Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 1 - Evidence - November 13, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:18 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
François Michaud, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, we have quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty, honour and privilege to preside over the election of a chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that affect.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I would like to nominate Senator Banks for Chair.
[English]
Mr. Michaud: Are there any other nominations? I see none. It is moved by Senator Nolin that Senator Banks do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Michaud: I declare Senator Banks the duly elected chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable senators, I welcome François Michaud, our new clerk of the committee, as well as other new members.
Senator Brown, who is a member of the committee, has told me that he must attend a vote in the West Block and will be along shortly thereafter.
The next order of business is the election of a deputy chair of the committee. Before I make a nomination, I want to move a vote of thanks to our previous Deputy Chair, Senator Cochrane, who has done yeoman service on this committee for many years. I am very glad that she is once again a member of the committee. I solicited Senator Cochrane to accept the office again but she is now the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Therefore, it is my pleasure to nominate Senator Nolin to sit as deputy chair of the committee.
Are there other nominations for deputy chair?
Senator Milne: I move the nominations be closed.
The Chair: Senator Nolin is Deputy Chair of the Energy Committee. Senator Nolin, it is the tradition that the deputy chair sit right here.
Senator Nolin: I will make a deal with you. I will move there if you are able to change the quality of the coffee. Otherwise, I will stay in my present seat.
The Chair: This is an organizational meeting so we will not deal with matters of substance, although I wish to raise some things that we might wish to consider.
We need to establish the steering committee or Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The motion is:
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 after the usual consultations; and
We can do that. Rule 96 of the Rules of the Senate requires that the quorum of the subcommittee be three members. I think senators will take it as a good idea if I propose that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and Senator Spivak, who, I suggest, would be appropriate because of her length of time on the committee. After the usual consultations between the chair the deputy chair and Senator Spivak, we will choose one other member. The motion continues:
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings.
I invite a motion to that effect on the business of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Senator Milne: You are suggesting that there be four people on the subcommittee and that the fourth member will be decided in the future.
The Chair: Yes, that is what I propose. If we have a subcommittee comprised of only three people and a quorum is three, then when one absent, there would not be quorum and the subcommittee would not be able to act properly. This is sort of normal procedure.
Senator Milne: For this committee it is normal. I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Milne:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, the Honourable Senator Spivak and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultations; and
That the Subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the Committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried. Thank you.
The fourth item on the agenda is a motion to print the committee's proceedings:
That the committee print its proceedings; and
That the chair be authorized to set a number to meet demand.
Senator Nolin so moves. All in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried.
The fifth item is on the authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when quorum is not present. The motion is:
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, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
Senator Mitchell so moves. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried.
Senator Brown has arrived as a new member of the committee, and that makes him special.
The sixth item on the agenda is the financial report. The motion is:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 104.
Committee members have that before them now. This reports the expenditures by the committee in the previous session of Parliament. The bottom figure is $18,887, which the committee expended in the previous session of Parliament. The amount is so low because the committee spent its time on a study of CEPA, which required few expenditures. This is a report of fact.
Senator Cochrane moves that the committee adopt the draft first report prepared in accordance with rule 104. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried.
Item number 7 is for the research staff. The motion is:
That the Senate ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel, technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the Chair on behalf of the committee direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
Senator Milne so moves. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Seeing none, the motion is carried.
Item number 8 on the agenda is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. The motion is:
That pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act and section 7, chapter 306 of the Senate Administrative Rules, the authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee; and
That pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and section 8, chapter 306 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee.
Again, this is standard boilerplate but anything is negotiable.
Senator Sibbeston: Does this mean that all of you must be involved in the processing of funds?
The Chair: No. It means that each of us or any one of us alone can authorize the payments or certify the payments.
Senator Sibbeston: I am concerned about the clerk of the committee being able to do that. Should not the chair or the deputy chair have the authority to approve the spending?
The Chair: Ordinarily, anything moved by the committee that is out of the ordinary operation of the committee would be subject to that kind of thing. An example of the kind of expenses that the clerk would approve by himself would be the purchase of coffee, meals and expenses for witnesses. In other words, things those are matters of course within the operation of the committee.
