Industry Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Ian Rutherford]

Well, not necessarily that specific process, but the product it was aimed at needs to be produced. We do need a strategy in the mechanism.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

And you want us to encourage the science and technology committee, the STIC committee, to look at this issue, then. Is that correct?

[Ian Rutherford]

Either it or the Council of Canadian Academies could look at the situation of Canada's participation in big, and international, science.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you all for your presentations.

If you have anything further to say or any information you want the committee members to have, please submit that and we will ensure they all get it. We thank you for your time today.

I'm going to suspend, members, for about one or two minutes, and then we'll go back to the two motions by Mr. Eyking and Ms. Nash.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the meeting back to order. We have two motions before us today.

I want to touch upon two items before we go to the motions. As those of you who were on the trip know, at the end of the trip, on the bus, I read out the main topics emerging in this study we're doing on science and technology. The research document has been put together by Eleanor and will be e-mailed later today. I'd like members to review the list. This is something we'll constantly review as we go through the study. If there are any more topics or any questions, please ask Eleanor. I think it's an excellent way to keep the main topics at the top of our minds.

Second, there will be a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, June 10, at 10 a.m. There are at least two issues I want to discuss there, and if you have more items, please let me know. We should talk about Bill C-454. We have to report the bill back by October 26 or 27, so we need to decide exactly how we'll handle it.

We should also talk about travel and doing the central and eastern parts of the trip in the fall.

If anyone has any further items, you can let me know after the meeting.

Now we'll go to the motions by Mr. Eyking and Ms. Nash. You should have them both before you.

Mr. Eyking, we'll have you introduce your motion.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm bringing this motion forward because on Monday the Canadian Tourist Association came out with a report showing there's been a more than 12% drop in visitation to our country, while worldwide there's been a more than 6% increase. The main reason for that, of course, is because of the U.S. economy.

They have a list of recommendations and reasons why that's happening. But just to sum it up, they represent one-tenth of our economy and over 12% of our workforce.

Asking them to give a short presentation here about their situation and what the government can do to help them with this upcoming season would be very good for our committee. It would show good faith and that we're genuinely interested in what's happening in that important industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

We'll go to Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the honourable member for bringing this motion forward. I've also had a chance to look at the competiveness report that TIAC distributed on Monday. The thrust of this report is in two key areas. One is the marketing side, and the other is a very critical component of the airport access issue that will come out of TIAC's presentation here.

I wonder if we might consider extending this panel to an hour and a half. On Thursday, we could take the first hour and a half for our regular business. Then if we took the committee through until 2 p.m., we could get an hour and 30 minutes in and consider adding the representatives of the Canadian Tourism Commission and possibly a third witness. I'm not sure whether the third witness should be from the commercial air transport community or the airport authority community, but maybe the latter. They could speak specifically to this issue of airport access, which seems to be a crucial piece of the competitiveness report.

I'd suggest that in the form of a friendly amendment to the motion, if the sponsor will consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Stanton, can you clarify this for the committee? Mr. Eyking is suggesting a one-hour panel on June 12. You're fine with the date, but you're suggesting we have an hour and a half for big science, and then at 12:30 we switch and do an hour and a half on the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, the Canadian Tourism Commission...and who else?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I'm suggesting we have representatives of the airport authority community.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, it seems to me that we looked at tourism when we studied the service sector. I do not remember whether we spoke to the Canadian Tourism Commission. Perhaps we did. Anyway, we talked about airports. It is already in the report we have to submit.

I wonder what the goal of this study is. What do we think we can do in an hour or an hour and a half? How far would we get? What is the intent of the motion? In order to vote for this, I need some reasoning.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's a good question.

We'll go to Mr. Eyking.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

On the two issues at hand here, I think one reason that we should have them in now is because of the past report that just came out Monday; it really changes the situation with the tourist industry. I think we should have them come to the House of Commons to explain the situation and the things that can be done. I think it's very important right now. It's a very important industry right across this country. For them to come here and present it for the record, and for us to understand it, I think it could also lead us down the road in future business to how we can help them.

On the other point, Mr. Stanton, I think one of the main objectives in their report, or main concerns, was the whole issue of air access. I think it would be very good, because it's one of the main issues in the report to bring somebody in that's on the ground, whether it's from the GTAA, or the Montreal airport, or whatever airport authority, to really explain how they could help with this industry that's going through these troubled times.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Simard, and then to Mr. Stanton.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think my colleague's proposal is very interesting. It's basically an emergency debate that we're having here in the committee. I think Mr. Stanton's proposal is also very reasonable. My only concern is that big science is probably one of the main issues we're looking at right now in our current study, and to have people coming in from all over Canada and limit it to an hour and a half concerns me a bit.

