Thank you, Chair.
I actually think I need another coffee. This is a lot for a Thursday morning at 8:15 with half a cup in me.
If I heard my Bloc and NDP colleagues correctly, the issue perhaps is less with the content and more with the timing, so I propose an amendment to this motion.
It would be in the third and final paragraph of the motion. The first sentence would be changed. It reads, “the committee therefore agree to conduct a study of not less than four meetings, beginning in the first sitting week of”, but then strike the word “November” and replace it with “January, or after the credit card study is complete, whatever is earlier”.
I propose that amendment, which I'm hoping my colleagues will support.
Surprise, Rick.
I think that might address some of Mr. Masse's concern. I am very keen to start the credit card study as well. I certainly contributed to the witness list. I think a lot of people in my riding echo some of the concerns that are outlined in the study. I'm keen to get going on that.
I want to look at the content of this motion and perhaps make an argument for it.
Some of the Liberals have suggested that the wording of this motion is meant to suggest there isn't a need for a vibrant EV industry in Canada. I think that having an EV industry in Canada is a very important thing. Certainly, having lower-emission cars is something I think many consumers are keen to do. We're all partners in finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but doing so while ensuring the cost of living is kept low for Canadians.
There's nothing in the motion that suggests, as the Liberals have said, that we don't want an EV industry. It's actually the opposite.
Colleagues, if we want to have an EV industry in Canada, and this government has put a lot of money—a lot of tax dollars—behind this.... I want to remind us all that we have a fiduciary responsibility as members of Parliament to ensure tax dollars are being well spent. If they're being dedicated towards one company or another company and it's clear in the media those companies are experiencing issues, then it behooves us to ask the question that my colleague Mr. Perkins is asking here, which is to review the government's EV strategy. That's all this asks. It's asking if we are investing in the right spot and if the investments the government has made still make sense given the news that's happened recently.
Colleagues, I'll direct your attention to an article from CBC News, which is hardly a bastion of Conservative thought. It was published on September 1. It said, “Northvolt's EV battery plant in Quebec could be delayed up to 18 months”.
The government's entire argument on the allocation of billions of dollars as part of their environmental narrative hinges on plants like these. Now that we've heard this plant could be delayed, it behooves us to ask the question that's in this motion. Does this impact the government's EV strategy?
What I've heard here today, colleagues.... I understand there are politics behind us here. I understand that some of my Liberal colleagues might not want to ask this question. If people actually care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by producing electric vehicles, then we should be asking. If there's a story in Canada's major broadcaster that this plant might not come to fruition, maybe we should ask if adjustments need to be made in the strategy to ensure that the objectives the government has tried to sell us on actually come to fruition.
There's one more thing. There's been a lot of talk about Quebec politics and Ontario politic and who's here and who's not here. I just have a couple of comments, folks.
Yes, I'm an Alberta MP, but I understand what it means to pull emitting cars off the road to reach greenhouse gas emissions targets, so I have been such a big advocate for the boondoggle that has been the Green Line in Calgary, which should have pulled 50,000 cars off the road by now. Just because I'm from Alberta, that doesn't mean I can't have something to add on asking whether the strategy is still working. I just want to say that.
Second of all, we have to be careful about talking about what regions are represented and who's not represented. I'm literally the only woman on this committee, so let's just park some of those things for a minute.
On the topic of Quebec politics, if we want to talk about this, it is now becoming a political issue. I ask for forgiveness from my colleagues from Quebec, but there is an MNA, Frédéric Beauchemin, and I think he's a Liberal MNA. He's criticizing the Legault government for putting all of its eggs in one basket.
Now we're descending into territory where there are billions of dollars at stake, potentially laudable objectives about producing electric vehicles, and we don't have a clear line of sight on what the government is going to do, if anything, to correct course. Maybe it doesn't want to correct course. Maybe there's a reason for that. Some of my colleagues have made passionate arguments that there's no need to correct course.
I think it would behoove us to spend a couple of meetings, given that there are billions of dollars on the line here, to have maybe some of these executives or the government officials come. We could say, “Do you know what? Even though we hear news that this plant is going to be delayed by 18 months and that the parent company has had a massive problem in its home company, it's still good, and here's why.” The government has not done that.
The other examples that my colleague Mr. Perkins has raised in this motion are equally concerning. What the government is asking us to do, colleagues, is to continue to allocate billions of dollars to companies and plants that are not on the track that the government announced, so it is our responsibility to ask how the plan is progressing given these significant changes. I think that the amendment.... I'm looking in good faith to my colleagues. I want the credit card study to happen. I want to talk about electric vehicles, and I want to hear what the government is doing to make sure that, despite these reports, our country is still on track to make some of the targets, given the opportunity cost of the billions of dollars.
For the billions of dollars being directed here, at a time when there needs to be legitimate climate action in Canada, if it's not going to achieve the results that the government is saying it will in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and job growth, then we need to have a rethink about what the strategy is and how we're going to get there. That's why I support this motion. I disagree with the characterization that this is somehow irresponsible. We need to have smart solutions to address climate change, but if the government is putting billions of dollars into projects that are not going to come to fruition, there needs to be a rethink for all of those reasons.
I hope you'll support this amendment. It is the mandate of this committee to review strategies exactly like this. I hope you will support this and that we can move on with doing our jobs. Thank you.