Expenditures beyond that would be approved in our committee's budgets, which are approved by the committee as a whole, and then approved by the committee. Those expenditures cannot go forward until they are authorized by the committee and then by the Senate, so it is pretty safe, Senator Sibbeston.
Senator Sibbeston: I just want to be assured that any major expenditure is really approved and done by you as opposed to leaving it to staff.
The Chair: That would be the normal course of events.
Senator Sibbeston: It is expected that you are the person that will ultimately be responsible. You cannot ever have a situation where you say, ``The clerk did it,'' or, ``I left it to the clerk and he made the commitment'' — passing the buck, as it were. You are the chairman and you are expected to be the person responsible for the funds.
The Chair: Or the deputy chair.
Senator Kenny: The clerk does not approve his own expenses.
The Chair: As a matter of course, yes. We must approve the clerk's expenses.
Senator Adams moves the motion before us. Senator Sibbeston, did that answer your question?
Senator Sibbeston: Yes, it answers my question more or less. I am frankly surprised that some staff would have what seems to me the same level of authority as the chair and deputy chair. That is most unusual in our democratic system.
The Chair: It actually is not that unusual. You will find this motion in the business of every committee of this place, partly for the reasons I mentioned; the clerk approves the ongoing, normal housekeeping items.
Senator Sibbeston: Just because it is common does not mean it is right or that you cannot question it. It does not seem to me that a clerk should have the same level of authority as a chair. I have been in government and I know that ministers and people such as chairs of committees are ultimately responsible for the money and the approval of funds. Therefore, I would not want the situation where the clerk takes over your responsibility. I would not like to see a situation where if anything untoward happens that you can feign irresponsibility by the fact that the clerk did it or that we have given the clerk the same level of authority that you enjoy.
The Chair: Unlike in the case of the government's present moves, if the clerk screwed up, I would be responsible.
Senator Kenny: It is also worth noting that when the accounts are submitted to finance, there is a further check. If the numbers do not look right, finance would bring it to the Clerk of the Senate who would in turn, bring it to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
While I agree with your comments about responsibility, Senator Sibbeston, I think we have a number of checks in the system.
Senator Milne: Perhaps to make it clearer, as I understand it, Internal Economy clears our travel expenditures. The committee itself agrees that we will travel. It is then that the clerk purchases the airline tickets for us to travel. That would be the extent of the clerk's responsibility. The clerk is able to purchase the tickets without one of the committee members returning to Ottawa to sign for the expenditure.
The Chair: That is correct. We would have approved those expenditures as a committee, then Internal Economy would have approved those expenditures and then the Senate would have approved those expenditures. The clerk may not, by definition in respect of what Senator Kenny just said, exceed those expenditures by signing off on anything, nor could I. Are you comfortable with that, Senator Sibbeston?
Senator Sibbeston: If it is the way the system works I accept it. Logically, I do not understand how the clerk can be on the same standing as the chair with respect to responsibility for spending money, approving money and verifying accounts. In our democratic system, the minister is ultimately responsible.
Here, even though on a day-to-day basis authority is given to the clerk, in reality, if anything untoward occurs, you are responsible and not the clerk. I think there is an onus on you to ensure that what the clerk does is proper.
The Chair: That is correct.
Senator Nolin: In departments, that is why there is also reference to the Financial Administration Act. We are following the same type of structure as financial administrations. Think of the summer when nobody is around except for the clerk. It is normal that we work along those lines.
I think the clerk, with respect to the discussion we just had, understands the seriousness of your point and I think it will be well taken.
The Chair: The bottom line is the clerk cannot authorize any expenditure that we have not already approved.
Senator Adams has moved the motion. This is motion number 8, to which I commend your attention. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion is carried.
Number 9 states:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
This is the steering committee, if you like.
Again, this is, as I said about the last motion, standard, but everything is negotiable. I came from 50 years in the music business where record executives and agents always said, ``this is just a standard contract.'' There is no such thing as a standard contract.
Senator Kenny has moved this motion. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion is carried.
