:
I call this meeting to order.
Before we pick up where we left off, I just have a couple of very quick items to deal with.
At the last meeting, Ms. May raised a point about whether the motion that allows independent members to present amendments would allow her to speak to a motion of an independent member that is deemed inadmissible, and I said I would get that to her and members of the committee. I read the motion closely and discussed it with the legislative clerk. I don't have that interpretation and I'll mention why.
If you look at the motion, in part (b) about amendments from independent members, it says they “shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration”, so I take that to mean during the process and following the process that every member is part of.
I don't see it as being that the minute that the amendment is sent into the clerk, the independent member can speak to it even if it's inadmissible. Also, it doesn't make sense to me because that would mean that all members would be able to speak to their inadmissible motions.
:
I am a Green Party member of Parliament.
I had thought, Mr. Chair, that the third part of the motion is quite affirmative that each member is allowed to speak.
I understand your ruling. I'm not challenging you, and I know we are rather pressed for time, but in previous committees at which I have been appearing since this motion was first brought forward under the fiction that each committee chose to draft a motion that was identical to everyone else's motion, I've been allowed to speak to each of my amendments deemed to have been put forward.
I don't mean to trespass on your time any further if you want to finish what you were going to say, Mr. Chair.
:
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to briefly comment on this.
I've already raised many of the points specific to the amendments that Ms. May placed earlier, which you ruled inadmissible, so I won't go to that. I will talk about the future process.
As MP May referenced, she has gone to other committees and had different experiences. I don't want to undermine anyone's credibility, whether it be yourself or the law clerk, because I do believe that we're all trying to work together in good faith. One thing I would consider, Mr. Chair, is that I know there is a committee of all the chairs of committees, and this is something that perhaps you might want to bring three, because to have inconsistent rulings where you're making a judgment call and someone else is making a judgment call....
Perhaps the different House leaders who make these motions, compelling independent or non-recognized party members such as MP May to come to this process only to find out that she's not even able to speak in favour of it or to challenge a position.... To me, it's a principle of natural justice that if a ruling is given against your amendment, you would be able to speak to it.
Just for the sake of consistency, I would encourage you, Mr. Chair, to perhaps discuss this with other chairs and perhaps discuss it with the different House leaders, so that if a motion does come forward again perhaps there can be some clarity as to the admissibility or the ability of an independent or a non-recognized party member to be able to speak to it.
I believe that fundamentally we should be able to make reference to it, and it shouldn't be up to a member to make arguments on behalf of another member's rights. Those rights and privileges are something that we all should be looking out for in these kinds of cases.
I would ask you, Mr. Chair, just in the spirit of trying to make for a better process next time, to take this to your fellow chairs and discuss it perhaps with your—
:
Mr. Chair, before you seek unanimous consent, although I imagine you can ask for someone to do that, one of the things that I and other Conservative members have been arguing, and quite frankly, that I've also heard from MP May, is that this process has been rather—what's the word I'm looking for?—compressed. There has not been sufficient time to review and have proper discussion about these things.
Rather than have someone ask for unanimous consent and for us to deny it, right now, I'm a person who believes in good governance, but I also think there is a principle here. The Liberal members have been jamming and basically opposing any other amendments. The process, in this case, hasn't been clean. This is just another example of having to bend over backwards and to ask things that are outside the usual process because things were not followed.
Rather than asking for unanimous consent and us just saying no, I ask you to maybe leave it with us for a bit. My understanding is that we have a very long session today. Perhaps we can deal with it after we have a break, so that I can speak with my other members to see if they want to allow that.
:
I want to respond to that very quickly.
It's ironic that Mr. Albas is saying that this matter has been compressed. This is a very short bill, yet we are many hours into this process and the Conservatives are slow-walking this bill. Having originally supported it, now they're against it. Maybe they'll support it yet again. We don't know. They're going to consult.
They're even dragging on an issue of whether to correct the French language in this bill on a minor point. To say that this is compressed is interesting, given the amount of time, including the amount of time that Mr. Albas has spent already in this meeting on a couple of very minor points.
It's interesting. It's ironic. I will stop.
In the past, I know that the members of this party have asked for unanimous consent to change a vote because they perhaps weren't paying attention. That's acceptable from the rest of the House, but it's denied in these particular cases for Mr. Albas if it will delay this process even more. It's rather unfortunate. I want to point that out. Thank you.
Look, when we have a vote in the House of Commons and someone incorrectly hits yea or nay when they were supposed to vote for the opposite and then begs for the House to allow them to change it—because that's the process that's been laid out—that cuts both ways. That's applicable to all parties. That's to make sure that those members of Parliament can actually represent their constituents properly and have their vote accounted for. In a minority Parliament, I would hope that all members would realize that this is a fair process.
When it comes to raising concerns around the process, we had 72 briefs—plus—that came in afterwards. Through no fault of the legislative clerk, these things had to be translated so that all members, regardless of their language, would be able to read them in their preferred official language.
That was compromised because, Mr. Chair, we ended up having to submit amendments. Like all parties, we submitted our work, and the fact—
We had similar amendments the other day, in order to ensure that we have more frequent assessment reports. As noted, we now have a number of amendments that mean that the first part of my amendment that “the Minister must prepare at least two assessment reports before 2030” will appear to have been covered.
The critical last part of this amendment is, “and at least one assessment report per year between 2030 and 2050.” This is an attempt, of course, to fortify a bill that doesn't have carbon budgets in it, so annual reports will assist in remedying that deficiency.
Thank you. Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you for the question.
This question actually pertains to whether the bill should include, on an annual basis, the issuance of an assessment report. The importance of this would be, as Mr. Albas indicated, that due to the collection and the provision of data from Statistics Canada as well as from stakeholders, there's usually 18 months between that particular year and the year we could actually assemble the national inventory report.
That being said, I think it is important to take into account the following facts. In terms of Bill , which is the net-zero emissions accountability act, currently there is the annual projections report that provides information to Canadians as well as shares internationally whether Canada is on track with a particular greenhouse gas emissions target. Of course, for the past few years, the reporting has been on 2030. Every year, the national inventory report, although with an 18-month data lag, also identified the state of play in terms of Canada's emissions level.
