Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I thought Mr. Stone was going to quickly respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay, Mr. Stone, you have the 20 seconds.

[Prof. John Stone]

I've seen a lot of plans; I've heard a lot of words. You are using some words that I've heard before, “We are going to”; I think we're waiting for, “We have”. Right?

I think what Mr. Lussier mentioned is very important. We have never, in my view, had a real debate on climate change in this country. We've had some silly arguments about the cost of meeting Kyoto, but we have not had a real debate that involves everybody. I think if you can engineer that, to somehow release the imagination and the innovative ability of all Canadians--industry, individuals, and governments--then you're doing something really worthwhile. But you need to have that real debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think that's an excellent way to close, Dr. Stone.

I want to thank our guests, including you, Mr. Weaver, on the television set.

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

Thank you very much, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you for being here. We appreciate your input.

I would ask members to deal directly now with the motion. The procedure is that Mr. Scarpaleggia will move it. I know we do have one amendment. If we could move quickly on this, I'd appreciate it.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to move this motion. It's fairly self-explanatory. I believe the dual issues of the oil sands and water are timely and topical, and I think we have incomplete knowledge, as policy-makers, of this issue. There are information gaps. I would like to gather a series of individual experts and groups before our committee who can fill those information gaps and give us an idea of the problems and solutions and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'll go to Mr. Warawa next, and then to Mr. Dewar and Mr. Regan.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Timing is everything. I suggested when we started, I think a couple of years ago, that it would be a very interesting topic to study, including a tour of the oil sands. The committee didn't want to at that time. Now there is an appetite to deal with the oil sands. It's a great idea. I think a very important part of that study is to have a visit to the oil sands. Some of us have been there; some have not. I've been there. For us to go to the oil sands as part of that study would be very enlightening, and it would hopefully help us make good decisions.

I'll be moving an amendment. Hopefully it will be accepted as a friendly amendment. Otherwise we will be voting on it. It would add:

and that, the Committee organize and include in its study a trip to Northern Alberta to tour the oil sands before the end of the current session

Would Mr. Scarpaleggia accept that as a friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, do you accept that as a friendly amendment?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, I don't.

I'm not saying that at some point I wouldn't like to visit the oil sands, but I honestly do not understand how viewing the oil sands in person would add important information. I'm looking for technical information from people like David Schindler, who spent a long time studying the impact of the oil sands on the water. These people can bring the information to us.

Maybe in the future we could visit the oil sands, but I'd really like to get on with this study after we've dealt with Bill C-377. I don't think we need to incur those expenses to get the kind of information I'm seeking out of this process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I assume this is to get the input from the industry itself on site, but anyway....

We have an amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'll be moving the amendment and speaking to it, then, Chair. It wasn't accepted as a friendly amendment.

The point is, good decisions are based on good information. If you only have one side of an argument, there's a good chance you may not make a good decision. What we have is a very one-sided panel being proposed in this motion from Mr. Scarpaleggia. I'm suggesting that you get a balance in.

I've found over the years in politics--and I was 14 years in local government before I got into federal politics--that your whole perspective changes when you actually go out and visit a site that you're talking about. Maybe he's never been there, but it will change perspectives. You'll get an actual, realistic, and balanced perspective if you visit there.

If he doesn't want to visit there, that's fine, but I think it should be part of this research.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let me ask everybody to please be briefer; otherwise, we're not going to deal with this until the next meeting.

I have a list. We're talking to the amendment, and then I would like to call the vote as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dewar, were you on the amendment?

No? Okay.

Mr. McGuinty is the next person on my list.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't believe it's necessary to travel to the oil sands. I would respectfully request that the minister provide a slide show for us. The minister's office could provide a very good overview, with photographs, or in fact live footage—all kinds of things. He has a very advanced video team in his office, with fancy overheads.

We can see all that from here. If Mr. Warawa wants to instead, for example, propose other witnesses who can come to give us full and frank disclosure, including economic numbers, I'd love to see that evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll hear Mr. Bigras very briefly, and I think I'll come back to you, Mr. Scarpaleggia, hopefully to end this debate on the amendment.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In my view, the motion as tabled makes perfect sense. Moreover, this afternoon, Mr. Lussier had some questions about the impact of tar sands extraction operations on groundwater. Of course, he was not able to get any answers today, and that's fine. I think we must move forward. However, in so far as visiting Fort McMurray is concerned, the member knows full well, given his years of experience and the strong hold the Conservative Party has on its members, that the matter must first be discussed with the leaders.

It is possible to obtain information. That is the gist of the motion on the table. Therefore, I am not in favour of a trip to Fort McMurray and I will support the motion before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to say that I think it's a very good motion on the face of it. Being the member for Fort McMurray and 25% of northern Alberta, I would love to have you all come to Fort McMurray. In fact, I've invited this committee at least five or six times before.

The difficulty will be, of course, that you won't be able to find a hotel room; you would have to camp in my backyard. So let's not do that. It's a little chilly--minus 42 degrees this morning.

I have an extensive background: 40 years in Fort McMurray. I think you need a balanced perspective. I've been on the water issue in Lake Athabaska for the last two years, while everybody else was not even thinking about it.

I want to point out a couple of things that I think all members of this committee should listen intently to. On the east side of Lake Athabaska, which is the largest lake in Alberta—and only a third of it is in Alberta—is a uranium mine that has been in existence since the 40s and 50s, and that has been leaching uranium, in my opinion, for years and years. I've been to that mine three or four times.

As well, we have thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of years of oil sands leaching into the Athabaska River. As many of you may know, it actually is on the surface and right on the edges of the river, and you can see it in the summertime, in plus 30 degrees, leaching right into the river.

So be aware of those factors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can you be really brief? We're going to have bells going here.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Absolutely, sir. I'm trying to be brief.

Finally, I would like to propose some witnesses. I would be in favour of this motion if we had a different approach—or the same approach, but just some more people. I'd like to see Health Canada, if not Alberta Health; I'd like to see some industry representatives. You'd be shocked at how much they study each and every aspect. If those people could be part of the list, I think you'd find some cooperation on this side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just so that everybody knows, we're talking about an amendment for the trip to.... We're not talking about the motion. Of course, we can add to the witness list, and so on, but let's just deal with this motion about a trip to Fort McMurray.

Mr. Watson and then Mr. Scarpaleggia, and then we're going to vote.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the trip to northern Alberta would in fact be a good one.

You talk about additional witnesses. The way I read the motion it's very exclusively defined as to who's going to be there. Perhaps the trip to northern Alberta will give us the opportunity to talk to people left off their list. This motion specifically defines the witness list. There's no open end to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll get back to the motion. Let's not open--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Hopefully, but what I'm suggesting is that the trip will at least give us the opportunity to talk to people excluded from the list.