Evidence of meeting #27 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thought that we had agreed on a working plan and that we had decided to call in a certain number of witnesses.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, no, we're talking about a point of order on rules of relevance.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I said that we had adopted a list of witnesses. If everyone adopted the list of witnesses, it means that we deemed that these persons could give valuable testimony and that they had something to say.
If a colleague opposite thought that one of the two witnesses before us today should not have come here to express his opinion, it was up to him to say so. If we adopted the list of witnesses, it was because we deemed that they had something to say. I think that we must respect that. Mr. Chair, it is your duty to make sure that our witnesses are respected by all the colleagues in the committee.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I would love to speak to that. I was simply quoting from an editorial piece called “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?”, talking about oil, of course, from a publication subtitled “News for Canadians living with oil and gas production”. I figure that's fair domain and is what we're talking about here. These aren't my words. I'm simply exploring the words of one of our witnesses here today who has written extensively about this particular subject. We have to be able to evaluate his comments in light of those testimonies presented by other witnesses.
We do the same types of things, Mr. Chair, in terms of exploring their credibility. We have to be able to evaluate and weigh whether we trust the testimony from this particular witness versus another. Part of my questioning down the road here a little, too, is to explore that a little in terms of what experts have said on this, as opposed to a journalist, for example. We have to be able to weigh those things, and I think I'm entirely germane to what the discussion is about, Mr. Chair.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
No, sorry, it's a point of order and the members are discussing this.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
The document in question does not mention Stalin and genocide, and I think that was the trigger here.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Well, we are talking about rules of relevance, but we are talking about oil sands, and Mr. Nikiforuk as a witness has his credentials that are available to be discussed, so it is relevant to the discussion we're having. We have had a fairly broad discussion today, even talking about acid rain, which is not part of the terms of reference of the study. We're talking about groundwater predominantly, and we did go into coal plants and things of that nature, so we have been fairly broad and I have been fairly slack in allowing the latitude to members to discuss these issues. Mr. Watson is quoting from a newsletter that refers strictly to land and oil and the relationship there, which Mr. Nikiforuk has admitted he edits.
So I'm going to allow Mr. Watson to continue on with his question, but try to get down to your point because your time is running out.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you.
In one of your books, Mr. Nikiforuk, you talk about the tailings ponds seeping into groundwater. You mentioned that for the last decade the downstream community of Fort Chipewyan has documented rare cancers. We've heard expert testimony at this particular committee already that both of those claims are false. How do we evaluate your testimony versus those, Mr. Nikiforuk?
10:40 a.m.
Author, As an Individual
Mr. Watson, I am a journalist and my job is to question experts.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Nikiforuk, please, I've got a point of order from Ms. Duncan.
Ms. Duncan.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
For the record, Mr. Chair, in fact we have heard testimony that there have been rare cancers documented, and we have heard sensitive testimony that there is now evidence that there may well be leakage from the tar ponds.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We'll check the blues and we'll qualify that statement.
Mr. Watson.
10:40 a.m.
Author, As an Individual
Mr. Watson, my job is to question experts. Experts lie, experts will protect their professions, experts don't always tell the truth, and my job as a journalist is to question them. Yes, the tailings ponds are seeping and they are leaking, and yes, there have been cases of documented rare cancers from the community of Fort Chip.
Now, on the Alberta Cancer Board study, which one member described as the work of experts, why is it that a group of experts would exclude from their study a critical document by the World Health Organization on bitumen and how bitumen can cause cancer? Why would they exclude that from their study? Is that expert bias?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Nikiforuk, you've also said that past environmental rules and monitoring have been inadequate--just so that we're working with some of the more recent facts.
Are you familiar with the chemicals management plan? There are 160 priority petroleum substances that are to be completely reviewed by 2010 using CEPA as a tool to regulate, including naphtha and other substances relevant to what we're discussing here.
Are you familiar with that?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Are you familiar with Bill C-16, the government's environmental enforcement bill, which is currently passing through the Senate. I believe it's come out of committee without amendment and it's going to final reading. Are you familiar with that?
