Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Chad Mariage]

It is:That the Committee study the government's decision to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and conduct a full review of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, hearing testimony from all relevant witnesses, including the minister, officials, and stakeholders, who will provide the Committee with the necessary information in order to report to the House its recommendations to the government at the conclusion of the forestry study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I don't think that reads quite right.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

There's just a question of wording here. I want to go through this: “That the Committee study the government's decision to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”. Then, does he want the committee to conduct a full review, or was the second decision to conduct a full review by the government?

So it should be to study the government's “decisions”, plural, which were to join the GNEP and to conduct a full review, isn't that right? You don't want us to do a full review of AECL.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is that agreed, then, Mr. Alghabra?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Yes, that's not necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any discussion on this motion? Again, we should be considering.... Did it say how many meetings? I don't think it did.

You talked about that a little bit. How much time do you anticipate for this study?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I suspect it would be two meetings, and probably a meeting to write the report, because I don't think the report will be—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's one meeting to go over the report?

You've all heard the proposal here, in the motion. Is there any discussion?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

My only question would be to the other opposition parties. If this is their second priority and they're comfortable doing this, we don't have an objection.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Well, that's part of the vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This motion is that it be the second priority of the committee. The committee has to decide that, of course.

Is there any further discussion on the motion? That would be part of the discussion, certainly.

All right, we'll go to the question, then.

(Motion agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any will on the part of the committee to go beyond that?

Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I would like to go to my second motion, on an offshore oil and gas study. I don't know how many meetings it would take, but probably only a couple, to have a short study of this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Bell, we know that this issue, and several others too that members of the committee or parties have shown an interest in.... Something I've learned from fourteen years on committees is that rarely will an agenda planned that far in advance be adhered to anyway. So let's decide as we get a little bit closer.

I think it would be a really good idea that after we finish the forestry study we discuss future business at that time, so that we can prepare what to look at beyond the other two-meeting study.

Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, I agree that we should not plan too far in advance. However, once we have completed the other studies, I would nevertheless like us to keep our discussion of geothermal and solar energy as a priority, since those issues concern everyone, in all provinces across Canada. I'm not denying the importance of going to British Columbia. Moreover, Mr. Harris wants to go there. So we'll go and see in the spring, when the weather is fine.

So once we've completed these studies, I propose that we discuss geothermal and solar energy on a priority basis. Then we'll look into the question of the moratorium on gas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Ouellet, after we're finished the forestry study, when we discuss future business, if you decide this is still your priority, could you bring it forth then? It sounds like a fascinating study. Could you do that?

Mr. Trost and then Mr. Tonks.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Chair, I was going to make the same point, that we can't project our business that far out; there's no point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. That point has been made.

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, this is a question of process. The issue of geological mapping is one on which I have received deputations in my office from the mining industry and others. While it doesn't appear that we have a time slot with respect to dealing with it, would it be possible for the committee to ask research to update us on the status of geological mapping and receive that report as an entree into whatever action we deem appropriate? It may be the kind of thing that involves just a quick briefing and a resolution and direction coming out of the committee, as opposed to a whole series of hearings.

I wonder if we could have a clarification of that, and if that process is in order, I would suggest that the committee entertain a motion at some point to give research staff that particular direction. Then we will have that paper as the basis for some future action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Tonks, I think that's an excellent idea, and it's very helpful in terms of looking at future business to have a little more background. Why don't we ask the researcher to ensure that this is done and that it's ready at the time we look at future business next, which will be when we complete the forestry study?

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further business?

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I earlier addressed the Keystone pipeline project. As you can see, it was number 3: “Implications of the Development of the Keystone Pipeline”.

We have been advised that if we are to cease being hewers of wood and drawers of water, this is an opportunity for us to build 18,000 jobs for Canada as opposed to simply sending them to the United States. I'm very keen that we have some kind of meeting to review this.

I don't know how long it would take, but this is the committee to hear issues such as this. I'd even recommend one session to hear all parties who have an interest in the Keystone pipeline project state their case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Again, perhaps you could bring that up when we go to future business, right after the forestry study.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that's what you just asked.