Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

For further debate on the amendment, I have Mr. St. Amand on the list.

When you put your hand up, Mr. St. Amand, was it to speak to the amendment or was it to speak to the main motion ?

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

To the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right. Let's restrict this for the moment to a debate on the amendment.

Monsieur Gourde.

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

Thank you, Ms. DeBellefeuille. I would like to clarify my request. Much is being made of a CBC/Radio-Canada report based on allegations. I think that this is, rather, a matter of political direction. I think that the witnesses I mentioned would shed light on this situation for us. This would prevent a lot of people from having to come here, it being a given that we can always change our minds later if we feel it is necessary. With the testimony of the witnesses I have proposed, we will be able to understand the political orientation of the previouas government and that which it may have given rise to. Personally, I would support your motion, if you would accept my amendment. That is what I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ms. Bell.

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

Thank you. It's great to be back in this new year.

I understand deleting the current Minister of the Environment if our intention is to find out the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That was not the motion. For correction, the deletions would be the Minister of Industry, the former Minister of Industry, and representatives of the department.

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

Okay, so we're not deleting the Minister of the Environment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

No.

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

I'm sorry, I missed that one.

So it's the Minister of Industry that we're deleting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It's “the Minister of Industry, the former minister of industry, and representatives of Natural Resources Canada”.

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

Sorry, I crossed the wrong one off.

Was the current Minister of the Environment at this meeting then? I just wonder what the purpose is. If they're going to describe the circumstances that led to the oil sands expert group report, wouldn't it be people who were there? Why delete people who were there and leave people who weren't there? That's my question. Otherwise, I support the motion, and I can support the deletions if I get an adequate response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think the committee could ask Monsieur Gourde to explain his rationale...or the mover of the original motion might be more appropriate.

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

The amendment makes a presumption about political orientation. All of this is happening in the wake of a CBC/Radio-Canada report. Personally, I have never heard of this situation. Perhaps it is simply because it has never come up. According to me, the list of witnesses I am submitting will allow us to shed light on the situation. It would be amply sufficient to be apprised of the position of the previous government and that of the current one. If later we feel it is opportune we can convene others, but currently I think that with our four witnesses we will be able to answer that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur St. Amand, did you want to speak to the amendment now?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Frankly, as a matter of conscience, I can't responsibly vote with respect to the amendment or the original motion without at an absolute minimum having seen this expert group's report. I have every confidence in the veracity of what you've said, Mr. Chair, that this report has been available since March 6. That may well be, but I haven't seen it. It may be that the report itself will clearly describe the circumstances that led to the report being issued. In the absence of actually seeing this report, I can't responsibly vote on the motion or the amendment to the motion.

I would rather proceed, if I may, Mr. Chair, on the basis that we review the draft report of our committee. As I understand the rules, prior to actually voting in favour of this report being tabled in the House, we have the prerogative, as a committee, to resummon certain witnesses who have already testified, or in fact to call additional witnesses. With the greatest respect, I think that is the preferred way to handle it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Harris, do you have some light on the scene?

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

I hope so, Mr. Chairman.

I want to address Mr. Gourde's amendment.

Mr. Gourde did not make just an arbitrary amendment. I'm sure he did it to ensure that people directly involved in this meeting and ministries directly involved in it would be the ones to come and bring testimony before this committee. Clearly that would include the environment ministry, past and present, and the Minister of Natural Resources, both past and present. There is no indication whatsoever that the Minister of Industry, past or present, would be a part of this particular meeting, and that, of course, was the purpose of Mr. Gourde's amendment. Clearly if we want to be direct in our questioning, we should be questioning those people who were directly involved in it, through our decision to attend the meeting and put forward subjects of discussion.

That is my support for the amendment that's been put forward. I think the reasons for the amendment are evident. I want to point out that it wasn't arbitrarily picked out of the sky. There was good reason for it, and I would trust that my colleagues could see that.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we perhaps read into the record a pertinent portion of the executive summary. With your permission and the committee's permission, I would like to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Harris, you are referring to the executive summary of what?

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

It is the executive summary of the oil sands experts group workshop.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Do you have it in front of you?

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

I have it in front of me. I think there are three paragraphs in the introduction that are most pertinent to the conversation we're having.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right. Carry on.

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

My voice is cracking a bit. It's not out of emotion; it's just that I have a sore throat. So bear with me, please. I think it's important that this be in the record.

This is the executive summary from the oil sands experts group workshop, Houston, Texas, January 2006. I'll start with the introduction—and I'll provide the hard copy:

President Bush, Prime Minister Martin and President Fox officially announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agreement in March 2005. The energy activities of the SPP encompass a trilateral effort among Mexico, the United States and Canada, to create a sustainable energy economy for North America. The Canadian oil sands are one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon resources and will be a significant contributor to energy supply and security for the continent. As such, the three countries agreed to collaborate through the SPP on the sustainable development of the oil sands resources and an ad hoc Oil Sands Experts Group was formed that includes the U.S., Canadian and Alberta Government representatives.

The first deliverable for the Group consisted of the following: “By January 2006, building on joint discussions with key stakeholders and scientific experts, issue a report that discusses the mid- to long-term aspects of the oil sands product market development and the infrastructure and refinery implications for increased oil sands market penetration”. To meet this deliverable, the Group convened a workshop in Houston, Texas, on January 24-25, 2006, that was jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). The Alberta Department of Energy, (ADOE) also participated in the workshop planning and delivery. Representatives from Mexico’s Secretariat of Energy participated as observers. This report summarizes the results of the workshop discussions.

The third paragraph is one that is indeed important:

The goal of the workshop was: “To identify and develop options to address the infrastructure, market access and market capacity issues in North America associated with the value-added development in Canada of the oil sands”. The workshop brought together experts representing the oil sands industry, refiners, marketers, pipeline companies, and government.

Delegates participated in the following working groups to examine the challenges associated with oil sands market development and propose potential actions: - Upgrading & Refining - Kicking the Natural Gas Habit - Markets - Pipeline Infrastructure

The most important challenges and proposed actions are summarized in the following sections.

We then go into the rest of the executive summary, which I think is indeed important, but these are the pertinent points.

I want to just point out, too, that by inviting ministers, we're going to hold them responsible. Ministers make the decisions, not the bureaucrats, so I think that's important to consider as well.

Mr. Chairman, I've read into the minutes of this meeting the things that I think are important about this meeting. I've also reiterated, I think very succinctly, the rationale for Monsieur Gourde's amendment, which I think is appropriate, considering that nowhere in this exercise were Industry Canada ministers, former or present, involved in any way whatsoever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's very good. Thank you for that.

Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Mr. St. Amand.