Environment Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague for moving this important motion. Indeed, if we want to reach our greenhouse gas reduction target by 2035 and get as close as possible to net zero by 2050, it is absolutely essential that we deal with the oil and gas sector.

It is important to note that this regulatory framework includes a consultation period as part of the next steps. In fact, the regulatory framework for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector proposes different discussions. If we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a good pace, we will have to rely on the participation of all stakeholders, not only the environmental community, but also the industrial community and the oil and gas sector.

I don't know what your thoughts on this are, but we are at a crossroads right now, and we absolutely have to work together. Imagine what our children and grandchildren will tell us if global warming ever approaches 2°C: They will look us in the eye and ask where we were and what we were doing when it was time to act. I am thinking of my colleague Mr. Leslie, who will soon be a dad. What will he say to his children?

That's why it's important to recognize the challenges we face in Canada in meeting our 2050 targets. The oil and gas sector has seen its greenhouse gas emissions increase, so I think we need to redouble our efforts for our children and grandchildren. There will be no other opportunity to act. Now is the time to do it. That is why I wholeheartedly support this motion, even though we will not be studying the regulatory framework right away, since we are doing a study on water, which is just as important. I'm very much looking forward to seeing progress in that sector. Reducing methane emissions from this sector and capping its greenhouse gas emissions are two very important initiatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The Bloc Québécois will also vote in favour of this motion, but I will not do so wholeheartedly, unlike Mrs. Chatel. First, what the minister presented last week does not reflect the climate emergency in which we find ourselves and all the extreme weather events that are going to cost more and more.

We agree on that, but what has been presented is not very ambitious. We're talking about a regulatory framework that would be planned for the spring of 2024, I believe, and, most importantly, there won't be a cap until 2026, whereas it's been expected since 2021. That's very late. When we talk about urgency, to me that means we have to act immediately.

We will still vote in favour of the motion because these are two policies that we support—on methane and on the emissions cap. However, what was presented rather reflects the pressure exerted by lobbyists. In fact, Mr. Boissonnault admitted that it was done that way.

So I am going to vote in favour of this motion, but only reluctantly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am substituting here in the environment committee, and it is a great privilege. I was hoping we would be talking about fresh water, but I have to weigh in on this. The NDP will be supporting this motion.

On the first Environment Day in the 1970s, when I was a student, I and six of my friends blocked traffic with our bicycles. We learned two important lessons that day. The first was not to be too quick to pat ourselves on the back about the effectiveness of our actions—and I'll come back to that in a moment. The second was that it's really necessary to bring others along, to get buy-in—not to create anger or fear, but to create understanding of the issues and how we can move forward if we work together.

We're facing, really, an existential crisis on this planet, and it's necessary to bring people along. That's why I'm very upset with the Conservatives' so-called “axe the tax” movement, because it deliberately creates anger in the face of a real threat to our livelihoods and to our future when there is no threat to individual humans or individual families from the carbon tax. In fact, we know that the studies show that, apart from the very wealthiest in this country, most people will be harmed by eliminating the carbon tax, because it is a revenue-neutral measure. That debate spirals us away from what we need to be talking with the public about, and that is how we are a rich and privileged country and how, if we work together, we can meet the challenges we face. However, we can't do that if we focus on anger and division, so it's very disappointing to have what I will politely describe as this obsession with the carbon tax and the misinformation around it continually coming back through the House of Commons.

I want to go back to the first lesson, and that was that we can't be too quick to pat ourselves on the back. Like Madame Pauzé, I'll be supporting this motion, but I don't think that even this motion represents the urgency of the crisis we are facing. There's much more that we have to do. It's important to acknowledge progress, and that's why we'll be supporting this motion—because there is progress. At the same time, it's also important to recognize how much more there is to do and that we know what we need to do and we have the skills, ability and science to do those things. What we need to do is build public support for the country-wide movement we need to meet this climate crisis.

I don't think anybody else here is from British Columbia. I was present in Kelowna during the fires this summer. When people talk about the costs of the carbon tax, let's talk about the costs to families that lost their homes; let's talk about the cost to small business people who lost their businesses; let's talk about the health costs of the smoke damage to the lungs of the people in Kelowna last summer. These are the real costs of not taking action on climate change.

There's much more that we have to do, but I'm happy to support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I checked, and I didn't have a point of order earlier. I think that when you see us, you have a certain reflex.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm at that point.

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

I say that in a friendly way, of course.

What we're talking about is very important. I want to reiterate that I am really disappointed to see that, for the second time, the government members are refusing to debate the motion concerning first nations.

You will recall that, the other time, we introduced it when there were witnesses. My Liberal colleague was angry about that situation, he felt that it made no sense—

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

May I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Mrs. Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Are we debating Mr. Deltell's motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, we're debating Mr. van Koeverden's motion. Mr. Deltell is on the list. He will be followed by Mr. Leslie and Mr. Kram.

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

For the third time, I want to say that I'm really disappointed that the government members refused to have a debate on the first nations issue. They are the ones who, for the past eight years, have been lecturing everyone about the relationships we must have—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I have a point of order.

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

Will I have to repeat it a fourth time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

One moment, please.

We have a point of order from Mr. van Koeverden and a point of order from Mrs. Chatel.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to point out, respectfully, that both at the beginning of my intervention regarding the motion brought by the Conservatives and at the end of my motion regarding that same motion, I said that I would be more than happy to meet with first nations leaders, but bringing a motion forward at this stage, on our second-last—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't really think that's a point of order.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

—meeting before the break—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't think it's a point of order.

I'll hear Madame Chatel's point of order, and then I have Ms. Taylor Roy's point of order.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, my point of order concerns the relevance of Mr. Deltell's comments to the current debate. Can you decide if it's relevant?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It may be a bit of a tangent. I hope he will get back to the subject of the motion soon. That seems acceptable to me as an introduction.

Ms. Taylor Roy, the floor is yours.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I have the same point of order.

I don't see the relevance of debating this to the motion that's on the table right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I understand, but we're talking about a carbon tax.

Mr. Deltell, get back to Mr. van Koeverden's motion as quickly as possible.