Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we will come to order.

First of all, welcome back. I hope everyone enjoyed a good break.

We have business ahead of us. First of all, we have a motion that we're going to deal with very shortly, and then we will look at the cumulative efforts of our previous meetings, a great report on the oil sands. There were some typos and other errors in the first draft, so before we get to that, we're simply going to replace it with a clean draft in both languages. I'll have the clerk do that when we get to that point on the agenda.

For now, I would like to welcome Mr. Gourde to the committee. He is the new parliamentary secretary for natural resources, and he will be replacing Mr. Simard.

I understand there will also be some changes with the representation from the Liberal Party, and that will occur on Wednesday.

Mr. Tonks, is that your understanding?

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

That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. So we will welcome a new member from the Liberal Party at that time.

Without further ado, we have first on the agenda a motion from Madame DeBellefeuille, if you would like to proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues as well as the members of the House staff a happy and healthy New Year.

Like many Quebeckers and Canadians, I was quite surprised to learn that there had been a meeting of representatives from the petroleum industry, Natural Resources Canada, the American Department of Energy, the Department of Energy of Alberta, as well as observers from the Mexican Energy Secretariat, on January 24 and 25, 2006, in Houston, in order to discuss the development of the Alberta oil sands.

I was also surprised to read that the governments, in particular that of Canada, were even suggesting simplifying the project approval process, and discussing increasing the production of oil sands fivefold. After having spent three months studying this matter with you, I find it strange that this document was not tabled and that this information was not conveyed to us before the broadcasting of the CBC/Radio-Canada documentary.

I wonder how it came to pass that the Minister of Natural Resources or the deputy ministers omitted sending this important information to the parliamentarians around this table, who worked for three months on the oil sands file in a serious and rigorous manner.

Does the government really want to develop the oil sands on this scale? I find it somewhat inconceivable that the Conservative government is considering, or seems to be accepting, having production go from one million to five million barrels of oil per day in order to satisfy American energy needs, without having even first set greenhouse gas reduction targets for Canada.

I listened to all of the witnesses who came before the committee last fall. Together we noted the environmental and social challenges related to the accelerated development of the oil sands. If we were to question various witnesses whose names appear in the motion, they could enlighten us on certain points and describe the circumstances which led to the preparation of this report.

My colleagues around the table probably want to know what is going on as much as I do, and to finalize this matter. The information we would be given could even be integrated into the report. It would benefit everyone. It would be unfortunate for us to conclude our report and our study of the oil sands without having taken the trouble to obtain information from the people listed in the motion, and a description of the situation. I cannot pretend that I was very happy to learn about this through you and through the media. I imagine that when he came here, Deputy Minister Brown already had that information. I don't know if he knowingly omitted to tell us, or whether this was an oversight on his part.

If my colleagues around the table are in agreement, we could settle this matter quite quickly and convene witnesses, as stipulated in the motion.

I don't know if there are any questions on this, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you very much, Madame DeBellefeuille. That is much clearer. I must say, I've had some difficulty in terms of where you want to go with this motion.

In response to a couple of things you just said, for further clarification, I understand that you would like to delay the completion of our study and our report until you have had the benefit of these additional witnesses. Is that essentially what you would like to do? You want to hold up the report until we hear from more witnesses?

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

In my opinion, the information the witnesses will be giving us could be important with regard to the thrust of our report. We could perhaps make a decision concerning the appearance of witnesses and determine afterward whether or not we want to include in the testimony in the report. I think we are talking about fairly crucial information. Earlier, in the House of Commons, the interpretation unfortunately did not allow me to fully understand the response of the Minister of Natural Resources to my question, which was whether, yes or no, there had been an agreement to increase the oil sands production from one to five million barrels per day. This would allow us to clarify this matter. It is mentioned in the report. I have read this report. It remains to be seen whether there are misprints in it, as you say. This agreement is not necessarily discussed in it. I think it is important that we obtain these clarifications.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. Before I take any questions, I just want a further clarification for the committee.

Some of these witnesses have already appeared. I guess we could always call them back. I think it wasn't their fault that they didn't answer questions that weren't asked. The report in question has been available, I understand, on the Internet for over a year--or almost a year, I guess. Probably the committee could have asked those questions of some of the witnesses who have previously appeared. Whether it's fair to ask them back I guess we'll leave to the discretion of the committee.

