Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 30th, 2012

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Sorry, I thought Ms. Rempel was on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

No, I moved to Mr. Anderson.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay. I just want to say that we've got until 5 o'clock on Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We are obligated to have a report. My understanding is that we have to have that report back to the finance committee in both official languages, so there is some complication on that.

If we start with that mandate and work our way back, I think it would be.... If we're not going to meet Friday, and I don't think we are, I think we should have an expectation, as a committee, to come out of our final four hours tomorrow with as much progress as we can agree on.

From my perspective, and I mentioned this briefly yesterday, too—I mentioned it to Ms. Leslie, who from my understanding is the lead from your particular party, and I spoke with Ms. Duncan and Mr. Anderson—given the testimony we've already heard to date, I think each party has their position clearly defined on what they would like to see in the report.

I would suggest that we get that to the analysts as early as possible, even tomorrow, even though we're going to hear a couple of more hours of testimony tomorrow. If we have enough information that we can get to the analysts first thing tomorrow morning—and I suggest that information go directly to the analysts—they could have some semblance of a draft that we could at least have a look at. We could add whatever things we think are salient from tomorrow's two hours of testimony and have at least a modicum of a starting point so we could discuss either key recommendations or salient issues we would like to see in the report.

It would be my hope, as chair, that we could find as much common ground as possible. I'm also a realist. I don't think there's going to be common ground on all fronts, and I would expect then that we would have discussions about whether or not we would have a dissenting report.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Chisholm?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Well, it does in part. I appreciate very much what you said, Mr. Chairman, about the logistics and the time pressures and so on, but we also have time pressures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I understand that.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

There are time pressures with respect to Canadians who are concerned about what this bill might do to the environment and to the fisheries.

One of the things that came up tonight was the whole question of the designated projects list, the fact that it's not available and how significant that is. It was recommended to us that we not sign off on this until we get some clarity on the designated projects list.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask that we invite the ministers back before the committee—they appeared here Friday morning, I believe, and unfortunately I missed them—to entertain our questions and perhaps respond on at least the whole question of the designated projects list.

There are many other things that we need to talk with the ministers about, as we heard, but I think we should take seriously the recommendation that we were given tonight: it would be reckless, beyond reckless, if we were to proceed and pass this through without getting some idea of what's on that designated list.

So I'd like to ask that we call the ministers. I don't know when that would happen, whether that would be Friday or Monday. We can do a good bit of the report. This has happened before. We can do a good chunk of the report.

We need to hear from the ministers on at least that whole question of the designated project list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Chisholm. I can't speak to that. I would defer that to parliamentary secretaries on the other side.

The next speaker on the list is Ms. Duncan. If she will graciously oblige me—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

—I will ask the parliamentary secretaries to give a response to your question immediately.

Mr. Anderson, Ms. Rempel, Mr. Kamp, do we have any idea about the availability of ministers, as per the request by Mr. Chisholm?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, if the committee asks, we can take the request forward, but we've set our time and agenda for meetings. That's already been established. Tomorrow we were planning on coming to the end of that, so I don't see any reason why we would change that.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Chisholm wasn't here when the ministers were here. The rest of us were able to hear them.

Just in terms of that designated project list and some of the other things we've heard tonight, throughout our testimony we've heard that clearly there will be regulations that will be developed. They'll be developed in a public process, and that will be part of the process of following up on the legislation once it's passed.

Certainly we've heard the witnesses tonight. We'll pass the legislation and then we'll develop the regulations. They will be done in public, in the process that they always are. There will certainly be an opportunity for everyone to participate at that point as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay.

I think we've heard a response to your question. I'm not hearing that the ministers are able to come in the timeframe that we have left, as our schedule—

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The ministers have said publicly that they would be happy to come back to the committee if asked. They were challenged about the fact that they were here on a surprise...you know, that maybe people on the committee weren't prepared. When they went outside and were questioned on it, the ministers said that if asked by the committee, they would be happy to come back.

We were quite happy to change the agenda for tonight's meeting. I know it was just a few minutes, but we can do it.

This is so important. I mean, this is so important. As I've said right from the beginning, the government has a majority. The government will have its way. But good Lord, we're talking about a pretty serious matter here, and we've heard from some experts who have suggested to us that, at the very least, let's get some clarification on the designated projects list.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Chisholm.

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't really have an answer yet: when is this report due? Monday at what time? Let's start there—please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Ms. Duncan, I believe all members have access to the...I have it here. As per our initial meeting at the subcommittee, our terms of reference were defined by the finance committee in their second report to the House. It reads:

A. Pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 108(1)(b), a Subcommittee on Bill C-38 (Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act) be established to examine the clauses contained in Part 3 (Responsible Resource Development) of the Bill, provided that

I will skip the requirements that are not pertinent here, but it has parts (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and then it goes to item (v):

(v) the subcommittee finish its examination no later than 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2012, and report its findings to the Standing Committee on Finance at the next available opportunity, provided that if the subcommittee has not reported by that time, it shall be deemed to have reported a recommendation that the clauses contained in Part 3 of Bill C-38 be carried.

So that implies that if we do not, through our deliberations as a subcommittee, have the ability to meet this deadline, it's going to be automatically deemed accepted in its current form.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That was my point. So it's Monday at 5:30. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

That's correct, but let me also clarify that this means we have to give the staff here adequate time to have that report in both official languages. So we need to work backwards in a way that's reasonable from that. We can't finish our deliberations at 5:25 on Monday, June 4, and expect to be able to submit a report—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Nor would I.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I'm not saying that, but I need some direction from you, as committee members, as to what that would be.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, I'd like to put forth an idea.

My concern was that this was going to go long, and at some point the discussion would get cut off. That was my concern earlier. We have until 5:30, and I really want this to be based, like any other report, on testimony. I think we need to meet Monday. It can be drafted in both official languages. If we need to make small changes, we can.

Alternatively, let's have a real report. This was about oversight. We don't need talking points. We don't need ideology. Let's look at the gaps—we've heard what they are—and do a report based on the gaps, based on the things that are missing, based on the things that have been suggested as improvements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

I have a list, so now it's Mr. Anderson, followed by Mr. Allen, followed by Mr. Chisholm.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm okay. I'll come back in later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate what you're saying. I just want to mention a couple of things. We have to be careful about the translation, too, because we've had a certain history in the natural resources committee. Not too long ago we had some issues with translation of a report, and we had some wrinkles to iron out. So we want to leave ourselves time for that.

The other thing is that the finance committee, I believe, starts its actual clause-by-clause examination on Monday. The way this works, if it's not reported back complete, and they hit these clauses, it's deemed reported and that's done. I don't believe we have the time to push it right up against the back end. I think considering the translation we have to do, tomorrow night is better. We need to get it done. Otherwise we might miss the opportunity to even get anything in.