A point of order.
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.
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.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Before we go to the point of order, Ms. Gallant, listening to this and looking at the list of documents, it has occurred to me that some of these documents almost certainly would not only be confidential but would be dealing with security issues, involving security of a nuclear power plant. The committee, of course, has a right to ignore that and to go ahead and ask for this information to come to committee, but I would just ask that the committee consider that carefully before we pass such a motion.
Ms. Gallant, a point of order.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
That was part of the point of order. Anything, of course, that is submitted to a committee becomes public knowledge.
But in addition to the fact that NRU is part of our critical infrastructure and those details, if made public, might jeopardize its security, there are also proprietary issues. AECL is a limited company, and we would not want their proprietary information available to their competitors.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Ms. Gallant, for pointing that out. I think it is important that we consider that.
I am looking for the committee to determine where we go with this. A very broad list of documents has been requested, and I am looking for your direction.
Ms. Bell.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
With respect to the comments from Ms. Gallant, what I am doing with my motion is requesting the documents. From what I read here, most documents that committees seek are provided voluntarily by the organizations from which we request them. If they are of a sensitive nature that would not allow them to be made public, then I'm sure the organizations would let us know.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Ms. Bell, I can't ask you to make an amendment. That wouldn't be in order. But somehow, if that could be made clear in this motion, it would be helpful.
Madame DeBellefeuille.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand what the NDP is asking. In the documentation on the Chalk River file, specifically in the letter that Ms. Keen has made public, there is in fact a summary of the correspondence between the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. In my opinion, a good deal of the material that my colleague is asking for could be made available to the committee without fear of breaching confidentiality and releasing confidential information on nuclear security. Summaries are available. We just have to get the documents for the members of the committee.
I for one would be inclined to support Ms. Bell's proposal, while still asking her to be flexible. Documents that are deemed to be against the rules would not be released, but those that are not and that could be of assistance to members of the committee should be made available in both official languages with no problem.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Ms. DeBellefeuille mentioned a letter that Ms. Keen made available. To which letter was she referring?
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
I mean the letter that Ms. Keen made public in response to the minister's letter in which he raised doubts about her competence and her judgment in managing the Chalk River laboratory issue.
The letter, including appendices, is 40 pages in length. It is available in both official languages on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's website.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm disappointed, Mr. Chair, that we didn't have some advance notice on this motion. It looks to me as though the NDP has gone fishing here and that their intention is to throw as broad a net as they possibly can to see what they come up with.
It's going to take a lot of time and money to find this information. The resources of three agencies are going to have to be diverted to trying to find these documents.
We're going to be opposing this, but I wish we'd had a little bit of notice. Some of this material we might have been able to bring before the committee if we'd had some notice on it. We'll be opposing it primarily because of the fact that it was just sprung on us, and it looks more like a fishing expedition than an interest in specific information here.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The list of documents being requested here is very long, and it is awfully short notice for the committee to consider it, but certainly the rules of committee allow this, so I have to move forward.
Mr. Trost.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
The only comment I was going to make--and it is similar to what's already been made--is that I think this would be a much more acceptable motion if we could put something in there to explicitly state that for economic or security reasons, certain documents could be omitted, or portions of certain documents could be omitted, because the point Mrs. Gallant made was very valid.
I'm interested in seeing some of these documents too, but I don't want to see something that Westinghouse or GE then uses against AECL, or that goes into a training kit for terrorists when they want to do something someday.
I know these are abstract, theoretical points, because we don't know what's in there, but if we could put something--and similar views have already been noted--in the remarks about flexibility, if we could have a friendly amendment or something like that, it would make this much more palatable.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Trost has suggested a friendly amendment here. Is the committee willing to proceed that way, to have a friendly amendment that would allow documents to be before it? Before I get the answer from the committee, of course, I'll have to ask the mover of the original motion, Ms. Bell.
Are you willing to have a friendly amendment put in with an explanation to indicate that if these documents are confidential or if there are matters of private economic concern to the private company, that they therefore not be required to be presented?
Ms. Bell, first I'll ask if you would be willing to accept a friendly amendment like that.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Whether it's a friendly amendment or just a fact of life, that confidential information probably would have been stricken anyway from any documents that we requested. I assume they wouldn't divulge sensitive information.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Actually, Ms. Bell, that's not the case. A committee can receive information that is otherwise confidential. That's why I think a friendly amendment like that would take care of that. But it's just a suggestion. There seems to be agreement, but we'd have to get your agreement to go ahead with it first.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Based on that, if there were an explanation, I would be happy to go along with that.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Therefore, there could be exclusion on those grounds, with an explanation. Is that agreed?
We'll hear from Ms. Gallant and then Mr. McGuinty.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The reason we're all here is that a crisis did arise with respect to the supply of isotopes. It's my understanding that AECL is putting overtime into getting the second battery backup up and running.
While Mrs. Bell makes a wonderful case, and we certainly would like to see the documents that don't jeopardize safety or proprietary issues, we have to recognize that we don't want to be dealing with another crisis in the next little while. Therefore, with her permission, we could ask to have these documents maybe once the second battery backup is installed, so that we would not in any way be a part of creating more work and possibly causing another stoppage of this isotope production.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
With respect quickly to Ms. Gallant's comments, I don't think it's the engineers who are installing the backup batteries who will be collating the materials that are sought here.
Just hearing the list and seeing it for the first time, my first reaction was that it appears as though the NDP would like to get through the back door that which it could not get through the front.
We agreed to table the first motion, which called for this committee to design the terms of reference for what is effectively a commission of inquiry into AECL.
I'd like to ask, through you, Mr. Chair, if Ms. Bell could help us understand. Are these materials now subject to a formal access to information request by the NDP to these specific organizations: AECL, CNSC, and NRCan? Are they subject to an ATIP request by the NDP?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative