Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 16th, 2008

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

I think that's clear. It looks to me like the Liberals have selectively picked people who they want to bring in here, and I think the other parties should be allowed that same opportunity. So that's simply to allow that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

You've heard the proposed amendment. Is there discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Alghabra.

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

Mr. Chair, the motion states that we reserve the right to call more witnesses if we need to. I'm not sure how different it is from the amendment, since he's not naming witnesses. I think he's agreeing with my amendment, that we reserve the right to call more witnesses, and we will probably do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The amendment calls for the date to change to our normal committee time, which is the 29th, just a week later.

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

I understand why he would be interested in pushing it further, but I'm proposing.... I have a constituency too, and, as I said, I have a caucus meeting as well. This is an urgent matter. I'm proposing that we do it next week, and I'm asking the committee to vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

To the amendment, Ms. Gallant.

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

Mr. Anderson makes sense, because we've already seen, as each week progresses and with the passage of a full week, new information surfacing. It may be to the committee's benefit to hold it a week later because more information may have surfaced by then, and we won't be recalling witnesses the way it has been proposed today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Interesting point. We have no knowledge as to whether any of these three witnesses would be available in as short a time as you're asking them to come, less than a week. That's another point we have to consider here. We can wish for that, but I think all of these witnesses would want some time. One of them has already decided not to attend a meeting. What's to say that she will attend less than a week from now?

But there was someone else, I thought—no, that's all. Any other discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Trost.

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

I just want to again put on the record that I have advertised events in my riding on the 21st and the 23rd. For you people from urban Ontario and Quebec ridings it's a very different world. Living in rural ridings...it takes an awfully long time to get through. I take my responsibilities on the natural resources committee seriously. I'm not the most aggressive partisan player in the House. I think people know I value the technical information here, and I just don't feel that that's been afforded due respect by all members of this committee, some of whom have a fairly cavalier attitude toward calling meetings whenever it is at their personal pleasure.

I do not want a substitute for me; I will have to have a substitute. So I'm essentially being asked to skip the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Bell and then Mr. McGuinty.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just following up on some of the comments, while I agree that nuclear safety is an important issue and it needs to be discussed, and again I go back to my motion to have a full investigation, I also am not opposed to waiting until we are back in our due time on the 29th.

As my colleague referenced, coming from out west it takes me 12 hours to get from British Columbia to Ottawa. It's a full day. I have to cancel two days' worth of appointments, and to return I have to do the same thing. While I take my committee responsibilities very seriously, I also take my riding responsibilities very seriously.

So given that it's only a week and that we are, as other members said, hearing new information daily that may assist with our deliberations, and it would give witnesses time to come to our discussions with full reports or information that needs to be provided....

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

Mr. McGuinty? Okay.

Mr. Alghabra.

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

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of cooperation, I think we'll accept the 29th date for many reasons that were brought up here.

I think the second amendment is no different from the initial one. I don't know if he still wants to keep it, because the motion itself leaves it open to call more witnesses. So if we can just adjust the date and keep the motion, then we'll accept the first amendment and keep the motion as is, so we can invite these witnesses. We already know who we want. As a committee, we will be happy to receive a list of other witnesses that you can invite.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

As I see it, having the date be the 29th has been accepted as a friendly amendment.

Regarding the second part of Mr. Anderson's amendment, on the one hand, Mr. Alghabra, I think you're saying you can't support it, and yet you are saying on the other hand that it's the same as what you had.

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

There's no need for it, if he wants to withdraw it, because it's already in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I think there is a subtle difference and an important one, and that's that we want not only those three witnesses to be on a witness list but also other such witnesses as members of the committee choose right from the start, not after, necessarily, we hear from these three.

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

Could I hear from Mr. Anderson?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, could you explain that?

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

There are two issues. One issue is that Ms. Keen has indicated she doesn't want to attend the committee, so the committee is going to have to determine whether it is going to order her to appear or not. She's apparently today made a decision that she doesn't want to. If you are putting her on the list, that's going to require the clerk to make sure that she comes. It's not just an invitation, because it will be part of the motion.

Secondly, if the motion reads that everyone is being allowed their witness list and allowed to bring their witnesses, we are fully supportive of that. If you want to name your witnesses, that's fine. We just don't want witnesses to be excluded because of the motion made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is that understood?

Mr. Proulx, on a point of order.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Is it not a rule that witnesses must be approved by the committee, in the sense that just because one member wants 14 different witnesses that doesn't mean the committee will necessarily accept that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Absolutely. It is also generally accepted that all members of the committee, all parties certainly, can submit a list of witnesses for the committee to choose from.

Is this motion meant to allow that then? Is that clear?

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

Is the motion meant to allow that? Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's okay as long as that is clear. Could you make sure that is clear in the motion? Then I don't think there's any argument. Can we just...?

Yes, Mr. St. Amand?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I just have one further point on one issue--and Mr. Anderson might entertain it--which is to have an extended sitting on January 29 to accommodate potentially three witnesses appearing that day.