Environment Committee on May 4th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We resume in public with consideration of the draft report on fossil fuel subsidies.

I have a holdover list from when we were in camera. I have Mr. Bachrach, who I think was not finished.

Go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, everyone, to our new public meeting.

Having looked through the report and having talked to my colleague, Ms. Collins, who was involved in the drafting of it, we are confident that the body of the report reflects very closely the testimony that was heard before the committee.

We have excellent staff who help our committees do their work. We have professional analysts and we have a professional clerk. Their work is always to the highest standard.

Certainly at the transport committee, of which I am a regular member, we go through the body of reports very quickly, because it is very rare that there are any errors in terms of the depiction of the testimony that was heard by the committee. It's a public fact, I believe, that this committee has met seven times in camera to discuss this report. That's unusually long for a report of a committee, especially given that we're not through it yet.

I feel the time would be better spent debating the recommendations, which is really the committee's work because, as has been said before, we hear testimony from different people with different perspectives on the topic at hand. The analysts try to summarize and accurately characterize that testimony in the body of the report, well referenced. Then, as a committee, we get to decide what we feel the government should do based on the testimony that was heard. In my view, that's the most important work the committee can do.

We also have the ability, as representatives of political parties, to write dissenting or supplementary reports, which, as accurately as we wish, can portray our particular perspective on the issue at hand.

Having said all of that, I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chair, that the body of the report on fossil fuel subsidies be hereby adopted in full and that the committee move on to a discussion of the recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This motion is debatable.

I will start a new list, and I believe I have Mr. McLean as the first speaker on the new list.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

Now we're debating the motion to just ignore....

My NDP colleague walks into a committee for the very first time, looks at a report that he probably hasn't read a word of about fossil fuel subsidies, which is a misnomer, and he says, “I don't want to even talk about the body of what's in this report. I just want to go right to the vote and accept it as is.”

I can see that his job in Parliament is probably a little suspect if he is going to think that somebody else is going to write the report that we have to sign our names to. He's a visitor at this committee. He can take a look at all of the input we've actually added along the way here, through the seven committee meetings that he has referred to. We've actually talked to the analysts about, “What did this witness say here? Can we reference it? Can we add some value. Can we include some data?” Inasmuch as it is this witness said this and this witness said this, in the end, we're presenting a report from Parliament that is supposed to be substantive.

Mr. Bachrach will know—I've had this discussion with my parliamentary colleagues before—I would question if he has ever participated in a report in Parliament that he can refer to any of his constituents referring...and that's because they're probably not worth the paper they're written on.

The fact is that we actually go through this and actually provide some detailed perspicacity to it and actually look at what's happening here. Where did these opinions come from? Where is the background? Who is saying what here, and where are the numbers that actually substantiate what is going on here?

Some of these opinions that we're reporting on here are indeed just that. Having those opinions—especially when they're counter opinions, one to the other—exposed with the sunlight of actual data and what is happening in the world, what's happening in the industry, what's happening in Canada is part of our job. We're parliamentarians. We're not here to just sit back in our chairs, smoke our cigars and say, “Yes, the analysts wrote this. The witnesses said this, and that's all our job is here.”

In the end we have a parliamentary report from a parliamentary committee, the House of Commons Standing Committee on on Environment and Sustainable Development so we had better put some detailed work into this.

As for Mr. Bachrach's comments, who as I said, hasn't read this report and doesn't understand the witnesses, the references, the industry, he is coming in here and saying, “We should just flush it. Get it out there. Don't even ask any questions about what's in there.” Well, I strongly differ with him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, over to you.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I want to begin by pointing out that this was a motion put forward by the NDP, one that we spent four or five meetings debating, if I remember correctly. In addition, we have spent more than six meetings discussing the report. I would think that Mr. Bachrach came prepared, knowing that he would be participating in the committee. That's what I would do if I was standing in for someone else.

At another meeting, we spoke at length about the fact that things had changed since the report had been drafted and that we had the option of preparing a dissenting opinion or supplementary report. I think it's important for the parties to remember they have that option.

It's also important to remember that the witnesses who appear before committees are experts. They've done research on the subject and examined the situation. They aren't people who just walked in off the street. For all those reasons, I agree with Mr. Bachrach's motion. At Monday's subcommittee meeting, I actually made a similar suggestion. I proposed that we focus on the paragraphs that were the sticking points and adopt the rest. That requires a show of good faith on everyone's part.

