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.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Just very quickly, we're opposed, but it's because amendment G-2 addresses the same topic and deals with a similar issue.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was simply going to oppose this amendment, but now that Mr. Bittle has raised amendment G-2, I would like to get a sense from the legislative clerk, or perhaps Mr. Moffet might want to comment—whoever this would be best directed at.
Nothing in this bill specifically designates that net zero cannot happen earlier. It doesn't say you cannot have it before 2050. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Either the legislative clerk or Mr. Moffet can answer, because I think there seems to be an indication that somehow the bill itself precludes that net zero could happen before the time.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have a hunch that Mr. Moffet might be the person to answer that. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's correct. Nothing in the bill as it is written currently precludes achieving the goal of net zero before 2050.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay. Maybe I'll just keep that in mind, Mr. Chair, because when we get to amendment G-2, I think the question I have on my mind is whether anything precludes it, but we'll ask those questions when we get to that part of the bill.
Thank you for your help, Mr. Moffet.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Thanks.
We were at amendment BQ-6.
Ms. Michaud, you spoke to your amendment BQ-6, did you not?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
As I see no other speakers, we can proceed to the recorded vote, Madam Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It's defeated. That means PV-4 can be moved.
Madam May, do you wish to move it?
4:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I would love to, but I'm not allowed to under the terms of the motion the committee passed—not to split hairs. All of my motions are deemed moved by others. I'm here at your sufferance once again.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You're right. You can't move it, but it is deemed moved by others. I guess what I wanted to ask was, would you like to speak to it?
4:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. Thank you. Again, under the terms of the committee's motion, I'm invited to speak to my amendment.
This one is to deal with and basically to remind members of the expert evidence we had from West Coast Environmental Law and their staff counsel, Andrew Gage. Unlike some of my other amendments, I scrambled to get this one ready after hearing his evidence.
Of course, when we talk about “net zero”, this is a different concept from the one Madame Michaud brought forward—oh, I'm not even on any channel for interpretation. I'm sorry. Madame Michaud mentioned that “as quickly as possible” was the goal of her amendment that was just defeated.
This one speaks to a different issue: not the timeliness, but the concept of absolute versus net. I note that she too will use the word “absolute” at different points, but the absolute greenhouse gas emissions are different from net, with net meaning where you end up once you've had all the sequestration activity of green leafy things, or maybe there's some new technology that sucks carbon out of the air. Net zero doesn't imply absolute zero.
The amendment I've brought forward here comes from West Coast Environmental Law and their suggestion that net zero be coupled with absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 90% below 2005 levels over the same period, such that we, for instance, don't buy large amounts of credits from other countries as opposed to doing the work at home to reduce our emissions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I've been told that this amendment is problematic, and that leads me to make the following ruling that it's not admissible. I will tell everyone why.
Bill C-12 requires that national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be set with the objective of attaining net-zero emissions by 2050. The bill establishes that “net-zero emissions” means that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere over a specified period.
Amendment PV-4 seeks to achieve net-zero emissions through an absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction of at least 90% below 2005 levels, which is not foreseen in the bill.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice book, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In my opinion, PV-4 introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I must rule the amendment inadmissible.
4:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I understand putting forward amendments that are outside the scope of the bill, and I certainly wouldn't do that. I wonder if in any way.... It is certainly within the scope of the bill to meet our Paris commitments, and to say that an absolute reduction by 90% by 2050 is outside the scope of the bill.... I must say, Mr. Chair, I'll register that this is a surprise.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Wait one moment, and I'll get back to you on how you can challenge this decision.
Apparently, Madam May, to challenge the chair's ruling, one has to be a member of the committee. Unfortunately that's not the case, so you won't be able to challenge it. I imagine someone else can challenge it.
Mr. Albas.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Yes. Before I go through—because I really view a challenge to the chair as something you don't do every day, Mr. Chair—I just have a question. The term “absolute zero” would mean 100%.
By the way, I don't agree with this motion, but I do believe people should be heard. If she's given the right to come to committee to table this, I think that at least she deserves an up-or-down vote so we can be accountable and then we can say there was a fair hearing.
My question, Mr. Chair, is that “absolute” would mean 100%, but she's simply qualifying a proportion of net zero being 90%. At least that's my take on it. Maybe Ms. May might have a different version of it.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's clever math, but I don't know if that's really what the rule addresses—
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, 90% of something is not 100% of a thing. That's pretty clear. It's not absolute. Absolute usually is 100%, or absolute zero.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think “absolute” here means that you can't balance it with something else. Ms. May did get a chance to address the committee to say why she disagreed. If you would like to challenge the chair, Mr. Albas, you can do so but without debate, so we would go straight to a vote.
Is that correct, Ms. Thivierge?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
With regard to that, Mr. Chair, we might want to hear from Mr. Redekopp first, and then I'll make my argument, because—
