Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

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

I got through about half of it. I have a little bit more to go.

Another Reformer, former MP Stephen Harper, said other parties have played along for 30 years that it's better to have a leader from a certain region. He cited former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney, as well as Chretien and Charest, who were going to reconcile Quebec to the rest of Canada. “It's fairly obvious that—”

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Anderson.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

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

Actually, you can't take a point of order at this point.

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

Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with natural resources. I understand Mr. McKay's intent may be to disrupt the committee. He's not a member of it regularly and we do welcome him here, but the reality is that this has nothing to do with natural resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McKay, what you have said so far isn't relevant. If you continue in that mode, I'm going to rule you out of order and we will go on to discussion on the main motion. If you have an amendment to bring forth that is relevant to the motion, then we can get to that, and it's in order if you bring it forward.

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

I've already read that part, Chair. I said I would like to move the following amendment, “That given that fair treatment for all provinces is vital to Canada's natural resources sector, the committee invite the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, MP, to explain the following quotes:”.

I gave you one quote, you interrupted me on the second quote, and I have a third. If I can get through the final two quotes, then the motion will be complete. It is:

“It's fairly obvious this hasn't solved the problem, so it's not surprising that someone should make the opposite case that we need a leader from somewhere else.”

Finally, there is a quote from May 2002, in reference to Atlantic Canada, in which he said:

There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McKay, you're out of order.

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

How is that out of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This amendment does not apply to the motion. I see no relevance, so let's go to the debate on the motion.

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

May I have an opinion on the out of order ruling from the clerk, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The way it works, Mr. McKay, and you should know this, is the chair makes these decisions. If I want to consult with the clerk, I do that. If you question the chair's decision, you're free to do that.

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

Mr. Chair, just in the interest of getting to our witnesses as quickly as possible, what I'm going to suggest is the NDP said they want to entertain the study. They don't particularly like the language. We would invite them to bring forward their amendments. We'll vote on them in short order, and then we can get to our witnesses. I would invite them, if they have amendments to make that are relevant to the motion, to make those amendments. We will gladly vote on them.

Mr. Chair, we often do deal with motions at the beginning of the meeting, but it doesn't particularly matter, because if we're taking time from the beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting, it's the same time lost to the witnesses. As we know just in terms of math, that's what we're doing. Let's invite any amendments. Let's have a little discussion, or whatever, that the NDP wants to have on them. We're willing to vote on them and the motion right now and move ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The next person to be recognized is Ms. Liu.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for coming in and I'd also like to hear their testimony as soon as possible, but I would like to first of all echo the thoughts that were expressed by my colleagues on this side that a committee should not become an organ of the parties.

I think that we've been working together fairly well for these past few months. We came out with a report on resource development in the north, and I think we can continue in this line of work, so I would oppose strongly a motion like this, the only purpose of which is to attack another party. I don't think that committee should be a place where we bring out partisan talking points and try to attack other party leaders or candidates.

On that, I would suggest to the committee that we invite the mover of this motion to move this motion to the end of committee so that we can hear our witnesses first and discuss this afterwards, out of respect for the time that they're taking to meet with us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Liu.

Next we have Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to echo Ms. Liu's comments. I simply do not understand why the Conservatives have thrust this on us at the beginning of the meeting when we have witnesses who are waiting, and why they are refusing obstinately to have this at the normal period, which is at the end of consideration, after hearing our witnesses and after asking our questions.

There's no doubt this is controversial wording. I don't think any of us have difficulty with the idea of the study itself, but I think Mr. Calkins has really poisoned the well by what is clearly inappropriate language. I think Mr. McKay was, in my mind, offering equally inappropriate language, but it certainly was his right to move those amendments, Mr. Chair. I will have to disagree with you. I think the amendments were in order. I would have disagreed with them. I would have voted against them in the same way that I think the witch hunt against these two Liberal members is inappropriate. They both apologized.

I don't believe the natural resources committee is a place to go on a witch hunt. I think the natural resources committee should be properly studying what should be the energy policy of this country in the next couple of decades.

To attack the Prime Minister or to attack two Liberal members who have apologized for their statements is completely inappropriate. That's not the role of this committee, and I am disappointed, Mr. Chair, that the government seems to be using this committee now for a witch hunt and masking what is a perfectly legitimate means, which is having a study on energy policy. That's extremely appropriate. The wording here is inappropriate and unbalanced.

I would like to express my disappointment in how this government is treating the natural resources committee and how it is being misused for these partisan ends when we have four witnesses before us who can add a lot in terms of the content we need for our study and also in terms of recommendations we can make to the government in moving forward on energy policy and energy innovation in the years to come.

I'm going to have three amendments, Mr. Chair. I will offer them one after the other and hope that there will be some comments.

I will begin with the first one.

On the second line, the following is stated: “[...] conduct hearings on the economic benefits that flow from Alberta's energy sector”.

I would like to add the following: “and energy sectors across Canada”.

Of course, Mr. Chair, we shouldn't limit ourselves to Alberta, even though that will contribute a lot to our study. Focusing on Alberta and the rest of Canada provides us with a broader scope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The motion is relevant.

We will have discussion on the motion.

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

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

I would actually support the motion.

I don't think you're in order to rule my amendment out of order. I don't believe that. Mr. Harper's comments are as relevant or as irrelevant as Mr. McGuinty's and Mr. Trudeau's comments. Nevertheless, in light of this new-found harmony that might actually break out, I would suggest that the amendment read, and I'd seek Mr. Julian's consent on this as a friendly amendment to his amendment:

That the committee conduct hearings on the economic benefits that flow from Alberta's energy sector and elsewhere across Canada to ensure that all members of Parliament and Canadians are informed of these economic benefits.

I'll put that forward as an amendment and I'll invite you to debate it or rule it out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, do you accept that as a friendly amendment?

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

Yes, I do.

Mr. Chair, that was my second proposal.

Could Mr. McKay read that a second time?

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

Okay.

That the committee conduct hearings on the economic benefits that flow from Alberta's energy sector and elsewhere across Canada to ensure that all members of Parliament and Canadians are informed of these economic benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

How would that fit in with the motion that has been proposed?

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

It's an amendment on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

And the amendment, for clarity, Mr. Julian, was to fit in where?