Environment Committee on Nov. 6th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

We're just going over that now.

For a draft report, it would be three to four weeks after the testimony comes in.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm just reading through the amendment right now. Maybe I can hold the rest of my comments, but I just want some clarification from Mr. Sauvé. If we are waiting three or four weeks, if we wrap up the witness testimony by, say, November 25, that is going to bring us to the very end of our session, if we're still sitting—December 17 or so. It seems like it might not be completed by December 13.

I just want to check in with the mover of the amendment to see if there's some flexibility, given what the analysts are telling us.

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Bloc, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Should I respond, Mr. Chair, or should I wait for my turn to speak?

Sorry for asking the question. I'm learning to navigate the parliamentary procedure.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

In talking to the analysts here, I will tell you that it would take longer. The sustainable finance study would actually take longer than the three to four weeks, because it would take that long for them to compile it, and then they would have to bring it back to the committee to see what we prioritize for the drafting instructions. You're looking at a good six weeks just to get the report, when all is said and done.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, is there any way we could have some kind of pre-drafting instructions for the analysts? Oftentimes, before they start writing the report, we make time to give them some pre-drafting instructions, and I'm kind of curious if we could do that again for this.

Maybe we could amend this amendment to take into consideration what the analysts are telling us.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

I'm just going to take a short recess here, and we'll get back to you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

We got some clarification from the analysts, and basically it comes down to the will of the committee.

We'll go back to the debate. The motion stands as it is. The timeline is basically up to how the analysts...and whether we want to take priorities is for future conversations. For example, if we want to set the water study to the side and make this one a priority, that is all after the motion passes.

Right now, we're just debating whether this motion can pass today or not.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just have a point of clarification.

I see that, at the end of the amendment, it says, “failing which the meetings on this study shall be completed after the holiday season.” Really, this amendment is just prioritizing the drafting of this study, which I'm in support of. I just want to make sure that we aren't directing the analysts to do something that is impossible for them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

That's good, and that is exactly what I got clarified. It's basically the will of the committee. Then, if the analysts need help with clarifying what their priorities are, that comes back to committee. We decide on that.

That's good. Thank you, Laurel.

Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say that you're taking the words right out of our mouths. We don't see any issue with the amendment moved by our Bloc Québécois colleagues. However, we must consider the reality of the situation. There are many traffic jams. This is a good thing. That's what we do. That's our job. We were elected to analyze a number of issues, including taxes and finances related to the environment. Of course, this includes the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. This report concerns all Canadians, especially the government.

We support this amendment. Of course, we want everything done within the rules and time frames.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you.

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.

I would just start by saying that emergency meetings are to be used in emergencies. While we are 100% in a climate emergency—and I think some of the members of this committee agree with me on that—calling this meeting does not fall into the category of that requirement, especially given that we have the environment commissioner appearing at this committee—agreed to by all members—on Wednesday of next week at our second meeting. To have an emergency meeting to discuss whether or not the environment commissioner is going to appear seems a little bit presumptuous, or at least a little bit premature, especially given that in less than one week we'll have an opportunity to discuss these with him.

I'd also just question the genuineness—if I can use that word, if it's a word—of some of the members to actually hear from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change when, instead of filibustering two of the previous three meetings, we could have had the minister here. He wanted to come to talk about Bill C-73, so I welcome the friendly amendment from MP Sauvé to add the Bill C-73 study.

I have an amendment to that, as well, because I would like, for the Bill C-73 study, to be a little bit more rigorous and to include, perhaps, multiple days to look at Bill C-73 specifically. I'd also say that, five times in the last two or three weeks, I've tried to pass a similar.... I'm sorry. I think I was confused.

I will be moving a motion to add Bill C-73, if Mr. Sauvé's amendment doesn't already include it. Again, despite opposition from the Conservatives and the NDP, I've been trying for weeks now to move a motion to look at Bill C-73 and have been blocked. It's disappointing, because I don't think that biodiversity is such a contentious or partisan issue. I think we all agree that we need to protect species that are endangered by the triple threat of pollution, climate change and the loss of biodiversity.

