Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 1 - Evidence - June 14, 2011
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5 p.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, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I see there is a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am prepared to receive nominations to that effect.
Senator Banks: I nominate David Angus.
Ms. Gordon: Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, I will put the question.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Banks that the Honourable Senator Angus do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Gordon: Thank you. Senator Angus, chair, would you please take the chair?
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gordon. For those of you who do not know, our clerk is Ms. Lynn Gordon and as far as I am concerned she is the greatest clerk on the hill. She is just terrific and she is part of the soul of this committee, which has worked together so well up to now and I am delighted to, first of all, if I may, welcome the new members that I see around the table. Senator Martin, I believe you are representing Senator Dickson; is that correct?
Senator Martin: Yes.
The Chair: You are welcome to come at any time, especially now that you hold such high office. Congratulations to you.
As far as you are concerned, Senator Wallace, from New Brunswick, I know you well and I am delighted you are on the committee and I hope you are going to enjoy the deliberations that we are engaged in.
As far as the rest of you are concerned, Senator Mitchell, Senator Banks and Senator Peterson on that side, and you all, I think we are supposed to do further work, but since I can say a few little words I did want to say it has been a joy and a privilege for me to chair this committee following in Tommy's footsteps.
I also want to welcome Janis Johnson, from Manitoba.
Senator Johnson: It is good to be back.
Senator Banks: Janis was on this committee before.
The Chair: I know, and she is back.
To everyone else in the room, it is great to be back, it is great to see you all back. I especially want to mention, if I may, our very wonderful people from the parliamentary library, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc, who have been an unbelievable support for us and you are going to see the work product very soon. To the other people present, welcome to you all.
Lynn, should we move on to this?
Ms. Gordon: Yes.
The Chair: I will say some other words later, but I am ready to receive nominations for the deputy chair. Are there any nominations?
Senator Neufeld: I nominate Senator Mitchell.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Neufeld. Are there any other nominations?
I declare nominations closed and you to be elected. Senator Grant Mitchell, come up here.
Senator Mitchell: I have yet to lose one of these elections.
Senator Neufeld: Remember we put you in, we can take you out. This is not forever.
The Chair: I want to say about our new deputy chair that it has been a joy working with him up to now. We have a very good working relationship, and it is another part of my belief that this is a committee where you never take votes, we operate by consensus, we operate in a nonpartisan way, we have a wonderful subject of great national importance and I am confident with us back together again we are going to be able to do that with zero acrimony, so congratulations and welcome back.
May I add, one of the bonuses, when Senator Mitchell gets to be here, is that we get the benefit of working with Saskia Tolsma, who is an unbelievable resource and an expert in social media and a tremendous volunteer of her time when she does not have to do it and she does it and she is willing and able and also a joy to be with. Welcome to you.
We now have a motion, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I am looking for a senator to move that:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee.
This would be the steering committee.
Senator Seidman: I will happily move that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Are there any other comments on that particular motion?
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
I assume you have included in your motion the second part, namely:
That the committee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Senator Seidman: Yes, I certainly did move that.
The Chair: I thought you did.
Next is Item No. 4, the motion to publish the committee's proceedings. I am looking for a senator to move:
That the committee publish its proceedings; and
That the chair be authorized to set the number of printed copies to meet demand.
Senator Brown: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Brown. I do not think we need seconders. Is everyone in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded?
Carried.
Number 5 is the authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present.
I am looking for a senator to move "That, pursuant to rule 89, the chair," et cetera. You all have a copy of this.
Senator Johnson: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Johnson. Is everyone in favour of that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary? Carried. Thank you very much.
Number 6 is the financial report. This report has been distributed to members, has it? It is in our packages. It is prepared by the Senate administration, according to rule 104, and it is submitted to us for approval at this organizational meeting.
I am looking for a senator to move:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 104.
I can then deal with it in the Senate tomorrow.
Senator Peterson: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Peterson.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded? None.
Carried.
Number 7 is the research staff. I am looking for a senator to move:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to our committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it; and
That the Steering Committee be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Do I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Banks: I have a question.
With respect to the duties of the counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel, do you not want to include reports in that? Ought we not include reports in that, not just bills, subject matters of bills and estimates?
The Chair: I see "reports" in the third, but which part of the motion?
Senator Banks: The second paragraph which states that "the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel, and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and estimates." I think we should add in "reports."