Number 10 has to do with designation of committee members who, as opposed to the committee as a whole, may be going to attend on behalf of the committee or with the approval of the committee conventions, conferences and the like.
This motion reads:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1. determine whether any member of the committee is on ``official business'' for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2. to consider any member of the committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is (a) either attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee: or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee.
My previous admonition applies to this motion as well.
Senator Spivak moves this motion. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion is carried.
Number 11 states:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the Committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization, and payment will take place upon application, but that the Chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
Senator Spivak: This does not limit it to Canada.
The Chair: No, ordinarily, the committee wants to hear one representative from an organization, whether an NGO or whomever — this does not include government, by the way — to make that organization's point. Sometimes, rarely, there are extenuating circumstances where a second person might be required to represent that organization. This gives the chair the authority to decide whether that is the case, in which case the organization would be reimbursed for the appearance of two witnesses.
Senator Sibbeston: I notice the wording ``the committee may reimburse'' Is this item purposely worded so that a reimbursement process is not a payment of tickets in advance of the witness appearing before the Senate?
The Chair: The amounts for the payment of such things are set out in the Rules of the Senate, but they include travel expenses.
Senator Sibbeston: I know that. The wording here is ``may reimburse.''
The Chair: They have to apply after the fact.
Senator Sibbeston: They have to pay on their own and then we reimburse them. Is that the standard way of inviting witnesses? Please come to our meeting, you pay your expenses and we will reimburse you.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Sibbeston: If people do not have the funds, is there ever a situation where we pay for their travel expenses in advance?
The Chair: I do not know. That question has never been asked and I do not know the answer.
Senator Kenny: I would assume in those circumstances it would be raised before the committee and there would be some arrangement made to bring them here.
The Chair: It is possible to do. Every committee is its own master, as long as it stays within its approved budget. In the circumstance that you described, the committee could decide to do that.
Senator Milne: We have done that once or twice in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when witnesses from poverty organizations or groups that simply could not afford to come.
The Chair: That would be the nature of your question, Senator Sibbeston.
Senator Sibbeston: Yes.
The Chair: That would be a per-circumstance situation which the committee would decide upon.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate the system, and I am sure the words have been used for a long time, but why not just say ``pay'' rather than ``reimburse''?
The Chair: Normally they have to apply for reimbursement.
Senator Milne: It is not money that ends up in their pocket.
Senator Kenny: Some people come and do not get paid. They choose to come on their own.
The Chair: If they do not apply.
Senator Sibbeston: I respect and appreciate that.
The Chair: Has it been moved? Is there a motion to that effect?
Senator Kenny: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Kenny moves. All in favour of the motion.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you.
The next item concerns electronic media coverage. It states:
That the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings, with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
Senator Cochrane moves the motion. All in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The motion is carried.
Number 14 on the agenda states:
That each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
That latter part happens sometimes, but otherwise it is presumed that even when we are in camera there can be a staff member of each senator present.
Is there a motion to that effect?
Senator Milne: So moved.
The Chair: Senator Milne makes the motion. All in favour of that motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Thank you. That motion is carried.
The time slot does not require a motion. I just call to your attention that this committee meets when the Senate rises on Tuesdays, but not before 5:00 p.m., which means that witnesses are sometimes sitting here waiting until 7:30, and on Thursdays in any event from 8:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.
The meetings will happen either here, which will happen sometimes when there is not television coverage, or in the Victoria Building, when there is television coverage. That is sort of a general rule of thumb. We will try to get television coverage whenever and wherever we can.
That takes care of the necessary housekeeping, senators.
Senator Kenny: Do you know how many other committees we compete with for television coverage in these time slots?
The Chair: I do not know.
Senator Kenny: Perhaps the clerk should check that. We do not have to know now.
The Chair: Mr. Michaud, do you know which committees we are competing with in respect to television coverage at the times of our meetings?
Mr. Michaud: On Tuesdays, it is the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I will find out what other committees this committee will compete with for television coverage.
Senator Kenny: We have two rooms that are televised, and if there are more than two committees, the whips choose between them. At some point, we should have more television coverage.
