Finance Committee on May 23rd, 2018

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

I guess it comes down to the way you have a system set up. Is it to name and shame or is it to bring compliance? I'm still not convinced, although I do appreciate the member at least giving an explanation as to why he feels that would be helpful to the citizens of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, the amendment is up for a vote.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll turn to NDP-12, and I'll point out that if NDP-12 and NDP-13 are both adopted, the committee should vote against clause 188, since clause 188 of the bill refers to “section 107 and section 255(3)” of the bill that would have been deleted by the adoption of NDP-12 and NDP-13.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We must read amendments NDP-12 and NDP-13 together, as well as amendments NDP-14 and NDP-15.

Amendment NDP-12 is intended to ensure greater transparency in the carbon pricing regime and to ensure that as much information as possible can be obtained under the Access to Information Act. The changes proposed in amendment NDP-12 arise from the fact that, in the first place, section 107 is being deleted in its entirety.

That is the essence of the amendment. The goal is to increase transparency in the application of the regime and to provide greater access to information under the Access to Information Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I raise these same reasons why I voted against NDP-11 introduced by my hon. colleague. I think the changes proposed in this amendment are unnecessary because they are already part of the provisions set out in Part 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll vote on NDP-12.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I know I'm exercising the patience of this committee, but I have provided to the clerk some amendments that I would like to present. I don't know if this has been distributed to all members yet, in both languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, I believe everybody has a copy.

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I could ask everybody to turn to page 315, we're on clause 186, at proposed subsection 166(3).

It currently reads:

In making a regulation under subsection (2), the Governor in Council may take into account any factor that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, including the stringency of provincial pricing mechanisms for greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to remove lines 21 to 23 in the English and lines 22 and 23 in the French, and to replace them with the text that members have before them.

The amendment modifies Bill C-74 in clause 186, lines 21 to23 on page 315. It is intended to replace the part that reads “the Governor in Council may take into account any factor that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, including the stringency of provincial pricing systems mechanisms” and to replace it with “the Governor in Council shall take into account, as the primary factor, the stringency of provincial pricing mechanisms”, and then it continues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, I'm clear and we got it on the record correctly. This is the amendment, that Bill C-74, clause 186, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23—this is in English—on page 315— with the following:

Governor in Council shall take into account as the primary factor the stringency of provincial pricing mechanisms

Are we all clear on which one we're dealing with?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Exactly. It's virtually the same in French.

The lines concerned would say:

Governor in Council shall take into account, as the primary factor, the stringency of provincial pricing mechanisms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. The motion is in order and is on the floor. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

My understanding from my colleague's explanations is that this is intended to make the stringency of provincial greenhouse gas pricing systems the primary factor, rather than simply considering any factor, including stringency. Let's be clear: we want to focus on the stringency of provincial systems first and foremost.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Indeed, we want to clarify and make more explicit the objective of the bill, and to focus on the issue of pollution and pollution pricing.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I don't know if the officials who are here can answer my question, but I'm curious as to who is going to do the stringency assessment of provincial systems and what the criteria are for assessing the stringency of a provincial system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

Mr. Chair, the amendment, as Mr. Fergus indicated, is a clarification of the government's policy intent. It has been articulated in a series of documents that are public, starting with the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution. That's the document that sets out the basic test or criteria the federal government will use to determine or assess the provincial and territorial pricing systems.

As the amendment suggests, the core of that test is stringency. Recognizing that there are different kinds of pricing systems, some that have an explicit price and some that work by means of imposing a cap or performance standard that in turn translates into a market price, the document describes the way in which stringency will be assessed for both types of systems.

That test was then elaborated in a guidance document that was published in mid-2017, in a supplemental guidance published later in 2017, then in a letter from ministers Morneau and McKenna to their provincial counterparts sent in December 2017, and also on the web. Most recently, it was outlined in a letter from our deputy minister of environment and climate change to his counterparts on May 4, also available publicly.

Those documents provide clarification about the way in which the government will interpret this concept of stringency. It relates to the explicit price or the nature of the cap or standard that's set by the pricing system, depending on the nature of the system that's in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Mr. Albas.

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

I notice that the term used here is “as the primary factor”. This means the Governor in Council's main purpose will be to look at stringency, not equivalency.

Is that correct?

[John Moffet]

That's correct.

The primary focus of the decision would be the stringency, as interpreted by the documents I just referred to of the various provincial systems. That is the basis for assessing whether the provincial systems meet the federal standard, and in turn whether there is a sound basis for making a decision to apply the federal system in that jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Moffet, I'm asking about the equivalency because the former premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, challenged the federal government in Vancouver on the equivalency between a cap-and-trade system and a simple carbon tax, as is used in British Columbia. I know we're talking about something different.

Usually under parliamentary practice, when something is not defined, you take its common usage as in the Oxford dictionary or whatnot. There is no definition for stringency in this act.

Is that correct?

[John Moffet]

That's correct.

The act does not define stringency. I would add that when interpreting legislation, a consistent record of policy that's been articulated and made public would be an appropriate reference point.

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

The functional purpose of this amendment is to make the primary factor stringency, which usually means the effectiveness or strength of a particular measure. To me, this would then be used by the government to determine whether or not a province is following through with its commitments under the pan-Canadian climate change agreement.

That's the purpose of this. Is that true?