Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 1 - Evidence - November 15, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:47 a.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Lynn Gordon, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. As clerk of the committee, it is my duty to proceed to the election of the chair.
Is there a motion to that effect?
Senator Robichaud: I move that the Honourable Senator Rompkey be the Chair of this committee.
Ms. Gordon: Thank you. Are there any other nominations?
Seeing none, the question is on the motion of the Honourable Senator Robichaud that the Honourable Senator Rompkey do take the chair of the committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Gordon: I declare the motion carried. I invite Senator Rompkey to take the chair.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, thank you for the confidence you have shown in me. It was a hard battle, but we finally prevailed. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you.
My first duty is to preside over the election of a deputy chair for this committee. Are there nominations for a deputy chair for this committee?
Senator Comeau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose the name of Senator Cochrane.
The Chair: Senator Cochrane has been proposed. Are there any further nominations? I propose that nominations close. I therefore declare that Senator Cochrane has been elected deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Chair, everyone ought to be in their places before the meeting begins.
The Chair: Good idea.
Now, you have an agenda before you. It is a usual agenda that we have to go through at this meeting. Does everyone have a copy of the agenda? The third motion reads:
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 consultation; 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.
Do I have a motion?
It is moved by Senator Watt. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next motion states:
That the Committee print its proceedings; and
That the Chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
Do I hear a motion to adopt?
I see a motion by Senator Adams and Senator Watt. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed. The next motion is for authorization to hold meetings and print evidence when quorum is not present, provided that a member from both the government and the opposition be present. That is the usual thing.
Do I have a mover for that motion? It is moved by Senator Cochrane.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
We will now look at the financial report. You have the financial report in front of you. It is a report of what we have done in the past. If you have had a chance to have a look at it, it is pretty straightforward. It simply itemizes the costs that we incurred while working in the Atlantic provinces. You will see that costs for professional and other services, transport and communications, and witnesses' expenses come to a total of $89,904.
Is there a motion to adopt the report?
It is moved by Senator Robichaud. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Our next item concerns the research staff. It moves that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee; and that the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel, et cetera; and that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts. It goes on to ask that the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff.
Do I have a mover?
It is moved by Senator Comeau.
Senator Comeau: I might move a second motion afterwards that the chair be authorized to seek the services of Claude Emery.
The Chair: We have an offer to trade him for Jason Spezza. This is something we should seriously consider. However, Claude Emery is more valuable to us than Jason Spezza, so I would agree with this motion.
It is moved by Senator Comeau. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Mr. Emery, would you come and take your seat at the table? It is worthwhile to spend a minute to thank Mr. Emery because he did excellent work for us when he chaired the committee. We cannot do our work without him. He has a lot of knowledge and he has corporate memory about all sorts of things — good and bad. He puts things into perspective for us. Without that, we would not be able to function as we do. I want to thank him for his past services and we all looked forward to work with you, Mr. Emery, in the future.
The next item is authority to commit funds and certify accounts. This is under the Financial Administration Act and it is the authority to commit funds, and it is conferred on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk; and that the authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee. That is pretty standard.
Do I have a mover for that motion? It is moved by Senator Cowan. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Our next item concerns travel. It 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 in reserve in case we need to use it sometime. There may be a meeting that someone needs to go to and we authorize that travel. This gives us the authority to do that if the circumstances require.
Do I have a mover for the motion? It is moved by Senator Cochrane. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. We can now look at the designation of members traveling on business. This motion authorizes us to designate as official business a trip that a senator is on. This is for the purposes of attendance in the chamber. We would simply inform the whips and the Clerk of the Senate that these particular people are away on official business.
Do I have a mover for that motion? It is moved by Senator Cowan.
Senator Watt: I think from time to time, we run across people who do not notify in the proper fashion. I wonder if we can be kept more up to date if a person is missing on other Senate business. We dealt with that in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs yesterday. It might be good to be better informed. It does not have to be a motion to amend any motion, as long as it is understood by the clerk that the clerk will have the responsibility to notify the members of the whereabouts of that missing senator.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I completely support Senator Watt's comments. The goal of the initiative is to keep the committee informed of its members' trips and the reasons for them. So no one will be able to be accused of travelling without a specific objective. This is just a matter of transparency.
