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
That's what I was asking for.
Thank you, Ms. Collins, for clarifying that.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Chair, I will happily bring it back. I am glad to hear that Ms. Taylor Roy is as excited as I am for a carbon tax election.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I want to understand the situation. I think that the chair's decision on the relevance of the comments was challenged. Is that right?
I would like to know what we're doing right now.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
As this is my second time chairing, I interpreted that as being challenged by Ms. Taylor Roy. Meanwhile, Ms. Collins clarified that normally what we do is that I deem it either relevant or irrelevant. I asked Mr. Leslie to bring it back into relevancy. I thought it was all right. I was allowing some latitude there. Mr. Leslie got the message, so I was going to allow the debate to go forward.
If you want to challenge the chair, what are we actually challenging the chair on?
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
To be clear, Mr. Chair, I did challenge the chair. I challenged on the relevancy of the debate on the carbon tax and cost of living to the subamendment that we are supposed to be debating at this time.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification, if you change your decision at this point, do we have to vote on it?
Can we as a committee all be adults and agree that the chair's ruling has changed and that he's asking Mr. Leslie to bring it back to relevancy?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Well, she called the vote, so I guess we have to vote. It's non-dilatory.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I know that I'd already challenged the chair, but Ms. Collins just asked if it could be a friendly outcome. I said yes. If you agree that Mr. Leslie was off track and you asked him to bring it back on track, I'm fine with that. That's all I was trying to ask for.
Conservative
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
As long as the chair changes his ruling to agree that Mr. Leslie was not on track with the subamendment and asks Mr. Leslie to get back on track, I am fine. I don't need to challenge you. You've changed your ruling. It was the ruling I was challenging.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Okay.
Mr. Leslie, I guess we'll make it official. Can we please keep it on track? Thank you very much.
Please continue.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As it relates directly to the subamendment, this is obviously yet another opportunity for the Liberals to attack our oil and gas sector. Again, distraction is the best tactic that this government could come up with, because their tax plan is not an environmental plan. The environment commissioner has clearly shown that it is failing. It is all pain and no gain. That is why it is so vital that as soon as possible we do the right thing, the honourable thing. Let's have a carbon tax election.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to say thank you to Ms. Taylor Roy for some of her comments about the climate crisis generally. I think we are in a climate emergency, and the oil and gas sector is the sector that is driving up our emissions. As much as the Conservatives might not want to admit it, that is a fact.
That said, the government is the one responsible for regulating this industry and putting in place the policies that would drive down our emissions. A strong emissions cap and all of these things are vital if we actually want to drive down our emissions generally, and specifically in the oil and gas sector.
I'm not sure how I feel about this subamendment. Honestly, I think the report from the environment commissioner is damning. It is heartbreaking. As much as the government wants to claim that it is a climate leader, we are not on track to meet 40% to 45% by 2030. We have six years, and the report lays this out very clearly. We have six years to do the majority of the reductions that we need to meet our 2030 targets. This is an emergency.
I'm hesitant, honestly, to support the subamendment, mainly because I think there's a bit of redundancy. The report talks about emissions reductions, and I think there will be an opportunity to talk about the things that we can do to reduce our emissions. I think the report itself is something that we do need to focus on, and we do need to, ideally, have the government come to terms with the fact that it's not on track, that Canada has the worst record in the G7 for emissions reductions, and that we've had unreliable emissions reductions estimates. There have been transparency issues. All of these things are really important for us to cover. I'm hesitant to have a government that wants to try to avoid those conversations.
That said, I think it's really clear that the oil and gas sector is responsible for the bulk of our emissions. It is the sector that is emitting more than any other sector. The government, unfortunately, with the emissions cap, has decided to give them a watered-down policy that allows them to continue emitting. It doesn't actually force them to bring down their emissions in the way that we are relying on other sectors to reduce their emissions. These are companies that are making record profits right now.
I have to say that in part I am also a little bit hesitant to support what the Liberals are bringing forward because Mr. van Koeverden and Ms. Taylor Roy said false things about my positions on Bill C-73. I fully support a study on Bill C-73. I've been reaching out to Liberal members, asking that we try to work together to get this motion passed, to stop the Conservatives from filibustering. I've been trying my best to get this committee to function. I am feeling a little bit frustrated with Liberal members, as I have been reaching out and trying to figure out a way to actually dig into these really important issues.
I hope that on Monday, if we have committee business, we can pass a motion on Bill C-73. It is a prestudy. That bill is not coming to committee any time soon, but I would like us to dig into it.
I think part of me is wary of this subamendment because I see the Liberals trying to avoid accountability so often, but I am still mulling it over, to be honest.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I would like to say that I like the idea of the study. I really like the amendments that are being brought forward.
Mr. Sauvé, welcome. You can see that this isn't an easy committee sometimes, but it's good to set the parameters of our studies and what we're going to be focusing on.
I think that accountability of the government is definitely something that this committee needs to focus on. I also think the committee needs to continue its focus on the oil and gas industry as the major contributor.
I don't think it's in any way avoiding responsibility. I think both amendments clarify what we want to study. I don't think that leaving either of those out would help us with our parameters.
I also like the amendment that was mentioned earlier by Mr. van Koeverden, which was to make sure that Bill C-73 is also included in this agenda item that we have in front of us. I would like to see us get to that amendment.
I would love to support both the amendment and the subamendment as they're written. I'd like to see another amendment come forward that we could support on Bill C-73. Then we're set up for our schedule. We would know what we're doing and we would make sure that we hit our goal of getting these studies all done.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Chair, before commenting on the subamendment, I want to reassure my colleague from Portage—Lisgar. I heard him say “kill time”. We aren't the ones killing time, but time will eventually kill us. The committee members should keep this in mind.
I'll address the subamendment. I want to comment on its admissibility. We're holding an emergency meeting today under Standing Order 106(4). This order stipulates that, if five committee members request a meeting on a topic, the committee will meet to study that topic.
The subamendment of my colleague, Ms. Taylor Roy, changes the nature of the study proposed by Ms. Pauzé, which was adopted under Standing Order 108(2). Of course, nothing prevents the committee from changing the nature of a study in progress under Standing Order 108(2). Please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair. However, we aren't meeting here today under Standing Order 108(2). Instead, we're debating a motion, an amendment and a subamendment moved in a meeting requested under Standing Order 106(4). As a result, I don't think that Ms. Taylor Roy's subamendment is admissible.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
I guess that's a question. The committee allowed it. It's up to us to debate whether we allow a vote on the amendment or not. Ultimately, it comes down to us. We have a debate on it, and if we decide as a committee that it's not admissible or that we're not going forward with it, it will ultimately get voted down at that point in time. That's how it would work.