Environment Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

The chair can adjourn at any time.

You can adjourn right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does somebody want to propose a motion to adjourn?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

No. Let's suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm asking.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Ms. Collins has a point of order.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I move a motion to adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let's vote on that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It's maybe more a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can you just spell out for me the impact of adjourning versus suspending?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Suspending means that we start the next meeting debating this motion.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's on Tuesday, but I heard someone in the background say that we can do this tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, it's not tomorrow. That was an error.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. It's at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

We are voting on the motion to adjourn.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

De facto, then, this is a suspension.

We will suspend. We'll start the next meeting with this debate.

I wish you all a good evening and a good weekend.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:47 p.m., Thursday, May 2]

[The meeting resumed at 3:54 p.m., Tuesday, May 7]

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good afternoon, colleagues. We're picking up where we left off on Thursday.

We have with us today, replacing other members, Mr. Trudel for Madame Pauzé, Mr. Boulerice for Ms. Collins, Ms. Lewis for Mr. Kram and Ms. Sidhu for Mr. Longfield.

When we broke on Thursday, Madam Chatel had the floor. I don't know if Madame Chatel has more to say before we go on to Mr. Leslie, Mr. Trudel, Mr. van Koeverden and Mr. Longfield. Mr. Longfield is not here.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Chair, was I on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, but I'll put you there.

Mrs. Chatel, would you like to continue speaking?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'd love to, but I'll turn it over to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to recap, because it was a number of days ago, at the end of Thursday's meeting, we witnessed a surprise filibuster from the Liberals to talk out the clock until the meeting ended. Thankfully, we were able to suspend this meeting. I thank colleagues for that, because I do believe that this is an important issue.

While the Liberals' intent was to avoid a vote at the end of the last meeting regarding the order of production of documents regarding the complete contribution agreements for the net-zero accelerator fund, which was the topic of major conversation from all parties with the environment commissioner before us, this was that same program for which the environment commissioner had discovered that due diligence was not always, if rarely, done before approval of any of the government funding.

The commissioner also found that there was really no clear demonstration of the project's value for money in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The commissioner had also found that the initiative was not part of any coherent or comprehensive industrial policy on decarbonization whatsoever.

The commissioner also found that there was a risk of double-counting when tracking emissions reductions, which is of major concern, particularly given that the government made the announcement of its national inventory reporting that same day.

The commissioner found that the government did not follow some of the principles of calculating emissions, which throws into doubt the numbers they announced just a couple hours prior to that.

The commissioner found that, in one project, the department did not include all relevant information in the greenhouse gas assessment exercise, breaching the principles of transparency and completeness.

I could go on about the commissioner's compelling testimony that day, but I think my point is understood and recapped effectively for members and Canadians.

The reality is that the Liberal government has badly mishandled its $8-billion program. Given that the environment commissioner can't come to conclusions as to whether we received value for money, I have no idea how Canadians could possibly figure out if there's been value for money.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern emerging from the Liberals in filibustering.

I had the chance to visit my colleagues at the government operations committee a couple of weeks ago, where we were looking at the intended release of the contracts regarding the electrical vehicle battery plants that have been announced with major subsidies to foreign companies by Canadian taxpayers to bring in Chinese parts and components and have them assembled by foreign workers at the company's choosing.

Obviously, I think it's fully reasonable in that case, just as in this case, to request that the contracts be provided. Obviously, there can be redactions made. I think my colleagues don't want to see any sensitive data released if there are legitimate reasons, but willingness needs to be there to release the contract. We were talking about billions and billions of dollars and a government unwilling to release this.

It's a trend of broken promises. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through the entire list of broken promises from this government, but this is a reminder that the next time the government says that it is going to spend $8 billion on something, I think it's reasonable to ask where it's going and what results it is achieving.

This Prime Minister, once upon a time, said that sunshine was the best disinfectant. Once upon a time, this government was going to be open by default. Once upon a time, this was going to be the most transparent government in the history of Canada. Clearly, these are broken promises on the fronts we have looked at in terms of the carbon tax emissions modelling assumptions and data that we have been denied access to, the same as the electric vehicle contracts at another committee.

I hope that my Liberal colleagues will perhaps cease the desire to break those promises, move back towards a desire to be open by default, release the contracts, vote in favour of this motion and not force opposition parties to come together to seek out this information.

Canadians and anybody who watched the testimony of our environment commissioner before us would have the very same questions we are asking.

I hope that we can get quick, unanimous consent to support this motion, hand over the contracts to both the environment commissioner and this committee to make sure that we can review them and get an understanding if there is, in fact, value for money through those.

I know there's a long speaking list, but my hope is that we can get through this very quickly so that we can finish any other committee business and get on to our next study.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Trudel, you have the floor.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't take long. I don't want to go back over the list of all the impediments that my colleague just raised with respect to accountability around this issue.

This whole thing is kind of uncomfortable. We had Mr. DeMarco here to talk about some very uncomfortable things, including the willing buyer-willing seller contracts that we know absolutely nothing about.

I would remind everyone that the net zero accelerator has $8 billion in funding. Everyone here represents constituents who expect us to do our job, which is to hold the government to account for the money it spends. That is all the more true when the government boasts that it is one of the most progressive governments in the world on a particular issue. MPs in the House of Commons talk about how good we are, how Canada is a leader in the fight against climate change, how things are getting so much better on the greenhouse gas emissions front, how our investments are targeted and how everything is working. However, Mr. DeMarco told us last week that it really isn't working as well as people think despite all the money being spent.

I would like to remind everyone that, according to a report published by the International Monetary Fund, Canada invested $50 billion in the oil industry in 2022, both directly and indirectly. That really is a lot of money. That's $50 billion. I would remind everyone that the big five oil companies netted $200 billion in 2022. Even so, the government is pouring in more cash, and that's not even counting Trans Mountain, which ended up costing $35 billion even though it was originally supposed to cost around $7 billion, if I'm not mistaken. It cost about four times more than expected.

The Liberals can't be trusted to manage taxpayers' money in the fight against climate change. That has been clear for a long time.

People can listen to what we're saying. We are the people's representatives. I can't believe this. All we're asking for is accountability for the contracts that were signed. I cannot fathom why we're spending so much time discussing something that should go without saying. We are the people's representatives, and we have to be accountable to the people. People are worried about the fight against climate change. Eco-anxiety is everywhere. We're here, and we're asking ourselves this question.

I won't spend any more time on this. I really hope a vote will allow us to get to the bottom of things. This is the most basic part of our job. It's actually our raison d'être. We're here to hold the government to account.

Mr. DeMarco and his team have done an amazing job. We want to take this a step further. We want to find out more about what Mr. DeMarco couldn't tell us last time. I hope members will vote in favour of this motion. I hope my Liberal Party colleagues will see that doing so is essential. This is an important issue for democracy. We're here to represent our constituents, who are concerned about the fight against climate change. The government needs to be accountable.

That's what I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Trudel.

Next on my list is Mr. van Koeverden.

The floor is yours.