Evidence of meeting #58 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What Mr. McKay is doing is expanding on my initial amendment—
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Which would fit in where to the main motion that we're debating? Where does it fit into the main motion?
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What he is doing is deleting the two witch hunt lines, I'd like to call them, that refer specifically to two Liberal MPs. The one thing—
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, just for a moment, if I may speak through you to Mr. McKay, the one thing that would be lost there that I would disagree with is that the committee report its findings to the House.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The motion would then read, and I still would have another amendment to bring forward:
That the committee conduct hearings on the economic benefits that flow from Alberta's energy sector and elsewhere across Canada 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.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So you're talking about replacing the motion that's on the floor with your amendment?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You'll have to explain to me exactly how you are amending this main motion—where you are inserting that, what you are deleting, and all of that kind of thing.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I explained the first part in French, Mr. Chair.
We're adding “elsewhere”. The study would go on Alberta's energy sector and also the energy sector right across the country, so we're adding the word “elsewhere”. We're also deleting two of the clauses of the motion, the ones that mention the two Liberal MPs.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You'll have to be clearer. We'll have to have this brought in writing so that it's clear. To me, it's not clear where you're inserting, what you're deleting, and that kind of thing.
Could we have that in writing?
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I believe the analysts already have it writing, Mr. Chair. They were following it.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I was following, too, Mr. Julian, and it's not clear.
What are you deleting?
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The motion would read:
That the committee
—and we would strike the phrase “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 and elsewhere across Canada.
Then we would strike the phrase “that Members of Parliament David McGuinty and Justin Trudeau be invited as witnesses to explain their comments”. Then the rest of the motion would read as it is, though I do have another motion to bring forward, a final amendment.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, so that's a friendly amendment to your amendment. We have that amendment on the floor. Is there any discussion on this, or can we go to a vote?
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said at the outset, I'm sorry that the government has chosen to delay the witnesses by bringing this motion forward at the beginning of the meeting rather than at the end, but the reality is that if the intent is to have a study—if that's the intent of Mr. Calkins—we support it. If the attempt is to smear members of Parliament, who have apologized for their comments, we do not support it. I guess Mr. Calkins needs to make that choice.
If he is proposing a study that looks at the issue of Alberta's energy sector and the energy sector across the country, we're on board. If it's going to be used as a witch hunt to attack members of Parliament, the reality is, as I think Mr. McKay's amendment shows, that all of us live in glass houses. Rather than impugning any members of Parliament for anything they have said—since all parties have comments that perhaps they would want to take back—I think that as the natural resources committee it is fundamentally important for us to show political maturity and leadership and bring forward a motion that actually tackles what we need to tackle, which is energy policy looking forward.
If that's the intent—to do a study—then I think, Mr. Chair, that these amendments should be met with unanimous support. If the intent is to attack members of Parliament, then obviously the government has other motivations, but I'm certainly hoping that they will support these amendments.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I think Mr. Julian has stated it well. Clearly, deleting the references to Mr. Trudeau and Mr. McGuinty is a step forward in terms of the potential intention of the government members; however, if the government members don't vote in support of the amendments, then clearly their intentions are nothing more than an attempt to do whatever is in the political agenda of the Conservative Party of Canada.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I have to echo the comments of Mr. Julian. All of us around this table know that our economy is in a fragile, precarious position, and I hope we can show to Canadians that the economy is really what our priority should be.
I think we can all agree that Canadians are tired of these partisan squabbles and the wasting of time that take away our focus from the economy, which is really what needs to be looked at. The witnesses have come here today to speak upon the subject of innovation. Innovation is identified in the World Economic Forum's report as one of Canada's weaknesses in our economy, and I would hope that the government would see that as a priority.
I view this as a microcosm of the way the government is dealing with the economy right now: they're more concerned with destroying other parties than focusing on making a strong economy. I hope we can move forward with this. I certainly agree with the idea of a study. I hope the government will be friendly to our amendments.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there anything further on this amendment? I'll go to the question on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
The amendment is defeated.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm profoundly disappointed, Mr. Chair. This is not what the function of this committee should be. I find it entirely inappropriate.
Mr. Nicholls has just raised this very concern about the whole issue of the economy. I think this is a picture portrait of why things are declining for so many Canadian families: half a million manufacturing jobs lost; 350,000 more Canadians who are unemployed; and real-term, real family income declining. What we have is a government that—rather than attacking those issues and rather than putting in place economic and energy policies that can lead us through the next decade—is focusing on the lowest possible form of parliamentary attack and witch-hunting and is using committees for that purpose. It is, to my mind, absolutely inappropriate and irresponsible.
The reality is that Mr. McKay has mentioned some of the past comments of Prime Minister Harper that have been equally inappropriate. We have two Liberal MPs who apologized for their comments. One of them, Mr. McGuinty, I know well; I don't understand why he made the comments, but he apologized for them,yet we are taking up viable committee time with four witnesses waiting before us who could give us some guidance into the future of energy policy, and we have these four witnesses waiting because the government is insisting on ramming this through. They are not cooperating with the opposition on a study, but rather are engaging in the cheapest and lowest form of witch-hunt politics.
It's absolutely inappropriate, Mr. Chair. I am profoundly disappointed in the members of this committee, but I am going to attempt to address the issue of this report just the same, and I'll offer a final amendment.
I will read it.
After the words “Canadians are informed of these economic benefits”, we should add something on environmental impacts and the subsidies that are already being allocated to the industry. So I would like to add the following: “as well as of the environmental impacts and the cost of the subsidies”.
That's the amendment I am proposing.