[English]
The Chair: With the caveat suggested by Senator Watt, do I have a mover for the motion? It is moved by Senator Comeau. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, bearing in mind what Senator Watt has said.
Travelling and living expenses is pretty straightforward. As you know, there is a pot of money for witness travel that does not come out of our funds, but we have to authorize witnesses when we call them.
Do I have a mover for that motion? It is moved by Senator Cochrane.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
We can move on to electronic coverage of public meetings. We have to agree that the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage. Senator Adams.
Senator Adams: We talked about that yesterday in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Only two committee rooms are equipped to televise our proceedings. At one time, I found out that a cameraman with a tripod usually comes here. That makes it difficult. For instance, if we want to get some important witnesses and we cannot get into the other room to set up the cameras in Victoria Building, what can we do? It should be asked that cameras be set up in one or two committee rooms in the future. If we are debating Arctic sovereignty or something similar, it would be nice to have the camera set up and available if we bring people in. There is no problem for translation. We may need other committee rooms as only two are set up with English and French. I think this room could have a better setup for translation.
Senator Cowan: I was given to understand that there was an additional room so that there would be more rooms that would be capable of accommodating television. It is either ready now or about to be ready. However, I do not know whether that is accurate or not.
Senator Comeau: I am not sure whether there is another room, but I think Senator Adams is suggesting that another camera be made permanently available in this room.
Senator Adams: I heard from Senator Kenny, who sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration that we used to invite CPAC to set up their cameras in here. That no longer exists.
Senator Comeau: I would suggest to the chair that we seek clarification. We would ask the clerk, through the chair, to see whether the camera still exists. This was a superb room in which to hold hearings.
The Chair: There are no permanent fixtures. They bring them in, whereas in the Victoria Building there is a permanent fixture.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Senator Adams tells us that this mobile crew does not exist. Is that the case?
[English]
The Chair: Can we leave it to the steering committee and the clerk to clarify that with Internal Economy? The object is to get maximum coverage.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Who decides which committees will be recorded and broadcast in those rooms?
[English]
The Chair: Is it the whips?
Senator Cowan: I do not know.
The Chair: I thought it was the table. Senator Cowan, it is not the whips, is it?
Senator Cowan: Not to my knowledge.
Senator Comeau: Why do we not seek clarification?
The Chair: We will seek clarification on that as well.
When we have asked for televising in the past, we have been bumped because some other committee has taken priority. Their subject matter has been deemed more important than ours, and I think it is the table that makes that decision.
Senator Cowan: It is my understanding that if there is a conflict which they cannot resolve, it goes to the whip.
The Chair: We will clarify that and we will report back at the next meeting.
Can I have a mover for number 12?
Senator Adams: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Adams.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The last item is time slots. We have two time slots: One is Tuesday evening and the other is Thursday morning. Senator Comeau can comment on this from experience, but I found myself in the last session trying to kill an hour before I went to the meeting at 7 p.m. I propose that we might want to start at 6:15 p.m. The house will not sit later than 6 p.m. I suggest that until Christmas we will probably not sit later than 5 p.m. If we set the time for 6:15 p.m. that would give us time to eat before the meeting and start our meeting at 6:15 p.m. rather than at 7 p.m. on Tuesday.
Senator Watt: I support that.
Senator Cowan: Is that 6:15 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Comeau: I think you are on the right track on this for the most part. It will happen occasionally that the Senate may sit a little later on Tuesdays, but we would still have our time slot for 7 p.m. of course. It will not conflict with other committees, because that is the last time slot. I suggest that would be a good way to approach it.
On another issue, one of our members has a conflict in this time slot, which is 10:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursdays, and that is Senator Meighen. He would dearly love to be able to attend this meeting, but has a conflict with the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. I do not know how we can resolve that problem. Perhaps we can look at this to see whether something can be done to accommodate him, but I know that once you start changing time slots it becomes very complicated.
I will leave it in the chair's capable hands to see if there is a way of accommodating this member. We will see what can be done.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: It could also happen, at times, that senators who are members of the Committee on Internal Economy might have the same problem because our meetings are always on Thursday mornings. Maybe we will have to delay the start of the session a little so that those senators can attend.
