Natural Resources Committee on March 6th, 2008

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the suggestion to report on the Chalk River study is quite interesting. The Bloc thinks this is justified, in light of the way the motion has been presented this morning. However, we would like to have a preliminary report so that we can study it, rather than a final report. Perhaps it would be simpler for the drafters to produce a preliminary report. Then we could determine whether or not we find it acceptable, or whether there are things we want to add or remove. I also think that we should not interrupt our hearings. However, once they are over, the preliminary report on atomic energy should be on our agenda.

[An hon. member]

It should not interfere with our study on forestry.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Monsieur Ouellet.

Mr. Anderson.

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

Mr. Chair, we've staggered in and out of this forestry issue all fall, and I think we've finally committed ourselves to it.

Omar wants the CNSC report. We are not against that in any way, shape, or form. And actually, I think if we'd had this discussion a little bit earlier we could have probably come to some conclusion.

We have four or five opposition motions on the nuclear industry in front of us. We weren't sure whether the committee wanted to go back to that and expand the discussion or if they wanted to focus on what we'd already done.

I would suggest, and I think this is in line with what Mr. Ouellet has suggested, that we continue the forestry study this week and next, that we ask the researchers to begin to prepare two preliminary reports, but that we do the one on forestry first. Once we've done the one on forestry, then we come back to the CNSC one and deal with it, if that's appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the suggestion there. We are just about out of time.

First of all, is it agreed that we'll go that way? Actually, I'm not certain from Mr. Ouellet's comment whether he wanted to finish the forestry first and then go back to the other, the nuclear study, but that's what Mr. Anderson has suggested. Is it agreed that we go that way?

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

In fairness to the analysts who have to put together at least the forestry part of it, the type of collegial atmosphere in which this particular study is going on is probably one of the better ones. In terms of the information that we're getting, it's probably the least partisan in terms of the solutions. We get a lot of head-nodding in terms of that's a good idea.

I'm not saying it's going to be simple or that you could do it overnight, but I would think that it allows us for this compromise on perhaps a more difficult, in terms of wording, report on the isotope situation.

I think that this request for an interim report is reasonably fair, without burdening the people who have to do the work. They may have some comments of their own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Boshcoff, are you saying that the researchers complete the draft report on the forestry industry and then present a draft report?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So what are you suggesting exactly?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I think do the interim report for isotopes, and as we continue, I think they're gathering information and analytical points. A lot of the presenters are actually doing this in such a way with the understanding that we're looking for solutions. So they're producing their reports to make it easy and digestible for a report to Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Of course the researchers are here to do what the committee wants them to do, but they've indicated it would be very difficult to do both at once. So I think we have to decide where we're going.

We have Mr. Alghabra next. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we're talking about a forestry report and next week we're talking about an AECL NRU report, it's not a big deal. We're talking about the same timeframe. My concern is that if we end up spending weeks doing the forestry report--examining it and debating the content of it and its recommendations--that will continue to postpone the findings and the outcome that has come out of the NRU situation. The NRU situation study has been conducted, completed for now. I think it's only fair timeframe-wise, and the fact that there is a lot of interest in that study and that the government has initiated an AECL review lead me to believe that we should do that report first.

If we're talking about a few days here and there, I'm not going to be objecting to it. But I don't think it's going to be a few days. It's going to be a week or two or three in between. Therefore, I think the NRU reactor report should be done first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The clerk has pointed out to me just now that there was no indication that there would be a report done on the NRU, as we were doing it, so the researchers would have to go back and reread all of that information to put together a draft report. In the meantime, they are preparing a draft report on the forestry industry. So we have to decide how we're going to handle this. We have to do it very quickly, because I know I have an appointment to go to.

Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think Mr. Anderson's suggestion is interesting, but I am more in favour of having a short report on atomic energy, even though this will make things more difficult for the drafters. However, they could put aside the drafting of the report and rather write a preliminary report. They would have two weeks to do that.

I am now convinced that enough time will have gone by between the time we heard about the atomic energy situation and our next discussion of it that we will have rather forgotten what we heard. I think it is more urgent to draft a report on atomic energy than on forestry. The researchers could then take the time to write a preliminary report on forestry.

As an architect, I always tried to order my projects. It is not impossible to do this otherwise, but I think sequencing things makes more sense. I think it is more logical to work on a report now. Once we have finished hearing from our witnesses on forestry, we can complete our report on atomic energy. Then we could do the other report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Monsieur Ouellet.

Mr. Anderson, we have a list of people to speak on this. We're going to have to cut this off for today. If you can try to reach some arrangement before the next meeting, we can deal with it at the next meeting.

Mr. Anderson, you're up.

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

I'll just make the same point that Mr. Boshcoff made, which is that it's going to be much easier and quicker to find a resolution and a conclusion to the forestry report than to the CNSC report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, could you repeat what you just said, please?

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

I said I agree with Mr. Boshcoff that it will be much easier and quicker to find a resolution and a completion of the forestry report than it will be of the CNSC report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, I sense that too.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I don't know how much time we've got to discuss this, Mr. Chair, but Mr. Boshcoff made a good point during this discussion that this is probably the most collegial committee he's seen in a long time, and certainly that I've seen as well. It seems we all are together on this, wanting to come up with some really good, substantial answers, and we're getting some excellent witnesses.

I don't want to see us deterred from this pretty good road we're going down. I think we're not going to have a whole bunch of debate at the end of the day on the forest report when the draft is presented because we all appear to have a good understanding.

The other thing is that we have an industry in crisis here. We have mills shutting down and we have people being laid off across the country in the industry. They're really looking for what's coming out of this meeting and whatever recommendations we have for the government.

Personally, I wouldn't like to see an interruption until we get this to a phase where we can issue something. And then we can go back to the AECL report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Alghabra, you indicated at the start that you're willing to be somewhat flexible on this. What I have heard is there's certainly a willingness to do a report on the NRU. I think that part of it has been agreed to. It's a matter of timing.

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

Can we then just be more clear about the timing? When do you expect the report to be done for forestry, and when do you expect the CNSC report to be done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Maybe I'll go to the researchers and get an indication from them as to what's realistically possible.

I know I'm putting you in a bit of a bind here, but we have to know that.

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

We need to know that information in order for us to make a decision.