AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 20, 2001

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We have a quorum.

We are now dealing with amendment PC/DR-10, page 54, reference 13505.

There's been a good suggestion by our adviser that we go back and complete clause 12, which we had agreed we should do.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Which amendments were we on?

• 1535

The Chair: The ones on pages 41 and 42. Some clarifications were to be given to us by our witnesses.

Please carry on.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice): We've clarified that the scope of application of clause 24, in the English version, was not what had been intended. What is intended is that the study shall be a public document from the time it is submitted to the minister. Wording has been drafted on that point, which I understand the chair can consider in due course.

The Chair: Well, I think we can deal with it, accepting that the intent is that it be a public document from the time it's handed over to the minister. Correct?

We all understand this?

We will therefore vote on amendment PC/DR-8, page 41, reference 13509.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: On page 42, Bloc Québécois amendment 10, reference 13549.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

(On clause 16—Obligation to submit annual reports)

The Chair: Page 54, PC/DR-10, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Keddy, before we move on, there's something the researcher would share with us.

Mr. Philippe Méla (Committee Researcher): If PC/DR-10 is agreed to, PC/DR-11 and -12 and BQ-13A cannot be put, because there's a conflict of lines between those amendments.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I recognize that; same amendment.

Mr. Philippe Méla: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, the floor is yours.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Again, the point is to amend clause 16, on page 8, to better reflect the requirement for the legislation to force the WMO—and the advisory committee—to table in both houses the fiscal year for the organization.

The clause as now worded says:

The waste management organization shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year of the organization, submit to the Minister

Again, we would add, after “fiscal year of the organization”, the words:

table in both Houses of Parliament a report of its activities

Instead of everything being under ministerial control, the minister would certainly have the same access to it that he should have as minister in charge of the natural resources department, but parliamentarians actually would have access to it, too. If we don't allow these reports to be tabled in the House, if we don't come back to Parliament, my fear, to go back to what our legal advisers told us earlier, is that there could be circumstances where this would not be subject to an ATIP request in every circumstance. So it's a matter of openness and transparency.

The Chair: Members, we have just been advised that a vote has been deferred until tomorrow at 3 o'clock.

I like this voting at 3, by the way.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have a question for our expert witnesses. My understanding is that clause 24 of the bill, “Documents to be Made Public”, says reports and financial statements that it submits to the minister are simultaneously made public.

• 1540

Is there any circumstance in which there would be an exception made? In other words, why would we bother tabling something in Parliament when it's going to be made public simultaneously with delivery to the minister?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: There is no circumstance in which there would be an exception. Those documents are to be made public on the wording of clause 24.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: Closing remarks, Mr. Keddy? Or are you ready for the question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I am.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: PC/DR-11, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Again, it's the same idea. The clause now says:

submit to the Minister a report of its activities for that fiscal year

We're saying in the amendment:

fiscal year of the organization, as established by the organization at its first meeting

We've had similar wording in other pieces of legislation we've passed here in order to make sure the fiscal year is decided by the organization; there's some opportunity to actually see the organization's year end; and, more importantly, we establish when that year end is, which the organization itself does. We've done that in other pieces of legislation we've passed at this very committee, so I thought it was needed, obviously, in this one.

The Chair: Anyone else?

Those were the opening and closing remarks.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: PC/DR-12, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's the same idea. Again, we're mentioning the fiscal year of the organization, as established by the organization at its first meeting, and then it would table in both houses of Parliament a report of its activities, ensuring that we get the information. I am not as convinced as other members at the table that we will get the information, or that we even have established the fact that there's a solid fiscal year end.

But I'm happy to vote on it.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chair: We now move to amendment BQ-13a on page 57.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): The amendment pertains to clause 16. I'm sorry but you took me by surprise, Mr. Chairman. The amendment reads: “shall lay before the House of Commons a report of its activities”. In the current clause 16, the report is submitted to the minister. Again, we are asking that it be laid before the House of Commons to maintain the climate of transparency and ensure the accountability of elected officials. I trust you agree with me on this.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoit Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): I just have one comment. We propose the same thing in a later amendment pertaining to 19.1. Consider what we proposed this morning.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Cardin, do you have any further comments regarding this amendment?

Mr. Serge Cardin: He has piqued my curiosity. Will we be seeing this amendment later? What is the reference page?

