Environment Committee on May 4th, 2023

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I will.

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

He will be very proud to know there was a Conservative who was talking about him.

Mr. Speaker, seriously, the motion we have in front of us is not a time allocation one, but it looks like a time allocation one. There is no victory when we talk about time allocation or closing a debate, especially when we're talking about a report.

We all know and recognize that the first loser of that will be democracy, because there is exchange that we have in the committee. When we study it paragraph by paragraph, for sure sometimes we won't share the same point of view. This is what democracy is all about.

Shutting down the study of a report when two-thirds of the report has been done and there are around 50 paragraphs to study, there is no victory there at all.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the work done by the analysts or the people who support them. If we can't debate the report, we might as well give the analysts carte blanche and hand over the keys. Listening to the comments, asking appropriate questions and eliciting the answers provided is an integral part of our job. The analysts do truly outstanding work. I have been a member of Parliament for seven years, and like everyone, I am in awe of the work they do. Their unwavering neutrality is inspiring and should serve as an example to us all. Once a report has undergone the scrutiny of parliamentarians—who, it goes without saying, have the final word—whatever the study, a balance on both sides of the issue always emerges, which is a win-win for everyone.

If, by chance, the committee were to adopt this motion—we do know, after all, that the members of the Liberal Party intend to vote for it—no one would come out a winner, and it would likely undermine the work we have left to do.

Moreover, I feel it is my duty to recognize my fellow members who have been working diligently on this issue, especially Mr. McLean. No one here can accuse Mr. McLean of filibustering. As parliamentarians, we know all about that. At one time or another, we have all had to filibuster to support our party or challenge our opponent. We say things that aren't germane to the topic in order to take up time. However, Greg McLean has never done that once, not here or anywhere else. Every time he speaks, he provides evidence, relevant information, references and facts to back up what he is saying. His remarks are never short on substance. Members may disagree with him—which has never happened in my case, other than to make a clarification—but Mr. McLean does his job well. I will never stand for anyone accusing Mr. McLean of filibustering on this issue. On the contrary, he is doing his job as a member.

I will conclude with this. Earlier, someone described the work of parliamentarians on this committee as dysfunctional. Like me, Mr. Chair, you have been around a while, so you probably recall the frequent state of dysfunction of parliamentary committees during the 33rd Parliament. Some members—the member for Hamilton West, in particular—even got on chairs and tables in an attempt to physically tower over their political opponents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thankfully, we haven't come to that yet.

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

No, we haven't, Mr. Chair, but some of my fellow members will likely cross paths at the conference this weekend with some folks who were part of what they called the Rat Pack back then. Please give them my best regards.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Our challenge is to find a way to not dwell eternally on every paragraph or the veracity of every number, and not make the witness question their thinking and research methods to ensure that the witness is not spreading misinformation. Otherwise, this could go on forever.

Mr. McLean, you have the floor

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been trying to quickly get through this. I know that we talked about a work plan for this, where we were supposed to be done with the body of this today, yet as opposed to addressing anything within the body, we've been, I don't know.... People who haven't been in this committee have come in and talked about just ignoring everything in here, yet we have all kinds of technical questions to ask, and those are technical questions we have been asking of the analysts.

Mr. Ehsassi has talked about six weeks. I'm not sure he knows that we've been interrupted by other studies as well, including the clean water study, where we looked at what was happening in Fort McMurray at the Kearl oil sands site, which was very important. That did interrupt the work of this committee.

There are only a handful of technical things.

I do note what Mr. Ehsassi said, and I think he's wrong, because I have seen many committees that are far more dysfunctional.

Mr. Chair, I think you do a good job on this committee. I have seen chairs who do not do nearly as good a job as you do. You hold this committee together, and I thank you for that.

I do take exception to the point that anybody on any side of this House, in questioning the words that are on paper and how they might reflect the reality as presented, or the reality that needs to be questioned in the presentation, is assaulting the work of the analysts. Such is not the case. We are here to ask questions. We are here to make sure that what we present in a parliamentary report is exactly what is pertinent to the Canadian people, on both sides of it. We know that the witnesses have provided information, and those witnesses come from different walks of life.

Histrionics from Mr. Ehsassi aside...I think it was out of order, but nevertheless, it is what it is. I know there are are only a few other things in the report that we had questions about. That should have started an hour and a half ago.

Mr. Chair, I could name just a couple, like paragraph 93, when the IMF talks about $43 billion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I appreciate your willingness to complete the study, but we have Mr. Bachrach's motion.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, I know, but we have Mr. Bachrach saying that if there was anything to potentially amend in front of his motion, it would be okay.

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

Then make an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We could do that.

This is what we could do: We could give ourselves a time limit. Then, if we agree with—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I thought we had at the beginning of this meeting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We tried to do that in the steering committee. If we give ourselves a time limit and everyone agrees to it, then that shows good faith on all parts.

Why don't we give ourselves one more meeting just to talk about the body? If we don't finish it by the end of the meeting on May 8, we will go straight to the recommendations on May 11. If everyone agrees in front of the Canadian public here, then I think we can do it.

I think we can do it. I can't tell anyone what to do, but it would be kind of useful if somebody suggested an amendment—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'll suggest an amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

—that it's what we'll do. We give ourselves one more meeting to finish the body of the text. If it's not finished, we adopt it and we go to the recommendations on the 11th.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I would move that, Mr. Chair, but I would add the proviso that if the suggested changes could be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

—given in advance—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

—given in advance so that we would have a chance to digest them, I think that would make the work go quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think we can do it in the two hours. I mean, we have 20 pages left.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know how we do that procedurally. I'll suspend for a minute to figure out how to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think we have a solution.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I want to finish what I'm going to say.

I'm reading Mr. Bachrach's mind.

I think he's amenable to withdrawing his motion and presenting an alternative motion, which would give us one more two-hour meeting to finish our review of the last 20 pages. If we don't finish in the two hours or by one o'clock Monday afternoon, then we will adopt the text as is and we will go to recommendations on May 11.

I think that's what he wants to do. Am I correct?

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

I'm happy to do that, Mr. Chair.

If the aim of the subcommittee is to adopt the body of the report at the end of the next meeting and we get through the amendments that the Conservatives have suggested they're willing to present in writing, which we can debate at the next meeting in a timely, efficient way, and if, at the end of the next meeting, we consider the body of the report adopted, then I'm happy to entertain that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's done, regardless of whether we get to page 75 or we're on page 70.