I want to reassure Canadians. If they want to know, with a particular milestone, that we are on track, based on empirical data from past years' emissions levels, those reports will be able to provide a very clear picture.
I will leave it to the committee to determine whether that amendment is appropriate or necessary. I think that will be my answer.
:
Mr. Chair, I'll finish my intervention today by thanking both officials for clarifying things for me. I know these questions can be difficult, because I struggle with them when stakeholders ask me whether or not this law applies to things under provincial jurisdiction. It wasn't entirely clear.
The government obviously felt that Bill needed this amendment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be putting it forward. That being said, I believe that by allowing the minister—instead of having a whole-of-government approach—to arbitrarily pick which key examples will be selected.... Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Maybe showing some positive examples could be good. However, it could be a punitive tool whereby you showcase provincial or territorial governments that are aligned with the government of the day, or municipalities it will perhaps want to recruit new candidates from to put them on a bit of a pedestal so the candidates can have a good news story. I think that having one minister make these decisions, rather than having a whole-of-government approach, doesn't make a lot of sense. As we know, much of the reporting is already being done right now through the pan-Canadian framework, and there is regular reporting.
This is too arbitrary and, again, doesn't necessarily add to the bill, so the Conservatives will be voting against it. However, if any of my Conservative colleagues want to ask a question or raise a concern, they should, because we do think that provinces are a key area here. We would like to see further reporting on the summaries of what provinces are doing, but not in an arbitrary, politically driven process.
I'm going to move CPC‑14, and I'll just read it into the record here. It's that Bill , in clause 15, be amended by adding, after line 21 on page 6, the following:
(a.1) a summary of the measures undertaken by the governments of the provinces to contribute to Canada's efforts to achieve the national greenhouse gas emissions target for that year and of their impacts on those efforts;
This kind of carries on with what we were just speaking about, and I think it expands upon it quite nicely.
The government has already proposed in G‑11, and just now in G‑12, that we would add some key co-operative measures or agreements with the provinces. It's very critical that we have provincial buy-in to the plan. That's why I'd like to propose this amendment, to deepen this a little bit more.
Ultimately, the vast majority of the reductions that are going to occur in Canada are going to come from measures that are under provincial jurisdiction. It's the provinces that control our natural resources and our electrical grids, and they also regulate a large portion of the transportation industry. We absolutely need the provinces on board or this isn't going to work.
Now, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, which have tended to be more combative with the provincial governments in Canada, Conservatives believe that we need to work together with the provinces. For example, under Liberals, we've seen lawsuits, such as the carbon tax lawsuit we recently saw, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. It tied up a lot of time and energy and created some animosity between governments. We don't want to do that. We want to be more co-operative.
Also, I think it's the people on the ground who know what they need to do to reduce emissions. They don't need Ottawa to tell them what to do. In Saskatchewan, for example, our environment has always been a very high priority, because our agricultural-based economy depends on a healthy environment.
I'll give you an example. For many years, I was involved in an agricultural company based in Saskatoon that brought a new innovation to farming, and it brought this new farming technique right into the mainstream. That technique was called “zero tillage”. In a nutshell, it's essentially allowing stubble to stand over the winter and then using an air seeder and air drill to seed directly into the stubble. Farmers are able to retain carbon in the ground and minimize fuel use by reducing the number of passes they have to take over the ground.
In Saskatchewan, when it comes to the environment, our farmers were doing what they should long before being told what they have to do.
We've heard testimony after testimony from pulse farmers, cattlemen, CAPP and the Chamber of Commerce about the need for provincial co-operation. I know that the federal government should work with the provinces, but the reality is that this act says very little about the provinces. In fact, it seems to me that it goes out of its way to avoid talking about the provinces. It seems that the government is being very careful to create a situation where it can work in isolation if it feels that it needs to. My fear, too, is that if we don't achieve our targets as set out in the legislation, then we're setting it up for finger pointing, where the federal government can accuse the provinces of not doing their part, because they weren't a part of this initially.
I believe that we need to modify this legislation and bring the provinces into this discussion in a more formal way. Instead of generating laws and fighting each other in court, the federal and provincial governments should be working together. This legislation should set the foundation for the provinces and the federal government to work together. It should set things up for a co-operative arrangement where everybody is pulling in the same direction.
I'll just end with a reference back to Ecojustice, from their joint submission to the committee. I believe it's one of the ones we didn't have a chance to hear from in testimony, but their submission called for regional and provincial jurisdiction to be respected. This amendment does exactly that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have just a couple of things I want to detail. Again, for those who are watching at home who may not have seen some of the previous amendments we have made, we think that, rather than giving all the ability to one minister, having some of the plans voted on by cabinet so that everyone can kind of break down silos and get a whole-of-government approach would make for a better bill.
We also believe that when Canadians think of their responsibility toward climate change, they think, “What is my government doing?”, whether it be federal, provincial or territorial.
Again, I just want to reinforce that the use of the term “provinces” here is a general term, so those in Nunavut, those in the Northwest Territories and those in Yukon can count themselves included in this particular amendment.
This is unlike the case of the previous amendment, in which the government—in that case, the individual minister designated, the —got to decide which provinces to feature. That's not an all-hands-on-deck approach, Mr. Chair.
Canada is built on federalism, such that we have a field house of different methods. In Quebec we have a cap-and-trade system being used. British Columbia obviously has its own carbon tax, and in other provinces, such as Ontario, they use a combination; they regulate their emissions from industrial bases and there is the federal carbon tax.
Mr. Chair, there are different approaches being undertaken by different governments. A great example would be the tier regulations in Alberta, the structure of which is very different from perhaps that of the output-based pricing system.
This particular amendment would allow for a snapshot, a summary of the situation in all provinces and not just in the ones the government or an individual minister favours. There would be a summary of those so that people could be educated as to what their federal leadership was doing as well as their provincial leadership. This does not in any way, shape or form disrupt or intervene in provincial jurisdiction, so for the Bloc Québécois—we have a representative from the Bloc here—if that is a concern, certainly this is just a summary. I'm sure the Bloc member would agree that if we are to communicate that all governments are taking the threat of climate change seriously, there does need to be a place where people can look for it. Again, it should not be done on an arbitrary basis as described in the previous motion.
I would encourage all members to vote in favour of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I think Canada can do more. Part of that is being fair and including everyone so that people will be better able to hold all levels of government—provincial, territorial or federal—to account on our climate change path.
