Evidence of meeting #106 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reductions.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Right, but he's pointing out that it's about just the preamble. That's not what the motion is about.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's anything having to do with the motion, including the date. We can talk about it.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Right, but the motion has nothing to do with what we were doing today.
They should be required to give notice to put forward this motion, just as Ms. Collins was required to give notice to bring forth a motion. The motion they're putting forward, the content of it, has less to do with what we did today than the motion Ms. Collins put forward.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm not sure I see it that way.
We're running out of time, anyway. It's becoming a bit academic, and we have very little time left.
Ms. Chatel, you can continue, but please stick to the motion.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
The reason this motion is in order is because it's related to what we discussed today. That's what I'm talking about today. Why are my Conservative colleagues not allowing—yes, I'm going to say it—a woman to speak in committee? I have a right to speak. On a number of committees of which I've been a member, we've discussed all kinds of topics. On the Standing Committee on Finance, some Conservatives talked about eels, and they were allowed to do that. So enough is enough. I have a right to speak.
So there are a number of tools, such as investments in technology. Paragraph a. of the preamble of the motion says that this tool is not very effective because the oil and gas industry is not interested in it. So other tools are needed, such as an emissions cap in this sector, for example.
There is another tool that my Conservative colleagues don't want to hear about, but that all the major economies in the world use, and that is carbon pricing or a carbon exchange. It was actually a conservative idea in a number of countries. That system is based on market rules. That way, we don't need to use the command and control system, which isn't the approach we favour.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The motion is specifically about the strategic innovation fund. We're not talking about the government's range of programs, and it's not a matter of determining whether its vision for reducing greenhouse gases is effective or good. The motion is specifically aimed at the strategic innovation fund.
So you may continue, but I would ask you to focus on the content of the motion.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'm getting to that.
According to the motion, the fund dedicated to the net zero accelerator initiative isn't very effective. This is not the way for Canada to transition the oil and gas sector to a green economy. So if we can't invest in the—
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
My honourable colleague keeps referencing the word “efficiency” as if it's in this document. It's not.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Do I now have to speak English, because you'll make a point of order about my French?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Go ahead. We have to continue because there are barely four minutes left. After that, I'm going to ask whether there's a motion to adjourn.
May 2nd, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'd like to summarize my comments. Mr. Mazier moved his motion further to our lengthy discussions about the net zero accelerator initiative. This initiative provides funds for industries to invest in technologies to make them more effective and reduce their carbon footprint and their GSG emissions in their respective sectors. Furthermore, according to the report referred to in this motion, the net zero accelerator initiative does not appear to be as effective as desired. As I said earlier, it would be in everyone's interest to work together towards effective ways of achieving a carbon-neutral economy. That's our objective.
But then my Conservative colleagues are directing all their efforts and strategies towards achieving this objective, while engaging in a magical thinking exercise in the belief that investing in technology will inevitably lead to a carbon-neutral economy. However, as Mr. Mazier himself admits, and in view of the questions we've been asking the commissioner, it appears that certain sectors, unfortunately, like oil and gas, are not taking advantage of the initiative.
And yet, it's a good initiative. We are investing, and using taxpayer money to help these sectors develop technologies that will work much more effectively. The trouble is, it's not working, and that's what we've just learned today. We want it to work, but we can't force companies that don't want to invest to do so, even with our help. We have the financial leverage. Not only that, but we've been talking about billions of dollars in investments to help companies transition to a green economy. The fact is that we need a carbon tax, or an emissions ceiling. We won't get there without these other tools.
The problem is that if we don't have these other tools, we'll have to rely once again on a net zero accelerator fund. That's why we absolutely need other tools in our tool box, and that's what we have. We have several.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative