Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 15th, 2021

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

That's amazing.

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

I'm from Thunder Bay, Charlie. I get it.

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

Look at your last name there, Mr. Maloney. You come from good stock.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We have clarification and we'll restart the vote.

I'll give clarification and then I'll come to Mr. Chahal. Although the subamendment was carried, the amendment was defeated, so that kills both of them. We're now voting on the original motion as put forward by Mr. Angus, with no amendments.

Mr. Chahal, did you have a point before we start the vote?

We'll turn it over to the clerk for the recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

We have a list of others who want to speak. Now that this has been carried, we'll have Mr. Maloney first. If anybody else wants to speak now to any other motions or any other business of the committee, we'll take that.

Mr. Maloney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a motion here that's along the lines of what I said earlier about unfinished business from the last session. I'm hoping we can have two moments of consensus in one meeting.

I move:

That the committee take into consideration all evidence and documentation received as part of the study on the Low-Carbon and Renewable Fuels Industry in Canada during the second session of the 43rd Parliament; that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake this study as its own and proceed to drafting instructions based on the evidence acquired in the previous session; and that the committee table its report in the House no later than February 28, 2022.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a study for which we completed hearing from all of the witnesses in June. I think we provided some preliminary drafting instructions, at least, if not formal drafting instructions. There may actually be a draft report kicking around somewhere. Regardless of whether that's the case or not, drafting instructions were ready to be provided by all parties. This is something that could be done very quickly, and it would be a shame, as Mr. Angus pointed out earlier, to not finish this after all of the work that went into it.

There were a lot of meetings. I think there might have been eight or nine meetings in total. We heard from a lot of witnesses, and I think it would be unfortunate and somewhat disrespectful to them if we were not to get this ball across the line.

I'm hoping that we will get consensus around the table to adopt this motion and then we can move on it forthwith.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Do you have that in writing? Could you forward to the clerk in both official languages, so that it could be distributed?

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

I will get that taken care of right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

To speak to this motion, I have Mr. Chahal, Ms. Rempel Garner, Mr. Angus and Ms. Jones.

Go ahead, Mr. Chahal.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I wasn't going to speak on this motion. I was going to speak on a separate one, but I do agree with my colleague Mr. Maloney that we should continue and support this important work that was done by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I will keep you on my list for when we conclude this one.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you.

I'm new to this committee, Chair. It would be inappropriate for us to proceed with writing a report for members who didn't have any opportunity to have input into its substantive matter, including my colleague Mr. Chahal, who is newly elected.

I would also point out that, if this was so important to the Liberals, they shouldn't have called an election. Come on.

The last thing I would say is that this would interfere with the timeline that we just put forward to the committee. It would take at least two meetings to review, and I think we would have to invite witnesses again. I'm not inclined to support it for that reason, and I would remind colleagues from the Liberal Party that when the government calls an unnecessary election, things fall off the Order Paper. It's a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I am very uncomfortable. I thought we were going to be looking at a motion of a report that was finished and we were waiting for a response to. Then, it would be a straightforward thing to just bring forward the report and reintroduce it so that we could get a response. To take a study that wasn't completed and then do drafting instructions when I have had nothing to do with any of the witnesses and I don't know the direction, that, to me, would be a serious problem.

I'm sitting with the former chair of my last committee, Mr. Warkentin. We worked full out to get our final reports done and to Parliament, because you do not know—and this is political life 101—when a session ends if you're going to be taking that work up again. It's incumbent upon the committee to try to have the work completed, so I feel very uncomfortable.

If there's another motion that we are talking about, with work that has been finished, I would be interested in that one. However, I could not support giving drafting instructions to a report based on witness testimony on an issue that I have had nothing whatsoever to do with. I can't put my name to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to support Mr. Maloney on this. I sat on the last committee and I was part of this study. We did this study based on recommendations by the Conservative Party. It was their motion. We certainly called many witnesses. We heard lots of evidence, and there was a lot of good work done in that process.

I think that when we come here as members, even though we represent ourselves, we also represent a broader perspective and the platforms of our parties and the policies of our parties, and the NDP was very engaged in this study, as well as the Conservatives and the Bloc. I really believe that the evidence and the testimony given to us and the work are advanced enough that we could very easily complete this report. It would be a shame to have this expert testimony and this study fall off the table at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

I have Mr. Chahal, Mr. Simard and then Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Chahal.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I agree with my colleague and her statement. There's been a tremendous amount of work done on this. We've had experts come in. It seems like the previous committee was quite collaborative, with everybody working together. This was a motion from the opposition that was brought forward, and everybody has worked hard.

I think the expert testimony should be included and a report provided. I think that's the right thing to do to honour the work that's been done by everybody involved who put their time and energy forward. There are a lot of great ideas, I'm sure, that will come from this. This should be put together and brought forward for us for our consideration in the future and for the ideas that could help move our country forward. I'm happy to support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I rather agree with Mr. Maloney. My only issue is with the time frame. Why not refer this motion to the subcommittee? That would give us a chance to discuss the time frame later. That said, I rather agree with what Mr. Maloney is proposing. To be a bit more efficient, we could refer it to the subcommittee and talk about it a bit later.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Maloney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, in response to Mr. Simard, I'm prepared to remove the date. I'm not too fussed about it getting accomplished by February 28. My only concern is that it gets done at all.... I mean, if we're going to talk about consensus and whatnot, you can.... I lost track somewhere along there with the line about the opposition talking about this unnecessary election, but it was probably raised today in question period, and it will probably be raised tomorrow. You can say it over and over again.

If that's your view, which it is, you can say it to us over and over again. Don't take it out on the witnesses and all the people who worked so hard to contribute to this study. As has been said already, this was put forward by the Conservatives, with the support of Mr. Simard and Mr. Cannings.

Getting the drafting instructions is not a challenge in this situation. Mr. Simard was there. Mr. Angus and Mr. Cannings I'm sure would be more than happy to pinch-hit for you for one meeting to do that, as would others from the Conservative Party who were re-elected. I'm sure they would be happy to step in and do the same.

There's no obstacle to this happening other than politics. Let's not let politics get in the way of something that we had all agreed on previously, from all parties, getting done, because it is a sign of great respect to Parliament, but more importantly, to those witnesses and experts who took the time to put pen to paper and give their time to show up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Dabrusin, you had your hand up.

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

I was just going to suggest this, because I don't believe that Mr. Maloney can amend his own motion. He was suggesting the removal of the date. If you need the amendment to remove the date reference, I'm happy to move that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have two more people wanting to weigh in on this.

Actually, Mr. Warkentin, I think I might have missed you, and then I have Mr. Angus.