Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 15th, 2021

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I don't want to do this on the very first meeting, but since every single Liberal is on the list ahead, it seems to me that this is really not fair. I had my hand up from the get-go. I'm not trying to queue-jump here. We could talk till February before I actually get a chance to speak, given the experience at other committees, so I'm going to have to challenge this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll go directly to a vote. The vote is on the speaking order.

[The Clerk]

The vote is a challenge to the chair on the speaking order. The question is this: Shall the decision of the chair stand?

If you are in agreement with that, you say yea. If you disagree, you say nay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Could you repeat that, just so we're very clear how we're voting?

[The Clerk]

We are voting on a challenge to the chair. The challenge to the chair is with respect to the speaking order. The chair has determined that Mr. Chahal is to go first. There is a challenge to the chair on that.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? If you agree with that, you're to vote yea. If you disagree, you vote nay.

I can do a recorded vote, if you like.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

The ruling of the chair has been overturned. That then puts Mr. Angus first, Mr. Chahal second, Ms. Lapointe third, Mr. Maloney fourth and Ms. Dabrusin fifth.

Does anybody else want to get on the speaking list at this point?

Okay, that's the list we'll go with at this point, then.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Madam Clerk. I'm certainly very sorry I had to do this, because I have enormous respect for the work of the clerk. As the only member for the New Democratic Party, I sometimes feel that I need to assert my place because I'm with two bigger parties. There's no personal intent here.

I want to thank Mr. Maloney. I understand that he was an excellent chair, and I believe that we are going to get along very well.

I have the floor because I had stated my intention to bring forward a motion. I brought forward a motion because we have a lot of work ahead of us right now, and we have to hit the ground running for February. We cannot dilly-dally given the crisis we're facing on the planet and given the promises that the Prime Minister has made regarding our international obligations. It's incumbent upon this committee to do the hard work in order to make sure Canada lives up to its obligations.

It started off when I brought forward my motion. I had outreach from some of the other parties about how to improve the motion so that we could actually be more efficient at this meeting and not at cross-purposes.

I would like to bring forward this motion:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), before February 15th, 2022, the committee undertake a two-meeting study concerning the development and implementation of the Emissions Reduction Fund—Onshore Program, with particular focus on the method of accounting for greenhouse gases; that the committee invite the Minister of Natural Resources, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, experts and stakeholders; that the committee make recommendations on the future of the program; and that the committee report its findings to the House;

That the Minister of Natural Resources be invited to appear before the committee prior to February 28th, 2022, for no fewer than two hours on the subject matter of the Supplementary Estimates (B) 2021-2022;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), during the next eight meetings—

That's after this.

—the committee undertake a study of the government’s proposal for a greenhouse gas emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, including, but not limited to, the ability of Canada to meet its climate commitments articulated at the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow; the government’s plans and targets for funding renewable energy; the role of carbon capture, utilisation, and sequestration (CCUS); that experts and stakeholders be invited to appear; that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment be invited to appear; and that the committee report its findings to the House prior to April 29, 2022.

I won't take a lot of time. I'm just going to explain to my colleagues around the table why I think it's very important that we pass this motion as the beginning of our work as a committee.

Certainly, the issue of reduction of methane is one of the most primary tasks that we have to be able to deal with as a country, and the fund that was in place—the emissions reduction fund, the onshore program—received over half a million dollars. It was money that was supposed to be used to ensure we reached methane targets.

My colleague Mr. Simard is very clear on the importance of getting answers on this, because we find that Canada missed its methane targets, and the money that should have been spent in helping us decrease greenhouse gas emissions wasn't spent on that. We have an obligation to find out what went wrong in order to make sure this doesn't happen again, because when I speak with people in industry, they say we can easily hit the methane targets and we can exceed them.

If the Prime Minister is making promises of further reductions in methane when we haven't met the ones we already have, we need as a committee to provide recommendations to the government on what went wrong with this program, what needs to be fixed and how we meet methane targets.

