Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence - June 18, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which were referred Bill C- 38, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act to enlarge Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada; and BillS-208, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), met this day at 8:02 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues and Canadians watching us on the CPAC network and on the World Wide Web.
This is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We are here this morning to deal with BillC-38, An Act to amend the Canadian National Parks Act to enlarge Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada.
By way of introduction, I am Senator David Angus from Montreal, Quebec, chair of this committee. To my right is my deputy chair, from the great Province of Alberta, Senator Grant Mitchell. We also have Senator Richard Neufeld from British Columbia; Senator Daniel Lang from the Yukon; and a special senator today, Senator Consiglio Di Nino from Toronto, who was the sponsor of BillC-38. To Senator Di Nino's right is Senator Gerry St.Germain from British Columbia.
To my left is Senator Lorna Milne from Ontario; Senator Robert Peterson from Saskatchewan; Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta; Senator Bert Brown from Alberta; and Senator Mira Spivak from Ontario.
Minister, you were recently before us, and you need no introduction other than that you are a Member of Parliament from Alberta. We are well "Alberta-ed'' here today. You are also a very experienced minister of the Crown and presently hold the portfolio as Minister of the Environment. We are delighted to welcome you here, sir, as well as the gentleman with you, who I understand is the CEO of Parks Canada, Mr. Alan Latourelle.
We will hear from you, minister, I believe, until 8:50 a.m., so it is hoped that we can proceed with BillC-38. I understand, Minister, you have an opening statement.
Hon. Jim Prentice, P.C., M.P., Minister of the Environment: I do. Thank you very much, Senator Angus and Senator Mitchell, for your cooperation in dealing with this bill. Also, I would thank Senator Di Nino, who is not only the sponsor of the bill but who brought a motion many years ago to the same effect. To all the senators who are here, thank you for your cooperation in hearing this matter quite quickly this morning.
I am accompanied by Alan Latourelle, whom I am on the record as describing as one of our finest public servants in Canada. He is the CEO of Parks Canada, and he does extraordinary work with that agency. As I often say publicly, there is no greater privilege in Canadian public life than to be the minister responsible for Parks Canada.
Today is an important day. It is great to be back before your committee again. At some point, I imagine I will be entitled to my own coffee cup if we keep going at this rate.
The Chair: I think you pointed out to me yesterday that this is at least the third piece of legislation emanating from your good offices in a very short period of time. We are delighted to give it the sober second thought that it deserves.
Senator St.Germain: He is a man of the people. He is drinking Tim Horton's.
Mr. Prentice: Here in the chamber of the people.
I have been invited today to discuss BillC-38. This bill constitutes one of the last steps to secure what is really a massive expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada. It is a landmark conservation achievement, described previously by the Prime Minister as the greatest act of conservation in our country in a generation.
BillC-38 is entitled An Act to Amend the Canadian National Parks Act to enlarge Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada. In effect, it is an act creating one of the world's largest national park reserves. The purpose of the bill is to enlarge the Nahanni, which is one of the Crown jewels of Canada's national parks system, and to ensure that the lands within this expansion are protected as part of the park reserve.
I should say — and I would be pleased to answer questions about this — that there is a long history that goes back 30 years in our country relating to this intended expansion.
[Traduction]
When Parliament first created Nahanni in 1976, only a small portion of the watershed was protected. With the passage of this bill, the park reserve will be expanded from 4,800 square kilometres to more than 30,000 square kilometres. Nahanni will become the third largest national park in Canada, covering an area a little less than the size of Vancouver Island.
The legendary South Nahanni River is the heart of Nahanni National Park Reserve, first created in 1976 and later designated by UNESCO as one of the planet's first world heritage sites. Yet the waters flowing into the mighty South Nahanni River, its watershed, have not been protected. And that is what we intend to do today: protect a huge wilderness area, including most of the South Nahanni watershed and all of its renowned karst landscape.
[Français]
The Nahanni National Park Reserve will now protect all of the South Nahanni River in the Dehcho region. The area includes the highest mountains and the largest glaciers in the Northwest Territories. The Nahanni region is home to a remarkable variety of wildlife. There are, in fact, twice as many grizzly bears in the Nahanni expansion area than there are in all of Canada's other national mountain parks combined. It provides range for two large herds of woodland caribou and habitat for Dall's sheep and mountain goats. Mr.Latourelle has the specifics on those if you have questions relating to that aspect.
The unusual karst formations in the greater Nahanni region include remarkable caves, extensive limestone pavements, innumerable sink holes, springs and magnificent canyons. It is rare to have such a large number, variety and density of karst features within a relatively small geographic area. This makes it unique in the world. However, these land forms are vulnerable to disturbance and, with this bill, we will protect this sensitive landscape. The support of the Aboriginal people, the government of the Northwest Territories and of the Canadian public has been necessary to bring us to this day.
[Traduction]
I especially want to note the cooperation and collaboration of, above all, the Dehcho First Nations. The Greater Nahanni ecosystem is home to the Dehcho First Nations and a sacred place of Dene legends and spirituality. Like all Dene people, the Dehcho First Nations are inseparable from the land. I was deeply moved by this quote:
"The land is a living being given to us by the Creator. We live as part of it. The land takes care of us and we take care of the land.''
The Dehcho First Nations have been steadfast and tireless in their support for the expansion of the park reserve. Together, the Dehcho First Nations and Parks Canada explored options for boundaries of an expanded park reserve, and managed the research and public consultations. They found overwhelming support for park expansion.
[Français]
The Dehcho people will participate in the management of the expanded national park reserve. The treaty and the Aboriginal right of all Aboriginal groups will be fully protected within the boundaries of the expanded park reserve. The traditional hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering and the spiritual activities of the Dene people will continue.
I emphasize, Mr. Chair, that we are at the point we are today with the full participation, collaboration and support of the Dehcho. The remarkable work they have done in protecting the Nahanni for generations needs to be noted.
At the same time, I think it is important to note that this bill represents a conservation achievement that takes into account sustained economic growth in the North. The park reserve will exclude many areas of high potential for minerals, oil and gas extraction. Thus, the new boundary will protect important conservation values, including 91percent of the Dehcho part of the greater Nahanni ecosystem, but it will also leave available areas of high mineral and energy resource potential available for development. I can assure the committee that Parks Canada has worked with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the territorial governments to undertake what is known as a Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment, the so-called MERA process, for the entire study area. The MERA ensured that the economic and strategic significance of the mineral and energy resource potential was fully considered — for many years, as a matter of fact — in the national park expansion process.
