Natural Resources Committee on June 1st, 2022

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

Thank you.

I'm somewhat confused, Chair, because in your note that you just sent us— and I really appreciate it— you said that it was somewhat misleading to assign exact numbers of witnesses to each party. However, that's what you told us at the meeting, that this was being done at the last meeting based on seat allocation, which is not something that was ever said before. That was certainly news to me. I've spent 19 years in Parliament and been on all kinds of committees. I'd like to know the rules of the game before I go in. To be told that these are assigned according to seat allocation, it would have changed everything about how I—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Angus. There is no more interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Just a second, Charlie. We've lost translation.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

There is a small sound problem on Mr. Angus' side.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay, Charlie. We had a bit of a sound issue with some interpretation lost. Perhaps readjust the boom and try again or continue.

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

I'm just saying, Chair, that when I saw your note that you sent to us, which I appreciate, you said that it was somewhat misleading to assign exact numbers of witnesses to each party, but you told us at the last meeting that that was how the decisions were made.

I'm very surprised, because I went into this—I was at the subcommittee, where we talked about witnesses—and it was never, ever, indicated that was how it going to be done. When I count up the witness lists, I count up 13 witnesses for the Liberals, 9 for the Conservatives, not counting today, four for the Bloc and four for the NDP. Certainly we were not given the allocation we were expecting.

If some people had to cancel because we had multiple votes, I understand that. Also, given a study of this importance, if we are down to what we had today—seven meetings, really, with witnesses—that does meet the test of what we had agreed to, which was to hold 12 meetings. We talked about possibly holding 10, but we're down to seven meetings now.

Again, some of my key witnesses.... I'm not being picky because they were my witnesses who I think are key voices for the study. I don't have a problem hearing from the agricultural sector. I don't have a problem hearing from the forestry sector, but I certainly question why key regional leaders on the just transition are not involved, why the Just Transition Centre is not involved, Canada's Building Trades Unions, Destination Zero and Oil Change International are not involved. The Indigenous Climate Action group and Indigenous Clean Energy spoke to us. They were ready to testify, and now they have been dropped.

To me, that damages my credibility of going out and making efforts to talk to witnesses and to ask them to testify.

The Athabasca Chipewyan will face a huge impact from oil increases because they're the ones who are dealing with the question of tailings. They have a stake in this.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs may have cancelled in frustration because of the continual votes, but it seems to me, given the importance of indigenous buy-in on this question, that we should try to make arrangements. We should try to see if we can reschedule. We shouldn't just say, “Oh well, too bad. It's done. Let's get this thing done.”

I will just end by saying—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

At no point did we just say, “So sad, too bad.” I do take exception to that. Every effort was made.

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

I'm sorry if I said that. I will rephrase it: “Oh well, they couldn't make it, so we moved on. Now we're going to give drafting instructions.”

To me, that disrespectful of the larger obligation that we have as parliamentarians to hear the full point of view. We haven't finished the methane cap study; that hasn't been submitted. We haven't finished the emissions cap. The clock is ticking. I can't see how we're now going to say that we'll throw this to getting it drafted.

We also have that other report from the previous Parliament. We have outstanding reports that aren't done. We have witnesses who we haven't heard from. I don't see how we can say at this point, when we haven't met the test of holding 10 to 12 meetings, that we're ready to just shut this down and try to get this out the door. It makes no sense to me, and it's not credible for the work that we need to do to reassure Canadians and to provide the government good, strong advice on something as important as the just transition study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for your comments, and that's why we're having a subcommittee meeting today, to look at where we want to go for some future studies and where we want to conclude this one.

Where I hesitated on the numbers—what you've quoted are the bottom-line numbers—is that I'm saying that there are a whole bunch of the witnesses who crossed party lists, and that's where it's not....

On the numbers I gave, the way that the analysts have assigned the numbers is that, if the same person is on the Liberal list and on the NDP list, they're assigned to the Liberals as the majority party. It's the same as if there were a Bloc and a Conservative; the Conservatives get attributed that witness.

That's what I'm saying. In the other numbers I shared today, there were a lot of witnesses who were on multiple lists, and that's why it's not easy to attribute simply a number to a party, because there is lots of overlap of the witnesses. Where there was overlap, where we thought there would be mutual interest, unfortunately in the way that I presented the number on Monday, they were attributed to the majority party, either the Liberals or the Conservatives, which then ends up skewing the numbers in appearance.

That's just a clarification on that.

We're going to go Mr. McLean and then Monsieur Simard. Then, at that point, we'll go into camera for a continuation of the discussion.

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I haven't been a parliamentarian as long as my colleague, but I was on this committee before, and that was the allocation. We did it by seats in Parliament. By my math, the number of Conservative witnesses that we call should be roughly about 80% of the ones the Liberals have called. We have some fluidity around that. If we've all called the same witnesses, we don't count them as anybody's witness, because they're obviously much in demand from everybody on this committee.

