Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

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

I'm really disappointed because, with the amendments on the floor and those to come, it looks as though this will spill over to the next committee meeting and we'll be debating it on Thursday.

This is the kind of attitude that poisons the public trust in the political class. In the words of James Carville, “It's the economy, stupid”, and that's what we should be focusing on. We should be focusing on the economy and not playing these partisan games.

We had four excellent witnesses here today. We asked at the beginning of this meeting that this motion, owing to its controversial nature, be placed at the end of the meeting. All members around the committee table have been here longer than I have, perhaps with the exception of Ms. Liu, and they knew this motion was controversial. We could have dealt with this at the end of committee. We could have heard witnesses. We could have spoken about the Canadian economy and the energy sector, and we chose not to.

The opposition side was making very reasonable requests by the NDP. We were requesting this to be placed at the end of the meeting, but unfortunately, this is going to spill over to the next meeting and waste more time. It's going to waste more of the witnesses' time. There have been thousands of taxpayers' dollars wasted in this meeting today, basically for a battle between the old dinosaur political parties, and I think Canadians are tired of that. They want us to focus on the things that are important, and they want our priority to be placed on the economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'm not sure what you were saying there related to Mr. McKay's proposed amendment.

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

I may be old, but I'm not a dinosaur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go to the vote on the proposed amendment by Mr. McKay.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 0 )

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Did they actually have an amendment that nobody supported?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Including the mover.

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

I thought it was a great amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Can we go to the vote on the main motion now?

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

Mr. Chair, you'd be disappointed in me if I didn't have something for you, so I have another one for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

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

Thank you.

You might actually really appreciate this one. This is quite good. It is that we take the motion and strike all references to Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Trudeau, and that we add after the section “energy sector across Canada” the following: “and that the committee include as part of their study an examination of the economic impact of the energy sector on related businesses including supply chain providers, and that the committee report its findings to the House.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard Mr. McKay's proposed amendment.

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

He'll have to read it again, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Could you read it again, Mr. McKay, please?

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

It is:

That the Committee

—and we strike any reference to senior Liberals—

conduct hearings on the economic benefits that flow from the energy sector across Canada

—we can leave Alberta in or out; it doesn't much matter—

and that

—again striking reference to members of Parliament McGuinty and Trudeau, and that we add

the Committee include as part of the study an examination of the economic impact of the energy sector on related business including supply chain providers, 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard Mr. McKay's proposed amendment. Is it understood?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Could we repeat it one more time, Mr. Chair, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Do you want the clerk to read it or do you want Mr. McKay to read it?

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

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

Mr. Chair, it entirely changes the motion. I think it should probably be ruled out of order for being too significant a change to the motion to be ruled in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You're proposing, Mr. Anderson, that—

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

I'm just asking you to rule on it.

This is not an amendment. This is a rewriting of the motion, and that's not appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'll have a look at it.

Mr. Anderson, unless you have something to add to that, it seems that it would be in order. It's not entirely changing the intent of the motion. It is certainly a point of debate, but it seems that it would be in order, unless you have something you want to add to that.

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

Mr. Chair, my opinion was that it did change the intent. You've ruled that it does not, so we'll allow you to make that ruling without challenging.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Does anyone else want to speak to this proposed amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

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

I'm shocked that no one else would want to speak to this amendment. It's brilliant in its summary of what this committee should actually be studying, as opposed to what apparently the Conservatives want to study.

Rather than trying to score partisan points and go on the witch hunt or do the 24/7/365, shoot-anybody-who-says-anything mentality that pervades in this government, we are proposing that the committee do substantive work that might actually have an impact on energy in this country.

That would be a novelty, Mr. Chair: that a committee of Parliament actually has impact on the public policy direction of the nation.

It says that it includes, as part of the study, the economic impact of the energy sector and related businesses.

You know, Mr. Chair, there's been quite a conversation lately about the so-called “Dutch disease” and the economic impact. When I was at Department of Finance, I found this to be an interesting kind of conversation, because, being from Ontario, it appeared to me to have raised the value of the Canadian dollar, and that has economic impact everywhere. It's a far more complicated conversation than simply saying that the value of the energy raises the value of the dollar and therefore makes other industrial sectors uncompetitive. It's a far more complicated discussion than that; there are enormous flows back to, if you will, the manufacturing heartland of the nation, and there is a reorientation of industrial products and benefits, which then flow to the energy sector.

It's a catchy phrase, to talk in terms of the Dutch disease; it's not particularly useful, though, when trying to study the economic impact of energy on the entire nation's economy. That's one part of the motion.

The other part of the motion includes the supply chain providers. It's trite to say, Chair, but the resource itself drives a whole bunch of supply chain providers. I've been to Fort McMurray; I've seen the massive hole in the ground; I've actually seen some of the rehabilitation efforts on the part of the industry to restore some sense of naturalness to the environment, but you can't go into Fort McMurray—in particular, you can't even go into Tim Hortons—without first a big lineup, and second seeing a sign in the window that says “Help Wanted” or “We Need Employees”.