Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 15th, 2021

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

Okay. I only flag it because my understanding is that at least that third bullet point might be largely something that's been also proposed for environment to look at. I just want to make sure that we have that conversation.

The only other piece I would say—again, this is all stuff that can be dealt with at the subcommittee—is that, if it's a bullet point to a larger motion, because this motion has three parts to it, is there a way to break out one part of the motion that would go for a joint sitting, or does it have to be the whole study? Again, it's just because I've never done that process before.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're looking into that, so let's hold that.

As I prepare to move to Ms. Lapointe—and Ms. Dabrusin, we'll come back to you as we sort this out—I want to find out if the members feel they need a minute or two to read the motion that has been circulated or if we're good doing it on the fly.

I was corrected. We have Ms. Rempel Garner next. Then we have Ms. Lapointe, then Mr. Angus, and then Mr. Melillo on the clerk's speaking order.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Mr. Angus for moving this motion. I support it. I want to make a few points on issues that have been raised, but first I want to speak to the substance of the motion.

The first part of the motion is with regard to the emissions reduction fund—onshore program. Mr. Angus has raised concerns that I also shared upon reading the report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I understand, from Mr. Angus's remarks, that Mr. Simard also shares those. There seems to be agreement among parties of all political stripes that this is an important issue for us to look at, particularly with regard to the impact this has on climate change and the urgency of that issue. I do believe that the first bullet point would be material and important for this committee to study.

The second part of the motion to me makes a lot of sense. It also gives the minister over two months to find a date, with the chair, to appear on supplementary estimates. That is a very long period of time. I would not like to come back to Parliament and have to waste a meeting slot on a subcommittee to have the minister come for supplementary estimates. I think that's something we should dispose of today. It also allows the minister to find time in his calendar over the break.

There's a similar argument for the way in which the last part of the motion is worded. This also gives the chair ample opportunity to work with the ministers' offices to come up with times to appear before committee on the last matter.

I'd also like to speak in favour, strongly, of the last part of the motion. We do need climate action. We also need clarity and stability for the natural resources sector, particularly the oil and gas sector, and in understanding the details with regard to the Prime Minister's announcement that he made at COP26. The lack of details that were put forward in that announcement—I have heard from civil society, the environmental activist community, industry groups and provincial stakeholders about the lack of stability that has occurred, because there is no plan on that—is troubling in terms of our ability to both protect the jobs and workers who are in affected industries and meet our climate objectives.

I think this is probably one of the most important and pressing things this committee could be doing right now. It falls squarely within the scope of this committee, given the impact it has on the oil and gas sector. I do not want this punted to subcommittee. This is an excellent motion. It programs the committee out, and it gives the chair the ability to begin putting witnesses together so that we can hit the ground running upon the commencement of the session in February.

We have not met in this committee, I don't believe, in over six months now. Given the impact of all these issues on the sector, we have to get to work. I would like to think that a rare moment of consensus could break out over this motion. This motion is neutrally worded. It doesn't come to any sort of conclusion. It doesn't take any sort of political position. It is a well-worded committee motion. It seeks to inquire on the government's plans. It doesn't take a position on the government's plans, but it seeks to do some work that is very material to many groups in the country.

I would not be in favour, particularly given that we are in a hybrid situation where resources are limited, of wasting more meetings on scheduling when we have a good motion like this ahead of time. I would remind colleagues that a committee's founding meeting is usually when we address business. If colleagues have other ideas, I am open to calls from anybody, including the Liberal Party, on how we can move forward. We should come prepared here with how we should....

If colleagues have any other suggestions on the motion, they're welcome to do that here, but I certainly strongly support this. I want to thank Mr. Angus for putting it forward today. I'm very much looking forward to, hopefully, it passing. I hope other colleagues are as well. I'm looking forward to spending some time over the next several weeks getting our witness lists ready and, hopefully, collaborating behind the scenes so that we can get started with this study.

Those are my two cents.

Good work, Charlie.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Just to clarify the process, we're going to go through and hear comments from everybody who has asked to weigh in on this motion. Then we'll be asking if there are any amendments to the motion that members would like to put forward. Then we'll be making a decision on the amendments and the motion. That's just to make sure we're all on the same page there.

The next speaker we have is Ms. Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments and concerns are very similar to those that have been expressed by my colleague, MP Maloney.

This is a very important issue. I absolutely agree with that. That is why I think it's very important that we are allotted the time to review this motion and look at it in full detail. We just received the motion this evening. I don't feel that I am prepared to weigh in on this motion. I would appreciate an opportunity to do my full, proper research and make sure I understand it fully.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Angus, you're up next.

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

Thank you.

I welcome Ms. Lapointe to our committee. We will have three members from northern Ontario, so I'm sure we're going to work well.

