Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone.

Before we get to the business of the day, I want to mention and remind members that the supplementary estimates (B) will be dealt with a week from today, next Tuesday, with the minister appearing for the first hour and officials for the second hour. There's a change of location: it's in room 253D, Centre Block.

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, can I have the floor for a second?

I know we have witnesses here. Colleagues should have distributed in front of them a copy of a motion that I gave notice of last week. I'm hoping we can dispense with this quickly. I'll read the motion in English, Mr. Chair. I believe I've met the criteria for 48 hours' notice:That the Committee, in light of the comments by Senior Liberal MP David McGuinty and Liberal leadership candidate Justin Trudeau, conduct hearings on the economic benefits that flow from Alberta's energy sector across Canada; that Members of Parliament David McGuinty and Justin Trudeau be invited as witnesses to explain their comments; and that the Committee report its findings to the House in order to ensure that all Members of Parliament and Canadians are informed of these economic benefits.

I'm hoping we can dispense with this quickly and get to our witnesses, who have travelled a long way. I believe we can get through the discussion of this motion relatively quickly and move on with our current study and discuss how we're going to proceed with this study if we happen to pass this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

I see two hands. First is Mr. Julian, then Mr. McKay. Mr. Julian, go ahead, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I certainly don't disagree with the idea of a study. I disagree with the wording here. I don't think it's appropriate wording. I think Mr. Calkins would be better placed to have this at the end of the meeting, which is traditionally what we do.

Mr. Chair, as you know, I've been here for eight years. When there are witnesses waiting, I've never seen motions brought forward at the beginning of a committee. We have four excellent witnesses, and so I'd ask Mr. Calkins to pull back on the motion and bring it up at the end of the meeting, which is the appropriate time to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Calkins, do you want to deal with the motion now or at the end of the meeting?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I brought the motion forward now. I'd like to deal with it now and dispense with it and get on with the committee proceedings we have scheduled for today. I don't see why we need to belabour this. I believe there's enough support around the table to pass the motion and get on with the business of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins. The motion is in order and did have proper notice.

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'd be interested in the clerk's comments as to whether it is in fact in order, since the mandate of the committee is to study statute law relating to the department assigned to it; the program and policy objectives of the department and their effectiveness; the immediate, medium, and long-term expenditure plans of the department; analysis of the relative success of the department; and other matters relating to the mandate, management, organization, and operation of the department as it sees fit.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of the clerk as to how this motion—and we all of course will have our opinions as to its political motivation—might relate to the mandate of the committee as it's found in the standing orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McKay, this motion clearly is in order. What could be more in order for this committee than talking about Alberta's energy sector and its importance to the rest of the country? We've been talking about this at previous studies, either directly or indirectly, so that's not an issue.

Mr. Julian, you had your hand up again, I think. I'd like to get to the vote as quickly as possible. We do have witnesses waiting.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm sure you would, Chair. I'm sure you would.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I would be interested in having Mr. McKay comment more generally on this.

Quite frankly, I'm a little perplexed, Mr. Chair. I don't understand why the Conservatives are bringing this forward at the beginning of the meeting, when we have four witnesses who are waiting and have a lot to offer to the committee as a whole. We have an important study. That being said, I'll have some amendments to offer a little later on.

I find the idea of the study that Mr. Calkins proposed is a good one. I think it's important. There's no doubt that the committee could be well informed by a study of this nature. The language, though, is completely inappropriate for a parliamentary committee. I think Mr. McKay spoke to that as well.

Here we have a situation where the government is thrusting this at us right at the beginning of a meeting, trying to push aside four esteemed witnesses who have come forward and have a lot to offer this committee, with language that is clearly inappropriate. I'm at a loss to understand why the government is proceeding in this way. It seems to me to be entirely inappropriate. This is a study that obviously has some benefits, and yet is proceeding in a very clearly partisan and inappropriate way.

Underneath all of the verbiage that is inappropriate for this motion, I think his intention is good. I'm disappointed that the intention is being masked by inappropriate language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Nicholls.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I'm going to echo a bit of what Mr. Julian said. We'd be glad to entertain the notion of a study. I'm glad this study would follow the study we're working on currently, but I have to say I'm disappointed that we can't have a good discussion at the end of this meeting. I think it's disrespectful to the witnesses.

The study itself is a good idea but, as Mr. Julian said, there's a lot that doesn't need to be in there if we want to do a serious study. If we really want to look at the economic benefits of Alberta's energy sector, we don't have to put all of this witch hunt stuff in there. If it's going to be looked at by the public as a serious study into the economic benefits of Alberta's energy sector, I'm all for it. I think Alberta's energy sector is a big contributor to the Canadian economy. The oil and gas sector, in particular, is important to the entire nation's economy, and to Alberta's economy, and I think it gets cheapened by putting partisan attacks in there.

Personally, that's my take on it. I would hope you would reconsider and put this motion at the end, so that we can have a good discussion on it and let our witnesses be heard.

There's a big challenge to the Canadian economy right now, and that's innovation. With the fact that we're becoming an energy superpower, we have to look at how we can use that status to drive innovation. That's why our witnesses are here today.

I find it disappointing that we're getting distracted from our study by things that are perhaps politically expedient but don't help the committee's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I guess one way of ensuring that we hear from the witnesses is to go to the vote as soon as possible.

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

In light of your having ruled that this motion is in order.... I actually didn't hear you make the connection between the mandate of the committee and the motion itself as being in order, and given that the conduct of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I actually did, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I know you did. That's why I'm saying, given the economic benefits that flow from Alberta's energy sector, I would frankly think it is a good study for this committee, although I would take note that the committee has, apparently, at this point not seen fit to do so.

I'm not quite sure what urgency has precipitated this motion. I can speculate as to the urgency that's precipitated this motion, but apparently the committee hasn't seen fit to do so thus far. Therefore, in light of both Mr. McGuinty's and Mr. Trudeau's—how shall we say?—absence of acknowledged expertise on this particular study—that is, the economic benefit—I wonder whether the mover of the motion would entertain a friendly amendment, which I will read into the record:

That given that fair treatment of all provinces is vital for Canada's natural resources sector, the committee invite the Right Hon. Stephen Harper to explain the following quotes:

First is a quote that he made during a speech to the Council for National Policy in June 1997. It is:

“Obviously, the issue here is not slavery, but the appeasement of ethnic nationalism. For years, we've had this Quebec separatist movement. For years, we elected Quebec prime ministers to deal with that, Quebec prime ministers who were committed federalists who would lead us out of the wilderness. For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier. ... This has not worked.”

Next is a quote made to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, again in 1997, in reference to the 1997 Reform Party:

Another Reformer, former MP Stephen Harper—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McKay, no.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

This is the motion, and this is legitimate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McKay, excuse me. I'm questioning the relevance of the comments you're making. They're not relevant to this motion.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm making a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Get right to it then, please, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm putting it forward as a friendly amendment. I'm reading into the record statements that Mr. Harper has made over time, which are as relevant as anything that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. McGuinty have said or may have said.

If I may continue,

Another Reformer, MP Stephen Harper—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if Mr. McKay understands he's at the natural resources committee here. His comments have nothing to do with natural resources, energy policy, or anything like that. He's the one who questions the relevance of the motion and then goes far off topic here.