[Traduction]
As a result, 9percent of the Dehcho part of the Greater Nahanni ecosystem has been excluded from the expanded national park reserve. This represents all of the hydrocarbon potential and about half of the most important mineral potential identified by the MERA, as well as 100percent of existing mineral claims and mineral leases, such as the operating Cantung mine and the Prairie Creek mine, currently under development.
[Français]
Let me briefly outline what the bill does, because I am sure you have questions as to why we have this piece of legislation. First and foremost, the bill provides for the protection of the newly expanded park reserve by adding a description of the new area to schedule 2 of the Canada National Parks Act. You will see metes and bounds descriptions of the area that will be included as the defined boundaries of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. This is clause9 of the bill; it expands the park reserve to just over 30,000square kilometres.
BillC-38 also addresses two existing nonconforming uses that require special treatment. These are mining access roads and sport-hunting outfitters. Clause 7 of the bill adds a new section41.1 to the Canada National Parks Act to cover this situation. I must stress that this section will only apply to the expanded portion of Nahanni, not to the existing park reserve, and not to any other national park in Canada. This is a grandfathering provision that is necessary to deal with two existing nonconforming uses that are unique to Nahanni.
[Traduction]
The bill addresses the need to provide for two mining access roads to cross park lands to existing mining claim areas. It does so by establishing an approach that harmonizes the management regime for operation of these roads both inside and outside the park reserve boundaries.
The bill also allows for three existing hunting outfitters to continue their activities in the park expansion area for up to ten years as the Crown seeks to acquire their business interests on a willing seller-willing buyer basis, at fair market value. Sport hunting is not permitted under the Canada National Parks Act, but the bill will allow such activities to continue on an interim basis in the expansion area only, as an exception, in order to provide time to conclude negotiations.
[Français]
In conclusion, this agreement allows for the temporary continuation of these guides and outfitters pending a market transaction with them.
The agreement to expand the boundary of Nahanni National Park Reserve has been a long time in the making. I would acknowledge the work of previous and current ministers. In particular, Minister Strahl, the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has worked extensively with me in bringing this bill forward. I note, as well, the previous contributions of Minister Baird, formerly the Minister of the Environment, and also Minister Lund and Minister Raitt, the previous and current ministers of Energy and Natural Resources, all of whom have taken part in this process.
The boundary has been enlarged to preserve for future generations 30,000 square kilometres of some of the most beautiful and unusual landscapes on the planet. The agreement provides a major role for the Dehcho people in the management of this wonderful place, which has been their homeland for generations and is the foundation of their identity as a people. By protecting this huge and magnificent area in legislation, we demonstrate to Canadians yet unborn that we had the courage and foresight to take action to protect one of the wonders of the world. It is a significant achievement and a contribution for world conservation; and as has been stated by myself and many others, it is, in many respects, Canada's gift to the world.
It is an extraordinary day to have this bill before the Senate, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Do I understand that you will have a statement, Mr.Latourelle? You are here to aid and fill in, if necessary.
I understand this bill passed the House of Commons with all-party support. Is that correct, minister?
Mr. Prentice: That is correct. The bill passed the House yesterday afternoon with all-party consent. Each party designated a speaker and 10 minutes per party. After those speeches, the bill was passed at second reading, sent to Committee of the Whole, passed in Committee of the Whole, and then passed at third reading and was then sent off to the Senate.
The Chair: Are you aware of any opposition to the bill that has been made?
Mr. Prentice: No. There is no opposition to the bill, certainly not in the House of Commons. The public support has been quite overwhelming.
The Chair: There is a lot of interest this morning. The sponsor of the bill is here. Senator Di Nino, you have not put up your hand, but I would like you to have an opportunity to speak, if you wish, and then we will hear from the deputy chair, who spoke to the bill yesterday in the Senate. Everyone will have three minutes. If there is time left, we will go to a second round.
Senator Di Nino: I will ask only one brief question, but I would like to congratulate the minister and Parks Canada. As you know, my interest in this subject is long-standing. I think it is a wonderful act to protect one of the most beautiful parts of the world, not just of this country.
You spoke about the three outfitters that will continue their operation for a maximum period of 10 years while there is an opportunity to try to negotiate a purchase of those businesses. I think that is commendable.
What about the 9percent that has been set aside for mineral and oil and gas exploration? Is there a provision that would allow the reclaiming of those lands once the minerals and the oil and gas have been extracted and it is no longer a viable operation? Is there a provision for reclaiming that portion?
Mr. Prentice: Let me answer that in two ways. First, the mining areas are not national park lands. They have been excluded from the defined boundaries of the park, so they are not subject, strictly speaking, to national park rules.
Mining activity in the Northwest Territories is regulated by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. There is some degree of devolution to the NWT government, but it is essentially INAC that administers it. Those mining operations or the reclamation of those lands are subject to the rules prescribed by INAC. It is a modern regime for reclamation activities. I cannot describe to you what the specific reclamation plans are for each of those mines, but I know that is in good hands.
The related question is the access road. The Prairie Creek Mine, in particular, ultimately will have a national park lease that will be created, which will be a bankable covenant for the operator of the mine. It will be subject to Parks Canada rules. Mr.Latourelle can speak to how those rules will be developed relative to the reclamation of the road.
Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada: In terms of the road, in this case we will have a lease with Canadian Zinc, the owner of Prairie Creek Mine. As part of that, there is a review process but the lands will still be managed as national park lands. We are very comfortable that, from an ecological and environmental perspective, we will be able to manage that area. We also have a memorandum of understanding with Canadian Zinc that Parks Canada has signed, and the organization is very productive and positive.
The Chair: Thank you for your support, Senator Di Nino, in working on this bill.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr.Latourelle. It is great to have you here on this matter.
Mr. Prentice, you congratulated a number of ministers in your government who were involved in this matter. That is entirely in order. I would emphasize as well that this process started before the time of the current government and in that sense it is very much a non-partisan exercise, not just in its unanimity yesterday and perhaps in the Senate as well. It truly is non-partisan and transcends those kinds of issues. It is a great accomplishment. I believe it is a remarkable park in a remarkable part of the world.
