NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 8, 1998

• 0907

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: I see a quorum. In conformity with Standing Order 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I move that Brent St. Denis do take the chair of this committee.

The Clerk: It's been moved by Mr. O'Reilly that Brent St. Denis do take the chair of this committee.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Before we get into all that, I'd like to talk about how we carry out the voting and see if we can agree to do this by secret ballot.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): No, no.

Mr. John Duncan: Why not? I thought we were living in a democracy. I thought secret ballot was the way.

Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): I'm not afraid to have my vote accounted for.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): It's public business; we do it publicly.

Mr. John Duncan: We do have a precedent for having secret ballot in committee already this year with one of the committees.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.):

[Inaudible—Editor].

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Duncan: Well, maybe somebody wasn't whipped on the government side.

An hon. member: Let's get on with it.

The Clerk: There's been a proposal to carry out the vote by secret ballot. Can I have an indication from members if it's the wish of the committee to carry it out that way?

Some hon. members: No.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Absolutely not.

The Clerk: Do you want to do this by a straw vote, by a show of hands, or—?

Mr. John Duncan: I'll request a recorded vote in the absence of a secret ballot.

The Clerk: It's just a straw vote. Could I please have an indication from members who wish to have the election of the chair conducted by way of a secret ballot?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Clerk, I think the clerk is not able to take any motions except on the issue of the nomination and election of the chair. Am I mistaken?

The Clerk: You're quite correct. I'm just trying to get a sense from the committee to see if the majority of committee members wish to conduct the vote by way of a secret ballot. This is not a motion. It's strictly for indication to assist the clerk.

The majority of the members seem to be against the idea of proceeding by way of secret ballot.

It's been moved by Mr. O'Reilly that Brent St. Denis do take the chair of this committee. Is it agreed?

• 0910

Mr. John Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Clerk, I did ask for a recorded vote. Is that not—

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): That's true, Marc. John asked for a recorded vote. So just call the roll, I guess.

The Clerk: If that's the committee's wish, we can record that.

Those who were in favour of proceeding by way of a secret ballot?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, on the nomination.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On the chairmanship.

The Clerk: Oh, on the chairmanship. I apologize.

Mr. John Duncan: I do believe anyone can call for a recorded vote. Is that not correct?

The Clerk: That's quite correct. I thought you were referring to the earlier discussion on secret ballots.

Mr. John Duncan: No, that's gone.

The Clerk: My apologies.

I call the vote on the motion by Mr. O'Reilly that Mr. St. Denis take the chair.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 16; nays 0)

Mr. John Duncan: That is the point. He'll get a unanimous mandate from this committee. I think that's great.

The Clerk: Congratulations, Mr. St. Denis.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues, for that excellent show of support.

Our next item of business is to deal with the issue of the two vice-chairs. I don't believe there's any particular order in which we do this, so we'll receive a motion for vice-chair.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to move for vice-chair the name of Ben Serré.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay has moved that Ben Serré be the government side vice-chair.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We're now looking for a nomination for vice-chair from the opposition side.

Mr. John Duncan: I'll nominate Dave Chatters for vice-chair.

The Chairman: I have received a motion that Dave Chatters be the vice-chair on the opposition side.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Congratulations to Dave, who was the chair last year, and to Benoît, who couldn't be here this morning.

If you'll allow me just a few remarks, I was going to suggest, if it's the will of the committee, that we spend at least a few minutes going quickly through the list of things that are on our plate or could be on our plate. I would suggest that we plan our first meeting back on Tuesday, October 20 as a roll-your-sleeves-up, serious discussion of how to plan our business for the fall and notionally past Christmas, if possible.

I would first of all like to welcome new members to the committee. Those of you who were here last year will know that because we are really two committees in one, we have a bit of a challenge juggling on the one side government operations and on the other side natural resources. We did manage to do it last year, but it wasn't without a bit of contorting in the wind sometimes. But we did manage to get the work done.

