Proceedings of the Special Committee of the Senate on
the Cape Breton
Development Corporation (1997)
Issue 1 - Evidence - February 19 sitting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 19, 1997
The Special Senate Committee on the Cape Breton Development Corporation met this day at 3:45 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Dr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.
As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chairman of the committee. The floor is now open to receive nominations.
Senator Stanbury: I move that Senator Rompkey be the chair.
Mr. O'Brien: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Stanbury that the Honourable Senator Rompkey be the Chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. O'Brien: Carried. I invite Senator Rompkey to take the chair.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, thank you for your overwhelming vote of confidence.
The reconstitution of this committee is a recognition of the commitment we made in our earlier report that we would meet again to conclude our work. Therefore, it is quite in order that we do so.
Kevin Kerr, from the Library of Parliament, is with us again. He has told me that he has prepared an update. He has it in English only at this point. I am in your hands as to whether we should circulate the English version only or wait until we have a translation. I need some guidance on that point. I think it would be good for us to have in our hands as soon as possible the update that Kevin has prepared.
Could I have an expression of opinion on that?
Senator Corbin: You are not respecting the Official Languages Act, but I will look the other way.
Senator Stanbury: I assume that the French version will follow.
The Chairman: Yes, it is being translated and will follow.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will, of course, discuss how we will proceed in future, but it is my hope that we can conclude in reasonably short order.
Senator Murray: We have a deadline imposed by the Senate.
The Chairman: Yes, that is true.
Without further ado, let us get on with the agenda. The next item is the election of the deputy chair. I am open to receiving nominations.
Senator MacDonald: I move that Senator Murray be the deputy chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
The Chairman: I will now entertain a motion that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee to be designated from time to time after the usual consultations.
Is there a nomination for the remaining position on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure?
Senator Corbin: I nominate Senator Stanbury.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The second part of the motion is that the subcommittee be authorized to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings. I am open to an expression of opinion on that.
Senator Murray: It is the usual practice, is it not?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Murray: It worked well last time, did it not?
The Chairman: It did.
Senator Murray: Why not do it again?
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next motion is with respect to printing the proceedings of the committee. It is suggested that 200 copies be printed for distribution. Can I have a motion that the committee print 200 copies of its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to adjust this number from time to time to meet demand?
Senator Milne: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I need a motion that, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Stanbury: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I next need a motion that the committee request the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to the committee and that the chair be authorized to direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports. May I have such a motion, please?
Senator Moore: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I need a motion that, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the chair or, in the chair's absence, the deputy chair; and that, pursuant to Guideline 3:05 of Appendix I of the Rules of the Senate, no account be paid by the committee unless certified in accordance with section 34 of the Financial Administration Act by the chair, the deputy chair or the clerk of the committee.
Senator Corbin: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next motion needed is that, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses' expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses to no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application. Do I have a motion to that effect?
Senator De Bané: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: A motion to approve the budget is now in order.
Senator Murray: It is a motion for emergency funds to get us going.
The Chairman: It is an initial budget of $10,000, including a communications consultant, working lunches and dinners, video conferences and witnesses' expenses. We can tailor that as we go along, but that will get us going. We may not spend it all.
Do I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Corbin: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item on the agenda is the work schedule. It might be advisable to request permission from the Senate to sit at 3:30 in the afternoon for the duration of the study, even though the Senate may be then be sitting.
What is your pleasure, honourable senators?
Senator MacDonald: It is fine as far as it goes. Will we be travelling?
Senator Buchanan: I have a motion to make, Mr. Chairman. Before I do so, I should like to explain.
It was my understanding when we last met that we had discussed travelling to one particular area since there is more impact from Devco in Cape Breton than anywhere else. We had discussed in the fall or last spring that the committee would travel to Cape Breton so that interested parties who may apply to the committee could be heard.
We also discussed the committee going to Cape Breton where members of the committee who so desired could take a tour of the Phelan colliery to see what a coal mine is like, in particular this coal mine which, quite frankly, will be the problem coal mine over the next number of years. That is not just my opinion but that of others. I will not get into a discussion on it now.
I have been to Cape Breton many times since this committee last met. People there fully expect that this committee will allow them a hearing right on site in Cape Breton. To hold meetings in Ottawa is fine. However, to ignore the fact that the problem will be in the coal mines of Cape Breton, and in particular the Phelan colliery, as well as Prince, would be very wrong for this committee to do.
