Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go now to clause 11 as a whole.

Does anyone want to speak to that?

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

Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, we've had a number of discussions about the various clauses, in this case, clause 11. We've been putting forward a number of different amendments that unfortunately were not included in this particular section of the bill, and as such, Conservatives will be voting against this clause. Certainly there's a lot to be said about whether or not the minister should have sole responsibility when it comes to emissions, a reduction plan, etc., but Conservatives do believe there needs to be more focus on a cabinet-wide or a whole-of-government approach, and will be voting against this clause.

I hope that makes it clear how we will be voting, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Seeing no other hands, I will call the vote.

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 12)

We now move to clause 12, and we start with amendment CPC-11 from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Albas, do you want to introduce your amendment?

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

Yes, I would like to put it forward, Mr. Chair, and give some explanation.

As I spoke of in previous amendments, the designated minister in this case is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Obviously, Bill C-12 does allow some flexibility where the Governor in Council can designate someone else.

It regards clause 12, where it says “Other ministers”:

When establishing or amending an emissions reduction plan, the Minister must do so in consultation with the other federal ministers having duties and functions relating to the measures that may be taken to achieve that target.

In this one, there is a little bit more balance because, as we know, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change certainly does have influence in the cabinet, but not sole responsibility. As I've said before, one of the criticisms I often hear from constituents is that our government operates in silos, where sometimes one department, such as Natural Resources, may not be aware of what's happening in the others.

For example, just the other day, in one of the other committees, the Minister of Natural Resources was asked about whether or not he was aware of the lawsuit against the government in regard to its plastics policy. The minister was not aware of that.

To make sure there's better collaboration, while the clause itself does talk about speaking with other ministers, it is rather vague in regard to which other ministers. It does seem, because of the vagueness, that the minister gets to decide who is consulted, how in-depth, and whether or not that leads to a more positive outcome.

That's why CPC-11 requests that Bill C-12, in clause 12, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 5 with the following:

When advising the Governor in Council on the establishment or amendment of an emissions reduc-

Again, I think this would create a much better approach, where it is still the minister who does the consultations, but he or she, in a future iteration, whether it be this government or another, would then be bringing that to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council can then discuss and make sure those silos are being broken down.

I don't believe that by simply writing words down we're going to see absolutely all the silos in government break down. Life is too large and too complex. I think government strives to deal with all of that, but that isn't always the case. I think, wherever possible, common sense and a willingness to acknowledge things as they are would, with this particular amendment, lead to a better outcome because the Governor in Council would be able to hear those consultations. They would be able to question and educate themselves, ask questions of the responsible minister, and we would see, at the end of the day, a far better understanding of what is being proposed when it comes to achieving the target.

Let's be mindful that the Government of Canada is a very large organization. Obviously, we want to make sure that an all-hands-on-deck approach is taken by the Government of Canada. The best way to do that is to have a thorough discussion and not end up in a situation where key ministers may not be consulted, may be unaware of particular actions taken by the government, or, as in the example I gave earlier of Minister O'Regan, be taken unawares about an action taken against the government.

I hope this would be a common sense proposal that all members would be able to think of. Yes, I am looking at Mr. Bittle, hoping that this time I can sway him to this side. It looks like he is giving it consideration.

Mr. Chair, I will release the floor and hopefully, by that point, Mr. Bittle will have had time to think about the approach and perhaps support it.

I'd ask all honourable members to consider supporting this particular amendment, which is CPC-11.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I see no other hands, so I'll call the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays, 7; yeas, 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will now discuss clause 12 as a whole.

Does anyone want to speak to it?

Seeing no further hands, I will call the vote

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Albas, I called the vote.

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

Yes.

Quickly, again, I did say a mouthful in the last intervention on the amendment, but just to be abundantly clear, we don't believe the approach taken in Bill C-12 balances adequately—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I understand.

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

—the need to break down those silos.

Mr. Chair, I do have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Actually, I called the vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I did put my hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I gave enough time. I didn't see your hand.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just ask—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think it was a bit late.

Okay, Mr. Albas. This time, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The next time I look and there's no hand and I call the vote, I have to, otherwise members will be mad at me.

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

Mr. Chair, on that point, though, this is a virtual meeting. We started just recently. I appreciate that there will be....

The principles of the Parliament—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead this time.

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

Yes. Thank you.

In terms of raising one's hand, if you'd like, I will start yelling out, just to make sure we don't have this situation again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I can see the hand. When it's up, I see the hand, but after, when I call the vote, it's because there hasn't been a hand for a while.

Everyone will be on the trigger or a little faster on the pedal, or whatever, but go ahead now, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, Conservatives believe this particular clause does not balance the need to have proper consultation and proper buy-in by cabinet. Thus, we'll be voting no.