Environment Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

For clarification, the amendment that just was thrown on the floor by Monsieur Bigras is “That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development ask the steering committee to consider the invitation of Graham Thomson.”

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

I repeat:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee ask the Steering Committee to evaluate the invitation of Mr. Graham Thomson, author of the paper,,,

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I don't know if “invites” is the correct word to put in there, but that's what we have.

So now we're debating the amendment.

I do have Mr. Warawa and Madam Duncan on the speakers' list now, but we are speaking to the amendment that the steering committee consider the invitation.

Mr. Warawa, you have the floor.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, the spirit of what Mr. Bigras is suggesting makes sense. In my comments I said that I think the steering committee needs to deal with the order of what we're going to be discussing. As I said also, in the spirit of looking at some more witnesses, I would agree with Mr. Scarpaleggia that we need to hear from more witnesses on the oil sands study. If he's suggesting just one, then I don't agree with that.

Again, the steering committee needs to deal with this. The amendment, I think, is bang on. I thank Mr. Bigras for his wisdom and suggestion, and I would support that. If Mr. Scarpaleggia accepted it as a friendly amendment, we'd have to deal with it just once.

My question, through you to Mr. Scarpaleggia, is whether he would accept that as a friendly amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Mr. Bigras' trying to bridge the issue, but I fail to understand what really needs to be discussed at steering committee. I've made it very clear that we don't need to have additional witnesses, and I made it very clear that I'm not asking that we have additional witnesses by a certain date or that we pick up the study by a certain date or have it published by a certain date. These are the kinds of things that the steering committee deals with. I'm not dealing with those in this motion.

I'm just a little concerned that the object is to get this into a little committee where it can be killed. That's really what it's all about. If we're going to kill it, why don't we kill it in the big committee, which has the representatives of the steering committee at it?

While I appreciate Mr. Bigras' trying to find a noble compromise, I just fear that I'm being led down the garden path here, if you will, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have Ms. Duncan, and then Mr. Watson.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I still have problems with how I can vote on the motion, because I'm not sure what I'm voting for. At the same time, I'm voting to bring in Thomson and/or incorporate his report and/or hear other experts. I'm not sure it's really giving us a lot of guidance. I also have to admit that I'm puzzled, because usually when I raise this kind of discussion, it's immediately said that it's steering committee business and we can't discuss it in the committee.

But I'm still willing to keep discussing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's exactly what we have. We have an amendment to send it to steering committee to discuss it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, but I want to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're speaking to the amendment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm speaking to the amendment. I don't know if you can amend the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I won't entertain that, actually. If you don't like the amendment, defeat the amendment and then you can move another amendment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's okay. I want to tell you what my concern is with his very valiant attempt to try to refer this to the steering committee.

My preference is that we not focus just on Mr. Thomson, that we focus in on the big decision of whether we move forward expeditiously to finalize our report or whether we continue ad nauseam hearing experts. I could probably come up with 55 more witnesses. Dr. Schindler has now published his research. There's the new information about Dr. O'Connor. I think what we need is a discussion about how we can put constraints....

If there's something that's directly relevant to give us updated information to make sure our report is correct, I'm fully in favour of that. I'm not sure this constrains that. I'm really worried about the timeliness of our report.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have a question, Mr. Chair.

The amendment is proposing that it's pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). What does Standing Order 108(2) actually authorize us to do? Are we authorized to send it to a steering committee pursuant to that particular standing order?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Standing Order 108(2) reads as follows:

108(2). The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:

(a) the statute law relating to the department assigned to them;

(b) the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same;

(c) the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department;

(d) an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and

(e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

It's kind of like we can do whatever we want.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have nobody else on the speakers' list. Are we ready for the question? We're voting on the amendment.

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

Could you read the—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The amended motion will read as follows, and I'll do this in English:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development ask the Steering Committee to evaluate the invitation of Mr. Graham Thomson, author of the paper entitled “Burying Carbon Dioxide in Underground....”

--etc.

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

I don't believe we have to invite him, so if we're now making a decision as to whether the steering committee decides to invite him or not, then case closed. If he's not invited, that's it. If we don't incorporate the discussion of his paper into our draft report, then I can't support the amendment. I don't mind having the steering committee decide whether we either invite him or we don't invite him, and the researchers can incorporate some kind of discussion about the issue in the report, in the same way they're going to have to update their report to discuss Dr. Schindler's paper, which was a follow-up to his appearance in Alberta, and in the same way they're going to have to incorporate new information on Dr. O'Connor, which we didn't have back in the spring. I'm just saying let's open up a subheading in the paper to discuss this. Now, we don't have to take a strong position in favour of Mr. Thomson's paper or against Mr. Thomson's paper, but there should be some kind of balanced discussion, led by the researchers, in the draft report on this issue. To not talk about this issue at all, to pretend it doesn't exist, I think makes our report less credible.

So I'd like us to vote on this motion, and the motion will give the steering committee a choice about whether to invite Mr. Thomson. If we don't feel we should have any more witnesses because we want to get on with the job, then the researchers will have a brief discussion of the issue and a brief review of Mr. Thomson's article in the drafted committee report.

It's quite possible that we won't have any recommendations flowing from that discussion, but somehow it needs to be addressed and recognized that this issue exists. I don't want to send it to steering committee, where we're going to decide we don't have time for more witnesses and we can't invite Mr. Thomson and that will be the end of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. We're still discussing the amendment.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I fully understand where Mr. Scarpaleggia is coming from. I'm just wondering if maybe it's a little premature. We haven't seen the report. For all we know, maybe it's mentioned in there.

I'm just wondering if maybe when that report is brought to us it might be possible for one of us to make a recommendation that there be such a reference in the report. It just seems a little premature if everybody hasn't read the report. I think we're having to reach an agreement on something before we've discussed it. That's the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

This is just on the report. Until we're actually back to studying oil sands and we're going to finalize the report, I'm not in a position to circulate that report because I need to make sure it stays confidential until we're ready to consider it. So I am sitting on that report.

And of course the report takes into consideration discussions and witnesses that we've had at this committee table, so any new evidence that has come to light hasn't been considered.

Regardless of that, are there any other comments? We're voting on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

Is there any more discussion on the amended motion?

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

I'd like to have a recorded vote on the motion.