[English]
Senator Comeau: In the past we found that Tuesday night meetings tended to go much longer than anticipated. In fact, they went on for two hours many times. In many cases back then, we skipped the Thursday meeting, which accommodated those who could not make the Thursday morning meetings. The chair might find that would happen in the future as well.
Senator Cochrane: I have conflicts too. On Tuesday evening, I have the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources when the Senate rises, and on Thursday at 10:45 a.m. I have the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
The Chair: I think Senator Comeau's point is valid. It will be very difficult to accommodate everyone. In my opinion, our committee is much more important than Banking, Internal Economy, or Energy, but that is purely my opinion.
We will try to work things out as best we can.
Senator Cowan: I defer to the deputy leaders, who are much more experienced than I. I know, from trying to schedule our senators — and we have a larger group than you do — that it is very difficult to ensure there are no conflicts. I can appreciate that it is even more difficult with a smaller group of senators.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chair, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources starts at 8:30 a.m. and finishes around 9:30 a.m. I am now sitting on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans usually sits at the same time on Tuesday nights. As Senator Comeau said, if we start at 6 p.m. it might work out better.
The Chair: It is the Thursday morning meeting that is the more problematic, is it not?
Senator Cowan: Senator Cochrane has a problem with that meeting.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: If I recall, we did not often meet on Thursdays because we found some time to do all the things we had to do during the week. I encourage you to continue that.
[English]
The Chair: Why do we not leave it to the steering committee?
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
The Chair: Do I have a motion to start our Tuesday meetings at 6:15 p.m.?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Senator Adams tells us that he has a Transport Committee meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesdays. That gives him the opportunity to sit on the Fisheries Committee before going to the Transport Committee.
[English]
The Chair: That is right. It is better for him.
Senator Cochrane: As soon as the Senate rises, we go right into the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on Tuesday evenings.
The Chair: It is complicated. We will try to work it out.
Senator Comeau: I would suggest we stick with the scheduled time slots. If the steering committee is able to do some juggling there is nothing stopping us from going ahead at 6:15 p.m.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: No, but I think that we actually can accept the Chair's proposal which says 7:00 p.m. It would be 6:15 p.m. but that does not prevent us from meeting at 7:00 p.m.; supposing that we have the authority to meet earlier without going back to the steering committee.
Senator Comeau: Yes, but if we as a committee change the time, it could pose a problem for the whips. That is why I am hesitant to move an amendment in committee, because we would be getting in the way of the whips.
Senator Robichaud: We could do it after the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure has discussed it.
[English]
The Chair: The rule says that we meet after the Senate rises but not before 5 p.m. Let us leave it to the steering committee to work out, and we will see what we can do.
We need to put things before the Senate to get authorization to do some work. The motion is before you. It is really the same one we had before. It allows us a great deal of latitude. It reads:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans;
It goes on to say in the third paragraph:
That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than Friday, June 27, 2008.
That is roughly the same motion that we had before, and it is proposed that we put that before the Senate again. As I say, it allows us a great deal of latitude. There will be issues that we will want to examine. We know that a fisheries act is about to be tabled, so we would have to deal with that at some point. However, we will want to deal with other issues as well.
If you were comfortable with the same motion as last time, I would look for a mover. Senator Comeau.
Is it agreed?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. When we talk about reporting on questions pertaining to the new strategic framework that the government is working on for the management of fisheries and oceans, my question is, when we say fisheries and oceans, are we are not also talking about infrastructure? It would be included. We are also talking about sovereignty in the North, which is an important matter at the moment. Are we able to explore and look into that, assuming that no other committees are doing so? I think that there are some moves towards creating a committee to study the question of northern sovereignty. But is our mandate broad enough to go in that direction?
[English]
Senator Watt: To make things a little more complicated, I hear what Senator Robichaud is saying but, at the same time, we also have an issue that we picked up last year that we still have to try to finish. We committed ourselves to travel to Nunavik to deal with the population of Nunavik, because they rely heavily on the food source of beluga. That is still very much unfinished business, as far as I am concerned. I would want to focus on that rather than a new point. I am trying to give myself a little bit of time so I can fully get myself wrapped around the Arctic sovereignty issue, which is important.
