Very briefly, in terms of product, Mike, I haven't really thought that through. The committee might see the testimony and say a report is what's required or the testimony is good enough in and of itself.
I think we can answer both things, Mr. Chair. I think this is not meant to be a full, encompassing, and complete project, what I've proposed here.
Certainly the initiation of this committee to get into the offshore oil and drilling question has been prompted by the incident in the gulf. That's given us all a new energy to focus on this. We can focus on lots of different things, but this one is important. So if this is just a first initial meeting... That's why we included CAPP, by the way, Mike. We didn't want to just hear from BP, but BP Is obviously of relevance. CAPP represents all of the energy groups and I'm sure would bring some of those perspectives. If this is just the first meeting and we can pull it together for next Thursday, I think we'd be doing okay.
This place moves so slowly sometimes, you know. Sometimes it's for a good reason. You don't want to necessarily make laws up on the spot. We're not talking about making up a law here. We're not talking a radical shift. We're talking about an initial meeting about a very relevant topic that is at play in Canada.
This is meeting one. And expanding to the east coast implications, expanding to other questions that committee members have raised--absolutely. Of course I suspect that is what's going to happen for all of us in our minds when we hear the first witnesses. We'll have a question about that, or have a question about this mechanism, or what they do in Norway. Those are all good things. We're inquisitive people. That's what we should do.
But as the first one, I don't necessarily see the problem with this. I guess you're right, Mr. Chair, that the Beaufort isn't named, but I guess the implication in the witness list we drew is to connect it towards the north more than it is towards the west coast or the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the east coast, just by who we drew up in here.
So while we didn't name the particular body of water, that is what we're talking about. Again because of what I said earlier, this is the one that is most at play. They're not about to send rigs out on the west coast, as far as I know.
The east coast has a different paradigm entirely. Some are drilling. Nova Scotia wants to do more. So this is focused certainly towards the north, because that's the one next up on the block. That's the one that's not just being discussed, but is being acted upon.
So is it not incumbent upon us if we can...? I guess I'm not hearing from anybody that there is anything wrong with any of the witnesses to discuss that question. If there isn't, why don't we say yes to this, or take one off and add one today, and then see if the clerk can invite them?