Environment Committee on Oct. 28th, 2024

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

To be clear, they are currently saying that they're net zero, green or very environmentally sustainable, but there's no ledger or.... The taxonomy is the definition of those things. In the absence of that definition, they can be as dishonest as they'd like.

[Julien Beaulieu]

They might be making $200 billion of commitments to invest in sustainable projects, but it's up to them to define what “sustainable” means. That's why you might be interested in defining “sustainable” as well, and coming up with other words or at least requiring them to provide very specific information on what they mean when they say “sustainable”.

That brings me back to what I was saying about the Competition Act. Now, if you say that you're investing in sustainable projects, you need to have proof, but you're not required to disclose this proof. If you require banks that say that they're sustainable to explain how and to provide all the evidence, then you're providing an additional layer of transparency.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to table my motion that I brought to the committee's attention just recently on Bill C-73, which is an act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments that Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

I'll read it again for the committee: “That to this end, the committee hold a minimum of five meetings, invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and officials; and that the study begin within seven days of the adoption of this motion.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

On that, I will thank the witnesses for their time. It was a very interesting and dynamic discussion. It will help us greatly in the report that we produce. Thank you again. You may disconnect and leave the meeting.

Now, is there agreement on this motion or do we need to debate this?

Go ahead, Mr. Kram.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. van Koeverden said he was just tabling the motion but not moving it. Is that correct?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

No, to be clear—sorry, Mr. Kram and Mr. Chair—I meant to say that I had tabled it before and I was moving it today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're moving the motion.

Is there anything more to say, Mr. van Koeverden?

We'll go to Madam Pauzé and Ms. Collins.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to move a friendly amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

At the end of Mr. van Koeverden's motion, it says: “That this study begin within 7 days of the adoption of this motion.” Personally, I suggest that the study begin once we have completed the meetings on sustainable finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I understand correctly, that would be the case. It seems to be written in such a way as to allow us to complete the testimony; we have two meetings left for that, next week… In fact, you're correct, it might interrupt the meetings on finance.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to propose something, Mr. Chair.

There are three meetings left, in principle. The original motion on sustainable finance that was introduced by the Bloc Québécois talks about the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Environment.

Would it be possible for the clerk to prepare a table showing what is in the motion and the witnesses we have heard from?

I think that if there are only the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Environment left, we could hold one last meeting with them next week.

Is that possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think it is in principle, but it is not that simple. I was actually going to discuss this at the end of the meeting, but I will take the opportunity to do it now.

We could invite the ministers to both meetings next week, but we can't be sure they will be able to accept. If they can't, we will have to postpone the next meetings on finance so we can try to find dates when the ministers can be here, or we will have to invite only their officials.

That is a whole discussion. I think that if we want to finish the study on the financial system next week, Mr. van Koeverden will have to agree that we not start the pre‑study before the week of November 18, given that the week of November 11 is a break week. So we would have to agree that we will try our luck with the two ministers for next week. If that doesn't work, we will forget about it or invite the officials.

Ms. Collins, I know you want to speak to the motion, but the discussion is about the amendment.

Mr. van Koeverden, would you accept a friendly amendment so we can finish the study on finance next week?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I think that's totally fine. That's the intention. I was just curious about the number of meetings left on sustainable finance prior to going over any of the testimony. Presumably, we have one meeting on October 30 and another one on November 4. Did you say there's a third on November 6?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All of this week and all of next week are on sustainable finance, and then the hearings are over.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That's great.

Can we all agree that when we return, we're going to study Bill C-73?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. We could even take out paragraph (b) altogether, I guess. We agree we should start it, but we want to let sustainable finance finish before we start it.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

If it requires an amendment, that would be fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Here's some additional information. If we do that, we would start with this prestudy on November 18; however, we would not be able to hear from the commissioner, who is scheduled for November 18.

I'm sorry; it's ISED that is scheduled for November 18.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

You have to get to Ms. Collins.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

She's talking to the main motion. I'll get back to her. We're dealing with the amendment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I also have my hand up for the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's okay.

I don't know if we're going to finish our second panel today, but go ahead on the amendment, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

We just had a full session of committee business when Mr. van Koeverden could have brought this motion, since he tabled it in advance of that full day of committee business. I wish we could do that so that so we don't displace any of our really important witness testimony for today.

From my perspective, I very much want to make sure the nations from Fort Chipewyan have a study that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I can come to that too. The transport committee has gotten back to us, saying it will have a future business meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk, but it recognizes the importance of doing a study. It's going to look at the possibility of doing a study, so we don't have an answer on that right now.