Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2021

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Chair, I really like this amendment. I thank my colleague for proposing it. I don't think there's any risk that the government wouldn't publish a report or that they would wait until the deadline to do it. I don't think that's an issue.

My view on this, and the reason I think this is good, is that it eliminates a loophole for the government to use. If a future government decided they didn't want to publish a report for whatever reason, this clause doesn't compel them to do it in any time frame. It essentially creates a loophole for them to not release the report in a timely manner. I think one year is a very reasonable time. As we heard from Mr. Ngan, three to six months is typical.

I don't think it's an onerous limitation in any way. In my mind, it just removes that loophole at the end and precludes any government from not producing the report. That's why I like this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Redekopp makes a fine point. The challenge is that we haven't set out any other parameters around this consultation. We haven't directed the minister to begin the consultation a certain number of months prior. We haven't set out a certain length for the consultation. We've simply said in clause 13, “When setting or amending a national greenhouse gas emissions target or establishing or amending an emissions reduction plan, the Minister must” accept submissions from stakeholders. Unless we have detail around the duration of the consultation, and the start time and date of the consultation, by setting an end date of 12 months, I believe, after the consultation begins, if the consultation is relatively short, that could be a long period of time. It creates the potential for government to take all of that 12 months, when indeed most people would expect it to release the report much sooner.

As I said before, I don't think it's necessary. Most Canadians, I believe, and certainly members of this committee, would expect that if the minister is compelled to release a report on consultations leading up to a decision, that report would be released either prior to the decision being announced or concurrently with that decision being announced.

I'll leave it at that. I see that Mr. Albas has his hand up as well.

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

Yes, thank you.

I certainly appreciate the discussion that's going on today, because we really want to make sure this bill is improved to the maximum extent it can be.

I will start with how it specifically says “no later”. If the minister decides he or she wants to do a consultation, and again, clause 13 reads, “the Minister must, in the manner that the Minister considers it appropriate,” that again gives us great flexibility.

I don't believe this is a cumbersome issue. What it does, though, is deal with the loophole of the ball being in the government's—or, in this case, the minister's—court, such that they could open up a consultation and then literally just say they're continuing to consult, continuing to consult, continuing to consult. That, I think, is what Mr. Saini's amendment is about. It's about saying the minister shall submit a report.

If you give the average college or university student complete leeway as to when they can turn in an assignment, they often will push it back as far as possible. This probably isn't good for anyone, considering that the government has a duty and a responsibility, I believe, to those who participate in it.

I would like to ask the officials a question with regard to this.

Is there anything in this amendment that would make it troublesome?

The way I read the original clause 13, and again proposed clause 13.1, “by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate” seems to mean that the minister can have considerable flexibility when opening up a consultation.

Is that not the case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Albas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that for Mr. Moffet?

No, it's for Mr. Ngan.

[Vincent Ngan]

The question regarding the timeliness of the release of the report goes to how long the consultation would be. It is likely that a consultation would take more than a year. Therefore, the report could be released before the consultation was completed. There is another scenario in which the consultation would take only three months. Therefore, the report would be released approximately three to six months after the consultation ended.

My perspective of that would be that generally, information would be made available as soon as reasonably and operationally possible. Therefore, from a legislative perspective, there are pros and cons to having that timeline. This would be my opinion and advice at this point.

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

Further though, the question would be on the term “appropriate”.

Could the minister not simply say, “I'm going to do a consultation specifically with the provinces” and that would be considered part of that?

The minister could also say, “I'd like to do a consultation with indigenous people” or “I want to do a Canada-wide consultation with every citizen through the website.”

I don't believe all of these consultations need to be wound up. I think if the minister makes it appropriate that he would like to see a consultation done with a particular body or a group of citizens, then there would be flexibility in the bill through this amendment. Would there not?

[Vincent Ngan]

I agree with you.

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

Okay. I thank the officials for saying that and for their expertise.