Thank you.
:
Colleagues, appreciate that this is something I asked a number of different groups because, as we know thanks to Madam Pauzé, electrification is going to be an important step.
Our current electrical grid, as we know, is not sufficient. Even the uptake that people expect for electric vehicles, as was said during Madam Pauzé's study on electric vehicles, would require the equivalent of 7.5 Site Cs. Obviously, that's just the aggregate amount of energy. There could be many different sources for it, such as nuclear or hydro. There are so many new ways that people are utilizing electricity, from various renewables to high-efficiency natural gas.
Quite honestly, Mr. Chair, the need for this bill to reference the state of Canada's electrical grid is important. This is something that I'm asked about by constituents on a regular basis. They say, with all these new electric cars—and we all drive in at five o'clock or 5:30—when we all plug them in, how will that work? That's a great question, and one that provincial and territorial governments are going to have to wrestle with as we move forward with some of these adoptions of new technology and a new emphasis on things like electric vehicles. Obviously there have been some investments that we've seen in hydrogen, and that's a plus, but there are going to be increasing questions about electrical loads.
I asked a number of different groups who responded very positively that it would be helpful to have this. As you know, Mr. Chair, when you cross an interprovincial boundary or an international boundary, it is under the federal government's jurisdiction.
I'll read out the amendment, which is that Bill in clause 15 be amended by adding, after line 29 on page 6, the following:
(c.1) an assessment of electric grids in Canada and the steps needed to ensure that they can manage an increase in electricity demand due to transportation electrification;
Mr. Chair, we heard from the Canadian Electricity Association, and in their brief, they said they support the aim of Bill and believe that a clear and focused plan is essential for Canada's ability to achieve net zero by 2050, and that holding ourselves collectively accountable for meeting targets is important, but those targets must be matched with focused policy so that we can achieve them.
As I said earlier, one of the areas we are going to be looking to achieve in is further electrification. This would offer an update so that people can understand the grid. Again, it does not interfere with any provincial jurisdiction. What it does do, though, is create a summary, so that for the average citizen—all of our constituents—if they asked you the question, you could refer to that and give them an up-to-date answer.
This is part of good governance. This information is already publicly available to some extent, but nothing that I'm aware of actually includes it in a Government of Canada report. This would allow for greater transparency, which is one of the stated goals of Bill .
I would ask all honourable members to support the amendment, because we need to have a greater understanding of the state of our electrical grid. I think this would be welcomed by groups like the Canadian Electricity Association, knowing that this is going to be an area that a lot of money—a lot of potentially private investment as well as public investment—is going to be needed for us to achieve our goals of electrifying the transportation network and making Canada a greener and more environmentally friendly country as a whole.
Again, I would ask all honourable members to support this particular amendment. It's an easy one for the Liberals to support, because I think this is one of those good governance provisions that we all can rally behind.
Again, just to make sure that Madam Michaud knows I'm thinking of the Bloc and of their constant quest to make Quebec as strong a province as possible, this would not interfere with that. Hydro-Quebec is a very respected organization and does a lot of good work, both interprovincially as well as internationally. I would hope that the Bloc members would be supportive of that.
I know that I referenced Site C. I just would say to MP Bachrach that obviously the provincial government is supportive of Site C, but I hope that by utilizing Site C he did not mean that he would somehow tie himself to be voting in favour of 7.5 more Site Cs. It was just an example that I was using.
I hope to get every committee member to support this particular amendment to Bill today, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much.
I just want to comment a little further on this with some personal examples. In my prior life, I was an accountant. I guess I still am technically an accountant. I worked for many years, as I said, at a manufacturing company, and we measured a lot of things. It has been said previously in this committee that you manage what you measure.
A lot of what's we have discussed so far about this legislation has been focused on what we're doing to reduce greenhouse gases, and rightly so. The nice thing about this amendment is that it kind of forces us to look at balancing some of the pieces of this puzzle. If we focus on just one thing, we may miss some important details on other things. This is one of those very critical pieces of the puzzle.
We can, to use a simple example, force all of our vehicles to be electric, but if we don't have the charging capacity to deal with that, then we're actually not getting to where we want to go. That's what I like about this. It allows us to take a bit of a more balanced approach to some of the metrics we are watching, making sure that while we might achieve goals on this side of the fence, we've also achieved goals on the other side of the fence so that this whole thing is going to work when it's done. If we don't look at the whole picture, we could end up with something that isn't doable or functional at the end of the day. Ultimately that would let Canadians down, and they wouldn't be able to do the things they need to do if we do this wrong.
I have another example, just to further reinforce this. I live in a condo building in downtown Saskatoon. We have a three- or four-floor parkade. At the moment, we have just a couple of electric vehicles plugging into the power that's in that building. As more and more electric cars start showing up in our particular parkade, that's going to start causing stress to the electrical power grid that's coming into the building. I think it's fair to say that, at some point, we're going to have to add another trunk line coming into the building in order to handle the capacity there. If you look around—
:
I have just one additional point. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.
The federal government has made investments in Muskrat Falls, for example, because we know that is a key feature in that province's future. If you don't have energy, then it's difficult to industrialize in a way that is efficient and that can also reduce emissions. I know there are problems with that project, but that is all the more reason, to my mind, we should be giving a summary of our electrical grid.
Again, from Muskrat Falls to Site C to much of SaskPower's infrastructure, what we haven't discussed are the lines. Someone said to me that if Tesla came to Canada today—if he were alive—he would note that much of the technology we rely on for the transmission of power, whether between communities, within communities, between provinces or between countries, is very old. In fact, members have made many references to how they would like to see things like a smart grid that would be able to deal with many of the concerns about people plugging in their vehicles all at the same time.
There are ways we can deal with these things, Mr. Chair, but unfortunately if we just leave this as an issue, then we're going to see a patchwork. Quite honestly, Mr. Chair, I don't know about you, but in my riding people just refer to the government. They don't refer to the provincial government or the federal government. I know that's a distinction that we make, and we must make, because we believe—
:
I would say that most citizens right now, especially during COVID, are trying to make their lives work as best they can with all the different things that are going on.
