Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was very interested in the comments by my colleague, Mr. Albas. I wanted to tell him that, basically, the objective is to give more powers to the Minister of the Environment. We also feel that the fight against climate change requires horizontal responsibilities, in which all departments must be involved.

We used as a model Quebec's new climate legislation, as it gives more powers to the Minister of the Environment. Furthermore, if we had all voted in favour of Ms. May's amendments PV-11, we would have facilitated that horizontal responsibility. That's what has to be done. That's what the countries that have succeeded in their energy transition have done.

That's why I am going to vote against your amendment, Mr. Albas, though I love you dearly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.

Any further comments?

So I will call the vote on amendment CPC-12.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We now go to PV-20.

I would just like to mention that this is the first of several Green Party amendments seeking the same goal: to change the name of the advisory body to expert advisory body. Members of the committee should keep this in mind when debating and voting on these amendments in order to be coherent throughout the bill.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the preamble.

The numbers of my amendments don't flow from this one. I will be quiet for some time after this one before getting back to the matter of an advisory panel.

Before we proceed to the ritual slaughter of my amendments, I'll just recap.

So far, attempts to do the things that most witnesses asked us to do.... We had the Climate Action Network, a coalition that includes most of the environmental law groups in Canada. Advice came in a written brief from the Tsleil-Waututh first nation because, of course, we didn't have time for them to testify in person. We've lost the chance for a 2025 milestone year or to put the target from the Paris Agreement of 1.5 into the purpose of the act or base the bill on science or to operate using carbon budgets.

This is an opportunity to bring Bill C-12 into line with most of the climate accountability acts around the world in one respect. All those things that I just mentioned are what you typically find in other climate accountability legislation around the world.

The one witness we did have time to hear from on this point was Professor Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia Law School. When I asked her about it, she pointed out that certainly all the laws she knew of incorporated those elements that I just described, which we already voted down. They do tend to have this element in common: that the advice that comes to government in setting their plans and targets comes from experts. It's heavily experts of climate science and expertise as well, for instance, in renewable energy and other technologies.

I'll give a quick recap because Professor Corinne Le Quéré's expertise was primarily with the French climate accountability legislation. I'll just let members know because we didn't hear about other laws. I think it's a large deficiency in developing a knowledge base for reviewing this bill.

Certainly, in Pakistan, which has climate accountability legislation, and in Denmark, the advisory bodies are specifically experts and are defined in the act. New Zealand includes something called a Climate Change Commission, which is independent and gives expert advice. Costa Rica calls theirs the Scientific Council on Climate Change. The U.K. calls it, of course, the Climate Change Committee. It is highly respected. South Korea calls theirs the Committee on Green Growth and it is independent and housed within the prime minister's office and not in any one ministry.

In this, by describing it as an expert advisory body, the chair is quite right. Subsequent amendments I will put forward describe how this expert advisory committee would work and how it would be composed.

I'll just take a moment to say we will come to NDP-4, which basically modifies the word “advice” with the word “independent”. I think that attempts to create the false impression that by the time the Liberals and NDP vote for NDP-4, we will have created an independent commission that's aligned with the way other countries around the world have devised and designed their climate accountability legislation. We will not have done so, because the committee will still be made up of political appointees. It's only their advice that will be described as independent, whereas the committee structure will not be.

Again, to have anything like the rigour of other countries' legislation, we should have made other amendments before this moment. Certainly, the advisory committee to provide independent advice needs to be an independent advisory committee made up of experts, as opposed to the model we have here in a multi-stakeholder group.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour of Ms. May's amendment, although we feel, as our later amendments will show, that some important words are missing, including the word “independent”. The members must be independent.

There's also the word “advisory”. For us, the body is not advisory. Ms. Le Quéré talked about that. The body will consult all industry, environmental, civil society and Indigenous groups, but it is not advisory. It will have to formulate recommendations after having held all those consultations.

Although we feel that the amendment we will be putting forward later puts some order back in all this, I am still going to vote in favour of Ms. May's amendment and we will be able to improve it with our own.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair. I was waiting for the translation. There is a bit of a delay. I would get you to just consider that fact when you call for a voice vote—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I should.

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

—or a roll call, I should say.

Mr. Chair, I do think there are a lot of issues. The Conservatives will not be voting in favour of MP May's amendment. As I said, our attempt in the previous amendment to have experts brought into the Governor in Council process we believe allows for a better process that way, rather than just relying.... Again, we're just going to have to disagree on that, but we believe that structurally, it does deal with a lot of the concerns that the advisory board would only be subject to one minister and their inner circle.

We've been disappointed that the minister, contrary to his initial speech at second reading on this bill.... I did ask him about the advisory panel, and he said he would work with all parties, and then he decided to pre-empt and put his so-called advisory panel forward. There are still questions in my mind from his testimony before us at the estimates. He says that he wants to work with all parties and then he puts forward a group that I would say is controversial, just in terms of viewpoints.

We've seen many say that they don't believe there's any future whatsoever for oil and gas. I also would say that even the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices put out a report showing that there are over 60 different pathways that it has modelled out for net zero, and there are different scenarios. There could be vibrant oil and gas, but there have to be certain investments made in negative emission technologies, and so on.

There's so much going on in this space that I think, again, to not allow a broader process where different ministers at the cabinet table can draw in those experts, as was put forward in CPC-12, means that we are missing the boat and not receiving the expertise that this whole country offers. One minister in their Rolodex—I can see why that is not working for Madam May. I appreciate Madam Pauzé's intervention to explain it a little bit further. It does seem that unfortunately....