It was my experience in the last year that some members were interested in government operations and weren't interested in natural resources, and some were interested in natural resources and weren't interested in government operations. In the interest of continuity, I would ask that those members who are interested in one and not the other—and I hope you are all interested in both—find among your alternates somebody who is interested in the other subject, so that if you are preferring to do the government operations business at meetings of the committee, your alternate would regularly come for you when it's the other side, the natural resources.

• 0915

It would certainly help the chair in the continuity of business, knowing that when it was a natural resource issue, I would expect a particular person at the meeting. But it's entirely up to you personally, and I hope all members will feel free to be involved in both government operations and natural resources.

For those of you who come from urban centres, I point to Roy Cullen as a fine example. He is one of our most natural resources-knowledgeable members of the committee from the government side, as an urban member representing a Toronto riding. And we have some rural members who are quite expert in the government operations. So I encourage you to stay involved with both, but if you feel you can't, I would ask you to find a good substitute who can be here for you on a regular basis.

Is there agreement that we spend a few minutes just going through the list of things that were on our plate last year and that you can expect to see coming up in the near future?

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise the issue of something that's just happened during the summer actually, and it has to do with the Canada Post franchisees.

I think every member here has received at least one letter, and perhaps more than that. There's an emergent issue here that perhaps ought to receive precedence over the other matters, because I think December 1 is the day of the implementation of the proposed schedule that's causing a lot of disruption in the Canadian postal system. So if we could make that a priority item, Mr. Chairman, we should do that.

The Chairman: Okay. I thought it was agreed that members would raise issues they saw as a priority, and that when we came back and met on Tuesday, we would then say, okay, if there's agreement that that's a priority issue, that's going to be the issue under discussion the following Thursday.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The reason I raise it now, Mr. Chairman, is so that we can all think about it during the next week and see whether this is really that big an issue. I submit that it is and we should get right with it in calling people as witnesses to the committee.

The Chairman: I would like you all to take the view that Werner has just taken. He's brought to our attention something that's of concern to him and obviously a number of others. Let's use the next week to consider all the ideas that are coming forward here this morning, so that when we do get together the first Tuesday back, we can make those priorities.

I think I saw John, then Roy.

Mr. John Duncan: Another item that is quite crucial at this time and will only get more so over the next year and possibly two years is the whole area of the softwood lumber agreement. This has major ramifications for Canada. It's our largest export industry. It has major ramifications for the four signatory provinces to the softwood lumber agreement, those being B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. There's certainly growing concern with the softwood lumber agreement in at least three of the four provinces. The one I'm unsure about is the province of Quebec. There are major ramifications for British Columbia.

We're three years into a five-year agreement. The government needs advice from a wide variety of stakeholders on what to do upon expiry of that agreement. This committee is well positioned to offer advice after seeking input from stakeholders—much better positioned than, let's say, the foreign affairs committee and Foreign Affairs. We need to offer advice to Foreign Affairs on what to do with that agreement.

It's a vital issue. I'd like to put that on notice as something that would come up next week.

The Chairman: Excellent. Thank you, John.

Roy is next.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I heard the comments by Mr. Schmidt on the Canada Post franchise issue that brewed up over the summer, and I agree with him that it's an important issue, but in the House on Monday, the minister announced there was to be a delay in implementation of those changes until December 1 and he also announced some changes to the package.

• 0920

So whatever we do, we need to look at it in that context. Maybe the package will change significantly and maybe the committee will not need to spend a lot of time on it. I just throw that out.

A voice: Well, I think—

Mr. Roy Cullen: If I could continue just a minute, I have some other things, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

So in the next week we should cogitate on that.

With respect to softwood lumber, the industry agreed to the softwood lumber agreement, which set up quotas to buy five years of trade peace. I know that a number of people in the industry are saying it's time to review whether we go into a quota system again, but there's a jurisdictional thing here with regard to the committees. International Trade has the lead on it. I would agree that there might be some expertise on this committee to look at it, but we'd need to sort out which would be the lead committee.

Finally, we still have a lot of work to do on Kyoto. How are we actually going to implement the Kyoto commitments in relation to trading, economic instruments, etc.? This committee could add some value to that discussion. So I would just throw that on the table as well to think about for next week.