I will tell you, because I share an office in Summerland with an MLA, a member of the Legislative Assembly, Dan Ashton, that we often have people who come in and don't know who they're supposed to speak to. Are they supposed to speak to their MLA or their MP? That's where we see this a lot, Mr. Chair.
Again, this is an area where we could give people that information in one summary, so I hope that all members will vote in favour of this. This is a good and particular amendment. This won't be difficult in terms of time.
I guess I could ask a question of the government representatives here, but you know what? I think I've made a pretty good case, Mr. Chair, so rather than prolonging this, I think I'll just let people vote for it.
Again, the only amendments that were accepted by this committee were the ones coming from the government. Let's be mindful, Mr. Chair. It seems that they are continuing the path they have taken with the NDP.
Again, I don't want to belabour the point, because I think Mr. Bachrach has done an able job on other issues with this committee. I just find it strange because a lot of the information that is here, or the amendments that have come forward, really don't expand the nature of the bill or make it more accountable. In fact, in some cases, the bill allows the minister to have sole discretion as to which provinces, which territories, which first nations and which municipalities seem to be aligned with the government and can use this as a political communications tool.
I would just say that we tried, as Conservatives, to put forward amendments that we felt would make the bill better. One was in reference to including a summary of all provinces. As I said earlier, when people come into my joint office in Summerland, and even to some extent in Westbank, where I also have an office at the Westbank Towne Centre, they don't always know the difference between us. They just want to share their opinion on what government should be doing. Sometimes they come in with different needs.
It's important, first of all, that there should be a proper summary, where a minister doesn't get to check that. Our particular amendment would have done that. Also, then, there's just the growing consciousness of the need for action on climate change and more interest that people have on how they can do that—purchasing an electric car, for example, or some sort of variation of an electric vehicle. I hear that the F-150 Lightning is impressing a lot of people. Maybe it will impress people in my riding. I haven't heard that yet, but people have been asking about the status of our electrical grid and its ability to deal with this. I am sure, Mr. Chair, that some of the witnesses I asked about this felt that would have been a good change to clause 15.
Clause 15 as it stands right now, as amended, I feel is not the best clause that could go forward. Conservatives will be voting against this particular provision. We think it's a bit of a shame, Mr. Chair, because there was an offer to work together to spotlight all provinces and territories as they try to meet their climate targets, which is incredibly important. If we do not have all provinces and territories working towards this, what will end up happening, Mr. Chair, is that the federal government, with its own jurisdiction, will not be enough.
In most provincial jurisdictions, you have housing policies such as building codes. You also have transportation. You also have energy systems and their regulation. If we cannot give people a snapshot of how their provinces are doing.... This particular clause, as amended, will not do that. In fact, like I said, it allows the minister to isolate or only report on the provinces, municipalities or indigenous first nations communities that best....
Conservatives will be voting a big no against this, Mr. Chair. Again, like I said, it's a shame. We came to this table with amendments, feeling that we were offering things that were not very political—not political at all—but actually were things that would help build better understanding and better governance for this country. Without information, Mr. Chair, without having these things in front of people, people can't judge whether or not their government is being effective. That could be provincial or that could be federal. This particular clause as amended unfortunately does not leap over the bar. I think we could have done better.
As we go forward with other amendments, Mr. Chair, I hope that perhaps the government or perhaps the NDP will change their minds and we'll see maybe some creativity or maybe some willingness to be flexible, to allow for other voices and for amendments to come to the bill, or else this is really just going to be a bill that has just the bare democratic mandate.
That's important to have in our system, but it's not the only way that the government could choose. It could choose to be a little more open and to work with all parties. That's something that has said time and time again.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, with all the times that the said he wanted to work in good faith with all parties on the back end, it seems that isn't the case in this bill...in this clause as amended today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just before we vote on clause 18, I want to say that I understand that amendment BQ‑16 is null and void because the committee decided to reject the idea of making the progress report an annual report, even though the government receives the data on greenhouse gas emissions in Canada each year.
It would have been possible to do so. However, I understand that the amendment is null and void. I just want to say that I agree with what Mr. Albas stated earlier. I find it deplorable that the government is voting against all the Bloc Québécois and Green Party amendments, which are there to improve Bill . The government said that it was open to the idea of working with the opposition members. We understand that this isn't the case.
I gather that the same thing will happen with amendment BQ‑17. We'll see when we get to the other clause.
:
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, I believe members deserve to be able to have an up or down. I realize that you have ruled on consequentialness, so I'm certainly not going to be putting forward a challenge at this point because you are correct. When we said no to earlier Bloc amendments, that basically made these consequential amendments not possible or else we would end up with a mishmash of a bill.
That being said, I just want to add my voice to Madam Michaud's, and she, by the way, has shown a fair bit of decorum here. It's not always, I would imagine, a fun process when you're told on the floor that something you have worked very hard for won't be allowed to be debated and perhaps that's something we need to look at.
I also have to point out, Mr. Chair, that perhaps before you call the vote for future ones, you might want to ask to see if there are any other speakers first. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just simply suggesting that with the translation and the fact that we're virtual and it can't always be relied on, it's helpful to make sure that all members who want to be able to have their say can say it.
Now let's get back to the actual issue of clause 18.
18(1) The Minister must cause each emissions reduction plan to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the plan is established.
Again, Mr. Chair, I will just simply say that Conservatives are opposed to this bill. We will be voting against this, but I really hope that other members do not just simply call a point of order and try to squeeze other members out, because I don't believe, in this case, Mr. Chair, there was a clear indication that you could move forward.
Maybe, again, Mr. Chair, by asking to see if any other speakers would want to go forward, then when we hit that point.... I promise you, Mr. Chair, we will end up with a better outcome rather than having points of order and then long stalls as you try to seek in the transcripts as to whether or not you called it.
It's a very difficult position, being a virtual chair, so I applaud you in your efforts to try to make sure that it's a fair process for everyone. I can understand how some MPs may be a bit frustrated, but again, we all have to adhere to the translation services and have the official languages requirements met.
Thank you.
Just to help you maybe a little bit with this point.... I'm a full believer and a strong believer that we need our two official languages. In fact, I'm learning French as we speak, although I haven't quite graduated to the point where I can listen to French. I have to listen to the English channel.