I repeat, we have the ability to submit a dissenting or supplementary report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Generally speaking, reports are indeed fairly descriptive in nature. They describe what the committee heard. They aren't dissertations full of in-depth analysis.

Over to you, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I also support the idea that Mr. Bachrach has brought forward.

Also, I support what Madam Pauzé is saying, which is that this was a motion from the NDP to do the study, and I appreciate the NDP now wanting to see us come to the next steps of discussing recommendations.

It's unfortunate, but things happen when you have a change in membership on a committee. Discussions are history by the time they're picked up. Also, time has gone since we've had our study and had witnesses, and we probably would get different testimony from witnesses if they were to appear today, given the length of time we've been studying this.

I think it's a great suggestion to go to recommendations. Within those recommendations, of course, they have to reflect the body of the report, but we can also make sure the recommendations are relevant to where we are today.

I hope we can vote on this motion soon so that we can get to recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Taylor Roy is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Mr. Bachrach for his intervention.

I think you made a very good point, that we have very capable and skilled analysts, clerks and people who are helping us with this report.

I find it very disrespectful not only of the witnesses but also of the people who work with us to suggest that we have to go through every word with a fine-tooth comb. It is the job of the committee when we are conducting this study, when we have the witnesses here, to ask the questions of them and to check the credentials.

I don't understand why the member opposite doesn't trust the witnesses, doesn't trust the clerk and the analysts and doesn't trust even their own party members who were here during the study. They were here to do that job, and I think the member opposite also knows that our job during the study is to ask those questions.

When it comes to the report, it seems to me that our job is to go through and make sure that there are no misstatements, that we don't disagree, that witnesses were left out, etc., but not to question every fact and figure and the background of every witness, as you have been doing over the last six meetings.

I further question why the—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order or privilege.

It's highly unusual for a member to talk about what has happened during in camera meetings, as we've discussed. It's super unusual for us to be doing this in public, and I'm glad we are, but it's highly unusual for a member to reference—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We can't in any specific way go back to what has been discussed in camera, so yes, we'll just—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I have a point of order.

Can I then ask the member to apologize for misrepresenting something I said in an in camera meeting?

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

I referenced what you said actually in this meeting, Mr. McLean, not anything you said prior. When you started speaking, you were talking about not being able to—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Wait a minute—

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

Excuse me. I'm speaking, Mr. Lake.

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could I continue speaking and answering the question that was asked of me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There are too many points of order. The chair is getting confused.

We're on the point of order that we have to stick to.... We can't talk in public about what has happened in camera with this report, so let's all keep that in mind.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I've forgotten what the other points of order were, so we'll have to finish. I'll stick to that point of order,

Ms. Taylor Roy, I'll let you finish. Then we'll go to Mr. Duguid, Mr. Lake, Mr. Ehsassi, Mr. Kurek and Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry if it was interpreted.... I didn't mean to. I was referencing comments made earlier by Mr. McLean, that we're not supposed to sit back and smoke a cigar. I do find that insulting as well. I certainly do not sit back and smoke a cigar. I'm not sure if you do, but I have actually been working on this study from the beginning and listening to the witnesses and questioning them when they were here, with the Conservative members who were here at the time. I found the questions asked by the members who were here at that time to be very good, very direct, very insightful. They really challenged the witnesses who were here. I believe from my perspective that job has been done.

We also all agreed to have the opportunity to submit any comments we had in advance. That was not discussed in camera; that was before. We had agreed to that. We actually put our comments forward, so there was the opportunity to do that as well.

I'm saying our job is being done properly, and what our job is now is to look at the recommendations and weigh in, and not necessarily go through each of the paragraphs.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach. I would support the motion as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start off by apologizing to you, Mr. Chair, and to the other members of the committee who were here on time. I was not, Mr. Chair. There were others, but I'll let other people speak for themselves. It is our responsibility to be here on time. It delayed the committee, and for that, I am sorry. I will, at least on my own behalf, ensure that that will never happen again. I won't describe all of the circumstances that went into that, but members on the other side did raise those points. I can't refer to what was said in camera.

Mr. Chair, I would like to call for a pause so there can be discussions. At least, I'd like to have some discussions with my colleagues and perhaps with other members. We seem to be stuck, and I'd like to see if we can collectively find a way forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, we can pause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll reconvene the meeting.

We were at Mr. Lake, I believe.

Are you done, Mr. Duguid?