The Chair: I think we should, too. Is everyone agreed with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion that you are about to make, as amended, is the one I read out, as amended. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded?
Carried unanimously.
I would like to invite you, Sam and Marc, to join us at the table. These are our representatives from the Library of Parliament.
This is Marc and this is Sam. They are super. Welcome back.
Number 8, authority to commit funds and certify accounts. I am looking for a senator to move:
That pursuant to section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, pursuant to section 8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, such authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and the deputy chair.
Senator Wallace: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Wallace.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded?
Seeing no contrary minded, declared carried unanimously.
Travel is No. 9. I am looking for a senator to move:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee, the Steering Committee, 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.
Senator Neufeld: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Neufeld.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded? Carried unanimously. Thank you.
Designation of members traveling on committee business.
We have a lot of travel planned here, honourable senators, so this is an important one. I am looking for a senator to move:
That the steering committee be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on "official business" for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators' Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) to consider any member of the committee to be on "official business" if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the steering committee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
Senator Brown: I so move.
The Chair: That is moved by Senator Brown.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded? Carried.
Number 11 is travelling and living expenses of witnesses. I am looking for a senator to move:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
Senator Johnson: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Johnson. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary minded?
Carried unanimously.
Number 12, communication. I am looking for a senator to move:
That the Steering Committee be empowered to direct the communications officer(s) assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans where appropriate and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation;
That the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, or the Steering Committee, be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
Senator Seidman: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have been fortunate to have in this role Ceri Au, who was at a meeting we had earlier. She is a talented young person from the Senate Communications Directorate. She is also skilled, as is Saskia, in social media and was instrumental in our getting on Twitter and in having our own dedicated website, which is a good thing. I gather that she is back with us.
Number 13 is not a motion, but for your information. Our regular time slot is from 5 to 7 on Tuesdays — we are in it at the moment — and Thursdays from 8 to 10. This is our regular home room. I do not particularly fancy this room but others do. Anyway, the powers that be have designated it as our home room. When possible, we can go to the Victoria Building where there are good facilities and good television. Generally, we have television coverage of nearly all our working meetings because of the profile of our study, et cetera.
Is there any other business? I might just say, especially for Janis and John that about a year and a half ago we started on a study to develop a strategic direction for an energy policy. Those words "energy policy" have some poison element to them in this country. The reality is — and we have been told by witness after witness — that Canada does not have a policy for energy. There was a thing called the National Energy Program. We have been working on developing —
Senator Mitchell: Going to be like that, are you?
The Chair: Keeping in mind that the population of the world is now approaching 7 billion and it is estimated to be more than 9.5 billion before 2050, traditional sources of fossil fuel variety energy are not only shrinking, but they are also becoming more and more noxious in terms of their unfriendliness to our environment. Therefore, there is a great need and a great move not only to have energy security for our people, for our grandchildren and their grandchildren, but also to find cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy. That is sort of the basic underlying rationale of our study. We started by focusing on learning the lexicon, finding out what the buzz words are, learning some of the basic parameters of how to measure units of energy of different types. We brought out a report early on, about a year ago, and I commend to you — I could ask the clerk to send you that first report we came out with.
We were planning to produce another report at this time if we had not had the election. Mr. LeBlanc and Ms. Banks have been hard at work in preparing the wherewithal, if you will, the tools, namely a draft, which the steering committee will take cognizance of tomorrow and be back to you next week. It looks like it might be possible to present a report before the end of the session, but I doubt it. We could get permission to file during the summer, which is good and bad. We did one last year in the summer, in August. We came up and had a press conference on our offshore drilling report. We got a lot of media attention and it was very well received.
If Mr. LeBlanc and Ms. Banks feel they can get it done and we all feel we can give the input that we would need to, maybe it will be worth doing. Otherwise, we could get it out early in September. That is the situation with respect to this study.
The clerk, Ms. Gordon, has circulated a document, a history of this committee, including some of studies it has done in the past and what we are up to at the moment. I have just seen it. I think everyone received it; it came electronically, but I have seen a hard copy. It is a very nice looking document. You may show what it looks like. It came out today.
Ms. Gordon: No, it came last week when I sent the email to all the members' offices announcing I was clerking the committee, and I included the background introduction document, which we update every session and Parliament.
