Environment Committee on May 26th, 2021

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

Chair, how can we have a challenge to the chair if we don't even understand your process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is what I'm going to check on, and I'll get right back to you. This is going to be slow moving for a while, until we hit our stride.

Ms. Thivierge confirms my understanding, which is that if you're challenging the ruling, we will go straight to a vote. There's no debate. Mr. Redekopp can speak later about something else if he wishes to, but there's no debate around your challenge.

We'll go to a vote.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I just want to understand what's going on here. Ms. May is moved to challenge the chair, but she cannot do that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

She cannot do that, so Mr. Albas is kindly taking it up for her.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I didn't challenge the chair. I said the ruling was a surprise. I would not challenge the chair, even if I were a member of this committee, because, as Dan says, that's a very unusual move. I was surprised by the legal interpretation. I'm sorry for taking more time. I didn't plan to intervene again, but I don't want it on the record that I moved to challenge the chair. I didn't. I didn't try to, even if I could have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Fair enough, but I think Mr. Albas, nonetheless, wants to—

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

Just to be clear as to whether I moved to challenge the chair, that is something that has not come out of my lips, Mr. Chair. I was simply asking you a question so I could understand your reasoning and so I could leave with that.

If other members have questions about your reasoning, perhaps you might want to acknowledge them first, but I have not made that motion. I'm not persuaded yet, but it sounds as though other members have questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, fair enough. I've got it. I'm glad no one is challenging the chair.

We'll go to Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

In the spirit of there being no such thing as a dumb question, I'm going to ask this question.

Mr. Chair, you said the bill says anthropogenic emissions are balanced...that the pluses and minuses balance out. Where does it actually say that in the bill? That's why I say I hope this isn't too dumb a question, because I'm not sure I saw that. Maybe I just missed it.

[John Moffet]

I can answer that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

In clause 2, the last definition is the definition of net-zero emissions, which is defined to mean that anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period of time. The chair was correct in his interpretation of net zero, and Ms. May's motion would simply say that net zero has to be achieved by, at a minimum, 90% removals. Then, by consequence, up to—but only up to—10% could continue to be emitted, but would be balanced by removals.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you. That would explain why it's always good to read the definitions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. That's right.

PV-4 is inadmissible.

Mr. Albas, is your hand up again?

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

Yes, it is up again. I wanted to ask Mr. Moffet a question.

I'm trying to understand this definition of absolute zero. Obviously this is your job, your full-time job, to understand these terms. Is what is being suggested by Madam May absolute, as in 100%, or would you interpret it to say that it is something other than absolute and therefore would be within the scope of the bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

My understanding—correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Moffet—is that we're talking about two different things. One is the definition of basically.... Well, it has to do with whether we have offsets or we don't, and then we're talking about, even without offsets, that we're at 90% of 2005 levels.... Is my understanding correct, under PV-4? I mean, it's really about whether offsets—

[John Moffet]

That's my interpretation. The amendment would require 90% reductions—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. It's non-net-zero.

[John Moffet]

Then, in order to achieve net-zero, there would be a remaining 10%, which could be either reduced or offset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Oh, I see. It could be offset.

Does that answer your question?

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

It does, but it is not consistent with your ruling.

That being said, Mr. Chair, I know that being chair is a difficult job. I wouldn't want it unless I were forced into your chair position because you had to step out of the room, and then I expect 100% that I would be challenged immediately by someone, probably even from my own party.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate the intervention by Mr. Moffet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Chair, can I ask one more question? I want to point out that we didn't actually approve the definitions yet. They theoretically could be adjusted to fit with this one, could they not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I guess they could, but I don't know about that particular definition because it was.... That's a good question. Let me ask Madame Thivierge. I'll get back to you, Mr. Redekopp, but my sense is that we've adopted the bill at second reading, where “net zero” includes offsets. Maybe that particular definition cannot really be changed, but I'll get back to you.

Apparently, my understanding is correct. This substantive definition of net-zero emissions was adopted at second reading, so Ms. May's amendment changes the scope of the bill—it goes right to the heart of the bill—and that is essentially why it is not admissible.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Redekopp?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Yes, I think so. I'm okay with that. I'm not going to hold this up any longer.