The Chairman: Are there other comments? Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I note that in terms of doing an update on rural development, we're going to look at what the Minister of Agriculture is planning to do. I don't think it's right for this committee to stall. Agriculture is not a burning issue in all parts of the country.

In my riding, for instance, there really isn't an agricultural industry. I don't think it's right to push aside rural development. We must examine this issue and try and come up with some solutions while we wait for the Agriculture Minister to tour the area.

Given all of the problems that we have, I was very pleased when I learned the committee was coming to our region. For one thing, the unemployment rate along the Acadian Peninsula is 46 per cent during the winter. There is no agriculture in this area. The number one concern is rural development and I think we should move on that issue. That's my position.

One other thing. Maybe we will have an opportunity to speak to people from our region who made representations regarding the natural gas pipeline. This has nothing at all to do with agriculture. As members of this committee, we have a duty to examine such matters. I thought it was a very good idea when we said we would look into regional problems.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

René and then Gilles.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Two or three years ago, I served on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and we devoted a great deal of time and effort to rural development. We produced a report which I re-read last week. It contained a number of valid observations. While the Bloc dissented on some points, it nevertheless endorsed the report. For two years now, we haven't heard anything more about this.

Getting back to this subject, if we do not concern ourselves with rural communities, who will? I think we should at least examine some of the important recommendations that were made two years ago by the committee and ask the different ministers to implement them. Perhaps we should start there.

I no longer sit on the committee, but as I was re-reading our report two days ago, I realized that absolutely nothing had been done. It is all well and good to hold meetings and to produce a report at year's end, but if that report is merely shelved and the Minister ignores its findings, then we are wasting our time. Personally, I have to admit that I'm almost happy to no longer be a member of this committee, because I felt I was wasting my time.

[English]

The Chairman: I just have a point of information. René, you're aware that the minister has responded to the Think Rural! report, which I believe you're referring to, and he had said he would come to our committee to present his response. So I definitely want to put this on the list of things for us to discuss.

• 0925

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Mr. Chairman, if I may, it's been two years. That's a fact. The Minister can come here and tell us that he is very concerned about the situation, but when nothing has been done after two years, we have to ask ourselves some serious questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, okay. Fair enough. The response from the minister came in June past.

Next I had Gilles.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have two things, because I have to leave for another meeting.

If you go back to last year, I had brought up the subject of having the president of the Treasury Board appear in front of our committee to talk about estimates. It was agreed that he would meet with us at a future date and all of that, but then Parliament adjourned for the summer and we never had the time to go through that. So I would like it very much if at some time in the near future the president of the Treasury Board appeared in front of this committee to talk about estimates. That's my first subject.

The second subject is that there is a little bit of controversy about Parliament Hill renovations. So maybe not this morning, but in the near future, like next Tuesday or Thursday, if we have two committee meetings per week, we could discuss this subject to see if we could get Mr. Gagliano to come in front of this committee to discuss his new report that came out about two weeks ago, I think.

That's all for me.

The Chairman: Okay.

Dave and then Christiane.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): I'd just like to express support for continuing work on the Kyoto accord. If we're going to have any influence on the government's implementation plan due in the fall of 1999, it's important that we stay on top of this issue and that as the 15 tables report, we have the chairs of those tables come before the committee so we hear what position they've come to. I don't know if it has the immediate urgency that perhaps the post office issue does, but certainly I wouldn't like to see us let that slip away. We should stay with it.

The Chairman: Christiane and then John.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I also think it's a good idea to look into the cost of the renovations that are being done on the Hill. I believe a report has been tabled. A number of concerns were raised about expenses associated with the ongoing renovations. This concerns me quite a bit, given the cuts that have been made in many areas, particularly to social programs. I would like to know which budget these expenses will be coming out of.

[English]

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Duncan: I don't want to try the patience of the committee, but I did want to respond just briefly to Roy on his concern about the jurisdiction of Foreign Affairs and this committee in terms of the softwood lumber agreement. All I'd like to say is that Foreign Affairs is very outward-looking. They have lots of priorities on their plate. They are not ever going to prioritize running around getting domestic industry to talk about their problems and soliciting their input.