The Chair: You will find that to be very helpful. The steering committee is composed, as we all now know, of myself, Senator Mitchell and Senator Neufeld. We will be meeting tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 and hope to have some concrete recommendations for you. In the meantime, I solicit your input on the following things.
With respect to travel, we had a fairly fulsome travel schedule planned in the context of our study, which would help us achieve a goal that we would see and hear from stakeholders in every province of Canada and the territories. We had a cameo appearance, if you will, in British Columbia at the Globe Conference, but then we had a significant fact- finding trip to Montreal, and we also went to all of the provinces in Atlantic Canada. We also visited some nuclear facilities. We went to Chalk River and saw the NRU and the whole research set up there, and then we travelled to the big nuclear installations of OPG as well as Bruce Power.
I think our minds were boggled to find that 55 per cent of all of Ontario's electricity is generated by those nuclear plants and facilities, which were not in any aspect that we could see in a state of disrepair. On the contrary, we felt you could eat your meals right off the floor. We knew there was a new building program under way, but it has all come to kind of a policy stall following the tragic accident in Japan. I do not know where it is going.
Germany has recently said they will cease and desist from nuclear as a power source. Switzerland has done likewise. In France, 94 per cent of all its domestic and industrial power still comes from nuclear. Therefore, Canada has a huge investment. We do not know at the moment what the outcome will be on the sale of our Candu manufacturers, but it is a work in progress. I know it is a huge issue for the government.
I took the liberty of talking to and now meeting with the new minister of NRCan who happens to be a dear friend of mine, Minister Joe Oliver. He has a big portfolio for a freshman MP. It was not his first election, but he has a great background in business, investments and in the market. He was also executive director of the IDA, the Investment Dealers Association, so he has seen it from all sides. I think he will be a user-friendly minister for us, and I have invited him to come and have dinner with us, like Minister Kent did, and I will get back to you as to dates that would be convenient.
Minister Kent has been renamed as the Minister of the Environment, and he has been quoted in many circles this summer saying how much he appreciated that dinner he shared with us and his commitment to working with us going forward on our study and in dealing with matters particularly related to the environment. Therefore, I think both of those ministers should be early witnesses. The steering committee will have a more concrete idea, but I am letting you know what we are thinking.
On the issue of travelling, we have learned by bitter experience if you do not get in early — and I know we are on the public record here — to the internal budget subcommittee, the well might run dry quickly. Therefore, we will be coming forward with recommendations, but we would like your input on the following. We have not been to Saskatchewan or Alberta in this life. Senator Peterson kindly gave us a mocked-up agenda of a possible trip to Regina and also to the other place where they are doing this capture — Weyburn. We had a look at the agenda, Senator Banks, when we went with you. I think it was five years ago now; seems like yesterday. We went to Calgary and we held fact-finding and public hearings. We went to Edmonton, to the innovation and technology CANMET facilities. We also went to the oil sands in Fort McMurray. Something along those lines we could do, and maybe in Manitoba — Senator Johnson, I think we want to go to Manitoba. They are very big in gas, for example, in Manitoba, but how could we have a useful day or two in Manitoba? Our thinking at the moment is we might have a trip to those three provinces. That would be a heavy-duty full week. That is one agenda.
Another one is going to B.C., and I think Senator Neufeld, as a former minister there relating to matters of our mandate, feels that we could best profit from seeing things, if you will, like a run of the Tidal River Development, things that you do not necessarily learn from a witness or reading in a book. He took us last year to the BC Hydro transmission facility, which is a world-class, state-of-the-art, brand new facility, a trip that he organized. We went in a bus and we were very well received and we were able to see not only that the Greater Vancouver area but the whole area right down to Dallas, Texas, receives power. If there was a momentary lapse where someone's TV set has stopped working, with their technology they can instantly identify where the break is and how fast it can be repaired. That kind of situation opened our eyes. That is what he means by fact finding as opposed to public hearings.
We are looking at covering B.C. and somewhere in the North. There are many options in the North. It is a vast area. There is Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I do not think we can cover them all. The preliminary view of the steering committee, which met informally today to reduce the pressure tomorrow, is that we should probably focus on the Northwest Territories. However, we are open-minded, so if any of you have thoughts about how we should deal with that, let us know.
A former member of this committee is a resident of the Yukon. I always felt we should go to the Yukon as a matter of courtesy and collegiality, just as I feel that we should go to Saint John, New Brunswick again, because it is such a beautiful place.