The second part of this motion, regarding inviting the Minister of Natural Resources to talk to us on supplementary estimates, is very much I think an order of housekeeping, because this will come up. If we agree to a study in that time, we would have to be jostling around committee times. I got advice from members of other parties to put it in so that it's part of the work program. Of course, we're going to have the minister come forward on that, because it's self-evident.

The third issue, of course, is the need to have a plan on the emissions cap.

We know that on November 1, in Glasgow, the Prime Minister made a very important announcement to the world that, “We'll cap oil and gas sector emissions today and ensure they decrease tomorrow at a pace and scale needed to reach net-zero by 2050.” He went further: “That's no small task for a major oil and gas producing country. It's a big step that's absolutely necessary.”

I think my colleagues from all parties would agree on the importance of our examining how we are going to make this emissions cap. Does it begin now? We know that there is somewhat of a cap in Alberta, but that would allow for a large increase in production. Is the government going to support increasing production or decreasing production? How are we going to do that?

It comes to our committee to deal with this, my colleagues, because on the same day that he made the announcement at Glasgow, the environment minister wrote to that committee, the net-zero advisory body—which I'd never actually heard of—to ask for advice. I'm thinking that if the environment minister was looking for advice on how to set an emissions cap while the Prime Minister was making announcements on the international stage, our committee could do a lot of that work for the Prime Minister and we could come back with a credible plan.

Each of us will bring our own focus to it. For me, we have to have a plan that makes sure that our children have a world that's livable. We have to meet an emissions cap target that is credible, that is doable and that will be reached, because emissions continue to rise.

We need to do it within a frame, also, of the economic impacts. If sectors are going to be impacted, is there a plan for transition? We hear the words “just transition” thrown out and about, and I'm sure we'll end up looking at these issues later, but it all comes down to whether we can deliver on an emissions cap. If we can't deliver on an emissions cap, there's no talk about going further on issues such as the just transition.

I'm bringing this forward for a vote. I don't see that it is controversial. I think, across party lines, we all agree on these issues, so I'd like to put it forward to be voted on.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Could I just pause for a second? As I said, please bear with me as I get my legs back under me as far as chairing is concerned. I haven't operated in this virtual environment before. Again, my apologies with trying to sort out the hands up in different orders. I'll try to be much more aware of that.

I see that on the screen I have four hands up. I don't know if they are still waiting to speak. The clerk advises me that, as we have a motion in front of us, we need to deal with this before we go to other motions.

Perhaps if anybody on screen has their hand up for the next round of speaking, I'll get you to take your hand down. If it's to speak to this motion, then we'll go with the order.

Ms. Rempel Garner, you'd had your hand up. Was that to go on the speaking list or to speak to this motion?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That's correct. It's to this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

For all the hands that have been up on screen prior to Ms. Rempel Garner, does everyone want to speak to this one? I'm seeing nods, yes.

Mr. Chahal, you're taking your hand down.

Ms. Lapointe, did you want to speak to this one? You did.

We'll go with Ms. Lapointe first.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm sorry. I keep jumping in on this, but I think the way it works on Zoom is that the person in the left-hand corner is usually first in order. I could be wrong in how it appears.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes, I think they do change, depending on screens. I'm looking at mine. It was actually Mr. Chahal, Ms. Lapointe, Mr. Maloney and then Ms. Dabrusin.

I'll go with Ms. Lapointe next.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I apologize. I'm having difficulty reviewing the motion. I'll put my hand down, if you want, and put it back up to be in a different order. I'm just not seeing the motion in front of me right now to be able to debate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. The motion has been emailed to everybody, to their P9s, by the clerk just now. Perhaps each of you would like to check to make sure you have it.

Ms. Lapointe, I'll put you after Ms. Dabrusin and go to Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To be clear, I want to speak to this. I have something else I want to speak to as well. I'm not sure how the hands going up and down is going to play out on that one, but that remains to be seen.

The first of my comments—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry. I meant to say that I'll keep you on for this one, and then we also have another list for other things after we're through this motion. You're on that one as well.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you for your kind remarks earlier.

