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.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm just wondering if Mr. van Koeverden can clarify what he means by the NDP blocking this study. I'm very curious.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
If we'd had more than one party's support, we would be studying Bill C-73 right now instead of having an emergency debate.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Okay. You're way off. We'll bring this discussion back around.
What we are talking about—
Liberal
November 15th, 2024 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
I thought I'd intervene, since you were starting to debate Ms. Collins.
Could you please bring it back in and talk about what the actual amendment is?
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I was responding to a point of order.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My amendment to the motion as we've heard it is under the first section, where it says, “The committee hold a minimum of three meetings to investigate the Liberal government’s emission reduction policies”. Under (b), I would request that we have a two-hour meeting, with one hour dedicated to the commissioner's report and one hour on Bill C-73. Under (d), I would like to add at the end, after the date, December 13, 2024, “that the committee begin its prestudy of Bill C-73, an act respecting transparency and accountability, within seven days of the minister's appearance.” Once again, I'll add that it could have been more than one week ago, and we will be hearing from the commissioner of the environment in five days.
Thank you. That's it. That's my amendment, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
This is going back to the main motion, so it's out of order.
We have to finish the discussion on the subamendment first, and then we'll go back. Once we go back to the main motion, Mr. van Koeverden, if you want to bring this forward at that point in time, it's totally up to you.
Conservative
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start by questioning the subamendment we're talking about right now.
The impact of the subamendment, given the logistics of all the meetings that would have to take place first, is to push the meetings into the new year. If that's indeed the case, I question why we are having an emergency meeting today to discuss a study that's going to start sometime in the new year, probably toward the end of January. It seems to me that if, in fact, this is an emergency—I would debate whether or not it is—adding an amendment that pushes this into the new year is not consistent with an emergency meeting. I question why the Conservatives are supporting this amendment if they are calling for this study as though it is an emergency.
I'd also question, on the emergency front, why the study they want to do is to investigate the Liberals' policies. We heard from Mr. Deltell, who said—I wrote it down—that he wanted opposition suggestions to meet our goals, yet the study that's being recommended, which won't start until sometime at the end of January, is proposed to investigate the current policies.
I'd be quite happy to propose a subamendment to the amendment—
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Excuse me, Ms. Taylor Roy. I'll repeat the motion with the amendment so we're all clear on what we're actually debating.
It is:
The committee hold a minimum of three meetings to investigate the Liberal government’s emission reduction policies; invite (a) Commissioner DeMarco for a two-hour meeting—
We all know he's coming on Wednesday.
—(b) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change along with departmental officials for a two-hour meeting, (c) Canada's Climate Change Ambassador for one hour—
She's never been to this committee at all.
—and (d) witnesses submitted by recognized parties for the remaining hour; the meetings take place only after the completion of witness testimony on the committee’s study on climate impacts related to the Canadian financial system; and that these meetings be completed by December 13, 2024.
This is where the amendment has happened: “provided that the committee has considered and adopted the draft report on the committee's study of the climate impacts on the Canadian financial system before that date, failing which the meetings on this study shall be completed after the holiday season.”
We then decided that it is within the committee's purview. We can demand all we want, and we can set the analysts on a path and prioritize as we see fit.
That is the discussion we're having on this study.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On a point of clarification, maybe the confusion comes from the words “this study” in the last line of the amendment. I read “this study” to be talking about the writing of the report and the study on the sustainable finance piece. Maybe Ms. Taylor Roy is reading “this study” to be talking about the Standing Order 106(4) study, in which case it would be pushing all of the meetings and the study on the commissioner's report, including inviting the minister and the ambassador after the holiday season.
Maybe we should get some clarity from Mr. Sauvé on whether “failing which, the meetings on this study shall be completed after the holiday season” refers to the meetings that would invite the Minister of Environment and the ambassador, or to wrapping up the writing of the report on sustainable finance.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, I believe I still have the floor. I wanted to make a subamendment to the amendment.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm sorry. That was just a point of clarification to make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Okay.
Mr. Sauvé, was the idea to complete Ms. Pauzé's study before going on to the study being recommended by the Conservatives?
Bloc
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Exactly.
I think that it's clear enough in French. The purpose of the amendment is to change Mr. Deltell's motion, which seeks to launch a new study. The amendment proposes that, before beginning the Standing Order 106(4) study, we complete the member for Repentigny's study on green finance. That's my interpretation.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you. That's what I understood as well.
My point in the debate is that it is hardly an emergency motion if we're now talking about an amendment that puts the study brought forward by Standing Order 106(4) into the new year. My question is this: Is this really an emergency debate? Why couldn't this have been done next week, especially when we already have the commissioner coming on Wednesday? Also, why are the Conservatives wasting House resources and time, once again, to put forward a motion that, other than Mr. Deltell, they clearly have no interest in?
I say that because we know the increase in emissions.... If anything, our shortfall in reaching our goals has come from the oil sands. Every time we talk about any policies that curb pollution from the oil sands, most members of the environment committee try to change the debate and don't want to talk about it. They want to talk about other things. In fact, they even opposed the cap on pollution, which addresses the biggest cause of what's happening, which is pointed out in the commissioner's report.
I would like to make a subamendment to the amendment, Mr. Chair. We currently have a motion, and then we have an amendment. I'd like to make a subamendment to the amendment that was made. After “provided that the committee has considered and adopted the draft report on the committee's study of the climate impacts on the Canadian financial system before that date”, I would like to add the words “and that the meetings be focused on ways to meet our targets”, and then continue on.
I'm sure everybody on this committee is very concerned—I know the NDP and the Bloc are—about meeting our emissions targets. This emergency is really about meeting those targets. This should be focused on ways to do that, not simply investigating the policies the Conservatives would like to say are not working.
I'd be very happy to have members of the Conservative caucus give us some ideas on how to curb emissions from the oil sands.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could we get that subamendment in writing?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
Yes. You're up next to speak on it.
Can we get that in writing?
Ms. Taylor Roy, could you forward that to the clerk, please?
Liberal
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Dan Mazier
As a time filler and for clarity, Ms. Taylor Roy, I think this will answer a lot of your questions about this subamendment.
The way our preamble for this motion starts is this:
Given that Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment released an audit that revealed:
1) The government is not on track to meet Canada's 2030 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
2) Canada has the worst record in the G7 for emissions reductions—
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Excuse me. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.