Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of November 7, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 7, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:11 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Kevin Pittman, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair.
[Translation]
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. Any other nominations?
[English]
Senator Mercer: I nominate Senator Mockler.
Senator Eaton: I second that.
Mr. Pittman: Are there other nominations?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Mercer that the Honourable Senator Mockler do take the chair of this committee.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, is there agreement on the motion?
[English]
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Pittman: I declare the motion carried and invite the Honourable Senator Mockler to take the chair.
[Translation]
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I want to begin by thanking you for the confidence you placed in me by supporting my nomination.
[English]
But as chair, I also want to say that this is a teamwork approach and the confidence you have given to me is the same confidence I give to each and every one of you, because we have an important job to do. I have always said, and we have always said, that Agriculture and Forestry is the best committee of our Senate. We have some challenges and together we can live and meet the challenges that we have in either industry — agriculture or forestry.
I want to say thank you very much. We will now proceed with the instructions of the clerk.
You have a proposed agenda before you. The motions proposed today ensure that the necessary structures and authorities are in place to allow the committee to conduct its business.
I am ready to receive a motion to propose the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I nominate Senator Mercer.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Maltais and seconded by Senator Eaton that Senator Mercer be elected as deputy chair of the committee.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Those are eloquent words from the deputy chair.
The Chair: The deputy chair. We have a nomination moved by Senator Maltais and seconded by Senator Eaton. Are there any other nominations?
Senator Ogilvie: Mr. Chair, would he recognize a spruce budworm if he saw one?
The Chair: Any other comments?
Those in favour we will signify by saying ``yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. The deputy chair is Senator Mercer.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: It is customary, following his or her election, that the new deputy chair choose the committee coffee.
[English]
The Chair: I will now entertain a motion for the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, better known as the steering committee. That would be the third person. It has been brought to our attention that the third person would be Senator Buth.
The motion reads:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultation.
I see Senator Ogilvie.
Senator Ogilvie: I was going to move the motion.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions on the motion? If not, seconded by Senator Callbeck.
That motion continues:
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, witnesses and the schedule of hearings. Thank you.
Item No. 4 is the motion to publish the committee's proceedings. It is moved by Senator Eaton, seconded by the Senator Maltais.
Number 5 on the agenda is a motion to allow the committee to hear witnesses even if a quorum is not present. I would now like to hear comments.
Senator Mercer: So moved.
The Chair: Moved by Senator Mercer.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I have a question about that. In the past four years, has the committee ever heard from witnesses without a quorum?
Mr. Pittman: I cannot comment on the past five years, but I can comment on the last session, and the answer is no.
[English]
The Chair: We could then have and hear witnesses even if we do not have a quorum. We have approved that. Okay.
Number 6 on the agenda is for the adoption of the first report of the committee. I will ask the clerk to please give us information.
Mr. Pittman: Honourable senators, the first report, which probably all of you knew as the rule 104 report, is now, with the changes in the rules, called the 12-26 report to reflect the new rule number. It is essentially an overview of the expenses accrued by this committee in the last session, broken down by fiscal year and further broken down by the witnesses and by the travel and other costs for our special study and legislation.
This is a draft report. There are some further numbers that have to be added with regard to flight credits and things like that that were outstanding and that we have to coordinate with Finance. If you agree to have your steering committee finalize that portion of this report, we can move the adoption of it, and, once we get those numbers finalized, we can present it in the chamber.
[Translation]
Senator Eaton: In the last session, the committee met 74 times, heard from 259 witnesses and submitted 11 reports. In comparison with other committees, is our workload the same, higher or lower? How do we rate against other committees? Is it possible to know that?
[English]
Mr. Pittman: I would consider us an active committee. If you like, I can actually get the data.
Senator Eaton: No, I just wanted to know whether we were laggard, good, extra good or whatever.
Mr. Pittman: You're keeping your clerk busy.
Senator Callbeck: On witness expenses, do we pay for all witnesses?
