Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 6 - Evidence - April 10, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, met this day at 8:35 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I see a quorum and I call the meeting to order. This is a meeting for which we have given the required notice to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-298. Following that, we will seek approval for a budget, and then we will have a short steering committee meeting.
Is it agreed that the committee now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-298?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall I report the bill to the Senate without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator McCoy: I still have one sneaking suspicion in my mind about this bill, which is that those regulations might be left hanging. The regulations are to do what we hope will be done, which is to eliminate these substances or ban or prohibit them.
The Chair: Or permit their banning.
Senator McCoy: Is it possible to make an observation on the understanding that those regulations will be promulgated forthwith and we can thereby go forward with this?
The Chair: I do not think we need to make an observation to that effect, but we need to diarize it to ensure that it is done within the nine months prescribed in the bill, and we can make sure it is.
The normal process is that the regulations would be published in the Canada Gazette. Then there is time for a response from people. Then I think the regulations would be looked at by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations to ensure that they are consistent with the purpose.
Senator McCoy: However, the regulations that have been proposed are not under this bill at all, the ones that have already been proposed but have not been finalized, which prohibit PFOS, with certain exceptions, which I have not read.
The Chair: The time-based exemptions were proposed and are in place.
Lynne Myers, Analyst, Library of Parliament: They were proposed in 2006.
Senator McCoy: They were proposed in 2006. This is April 2008. They are two months shy of an 18-month limit. Why have they been left hanging all this time?
The Chair: Do we know that?
Senator McCoy: Everyone is going on good faith, and I think certainly officials are hoping to go forward with them. That is the point. We did ask those questions on Tuesday.
The Chair: This was in July 2006, right?
Ms. Myers: December 2006. They told us the other day that they would be the final ones. There is a 60-day comment period, I understand, and they take those comments into account. Then they have 18 months to promulgate the final regulations.
The Chair: They have already been published in the Canada Gazette.
Ms. Myers: Yes, in 2006.
The Chair: The process is entrained, and I am not sure what the process would be to check on it. The timelines are nailed down.
Senator McCoy: Are they mandatory? I do not think the government is obliged to promulgate regulations just because they have put out a draft. There is no way a cabinet minister could be held to that standard or have that kind of a gun at her head.
The Chair: What was the timeline we understand it is likely to happen in?
Ms. Myers: This spring, they said. This is now April.
Senator McCoy: Is it 18 months from the 60-day period?
Ms. Myers: I am not sure of that.
Senator McCoy: It is either June or August. They were introduced in December. Sixty days would start running, and so it is either 18 months from December or 18 months from February 2007.
Senator Milne: I believe the only way we could do anything about that is to keep watching.
Ms. Myers: Call the department back.
Senator Milne: That is right.
Senator McCoy: Perhaps we can introduce the report from the committee. It is not so much an observation, although it might be an observation. I do not know if you do that sort of thing. You might say, ``On faith, we are passing this.''
Senator Milne: You can do that on third reading when you are speaking to the bill.
Senator McCoy: That is the other opportunity.
The Chair: We could do that.
Senator McCoy: That would be the other opportunity for our chair to speak to the issue.
Senator Nolin: Speeches on third reading.
The Chair: Third reading.
Senator McCoy: You could put it on the record — it would be appropriate for you — that the committee passed this on faith, on the understanding that, and so on.
The Chair: That is a good point. We should do that.
Senator McCoy: The trouble with this is that they are on the list, but nothing happens, so it is effectively frozen, in limbo.
Senator Nolin: We can invite them again. We can pass the bill and invite them again in a month for clarification, after the speech. Maybe Senator Milne wants to speak on that. She is the promoter of the bill.
The Chair: Is a month too soon?
Senator Nolin: It will be summer in a month.
Senator Milne: It will be fall before you really have a handle on whether anything has happened.
Senator McCoy: Certainly you could invite them and put them on notice.
Senator Nolin: We could learn why it took a few months.
The Chair: When we discuss the work plan, which will be shortly with the steering committee, let us see if we can find a slot in which we could ask officials to come and tell us about the progress.
Senator Nolin: That does not prevent our colleagues from raising it.
The Chair: They can raise it at any time, including the debate at third reading.
Senator McCoy: That satisfies me. I just think we should raise the flag on it.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator McCoy: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, for this.
We will go to the budget question. There are two budgets, one for legislation and one for special studies. The one for legislation is simple and straightforward and stock, if I can put it that way. Both budgets cover the entire fiscal year until March 31, 2009.