The Chair: Hear, hear!
Senator Kenny: This committee is often missed because we often meet here. This room can be set up for television as well, and has been so used in the past.
Senator Milne: It used to be all the time.
Senator Kenny: The impact that the committee has is affected significantly by the coverage.
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Kenny: It would be worthwhile looking at the numbers and then perhaps making representations to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Senator Milne: The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry meets on Thursday mornings.
The Chair: Here is at least part of the answer: Foreign Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and Forestry and our committee. In addition to that, though, we are also sometimes competing, as we did in the last session, with special committees such as terrorism, accountability, et cetera, which sometimes meet during these times when they are holding concentrated meetings.
Senator Kenny is right. The fight, if I can put it that way, for coverage of sometimes very interesting procedures in this committee is a tough one. We have to argue, as you have said, with the whips, and they make the eventual decision.
If you are all agreeable, we will make representation at Internal Economy that there should be more capacity in the Senate for the coverage of committee meetings in general.
Senator Kenny: It is pertinent inasmuch as Internal Economy will be making up its estimates for the coming fiscal year within a month. It would make sense for them to think about the costs that are associated with that when they are doing the estimates.
The Chair: They are also considering the general question of televising Senate proceedings in the largest sense. We will carry that forward. Good idea.
Senator Adams: The people who sometimes move the cameras around, like CPAC, we have to pay them too. What is the difference between them? Quite a few people attend our Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. What are the costs to set up a third committee room with cameras? How much does it cost for the operators who sometimes come in to cover our committee? There are perhaps three or four operators. What is the cost difference between the cameras in other committee rooms?
Senator Kenny: I think it is fair to say that operators are going the way of the dodo. Almost all television studios operate without camera people. The House of Commons has installed theirs on the wall, just like we have in the bottom of the Victoria Building. One person can control all of the cameras without getting in the way.
Senator Adams: These things are not in use anymore?
Senator Kenny: I think they have stopped using the Airpack systems.
The Chair: I think they are gone. You are talking about the cameras on tripods?
Senator Adams: Yes.
The Chair: I do not think they use them at all anymore.
Senator Adams: That is why we need more room for the cameras.
The Chair: Actually, this room is ideally shaped for remote cameras, if they wanted to go to the expense and trouble.
We will carry that forward, because there should be more discussion.
Senator Adams: I was thinking about the Aboriginal Committee room.
Senator Kenny: Cameras should be there too.
Senator Adams: Other committees use that room as well.
The Chair: Cameras should be permanently installed. We will take that forward.
Honourable senators may have before them an ad hoc list of items that I wanted to look at, particularly for new members. This list is by no means complete, nor is it in any order of perceived importance.
Can we do our order of reference motion today?
Mr. Michaud: Yes, we could.
The Chair: Let us do that.
This is to give you an idea of the kinds of things that we could undertake to do. Some are a little more urgent than others. For example, we definitely want to complete our CEPA review.
The third items concerns the government's proposed revision of liability coverage for nuclear accidents from Minister Lunn. For new members, I will tell you that this committee made a report which referred specifically and made recommendations with respect to the liability for nuclear accidents that Canada carries, and pointed out that it was completely out of whack with the rest of the world.
Minister Lunn has come forward with a bill. I have not read it yet, but it responds in the main to our recommendation. He has asked — and I have not taken this forward yet; I will do so with your approval — that we do pre-study on that bill. That would be an unusual thing. I will not propose that today, but I want you to have that in the back of your mind.
You have before you a draft of the order of reference, which I would ask us to pass now so that we can go to the Senate and ask for its approval of this order of reference.
Senator Kenny: Will we come back to this other item?
The Chair: Oh, yes. Absolutely. It will be in the context of the order of reference, once we get it done. By way of example, Senator Trenholme Counsell and Senator Brown, those items on my little ad hoc list are all the items that fall within the purview of this order of reference that is before us. I commend these items to your attention, and I ask your approval.
This is the order of reference that has been given to this committee by the Senate in the past three Parliaments. It was changed three Parliaments ago to this present form, and it is in the identical form that it existed before. I will read it into the record.
