Natural Resources Committee on May 29th, 2008

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

Thank you for the clarification of what motions are out there. It's been a while since we talked about them, and I think we've forgotten.

I had another notice of motion from May 27, so that's one that we're not entertaining. It's from Mr. Alghabra on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the government's decision to discontinue the MAPLE reactors.

So that one is not before us in any way?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Well, it hasn't been introduced yet.

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

I wasn't sure which ones we were talking about.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

We're talking about Mr. Allen's.

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

Yes, but I was getting confused because the other motions had actually been introduced, and I did miss a meeting, so I wasn't sure if that one had actually been introduced or if it had just been handed out.

It was my understanding that we got into the Chalk River and Keen affair discussions because of some emergency things that happened back in January. The committee was called back, and we started a discussion that interrupted the forestry study. But before we started the forestry study, did we not commit to finishing the electricity study before the emergency Chalk River nuclear stuff got in the way?

It's a convoluted question, I know.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Ms. Gallant.

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

Thank you.

I would like to speak in favour of Mr. Allen's motion. It's my understanding that AECL is still under review. While we've had the one decision on the MAPLE reactors come down, as a whole there is a review under way. To have the study done before the outcome of the review might make these work in contradiction to one another.

But what we do have today are the increasing energy costs in the petroleum industry. Just today there was an announcement in the news warning that the provinces who use gas as a means to produce electricity are going to have to let their customers know that there are going to be greatly increasing costs.

So with that in mind, I think it's incumbent upon this committee to focus on what is going to be an urgent situation, especially this coming winter, for our fixed income people, and to explore alternative means of energy. This is what is going to be the difference, literally, between buying groceries and not buying groceries for some families.

So I would again support Mr. Allen's motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Are there any further speakers on the motion? Otherwise, I'll call for a vote....

Mr. Ouellet, I apologize.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I remember what happened when we decided to study the forestry. We could not agree on the topic for our study. It was very difficult. Some wanted to study the forestry; others wanted to look at the isotope problem in the nuclear industry. We were really close to a majority agreeing to study the forestry on the condition that we finished our nuclear study. I feel that the people around this table agreed to study the forestry.

I do not see why we would go backwards now and forget the hour and a half that we spent reaching an agreement on the order in which we were going to proceed. No one around the table has changed. We decided to study the forestry, provided that we did not spend too much time on it, and to do the nuclear study immediately afterwards.

It turns out that the forestry study took longer than expected. But I think that everyone around the table is very happy with the high quality of the report. We can take pride in the fact that we did much better than with the tar sands, even if we took a little more time than we expected. But we should not forget that we decided to finish the nuclear study. We have heard from witnesses. We have enough time before the summer break to finish the study.

I find this proposal incomplete and imprecise. It is missing elements that we have already discussed and that must be included. I am against it in its present form. We can certainly begin that study, but we know that are going to leave it unfinished. We know that we will not be doing good work. We will forget it over the summer and move to something else in the fall.

We have the time to finish the nuclear study in the three weeks we have left. We are pleased and proud to have heard witnesses. We could add new elements because there have been new developments. We can see that the nuclear issue is raising interest again; we see it in the newspapers all the time.

In my opinion, it would be quite logical to proceed in that way. I do not see why we would have the same debate for an hour and a half. The same people have already had the same debate using the same arguments.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

We'll vote on the motion before the end of the meeting.

We have Mr. Harris, and I think that's it.

Mr. Harris.

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

I'd like you to call the question, please, on Mr. Allen's motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Are there any further speakers?

All right.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Mr. Anderson.

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

Mr. Allen mentioned the possibility of taking some trips to look at some of these projects in Ottawa. Are we interested in doing that, in trying to just begin the arrangements? At agriculture committee we started to do that, but we have to have the commitment of the opposition or we're not going to be able to go. At agriculture committee we planned one thing, opposition members didn't show up, and they just shut the bus down on us because we have to be paired to go.

So are opposition members interested in a couple of these projects?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

I don't recall the agriculture committee opposition members failing to show up for some--

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

This, actually, was before you were on it. In 2006 we set up a trip to Quebec and we needed to pair up so....

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

It's an historical reference. Okay.

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

Yes.

That's still in place.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I would like to do that, Mr. Chairman. I'll look forward to it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Mr. Allen, concerning your motion, which has passed, that we finish our study on the greening of electricity in Canada, etc., may I ask what your thought or your proposal is as to how we occupy our two-hour meeting Tuesday in furtherance of your motion?

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

What I would suggest and like to see us do, Mr. Chair, is this. We've had a lot of witnesses on this greening of electricity already, and I think there's an opportunity for us to maybe start putting something together pretty quickly. We should be looking to finalize our plans for any trips we're going to be doing as part of this.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

With no disrespect to you, Mr. Allen, things would seem to be a little bit threadbare, then, as far as Tuesday's committee is concerned. Perhaps we'll just consider Tuesday as a committee business meeting and decide how to proceed on Tuesday. There's nothing concrete being suggested today.

Mr. Trost is next, and then Mr. Anderson.

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

I'm not used to getting precedence over Mr. Anderson. Thank you.

Here is a possible suggestion. It has been some considerable time since we had the witnesses. Would it be possible to have some sort of review of testimony? It might be in some respects useful to have a quick review of testimony, if we're going to organize future testimony, because if we reviewed, even as a committee, old testimony—briefs or whatever, if this is possible—it might help us structure future witnesses. We could sort out what gaps we have to fill in rather quickly.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

I'll get to you, Mr. Anderson.

The clerk will address your question, Mr. Trost.