Evidence of meeting #73 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, our meeting is now public. We're no longer in camera.
This reminds me that there was a time when the hockey game at the Montreal Forum would start at eight o'clock, but the CBC would only start broadcasting it at 8:30, joining the game in progress, so I'd like to welcome our viewers to our meeting, which is in progress.
Pardon me?
12:05 p.m.
A voice
We'll be just as exciting.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Maybe, Mr. Chair, I'll say that it's been an interesting first day on my new committee. I came here with the expectation that we would be working on the consideration of a draft report, and now it has come to my attention that we are entertaining a motion to basically do the exact same thing that the natural resources committee is doing. That strikes me as not a particularly good use of the committee's time.
If we have this draft report with amendments for consideration, it strikes me as eminently more reasonable to continue with our original order of business instead of doing something that is already being covered by another committee. It would make considerably more sense if we were to step back and let the natural resources committee do its job. I am not aware of any reason that we would not have confidence in the natural resources committee to answer the questions they want answered. Then we can see if it has answered all the questions to our satisfaction.
If that is not the case and if there are gaps in the work done by the natural resources committee.... I don't understand why we would entertain this motion and move forward before the natural resources committee has done its work.
I also would note that this motion is calling for the tabling of a comprehensive report. I wonder if we would have anything useful at the end of our meeting to table for the House, given that the vast majority of the content of said report would most likely already be covered by the natural resources committee.
I would like us to begin consideration of the draft report, but I realize that this is a committee and that this is a democracy, and we will see what other members of the committee have to say.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
I'd just remind everyone that we're debating the subamendment to invite the minister from Alberta.
Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On the topic of whose responsibility it might be to look at the most devastating wildfire on record in our country, I don't think it's practical, productive or constructive to be passing the buck. I'd just remind all members that yesterday the Conservatives on the natural resources committee did the exact same thing: They suggested that it was an INDU responsibility, that it was the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that should look at this issue.
These committees are not designed to chase each other in circles; these committees are designed to take on the responsibility of inviting witnesses, getting expert testimony and putting together very representative recommendations to the government. I, for one, am in favour of that.
It's one meeting. It will be, clearly, a short report, and if we work with our colleagues at the natural resources committee, we can share some resources, ensure that people aren't flying back and forth across the country more than once, and ensure that we have a comprehensive recommendation from the committee on environment and climate change from the perspective of people who are looking at that issue, because their mandate is totally different from ours.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess I'm puzzled. I'm back on this environment committee and I was looking forward to working together as a committee, and as parliamentarians, more importantly. I was walking here today hopefully to talk about our draft response on the bill here, on a study that I know the committee had been working on for, if not weeks, probably months when I left the committee, so here we are.
I want some clarity here, Mr. Chair. What are we actually talking about? What is the motion we are debating today? Could you read that aloud, please? Could I get clarity on that—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
—and more importantly for our listening and viewing audience, because the show is in progress.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. Let me read the....
I won't read the “givens”; I'll just read what the motion is calling for.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I think that's the most important part. Read it right from what we're talking about, right from the “givens” through the whole motion.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, there was unanimous consent for the removal of a reference to Standing Order 106(4). Perhaps we can leave that out of the read version, just to avoid confusion.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
What's more important is the actual motion that we're talking about.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. The motion reads as follows: “That, given that over 15 million hectares of forests have burnt this summer from forest fires, nearly 200,000 Canadians have been placed under an evacuation order this season and climate change continues to increase the likelihood of extreme fire conditions; given that recent comments made by Suncor CEO Rich Kruger indicate a clear move away from environmental sustainability in the oil and gas sector in the interest of maximizing profits; given that the oil and gas sector is responsible for 28% of GHG emissions in Canada; given that the oil and gas sector is poised to make record profits in 2023 following a year of record profits in 2022; given that the Alberta government announced this summer a moratorium on renewable energy projects in that province; given that Canadians are relying on provincial governments and leaders in the oil and gas sector to do their part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development invite Suncor CEO Rich Kruger to explain why their companies are abandoning their climate targets that had been previously been laid out in the face of a climate emergency, as well as invite the Alberta Energy Regulator in a separate meeting to explain the decision to place a moratorium on renewable energy projects despite the booming industry in the province; that given the urgency of the climate crisis, Rich Kruger and the Alberta Energy Regulator be invited as soon as possible to appear; that a report of the meetings be prepared and reported to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
Right now, we're debating an amendment to include an invitation to an Alberta minister. I forget which one it is.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
It's Brian Jean, the Minister of Energy and Minerals.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean, a former parliamentarian. That's the amendment we're debating right now.
Mr. Mazier, do you have more to add?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Could we have the amendment read aloud and then circulated as well?