We are asking that the Senate authorize us as follows:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on emerging issues relating to its mandate:
(a) The current state and future direction of production, distribution, consumption, trade, security and sustainability of Canada's energy resources;
(b) Environmental challenges facing Canada including responses to global climate change, air pollution, biodiversity and ecological integrity;
(c) Sustainable development and management of renewable and non-renewable natural resources including water, minerals, soils, flora and fauna; and
(d) Canada's international treaty obligations affecting energy, the environment and natural resources and their influences on Canada's economic and social development.
That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That would include, for example, all of the studies we have done on CEPA, properly held by us. The motion continues:
That the committee report to the Senate from time to time, no later than June 30, 2009, and that the committee retain until September 30, 2009, all powers necessary to publicize its findings.
The language is standard and the dates are normal dates that we have picked, given the beginning of this session of Parliament. This is a motion that we would put before the Senate, with your approval, asking that the Senate authorize this committee to do these things.
Discussion? Questions? Motions?
Senator Kenny: Is there some reason why you have not suggested the end of the fiscal year, which would mean that you would not be caught in June? The likelihood of us sitting at that time is slim.
The Chair: Well, this refers to reports, right?
Senator Kenny: My suggestion is that you push it out.
The Chair: To March 31, 2010?
Senator Kenny: It depends on how long you think the government will last.
The Chair: I think the government will last until October 19, 2009.
Senator Kenny: That is when you should leave it, then.
My other question is about paragraph (c) and whether you want to consider inserting the words after ``including'' in line two ``renewable and natural resources including but not limited to water, minerals, soil,'' et cetera.
The Chair: That is a good idea. Lists, as Senator Nolin pointed out in another meeting this morning, are bad because they are exclusive. The idea of saying ``but not limited to'' is a very good move. Is that a proposed amendment?
Senator Kenny: It is, sir.
The Chair: Senator Cochrane seconds the amendment. Discussion on the amendment? That would be in paragraph (c), which would state:
Sustainable development and management of renewable and non-renewable natural resources, including but not limited to water, mineral, soils, flora fauna; and
That opens it up because there are some other natural resources that might not be included here.
Discussion on the amendment? Question on the amendment? In favour of the amendment of the order of reference? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Now, the order of reference as amended.
Senator Kenny: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Thank you.
The amendment is carried, and we will propose this order of reference forthwith.
Now, to return, Senator Kenny, to my ad hoc list, which is by no means complete and not in any order, it is just an indication to members of the types of items we might want to consider.
Senator Kenny: I do not know, chair, if it is possible for you to give some indication to the committee, as we go down through the list, of how many hours of work you would anticipate or of hearings you would anticipate each item might include. I wonder if you might include whether or not they are items that we can do here, or whether they require travel to another place. If you do not have that information now, perhaps if someone could think about it and tell us at another meeting that would be fine.
The Chair: I had assumed that it would be partly the business of the subcommittee to propose a work plan, but I will respond to your question on the first few items.
With respect to the completion of the CEPA review, we do not need to have any more hearings. I think that all members who have been here through the last session would agree that we do not need to hear anymore witnesses.
However, we do need to deal with approval of the draft report, which is now nearing the point that we can actually look at it. I believe it has been sent to translation. We can deal with that at our first real meeting. The normal process that would take would be three meetings, minimum. They could be three consecutive meetings because we need, first, to go through the draft report to see what we have said, give people a chance to look at whether they agree with that is what we were getting at, and then make some amendments and revisions and then deal with a final version to be translated and then produced. In this case, because we have discussed it at such length, my estimate would be either three or four meetings for that item.
With respect to the proposed migratory birds act, you will recall, senators who were here before, that we infuriated the government of the time and the minister of the time, Mr. Dion, with the length of time we took to look at it. We passed the amendments to the proposed migratory birds act with some reservations and comments. We were not all jumping up and down and happy with some of the provisions of it. We said at the time that we would go back and revisit it to see if any of our reservations were justified, or whether everything was okay.
