Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I start with a question I want to make a little statement. Committees being committees, we often wander off topic. I hope you'll forgive me for this, but there's got to be a forum to say the odd thing now and then.
One of the things Natural Resources and Environment...and we generally get way too many questions here at committee on Kyoto, climate change, and all that. But one of the things that I think should be noted is that not everyone in this world is quite as enthused about the whole spending on climate change, or is quite as convinced that it is actually a man-made thing that's happening.
To back my opinion, I'll cite things like the Heidelberg Appeal, which had 4,000 signatory scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners; and the Oregon Petition with 8,000, etc. They're basically calling for a debate on whether or not the questions that are presumed to be answered are actually being answered.
I have seen surveys. One was commissioned by the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. They hired the Gallup polling firm to poll climatologists on whether or not man-made or human warming was actually occurring. These being North American scientists, 49% said no, approximately 17% said yes, and a percentage in between said maybe.
So I guess I'm saying that when you have discussions with your environment colleagues, or give advice to the minister or something, be cognizant of that opinion out there. I'm not really asking for a response on this statement; I'm just saying there are members of Parliament who sit in support of the government who don't totally agree with everything, in all the spending and so forth. We're a little concerned about $2 billion over five years. We're not quite as convinced with the entirety of the rhetoric.
So I'm not really asking for a response. It's just that in committees you sometimes need to say things that are out there. At least there should be a debate. I know that Natural Resources is open to scientific opinion, debate, and so forth. I commend the department for that. As I've pointed out, I don't think Nobel Prize winners are generally viewed as flat-earth scientists, nor are members of the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. So that's just a comment I want to start off with.
Now, to get to something that's probably more relevant to your responsibilities and to this committee, the Office of the Auditor General came out with a report, and part of it mentioned Natural Resources Canada and the management there. One of the statements she made was:
Natural Resources Canada has been working on a number of significant issues. However, the Department does not have a corporate strategic plan that addresses its legislative mandate and government priorities, is communicated to staff...
It goes on from there, and I'm sure you're all well aware of it.
I'm very curious. I understand you have been taking steps in responding to the Auditor General. I wonder if you might elaborate on what you've been doing to correct some of the questions that the Auditor General raised.