Natural Resources Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

As much as I find that attractive--I don't think it's a friendly amendment, it's a motion to amend, as I recall--I am anxious that we conclude debate on this. I don't understand why the government is not open to this suggestion. Let's face it, if the department has projections, it's only going to give us the ones it wants us to have anyway, right?

If they're saying that this is what we project for the mining sector and so forth.... There were certainly projections in the Prime Minister's speech this week, and I don't know what the reluctance is about saying that if there are projections available, we will include them with this.

What I would sooner do, oddly, is to say this: pass the motion as it was moved and have the committee request that we get those projections as well. I don't see what's wrong with doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have an amendment to the motion on the floor. Let's go, then, to the question on the proposed amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Madam Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Should I start over again, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've read the motion already. We'll consider that as having been done now. You also made your comments on it. So if you have nothing further to add, we'll go to any further debate on your motion.

Mr. Trost.

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

I have a question for my colleague. Is she proposing that this be our next major study after we've done this green quest? We've talked about mining, we've talked about geo-mapping, and there had been a few other questions back and forth that we decided....

From my perspective, if we are looking at one session or something, or if we're looking at a major report, this is in some respects an energy efficiency type of theme, similar to what we've done this time. Natural Resources covers a broad area. I'd like to move to a variety of things. I think people know about my professional background in the mining industry and why I have a certain interest there.

That's my question. Are we essentially lining up the next future committee business with this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madam Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I wasn't thinking about getting the committee to a protracted study. I was thinking about having it review the various programs run by the Office of Energy Efficiency. In answer to my question this afternoon, the minister replied that the Office would be receiving $3 billion. Surely certain programs will be receiving some funding. It would be a matter of determining what the status of these programs is and seeing if they are meeting stated objectives. There is no need for the committee to undertake a protracted study.

I'm not saying this to be partisan, but I do believe that our constituents would be truly interested in this kind of study. We would find out if homeowners who do renovations are satisfied with government programs and if these programs are meeting government objectives. There is no doubt that people are deeply concerned about the environment.

I don't think a lengthy study is warranted. However, it would be an opportunity for us to gauge the success of these programs and in some respects, to advise the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say to my colleague and Madam Brunelle that when I heard Madam Brunelle read the motion, it sounded a little bit more like what I was thinking about in terms of posing a friendly amendment coming in today.

We've heard some testimony over the last couple of meetings. Some people have said they like what's happening with some of the programs, and we have heard others who proposed that things could be a little different. I know in our riding we've heard things from people about access, and people have made suggestions. I think if we are to get both a balanced side of it and a look at our ecoENERGY renewables and a look at the retrofit programs and all those kinds of programs, realistically we're going to have to make sure we get the right set of people in here to give us that feedback balance.

That's why, when I was thinking about the motion--and I would like to propose this as an amendment--I was thinking that it would say something like this: That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Natural Resources examine the ecoENERGY programs with a view to proposing the necessary modifications to maximize their accessibility and their environmental impacts, and that it be reported back to the House.

I think we have to do this as an examination, because unless we do it do it right, I think we're going to be proposing recommendations back to the House that will be useless to the existing programs. We also heard about silos, and in order for us to accommodate that, I think that's going to be very important.

I would like to propose that we amend that motion, and I also think we should have a recognition that this is going to take us a little bit of time to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Allen, do you happen to have that written out?

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

Yes, I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, could we could get a copy of that? In the meantime, you've heard it.

Mr. Cullen, go ahead with debate on the amendment.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Chair, there are two things--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Actually, what Mr. Allen read was the motion as amended.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There are two points. One is that I appreciate the original motion, but the amendment sounds perhaps even better.

In terms of process for this committee, though, this feels as though we're into the discussion about the committee's agenda again. Initially when we set the agenda overall, we talked about having a reconvening, I think, six weeks in to say how the study was going and what we needed to tweak, if I'm correct in that, Chair. After the two-week break, we said we would devote some time to say.... And I can be corrected. I'm not worried about that. It's just about the process, about the way this committee makes its agenda, because the temptation will be to bring in a forestry motion or a motion on X or a motion on Y that disturbs the way we.... It's not that I'm against this motion. I'm talking about process.

So first of all, I would like some clarity on when we were meant to come back together as a committee and reset our agenda, and as well, on the point about how this committee makes its choices about how we're going to spend our time. I don't want it to be this way, because--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

As Chair, Mr. Cullen, I appreciate that comment, because I really do appreciate that you want to see it well organized, and I do appreciate having our meetings to actually discuss that. But of course, a motion has been brought to the committee. It's been proposed that it be amended as you've heard, so I have to deal with the motion.

I don't think there was any time given. I assume that if this motion does pass, that would happen after we've finished with the current study. I've heard nothing to the contrary.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I want to concur with Mr. Cullen.

I've personally seen this happen in other committees, where people are constantly coming up with good ideas and trying to fill the hopper for what's going to happen next. But the reality is that in our work things change constantly, and you never know six weeks or eight weeks down the road if that priority that was just voted on is going to become the priority at the time.

So I'm prepared to support this, including the amendment, on the condition that this be one of the things we consider when we come to the end of our current study, and that at that time we evaluate all of the options that are available before we decide what our future agenda is going to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Certainly I see nothing that would prevent the committee, once we've moved along in this study and have decided what we want to do, from having a meeting to discuss the future agenda, on which this would be one of the items. There's nothing to preclude us from handling it that way, as far as I can see.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

So we're not making any commitments here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Well, other than to pass or not to pass the motion.

Now, who's next? We have Madam Brunelle, then Mr. Anderson.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I wish to remind committee members that when I tabled this motion on February 26, the chair had asked members to table motions pertaining to future business. Then, we began looking into the QUEST program. It was all part of a constructive process. I'm not suggesting anything new.

I'm in favour of Mr. Allen's amendment. If adopted, it will allow us to examine this issue when the committee feels it's the right time to do so. Don't go thinking that I will be moving motions of this nature every week. We were asked to come up with some. I'm only doing what was asked of me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's very helpful, Madam Brunelle.

You've all heard what Madam Brunelle has said.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We want to get going here quickly, I think. What I'm wondering is if Madam Brunelle would be willing to hold this motion until we're done with our hearings.

I think what's going to happen is that we'll be done with our hearings and we're going to have to work on a report, and at one of those first meetings where we're working on the report, we'll probably be discussing our future business. Maybe we can bring this motion forward at that time, along with whatever other business people want to conduct.

Would that be okay with you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madam Brunelle.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Because if we vote for this, we are committed to doing this, and there may be some people who don't want to do it.