Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2007

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

With respect to the list of proposed invitees, with the election having been held on January 23, 2006, let me just guess for a moment that the current Minister of Natural Resources is going to come here and say “I don't know why I'm even here, I wasn't appointed until February 6”, as a for instance. The Minister of Industry, if we decide to get him, will say the same thing. Are we talking about Ms. Ambrose or Mr. Baird, neither of whom was surely appointed?

What is this all about? Why are we talking about government ministers coming to talk about an experts' report from a year ago when they weren't even appointed yet? I don't get it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Harris, did you want to comment on that?

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

To respond to that, I think it's unfair to presuppose what the minister may or may not say. We are dealing directly in the area of the Minister of Natural Resources and of the Minister of the Environment, current and past, and I would think it would be most valuable to have the present ministers here to give an insight or opinion on the subject of the meeting under discussion. We shouldn't presuppose that they're going to cop out and say “I wasn't there”. That may have happened in previous governments, but in the current government, I think you'll find that ministers want to be pretty forthright in what they say and what they do. I think we should appreciate that and certainly invite them here to play a valuable role in this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Madame DeBellefeuille, did you want to comment on that? It was your motion. We are speaking on the amendment, but I think Mr. St. Amand asked a question that may be more applicable to your original motion. Do you want to comment briefly on that?

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

Thank you. Yes.

Very quickly, Mr. St. Amand, I want to say that the Minister of Natural Resources , when he takes the helm of his department, cannot simply sweep away everything that happened previously. Staff members from the Department of Natural Resources took part in the meeting, and that is noted clearly in the report. And so I'm certain that the current Minister of Natural Resources will be able to answer our questions on the direction he intends to take with regard to the accelerated development of the oil sands.

Since my colleague Mr. Harris was generous enough to read us a passage from the minutes, I would in turn like to take this opportunity, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to read a short passage which may encourage Mr. St. Amand to support my motion.

This excerpt is taken from the chapter entitled “Potential Actions”. I apologize for my English, as I'm going to read it in that language.

Governments are encouraged to streamline the regulatory approval process and better manage the risk to both pipeline and energy projects. Canadian governments have already gone a long way to coordinating and streamlining the environmental and regulatory approvals, but more needs to be done.

I think that we all be able to benefit from hearing the witnesses named in my motion and that no one here thinks otherwise. Once again, I appreciate the openness of my colleagues from the other parties. I believe, nevertheless, contrary to them, that it is important that we hear Mr. Emerson, who was Minister of Industry at the time, and the current minister, Mr. Bernier, since the former directed that department and the latter is directing it now. Both of them must indicate their position with regard to the development of the oil industry, in particular the accelerated development of the oil sands.

You will understand that I am quite surprised this afternoon that so much time is been spent debating a motion which simply aims to shed light on a matter. And if the information contained in the report is so self-evident, why hesitate to hear the witnesses? Perhaps we will only need 20 minutes or so to hear our witnesses and obtain the necessary information.

Barring that, I think that we will be depriving ourselves of important information which could bring greater credibility to our report, and I'm quite surprised to note the reluctance of certain members of the committee.

[A voice]

One last round, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes.

Mr. Gourde.

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

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille, but you are still talking about a presumed report on the accelerated development of the oil sands, and I think that those who support my amendment will help us to shed light on this matter. We are still hearing about presumed facts, and I think that the ministers will be able to tell us what really happened.

I simply believe that my amendment would allow us to break this impasse, and I would like you to give me your support.

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

With all due respect to Mr. Gourde, this is not a matter of presuming that the development of the oil sands would be accelerated, since I have before me a quote from the Minister of Natural Resources, which I can table with the committee. He refers to extracting up to four and even five million barrels per day of oil from the oil sands.

One can discern on the part of the Minister of Natural Resources a desire to encourage this accelerated development. If that is not the case, he will have the opportunity of telling us when we hear him, but I don't think that you can claim that I am presuming anything, Mr. Gourde. There are enough indications and I have enough documents to allow me to state that there is an intent to accelerate development. As to the number of millions of barrels, we will be able to determine that with the help of all of the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Tonks, we are on the amendment here.

