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.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I appreciate the words of my colleague Mr. Anderson.
First of all, getting the French wrong on such an important motion for the government seems reminiscent somewhat of some of the parts of this bill. Regarding the intentions associated with the timeline, I had an assumption—at least for my part, and I suspect others on the committee had—that the government was also going to do what committees do, which is to hear the evidence that is brought forward by the many varied witnesses, take that evidence into account, and then consider amendments to a bill, which, we've now been brought to understand, is more than eight years old, in an environment such as the nuclear industry's that is constantly changing and shifting.
It was my intention in doing my job as a committee member to take the information that was given to us as committee members and then apply it to the bill that was in front of us, Bill C-20. The questions I have put to the committee witnesses to this point have been as clear and concise as I can make them. I find also that, especially in this last round of witnesses, some of the answers have, I think both for the witnesses and certainly for me as a committee member, been thought-provoking and reflective of a deeper understanding of what implications for the Canadian taxpayer Bill C-20 holds.
It has been well apparent to me that the agreement we set out, Chair, attempted—and I think Mr. Regan is right in pointing out that the very nature of it is to be not necessarily a unanimous, all-party process—to look at the bill and consider amendments. When I've brought considerations and thoughts to the government side, at least to ask whether they would consider one aspect or another aspect, they've refused out of hand. There's been no notion of negotiation, no notion of being able to improve upon the legislation before us.
While I understand that when in government all sorts of pressures come to be applied and that greater considerations might be out there that the committee members from the government side will not divulge to us, it seems to me that a motion such as this that is before us today to put a timeline on a bill—which the government seems ambivalent about, frankly....
It hasn't moved a single amendment to an eight-year-old piece of legislation; it didn't move a single amendment after hearing many hours of witness testimony; it hasn't considered, frankly, any of the amendments that we've brought forward as opposition; it's just not open to the conversation. If the parliamentary secretary wishes to speak about good faith in the process, I'm all for it. I'm very interested in good faith. That is how I enter into any discussion that we have around this committee table, whether it happens to be about the timeline, as Mr. Anderson has pointed out here today, or in fact the legislation that's before us, for which this timeline is adjusted.
It seems to me, and I say this in all sincerity and imploring the government, that if the government is truly interested in speed, which is what this motion speaks to—moving this thing quicker—then certainly they can find it in their schedules to sit down with committee members. I'm willing to do it today; I'm willing to do it right now. If the parliamentary secretary would like to take a five-minute break, I'll put forward to him again some of the very most reasonable and sensible amendments based on the testimony that we heard from witnesses, both within the industry and outside, to understand what the government's intentions are around this bill.
To this point, the government has simply told us to get lost. They've simply told us that they're not interested in making the bill better; that the thing when crafted eight years ago was an immaculate perfection, anticipating all the things that were going to come in the following eight years, anticipating everything the witnesses told us from around the world and within the industry. That's an incredible amount of intelligence that this government seems to claim: that they could anticipate all of those things; that their bill was swayed not an iota by the testimony they heard.
It calls into question why they even bothered studying the bill at all, if they knew this bill to be perfect in its initial manifestation of 2002. It suggests that they anticipated the European nuclear liability regime, that they understood where the Japanese were going, where the Americans would land. Of course they did not.
In regard to this motion and trying to understand what the government's actual intentions are, I am led to conclude that rather than do the work a committee is meant to do, which is to study legislation and try to improve upon it as best we can—which the government has made zero effort to do, on such an important issue as nuclear liability and safety.... It seems to be a perversion of what the responsibility is to be a government, which is to design the best legislation, with the most current information possible.
Instead what we have in front of us is this idea that we now need to affix a timeline to it because of some notion of good faith and responsibility from the Conservatives.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
If you have new points to make, please make them. Otherwise we'll go on to the next person who would like to discuss this, or to the vote.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to clarify a notion that the parliamentary secretary said. I want to get the record straight in terms of the number of hearings. The motion that we heard, the motion around the original calendar and schedule, said that there were three or four hearings referred to. That was supposed to be three or four hearings with witnesses. If the parliamentary secretary cares to correct me, there was no notion within the original motion passed by this committee as to how many meetings there were for clause-by-clause.
