Natural Resources Committee on May 6th, 2010

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

I think it's appropriate to say he's thieving his ass off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Harris.

Okay, back to the issue. If you'd like to deal with that, we could deal with it later.

What I've heard is that Mr. Cullen has put out his suggestion for a couple of meetings on this. We've heard from the Bloc; we've heard from the Conservatives, who wish to expand the issue; and we've also heard from the Liberals on their proposal for this. So we have to work toward some kind of direction and agreement.

I have two more people on the list—well, maybe we don't... I have Mrs. Gallant and Mr. Harris still to speak to the issues, and Mr. Allen.

Go ahead, Mrs. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I mentioned to Nathan that I'm really pleased we're doing this study. In fact, it might even be negligent if we didn't look at it in the face of what's happening down there.

But what I would like to know is whether or not another standing committee is going to be considering the same subject material for study, be it the environment committee or whoever. We wouldn't want to duplicate the testimony from one committee to the next. If we're going to do it, let's make sure that the committees complement each another, rather than just gleaning the same information from the witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Actually, Mr. Harris, did you want to speak to this motion too, or did you just want to...?

By the way, do you drink green tea? Oh, okay.

Mr. Allen, go ahead.

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

If Mr. Harris drinks green tea, it says a lot, right?

Considering what Nathan said, one thing I'd be prepared to propose—though I'd still like us to have the broader discussion—is that we allocate two meetings to this and have our proposed list of witnesses to the clerk by next Tuesday. Is that possible? Then we'll get started as soon as we can after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

By next Tuesday--that would be pretty tight. Okay.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

No, he meant having the witness list by then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The list of witnesses, yes, I know.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think the idea Mike perhaps had in mind was that we do this after the break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. So we could invite witnesses and hopefully get some of them by the first meeting after the break, if the committee decides to go there.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In theory, one way to do it is to try to figure out as best we can what would be a good day for some of the really good witnesses to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Sure.

Mr. Anderson, do you have something to add?

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

I'm just thinking that if we're going to do this, then hopefully we'll do what we've done in the past, which is to prioritize the list that people are sending in. We'll do the list and we'll try to take off the top—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We haven't quite got there, because I haven't determined yet whether there is agreement on this.

Is there agreement that we start then with a couple of meetings and try to aim to have witnesses here after the break?

Mr. Cullen.

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

Very quickly, to respond to Cheryl's comment, no, I don't think other committees are looking at this. It feels like this issue sits here best: it's natural resources. This is where it ought to be.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

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

I can't say for certain that other committees won't try to engage on the issue. The Indian affairs or environment committees might, but that's not the plan right now—not from our side, certainly. Mind you, we have no control over critics in those respective areas at all.

Regarding the other question around expediency, I haven't heard anyone raise any opposition to the witnesses we've suggested so far, because those are the witnesses who most touch the issue: the NEB; British Petroleum; CAPP—Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers--which represents all industry; and a couple of Inuit groups who are most connected to the Beaufort. It seems to me they are almost enough for a first meeting right there, unless folks have other suggestions.

Again, I want to stay open to everybody and ask, is there anybody else who should be at that first meeting?

Couldn't the committee simply say to the clerk, if it's possible, let's have those folks here a week from today? We know that we've put meetings together in that kind of timeframe, but it's not necessarily ideal.

My worry, Chair, is that if we say okay, have them in by next Tuesday, and we start to call around, and then we have the constituency week and witnesses come on the following Tuesday or Thursday, by then it would be three weeks after the motion was first delivered on something that has very much engaged the public right now. I think if we're to take seriously our responsibilities to try to get information to the public about the Canadian context—and I think these people would do a good job, at least at starting that—why not try to get that first meeting by Thursday? Then we could have a second, more in-depth one, or from a different perspective—the Newfoundland perspective, or something else, but I don't know, as we haven't explored that question yet—as our meeting following the break week.

So we would have something in hand for the public when we go back to our constituencies and could say we heard from British Petroleum, we heard from CAPP, we heard from the Inuit, and this is what they're saying about what's happening right now.

I'll finish with this: the leases are in play right now; they're not waiting three weeks. The National Energy Board is seized with this question about relief wells right now; it's in front of them. The industry is asking that it be pulled away, but the NEB hasn't agreed. So this train is moving, whether we get on it or not, and it feels to me that it's important that we're on it.

So I think with the list that's there—and it's not a bad list to start with—why don't we try to see if it's possible for the clerk to draw witnesses together for a meeting a week today? I think they'll be keen, by the way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I see Madame Brunelle, then Ms. Gallant and Mr. Regan. I'll hear from these speakers and then see if we are reaching a consensus on how to proceed.

Madame Brunelle.

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

I think we can act quickly if the discussion is limited to the issue mentioned. When studying offshore exploration in the Canadian context, we should not get lost in everything related to the global environment, or it will be more difficult. As to our procedures and to safety concerns in the event of a similar catastrophe in Canada, if we want to act quickly, we can, as a first step, get some National Energy Board officials, who should be relatively easy to call. If we get our proposed list of witnesses to the clerk by the end of this week or early next week, we could have some witnesses appear before the committee on Thursday. We can start with the officials if we cannot get in touch with outside people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Madame Brunelle.

Madame Brunelle, from the list Mr. Cullen put in his motion I would think there would only be one group that could give us information on the rules for drilling offshore in Canada, and I would guess that would be the National Energy Board. Anyway, that's up to the committee to determine how we choose the list of witnesses.

Next is Mr. Regan, then Ms. Gallant.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It strikes me that it would be useful, maybe at the beginning, or at least early on, to have someone--maybe David would know who this would be, or the department would help us with that--to explain what the current regime is and how it operates in this regard. Is that the NEB? To what degree is it the department? To what degree is it...? I know of two offshore petroleum boards. There is the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I'm not sure who that should be, but I think it would be useful to have someone come to say here's the current regime, here's how it operates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Anderson.

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

That's why I would suggest we try to get a complete witness list first, and then we'd glean from that so we have a boiled-down presentation here. Geoff is right. We have different entities that are regulating different parts of the country. If we're going to do this we need to make sure we have a complete list, to say these are the people we think we need to bring in order to get a balance.

I'm going to suggest that if we're going to broaden beyond this we wait until after the break and then try to do it decently. I understand why Nathan wants to strike while the media iron's hot, but if we're going to do this, we might as well do a good job on it. I would think that means bringing in the regulatory--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The normal procedure that we use on this committee, which does work--

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

We haven't even agreed on the motion yet, and we're already trying to force a meeting by next week.