Maybe just for your reference—because you are far more advanced in French than I am—I will mention that there is always a pause. Sometimes I know you get a little excited and want to carry on with it, but sometimes it's not obvious that the speaker has quit speaking, so if somebody wants to put up their hand, they have to wait for the last of the translation and go, “Oh, that person's done. I'd better put my hand up.”
I appreciate your comment to get our hands up sooner. I appreciate that, and I will try to do that, but also bear in mind that there is a second there.
I have to say that this is the most dispiriting process of clause-by-clause that I've experienced in many years. Usually amendments are actually considered, people actually debate them and there is a good-faith process. I'm going to make a short statement and then I'm going to ask, because I cannot remove my own amendments, in the interest of time and in an effort to have this bill get to the Senate, where perhaps there will be a good-faith effort to amend it....
I condemn this government for what it has done: for telling people like me, who believed in good faith that there would be an actual appetite for change to improve the bill and who accepted it and prepared amendments, only to show up here and watch Liberals stay mute, the NDP stay mute and march through their amendments, passing them in force, and not listening and not caring about the possibility that other amendments might work.
I urge you to change your conduct. I urge you to consider Madam Pauzé's amendments.
Because I don't have the power to remove my own amendments, I will remove my amendments if you will do the job for me, Mr. Chair, in the interest of time and under protest against the process this committee has entered into—not the committee but the backroom deal that no amendments shall pass unless they're Liberal or NDP and do nothing but tweak the bill with small improvements. I don't want to stand in the way of getting this thing done, and I now ask the chair to support the Bloc amendments and remove PV-25, PV-26, PV-27, PV-28, PV-29, PV-30 and PV-31.
Shame on you.
:
Mr. Chair, it has been the case that in the past in other committees when I suggested that the amendment that is deemed moved can be deemed by the chair to have been removed, I've never heard before that it required unanimous consent. I think Mr. Albas's suggestion earlier that the various backroom people who've engineered this motion that I have to observe in every committee....
In this case, since it would be all in one go, because these are all amendments that relate to the process of the advisory committee becoming independent and expert, again, it would certainly save the committee a lot of time if you accept my word for it that you can deem these amendments removed—PV-25, PV-26, PV-27, PV-28, PV-29, PV-30 and PV-31—rather than seeking unanimous consent each time, but that's for you to determine.
I will wait for PV-32 before taking the floor again.
:
I will repeat again: It comes to seven amendments that I am removing in one go.
If you want to seek unanimous consent, then I would be asking for all of my amendments that relate to what is now a not independent, appointed-by-the-minister multi-stakeholder committee..... My attempts are not identical, by any means, but sufficiently similar to the Bloc Québécois' attempts, that I would prefer, in order to save time and help this committee along, that Madam Pauze's amendments be accepted.
However, my amendments are from PV-25 through PV-31 inclusive. That's seven amendments.
:
Mr. Chair, I was going to say how we proceed with this. As I said earlier, there is a process that we have done, and you may want to take this feedback to other committee chairs to make sure that if this does happen again in another case. Perhaps there could be a motion so that it can changed and ratified.
I believe we can have a very brief discussion on each one, but I think it's important for people to feel heard. There were many people who came forward who expressed their support for something like Madam May's amendments, and I think that she deserves an up or down....
We will not tie that process up, but I think it's important for this committee to be able to stand and be accountable to the Canadian public in this, because many people who came to the committee asked for much of what Ms. May said.
I may disagree with elements of it, but I believe in accountability and I believe that people need to be heard. That would be the best way for us to carry forward in this case.
:
I wish to have all seven amendments withdrawn.
My previous experience in other committees is, once I suggest that, they were deemed moved and then they're deemed not moved by the same imaginary hand.
I appreciate Mr. Albas's support, but the amendments being put to a vote for Madam Pauzé.... Maybe some of them will pass. Just to disprove for those who might be watching, what we are witnessing here, which is a very anti-democratic decision in advance to fail to actually consider amendments. That's not what clause-by-clause is supposed to be like.
Mr. Chair, if you can help me here, my Green Party amendments, PV-25 to PV-31, should just be removed from the package.
This is what I'm told, and it makes sense to me. Once an amendment is moved, in the case of independent members like the Green Party here....
There is a distinction between Ms. May's amendments and everyone else's. For an amendment to get to the floor of the committee, members of parties on the committee have to move the motion. If they decide not to move the motion, we would just continue past it. In Ms. May's case, as a Green Party representative who is not a permanent member of the committee, the minute she sends in her amendment to the clerk it is deemed moved. When an amendment is deemed moved, it is deemed to belong to the committee. That means the chair can't appropriate the power to just remove an amendment. It requires unanimous consent. That was denied, in this case.
As I see it, the way we proceed is this: Ms. May does not have to speak in support of her amendments, and others can speak about it or not speak about it, but we have to vote on these amendments. Obviously, Ms. May is doing this in the interest of time so that we can move through them quickly. That's how I see it.
Mr. Albas, are you speaking to PV-25 or is this a point of order or clarification?
:
Mr. Chair, I certainly concur with your assessment. Once something has been moved, it becomes the committee's and it no longer can simply be withdrawn unless there's unanimous consent. As I said earlier, it's not my intention to do anything other than to allow those witnesses and truly those Canadians who believe in much of what has been placed here to simply....
I will read this out, and perhaps the Liberals and the NDP, all parties, can stand and be counted on each one. Then we can proceed in that regard.
Again, PV-25 amends Bill in clause 20 by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 8 with the following:
20(1) There is established an expert advisory body whose mandate is to provide the Minister with expert advice with respect to achieving emissions reductions that are consistent with the conclusion drawn in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C of the need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, including expert
Mr. Chair, maybe I will make a quick ask here of either Mr. Moffet or Mr. Ngan.
I believe the main thrust of this amendment is not just the adoption of the 1.5°C but the term “expert”. Right now, the way the advisory board is set up, it's not necessarily derived just on expertise. Is that the case?
:
First, I want to thank Ms. May, who did everything in her power to try to convince everyone in order to speed things up in the committee. Unfortunately, it didn't work. However, I want to thank her. I feel compelled to do so because she prepared a number of arguments and amendments, but they won't be taken into account.
