Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 117 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I would like to remind participants of the following points: Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, and all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. For the folks who have raised their hand, I will look again at you to make sure I capture everybody and get you on the list.

I have a quick housekeeping item before we commence.

As previously mentioned, there was a request to meet with a delegation from Vietnam on Wednesday, December 4. It's an informal meeting from 4:30 to 5:30, during our usual meeting time.

If the committee wishes to proceed, can the clerk be given instructions to make the necessary arrangements for hospitality and defray the cost for that hospitality?

It's yes.

I'll go to Mr. Patzer and then to Mr. Angus after that.

Go ahead.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I was curious. It's great that there's a delegation coming from there, but which department is it, and what members? Do we know that information yet?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Maybe Mr. Clerk can add more.

It's a parliamentary delegation from Vietnam that has a keen interest in natural resources-related work.

Mr. Clerk, is there any more information on that you'd like to add?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Thomas Bigelow]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We emailed the committee late last week with information about names and some of their roles, but I can certainly pass the information along again by email.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I'll go to you, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think it's always good to meet with international delegations to see whether there are ways we can build trade and relations with Canada.

My only question is this: Is it going to interfere with our trying to finalize reports so that we actually get something done?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Well, we're hoping that today's meeting, Mr. Angus, goes well. I booked in the second hour for a V2 of the report, and I'm hoping to continue, potentially, on Wednesday, if required, so we can continue to get on with the important work our committee has conducted over the last several months.

However, I'm also here at the will of the committee, because sometimes we have motions that arise that we have to work through as well. I'm hoping we have a successful meeting today, which will put us on a good path for the next meeting, moving forward.

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

As a follow-up, Chair, to help with our international trade relations, can I ask for unanimous support to get my Asia pulp and paper study passed now, and Mr. Simard's motion? Then we could meet with the Vietnamese delegation and feel that we are helping international relations while being very judicious with our time.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's a great idea.

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

I'll put that on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm glad you brought that forward.

Mr. Angus, you're on a point of order. I'm not sure if you were serious about unanimous consent, but you are on a—

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

I'm always serious. You know me. I'm not—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—point of clarification on the Vietnamese delegation.

I would say that when you get an opportunity later in the meeting, potentially—

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

That's fair play.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—you can attempt that at an appropriate time. I'd appreciate it.

Colleagues, thank you for your support for having the Vietnamese delegation. The clerk will make the necessary arrangements for Wednesday.

When we adjourned the meeting last Monday, we were debating the motion by Mr. Simard and the amendment by Mr. Jowhari. Mrs. Stubbs was the next speaker on the list. Then I had Mr. Jowhari, so I will go now to Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to welcome some of the colleagues across the aisle. It's good to see them in the natural resources committee. I had the pleasure of working with them on a couple of other committees, which was great.

Just as a reference, first of all, I'm going to be short. It's not going to be more than five minutes on the last two points I wanted to get through.

I'm clearly trying to state that this is not about what was perceived at the end of the last session to be a filibuster.

For the sake of some of the new members, there was a motion brought forward by Mr. Simard, and I made an amendment. It read as follows: “and have the Government of Canada provide a response to this report”—i.e., the Trans Mountain report—“pursuant to Standing Order 109”, which basically, first of all, forces the government to respond, so the government has to respond within 120 days. Then we will be in a position to have all the facts in support of this motion when it comes to a motion for concurrence in the House.

I had also committed, when I got up and intervened on that, that I will be in a strong position to be able to have answers to lots of questions that seem to be very relevant. I was hoping to be able to get, as part of the government response, the number of changes that we had, the process, what the risks were, how the risks were mitigated and the mix on the financing model, etc.

That really dealt with the accountability. I hope I made my case that going into the House ahead of a report and only having a focus on a very small piece of testimony that was provided by the PBO will not put this and us in a position to have a very substantive conversation within the spectrum of accountability. That was it. I just wanted to reiterate that.

Then I asked about the timing. That's where I'll be spending probably the next three or four minutes, and then I'll conclude.

Why not complete the report, and why not wait 120 days? What is the sense of urgency?

Again, if we go back and look at the sense of urgency, is there any information that the government is planning to divest of this national investment in the near future? We really need to have this debate. If we have this debate as part of the concurrence, which is for three hours, how is it going to change anything? If the sense was that we need to have this debate because the pipeline is about to be sold, or that there was not enough participation by various groups, or that there were other points, rather than the PBO saying that given the scope of his study and these criteria and these assumptions, if the investment is done today, there is a possibility for the government not to recover the investment.... The PBO also clarified that it's not that Canadians will lose money; Canadians are already making money.