However, because it has gone through the house so quickly and perhaps will go through the Senate quickly, it raises the potential for concerns amongst Albertans, and Canadians more generally, that somehow we are not giving this process the review that it deserves. I do not believe that to be the case because there has been such a long process of consultation and collaboration on the part of a number of governments and certainly many stakeholders. To alleviate some of those concerns, could you give us a bit of a rundown on how the consultations worked on a community basis and on a national basis, and the groups that were involved?
Mr. Prentice: It is important to emphasize that this is not a piece of legislation or an initiative that is being rushed. We are dealing with it at the end of the session, fair enough, but this initiative has been essentially in development for 31 years. You are quite right in that many governments have been involved, and many different combinations of ministers have been active in terms of trying to resolve some of the issues surrounding the expansion.
The consultation process has been very extensive. The Dehcho people have, from the outset, always believed that this land needs to be set aside as part of their land claims process, and they have been adamant about that for generations. Their wishes have been incorporated into this bill through an extensive consultation process. I can assure you that they are fully satisfied.
The greater challenge has been much of the consultation with the Northwest Territories government and amongst individual government departments that have a different perspective on this matter. There has been a MERA process that looked at mineral potential. In particular, the Government of the Northwest Territories has been involved in that, as has been the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of NRCan, or Natural Resources Canada, and the Department of the Environment. That process has been going on for five years at this point. You are seeing here the culmination of all of these efforts. Certainly, in the time since I became minister — and Minister Baird before me — we have pushed hard to bring these issues to a close. You are seeing the culmination of probably the most extensive consultation we have ever had on a national park expansion.
The Chair: I might point out, minister, that Senator Banks is my predecessor as chair of this committee. We have an element of corporate memory and continuity here, personified by Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Good morning, minister. Good morning, Mr.Latourelle, and it is nice to see you again. Minister, we have seen Mr.Latourelle often through the years.
Mr. Prentice: I am sure you agree with my assessment.
Senator Banks: For the record and strictly for the record, I would remind the committee that this is not the creation of a national park but a national park reserve, which is not the same thing.
Mr. Prentice: That is correct.
Senator Banks: I take note of the fact that there is not, as there might be expected to be in this legislation, a non- derogation clause. That is not necessarily a bad thing, and we have gone up and down on that point on many issues before, but I do simply call it to your attention.
The only question I have is one with which Mr.Latourelle will be intimately familiar and that we have asked of your predecessors going back a long way. I will not ask Mr.Latourelle whether he has enough money to do what he is being asked to do with this initiative in Canada's national parks, but this committee has long been of the view that it is a lovely thing to proclaim national parks and national marine protected areas and the like, but it is quite another matter to provide the resources that are necessary for their proper maintenance, stewardship, etcetera. Can you give us some assurance that not just this national park reserve but Canada's national parks in general are being well-funded?
Mr. Prentice: We have made provision for the funding of this park on a go-forward basis. The dollars necessary to deal with the purchase of the outfitters have been set aside. They have been built into the fiscal framework, and they are available to Parks Canada as they proceed with the negotiations.
In addition, within the existing capital budget of Parks Canada, $5 million is set aside for capital facilities associated with the expansion. Parks Canada is in a position to invest what are currently estimated to be $1.4 million of annual incremental operating expenditures that have been provisioned. Mr.Latourelle can add some details to that.
I can tell you that, over the course of the last two budgets, the investments that are being made in Parks Canada are historic in nature, and I think Mr.Latourelle would agree with this assessment. In the course of the last two budgets, the quantum of the resources that have been set aside for Parks Canada on projects in many different parks is probably the largest in history.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you for being here, Minister. I think this is great. It is a huge area, but it is also a magnificent area. I am familiar with part of it.
I have two questions. I am dating myself a bit, but I moved the first non-tent camp in Prairie Creek in 1967, as a young person, a child, driving a truck. I have also been to Cantung mine. The Cantung mine has been in operation for a long time. Obviously there is a route and a road into that mine. In looking at your map, I am a bit confused with the notes that say Prairie Creek and Cantung are outside of the park reserve, but I see Prairie Creek in an opening in the centre of the map. Perhaps I am not reading it correctly. The roads, especially the one to Prairie Creek mine, are under negotiation. It says that you will need to provide for that. As I say, Cantung is pretty straightforward. Prairie Creek might be different. You probably do not have it with you but I would ask for a clearer map, one that shows both the mines and the accesses. I am not against what you are doing here, and I think it is great, but if you can get that for me in much better resolution than we see here, I would appreciate it.
The Chair: May I just say, senator, for the record, that you are referring to a map that was circulated by the department in a press kit yesterday when the bill reached our chamber.
Mr. Prentice: Prairie Creek is the doughnut hole, as I referred to it.
Senator Neufeld: The notes say it is outside of the park reserve, so that is a bit confusing to me. If I had a better map, I might be able to understand.
Mr. Prentice: Mr.Latourelle will provide a better map. The mine or lease area is essentially a doughnut hole. It does not comprise part of the park. The question became, how do they get into and out of it? There have been extensive discussions about whether the road in and out would be excised from the park, in a sense an access ribbon that would not be national park land and therefore continue to be administered by Indian and Northern Affairs, or, alternatively, whether it would become national park land, and if it became national park land, how would they get a bankable lease, if you will, because they would not be able to finance their mining operation without a form of ingress and egress. We arrived at the solution whereby the access road would be national park land, but we would build into the legislation provisions for Alan Latourelle, as the CEO, to authorize a lease that would be in a bankable form for the mine operator. The legislation gives the authority to Parks Canada to issue that lease, which is an unusual arrangement but it is one that is necessary to achieve the right balance here.
Senator Neufeld: They are necessary; I am familiar with that kind of thing. A better map would help me. The other question I have is about the three outfitters. Are they local or offshore?
Mr. Prentice: They are all Canadian. They are not Northerners, though.
The Chair: They are Canadian but not Northerners, is that what was said?
Mr. Prentice: Yes.
Senator St.Germain: Many of my questions have been answered. I want to congratulate you because I know how tough it is to get some of these things through. They have been in the process for years. I think of the devolution of airports as one of them, when I was privileged enough to be in the government in the 1980s.
Most of my questions have been answered, as I said, but I have a question regarding the outfitters. If you cannot reach an agreement, is there an arbitration process that will take place after 10 years? As much as with Senator Spivak, these outfitters are my friends.
Senator Spivak: I am all for outfitters.
Senator St.Germain: Maybe you can answer that.