The coal industry of Eastern Canada is in Cape Breton. In my opinion, it is vitally important that this committee, even if we are there for just a few of days, at least recognize the fact that this is where coal is mined. This committee's objective should be to look at the coal mines of Cape Breton, to listen to those people, the municipal people, the pensioners' groups, and representatives of the union and management. It seems absurd to me that all these meetings be held in Ottawa when some should be held in Cape Breton.
I move that, prior to March 11, this committee travel to Cape Breton. I will not specify the number of days that we be there, but just that we travel to Cape Breton and hold hearings in Cape Breton to allow those people who have a vital interest in the coal mining industry to be heard.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Buchanan. Is there someone to second the motion?
Senator Murray: I second the motion, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Buchanan, would it be prudent to travel on our own travel points?
Senator Buchanan: We could do that. I have no problem with that. I think it is important that we travel to Cape Breton. If this were a matter specifically affecting some part of Ontario, this committee would travel there. Just because it is in Cape Breton, there is no reason why the committee should not travel there. There have been hearings in Nova Scotia and other areas affected by the fishing industry. The coal industry is vital to the economy of Nova Scotia, but specifically the economy of Cape Breton. Why should there be a difference? If it means we travel on our own points, that is fine, but let us hold a meeting in Cape Breton.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, the idea of going to where the constituents live is something absolutely normal. I should like to remind honourable senators that there should be some consistency in this regard.
Two weeks ago, in Vancouver, I attended meetings of one of the Senate committees, precisely because the people interested in the issue live on the Pacific Coast. However, the costs of the air travel and the hotel expenses was borne by the committee. Those costs formed part of the budget of the committee.
When we go to Cape Breton, why do the expenses have to come from each member's budget? Why should there not be a regular budget such as we have for hearings which are held in other parts of the country? This is my only point.
I understand that Senator Buchanan has no objection to using our points.
Senator Buchanan: I have no problem with that. Another good example is the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce which will travel to the three provinces affected by the HST. In fact, the hearings will begin on March 1. I know that the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has travelled to those areas where there are concerns about the environment. We have just come back from Banff, Alberta where there is a plan about some changes to the national park. The committee went to the spot where the concerned people were. We listened to those people who prepared briefs.
The committee also travelled to certain wilderness areas in Canada because the concern is with what is happening to designated wilderness areas. We did not talk about it here in Ottawa; we went to those areas to listen to the concerns of people in those areas.
I think every senator in this room could name all kinds of committees that have travelled to the area where the concerns for a specific matter are being discussed. There is nowhere in Canada where there is more concern about the coal industry than in Cape Breton. That is where it is. That is where the 2,300 men and women live who, in one way or another, will be affected by decisions made here in Ottawa.
Why are we so concerned about going to Cape Breton?
Senator Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned about going to Cape Breton. I would love to do just that. What I am concerned about is that it seems to me we are talking about making this into a repeat of the original committee, whereas all we said we would do this fall is update what we had learned in the full investigation we made. In other words, Senator Buchanan, as I understand it, we are monitoring the effect of our report.
Senator Buchanan: You are not going far enough.
Senator Stanbury: That is the express purpose of what we are doing now. It was not to do a whole new study of the matter, which is what we did the last time. Did we travel last time?
The Chairman: No.
Senator Stanbury: If, when we were doing the whole shebang, we did not travel, and if we were able to do it successfully and to come up with the report that we came up with, then surely it is not necessary to travel to do the monitoring or to update the report that we have.
Besides that, that is getting to be a little bit old hat in terms of expenses, technology and everything else. As the budget has already provided, we could have teleconferencing. We do not need to have the witnesses come to Ottawa; we can hear them via teleconferencing, something which several committees have found to be perfectly adequate. I know from some other experiences I have had which have involved Australia, Chicago and Toronto. They have been excellent.
It seems to me that we are casting too broad a painting with too broad a brush when all that we intended to do was to get together to monitor what has happened as a result of our report.
Senator MacDonald: In speaking to that, there is one thing I want to say which is important. I do not know what you do to set a fire under the provincial and the federal governments. There are those of us who have been convinced that the feasibility of the opening of the Donkin mine is one of the only insurance policies available to the coal industry in Cape Breton. One of the ways in which you will get attention to this matter is by rattling the doors in New Waterford and Glace Bay, the coal areas of Cape Breton. In a few minutes, I will make another motion which will draw more attention to that fact.
