Environment Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I also want to add my thanks to Monique Pauzé for her motion. I wholeheartedly agree. I think this is something that we should be using the resources and the time of the committee to study.

Since 2015, we've done a great deal. We've worked very hard to reach a point where projections show that we'll have reached about 200 megatonnes of our approximately 280-megatonne goal of reaching the Paris targets. We did that through a price on pollution. We did that through putting in place subsidies for electric vehicles and investing record amounts in green infrastructure, including public transportation, and we have new initiatives on the way looking into clean fuel standards and planting two billion trees. We're doing a lot of work to study exactly how we can plant those trees in a way that will allow us to protect as many species as possible while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We've done a lot, but we're the first to say there's always more we can do, and I think that's the spirit of Madame Pauzé's motion. It's to say, what else can we do to help Canada achieve this necessary and urgent objective of not only meeting but also surpassing our Paris targets?

Therefore, I think we should be using the resources and the time of the committee to provide additional ideas that the government can adopt and invest in to help us meet that goal. It's imperative that we do so.

Ms. Pauzé, thank you for tabling this motion, which I will be supporting. It is a good idea to use our committee's resources to help us not only reach but also surpass the Paris Agreement targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Saini, do you have a question?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have a couple of questions for Madame Pauzé. I would suggest some points of clarity for her motion. She referred to “zero emissions”, which I would maybe change to “net-zero emissions”.

The other thing is that you have “six” written in English but you have “4” in brackets. I would just like some clarity on whether you could agree to make it “net-zero” and whether it is six or four meetings that you want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Was anybody else's hand up before that I have not noticed?

Ms. Collins has a question for Madame Pauzé.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

First of all, I want to thank Madame Pauzé for bringing this forward. Yes, I always want to be talking about putting our climate targets into law. In the framing of it, I really want us to start from a place of honesty about where we're at, which is that we have missed every single climate target this government has set and are not currently on track to meet our 2030 targets. My concern about net-zero federal legislation for 2050 is that this is two decades too late. We really need to be clear that we have less than a decade to meet our 2030 targets, which we currently are on track to miss.

I just want to get some points of clarification about where Madame Pauzé was starting from and if there is some way we can ensure that we're clear about where we're at and how far we have to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Collins, are you proposing an amendment to her motion?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Are you just asking for clarification?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

Mr. Albas, did you have a question for Madame Pauzé?

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

Yes, I did.

Quite honestly, I will be voting against the motion overall, but I do have an interest in the work of the committee and just want to ask the member whether or not she has contemplated having other stakeholders here. I think that including the minister in the motion would be an effective use of time, because right now we've heard the throne speech but we don't have a lot of details. Having, as part of the motion, the minister coming in to start off the study would probably be welcomed by opposition members. I believe that accountability is always good, so hopefully our Liberal colleagues would agree with that.

I'll just ask the member if she thinks that should be included. If not, I just want to hear what she has to say first before I make any motion to amend it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much for the exchange.

We need to clarify what constitutes a zero-emission law. I am proposing that we determine whether such legislation would be feasible at the federal level. It would be modelled after California's zero-emission law, for example, which requires companies to produce electric vehicles. Quebec, with a population of eight million, has a zero-emission law, and California's population is at least that of Canada. If Canada were also to adopt such legislation, it would provide companies with an even greater incentive to produce electric vehicles.

The Bloc Québécois was critical of the Speech from the Throne, but agrees that the electrification of transportation is one means of decreasing greenhouse gases. These models already exist. In Norway, for example, there are many electric vehicles and this has made it possible for that country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The zero-emission law that I am proposing has a very commercial component that would promote research, innovation, job creation and the production of electric vehicles to meet demand. People and groups across the country, from coast to coast to coast, could testify before the committee on this subject.

I think I have presented my arguments.

Given all the work already done by all these groups across Canada, I propose that we have just four meetings, which would not monopolize all of the committee's time.

As Mr. Schiefke or Mr. Baker mentioned, the issue is the feasibility of coming up with such legislation. After four meetings, we will have the answer to that question. If feasible, a bill will then be introduced in the House.

I took some notes, but I am not sure that I answered all the questions. If you have other questions, don't hesitate to ask them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Baker, you have your hand up.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Ms. Pauzé, I would like to check something. When you say “zéro émission” in French, is that the equivalent of “net zero” in English? That is my first question.

Second, I would like to tell you that I support the motion because it is an excellent idea. That said, there was a discussion about whether the committee should meet four or six times. Having four meetings is good, but, given that this motion proposes a study of a very important and fairly complex subject, I propose that we have six meetings to properly study the matter.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

May I answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In English, we do not refer to net emissions, but to a zero-emission law. It is not the same thing as net zero emission. It is truly a zero-emission law. That is what it is called in California and Quebec, where such legislation exists.

I proposed that there be four meetings on this subject, but, I would not complain if there were six. It is a very broad and important subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I think, Madame Pauzé, the confusion is that in English it's written “six”, and in brackets it's written “4”. If you've made a mistake that way and you want to change it to “four”, perhaps that's what....

It should be six or four.

Okay? Thank you.

Next is Mr. Albas, and after that Mr. Longfield and Ms. Collins.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the member for clarifying net-zero versus zero emission. That does bring into question the feasibility.

I'm going to make a motion to amend the member's motion. Maybe I'll just bring it up for the clerk so he doesn't have to pull all of his hair out. Perhaps right after we say, “The committee examine the feasibility of zero-emission federal legislation,” I would add “and have witnesses, starting with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, as well as other pertinent witnesses”.

That's my motion. I'd be happy to give the rationale if you find it in order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have the right to move an amendment to the motion. If you explain yourself, then I can ask the committee members for their questions or their vote.

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

Yes, okay.

So far in this discussion, there have been a few different questions asked of the member, but quite honestly, anything that.... The government holds all the cards when it comes to its throne speech and implementing its agenda in terms of a first mover, so the clarification by Madame Pauzé was very important in specifically saying she was targeting zero emissions, not net-zero, as was raised by MP Baker.

I do want to include that any discussion should start with the minister. I believe in ministerial accountability, and hearing from the minister will allow us to shape our study in a way that helps us better understand the issue. I hope that all members will agree with having the minister, who will have research from Environment Canada and has principal responsibility for any potential legislation. I hope that all members would believe that starting with the minister is top of the agenda for us, so I'm looking for all-party support for this, despite....

On one last note, six meetings seems to me a bit excessive, particularly since we may have legislation at some point, but I'm just going to leave the point there. My motion to amend says we should have the minister come in and tell us about the feasibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Albas, now that you have proposed an amendment, I will have to take questions from people who want to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Longfield, do you want to speak to Mr. Albas's amendment or not?

He's not here.

Ms. Collins, you were next in line.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a question of clarification for Madame Pauzé, as I won't be able to vote on Mr. Albas's motion without really understanding the main motion itself.

Madame Pauzé, you were talking about zero-emission legislation and you referred to California legislation, which is actually zero-emission vehicle legislation, if I recall correctly. This is different from climate accountability legislation, which is legislating laws in five- or 10-year increments around ensuring that we get to net-zero by 2050 and are meeting our climate target.

I was curious whether this motion, when we're talking about zero-emission legislation, is just in reference to zero-emission vehicles, or are we also talking about all the other elements of getting to zero emissions, which would include things like retrofitting buildings, transforming our other transportation, active transportation, all of the pieces around fossil fuel development and that kind of thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Collins, you are addressing Madame Pauzé's original motion. I'll let her answer, but I want questions for Mr. Albas as well, because we don't want to confuse the issue. There is an amendment on the floor. I have to take the amendment first.

If anybody has any questions for—