Environment Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the motion is great and interesting, but it cannot be limited, as in the first sentence by mentioning only water resources. Even though studies have already been done on the oil sands, the fact remains that we still do not know a lot about natural gas reserves and how quickly they are being depleted. This is important for the province and for all of North America as well. The energy efficiency at stake in this process is very important because we use so much other energy. We might finally realize that we are not getting that much energy out of it.

Even though the greenhouse gases represent only 2% of all the greenhouse gas in Canada, that is still a huge amount. It is important to include them in a much more extensive study. Water is an interesting aspect, but it is too limited. We will come up against questions that we will want to answer and explain to the public, and we will not be able to do it.

I went on a tour with the Natural Resources Committee, which also did a study. This tour must be planned. Unless it is planned and each person knows what they want to see, we will not see anything. That is what happened when the Natural Resources Committee visited. We did not see anything because the tour was planned so that we would not see anything. We either go and see things or we do not go.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bigras.

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

To reiterate what Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Warawa just said, I feel that we need to undertake the broadest study possible of the oil sands. We will not have a very global view of the oil sands issue if we limit the study to the topic of water.

I would put forward a motion, Mr. Chair, that would, after the word “sands”—

No?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So we're at a subamendment now?

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

Yes, it is an amendment to the amendment. I would put a period after the word “sands”.

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

And you would delete the rest of the phrase.

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

Yes, I would delete “and Canada’s water resources that it began shortly before the last federal election.” That would not keep us from looking at the impact of the oil sands on water reserves. But we would have a more comprehensive study on the most recent technologies, as Mr. Warawa said. It would be broader.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth.

Now we're speaking on the subamendment.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I hope my comments can be a little more wide-ranging.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll give you a little latitude.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I don't know, of course, what happened with this study before the last election, but I'm going to assume that it didn't progress to the point of calling witnesses. We're relaunching a study that was done previously, so I presume no witnesses were called on this the last time.

I guess I'm also thinking that it would be an odd precedent to start by loading up motions of this sort with names and lists of witnesses. I of course haven't been around long enough to know what the precedent is, but I have the impression that it's generally the chair who decides such things.

I'll steal a page from a comment Mr. McGuinty made a meeting or two ago and say that if the chair goes ahead and sets this up with the appropriate subcommittee's guidance and we don't like it, we can always come back and call for further specific witnesses, if we wish to do so. That would at least get us on the road today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Francis.

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

Mr. Chair, you would chair a subcommittee with a spirit of balance and goodwill, and I would certainly participate in the subcommittee with the same spirit.

This motion was adopted by a previous committee. Now, I don't know if we're saying that the previous committee didn't know what it was doing, but it was adopted by a previous committee.

I would like to respond to Mr. Bigras. I understand that he would like to study the oil sands more closely, and I am not against that idea. However, I feel that there is a specific policy question here and that it should not be taken over by a broader topic. I would be open to the idea of starting the study by placing an emphasis on water and then, part way through, we could discuss broadening our scope. Once we have looked at the topic of water, I would not be against expanding the study, but perhaps we should start with the first part and then proceed from there. We may soon enough come across other issues we should focus on.

In response to Ms. Duncan, I included the Government of Alberta for two reasons. First, because that province has a more favourable outlook on the oil sands. So I included it in the interest of having a balance. Second, waterways are managed jointly by the federal government and Alberta. We do not want to encroach on Alberta's jurisdiction, but we want to hear what these people have to say. If they do not want to meet with us, we cannot force them to, but I think it would be in their best interests.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Our time has expired. I don't have anybody else on the speakers list, so maybe we can go to the vote.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Please.

[An hon. member]

The vote is on what?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're going to vote first on the subamendment by Monsieur Bigras, which is to end the first sentence at “oil sands” and delete the rest, up to “election”.

Is everybody under the correct understanding?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Now we'll go to the amendment of Mr. Warawa to remove the second paragraph.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That removes the last paragraph, so we're back to the amended motion by Mr. Scarpaleggia.

It reads:

That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development re-launch the study on the oil sands and Canada’s water resources that it began shortly before the last federal election.

Are there any comments?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before we adjourn, I want to remind everybody about Thursday's meeting. We have the minister here for the first hour, from 9 to 10. The officials will then appear from 10 to 11.

We're to meet on the supplementary estimates (B), but there is still the outside chance that the House will be voting on the supplementaries tomorrow afternoon. If that occurs, the minister will then be appearing under Standing Order 32(5) rather than the supplementaries. Just so everyone knows, that'll be the basis.

[A voice]

We don't need to report back.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Then we won't need to report back. That's why it was important to do it on Tuesday, but the minister wasn't available.

The clerk has also circulated a document on the expenditures of the committee from the last session, and he can further prepare the documents that we actually prepared as a committee.

Can I have a motion to adjourn?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So moved.