The Chair: It's amendment G-2.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would imagine that it is in this morning's packet. Things are going really well, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1545

The Chair: I have the deciding vote, and I vote against it. I'd like my colleagues to know that they can lose a vote for want of paying attention. I have to say it as it is. I'll give both parties a little time, but it's important to pay attention. That's all I'm saying..

[English]

CA-2 on page 58, Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Well, I was just hoping that was a sign that we were gradually winning the argument and the other side was coming around our way.

My amendment, of course, tries to achieve the same thing as the last number of amendments. I do recognize the government introduced the amendment to clause 19, and I certainly appreciate them doing that, but for the record, I will not withdraw this. I'll call for the vote on it and we'll go that way.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I think I got my point across.

(Clause 16 agreed to on division)

(Clause 18 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Amendment NDP-16 on page 59, Mr. Comartin, to introduce new clause 18.1.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): I can't remember, Mr. Chair; did we deal with clause 17?

The Chair: Yes, clause 17 was dealt with. There were no amendments.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay.

Mr. Chair, this is an attempt on our part to provide somewhat more of a framework for the WMO in terms of the background work they would be required to do in preparing that study, to which we've addressed many comments up to this point.

Specifically—and again, this comes out of the Seaborn report—on the technical shortcomings identified by the scientific review group, we state that they review those as well as others that came from other participants, and then, in (b), establish an order of priority in which those shortcomings would be dealt with—to generate a plan to address them, consult the public on the plan, and then carry out additional work. It would be work that one would expect the WMO to conduct. And I don't want to downplay that. What we're really doing here is saying, as a committee, that we know this has to be done before you complete that study and report out, and these are some of the steps you have to go through.

I won't suggest they're exhaustive. There's certainly other work the WMO will do, and other reports and studies they will take into account in reaching their final conclusion. But given the history of this issue, the work that the AECL did, and the work that Seaborn did, I think it's important this committee say to him that we believe these are things you have to do before you reach a conclusion, before you report back to the minister.

That's the intention of the new clause, and what it's driven towards.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I would ask the department for some clarification, because I'm still confused on exactly what this legislation requires the waste management organization to do. I think earlier you suggested that the legislation required that the waste management organization establish a trust fund and do a study and report to the minister. This amendment talks about implementation of the plan.

Does this bill require that the waste management organization implement that plan? Where would that be?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau (Senior Policy Adviser, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources): It would be in 6(2).

Mr. David Chatters: And what timeline does that include?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: The timeline is, the implementation plan is to be proposed by the WMO in its study, which is submitted to the minister.

Mr. David Chatters: Oh, okay. Thank you.

• 1550

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just for clarification, when you said “6(2)”, I'm assuming you meant subclause 6(2).

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Sorry, I meant paragraph 6(1)(b).

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then let's have a look at it. It says:

implement the approach that is selected under section 15 or is approved under subsection 20(5).

That approach could be to do nothing. We could just continue to have on-surface storage at the nuclear sites.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: If you're referring to one of the options in subclause 12(1), yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, closing remarks?

Too late.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Sorry?

The Chair: No, too late for Madam Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, I've called the vote. I need you to tell me how you're voting, and I will be as fair as I can. When I ask if there are any final comments, it's not an invitation to reopen the discussion.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I'll get up to speed, Mr. Chairman. I've only just arrived.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Perhaps I would just add to the comments we've had from the officials. Although there is in fact a requirement for the WMO to do implementation, assuming we ever get to the stage where there's a final recommendation from them to the government, the government accepts that, and they can go ahead, they then still have to convince the community to accept their position.

The idea behind all of this, in this motion, is to again set out some standards they have to meet in order to ultimately convince a community, whether it be one of the existing ones, under alternatives 12(2)(b) and (c), or (a), which is the so-called permanent solution. This is just one of the steps we've proposed throughout—all of which have been defeated up to this point—as a way of building that trust.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We will vote on NDP-16.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Amendment NDP-16A, Mr. Comartin, page 60.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, this one of those motions that's out because of the rejection of the implementation agency.

The Chair: Redundant?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

(On clause 19—Minister's statement)

The Chair: PC/DR-13 on page 61, Mr. Keddy.

Just a moment, there's a consequence.

If this carries, BQ-13A cannot be put.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This motion, Mr. Chair, serves the same purpose as the Bloc motion. What I was trying to do here was simply put a timeline. I didn't think it was sufficient that the minister should receive the report and shall, or may, at some time, issue a report. This puts a clear timeline in there:

The Minister shall, within 90 days after receiving a report, issue a public statement regarding the report.

