Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 19th, 2020

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

My question is whether this is inclusive of all clauses that relate to natural resources. If it's not possible to answer that today, this minute, it would be very worthwhile for us to understand if there are some that were not referred to us for consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. May, it's you, and then Mr. Simard.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

As I understand it, we're not being asked to delve that deeply into this. They've hived off these clauses to four different committees. Our role is to look at these very specific clauses. If we get into expanding this, it is outside the scope of what we're being asked to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I may have missed part of the discussion, but have you already suggested some witnesses?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

It would probably be department officials who took part in the process and other experts who would come and explain the basis for these provisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

The letter requested a specific action by this committee. I recognize the time frames, but as the natural resource committee, the simple request to identify other sections that might relate to our committee work is not inappropriate. I think it is probably an imperative.

I mean, we are the masters of our destiny. Yes, we should do the task that's been asked of us, but I think it would be of value for our committee to understand if there are any other impacts in the areas we're responsible for.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Jones and then Mr. Lefebvre.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my understanding that a specific request had been made to our committee. We're dealing with the request in front of us. I think if the committee were to want to entertain looking at any of the clauses within the NAFTA agreement, that would be something we would do separately and outside of the request that is currently on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

That's fine, Mr. Chair. That's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, there is nobody else.

We've been asked to perform a very specific task, which we've now agreed to undertake. What you're proposing is beyond the scope of that request. The House has referred the legislation to the Standing Committee on International Trade. They have then turned around and given this to us.

That being the case, and because this was thrust upon all of us on short notice—including our analysts and the clerk, and every member of the committee—why don't we give people time to think about witnesses until first thing tomorrow morning? I will then look at the list of witnesses. I will cull it down and determine who's going to be called, subject to your approval.

What direction I do need from you is on the number of witnesses. If I get a list of 15 witnesses tomorrow, that's obviously not feasible.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That's a good point.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Chair, how many witnesses do you see would be allowed in that time?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Well, if you do the math, if you do two witnesses, that's 20 minutes of evidence. One round of questions takes us to about 34 minutes. Our meetings are two hours. Assuming you want to stick to two hours and you want to have some time for drafting instructions, we probably don't have any more time than to accommodate three witnesses. That would be my suggestion.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

If I can try to simplify this for you, Mr. Chair, and also for the clerk, can we agree that we're looking at speaking with just the officials at this point?

I know, having chaired another committee, how much time and energy goes into trying to bring somebody here, especially from outside of Ottawa. That usually takes two weeks minimum to organize and to plan. Officials are here and they're ready to go. They know this is on the table.

I would like to go so far as to move that we're talking to three department officials and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Part of the reason I asked for discretion, though, is that we're not the only committee doing this. Everybody is subject to the same time limitations. I wouldn't be surprised if other committees are targeting the same witnesses. It's entirely possible that we could make a request tomorrow to three departmental officials and they say, “Sorry, we're already booked to go to another committee. We're not available for other reasons”. For that reason, I need some discretion.

If everybody is okay with that, we will leave it there. Everybody has until 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock tomorrow morning to give me lists of witnesses. Categories of witnesses would be preferable, especially if they are departmental officials, because we can't specify a certain person because he or she may not be available, but somebody else might be.

Does that work for everybody around the table? Is there agreement?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Only insofar as we are in this absolutely ridiculous situation, because of the votes cast by Liberal and NDP members at the other committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you for that.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

We could all go down that road, I believe.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Can I suggest we all—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

The Conservatives initially did, which would have given us a timeline until April 2, so we could all do this and actually do our jobs, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We are where we are.