Finance Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

But the bill does still allow you to sell all of the assets. For the moment, it has been decided that only the reactor portion would be put up for sale.

[Cécile Cléroux]

The bill allows for greater latitude. However, it is very difficult to privatize things relating to research and development that are connected with the government's fundamental missions. At present, the only thing on the table for privatization relates to the nuclear reactors.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Let's talk about isotope production, which is a somewhat sensitive subject in this country. Is that still part of AECL's vocation, does it have to ensure that enough isotopes are produced?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The universal nuclear research reactor is still part of the research and development division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It is not part of the component that is being considered for privatization.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, that answers my question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

Mr. Regan, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Merci, monsieur le président.

At the beginning I asked about why a department of the government didn't want to have this debated in the House, and I seem to have my answer. Whenever we've asked a substantive question, we've been told it's premature to answer.

My question, I guess, is when will it be mature? What more appropriate opportunity will members--representatives of the public--have to ask questions to examine the sale of AECL?

[Cécile Cléroux]

Right now this is part of Bill C-9. If it's approved, we will have the possibility to move forward. Decisions will be made by the Governor in Council, and these discussions will take place in cabinet.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So there's no opportunity other than this for members--representatives of the public, elected MPs--to examine the issues around this sale, because it's going to be left to cabinet entirely.

Let me ask a question to the legal counsel. Is there anything in the bill that would prevent the government from breaking up the CANDU division and selling it piece by piece?

[Jenifer Aitken]

As various people have pointed out, the bill is broad. It doesn't specifically say anything about CANDU division, so it allows for the sale of assets. It doesn't specify the specific assets, but the plans are what Ms. Cléroux has indicated.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Is there any restriction on cabinet and Governor in Council--any restriction on cabinet whatsoever--provided in the legislation?

[Jenifer Aitken]

The restrictions on cabinet would come from elsewhere: international obligations, policies that have been expressed. But there's no wording in the bill that I could point you to about that.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much.

Has Rothschild told the bidders not to lobby government, not to lobby AECL, etc.?

[Cécile Cléroux]

When investors accepted to undertake the current process, part of the non-disclosure agreement included the question of non-lobbying. Their point of contact in the process is Rothschild on behalf of Natural Resources Canada.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In relation to part 19, the participant funding issue, this sounds like a court challenges program for the National Energy Board. Is that a good way to describe it?

[Cécile Cléroux]

We are not the people to answer on part 19.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

We have someone who is, though.

[Terry Hubbard, Director of Policy, Major Projects Management Office, Department of Natural Resources]

I'm sorry, you caught me a little off guard there. Could you please repeat the question?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It sounds like a court challenges program--in other words, funding for the public to be represented at the NEB. How would that work?

[Terry Hubbard]

The intent of the program is really to enable meaningful participation of all stakeholders, the public and aboriginal groups, in the public hearing processes of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in relation to facilities, so the construction of new facilities to support--

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Can you explain why the government would do this--in this case--when it has withdrawn that ability, in the case of the Charter of Rights, with the court challenges program, by killing it? How is this different?

[Terry Hubbard]

I can't speak with any knowledge with respect to the second program that you referred to, but with respect to the new programs that we're looking to create for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board, it's really about supporting timely and meaningful participation in these programs.

Over the last number of years we've heard from stakeholder groups--landowners, aboriginal groups--that there's a real need for funding to support their participation in these programs, that to really bring their views, their concerns, their issues about these projects into the process, they need some funding to be able to participate.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Mr. Paillé.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You drafted the bill so the legislation would be broad. In terms of legislative choice, either you make it precise and specify that a particular asset is being sold, or you make it very broad. Plainly, you have made it very broad. So even though that is not part of the intentions announced in 2009, it would allow you to sell everything.

Am I mistaken in saying that in Chalk River, for example, if there were to be a market, and because there is no sunset clause in this bill, any government could eventually sell the rest, relying on this bill? I assume my interpretation is correct.