Evidence of meeting #131 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I'd like to speak to this as well. Is it okay to ask a question during a pause?
It wasn't clear to me from Mr. Deltell's amendment whether it was a subamendment to the amendment that's currently there or whether it was a separate amendment. Could you clarify that?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
I see you there now.
Thank you. We'll just recess for a second.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
The subamendment has been sent around to your inboxes.
Mr. Deltell will clarify what Ms. Taylor Roy was asking about. Then Mr. van Koeverden is up next.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I want to thank my colleague from the government party for allowing me to clarify the situation.
The committee members listening to us now have a copy of the proposed amendment in both official languages. The amendment concerns the end of the motion and reads as follows:
“provided that the study on the gas emissions reduction target be dealt with while the report on sustainable finance is drafted.”
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. If that is an amendment, then don't we have to vote on the other amendment first before we move to a new one?
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I'm sorry. I heard Mr. Deltell say “amendment”.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
I'm sorry about that. For clarification, it's a subamendment.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
It is a subamendment. That's what I was trying to clarify.
Thank you.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps while I'm speaking to this, the clerk could check, because it seems that the amendment and the subamendment might be in conflict. One says that it must be done, and the other says it must be drafted. We're just going through what we're being asked to consider to vote on here, and it doesn't seem to be completely in order.
I will once again point out that we have been doing this de facto committee business meeting as an emergency, and in our last couple of meetings, the Conservatives filibustered so that we wouldn't be able to move on to discussing whether or not we could have a prestudy on Bill C-73. They filibustered a meeting where the Minister of Environment offered to come and discuss these issues.
These are very real challenges that we're facing. The commissioner very clearly pointed out that the increases in emissions are due to the oil and gas sector, most notably the oil sands industry in Alberta. The Conservatives want to continually suggest that these are the government's emissions, that these emissions are a result of government action or inaction, while we've been actively encouraging the oil and gas sector to decarbonize, modernize and become more efficient. We've enacted regulations. We've enacted over 100 measures to lower emissions, to decarbonize and to reduce the emissions that are related to oil and gas exploration and production in the oil sands.
Indeed, we've heard from those companies. We've delved into some of their results, and we can very clearly see that the only sector that hasn't reduced its emissions is the oil and gas sector, most notably the oil sands.
Before us, we have a pollution cap that we would like to put in so that the oil and gas sector needs to consider investing some of its astonishing $60 billion in revenues and profits into a more efficient process so that its sector isn't the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil product in the world. That's something we shouldn't tolerate as Canadians. We should ask the oil sands to innovate and join the rest of the world in decarbonizing their energy products. They're important products for all of us.
Next week, most of us will fly to Ottawa. Some of us will drive electric cars and others will take trains, but all of that transportation, at some stage, requires fossil fuels. We should be demanding that those fossil fuels be produced with the lowest carbon intensity possible, and that's not what we've been seeing.
I would very much welcome a study on how Canada should and will achieve these goals. We are on track to meet our 2030 goals. Much more must be done, such as a pollution cap on the oil and gas sector—something that the Conservatives are against and something that Premier Danielle Smith has spent $7 million on for an ad campaign in Ottawa, driving trucks around—
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Once again, we see the Conservatives stepping in to ensure that I don't get to finish my sentence on the oil and gas sector.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Just as my colleague on the other side previously asked for clarity on relevance and asked you, as chair, to ask the member to return to some semblance of relevance on the amendment, I would ask for the same.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Your point is taken, Mr. Leslie.
Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden. If you could bring it back on track and talk about the subamendment, that would be great.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Certainly.
Can I ask if the conflict between the amendment and the subamendment has been established by either you or the clerk?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
It has not.
That's not correct, actually. If anything, it clarifies it. That is not actually an accurate statement.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Could I ask for clarity as to whether or not any of these amendments have indicated that we might have an additional visit from the commissioner? Can I ask if we're asking the minister to still come on Wednesday, or if Wednesday's pre-established visit from the commissioner of the environment would be in line with this new study?
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Am I correct in understanding that we would be replacing the pre-established visit from the commissioner of the environment with this one? Is it novel witness testimony from the commissioner of the environment for this study?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
The commissioner is coming in on Wednesday. That's the way it is.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Yes, it's because the committee collectively decided that we would.
However, what does this motion or amendment determine? Is it that he's going to come again?