The special study budget, which is a total amount of $288,090, covers the Arctic trip that is forthcoming in some detail. You can see the details on the second page. That is called Activity 1, in addition to which there is a provision for four senators each to attend two conferences over the coming years, or two senators each to attend eight conferences, or however we break that down.
I remind you that with respect to conferences and the like, it is permissible to move dates and events and the numbers of senators attending within the global budget for conferences. We have not given you any examples of the conferences we are talking about, but the gas conference in Calgary and the GLOBE 2000 conference are two typical examples. We will give to examples to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and we will make sure that we have an understanding that we can move within that as long as it is for conferences.
Senator McCoy: Are you thinking that conference fees are typically $1,000?
The Chair: About that, yes.
Senator McCoy: That Arctic gas conference was $2,000.
The Chair: Some are less. Some are $250. It is a sort of average. It is a guess.
Senator Cochrane: You will notify us about the conferences and the dates of them; will you not?
The Chair: Yes. We will come up with a list of conferences that are taking place in the coming year, which we will circulate to everyone. Of course, we do not yet know of all the conferences that will happen in the coming fiscal year, so the list will change from time to time. As we always do, we will look at the list and ask whether anyone interested in going to this conference.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: What is the date of the Arctic trip?
The Chair: June 1.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That is what I have, but I guess my assistant changed it. Is that leaving June 1?
The Chair: Leaving from Calgary on June 1, or Edmonton on June 1.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Until what date?
The Chair: June 5 or 6. We leave on June 1, from either Calgary or Edmonton, and on June 7, we will fly from Whitehorse to Calgary and Edmonton and home from there. It is six days all together, inclusive of the two travel days.
Senator Adams: We had intended to go with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and now we are going separately. We leave Ottawa on June 1 for Iqaluit with the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. I think it should work out okay. Maybe we should change our schedule. Are we going to only three places in the West?
The Chair: Not entirely. We will be going to some places in and around Yellowknife and Whitehorse.
Senator Adams: We changed our time after we met the Arctic polar commission about a week ago in the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. We were going to travel up to Cambridge Bay and back through Inuvik at the beginning, and now we have cancelled that. We will go to Churchill, Manitoba. Then either from Iqaluit or Rankin Inlet, we have to go up to Baffin and back through down through Churchill. We had witnesses from the Arctic polar commission. People from the North, between Canada and Russia, have been talking about wanting to operate 12 months a year in the Arctic and Hudson Bay area and Churchill for tourism and cargo. Now we are going through Churchill and Cambridge and we will miss Inuvik. We were talking about coming back through Tuktyuktuk. Now we have changed that.
The Chair: Are the dates the same?
Senator Adams: The dates are the same.
The Chair: Maybe someone knows more about this than I do, because I have been away. Our original proposal, made by Senator Rompkey in the Fisheries and Oceans Committee and myself, was that we should have a committee work week during the first week of June, and that was agreed to. I understand that that is now not the case, that the Senate will sit with, in effect, a corporal's guard, because five committees will be travelling during that week, but the Senate will continue to sit. Is that what everyone else has heard?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
The Chair: The date is still good. Those are the dates. We leave either from Calgary or Edmonton on June 1 and return either to Calgary or Edmonton on June 7.
Senator Cochrane: It is my understanding that the two committees — this one and the Fisheries and Oceans Committee — will still be travelling.
The Chair: Yes; and three others, I understand.
Senator Cochrane: I had no idea about the three others. I wanted to inform you that I will be going with the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
The Chair: Thank you. You and Senator Adams are both members of both committees.
Senator Cochrane: Yes. We will be going with the Fisheries and Oceans Committee.
The Chair: You will both go to the Eastern Arctic.
That is the nature of the travel that forms the bulk of what you will see under Activity 1. Are there any questions about the budget? If not, I would invite two motions.
Senator Adams: I have an invitation to a conference on oil and gas in Alaska for September 23 and 24. I do not know whether you know about that.
The Chair: We will find out about it. You said September in Alaska?
Senator Adams: September 23 and 24.
The Chair: We will find out about that.
Senator Adams: Maybe by that time we will call an election. The budget is usually separate if we go to the United States.
The Chair: The conferences could be anywhere. They could be in Rio de Janeiro, for example.
Senator Adams: I think it is about U.S. $2,900 for that.
Senator Kenny: I had a question about costs. The conference fee is $8,000 for four participants, assuming that the registration is $500 per conference?
The Chair: No, it assumes that the registration is $2,000 per conference.
Senator Kenny: You are saying four conferences over the course of this fiscal year, somewhere.