There was no witness who I remember who said, "Forget Donkin." It was quite the contrary. Anne McLellan, that tough-talking woman, gave them five years to live, as long as there was not a rock fall, a flood or anything else. Well, they have already had that. There is no progress being made as to how much a feasibility study would cost, let alone who will pay for it. That is very important.
Senator Stanbury: I was drawing attention, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is a valid point, to the fact that we are now talking about casting our inquiries much more broadly than was the intention when we made our report.
Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, first, I hope we do not divide on this, although if we do, we do; we will not be worst friends or enemies as a result. When the committee sat last spring, we were able to bring in a unanimous report. We conducted our business on a quite a bipartisan basis. Because I thought there was some urgency to the matter, I agreed that we would be better advised to have our meetings here and to concentrate on that. I feel we should go to Cape Breton this time. There was quite a number of questions asked last time as to why we could not, when Senate committees go to various other parts of the country on similar missions.
It is a limited agenda this time, I think, but not as limited as Senator Stanbury suggests. The first thing we have to do, we said in our report, is obtain some information that we did not have about the plan. As we adjourned last time, we were still seeking information that I think has not come to us.
Second, we do want to monitor their progress with this plan. There have been three quarterly reports since we reported, and we should look at those.
We will want to talk to the management and to the union, at least those two parties, about progress that has been made.
Then, of course, there are the recommendations that we made. I think we have a right to know from the appropriate bodies whether they have accepted, rejected or simply shelved our recommendations. I will not take you through all of them now, honourable senators. One of them, Senator MacDonald has just mentioned, that is, that the company, Devco, and the province of Nova Scotia, do a feasibility study of Donkin. We have to know whether Donkin is a viable proposition or not. If it is, then there is an insurance policy. If it is not, then the government has some very serious decisions to make about the future because the present operation of Phelan, I think, is a dubious proposition.
We have to get into that at least with the management. We have to find out whether they are prepared to go ahead with a feasibility study even. So far nothing has been done.
Second, there was a recommendation. Some of you will recall the discussion here between Senator MacEachen and I on the question of how much money the federal government should put up to take off the books of Devco an obligation for past social costs that ought not to be there. We settled upon something like $40 million, I believe. I am not aware that a decision has been made by the government on that matter. I think we would want to know the position of the government on that.
We will have a discussion in due course about whom we should hear. Certainly, we need to hear from management, the union, the minister and, perhaps, the government of Nova Scotia.
Last time, we heard from the municipalities and various other people. My own view is that it would not be necessary to retrace all that ground. I do not want to preclude the possibility of hearing witnesses other than company, union and governments, but that is what I have in mind at the moment. There may be others we will want to bring in, recognizing that we have a deadline. We want to bring in a report and we would like to bring in one on which the government can take a position. There is not much time.
I think we should go to Cape Breton, if only for a day or two, as Senator Buchanan suggests. We should be there, present on the ground, hear from the management and the union and, perhaps, others, and meet some real, live Cape Bretonners. We should at least go to a pit head where those who are interested in going down to visit a coal mine can do so.
I went under the first time when I was 10 years old. I have been there several times since. I do not know whether I am ready for another descent. Those who are interested can go.
I think we should go to Cape Breton if only for a couple of days to hear some witnesses.
Senator Buchanan: I wish to comment on what Senator Stanbury said. It is my recollection from our last meetings in the spring that we did not discuss going to Cape Breton. You may recall that we said jokingly to Ron Ghitter and a few others that it would be good for some westerners to go into a real, live coal mine in Cape Breton. I recall vividly that Senator MacEachen said that would not be a bad idea. That is why we did not just say, "Here are the parameters of what we will do." We did that; however, we also ended up saying that, when we meet again, we will discuss travelling to Cape Breton. I remember that clearly.
It is the right thing to do. I have not been here as long as some of you others, but I cannot recall any committee discussing a very specific matter affecting a very specific part of this country without the committee going to that part of the country. On any committee of which I have been a member, we have done that.
Senator De Bané went to the West Coast because that is where the problem was. Others know that they have gone to other specific areas of this country when the problem was in that area. You cannot tell me that the problem with the Cape Breton coal mines is here in Ottawa.
Senator Corbin: When the question of the shortline in Cape Breton came before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport, the committee did not go to Cape Breton. It does not happen all the time.
Of course, I must say that I am here today at the committee and I will be gone tomorrow. You all understand why I am here today. Your first objective would be to consider the status of the whole question. In that sense, I would think that your motion, Senator Buchanan, is probably well-intentioned but probably premature today.
