Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Any of the four of us can do it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I would like to do that, if I can.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On a point of order, we'll let Mr. Harris do this, because every tree in my riding has been planted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Mr. Harris. I wasn't sure you were prepared to do that.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

They don't have much for trees in the province of Saskatchewan.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

But you all will know that Caribou—Prince George is the largest softwood-lumber-producing riding in Canada, without a doubt, and not only is it devastated by the mountain pine beetle, which started in my riding as well, but also, with the depressed housing starts in the States, the markets are way off. And there is the Canadian dollar and just a multitude of things.

I believe our party has a lot of enthusiasm for the study of the forest sector, and I would certainly support that. And it is the lifeblood of the British Columbia economy as well. I know that in New Brunswick and other parts of Canada that are softwood producers it contributes a huge amount to the economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

All right. So we have heard the priorities. There are a couple of issues on which there seems to be agreement at least amongst three parties. One is the forestry industry, the second is green energy, and there is mining as well. There are really three main items that have come up as those that should be next, or first on the agenda.

Monsieur Ouellet, do you have a comment to make?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, the forests and everything surrounding them are under provincial jurisdiction, as you very well know.

We are very uncomfortable discussing a subject—even though it is important and even though we think it is valid for other provinces—that is not under federal jurisdiction, which encroaches on a provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, you know very well that perhaps the most important meeting that has ever been held on forests is currently taking place in Quebec over three days. So Quebec is taking charge of its forests.

We would therefore be very uncomfortable studying a topic that would be in contradiction with an established jurisdiction that is generally respected by the federal government. If there is some open-mindedness toward Quebec, we feel we should not consider the forest sector as a Canadian subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So we can move this along, I first want to ask if anyone would like to make a presentation on other issues that haven't been discussed yet. There are several others. Does anyone from the government side want to address the other issues that haven't been talked about?

Just give a very short explanation of why you've brought these issues forward, why you'd like them to be discussed by the committee.

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Chair, I can run through them, but this is not to indicate....

One of the reasons we're supporting forestry is that we thought, actually, all three—and evidently now it's just two—of the opposition parties were interested in it.

I'll run through all these quickly that haven't been done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Sure. Thank you.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Labour retention in the mining industry is the number one issue they keep talking about—productivity, productivity, productivity, and it has to do with finding skilled workers. It's getting increasingly hard. There are labour shortages not just in western Canada. Even in eastern Canada it's getting very hard to get the welders and the heavy-duty mechanics, all those people you need to run a mine. It's the number one thing that the industry has said.

The next two are on geological mapping. This one particularly interested me. I'm probably the only member of the committee who has done geological mapping first-hand. But our geological maps are a huge infrastructure resource for our mining and mineral industries in the country. The work of the Geological Survey of Canada and the geological production by our scientific bodies in this country has been enormous. On a per capita basis, we are much larger than most of the rest of the world. It's important that we continue to build on this, because if this degrades, it lowers our ability to produce future mineral resources. That's why I argued for it and put it in there. It's actually quite interesting when the geological people start to present their background and history.

Regulatory issues are, again, a huge issue for industry. That's why we put it in there. It's something that I think is being looked at with the major projects office, and that could be involved. That was one reason.

On resource development in the Arctic, the Arctic is an important area of Canada, geographically huge, really represented by only three or four members of Parliament, depending on how you count, and it's something that, for sovereignty and natural resource reasons, we should look at.

And I believe we've talked about the greening of electricity.

But as I said earlier on forestry, the Conservatives on this side, in the spirit of trying to get consensus here—and because we have two members who know what trees are and one member who'd like to see trees someday and find out what they look like—reached out for it. The Liberals and the NDP had spoken about it, and our understanding was that, with all the questions that the Bloc Québécois were asking in the House, they wouldn't have had an objection. So we hadn't realized this would be a little bit of a problem for them. That's why we were working to try to gain consensus here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost. I appreciate that.

So we've heard the initial discussion. But we have two more on the list. It does appear that the forestry industry is the one that's supported by three out of four parties at least. And the other parties indicated it's a very serious issue in their province as well.

Ms. Bell, you were next on the list, then Mr. Alghabra.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is it appropriate to comment on all the things that are before us or just on the one?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You bet.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thanks to the Conservative Party for the explanation on some of the issues.

With regard to the first one, on labour retention, I would have thought this would be something that would be heard before the human resources and social development committee. That committee would hear something like that. It's an interesting topic and I would love to get into it as well, but I would have thought it would be more appropriate there. So it wouldn't be a high priority for me to support.

But I really appreciate the one on Arctic development. I think that would be very interesting in the future, maybe in the spring, and we could take a trip up there and see some trees along the way.

