Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 15th, 2008

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

We already have agreement, Mr. Chairman. I don't need to make the comment. It's just that when I read the motion I thought we were going to be discussing looking into nuclear safety issues. I didn't realize it was going to be a “he said, she said”, dissecting letters. I had no idea that there was already information on what the minister was going to focus on. I thought we were talking about the safety of Canadians and their health and well-being. Is all this discussion of who's going first, who's going second--he said, she said--relevant to this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We're starting to hear a lot of repetition.

Madame DeBellefeuille, and then we'll go to a vote on the subamendment.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that the minister is making himself available to come back to the committee. I think that we should stick with what we decided together, to have a four-hour meeting: two hours with the minister and two hours with Ms. Keen.

After those two witnesses have appeared, we may find it necessary to hear from others, whether that be the minister or Ms. Keen again, representatives from Atomic Energy of Canada, or a representative from the Auditor General's office. So we should set aside a little time before the end of the second hour, or add half an hour to discuss additional witnesses.

If it is desirable for the minister to appear and it moves our work forward, I am ready to support the proposal. If we feel it necessary for Ms. Keen to come back to clarify any of her statements, we will get her back. But I feel that we should make that decision after the four hours of hearings, as we agreed at the start of the debate. Not today.

[An Hon. Member]

That is a good point. Excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will now go to Mr. Anderson.

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

To respond to that, Mr. Proulx made the point, and this is a quote, that the minister is the big boss of the department and the commission. It seems that if they believe that, they should be interested in hearing him last, I would think. It would seem to me that's the logical thing to have happen. Therefore, we will be supporting our subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will go to the vote on the subamendment.

Would the clerk read the subamendment and how it fits in with the motion?

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

Mr. Chair, it would be inserted at the end of the motion and would read as follows.... I've discussed it with the mover, and in order to reflect the conversation I've worded it this way:

That the minister be re-invited to the committee to respond to Ms. Keen's testimony and to answer further questions from the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. We'll go to the vote.

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment agreed to)

We will now go to a vote on the original motion as amended.

We should read it again--if you could, Clerk--with the amendment in there.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, the motion reads as follows:

That the committee invite the Minister of Natural Resources and Ms. Linda Keen to appear, in that order, before the committee on nuclear safety issues, including safety issues at the Chalk River nuclear reactor.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I believe we have our agenda set.

Is there any other business before we go to Ms. Bell's motion?

Ms. Bell, please read your motion and speak to it. Then we'll go to any discussion on that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that we've finished playing “Who's on first?”, I think we can get to the substantive motion.

My motion, which I think has been circulated in both languages, reads as follows:

That the committee, as a result of the Auditor General's report into Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources in September 2007, December 2002 and November 1996: develop terms of reference for an independent investigation into AECL and the relationship between AECL and Natural Resources Canada; and, that the terms of reference be set to include determining whether the current or previous Ministers of Natural Resources Canada, or their staff, inappropriately interfered with AECL; and, what actions this or previous Ministers took over the past ten years to address problems identified by the Auditor General or by any internal reviews that may have been completed; and, that the investigation be completed by an Officer of Parliament or by an independent eminent Canadian approved by this committee; and, that this committee report terms of reference for an investigation to Parliament within two weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Do you have any opening comments, Ms. Bell?

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have several opening comments.

We have heard from members of both parties that this is a very serious issue and we need to get to the bottom of it. It was even mentioned again today in this committee by members of the official opposition that they wanted to get to the bottom of this issue.

We need to look back into events and into the history, because the Auditor General has identified a systemic, long-term problem here. That is what led us up to the point of Bill C-38 in Parliament. I remember those many hours we sat in Parliament that night, coming to grips with the emotional, agonizing issue of the health and safety of hundreds of thousands of cancer patients, in contrast with public safety in the event of a nuclear disaster. It put parliamentarians in a very difficult position. We had to really almost guess who was right, who was telling the truth, what was going on, and it was a very agonizing decision. Some people felt it was an easy decision to make, but it was a difficult one. We took it very seriously, and we didn't shy away from it.

