Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 16th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good afternoon.

We will start this tenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

This meeting has been changed. We're dealing with committee business. Often when we're dealing with committee business the committee goes in camera. As of right now, this meeting is televised, as the meeting that we're replacing was to be.

It's up to the committee to decide whether they want to remain with the televised situation, to end the televised portion, or to go in camera. It's strictly up to the committee.

Does anybody want to make a motion to change that or to keep it the same? If nobody does, we'll just keep it as is.

We're discussing future business. Let's get started. Who would like to kick off?

Mr. Alghabra.

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

Mr. Chair, given the testimony we heard from the minister today, and still reserving the right to invite the minister back again, there are three people the Liberal Party would like to invite. We would like to reinvite Ms. Keen; we'd like to invite Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General; and we'd like to invite Michael Burns, the chairman of the board of AECL.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the proposal.

Mr. Anderson.

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

If we're taking a list of witnesses here, we're certainly going to have a long one as well. We are willing to submit that list of witnesses. That will be fairly extensive, I would think, but that's fine. I'm more interested in our having a discussion about when we're going to do this and whether the committee is interested in doing this as part of our regular schedule once we come back.

A number of us are going to come back from western Canada next week. I think we'd expect that we're going to be here. If that's what the opposition is suggesting, then we're going to have to make it worth our while to be here, which would mean extended hearings, I would think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

I do just want to repeat something that you all know. As members of Parliament, we have a lot of responsibilities in the constituency, as well as here in Ottawa. I would guess that every one of us has events booked with our constituents over the rest of this week and at least the first part of next week. So when we're considering time, let's certainly be respectful of that, and the fact that some of us have to travel for a lot of hours, from western Canada in particular.

We've heard the request. Certainly the way we normally handle this is to set a certain date by which any witnesses being recommended will be submitted. I assume we'll go with that normal procedure, if we do in fact want to carry on with this issue. That's really the first thing to decide: do we want to have further meetings on this issue?

Mr. Trost.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would say, as did Mr. Anderson, that if we are going to have further meetings, there is going to be an extensive list of witnesses; it's going to go on. It will start looking like the motion we tabled from Ms. Bell.

I understand there are people suggesting we bring all past natural resources cabinet ministers. I'm not going to be tabling a motion to that effect, but my understanding is that there may be one tabled there. So we would have Mr. Dhaliwal and people like that. This would get to be a very long, extensive thing.

Some of these witnesses are going to take time to prep. This is going to take a little bit of time, so we should think very closely about whether we're going to do this all in this huge fashion or if we're going to roll it into part of our regular committee work, which will be only one week later. Next week is the last break week before Parliament resumes. We may just want to roll it in and then reset the committee's agenda, and go on with it there.

If it's that serious and it's going to be a long study of things that go way into the far past, then we need to do it in a serious and thorough manner, because there are going to be things coming up from witnesses that are going to make us want to call other witnesses. And you just can't call witnesses with one day's notice. So it's going to need to be over a staggered piece of time if we're going to do this in a thorough way.

If we're just going to rush through it and quickly paint over some ideas, yes, we can do it here, there, and anywhere. If we're going to do it thoroughly, we should do it in a regular fashion, in a consistent way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Before we go to other people--and I do have a list--let's start at the beginning. The committee has to decide whether we in fact want any further meetings on this issue.

If someone wants that, bring forth a motion.

Mr. Alghabra.

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

I'd like to move, Mr. Chair, that the committee invite the following individuals to attend on Tuesday, January 22: Ms. Linda Keen; Ms. Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General; and Mr. Michael Burns, former AECL chairman; and that the committee reserve the right to invite more witnesses as it chooses later on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the motion. Is there discussion on the motion?

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes, Mr. Chair. It's really great to list a bunch of people we want to invite to a meeting, but for what purpose? In trying to deal with this motion, I think what you want to do is put your invitees around what kind of objective we want to achieve; it speaks to the point of setting committee business. What we are doing now, by entertaining a motion like this, is potentially changing the committee business we set prior to Christmas, which is a study on forestry. That would end up changing this.

My problem with this is that unless we have an objective, how are we going to know what we would want to build a witness list around and who are the proper witnesses we would invite?

Furthermore, I will reiterate the chair's comments. I do know that my constituents like to see me in my riding. I'm not sure about the others, but they do like to see me. There's some business I would like to accomplish.