I think we should do that. When it comes to the time that we should do that, I will propose that. I do not think it would take long — probably two meetings would be my guess for that item. We would hear from witnesses from the shipping industry, for example, and of course witnesses with environmental concerns. But we said we would report on that, and we should.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Has consideration been given to the subject of wind energy? I believe it is a factor. I have seen it.
The Chair: It is. The migratory birds act does not refer to wind generation getting in the way of migratory birds. This had to do with Criminal Code penalties to shipping people, specifically to the master and first engineer of a ship who put out bad bunker oil at midnight in a fog and thought they would not be caught, which killed migratory birds. It puts them in jail. It is a reverse onus law.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Parliament or the Senate has not studied the impact of wind power on migratory birds?
The Chair: We have not studied it specifically. It has been referred to on occasion by some folks who have been here, but we have not talked about it at any length and we have not done a report on it.
The fourth item concerns water issues. You will recall, members who were here and for those members who were not, that we issued a report which got a lot of attraction in the West, called Water in the West Under Pressure. We said at the time that it was an interim report. The pressures now on the Great Lakes are huge, and I will be proposing to the committee, and therefore to you, that we should undertake a further water study having to do with the Great Lakes, which affect the largest part of the population in Canada. The Great Lakes are under severe pressure. The United States are so far ahead of us in dealing with the problems of water in the Great Lakes that it has become a national embarrassment and the Americans are becoming extremely frustrated with us. I will not go into detail but I will be proposing that we deal with that issue. I do not want to go further than that. A study of water in central Canada, including the Great Lakes, would be a very large study.
Senator Kenny, in answer to your question, I think that would take up a large part of what we are doing and would involve some travel. We would have to go and see some things if we were to undertake that study, as we did with the water study in the West. I do not want to be presumptuous and go any further with respect to things that might be on a work plan.
Senator Kenny: Do you anticipate an energy component on the work plan?
The Chair: I do not know how we cannot deal with an energy component. We have dealt with it with respect to emissions, for example.
Senator Kenny: Actually I was thinking of pricing and supply.
The Chair: Yes, and security of supply. With respect to the Arctic, another thing we have to consider is going to the Arctic to look at questions there with respect to development, sovereignty and the like.
Senator Kenny: There is the pipeline that looks like it is going down the drain.
The Chair: That is right. My point is that I want you to think about all these things. I will come to you with a proposed work plan. However, we can go in any one or all of these directions. We just have to be practical in terms of saying between now and next whenever how much time we want to spend on these things. There will be blood on the floor when we decide to prioritize these questions and those things that we are going to deal with, and I have not mentioned, of course, legislation yet. There will be some of that.
Senator Mitchell: I would like to get on the list, Mr. Chairman, if I can. I would like to emphasize a couple of things. I am quite interested in Douglas Tingey of Davis LLP coming to talk about emissions credits. We would not have to take very long and I have heard him speak. He is very knowledgeable on this subject. I think people would find it interesting.
The Chair: I agree.
Senator Mitchell: You have heard him speak as well. It is probably a standard operating procedure that we would review the commissioner's report.
The Chair: That goes without saying.
Senator Mitchell: Third, this is a departure, I have an inquiry on the Order Paper to this effect, but a study into the economic opportunities that arise out of dealing aggressively and successfully with climate change issues, Kyoto for example; the idea that there are tremendous economic opportunities in this area that if we do not grab them and take them then our economy will miss those opportunities. The idea of having an economy of the future, of the 21st century, will in many ways revolve around strong environmental policy and initiative. It is not a study that would look into regulation but rather into what opportunities exist to assist economies in Canada.
The Chair: I think we should do that and that relates to what Senator Kenny was talking about too.
Senator Kenny: When was the last time we did a report card on the government's response to the committee's recommendations?
The Chair: You will see that is the sixth item on my list. We have never done that.
Senator Kenny: It seems to me, if I could make a brief pitch for it, that asking for report cards or asking departments to say ``we put out this report three years ago, what have you done since,'' energizes the whole bureaucracy. They know the committee is serious about the work it is doing and it has a very salutary affect.