We are not bound now to go to the Yukon, in the same way or for the same reasons, but we should go where the action is. I do not know where the action is. The National Energy Board chair, Gaétan Caron, has appeared before us at least twice. He met with the clerk this summer, and he had some ideas.
Senator Banks: It was not on this study, but this committee did, in living memory, go to the Western Arctic and put a report out about it that has some reference to this study. If we are going to the Arctic again, you might want to concentrate on the Eastern Arctic. We have to remember that going to the Arctic is like saying we are going to Europe. It takes days to get from one place to the next, and you cannot cover the Arctic in a week. It is not possible to do.
The Chair: Maybe we do not cover the Arctic with B.C. Maybe we cover B.C. with the other provinces.
Senator Banks: B.C. and the Yukon are pretty easy, because you can get there and back quickly. I am not suggesting that the report we did on the Western Arctic is specifically related to the present study.
The Chair: It is not.
Senator Banks: Some of us were there fairly recently, but we have never been to the Eastern Arctic, which is a different story. There is not a lot of energy stuff going on in the Eastern Arctic.
The Chair: Someone said there was an article in The Globe and Mail today about deepwater drilling in the Arctic or something.
Senator Neufeld: In the Beaufort, which is in the Western Arctic. I think those are matters that the steering committee still has to work through to figure out whether we can bring people here or whether we go there. I agree with Senator Banks; you do not just decide to go to the Arctic and see a few things overnight. It does not happen.
The Chair: We are open to suggestions on this. The clerk has reminded me that we are on the public record, and I am reminding you, although you do not need as much reminding as I do. I believe in communicating with the public, as well as our members.
I should say that when we went to Quebec, we ran into what is a well-known policy with that provincial government of not being open to appearing before federal committees. As a result, we were deprived in our visit of hearing about the advanced and enlightened energy policy that they have in Quebec.
This summer I happened to be having dinner with the premier, and I deplored this. He deplored it back, saying that it is the way it is and that they have some really exciting stuff that they would like the rest of Canadians to know about. I said that is what we are here to serve, that we are here to let you get your wonderful Quebec power message out. This was crazy. We could barely meet with Hydro-Québec. The premier said that he wants his minister to meet with our committee. He had an assistant communicate with me, and we talked about maybe having them come to Hull or Gatineau, whoever they want to have come, and tell us all about their energy plans. That is another little trip we could make for a day, outside of the room here. That is in the works as well.
Senator Mitchell, we talked about some other things this afternoon on the travel subject, such as Europe.
Senator Mitchell: Yes.
The Chair: Again, I think Senator Banks established some good precedents that are now useful in terms of planning our own activities. There is no question that in Europe, there is nuclear power, pipelines, et cetera. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the OECD, which have big environment and energy sections, need to be visited. Senator Banks' advice to me was that we should cover this at least every five years because it evolves.
We already tested the waters last spring with the budgeting people. Although there is a new shadow over international travel, we will be planning, either late in the fall or early in the new year, a trip that would cover Paris and all those agencies, as well as Vienna.
One thing that sticks in my mind is the visit to OPEC. OPEC's headquarters are in Vienna. That was one of the great experiences of our lives, going there and having to be searched 11 times. Then you are finally in a room with all these powerful oil barons or sheikhs. All the petroleum exporting countries were there making decisions about how much the supply should be and measuring it against what they anticipated the demand would be in 2011. It is quite timely to go back, because they had estimated oil at $60 for this year, and it is $99 or something.
These are issues that we will be able to investigate. I want to just say one more time that this steering committee and this chair believe in an open-door policy. We solicit your ongoing input, before, during and after meetings. We will work better, and we have proven that we can work better if we all communicate with each other and make sure that we are doing the things that we think we should be doing. Please remember that we feel strongly about that.
We are blessed with our infrastructure, with the clerk and her staff, and with the researchers. We were excited about the website when we got going. However, we were warned. It is a bit of a pilot project for the Senate. I think we were the first to have a website. Senator Dawson had a website, but it was only on a particular report. Our website is ongoing, where we solicit blogging and interaction. Saskia Tolsma and Ceri Au have been the main drivers of what we tweet about. We have not had that many hits, but once we become active again and once we get on television, hopefully we will. Again, we solicit your input in terms of tweeting that we should be doing.
