Environment Committee on May 31st, 2021

[John Moffet]

I think what we're talking about here is not methods for achieving reductions, but methods for reporting on emissions, and the federal government reports on emissions following standardized international protocols.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

To answer Mr. Redekopp's question, the Bloc Québécois is quite adamant about respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, so we make sure that the amendments we propose do not compromise that.

With this bill, we know that the government wants to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, but one question remains unanswered: How will it achieve that? We still don't have the details. So it's a matter of having a description of how they're going to do it. Then, of course, the commissioner will be able to assess the description of this method in the report he will have to make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for that clarification, Ms. Michaud.

I don't see any other hands up, so we'll go to the vote.

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

We will now go to amendment PV-15 proposed by Ms. May.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

We're still in the rubric of clause 10, on the content of the emissions reduction plan. My proposal is to stick in, just after paragraph (b) in subclause 10(1), which was amended by amendment G-8 by Madam Saks, a paragraph that calls for:

(b.1) detailed information and modelling of the expected annual emissions reduction for the year to which the plan relates;

In other words, we want a greater understanding of the progress being made in annual increments, as recommended by numerous groups and briefs that were presented to this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

As we've just seen, member Saks tabled her motion, G-8, which already addresses member May's motions. Member Saks' motion adds the provision in the act that would require the emissions reduction plan to contain projections of the annual GHG emissions reductions and the resulting part of the plan that combines measures and strategies.

I'll be opposing this, since we've already covered that through Ms. Saks' amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In reference to Mr. Longfield's intervention, I'd like to ask Mr. Moffet a question.

Obviously, government amendment G-8 is much different from Green Party amendment PV-15. With respect to its being duplicative, is that the case? I don't remember in G-8 there being any reference to modelling. Would modelling be something different from just some of the numbers that you pointed out earlier?

[John Moffet]

They're not precisely the same, but I think they have the same effect.

G-8 would add, among other things, new paragraph 10(1)(f):

projections of the annual greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from those combined measures and strategies, including projections for each economic sector that is included in Canada' s reports under the Convention;

We have projections—aggregate projections and projections for each sector—already approved as being required. As I say, PV-15 would require detailed information and modelling of expected annual emissions reductions. To the extent that there's a difference between projected and detailed information and modelling, the legal terminology is different. The projections would have to be done, again, based on international methodology, which requires detailed information and modelling. I think in substance they cover the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. May.

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

I would make the obvious point, Mr. Chair, that if the amendment was redundant to G-8, the clerk would have flagged that and notified us, before we passed G-8, that my amendment PV-15 was somehow redundant. It's sufficiently different and does provide more detail in the development of a plan so that people can track it. The title of the act is “accountability”. The guts of the act aren't there yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I don't see any other hands up.

I would ask the clerk to do a roll call vote on PV-15.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

We'll go to PV-16.

On this one, I have a ruling. My ruling is that the amendment is inadmissible. I will now take the opportunity to explain 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. Amendment PV-16 seeks to establish a carbon budget measure that is not foreseen in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 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-16 introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

This is just a clarification—

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

I wish to stand on the motion this committee passed that requires me to be here and that allows me to speak to my amendments. The practice has been from other committees and other committee chairs, Mr. Chair, probably dozens if not hundreds of times, that even if the chair rules that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead. I should have let you present it first. I'm sorry.

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

Thank you.

I would just like to draw the attention of the committee to the preamble, which we know doesn't have the weight in law the body of the bill would have.

The preamble claims this bill is committed to reaching the Paris Agreement goals of as far below 2°C as possible, and preferably no more than 1.5°C global average temperature increase above the temperature at the global average that existed at the time of the Industrial Revolution. In order to do that, we're looking at far more than net zero by 2050.

I note that although, clearly, witnesses were significantly curtailed and expert evidence was not brought to the committee that could have been brought, we certainly did hear from enough witnesses to know the key elements of successful climate accountability laws around the world are missing in this. Some of our witnesses were actually able to tell us that carbon budgets work better than percentage reductions.

I'm not challenging the chair. I don't have any right to because I'm not a member of the committee, but I do note that every other climate accountability law around the world uses carbon budgeting to achieve the goals this bill claims to want to achieve.

I'm surprised, Mr. Chair, that you have been advised this is beyond the scope of the bill. Carbon budgeting has been requested by virtually every climate organization within Canada, certainly the members groups of the Climate Action Network and numerous others. We don't know what first nations would have said about this bill because they weren't allowed to testify, but I really am disappointed by the ruling. I speak to this motion because it's really important we understand that we're missing the boat on climate accountability.

Obviously, with that, Mr. Chair, I think I've exhausted the time the motion this committee passed that requires me to be here allows me to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll make a point of clarification.

It's not that no one was allowed to be a witness or to appear. We sent out invitations and the invitation was not accepted in every case.

Okay, so—

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

But it went by pretty quickly, Mr. Chair. I think that's part of the problem when you're asking indigenous nations to step forward and testify. If they only have a few hours to know about it—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I don't think that was the case, but I won't get into that here.

Thank you for that.

I will now ask you, Ms. May, to present—

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

Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Mr. Albas.

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

Before you move along here, I had a question for you with regard to your ruling.

My understanding is that net zero itself is a state we end up in—it's defined in the bill—by 2050, and it's anthropogenic, etc., but there is nothing Nessa cites as to which concepts or which methods are best. In fact, we've had a discussion about targets in the bill, but we've heard testimony about other things.

I disagree with the use of carbon budgets in this, but I do think it is important that people be heard, Mr. Chair. Ms. May has in good faith put together an amendment and worked with the law clerk to present something, and I think for yourself....

Please don't take this personally, Mr. Chair. I have great respect for the office you hold and for your commitment to this country, but by the same token I think Ms. May's amendment doesn't change the goal. It changes the method the government would use to achieve that goal. Again, this is more on the accountability side than the implementation of the plan side.

With greatest respect, Mr. Chair, I have to challenge your ruling on this. I do think Ms. May deserves a chance to present this as a formal amendment and not to be ruled out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's a challenge, so there's no debate on this. We'll have a vote.

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

Thank you.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, can you just clarify what we're voting for?