Evidence of meeting #1 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 recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
[Technical difficulty—Editor] vote or understand how I would approach the amendment to the motion without actually—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Sure. I will let Madame Pauzé answer your question.
Mr. Albas, she needs to understand what Madame Pauzé has actually said before she questions you on your amendment. Fair enough.
Ms. Pauzé.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
To answer Ms. Collins' question, I would like to say that this is about vehicles because the transportation sector is the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. We need to tackle the main source of greenhouse gas emissions. This type of legislation encourages people to embrace electric vehicles and increases sales. We are not talking about cars alone, but also about trucks and other vehicles. Directly tackling the key sources of greenhouse gas emissions is the objective of a zero-emission law or what is also called a zero-emission vehicle program or low-emission vehicle regulations. I hope that is clear for Ms. Collins.
Madam Chair, while I have the floor may I speak to Mr. Albas's amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Yes. I have people in line, but you may speak to it if nobody yells at me.
Go ahead, Madame Pauzé, since you have the floor.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Personally, I do not support Mr. Albas's amendment. What he is proposing is too much at this point. That could be done later, after we have determined what is feasible and when we have a bill and clauses to study. Initially, we must hear from people and groups from across the country who, as I was saying, are working on this. We need to hear what they have to say about the feasibility of this law.
We could invite the minister to appear later, but I do not think it is important in the first stage. The committee must first study the feasibility of such legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
There were a few hands up that I bypassed.
Mr. Longfield, you were on my list if you have any questions for Mr. Albas.
Mr. Baker, did you have a question for Mr. Albas on his amendment?
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Yes, in terms of the amendment, we did pass a motion earlier by Mr. Saini that the minister attend the committee. We will have an opportunity to question him then about this topic or other topics. That will allow you to drive the accountability that you are trying to achieve.
I'm with Madame Pauzé on this. Here is a situation where I think Madame Pauzé's intention is to study the feasibility of this legislation she's talking about. It would be best informed by people who are experts in that field advising us and the government, not the other way around.
Those are my thoughts on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Mr. Saini, you had your hand raised. Was it for a question for Mr. Albas?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Okay. I'll allow that, and then I'll take a vote on Mr. Albas's amendment.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
If Madame Pauzé wants to study zero-emission vehicles, it should be put clearly in the motion. When she says “zero-emission federal legislation”, that's unclear to me. It can be either net-zero federal legislation or zero-emission vehicles. She can choose.
I think that, because of the importance of the topic, it should be six meetings.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to point out a few things. First of all, this isn't about legislation. If we're going to talk about the feasibility of any plan, it's going to come down to the government's ability to legislate. Therefore, to say that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change does not have the expertise or is not germane to the discussion, I think is not feasible. It's strange that we would not be asking the minister to come to talk about something that is his responsibility and that was raised in the throne speech and is referenced in the member's own motion.
I'm a big believer that you go hard on the policy and be good to the people, so I certainly appreciate the member's right to bring this, but I do think the amendment would increase our ability to understand the issue, particularly when we've effectively given this six meetings. Surely we can carve out time for the minister who will be responsible for the inevitable legislation so that we can ask questions pertinent to the feasibility of the proposition the member is espousing.
Remember that California has more people than all of Canada and has a very different temperament. I do think the minister should be involved, and if Liberal members don't want to see ministerial accountability, if they don't feel or have faith that their own minister, who will eventually have to champion whatever bill they come up, can come to this committee prior to that and answer a few basic questions, I think that says more about their approach to ministerial accountability.
That said, I hope no one takes offence. Again, I always try to be hard on the policy and good to the people. We'll see how this amendment turns out.
Thank you.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
It's a question or statement to maybe clarify my previous comments.
I think I would have voted in favour of Mr. Albas's amendment if this were talking about net-zero legislation and climate accountability, but given the clarification that Madame Pauzé gave, which is that it is just narrowly focused on zero-emission vehicle legislation....
I also want to correct the record. Madame Pauzé said that the transportation sector is the leading emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada. The oil and gas industry is Canada's leading GHG emitter. Emissions from the transportation sector are a close second, and buildings are third.
If we're going to invite the minister for something, I would want to be covering all of those things and not just be narrowly focused on zero-emission vehicles. I do agree with Mr. Saini that once we have voted on this amendment, we should amend the motion to make it clear that vehicles are in there.
Because it is narrowly focused on zero-emission vehicles, four meetings would seem enough.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on the topic?
Mr. Roger, I'm going to call for the vote.
The clerk will take the recorded vote.
The Clerk
The vote is on the amendment by Mr. Albas to add to the motion that we invite the minister and pertinent officials.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
As a point of clarification about the process, when we're voting for or against this motion, are we in any way deciding the order in which we proceed with studies, or is it just a general vote in favour of or against this motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
No, you are not deciding the priority of our studies. What you are deciding is what we may study, given the time.
That's why steering committees are so important. They give out the timetable so that everybody can plug in what we should study.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I would like to make an amendment to the motion. It is to put “vehicles” after “zero-emission”.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
It is to add the word “vehicles” after the words “zero-emission”. It would be between “zero-emission” and the words “federal legislation”.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
My thinking is that this motion that Madame Pauzé has brought forward.... I don't know why we're focusing just on vehicles. That's more of a transport question.
I think the spirit of her motion should be more expansive. Let's look at a net-zero emissions economy and country, rather than focusing very narrowly just on vehicles, because if it's just vehicles, that's a Transport Canada issue or a transport committee issue. Why not be more expansive, take the time to have six meetings and look at the matter in a broader manner?