Senator McCoy was a valuable member of this committee. She and Senator Neufeld were the basic grandmother and grandfather of this study. They put together the terms of reference for us. It is my belief that Senator McCoy has always said that you have to have a national dialogue. Canadians have to start talking about why the One-Tonne Challenge did not work, why we have to do these things to make our environment cleaner and better, why we need cleaner energy, why we use energy, what we use it for and what compost is. If you get Canadians into a dialogue, then the momentum builds up. We have to keep the dialogue going and build it up.
Speaking of terms of reference, one of the things we need to do is renew our mandate from the Senate. The clerk circulated two documents. One is our general mandate, which is called "Emerging Issues," ensuring that we have the tools so that if, for example, the Deepwater Horizon accident happens in the Gulf of Mexico, we do not suddenly have to run to the Senate and ask if we can do a study; we just self-start. Those are emerging issues within the general terms of those items.
The other one is the special study, which as you can see, as we say in French, du coq-à-l'âne — from soup to nuts — but it is there. I think it is fully covered, so unless anyone has any amendments they would like to add, we would put in the date of June 29, 2012, as being our sunset date, and it will be my sunset date for sure. I would entertain a motion or do we need two motions or one?
Senator Neufeld: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Neufeld that the special study emerging issues and the green paper be adopted for submission to and approval of Senate.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary?
Carried. Thank you.
The blue one; Senator Seidman, would you like to move that?
Senator Seidman: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Seidman moving the special study on the energy sector be moved, and all in favour of that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary?
Carried.
Senator Banks: While you are on motions, chair, under business there are two important motions we should finish. One is that each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff, and then the broadcasting one, the committee be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of our hearings, which is on the agenda.
The Chair: The clerk has pointed out that is redundant so we do not need to do that, but we do need the second one.
Senator Neufeld: The second one we already did.
The Chair: Attendance of senators' staff though, are you moving that?
Senator Banks: Yes.
The Chair: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
I open the floor to input. There is lots of other stuff we could do that falls within these terms of reference. I have told you about the study. Those returning members know what I am talking about. Senator Johnson and Senator Wallace may want to have a read of our report of last June, and if you want us to do other things.
Senator Brown: I would like to see us put some information in the website that recognizes what industry itself has been doing to solve the problem. We do not need to include the name of particular automotive companies, but I think we should be putting out the fact that many of them have almost cut their fuel consumption in half, which is not only good for the environment but it is good for stopping pollution.
I bought a new vehicle this last year and it was the same type of vehicle I have had for years, but they changed the transmission and it now has six gears where the same vehicle used to have just main, reverse and park. Now it has six gears and this same vehicle goes 70 miles an hour with 1,400 RPM. The one I had before, if you went 70 miles an hour you were going pretty close to 3,000 RPMs. It just draws the next gear that it needs automatically. If it is level it is going to go 1,400 RPM, and if you start going up a slope it will kick in another gear. If you get into a steep hill you will kick in all the gears before you are done.
There are other engines that have done different things and I think we should, as a committee, reward not necessarily the company, but you can go from one company to another, Japanese, there is American, there is Canadian, and take note of the fact that they are doing an awful lot already to change pollution, to change the environment, and there are other companies in other areas, whether it is oil production or natural gas. There is talk both in the United States and in Canada that they have discovered enough natural gas for the next 100 years and that cuts emissions down by about 50 per cent right off the bat, as opposed to coal-fired and all this kind of stuff.
I would like to see some of what industry is doing without trying to advertise the company. If you say General Motors is doing this or Toyota is doing that, you will get into some kind of hassle there because you are picking out winners and losers. If you can identify the fact that they have reduced cars by a certain percentage or the same thing with any emissions coming out of things that they are already studying and already making appointments to do things that actually reduce the environmental pollution.
The Chair: That is a good point and it follows on, if you will recall, in Quebec, you were there, we had Robert Transport, who are developing these special trucks that run on LNG and the like.
Senator Brown, we are proposing no meeting on Thursday morning at our 8 a.m. slot, but on Tuesday night, at this time, we will have an in camera meeting off the record like this and we will discuss all these matters. First of all, the steering committee will then be in a position to report more concretely back to you on things like the website, we will have Ceri here to describe a little more in detail what we are doing. You may want to visit the website, which is www.canadianenergyfuture.ca. It is worth a look. In French it is avenirenergiecanadienne.ca.
