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.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, that's correct.
Ms. Pauzé, you may go ahead. We are on amendment CPC‑17.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by setting the committee straight on something. Yesterday, in question period, I asked Mr. Wilkinson, the minister, about the lack of targets, and this is what he had to say:
It saddens me that the Bloc Québécois tried so hard to prevent the committee from moving forward. If we want Bill C-12 to pass to contribute to the fight against climate change, we hope the Bloc Québécois will support us on that.
If there is one thing I cannot be accused of, it is preventing the committee from moving forward. I was flabbergasted to hear such a thing. I usually wait a long time before I get to speak, and I respect the order of speakers.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I think the Bloc Québécois has done its job. Neither Ms. Michaud nor I has ever abused our parliamentary privileges. In fact, I would say we have helped facilitate the bill and move it forward.
That is why I was so stunned. As a member of this committee, I work diligently and purposefully, with respect for procedure and the work of other members. Forgive me, but it feels good to get that out.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I understand. Your comments are duly noted and are now part of the record.
Did you want to speak to amendment CPC‑17?
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
When Mr. Albas put forward amendment CPC‑17, the interpreter did a lovely job of rendering his comments, saying that the process had been truncated. I want to say I agree with Mr. Albas. Ms. May alluded to the same.
At one point, I attended the press conference on the green new deal, along with former NDP member Pierre Nantel and members from just about every party represented in the House. As I see it, the NDP betrayed the ideals it espoused back then by allowing a bill with no teeth and no guts to pass. A much stronger piece of legislation is needed to address the climate emergency we face.
In my riding of Repentigny, people are not allowed to water their lawns. I am not talking about a ban between certain times of the day. It is banned any time of the day because it's a drinking water issue. That is what you do in a climate emergency. I just wanted to add to what Mr. Albas said about the process being truncated. Nevertheless, there are still some good amendments that would help remedy the problem.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
All right.
Seeing no more hands up, I now call the vote.
I want to point out, however, that, if amendment CPC‑17 is adopted—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I just assumed you would go to me right afterwards.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You're absolutely right, I apologize. I didn't see the hand, but you are next.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll just remind everyone, because there may be people tuning in today who haven't had the opportunity to hear some of the Conservative amendments, this one, Mr. Chair, has to do directly with Bill C-12 in regard to the advisory body.
The government has set up one minister to basically appoint all 15 members. We've already seen the minister, before even passing Bill C-12, come forward with a list of names. It's almost like he doesn't need to bear witness to what Parliament says. I am hoping that after Matt Jeneroux's great opening salvo on the reason why we need to change the approach taken by the government here, this particular amendment would be welcomed by all parties.
Again, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce really liked this concept, as did the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. If we really want to see more independence of the board, where it can act and have a diversity of skill and insight, then by giving, for example, six to the Minister of the Environment, three positions on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, three on the recommendation on the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and three on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, and having each minister I've named present who they believe should be on the board, you will end up with a stronger board and more of a sense of independence because it's not all at the behest of one minister. As I've said many times, Mr. Chair, it's an “all hands on deck” approach.
Again, we didn't have any indigenous witnesses. This would make sure that, through the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, that would happen, and there would be serious involvement in this particular body.
I just ask all honourable members to support this. This would be a beneficial change. I think it would be welcomed by many.
We'll let it go to a vote, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7, yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We go now to BQ-21, which I unfortunately have to rule inadmissible. I will tell you—
5 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
The amendment is admissible, but “independent expert committee” has to change to reflect what was adopted. Is that correct?
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I need to change what comes after “The House of Commons appoints the members of the” to “Net-Zero Advisory Body”.
Instead of the Governor in Council appointing the members of the [Technical difficulty—Editor] body, we are proposing that they be appointed on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We are a committee of elected representatives, and it should be our role to evaluate candidates and determine who the best people for the job are in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
It is possible to strike a balance. The amendment is consistent with many democratic processes as well as political representation. This way, the House would be giving the committee greater legitimacy and independence than if members were simply appointed by the government. The important thing here is ensuring impartiality. That's what this is about.
Mr. Albas talked a lot about the Governor in Council. Almost all of his party's amendments address the role of the Governor in Council. At our last meeting, Mr. Albas talked about the importance of a plurality of opinions and expertise. I don't always agree with him on the role the Governor in Council should have, but his preference for a collegial approach is fine by me, even if we don't see the issue the same way.
My amendment proposes that the members of the advisory body be selected on the basis of a process that is not solely controlled by the government. The amendment may address Mr. Albas's concerns. Entrusting a standing committee of the House of Commons with recommending the members of the body responsible for addressing climate change issues is the best way to ensure that the body's makeup is fair and representative. The various political parties are represented here, on the committee. We are all democratically elected, and the environment committee should submit its recommendations to the House of Commons for the collective endorsement of all members.
In conclusion, this amendment is consistent with the principles of transparency and democracy. It sets out a transparent process, one that recognizes the value of all members of the House, ensures all of Canada's regions are fairly represented and leaves room for the expertise sought by each party. This exercise in democracy is crucial given the important role the advisory body will have.
I'll give you an example. The chair of the United Kingdom's Climate Change Committee was selected this way. The various legislatures within the country selected the chair in a collegial manner. The decision was consensus-based, despite the different political parties and regions involved. I would like to see members support this transparent and democratic process, including the members of the Conservative Party, who argued extensively in favour of democratic governance on Friday.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We are going to suspend in three minutes for voting.
Unfortunately, the amendment is inadmissible, and I'll explain why.
Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-12 provides that the members of the advisory body will be appointed by the Governor in Council, based on the recommendation of the minister, and that the Governor in Council will fix the members’ remuneration. Amendment BQ-21 attempts to give the responsibility of appointing the members of the advisory body to the House of Commons, based on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
Because the amendment seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation, it is, in my view, inadmissible.
That's my ruling, and I think it makes sense based on House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition.
We only have about a minute. We're going to be going now to—
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will proceed with the vote, and no debate is allowed, Ms. Pauzé.
If I'm not mistaken, Ms. Thivierge, the ruling cannot be challenged and the committee must proceed to a vote immediately. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, you may, but the committee cannot discuss it. You may appeal my ruling, and then, the committee must vote on your wish to overturn my ruling. We will now proceed with a recorded vote.
Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The decision survives.
Why don't we break, and as soon as the Speaker reads the result of the vote, let's hop back on. I don't think we need to do a sound check or anything, so we'll pick up right where we left off.
When we come back we'll look at CPC-18.
I'll see everyone as soon as the Speaker announces the result of the vote. Thank you.