Order.
Yes, Mr. Anderson.
Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a motion, if I can do that. I think you'll find it is in order. It is that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources report Bill C-20, the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, to the House not later than December 10, 2009.
I have copies in both languages here.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Would you like to see a copy of that? If the clerk could distribute copies in both languages, I'll let you have a look at it and then we'll discuss it or debate it. It's pretty straightforward.
Mr. Anderson, would you like to speak to the motion?
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, do you have a minute before Mr. Anderson makes his case?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No. If I may, while not procedure, it's usually good grace, I suppose, to pass the motion out prior to the committee's hearing it.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It sounds as if the French might be wrong. Can we have some clarification on that first before we go on?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
This is the issue we're dealing with at committee. There's no need to have a written motion at all. It's something that is often done up by members. Then they work with the clerk to make sure the motion is what's intended, and then it's read. So there's no need for it to be written.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think we need to get to the translation question as well, but just as a matter of good faith among parties, we have all submitted our amendments to the bill beforehand. As I said, while it's not procedurally necessary, the only motions I see that get brought to committee at the last second are often motions that happen in the moment, as committee members arrive at an amendment or a change to something. But to have something prepared beforehand and not submitted until we're in the actual moment—
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
That's simply not correct. If you'd like to debate the motion, you can do that.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Allow me my point on the translation, then, because I believe Mr. Regan and Madame Brunelle may have some concern with the translation of the text.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You can certainly discuss that after Mr. Anderson has made his point. I'd welcome that. It would be appropriate.
Mr. Anderson, do you have something to say on your motion?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think we may have some discussion on this, but if there's an issue between the English and French versions here, the English version is what I intend, and I guess that's all I needed to present. I want to present it in both languages. Hopefully, the French language is in agreement with the English version.
Basically, when she gets an opportunity, I'd just ask the clerk if she could read the motion regarding our decision as a committee to actually hear clause-by-clause and the hearings on the bill. I think that would bring some clarity to it. I don't know if you're ready with that yet or not.
Earlier on, when we made a decision on the agenda of the committee through the fall, we talked about a number of issues. We agreed with Mr. Cullen that we would hear some general nuclear issues, and we had a specific motion to hear those general nuclear issues. Then we had a motion specifically that was part of it, which he agreed to. We sat through one committee meeting and made an agreement that we would limit ourselves to three or four meetings on this bill.
Now I think we've already put in seven or eight meetings—I think this is maybe the eighth meeting—with the witnesses, and then with the three, now the four, clause-by-clause meetings. So I think we've been more than generous in terms of providing time to hear the bill. I hope he's going to stay consistent with the deal he made with us earlier this fall in order to move the bill through committee, as well as his issue, which was the general nuclear discussion.
We brought this forward in good faith. We think we're in line with the agreement that was made at committee earlier this fall. We certainly would love to discuss that.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Yes, we've been more generous than the motion—maybe that's been our fault, but I won't apologize for that.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, clerk, if you could read the.... Is it a motion? It is a motion on what we'd agreed to earlier. Go ahead.
3:35 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mrs. Carol Chafe
It was adopted on Wednesday, October 7, 2009. It was a combined motion. Would you like me to read the whole motion?
3:35 p.m.
The Clerk
It was agreed that the committee hold one three-hour meeting on Monday, October 19, 2009, to study the issue of nuclear isotopes, with each party being allowed to bring forward two witnesses; that the committee then spend three or four meetings on the state of the nuclear industry in Canada and abroad, leading into three or four meetings on Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident; and that when the committee concludes its hearings on Bill C-20, it will return to deal with its report on nuclear isotopes.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
If I can just summarize, I think most people remember that day, and some of that was in camera, so it won't go much beyond this. But after a lot of discussion, this was the general agreement that was reached with all the parties. We had a good amount of debate, and I guess we're just asking that people adhere to what they agreed to earlier this fall. I think we've almost doubled the hearings on the bill itself, and I think that's been generous. We'd like to move ahead, so we are willing to extend the hearings until next week—Mr. Cullen seems to have an interest in this bill—and then we would like to see the bill reported back to the House.
So I think we've gone far beyond our agreement.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, we'll go for debate. Debate on the motion is what I'm looking for.
Have you got a list? If not, we'll go to Mr. Regan. I haven't seen anyone else indicate.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not sure if I understood correctly. I don't know if Mr. Anderson was saying there was an agreement among all parties in terms of what we've been studying over the past number of weeks—we had the nuclear, then this bill, and so forth—because clearly it was not an agreement of all parties. It was a vote taken where two parties—or at least certainly one and perhaps the other—agreed, not including us. So I just want to be clear on that.