Mr. Pittman: We only pay for witnesses as per the rules set out in the Senate finance rules. The rules stipulate that they have to be outside the National Capital Region. We pay one per group, unless there are extenuating circumstances; then we will pay for a second person if the group represents. Of course, when it comes to public servants and people from departments and agencies, we don't pay their costs.
The Chair: Is that sufficient, Senator Callbeck?
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
The Chair: Any other questions on this? No.
We are now at number 7 on the agenda, research staff. I would like it to be moved by a senator:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage —
It is moved by Senator Oh that Item No. 7 be considered. All in favour will say ``yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
Senator Mercer: Do you have someone in mind?
The Chair: The analyst that is being recommended to us is one we have known in the past for her professionalism and dedication. It is Aïcha Coulibaly.
Number 8 on the agenda relates to the Senate Administrative Rules and establishing procedures for the administration of funds by committees, with committees usually delegating certain authorities to particular members and the clerk.
[Translation]
That is the purpose of the motion. Would anyone like to move it?
Senator Maltais: I so move.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Maltais that the committee adopt Motion No. 8.
[English]
All those in favour will signify by saying ``yea.''
[Translation]
The Chair: Carried.
Number 9 is a motion authorizing the committee to designate the members who will travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
[English]
We call that déplacements — travel.
Senator Merchant moved it. Are there any other questions? If not, we will signify by saying ``yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Adopted.
Number 10 on the agenda is the designation of members travelling on committee business:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
[Translation]
Would someone like to move the motion?
Senator Dagenais: I so move.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Dagenais. All those in favour, say ``yea.''
Hon. senators: Yea.
The Chair: All those opposed, say ``nay.''
Carried.
[English]
Item No. 11 is travelling and living expenses of witnesses. It is moved:
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.
On this, before we ask for questions, I would like to have a mover. I know that Senator Callbeck had a previous question. It is being moved by the Honourable Senator Merchant.
Senator Callbeck, is that sufficient?
Senator Callbeck: That's fine.
The Chair: That is fine. We will signify by saying ``yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Adopted.
Item No. 12 is communications.
[Translation]
It is moved:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct 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; and
[English]
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
Do I have a mover, honourable senators?
Senator Eaton: Can I ask a related question?
The Chair: Yes, Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: I'm thinking about the budworm infestation. If we're going to do an order of reference, we have a communications person who is assigned to us; I wish we'd be more proactive, because I think that if we spend, say, 25 hours listening to witnesses, we should try and do more than just release press releases.
I don't know how we go about it, but it would be nice to see, if we're going to have someone employed doing our communications, a full communications strategy. Maybe instead of travelling we could take out an ad. I think we should try and educate the public in little ways instead of just another press release. Because it is all very well; we'll come out of these hearings very educated and know all about it, but it doesn't do any good unless we can get it out there.
Sometimes I think we resort to the same old nice press release, and it goes in the thing. I think it would be nice if our communications staff, in person, as we have one — we came up with more interesting ways of getting out what we know to the public, especially if we do references like the budworm infestation, where what we find out could be very interesting. It would be nice to take a stand.
The Chair: Thank you. I also recognize that we had a show of hands.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I completely agree with Senator Eaton. I live in Quebec, and this morning, I heard it had a spruce budworm epidemic. I do not think Quebecers or Canadians as a whole had previously been told about this. Perhaps we should use newspapers or television to let people know about it and tell them where things stand. Perhaps we should use the media to educate people and say, ``look, it is happening and we have the evidence, and here are the solutions the Senate committee is proposing''. In 1975, when we realized there was a problem, it was too late — the forests had been ravaged. The first step would be to let Canadians know across the board, so they are aware of the problem.
All kinds of things are communicated to the public. We could inform the general public that half of Canada's land mass is in jeopardy, and that the committee is proposing the following solutions, based on the advice of Canadian experts. The public would be abreast of what was going on and therefore more receptive to the treatments that the academics and researchers had come up with.
[English]
The Chair: To conclude, the chair will now recognize Senator Merchant, and the chair will share information with you.
