Evidence of meeting #111 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 province.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, it goes back to you on the list, but you're going to use that time to propose an amendment.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that we are running short on time. We had a lot of conversations between parties during the suspension there, and I think there are a number of reasonable questions we can ask officials that certainly should be in public. We understand that there are sensitive parts of the document, but I think we need to understand those sensitive parts, both of the contracts and of what cabinet confidences might possibly have to do with a target for this program in terms of reducing emissions as well as a number of other pieces out of what was a lengthy document. Ultimately, they did not respond to the three pieces of the initial request.
I would like to move the following amendment to change the motion put forward by Mr. Mazier. It will begin with a change in language on the fifth line following the bullet points, immediately following “for no less than two hours” and adding “with one hour in public followed by one hour in camera”. Further down in the same paragraph—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, it's “with one hour in public followed by one hour in camera”.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Further down within the same paragraph, on line 10, immediately following the words “for the Net Zero Accelerator”, amend it to add, “to be viewed by the committee and their staff, as long as required—.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You're going too fast for me. I'm sorry. Is this one amendment or two? Can we vote on both together?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's all one amendment. Okay.
After “for the Net Zero Accelerator”—this is great that it's in writing; I appreciate that—it's “to be viewed by the committee”....
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Yes, it continues “and their staff, as long as required by members of the committee, at least three days in advance of the meeting on June 11”. Continuing the amendment two lines further down, immediately following the words “Net Zero Accelerator's progress and results”, amend it by adding “to be viewed by the committee and their staff, as long as required by members of the committee, at least”—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You don't say “by members of the committee”. You say, “the committee and their staff, as long as required, at least three days”. Is that what you're saying?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. You didn't say “as required by members of the committee”. It's “as required...at least three days in advance of the meeting”.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
It continues,“at least three days in advance of the meeting on [June 11th], and government provide public versions, (i.e. redacted) of all documents ordered by the committee in advance in order to understand what the government is deeming commercially sensitive and protected.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let me pause for a second here. That's the amendment on the table.
I had Mr. Mazier next.... No, now we're debating the amendment. Who wants to speak to that?
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Maybe I could just make a couple of comments as to why I think this amendment is necessary.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Obviously, there are a lot of questions that emerge. The reason we are having this 106(4) meeting is the lack of a clear response as requested by this committee from ISED. I know that there is some confusion regarding which department is the lead on this; however, this particular $8-billion program certainly falls under the mandate of the environment minister.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
We have been left with many unanswered questions. Obviously, as I mentioned, I understand the commercial sensitivities of the contracts, but in looking through that response, it fails entirely, other than providing many words. The entire thrust of what this committee was looking for—the tracker tool and the targets—is for some reason behind cabinet confidence.
I know that this government has said that it has regularly allowed cabinet confidences to be released. That's largely only because it has come under investigation so many times as to why it was using it originally.
We see, as it relates to the Auditor General's report that came out today, similar double counting. I think that, at the end of the day, this is about $8 billion. Canadians were rightfully appalled when the environment commissioner highlighted that we don't know if there's value for money out of this program.
This whole thing started because the environment commissioner brought forward very legitimate questions, so I think it's entirely within the opposition's mandate and, in fact, it is our primary function in government to raise this as an important issue and to provide transparency to Canadians as to whether or not there's value for money in this $8-billion fund that's ultimately supposed to be reducing emissions. We have no evidence that it's actually doing that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Nobody has anything to add...?
Do you have something to add, Mr. van Koeverden?
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Chair, I have a point of order. Do we have the resources? Have we checked into it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're trying to get the resources. I would advise members to be taciturn if you want to get this through, one way or the other, or we may end up—
Conservative