I say this with the greatest respect, but people who show up at our committee have to come prepared. It is simply too much of a luxury to say that we'll put this off until February so people can read a motion. That's not on. We are dealing with a planetary crisis. We are dealing with the biggest crisis that has faced our country in terms of climate and economy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are dependent on the energy sector, from Newfoundland out to B.C. We have to be ready to give the Prime Minister and the government recommendations in good faith.

Mr. Maloney, I have great respect for your work, as I've already said, but as you know, a motion is on the floor to be debated and voted on. You could vote it down and bring forward another motion. We could vote on this, get it and then deal with the other motions. I certainly think this is something we should all agree on. I'm ready to vote on it.

In terms of bringing the environment minister to our committee, I don't think we need to complicate it by saying that we need to reach out to the environment committee to have some kind of large group meeting, as much as we all love each other. The fact is that the Prime Minister set up two cabinet committees on the climate crisis. One has the natural resources minister and one has the environment minister. I want to know that they both have a plan. Who's making the decisions? We're not sure.

On inviting the environment minister on the emissions cap, it was the environment minister who wrote to the advisory body about the emissions cap, so he needs to come to our committee. The natural resources minister obviously needs to come to our committee because he is dealing with the sector. Those two ministers have to be here.

I'm watching the time. I don't know how long people want to stay tonight. I'm not going anywhere in the snow, so I'm ready to stay all night. I would think we could get this out of the way. Mr. Maloney says we have some other motions. I am more than willing to hear them. I'm more than willing to vote for them, but I am not willing to say that we'll put this off to a subcommittee, because the subcommittee means that we would not be able to come back until February. If we don't come back until February it robs me, as the only member of the New Democratic Party, the opportunity to do the research necessary to bring forward the witnesses we need so that we can do the work, and so that we have a month to prepare for what I think will be some of the defining studies that are going to happen in this Parliament.

I'm ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Maloney, you're next.

Then we have Monsieur Simard and Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Angus and Ms. Rempel Garner, I don't disagree with very much of what you said, although in Ms. Rempel Garner's case I hope that moments of consensus are not rare. I hope they're common in this committee. I agree with both of you that we need to come prepared to this meeting. We are, but if coming prepared means getting your hand up first, I'm not sure that's really what we're talking about.

The reality is that everybody around this table has some ideas that they would like to share with the table on how we move forward, but if the reason we don't do that is that Mr. Angus got his hand up first, I don't think it's fair to characterize anybody or any group of people as not being properly prepared.

What we're trying to do here is get a consensus—

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

I'm sorry. On a point of order, I certainly didn't suggest that because my hand was up first people weren't prepared. I was responding to Ms. Lapointe, who said she wanted to spend the month reading the motion.

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

That's fair. I don't think she said she'd spend a month reading the motion. Look, I just got the motion five minutes ago, and I'm trying to read it while I'm listening to you, Mr. Angus. I think that was her point. As I said earlier, there's a lot in there. There's some good stuff in there, and I'd like to give it some consideration.

Just to be clear, I don't want to wait until the end of January, the beginning of February, to come back here and have this discussion again either, but there is a compromise. It is that the subcommittee—and Mr. Angus, you're going to be on it, as will Mr. Simard, and I'm not sure who the Conservative members are—could meet sometime in January before the House starts sitting.

I would suggest that, at that subcommittee meeting, a number of motions be considered. We'd come out of there with recommendations, on the assumption that subcommittee members from the Liberals and the Conservatives go in there fully authorized to decide what goes first, so that, between the time of that meeting and the time Parliament resumes, we can actually then agree on witnesses and start the meetings right away, rather than losing more time.

The other problem is that, if we agree on this motion or any other motion today and then we go, we still have to figure out who the witnesses are going to be. This group, collectively, has to be involved in that discussion, in my view. We're all going to submit lists of witnesses. We have to agree on it, and perhaps vote on it. There's going to be overlap. I'm not trying to slow down the process. Quite the contrary, I'm trying to accelerate the process. I want to come back at the end of the month and get going right away too. I think the easiest way to do that, to accomplish everybody's goal, is to do as I suggest and have a subcommittee meeting then.

Mr. Angus, you face the possibility that—and you don't want to see this and I don't want to see this—if we're forced to vote on this now, some people might vote no just so they can move on to discuss the next motion, even though there are some parts of this motion of yours that they would like to support. I don't want to see it dismissed or voted on for reasons that aren't totally based on merit.

That's where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to slow things down. I'm not trying to put somebody else's motions ahead of yours or anything else like that. I just want to make sure that we're all able to take in all of the information that we have available to us—and we haven't heard it all yet—so that when we do come back, we can start off on that very first day.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're going to move to Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Maloney knows that, in the last Parliament, we worked together a lot and it went very well. We have to figure out how to balance effectiveness and collaboration.

