Environment Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

To be procedurally correct, can I ask you to read it into the record?

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

Okay.

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.

That, as part of this study, the committee invite, among other witnesses, representatives from Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada (including Randy Mikula from NRCan), representatives of the Alberta government, Dr. David Schindler, Andrew Nikiforuk, Michael Wenig (of the Canadian Institute of Resource Law), Kevin P. Timoney (of Treeline Environmental Research), representatives of the Nunee Health Authority of Fort Chipewyan, representatives of the Keepers of the Athabasca, representatives of the Pembina Institute, Adèle Hurley, Director of the Program on Water Issues at the Munk Centre for International Studies, and various industry representatives, to discuss the impact of oil-sands development on Canada’s present and future water resources, including on water flows and pollution in the Athabasca River and Lake Athabasca and on migratory birds in the Peace-Athabasca Delta.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The motion is on the table.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

I have an information question. Does the motion that was passed in the previous Parliament also deal with the oil sands and water resources, or was it broader in scope?

Could the clerk remind me what was in the motion that was passed?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll let the mover, Mr. Scarpaleggia, respond.

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

It was the same motion, Bernard. I added two witnesses, but the wording is the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

A follow-up, Mr. Bigras.

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

I feel that this motion is a timely one, especially given that Environment Canada laid charges against Syncrude as recently as yesterday.

I believe that a study on the oil sands must be undertaken. I would have preferred it to be as wide-reaching as possible and for it not only to evaluate and study the impact the oil sands have on water resources, but also to be a larger study on the oil sands in general.

I am not proposing a friendly amendment, but I would have preferred to see a more comprehensive study on the impacts of the oil sands. I am making the suggestion, but it is not a friendly amendment, not at the moment. I would like to know what my colleagues think. A study on the oil sands is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I do support relaunching the study on the oil sands and the water resources, which is the first paragraph. I do have concerns about the second paragraph and won't be supporting that, so in a moment I'll be moving an amendment to remove that.

We have specific names from different departments--a lot of specific names--but then for various industry representatives we have no names. As you presented, the norm is the norm. It's for this to be referred to the subcommittee to provide a witness list that the NDP is happy with. The NDP would be providing names, the Bloc would provide names of witnesses they would like to have, the Liberals, and then us. Everybody would have a chance to put witnesses, and then we would provide you and the clerk with names of witnesses and you would arrange who's available when, so we have time to provide the maximum number of witnesses. I'm uncomfortable with this portion of the motion.

The other point the motion doesn't include--and the first paragraph is very general--is what that study would look like. Again, the subcommittee needs to seriously discuss what this study would look like. Now, I'm not looking forward to going to Fort McMurray, particularly at this time of year, or any time of year--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Why not? It's the great province of Alberta.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I've been there and I've seen it. I think it's important that for something this important we have a trip there. I have talked to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, Brian Jean, and he would host a meeting up there. Those of us in this committee who wanted to go should go, should have that opportunity. It will provide a different perspective, actually being there and seeing it.

I went there and I took a ride in a boat all through the Athabasca River, and I got off and walked on the shore and saw bitumen oozing out of the rocks and leaching into the water naturally. The technologies of how they are processing at the oil sands...there's in situ and there's open pit. The use now of in situ does not even require an environmental assessment because there are no tailing ponds. The trees stay in place and they pump, they put the pipes into the ground. Yet you have increased greenhouse gas emissions because you're using more steam.

You need to see this to be able to grasp it and deal with it properly. I'm going to be moving an amendment that paragraph 2 be taken out of here and that it be referred to the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have an amendment to the motion to strike the second paragraph. As chair, I just want to say that naming people in motions does present us with some difficulty. If people move on to different jobs or move out of the country, or whatever, you can't call them, as described by the motion itself. If we have witnesses who are named in a motion and aren't available for whatever reasons, then am I put into a position that I have to subpoena them?

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

No, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's a question, then. So I'd rather we deal with those.

I'll let Mr. Scarpaleggia actually respond to that.

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

It seems to me that we've passed motions inviting people at other committees. I'm saying that we invite, not that we subpoena. This is very open-ended. To show good faith, it's open-ended. I believe this, first of all, is a core group of witnesses who we must see. However, it's quite open-ended and it's quite balanced in the sense that I'm asking that we invite representatives of the Alberta government--Alberta environment, Alberta health--and that we invite various industry representatives. I want a balanced look at this.

This can of course be discussed in a subcommittee, but as a bare minimum I think we have to invite these people. We can also discuss the notion of a trip at a subcommittee. I am approaching this with a sincere openness, Chair. That is to say, I hope we find there's no problem and I hope we find it's all about oil sands oozing naturally into the river. I don't know what the answer is, but Dr. David Schindler is an expert, and many others are experts.

I really think as a bare minimum it's important that we meet these people, and let's discuss other witnesses and what this study should look like at the subcommittee. I'm very open to doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have a fairly extensive speaker list going already here. I have Mr. Calkins, Mr. Watson, Ms. Duncan, Monsieur Ouellet, Monsieur Bigras, and then Mr. Woodworth, and we have 10 minutes.

Mr. Calkins, you have the floor.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, I raised my hand to be on the speakers list prior to the subamendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We are discussing the amendment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Sorry, the amendment my colleague has moved, which would have been the point of discussion that I was.... I was simply going to ask Mr. Scarpaleggia what the purpose of that particular paragraph was, and he satisfied me. So thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Watson, we are speaking on the amendment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm speaking in favour of the amendment, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure we need to be that prescriptive with respect to the motion. I think there has to be some amount of give and take when it comes to witness lists and things like that. I certainly wouldn't want to put the constraint on you with respect to who has to be here.

I think the experience of the committee is that there has been a fair balance. Even with politically contentious issues where we've had very divergent opinions, I think the ultimate attempt when it comes to fashioning witness testimony at the committee has been very balanced. I don't feel we've been shortchanged, for example, so I'm not sure we need to be this prescriptive in the motion. That's why I'm supporting the subamendment—or the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's an amendment.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have concerns with the broad breadth of this motion. I'm not speaking to the amendment; I'm speaking to the motion itself. I have absolutely no interest in going through another review of the tar sands for what the province does. We have had review after review and an excellent open public review.

It's not our mandate to look at what the province is doing. I would be very opposed to provincial officials coming in. It's our responsibility to look at what the federal government's area of responsibility and jurisdiction is and whether they are delivering those responsibilities vis-à-vis the tar sands and the related water resources. I don't know if we have to amend it--I don't know if that would be our agreement--but we're going to have a limited number of witnesses we can hear.

I'm also not interested in just going on a tourism trip to the tar sands. If we're going to do that, then it has to be led by some independent people. We need to also have a meeting in Fort Chip and Fort McMurray with the first nations, since we probably can't bring them all in.

I would also be insistent that we include witnesses from those down river who are affected transboundary, the Deh Cho and Smith's Landing, as the beginning, and the Métis and first nations on the Saskatchewan side of the Athabasca Lake.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just on the witnesses, I can tell you—as chair and from the way it worked in agriculture—that I will work very closely with all parties and the steering committee to ensure that we are very open and are bringing in as many witnesses as possible to satisfy the members at the table.

Monsieur Ouellet.