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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That would take us to 6:44, and I had meant to have a break at an hour and a half. Why don't we take a break?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, before you do, I miscounted. I have eight amendments. I want to speak to PV-32, but PV-33 is also about the panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You want eight amendments taken out. I've noted that, Ms. May.
Why don't we just take a 10-minute break, and come back at 5:28.
By then, I might have more information.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I'll just keep my hand up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. It's 5:28 p.m.
This is what I'm told, and it makes sense to me. Once an amendment is moved, in the case of independent members like the Green Party here....
There is a distinction between Ms. May's amendments and everyone else's. For an amendment to get to the floor of the committee, members of parties on the committee have to move the motion. If they decide not to move the motion, we would just continue past it. In Ms. May's case, as a Green Party representative who is not a permanent member of the committee, the minute she sends in her amendment to the clerk it is deemed moved. When an amendment is deemed moved, it is deemed to belong to the committee. That means the chair can't appropriate the power to just remove an amendment. It requires unanimous consent. That was denied, in this case.
As I see it, the way we proceed is this: Ms. May does not have to speak in support of her amendments, and others can speak about it or not speak about it, but we have to vote on these amendments. Obviously, Ms. May is doing this in the interest of time so that we can move through them quickly. That's how I see it.
Mr. Albas, are you speaking to PV-25 or is this a point of order or clarification?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
It's a little bit of both.
First, Mr. Chair, thank you for the break. I had the ability to go back and speak with some of my members. As you might remember, you had asked specifically about G-8, I believe.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I was hoping to see if we could maybe resolve that. I would just need a little help and guidance from you or the clerk, or perhaps the legislative clerk, on where exactly the error is on G-8.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
All right. Then let me just spin over to PV-25.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I certainly concur with your assessment. Once something has been moved, it becomes the committee's and it no longer can simply be withdrawn unless there's unanimous consent. As I said earlier, it's not my intention to do anything other than to allow those witnesses and truly those Canadians who believe in much of what has been placed here to simply....
I will read this out, and perhaps the Liberals and the NDP, all parties, can stand and be counted on each one. Then we can proceed in that regard.
Again, PV-25 amends Bill C-12 in clause 20 by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 8 with the following:
20(1) There is established an expert advisory body whose mandate is to provide the Minister with expert advice with respect to achieving emissions reductions that are consistent with the conclusion drawn in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C of the need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, including expert
Mr. Chair, maybe I will make a quick ask here of either Mr. Moffet or Mr. Ngan.
I believe the main thrust of this amendment is not just the adoption of the 1.5°C but the term “expert”. Right now, the way the advisory board is set up, it's not necessarily derived just on expertise. Is that the case?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The expert body that exists does not.... It is something that the minister has set up. What we're talking about now is what would need to be established under the act.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
What the minister has set up is different from what is here in PV-25, clearly.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The minister will have to establish an advisory body. What that body will constitute will be determined after the act is passed.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moffet.
Out of respect for the process, Mr. Chair, unless anyone else wants to go, you can maybe seek a roll call.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The vote is called on PV-25.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Now we move to BQ-18.
Madam Pauzé, I think, is going to be presenting it.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
First, I want to thank Ms. May, who did everything in her power to try to convince everyone in order to speed things up in the committee. Unfortunately, it didn't work. However, I want to thank her. I feel compelled to do so because she prepared a number of arguments and amendments, but they won't be taken into account.
With respect to amendment BQ‑18, we're proposing to change “advisory body” to “an independent expert committee.” Perhaps this was the difference between our amendment and the Green Party's amendment. Also, the change that we were proposing to line 15 no longer applies. By voting for amendment G‑3, you decided that there wouldn't be any target.
We want to replace “advisory body” with “independent expert committee” in order to clearly establish the committee's role, which basically isn't to conduct consultations, but to advise the minister. This must be included in the legislation.
For us, it wasn't just about the net‑zero emissions issue. We're saying that the committee should advise the minister on how to reach the 2030 target, which still hasn't been quantified, and not just the 2050 target.
I want to remind you that the United Kingdom is an example to follow in terms of climate governance. Corinne Le Quéré was among the experts from the United Kingdom who appeared before the committee. She told us that the United Kingdom had been the most successful country in terms of reaching climate targets and that it had the best established climate governance. The United Kingdom has seen its emissions fall by 28% since 2010, while Canada's emissions have risen.
Another example is France. Ms. Le Quéré also told us about the High Council on Climate and other similar independent bodies that provide a mechanism to ensure that the voices of experts in the field are heard. They provide the rationale and the legitimacy to propose ambitious measures, since they're experts. As Ms. Le Quéré said, strong climate governance, in France and in other places, helps the government to achieve its goals.
The experts in the United Kingdom consider that five elements are key to the success of any climate legislation and that together they provide several benefits to democracy. The first is the full independence of a committee made up primarily of experts. This is what the witnesses came to tell us. If we were listening, we understood this. This prevents confusion between the role of expert and the job of consulting everyone. This condition is met in just about any successful climate legislation.
The word “experts” is covered in more detail in an amendment that I'll move later. However, it would be good to see the committee in the bill as having this key characteristic. When the independence of the committee is ensured, a balance is achieved. On the one hand, there's an ongoing policy generated through the co‑operation of the highest levels of science, economics, applied policy, and decision‑making. On the other hand, there's respect for the political reality on the ground.
In short, based on what the witnesses came to tell us, we know that they recommended an independent expert committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.
Before we proceed to the vote, I want to tell the committee members that, if amendment BQ‑18 is passed, amendment NDP‑4 will become null and void.
Mr. Albas, you have the floor.