Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

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

I'll be really quick.

I just want clarify that I think I've been clear in every intervention that I've had that I have no problem with debating our record on this in the House of Commons. My issue has been with the process and not with having the study go forward. At no time has it been to not actually have the issue at large discussed. I still don't like the way this is going forward. I do still think that we should have the complete study with our recommendations rather than just the PBO report, which is just one piece of evidence that came to us.

On that, I'm happy to go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Before we get to a vote, we have some additional speakers.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it is really important for the record to point out that one does not preclude the other, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not just a witness. I would think it would be very uncommon or questionable if we said that we liked one witness and wanted their testimony brought to the House of Commons.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports to Parliament; that's his job. This is a different factor in comparison to a professor or somebody from a company or an NGO with regard to whom we would try to extract testimony for the study. It's a simple thing to ask Parliament to reflect on the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Then there will be the full report with all the witness testimony. That's really important, I think, for the public to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Do you have your hand up, Mr. Simard? No, okay. You were just raising your hand in joy and excitement.

All right, colleagues, I'll give one last glance, a very quick glance....

Mr. Aboultaif, if you're going to ask me, the answer is that we're voting on the main motion that was previously amended.

I think everybody's clear, and if you're not, we can read it into the record once. However, if you are clear, we will proceed to a vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I have Mr. Aboultaif. Then I'm going to go to you, Mr. Angus.

Go ahead, Mr. Aboultaif.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to move a motion on behalf of my colleague, Mrs. Stubbs.

The motion is as follows:

Given the government's draft regulations for an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, the committee conduct a study and the following witnesses be invited to appear, separately, for at least an hour each:

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources,

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change,

The Minister of Labour and Seniors,

and that other witnesses be invited to appear as submitted by members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aboultaif, for moving a motion.

I'm going to get hands up here.

I'll go to Ms. Dabrusin and then I'll go to Mr. Angus.

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

I support this motion, but I would propose an amendment to remove “The Minister of Labour and Seniors” from the study list. I'm not really sure how he frames into this conversation.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All those workers.... Don't you care about the workers?

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

I would say that I would support this study, but....

[An hon. member]

But not Randy.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh! Randy, yes.

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

— I don't know if you need specific wording for the amendment I moved.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor] the other Randy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry, Ms. Dabrusin. Can you just clarify what you were just saying? There was a lot of chatter, and I just want to make sure that it's clear.

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

I just want it to be clear.

My amendment that I'm proposing is to remove “The Minister of Labour and Seniors” from the witness list.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You mean the other Randy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have an amendment by Ms. Dabrusin, a deletion.

I'm going to go to Mr. Angus.

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

I agree with my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I see some heads nodding in agreement.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

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

But I would prefer Randy.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I quickly want to say that the reason the labour minister would be of utmost importance is that we have seen various groups come out and talk about reports that have been done. There's the Business Council. There was Deloitte. Another one or two have done it. They've talked about the potential for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs lost because of an emissions cap, which would be ultimately a production cap.

To get the labour minister, whenever there is one appointed, here to talk about it, assuming that Randy is no longer....

Has there been one appointed?

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

Do you mean for Minister of Labour?

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

Sorry, have I got the wrong.... ? Oh, he was workforce development. That was my mistake. I thought Randy was the.... It's my mistake.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's the other Randy.