I would like to see that continue. This is the voice of Parliament. This a committee of Parliament. With all due respect for the representation of Parliament, if the Liberals have 16 witnesses, then the Conservatives will expect 80% of 16 to be Conservative witnesses. About one-quarter of the Conservative witnesses will be Bloc witnesses and about one-fifth will be NDP witnesses, who are brought forward from their lists. That is the representation in Parliament, and that is our democratic institution that we're representing here. I know we've all put a whole bunch of names on this list.

Mr. Chair, perhaps what we needed prior to finalization of the list of witnesses was a meeting of the subcommittee to say which of our witnesses were imperative to get on this list. We weren't involved in who of the witnesses we put on the list were selected to be heard at this committee. I think that some of those witnesses would be very important.

I'll also raise a point that a lot of witnesses appearing for a short time in these committees leave very little time for us to question the witnesses. Having six witnesses at one meeting doesn't really give us that full analysis of what they've been able to provide to us. I would suggest that we have to trim down the number of witnesses we have at these meetings. You have a good list, and hopefully you can trim from that list those who will be most important and will give us the broadest perspective. However, they do have to represent the weight of Parliament here.

If I could suggest a path forward, it would be to extend the number of witnesses we see here one more meeting or so, until we have that ratio, and in the subcommittee after this meeting, you meet with the parties to say how many can be fit into that last meeting. That will have your ratio relatively straight forward, and we can make sure that the ones each party feels are most important to be on that last list of witnesses are heard by this committee. Then, we proceed with the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Perfect. Thank you for your comments.

Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The principle of proportionality based on the number of seats does not work, because I should have had the same number of witnesses as the NDP, without overlap. The only overlap was with the list of witnesses submitted by Mr. Angus, and they were representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ.

I don't know how it was done, but you say in the brief message you sent that you followed much the same procedure. But that is not the case, because we do not have a work plan. If you remember, in the study that we did on the greenhouse gas emissions cap, we had a working document indicating which witnesses were going to appear and when, and their political affiliations. We had that working plan, so a number of people thought it was fair.

In this case, we never saw a work plan. We did not discuss it together in subcommittee. I repeat what I said last week. I don't think it's worth pursuing this study, because I don't think it's going anywhere. This study will certainly not be representative of the questions on just transition in Quebec.

We heard the opinion of the FTQ representatives, but we did not hear the opinion of the other workers' associations in Quebec. We had a lot of input from oil company representatives and a lot of people who were in favour of the oil and gas sector. One of the objectives of the study was to define what a just transition would entail. Yet we received very few experts on this issue.

This will not be my problem, but rather that of the analysts. They will have a serious problem trying to write something coherent in relation to the original motion. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

In future, we need to be consulted and given a working plan. Otherwise, I will not make a witness list; it would be a waste of time. If the work is based on ideological interests, I will not waste my time making lists of witnesses. We have to follow a work plan. As Mr. McLean said, there has to be proportionality based on seats.

I will debate this with you when we are in camera. Note that I am not saying this to overwhelm you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I have Julie, then Charlie.

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

Thank you.

I'll pick up on what the last two people said.

First of all, in terms of Mr. McLean's piece, I think it makes a lot of sense that we continue most of this conversation in subcommittee, which is exactly what he said. We should be talking about it and going through it in subcommittee. I believe there is time set aside for it, so I think that would be a good place.

In parting, I would just mention that I was chair of the committee for many years, as well, and we always divided it proportionately. It seems fair—the way you've talked about the numbers. I think, at subcommittee, you can launch into that, and everyone has their say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I think it really does need to be put on the record: What is being proposed here is nothing like what was discussed from the beginning regarding how this committee would operate. I have been on committees for 18 years, from agriculture to almost every other committee. It was based on us coming together with witnesses, going through the witnesses, and trying to figure out what was fair and reasonable, because certain MPs in certain regions represent a bigger share in a particular area or study. If this were allocated so that the Conservatives get 80% of what the Liberals get...it works out great for the two old-fashioned parties. On this file, you guys are probably doing pretty well together.

I brought this motion forward because I really thought we were working—as you said, Mr. Chair—collegially. We were going to work together, put in a work plan, and have a subcommittee. We did all that. We put in all our witnesses and then, suddenly, when there were problems with witnesses, all the conversations stopped. I have to say that, if we're going to base it on proportionality, I am very much seeing a heavy weight on people who are very pro-industry as it is, and status quo, which is fine for them, but if we're going to look at a just transition, we need these other voices.

To change the rules of the game at this point is, to me, bad faith. This is not what was ever said. I am not overreacting. I will fight for my right, as a parliamentarian, to participate properly in hearings, to bring forward witness lists, and to expect those witness lists to be treated seriously. If there is a problem with witnesses, it will be brought back to us at subcommittee, because we have representation from each party and we can work it out.

That was the way we agreed we were going to work. Now, suddenly, the Liberals and Conservatives are saying, “Actually, we really like that we can control the witnesses and our voices are heard more. We didn't even get to the 12 meetings, the eight meetings or the 10 meetings. We can move on.” I question why we would even go further if this is how it's going to be on just transition. I would like to think we can get this done. I would like to think we can have proper witnesses, but I am really concerned that I'm now dealing with bad faith, and I have lost a lot of trust.