I think we should make this a normal part of our business when we return. It's only a week and a half.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It would be one week later than proposed, in fact, and that's all.

On the motion, Ms. Gallant.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly pleased to hear that after so many years of being forgotten and left by the wayside, attention is being paid to AECL and the whole plant at Chalk River. It's unfortunate that a crisis had to occur for it to get the necessary attention. It is our premier research centre for nuclear science and it needs to receive that attention.

What I would suggest, as part of following through with any motions, is that you allow the clerk the time to put together a proper study framework if you're going to go ahead. If it's going to be as extensive as the motions that were mentioned the other day, set a frame of reference; do the study plan. I'm sure the people at AECL would be very pleased to have you visit the small research reactor that's housed there. I think there's a misconception in the minds of many of what is really there. It would be helpful for you to put into perspective exactly what it is they do there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

Is there nobody else to speak on the motion?

Ms. Bell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I would like to hear from the three people suggested in the motion, I just want to remind my colleagues that I do have a motion on the table to do an independent investigation into all of the proceedings and to go back over a long period of time. I've requested many documents in that regard. So I don't want the motion before us today to forget that.

I've heard from my colleagues from the Bloc, from the Conservatives, and also from the Liberal Party that this is an important issue that needs to be thoroughly investigated. But whether or not the natural resources committee is the body to do this thorough investigation is the question that I have. Would it be more appropriately done under the Auditor General or another eminent person we may decide upon, someone independent, so there is not the back-and-forth “he said, she said” rhetoric that we've been subjected to for the last couple of days?

So I would support hearing from the three witnesses, but as to the extensive investigation, I'd consider having that done under an independent body. I've heard people bring that up outside this House as well as inside. I think it's important that we have an independent investigation that can focus on the procedural and administrative issues we are investigating here. This committee can focus on the other important topics that are facing Canada. We're looking at a crisis in our forest industry, and we want to continue studies on other issues as well.

That's not to say that this isn't important, but with an independent investigation done thoroughly, by an independent person, we wouldn't be getting into the back and forth at this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We undertook a process whereby we asked the minister questions, listened to his version of the facts, and heard from the person who accompanied him. We are disappointed at not having heard from Ms. Keen. I think that members of the committee should hear from and question the three principal players in this medical isotope crisis. We do not perhaps have to get into an elaborate study involving a long list of witnesses, but we should at least hear from the main players who were on the front line during this crisis.

Mr. Chair, we have heard from the minister. I would like Ms. Keen to come and testify, as well as the senior Atomic Energy of Canada official who resigned. I would also like to hear from the Auditor General about any shortcomings connected with the Chalk River laboratory

After hearing from those four main players, the committee can decide if it wants to do a longer and more detailed study involving more witnesses. In any event, we first have to hear the various versions in order to be fair and equitable to all. The minister, Atomic Energy of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission clearly disagree on how this crisis should be interpreted.

First let us shed light on the questions we have. As a committee, we will then be able to decide if we want to formally study the matter more completely. I move that we meet next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Alghabra, then Mr. Anderson.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, I've put a motion on the table. We haven't decided on the direction we're going to take, but there are a lot of reasons why we want these three witnesses to appear before the committee. It's important that we do this as soon as possible.

We have an agenda set out for the committee for when we come back. That's why I'm suggesting we do this next week. It's urgent. We have caucus on Tuesday, but I'm willing to skip caucus to come here on Tuesday. It's really important that we hear from these witnesses.

I ask that we call for a vote so that we can decide what we're going to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Mr. Anderson.

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

Mr. Chair, if we're going to do this, I think we need to deal with it fairly. I'm going to make a couple of amendments to this. One is that we change the date to the 29th; it's only a week later and we'll all be back here. We can begin to do this as part of our regular meetings. Then if we want to go further from there, as Madame DeBellefeuille said, we can do that.

I would like to make a second amendment--and this can be written--that we expand the witness list to include witnesses submitted from all parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, you were just reading the motion you were going to bring forth for the record, were you?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

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

The amendment is to change the date to the 29th. It's an amendment to Mr. Alghabra's motion. The second part of the amendment is to expand the witness list to include witnesses submitted from all parties. I know Ms. Bell has said that she would like to have some witnesses as well, and so would we.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much.

Do you want to speak to that at all? It's kind of obvious, I think.