With respect to amendment BQ‑18, we're proposing to change “advisory body” to “an independent expert committee.” Perhaps this was the difference between our amendment and the Green Party's amendment. Also, the change that we were proposing to line 15 no longer applies. By voting for amendment G‑3, you decided that there wouldn't be any target.
We want to replace “advisory body” with “independent expert committee” in order to clearly establish the committee's role, which basically isn't to conduct consultations, but to advise the minister. This must be included in the legislation.
For us, it wasn't just about the net‑zero emissions issue. We're saying that the committee should advise the minister on how to reach the 2030 target, which still hasn't been quantified, and not just the 2050 target.
I want to remind you that the United Kingdom is an example to follow in terms of climate governance. Corinne Le Quéré was among the experts from the United Kingdom who appeared before the committee. She told us that the United Kingdom had been the most successful country in terms of reaching climate targets and that it had the best established climate governance. The United Kingdom has seen its emissions fall by 28% since 2010, while Canada's emissions have risen.
Another example is France. Ms. Le Quéré also told us about the High Council on Climate and other similar independent bodies that provide a mechanism to ensure that the voices of experts in the field are heard. They provide the rationale and the legitimacy to propose ambitious measures, since they're experts. As Ms. Le Quéré said, strong climate governance, in France and in other places, helps the government to achieve its goals.
The experts in the United Kingdom consider that five elements are key to the success of any climate legislation and that together they provide several benefits to democracy. The first is the full independence of a committee made up primarily of experts. This is what the witnesses came to tell us. If we were listening, we understood this. This prevents confusion between the role of expert and the job of consulting everyone. This condition is met in just about any successful climate legislation.
The word “experts” is covered in more detail in an amendment that I'll move later. However, it would be good to see the committee in the bill as having this key characteristic. When the independence of the committee is ensured, a balance is achieved. On the one hand, there's an ongoing policy generated through the co‑operation of the highest levels of science, economics, applied policy, and decision‑making. On the other hand, there's respect for the political reality on the ground.
In short, based on what the witnesses came to tell us, we know that they recommended an independent expert committee.
One of the things that I heard Madam Pauzé say—and hopefully this was correct—is that she wants to strengthen this area to compel the minister and not just.... I can't quite remember the words that she used. However, essentially, the idea is that this would strengthen it to make the committee more powerful towards the minister and maybe force some things to happen.
I guess maybe, Mr. Moffet, you could answer this question: Does the amendment, in your view, compel anything of the minister, or does it just, more or less, clarify some things in the existing legislation?
:
Yes, Mr. Moffet just sort of answered Mr. Redekopp's question. The amendments form a whole. We are proposing amendments, but there will be follow‑up to those amendments. A little further on, we will see what the role of the independent expert committee is.
Where I disagree less with Mr. Moffet is on the difference. He doesn't think it makes a big difference, but it makes a big difference for us because the bill talks about an advisory body. This organization will consult with the general public, organizations and industry members. However, for us, it isn't just about consultations. The expert panel will consult, but then it will analyze them and advise the minister. The two roles are very different.
This is what the witnesses told us; you have to distinguish between the two roles, the advisory role to the minister and the consultation role. That's what the amendment is intended to do, and I think it adds a lot to clause 20 and really strengthens it.
Perhaps I have failed to do this over the time we've spent together at clause-by-clause. Hopefully, I can ask for the indulgence of Madam Pauzé.
I clearly understand (a) and I've asked Mr. Moffet for his views on (a).
In regard to your changes to (b), by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following.... It really is just activities “related to achieving the targets set under subsection 7(2)”. Can I ask why you feel that is a better fit than what is currently envisioned in the bill, where it states, “activities related to achieving net-zero emissions”?
Could you tell us the difference, please?
:
What we need to look at is the link to amendment BQ‑23.
Amendment BQ‑23 will make it possible to determine the areas of expertise of the experts who will serve on the committee.
The bill talks about an advisory body that provides advice on meeting targets, but also conducts consultations. We don't want that. We want the committee to consult, to make up its mind, and then say: here is my advice to the minister. Amendment BQ‑23 will determine who the experts will be. As for amendment BQ‑20, if I'm not mistaken, it will determine the role of the expert committee.
What's difficult is not seeing this as a whole.
A little further on, the role of the independent expert committee is defined, and a little more further on, there is a definition of who the experts are. Of course, as long as we don't have a definition, it's a bit complicated to do.
:
I wanted to respond to Mr. Albas.
I'm not presenting part (b) because when we adopted amendment G‑3, we decided that there would be no numerical target in the legislation, despite the commitments of the and despite the commitments of the , when he appeared before the committee to introduce Bill .
Despite all that, the alliance of the Liberal Party and the NDP ensured that there was no numerical target. As a result, part (b) of amendment BQ‑18, which deals with the target established under subsection 7(2), becomes obsolete, since there is no target.
I'm pleased to bring forward this amendment on behalf of . I believe it's fairly self-explanatory. There are pieces that I will highlight. This amendment speaks to the role of the net-zero advisory body.
The first piece I would bring to the committee's attention is the word “independent” under subclause 20(1), “to provide the Minister with independent advice”. I believe this speaks to some of the conversation we've had in today's meeting around the independence of the committee.
Secondly, this amendment seeks to specify that the advisory body will provide advice respecting “greenhouse gas emissions targets” as well as “greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans”.
Lastly, it adds a line about engagement activities being part of the advisory body's mandate.
I believe the rest is fairly self-explanatory. I'll yield the floor.
I certainly appreciate Mr. Bachrach's holding a lot of duty on this in terms of taking someone else's amendments forward. It's never easy to parachute into a process, but he has done very well thus far.
I'm just going to ask questions of Mr. Moffet again.
Mr. Moffet, you said earlier that the word “independent” didn't have a legal term, and that the committee itself was already quasi-independent just because it's a committee that operates on its own. When we had witnesses come to this committee—and I'm sure you listened to much of the testimony—many of them were citing jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, which has an independent body that operates. Is this the same thing as what they have in the U.K.?
:
There are a couple of things.
First of all, I didn't suggest that the term “independent” has no legal meaning. I think I was trying to say that the committee established under section 20 is authorized to provide advice without influence from the minister. This amendment would emphasize that function.
The second part of your question was around the United Kingdom. I think it's worth noting that in fact the U.K. statute, the Climate Change Act 2008, does not actually use either of the terms “independent” or “expert” in establishing its committee. Its committee has been established that way and has functioned that way.
