Natural Resources Committee on May 9th, 2006

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The motion then is that witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement and that at the discretion of the chair, during the questioning of witnesses, five minutes will be allocated for the first questioner of each party, and thereafter five minutes will be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the government and the opposition parties, on the basis of the formula we discussed.

We can get into pages doing that, but I think everybody gets the sense of what we're after, do they?

Do you understand?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. If the clerk gets it, then we're in good shape.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

This is not something we need to deal with today. The clerk has brought to my attention that usually at the first committee meeting there's a discussion about whether we want to have any kind of subcommittee. Sometimes those come up in the course of debate, or when we're hearing a bill, or whatever it is. But often a subcommittee on agenda and procedure is formed, with one representative from each party, to meet with the chair, so we don't have to take the committee's time each week to look at the agenda down the road.

I'm open to discussion.

Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It would be interesting if at some point the government could give us an inkling as to what program, legislative or otherwise, will be coming to the committee--maybe not necessarily today. But my sense is that there are some committees where the volume of work is so extreme that a subcommittee is a good idea.

I don't think we're going to be swamped, and maybe we need to have a work plan. I have some ideas—I'm sure everyone has some ideas—recognizing that we don't want to make work for the sake of making work. But we need to prioritize or maybe establish what's worth looking at. It would be useful at some point to get a sense from the government side if there is anything in the pipeline that's going to be coming here in terms of legislation, because often that drives the agenda. I don't think it's a full plate, from what I can gather.

What I'm saying is that I'm not sure a subcommittee for this committee is required, but we certainly need to have a plan of action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's right, and perhaps we will get into that later in this meeting. I don't think we're going to be here for the full two hours, but I think there is an opportunity to talk generally about the direction the committee wants to go in. I would like to seek ideas, but I think we're going to do this in a very open way.

Again, I perceived this as a committee of independent members. We're in a minority Parliament. What we discuss, what topics we go into, the formation of the agenda are going to be the will of this committee, We can do that in an open committee with all of us, at the discretion of the committee, or we can have a subcommittee on agenda to pick those things out.

At this meeting, perhaps we might just blue sky--throw out some thoughts and then at the next meeting, or in a subcommittee meeting on agenda, decide where we're going to go. But before we get too far along that line, let's continue in this line of questioning.

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I would like to say that even if you're part of the same party, as independent members, you may have slightly different ideas about where you want to go on agendas for studying and so forth.

I'm of the view that maybe we should wait either until the end of June, when we're about to recess, or next fall to figure out if we need a subcommittee to guide and to follow all the way through. I'm more interested in saying what our work plan, the“blue sky”, as you said, is. Regarding the subcommittee, my recommendation is to wait and see if we need it, and not to implement it unless the need is absolutely proven.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I've always been used to steering committees being formed just from the members. Isn't the steering committee automatic, without our having to declare it as a subcommittee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It's basically the same thing. Some have called it a steering committee, some have called it committee on agenda. That's exactly what we're talking about, Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Perhaps I should just intervene for a second and tell the rest of the committee members that I have been approached in the past couple of weeks by members of the committee—by Mr. Trost, by Mr. McGuinty, by Mr. Tonks—about possible suggestions and about the modus operandi of the committee. Let me just share that with you--if that's all right with you, Mr. McGuinty, so that I'm not telling stories out of school.

Basically, because of the timing, here we are into May. We have a new committee with new members. There are various levels of expertise and background with regard to the subject matters. It has been suggested by members from the opposition and from the government that we might just take these six weeks—perhaps even less than that, four weeks—to get up to speed on a broad area of subjects with regard to natural resources.

That might include, say, a briefing from the department, an overview of what the department does, what their position is. For example, as Mr. Cullen suggested, could we have an idea of what the department's agenda might be in the next year, or the proposals, that type of thing? We might also invite witnesses to really not do anything more than educate us, bring us up to date, tell us about their industry, tell us about the oil and gas industry, about mining, about forestry industries, just broadly. I've had this suggestion from a couple of members.