I'm glad to see that other members of the opposition are looking to debate this because the government as well as the NDP have been very much silent on some of these things. I think that these proposals do deserve some debate, so that we have a better understanding and so that the people at home who are watching can judge for themselves who is acting and who's bringing forward real ideas to make this bill better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

Mr. Chair, on Mr. Albas's last comment, I'd be happy to contribute more comments if, perhaps, he would think about contributing fewer. That way we could proceed through the bill in a little bit more of an efficient fashion.

To speak directly to the amendment in front of us, the NDP doesn't have major issues with the current name of the advisory body, the Net-Zero Advisory Body. I'm somewhat agnostic as to what it's named. I believe that the more important test is its composition and the definition of that composition. We will soon have an amendment, NDP-5, that will be coming forward. It speaks directly to the composition and does use the word “expertise”, which I believe encompasses the spirit of Ms. May's amendment. I'll speak to that amendment when it comes up in the order.

I will note that the language for that amendment is adapted directly from the New Zealand and U.K. legislation and their definitions of their advisory bodies.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Seeing no more hands, I call the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would anyone like to speak to whether we should adopt clause 13?

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, certainly I do want to briefly comment on Mr. Bachrach's comments, as well as on the clause itself.

I would simply say that all members of Parliament here have the same voice if they choose to use it, maybe with the exception of MP May, since we know she was brought here against her will, but I'll let her fight that battle. I also would simply say that the Conservative Party has brought forward a series of amendments to try to improve the legislation, and we stand by them. We also believe that debate should occur.

Many times I have voiced concern that we have arbitrarily disallowed certain amendments, such as when Elizabeth May wanted to talk about carbon budgets. It was something I heard very clearly in testimony, and it was ruled out of order. Mr. Chair, I hold nothing personal, and I hope you hold nothing personal on that, but I do believe that we are all here to raise our voices.

If Mr. Bachrach is opposed to one of my amendments, I do not take any offence to that, but I also think we should have some debate over some of these things. As you know, Mr. Chair, once legislation gets put in, it often doesn't get changed for several years or even decades. This bill has a scope as far out as 2050, so there are decades in here.

I believe it's important for me to speak up for my constituents, for my colleagues who have heard from their constituents and from the testimony that we've heard, and respect that other members may have different ideas, but they should be talked about and discussed, not silently shot down while silently sitting back.

Again, that's Mr. Bachrach's choice. If I've offended him in any way by being boisterous in the need for us to actually have a thorough process rather than a rushed one, I understand, but I will put our 19 amendments up to the NDP's amendments, and I will defend those ones because I do respect the electors who elected him, and I would hope that he would do the same for my electors, with the same outlook.

Now, in regard to the clause itself, it's no secret that the Conservatives have time and time again said that we want to have an all-hands-on-deck approach. It's unfortunate. We wanted to include that the Governor in Council would not only be key to this but would also be able to draw upon experts outside of the advisory panel, which so far has been set up to be at the whim of one minister. Again, those closer to the minister, or perhaps his staff—or her staff in future iterations—can be appointed and again serve, I believe, at the pleasure of the minister, given that the terms of reference can be changed at any time by the minister.

I think hearing from Canadians is important. I think listening to indigenous leaders as well as indigenous members, to hear their traditional knowledge, is important. However, I also believe that the Governor in Council should have the right to bring on other experts outside of the minister to be able to build [Technical difficulty—Editor]. As Mr. Saini has said here many times, he likes to hear data, and he likes to see that done. I will say that having access to a greater number of experts who are outside the Rolodex of one minister and his staff, I think is important.

I will leave it there. If I did offend any member, I apologize in advance. However, I think it's very important that in this bill, one that my constituents have said they would like to see some amendments to.... I believe that we are stronger by hearing some of the voices, perhaps through this truncated, or I would say rushed, job of a committee hearing process.

Again, please don't take offence at that, Mr. Chair. You just do the will of the committee. However, I think we could have done better in this regard. I think part of my raising those voices over and over in this is to bear in mind that perhaps if members don't want to hear from me so much, and you had a proper process, then my discussions would only be on the product itself, and not necessarily the process-oriented questions and concerns.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Chair, I have a question for Mr. Moffet.

I'm trying to understand something. We have referred a lot to the Paris Agreement as forming one of our international obligations that this has to respect. I suppose I could have asked this question at other times too, but it speaks to, in this case, public participation.

Do the participation and the impacts received for this cause or compel the government to do anything with respect to the Paris Agreement? In other words, do the decisions, input and information that come from this process compel the government or influence it when it makes commitments, for example, revising its commitments to the Paris accord, or is that completely separate from this and these are two completely separate issues?

[John Moffet]

That's an interesting question. This section talks about the input the minister needs to consider or enable when developing a target. The bill would make the 2030 target the country's nationally determined commitment. The Paris Agreement doesn't have an explicit set of requirements beyond 2030, however. I think in practice there will be a link between the public participation that would be enabled through clause 13 and any further evolution of Canada's nationally determined commitment under Paris. However, beyond 2030, unless the Paris Agreement is amended, this public participation will focus on our future targets and plans.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't see any other hands up. The vote is called.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I am sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, it's too late now, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I let you speak, I must also let Mr. Albas speak and he is a little late. I have to treat everyone the same way.