Natural Resources Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There's no debate on this. We go directly to a vote.

(Motion negatived)

Okay, we will continue.

We have a speaking list. Mr. Shory, Mr. Allen, on this motion as amended.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I'm new on this committee, Mr. Chair, I just want to understand what we are trying to achieve in these committees. Do we want to be productive or just waste time all the time? I noticed this in previous meetings as well. Today I'm noticing we are dealing with a motion for more than one hour. As far as the motion is concerned, I can see that the wording of the motion says “In light of testimony from AECL and CNSC officials”, which means to my understanding that there is something new that invokes the return of the minister. To me, none of the officals said that there was any risk to any human life or that there was any damage that was considerably noticeable.

So I don't know what the intention is here. I guess, to my understanding, it seems like even though there are no new developments, it's a matter of sidetracking ourselves so that we do not get on to productive activities rather than.... We are playing games. This is what my understanding is, and I definitely oppose that the minister be invited now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Shory.

Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this motion again.

I'm going to bridge from the point we were making before, just so we're not repetitious. We were saying that there's nothing new. It's true, and it's true of all the points that have been made, that there's really nothing new to be gained from doing this. But I think it's also important that it might be premature, as well.

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to go back to some of the testimony from when AECL was here, when I was talking with Mr. MacDiarmid. This is very much to the point of this motion, talking about the funding. There's nothing new in terms of what we should be trying to achieve with this and when we should be trying to achieve something with this.

I said the following to Mr. MacDiarmid: “You said you're very mindful of the need to acquire the CNSC licence renewal in 2011. Your comment was that we need to invest in the reactor and support systems for life extension.”

My point at that point in time was that we are two and a half years from this. This licence is going to expire in 2011. What are we going to do? I wanted to know if these investments in the reactor are going to be done as part of normal outages. “Will they be done as part of normal outages and as part of a project, or how is that going to be done?” I asked.

Mr. MacDiarmid, of course, put that over to Mr. Pilkington, who I think is one of the right people to be answering these questions, and Mr. Pilkington said this: “The isotope supply reliability program is a fairly broad program. It involves improvement to equipment and systems and to procedures. It involves long-term planning for succession planning for staffing for the NRU reactor”. I think that is an important point. We can all agree that some of the staffing issues and some of the labour force issues we're encountering today are very important, not only to this industry but to others. I think a lot of people can say that they'll have people retire over the next ten years. Fifty percent of their people will retire over the next ten years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Allen, would you mind kind of holding your comments, at least for now? There's been some discussion....

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

There appears to have been some discussion going on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There's been some discussion—

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

—and I feel slighted that they weren't paying attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

—and I can't say whether this will lead to a solution.

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

I was just coming to make a good point, and nobody's paying attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

If this is not accepted, you'll be allowed to go back to it, Mr. Allen.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You have many good points, undoubtedly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen and Mr. Anderson have had some discussion. Mr. Cullen, do you have a proposal here, or an informal proposal?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's an informal proposal.

These things happen sometimes at committee. We all end up in some sort of bind that it was not anyone's particular desire to create.

I'm seeking unanimous consent from the committee to amend the motion, which may take out the parts that are causing consternation on the government side. It is that we invite the Minister of Natural Resources to appear before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to discuss issues relevant to the Chalk River nuclear facility.

I assume that it has to be attached to the amendment we've already made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes.

This would require unanimous consent.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's correct. Thank you, Chair.

First, I'm seeking unanimous consent to alter my own motion, which is not procedurally correct but which happens from time to time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes. If we get unanimous consent, it will be for that motion, just as you have prepared it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's correct. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, do you have a question?

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

Just for clarity, are we amending the amended motion, or are we amending Mr. Cullen's original motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'd be replacing the amended motion with what Mr. Cullen said. This is informal. It would require unanimous consent, but it can be done in that fashion.

Is there unanimous agreement to Mr. Cullen's proposal?

[A voice]

Could he repeat it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Would you repeat the proposal, Mr. Cullen?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I propose that the Minister of Natural Resources appear before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to discuss issues relevant to the Chalk River nuclear facility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Did you hear it?