Evidence of meeting #25 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vehicles.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Yes. According to the current wording, agreements automatically expire after five years, but you can also terminate an agreement with three months' notice. This provision remains in the act, despite the proposed changes, so that doesn't change.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Shouldn't it be specified that either party could put an end to it?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
I'll just take a look at the act's current wording to answer the question.
The current act says: “l'accord prend fin sur préavis de trois mois”. In English, it says that the notice may be given “by either party”. So either party can do it.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Okay. So each party can do it.
Is it clear that the agreement would end if it were no longer equivalent?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
In the section that talks about why you can enter into equivalency agreements, the only change in the test is that “provisions that are equivalent” become “provisions that are equivalent in effect”.
I'm going to switch to English. I'm sorry.
The agreements will likely include provisions that speak to the maintenance of equivalency over the life of the agreement, and they will likely include review provisions by either party to ensure that the requirements of the act may continue.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
What difference does it make to write “provisions that are equivalent in effect” instead of “provisions that are equivalent”?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
It doesn't change anything. For agreements that have already come into force, this test has already been used. That's the test in the Fisheries Act as well. So we just wanted to codify the current practice.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Would there be any downside to specifying in the wording that the agreements would end as soon as they were no longer equivalent? You say it would be in the agreement, but why not specify it in the act itself?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
I can't speak to the policy behind that or whether that would be a good idea. It's up to the government to decide whether that's something that should be changed. However, the act states quite clearly that this is the test for having an equivalency agreement. So I don't know if it will change much.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
I want to go back to something. The minister mentioned that the Alberta‑Canada agreement would strengthen the fight against climate change and further reduce emissions. That is a key element in the budget. At least, the climate competitiveness strategy is.
Do you have any documentation on the agreement that shows how it will affect the country's greenhouse gas reduction forecasts?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch, Department of the Environment
At the moment, we're not about to be able to quantify the impact of this agreement on emissions, particularly because we still need to have discussions and reach specific agreements. We know that there are a few areas where Alberta's agreements would be very important. For example, the fact that it has agreed to participate in—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
Thank you.
I have a little note before we go to the next member.
When you're speaking into the mic, you don't need to push the button on or off. Staff here will do it for you automatically.
Mrs. Anstey, the floor is yours for five minutes.
Conservative
Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL
Thank you, Chair.
Given that the minister appeared, and we were all very disappointed that she didn't answer any questions with respect to the hypocrisy in the plastics policy, I'd like to move a notice of motion:
That the committee undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), of at least two meetings, on the federal government's plastic manufacturing policy, specifically that Canada will permit the manufacturing of straws and other plastic goods in Canada but only for export to the United States; that the committee invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and any other witnesses appropriate to this study to appear before it; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
Chair, it's obvious that there's a glaring contradiction, and we'd like answers, especially given that we've been pretty focused on a food affordability crisis that we think is a Canadian-made crisis. We know that alternative products are more expensive right now. We don't understand why these products are deemed illegal as soon as they go across the border. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Therefore, we think it would be important to get answers to these questions.
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I have a point of order.
I always have Mr. Leslie's voice in my head. Unfortunately, he's not here today—not physically, but virtually. I just want to remind members that I believe we have only 22 days left from now until June. Time is limited, and we have some other important studies.
I'm struggling a little with the relevance of the motion. We would like to take a moment and suspend, though, just to review, and then come back in a few minutes, please.
Liberal
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Chair, before we resume debate, I don't think we have much time, so I'm just wondering if everybody around the table is okay with dismissing the witnesses. I don't think we're going to get back to them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
Just to get a clearer understanding, there's really no debate because....
Liberal
Liberal
The Clerk
No, we can't, unless there's unanimous consent of the committee to debate the motion.
Ms. Anstey has not moved a motion, nor has she requested to move a motion. She has given oral notice.
Conservative