I look forward to supporting the amendment. I do think, Mr. Chair, that one thing we've heard about is increasing transparency and accountability. This certainly would include that.

Again, we're not being overly prescriptive here. We're not saying anything beyond the framework of what we heard and what we are hearing again that this does not need to be too elaborate. It just means looking at other reports that the Government of Canada does on a regular basis outlining what it has heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Chair, I do agree with what my colleague just said. I won't rehash that.

I just want, again, to highlight the fact that to me, this is all about removing a loophole. Considering what Mr. Ngan said, it's not inconceivable that a future government—you Liberal members of the committee might picture yourselves as opposition members someday—could very much consult for years and never actually produce a report. I think this does compel the government. It removes a loophole essentially. I just want to reinforce the fact that this is really what that would be doing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Seeing no further hands, I'm calling the vote on Mr. Albas' subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The subamendment is defeated. We now have the amendment before us.

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, while I am disappointed that the members, the majority of the committee, still want to...I'm a democratic person and I do believe the will of the committee has been expressed.

I do think that we should still support this amendment, because at the end of the day, by having government giving this to members of Parliament, to indigenous communities, and to a wide variety of different stakeholders that operate in the space who would be interested or who are just interested citizens, I think it would be in their interests to be able to know that they were heard, that they were listened to, and that it was documented by the government in some way, shape or form and they could see it on a website.

What I would say, though, is that unfortunately there seems to be a penchant here where Liberal members, and unfortunately the NDP, seem to be opposing any suggestion for any improvements other than the ones that they have seemingly pre-approved. That's unfortunate. I think we all can agree that any piece of legislation can probably be made better, particularly if we look and if we ask questions.

Clearly, the previous amendment, which I'm just going to vaguely refer to, the amendment to Mr. Saini's amendment, would have allowed some flexibility, because the minister would have been able to deal with that where appropriate. Many consultations can happen. You can have multi-year consultations with the provinces, but then you can just say that this is what we've heard from these provinces and we hope to hear from other ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The territories too?

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

Yes. Again, in any legislation, Mr. Chair, if you put down provinces, territories are automatically assumed. I am glad you raised that, because I think the territories often are not referred to enough. I certainly appreciate that observation, Mr. Chair.

I would simply wrap up here. It's really important to go further than just saying that we're going to be transparent. We heard in 2015 Liberals campaigning on a very aggressive promise to increase transparency, yet that didn't happen, despite the Prime Minister's own private member's bill and all of the initiatives that were included with that. This government, really, introduced legislation that the Information Commissioner didn't find met that basic bar of what they promised before getting elected, and ever since then, Mr. Chair, we've seen less and less.

I think Mr. Redekopp hit upon something here. I'm glad that he is paying attention and asking questions and sharing his mind, because that's what I believe this process should be, and he identified what I believe can be exploited. I would just remind all members that governments do come and go, and it's parliamentarians and the Canadian public who may not receive the information in a timely way. I think that's unfortunate.

I do hope that we can see this pass. I do hope that the government decides that when it comes to being transparent it's going to take another path than the one it has taken on things like access to information. I hope it proactively discloses these reports in a timely manner. It's unfortunate, though, that this committee has decided not to add a time period to that, because I do think that governments, like those university students, work best when they know they have to have their work in on time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Great.

Seeing no other hands, I call the vote on amendment G-9.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 14)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We go now to BQ-15, which relates to clause 14.

I have to note the following. The vote on BQ-15 applies to BQ-16 and BQ-17, as they are linked by the notion of an annual progress report. If BQ-15 is adopted, PV-22, G-10, CPC-13, G-11 and PV-23 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line. If BQ-15 is defeated, BQ-30 becomes moot—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have no interpretation, right?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No, it's not that. Amendment BQ-15 applies to clause 14, not to clause 13. The amendment is not about the consultations, but about the progress report. That's not the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have just finished—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm sorry, we are talking about amendment BQ-15.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Exactly. We are talking about amendment BQ-15, which deals with clause 14.