Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson.

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

I was going to make the point that maybe that report should be finished before we go on to anything else, but I think it's going to take more time than the committee would like to put on it. Is that a consensus? So I'm going to suggest that if you want me to make the motion that we do the forestry study, I would do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, then the issue is, Mr. Anderson, how broad the study will be. You've heard the comments by Madame DeBellefeuille about that. I know from the past that if you make it too broad, that can lead to something that goes on forever and doesn't reach concrete conclusions and recommendations. We have two motions already on that. But, Mr. Anderson, if you would like to make some comment on what you would like to see in a motion, take some time to work on that, if you'd like.

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

I'm actually prepared, I think, to support the Liberal motion. They want the study of the unique opportunities and challenges in it, but it also calls on developing some sort of positive plan for dealing with the industry. I think that's a good motion and it's a good direction to move in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Boshcoff, would you like to move your motion then?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I would. Do you want me to read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I think everybody has it in front of them, but read it into the record, yes.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I move that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources launch an intensive study that focuses on the unique opportunities and challenges facing the forest products industry and develop a market-based action plan that would set the groundwork for a vibrant forestry industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the motion. Is there need for discussion on the motion?

Monsieur Ouellet.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll reiterate my colleague's remarks. This is very specific in this case. We're talking about the industry, industrial products and the forest industry. We aren't really the right committee to discuss that. This motion should indeed be introduced in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, not here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's often the situation with a lot of issues. It could be studied by two or three committees of the House, and it's up to each committee to decide. I appreciate your advice.

Is there any further discussion on that?

Mr. Harris.

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

Mr. Chairman, using Mr. Ouellet's logic, then one could assume that the study of the Chalk River situation and the shortage of isotopes, which are used for health reasons primarily, should be studied by the health committee.

The fact is that there are lots of reasons why we should do that study. There are an abundant number of reasons why this committee should be studying the forest industry—the challenges, the opportunities. There are so many things that are coming under the federal umbrella. So it's very appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Shall we go to the question, then, that the next order of business for this committee after Thursday be the motion just presented on the forestry industry?

Just before I call the question, Ms. Bell, you had something.

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

It was just that I have a motion in that's similar. I was just comparing the two, and the only thing I can see missing from this is that Mr. Boshcoff's does not ask that this report be reported to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

They always are. The committee always reports to the House if we complete the study. So that really is implied.

Now to the question.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's carried. That will be the next order of business after Thursday. It wasn't quite unanimous, but it was close—three parties.

Now, should we go beyond that, or is there any point in going beyond that?

Mr. Alghabra, you are on the list, so we will go to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move my motion now, the one I submitted notice to a week ago or so, more than that perhaps, that the committee study the government's decision to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and conduct a full review of Atomic Energy Canada Limited, hearing testimony from all relevant witnesses, including the minister--I'm adding the minister--officials, and stakeholders who will provide the committee with the necessary information in order to report to the House its recommendation to the government.

I would like to have this after the committee completes its forestry study. I'm moving this motion, to which I've already served the notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, I appreciate that.

Before we get into discussion on that, it certainly fits in with your motion. We should decide roughly how much time we want to take with the other study. Before we go, I think it's important that we discuss that. It certainly fits in directly with Mr. Alghabra's motion.

Mr. Harris, on the amount of time for the study, what should our target be for completing the study?

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

On that, I think we should take into consideration some travel for the committee, certainly out to British Columbia, the heart of the softwood lumber area, and over to Quebec, where I know there are some very important forestry issues, and perhaps even to other parts of the country. There's a myriad of things we should be looking at. Certainly travel time should be considered in the overall length of time for this study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Looking at the amount of time we want to set aside for this study, we want to consider travel now. I'm looking for comments on those two issues. Keep in mind Mr. Alghabra's motion, because I think it's really important that the thought on that is in the mix here as well, and then we'll go to Mr. Alghabra's motion. But they do fit in together.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

Personally, I'm not so certain that we need to travel on this issue. For some of the Arctic stuff, there might be some places that people just haven't seen and don't have any familiarity with. So I'm envisaging four meetings, having representatives from the industry, labour, the human side of it in terms of how people respond to communities that are closing down and that type of thing, and then the opportunities in terms of marketing. So I don't really see more than four meetings.

I believe the information is very much available, and we just have to give the Forest Products Association of Canada and CEP some opportunity to state their case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, you've heard the thoughts there.

Mr. Trost is next on the list, and then Mr. Anderson and Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually hadn't raised my hand, but I'll take it.

Four meetings seems to me a very, very short period of time. I'm not opposed, but a little bit longer, I would suggest, might be possible. It doesn't have to be 10 or 12 meetings, but in four meetings I don't think we would cover it, particularly as we are a natural resources committee.

I think Madame DeBellefeuille had a point about International Trade and Industry having good stuff, but in the natural resources committee, we do also need to look at some of the technical issues on things like the pine beetle, and so forth, because that's where the Department of Natural Resources specializes more than Industry or International Trade. So we need to make sure we take time for a meeting or two on stuff that's more purely natural resources, related to this issue, than other departments, which would purely be the trade issues.

So I agree with Mr. Boshcoff on a couple more meetings, maybe, or having it a little bit more extended on that.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'd be honoured to take more time, so thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

If you look at the calendar, we come back on January 28 and we have six meetings before the break week, which starts on February 18. If there were to be travel, certainly something we could do is travel the week after that, the out week, but it's just a thought. The six meetings we have before the break week fit in more with what Mr. Trost is saying, with no objection from Mr. Boshcoff.

But are there other thoughts on the study and the time and whether we should travel?

Mr. Anderson, and then Mr. Harris.