Mr. Prentice: Certainly. The legislation does not find an arbitration process. It simply gives us 10 years to work through the details. If we cannot come to an agreement, an arbitration process is a possibility but it would be a consent process between the parties.
Senator St.Germain: What is the ten years?
Mr. Prentice: Ten years is the period defined in the legislation. Without getting into the details, Mr.Latourelle has an excellent working relationship with the outfitters. There have been discussions. They will carry on from here.
Senator Lang: Mr. Minister, we appreciate you coming forward so quickly also.
I have some concerns from the Yukon's perspective and I want to make this observation: The area that the border between the Northwest Territories and the Yukon goes through is probably one of the richest in minerals in a good part of Canada. I am sure Mr.Latourelle is familiar with this situation. One of the largest lead and zinc deposits in the world, I think, is in the process of being explored in what they call Howard's Pass. There is also the possibility of a huge tungsten deposit called Mactung, beyond Cantung. This brings me to my first question, and I notice that it has been touched on, which is access to Howard's Pass, and whether or not Howard's Pass will be accessed through the Health Canada road eventually or along the border of the Northwest Territories-Yukon. I do not think those decisions have been taken.
In looking at this map, I am confused, similar to Senator Neufeld, because it does not give a full picture of the Yukon border and other aspects. In terms of the access to the Howard's Pass — and if I am not mistaken to Mactung — if it is required to go through there, will we be going through that reserve or will we be able to avoid it?
Mr. Prentice: We have a superior map we can give you here this morning.
First, be aware it is part of the Mineral and Energy Research Assessment, the MERA process. The government of the Yukon has signed off on this initiative. They have been fully consulted as part of all this negotiation.
The access to Howard's Pass access road has been an important consideration. Mr.Latourelle can speak to that.
With regard to the mineral lands you speak of, you are correct: There is a corridor of land between the Yukon border and the so-called Flat River that is extremely high in mineral potential. That has been one of the issues over the years. BillC-38 makes the lands that have high mineral potential available for development. That has been achieved with this bill. That has been part of the balancing of interests necessary to get to this point. There is a fairly substantial area of land between the Flat River and the Yukon border that will continue to be available for exploration and development.
Senator Lang: For further clarification, the land that we are talking about is not included in the reserve; it is strictly Crown land, as per any other area in the Northwest Territories, is that correct?
Mr. Prentice: Correct. That land has been one of the issues for many years.
Senator Lang: That was set aside. Is it the intention of the government to eventually buy out the mining companies that are within the reserve but designated so that they are — shall we say — outside the reserve?
Mr. Prentice: There is no current plan to do that. Future generations may decide to do that. None of us know. We have tried to achieve a balancing of conservation with economic development in the NWT and the Yukon, and we think we have struck the right balance after many years of working on this issue.
Senator Lang: I want to make one other observation, if I could. I am pleased to see this kind of multi-purpose approach, to some degree. It seems like good common sense has been applied here. We have seen national parks going ahead in the North before and it is easy, around this table when most people are not from the area, to go ahead and designate a park. However, economic potentials of areas have been ignored and designations have been just brought forward for parks, and subsequently where we could be using it in a more multi-purpose aspect, rather than just on the reserve side. That has been taken away for us. I am thinking, specifically, of Kluane National Park. I am pleased to see that the minister's office and the department have taken that aspect into consideration.
Mr. Prentice: Thank you. I would add that it has not only been the mining areas but the south-easterly portion of the area, as well. There have been areas available for hydrocarbon exploration and the area of the Nahanni Butte which, again, have not been included into the park reserve. It reflects a balance of interests and in accordance with what the First Nations have desired, as well.
Senator Spivak: I want to congratulate you. This is a wonderful legacy for you and all of the other people who have worked on this particular park. Paragraph41.1 (3) obviously contemplates further development and also probably more access roads and that sort of thing. Can you comment on that? This looks like the minister has total discretion. Are the normal processes of looking at regulation to be followed, including statutory instruments and all of that in the sense that Parliament will also have a voice? How do you contemplate that? Can you comment on the process that will inevitably be followed, now that you have reached this agreement and there are those riches to be accessed?
Mr. Prentice: This seemed to us to be the best way to go about it. You are referring to paragraph41.1 (3), that is entitled "Land use permits.'' It says that the minister may essentially issue permits for the use of lands for the purposes of mining access roads. You will see that it carries on to say:
. . .access roads referred to in subsection(2) . . .
That is only referring to the access roads for Prairie Creek mine and the access road from Tungsten to Howard's Pass. The authority of the minister only relates to issuing access roads for those two purposes. It does not give a willy-nilly authority to issue access roads in other national parks. It is limited to those two purposes.
Senator Spivak: Does paragraph(3) not refer to future development?
Mr. Prentice: You need a legal mechanism for the minister and, through him, the CEO of Parks Canada, to issue an access road into those mines. Absent this provision, there is no authority on the part of the minister responsible for the national parks to allow that access road to happen. This simply allows the creation of an access road by way of a land use permit for those two exceptional circumstances. Essentially, the alternative would be to landlock those two mining operations and shut them down.
Senator Spivak: I understand that, but what about future development? That is what I am asking. How will that process proceed in terms of the minister's discretion, and which minister? I assume it is your department. What about the regulation process? Future development is really what concerns me.
Mr. Prentice: It is a fair question. If I understand what you are getting at, those two mining operations will not be licensed as mining operations by Parks Canada. They will continue to be subject to their mining regulations by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Therefore, Indian and Northern Affairs will continue to authorize their development.
Parks Canada is a referral agency in the approval process, but they continue to be lands that are held by the Northwest Territories and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs; they issue the mining authorities to the companies. All we are doing, as Parks Canada, is creating a legal mechanism for an access road.
Senator Spivak: Very well. Thank you.
Senator Milne: To begin with, I congratulate you, minister. I think this is a wonderful thing you are doing.
Back in the 1970s, when my husband was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs, under which Parks Canada fell at that point, we watched Judd Buchanan paddling down the South Nahanni. It was quite an experience.
This map does not show access roads. It does not show Howard's Pass. It shows the tungsten ridge, but not the actual location of the mines within that doughnut. I believe we drove in somehow from the south and east.
Mr. Prentice: I will show you the access map that has the road on it.
Senator Milne: Then it was not anywhere near the mining access — good. Very well, I thank you.
Mr. Prentice: I am planning to paddle down there this summer.
Senator Milne: I can remember quite a hike to get into the river. It was interesting. I did come downstream.
