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.
Liberal
Liberal
The Clerk
Yes, I did. I'm just looking at it right now. It's actually my staff who sent it. I'm just going to open it and read it in English.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
If you guys can open up your P9 account, you will see the motion there as well.
Conservative
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Chair, the interpreter has told me that, unfortunately, she does not have a copy of the motion, that she will not be able to interpret it precisely, but that she will do her best. I think that is a problem. A motion should be very precise, in both English and French. We cannot rely on the interpretation alone. That goes for any motion or legislative text.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Mr. Godin, if you check your P9 account, you will see the exact motion in English and in French.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you.
Now that everybody has the motion in front of them, do you really want the clerk to read it out?
Okay, go ahead, Mr. Roger.
The Clerk
In English, it is: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development undertake a study in connection with the desire expressed in the Speech from the Throne to put in place a plan that will make it possible to surpass Canada's climate objectives; and that to do so the committee examine the feasibility of zero-emission federal legislation; that a report be presented to the House of Commons; and that four meetings be devoted to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you.
Mr. Longfield, I saw your hand up. If you didn't have your hand up and I saw something in error, then I apologize.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
After we have finished with these motions, I am going to introduce one, so I'll just lower my hand.
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay. I would simply say that the Conservatives will be voting in opposition to this. It's not because we disagree that there is some usefulness in the committee looking into what the climate plan of the government is. I will say that what they are undertaking in this country is not working at this time. We're seeing rising emissions, and we're seeing too many people without work. Conservatives want to see people working, and we want to see emissions on a proper track. The plan the government has put forward has not been working, and I think the PBO had a lot to say about the carbon tax today.
That being said, the government has said that it will be putting forward legislation in regard to the net-zero targets that are mentioned in this motion. This would mean both that there would be debate in the House and that anything would then be referred to us for further study. Without having meaningful legislation that guides exactly what the government intends to do and the approach, I think that doing four meetings on this and then having to look at that legislation a second time is duplicative and would not be a good use of our time. What I would suggest to members is to simply vote no on this. We will probably be seeing that.
I also want to illustrate that there is a piece of private members' business that in my understanding will be before the House. It also addresses this. I believe it's actually a member of the Bloc Québécois who is proposing the legislation in terms of climate targets and net-zero. There are multiple opportunities that the House of Commons will have and that the environment committee must respond to if that legislation is passed through second reading. We will then have all the stakeholders whom members want to hear from talk to us about the legislation.
Rather than talking about desires in the throne speech.... I certainly appreciate Madame Pauzé's urgency that she would like to study this. However, I think we would be duplicating work that doesn't need to happen at this time. I would like us to look at other elements of the government's plan that are not working. As I said, too many people are not working and, as well, emissions are going up and critical habitat is being lost.
I think we should vote no now and defer this until the legislation comes forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
Next I have Mr. Longfield, Mr. Baker, Mr. Schiefke and then Madame Pauzé.
Mr. Longfield, go ahead.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you.
Congratulations, Madame Pauzé. I think this is a great motion.
Both motions are excellent. I would love to take both of those motions forward, but we're talking about the first one, which does align very well with the work of our committee. There will be disagreements on what we study and how we study it, and that's part of the work of the committee as well. I think getting this forward and having it discussed would be a very important thing for us to go forward with. I'll be supporting the motion.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to make a couple of points.
First of all, in response to Mr. Albas's comments, when I read the motion I thought that what makes this incrementally helpful is that Madame Pauzé has said we should study the feasibility of zero-emission federal legislation. She is not saying that we should study the legislation itself. She's saying that we should study the feasibility of it, which is a useful study for us. It's useful information for us to have as an insight so that as members of the environment committee we are prepared to better understand it in the context of any legislation that comes forward. I just wanted to make the point that it is a useful thing for us to do. It's not duplicative.
I had two clarifying questions for Madame Pauzé.
First, when we say “zero-emission federal legislation”, do we mean net-zero or just zero? That's a clarifying question that I want to ask. Second, could Madame Pauzé elaborate on what she is trying to achieve with this motion? In my response to Mr. Albas, I've communicated what I think the intention is, but I don't want to put words in Madame Pauzé's mouth. I would love to hear from her what her rationale is.
Those are my two questions: Is it zero or net-zero, and can Madame Pauzé elaborate a bit on her rationale for this motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I'll let Mr. Schiefke speak, and then Madame Pauzé will respond to any of your questions.
Madame Pauzé, would you mind if everybody asks you questions, so that we could consolidate their questions, because I've seen a few hands rise up?
Mr. Schiefke.