I am wondering whether we are putting ourselves a little too far ahead if we commit ourselves to saying that, under these terms of reference, we should assume that we have the mandate to deal with the question of Arctic sovereignty. I dealt with the leadership on this, and the leadership has already dealt with the leader on the government side, Senator LeBreton. I believe this is still an ongoing discussion. The leadership on the Liberal side stated to me that every committee under the Senate, whether it is the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, whatever committee it is, has an interest in the question of Arctic sovereignty. They said we cannot block it into an existing committee and it has to be a special committee. That is where it is at this point. I do not want to wrap it up at this point because negotiations are still taking place. I am not sure whether the deputy leader on the other side has been brought up to date on that issue.
Senator Comeau: If I may, Mr. Chair, the quick answer to that is absolutely not. I am not privy to any discussions along that line. However, I think that this mandate as written would not preclude us from looking into what Senator Robichaud is proposing. Whether a new committee will be formed is an entirely different issue. I think what we should be looking at is whether our mandate provides direction for us in the event that a new committee is not formed. I would agree with Senator Robichaud that our mandate should be able to do that if we are given or if we decide as a group to go along that line, and if no other committee is created. That is one point.
The other point is that what Senator Watt mentioned does not stop us at all from deciding to look at the beluga issue and to continue the beluga study. In fact, that fits very well with our mandate.
I tend to agree with Senator Robichaud that if our mandate provides for us to look at the sovereignty issue and fisheries and oceans in the North, and I think it should.
The Chair: There are two points to be made. One is that the name of the committee is Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and ``oceans'' was added to the committee's name. It used to be the committee on fisheries. It seems to me that it gives us some latitude dealing with not just the resource but also with the actual area.
The second point is that in our NAFO study, we have already dealt with jurisdiction and sovereignty in the 200-mile limit. It seems to me that we have dealt with the issue of sovereignty and limits before, and we should be able to do that again. I do not see that we would be precluded from doing that.
If that is the question, that is what I would think; however, we might want to ask for clarification.
Senator Robichaud: I want to reassure Senator Watt that my intention is not for this committee to take complete control over the issue of Arctic sovereignty. I have no have a problem with the creation of a special committee to focus on that issue. It is just that we could decide that in some cases we have to look at the issues. As the chair explained, I think we could if we chose to do so, without taking anything away from it. If a special committee is created for that purpose, I have no problem with that.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chair, I have a little difficulty with the special committee on Arctic sovereignty. I think like Senator Watt says, it will be very important and therefore it might have to go through various committees. If we set up one special committee, that committee will not have the background that other committees have. If anything is set up for a hearing on Arctic sovereignty, I think people coming to Ottawa start off with Fisheries and Oceans and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We need to consider how transportation and the Coast Guard will work. With people coming in from the department, if we set up just one committee it will be difficult for people to understand how the system works here in Ottawa. It is important to bring in the people who live in the North. That is my concern.
Senator Watt: I fully concur with Senator Robichaud that this committee definitely have a role to play with regard to Arctic sovereignty when it comes to water, fish and resources. I do not want to limit it under the umbrella of Fisheries and Oceans. There are so many other areas, such as oil drilling and things of that nature, that relate to it. I do not want to have the scope limited by the understanding that our study is only under the jurisdiction of Fisheries and Oceans. It is bigger than that.
I would suggest that you look at the motion carefully. It states:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to examine and report on the issues related to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans;
If we remove the word ``new'' to study the current policy, will that not make it more open-ended?
The Chair: We could limit it to ``evolving,'' I suppose.
Senator Robichaud: It could be ``current'' and ``evolving.''
Senator Watt: Why not both?
Senator Comeau: I suppose it could be ``current'' and ``evolving.''
The Chair: Okay. No one has a problem with that change?
Senator Watt: Can I again raise the subject of the unfinished business that we undertook a year ago?
The Chair: Let us deal with this motion first.
The study will now read, ``. . . the federal government's current and evolving policy framework . . . .'' Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Now do I have a mover for the motion, as amended? Senator Adams. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Of course the steering committee will meet. I propose that we have some discussions and we bring before you at an early opportunity a plan, but I would like to have some discussion on where we will go. Also, I would like to put some ideas in front of you to see what you think.
It seems to me that the Arctic in general is very high on the national agenda. It was given a great deal of prominence in the Speech from the Throne. It has been the subject of a number of newspaper stories and articles. There continues to be more and more discussion about the Arctic, and not simply limited to global warming but also to the question of jurisdiction.
