Evidence of meeting #35 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jacques Maziade  Legislative Clerk
John Moffet  Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Émilie Thivierge  Legislative Clerk
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Angela Crandall

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay. Where were we? We're on PV-5.

Ms. May.

5:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this discussion shows the benefit, in hindsight, of having a longer time for the committee members to hear different witnesses.

At this point, I want to quote Andrew Gage, who is an expert in climate law. He is a lawyer, and he understands legislation. Here's what he points out. This is, again, one of his amendments, which I've put forward from West Coast Environmental Law, and it says that the minister may set additional targets. As opposed to the one that was mandatory last time, I hope this one will meet with the approval of the legislative clerk and advisers and that this proposed added wording is within the scope:

The Minister may set additional targets with respect to absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

I just want to quote Andrew Gage on this point in terms of accountability. He says:

Accountability, in both the climate and financial realms, can...be undermined through weak rules that allow for accounting tricks that create the appearance of responsibility. Legislation should require efforts to meet these targets to maximize absolute reductions as opposed to relying on less certain measures like offsets and unproven technologies.

There's the difference between what's absolute and what's net. Certainly, net zero by 2050 is a fine target, as long as there are absolute reductions all along the way that meet the only pathway the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified that actually allows us to hold to a hospitable climate and a survivable planet, which is to say that we need steep reductions sooner rather than later in order to hold to 1.5°C.

That threshold for it being the point of no return, when we lose 1.5°C forever, is actually 2030. Absolute emission reduction targets may be required, and the minister would be in a position, with this amendment, to make such decisions and to make such determinations. It's not inconsistent at all, but completely consistent with the goals of this act.

Thank you.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

No one has flagged to me that it is not admissible, so it is admissible.

Mr. Albas.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Conservatives have reviewed this. We won't be supporting it. We think it's important for all parties, particularly given that COP26 will include what I'm sure will be a robust discussion around the use of non-anthropogenic storage, sequestration, nature-based climate solutions and so on. Even the government, I'm sure, would probably take some issue...as it's put out some regulatory guidance as to what entails an offset—for example, the planting of trees that won't be cut down for a hundred years.

I note that there are some industry stakeholders who believe their sequestration activities are also valid. I grant that there are some people who would like to see a greater amount of those natural offsets included, and I can see where some would be opposed to it. Again, though, if we are going to expect significant capital investments, I think government and Parliament should be giving some specific guidance as well as some regulatory certainty as to what the rules of the game are. I think it's perfectly legitimate, though, to question those rules or ask for them to be tighter.

Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting this amendment. Every Liberal target that has been put forward has never been met. I think this would just create more regulatory uncertainty, as well as more cynicism if the target wasn't attained.

Thank you.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Mr. Redekopp.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

I just want to point out, because I can't help it, that in the space of a week we went from 36% to 45%. I don't think the government has any problem setting additional targets, as required.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Does that mean you're supporting this?

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

That means I think this is redundant and unnecessary.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay. Madam Clerk, we'll go to a vote on PV-5.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We'll do a roll call vote on whether clause 6 shall carry.

(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Now we turn to amendment G-2, which would introduce a new clause 6.1.

Mr. Saini, I believe you're proposing this.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Yes.

Basically, I am proposing this just to provide greater certainty. Although there's nothing clearly written in the bill, I want to make sure that people understand that if we achieve net zero before 2050, then that's fine. I think we all hope that we can do that. I just want to put that in there for greater certainty and for greater clarity.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Ms. McLeod.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I sort of look at this as a high-jumping competition. The bar is set so high, and if you exceed there are no issues.

I would ask this of the legislative clerks. Are there any legislative reasons why you would ever worry that if you achieve your goal ahead of time it would be against your legislative commitments? It's just a very odd thing, from my perspective, and completely unnecessary, I would presume.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Would that be a question for the officials? Would that be a question for Mr. Moffet or Mr. Nevison?

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Well, it could be for either. It's making a legislative amendment, but I don't think there is anything in the legislation that has ever precluded anyone from outperforming their goals.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Maître Thivierge, would you like to address that?

5:20 p.m.

Legislative Clerk

Émilie Thivierge

Actually, it's more a question for the officials—

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, that's what I figured.

Mr. Moffet.

5:20 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

I would agree with the interpretation of the act that there's nothing in this act that precludes the government or any government from jumping higher than the bar is set, to continue with Ms. McLeod's analogy. This would add greater legal certainty, but it doesn't change the legal provisions in the act as they're written.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. Albas.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you.

I just want to ask this of the legislative clerk, though. If this particular amendment is not made, what changes in the bill?

Pardon me. Maybe I'll reverse the questioning here. If this is added in, does this in effect change the bill in any way? Does it compel the government to act in a different way?

5:20 p.m.

Legislative Clerk

Émilie Thivierge

Once again, Mr. Chair, since it's not a procedural question, I think one of the officials could answer that.

5:20 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

I'll jump in again and say no. There would be no new legal obligation placed on the government of the day as a result of this amendment. This amendment would serve to signify to the public, to Parliament, that urgent early action and achievement of net zero is desired, but it would not have any specific legal implications for decision-making or for the government in implementing any of the provisions in the act.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

It would have communications value—more communications value, maybe, than legal value.

5:20 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

That's well said.