It's pretty straightforward.

The Chair: Can I accept that as the opening and closing remarks?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chair: We're ready for the question on PC/DR-13.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Can we go home now?

BQ-13B cannot be put

[Translation]

because of the consequences.

[English]

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Amendment G-2, Monsieur Serré, to introduce new clause 19.1.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Basically, Mr. Chair, this amendment addresses some of the concerns expressed by the committee in that the minister shall cause a copy of each report to be laid before each house. The timeframe, instead of 60 days, is 15 sitting days after the House reconvenes.

• 1555

That's to prevent a situation where there is an election, or the House is not sitting for three months, or whatever. It addresses some of the concerns raised by you, the members.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Just so we're clear, though, Mr. Chair, this does not include the study. Am I correct on that?

The Chair: I don't know the answer, so I'll address the question to the mover.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it does. That's why we made a further amendment to clause 24. It's covered. We mentioned that at the beginning of the meeting, where, in clause 24, we say “the study, reports and financial statements”.

The Chair: Can we have assurance of this from our witnesses?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The word “report” does not include the word “study” in clause 12.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, you still have the floor.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To Mr. Serré, through you, Mr. Chair, given his comments—

The Chair: I think you can direct it to the department.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, I need to know whether he's going to be—

The Chair: He'll respond in his closing remarks.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Would he be prepared to accept a friendly amendment, that we add, after “cause a copy of each report”, the words “and each study” to be laid before each house of Parliament, etc.? Would he be willing to entertain that as a friendly amendment?

The Chair: Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: No. I believe it's addressed in clause 24, where it says all the studies will be made public, and also available to members of Parliament.

The Chair: We don't have a friendly amendment.

You still have the floor.

Mr. Joe Comartin: May I ask him another question, Mr. Chair? I'm not clear on this. He's saying that clause 24 does this....

The Chair: Would you ask the department?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I was just going to say, that's really where I should be directing this.

I may be missing something, but I don't see any further amendments to clause 24 from the government.

A voice: You just got it.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Ah! Okay.

The Chair: Typical government, isn't it, with their surprises.

We'll give Mr. Comartin a moment to read this.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That's fine. I've read it.

The Chair: Madam Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'd like departmental representatives to tell me why studies cannot be included in this list. Earlier, Mr. Serré said this included studies, while you're saying now that it does not. You're bringing us an amendment and Mr. Serré is refusing to accept Mr. Comartin's amendment. What's going on? I'd like to know.

Would anyone care to fill us in, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Madam

[English]

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The proposed amendment would ensure that the English version is the same as the French version in clause 24, to ensure that the study is made public. Whether the study should be tabled in Parliament or treated in any other additional fashion beyond the requirement to make it public is a policy question.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions?

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Nevertheless, I'd like to understand if this is a reference to clause 24:

The waste management organization shall make available to the public

The clause then goes on to list the financial statements. However, if we go back to 19.1, it means that the minister has laid a copy of each report before each house. This would include all reports mentioned in clause 24. If all the reports received from agencies and corporations are laid before this minister, then they would also be laid before each house. That's my understanding.

A voice: I don't understand.

[English]

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: No, sir, there was inconsistency between the French version and the English version of clause 24. There is now additional wording before you to correct that inconsistency, to ensure that it is clear in clause 24 that the study is included in the scope of it. The French version was quite clear and the English version was incorrect.

• 1600

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: It's not any clearer.

The Chair: It isn't? Then please continue. You have the floor.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, it's not any clearer.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I'd have to look at all of the clauses. Reference is made at various times to different reports or documents laid before the minister. Clause 19.1, as proposed by the amendment, reads: “the minister shall submit a copy of each report to the House”. Therefore, everywhere the bill says that the minister shall submit a report, it means that reports would automatically be laid before the House as well.

The Chair: Did you not put the question to the department?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes, but I'm asking the question through you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'll allow it then.

Ms. Kellerman.

[English]

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: There is no wording in the bill at the moment that would require the minister to table the study in either house of Parliament. The amendment proposed, to add new clause 19.1, would speak to the annual reports and to what we call in English the “triennial” report.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: The new translation in clause 24 speaks of three items in English—the study, reports, and financial statements. New clause 19.1 says that of those three, the only one where there will be a report laid before each House within 15 days will be the report—not the financial statements and not the study. Is that what I'm understanding?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: That's correct, sir.

