Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No. I think your hand was up first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Look, we've heard a number of times in the testimony at this committee that what you measure matters. Right now, the Canadian public and members of Parliament don't have it at their fingertips. I know, because I've received those requests. We end up having to send them two very different reports that are not structured, and the average citizen probably can't invest a tremendous amount of time in it.

This is science that is already happening. These are conversations where....

Again, Canada has the second-largest land mass. Why wouldn't we be able to put in this information so that we actually get that public knowledge about Canada's non-anthropogenic factors? I would think that this is not outside the scope of the bill. You've ruled that it's admissible. This is information that I think Canadians want. We've had multiple witnesses agree that it is important.

I would say that if you don't report on things, then it doesn't really matter. For the life of me, I disagree with that. I think that, as an elected official, my constituents expect us to act in trusteeship of our natural environment. There is an interrelation between climate change and the natural system. I think that this is entirely within the scope.

I respect that Mr. Moffet perhaps thought that I was speaking about something else earlier, but I really hope that by my clarifying with Mr. Moffet that other members would show support for this initiative.

I do know that Canadians want this information, and that this is a part.... We cannot simply say, “No, that information isn't important. That's not part of this equation.” It is a part of the equation. It may not necessarily be the central focus of the bill, but it is certainly a public good to have delivered. I would certainly hope that all members would see the forest for the trees and vote in favour of this being included.

It's not onerous for the government. It is something that can be made available.

The Americans report on this. Why is it that the American public has better knowledge about their lands when, here in Canada, where we like to pride ourselves on our pristine environment, we don't do so?

I believe in standing with my values, Mr. Chair. I hope that all members here would see this as being a good-faith, public interest argument and would support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let's see whether they do or not.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Chair, to push that a little bit further, I think it's very relevant information to have that, and this is why. If all of a sudden we found out, through measurements, that the unmanaged forest—to pick on them—were sequestering, say, 50 megatonnes more carbon per year than expected, that has a huge impact on the plans that the government needs to make. It could save us from doing a lot of things that we don't need to do, if the earth is naturally doing it. That's just hypothetical, but the point is that if we don't know, then we don't know.

We're making very big commitments, spending a lot of money and making some major shifts in what we need to do as people on this planet. If we don't understand what's happening naturally, we may be making the wrong decisions.

It can go the other way too. We might find that we have to do more because the unmanaged forests are producing more GHGs than we think, or whatever. To me, this is very, very important, because it's a significant piece of the puzzle. If we don't know what that is, then we're making decisions with only partial information.

I think the important goal here is that we have all of the information in front of us so that we can make the best decisions possible for our Canadian people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I must admit that I don't find the amendment very clear. That's why, for some time now, I haven't been able to decide if I support it or if I oppose it. I have a question for the person who proposed the amendment, Mr. Albas.

What is the point of talking about non-human emissions in public policy? This data may be interesting for science, but what is its relevance to public policy? We know very well that climate change is caused by human activities. That is what we must act on. As I understand it, the bill deals with emissions generated by human activities.

So, what does this amendment mean in the context of public policy on the environment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would imagine that if, because of climate change, there are more forest fires, that will contribute to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, then we will need stricter targets. That's just a guess; I don't know.

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, that's a very practical example. Even in the government's own consultation piece on selling credits, it does say that it will allow for anthropogenic, so human-caused, tree planting to be considered, but it doesn't make a requirement if it burns down within a hundred years. There is a relation.

Again, as Canadians, we pride ourselves on our natural environment, yet we don't report on it in the same way that other countries do. What you measure matters. I would simply say that your practical point there, Mr. Chair, is really important.

The minister has said that he wants to have 25% of Canada's land mass under some form of conservation federally by 2025. That does not encompass all of the grasslands. It does not encompass all of the non-managed forests. If we're looking only at the human side, we are forgetting that the earth is a natural ecosystem that exists [Technical difficulty—Editor] anthropogenic. It exists and should be reported on.

