Mr. Angus, go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #43 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #43 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I love unredacted documents. I think that's the lifeblood of Parliament. My concern is this: If there's anything to do with commercial interests, we have to be careful about that. I say that from having been on other committees where we've asked for information. If we're going to say off the top that we want all documents and all of them unredacted, we may need to have a discussion about what happens if there are commercial sensitivities.
I don't know if it's a big issue, but I think we always have to do due diligence if we're taking documents. I'm willing to have them in unredacted form. I'm willing to see them as they are. I'm also willing, if there are any commercial issues that are flagged—for example, if one company is getting a better deal than another.... There may be unintended consequences.
I would like to see if our Liberal friends on the government side have any recommendations as to how we could make sure that we're not stepping to a point where we might be beyond our jurisdiction.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
My proposal was just to see what they produce. I mean, it might be very straightforward. Once we actually get the records, we will see, if there are redactions, what they are, and it might be pretty much on its face that you can see that it's part of the business-type materials.
We just don't have anything to show that they're going to be severely redacted at this point. We could ask for them and see what we get back. If we find that they are overly redacted, I'm fine with the idea of going back and asking for them to reconsider it.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Not having anyone else to speak on it, we'll put this amendment to a vote.
Ms. Dabrusin, do you want to give us the amendment again?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
It would be to replace the words “an unredacted” with just “a”. I take out those two words, and then I put in the word “a”.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Is everyone clear on that amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
It's a final one. We saved the best for last.
December 16 is the proposed date right now. That's coming up within two weeks. It's really soon. It's going to be a tight timeline all around, and then everybody leaves this place.
I was going to suggest that we move it to January 20, 2023. That is still before we come back. It still allows us to get them before we're back in committee. Either way, we're not going to have a committee meeting immediately afterwards. Either way, you're going to have to wait until the end of January before we're sitting again and having a committee meeting.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
If the analysts receive the documents on January 20, my concern is that they will not have enough time to do an analysis.
12:50 p.m.
Ross Linden-Fraser Committee Researcher
It depends on how the committee wants to use the documents.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay.
Is everyone in favour of amending the date to January 20, 2023?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
Now, we'll vote on the motion as amended. Do we need to have that written out or read out? I'll turn to our clerk to see if she has it to give to everybody. Then we'll call the vote.
12:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Geneviève Desjardins
The motion as amended would read:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), an order of the Committee be issued to request the Canada Energy Regulator to produce, no later than January 20, 2023, a copy of any notices, analysis and recommendations of Canada Energy Regulator relating to the Government’s decision to acquire, expand, operate, and eventually divest of the Trans Mountain Pipeline System, and any other relevant documents; if no such analysis has been produced by the Canada Energy Regulator, that the Canada Energy Regulator provide the Committee with written confirmation.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
The motion is carried. Thank you.
Now we have five minutes left in the meeting. I have two 2.5-minute rounds of questions.
Mr. Simard, you still have two minutes and 25 seconds on your clock if you'd like to take it. Then we'll move to Mr. Angus, and we can finish off the meeting at one o'clock.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I will be brief, to give my friend Mr. Angus a bit of time.
Mr. Gunton, I have a quick question about what Mr. Brooks said regarding the financial assistance given to the gas and oil sector by the federal government.
Does the $12 billion per year figure that came from Export Development Canada seem right to you?
12:55 p.m.
Professor and Founding Director, Resource and Environmental Planning Program, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Sorry, the $12 billion for what? I didn't catch that.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I'm talking about the $12 billion per year that the gas and oil sector is given by Export Development Canada. Does that figure seem right to you?
12:55 p.m.
Professor and Founding Director, Resource and Environmental Planning Program, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Yes, I really can't confirm that figure. It's not part of my studies.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Brooks, I would like to hear what you have to say on this subject.
12:55 p.m.
Programs Director, Environmental Defence Canada
Yes, that number is on Export Development Canada's website, on a list called “Aggregate Business Facilitated by Industry Sub-sector for the period ending September 30, 2022”. We can send the link to you. They list export development supports for all industries, including oil and gas. Right here on their website, $5.961 billion is the number for 2022.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Does that figure take into account the WTO's definition of a subsidy? If not, would a different figure result if the WTO definition were taken into account?
12:55 p.m.
Programs Director, Environmental Defence Canada
This is federal support to the industry.
As I referenced earlier in my comments, the WTO's definition does say that fiscal support to an industry does count as a subsidy under their definition. If we were to apply that definition, these would all be counted as subsidies.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We'll now go to Mr. Angus for his final two and a half minutes.