Evidence of meeting #145 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Interim Commissioner, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Thank you for the question.
Once again, that continues to be part of the ongoing consultations that are taking place between the Department of Finance and the provinces, so those decisions haven't been made available to us.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
In cases of fraud or damages, will it be possible to bring a lawsuit or a class-action suit against a financial technology company under the Civil Code or Quebec's Consumer Protection Act?
11:45 a.m.
Interim Commissioner, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Thank you for the question.
Once again, those details of the policies and the legislation are under the purview of the Department of Finance.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We are out of time, but thank you, MP Ste-Marie.
Now we will go to MP Davies for the next six minutes.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Professor Elgie, what specific constitutional powers allow the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
There are a number of different ones. One of the two main ones would be the power over matters of criminal law, and that's what underlies the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Most of the climate regulations that have come in have been brought in under the criminal law power, including back in the Harper years.
As of the 2021 decision on the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the federal government also has some authority under the “Peace, Order, and good Government” power of the Constitution—and that's the one I'm speaking mainly to for this act—particularly, as the court said, to deal with “serious” cross-border pollution. That's the main authority that arises under peace, order and good government. I would add I've been speaking with a number of constitutional law professors and experts, and there's general agreement on that point.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
You wrote in an op-ed last October the following:
Over the past few days, the Alberta and Saskatchewan premiers and some western leaders have gleefully declared that the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision about the federal Impact Assessment Act...has curtailed federal power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact, the court did no such thing.
In your view, why are the Alberta and Saskatchewan premiers incorrect to suggest that decision “curtailed federal power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions”?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
I don't want to disagree with what I said in the op-ed. I'll try to remember.
Really, it goes to the two powers. In terms of the criminal law power, which is the basis of most federal climate regulation, the court didn't deal with that power at all. In fact, it reiterated 30 years of constitutional jurisprudence, underscoring the fact the federal government has broad authority over the environment, particularly over cross-border matters. That was the purpose of that op-ed: to say the foundation of federal authority over climate, and the environment in general, is still strong.
However, as I said, the Supreme Court two years ago reiterated and upheld the federal carbon pricing law and specifically said the federal government has authority over serious pollution problems that cross borders. Really, all the court said in this act was that you've defined cross-border environmental pollution too broadly. You can't deal with just minimal problems or problems that are primarily local in nature. You have to deal with, as the court said, examples of pollution that are serious issues and have serious cross-border impacts. That's what they've done for water. They just haven't done it for air pollution or climate change, which is surprising.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I was going to ask if the federal government did not have the power to regulate this area. Let's say you had a project in one province that was contributing extensive cross-border pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, who would be able to regulate it if the federal government couldn't?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Provinces are able to regulate emissions that occur in their province, but what they're unable to do is deal with impacts that occur outside their province.
Similarly, if there's a large project in the U.S., air generally flows west and north in Canada, so if you're in Quebec, northern Canada or the Maritimes, most of the pollution you're getting, or much of it, is coming from upstream. It's coming from the U.S. Midwest. It's coming from Ontario. It's well documented, the phenomenon called the grasshopper effect, where persistent organic pollutants, toxins, make their way up to the Arctic. You actually find toxic substances in the body tissues of people in the north that are higher than those in the south because the air pollution generally moves east and moves north. Quebec, the north and the Maritimes, particularly, are upwind and are affected by these problems.
They are unable to deal with the upwind or upstream causes of pollution. Pollution crosses borders. It doesn't stop. That's a core role of the federal government and it has been since the early 1970s. The feds passed the first Clean Air Act in 1971. This is an area they have occupied for over 50 years, and we need them to continue to do so.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
If we get to the crux of the matter, it appears that, in response to a Supreme Court decision, what the federal government has done is that it has overreacted and is too cautious in exercising its jurisdiction, such that this legislation would not allow the federal government to regulate cross-border greenhouse gas emissions.
Is that in a nub the issue we're dealing with here?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Gas emissions...that's right. That's the nub of the problem. To be fair, the federal government has brought in a number of strong climate laws in the last seven years. It actually has a pretty good track record. We have probably done more in the last seven years than we did in the previous 30, so there's a lot of good progress being made on tackling climate change and building a clean economy. However, more needs to be done in this bill.
This is the foundational bill that deals with major development projects and looks at the overall environmental impacts. We're missing a really important piece of the puzzle when we do those assessments. If you're not looking at the air pollution and you're not looking at the climate impacts, it's like missing an important part of a painting when you're staring at it.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
In your view, how can that problem be addressed before Bill C-69 is passed into law?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
I am not an expert. I'm not an expert on how difficult it is to amend a budget implementation act. I have never been involved in doing that before.
I would certainly say that it would be important to amend this to fix this sooner rather than later, before major projects go forward. I will leave it to the committee to decide what to do. Certainly, at the very least it would be nice to see a very strong recommendation coming out of the committee, but I'm not an expert in the challenges of amending a budget implementation act.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Davies. We have reached the time.
We are going into our second round. We don't have a lot of time left, so what we're going to do is provide two to a maximum of three minutes per party to ask questions.
We're starting with MP Chambers for the first two to three minutes.
May 31st, 2024 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Yetman, the Canadian Teachers' Federation launched a campaign to support a school food program in March. I don't have a lot of time here, so just give brief answers if you may.
Were you made aware before the budget came down that the school food program was going to be included in the budget?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Okay. Thank you.
In the 2021 election, the Canadian Teachers' Federation was a registered third party and spent about $33,000 on advertising during the election. Do you recall what those ads were in relation to?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
In the 2021 federal election, the most recent federal election, about $33,000 was spent on advertising during the election.
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian Teachers' Federation
I'm not aware of it. I wasn't president at that time. I would have to look into it.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Okay. It's not necessary to look into it.
Do you anticipate that you will be registered as a third party to advertise in the next federal election?
11:55 a.m.
President, Canadian Teachers' Federation
At this moment...no. That's a decision that's made by the board of directors, and at this moment we haven't spoken about the election for 2025.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Okay.
Do you believe it's appropriate for third parties to endorse political parties during an election?