It seems to me that your first task ought to be to go over the information gathered by the committee researchers and talk to some people who can easily access Ottawa and then, after that, if you still wish to travel, then the committee can probably examine the question. That is the way I see it.
Senator Buchanan: We only have until March 11.
Senator Corbin: When do you propose to hold your first working meetings?
The Chairman: I propose today to have a meeting of the steering committee. We must begin to work the week after next. We are down next week. We must use the following week to take evidence and then do our report. It has to be translated. It is not just a matter of putting a few words on paper.
I agree with Senator Murray. These are the people we want to hear. We do not want to hear from a lot of people. We have to be thorough. We cannot just do a whitewash job. We do not have a great deal of time. I foresee using the week after next to do our work.
Senator Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, Senator Buchanan's suggestion, I think, would be wonderful, but that is not what our job is now. That is not what we laid out for ourselves in the report that we made. We did a broad job on the whole problem. We came up with a quite lengthy and sophisticated report. The purpose of the meeting today is to monitor whether that has been implemented. If not, why has it not been implemented?
If we are to get into a whole new investigation, including visits to mines and all the kinds of things you would do on a normal, broad investigation, then we need much more time. That is the other thing that indicates that it was never intended that we would do a broad investigation again. If that had been the case, we would not have been given such a limited amount of time. It is the narrow amount of time that we have and the narrow mandate that we have from our own report that makes me feel that we do not need to do the elaborate job that we have been discussing.
We need to talk to the people involved. I agree with Senator Murray's description of them. They are all perfectly capable of getting in front of a television set and discussing it with us or coming to Ottawa. It is less expensive and just as effective if we do it by teleconferencing. I am only expressing what I understood was the purpose of this particular get-together.
The Chairman: Are there further comments? I certainly do not see a consensus here as far as travel is concerned.
Senator Murray: We have stated that we are in favour of travel. I let the government know informally before we came to this point that I thought this time we should travel, if only for a day or two. Some of us are on the record publicly in the various meetings in Cape Breton. If we are voted down, so be it, but I have to tell you that we will look for an instruction from the Senate to let us travel. We did this once without going there. I cannot explain to the people down there why we cannot go for a day or two to have hearings.
I am not looking to provide a soap-box to everyone who would like to have at the government or have at the management of Devco. It is up to the steering committee to decide who we hear, but we should show some recognition of the problems that are being faced there and the insecurity that is being felt there by those people. Our last report was well received. Our hearings were well received.
Senator MacDonald: Although they were not as well publicized as we would have liked.
Senator Murray: The fact that the committee has been revived has been well received. I think to defeat a motion to travel would give an impression that we do not want to give.
Senator Buchanan: Senator Murray mentioned insecurity. I want to tell you there is lots of it down there. I am not sure if you have been following what has happened. I do not know if you know that the Nova Scotia Power Corporation just last month brought 50,000 tonnes of coal in to Mulgrave from the United States to be used in the Lingan generating plant. The reason they gave was interesting. They said they did not have much confidence in the Phelan colliery. It was down at the time because of rock falls and, therefore, the power corporation, even though they were told by Devco that it would supply the coal, went ahead and brought in 50,000 tonnes from the United States. They also have made it clear that because of their concerns of delivery from Devco, they will not even discuss what they may do at the end of the five-year contract. Senator De Bané is well aware of those five-year contracts.
At the end of this present five-year contract, they have not indicated they are even prepared to continue the contract with Devco. A good signal, of course, was bringing in 50,000 tonnes of coal for the power corporation. That is the first time I have heard of the power corporation, or the power commission before it, doing that. The only other time that coal was brought in to Cape Breton was for the Sydney steel plant to mix coals to give it a better metallurgical grade. If you want a signal as to what may or may not happen in the future in the Cape Breton coal fields, that is it. I saw the ships coming in.
There is a lot of uneasiness and insecurity in Cape Breton about this happening. They really believe that here in Ottawa the idea of going ahead with the new Donkin colliery is a fait accompli -- that it will not happen. I have been in coal mines, as has Senator Murray. I will tell you that if that Phelan colliery lasts five years, they will be lucky. They are having rock falls all the time. The most serious one was last year. There was another serious one not long ago. If you talk to the miners there, they will tell you that it is getting to the point where the Phelan colliery will not last long. We have had estimates anywhere from 8 to 10 to 15 years. Forget those estimates. It is not going to last that long and we will end up with Prince, and the Donkin mine will be just something in the past.
