Evidence of meeting #38 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
What we need to look at is the link to amendment BQ‑23.
Amendment BQ‑23 will make it possible to determine the areas of expertise of the experts who will serve on the committee.
The bill talks about an advisory body that provides advice on meeting targets, but also conducts consultations. We don't want that. We want the committee to consult, to make up its mind, and then say: here is my advice to the minister. Amendment BQ‑23 will determine who the experts will be. As for amendment BQ‑20, if I'm not mistaken, it will determine the role of the expert committee.
What's difficult is not seeing this as a whole.
A little further on, the role of the independent expert committee is defined, and a little more further on, there is a definition of who the experts are. Of course, as long as we don't have a definition, it's a bit complicated to do.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
The question I would then have, Mr. Moffet, is based on what Madam Pauzé said, because when I read subclause 7(2) in the bill, it states:
(2) The Minister must set the national greenhouse gas emissions target for 2030 within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force.
What is the difference between what Madam Pauzé wants to do, and what the government has already put in Bill C-12, or this one that's already been made in an amendment, and I'm operating off the old copy?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Yes, I think Mr. Moffet seems to be well versed in it.
5:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
It basically talks about “activities related to achieving the target set under subsection 7(2)”, but it actually talks about net-zero emissions. The original subclause 20(1) says “achieving net-zero emissions”.
What effectively changes here by Madam Pauzé's amendment?
5:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
This specific amendment establishes an independent expert committee. Madam Pauzé has also referred to other amendments that would provide more detail and specification about the nature of the advice that the committee must provide.
The basic architecture of the bill, of course, is that the committee must provide advice on an ongoing basis on how to achieve net zero, and the minister must set five-year targets. In doing so, the minister must account for the ongoing input of the committee, so everything that is done is done with a view to achieving net zero.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Moffet. I was talking more about part (b) of BQ-18 rather than part (a).
Mr. Chair, maybe it's just me that's having the issue of understanding exactly what this is meant to do, and what would change under BQ-18.
I will just leave it at that.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Can I take a swing at this one? The point is relatively simple. In part (b), BQ-18 is changing it to “subsection 7(2)”. In the original.... I believe it was amended by G-3, as it only refers to 2030.
This is where I'm confused, because it doesn't refer to all the targets. It just refers to 2030. If I'm reading this right, this would not apply to 2035, 2040, 2045 or 2050.
I'm not sure who can comment on that, but that's the confusion we have here.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I wanted to respond to Mr. Albas.
I'm not presenting part (b) because when we adopted amendment G‑3, we decided that there would be no numerical target in the legislation, despite the commitments of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and despite the commitments of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, when he appeared before the committee to introduce Bill C‑12.
Despite all that, the alliance of the Liberal Party and the NDP ensured that there was no numerical target. As a result, part (b) of amendment BQ‑18, which deals with the target established under subsection 7(2), becomes obsolete, since there is no target.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I have to clarify.
Did Madam Pauzé only move part (a) of BQ-18 and not part (b)?
I know she has chosen to do that before. I want to make sure I understand what I'm voting on. Is it just part (a) by itself that she's proposing as an amendment, or is it parts (a) and (b) of BQ-18?
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Basically, I'm presenting only part (a), for the reasons I mentioned, namely, that part (b) cannot mention a target when the committee has chosen not to ask for a numerical target.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, we understand.
We are voting, in fact, on part (a) only.
Ms. Thivierge, can we proceed in this manner?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
So that's what we're voting on.
Madam Clerk, it will be a recorded division.
5:50 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, and it will be on amendment BQ‑18.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Actually, it will only deal with part (a) of amendment BQ‑18.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I would ask the committee members to go back to amendment G‑8, part (b.1). I'll give you a few seconds to find the amendment.