Environment Committee on June 7th, 2021

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Moffet was perfectly okay with inappropriate interventions in the last meeting. However, I do respect him and I do value his service. If he doesn't want to answer the question just because maybe the government has said we don't want to raise any distinctions between us and the U.K., I will just say, Mr. Chair—

[John Moffet]

Mr. Chair, I resent that and ask the member to withdraw his comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. I'm going to stop this now.

[John Moffet]

I am under no instructions of that nature. I am providing you with factual advice. My last intervention in the last committee was to correct a legal interpretation that you were giving the committee.

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

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give a legal one—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, we're going to move on.

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

—but I am actually going to debate now, Mr. Chair. I've asked my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

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

Again, if Mr. Moffet feels that any of my interventions were off-putting, I apologize for that. It's not my role necessarily to do anything other than to ask questions. Unfortunately, from that intervention, I didn't get what I wanted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Anyway—

[John Moffet]

You made a comment about my ability rather than a question.

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

Sir, I withdraw any comments about your ability. In fact, I praised your service—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, that's good.

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

—but I also would ask, Mr. Chair, that when I have the floor, that even witnesses respect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

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

I'm going to move on, Mr. Chair. To the point, it seems to me, that the NDP, coupled with the Liberals, have suggested that adding the term “independent” will make this independent, yet the vast majority of people who came forward to committee have said the bar the government has set—not Mr. Moffet, to be fair—in Bill C-12 does not meet what they believe is required to be similar to the U.K. legislation.

I believe in a made-in-Canada approach, so I am simply going to be voting against this. I believe that a Conservative government would do much better. If this becomes law, we're going to have to work with the advisory board towards the goals that are laid out by law.

It is not necessarily realistic that every single person who came and discussed the U.K. was wrong and that there was no practical difference between what the Government of Canada has proposed in its legislation here, and what Mr. Bachrach is adding the term “independent” to. I think that's just not credible at this time.

I appreciate again, Mr. Chair...because if I was getting under anyone's skin, that's not my premise for being here. My premise for being here is to ask questions and then raise concerns about the approach moving forward. I think I've done that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, we have Madam Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

My analysis is sort of similar to that of Mr. Albas. However, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, you said earlier that I usually found errors in French. I will therefore mention the following passage from the NDP amendment:la mission est de fournir au ministre des conseils indépendants

This has nothing to do with independent experts. It's a play on words.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would be tempted to ask Mr. Bachrach, jokingly, to try to insert the word “experts” in there.

I think it was Mr. Moffet who said that this amendment highlights what's already there. We don't think it moves things forward. It doesn't make it more binding. It just highlights what's already there in the bill.

That is why we will vote in favour of the amendment. However, I want to reiterate that independent advisors are not independent experts, and providing advice is not making recommendations. That's different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, great.

I would just like to repeat that if amendment NDP‑4 is defeated, amendment G‑14 becomes moot.

Seeing no more raised hands, we will proceed to the vote, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment agreed to: 7 yeas; 4 nays [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll now go to amendment CPC‑16.

Mr. Albas, I assume you're going to present it?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'll move that one, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have Mr. Redekopp, then.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks.

I'm going to move CPC-16, that Bill C-12, in clause 20, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 8 with the following:

(2) The Governor in Council may, on the advice of the Minister, determine and amend the terms of

Mr. Albas has kind of struck out on some of these, so I'm going to take a swing at this as well.

We have highlighted over and over why it's important to have a whole-of-government approach when it comes to this legislation, and not just a single minister in charge of this. We've heard from witnesses. There have been briefs. Even the Prime Minister himself said that a whole-of government approach is necessary. However, this Liberal-NDP agreement continues to argue for this one-man show.

Let's see how the one-man show has worked out for Canada.

On April 21, 2021, there was a news article published in The New York Times called, “Trudeau was a Global Climate Hero. Now Canada Risks Falling Behind”. It says, “Between [the] election in 2015 and 2019, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased...despite decreases in other rich nations during the same period”. It goes on to say, “If Canada lags too far behind the United States...it could face repercussions” and, “It'll be quite obvious to the world who's really serious about climate change and who's taking half measures”.

This government's one-man show approach is leaving Canada open to trade reprisals from the U.S. If we fall too far behind, then we're going to potentially have U.S. carbon tariffs on goods crossing the border. There are lots of problems here.

This example of trade, for example, shows that we need to have input from other ministers, such as finance, international trade, agriculture and many others. CPC-16 is an amendment that would make important changes to make this stronger.

This is what the Tsleil-Waututh Nation from British Columbia told this committee in a brief, and I'll end with this, Mr. Chair.

Our experience shows us that the government of Canada remains structurally siloed, rather than positioned to respond holistically to the climate crisis, limiting the federal government's ability to address this overarching and complex issue. Tsleil-Waututh Nation's engagement with Canada demonstrates potential for a whole-of-government approach, adds value by working towards this end, and contributes a necessary, rights-based Indigenous perspective. Our concerns and recommendations often require cross fertilization between varying ministries, such as [Environment and Climate Change Canada], Department of Fisheries and Oceans...and Transport Canada. The climate change challenge requires us to work together for decades to come—and we must start now.

Thank you.