Mr. John Godfrey: Through somebody or other to the parliamentary secretary, I mean, what the heck; they're all public documents anyway. Why wouldn't we give all three out within 15 days?

The Chair: I'll ask the parliamentary secretary to respond in his closing remarks.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I don't know if there's a legal—

The Chair: No, Mr. Chatters first, and then Mr. Serré.

Mr. David Chatters: Perhaps we could bring some clarity to this thing if the witnesses could explain to us what process makes the studies and the reports and the financial documents public information if in fact they're not tabled in Parliament. How are these documents then public information? How are they accessible to the public?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: We anticipate that the waste management organization can make those documents public through paper copy, on the Internet, or through other means. The point in clause 24 is that they are to be made available to the public, and they are to be made available to the public immediately on their tabling with the minister. There is no time delay.

Mr. David Chatters: Again, just to be clear, they will be made public through the waste management organization, not the minister or the department.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: That's correct, sir.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Chair: Did that help?

Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I'd like to support these amendments the way they are. The reason the other two items aren't laid before the House is that they're policy issues, and they can't be laid before the House before the minister has a chance.... He has react to them and report on them in terms of decisions.

So I support what's before us.

[Translation]

The Chair: One final comment, Mr. Serré.

[English]

Mr. Benoît Serré: The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we tried to address the concerns of the members this morning. The documents, including the study and the reports and the financial statements,

[Translation]

will be made public. It's a matter of clarity and transparency. Everything will be made public.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 20—New approach—technical difficulty)

The Chair: NDP-17 cannot be put because of the consequences.

Page 64, clause 20,

[Translation]

amendment BQ-13c.

Mr. Cardin.

• 1605

Mr. Serge Cardin: The rationale is always the same, Mr. Chairman. This would amend clause 20 in line 22 on page 11:

shall so report to the members of the House of Commons in its triennial report

Again, it's a matter of laying reports before the House of Commons.

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

(Clause 20 agreed to on division)

(On clause 21—Withdrawals from trust funds)

The Chair: Page 65, PC/DR-14. Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've had several other amendments that haven't passed and that attempted to do the same thing here. This amendment here reads:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “beneficiary” means any nuclear energy corporation, including Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, that has deposited funds to a trust fund.

You know, I would have preferred Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to be a full player in this instead of just a bystander. However, they do have a $10 million deposit they're going to put into this account, and for the purposes of subclause 21(1), they need to be a beneficiary. If the moneys are to come out of this account at some time, the way it's written now—because they're not a player, they're simply putting $10 million in—they'll get nothing back out. That's the way I would interpret that, anyway.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To Ms. Kellerman, as the trust fund is presently composed in clause 9, it has no provision for drawing money out. Clause 21 is the only section that allows the funds to be withdrawn.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: Clause 11, sir, allows the waste management organization to draw money out.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, that's right; I'm sorry, I meant in the circumstance where in effect there's an excess. Because that's what we're dealing with; clause 21 deals with in effect residual funds. So in those circumstances, no other clause specifies where the funds would be paid out to other than the term of the beneficiary. And if I remember my trust law, the only beneficiary of this fund would be the waste management organization.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: No, sir. The settlor of the trust establishes the named beneficiary in establishing the trust.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But this bill does not do that.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So it could be the waste management organization that would determine who the settlor is?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: No. Each nuclear energy corporation in establishing a trust fund determines who the beneficiary of the trust ultimately would be.

Mr. Joe Comartin: And AECL is not one of those.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: AECL will establish a trust and would determine that, yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On a point of clarification, as I understand it, AECL is not a bona fide member of the waste management organization.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: They're not required to be a member.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's the same as not being a bona fide member.

The Chair: Okay, we're exploiting new areas. You'll have closing remarks, and you can ask your question at that time.

Mr. Comartin, you still have the floor.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not clear on this, Mr. Chair.

To Ms. Kellerman again, obviously what Mr. Keddy is driving at with this amendment is to be sure that if this scenario develops—that there are, in fact, residual dollars in the trust fund—AECL would get their proportional amount. And I'm not clear, from what you've said up to this point, whether that in fact is guaranteed to happen, as opposed to the amendment, which is making sure that AECL would in fact get their proportional amount.