Mr. Angus, thank you for your generous comments about my being chair of this committee before. One thing about this committee that always stood out to me and other members was that we were always able to get along incredibly well. There was virtually no conflict, and when there was disagreement, it was easily resolved through discussion and not confrontation. I know Mr. Melillo is in the room. I can't see him, but I'm hoping his head is nodding up and down and not left to right. I'm sure it is.

I don't see any reason we can't continue that. I almost voted with you, Mr. Angus, on your challenge to the chair, but I didn't think that would go over well. I didn't want us to get off on that sort of foot, either.

One way we managed to accomplish these goals was to compromise. I know you've introduced this motion. I haven't seen it in writing, although I gather it's being emailed around. I would like to do so based on what I heard you say. There's a lot in there that I agree we should be talking about. Probably everybody does.

It does need to be translated, in fairness to Mr. Simard and others who may want that option to read it in French.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On a point of order, Chair, the motion has been translated.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

The motion that has been circulated and has been translated.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. That just furthers my point. I have not seen it. I apologize for that.

There are going to be a number of other motions that I suspect people want to put forward. Some of them, I'm confident, will overlap in part, if not in large part, with this motion. What I would suggest is maybe that we take advantage of the subcommittee that was just formed pursuant to the routine motions, that we table all of the proposed motions today and that the subcommittee then review them.

I agree with Mr. Angus's sentiment that we don't want to lose any time and we want to hit the ground running, but I would hate to be in a situation where we adopt a motion and then other members see later that there were other motions they might have thought were things they should have put ahead of, or that they could merge with or do in conjunction with...whatever the case may be.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that there's a solution to this. Rather than going with the first one and not hearing about the other ones, I would propose that we hear all of the motions and then we put those over to the subcommittee. The subcommittee could even.... There's a way to deal with this the first week we come back in the end of January. We could have witnesses ready to go quite soon. I suspect that whatever study we're going to do is going to involve departmental officials. We can have those people queued up to go on whatever route we take.

My last point is that there is some unfinished work from this committee in the last session. When I say “unfinished”, I mean we were within sight of the finish line. There was one report. We had heard all the witnesses. We had started to discuss drafting instructions, but we hadn't finished it. It's a topic that I'm pretty confident Mr. Angus would be interested in. I'm also confident that my Conservative colleagues would be interested in it, because it was actually a study that resulted from a motion from one of their colleagues. That's something else we need to consider. That could be done in pretty short order if we were to adopt that, but that's just one of many.

My suggestion is, perhaps, with the room's consent, that we hear about other motions and then decide how to move forward procedurally thereafter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for those comments.

We'll go through and hear everybody's comments, and then we'll work through how we want to deal with this motion and the others that come forward.

Ms. Dabrusin, you're up next.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

Congratulations, Mr. Aldag, on being chair. I'm really looking forward to working with you. I'm sorry I'm not in a room with everyone else, but I look forward to working with all of you, too, over the coming months in the next session.

I have a couple of questions that came to mind when I was looking at this. The first point, just because Mr. Angus raised the net-zero advisory body, is that it was a body that has been established. It was part of Bill C-12, which was passed in the last Parliament, that there would be a net-zero advisory body. It will have an ongoing function of advising on how we achieve net zero by 2050. That's just as a point on that.

It's a long motion, and I'm just trying to get through it right now because it was just sent to me. As I was looking through it, one question I had was about the last part, which includes having the Minister of Environment come as well. It raises a point that it might be something that the environment committee would ultimately be studying too.

Maybe the clerk can help me. I seem to remember that there's a possibility for joint sittings between committees. I was just wondering. What's the process for that, if that was something we would be interested in?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Just give us one second. The clerk is consulting.

Apparently the process would be that the two chairs would meet to determine if there was interest in doing a joint meeting. If there was, then all members of both committees would come together for a joint hearing. That would be the process, and....

Go ahead.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I've never seen this done.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I was going to say that it could be something that could be directed, perhaps through the subcommittee, if it would be the desire to go with that kind of approach.