Evidence of meeting #34 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lloyd St. Amand
We'll now deal with committee business. We're no longer in camera.
Mr. Alghabra.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a question for the analysts about the draft report for AECL and the isotope issue, the status of that report.
12:35 p.m.
Jean-Luc Bourdages Committee Researcher
We worked on the draft report as best we could while doing the forestry report. There's been a draft made. We first focused on the timelines of the events, starting with the work of the committee of the whole, plus the hearings we had. This has been translated into both languages and could be available to the committee. Parallel to that, we also started drafting a report on it.
We have two documents. We started with the timelines because there was so much information and some contradictions. We have a fairly detailed document that gives the chronology of events, the timelines and what was said by different witnesses. It's a sort of summary of the evidence. Plus, in parallel, we drafted the report. The second part of it, the report, has not been translated yet.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I'm curious about what's in the second part of the report. If the first part is the chronology and the witnesses, would the second part be the recommendations?
12:35 p.m.
Committee Researcher
It's a report like the one you have here, but with more structure on different matters about the safety and health issues.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Is it done, but needing translation? Is that the second part?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Committee Researcher
That could probably be sent to translation at the end of next week.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
It sounds like we have about two weeks to see the first draft.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
I think with all the hearings and stuff we've had on that, maybe next week, Tuesday at noon, we could start with the timelines and start working on it.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to revisit the comments I made at the start of the meeting.
We're going to be tabling our report on Tuesday, which I'm very pleased about, but I went back to some of the notes we had on the study we started on the greening of electricity in Canada. Some comments were made by Mr. Avrim Lazar during that testimony, and I just want to refer to one of them. He says:
Our intention is to become energy self-sufficient. Our intention is to export green energy to the communities where we work. So instead of sending expensive energy through long grid lines from some coal or nuclear plant in southern Ontario or southern Quebec, our plan is to work to the point where our mills generate not only enough energy to run the mill, but also to run to the nearby town and thereby have a more sustainable, affordable, and environmentally responsible approach to energy generation.
Another comment was made by Bill Marshall, president and CEO of New Brunswick System Operator. He talked about alternative energies, including tidal and wave as well as solar and others. He talked about all the opportunities in New Brunswick, saying:We have a number of opportunities for smaller biomass projects. Combining all those in the region, there is a potential to reduce fossil fuel emissions by up to about 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
I've looked at what we just finished, and we had a significant discussion on biomass as part of our report. We had a trip to Labrador, Churchill Falls, which was an interesting venture. I believe we've left some work undone. Recognizing our timelines, I think it's something we could finish up quickly.
I would propose the following:
Notwithstanding any motions previously adopted by the Committee, that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources finish its study on the greening of electricity in Canada with a focus on the future of renewable energy such as wind, solar, hydro, and other emerging renewable sources immediately following the study on the forest products industry.
I think, Mr. Chair, that would tie some of these things up in a nice little bundle. I'm not suggesting that we have a long report, not by any stretch of the imagination, but I think we could put together a nice crisp report with some recommendations in probably three or four meetings. There are probably some opportunities for us to actually have a visit to some renewable energy places, even in the area close to Ottawa.
I would like to propose that motion, Mr. Chair.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lloyd St. Amand
We have that motion on the floor.
Mr. Boshcoff, and then Madame DeBellefeuille.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
To the motion, I don't disagree that this should be one of our priorities, but as a committee we did set our priorities. I thought it was a very collegial process last November when we all agreed what our top five were. I don't think anybody disagrees that this is a worthwhile study; I don't think we could do this in the next two weeks, considering what we have to wrap up.
I would hope this would be one of the things we would do in the fall, when we don't have a time deadline--not knowing if we're finishing on June 13, 20, or whatever. I don't see this as a meeting and a half, I see it as several weeks' worth of work, if it's going to be done right.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Allen: it is important for us to become more knowledgeable about the range of renewable energy technologies, wind, and I would even add geothermal. I agree with him that we should finish what we have started. So I would keep that topic for when we come back. That said, we should finish our study on Chalk River. We have heard from witnesses, but we have not finished the job and we have not submitted a report. We have spent a lot of time on it, though. I would like to focus on what the research analysts have done and rely on their work for our study. The news that the MAPLE reactors are being discontinued concerns me. I have to ask what is going to happen about a new reactor for producing isotopes at Chalk River. I think that we have to wrap all that up. I propose that, first, we finish our work on the nuclear issue. Then we start a good study on renewable energy and biomass when we come back from the summer break, as Mr. Allen suggested.
I have a problem with two motions because they begin with the words “notwithstanding any motions“. I am lost. I do not know what that means or how many motions we are overriding if we vote in favour. I cannot remember everything, and I do not have at hand the document that tells me what I am overriding. We got it some time ago, but I do not have it with me. Before taking a position on a motion like that, I would like to know exactly what I am eliminating by voting in favour. I would like to know what we are committing ourselves to. Does the clerk have a list of motions that would be overridden if we agree to Mr. Allen's motion?
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It was I who suggested this approach to Mr. Allen because, last year, the committee had already decided to conduct a review of AECL and the nuclear accord after the forestry study. There was also a motion to study Ms. Keen's case. The committee already accepted these two topics. The words “notwithstanding any motions" just mean that it would take priority over the studies that the committee has already decided on.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
So there are three motions. No others, just these three.
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk
It is just a matter of the topics and the order of the studies that you are going to do. That is the only change.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lloyd St. Amand
There are others who wish to speak to this.
Mr. Alghabra, Ms. Bell, and Ms. Gallant, in that order.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to echo what Mr. Boshcoff and Ms. DeBellefeuille have just said. I also support the intent and the purpose of Mr. Allen's motion, and I support its objective. But we've gone through quite a bit of compromise, negotiation, and navigation to get the forestry report done and to postpone the AECL report.
Since we have only a few more weeks left, I would urge the committee to complete the work that we've done, that the analysts have done in drafting the report, complete that, and perhaps do this when we come back in the fall.