I bow to the collective wisdom of this group--always have.
There's no question about what Mr. Allen has said. It's kind of interesting, the whole uniqueness of the Arctic. There's really a renaissance of thought on that, which is extremely welcome. There's no question that the motion is part of something bigger--the huge issues.
When I was sitting at my desk the other night reading the motion I didn't see it in that very broad context. I saw it first in terms of the status of emergency assets and what's out there. Cheryl is right that I have had the privilege of sitting on a couple of meetings where the defence committee has been going through its report on military responses and regimes in the north. The new territorial imperative and the implications of emerging issues on whether the definitions of “strait” and “territorial waters” are encompassed in our protection--those things have come up. But the second part has also come up, which is the military and its capacity to be part of those assets that respond to natural or other occurrences.
So I saw this as a very specific opportunity. What's the status of emergency response, and what's the present legislative regime? Those were the two things. When I looked at it I thought we could start off by just bringing in the witnesses who are fundamentally involved in that.
I think this is also a learning opportunity for the committee. We should have those people in to discuss those two things as soon as possible. If anybody thinks there are additional individuals or organizations that should be part of this specific thing, put them forward.
Geoff has talked about the territorial issues with respect to the offshore petroleum boards. Maybe that's something we should look into, because they're part of the assets, and that's what we're focusing on.
My suggestion is that we set a date one week from Thursday and all provide witnesses for that specific discussion. I suggest the offshore petroleum boards--whoever would be appropriate--for a general discussion. If the committee in its wisdom feels we should have a broader study, at least we'll have a background of information to make those decisions and give thought to that, along the lines that everybody has contributed.
I think we're at a point where we can run two parallel courses. It's always a challenge for the committee. We can deal with the report, which is totally relevant to the issues of the medical isotope situation, and so on. But we can also run a parallel track with a focused discussion, with input, on the status of emergency response and what the legislative framework is. Those are the two issues.
Let's not make it hugely more broad than that at this point. Let's deal with the witnesses who have been suggested and any others that the committee, in its wisdom, wants to put forward. Let's set a date a week from Thursday for those specific witnesses. The challenge is for the clerk to try to get them, but because of the emergency nature and the trauma associated with the event in the gulf, we'll probably be able to scramble to get that meeting with appropriate witnesses to focus on this issue.