I also call into question.... I know that Mr. Deltell is sincere when he talks about his desire to lower emissions and fight climate change. He will repeatedly say that Canada is not on track. However, by many measurements, we are indeed on track, and we are only on track because of the over 100 measures undertaken by this government to reduce our emissions. Indeed, it is irrefutable that our emissions are now lower than they've been since 1997 and that they would have been 41% higher than they are today had we not undertaken these over 100 measures.

These over 100 measures have been voted against by Conservatives every step of the way for the last eight or nine years. When asked pointedly if they have alternative measures that they'd like to propose to lower emissions, to hold oil and gas to account, to electrify, to decarbonize and to reduce our impact on the environment, they use one word: “technology”. In some ambiguous way—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I would like clarity. Are we currently debating the amendment?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

I haven't heard an amendment yet.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Is the friendly amendment from Mr. Sauvé what we're debating currently?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Yes, it's Mr. Sauvé's amendment. That's correct.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'd be curious as to the relevance of the previous speaker.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I was discussing whether or not we're on track to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2030, and that's number one in Mr. Sauvé's amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Are you in favour of the amendment? Where are you at?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'll get to it, Mr. Chair. I think I'm entitled to a few minutes of preamble.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Are you going to amend it while you are talking about this or...?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'll continue. I am talking about this.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the point of order, Mr. Leslie.

As I was saying, over 100 measures have been undertaken by this government to lower our emissions and, in every step of the way, the Conservatives have tried to block them. They voted against these measures, while not proposing any alternative measures to lower our emissions. It's pretty rich to hear from the Conservatives that they feel as though we're not on track, despite evidence to the contrary—that we are on track to lower our emissions to the proposed 40% to 45% mark by 2030.

They are lower than they've been since 1997. The year Connor McDavid was born was the last time our emissions were this high. That's good news and something that we can all celebrate. Innovations—from transport to construction, agriculture and even oil and gas—have allowed them to be this low. I would say that the innovations put forward by the oil and gas sector and the energy sector more broadly have not been sufficient, because they continue to go up, but the sector has been innovating and lowering its emissions to some degree, or at least its hypothetical ones. They could be a lot higher.

Among the over 100 measures undertaken by this government that the Conservatives have continually stood against and voted against are ones that have earned a Nobel Prize in economics, such as carbon pricing, but also our clean fuel standard; our phase-out of coal—it's astonishing that the Conservatives should stand against that—our plan to have net-zero emissions by 2050 with our Federal Accountability Act; our clean growth program; our zero-emissions vehicle initiative, which has seen record growth, particularly in provinces that also have a zero-emissions vehicle standard; our investments in renewable energy; our investments in carbon capture, utilization and storage; industrial carbon pricing in the oil and gas sector; our investments in green buildings and energy efficiency; our home retrofits; and our efforts to reduce plastic waste pollution.

In fact, this one draws particular ire, given that the Conservatives have brought forward a private member's bill entitled the “bring back the plastic bag” bill, because they just can't seem to remember their cotton bags when going to the grocery store, I guess. Also, their boycott of Tim Hortons and its plant-based lid experiment was another hilarious move by the Conservatives.

There are also nature-based solutions for climate change, subsidies for green innovation, working towards international leadership and developing those relationships, commitments in collaboration with other jurisdictions, funding for climate adaptation, our work on green energy and green job creation, electrification of public transit, sustainable agriculture, hydrogen strategies and our work on environmental, social and governance initiatives, an acronym that the Conservatives just love to hate—ESG. I don't know why they keep bringing witnesses here to suggest that ESG is a bad thing. We should focus on the environment, sustainability, better governance and social programs that support people.

Once again, Mr. Chair, we have the commissioner of the environment coming to this committee on Wednesday. We did not need to have this emergency meeting to discuss this. We have time in the committee to discuss it.

It's particularly disappointing that the prestudy on Bill C-73 for biodiversity—to ensure that we have accountability in that regard—has been continuously blocked by the NDP and the Conservatives. I don't know why it needs to be so contentious. Instead, the opposition has been filibustering these meetings, wasting time and then calling an emergency meeting on a Friday of a non-sitting week—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order.