We are supposed to be the master of our own fate, as a committee, and I think we're ideally suited to do that thing. And beyond that, Foreign Affairs does have a current posture, which is that the softwood lumber agreement brings certainty and stability and is good for both countries. That increasingly is looking like a very dubious statement indeed. So maybe we could offer a wake-up call as a committee.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any further comments from members?

Pierre de Savoye, who's a member, along with Christiane, mentioned two items to me that I said I would mention at the meeting. One, he wanted on the list for our consideration further processing in the mining sector. We're mining all these minerals, but to what extent are we further processing them into finished products? This is of course also a forestry issue.

His second item was, on the Kyoto question, the specific item of emissions trading. I think Roy had mentioned that last spring too, as an item within the whole picture that might be worthy of consideration, because it will become something our industries will have to live with, if indeed that system is implemented.

• 0930

By way of winding up, a few other things didn't come up in your discussions.

I just want to bring to your attention that among the past items, some members were interested in the Royal Canadian Mint. You've received notice—at least past members did—that by a motion of this committee, a request was made to the minister for documents. The clerk received documents to about yea high. Not all were in both languages, and according to our rules—and I will distribute a copy of the committee's rules, just to remind you—we couldn't distribute them in one language. So they're at translation right now, and it will be some weeks before we receive them back, but in due course, those documents will be available.

There was a letter from Mr. Caccia, which some of you received, having to do with something happening in Europe vis-à-vis the concerns over forestry. I'm not sure if the letter would find much favour here—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: But in any event, being an honest fellow, I just wanted to remind you that we had a letter.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I don't think we have too much to worry about in terms of agenda items.

Mr. David Chatters: What about this letter, Mr. Chairman? Did we receive it?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. David Chatters: Oh, all right.

The Chairman: Maybe Marc can send out another copy.

An hon. member: I think that would be a good idea.

An hon. member: I don't remember it.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll send you another copy.

I just want to bring to your attention that we have some legislation in the pipeline. I don't know which one will reach our table, but whatever legislation comes to us, it has priority, because our first job is to deal with legislation. We didn't have very much last year, but we might have some this fall, so whenever it comes to our attention, we'll have to find a way to slot it into our work as quickly as possible.

We also had some meetings last year on technology in the natural resources sector.

But we will have lots of work to do based on the discussions we had here this morning. Again, on what René said, the minister did give his response to Think Rural!. I think we received it in June, and he indicated to me that he would be pleased to come to the committee at some point in time.

Roy.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chair, did we ever finish our report on technology?

The Chairman: No, that's a big one. It's an ongoing study.

If there are no other comments, I would encourage members to consider the items that were raised here today, mull over them next week, and come ready Tuesday, October 20, with sleeves rolled up, to make some decisions on what's first, second, third, and so on.

Dave and then John.

Mr. David Chatters: I gather we're going to operate as a committee of the whole rather than a steering committee.

The Chairman: Yes. Thank you for reminding me of that. For new members, when we first met after the last election, we agreed, because we're two committees in one, to work as a committee of the whole and not create a steering subcommittee. We have two big areas that are quite distinct, and this way every member can feel involved in the planning of the committee's work. So in the absence of a major move to change that, I assume we would stay with that.

I will distribute the motions we passed last year. Maybe the clerk could do that now. Among them are the motions on how we do our proceedings, such as 48 hours for notice of motion and translation into both languages. That kind of material is in these motions, so at least you know what the current rules are. If you want to change them, you have to do them as a whole committee.

John.

Mr. John Duncan: I just wanted to talk about this correspondence. Do I understand that all members have received a copy of this?

The Chairman: That's the one from—

Mr. John Duncan: The one from Charles Caccia.

The Chairman: Yes, that's the one I'm referring to. I understood everybody got that.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I haven't seen it.

Mr. John Duncan: I would just like to—

The Chairman: Do you want to give the flavour of it, John?

It was distributed to all past members, but maybe John could just give us a quick précis and then we'll make sure all members get a copy.

