Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

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

Mr. Chair, I feel the same way. It seems to me that having a meeting tomorrow would not be very productive because we really need to make headway. In my opinion, it would be preferable for each party to have a clear and precise idea of what it wants through discussions within its own caucus, so that we could then manage — hopefully — to reach a consensus within the committee. I think that — and the timing is good — the holiday period will allow each one of us to make an effort within our parties.

I recommend no to have a meeting tomorrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief. I would propose that if any one of us, singly or as a party, had difficulties with this outline, which is all it is, that a strict timeline be imposed on us by December 19 or December 20, after which the researcher will then have five weeks to do the report.

We'll come back on January 29 with the report available to us. Otherwise, I think we're spinning our wheels and it will be submissions by January 20. So I think a tight timeline has to be imposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's pretty good. I'm getting a lot of nods of the heads for that point of view.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I think some of the work could be done on the report itself rather than on the recommendations. Sometimes if we have a range of recommendations that flow out of the report, it would make it easier for the committee to actually look at what recommendations could look like, in a sense. We're moving ahead with a climate change act. We want to understand what kinds of short-term, targeted regulations may be appropriate for the oil sands industry. There's a very important piece of work that this committee is quite clearly the lead on in this Parliament, by the work we've done here over the last few months.

We know the situation. We've heard from all the witnesses. So we're in a position to provide some very valuable advice right now to a larger scenario, and I think that's important.

There are a few things within the preamble, in terms of the working knowledge being the front part of the report, that I'd say we could add into. I think if we have suggestions about what categories are missing, say the concerns about the pace of development or the export of bitumen, which I don't see here as a.... So there are a couple of things in there that should be included in this preamble.

As I say, the recommendation phase could give our staff something to bite into over the next month and a half while we're not so close to the action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's our first round of questions.

I think we have a pretty good consensus. We don't have to meet here tomorrow and I think what we can do with various notions we had is maybe ask everybody two things. One, it seems to me there's a general consensus that there is this outline we're looking for, and that's really all we were looking for today, and to flesh it out. It's to give our researchers an opportunity to flesh it out and maybe include a few more ideas. So I would suggest that this is a good idea of Mr. St. Amand's to have a time limit on it, and I would think we should do that before Christmas, maybe on December 20.

We should have a week to get any further ideas, anything that's missing from this outline, anything you'd like to have included in it. Nothing in here is definitive; nothing is final. What we're really looking for is to come back to a rough draft we can all participate in developing. So I would suggest that we have a pretty good start here. I would ask you to submit within a week any additional points that you think we haven't covered well enough. In addition to that, I think it's probably a good time, for the first round, that if you have some suggested recommendations, to go to them too.

Mr. Bevington, my sense of how this report might look when it's over would be that recommendations would come after each section rather than at the end of the report. Perhaps that would be useful to you in proposing any recommendations that we would have. The recommendations would be appearing, as we've discussed a certain aspect of it, and then they would be repeated at the end of the report. It's a standard format that we've been using around here.

So if that's agreeable, I think we have a good start. I would encourage you to get in any points that we may seem to have overlooked, including anything from today. There seemed to be some pretty good consensus of what they were saying today in terms of sequestering, at least, and emission controls.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The goal we're working towards is that as soon as we get back to Parliament we would review a draft based on the directions.... I'm trying to think of a situation where you and the researcher might get conflicting points of view on how to proceed. It might not happen, but it could happen. I'm wondering, rather than just let everything hang in abeyance until the end of January, whether we could find a way to have a quick conference call.

I would agree, among ourselves, that I'll try to pull together our views as a caucus, if you like. But if the researchers are hearing one thing from the Conservatives and another from the NDP, maybe this is a way to break down that sort of impasse, so that when we come back we have a draft report we can look at, rather than leaving things hanging.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mike.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

One of the questions I'd like to ask, Mr. Chair, in the interests of being efficient when we get back, is whether it is possible—maybe the clerks can answer this best—that even if it were in a rough draft form, we might have something even a week ahead of our getting back.

I can see us coming in here that first Tuesday, having had the report on our desks Tuesday morning. It wouldn't be very productive that week. So even if it is a very rough or initial draft, is there something we could get a week ahead of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, okay.

It seems to me that we're on to something here. Perhaps we could have a designated representative of each party, and we could, as a kind of executive group, get together sometime over the break, by conference call or whatever means, to review the next draft of this—say, sometime in mid-January—and just have a notion.

If we could get that online, then people could work with it in their own context. But in terms of recommendations, probably we will get to a point where we will look at a draft the first time we get back and there won't be a whole lot of recommendations yet, or only very tentative recommendations. We'll develop the report and see what recommendations we can bring out of it. I think it's best to get a consensus on the report first and then derive the recommendations from that report, just in the interests of time.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I think the first step should focus more on the structure of the report and whether we have covered the major areas, and maybe on some indications of where the recommendations might lead you. But that's something that's going to be debated, I think, when we get back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

There we go. Okay.

What we'll do is have a memo out to all of you tomorrow before you leave, generally expressing that we will give you a week to get any additional material in, or notions that you think should be included. That could include some tentative recommendations, if you like. But certainly let's cover any areas that are not already included in this outline.

Then we'll turn that over to the Library of Parliament to develop on our behalf, to get it to us by January 15. Then maybe a week later, we'll meet in a conference call—a representative of each party, if that works—and try to come to some consensus on a second draft, which will be available upon our return. We'll probably get that to members before the House resumes.

How is that timing?

Anyway, we'll work out the timing, between the clerk and the researcher.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I think Mike's point was that whatever we come up with as a draft that we're going to discuss and debate, all members of the committee should have it four to five days or a week before we get back, if that's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think we're coming to a consensus.

Yes, Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, before we leave, I would like to wish you a Happy Holiday Season. If I had one suggestion to make for 2007, I would appreciate it if, when the timetable is tight, you would not begin a second round of questions because you have a keen sense of justice and fairness. For example, you have interrupted my colleague, Mr. Ouellet, when it was his turn to ask questions.

So my wish is that during our meetings in 2007, if you realize that we don’t have time to complete a second round, you just don’t start one.

Season’s greetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Oh, I see. That's what you call a backhanded—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

You could take that into consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thanks, I think.

Have a good break.

The meeting is adjourned.