I am also at a loss as to what the urgency is, and if the urgency is helping with the accountability, I would love to hear that. When I look at the runway that we have, had we dedicated the last session to getting the report drafted and then looking at it, we would be much more ahead.

I'll conclude by saying that on the accountability side, it would be strongly recommended that we adopt this motion, get the report done, get all the facts and get the response. Let's have that substantive conversation, because if you accept, we will have the concurrence no matter what, and hopefully it looks like the filibuster in the House would finish as well.

Then there's the other side of it. There's going to be an opposition day that we could look at.

On the timing I'm confused, and on the accountability I'm confused, but I yield the floor back to you, Mr. Chair.

Those are the points I wanted to make. Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

I had Mr. Dreeshen next on the speaking list. Since he is not here, I will go to Monsieur Simard. This is the speaking order I had in place from last day. I will go to Mr. Lake after Monsieur Simard.

Please go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I don't want to needlessly extend the debate, however, I'm going to repeat what I said last week: the reason I don't support my colleague's amendment is because that amendment would preclude a debate in the House of Commons.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer gave a presentation to us, here, that clearly shows that the pipeline purchase led to net losses that we'll never get back. However, the PBO was careful not to draw any political conclusions. I think that's really our job. That's why I want there to be a debate in the House, and I believe it's absolutely possible to hold that debate in the House and then continue the study.

There aren't many opportunities to discuss problems such as this, meaning a political project that's spiralled out of control and that involves a significant amount of public money. That's why I'd be prepared to vote on the amendment and the motion immediately. In any case, I think that, by trying to determine whether the House should debate the motion, the committee will have wasted the equivalent of three hours of debate in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

Mr. Lake, you have the floor.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm a guest at the committee, but of course this would be important in my constituency. I'm looking at the amendment, and I believe the effect would be to buy four months without debate in the House. I have listened to this carefully.

First of all, rarely do we see motions that bring members from all sides together, but hopefully all of us in the House agree that it's insane that the Government of Canada had to buy a pipeline, or got itself into a position where it had to buy a pipeline. I think we can all agree that what has happened since then has been a cascading series of debacles and disasters economically. I think it absolutely warrants a debate in the House sooner rather than later.

To my friend Majid's point, I've served on committee with Majid, and he would know, even with his short experience in the House, that the second this motion was moved on November 18, public servants were putting their papers together to prepare ministers and parliamentary secretaries and all Liberal members to have the opportunity to weigh in from a position of knowledge. I almost guarantee you that nothing will change between now and four months from now in terms of what is in the content of the choreographed series of speeches the Liberals will give in the House on this matter.

I am absolutely in opposition to this delaying amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Patzer, you have the floor.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I too want to echo some of the thoughts of colleagues that I've heard around the table this morning and also in previous meetings. This absolutely deserves a debate in the House sooner rather than later instead of waiting for the report to come out and then whatever will come after that.

I think voting down this amendment and just passing the motion as it was originally written would make the most sense. It would show how seriously the House takes the issue of the government losing taxpayers' money. It would show the seriousness that the House should take on building resource projects and getting our resources to tidewater and the need for the private sector to be the one to do it, not the government.

I think there are so many different points that can and will be brought up in that debate. It feels like even three hours wouldn't be enough time, to be honest, but three hours is better than no hours. So is having it happen sooner rather than later instead of meeting four months down the road from now. A lot can happen between now and four months from now. I think it would be good to get this debate happening now.

I look forward to voting against this amendment and defeating it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I'll now go to Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I just wanted to add that I actually have said from the beginning that I don't have a problem with discussing this issue in the House. The question is whether we do it on the basis of just the PBO report or whether we allow the full study that's been done in this place at this committee to go to the House. I think that the last two comments that have been made exemplify exactly why we need the full report from this committee with all of the evidence that we heard from different witnesses to go before the House for the debate, because none of what they were talking about was actually what the PBO report includes.

The PBO's report, the one that is being proposed to be sent to the House, is actually really quite narrow in its scope. The issues that were just raised by the last two speakers were the types of things that would be included in the full study with all the witnesses' evidence that we heard.

This isn't about whether we have a debate about TMX in the House of Commons; it's about whether we have a debate in the House of Commons based on one of our witnesses and one report that will be included in the full study, or do we go ahead with the full study and finish the report, put that to the House and then let people argue whatever they want—plus, for, pro, against, whatever. You would at least be arguing based on everything that we've heard, all of the witnesses who took their time to present to us and all of the testimony.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.