Natural Resources Committee on May 6th, 2010

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

I'm only wondering if this list of witnesses is adequate for Mr. Cullen for the hearings. He's put this forward. If this is the list of witnesses we heard from and we had the hearing, is that good enough? If we go into this, we have the hearing next Thursday with your list of witnesses, then what do we do? The rest of us suggest witnesses and we try to do what? Because everybody else's witnesses come later. Is one hearing with these witnesses enough?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen, go ahead.

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

The suggestion right from the beginning was that we can operate this on two tracks. On the larger questions you have all raised about exploration and different drilling regimes and so on, which I think are valid ones, Chair, you can decree that the witness lists have to be in by next Tuesday for that conversation. This gets us started, because I think it's probably the most relevant and it brings the biggest players, certainly the NEB, that I want to hear. It will start us off and will inform how we set up the meetings to follow the constituency week.

I think the two tracks are okay. Committees do this, by the way. This happens and it's okay. We're not suggesting perfection; that's why the motion says if there's some other key person... Again, I think these are the most likely suspects. They're the ones who are going to be able to answer the response, and also the regulatory questions best. When we want to go to more, we'll go to more. We can have a witness list due date by next Tuesday and expand it beyond.

My feeling is that if we get these folks in, it will help direct our further studies past the constituency break. I think when we hear from the NEB it's going to raise questions, and everybody will say they want to hear from a particular person, or want to hear from this particular oil drilling company, or particular constituent. That's my guess, based on other witnesses and other hearings.

Why not start with this on the Thursday, do what Alan suggested and pull a larger list in for Tuesday, and a more expansive study? I think it solves our issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It seems that the proposal before the committee--there is a motion, of course--is that we also have parties submit witness lists by next Tuesday, and we'll see what happens from there. We still haven't nailed that down.

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Chair.

May I come back to my original proposal that I made before? If we were to go with the first meeting with these people next Thursday--I'm fine with that--and we submit a witness list for the following Tuesday, if we get some structure around this I think one meeting would help us in some respects to inform what we might want to do next. At the same time, I think it might take another meeting. That's why I'm saying two meetings; it seems to me to be a little bit more...with one being right after the break.

We could have the first meeting, if we can schedule the set of witnesses, and that would be one approach that we could use. We could have our witness lists produced by Tuesday, which would be devoted to a second meeting after the break, then because we'd have some balance here, it would give an opportunity for everybody to have some witnesses at least over two meetings. After those two meetings, we could decide whether we want to take this any further--do we want to produce a report, or do we want to expand this out?

I guess I am trying to say we'll all get a crack at a witness here, and if we deem we have no witnesses by next Tuesday, then so be it.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, go ahead.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I want to agree with Mike. See, I'm coming to his defence now. Alan, he's ready to attack you too, right?

I thought the caveat was that in terms of submitting our lists by Tuesday, if there's stuff that comes out of next Thursday's meeting that tells us that these are witnesses we really need, we ought to be able to say so. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is this agreed to, then?

Mr. Anderson, go ahead. I see one more comment here.

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

I've listened to this committee complain for months about the uncertainty about its agenda and its schedule, and now we're walking into a situation where that's deliberately what we're doing. So three weeks from now, when everybody's complaining about how this whole thing's going, I think we need to remember that.

I'm of the opinion we should have the witness list in as a full witness list, and then go from there. But if the rest of the committee has chosen a different path, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, I think there is consensus that we would go ahead with the motion, that all parties would submit a prioritized witness list by Tuesday. The question, then, is whether it could be opened up for new witnesses beyond that, and that isn't clear to me. So what are the suggestions, quickly, from the various parties on that?

Mr. Cullen would be next.

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

On that last point, we're almost there, right? I think Mr. Regan's point is that we will be informed by what happens. My suspicion, having seen the processes here before, is that we submit witnesses and the clerk begins putting meetings together. Some of them come together quicker than others. I think the idea of keeping the list somewhat open, as Mr. Regan suggested, based on what we hear on the Thursday, is something we should be open to. The committee is the master of its own fate. It can initiate those first few meetings and then say it wants to tack on any group that we need to hear from. I think we should be open to that. But we're almost there. I think it's a smaller point, frankly, as to whether we're open to more new witnesses, but sure, it sounds fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Madame Brunelle, I'm not sure whether you'd asked for the floor or not. Had you asked for the floor?

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

No, but I want to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'll go to Mr. Anderson, and then if you want the floor, indicate, please.

Did you want the floor? Go ahead.

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

It seems to me things are getting much clearer. I appreciate Mr. Tonks’ and Mr. Allen’s wisdom. If we really limit the discussion to response assets and the regulatory regime, it is going to be okay. The motion talks about other involved proponents, so it will be possible to call other witnesses if it is warranted later. As to getting a proposed list of witnesses to the clerk by Tuesday in order to debate it next Thursday, this is quite acceptable to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, there's another proposal.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Just to be absolutely clear, what I'm looking for is the door to be unlocked, not necessarily wide open. I just want to make sure there's a door there in the first place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That really doesn't make it perfectly clear, whatever that means.

I'm not sure that we're entirely there. I think we're getting close. What about the issue of what it really means? If each party submits its witness list, it's prioritized. But you want it to be such that it can be sort of opened beyond that. I need a little more clarity on that part of it.

Mr. Cullen.

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

I understand Geoff's point. We want to be informed by what we hear, and then that informs how we call witnesses.

What I imagine to happen, Geoff, is that if we submit all our witnesses by next Tuesday, with a bit of research, we'll have a pretty complete picture of what we're studying. If there's a desperate need for another separate issue, then I think the committee would just take a pause at some point through this study and say, “Issue X hasn't been identified at all; will the committee hear another day or tack another meeting on during the week?” I think that makes more sense than leaving us in ambiguity of the witness list not necessarily ever being closed.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I don't think it will be a problem.

Let's say Tuesday. We'll keep David really happy by saying that on Tuesday we'll have the list. We can always try to persuade him later that we need to hear somebody and try to have agreement on that.

How does that sound?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson.

I think we're almost there.

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

I can see how well this is going to work for both us and for the clerk in trying to organize this later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have presented your cautions, Mr. Anderson.

Is it agreed that we pass the motion, with the understanding that each party submit a witness list, prioritized by next Tuesday, before five o'clock, and that the clerk invites, for the second meeting, witnesses based on those prioritized witness lists?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Thank you.

It was a good discussion, it's an extremely important issue, and we have decided where to go. So I thank you all for that.

We'll have to move the meeting back in camera to continue our discussions, starting on clause 15 of the report on medical isotopes.

I will briefly suspend the meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]