There is a resource question that has been discussed. The Prime Minister used the words ``use it or lose it.'' There are people already up there using it. I think that some attention needs to be given to how they are using it, how they have used it in the past, and how they might use it in the future.
We have already had some hearings on Nunavut here in Ottawa and Mr. Emery has produced an excellent report of those meetings. However, we have never gone there as a committee. Actually, maybe we have. We have, have we? Let me put it this way: We have, but not in my time.
When I hear the discussion, it seems to me that it is incumbent on us as a Fisheries Committee to pay some attention to this issue and to take it on as a priority. It is a Canadian priority and it seems to me that we can provide a useful service to the country and to the people who live up there if we make that issue our first focus. That is what I would like to see us do. I would like to see us focus, first of all, on the Arctic. The details can be left to planning. I would like to have some discussion as to whether you think this would be a good way to proceed. There are other things we have to get into later on. We had some discussions on NAFO and there have been NAFO meetings since our discussions. We will want to follow up on that at some point. Additionally, there is other unfinished business before the committee.
It seems to me that there is an important issue that we should deal with. It is on the national agenda and I think we would be remiss in our duty if we did not, as a Fisheries and Oceans Committee, take it on.
Senator Comeau: I have absolutely no difficulty with the concept of this committee focusing on the Arctic more generally than we did in the last session.
However, I would like to submit ideas to the steering committee so that the steering committee could put them into the hopper. There may be some issues out there that are extremely immediate and would deserve high priority; perhaps one or two meetings at most.
I think there is one priority that needs to be looked at but I need to do more reflecting on it. However, I am not talking about a long-term study. There may be a few urgent issues that we need to tackle. I assume Senator Watt will also bring one up in a few minutes.
I have no problem with supporting the concept of a major focus of this committee being to look at the Arctic so long as we also look at some urgent issues, such as NAFO. There may be a few others as well.
Senator Adams: In the Energy Committee this morning, we discussed travel in the Arctic. Travel conditions begin to improve up there around the last week of May, and I want to ensure that these trips do not overlap. Perhaps the steering committee can look at that.
I spoke of global warming in the Energy Committee when we studied species at risk. We used to have a quota of over 50 polar bears. Now, because of global warming, DFO has reduced that to 38, because every year there is a two- week delay in freeze-up. DFO blames it on climate change, but I think it has more to do with people. The people in the community say that there are more polar bears now than ever before. DFO says that there are less bears each year. I heard a scientist in Iqaluit say that due to the two-week delay the polar bear are not getting enough to eat and they are freezing in the water.
This year, everything was already frozen over two weeks ago. It is not the same every year. The people have to question whether what the government says is true or whether the government uses global warming as an excuse because it wants to protect the polar bears. It would be nice to have some people up there to see these things.
There is only adjacent water up there, not a 200-mile limit, which is why the Russians, Danes and Americans are looking at Arctic sovereignty, and the navy was dumping water up there. The Russians have already flagged the bottom of the ocean and are saying that it does not belong to Canada. Last September, an interviewer from the BBC wanted to know what the people living up there think about that. I told him that the water, the land and the ocean bottom all belong to the people who live up there. The Russians put their flag on the bottom of the sea because they want the gas and oil.
The Chair: On another issue, the Rules Committee studied Senator Corbin's motion to introduce Inuktitut into Parliament, and I do not know if they have made a decision.
Senator Watt: They have; they are going ahead.
The Chair: My understanding is that they want it to begin in the Fisheries Committee. I bring this up because it seems to fit into the study of the Arctic.
Is there further discussion?
Senator Watt: I want to return to certain subject areas that we have touched upon since I have been involved in the Fisheries Committee. I am somewhat worried that we have not really provided answers to the outcry from Nunavut with regard to lack of infrastructure and other things. Further scientific research has to be undertaken with regard to waters adjacent to their land and the fact that other countries are taking advantage of their weakness in fishing abilities. Much information has been brought to our attention.
Unless we have clear information on those concerns, we once again may not serve the people we are trying to serve. I suggest that we bring all this information back and study it as much as possible.
There are other factors hindering things from moving ahead. How do we deal with those matters directly related to the court? The $1 billion lawsuit for breach of contract seems to be stopping everything.