The Chair: No. We are saying two conferences with four participants at each, but it could be four conferences with two participants at each, or eight conferences with one participant at each. We are talking about eight conference participants, in any combination. The budget expresses four participants at each of two conferences — conference 1 and conference 2 — and assumes that registration is $2,000 for each.
Senator Kenny: Do you anticipate difficulty with this?
The Chair: Do you mean at the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee?
Senator Kenny: With the budget structured this way, yes.
The Chair: I do not think so, but tell me why you are asking.
Senator Kenny: When I was chair, they said, ``Surely, you could do with half the number going.'' I went through a similar explanation. We ended up listing a whole bunch of conferences that may or may not be permitted.
The Chair: That is what we will do.
Senator Kenny: Yes, but it is not in the document you are sending in. In the document we sent in, we listed a series of conferences that we may or may not be going to. We put two people going to some or one person going to some.
You will get the question, ``Fine, it is a terrific budget, chair. What can you cut from it?'' I am trying to assist you to deal with that question. We have four people going someplace. However, the suggestion that you can do with just two people going is likely to come up.
The Chair: We could break this down into four conferences with two attendees. I have had good luck saying, ``This is pro forma and you understand, subcommittee, that this may be two people going to one conference.''
Senator Kenny: It is entirely possible, for one reason or another. I get different scrutiny than you do.
The Chair: I think that your suggestion is a good one. The total would be the same, but I think that is probably a good idea. I will undertake, with the clerk, to do that, so that the flexibility is more demonstrable in the document.
Senator Kenny: That is what I was trying to say.
The Chair: Consider this budget on the basis that the global amount for conferences will be the same but that it will be expressed differently, in order to ensure that everyone understands that necessary flexibility.
Last year is a perfect example. We had originally budgeted for two conferences — that is, for two people to go to each of two conferences — and we simply sent four people to GLOBE. That is perfectly acceptable under the rules.
Senator Kenny: I might also mention Senator Adams' business about that meeting. Senator Nolin had experience with that as well with our committee. We had some funds for report promotion, when a report was coming up, and we wanted to have senators go out to different editorial boards to talk about it. We found that some people got sticky about that, if it was not a conference, and if you wanted to change and someone needed to go somewhere on committee business. In this case — not that the details are terribly important — Senator Nolin came to us with something where we could have been of assistance to moving NATO on some issues. We were already in Europe and it meant a small detour.
Senator Nolin: We did it quite effectively.
Senator Kenny: Yes, but we twisted the rules a bit. If you put in something that said, ``trip promotion and other committee-related travel,'' and you had a sum set aside for that, no one could dispute you on it.
The Chair: That is a good idea.
Senator Nolin: Yes, as a separate item.
Senator Kenny: Put it as a separate line item, ``trip promotion and other committee-related travel.'' It is for something that you cannot predict now, but, eight months from now, someone might say, ``There is a circumpolar whatever and we really should be at it,'' or ``We want to do a deviation from a trip that we have,'' or ``Someone will go on a conference and they should spend an extra two days there because there is other worthwhile stuff for them to see.'' Those are the sorts of things it could cover.
The Chair: If you were writing a budget, you would call that ``report promotion and other committee travel''?
Senator Kenny: Right. For example, if you get an invitation to give a speech or to represent Canada on X or Y and you do not have any money here, you end up having to go to the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee to make a case. You might get it or you might not, but with this, all you would have to do is clear it through your steering committee here.
The Chair: You are right. That precise situation occurred in the past. That was exactly the process that had to be done.
Senator Kenny: Something like $20,000.
The Chair: It would be a good idea to put that in now rather than later. That has happened in the past. Senator Kenny is right. The problem with going to the Internal Economy Committee to get the money after the main budget is that the Internal Economy Committee meets sporadically.
Senator Milne: Straightforward, perhaps?
The Chair: You mean it would be straightforward to do it here? I am not following you.
Senator Milne: No, to list it as what it will be.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Nolin: It is preferable.
Senator Kenny: That is my point exactly.
Senator Milne: My point is the opposite of yours, I am afraid, Senator Kenny.
Senator Kenny: You are being deceitful, then.
Senator Milne: No, I am not.
Senator Kenny: I am suggesting that you tell the Internal Economy Committee in advance that you may have some other travel that you have not listed here that has to do with committee business and you are putting in a request right from the get-go so that all of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the whole Senate sees it and everyone is aware that you will do it, which is as transparent as you can get.
The Chair: Do you demur from that?
Senator Milne: Yes. I think that if you are going to travel for committee promotion of a report, then you put it in as that; you do not just put in a lump sum that you may or may not use some time for some unforeseen purpose in the future. I think that if you need extra money for some extra purpose, then you go to the Internal Economy Committee and you fight it out.