With that, I think you've certainly opened grounds for debate, and I'm sure there are members who would like to express their point of view.

The first hand I saw was Monsieur Ouellet, and then we'll ask the clerk to develop a speakers list from that.

Monsieur Ouellet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to comment on what you just said. You said that we had not necessarily put the right questions to the people who already came to testify before us.

My reply to that would be that things have become clearer since then. How could we at that time ask questions on things we were not aware of? We did not then know that the United States had asked for five million barrels per day. We did not know that there had been a meeting with the previous government.

We want to know whether the new government has developed a position. In fact, this would help us to prepare our report. It is absolutely crucial that we be made aware of the position of the government of the time and that we know how this was perceived and received.

In my opinion, we need to know more. On what basis was this production to be increased? I am sure that the people who are mentioned here knew this, but we did not. We would like to know this before we prepare our report, so as not to look like people who prepare a report without being aware of the main development agreement, or who report on things about which they were not well informed. Obviously, meeting with some of these people again—people to whom we could perhaps put questions that would be more relevant for our report—will allow us to prepare a more complete and less naive report.

We have to be apprised of the plans of the previous government, because it did have plans. They were not discussed. Now we see that the new government has also committed itself in this regard. So where are we on this issue?

Finally, we the members of the Bloc Québécois, of the Liberal Party and of the Conservative Party, and even more so the members of the New Democratic Party, were not aware of certain things. How could we prepare a report that was not naive if we did not have basic information on this matter?

In my opinion, the request is amply justified. We don't want to torment these witnesses; we simply want to be able to talk to them in order to find out more about this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes. I concur absolutely and understand what it is you're saying and what you're after.

My only point at the outset was to perhaps remove any impression that previous witnesses were purposely trying to hide something and not disclose. That was my only point in raising it. It was my understanding that this information was generally known. I have read the report. It has been on the Internet since March 6 of last year.

I guess what I'm saying, and I say this respectfully, is just because you didn't know it isn't to suggest that it wasn't common knowledge elsewhere. There wasn't a secret meeting, and it's been on the Internet for almost a year. That's my only point. I don't disregard what you're saying at all, or your wanting to have more information. I'm just saying I don't believe there was any intent, by any witness, to not provide information that was asked, and the fact that we didn't ask the question was the only reason they weren't forthcoming in that regard. As I say, it was public information, and it has been for ten months.

Madame DeBellefeuille, on that point.

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

Mr. Chairman, as you know, many documents are published on the Internet. We all have our field of expertise and we all have limited time to read documents. And so, when we welcome important witnesses such as deputy ministers or ministers, we expect that in their statements, they will provide information to parliamentarians on central points. I don't think this information is unimportant, nor that it can be taken lightly.

I have been a member of Parliament for one year now. If we took a survey, I don't think that we would find that many of my colleagues found the document on the Internet. I wonder why the deputy ministers who came here and to whom we put questions on the increase in oil production did not in their statements inform the parliamentarians gathered here around this table of this central point.

You will understand, in light of the quantity of documents circulating on the Internet, that we cannot depend on that to be properly informed of the latest developments. It is up to the witnesses when they feel it is pertinent... Unless you think that this news that governments intend to increase fivefold the production of barrels of oil in Alberta is not relevant, I think it was up to them to inform us. I am not necessarily claiming that all witnesses should share all the results of their research and tell us all about their lives, but this is central, important information. I think that this is something that cannot be set aside when one is studying the oil sands, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add something.

In your statement, you said that we should have known this, we should have seen it on the Internet. How is it that no one told us? We held 29 meetings and no one ever mentioned this, neither those who are for it nor those who oppose it. So it seems to me that we were not the only ones who were not aware of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Precisely my point. I wasn't in any way meaning to be disrespectful of your comment. I was simply saying that because you didn't know it, it was not an indication that it wasn't public knowledge. They have all kinds of information, and if they're not asked the question, I don't think it's fair to suggest that they would offer up that specific point among thousands of others that you didn't ask.

In any event, I don't think we're going anywhere with that point; I just wanted to say that I thought there was a suggestion there that some of the witnesses may have withheld information that they should have given you, but I don't know how they could have known you wanted that information. There were several references by several witnesses about potential increases in development and barrels per day throughout.

In any event, it's not a big point; I just didn't want to malign any witness for withholding information they weren't even asked about.

