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
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
For November 20, we all agreed that the commissioner of the environment would appear.
November 15th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do.
Apparently the scope of the debate on this subamendment is fairly broad, so I'd like to refer to the commissioner's report that was put out. I'm sure everyone has it in front of them, since that's the subject of this motion.
You can see that emissions have come down, especially when you look at emissions intensity and the growth in our economy, other than the recession in 2008, which was during the Conservative administration and which took quite a while to recover from. There was a drop in emissions, but then they started to come back up again.
It's only since this Liberal government's policies have been put in place that you've seen a reduction of any sort, and this is with a growing economy, which obviously has an impact on emissions.
With all due respect, Mr. Deltell, if your concern is truly about meeting our emissions targets and the emergency is that we are not going to meet our emissions targets....
I know the NDP would agree with this, because they're very concerned about the oil and gas sector's emissions. We know from this report that the oil and gas sector is the only sector that is continuing to increase emissions, and they're coming primarily from the oil sands. I'm sure the NDP would also be in favour of making this a very focused effort, because the emergency is the climate crisis. What we should be focusing on as members of Parliament and what we should be using this time to do is working collaboratively to come up with suggestions for how we can confront that climate emergency.
I would be very interested to hear Mr. Kram's and Mr. Leslie's suggestions for how we could fight climate change and what more we could do to actually meet our emissions targets. I think putting this small subamendment into the amendment, which simply says we should focus on the problem here and not continue to politicize things....
Our problem is meeting our emissions goals, and yes, I agree that we have not made enough progress. It's in the report, and I agree, but we are making progress. It is the first time in our history that we've done that, and it's certainly something that would not have happened if we had listened to the Leader of the Opposition, who's suggesting right now that the only thing we should be doing is investing in technology. In fact, we are investing in technology and we are doing other things.
I know Ms. Collins and the NDP have abandoned making polluters pay through our price on pollution program, but trying to make sure that the oil and gas sector is actually held to account and that we find creative solutions and ways of working together so that we can reduce emissions is very important. I would even say this emergency meeting may be justified if, in fact, that's what we're trying to do. If we're trying to work collaboratively to come up with ways to expedite the reduction of emissions, this is probably a good thing, but it's not the sense I get from the committee.
I hope the Bloc and the NDP can see through what's being done. I agree 100% with the Bloc that the important study we're doing on sustainable finance, which Ms. Pauzé put forward, should be completed first. We're in the midst of that, and it is an incredibly important part of aligning the financial sector with our climate goals. I'm all in favour of that.
In addition to that, I think we should specify—if we're going to move forward with this motion—that the work we do here in committee is actually to find solutions and not just to point fingers, because this government has done the best job of any government in reducing emissions.
Is it enough? No, it's not enough. Ms. Collins reminds me of that often. I'm happy to have her here supporting us, knowing she also wants to fight pollution.
I hope all of us can come to the consensus that the emergency is truly the climate emergency and that what we should be doing in this study that the Conservatives have brought forward is working together to find ways to meet our targets. That would be worthy of study, and I think it should be done after this study on sustainable finance.
This subamendment simply says we should put a focus on this study and make sure that we're talking about what matters here and what we all want to see, which is having the polluters pay and reducing our emissions in order to make Canadians healthy. Let's agree on that. Clearly, that's what this motion is talking about, and it's what Mr. Deltell clearly said in his preamble, which we can go back and look at.
I think Mr. Deltell is on board with this as well. I think we can all move forward in a direction to show the Canadian public that we can work together and that what we want to do is make sure our planet is healthy and that we take care of the health of Canadians and the health of our environment as well as the economy. We can do that by all coming forward with really great ideas to reduce emissions, to fight pollution, to make polluters pay and to ensure that Canada does excel as one of the best in the G7.
I am obviously speaking in favour of the subamendment, which adds that component to this motion, and I hope that all of those here on this committee, virtually or in person, who want to do the same, who want to ensure that we have progress, will support the subamendment.
Thank you.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was anticipating that this meeting could be relatively short and I'm a bit bewildered as to why the government is so inclined to talk about this at such length, but I suppose it does make sense, because it's the typical effort to distract, to look the other way, to say, “Look, there's something shiny over there.” This is what they do.
It's a continuation, I would say, of a lack of respect from the government for this committee. We've seen this with the as yet fully unredacted documents for the net-zero accelerator fund and with the appearance someday soon, hopefully, of the minister for Jasper recovery, Mr. Randy Boissonnault. One of the Randys will show up here, hopefully, but of course, engrossed in yet another scandal, perhaps he could be dropped before we get that opportunity. We don't seem to want to have—
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
That's completely irrelevant to both this committee and this study.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Sure.
Again, I think this is clearly an effort to delay and to distract, to maybe get us into the new year and hopefully just change the channel. It seems as though we, as members of this environment committee, are just a bit of an inconvenience and we'd rather kill time than address some really important things.
The environment commissioner's report was stark. It stated that we are not on target for our emissions reduction goals. While the government may have all sorts of bluster to say that they are on target and they are doing it, I'm going to believe the independent environment commissioner, who has real skin in the game, and not the Liberal Party government. I'm going to go with the objective observer, who said that the government is using “unreliable emissions reduction estimates” and is lacking “transparency on emissions reductions and projections”. It's a pretty damning statement.
We already have two carbon taxes in this country. The plan is to quadruple those, and yet, if that's not enough, Minister Guilbeault has been exposed as trying to get a new global carbon tax on international shipping to drive up the cost of everything even further.
It's like the best effort ever to try to drive Canadians into poverty. They're already doing a very good job of that. We have two million individuals going to food banks each and every month. Clearly, the intention is to just simply make us poor. They're getting there.
That's why I think it's so important that we have a carbon tax election and stop them. We know that Canadians are worse off under the carbon tax. It is clear to anybody and everyone who is paying it. We won't hit the targets—
Liberal
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
The member is now talking about the carbon tax and a carbon tax election. Again, this is a point of order regarding relevance. We are supposed to be debating the subamendment, and I see no connection between the subamendment and what the member is now debating.
I'd like you to rule on that, please.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
I'll allow it. It's within the scope of the amendment and the main motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Leslie.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, we're debating the subamendment. Would you consider it in the scope of the subamendment?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Well, it had better be, because it's all relevant to the main motion, and yes, I'll allow it.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
We're debating the subamendment, not the main motion.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Just again, for clarification again, Madam Taylor Roy, I've ruled. Thank you.
Mr. Leslie, please go ahead.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I'd like to challenge the chair on that, please.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Okay.
This is to allow Mr. Leslie to keep on speaking. Is that what you're asking?
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On a point of order, just to clarify, when someone challenges the chair on relevancy, it would just mean that Mr. Leslie would have to get back on track. It wouldn't end his speaking.