• 1610

Do you see any other place in the bill that assures us that AECL, in the scenario Mr. Keddy has given, would in fact get their proportionate share of the residual funds?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: If each nuclear energy corporation establishes its own trust fund, with its own trust agreement, which is one option, then AECL establishes its own trust fund. It's for AECL to determine the beneficiary of the trust, and that beneficiary would be entitled to draw funds out.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So the only time it's a concern, then, would be in a situation where it's a joint trust—

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: —and AECL is not named as a beneficiary.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: I think in any arrangement to establish a joint trust, the parties would work that out.

The Chair: Based on that, does the member wish to withdraw?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm just taking one second, Mr. Chair, to look at clause 10 again.

Clause 10 says:

deposit to its trust fund maintained under subsection 9(1) the following respective amounts:

And it comes down to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Given what clarification we've received, they would be able to be the beneficiary of any dollars in their own trust fund, as I understand it. Maybe I have the wrong amendment here, but my point is, would they be able to be the beneficiary of dollars that are under the WMO, that have already been dedicated?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The WMO will withdraw funds from any trust fund only for the purposes of implementation. So the WMO should be withdrawing funds, as required, for expenditure, not to have a pool of cash on hand.

Mr. Joe Comartin: All right.

Yes, I'll withdraw it.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: The amendment on page 66 cannot be put because of the consequences of the previous. Is that correct?

Mr. Comartin, what do you wish to do?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Subject to the ruling, of course, I think it can be put if I take out part of the second-last line, stopping at “for the selected approach” and deleting “or when the Implementing Agency reports completion of implementation”.

The Chair: You'd put a period after “approach”?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

The Chair: A friendly amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That has become your amendment.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This goes back to the same point we made earlier. I think I made it twice on other proposed amendments. Where the fund balance is exceeding cost estimates, what happens to that? This is around both the issue of the interest and the simple issue of whether it's necessary for the funds to continue on. We have no particular way of knowing that, because the government doesn't have any way of knowing that. This is a mechanism whereby we would know, in effect, whether the fund is going to be discontinued, whether we would just stop the fund.

In effect, it's a review, Mr. Chair, of that fund. It would then require, potentially, a further amendment to the legislation, and maybe dissolution of the law at that time, since it may no longer be necessary. It builds in a review so that the government would then know whether the fund should continue. And, quite frankly, it would give us some information as to whether the law is necessary any longer.

So that's what it's intended to do.

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1615

(Clause 21 agreed to on division)

(On clause 22—Records and books to be kept)

The Chair: On page 67,

[Translation]

amendment BQ-14.

It's clause 22, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I see. It's the provision that reads:

22(1) The nuclear waste management organization, every nuclear energy corporation...

It goes on to say: “every financial institution”. With respect to books and records to be kept, the clause mentioned “every financial institution that holds a trust fund”. I thought that was sufficient, in light of the nuclear energy corporations, which after all are independent organizations. The management organization and all financial institutions holding trusts should be required to keep records. We felt that was sufficient.

The Chair: Questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now move to amendment BQ-14A. That's on page 68, reference number 13521.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Never mind with that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Should we call the vote? Do you wish to withdraw your amendment?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes.

(Amendment withdrawn)

We now move to amendment BQ-15 on page 69.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Again, Mr. Chairman, the clause read “submitted or provided to the Minister”, while we propose that the information be submitted to the House of Commons under this Act. Therefore, the House would be the recipient, not the minister.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 22 adopted on division)

[English]

(On clause 24—Documents to be made public)

The Chair: G-3 is hand-written.

[Translation]

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, we're on clause 24, but we have yet to adopt clause 23.

The Chair: Yes, I believe we did so at the last go-round...

Mr. Benoît Serré: Fine. To all intents and purposes, the amendment aims to clarify the intent of including studies in this provision. As our legal counsel explained earlier, the English and French versions were not consistent. This would clarify matters.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Ms. Kellerman, in reading the two versions—and I certainly won't claim that I'm fluent in French—I don't understand the grammatical structure of the two sections. I applaud Mr. Serré's amendments to the English version, because it accomplishes what we were looking for there, and I thank him for that, but I'm not convinced that the French version does, and there are no proposals for amendments to the French version.

• 1620

Ms. Kellerman, I guess what concerns me is that, as I read it in English, the WMO will make the following available to the public. In the French version, it says specifically “les documents suivants”. It doesn't define “les documents”, so we don't know if that means les rapports, les états financiers, et l'étude that the organization has to make. That's the problem I have.

