Evidence of meeting #39 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You are introducing an amendment, Ms. Pauzé.
How do we proceed, Ms. Thivierge? Ms. Pauzé has not introduced her amendment yet, and she agrees with taking out the word “annual”.
Is it a subamendment or is it just something she can do with her amendment?
6:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
She just has to do more or less what she did beforehand. When she introduces her amendment, she can mention that she is taking out the word “annual”.
6:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
When she introduces it, she can simply mention that she is removing that word from her amendment on her own initiative.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Mr. Albas, you had your hand up before we got to BQ-30.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm not sure what happened there, Mr. Chair.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's fine.
We'll let Madam Pauzé propose BQ-30, and I think when she proposes it, she's going to do so without the word “annual”, if I understand.
The floor is yours, Ms. Pauzé.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Once again, the intent of this amendment is to strengthen the role of the commissioner. When Ms. Collins introduced her motion, the committee did not vote in favour, but we have moved on. We are now talking about Bill C‑12 and we have another opportunity to strengthen the role of the commissioner.
The amendment proposes that, within six months after the progress report is tabled, the commissioner review the progress report. I am taking out the word “annual”, which used to go with the term “progress report”.
Amendment BQ‑29 dealt with the action plan. Amendment BQ‑30 proposes that the commissioner can double-check the report. Once again, this is about strengthening the climate governance and the role of the commissioner.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
We are now calling the vote on amendment BQ‑30.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 24)
We go now to amendment BQ-31.
Go ahead, Madam Pauzé.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
To come back to the commissioner's role in the original version of Bill C‑12, it's virtually a cosmetic role.
In fact, the commissioner came to speak to the committee about his role, and as an example he referred to a rail safety report on an abysmal situation that he wrote in 2008, I believe. The recommendations in that report were not acted upon by any jurisdiction. A few years later, the disaster happened in the Lac-Mégantic area.
We therefore want the commissioner's role to be more than just cosmetic. In the original version of the report, the commissioner did not assess the action plan or the minister's report based on his ability to achieve the target.
Our previous amendments were about the action plan, the annual report and the assessment. That was what was important, but I believe we differ on the significance of the climate emergency.
In BQ‑31, rather than remove the initial provisions involving the commissioner, we're making a clarification. We're going to try to go a little further. We want the commissioner to conduct a review, as provided, but to do so two years before each milestone year to allow for rectification in the event that progress suggests we may fail to achieve the target.
The amendments I mentioned earlier were more substantive, but this one proposes a slight correction.
If the government, with the support of the NDP, of course, doesn't want the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development to play a meaningful role, someone needs to explain to me why not.
I referred earlier to Ms. Collins, who was a member of the committee. She had introduced a motion to consider the importance of giving the commissioner a more substantial role. She asked that the committee look into making the commissioner an independent officer much like the Auditor General, who currently directs his work. Again, it would be rather inconsistent not to support our amendment. We may have missed an opportunity when Ms. Collins put forward her motion, but this is another chance to strengthen the role.
To conclude, I will repeat some facts that everyone knows. Canada has never met its targets, never achieved even one of its targets. With a track record like that and given the demands and what I would call best practices, the legislation must contain safeguards. It's precisely the role of the commissioner to identify failures and determine what corrective measures should be taken. Our amendment strengthens that role. We're not asking that everything be changed, of course, we only want to strengthen the commissioner's role. It seems to me that it's the least we can do.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.
I want to make it clear that if BQ‑31 carries, PV‑34 becomes inadmissible, because both amendments deal with the same line.
Mr. Bachrach.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, that BQ-31 also has implications for G-15. I believe the introduction of the 2026 emissions objective changes things for those years leading up to 2030, so we prefer the wording of G-15. It also impacts, as you mentioned, PV-34.
I'll leave it at that and speak to the next amendment.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1)
We go now to amendment PV-34.
Ms. May.
6:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Monique Pauzé for making a number of the points that I will reiterate here in terms of my briefer amendment.
The current form of Bill C-12 is that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development must put forward a report on an examination of the Government of Canada's implementation of measures, etc., to achieve its most recent greenhouse gas emissions target, etc.
The current scheduling of the report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is to be once every five years. My amendment would change it to once every three years.
I'm anticipating the comment, because Mr. Bachrach just made it, that somehow there's some conflict with the upcoming Liberal amendment that the first report must be submitted no later than the end of 2024, referring to the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. Obviously, there's no conflict: It's a question of the sequencing.
If Mr. Baker's amendment goes through, as unlikely it is that a government amendment will pass in this committee—forgive the sarcasm—once Mr. Baker's amendment goes through, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development will have a report that is due, the first one, in 2024. The way the act now works, the next one would be in 2029 and so forth.
If my amendment is accepted—and I urge you to really consider this—the first report can be in by no later than the end of 2024. The next one would have to be before the end of 2027, which is really rather helpful, because under the government's approach to the first milestone year and the advance reports, the next report would be not from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, but from the department, to assess how well it's doing to hit its 2030 target. That one would be coming in 2028. The timing works here. There are no inconsistencies. There are no conflicts.
It just makes sure that for the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, bearing in mind that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development already has a statutory responsibility to report annually on various matters, this would mean that once every three years they would be reporting on climate targets, progress reports on climate targets and the other matters that are set out in clause 24 of Bill C-12.
I really do hope against hope that you're going to accept this moderate, modest, small improvement to the scheme of the act.
Thank you.
7 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. May for that explanation.
I fear that you may have misinterpreted my earlier remarks. We've always supported an expanded role for the environment commissioner within the environment commissioner's mandate, so I appreciate your bringing forward this amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
7 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to introduce a motion to add a new subclause 24(4) to the bill. It requires that the first CESD report be submitted by the end of 2024. Basically, the rationale is that this increases accountability between now and 2030.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for either of the officials, Mr. Ngan or Mr. Moffet.
There's nothing in this bill like.... In this particular amendment, they're just asking for this to be done at a certain time, for the environment commissioner to submit a report, but effectively, if I were commissioner—and thank goodness I'm not, for all your sakes—I would want to do this right off the bat. I would want to start right away. Does the commissioner not have the independence to do this already?