Environment Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With this amendment my concern is that introducing a dissenting report on a report that's already been tabled is really effectively opening this study again. I think we're looking for the right way forward. I suggested a letter because I think we would get a faster response, or we could ask for a faster response. Madame Pauzé makes a good point that the minister doesn't have to wait 120 days and could give us a faster response, which gives some flexibility. If he needs the time he can use the time, but if he can do it faster it's better for us as a committee to get a response because there was good work done there.

I'm concerned that the amendment on the table would be counter to the way reports are normally handled. They're either tabled, or else, if you're going to do a dissenting report, you have to open up the study again so that we can see what's changed in the meantime. I wouldn't be supporting a dissenting report, but I would definitely support retabling the report as it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

My concern with having the dissenting report is that we have a very different makeup of the committee now. Not all of the members of the committee have had the opportunity to have witnesses and be able to ask them questions. That's part of my concern with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Weiler.

Is there anyone else?

We'll go to Mr. Albas and then Madame Pauzé.

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

Again, to explain, when a committee readopts a report, usually they have to go through a standard adoption motion including Standing Order 108(1)(b), which allows all parties to submit supplementary dissenting reports. My stake in this is just process, not product. The Conservatives will not be putting forward a dissenting report. If everyone just agrees with the idea that Madame Pauzé is putting forward today, please allow us just to put a little sticker for when it comes to due process, and let's vote on this amendment. Again it would be for the end of business day. I'm sure many of us have very great thoughts that we could quickly write down, but I really don't get the sense that's really what's intended here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I thought we were heading for a formality. I think the reason the committee is passing this motion is because it is master of its motions. No matter what happened centuries ago in Parliament, that the report needed to be reopened, and so on, the committee is master of its decisions.

I just want to remind you that it was still a unanimous report. We spent months talking about it and we had many stakeholders. Also, it was an all-party commitment here during the election campaign. All the parties had it in their election platform. In addition, there was also the government's intention stated in the Speech from the Throne—not Governor General Simon's, but the previous one—to put forward zero-emission vehicles and the date of 2035 was mentioned.

We have no more time to waste. The industry needs predictability, so we must not put this off indefinitely. The sooner it's done, the sooner we can discuss legislation to do this and the sooner the industry will be able to pivot and be able to build vehicles here.

This report ensures that zero-emission vehicles built in Canada, often with funds from Canadian citizens, are available to people in Canada. However, this is not the case at present. So the report addresses all of that, infrastructure, and so on.

Those are my arguments, and I agree with Mr. Albas. regarding the time up to today; we can then table it by Thursday, in case the House does not sit on Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Mr. Albas, there are no other speakers. I would ask you to read your amendment again to make sure that we understand what we are voting on.

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

It's that any party that wishes to submit a dissenting report must do so by end of business day, the day that this motion is adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm calling the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

There we go again, the environment committee working collaboratively.

Now we will vote on the main motion.

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

Can we seek unanimous consent for passing it as amended?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think that's a good idea.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Congratulations, Madame Pauzé. We will look forward to the government's response.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We'll wait for it with anticipation, thank you.

I would like to take this opportunity to table another motion that we could consider. It's a motion that you all received. I think the clerk sent it to you. So it's a new motion regarding a study.

I will read it to you:That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development undertake a study for a comprehensive review of nuclear waste governance in Canada and its impacts on the environment, including the issues raised by the import of these wastes and the trade in medical technologies; that the committee invite the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Natural Resources, representatives of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, experts, and other stakeholders; that the committee hold a minimum of five meetings and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There are three raised hands on the screen, but I don't know who was first.

Who has priority?

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

You decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The technology is supposed to put this in order.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I put my hand up last, so I'm third.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, so the technology is not doing that.

[The Clerk]

It's Mr. Longfield, then Mr. Weiler and then Ms. Collins.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Longfield, I would like to ask Madame Pauzé. It's up to her, I guess. Rather than have a big debate today, can we not submit this to the steering committee and discuss it there and then come back?

Madame Pauzé is in agreement.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know if we need to go to Mr. Longfield, Mr. Weiler and Ms. Collins.

Does anyone...? No, okay.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I was going to suggest that any other motions that we have, including this one, go to the steering committee, and that we get those in writing to the steering committee so that they have something to discuss when they get together next Tuesday, if that's going to be the meeting date, and then they can report back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That sounds good to me.

Mr. Weiler and Ms. Collins, do you need to intervene?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say thank you to Madame Pauzé for putting this forward. Also, we will be submitting a motion on fossil fuel subsidies and really looking forward to the subcommittee discussing all of them.