I think what we see in the bill, and in particular as potentially clarified through this amendment, is that the advisory body to be established under this bill would have a function largely similar to what has been in the United Kingdom for the past number of years.
:
I'm going to move on, Mr. Chair. To the point, it seems to me, that the NDP, coupled with the Liberals, have suggested that adding the term “independent” will make this independent, yet the vast majority of people who came forward to committee have said the bar the government has set—not Mr. Moffet, to be fair—in Bill does not meet what they believe is required to be similar to the U.K. legislation.
I believe in a made-in-Canada approach, so I am simply going to be voting against this. I believe that a Conservative government would do much better. If this becomes law, we're going to have to work with the advisory board towards the goals that are laid out by law.
It is not necessarily realistic that every single person who came and discussed the U.K. was wrong and that there was no practical difference between what the Government of Canada has proposed in its legislation here, and what Mr. Bachrach is adding the term “independent” to. I think that's just not credible at this time.
I appreciate again, Mr. Chair...because if I was getting under anyone's skin, that's not my premise for being here. My premise for being here is to ask questions and then raise concerns about the approach moving forward. I think I've done that.
I'm going to move CPC-16, that Bill , in clause 20, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 8 with the following:
(2) The Governor in Council may, on the advice of the Minister, determine and amend the terms of
Mr. Albas has kind of struck out on some of these, so I'm going to take a swing at this as well.
We have highlighted over and over why it's important to have a whole-of-government approach when it comes to this legislation, and not just a single minister in charge of this. We've heard from witnesses. There have been briefs. Even the himself said that a whole-of government approach is necessary. However, this Liberal-NDP agreement continues to argue for this one-man show.
Let's see how the one-man show has worked out for Canada.
On April 21, 2021, there was a news article published in The New York Times called, “Trudeau was a Global Climate Hero. Now Canada Risks Falling Behind”. It says, “Between [the] election in 2015 and 2019, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased...despite decreases in other rich nations during the same period”. It goes on to say, “If Canada lags too far behind the United States...it could face repercussions” and, “It'll be quite obvious to the world who's really serious about climate change and who's taking half measures”.
This government's one-man show approach is leaving Canada open to trade reprisals from the U.S. If we fall too far behind, then we're going to potentially have U.S. carbon tariffs on goods crossing the border. There are lots of problems here.
This example of trade, for example, shows that we need to have input from other ministers, such as finance, international trade, agriculture and many others. CPC-16 is an amendment that would make important changes to make this stronger.
This is what the Tsleil-Waututh Nation from British Columbia told this committee in a brief, and I'll end with this, Mr. Chair.
Our experience shows us that the government of Canada remains structurally siloed, rather than positioned to respond holistically to the climate crisis, limiting the federal government's ability to address this overarching and complex issue. Tsleil-Waututh Nation's engagement with Canada demonstrates potential for a whole-of-government approach, adds value by working towards this end, and contributes a necessary, rights-based Indigenous perspective. Our concerns and recommendations often require cross fertilization between varying ministries, such as [Environment and Climate Change Canada], Department of Fisheries and Oceans...and Transport Canada. The climate change challenge requires us to work together for decades to come—and we must start now.
Thank you.
I certainly appreciate MP Baker for moving this amendment. As I've said a number of times, Conservatives believe that climate change is a real threat that must be dealt with. Bill is one step towards some of the goals towards that, Mr. Chair. We did come to this committee with 19 amendments that we feel would improve the legislation, despite not supporting it at second reading. Those reasons are well documented.
I will say, though, that we came prepared to support other parties to make sure that the bill was improved where we felt there was a reasonable amendment that was clear and that was in the public interest. This meets the criteria, so like we did with Mr. Saini's amendment, we will support this because we do believe that the public needs to have more transparency when it comes to the work of this government and the work of the advisory body.
I'm going to just round it out by saying that Conservatives will support reasonable amendments. It's unfortunate that other parties such as the government and the NDP have chosen, it seems, to ignore anyone else's ideas but their own, but that's something I can't help, Mr. Chair. We, as the Conservative Party, believe that if a good idea comes forward, it should be supported.
Maybe that's enough to say on this, Mr. Chair. I'll let other members speak to it.
:
As I said when I introduced amendment BQ‑18, there is a whole. Here, we are talking about the mandate of the famous advisory committee. We are adding important clarifications about the mandate of this committee, details that are essential and complementary to the mandate that would be given by the minister.
It was agreed that the mandate in Bill are quite imprecise and changeable at will.
That's why we want to add some important clarifications. We want to make clear that the committee must have access to the information and analytical resources of the federal government. We need to make it easier for it to do its job and to access data and information so that it can be efficient and function optimally.
I told you earlier about the five elements that experts in the United Kingdom consider critical to the success of any climate legislation. Earlier, you voted against one of those elements, but I'm trying again with others.
Together, these elements are beneficial to the exercise. We are talking about the full independence of the committee, which you don't want. We're talking about the fact that the committee has to have a consistent budget that flows from its mission; it has to produce an annual report on the status of the targets. It's a question of democracy. Citizens need to know where we're going.
Other elements mentioned by the U.K. experts include the fact that the committee must receive a mandatory response from the government for each report it tables. It has to be involved in setting the carbon budget. So we're talking about targets that are set well in advance. Finally, it must also provide advice, and providing advice is not the same as making recommendations. I said this earlier about amendment NDP‑4.
We see how important words are. The “interim ... objective”, as the NDP called for, is not a target. A “summary of [the] ... most recent ... inventory” is not a report. These are words that weaken the bill, but they are the ones that were chosen.
Our amendment clearly sets out what is expected of this committee. Currently, clause 20 is worded far too flexibly. The minister has an entire department at his disposal and several competent officials to advise him. However, the committee in question must be—I repeat—independent. It isn't being asked to provide independent advice, but rather to be independent. It must have a mission and mandate that is directly applicable to the purpose of Bill . Every element of this amendment supports that need.
I would, of course, expect government members to keep their word about their repeated desire to improve the bill and, as Mr. Albas and Ms. May have noted, to work with “the” opposition parties. Collaborative approaches may speed up the process, but I want to remind NDP members of their strong positions, repeated in the House and before our committee by Ms. Collins.