In the course of that discussion, I got a book that was produced by a non-profit energy group, sort of a cross-industry group. The book is used as a primer in some of the schools across the country. It just gives a general idea of what natural resources are in the country and what issues might come up. I ordered a bunch of them, and I would be happy to distribute them today, in that vein. I just mention that as a tangent to this discussion.

I wasn't able to locate copies of this little book in French, but I do have a CD in French for those who would like that as well.

So that gives you a general sense in terms of opening the discussion about where this committee wants to go. With regard to the agenda and what we were just dealing with, we had opened the discussion by asking if we wanted to have a steering committee to set the agenda. Or maybe that's premature.

Let's open it back up to discussion. What do members see as our committee's role? Where do we want to take this thing, and what do we want to do as a committee over the next year, particularly until, say, the summer break?

We have an invitation from Energy Dialogue Group, which apparently is a consensus of electrical, oil and gas, and other industries across the country. They have what they call “summer school”. This was done last summer, and it involved two days of bringing people up to speed, in a non-partisan way, on natural resources in Canada. That's something else I'd like the committee to think about, and we can discuss it.

Mr. Trost, maybe you want to explain. You did it last year for a group of members of Parliament. What went on?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

To give you a little background, as those of you may know, the Conservative caucus has a rather informal series of caucuses, one of which is concentrated around energy policy. One group that has made presentations to us over the years is the people from the Energy Dialogue Group. It's a broad organization; I think they represent 15 or 17 various groups, everyone from wind power, solar power, the Canadian Gas Association, petroleum, everyone across the board. They're industries that you don't normally think of together.

One of the things we organized in conjunction with them was about a day and an evening's worth of sessions only on energy issues. There were again a wide variety of issues dealing with energy in general and different industry specifics. We then arranged some tours to get a grasp of some of the issues that related directly to projects; one was up to the oil sands in Fort McMurray, and in southern Alberta, some of the members took a wind power tour.

It was a concentrated day and a half of study, lectures, and interaction on energy issues with a wide variety of people, and then some tours to get a bit of a foot-to-the-earth grasp of what was going on. It's something we're working on again this year, and it's something we could do with natural resources and so forth. It was a very concentrated education on specific issues that we often don't get in the one-hour clips when we meet in committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes. Thank you.

I think the idea of bringing in some witnesses and getting all members of the committee up to speed on the various sectors, perhaps starting with the department to describe the various portfolios that are under NRCan, would be a good approach. We might want to prioritize that at some point.

I know that softwood lumber is primarily a trade issue, but it seems to me there are some issues, for example, the anti-circumvention clause, that raise questions about forest policy and the ability to have independent forest policy in Canada. After the department, we could invite the FPAC, the Forest Products Association, and maybe other stakeholder groups.

I'm certainly going to go out to the oil sands in Fort McMurray sometime in the next few months. If the committee could organize a tour out there that involves a visit to Fort McMurray, with maybe some meetings with the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders in Calgary, that's certainly something I would support. In the Liberal caucus, many of us haven't had the opportunity to visit the oil sands. That would certainly be my preference. I know there are other options we could look at, but I think the oil sands and that whole development is a huge project in Canada. It has a number of implications that we need to understand very clearly. I think if the committee were to bring in the Energy Dialogue Group to help orchestrate that, my preference would be to go the oil sands, with maybe a day in Calgary to meet some of the stakeholder groups.

I think energy is going to be a big-ticket item in terms of the work of this committee. There are a lot of opportunities and a lot of challenges.

Then later, if we bring in the mining industry, there are issues there too, of course, about reserves, access to labour, and a whole host of other issues.

If we start with the more general briefing by the department and bring in the various stakeholders, my preference would be to start with softwood lumber. There's a certain timeframe during which that deal will be fastened together. I think there are some issues that affect the natural resource economy in that agreement. I'd like to see them discussed at this committee.

My second priority would be to look at the energy issues, maybe starting with an orientation by the Energy Dialogue Group and then visiting the oil patch in Fort McMurray.