I have some concerns arising from what Senator Lang said about future exploitation of that hole in the doughnut there. You have no control over what goes on in that area. If there are further resources of tungsten and zinc in that area, there will undoubtedly be future mines. The average life of a mine, they tell me, is 30years. If these tungsten and zinc deposits run out sometime in the future, does Parks Canada look at acquiring that land after it has been reclaimed?
Mr. Prentice: The situation in respect of the Prairie Creek mine continues on. It is no different after BillC-38 is passed. There is a mining operation there. They have certain legal rights that they have obtained from governments. They have the right to continue to operate their mine, according to all the legal rules, and expand it within that area, according to the legal rules.
Parks Canada is a referral agency on any environmental approval, so we have a say in that respect. However, to be clear, those lands are not national park reserve lands. They will continue on as they are.
Senator Milne: I realize that. I am talking about future plans if and when these reserves run out, which they will do eventually. Have you done any estimates as to how long the reserves will last in that area, and have you thought ahead to perhaps acquiring that land?
Mr. Prentice: You are right about a mine lasting 30 years; our assessment is that it is about 25 years. One would assume, at that time, the government would look closely at dealing with that circumstance.
I would emphasize that getting to this point has required a careful balancing of all the interests, including those of the Northwest Territories government that wants to see economic development in the North. The Prairie Creek mine and the continuity of that operation has been an important part of the discussion.
Senator Milne: My last question, Chair, is because of the lack of a non-derogation clause in this bill. As you realize, we received this bill so recently that I have not had a chance to read the whole thing and digest it properly. What clause is actually protecting all of the Aboriginal and treaty rights in this new park?
Mr. Prentice: It was not felt necessary to have a non-derogation clause included. There are several First Nations that we should talk about. First, the Dehcho are strongly on side. The reason we are using national park reserve status is that it allows the continuation of resolution of the land claims. That is essentially what national park reserve status is, as opposed to a full national park designation. The difference is that you carry on and deal with the First Nations claims.
Senator Milne: There are Dene claims in this area.
Mr. Prentice: This entire land — not only the area we are talking about today but the much broader Dehcho area — is the largest unresolved land claim in Canada at this point. We have been working on it for many years. A key element of that claim is having the Nahanni set aside in the way that it has been here. From the perspective of the Dehcho, it has been essentially a pre-condition to things proceeding. It fully satisfies their concerns.
There is also the prospect, at least, of discussion with the Kaska Dene First Nation, whose territorial area overlaps marginally. Their claims are not as far advanced as the Dehcho's. However, at some point in the future, it will be necessary for the Government of Canada to have discussions with the Kaska Dene.
We have done that; we have consulted with them through this process. I met with them previously in my former life as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Their interests have been accommodated — we are not doing anything here that impedes or takes away any claims that they have.
My understanding is that the Canada National Parks Act has a non-derogation clause in it already. In BillC-38, you are dealing only with amendments to that act and we are not taking the non-derogation clause out.
Senator Milne: That is a good thing to hear because the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has come up with suggested wording for a non-derogation clause, and I would sincerely hope that the government looks at that suggested wording. We have worked on it for several years to come up with a wording that seems to satisfy all sides in the ongoing debate on what should be the wording for the non-derogation clause. I hope you will look at it and consider it for any future legislation of this sort.
Mr. Prentice: If you look at section2(2) of the current national parks act, it says:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Senator Brown: Minister, you talked about Indian and Northern Affairs controlling part of what goes on in mining areas. Does that include reclamation of those areas if they are mined out?
Mr. Prentice: Yes. I can tell you from my previous time as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, they have a modern mining environmental approval process, including reclamation standards. It is all administered by Indian and Northern Affairs, in consultation with the Northwest Territories government, working toward devolution of those authorities.
Senator Brown: That would be enforceable before the government decides to buy the reclaimed land?
Mr. Prentice: Yes.
Senator Milne: Again, I congratulate you on this legislation, but when I see this other map, I see that it actually shows the boundaries of the watershed, and they do extend across the Yukon border and into the Yukon. This is presumably the area that Senator Lang was talking about where there are tungsten and zinc deposits.
Senator St.Germain: Mr. Chair, I think this is a tribute to previous governments and the present government. As Senator Milne pointed out, this was started many years ago by Judd Buchanan, the minister at the time. I think we should all take pride in and credit for this, Minister Prentice, because it has been a great effort and is a great accomplishment. Congratulations extend to everyone involved.
Mr. Prentice: I agree with that sentiment and would add that the current Prime Minister has been quite adamant about this issue as well from the get-go. It goes back 31 years, and it is historic that we should be here today. This is the penultimate step in the process.
The Chair: We feel proud as a committee to be part of that process. Thank you, sir, for being here on such short notice, and thank you, Mr.Latourelle.
Senator St.Germain: On the committee that I work with, we generally ask for a fairly detailed map of the area so that members have a better idea of exactly what they are working with, where boundaries are, and what have you. I would suggest that if that is not impossible, it would be ideal when we are dealing with issues such as this, Mr. Chair. I leave that with you.
The Chair: It makes absolutely good sense. Senator Milne has already made the point very well. We will take that suggestion to heart, and the clerk will note that.
Senator Lang: I would like to make a comment for the record, because it is important. We discussed the Prairie Creek mining area and the fact that some of these areas have been excluded but are still surrounded by the reserve and whatever. I would say for the viewers of this meeting that that should be seen to be a positive for the long-term interests of the park. We have learned a lot in the past about environmental clean-ups and things of this nature and what has to be done by the companies involved. At the end of the day, when this material is mined out, this will provide road access to Canadians and tourists so that they can go into an area that is relatively inaccessible. They will be able to, at least, get into the area and go from there.
I take this from our experience in Kluane National Park. We would have no access into that park other than by helicopter or by trail if it were not for the mining exploration done over the past decades. It is important to realize that it is a benefit to the park and should not be seen as a detriment to the park.
The Chair: That is a fine point, and it is noted.
Senator Neufeld: I appreciate the second map, but I asked the fellow from Parks Canada to get a much better map than this.
Mr. Chair, it is not a bad thing to look at the future, and I agree with Senator Lang. Once a road is built into Prairie Creek, that will give people access to go in there for other things. We sometimes create parks and reserves that exclude people. We should be including them so that they can get into those areas. When it is a national reserve or park, the monies that the federal government would receive from royalties from those activities should actually be put back into those parks. In many cases, it comes to the black hole here in Ottawa, and very little of it gets back to the area to actually develop it and make it a place where people want to go. I know federal governments and provincial governments are hesitant to do that, but that is one way of saying that the value we get out of there will be put it back into the park for conservation or whatever, and it actually goes back to that area for those purposes. We should think about that. It is a little bit late to do it now.
