Evidence of meeting #106 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 reductions.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, reading the motion over again is not a point of order.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The point he's making is it's not relevant to the motion. He's just making a point by reading the motion.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Just a moment, Ms. Chatel. Mr. Mazier has the floor.
Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.
May 2nd, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I was going to clarify it. Mrs. Chatel wanted to listen to the motion and what we were asking for. It would read, “the committee order the production of (i) the government’s complete tracker tool used to measure the Net Zero Accelerator’s progress and results”.
She's not listening to me.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
It goes on:
...(ii) all internal Net Zero Accelerator targets set by the government, including the government’s Net Zero Accelerator emission reduction target, and (iii) all complete contributions agreements signed, to date, for the Net Zero Accelerator, within one week of this motion being adopted.
There are three points. The three things we're asking for, that's what we're debating.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Chatel, I think we've strayed somewhat from the subject of the motion, so I would appreciate it if you could get back to the content of the motion.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'd like to refer to paragraph b) of the motion. It says that the emission reduction progress and results of the government’s $8 billion net zero accelerator initiative are not public to Canadians and are not effective.
That's the premise that is central to the discussion about the motion.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding. This is a preamble of what the environment commissioner reported. That's why this motion was eligible to be moved right now, so whether or not it's efficient isn't.... This is a preamble to what was being asked for.
I just want to clarify that this is not about efficiency or inefficiency; it is saying that the reductions and the results of the accelerator fund are not public. It's not about whether they're efficient; it's about whether or not they're public. The third part is to make them public by sending them to our committee. It's a production order for that information.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it seems to me that these points of order from the other side are more points of debate.
If they want to debate the motion, they should get on the speaking list. We have a woman on our committee who's trying to speak over the men in the room, and I would like to hear her speak.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
I think one of the members opposite just pointed out that the only connection this motion has to what we have been discussing today is the preamble.
If Mrs. Chatel cannot debate the preamble, what relevance is it? Why are we talking about this motion at all? It needs to have notice.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, she can debate the preamble. I have no problem with that.
