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.
11:50 a.m.
The Clerk
Can you repeat it, please?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
We'd just take the same motion and take out “Minister of Natural Resources” and put in “Minister of Finance”.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. Is that clear to everyone?
Is there discussion on that? I remind the members again that there are now 50 minutes taken away from witness time.
Go ahead, Mr. McKay.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Well, I appreciate that reminder, Chair, because you and the government members have had plenty of opportunity to either move this to the end of the meeting or to withdraw the motion, and thus far have not seen fit to do so.
I feel bad that we are in fact wasting witnesses' time, but we are trying to establish a point here that a committee should not be used for partisan witch hunts. That's exactly what this motion would have done, hence the amendment to bring in the Minister of Finance and have him form part of the motion, because, in some respects, he's far more important than is the Minister of Natural Resources. He actually gets to set the schedules for depreciation, accelerated writeoffs, and subsidies for various companies, etc., both on the oil-producing side and on the energy-producing side.
Certainly, in order to be able to have a fair study, you need to be able to see what the accelerated writeoffs, the depreciation, and the programs are with respect to alternate forms of energy; hence, probably if the study does go forward, the Minister of Finance would be a critical witness.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You've heard the amended motion.
Mr. Julian, do you want to speak to the amendment?
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
This is the third chance now. We asked the government to hold off on this motion, and they refused. We said the witnesses were more important, and they refused to hear from the witnesses. Now we've had three attempts by the opposition to move forward.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, clearly we are not opposed to hearing from the witnesses. In fact, we've been calling the question here regularly, so we can go to the vote any time. We are not opposed to hearing the witnesses and we would love to hear them as soon as possible. That's why our position has been to call the question as quickly as possible.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That wasn't a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The reality is we have asked the government members to hold off on this motion until the end so that we can hear from the witnesses. The government has refused. We have offered now three types of compromise amendments so that we can get consensus on the study, which the government says is important. The government is refusing, and continues to use very partisan rhetoric that resembles witch hunt rhetoric, rather than dealing with the idea of the study.
We have another offering from Mr. McKay, something that should have the support of all members of this committee. If the members adopt this amendment, then we can proceed to hearing the witnesses. I don't understand why the government is refusing, when we have four witnesses who have a lot to offer us, and I don't understand why the government has turned this committee meeting into something very cheap and very partisan when it should not be that way. That's not how the natural resources committee has functioned, Mr. Chair.
11:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will speak to Mr. Anderson's enthusiasm for hearing from witnesses. Apparently, not all witnesses are created equal. Apparently Mr. Trudeau and Mr. McGuinty have to be part of the motion, but the Minister of Finance doesn't have to be part of the motion.
Mr. Chair, if you stood back and asked yourself who, on an energy study, would be of more interest to Canadians and to committee members than the person who writes the tax law, who submits the budget, and who does all of the things from a fiscal standpoint that make this sector particularly prosperous and important to our nation.... Apparently the government members would prefer to hear from Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Trudeau, neither of whom has occupied such a position. It's more than passingly curious that the government members express great enthusiasm for developing a witness list that may or may not include the Minister of Natural Resources or may or may not include the Minister of Finance but absolutely insist the Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Trudeau form part of the motion.
To use Mr. Julian's language, it looks like a witch hunt; it smells like a witch hunt; it might even be a witch hunt.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. McKay, maybe you're not aware of how this committee has handled witnesses. We have a process. All parties are allowed to submit the names of witnesses, and the committee decides on the witnesses. We haven't had an issue with that in the past. You're not a regular at this committee, and I suppose you don't understand that, but that's the way we've handled these things.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Chair, you and I have been around here a long time. I dare say you may even have been around here longer than I have. I have never actually ever seen witnesses put into a motion. Witnesses are invited by the clerk of the committee to testify on the motion or the study at hand. We agree that we don't put them in a motion, and we don't put them in motion when they are not experts in the field of any energy description whatsoever.
Mr. Chair, I'm irresistibly driven to the conclusion that there might be some other purpose to this motion. I don't know what it could possibly be, but it doesn't seem to have too much to do with the study on energy.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm pretty sure, Mr. McKay, you're right. We've been around for a while, and I'm pretty sure you know of situations in which witnesses have been named in a motion. We've had members of parliament and even their staff named in motions as specific witnesses by the Liberals and the NDP in past parliaments, so it has happened before.
Whether we like it or not isn't the issue here. The issue is we're dealing with this motion.
Let's go to the question on the motion as amended.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It's a recorded vote. We'll go to a recorded vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to the motion.
Noon
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I wish to move another amendment, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. I know you're being very generous with me today.
It's an amendment very similar to the previous two, only instead of the Minister of Natural Resources, who the committee apparently doesn't want to hear from, or the Minister of Finance, who the committee apparently doesn't want to hear from, the Minister of International Trade would be substituted in.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. McKay, would it be all right if we just read in the names of all the different ministers who could appear and have one vote so we can get to the witnesses?
Noon
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
No, it wouldn't. I appreciate the offer, but, no, that wouldn't be all right.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm trying to be very generous so we can get to the witnesses here.
Noon
Liberal