If the coal industry of Cape Breton goes down, let me tell you, the steel plant, in my humble opinion -- and I have lived with the damn thing for years -- is finished. There is another 800 people gone, plus over 1,200 people will be unemployed. If the coal industry goes, we will lose 2,300 direct jobs; and for every direct job there are about three indirect jobs. A lot of jobs will be lost in industrial Cape Breton which, as Rusty MacLellan would tell you, is hovering around the 30-per-cent to 32-per-cent unemployment mark.
The Chairman: I certainly agree there is a vulnerability and an insecurity there. I do not think anyone disputes that. I think everyone here wants to take the issue seriously and do a thorough and credible job. I hope we do not let this issue divide us seriously, but there is a division, and I personally think we might as well get on with this issue and then put it to bed and get on with the work.
Senator Buchanan: I had not finished. If you want to give any hope to anyone in Cape Breton, this committee could at least give them some hope in the sense that there are people who are thinking of them who want to see that the right thing is done for them. However, by sticking up here in, as they say, the ivory towers of Ottawa, and by ignoring them, we are not giving them any hope.
The Chairman: The consensus that we have just agreed to around the table is that the first report was well received and well thought of. The committee was well thought of. We did not go to Cape Breton, yet we made a report that was well received. It received good reviews. I do not necessarily think that we will be judged only on whether we go there or not.
Senator Buchanan: I for one will find it difficult to tell the people in Cape Breton who are affected that we did not go there because we did so well here in Ottawa. I cannot do that.
Senator Stanbury: I am afraid we will be misrepresenting our purpose if we go down there and give people the hope that we will do something. We are making a reassessment of our original report and we will be seen as doing a job on them. That is not what we should be doing.
Senator Buchanan: I hope we can do something to show them that we are concerned with that part of Canada, that we are so concerned with it that we will actually go to the site.
Senator Stanbury: We are misrepresenting what we are able to do in our present context. We will be raising expectations if we go down there. It may well be that we should be doing this job over again, and doing it very elaborately. We were called together to do a little job of monitoring the effects of our report after roughly a year of activity, and if we suggest that we are able to do a lot more than that in the time that we have available to us, then we are misrepresenting the situation.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Stanbury, "misrepresenting" is a bad word to use. We are not misrepresenting anything.
Senator Stanbury: I am not using it personally at all.
Senator MacDonald: That would be the perception.
Senator Stanbury: That is exactly what I am concerned about, the perception. If we say we will come down and open the whole thing up again, then the perception is that we will be able to do something more about it. If we were doing a whole study again, then you could do something more about it. However, our mandate is to look at our former report, based on the investigations we did to prepare that report, and monitor the progress that has been made on the fulfilment of our recommendations. That is all we have been told to do and that is all our mandate is. We only have until March 11 to do it. That is where my suggestion of misrepresentation comes in. I do not mean that individually or personally at all. I am just saying that the committee would be misrepresenting what it could do if it were to suggest that it can, in the limited time we have available and with the limited mandate we have, redo everything. We cannot go down the mines and redo the whole thing. That is just the way it strikes me.
Senator Murray: For what it is worth, over the course of the last few weeks, I have given a number of media interviews to people down there, and I have outlined, as one member of the committee only, what I saw as the role of the committee now in virtually the same words that I used today. It is to follow up on certain recommendations, monitor progress, et cetera. I went on to say that I thought it would be useful in that light for the committee to do this time what it did not do last time, that is, visit the site. We are talking about a couple of days and a limited number of witnesses. I find it -- to repeat myself -- hard to justify not going when we have gone to Newfoundland on Term 17 and to the West Coast on something else. It has become quite a practice of Senate committees to travel. Perhaps they should not, but that is a general question. I do not think we should make an exception. It is well within our time frame, given the role that I see -- and I think we all see -- for the committee this time. We can do this. We can hear the necessary witnesses. We can get the information we need. We can make a report and have it in by March 11. I hope and believe that it would not be necessary to seek any extension.
The Chairman: We have had an expression of opinion. I still see a division. There is a motion on the floor. Should we go now to the question?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion by Senator Buchanan is that we travel to Cape Breton. All in favour, raise your hands, please?
I see three senators in favour of the motion.
Will all those who are opposed to the motion, please raise their hands?
There are three opposed to the motion.
Are there those who want to abstain?
There is one abstention. The vote is three to three, with one abstention.
Senator Murray: The chairman has not voted.
Senator Buchanan: Cape Breton is fairly close to Newfoundland.
Senator Murray: In committee, the chairman has a right to vote.
Mr. O'Brien: He has a right to vote with everyone.