The only other thing, I guess, is if anyone feels strongly, and we do not know whether we will be here in July or August or how long in June, so I have suggested, and I think my two colleagues on the steering committee agree, that it is not worth calling in some witnesses for this limited time, but let us rather devote the time that we have available in June to planning, so that we can put some concrete plans in place and get the dates for the travel.
In that regard, what I omitted before was that there was a lot of talk amongst our committee members, before we rose for the election, about doing some travelling during the summer break. My little ears told me that it was by no means unanimous, that it was going to be difficult to get a representative group from the committee willing to travel before we are back in the fall. You can do a lot.
Last summer, for example, Elaine McCoy organized a focus group day. She had all kinds of big players from the energy sector in town who gave freely of their time. We had a whole day of hearings. Mark was there, Grant and I were there, others were there and then there was a report prepared and then we did our thing on the offshore. You can certainly do constructive things even though the Senate is not sitting but, unless I hear from you to the contrary, we will operate on the basis we are only going to do our thing; is that right? Is that the general feeling? Okay, because we could have gone to the Yukon or B.C.
Those are some of the things to think about between now and next Tuesday evening. We will have a good full session off the record next Tuesday evening from 5 to 7. That is it.
Is there any other business that anyone would like to bring before the meeting?
Senator Wallace: Mr. Chair, as a new member of the committee — this may be obvious to everyone else — we are getting the authority to do two special studies, one on emerging issues and one on the energy sector, and you have been working on a study for some time as you described.
Which category does the work that has been done to date fall under?
The Chair: There is a mistake there in a way. I was going to mention it.
The one on the green paper is really the ongoing mandate, emerging issues, and it is that that gives us the authority. For example, I mentioned the big thing in the Gulf of Mexico. If something suddenly happens, we do not have to go back to the Senate and get a new mandate. The only special study is the one on the blue.
Senator Wallace: With the energy sector special study, as you point out, there has been a fair bit of travel to this point to get the information and the background knowledge, and more is envisaged. When the committee goes to each location, is there a checklist? The mandate is comprehensive on the issues you looked at. As a matter of course, is there a standard checklist when the committee arrives at each location that it goes through and ensures before it leaves that it has addressed each issue in the mandate?
The Chair: That is a very good question. An attempt has been made to do it. There have been strong statements, especially from Senator Lang, that we should have a checklist of questions that we should be sure to ask at each venue. We have not been perfect in that regard, but we are getting better. It depends what witnesses you are having. For example, in New Brunswick, we had the premier and four of his senior cabinet ministers sitting across from the committee at a table, and they all gave their spiel. Did we cover the checklist? I am not sure. You are right on the money, and yes, we have that in our minds.
Senator Wallace: I was not so much thinking of getting down into what questions to ask, but it was just these general topics that are set out in the special study and ensuring that each of those general topics was addressed. The specific questions will unfold as it goes.
Senator Neufeld: The discussion is pretty wide ranging. It may not capture every one of those, but I will say that things we have heard and that we have seen are pretty wide ranging. You would have 40 pages in front of you if you wanted to cover each one of them. That is there for general use.
The Chair: I want to come back to the point on the shale gas.
Senator Banks: Reports are often made more fun and interesting to read by having little side bars. Several things have emerged that have to do with the overall study.
One is what will happen now with respect to the nuclear industry in the world, because the game has now changed, at least for a while. Maybe it will go away and it will be back to normal again, but, for the moment, it is an interesting question.
Another is the Canadian manufacturer of a highly efficient car designed for local domestic use. It can be sold in other countries but not in parts of Canada because it requires provincial approval. It is a sort of coloured side bar that would be of interest. This committee should know about that, because the cars are made in Quebec, I believe, and sold as fast as they can make them in the United States, but not in Ontario or Alberta.
The Chair: We heard, too, how Robert Transport cannot get their trucks refueled in certain parts. The trade barriers in this country are ridiculous.
Senator Banks: That subject could have some attention in your report.
Senator Mitchell: I will make these remarks quick. You have all been very patient and engaged, and that is great.
I would like to reiterate and support what Senator Angus has said. This has been an excellent committee. Everyone who has participated in one way or another or just visited from time to time has found it is one of the best I have ever been on, and I find the collegiality and the ability to work together on both sides non-partisan and excellent. We have a sense of purpose. It is an important study. I credit most of that to the leadership of Senator Angus, who has been outstanding. It is a pure pleasure to work with him, and I appreciate that he is back very, very much.
