Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

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

I would agree with Brad. I think six or eight meetings for hearings would probably be what you would require. We also need to plan a couple of meetings for the report. So you're looking at eight or ten meetings, I would say, altogether, and then you'd be able to do a report that's adequate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Certainly the report takes some time from the time we complete the hearings until the time we can study the report, so that could fit in with the break week as well. If we've finished the study by Thursday, February 14, we could give some time over the break week to have a report ready by February 26. It's just a thought.

Now we have Mr. Harris on the list.

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

I don't know how I got back on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. If you can't remember, Mr. Harris.... No, I'm just kidding.

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm flattered to be called Mr. Harris. I'm not sure if that was the intent.

In any event, I concede that Mr. Anderson's point is a valid one, that two meetings would be required to complete the report. I don't think travel is required, Mr. Chair. And I also appreciate that it's a complicated topic, but I think with a careful selection of witnesses we can avoid repetitious or superfluous comments.

I would think four meetings, eight hours, and two additional meetings to do the report would do it adequately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have a couple of suggestions. One is six meetings and then two for the report, and the other one is four meetings and two for the report.

The one thing I think would be required is that there be time between the time the meetings are completed and we start looking at the report. It's almost impossible for research to have a report ready for the next week. If we complete hearings on a Thursday, to start dealing with the report on the Tuesday of the next week is virtually impossible. It would be very difficult, certainly.

Mr. Alghabra.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to echo what my colleague St. Amand just said. I think it's really difficult to know exactly how many meetings we need. We don't even know what the list of witnesses is. But I think we should aim for a goal, and I think four meetings—which allow us eight hours, and each hour could have two witnesses or so—should be adequate. If there's a need for more, based on the witness list that we see, that we never thought of, perhaps we could discuss extending it, but I think a target of four weeks is appropriate. And perhaps in between the time we finish the hearings and review the report drafted by the researchers, we can do the GNEP examination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we'll go to Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would support Mr. Alghabra's recommendation. It isn't as though we were examining a subject that hasn't previously been studied; we're not starting over from scratch.

The Forest Summit in Quebec will be over in three days, and recommendations will emerge that we could review here. We could bring in the witnesses who have been heard at the summit.

I also think a lot of work is currently being done in Ontario and New Brunswick to analyze the forest crisis, which is very great. I would agree with Omar that four meetings would be enough to really look at the entire question and hear from high-quality witnesses.

Mr. Ouellet and I will therefore second the motion to devote four well-chaired meetings on this subject, with good witnesses and good questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Harris.

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

The motion reads “launch an intensive study that focuses on”, etc. I'm not so sure four meetings could do justice to an industry as large and as critical as the forest industry, if we're to do an intensive study.

Unless you agreed to four meetings while I was out taking a call, does the mover feel four meetings would do it justice, given the use of the word “intensive”?

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

No, I had agreed with you guys that we have more.

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

Right. I guess that's my point. It says an “intensive study”.

Honestly, knowing how big the forest industry is and knowing all of the components we would likely look at, I hardly think four meetings would do justice to having an intensive study. We simply wouldn't be able to complete it in that time, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, I was going to suggest a way forward, but go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, did you say that six meetings takes us to the break?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, and that's a logical.... I'm hearing probably a majority, or certainly close to it, looking at the six. That takes us to a break week. It would give the researcher a little more than a week to get a report ready for the next week, and then we could go on to other business, which is what we were discussing.

Yes, Mr. Alghabra.

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

Do we need to specify the number of weeks? We don't even know the list of witnesses yet. We're making assumptions about how long the study will take; the motion doesn't even specify the time. So let's conclude that this is number one on the list, and now, what is number two? We'll decide, when we come to putting together the witness list and deciding who else is going to be invited, how long it's going to take us.

I think we're just talking concepts here. We don't even know how many witnesses we're going to invite.

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

I think we always use the term “up to”, and it would be appropriate, perhaps, to say “up to six meetings” in this case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there agreement that we go with Mr. Boshcoff's motion, with “up to six weeks”? Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's agreed. We'll see, I guess, when it ends. Pardon me, that was “six meetings”, not “six weeks”. It's “up to six meetings”, so we'll have to see how it goes.

With that, then, let's go back to Mr. Alghabra's motion. We now have the time, more or less; it's flexible, but we have an idea. We're not talking about a full-year study or a study going to the end of June.

Mr. Alghabra, if you could bring your motion up again, we will deal with it now.

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

Do you want me to read it again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, just so that everybody has it, and to be sure.

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

Chad, can you read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There is a revision.

Sure, the clerk will read the motion.