I'd like to thank the other parties for their support on the forest industry. I don't agree that it's a totally provincial issue. It's also an issue of trade relations. Raw logs can only be exported by permission of the federal government when they're from private lands, and that's a huge issue for Quebec and Ontario, as well as British Columbia. Also, it must be seen by some of the Bloc that it's a federal issue, because they do ask for assistance from the federal government in the House fairly regularly. So I would have thought it would be a big issue for them, and I've heard them speak in the House.

Also, on the geothermal solar energy piece, I think that would fit nicely in with our continuation of the greening of electricity. I think there's another energy issue there. Then the natural gas and things like that, if we were going to continue on that energy piece, would fit in there together as well. So I think we could combine some of these things if we took a look at it and figured it out.

I think, as Mr. Harris said, the forest sector is a big issue for all of Canada and we should take a look at it. There are lots of issues we can talk about in a few meetings, I think, on that one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, you're not on next. Yes, we'll get to you. You're after Mr. Alghabra and Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it does appear that there is a consensus as far as the forestry study is concerned, and I certainly support this, the fact that it's of an urgent nature. It's appropriate that the committee look at it and submit recommendations to the government on the conditions of the industry and jobs in those areas.

But I do want to take a moment to elaborate on or stress the issue of the GNEP, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, motion that I tabled, and I've yet to move it but I will be moving it today. I think it's timely and it's topical and it won't take too much time. It'll probably take two meetings at most.

And it's timely because the government had just indicated that they were going to join that international treaty. So I understand we'll do the forestry, but I think it's very timely and that we should dedicate.... Even though there may not be a huge consensus on this, but since it will take not more, hopefully, than two meetings and because it's timely and it's topical and it's relevant, I would ask that the committee perhaps accept that we do this right after the forestry, and come up with some type of supporting--supporting or critical--recommendations on the decision of the government to join that partnership.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to let you know that, if I get up, it's because I have a backache. I wouldn't want you to think I'm behaving oddly today; it's just that I can't stay seated for long.

Having said that, I would like to explain to you in a little more detail why the study of the forest sector is a problem for us. We feel it is an extremely relevant subject, but one that would be better studied in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. The forest sector is a provincial jurisdiction when the trees are in the forest, but once they have been cut, that really comes under industry.

Ms. Bell is right: the trade, sales and financial difficulties of the forest industry are a major concern for the Bloc québécois. We've proposed various solutions to help the sector, but in the context of a more commercial, industrial discussion. I also thought that the debates would perhaps be of more assistance to the forest industry if they were held in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. That was simply a clarification. It's not a lack of interest, on the contrary. It's just that we feel this is perhaps not the best committee to study this matter.

At the last meeting, for those who were there, perhaps with the exception of two Liberal members, when we started writing the report on green energy, green electricity, we quickly realized that, if we wanted to cast our net too wide, we would lose the essence of our report. We had trouble agreeing, and the report ultimately became a research paper because we couldn't find a central theme.

We aren't opposed to the idea of redoing the report, but, frankly, we'll really need a very specific research objective, because I think that's what we missed in the last meeting. We didn't have a specific goal, objective, and we cast our net too wide. When we propose geothermal and solar energy, it's precisely because we don't want the study of these promising forms of energy for Quebec and Canada to be diluted in a big report on all possible forms of energy that can help Quebec and Canada achieve energy security.

In any case, I would like—and I believe Mr. Ouellet agrees with me—for us to avoid combining a lot of subjects and ultimately preparing a superficial report in which the research officers would have trouble finding a productive research theme.

That is the warning I wanted to give, Mr. Chair, because that's what the committee missed in the last meeting. I think that all my colleagues who were present will agree on the sentiment I'm expressing today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Some interest has been expressed in finishing that report. I hate to see a report partially finished.

Mr. Anderson is the last on the list. We've heard comments on all the topics brought forward. I'm looking for a motion on where to go next, as soon as I can get one, and we'll deal with the motion.

Mr. Anderson, you're on the list now.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a question first and then I would like to make a comment and maybe get an answer to that. I don't think you can answer this, Mr. Chair, because you weren't here either.

I'm wondering if the committee can tell me how much time they think we would have to put into the greening of electricity to finish the report. Was it at the stage where you were writing the report, or do you still need to hear witnesses?

Is there no translation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madame DeBellefeuille, perhaps you'd like to respond.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

In fact, Mr. Anderson, you probably saw the report, but perhaps you didn't have the time to read it. It's a very general report, which was good for our general culture and which informed us. However, it didn't have any research objective, and we don't see how we could make any recommendations on the basis of it. We were well informed, and now we have to take what we learned and adopt a very specific research objective in order to make recommendations. The purpose of every report isn't for it to stay on the shelves, but the government may perhaps be able to update the recommendations it contains.

I don't know whether Messrs. Tonks, St. Amand, Harris, Allen and Trost were present, but I get the impression there is a consensus on this feeling that it was a good cultural and educational start, but there wasn't a very specific research objective for recommendations to follow from it.

That was my comment, Mr. Chair.