Evidence of meeting #44 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subcommittee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
If not, better change jobs.
Sorry, Chair, I should have had that in French.
I should have done that, but I drafted it this morning.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleague, Madam Nash, for bringing this forward.
I agree with my colleague, Mr. McTeague, about an additional meeting. I don't think it would do it. If we're going to study this, we should do a relatively good job with it. I also like his idea of inviting more stakeholders to see if we can really get our heads around what's going on.
I do want to recommend another friendly amendment, that instead of studying it in committee--because we have a pretty full agenda--we would study it in the subcommittee and limit it to perhaps three meetings. I know there's going to be difficulty with scheduling the full committee to really look at this in a reasonable way, so I think that might be a good way to do it. We could take Mr. McTeague's friendly amendment and just add that we recommend it be studied at subcommittee for approximately three meetings. We could determine where and when at the subcommittee meeting on Tuesday.
But I'd like him to clarify what he says about “journeying”. When he says we're entering this journey, does he mean travelling to Houston, Dubai, and Calgary, or what is his recommendation? I'm just looking for clarification.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We have a lot of friendly amendments here today. The subcommittee would be the chair, the two vice-chairs.... Would it be the subcommittee we have normally, with you and Ms. Nash?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I would recommend a subcommittee group, and maybe we could discuss that further on Tuesday to see the make-up, because I don't think we can really look at this in one meeting. I think we should actually do it right.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The recommendation is to study this in the subcommittee, to have three meetings, and to clarify that “journey” section.
I have Madame Brunelle.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chair, I am quite uncomfortable seeing all these motions coming one after another. I am not sure that the amendments are really acceptable. The amendments change the original motion so much that we are now suggesting the creation of a subcommittee. That has to be considered a major commitment. I was part of a justice subcommittee that held more meetings than the aboriginal affairs committee. Sometimes, you bite off more than you can thought you could chew at the outset. We have to decide what we are committing ourselves to when we consider that.
I had the pleasure of joining this committee last year. It was studying gasoline prices. At the end of the day, it achieved absolutely nothing. We heard from a large number of witnesses. I remember proposing it myself. It seems to me that this committee is doing endless studies that are leading absolutely nowhere. I see it as just a way to avoid doing something. I am very reluctant to spend taxpayers' money. I thought that the Conservatives were good managers. I am shocked that you are suggesting that an expensive subcommittee do a study that will achieve nothing.
The Bloc Québécois had a solution: the Competition Act. Members of this committee did not agree with that solution. We are going fishing with no idea whether there are any fish in the lake. Personally, I am not in favour of this motion.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I would argue that the motion is in order. While I think Mr. McTeague's concerns about who would come as witnesses, etc., could be incorporated into the existing motion, I don't oppose a change in wording. I think the intent is in keeping with the intent of the original motion. I am not opposed to further meetings on the oil and gas issue, because it is such an important issue. When I suggested one meeting, it was simply out of respect for the heavy workload this committee is undertaking. But I'm in favour of expanding the hearings to three meetings, because I believe it is important. Our constituents expect us to try to get our arms around this issue.
As to whether we have the subcommittee or the full committee, as the lone NDP representative on the committee, it's all the same to me. I will be there, whether it's a full committee or a subcommittee meeting. If we end up meeting over the summer, I think a subcommittee is a more flexible instrument for getting all of the members engaged. There is no timeframe on this, and I would like to clarify what the committee members think about the timing of meetings. I had suggested one meeting, because I had hoped to do something before the House rises. A subcommittee and three meetings—that is less likely to happen before the House rises.
I think we should discuss the timetable. I don't want to have this go on for months on end. I think our constituents expect us to take action, and I'd like to get this moving. But I'm not opposed to any of the friendly amendments being suggested; I see them as friendly.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The three questions we need to answer, certainly the three that I need answers to, are when, how many, and with or without a subcommittee. We could do as Ms. Nash said: one meeting now, and we could do summer or fall.
Ms. Nash, I'm going to clarify with you, and I'll go through each party. You're okay with three meetings and the subcommittee, and you prefer it to be when?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
But what is your preference? Does it matter to you, summer or fall?
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
My preference would be over the summer, but I'm not opposed to early fall.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Thank you, Ms. Nash. I appreciate the involvement and comments by Mr. Carrie and Mr. Stanton.
I would want to make sure the subcommittee involves all members of this committee. It isn't exclusive to the steering committee, and I don't want that confused here. There seems to be some question about whether we're referring to a subcommittee. This subcommittee would be tasked with the responsibility, and I think three days would be sufficient. If that's the vehicle that members are comfortable with, I'm comfortable with it too.
I understand Madame Brunelle's comments with respect to the importance of the Competition Act, but the Competition Act and the competition commissioner have no reach as far as international exchanges are concerned. Since it's international pricing that is driving up the cost of energy and food, I think this committee has to be precise in recognizing the realities that are driving the prices up.
That's not to take exception. I think the intention of my two friends in the Bloc Québécois are sincere. They're on the right track as it relates to that part of the industry. I don't think this motion takes away from the ability for us to call in the commissioner, but it will allow us to add support to a growing concern that Canada, like many other nations, will find itself beset by bursting commodities bubbles, as we've seen with housing and dot-coms. We need to work as hard as we can to close the Enron loophole.
Having said that, I am not adverse to meeting this summer. In fact, it might be suggested that we meet in two-week intervals, perhaps at the end of the month, perhaps next week. I don't know. I don't want to encumber the agenda of the committee. Then we could meet once in August. We would make recommendations based on what we've learned.
As to the other point the Bloc has raised, that Madame Brunelle has raised, I think we want to make it abundantly clear that there will be not just
to look at the situation, as they say, to hear about how big the problem is, but also to make recommendations to Parliament, by consensus, I hope.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We have five minutes. I have to host something at 1 p.m. I'm going to have to leave, so the vice-chair will have to take over for me.
12:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Can't we bring it to a vote now?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'd prefer to vote, but I have Mr. Carrie, Mr. Vincent, and Mr. Simard.
I think the three issues are what I'd like to clarify. Mr. Carrie, do you want to...?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Really quickly, I would say I'm in agreement with Madam Nash. I think we could arrange late summer, early fall meetings and we can vote on it. I think your approach is very good and is different from what we did in the past. That's why I think I'd be very supportive; I want to get something out of this.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
I want to hear Mr. Vincent, because my understanding with the Bloc is that they don't agree with the subcommittee, so perhaps the Bloc, Mr. Vincent or Madame Brunelle, can clarify. Do they oppose the motion entirely, or would they agree? If so, when, how many meetings, and is a subcommittee acceptable? The subcommittee, as I think Mr. McTeague outlined, would be whoever would want to be part of that committee. That's how I read it.
Mr. Vincent.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
First of all, we are opposed to this motion. Second, if a motion is passed, we do not want to sit during the summer. Third, I am going to tell you why we are opposed to this motion.
I can understand the reasons why gas prices are going up. I put myself in the public's shoes, and I ask myself what we can do about it. We will never be able to find a real solution, because we have no control over the price of the barrel of oil. So, as Ms. Brunelle said earlier, spending even more of the public's money to do a study that will end up with more questions rather than solutions is of no use whatsoever.
Anyway, we already did this study at the same time last year. Prices go up each year when the holiday season comes along. We could do the same study each year because the price of gas always goes up at this time of year. At some stage, we have to stop spending money. We know that there is nothing we can do to change it. Let us stop pulling the wool over Canadians' eyes by telling them that we can do something when we cannot.