I don't think it would be appropriate to refer the motion to the subcommittee. It is not restrictive, but fairly broad. There is a strong consensus on the motion, especially among Mr. Angus, Ms. Rempel Garner and myself. Some people have said that what the motion contains was worthwhile. Nothing is stopping us from adopting it today and then figuring out in subcommittee how we could proceed. We could adopt it today so that we could be set and already know how to proceed at future meetings. It is just for the sake of logic and efficiency that I think we should vote on it right away, to then focus on shaping it for the subcommittee. However, we should not refer the motion to the subcommittee, as that would make us lose a huge amount of time. There is consensus for everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you.

I just got this. As far as preparation goes, I didn't have a chance to review this motion until it just arrived. I'm happy to be reading it now and discussing it, but I'm looking at how it breaks apart. It's like three studies in one, which is part of the challenge that, I believe, Mr. Maloney raised about when everyone gets their hands up and which motions gets considered.

I'm also going to point out that supplementary estimates (B) have already already been adopted, so I'm not sure how that works as part of this motion.

Is there a way to break this into three separate studies, again recognizing that supplementary estimates (B) have already gone? Maybe we can talk about when supplementary estimates (C) will happen. We can then have them go to the subcommittee to consider each as a separate study for analysis. That way, we can look at it as a way of going through all of them and then considering the other motions that will tabled as well. That way, they're all coming up.

That's one thought of how to deal with it, along with the other motions that have been proposed. Maybe as a friendly amendment to the second bullet, what we could do is just amend it to be on supplementary estimates (C), instead, if any, and the main estimates. We could take away the reference to supplementary estimates (B), given that they've already passed as far as timing, anyway.

Those are my two suggestions. One is that we break it into three separate motions, because they are three separate studies in any event. The second is that the second bullet be about supplementary estimates (C), if any, and the main estimates. That way, we can deal with it all.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Mr. Angus, you had your hand up for this part of the discussion.

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

Supplementary estimates (B) matter because we haven't had a chance to review them, and we have to be able to put all of this in context for our work. If the government wants to bring forward supplementary estimates (C), I'd be more than willing to take that as well.

However, at this point, and given that the time is carrying on and it's snowing out there, I'm not willing to break this motion apart and send it to be studied by analysts or anybody else. It's at committee. It has followed the appropriate form. We're all ready for the work that lies ahead, and we all agree that this is important work. I say, let's get down and vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Have we heard from everybody who wants to weigh in on this?

Go ahead, Mr. Maloney.

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

I have a question for Mr. Angus. I'm not going to repeat anything I've said already, but if we vote on this motion and it's successful, we're then going to hear other motions. Are you prepared to have the subcommittee consider sequence and timing and whatnot? If this goes ahead as it is, it is going to take the committee right through, probably, until April.

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

Mama Angus never raised her boy to answer hypotheticals in a political world, but I'm feeling like I'm being very.... I'm sorry. She's an old miner's daughter. She taught her son well.

I am in good faith here. I don't know what motions you're bringing in, but if we move on motions and there's outstanding business from the previous Parliament.... We can all agree that if there's outstanding business that we've agreed on, we're going to make sure that it gets done. It's about making sure that we didn't waste the resources of Parliament by having a study that's sitting there ready for an answer.

I would say, let's vote on this, and let's get the other motions. If there are conflicts, we can come back and figure a way to get a solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Dabrusin, you have your hand up.

We're also approaching the end of the time we had allotted for this meeting, so we need to deal with that.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I've been trying to reach an agreement, but I actually agree in principle with a lot of what's being said about the importance of the issues to be studied. The question for me is how we do it, and what Mr. Maloney has raised.

What I would like to do is propose a friendly amendment to the second bullet, as I had mentioned before. I'm going to do this more formally, so that it can be voted upon.

The second bullet says:

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;

Given that those supplementary estimates have already been voted on and adopted by Parliament, I would suggest that the amendment be that it reads instead, “That the Minister of Natural Resources be invited to appear before the committee for no fewer than two hours on the subject matter of the Supplementary Estimates (C), if any, and the Main Estimates”.

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

I have friendly question. Would the members be agreeable to (B) and (C)?

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

I would like the minister to not escape scrutiny for both the supplementary estimates (B) and (C). I don't want him at one meeting for both. I would like him at two meetings. I am very excited about him coming for the supplementary (B)s, and then if we need to move a motion later to have him for the (C)s, we can do it at that time. I am not in favour of a two for one for the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Have we heard from everybody? We're just beyond the scheduled time of 5:30. I understand we have this room until 6:30. We cannot go beyond 6:30 because of cleaning for COVID and all sorts of other things. Do the members of the committee desire to continue sorting through this motion and others, but until no later than 6:30?