We need to know these things, because if we travel in the North we will be flooded with an outcry from the people saying, ``Don't not look at us; look at the government. We have agreements, but the agreements are not being implemented.'' We will be hearing that over and over again, as we have been hearing it for quite some time.
We should establish a study group to determine what we need to do with the files we have. Unless we have a clear understanding of the issues, we will just repeat ourselves and things will not get done. I am a little afraid to go up North and not be able to provide answers to the points that were raised by their leaders. The Minister of Finance of the Nunavut government and the president of Tunngavik Inc. made very clear parallel presentations to us. We make recommendations to the ministers from time to time on things of this nature, but we still do not know what is happening. It all hinges on that lawsuit.
The Chair: That is a valid point. We will have to review what we have done, where we are going and how much has been implemented.
Senator Watt: Another related issue is the beluga whale. We need to get to the bottom of that issue. It is creating many problems. We may have 20 people put behind bars this year. It is a good possibility. The authorities went after them but did not have enough evidence to pursue the cases.
Senator Robichaud: They never went to court.
Senator Watt: Officials from the government went up North and were determined to get to the bottom of the story that there was overhunting again.
Senator Robichaud: No charges were pressed.
Senator Watt: They could not because no one wants to talk.
Senator Hubley: If we do travel to the North, we would have to go as a well-informed group. There are some incredible changes taking place in the North. It is one of the best places to look at climate change and see how it is affecting the people.
There are many issues. We have heard about the belugas and the infrastructure. In the Throne Speech, the government made it clear that Arctic sovereignty is an issue that it is taking very seriously. To that end, a plan is in place, and the research station was mentioned. It would be important for us to be aware of more details concerning the work the government intends to do on this important issue.
I noticed that my name is not on the membership list, and I truly hope that I am still on this committee. I did not move or second anything today.
The Chair: This is an egregious error and in fact you are supposed to be on the committee and that your name is supposed to appear on the list of members.
Senator Hubley: Thank you.
The Chair: Powerful forces, powerful enemies in this place. Thank goodness we resolved that problem.
I see a general consensus to generally focus on the Arctic. We have not dealt with details, but is it agreeable that the steering committee meet and discuss this further and put before you a plan as soon as possible?
Senator Watt: Can we agree that before we make the final touches on this issue, Senator Comeau will take it to his caucus and we will take it to our caucus with respect to how we will do it? I am not ruling out this business of a special committee; there is a bigger issue here. So you have no problem discussing this next Tuesday?
The Chair: Sure, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: Let us say that both sides agree that we are not going to be setting on the special committee; then we can go forward without reservation. That is what I think we need to do. Whether or not there will be a special committee, let us decide.
Senator Cowan: I do not think I can add much to that, but I think there have been some discussions between the leaders on the issue of Arctic sovereignty. I do not think there is any disagreement that it is an important topic, but there has been no agreement as to how it will be dealt with. I think we are wise to go ahead and do as we are doing, but there are some ongoing discussions between the leaders with respect to this issue.
The Chair: We can bring this up under ``reports from committees.''
I am open to adjournment.
Senator Adams: I have a comment. Three countries are working on climate change in the Arctic; Canada, Denmark and the United States. The Inuit people are doing some research on the Arctic ice to learn about the effects of climate change. They have American funding, not Canadian. What I heard from Inuktitut is that people there are happy, especially the elders. I think we could do a study on how much things have changed up there. Maybe they can do a good job and the Government of Canada could fund the people and not just the scientists coming to work up there; at least the people up there out on the sea ice and testing land, water and lakes. I want to make sure we know about them.
Senator Watt: Before we close, I wanted to say that I will be sponsoring a group of people on November 20, which in a sense relates to the subject we are discussing.
There are two sides to the story. One is the filmmakers. The name of the person is John Houston the son of James Houston. He is a filmmaker who will be coming to Ottawa. He plans to travel through the Northwest Passage for 20 days this coming summer. There will be a presentation in Parliament and some country food will be served also. I thought I would let you know about that.
Senator Cowan: You sent a note out on that, did you not?
Senator Watt: Yes, it has already been organized. The hardest part was to get some country food from the North. It is very costly.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will be there.
The committee adjourned.