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

I appreciate that, and I appreciate Mr. Harris's intercession with respect to that preamble to the report.

I want to reiterate, in case there's a difference of opinion with respect to why we are attempting to understand the nature of the motion and what it is attempting to do, that to my mind there are two issues. One, was there a rationale presented in the report, which would be part of our report, that would reflect on our recommendations? Whether we agree to accelerate in a sustainable way the development of the oil sands as part of a continental policy or a North American policy, that's up to the committee to decide. Second, does that rationale drive government policy?

So there are two issues, one related to what went into it under the previous government and one related to how it relates to policy development in this government.

Mr. Chairman, if we are having those people come in, then those are the questions that are part of this debate of the draft report. The only position I had suggested was that until we have the draft report before us, we won't know to ask and to then engage those people who can answer those questions.

That said, let's get on with it. I would only suggest one additional witness who you may wish to have come in. The Province of Alberta is absolutely fundamental, just as the Province of Quebec would be if it were an issue with respect to the James Bay development or whatever it might happen to be. I suggest that we add the appropriate government officials from Alberta. If we want to understand the rationale from those discussions, they were part of those discussions in that workshop, as alluded to in the report.

So that would be my additional motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Perhaps we could just get back to the motion at hand. The motion is that certain people be invited to describe the circumstances that led to the report. I think we've heard pretty clearly what the circumstances were. In any event, we're now discussing an amendment to delete some of the proposed witnesses. That is the question before us.

Is there any further debate on Mr. Gourde's amendment?

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC]

Mr. Chair, I'm inclined to support the amendment, and for a couple of different reasons. I've read the draft report, and one thing that strikes me about it is that there are lots of “ifs”--if production gets here, if this gets here. Before we make any recommendations in this report, one thing we could have is context as to what some people think in terms of where we're going with this and what may be the best case, worst case, and most probable case with regard to development. It would seem to me that this group that was set up could possibly shed some light on that one thing.

Second, what was the idea behind setting up the security and prosperity partnership? When the ad hoc group of oil sands experts was set up, what was the political will to set it up then, and is the political will of these two new ministers still there to have that group in place in the long term? If it is, are they doing something that could be counter to what we would recommend as a committee?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

On the amendment, Monsieur Ouellet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to the amendment, Mr. Gourde has presented his point of view. He believes that we have heard everyone and that it is no longer necessary to continue. That would be a normal position for him to take.

The fact remains that we, that is to say the other members of the committee, do not consider that we have heard everyone we need to hear. We don't intend to spend another year on this. That is not what we are asking for. If one counts the names on the list, there are only six or seven people who would come to testify. I reiterate: we have already held 29 hearings, so could we hold one or two more to hear these key witnesses? This has a direct bearing on our report. Whether we do this before or after is a matter of the chicken or the egg.

In the final analysis, we want to shed light on the position of those who were close to this decision. I believe that it is important that we meet with every one of those people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

I have heard a call for the question. The question is on the amendment, and the amendment is essentially to delete from the original motion the Minister of Industry, the former Minister of Industry, and representatives of Natural Resources Canada.

Is everyone clear on what the amendment is? I take it there is a consensus on clarity.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We will now return to the original motion. The original motion will now read:

That the committee request as soon as possible that the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment, the former Minister of the Environment, and the former Minister of Natural Resources be invited to describe the circumstances....

And so on.

We'll resume debate on the amended motion.

Mr. Tonks.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to my previous comments, in fairness to the Province of Alberta, which also attended the workshop, and which had input into it that would be germane to the discussions, I would request that the committee support inviting the appropriate officials from the province to appear before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Excuse me. I just wanted to see who those relevant ones would be, if it said in the business that Mr. Harris mentioned. It would be the Alberta Department of Energy? Was that your request?

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

That would be the request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Somebody from that department might also appear before the committee.

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

That's right, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

So you propose an amendment to add “and representatives from the Alberta Department of Energy”?

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

That would be my amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That amendment is seconded by Mr. Harris. We are now in debate on a second amendment, to add to those lists representatives, as requested, from the Alberta Department of Energy.

Is there any debate on this?

(Amendment agreed to)