We must be consistent in our political action. The government has been criticized for saying one thing and the opposite. I am asking the committee member, who no doubt recognizes himself, to support this amendment, which is consistent with what his party has said it wants in this bill. He has said it to his constituents, he has said it to the public, and he has said it in speeches in the House. I would like to know that this member isn't repeating the behaviour that he himself has criticized the government for.
This amendment comes with great fanfare, so I want to be the one to speak to it. I apologize to all the other amendments that were made by other committee members previous to this, but this really is the pinnacle amendment that I know we're all looking forward to.
Perhaps you were stopped at a grocery store this weekend by people saying, “What about CPC-17?” I apologize on behalf of all the people who pulled you aside.
This amendment is rather simple in nature. Basically, we look at the advisory body, and it has 15 members, but they're all appointed by the Minister of Environment. Now think about if you're the Minister of Environment. You're sitting back, and you've gotten through maybe member five. Maybe you've really pushed yourself and gotten to member six. Then you think, “I have to go and do this nine more times and figure out nine more members to put on this advisory body.” Why not ease 's workload? Why not share the membership load with other ministers, perhaps , ...? What Minister Wilkinson would appreciate this committee doing and saying is, “Go and spend that extra time with your kids. Spend the time with your wife. Go out on a boat. You live in Vancouver for crying out loud. Enjoy the time, Minister, and let's give that extra workload to these other three departments.”
How we've worded it.... We've given three positions for the Minister of Finance to submit, three positions for the Minister of Industry and then three positions for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to submit . This still leaves with his six members that he'll likely be able to find, but it also frees him up to do those extracurricular activities with his family. Again, I think he would send us all personal thank-you notes if we allowed him to do something like that.
If you will also recall, Mr. Chair, this was recommended by our friends at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and CAPP, as well, to make sure it's a well-rounded and well-balanced committee.
With that, I turn it to my esteemed committee members to hopefully, again, lighten the load of . He already has to go through the entire bill here after this. Give him these nine members for someone else to pick at the end of the day.
With that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly appreciate Mr. Jeneroux thinking so generously of , wanting to give him a bit more time. North Vancouver is lovely at this time of year when it isn't raining, and that's not often.
That being said, I will point out that there has been a lot of discussion about the need to have more independence of the committee.
One of the ways you can do that is by putting a bit of distance between who appoints them. When you make all the committee members.... They have to receive their appointment from one minister. Again, for the purposes of this bill, by default, it designates the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, thus, why Mr. Jeneroux was fixated on helping .
By creating several different roles, or by appointing to this advisory board, that creates more independence, because the further away.... You have multiple different ministers that would make suggestions. As I've said earlier, each minister, typically, has a rolodex. Again, asking for six members, I'm sure wouldn't have any difficulty with that as he's already come up with 15.
We should make sure we include indigenous persons by amending paragraph 21(1)(c) with “three, on the recommendation of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations”. This is something that I will give MP McLeod 100% credit for. She asked a number of questions. We didn't have any indigenous witnesses, though my understanding is that there are some briefs alluding to it. This would ensure that indigenous persons across the country, who are known specifically to the , would be able to nominate those imminent persons. They would contribute indigenous knowledge as laid out by the act in the definitions.
We have a thriving clean-tech sector that oftentimes doesn't necessarily run in lockstep with the . In fact, the probably has more discussions with clean-tech firms in places like Waterloo and other innovation centres that are just starting up. That minister would also be able to put forward other people.
There is other expertise. It's been cited that some people believe there should be economists on this. I'm sure the also has, in her rolodex, very worthy persons that would be able to contribute.
We believe this is an all-hands-on-deck issue dealing with climate change. We think there would be more independence by lightening the load of , in this case, as Mr. Jeneroux has pointed out.
As he said, we had witnesses who came to committee and asked for this. Of course, the way the Governor in Council works, as you are probably well aware, Mr. Chair, is that the Governor in Council meets but it does need a recommendation from a minister to start a discussion.
That's why we believe in naming, specifically, not just the, who would get six members, but the , the and the . We believe you would end up with a much more diverse panel. It would create a sense of more independence. As I've said, it breaks down those silos. It brings different people to the fore. It would make for a much more diverse panel. In that case, they would be more cross-disciplinary, which is important in dealing with a multi-faceted issue such as climate change.
I would ask all honourable members to contribute to making the bill stronger. This is one of the best recommendations that we've brought forward. For those who call themselves business Liberals or blue Liberals, I would hope they would say that having one minister with one perspective, through their own personal rolodex or that of their staff, is too limiting.
The bill could be seriously improved by having other ministers, who are also capable and run into these distinguished Canadians when they do their round tables and consultations, find the right people to fit this important role.
With that, I would ask all honourable members to consider this. Again, I think that one of the biggest challenges in our politics is that it is not so much a matter of whether an idea is good or not, but of who proposes it. That is something we see in Ottawa too much. If a Conservative raises an idea, it might be good or bad based on who is watching and vice versa. If a minister of the Crown rises with a particular idea, then the opposition might oppose it just because it's that person.
I'm really counting on the committee work we do, Mr. Chair, which is far less partisan than, let's say, the average question period. We can actually dig down into the process or into our committee. I grant it that this committee process has been rather truncated and I don't think it has led to the best outcome. One way we can actually prove me wrong is by supporting Mr. Jeneroux and his motion, with the added benefit of a little bit more family time for .
:
Thank you, Chair. I certainly can.
This is CPC-17. I think this is an absolutely critical amendment. We heard from indigenous leadership just this week about how siloed the government continues to be when it is working through critical issues. This government moved the UN declaration forward. This is part and parcel of having some recommendations from the Crown-indigenous minister at the table.
My big disappointment.... I know the Bloc had put forward thoughtful amendments. The Green Party has put forward thoughtful amendments. Certainly, we've explained our amendments and put them forward in good faith. It's disappointing when it's very clear that the Liberals and the NDP have a plan, and they don't even give the courtesy of a response to why they will not support a particular amendment. In my experience, at least the government has given a one-line response, saying that they can't support this for reason X.
We're not even seeing that, so clearly we have a collusion process happening here that has excluded the Bloc, the Green Party and the Conservatives.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.