Senator Merchant: I'm not disagreeing at all. I think it is good to let people know what is going on and what we do. But as far as taking out ads, wouldn't that add a big cost to our procedures? I'm not sure about taking out an ad.
Senator Eaton: I was just looking for ways, whether it's you going on regional television, whether it's Terry going on regional television.
Senator Merchant: I understand that.
Senator Eaton: Senator Callbeck in P.E.I. There has to be a more efficient way of getting out there what we're going to learn.
Senator Merchant: I agree with you, but I thought you said something about advertising.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I agree with what Senator Merchant just said. We have an institution called Parks Canada. Since the spruce budworm is affecting forests, it will affect parks as well. Could we not ask Parks Canada to take the lead on this and share the information with the public? They have the budget to take care of parks. In two years' time, there may be no parks to speak of.
Fixing this problem will require the involvement of forestry companies and all stakeholders. It may not be our role, as a committee, but we should ask Parks Canada to take the lead in the matter and get the word out to the public. The agency has budgets for parks across the country. Addressing the problem is in the national interest, and the agency has a duty to do so. I think we should apply some pressure there. We do not have the funds to place television ads, but Parks Canada does. It is the agency's responsibility to take the initiative, at our request, and to spend part of its budget on getting the information out there.
The committee, on its end, can hear from experts on how to combat the budworm — and we will.
[English]
The Chair: We will conclude with Senator Dagenais, but first I will recognize Senator Ogilvie.
Senator Ogilvie: Thank you, senator.
I would introduce a bit of caution here in terms of us getting ahead of ourselves on this issue. This is not an issue that is unknown to the entire forestry industry in most communities and all the parks. The bug is going through a cyclical phase and is in a resurgent phase. They've been monitored for a considerable period of time, so it is unlikely that this committee is going to discover something remarkably new that requires us to suddenly go for national advertising. But I think Senator Eaton's point is well taken in that at some point in our proceedings, if indeed there was an aspect that we were able to identify in terms of communication and a strategy that emerged from the study, we should look at that. But I think these are issues that the committee should always be very careful with and identify at the appropriate point.
I would just fall back and say that this is not an issue that we are going to be truly novel on. This is an enormously important issue. It has been around in the forest industry, with active pursuit, for a hundred years, and we're in a new and resurgent phase.
Senator Mercer: I would be extremely surprised if all of the provinces weren't on top of this already, particularly the Province of Quebec, where the infestation is currently. I note from the presentation that was made to a meeting of the Atlantic Conservative caucus this morning that the New Brunswick Forest Products Association and the Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia were part of that process. I think everybody knows about it. It may be something that hasn't been on our radar. There are people in New Brunswick who want to be ready to attack the budworm before it leaves Quebec and comes east, and I'm sure it's the same as it moves west.
We don't have to inform the people in the industry. They already know that it's happening. I think it would be a good idea for us to ask the provincial governments what they're doing, what their plans are, but it will not be a surprise to the Minister of Natural Resources in New Brunswick or the Minister of Natural Resources in Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I just have a comment. Having lived in the Lanaudière region for over 24 years, I remember when the infamous spruce budworm wreaked havoc in the 1980s. I was keeping a close eye on things, obviously, and entire forests were being ravaged. The problem started at the top of the spruce. I lost a few.
As Senator Ogilvie explained, it would seem that the bug has been dormant for a while and is now having a resurgence.
This morning, I heard about the spruce budworm. Of course, I cannot claim to know all about the phenomenon, but I do know that, in the 1980s, the same scourge took a terrible toll.
As Senator Mercer said, there may already be measures in place, and they may have improved. That was what I wanted to say.
[English]
The Chair: We have come back to the motion on communications, honourable senators. Do I have a mover?
It is moved by Senator Ogilvie that we adopt the motion relating to communications. Our communications person will be Mona Ishack. Thank you.
If you permit me, given what I have heard, the steering committee will consult with the communications officer and then bring options to you later. Is that satisfactory?
On the motion proposed by Senator Ogilvie, I will now ask for a vote. All those in favour will say ``yea.''
