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.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. May.
I don't see any other hands. Therefore, I call the vote on PV-22.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Chair, I think this one might pique Mr. Albas' interest.
I'm proposing to add new subsections 14(1.1) and (1.2).
First, proposed subsection 14(1.1) requires the Minister of the Environment, in consultation with other federal ministers, to prepare progress reports on 2030 by the end of 2023, another by the end of 2025 and another by the end of 2027.
Second, proposed subsection 14(1.2) requires the 2025 progress report to include an assessment of the 2030 GHG emissions target and requires the Minister of the Environment to consider amending the 2030 target.
These amendments increase the accountability for 2030.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you.
MP Bittle has been successful in drawing my interest. I guess that is success for him, if that's a metric on his tally sheet.
However, the officials, particularly Mr. Moffet, might be able to help us out here.
Amendment G-10 would add additional progress reports for 2030 to be done in 2023, 2025 and 2027. In fact, an earlier amendment, NDP-3, would require all progress reports on 2030 to include progress on the 2026 interim objective.
Remember, Mr. Chair, there were a lot of questions about whether “interim” was properly defined, and there's no definition in the bill to say what the objective would be.
To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense for a progress report that happens after 2026, say, for example, 2027, to report on the progress to a year that's already passed.
I'd ask Mr. Moffet how can the 2027 progress report report on the progress made so far on a 2026 target. Could he maybe explain how the two regimes have been set up here?
6:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Maybe I'll refer to Mr. Ngan, but I think the short answer is that it takes us at least a year after a given date to determine what actually happened in that year so that we would in fact be able to report on the interim objective in each of these reports.
Vince, do you want to add to that?
6:45 p.m.
Director General, Horizontal Policy, Engagement and Coordination, Department of the Environment
That is correct.
On top of that, we have to be mindful that for every year on top of the progress report, there are three different reports that the government will be issuing in compliance with UNFCCC reporting requirements on an annual basis that would take stock in terms of our projection towards the 2030 target.
Also, there's the national inventory report that takes into account, 18 months ago, the actual emissions from Canada's key sectors and provinces and territories.
Then the third one would be on a biennial basis. We submit to the UNFCCC the progress towards our target, and also, every four years, a national communication.
Therefore, with all the reporting instruments, we should be able to cover the 2026 interim objective in a timely manner.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Just so I understand clearly, Mr. Chair, shouldn't the 2027 report be saying whether we met the 2026 objective and not reporting about the progress that was made?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Who would like to answer that?
Could you repeat the question?
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Sure, Mr. Chair.
Shouldn't the 2027 report say whether we met the 2026 objective and not just report on progress?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's an interesting question.
Would Mr. Moffet or Mr. Ngan like to take that?
6:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I have two thoughts.
One, as my colleague Mr. Ngan indicated, the lag in collecting the data, doing the modelling and providing the analysis can take up to 18 months. The ability to determine whether the interim objective has been met would depend on the timing of the subsequent report.
Also, as an official, if I was asked to report on progress, that would include, to the extent the information was available, an indication of whether or not we had achieved a target, an objective or a policy goal that had passed in the previous couple of years.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
It's quite possible, then, that the data, which could take up to 18 months to properly measure, may not add any meaningful effect to the 2027 progress report. Is that what you're saying?
6:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the data might not enable us to provide a definitive report on whether or not the interim objective has been met. The report will add value in the sense that it will give Canadians a good sense of how things are progressing.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'll go back. You say it takes 18 months to acquire the data from the previous year, so to me there seems to be a six-month gap there for timing this. It sounds like, yes, there may be some details in there that could be raised with the public, but to me it doesn't seem that it would be a meaningful report, then. Usually some particulars would be found in that report and people could count on them. In this case we don't know what they can count on because we don't know what the facts will be or whether the data will even be readily available for the report in 2027.
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Horizontal Policy, Engagement and Coordination, Department of the Environment
If I may, I'll quickly respond to Mr. Albas' point.
The progress report is about our progress towards the 2030 target and will talk about how the measures will be projected to achieve the 2030 target. Of course, when data are available, we can talk about interim objectives. What is being accounted for is that this would offer an opportunity to have a more detailed look into whether we're still on track for 2030 or not, and do the course correction accordingly. The merit is [Technical difficulty—Editor] forward on whether the target will be met or not and the likelihood of this.
The report that looks back is the assessment report, which is a different instrument under the accountability framework.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Will it be as meaningful, though, as other progress reports, as laid out in Bill C-12, if you don't have the data that Mr. Moffet referred to?
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Horizontal Policy, Engagement and Coordination, Department of the Environment
It will be meaningful for 2030.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
For 2030, I agree with that. My question is different, though. You have an interim assessment in 2026 and now we're talking about adding one in 2027. Will the 2027 report be able to show the same types of information you would see in the other progress reports?
6:50 p.m.
Director General, Horizontal Policy, Engagement and Coordination, Department of the Environment
The national inventory report for the following year will be able to identify whether the 2026 interim objective will be met or not when the data becomes fully available.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I do appreciate, Mr. Ngan and Mr. Moffet, that you're trying to answer my question. I don't think the regime, as encompassed here, whether it be in NDP-3.... I know Mr. Bachrach worked very hard to present his amendment on that and was successful in getting it through, but I don't think his amendment and Mr. Bittle's amendment jibe and that it would be a meaningful report. Again, if it says 18 months, to me it would make sense to kick the progress report back to allow for the information to be there and be truly meaningful.
June 2nd, 2021 / 6:55 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I take Mr. Albas' point. The amendment that's coming up, NDP-3, speaks to the progress reports prior to 2030, referencing the 2026 interim objective for [Technical difficulty—Editor] 2023 and 2025. That's forward looking, because those are prior to that year. For 2027, it would be backward looking, and I don't think that detracts from Mr. Bittle's amendment here. It just means that instead of looking forward, you're retroactively looking at whether we were successful at hitting that interim objective.
The real strength of Mr. Bittle's amendment is that we have three progress reports. The NDP was very clear in debate that we supported these additional accountability measures in the lead-up to 2030, which is the most important decade, as many of the scientists have told us. We have three progress reports in the lead-up, and we also have a reassessment of the 2030 target in 2025. That's going to be very important in case there is emerging science which suggests that our 2030 target is missing the mark.
I won't be supporting it for that reason. I think the 2026 reference... Obviously, those three progress reports deal with much more than the 2026 interim objective. They also include.... We're pre-empting our discussion, because the content of those reports, I believe, is going to be covered by amendments that are coming up very shortly. Those reports also deal with our progress towards 2030, which is an important milestone year.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, and turn the floor back to you.