Debates of May 31st, 2010

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Chair, is the minister recommending the safe use of chrysotile asbestos in any of the government's buildings?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, since 1979, our approach has been clear. We support the safe use of chrysotile. We now know that spray-applied asbestos insulation, used in the past, is not safe because it allows fibres to be released into the air. However, chrysotile can be encapsulated in cement or other such materials, and that is the type of use—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I do not know if this should be a point of order, but I did want to give the information to the member in regard to his initial questions. We can do that later, or is there time to do that now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We are in the Liberal slot, so if it comes back to the Conservative slot, the member could make that information available.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the members for Halifax West, Mississauga—Streetsville and St. Paul's.

Does the minister believe in climate change?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Liberals' questions are a type of personal interrogation. I do believe in climate change. It is obvious, there is international consensus. Will they ask me if I am married or if I have children? What else will they ask about my personal life?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I had a question about the lack of funds in the main estimates. That is why I asked him that question.

Let us move on to forestry and the forestry industry. Last year, the Conservative government spent $13 billion to help the auto industry. It did nothing to help Quebec's forestry industry, which only asked for one thing: loan guarantees to help it find the money for revitalization. However, the minister refused.

Thousands of Quebec forestry workers have now lost their jobs. Why has the cruel and insensitive Conservative government abandoned Quebec forestry workers?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the forestry crisis dragged on for years before we came to power. The Liberal Party was completely off base when it did not support signing a softwood lumber agreement. The entire industry said that the softwood lumber crisis needed to be resolved. This industry's economy is not integrated like those of other manufacturing sectors. It is a competitive economy, which means that there has to be a softwood lumber agreement.

By signing this agreement when we came to power, $1 billion in overpayments was put back into the pockets of our industries. No one complained except the Liberal Party and the NDP—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Conservative government cancelled a $1.6 billion plan that was announced by the Liberal government in 2005. As a consequence, thousands of people lost their jobs. That is what we are talking about.

Why is the government still refusing to give Quebec's forestry companies the loan guarantees they have requested?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is ridiculous to say that we cancelled a $1.5 billion plan. We signed a softwood lumber agreement that will reassure the industry for the years to come and will put $1 billion in cash back into the pockets of our industries.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, the supplementary estimates provide $4.9 million for AECL's restructuring to “--procure advisory services and support Natural Resources’ operations to advance the next steps in the restructuring process of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited”. Does this include payments to Rothschild for conducting the sale of AECL? If so, how much? How much in total has Rothschild been paid since being retained to conduct this sale?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are restructuring AECL. The figures my colleague mentioned include funds for a payment to Rothschild.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, the minister cannot tell me, in other words, how much, as I asked, has been paid to Rothschild since it was retained to conduct this sale.

Can he tell us perhaps whether it is being paid through a flat fee arrangement or will it also receive, in addition to that, a percentage of the final sale price? If a percentage is going to be added, how much in total does Rothschild stand to make from this deal?

If this $4.9 million is for advisory services and support for the department, how much is the department actually spending on this restructuring over and above this amount?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, one of the transactions is ongoing. It is premature to say how much it will cost. When one deals with professionals, one has to wait until the end. That being said, I must remind the member that the contract was commercially tendered and these are the facts.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, I think Canadians will be concerned that the minister seems to have no actual idea of how much this is costing in terms of the contract with Rothschild.

The main estimates indicate that $102 million was set aside for AECL's 2010-11 budget. Why was that number lower than the $109 million allocated in 2009-10?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, AECL needs to be restructured. That is very important. We promised Canadians we would restructure that corporation. We need to make targeted investments to reduce the burden on Canadian taxpayers. Canadians are worried about doing business with an industry that is overburdened in its ability to pay. We need to ensure that the industry remains viable. We need to save good jobs and create more. That is the goal of the restructuring. That is what we hope to achieve.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, is the $6 million cut the reason for the additional layoffs in Chalk River? We received information to the effect that at least another 30 jobs will be lost because of the budget constraints AECL is facing.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is quite interesting to see my colleague asking questions about cuts when we know that in 1995-96, the appropriations were on the order of $172 million. Now we are talking about $106 million compared to $102 million. I think the rhetoric surrounding these numbers is meant to be a trap. What do we expect from the restructuring? We want to provide a viable solution that is not too costly for taxpayers and that, at the same time, ensures viability—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the supplementary estimates A for 2010-2011, how much of the additional $300 million for AECL is for new reactor technology development? How much of it is to support the bid to build new reactors at Darlington and how much is earmarked for a new reactor to replace the NRU at Chalk River?