Hon. Senators: Yea.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Forgive me for bringing this up again, but I come from a forestry region that is three times the size of France.
Twenty-five years ago, when the first epidemic struck the north shore of Quebec, in 1975, there were 12 forestry companies in business. Millions of hectares were lost.
Back then, the companies all joined forces to find the best product to combat the bug. Millions of hectares of forest were still lost because the wood was no longer usable.
Today, only one forestry company remains in that same region. We should ask ourselves whether it has the resources to save all that forest.
I know Quebec is home to a great many environmentalists, but they tend to congregate on Sainte-Catherine Street instead of up north. They are not particularly fond of the cold. All they wear is a little square, but I will not say what colour it is. There are, however, 250,000 people who live in northern Quebec, in forest territory.
Today, it would be unfair to put all of the responsibility for protecting such a large area of land on a single company. In the 1980s, there were 12 of them, and, pooling their resources, they beat the bug. It can be beaten, you know. Using science and physical resources, the bug can be beaten: cutting is done, trees are cut, fire is used. Today, only one company remains, reduced to a plant with some 250 employees. It does not have the resources to fight this scourge.
So we need to pay closer attention to this than the provinces do. I hope that Quebec, among others, will respond appropriately, but I am not so sure. They do not have the resources. The solution to the budworm epidemic will not come from the social economy. It will come from scientists, the people who develop the highly specialized techniques. I am certain that, in 2013, scientists have found better methods than the ones used in 1975.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Maltais. Before ending this round, I am going to give the floor to Senator Ogilvie.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Well, I want to make it clear I wasn't arguing against us doing the study. I was just indicating that you're going to find it is a complex issue and there are forestry departments in every province who are charged with, in fact, the very responsibility that Senator Maltais is describing. There are research organizations in each province.
Furthermore, picking up on the senator's comments, our forest industry has historically not been very active themselves with regard to protecting their own huge opportunity and investment. There far fewer forestry companies today, but some of them are quite a bit bigger and have launched themselves into looking at the knowledge base of their resource.
I think if we do the study, we will hear from some very knowledgeable people. My point was that we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves with regard to a PR strategy. Senator Eaton's point is well taken. We should think actively about that, but a committee of this nature has to reach a point where it is very knowledgeable on the subject from the witnesses we get before we put out a major commentary on something that is not an unknown phenomenon.
That was my only point. I don't disagree with anything that Senator Maltais said. In fact, he is absolutely right.
The Chair: The chair recognizes the importance of a knowledge base to the industry, Senator Ogilvie. Maybe on that matter, before going to the last motion, we could ask the steering committee, when it meets, to ask the researcher for a short report on what is happening now and the extent per province that is being affected.
The final motion is to confirm the time slot. The time slot would be Tuesdays at the adjournment of the Senate but not before 5 p.m., and Thursday morning between 8 and 10 a.m. Do I have a mover, please?
It was moved by Senator Merchant for the time slot. Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Can the clerk assure us that the time slot does not conflict with our other committees?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
Senator Maltais: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Mercer: I would also move that the senators' staff be authorized to remain in the room when the committee meets in camera, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
The Chair: Senators, you have heard the addition to the motion? It is moved by Senator Merchant. The chair will now recognize Senator Raine.
Senator Raine: I'm not a regular member of the committee, but I am from British Columbia. I see in your first financial report for 2013-14, you have activity 1 in British Columbia. Could give me an outline on what that is about?
The Chair: Would the clerk please advise?
Mr. Pittman: Late last spring, the committee went on a fact-finding mission to Kelowna and the Osoyoos region with regard to the study on innovation, research and agriculture.
Senator Raine: That is past?
The Chair: Already gone.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: It is therefore agreed that the committee will meet during the proposed time slot.
[English]
Honourable senators, before we leave, maybe we could go in camera to consider a few items such as our next order of reference. Also, there will be a motion tabled this afternoon and I shared information with the deputy chair for unanimous consent.
I will ask to take a one-minute break and move immediately into an in-camera session.
(The committee continued in camera.)