The Chair: After the main budget?
Senator Milne: Yes.
The Chair: That was difficult the last time I did it.
Senator Milne: It is difficult every time anybody does it.
Senator Kenny: Let me give a counter to that. First, promoting your reports is a no-brainer. If a committee does not promote its reports, why did they spend their time studying an issue if they are not prepared to promote it? That is a reasonable thing to put in.
Second, virtually every committee has experienced not being able to predict everything coming up 12 months ahead of time. To say that this chunk of money will be used for something we cannot predict is the same as a miscellaneous item, and a budget that does not have something in it for the unforeseen is not a very good budget. Since you have had the experience of being invited to things in the past that have not been covered, you are now taking advantage of that experience and putting it in. We are saying that we cannot see the future perfectly, and something may well come up that we need to do.
The Chair: I think that is a good idea. Is there further discussion on that point?
Senator Adams: What happens if the budget runs out for Internal Economy, if everyone applies for that?
Senator Kenny: It has not happened yet. Ask Senator Nolin how much lapses on committee budgets every year.
Senator Nolin: A lot of money. Big money.
The Chair: Hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Senator Nolin: Yes.
Senator McCoy: What else are we missing from this budget?
The Chair: Part of the reason that money is sent back is because of what Senator Kenny is talking about, and what we are talking about too. We may not spend all of the money in this budget. In fact, this committee has never spent all of the money in its budget, although we came pretty close last year.
Senator Kenny: We also have some dumb rules, and one of the dumb rules is that we have to budget for everyone on the committee to go. We already know that two people will not be going, but the Internal Economy Committee will not accept a budget that does not have everyone budgeted for, and we cannot take the money saved from those two people and use it on something else. It gets clawed back. When that trip is over, the money budgeted for the two who do not travel does not accrue to a slush fund.
Senator McCoy: A glossy cover on your report.
Senator Kenny: It disappears from the committee budget. The theory is that there is money there to reallocate, but by the time the Internal Economy Committee has the confidence to reallocate it, it is the end of January or the beginning of February. Well, the fiscal year in ends in March, and there is no time for people to take advantage of it.
The Chair: That happens every year.
Senator Milne: I am in favour of realistic budgeting. When I look at the historical information here and how much has been returned every year except 2006-07, I can see that if we put another cushion into the budget there will be just that much more money to be returned. I can guarantee that that is what will happen.
The Chair: Unless we use it.
Senator Kenny: That does not take into account the fact that you cannot transfer funds from one category to another. Therefore, she does not understand.
Senator Nolin: If you want to cushion, you have to cushion every item in your budget. You cannot transfer from one item to another. Senator Kenny is proposing to have a new item in the budget, and if we do not spend it that item will be returned.
Senator Milne: You are putting this item in as a cushion.
Senator Nolin: You mean the meaning of the item; I see what you mean. That is an argument.
Senator Spivak: We should put in an item that is not a cushion but is a promotion with editorial boards. That is a valid. You have an item here called advertising. What is that about? Why not add to that and say ``advertising, promotion, editorial board, conferences''? For example, the National Post desperately needs editorial advice. They are back in the 18th century. I think that is a very valid and important task for this committee to do, and we have not done it in the past. Why not put it just up front? Do not say it is a cushion; intend to do it.
Senator Kenny: The advertising here, incidentally, is for meetings.
Senator Spivak: What do you mean, ``for meetings''?
Senator Kenny: When a committee is traveling, to Winnipeg for example, and you want to have people come to the meeting, this money is for putting that little box in the paper that does not work to get people to come to your meeting. It is not a very useful line, because $5,000 does not tell the people of Winnipeg very much about your meeting.
The Chair: Nor does it tell them very many times.
Senator McCoy: I am new to all this. Where do witnesses get paid?
The Chair: Out of a separate budget.
Senator McCoy: Thank goodness; so you can bring anybody in.
Senator Nolin: For each committee it is centralized, because that was an area where there was a lot of cushion.
Senator McCoy: What about professional assistance? I do not know that this is true for this particular activity, but if you were to reach out to someone who was skilled in knowledge of the North and was good at bridging the gap between us southerners and those who work and live in the North, so that we do not stumble all over our feet, where would you put his services?
The Chair: Whose services, Senator Adams'?
Senator McCoy: No, that individual's services. I am thinking, for example, of Mike Robinson. I think you know him from Calgary.
The Chair: I do not.
Senator McCoy: He used to run the Arctic Institute of North America at the University of Calgary, and then he ran the museum. Then he ran for the Liberals — a failure of good judgment — in the provincial government; he gave the Progressive Conservatives a good run for their money but did not win. If you were reaching out for his assistance to understand or to formulate something on a study like this, where would that go?