We made our decision, and I think we made the right decision at the time, but now we need to look back and see how we got to this point. How did we come to this point of weighing those two things?

Nuclear safety is a very important issue. It is one that the NDP takes very seriously. It is one that I take very seriously, and it is one that all Canadians are concerned about. I've had many letters and calls from people all across the country about the decision that was made at the time on both sides of the issue.

It is very important that we hear from the department, from AECL. The information that we glean from the minister and from the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission can be used by the independent investigator as well. This committee also doesn't have the time or the resources to do such a deep investigation over a long period of time. A lot of notes and correspondence that went back and forth over many years will need to be looked at. It is important that someone other than this committee do that, because from what we have seen today, with the going back and forth between the government party and the official opposition, this would be the wrong committee to hear such a thing. It needs to be independent.

We need to have this investigation to get to the bottom of this so that we can fix the problems and move forward for the safety and confidence of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

Mr. Anderson is the only person I have on the list so far to discuss this motion. Mr. Anderson.

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

Mr. Chair, we welcome the motion and discussion that comes from it, but I would just like to make a couple of observations.

First of all, we're already dealing with a fairly large issue in front of the committee over tomorrow and whatever time period we have following that in which the opposition has indicated they want to have more meetings.

Second, in order for us to actually do this motion, if the committee decided to support it, I don't think we're in a position right now to have enough information even to be able to develop the terms of reference. So if the committee is going to take this on, it means we will have another whole project before we can even get to the point of being able to develop the terms of reference and to move forward from there.

Third, we spent quite a bit of time setting our agenda just prior to Christmas, and this is going to significantly impact that. So I would just like to make a motion that we table this motion until we come back, when the House is back in session, and that the committee consider it as part of the regular agenda of the committee. I will make a tabling motion at this time on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have a motion to table, which is non-debatable. We will go directly to the vote.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The motion is carried. This is tabled, and we will deal with it when the committee comes back to its normally scheduled meetings in a few weeks.

I believe we are finished our business.

Ms. Bell.

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

I do have another motion, which I've just presented to the clerk. I must apologize, we just got that in this afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There has been no motion circulated. You'll have to read it into the record, Ms. Bell, slowly.

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

I will read very slowly.

I apologize to my colleagues from the Bloc and anyone else whose first language is French. We will get that translated, I'm sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

On a point of order, Mr. Anderson.

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

We have been given no notice at all of this motion. I'm wondering what the process is to allow it to come forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, it is dealing with the issue that this committee is dealing with today. It is in order even without the normal notice. We will hear the motion and deal with it.

Ms. Bell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move the following:

That Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL), the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), produce the following documents in order that the Committee has a better understanding of the ongoing problems at the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River Labs:

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Documents that relate to:

the Root Cause analysis submitted to CNSC Public Meeting on January 9, 2008;

the SDR (and the one page summary) submitted to CNSC Public Meeting on December 6, 2007;

all correspondence between AECL and CNSC relating to upgrades to the national research universal reactor after 2005;

all correspondence between AECL and NRCan related to upgrades to the NRU reactor after 2005;

all correspondence between AECL and NRCan regarding Chalk River between August 28, 2007 and January 10, 2008;

the Auditor General's Special Examination Reports from 2002, and 1996;

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Documents that relate to:

all correspondence between CNSC and AECL relating to upgrades to the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor after 2005;

all correspondence between CNSC and NRCan related to upgrades to the NRU reactor after 2005;

all correspondence between CNSC and NRCan regarding Chalk River between August 28, 2007 to January 10, 2008;

any Auditor General's Special Examination Reports on CNSC;

documents relating to 7 upgrades required of the NRU after 2005, the status of the upgrades and whether or not they were completed;

Natural Resources Canada

Documents that relate to:

any correspondence between the Ministry (including the Minister) regarding upgrades to the NRU at Chalk River since 2005;

any briefs on safety and/or upgrades to the NRU since 2005;

any internal documents on the status of the upgrades to the NRU since 2005;

any correspondence received from AECL and/or CNSC on problems with the NRU.