Environment Committee on April 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, colleagues. To begin, I would like to welcome some members who are here to replace regular members of the committee: Mr. Simard is replacing Ms. Pauzé, Mr. Généreux is replacing Mr. Deltell and Mr. Garrison is replacing Ms. Collins, although she may be joining us by videoconference later.

Before we begin, I'm sure you're aware that the House has instituted some new rules to prevent injury to interpreters caused by feedback. You'll have noticed that there are round stickers in front of you. These are not coasters, and they are there to indicate where to put your earpiece when you're not using it, so that it's at a minimum distance from the microphone, which will then avoid feedback.

I will briefly read you some information about these new rules.

I'd like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important measures to prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries. All in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting, so when you come into the room, the earpieces will not be plugged in. You'll have to plug them in at the start of the meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose that you will find on the table as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

This is the new procedure to avoid accidents that could harm interpreters.

Before we begin, I have a few things to mention.

First, we are about to begin our study on the financial system and climate change. In the motion establishing this study, it says that the committee wishes to invite co‑operatives to testify. However, no co‑op has been suggested for the witness list, so I would ask each party to send the clerk their suggestions, prioritized as usual, to make the task of inviting witnesses a little easier.

Second, you'll recall that Ms. Collins had a motion adopted by the committee to invite the CEOs of Canadian oil companies.

I see that Ms. Collins is online. Has she done the required sound test?

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

She seems to be having technical difficulties, but Mr. Garrison is here in her place. I think he would like to amend the motion that Ms. Collins passed on April 11.

Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, Ms. Collins had a headset failure, and we drove one from my constituency office to her. While she's doing that, on her behalf, I would like to move the following motion, which I believe there have been discussions among the parties to support. That motion is:

That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 11, 2024, Mr. Rich Kruger, CEO of Suncor Energy Inc., Mr. Brad Corson, CEO of Imperial Oil Ltd., Mr. Jon McKenzie, CEO of Cenovus Energy Inc., Mrs. Susannah Pierce, president and country chair of Shell Canada Limited and vice-president of Emerging Energy Solutions, and Mr. Greg Ebel, CEO of Enbridge Inc. be invited to appear on Thursday, May 23, 2024 and no later than Thursday, June 6, 2024.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There's unanimous consent around this, so I'll declare it adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Now, we move on to other business, which is the business on today's agenda.

Yes, MP Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

For clarification, do we have to stop early today because of votes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The vote is at 5:45. We'll stop whenever we have to stop, but I believe it's 5:45. The bells are at 5:15.

Now, we'll go to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-317.

I believe Mr. Longfield has a motion.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, Chair.

It's not a reflection on your job as chair, but since this is your bill, I would move that during consideration of Bill C-317, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, John Aldag be designated as acting chair of the committee.

Mr. Aldag is here, a former member of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I imagine there is all-party agreement.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Aldag, I invite you to come and take the gavel here.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for the opportunity to come and join your committee today. I sat on the environment committee back in the 42nd Parliament. It's always a pleasure to come back and visit you.

Today, we are going to be studying Bill C-317.

We have witnesses today from the Department of the Environment who will be available to answer questions. At the very back of the room, with this new set-up, we have Wayne Jenkinson, executive director of national hydrological services; and Stephanie Lane, executive director of legislative governance. Welcome to both of you.

We will now go to the clause-by-clause review of the bill.

I have some notes I'll go through before we get into it. The instructions that I'll give you before we start clause-by-clause on Bill C-317 are as follows.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open to debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly, to allow all members to follow the proceedings accordingly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Are there any questions? Are we ready to start? Okay.

Before we start, I will ask if we want to have recorded votes for each of the pieces. That's standard procedure, I believe. We'll do recorded votes as we move through the bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and of the preamble is postponed. I will call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

On clause 2, there is amendment G-1, moved by Mr. van Koeverden.

Do you want to speak to it?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

If there is debate, sure, but if not, then I'm happy to move on.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

Does anybody have any debate on the first amendment, G-1?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Next up we have CPC-1.

Mr. Mazier, you put this one forward. Would you like to move it?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Would you like to speak to it, or are you ready to go into the debate?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

It is simply clarifying that there will be no new spending to obtain this legislation.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Kram.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for taking time out of your busy day to join us today.

When I read this bill, I found it to be a bit ambiguous in terms of whether or not it would authorize new spending. In the absence of this amendment, we would not want to have this bill ruled out of order for lack of a royal recommendation.

For that reason, I strongly support this particular amendment, and I encourage everyone to vote in favour of it.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Collins, I have you next.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm thinking about a previous bill we studied, around a national strategy on environmental racism. We didn't add a clause like this. It seems redundant, because we know that private members' business would require royal assent if it had new spending in it. Given the precedent with the national strategy on environmental racism bill, it seems like this might be unnecessary.

Do we have any officials who could answer that question?

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Go ahead.

[Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment]

Thank you for the question.

As the member noted, royal recommendation would be required for any new spending. This motion, as I understand it, is really just providing a “for greater certainty” provision, but it hasn't been added to other bills similar to this one, as you've noted, so it isn't strictly necessary from the perspective of ensuring that there is no spending associated with a private member's bill.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have a speaking list, so I'll go to Mr. van Koeverden first and then come back to Mr. Mazier.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to have you at the environment committee.

I was going to say precisely what my colleague, the member of Parliament for Victoria, said, that all private members' bills would require a royal recommendation in order to include new spending, and this one is no different from any other private member's bill. I've never seen a private member's bill with a specific inclusion of the rules around PMB. I think it's a frivolous clause. I don't think it's necessary. It doesn't add or subtract anything, so I don't think we need it.