Senator De Bané: Not after the vote has been held.
The Chairman: I have not called a decision, have I?
Senator De Bané: The clerk asked for those who are in favour and for those who are opposed to raise their hands.
The Chairman: If there is an even number, my understanding is I have an opportunity now to break the tie.
Mr. O'Brien: No, Mr. Chairman. You have to vote when the yeas are called, or when the nays are called or when the abstentions are called.
Senator Stanbury: Is the motion lost, then?
The Chairman: The motion is defeated.
Senator MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the clerk can tell us who voted against this motion.
Mr. O'Brien: The Honourable Senators Milne, Corbin and Stanbury voted against the motion.
Senator MacDonald: I do not want to dig my feet in here, but have you got proxies?
Mr. O'Brien: I have membership changes from these honourable senators.
Senator MacDonald: You have. Who is Senator Milne representing?
Mr. O'Brien: Senator Anderson. Senator Corbin is representing Senator Gigantès.
Senator Murray: Let us move on. We will consider our position. We can always ask for instruction from the Senate.
Senator Stanbury: That would be necessary at any rate.
The Chairman: My suggestion is that we have a meeting of the steering committee. It has been basically laid out what the work plan should be.
I propose that we have our meetings the week after next and that the steering committee meet to decide on a schedule of witnesses. Senator Murray has already indicated those witnesses he anticipates calling.
Senator Murray: I have not had a chance to consult colleagues.
The Chairman: I would concur with what you have said. Our course of action from here is fairly straightforward. We would have a steering committee meeting, but aim at the full committee meeting the week after next.
Senator MacDonald: I have another motion to make.
I move that we seek the permission of the full Senate for the purpose of having our hearings televised and open to whatever media, electronic or otherwise, wherever we are.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator MacDonald that our meetings be covered by the media. We did that last time. Presumably, we can do the same thing again.
Would you want to add to your motion, Senator MacDonald, the use of video conferencing, as necessary?
Senator MacDonald: Sure.
Senator Corbin: That is already provided for in the budget.
The Chairman: All right. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion of Senator MacDonald?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Are there any further motions or issues?
Senator MacDonald: Two months ago, when I spoke to Senator Graham about the reconstitution of this committee, I will not say he pleaded with me, but he asked me to put it off, on two occasions. I must say, colleagues, that it is as though you came today with instructions as opposed to hearing the reasons. This kind of baffles me. I do not understand it.
It is true that we did not travel on the shortline railways issue, Senator Corbin, but we did go to Stephenville, Newfoundland, on what I thought was a quixotic errand. We succeeded and we received a tremendous amount of appreciation and publicity. I do not know how else we could have done it.
I cannot see a rationale for opposition to this motion. I know the motion is passed. However, it cannot be political. I do not think that Mr. Dingwall and Ms McLellan are losing sleep at night. They hold the two safest Liberal seats in Canada.
Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, there will be a problem now with the scheduling. You want to get going the week after next. I agree with that. However, the decision -- if we so decide, and we will decide soon -- to ask the Senate for an instruction on travel would have to be out of the way before we schedule witnesses. As of now, we have only permission to sit in Ottawa. We would want to seek instruction from the Senate that we go to Cape Breton.
I flag that as a slight problem for the steering committee. In terms of the witnesses, I am not sure we need a steering committee. You should advise the minister that we would like to hear from her, possibly toward the end of our hearings and whether that is in Ottawa or in Cape Breton is up to her.
You should advise the management of the corporation, whether it is the chairman, the president, both or whomever they want to send, that we would want to hear from them and the president of Local 26 of the mine workers union.
I leave it at that for the moment because I have not had a chance to consult with colleagues. This Donkin issue is something, as Senators MacDonald and Buchanan indicated, with which we take the utmost gravity. We may want to hear from somebody else on that. I do not have others in mind. We heard from the municipalities the last time. We heard from the different political parties in Nova Scotia the last time.
Perhaps I am speaking out of turn, and I certainly am speaking only as one person, but it would not be necessary to hear the same material from them a second time. I do want to leave open the possibility that, specifically on the Donkin issue, we might want to hear from some experts or somebody who could give us some information.
Senator Buchanan: I want to throw out the name of Dr. William Shaw, as I did before, and we did not hear him.
Senator Murray: He is a former deputy minister of mines in the Government of Nova Scotia.
The Chairman: We will be in the chamber tomorrow. We can see how it goes.
Let us leave the meeting of the steering committee in abeyance for the moment.
The committee adjourned.