have the right information on Canada's progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That makes for transparency. The public needs to know these things. That is what democracy is.
Let me quote someone whom you know, Mr. Chair, and whom a number of other members may also know. He was a great premier and a great democrat. His name was René Lévesque:
The task of real democrats is to ensure that the people are evermore up-to-date, educated and informed on their own interests.
For us, the report must always be subject to observations and comments from outside the bosom of the department. In this, I concur with some amendments by my colleague Mr. Albas. A minister evaluating his own work? I'm sorry, but that's not on.
Let me also quote a passage from the brief that David Gooderham and Jennifer Nathan submitted to the committee:
An essential feature of an effective framework is that it requires the government to disclose in a timely way [for us, that means annually]key information to Canadian citizens so that constituents (many of whom are parents of children who, in thirty years, will be burdened with the situation we bequeath to them) have the essential information they need to properly assess the efficacy of promised new climate measures. An informed electorate is the foundation of a Parliamentary democracy.
That is the spirit in which we introduced amendment BQ-15. We did so in a spirit of democracy and transparency. However, I am tempted to tell you that I am very well aware what will happen with the amendment.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Chair, before I ask my question, I'd like you to confirm something for me so that I know I'm on the right track.
If we were to adopt this amendment to subclauses 14(1) and 14(2), it would replace subclause 14(1) and paragraphs 14(2)(a), (b) and (c) so that paragraphs 14(2)(a), (b) and (c) would disappear and be replaced by subclauses 14(1) and 14(2).
Am I reading this correctly?
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
6:35 p.m.
Émilie Thivierge
Yes, that's correct.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you.
My question is for Madam Pauzé.
Basically, this is removing the “content of report” section, or what is currently subclause 14(2) with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). In my view, having a little more detail on what is required in the content of the report is important. I think it provides some guidance to government.
I'm curious as to the reasoning of Madam Pauzé on why she would remove the more detailed description of what's required in the content of the report, and instead replace it with, I assume, subclause 14(2) in her amendment. There are no real specifics there; it's quite general. What is the reasoning for deleting the “content of report” details?
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I think we have another amendment on this. I'm trying to find it.
Proposed subclause 14(2) in this amendment states:
(2) The report must include information on greenhouse gas emissions for the year and any proposed changes to the emissions reduction plan.
So first, there will be an emissions reduction plan, which will have to be detailed, in order to know where we are going and whether we are going to meet the targets. Then, the report will contain information on this plan, including any proposed amendments. The report will have to take that into account and explain to us, in a transparent manner, what we are going to do with this plan.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Does that answer your question, Mr. Redekopp? Okay.
Seeing no other hands, I call the vote on BQ-15.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
6:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, this amendment goes to the issue of progress reports. I want to note for the committee the requirement in calendar 2023 for a major international review of progress by all nations. That certainly is already in place.
I note also, and want to make the point, that Green Party amendment 22 is completely consistent with the one that comes up next, Chris's amendment G-10, around progress reports. But where Chris's amendment stops, this amendment from the Green Party continues on the point of annual progress reports between 2030 and 2050.
Again, we're completely consistent that in the Green Party amendment there be at least two progress reports before 2030. That is covered off and consistent with what the Paris Agreement requires of us and with Chris Bittle's amendment for the government that comes up next. But we don't have anything for annual progress reports.
I just want to flag, and I've mentioned before, the international record and the elements accepted globally of best practices around climate accountability legislation. As I put it to the minister when we had our opportunity to question him, the Government of Canada has consciously decided not to pursue the best practices around the world.
For a quick review of those, the website of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, which was created by the Government of Canada with a number of experts, sets out what are considered the best practices from around the world on climate legislation. In relation to progress reports, they say, “Typically, climate accountability frameworks mandate that an independent body table yearly progress reports....”
With that support from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, not that they've explicitly looked at my amendment, but it's so well known what best practices are that it's quite astonishing the Government of Canada has chosen to avoid best practices in almost every area. Here's a chance to amend this and ensure that we get an annual progress report between 2030 and 2050.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.