This is a good governance mechanism here. This is simply a summary, respecting that often these lands are under provincial jurisdiction. I do think that if these things are measured and reported on to Canadians, there will be a greater appreciation for that.

As you said, Mr. Chair, if people see that there is an increase in the amount of emissions and there isn't the regular sequestration, that may trigger further scientific inquiries. Again, the central thesis of science—and I know Mr. Saini will respect this—is to start with a fruitful question. Having this summary would send a signal to the scientific community. Why are we seeing the trend line going in the wrong direction? Are government policies aligned in the right ways? This is a non-partisan attempt to take existing information and put it into that so that it can trigger more of those fruitful questions, whether you be a scientist or just an average Canadian.

I hope that answers Madam Pauzé's question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Along the lines of asking a fruitful question, the vote is called.

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

The amendment is defeated.

We now go to amendment G-11. I'm told that if G-11 is adopted, PV-23 cannot be moved since they amend the same line.

Who's going to be presenting—

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

But I'll still be allowed to present it. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? I just want to flag that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know. Let me look into that.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time to present my amendment.

I'm pleased to introduce an amendment to modify subclause 14(2). This amendment aims to strengthen the bill by requiring progress reports to contain, among other things, Canada's most recently published GHG emissions projections for the next milestone year and a summary of Canada's most recent official GHG emissions inventory.

We want to ensure that progress reports will include the additional information we've heard from stakeholders. We want to ensure that the details and measures taken by non-federal actors are also accounted for with this amendment.

I do hope that it receives support from my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank MP Saks.

Again, I'm going to be asking a few questions here. Hopefully, this is not taken in any way other than inquiring.

First of all, Mr. Moffet, in regard to this particular amendment, G-11, is there anything in here that actually expands the regime envisioned in Bill C-12, or is this all information that more or less could be reported on from the minister's perspective?

[Vincent Ngan]

If I may, Mr. Albas, I can answer that question on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

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

Yes, of course.

[Vincent Ngan]

As we mentioned, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change requires that we submit reports on projections as well as on the national inventory of Canada's emissions on an annual basis. The amendments here would help to bring all those elements together in the progress report.

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

There is nothing in Bill C-12 as it exists without this amendment that would circumvent the ability of the minister to include that information.

[Vincent Ngan]

It would help provide greater clarity in terms of what the progress report will include.

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

Okay, but it doesn't expand. It's prescriptive. This is just saying, “These are of the nature that we'd like to see in the report” and even then there's a lot of “if available” and “relevant to the report”, etc. There seem to be a lot of ifs or conditions.

Under the current Bill C-12, though, the minister has to do certain things. This is just prescribing how he arranges those reports, more or less, and still offers flexibility. It does not actually increase the amount of knowledge that the minister has to give, other than to specify what he has to give.

Mr. Moffet, you seem to want to comment on that.

[Vincent Ngan]

Yes, Mr. Moffet. Do you want to jump in?

[John Moffet]

That's correct. It prescribes the detail. Without this, it would be up to the discretion of the minister to decide what information to provide.

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

Okay, so it's just prescriptive. That's all it is. Thank you for that.

Mr. Chair, the only other thing I would offer right now is that I am happy to see that the government is starting to talk about the provinces and co-operative measures or agreements with provinces, although I think there seems to be some conditionality here. We really think the government has only been working with governments when it suits it. This politicizes it. We would much rather see a summary of provincial actions rather than just necessarily the ones that the government chooses or the co-operative agreements that it comes up with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Seeing no hands, I call the vote.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. It's defeated. This means that PV-23 cannot be debated and voted on.

It's up to the discretion of the chair. If we start spending too much time presenting amendments that cannot be debated or voted on, we're going to fall behind.

Ms. May, I will allot you 60 seconds to speak to it, but then at 60 seconds I must cut you off. If we can't respect this rule going forward—and this is for everyone—then I just won't—