Mr. John Duncan: Basically what this letter is talking about is the fact that the Council of Europe has a resolution before it talking about the deforestation of temperate rain forests.

• 0935

I've read that resolution; I have a copy of the resolution. It's very specific to British Columbia and to coastal British Columbia, but the way I read it is that all parts of Canada are cutting old growth, with the exception maybe of the Maritimes, so this is a pan-Canadian issue potentially. Eighteen European parliamentarians have signed this motion that would essentially initiate a boycott of Canadian forest products.

Many people call the Council of Europe the European Parliament, and that's not correct. The Council of Europe is not the European Parliament. I want to make that very clear. I had to clarify that for myself. So this is not a European Parliament initiative.

However, I do understand that one of the eighteen European parliamentarians—and that's not in this letter, by the way—a Mr. Staes, who is the first signatory on that motion, is planning a trip, a delegation, to Canada this year. It would be appropriate for this committee to write and say that if he's coming with a delegation to this country, we would like to meet him.

So can I make that a motion?

The Chairman: No motions today, but—

Mr. John Duncan: Notice of motion?

The Chairman: Yes, a notice of motion, and then bring a motion on October 20, okay?

Mr. John Duncan: Okay. And I'll bring that resolution as well.

The Chairman: Did the resolution pass?

Mr. John Duncan: No. They haven't even discussed it.

The Chairman: This is why I think we have to be careful.

Mr. John Duncan: And I don't think it is going to pass, but it's still important that we be a watchdog on it.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

Roy.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen this letter, but it would be useful to talk to Charles. I've done some work with Charles on the Council of Europe, and we had another issue, the asbestos issue, on which they made resolutions.

You're right that it's not the European Parliament—it's the Council of Europe—but it does carry some weight. We did some extensive lobbying the last time on asbestos, and we should find out the status of this. When the parliamentary assembly comes up, it might be useful to have someone go with the delegation to track this one and lobby against this resolution. We can often find other member states that might have interests similar to ours, but you have to work the back rooms. We did that reasonably successfully with asbestos; we should do it on this as well.

Mr. John Duncan: Maybe we could send one person from each party in a delegation.

The Chairman: I was going to suggest that at the very least, John and Roy, you could do a little extra homework and help us with that in preparation for our business meeting on October 20. Both suggestions have a lot of merit—the invitation to the delegation and doing something at the assembly.

Dave.

Mr. David Chatters: For anybody who hasn't been involved in the committee over a fairly long period of time, in the last Parliament this committee did do a pretty extensive study on the issue of clear-cutting in the rain forest in British Columbia. That's certainly worth a read.

Also, a number of us did take a tour just a week ago, courtesy of the woodworkers' union and the forestry industry in British Columbia, of those rain forests. I know there's an invitation out as well for government members to do that same tour, and I certainly would recommend it. That tour is very worth while if we're going to get into this issue or meet with this person when he brings his delegation to Canada. It was a really good tour and gave us a real understanding.

I know that you have an invitation, Brent, to do that, and it certainly is good.

The Chairman: The committee does.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes.

The Chairman: There's an important issue there of sending to our European friends the right message about our forest practices.

Our researcher, Jean-Luc, just received some talking points on the Council of Europe's motion, and we have it in two languages. He will send this to all members, along with the motion, which I understand has not passed yet, but better to deal with this before they get too far down the pipe on it.

So I'll give this to you, Jean-Luc, to distribute to members, with Marc's help.

Are there any other comments on that particular issue? Maybe I will just conclude then.

• 0940

So you'll have a copy of the rules—

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Could we have that paper now from the researcher?

The Chairman: He only has the one copy, I think.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Oh, okay.

The Chairman: Make sure Ms. Phinney gets one too.

My list here is pretty well complete. I wish you a very safe, happy, and hardworking break. I come here to Ottawa for a break before I go back to my riding.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I look forward to a stimulating and fruitful discussion on October 20.

Our meeting times will be, as last year, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. We will keep both those slots. I expect that, having two committees in one, we'll need both those meetings per week. We only have 13 sitting weeks between now and the Christmas break.

With that, I'll call the meeting adjourned and see you on the 20th.