Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any debate on the new amendment that Mr. McKay has brought forward? Do you want to speak to it?

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

As you know, Chair, the Minister of International Trade, who I have nothing but the highest regard for, has been a very busy lad lately going around signing up Canada to a whole bunch of trade treaties. A lot of these trade treaties have a great deal to do with access to energy resources, the most obvious of which is the current deal with respect to CNOOC and Nexen, on which the government has yet to be forthcoming as to what the net benefit to Canada is.

In a study of one of the critical energy sectors in Canada, such as the oil sector and indeed the energy sector generally, I would think that the committee would benefit greatly from the views of the Minister of International Trade. Certainly as the globe becomes smaller and the demands for energy become greater, the access to other forms of energy becomes quite critical, so I would think that the presence of the Minister of International Trade is a sine qua non of a study such as this. I would see his inclusion in a motion such as Mr. Calkins has proposed as far more significant than the other witnesses, who, as I say, are brilliant individuals in and of themselves, but have no recognized expertise in the energy field.

Certainly the Minister of International Trade has thought about this. He's generally from the area where all of this occurs, and I think the committee would benefit highly by his presence, but I guess if you turned down the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Natural Resources, there is some likelihood that you might actually not want to hear from the Minister of International Trade and certainly not want to make him a compellable witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll move to the vote on the amendment.

[An hon. member]

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

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

Not quite. Not quite, Mr. Chair.

I changed the motion again to read this time, “the Minister of the Environment”.

We only have 20 cabinet members to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll move to the vote on the amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

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

I just heard Mr. McKay say we've only got 20 cabinet ministers. Obviously he thinks he's going to continue doing this, so I'm just wondering, if he is planning on filibustering until the end of the hour and he wants to make that clear, would he let us know so that we can treat the witnesses with respect and actually let them go?

We'd like to go ahead with the witness hearing, have a vote on the motion now, and make the decision. If he's going to filibuster for the next hour, out of respect to the witnesses he should let us know. Then we can let the witnesses go so that they don't have to continue to sit through this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's a reasonable request. Mr. McKay, do you have an indication on that, if you wouldn't mind?

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

I'll just point out that I've already apologized on behalf of the committee for the abuse of witnesses' time. The abuse of their time started with Mr. Calkins' motion. I don't quite know why the opposition, having objected to Mr. Calkins' motion in the most vociferous way possible and having absolutely no compromise or even a hint of moving the motion down to a later part of the day, should now be asked to let the witnesses go when the government has had ample opportunity to treat the witnesses with respect.

This is an abuse of witness time, I agree. It's an abuse of Canadians' time. It's an abuse of all of the opposition members' time. If the government wishes to carry on this way, they're welcome to do so, but my amendment stands, and I move that the previous motion be amended by deleting “Minister of International Trade” and replacing it with “Minister of the Environment”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Do you have a point of order?

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

I just wanted to reiterate my point.

Mr. McKay can make his political statement, which he's just done, and that's fine. We're just asking, if he's intending to filibuster for the next hour, to give us that indication so that we can let the witnesses go so they don't have to continue to be part of this. It's just out of politeness to them. It would be up to him to make that decision, and if he could let us know, then, Mr. Chair, you could allow the witnesses to leave the table.

Otherwise, if we're going to vote on his thing, which we would like to do immediately, then we can hear from the witnesses. We still have time to hear their presentations. If this goes on much longer, then we're not going to and we should just let them go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McKay, did you hear the proposal from Mr. Anderson?

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

I've heard the honourable parliamentary secretary, and maybe he should look in the mirror as to who is abusing what witnesses. This was a purely partisan witch hunt motion designed to try to embarrass two Liberal members. It had no purpose whatsoever other than that. They started it; now they don't want to finish it.

My motion stands, and I apologize to the witnesses.

You have seen what happens in this majority government. It is an abuse of the opposition and it is partisan witch hunts 24/7/365. If Mr. Anderson, the parliamentary secretary, wishes to withdraw Mr. Calkins' motion or instruct Mr. Calkins to withdraw his motion, he's more than welcome to do so, but don't blame the opposition when it comes to starting partisan witch hunts, because this one was started entirely and completely by the Conservative members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I've been trying to let things go back and forth or try to find a way to get to the witnesses. It's clear that's not going to happen, so is there any discussion on Mr. McKay's proposed amendment?

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

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to once again discuss this invitation to the Minister of the Environment.

The Minister of the Environment has, how shall we say, been more of an apologist than a minister. Nevertheless, he does have jurisdictional responsibility in the area of energy. He certainly has not been, how should we say, as enthusiastic as I would wish with respect to the cost to the environment on the energy sector. It is a not insignificant cost. When the motion talks about the benefits and isolates the conversation to the benefits, you don't actually find out what the liabilities are.

Mr. Chair, I don't know whether you were a small businessman in your previous life, but I ran a law practice. In a law practice you have assets and you have liabilities. You have income and you have expenses. This motion is actually on the left side of the agenda. It's not on the right side of the agenda or the right side of the page. On this motion we don't actually get to what the liabilities and costs are of Canada being an “energy superpower”. If there is any minister who should be charged with the responsibility of explaining to Canadians and to parliamentarians that there are costs to these endeavours, then it actually should be the Minister of the Environment.

Again, I made the same point with respect to the international trade minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Natural Resources—that they should be included, each one of them—and now the Minister of the Environment should be included in the motion as a person of great interest to this committee. This is a committee that is to discuss all sides of the energy equation. He is an appropriate witness to have here. I would put him in the motion above all others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Leef.

Is it a point of order or a discussion on the motion?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

It's on a point of order.

Mr. Chair, we may be able to expedite this and subsequent motions by Mr. McKay.

You made the offer a little bit earlier to add all the names of these ministers to the motions. He declined that. Offering them up now one after another after he's clearly declined your offer would, in my opinion, make the motion out of order.

You also made the point quite clearly that witnesses can be listed by the opposition and the government when a motion is accepted for study. I would suggest that this and every other motion that names independent cabinet ministers, given the opportunity he's had, should be immediately ruled out of order, and then we can move on with other business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Leef, I can't rule those proposed amendments out of order. I wish I could find a way to deal with it to get to the witnesses, but we'll have to go through the process. I'd just like to say to the witnesses here that if you would like to get a coffee or something, feel free to do that, but I ask you to remain in the room or at least not leave for a long period of time.

Is there any discussion on the proposed amendment by Mr. McKay?

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

I appreciate your taking note—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. McKay, I haven't recognized you.

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

Sorry. I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Are there any other people who have asked for the floor on this amendment?

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the belated recognition. I appreciate your noting that the motion is in order.

These people have significant portfolios, and they are of significant relevance to the committee. I take note, as I did at the beginning of the committee when questioning whether the motion was in order, that this is quite clearly within the mandate of the committee. The committee is entitled to study the department that's assigned to them and its effectiveness. It's certainly well within all four corners of relevance to this committee.

I appreciate, Mr. Chair, your recognizing that the motion is in order, and that this witness is a critical witness to any kind of study such as you might propose as set in this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, we'll go to the vote on the amendment.