The Chair: It is, but it is a good point. You want to convert the black hole to a blue hole.
Senator Di Nino: I want to speak on Senator Lang's point. Some of you may or may not know that I am one of those crazy characters that actually runs rivers like this. A number of years ago I did canoe the Nahanni, and it was one of the most majestic experiences. You cannot help but be impacted and affected when you go there. You truly appreciate the relationship of the Aboriginal nations, our first peoples, with the land when you are there. When you are portaging a canoe on your back without the roads that Senator Lang is talking about, it is very difficult, so I would suggest that these roads do bring value.
Mr. Chair, I would also like to strongly recommend a book, for those of you who have an interest in this area. It is by R. M. Patterson called Dangerous River. It is a great read and it talks about the Nahanni, the dangerous river. It is a wonderful read that will give you full appreciation for what we are doing here today, which I think we can all be very proud of.
Senator Spivak: I have a stupid question. Not being familiar with the area, which line on the map is the river? Is it the little squiggly line?
Senator Di Nino: You can probably see it better on the coloured map.
Senator Spivak: Thank you.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee shall now proceed to clause-by-clauseconsideration of BillC-38?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed. Shall the bill as before us carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: It was unanimous, Mr. Chair. I think that should be noted.
The Chair: The bill as presented to this committee is carried unanimously.
Does the committee wish to consider pending observations? I might say we have had some comments on the record but probably in this case, in terms of timing, it would be better not to have formal observations and to have a clean, unamended report.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Is it agreed that I shall report this bill to the Senate at the earliest possible time today?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
Thank you very much, colleagues. As has been said by others, I think we should all be pleased with our response on such notice to deal with this matter. I think the record will show well in terms of our study of it, even though it was short in time. The minister clearly had a grasp of the subject as did the sponsor. There is history of a great deal of study preparatory to this bill. Senator Banks made that clear.
That is it, then, for BillC-38.
Colleagues, is it your wish that we should now proceed to clause-by-clause study of BillS-208, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed. Before we do proceed, the chair was not present last week when this bill was considered for about the fifth time by the committee. Just as a reminder, this private member's bill, which is Senator Grafstein's bill, has been through this committee in other Parliaments and passed and referred back to the Senate unamended.
Given that we have new members here, the steering committee felt that we should at least have Senator Grafstein present. Although I was not present, I understand a number of legitimate questions were raised. Questions were also raised earlier.
I have consulted members of this committee privately since my return and I know there is concern by some of the new members. However, I believe there is a consensus that we should proceed to clause-by-clause today, notwithstanding. If there are any amendments or objections, we can move on division.
Senator Neufeld: Help me here a little bit, Chair, as I am a new member. I am not in favour of the bill at all.
The Chair: That is clear.
Senator Neufeld: Do I vote against every clause in clause-by-clauseconsideration?
The Chair: You say "On division.'' When I ask, "Is it agreed,'' you say, "On division,'' which means that it is not unanimous.
Senator Lang: I want to go on the record to say that I am opposed to the bill. I know that some members have said that the bill has come before the Senate a number of times and has passed through this committee and back into the Senate. That does not necessarily mean that we have to do it again. I think there was enough evidence and information provided in the committee that the provincial, territorial and federal governments are doing what they are supposed to be doing under the present legislation that is in place between the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Act and all the territorial and provincial legislation that is in place.
I do not think that, because I or another member has a cause, it means that we must pass their legislation, necessarily. I think this clearly intrudes into the relationship between the provincial, territorial and federal governments and, if we proceed with this legislation, we would unintentionally be interfering in that relationship between the provinces, territories and the federal government.
There has been no consultation with the provinces on this bill. I know that they would not be supportive of it if they did present something formal to this committee. I do not know why we would be going in that direction.
The other point that must be made, and which I want to reinforce, is that the one area for which the federal government has responsibility in is the First Nation reserves. The reality is that they have not done that good a job. In fact, why would we, as a federal government, want to get more involved in territorial and provincial authorities when we have done such a poor job in the federal government, which has had a direct responsibility that has been exercised so poorly in decades past? That has improved in the past number of years with the priority that drinking water has taken on.
Subsequently, if you take a look at the budgets that have been put forward in the last ten years — but probably looking at the last three years — there have been significant major improvements done, both to the sewage and water treatment areas for the First Nations. That is ongoing, and it is being done.
Do we need another piece of legislation? Be assured that this kind of legislation causes more bureaucracy because you have to enforce these things when you proceed with them. I think it would be irresponsible of us to proceed with a bill, knowing that the process and the legislation that is presently in place is there and that there is enough of a legislative body in place to ensure that Canadians get what we all expect, which is clean drinking water.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lang, for those comments. I see a number of hands.
Senator Milne: You have a motion. I move that we proceed to clause-by-clause.
The Chair: We are having discussion on that motion. For what it is worth, I was not here last week when the matter was dealt with, as I said, and I did understand there was opposition. I have been informed, and I think you are all aware of that, by the government that the present government opposes the bill.
However, I think it was the view of the steering committee that we should at least proceed to clause-by- clauseconsideration. We can vote it down right now. There is a motion on the floor.
Senator St.Germain: I think the intent of the bill is honourable. In his efforts, Senator Grafstein looked at Walkerton, here in Ontario, where the incident there had such a huge impact. There was a loss of lives. Then I believe he cited North Battleford, Saskatchewan. Those are the ones that really stand out.
I can understand the frustration that we have as parliamentarians when we are questioned in our constituencies and our various regions as to what we are doing. Everyone expects that we should be able to protect and do everything through legislation.
I, too, am concerned about whether we are infringing on provincial and territorial rights and going into their turf. I am not sure that it is necessary. In the case of Aboriginal peoples, there is no question that there has been a huge challenge there. I hope that this resolves itself.
I do not believe that legislation is necessary, but I certainly would not dismiss, in any way, shape, or form, the intent of the senator who brought this issue forward. I leave it at that. I think the intent is good, but we are using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on the motion to proceed to clause-by-clause?
Senator Brown, I point out that your comments will be noted but you will not be entitled to vote.