I don't know if there's another option we can look at--a separate meeting on tourism. I'd be willing to do that. At the same time, if the compromise and the consensus are what Mr. Stanton proposed, I would agree with it. I'm just concerned that big science will be a very interesting meeting and that we're going to have a lot of questions for these people.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Simard, just before I go to Mr. Stanton, I'll put my own view on the record. All of these topics that are being brought forward by motions are all very legitimate topics. Any time we limit witnesses, as I did today, we limit the discussion this committee is having on a very important study. Members are free to bring forward motions on very interesting and substantive topics, but I would agree with that point. Any time we limit discussion of the committee, we're going to make the report weaker, in my view.

We'll go to Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

On that point, Mr. Chair, we'd certainly consider moving it off, if we had to, to the following Tuesday, June 17, as opposed to June 19, because that's perhaps a questionable day in terms of our parliamentary calendar. I don't know whether the mover would consider that.

I did want to just respond to the one point Madame Brunelle made. It's true we did have TIAC on the service sector study. We did not have the Canadian Tourism Commission. I don't believe we had the airport authority community represented in the course of that service sector study. This would be new testimony for the consideration of our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There's a proposal before the committee. I think Mr. Stanton has proposed it. We don't have to do it formally, unless the committee wants to. He has proposed what he considers a friendly amendment. Mr. Eyking seemed to accept the friendly amendment of the one-and-a-half-hour panel. So basically the motion would be that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology hear from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, the Canadian Tourism Commission, the airport authorities, and other relevant witnesses during a one-and-a-half-hour panel on Thursday, June 12, on the subject of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada's recent report on the decline of tourism in Canada.

That panel would be from 12:30 to 2 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, members.

We'll go now to the motion by Ms. Nash.

Ms. Nash, we'll have you introduce and explain your motion.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My motion, as you can see, calls on the standing committee to hold an additional meeting to invite representatives of the oil and gas industry and relevant witnesses to come before the committee to explain the reason for the increases in the price of oil and gas.

Gas prices have spiked dramatically. It's affecting Canadians all across the country. The biggest question people are asking is why. We need to have a better analysis of those reasons. Therefore, I think it's important for our committee to hear from the oil and gas sector, investors, retailers, and refiners to hear from them what they view as the rationale for the spike in oil and gas prices. Is this something that's going to continue to be an issue in the coming months, perhaps even in the coming years? We don't know. We want to know why this is happening and see if there's any potential action this committee needs to recommend.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

We'll go to Mr. McTeague, please.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank Ms. Nash for the motion.

I think it provides an opportunity to deal with a growing concern that affects all of our ridings. It is certainly something within the reach of a study by the industry committee. I recognize that we have quite a burden. In discussing this matter over many years with stakeholders, retailers, independent gas retailers, analysts, and those upstream and downstream of the oil industry, I would take Ms. Nash's comment that the biggest question for everyone is why. If we had an answer to that, we would probably be light years ahead of most.

I am, however, suggesting that there is a substantial correlation between these futures commodities markets and the recent activity of non-regulated transactions taking place on foreign exchanges in light of some of the changes. Two relevant markets are NYMEX, and of course London's IntercontinentalExchange. Without belabouring the point, it is becoming increasingly clear--there was a series of stories in The Globe and Mail--that there appears to be a complete disconnect between the market fundamentals, the primacy of supply and demand, and the relationship with the price of energy. We're not just talking about gasoline and oil; we're also talking about food and natural gas.

I take it that Ms. Nash's comments on oil and gas mean natural gas as well as gasoline.

I would ask the committee to be more focused in what we are looking for, because I believe this is a very important journey we should undertake. I realize that time is of the essence. Perhaps a recommendation could take place as to how we do this.

I would propose a friendly amendment to Ms. Nash's motion that would read as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology hold additional hearings to invite representatives of the oil and gas industry, pension fund managers, institutional investors involved with global electronic exchanges, and relevant witnesses to come before the committee to explain the reason for the increase in the price of oil and food on the futures commodities markets.

I've made a small change there.

I invite members to comment on this, because I think it would allow us to zero in on why we are experiencing the difficulties we're hearing about from so many of our constituents.

Mr. Carrie has perhaps a greater burden than most of us at this table in light of the announcements yesterday in Oshawa. That impact cannot be underestimated. We have to know that the relationship to supply and demand and inventories are in fact accurate and exact and that Canadians, like the rest of the world, are not beholden to higher prices.

Chair, that's my recommendation. I'm hoping, through you, that we can hear from other members. I hope this proposal, as initiated by Ms. Nash, is acceptable to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague, could I impose upon you to read it in French?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

In French, it would read:

Que le Comité de l'industrie, des sciences et de la technologie tienne des séances pour inviter les représentants de l'industrie pétrolière, des fonds de pension, des investisseurs institutionnels qui sont impliqués dans des échanges électroniques de bourses à l'échelle mondiale et tout autre témoin pertinent à comparaître devant le comité pour expliquer les raisons des augmentations des prix de l'énergie, entre autres l'huile et l'essence, ainsi que de la nourriture et sur les marchés...

In English, we say "the commodities market". I do not know how that would be translated.