I think the general orientation you've proposed is a good one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I have a list.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

It's important for us to remember that for a number of years now, the Natural Resources Committee has not been focusing its attention exclusively on natural resources. We've also examined issues related to aboriginal affairs and industry. Therefore, we have never really exhausted our study of a range of topics.

We need to review the overall energy management plan, as it applies to the provinces as well as to the United States. As everyone knows, energy has become a critically important component of our economy. After several lean years on the natural resources front, the committee has a number of issues on its plate. But first, we need to know what the department's plans are in order to establish some parameters to guide our work in this area.

Regarding natural resources, the committee should certainly look into lumber and various mineral resources. We should tackle a number of issues that have not been examined in years. In my opinion, we need to have a meeting as soon as possible to identify priorities. Perhaps we should hear first from departmental officials, in order to maximize any future meetings. There wouldn't necessarily have to be many meetings. We're talking about one meeting to hear from departmental officials and another meeting to set our priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, I agree with you. From what others have said here, I sense that in the period before we recess in June we might want to hear from the department. It might even be helpful to hear from the mining association and others--you know, hydro people, the electricity producers--to put us into a context, before we decide on the priorities. I'm trying to get a better knowledge of the broad picture.

That's why this book says, “our petroleum challenge”, for example. It's just one thing I found in preparing for this meeting. It kind of takes a broad view of the whole country, and not of just oil and gas. That's going to be so important in the coming years--Canada's position.

Maybe we shouldn't just hear from the department before we set priorities; let's hear from a few representatives of various natural resources industries and other related groups in the country before we do that. We might not even set our agenda until some time in June, if that's agreeable to people.

Am I getting consensus from people to do that?

Monsieur Ouellet.

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

Mr. Chairman, mention has been made of sending committee members to visit tar sands operations. We've long known how the extraction process works. It's no mystery. In my view, there are far more important matters to attend to, not the least of which are the problems associated with methane gas terminals that will be located along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We need to examine security issues surrounding these terminals. We're currently waging a war on terrorism, but we've never really determined whether such terminals should be constructed or not. They could prove to be very dangerous indeed.

Therefore, it's far more important for a committee like ours to examine different and alternative energy sources. Boston and Marseilles have both encountered security problems with their methane gas terminals. We need to know what we're dealing with here. I agree with my colleague that an energy management plan would shed light on various energy sources. Consequently, there would be no need for us to visit all of these facilities.

Moreover, some major studies were undertaken during the 37th Parliament. The committee should also focus on the exploration of the seabed, particularly in the St. Lawrence where gas and oil reserves have been found. Any activities undertaken should be respectful of the environment. However, it remains to be seen to what extent that is possible.

Another source of energy in Canada, one about which little is known, is geothermal energy. This energy source has not been exploited very much and in my opinion, that needs to change. We're talking about a potential energy gold mine. The proper development of this alternative energy source warrants further study so that hopefully by the end of our mandate, we have some idea of output capacity across Canada.

And finally, Bill C-4 which was tabled during the 37th Parliament, calls for the establishment of a foundation to oversee financing and technological support for sustainable development. To my mind, sustainable development is a key consideration when it comes to energy. It determines whether a particularly energy source is of interest or not. We need a status report on the work of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology, which was set up in 2002. It's important that we focus on these topics and that we continue to carry out interesting studies on renewable energy sources, particularly those of concern to the High Arctic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think that's very important and something that we'll see develop as we get these various witnesses and get a broader view of the overall context. Clearly, alternative energy sources and sustainable development are going to be big parts of this one.

There is a division with the environment committee. In the environment committee in the last Parliament, we spent a lot of time talking about these kinds of things. There's some real expertise around this table in regard to sustainable energy. We are a natural resources committee and we've got to look at the big picture. I think it's clearly one that will be in.

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

With the general consensus between Serge, Roy, you, and so forth, it's no surprise to endorse that positioning for this May and June, of dealing with certain subjects to get a broader overview and dealing with discrete units.