With that, I think we should carry on.

Mr. Tonks had a question, and then Mr. Gourde.

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

Mr. Chairman, we're at a really important part of this committee's deliberations. The deliberation is now with respect to a draft report, and at no time was I made aware that this oil sands expert group existed. We had lots of experts before the committee, and we had an opportunity to engage them with respect to what was germane to the very important issues that were emerging from the development, both the rate of development and the nature of the pollution issues, the greenhouse gas issues, the development issues, the social issues. We had a really excellent opportunity.

My concern at this time—and I appreciate the spirit within which the motion is put forward—is we now have an expert group that apparently has a report that doesn't appear to be sanctioned by the government at this point. It has received a lot of media attention.

What I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that we table this motion. None of us have seen the draft report. We don't know whether there is any relevance to this expert group. It isn't a paper of the previous government, nor is it of this government, as I am aware. It is something that is floated out there. Why don't we table this motion, pending the discussion of the report, and if issues emerge from the discussion of the draft report, then we will revisit this motion and invite whoever was the author of the report on behalf of this energy resource group that are experts.

At this time, I question very seriously whether we should delay in order to have the ministers, both past and present, deputy ministers, without having had the opportunity to read the draft report and to make a decision whether the fivefold increase that was thrown out there is germane to the discussion we're going to be involved in, or whether it is even germane to whether there is a denouement that is going to be requested that we make recommendations that would scale down the development of the oil sands.

I guess what I'm saying to the committee is why would we not take the draft report--at this point we want to deal with it as expeditiously as possible--and make a decision as we are proceeding over the next two or three meetings whether it would be advantageous and helpful to have people in to talk about a report that may or may not be driving an acceleration of the oil sands when the committee itself hasn't arrived at whether that is a recommendation they would support.

So I think it is premature. I'm not trying to evade the substance and ignore the spirit, but I would just suggest that it is premature. If it is relevant, we'll be able to make a more accurate decision as we go along on whether we want the minister in--indeed, whether we want the ministers, past and present, to be in for any future questions, never mind just on the issue of this expert panel of sorts, this oil sands experts group.

My motion would be that we table the motion we have before us, that we engage the draft report, and at some point we revisit whether we wish to have these people come to answer questions, because it may be that this report isn't as relevant as we think it is at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have put us in a bit of difficulty here. If you have moved the motion to table we have to initially deal with the motion to table. So before we even have an opportunity to debate the motion that's on the table, we have to go to your motion to not even deal with it today. Is that what you are intending?

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

Well, that wasn't my intent. My intent was to couple my remarks. The next item of business we have is the report. My intent was to get on with the report--and I had hoped the committee would see that--and that we make a subsequent decision as to whether the first motion, asking for this experts group and the ministers past and present to come, and whether, having had a chance now to see the report....

We haven't even seen the draft report, Mr. Chairman--the real draft report. So I just think it's premature.

I wasn't trying to use a procedural ruse or trick to evade the substance of this motion. It was more in keeping with whether we couple the substance of the motion with the draft report and then collectively say it is relevant with respect to this experts' report that said there should be an acceleration. They might have had research done that would put forward something with which we could identify in our draft report and make a recommendation. I don't think we know that at this point.

I was just attempting to allow us to get into the real issue before us, which is the draft report, and then to couple that in two or three meetings with a conscious and collective decision that, yes, a point has been made, and yes, we should have these people in and ask them, because it is related to the draft report we have.

At this point I don't think the committee can say that there is that relationship at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes. I guess the difficulty I have is that if you move to table, then procedurally we have to drop discussion of the previous motion and deal with the tabling motion.

From your comments, I take it that this is really a matter of debate on the initial motion, and that you're not moving to table quite yet.

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

If it's helpful--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It would be helpful.

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

--then I would withdraw that in order that there could be a fuller discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Let us consider that a point of debate, and we can get back to that as we hear other speakers.

So we are going to continue consideration of the motion of Madame DeBellefeuille, and if at some point you want to move a motion to table, then we'll come back to you, Mr. Tonks.

I appreciate that, because I think there are voices on the committee that wish to be heard and there will be some question as to whether this is even relevant to the previous report. This is quite independent and separate, as I see it.

Be that as it may, we're discussing Madame DeBellefeuille's motion. We have next on the speakers list Monsieur Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to congratulate Ms. DeBellefeuille for her good work. Since she began sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I have heard nothing but good things.