Senator Brown: I will not vote on this bill because of my status. I was on the committee last year and voiced my opinion on the exact same issue that the two senators opposite have voiced. It is a provincial issue.
Senator Nolin of Quebec and I were both adamant that all these water bills are provincial interests. I echo what Senator St.Germain has said about the fact that the native peoples in the North do have a problem because of the water systems in the North. It is the federal government's right to make that an actual obligation to make them safe. The provinces, with two exceptions, one in Walkerton and one in North Battleford, do not warrant the size of a bureaucracy that would be created by such a bill.
Senator Lang: I want to make another point. My opposition to the bill is not because the government in the other place is opposed to it. It is based on my own research and reading, and also the evidence that was provided to the committee. That is important to note.
Second, I appreciate the work that Senator Grafstein has done on this bill and his commitment to it. However, I think it should be pointed out for First Nations that in the research that I have done, the Government of Canada is presently working with the First Nations to bring in not only guidelines but eventually a legislative framework to apply to First Nations land. That is under way as well. It is a priority.
I agree with Senator St.Germain, too, but I feel things are getting done, and I do not think this bill is necessary. If I felt that it was not being done, I would be the first to support a bill of this kind.
Senator Banks: I was not intending to comment, but I think I must, that we have adduced evidence in this committee, in prior—
The Chair: It has been adduced before the committee.
Senator Banks: Exactly; the bill before us is constitutional. I think the word used was "likely,'' because it is a shared jurisdiction and the CFIA already exists. There has been argument that we must set up a new regulatory entity of some kind. I do not think that is so.
I want to point out that enforcement by sight, as the police refer to it, is an important factor in criminal law. The fact that people do not put out packaged ice and bottled water and bubblegum and cornflakes that make us sick is not because there is an inspector standing beside everyone on the production lines of those things. It is because the people who own the companies, who purvey those things which we consume, understand that if they are not careful in making a product that they sell us that we ingest — that will not make us ill, let alone, God forbid, kill us — there are criminal sanctions for that, and that is what this bill simply does. It places it under the purview of the existing act. The mechanism is already there. The provisions are already there. The sanctions are already there.
This act is as simple as that. It simply says: Water is a food. That is what this argument boils down to. I do not think it is possible to argue that water is not a food, since it is the only thing without which we cannot exist. We can live without wheat and we can live without meat, but we can only live for three days without water.
Therefore, I argue that this bill is appropriate and that we should proceed with it.
Senator Peterson: I have a comment. Although there were only two instances raised by the witness, in the future there will be a lot more. Municipalities are struggling now to meet the demands of the population.
On the Prairies, we rely on groundwater; it is depleting, and pretty soon the only water we will have will be that brought down from major rivers. That will require, I think, a lot of oversight.
Senator Mitchell: I would like to emphasize, first, the argument made by Senator Banks, which is that there has been a good deal of evidence that this issue is absolutely constitutional.
The other point I would like to make is that it is not all that common, although not entirely rare, that a Senate bill gets as far as this one has. It has a long way to go from here to becoming law in the other place. However, in the process of getting there, however far along the way it gets, this bill makes a statement. It is one way that senators can make a powerful statement.
I think we all agree with the issue, that there are concerns with regard to water. We might not agree — that is obvious, from earlier arguments — that it should be handled by the federal government but, rather, by the provincial governments. However, the fact of the matter is that this bill, in some way — and not all that small a way — elevates the issue, provides more impetus to the debate, sends the message. To get it from here to third reading in the Senate is one more step in advancing that process. I think that is all good. There is no particular complication in federal- provincial relations that would be created by that advance. Then further steps can address these other questions. I would hate to see the process discouraged at this point.
Senator Neufeld: This is a great discussion, and I respect all of it. I think Senator Lang encapsulated it very well. To Senator Banks' argument, I do not disagree with some of the things he said but there are sanctions in the provinces if you do not provide water. Provinces and territories have their own regulations as it relates to water. I do not think we need another federal regulation on top of that.
Although I respect Senator Banks' argument very much, if this ever got to a place where it became law, do not ever think it would not require some more administration and more costs. Also, although provinces and territories appreciate there are things for which the federal government should be responsible, there are things that the provinces and territories feel strongly that they should be responsible for. There is not a need for the federal government to put something in place that requires more administration on behalf of those provinces. The administration costs will be borne by the provinces and the territories, and not by the federal government.
Clean water is as important to me as it is to anyone else, including Senator Grafstein. I appreciate Senator Grafstein's work on the bill. I am new here. I come with a different viewpoint on some of these things than previous senators do. I am not opposed to clean drinking water. I want to make that clear. However, I am totally opposed to more administration in trying to make that happen.
I will not repeat what Senator Lang has said about First Nations reserves, but it is a fact that the federal government has not done a good job there. I am not in favour of saying I should have open arms and come to British Columbia and help us see if we can do the same thing there. That is why I oppose this bill, not because there has not been hard work done and sincerity expressed about bringing something like this forward.
Senator Spivak: In the time that I have been here, I recall only two Senate bills that won the approval of the House of Commons. One was Senator Kenny's bill on the fleet using alternative gas, and the other was Senator Carney's bill on lighthouses.
Senator Milne: Senator Bryden had one.
Senator Banks: I had the Statutes Repeal Act. That makes four.
Senator Spivak: Really, the chances of this bill becoming law in a minority situation are not strong. One of my bills got to the House of Commons and first reading, and then there was an election and it died.
My point is that we tend to forget that the Senate should be a check on executive power, and it should be bringing forth ideas that are missed. The House of Commons sometimes makes mistakes. No one thinks senators are against clean drinking water, but given the favourable aspects of this bill, it is not exactly a hammer to kill a fly. It is more like a cattle prod.
Senator Milne: Since everyone else is speaking up, I will too. Water is a mixed responsibility, federal, provincial and territorial. I quite agree with Senator Neufeld that the federal government has done a dreadful job of its responsibility for safe drinking water on reserves — an absolutely abysmal job. However, last time I checked, there were boil water advisories in every single province of this country. If anything can be done to urge all levels of government to do what they have a responsibility to do, which is to provide clean drinking water, the stuff that life depends upon, to their peoples, then we should prod them as much as we possibly can.
Senator Lang: I want to respond to Senator Spivak, if I might. I do not think that any one of us should vote for a bill because we do not think it will get through the other place.
The Chair: Noted.