The other thing I'd like to pick up on is on what Serge said when he noted that energy policy was an absolutely crucial and all-encompassing thing. Even though we shouldn't necessarily decide or pick out specifics right now on how to deal with it, I'd like to note that energy policy is very important for forestry, mining, oil and gas, and encompasses everything we do.

So I'd just like to say again, let's concentrate on this broad picture, with maybe the mining, forestry, or whatever other suggestions we've had here, and then begin to think and move the focus to something along the lines of energy policy that we could specifically pick out and that would be useful, targeted, and not so broad that it became useless. We did that in the industry committee where we didn't have a focus for our studies, but it should be discrete enough on an element of energy policy, eventually.

We're maybe looking toward the fall on this, so that we can get something accomplished in a timeline that wouldn't be interfered with by potential elections in that period. So for the first few months, we should continue to look at the consensus that seems to be building, and at an energy policy in which there will be elements that we can agree on and that fit everyone's constituencies across the whole country, because energy is such a broad category.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate the discussion on how you see the committee working, and I look forward to seeing and hearing from the witnesses we'll be calling, to educate myself especially. But I'd also just add a couple of things that haven't been mentioned yet.

One thing that I think is very big right now and on a lot of people's minds is the issue of water. I know there are some issues around the Great Lakes and also with water worldwide, not just in Canada, but I think it's something that this committee should discuss and hear from people on.

I think the boreal forest is another very large issue for Canada, and it overlaps again with the environmental issues with the environment committee. But part of the boreal forest issue is the encroachment of the pine beetle infestation, which is moving eastward. I think that's something we need to talk about, and also just generally the forest policy in Canada. Others have mentioned the softwood lumber issue, which is also important.

With regard to energy, someone mentioned sustainable energy development. That's a very large issue that I would like to have on the agenda as well, as it relates to what's becoming the topic in the world of peak oil and where we're at in the world and our oil and gas exploration, talking about the tar sands, offshore oil and gas, and those kinds of things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, right on.

There's another book. I don't know if people have seen this. It's Peter Tertzakian's book on the break point in oil and gas and changes over history. It's a remarkable book. We might even ask him to come in and give us a nutshell, because it does show the trends over history, from whale oil to kerosene, to oil and gas and substitutions, and all this stuff. It really does paint a broad picture, which I think is where you're going in terms of sustainability and carrying on.

Perhaps I could just interject for a second. I'm sort of getting a sense here of where we might go in the next little while. We're going to meet on Thursday at 11 o'clock, and I wonder if between now and then we could flesh out some of these ideas as to not so much, Brad, where we want to go in the fall or with a major project, but in the vein of establishing priorities. So if there is some need or an interest in sustainable development or the boreal forest, for example, or water or geothermics, we bring somebody in during the next two or three weeks to give us a little briefing on that.

If all of us had more information on some of these matters that maybe we're not up to speed on, they might move up the ladder of our collective priorities a little bit when we know more about them.

So I'd ask that in the next couple of days you put your thoughts to any area that might be considered for future consideration by the committee, but also areas that you as individual members want to get more information on to make a determination. Do we want to have a major study on geothermics or the boreal forest, or whatever, in the broad context, or do we put it as part of a general discussion of something else?

Let's have a blue sky meeting on Thursday of, first of all, who we want to hear from in terms of the forest industry, mining, alternative energy sources, sustainability, really to bring us all up to speed, to give us a broad education of the issues. Then I think we will all be in a better position to determine the priorities of this committee, and maybe as we move into the first week of June we'll have a better sense of what our priorities might become. Then, from there, we can collectively decide where we want to go with the committee and what specifics we want to go into.

In addition to that, I think it has been a good suggestion that we hear early from the department on where they're going and how much time we're going to have. Are we going to be dealing with legislation, or are we going to have some liberty to really do a productive study on a certain area that is of common interest and a priority to all of us?

Monsieur Paradis.