I would argue that with most committee reports, it is only the second or third time you go back to the department saying, ``why have you not fixed it,'' or at least ``why can you not come and explain to us why you have not fixed it?'' I think it makes the committee a more effective organization. I cannot think of anything better to energize the bureaucracy than saying we are coming back at this one again and we would like to hear what you have to say.
The Chair: I absolutely agree. Now, we have just talked about two years worth of work. That is where we are, but I absolutely agree that we should do that. It is very effective when we do that. I did not want to get into the matters of substance today but you get the idea of the choices we have to make.
Senator Mitchell: I have just one other thought for the list. It would probably be incumbent upon us to have the minister appear and discuss his progress towards implementing the Kyoto implementation bill.
The Chair: We have to do that.
Senator Mitchell: It will not be a long meeting.
The Chair: We said that we would do that and it would be a very short meeting, but we asked him at the time whether he would and he agreed to appear. Therefore, we have two ministers now who want to appear before us, both Minister Baird and Minister Lunn. This was just for information. It has no effect. I just wanted to give particularly new members a good idea.
If we agree on that, and I thank you for all the housekeeping items we have completed, we can dispense with any further matters at this meeting if that is your pleasure.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We are stopping short of mentioning the Arctic. When I saw that I thought that I do not know what this committee has done vis-à-vis the Arctic climate change and environmental challenges. It seems to me of imminent and critical importance. It is on your list but we did not get to it today. I do not know whether that was intentional.
The Chair: No, I just arbitrarily stopped. Senator Trenholme Counsell, there is nothing on here that is not important and these items are not in any order. We will have to decide our priorities among ourselves.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am not sure how much work this government, the previous government has done. There is being a lot written and a lot said about the Arctic and the environment. I know a little bit about the announcements of our present government, however, I just do not know how seriously the Government of Canada has looked at this issue.
The Chair: Do you mean with respect to the Arctic?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Yes.
The Chair: There have been a lot of words by successive governments of all stripes, a whole lot of words, a whole lot of announcements, a whole lot of rhetoric but not a lot of action.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: With respect to the study, has there been anything in depth done by the federal government?
The Chair: Yes, there have been various studies.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Has this committee done a study?
The Chair: No.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Has the government or an agency done any studies?
Senator Milne: They are presently mapping the ocean bottom, but they have also stopped all over flights for the entire winter.
The Chair: You are quite right, senator, there is not much that is more important to us than that.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I think the questions are what is the truth, what is the reality about temperature change. You would have to define a question. It could not just be broad sweeping.
The Chair: If we are to look at the questions dealing with the Arctic, we will have to go and look at some things. It is very complicated and horribly expensive to travel in the Arctic. Saying we are going to look at the Arctic is like saying we are going to look at Europe. Do you mean Liechtenstein or Spain?
If we intend to do that, we have to be prepared to travel in ways that we are not accustomed to and stay in situations in which we are not entirely accustomed and to be quite uncomfortable some of the time. We will rely on Senator Sibbeston, Senator Adams and Senator Watt to tell us the best time to go there. I have asked them this question before: What is the best time of year to go there? We want to avoid the flies, we want to avoid 40 below and there is a very small window. However, we are going to have to go there to see the stuff. That will cost a great deal of money to do that because we would be travelling, as I said, in extraordinary circumstances.
It is very likely that we would have to travel, for example, by chartered plane of one kind or another but it is no good for all of us to go to Iqaluit where we can fly on a scheduled flight. That will not show us anything. We have to go where Senator Adams and where Senator Watt want us to go. We have to go see that stuff.
Senator Sibbeston: The best time to travel is in the spring, in March, April and May.
The Chair: The flies are not out yet.
Senator Sibbeston: No, and the weather is actually quite good. At that time of year, the weather is steady and constant. At this time of year, the weather is bad. There is a lot of fog.
Senator Adams: It was 37 below in Rankin yesterday.
Senator Sibbeston: There is darkness too. It is getting to be very dark in the Arctic.
The Chair: This is simply food for thought, senators. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. The committee is adjourned until Thursday at 8:30 a.m.
The committee adjourned.