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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Good afternoon, everyone.
We've had a bit of delay in starting the meeting due to voting, as you all know.
I understand the witnesses have agreed they would come back to the next meeting, if we choose to do that. Is there agreement to have the witnesses come back on Tuesday of next week? We have witnesses booked for Thursday. Is it agreed that we do that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay.
I'd like to thank you for coming. I apologize for the delay. We will see you next Tuesday. Thank you very much. Sorry about that.
Can we guarantee there won't be any delays next week? No. We will do our best.
You may leave the table, and we'll see you next Tuesday.
Before we go in camera to discuss committee business, I understand that Mr. Cullen wants to move a motion that he gave notice of some time ago.
Mr. Cullen, go ahead.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
It's been a little over 48 hours, depending on how you add them up.
In light of testimony from AECL and CNSC officials that confirms that radioactive wastewater has been dumped into the Ottawa River as a result of the heavy water spill at Chalk River on December 5, I move that the Minister of Natural Resources appear before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to account for the new developments that pertain to the events related to the spill of heavy water at the Chalk River nuclear facility on December 5, 2008.
I'm not sure if they're necessarily ready for it. There may be an amendment proposed.
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure.
The minister came before the committee to talk about a number of different things. One of them that we didn't necessarily get into because it wasn't in the purview of the budget was around the events at Chalk River. Because it wasn't topical, we didn't raise it. That was fair.
Testimony followed from officials from both CNSC and AECL. The concern we raised and I think a number of my colleagues raised was around what exactly was happening at the facility. Testimony we heard that day in particular seemed to contradict what the minister had been saying when questions of this nature were raised in the House about the nature of spills. What was reported as containment actually meant it was contained for a period of time and then released in water. Or it was put up the smokestack; that was also noted to be containment by the minister. Definitions that everyday Canadians would understand to mean one thing were beginning to mean another.
As well, around the notion of treatment, what is it to treat heavy water that has been contaminated with tritium, which has severe adverse health effects? Treatment, to many Canadians, would mean that the water was then fine; it was fine for consumption; it was fine for Canadians to use as drinking water. We've since heard otherwise from other folks who have come to my office, and I think other offices.
The effort is to allow the minister to clear the record on those two particular instances: contained versus spilled, and treated. What is acceptable treatment by her office's standard and the regulations that guide these various agencies?
That's the basic motion. I encourage conversation and debate.
Conservative
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Under this wording, would we be unable to discuss the government's plans for the future of AECL, or would that need a friendly amendment that would say, for example, “and to discuss the future of AECL”?
If it doesn't need it, there's no point in getting into that.
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to be clear on Mr. Regan's amendment in terms of the future of AECL.
Part of the testimony from the officials from both AECL and CNSC was around the future: what the repair money was for, and the preparation. There was a comment, which I'm sure struck many of the folks around the table. I'm not sure who put the question to the witness, but they asked whether they have had discussions with the government about the potential sale of AECL. The gentleman, in his testimony, said he has had no informal conversations. He repeated that particular line over and over again. I didn't have a round of questions left, but my question--and I'm sure it came to many committee members--was what kinds of informal or formal conversations had been held. There was some splitting of hairs around a pretty substantial question.
I could imagine there is a connection between the leaks and the expense being incurred in the current budget to repair Chalk River, and the potential for sale. I could imagine those being connected.
I would accept it as a friendly amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm looking at this, Mr. Regan, and you are saying you would like an amendment to this motion that would include the future plans of the government when it comes to the Chalk River facility. Is that what you're saying?
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, when it comes to AECL--including Chalk River, obviously, because the minister has indicated that she'd like to separate Chalk River from the rest of the company.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm just looking at this, and I think that changes substantially this motion. I just think it would require a new motion to make a change like that, to be fair. It is a major change, and I'd have a concern with the committee bypassing the rules that we've put in place by making it an amendment rather than giving the proper 48 hours' notice.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
In relation to the first question, which was whether or not questions related to that would be allowed, I guess when she was last here it was on the supplementary B estimates, and we talked about a lot of other things beyond that. So if the same rules apply, then there's no need for any amendment anyway.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes. We're kind of doing this a bit looser than maybe I should, Mr. Anderson, but it seems like there's a will to go this way, so if you'd like, please comment on this amendment.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
If that's the case, then we should just give her an open invitation. There doesn't have to be anything attached to it at all.
I don't think Mr. Regan wants to completely change the direction of what Mr. Cullen has suggested here. I think that is a major amendment, and certainly if the minister's coming, she's going to want some specifics to talk about. We're already broadening this out, far broader than I think Mr. Cullen intended.
The other point I'd like to make, and probably I'll make a few more here later, is that she has already been here. The opposition asked us to bring her in and talk about supplementary Bs, and in there was funding for AECL and we had those questions. They've already been addressed. She was good enough to come immediately when we asked her.
So I think realistically this amendment should be defeated, and so should the motion, and we should move on with our planning for the future here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Regan, to your point, you may be right in terms of whether it really would make any difference whether this is amended, but I still have a problem.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I appreciate that, and if you'd like that to be in an amendment, I think you should send it in to the clerk.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
My plan is to withdraw that, and I would move to amend the motion to add—