Environment Committee on June 9th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

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

That's right. I'm just flagging it for you and moving away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm going to stick to the clause-by-clause. That's challenging enough.

We'll go to NDP-5.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to introduce this amendment. This deals with—and I believe I spoke a little bit about this prior—the make-up of the advisory committee, and lays out the expertise that we would like to see represented on that committee. I think it does speak for itself, but this also speaks to a number of the discussions we've had related to previous amendments.

The idea here is that we should be constraining the membership of the advisory body to individuals who have proven expertise in specific areas that are relevant to this legislation and to the goal of net zero by 2050, including indigenous knowledge; climate change science; relevant physical and social sciences, including economic analysis and forecasting; climate change and climate policy at the national, subnational and international levels, and so on.

I think folks are pretty familiar with this amendment, so I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

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

There is one more thing, Mr. Chair.

I would add that this is taken directly from the approach used in New Zealand and the U.K., which are two jurisdictions that we've heard quite a bit about, both in the testimony and in the discussion at committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, the Conservatives will not be voting in favour of this amendment.

I just want to note that while Mr. Bachrach has said that this is similar to things that have been drawn out of other jurisdictions, clearly the amendments that have been tabled by both the Liberals and the NDP are not what witnesses were calling for. I've talked to many stakeholders who have argued that these are not the kinds of provisions they want to see.

So that I'm not interrupted by Mr. Bittle again, I have to say that this process has been truncated. It has been steamrolled. We've seen people's amendments put forward in good faith and ruled out of order or just voted down without even a defence from the government or from the NDP. I think this is not a process that is suitable.

We will be voting opposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's on NDP-5. Okay.

Do you have your hand up, Ms. Pauzé?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was just waiting for the end of the interpretation to come through, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's right. I had forgotten about the interpretation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour of the amendment, but my fellow members and I think amendment NDP‑5 would go wonderfully with amendment BQ‑23. The NDP member mentioned the approach used in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. As everyone knows, the United Kingdom has the strongest climate governance in the world. It has set the standard.

When it comes time to discuss the Bloc Québécois's other amendments, which also support healthy climate governance, I hope the NDP members will look to the United Kingdom's example and vote in favour of our amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I now call the vote.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Amendment PV‑28 has been withdrawn. That brings us to amendment BQ‑22.

Over to you, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The committee members did not vote in favour of our amendment on the independent expert committee, so I realize they will vote against this amendment as well. I simply want to point out that the body's role should be enhanced and strengthened, as we heard from all the witnesses. The COVID‑19 pandemic showed us that we mustn't let politics interfere with scientific advice. All of our amendments are meant to ensure scientific advice is available.

Ms. Le Quéré, who contributed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told us that France's independent body, the High Council on Climate, helped to clarify the debates in that country and focus on the issues that really mattered. It provided robust evidence and increasingly specific information on blockages to progress, and the government was able to respond accordingly. That is why it has been effective. The high council provided transparency and accountability in France, increasing public awareness of, and support for, climate action. That is a more democratic way of doing things.

I urge the committee members to vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.

I now call the vote.

Mr. Bachrach, your hand went up as I was calling it.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I know you've already called the vote. I was just going to respond briefly to Ms. Pauzé.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, but I've called the vote.

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

Fair enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Madam Clerk, if you could, please do a roll-call vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

It does not carry.

We go now to CPC-19.

Mr. Albas.

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

We're withdrawing this one, Mr. Chair, again for the same—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

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

I don't think we're going to get any support for it. I'm not going to waste anyone's time with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

That brings us to BQ-23.

Madam Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll move this important amendment. Of course, we'll have to change the name from “independent expert committee” to the name adopted. I believe that this was in relation to amendment NDP‑4. That name prevailed.

Amendment BQ‑23 provides important clarifications regarding the composition of the expert committee. This is about science and expertise, along with a lack of conflict of interest in relation to the committee's mandate. I'll say it again. Words have meaning. Legal experts, who can attest to this here, are fully aware of that. Some words are interchangeable, but others aren't. An objective, for example, isn't a target. That's why legislation must be concise.

With respect to the committee, the benefits of selecting members based on specific criteria related to their profile, training and expertise have been demonstrated. That's the important thing. This is about significant and multi‑disciplinary skills and experience in the fight against climate change. Don't think that, in our view, only scientists should be on this committee. That isn't our position. However, many members should have that profile. It should be noted that the fight against climate change has involved experts and specialists from many disciplines, including applied sciences. Nevertheless, there are also economists, specialists in public policy development, experts in green finance and green taxation, and so on.

Moreover, part (b) states as follows:(b) at least one member must be a health expert with experience relevant to the committee's mandate;

We want the committee to include a person who has relevant experience. This seems responsible and logical. Why is that so? As you know, since I've been doing environmental work, I've always put health and the environment side by side. This issue is still very important to me. I won't ignore it today. I share the opinion of thousands of physicians in Quebec and Canada. This includes one person who came to speak to the committee. Doctors in other parts of the world are calling for legislation that will protect the physical and mental health of the public.

I want to remind you that, according to Health Canada, the cost of pollution‑related health issues accounts for 6% of Canada's gross domestic product, which is quite significant. If we believe in our institutions [Technical difficulty—Editor] think about that in our deliberations. I also want to remind the committee members that a person who came to speak on behalf of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment as part of this study said that medical expertise must be included in this committee.

I'll give you the example of the United Kingdom, where a similar committee requires that six of the nine members, or 67% of committee members, have a scientific background. In France, 11 out of 13 members, or 85% of committee members, have a scientific background. In New Zealand, as noted earlier, two out of six members, or 33% of committee members, have a scientific background. In Quebec, nine out of 12 members, or 75% of committee members, have a scientific background. In terms of Canada, the minister announced—this winter, I believe—that the proportion would be one in 14, or 7% of committee members. The government, through various ministers, parliamentary secretaries and members of Parliament, has said countless times that we must rely on science and that it would listen to scientists.

Well, I want to tell you that it's time to keep this promise and that you'll have the opportunity to do so by voting in favour of amendment BQ‑23.

Thank you.