Evidence of meeting #3 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 liability.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the question is baseless, unless the witness is able to tell us how long he's been involved with Greenpeace, how long he's been involved with the movement. Otherwise, he would have absolutely no idea what happened 15 years ago.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'll allow the witness to respond to the question.
Mr. Stensil, please respond.
Energy and Climate Campaigner, Greenpeace Canada
That's a great question, because it raises an issue I forgot to mention in my presentation.
As I mentioned, I filed a petition with the Environment Commissioner. There had been previous petitions, again, as a way of trying to push previous governments to table this legislation. The day I received my response from the Environment Commissioner—I think there's a three-month limit—I got a call from one of the opposition parties asking why the Nuclear Liability Act had been tabled that very day.
So what I would say on this point, for information for the committee, is it shows the need to have something, such as the Environment Commissioner, where we can push through things and get them out on the table.
One thing that I would note, in response to your question, as well, is I've got hold of the order papers. This act has been done for many years under previous governments, and one of the things that was noted was bringing this act up may require a broader public debate on the future of nuclear power in Canada. That is something that past governments and this government have not done and it's something, as I mentioned in my presentation, that this committee should probably dig into because there are other decisions, such as the privatization of AECL, which studies also began under past governments, that are being discussed again behind closed doors, and this committee could help keep NRCan accountable that way. I would hope the members see that as their role.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Stensil.
And Mr. Harris, I've even allowed you a little extra because of the intervention.
Thank you very much to the witnesses.
I would ask the members of the committee not to stand to thank the witnesses because we have a lot of business to do in the next ten minutes. We do have a committee following us here in this room. We have to be done our committee meeting by eleven o'clock.
So thank you to all of you very much for your presentations and the answers to our questions.
We now will go to a motion, which has been given proper notice by Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell, just before we do go to that, I want to make a suggestion to committee.
We have a meeting for Thursday, which, as of right now, isn't planned. Is the committee open to going to clause-by-clause on Thursday?
Mr. Anderson.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I wanted to actually address that.
We had asked for witnesses' lists to be sent forward. They were sent forward. There were a couple of extra witnesses that were submitted. This has to do with Thursday's meeting, I think, and we have to set future business here.
I guess we have two ways of hearing these witnesses. One is to bring them in here to hear them; the other is to have them submit written submissions to us. I think if we went through written submissions, we could go to clause-by-clause. If we're going to hear them, then obviously we're going to need to have another meeting of witnesses.
I was actually wondering also what the committee's desire is. Do they want to go to clause-by-clause fairly quickly to try to see this bill through? So I'd like to know from them what they're thinking.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
In response to Mr. Anderson's question, I feel quite rushed. I find this bill quite airtight. It would be good to hear witnesses and to be able to react. That would give us time to absorb all this new information. As a committee member, I don't feel ready to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration on Thursday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
To be fair, we did ask for names of witnesses to be presented by a certain deadline. We've accommodated I think all but one. The NDP had proposed two; we accommodated one, which I think was appropriate. The witnesses presented by the Bloc were after that deadline.
There were several other witnesses who have been allowed to make written presentations, and we certainly welcome that, as Mr. Anderson said.
Any witnesses who haven't been heard, if there are some, even the ones suggested later, are certainly more than welcome to make written presentations. So we can certainly do that.
I will go now to Mr. Alghabra, who is next on the speaking list.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate having rules and a deadline. Given the fact that Thursday is still not planned yet and we do have a couple of outstanding witnesses--and I agree the more we talk about it, the more we hear from witnesses, the more we understand the bill and the more we understand what direction to take--I think the committee might be willing to start clause-by-clause next week, and with your approval we probably could accommodate the witnesses for Thursday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Just because we have to get to Ms. Bell's motion and we have to be out of here by eleven, may I propose that we hear witnesses the first hour, and go to clause-by-clause the second hour? Would that be an appropriate accommodation? Is that all right?
I see agreement. Thank you. We will arrange that. We will accommodate everyone we can.
Let's go now to Ms. Bell. If you could move your motion, I understand you've changed it slightly, but it seems certain that the notice would still apply.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure how to proceed with this, because I've had some discussions with my colleagues at the table to amend the motion even further than what's before you. Should I do that first?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You should read the motion, yes. I think I have before me the changes you've proposed.
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
But just since I've come in the room today, there have been some changes.
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
The motion is that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources calls on the government to adopt the recommendations put forward in the “Advisory Group Report: National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”, to announce its proposals for the implementation of these recommendations, and for the committee to immediately report on these proposals to the House.
That's the original motion that I put forward.
Conservative
NDP
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
It would be removing the last line, basically. It would read:
The Standing Committee on Natural Resources calls on the government to adopt the recommendations put forward in the “Advisory Group Report: National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”, to announce its proposals for the implementation of these recommendations to the House.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. Maybe “and to announce its proposals”. Would that maybe read okay?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Great. We've heard what you've presented, Ms. Bell.
Has everyone got that, or is it clear?
Yes, Mr. Anderson, and then Mr. Alghabra.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In my discussions with Ms. Bell, I thought we might change “adopt the recommendation” and instead we'd ask the government to “respond to the recommendation”.
Conservative