Evidence of meeting #6 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, that's right, I didn't at that time, but I would now move to amend this motion to add the words ''and to discuss the impact of additional funding on ongoing leaks at Chalk River''.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Maybe it's a friendly amendment, if my honourable colleague accepts it.
4:50 p.m.
A voice
Can you repeat that?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Yes: “and to discuss the impact of additional funding on ongoing leaks at Chalk River“.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Sorry. To add the words: “and to discuss the impact of additional funding on ongoing leaks at Chalk River”. I suppose you could say “the possibility of ongoing leaks”, but I think that's clear enough.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I think that amendment is in order. Let's debate the amendment.
Mr. Cullen.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, first of all, I'm not sure of procedure, friendly or what not, but I think the amendment sits fine and it's in light of what we were discussing and the intention of this.
Just in answer to the parliamentary secretary's point, we were very glad, and I think I said so publicly at the meeting, that the minister came forward in such a timely manner. I would suggest, though, that the developments around this were particular, and to say, well, that's supplementary Bs, I would suggest that the chair would have had some trouble with my starting to talk about spills and containment and all the rest.
Secondly, the witnesses we heard following the minister are the reason for this motion. It was the testimony from AECL and CNSC that caused me concern and why I asked the minister, I think the following day or two days later in the House of Commons, to try to clarify the difference between what we heard from officials. That's the nature of the motion. So there is no disparagement on the minister's part in terms of showing up and being present, and her testimony to this point has been direct to the answers—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm completely comfortable with the amendment. It is connected into the spills and the lack of containment, and we would move to a discussion and a vote as soon as we can.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. Any further discussion on the proposed amendment?
Madame Brunelle.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
The Bloc Québécois will be supporting the amendment and the motion. Nevertheless, the public has spoken and has expressed some concerns. It would be a good idea for the Minister to clarify matters. In the supplementary estimates, substantial sums of money have been allocated to the Chalk River facility. Therefore, it is very important to gauge the impact on the budget and to get a clear picture of the situation. So then, we intend to vote in favour of the motion.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. Any more discussion on the amendment to the motion?
Mr. Allen.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bains had declared this in order, so I guess now we'll have to talk to it.
On the amendment, as I see it, in discussing the impact of additional funding, I would have two problems. In discussing the impact of additional funding on ongoing leaks at Chalk River, that's assuming there's a plan to fix the ongoing leaks, and if there are any ongoing leaks. So they're really not ongoing. We've had a couple in the past. We had two pin-hole leaks, which we talked about in the last committee, which the folks at AECL talked to us about. They were on a self-contained pipe that was actually inside the containment building.
So to me, if you're even going to word something like this, you would have to be talking about the additional funding and what that additional funding would do to prevent any future leaks in the long run.
Then I would maintain that the minister's a darn poor one to be talking about this subject, quite frankly. I think it's the people at AECL and the people who are actually running the Chalk River unit who are the ones that should actually be talking about this issue, and not the minister. They know the unit better than anybody else does. So I would say it's going to have to be some of the witnesses who we had here the other day, including Mr. Pilkington and some others, who should probably be talking about this.
I can't agree with this, because, really, I think the minister, first, is not the right one to talk about this, and secondly, to counter Mr. Regan, I'm not really sure it's very clear. I think it's in terms of what we want to try to do in the future, as opposed to ongoing leaks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, this is so vague that I'm not even sure what he's talking about. Over the past year, we've put $300 million into AECL. We put another $100 million or $150 million at Christmastime; we put another $350 million in the budget here. So I don't know if he's talking about that funding, which is the traditional funding source that we have going through the department and government to AECL, or if he's talking about some new funding that he wants for something else.
The minister's going to come here and not even know what this impact of additional funding is. So is he talking about wanting to have extra funding here? Is he talking about the funding that we've already put in? I know we've been generous. Actually, it's good that the opposition has recognized that. Certainly we're funding these folks to a level where they can do their jobs, and we're happy to do that.
I think we need some more explanation from Mr. Regan. I know what he's trying to do. He wants to get around to the issue that he had before that you ruled out of order, but I'm not sure this is going to allow him to do that. I'd certainly like some explanation as to what level of funding he's talking about, where it's come about. Is it funding we've already been so generously willing to provide, or is he talking about funding for the future for Chalk River or for AECL and the entire nuclear development in Canada?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Regan, do you want to clarify what you're looking at here, what you'd like to be examined here?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Sure, Mr. Chairman.
David certainly talked about the fact that there's been additional funding. There's no mystery that additional funding has been announced. I talked at the last meeting about the fact that they went from $100 million a few years ago to nearly $1 billion over two years, in this fiscal year and the next one. So, clearly, there's additional funding. The question is, what impact is that going to have? How are they going to use it to solve these problems and the ongoing ones?
I would think that these members would be concerned about the production of isotopes and would want to be sure that this continues and that there aren't major interruptions and major problems, particularly at a time right now when we have the facility in the Netherlands, the other major producer in the world of isotopes, shut down. Chalk River is at double production, and the world is relying on us. I'm surprised to hear that they're not interested in looking at these issues, when there have been a series of leaks and problems there, and it would be good, it seems to me, to get reassurance about where they're going.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
Mr. Regan was actually factually wrong in the statements he just made.
The other day, when AECL was here, the questioning came from this side, and it was directed from me. I was concerned about the isotope problem that we could have and the potential outages that would be required to do things at that unit. I was wondering how long that would be, considering that two projects they are currently doing--Point Lepreau and Bruce--are behind. Wolsong is also on a new schedule. So with that in mind, I'm very concerned about that possibility. At the same time, it is still these folks from AECL, and that's my point. The right people to talk about that are the people who actually run the unit. The minister would not have first-hand knowledge of the technical aspects of that or of what the value for money would be for the correction in the budget money that we're actually putting into those facilities at Chalk River. They should be the ones to talk about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Admittedly, I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage because I was away last week on parliamentary business when we were discussing this. Listening to Mr. Allen, I have to say he is making roughly the same point I was going to make. I don't see the point in having the minister here is to discuss more funding for solving what is essentially a technical problem--the leaks down there. Minister Raitt is very talented, but she's not a civil containment engineer or a nuclear engineer, so I don't really see the value in bringing her here and then asking technical questions.
When it comes to additional funding, that's essentially such a broad fishing mission that I don't see how it really gets back to the problem we're looking at, which is whether we need to take any political oversight or political direction in order to take care of any potentially dangerous radioactive or heavy water spills.
The only reason I can see for having the minister before the committee is in regard to some political or general policy directive as far as safety involving these things here goes. From my understanding of the issue, it is much more of a smaller technical problem at that level. The minister should be concerned, in that it's her entire department, and she wants to be responsible for everyone under her, but I don't really see how it would be necessary or even helpful to have someone who basically gives political direction come here and be asked questions about technical things. She'd just end up referring to her officials, whoever she brought on who handles those affairs for her anyway.