The Chair: It would go under ``professional services,'' but we have not budgeted for any such expenditure.
Senator Kenny: In spite of her bad remark about this guy's judgment —
Senator Nolin: Which was made in public, by the way.
Senator Kenny: Yes, and is on the record.
Senator Nolin: Maybe you need a lawyer now.
Senator Kenny: Probably because we are nonpartisan we will save the revenge until later.
I think that that sort of translation is a terrific idea, particularly when Senator Adams is not travelling with the committee. It is not unlike General McDonald translating the military's comments to us, someone who is familiar with the culture in a professional way and has spent their lives communicating it to other Canadians. Sometimes you come out of a meeting and someone says, ``What do you think happened,'' and you reply, and then the person says, ``Well, you may think that, but that is not what really happened in there. They actually told you all to go to hell and they just said it in a different way than you are used to.''
Senator McCoy: Exactly.
Senator Kenny: I think it is a no-brainer that a committee get that sort of support.
The Chair: This committee has never done that before.
Senator Milne: We had an expert lawyer on the law of the sea.
The Chair: Yes, for a very brief time. Senator Sibbeston will be coming with us to the Arctic, but I am never averse to the idea of having better information from better folks. I have no idea who, because I at least have not looked at that question. We can now add such an item. It would fall under ``professional and other services.'' If the committee wishes, we can add such an item to the budget.
Senator McCoy: You and steering committee might wish to mull that over. Mike Robinson is free at the moment, for probably a short time. We could catch him between things. With respect to the budget, would you consider putting in a line item or increasing that line item to enable you to go that route if you decided to do so?
The Chair: We would have to do that if we were going to go that route.
Senator Kenny: You have to do travel, et cetera.
The Chair: In other words, the fee for such a person would be under ``professional and other services,'' but his or her travel would have to be reflected in the travel part of the budget.
Senator McCoy: My recommendation is to add that throughout. We do not have to make a decision today. I would not say that you will actually have to approach someone like that, although I would encourage it.
The Chair: We would want to look at a number of people we might approach. I am concerned that we move on the budget with some alacrity, because otherwise we will not have it, given the glacial speed at which the Internal Economy Committee works, and the Senate too, by the way, because the budget has to go through all those stages, I remind you. If we are going to make these adjustments, I would want to have the steering committee deal with them today and then I would want to deal with the budget at the committee meeting next Tuesday. We cannot let it go beyond that or we will be in some difficulty.
Senator Kenny: I move that you set aside $10,000 for that, plus whatever the travel is, and that you also set aside $20,000 for report promotion and other travel in relation to the committee's work, and that that be added to the total that you have here.
The Chair: Is there discussion on that motion?
Senator Adams: I have a question for information. In the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, we will need translation, or even now we want to televise, perhaps on CBC. We might find out that CBC cannot do the translation. We found out that the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation has television crews. I suggest that you add about $10,000 to the category ``miscellaneous.'' Those people get paid all right, but if they have to travel to other communities, we have to provide airfare and accommodation. I think it is a little different over there. They do not need translation in Inuktitut.
The Chair: It is a little easier in the Western Arctic.
Senator Adams: Yes. In the Eastern Arctic it is trilingual; we have French, English and Inuktitut.
The Chair: As you can see, we will be taking translators and interpreters with us, because we will be holding hearings in these places; this is not only a fact-finding trip. That is taken into account in the Western Arctic. We are okay with that.
Is there further discussion on the motion?
All in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? It is carried. Thank you very much.
We will present you with a finished budget, including those two items, on Tuesday morning, whatever else we might be doing.
Senator McCoy: If you need it soon.
The Chair: We need a specific motion with the actual amounts in order for it to go forward.
Senator McCoy: I suppose that is due process, and fair enough.
The Chair: It has to be vetted. The process is infuriating, but we have to do it.
Senators, I think we are finished. I will ask the steering committee members to stay for a few minutes — and I hope that it will be a very few minutes — in order to look at the work plan, which we have now massaged.
Senator Kenny: Can we adopt it and delegate it to the steering committee to make the adjustments?
The Chair: I would rather not.
Senator Kenny: Okay.
The Chair: I would rather, particularly in light of the discussion, that the entire committee had a chance to look at whole entire budget, lock, stock and barrel, and that the budget was approved as it will be taken forward. That would make me more comfortable. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Take these with you so that you may bring further comments on Tuesday morning on either the legislation or the special studies budget, which will be different from these, but we will at least have a start.
Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
The committee continued in camera.