I want to say that I will miss, and I think we all will, Senator Lang and Senator Frum, in particular. They were great participants, but they have gone on to other things and have been replaced by excellent and outstanding senators, and I welcome them both. I should say that we are in some senses losing Senator McCoy as well, from an official capacity, but we hope she will be able to participate, because she has had great input and made a difference.
The staff, the clerks and the Library of Parliament and the support staff, are all excellent. I have no reason but to expect we will have a wonderful year that will be marred only by the fact that Senator Angus will have to leave at the end of it. The report will be outstanding, I am sure, and the work is important. It will be done very well.
The Chair: I had to tell the Leader of the Government in the Senate today that the Senator Mitchell who is the deputy chair of this committee is the twin brother of the Grant Mitchell in the Senate during Question Period. She said, "Oh, that explains everything. It is not the same person."
Is there any other business to come before the meeting tonight?
Senator Mitchell: Shale gas.
Senator Neufeld: We talked a bit about this today, but everyone here is aware of how I have been talking about shale gas for quite a while and how it will be a huge economic engine for all of Canada, regardless of where we live. There are tremendous resources of shale gas in North America and, who knows, maybe in the world, but we definitely know there are tremendous resources in North America. In fact, the last numbers I saw from CAP had 1,300 trillion cubic feet in Western Canada, and that is mostly in British Columbia and some in Alberta. That is a huge amount when you consider that we produce collectively across Canada maybe 6 to 7 trillion cubic feet a year. There is huge opportunity. B.C. is looking seriously at how we export some of that in the form of LNG through the port of Kitimat, because the U.S. has so much shale gas now that they think by 2035 or something they will only require about 1 per cent of their whole consumption, which is 24 or 25 trillion cubic feet a year, to come from sources other than their own. We need to search for another market for this gas and other markets domestically, as you mentioned. The technology to use it in heavy equipment is there, and we should be pushing those kinds of things.
There is a lot of misinformation out there, similar to what happens with the oil sands, and everyone around here knows that. We thought maybe we would try to head it off at the pass by doing a special study or something of that nature on shale gas in Canada, so that we can maybe get rid of some of that stuff out there that is negative and not correct. I am not saying there are not some issues with it, and we should bring those out also, similar to how we did the offshore, chair. I think that is a worthwhile study to take. When we do that, I am not exactly sure, but I will look forward to moving that forward, because that is huge for Canada, and it is huge for clean energy, as Senator Brown said. It is a third of what coal puts out in coal generation if you use it for generation of electricity. There are all kinds of things. You can use it for transportation fuels or for heating more homes instead of electricity. It is fine to say we should go to electricity, but you have to generate it. It has to come from somewhere. It does not happen just like that. I think it will be exciting, and we will learn many things. Those are the kinds of things we can put on our website so that people will be able to access it better.
The Chair: Following on that, if we did agree to make it a sub-study, if you will, of the other, as you said earlier this afternoon, we could get the main facts brought to us by witnesses in Ottawa and get ourselves up to speed on the issues and the disinformation that is out there, and why the hearings in Quebec went so badly, leading to a moratorium and all of the different things, and then go on a trip to B.C., Horn River, where there are very large deposits, the largest in the world maybe, as a fact-finding mission. That might be a way to deal with B.C.
Senator Neufeld: In the wintertime, that would not be bad.
The Chair: You could whistle right out there.
Senator Banks: There are no black flies in winter.
Senator Neufeld: You will not be standing around for a long time talking about it.
Senator Wallace: To add to that, it is has enormous potential in B.C. We saw the Quebec experience, and it does exist in Atlantic Canada as well. There are major reserves in Atlantic Canada, in my home province of New Brunswick, and through the whole Appalachian region through the eastern U.S. It is something that has application throughout the country. I think it is an excellent subject, and very timely.
The Chair: Yes, and we could go to the U.S. as well.
Senator Banks: The eastern slope of the Rockies is loaded with it, with enough to last 1,000 years.
Senator Neufeld: That is with today's technology.
Senator Peterson: What is this new thing now that the fracking is precipitating earthquakes?
Senator Neufeld: That is all a lot of misinformation.
Senator Peterson: That has to be part of it.
The Chair: It is just a trick to get rid of nuclear. It is climate change. We need a carbon tax.
I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Senator Neufeld: So moved.
(The committee adjourned.)