Perhaps, Chair, you or the parliamentary secretary would like to correct me, but in the original testimony by the parliamentary secretary, he inferred otherwise, that it was somehow a whole package deal within three or four meetings, witnesses and clause-by-clause. That wasn't the case. Committee members will remember that, those of us who were there that day.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think if Mr. Cullen checks his schedule we had three and a half meetings with witnesses on this issue. We're now into our fourth meeting in terms of clause-by-clause. I may be forgetting, I'm not sure, but that doubles the amount of meetings that actually fulfills what he asked for, which was the three meetings for witnesses. It doubles that, as we've done four meetings already in terms of clause-by-clause. I think he's gotten far more than he negotiated.
I think it's probably inappropriate for him to make light of the notion of good faith and talk about perversion of responsibility when he made an agreement with us. We voted together, as Mr. Regan pointed out. That agreement was put in place. If he wants out of it I guess he can choose to do that, but we were clear and we were precise when we made that motion that day. It can't be much clearer than it is in the book. If he wants to expand the study beyond what we agreed to, I guess he has the ability to do that.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cullen, just so you would note, this motion would allow for three more meetings to discuss the bill still. It would not end debate today.
Mr. Regan.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that there's no question that I would hope we could finish this by next Thursday. I think we should be able to, but I would like to see us work collaboratively between now and then. In fact, I would hope that if we could do that, maybe we can finish it sooner than that. To encourage that, I'd be inclined to vote against this motion, believe it or not. That's how I view it.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
To my point earlier, I'm not sure the parliamentary secretary heard me, but there is a sincere offer back to the parliamentary secretary. If his interest is timing, if his interest is expediency of the bill, if that is truly his interest, my suggestion to him right now is to take 10 minutes, he can hear again offers from the opposition in terms of making this bill better, and then we will absolutely be open to the notion of talking about his motion in front of us today—absolutely.
By doing this, he says the opposite. He says that it's just going to be status quo from the government. They'll move no changes, they'll consider no changes to an implicitly perfect bill that was drawn up more than eight years ago.
I put that directly on this motion to the parliamentary secretary. I doubt he looks all that interested, but if he is, we sincerely will take at least those 10 minutes. If time is his concern, I think 10 minutes will be an investment well worth the offer.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
This bill has obviously been to the House. It has been introduced here. Liberals wrote it, so I'm sure they think it's written as it should have been. It was brought forward. It was passed through the committee to the House as it is. The NDP have a history of treating this bill with—I don't know what word I should use, but they filibustered it last time when it got in the House in order to keep it from moving ahead.
I think when you spend two hours on one clause, asking the same questions again and again...it's hard for us to believe that Mr. Cullen isn't doing that again and that the point of what he has been debating and questioning isn't just to filibuster the bill and slow it down. If he's serious about wanting to sit down and talk about this, we can certainly do that, but the reality is, in the last three meetings he hasn't shown any inclination to treat the bill seriously, so we would have some serious issues with that.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to understand, my offer of sitting down with the government again to try to improve this bill has been rejected. I asked for a 10-minute investment from the parliamentary secretary, which does not seem to me and to folks listening to be all that unreasonable. I want it to be noted that my offer was to try to make some sort of mediative stance out of this—I see Mr. Allen is coming in on the conversation—a 10-minute conversation to simply ask if there are any points of agreement within the amendments and the changes we have offered. I hope the parliamentary secretary can at least address that specific offer I have made.
I see his hand is raised.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
If you want to make that request after, you're more than welcome to do that, but we have to deal with the motion.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand that, Chair.
I think Mr. Anderson has a comment.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm willing to take a walk with Mr. Cullen if he wants. That's fine. You can take a break or you can continue to debate. It doesn't matter to me.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I would have to get the consent of the committee to take a break—
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.