For my part, this is my first day on the committee and I hope to be up to the challenge.

I also understand Mr. Tonks' position; I believe it is legitimate. However, so that both parties can arrive at a consensus and although I believe this motion to be important, I think that there are too many witnesses. I would like to move an amendment to Ms. DeBellefeuille's motion so that we only convene as witnesses the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment, the former Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, and the former Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable John McCallum.

I think that that would be sufficient to allow us to debate this topic. This occurred under two governments, and the negotiations took place under the former government. I therefore think that it would be important to hear these witnesses, who would explain what happened.

That is the proposal I am making to you. I don't know if you'll accept it, but that is our position on the government side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

I should intervene here and say that we have had some discussion with regard to calling former ministers before Parliament or before a committee to respond to matters that occurred when they were ministers. I think there is considerable precedent in this regard. They can't be obliged to attend. The clerk advises and my own research suggests that they can be invited to come but they're not obliged to come.

I just leave that with you. We do have a former minister here who might shed some light on it, but I don't need to ask him what his answer would be.

In any event, I take it that we do have an amendment to the motion. For the benefit of the clerk and the members, the original motion suggested that the committee would request an appearance by the Minister of Industry, the former Minister of Industry, and representatives of Natural Resources Canada. Those references would be deleted. Otherwise, the motion would remain the same.

Is that correct, Mr. Gourde?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are now obliged to consider the amendment before us, which reads as follows:

That the Committee requests as soon as possible that: the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment, the former minister of the environment, the Hon. Stéphane Dion, and the former minister of natural resources, the Hon. John McCallum, be invited to describe the circumstances that led to the Oil Sands Expert Group report issued after the meeting attended by representatives....

And so on.

We are now going to hear comments on that amendment.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

I thank Mr. Gourde for his openness, but I cannot accept an amendment to my motion. I could not support that amendment.

I am quite surprised, Mr. Chairman, to hear what I am hearing today. By minimizing the fact that we were not informed, the government, both the former and the current one, is encouraging a fivefold increase in the production and extraction of oil from the Alberta oil sands. What really makes me think that we are heading in that direction is that the current Minister of Natural Resources is even considering resorting to the use of nuclear energy to accelerate the development of the oil sands. The minister even said in a quote reported in last January eighteenth's edition of the Calgary Herald that he thought that production could be accelerated in the near future to 4 or 5 million barrels per day and that nuclear energy could be used to achieve that.

I think that if everyone in the former government and in the current government agrees to say that nothing was hidden in this and that everything is clear, it would be important that all of the witnesses mentioned come before the committee to provide us with the necessary information for our report. I received the report from the clerk last Friday at 4:00 p.m. I spent Sunday reading it, Mr. Chairman, and I can already tell you—even though I think Mr. Tonks' intentions are good—that I do not think that this draft report is totally different. I read it and in what I read no mention is made of a production of 5 million barrels per day, but rather of 3 to 3.5 million barrels per day. There is no information on this task force, and no mention is made of meeting 25% of the United States' oil consumption needs. And yet, I think it would be important to mention that. This is not random, unimportant information, it is a central piece of information on the oil sands file. We are talking about a rapid acceleration that would see production go from one million barrels to five million barrels per day. I think that Mr. Tonks will agree with me that this is no mean feat and that, especially, this is a central point that must be included in our report.

And so I am asking for the support of my Liberal colleagues, my NDP colleague and my Conservative colleagues. None of us has anything to lose. If no one hid anything, it is entirely to our advantage as a committee to increase our credibility and that of our report, which is what will happen if we convene people here who will be able to tell us whether it is true that when they were in power they encouraged the accelerated development of the oil sands. Those who are in power will also be able to tell us whether that is true and how they intend to accomplish this. The people in the best position to tell us are those who were in power before and those who are in power now. So I think that all of the people I mention in my motion are important. I am flabbergasted to hear that in the eyes of some of our colleagues this is not a central point in our report.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gourde, in spite of your openness, I cannot accept your amendment. I encourage you to reconsider your position since, as our chairman said so well, no information was intentionally hidden. If that is the case, let us convene the witnesses so that they can inform us of the direction they intend to take in the development of the oil sands. This is a central question, Mr. Chairman, and not some random detail.