I have enormous respect for you, Mr. Chair. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but this is about fundamental principles for how we operate. When you change rules like that and say it's based on proportionality of seats, and then say, “But it wasn't quite”, and somewhere the Liberals.... Then I see it is based on proportionality of seats, because our witnesses have been bumped. These are key witnesses. These are not New Democrat voices. These are indigenous, labour and climate change voices that need to be heard. These are all people engaged in just transition and they've just been bumped. Now we're told, “Well, this is the way we do it here.”

That is not the way it's been done. This is a decision made and I have to protest it. I will continue to protest it, if this is how we're going to operate in future.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I would say that, perhaps, the lesson here is: The more explicit we are in our motions to address some of these issues, the smoother it may be.

We'll go over to you, Mr. Bragdon. Hopefully, following you, we'll be able to go in camera and conclude this part of the meeting and get to subcommittee.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've always appreciated your demeanour and approach in my short time on this committee.

I'll just say that precedence is usually one of the biggest things used in the structuring of any committee. In other committees I've served on, whether in the private sector or here on Parliament Hill, precedence is something that brings stability and helps make sure there is a sense of fairness.

Anyone who looks at this objectively, and looks at how committees are structured.... The committee structure within the House of Commons, based on proportionality of seats allocated, is a precedent that was set and is well established in this House. I think that, with the exception of maybe one committee, all other committees function very similarly to this one in terms of their allocation of witnesses per the proportionality of seats.

I appreciate Mr. Angus, his long service on the committee, and his perspectives, but I think you're on very solid ground as far as proportionality of witnesses according to seats is concerned.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I just want to follow up on that precedent, because the precedent when this committee started was that we would choose witnesses based on the study. That was the agreement we had when we began the methane cap study.

We've supplied witnesses based on the agreement we had. I also had that agreement with the former Conservative member, Michelle Rempel Garner. We spoke about witnesses. We spoke about that with Mr. Simard. The precedent that you are creating now is an after-the-fact precedent and, again, it's a precedent that really works for the Liberals and Conservatives.

It was the same on all of the committees I've been a member of—I can take the time to name them. When I was on the agriculture committee, we didn't allot witnesses like that. In the eight years I spent on the privacy and ethics committee, we had the big WE Charity study and the PornHub study, and witnesses were allotted based on the issues of the need. In the previous Parliament, when I was involved in the Cambridge Analytica study, I worked with the Liberals and Conservatives on creating witness lists that we all agreed were important. None of them were based on proportionality. That was a major undertaking. When we dealt with the privacy issues, that's how it was done.

My Conservative friends can say that this has always been a precedent, but it hasn't been. This is a choice that is being made now at the 10th hour. My fear is that it's because you want to get this study out of the way; but we haven't even finished the methane cap study. It's ridiculous. How many days was the methane cap study? Two or three days? We don't even have a report on that. The emissions cap study I believe is going to take a long battle to even try to get to recommendations.

Are you telling me, Chair, that the witnesses I was allotted for the emissions cap study was based on the number of my party's seats in the House? I would like to have that information, because that wasn't what we were told.

Again, it is very convenient to talk about a precedent and say that everyone else has done this, when not everyone else has done this. I can go through it and I can come back on that. I'll be more than willing to read through all of the various studies that I've been aware of and that I've been involved in—I can take the time to do that—to show that this is not how we operate.

But on something as important as the just transition, I would appeal to my Liberal colleagues that I think it is important that we get this right. It will not look good if it is going to be said that this study has been a waste of time. People trust us to do this. People are expecting that we're going to give the government good recommendations.

When I pushed to get the CLC back, it wasn't because they were labour and they were friends of mine. They were the largest labour union in the country and, as Minister O'Regan said, we must have labour at the table. Of course, we need labour at the table: We needed to have their advice. When we had the witness from Iron & Earth here, I asked her, can you give us your recommendations? This is not about my pushing an agenda. These are the people who are most affected.

We've worked in good faith on this throughout the whole study, but now I'm being told this is the way it's always been done.

Mr. Chair, I appeal to you that for us to move forward, we need to be able to trust one another. We need to have that collegial working relationship attitude. We need to have a subcommittee where we can all sit down—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The discussion is perhaps redundant, Mr. Chair. We are going around in circles. Our meeting is already running over time and there are people with obligations. I don't want to cut off my friend Mr. Angus, but the discussion is going on and on. I don't know what the purpose of it is.

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

I'm sorry. If you want me to get to.... I have the floor, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

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

I know you may have places to go to, Mr. Simard. I have places to go as well, but I'm taking my role very seriously.

I have laid out some of the issues of my concern. We can talk all night about it in camera. You can go off and do other things if you want, but I'm here to speak on the parliamentary rules that have been in place, that were agreed upon, and that are now being arbitrarily changed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I would agree this is a very important study and we want to get it right.

I have Mr. Bragdon and then Monsieur Simard. At that point, we may be able to go into the next part of our meeting.