Evidence of meeting #8 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 keen.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We have to deal with this amendment first, of course, and if you--
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
You may consider that a friendly amendment.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It is a subamendment. That's in order.
We are now dealing with Mr. Anderson's subamendment. Is there any discussion on that?
Ms. Bell.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I understand Mr. St. Amand's amendment is that the committee would like to hear the minister first and Ms. Keen second. My subamendment simply says that if the committee is going to choose to do that, that the minister have at least half an hour after Ms. Keen's comments in order to respond to them.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll have to put that together so it's in a form that we can go to a vote on.
While we're doing that, if anyone wants to discuss the subamendment, let's continue with that.
Mr. McGuinty.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, through you to Mr. Anderson, I'm just trying to get a handle on the rationale. It's my understanding that a letter was sent by the minister to the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission alleging, effectively, that she's incompetent in the true sense of the word and is not able to or may not be able to continue in her responsibilities there.
I thought the logical flow here of having the minister come first and put his case to Canadians through us at this committee made eminent sense. Ms. Keen, who is on the reaction side of this equation, then has an opportunity to put her case, raise questions, and in fact respond to what might very well be, and I'm sure will be, very legitimate concerns manifested by the minister.
I just don't understand this idea of recalling the minister for half an hour to respond...to what exactly? What would the minister want to respond to if the minister has a solid case that warranted the writing of a letter to a regulator? What would the minister need to respond to if it's already been reduced to writing?
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, I already said that we felt he should have the right to respond to the comments Ms. Keen makes here. If they would like him to do that, then she could go first and he would certainly respond to them. If they choose not to do that, then we think the minister should have the right to respond and to react to whatever comments she would make.
If there's some reluctance to do that, we have to start to wonder what the real purpose is of this meeting.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I think the rationale for why I would support that is purely from Ms. Keen's response in her letter. In her letter she essentially disputes things. If you look at the chronology and things put out by the CNSC, and the minister's letter, there's a dispute there. So she made accusations in her letter and the minister is now responding.
If she does again make more accusations in her testimony, those accusations would be left there. The minister should have the ability to respond to accusations. If we basically limit or very tightly force the minister to respond in his half hour only to her two hours of testimony, then we're not giving him an advantage to restate his case. I think it's only a matter of fairness.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen that they do go back and forth, on a bit of a rotation basis, when they're presenting evidence. Between opening arguments and closing arguments, there's a bit of back and forth. I think that would be eminently fair, that there be some balance of back and forth. That's why I would support it.
We want this to be as fair as possible across the board. If Ms. Keen is going to go first, we would probably have to suggest that she have the same response and to finish off.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, it would be very odd. Indeed, I don't know if I can remember a committee that refused time for a minister.
Monsieur Proulx.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am having a little difficulty following my colleagues Mr. Trost and Mr. Anderson. First, we are not in a court of law here and this is not a trial. Second, if we are giving the minister the right to respond, I assume that we should do the same for Ms. Keen. This is like playing "my dad can beat up your dad".
I think that we should spend two hours with the minister, who is the guy in charge of the Department of Natural Resources, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. After that, Ms. Keen can come and answer our questions.
I doubt if the minister is particularly worried about using the media. If he happened to be dissatisfied with the questions or answers from Ms. Keen, he could certainly arrange to talk to reporters about the points he does not agree with.
Because we have the time, and because everyone has made plans to stay in Ottawa for some time, I think that we should get the ball rolling. In principle, we should schedule the minister for two hours, and Ms. Keen for two hours as well, as the amendment suggests. The committee can then meet again to decide on other meetings.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
There are two more people on the list, and I assume you're speaking to the subamendment. We will then go to a vote on the subamendment, then to a vote on the amendment, and finally to a vote on the motion as it exists at that time.
Next on the list is Mr. Alghabra.
3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, I remember when Mr. Anderson, at the beginning, said he didn't care who's first and who's second. I remember when Mr. Trost, as well, said let's not get caught up in these issues. All of a sudden, now, they're really pushing. We have a logic to why we're asking for this order.
If the minister wants to come and make a statement, he doesn't need this committee to respond. He can hold a press conference and respond. So he doesn't need this committee to come and respond to Ms. Keen's responses. But if he wants to come to committee, is he willing to also be subjected to more questions? Perhaps. But if he's coming here to make a statement, he doesn't need the committee to come and make a statement. He has the ability to hold a press conference. If he's willing, then half an hour may not be enough for all of us to ask questions. Maybe another two hours?
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Actually, if the opposition wants to go along with the minister responding, we would be willing to have him stay as long as they would like him to stay.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Without making a statement, just get right to questions by the members?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Sure.
Do we see agreement on that, then, that we allow the minister to come back for an hour, or whatever, after Ms. Keen? I think everybody would be happy. Is that agreed?
Yes, Monsieur Proulx.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, on a point of clarification, will we then allow Ms. Keen to come back after the hour for the minister? That wasn't clear in your comments, Mr. Chair.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