Senator Lang: I think you want to deal with the principle of the bill. You want to look at the bill and ask whether it makes reasonable, logical, common sense to bring into effect. Every effort should be made, if the majority of senators agree with the bill, that it should eventually become law. That is my point, and I would ask all senators to look at whether this is truly necessary. I do not think it is necessary. There has been enough evidence put on the record here to say that it is not necessary. We do have clean drinking water. In those areas where we do not, the provinces, territories, and federal government are working on it under the legislation and guidelines that are presently in effect.
The Chair: That has been noted, as has been your strong belief in democracy.
Everyone has had a say. I note some controversy, but a healthy, mature discussion. I believe we will have a vote on it. When there is a vote, I believe the chair votes first. To maintain what I hope is manifest impartiality, I will abstain from voting.
Shall the committee proceed to clause-by-clauseconsideration of BillS-208?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Shall the title stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Senator Lang: To clarify the procedure here, when do I get to vote?
The Chair: You voted. You said nay, or did you not?
Senator Lang: I know I did, but I want to be on the record.
The Chair: So you would like a recorded vote.
Senator Lang: I want a recorded vote.
The Chair: You are entitled to a recorded vote.
Senator Milne: For every clause, or just at the end?
Senator Lang: At the end of the bill.
Senator Neufeld: That is what I thought.
The Chair: As a practical matter, would it be fair for me to conclude that you gentlemen will vote negatively on all of the clauses and that other senators will vote affirmatively? Senator Spivak and Senator St.Germain?
Senator St.Germain: I am going against the bill.
Senator Mitchell: I am affirmative.
The Chair: Could we go through these clauses and, at the end, note the senators who are for? I need the record to show if we agree that, as we go through clause by clause, a voice vote suffices and we do not need to have it written. At the end, we will name the senators who are negative on each item.
Senator Lang: I have one other point.
The Chair: You are trying hard.
Senator Lang: I am trying hard. I wonder why the chair is not allowed to vote.
The Chair: He is allowed, but he has already declared he will abstain.
Senator Lang: Is that in the spirit of democracy?
The Chair: It is what I consider to be appropriate chairmanship, especially in these circumstances where I am on the record as having voted for this bill on February13, 2007.
Senator Lang: Mr. Chair, there are new members here and new evidence has been brought to the table.
The Chair: We heard all of the evidence. Senator Milne and I have been party to a situation where we did not go individually by each of these clauses and we did them en bloc. Senate committees and committee chairs were advised that that was an inappropriate procedure. In these circumstances, I would suggest for your consideration that we would agree that all these items on the clause-by-clause are passed —
Senator Milne: Clauses 1 to 4.
The Chair: Plus the title, etcetera. At the end, I would indicate that this bill has been carried, on division, with Senator Milne, Senator Peterson, Senator Banks, Senator Spivak and Senator Mitchell voting in favour; and with Senator Neufeld, Senator Lang and Senator St.Germain voting against. Have I characterized it correctly? Therefore, we would report the bill back as being carried unamended, on division. Do you agree that we do it that way, en bloc, in the Angus-Milne formula?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think the record should now show that BillS-208 is carried, on division.
That is the en bloc part, which we agreed to just do. I am having procedural difficulties here.
Just to be sure the record is clear: Shall the title stand postponed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Shall clause1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Shall clause2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Shall clause3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Shall clause4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division, as stipulated before. Shall the title carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Senator Banks: You might want a voice vote. If we want to have a voice vote, the clerk should call a voice vote so that it is on the record as having been done. You have now gone through it clause by clause, in the old formal sense. We should now have a recorded voice vote.
The Chair: With respect to each and every one of those on divisions, will you call it?
Shall the bill carry?
Lynn Gordon, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator W. David Angus?
The Chair: Abstain.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Tommy Banks?
Senator Banks: In favour.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Daniel Lang?
Senator Lang: Against.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Lorna Milne?
Senator Milne: Agreed.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Grant Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: Agreed.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Richard Neufeld?
Senator Neufeld: Opposed.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Robert Peterson?
Senator Peterson: Agreed.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Mira Spivak?
Senator Spivak: Agreed.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Gerry St.Germain?
Senator St.Germain: Opposed.
The Chair: The yeas have it, five to three.
Ms. Gordon: With one abstention.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill in this fashion to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, that is it for the summer, I think. I want to say one thing that I did say at our first meeting. When I started in this place, I was taken under the wing of Michael Kirby, who was chair of the Banking Committee. I was his deputy chair. He took me to the woodshed one day and he said, "You know, in my committee, we never have votes. This Senate is a place where we strive for consensus. We give sober second thought and only in exceptional circumstances would we vote.'' He said, "It does not mean you cannot vote, but I hope we can run the committee in that way.''
I thought that made a lot of sense. In all my 14 years on that committee, we never had a contested vote. I felt it was very salubrious and maybe one of the reasons the Banking Committee had the reputation that it had. Granted, I am particular, but all of us agreed that we did not want to usurp that reputation and make it our own. If we can work together, which is the way I think we believe is the way that senators should work, that is great. All of us, or most of us, have been saying that in the Senate, especially Senator Lang the other night. It is very important that we conduct ourselves in a way that is non-partisan to the extent that we can.
This was an exceptional circumstance. It is a private bill. We have all had a chance to get our feelings on the record. I want to thank you very much but hope we will keep in mind in the future that, if we can avoid voting in a contrary fashion, so be it.
I hope you all have a great summer and it does not look like we will be into the polls but that is still not too sure yet, to me.
Senator Brown: I asked if you might have five minutes for an in camera session the other day and you said we might. Are we out of time altogether?
The Chair: Can you give us an idea on the purpose?
Senator Brown: It is about energy and the most important thing we are discussing right now in Canada. The trip to Copenhagen is coming up and I wanted to give the committee, in an in camera session — not on the public air waves — some information that I have which I think they could read and greatly benefit by.
The Chair: Do colleagues agree that we can take five minutes? I think it is a reasonable request.
Senator Lang: I would like to go on the record to thank you, as the chair, and the deputy chair as well as the steering committee for the work that you have done. I do not think the viewers out there recognize the time and effort that you and the steering committee put in beyond the committee meetings that we have here. It takes a lot of time, effort and organization and, as a member, I would like to say — and I think I speak for all members — that we do appreciate it. The way in which you conduct the committee makes it a nice committee to be a part of. Thank you.
The Chair: That is very kind.
I will suspend while we go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)