Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I'll exhaust the list, and we'll try to do that as quickly as possible.

We'll now go to Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Far be it from me to muddy the waters, but, as I recall, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before this committee, he told us that he was going to produce a second report, with a deadline around mid-October. The analysts will tell us if I'm wrong.

I don't want to interrupt the debate and Ms. Stubbs' proposal, which may be very useful, but I definitely think we could talk about it again next week. We could have a meeting where we hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on his update and we could call other witnesses. That might be wise.

However, before we debate that, we should contact the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to find out whether it will actually be able to produce its second report by mid-October. If Ms. Stubbs was prepared to wait and debate this motion next week, we could add the Parliamentary Budget Officer to the witnesses and then we would have something useful.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I would support bringing the PBO regardless.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Are you requesting an amendment to include the PBO?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

No. I'm just asking Ms. Stubbs if we can wait and debate this next week with all the information in hand.

I'm not sure if it was during the Parliamentary Budget Officer's testimony or in a private conversation I had with him, but as I recall, he said he would table his second report on Trans Mountain—the update we asked for—in mid‑October. I would like to check whether that deadline will be met before we go any further. If that were the case, we could schedule a meeting so that he can present his report to us and we can hear from the additional witnesses.

If we postpone this discussion until next week, everyone will have time to do their homework, which would be the smartest thing to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard, for that.

I'm going to go to Mr. Boulerice next.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to propose an amendment to add a first nation to the list of witnesses in my colleague's motion, but it might be more appropriate to do so next week if we agree to postpone the discussion.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I just confess that I don't necessarily see the holdup here. I think we can all immediately agree that we will, in an inclusive way, invite all of these other proponents. They will have important things to say on exactly these issues that we are all discussing, on whether or not the government has made this an asset that's difficult to buy. They could talk through all of that. I, obviously, support the PBO's coming here. I don't know that those things necessarily have to be together, and I don't think we need to really.... It would surprise me if colleagues here wouldn't want all the potential indigenous-led and indigenous-owned proponents to be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor. I'm not sure what you want to move forward with.

Colleagues, if you do want to discuss this, we can continue on with the debate on the motion, or you can take this off-line if you believe there's some other resolution you want.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Boulerice, if you have an amendment or....

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

My amendment is simple. Its purpose is precisely to get a diversity of views and see what the first nations concerned have to tell us.

I think there are two first nations that are already in the motion. I would like to add the Tsawout First Nation to the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay, we have an amendment by Mr. Boulerice, so I want to....

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead on the amendment.

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

Again, until now, for our studies we have always been able to submit the names of witnesses without having to move motions. It's not a necessary part of the process. I mean, I would think that we could also have an amendment that all of the parties can submit the names they want for witnesses for this study. If you want to do an extended date again, a rolling date, we could say until—I don't know—next Tuesday if we want. However, we don't actually have to name the witnesses in a motion to get them invitations. That's not a rule of this committee or of the House to my understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I'm going to go to the next speaker. Is that okay?

Okay, I'm going to go to you, Mr. Simard, and then—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Naming witnesses in a motion is a practice we've followed before. In fact, we used it this summer in the case of the thorny issue of caribou. We wanted to hear from Boisaco, which was named directly in the motion. However, I understand what Ms. Dabrusin is saying.

If we agree to hold additional meetings, we could meet the demands of all members. In my case, it would be the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and in Mr. Boulerice's case, the Tsawout First Nation. The same goes for Ms. Stubbs and the witness she named in her motion. We could agree to hold two additional meetings, knowing that we could also discuss it in subcommittee. Maybe we could find a way to break the deadlock and get this done quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Before I go to you, Mrs. Stubbs, I just want to clarify to Mr. Boulerice that this witness has been invited. They are on our witness list, as the clerk has just mentioned to me. I wasn't aware of that, but the clerk did bring that to my attention.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In that case, my amendment becomes moot and I withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Can I go now?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Well, we have five minutes left, and what I want to allow is more questioning of the witnesses. So, what I was about to say is that, given all of this—commitment, support for extra meetings and working this out—yes, let's deal with it next week, and let's go on for the last five minutes with the remaining questioning for the witnesses who have given their time to us today.

Also, merci, Monsieur Simard, for explaining that my motion is actually totally in line and all—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do we have unanimous consent to proceed back to the witnesses and to debate this next week?

We do. Okay. It's across the board. That's great.

Okay, let's go back to the witnesses. Thank you.

We're going back to you, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for your patience.

Dr. Tombe, I'd like to ask you a few more questions, particularly about the tolls and the pricing differential there of about $1.50. Can you talk a little bit more about that: where you think it should be and why it is where it is?

[Dr. Trevor Tombe]

Sure. There's really no sense where I think the differential should or shouldn't be at any particular level—the lower the better from the perspective of Canada's economy. It's going to tend to reflect the marginal cost of exporting a barrel. When producers need to resort to higher-cost transport modes like rail or even sometimes truck, then the differential can rise quite considerably with implications for producers right across the board, even those who are using pipelines themselves.

I don't know if that really answers your question, but kind of generically, that's how I think about it.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Have you done any preliminary-type or surface level investigation as to some of the cost overruns in the pipeline project?

[Dr. Trevor Tombe]

No. I would simply defer to whatever the CER comes up with. It's much more detailed information than I would have access to.