So I'm just wondering about the drafting of this. Again, maybe I'm missing something in terms of the grammar between the two languages, but why wouldn't the French version follow the same as the English version, which sets out what you're going to make public and then lists it, as opposed to using the term, as it did in French, “les documents”?

Am I wrong here? Do we know for sure what “les documents” in this clause refers to?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: Yes, sir, we do, because it's qualified by those documents that the waste management organization has the obligation or the responsibility to submit to the minister under the terms of this act. Everywhere in the statute where there is an obligation to submit documents to the minister, the waste management organization then has the duty to make those documents public.

So in the French version, paragraph 24(a) captures the study, the annual reports, the triennial reports, and the financial statements of the waste management organization. Paragraph 24(b) captures the financial statements with respect to the trust funds.

As to why they're not drafted using exactly the same words, that goes to the drafting techniques in English and in French.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I was asking myself the same question. The French version notes the following:

24. La société de gestion rend publics les documents suivants:

a) ceux qu'elle a l'obligation de...

In English, these documents are identified as studies, reports and financial statements.

Do we want to restrict these documents, or do we want to be general and go with “ceux qu'elle a l'obligation de présenter”, when the English version is more specific, citing studies, reports and financial statements. This list is inclusive and quite descriptive. It includes all reports and the interpretation of such reports.

The Chair: With your permission, Mr. Cardin, I'll put the question to Mr. Serré. The intent appears to be to clarify the provision. Would you agree with that assessment?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes.

The Chair: Normally, I don't give the parliamentary secretary more opportunities. Maybe I should. And perhaps you can provide me with some guidance. Could I ask Mr. Serré to shed some light on this matter?

Mr. Benoît Serré: It's a question of how the language is interpreted. In this morning's English version, for example, the reference was to “reports and financial statements”. No mention was made of studies, although the French version does say “ceux”. That language is inclusive. However, if committee members so desire, I am prepared to move an amendment...

The Chair: Friendly.

Mr. Benoît Serré: ...friendly, to include “study, the reports and the financial statements” so that it is clear to everyone. I have no objections.

The Chair: There is no opposition to the friendly amendment.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: In that case, you'll have to delete “les documents suivants” from the French version in order for there to be an exact list which includes “les études, les rapports” and so forth.

[English]

It's just because there's a different parallel construction. The French version says “the following documents”, whereas the English version doesn't refer to them until you get later down in the clause.

In fact, the amendment you put forward before actually does capture the distinction. Once you start mucking about by putting in the French text “les études, les rapports”, and so on, you have to alter the previous line, I think.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: To simply say “rend publics les documents suivants”, as if we were getting ready to list them, isn't clear. It's as if I were to say “les gens présents”, and then list them, like Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Binet.

• 1625

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: They should be listed.

Mr. Serge Cardin: “Les documents suivants” means the studies, the financial statements and the reports.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: If we don't wish to be too general, I think it's important, when we say “les documents suivants” to list them. That's what the English version does. Why then not do the same thing in the French version, which is supposed to match the English version. The French version is more general, while the English version is more specific. Why the difference?

I would put that question to Ms. Kellerman. For the French version to be correct, you need to list the records, because the text says: “les documents suivants”, followed by a colon. When a colon is used in French, it is usually followed by an enumeration. Why isn't this the case here?

[English]

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: After the colon there are two paragraphs capturing two categories of documents. Paragraph 24(a) captures all documents the waste management organization has a duty to provide to the minister. Paragraph 24(b) captures the financial statements the financial institutions have a duty to provide. So there is a listing in paragraphs (a) and (b).

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chair, the trouble is, because the English text is the way it is, “report” has a precise meaning that seems to offer the possibility of excluding “study”. That's why you have to correct the English. But we don't mention “report” in the French version; we just mention

[Translation]

those records which they are required to submit to the minister under this act. There is no clear definition provided of “report”. Once the word “report” is used in the English version, we also have to include the word “studies”. However since there is no similar reference in the French version, it isn't necessary here.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman...

The Chair: You have already had your turn. We're now back to Mr. Serré, unless there is someone else who has yet to speak.

Mr. Serré, you have the final word.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, are we voting on the friendly amendment? What are we doing?

The Chair: The friendly amendment has not yet been moved. Do you wish to do so at this time?

Mr. Benoît Serré: I wish to move the friendly amendment because it makes no... It makes no difference whether we have "ceux" or whether we actually mention studies and reports. Both are inclusive, in my opinion. However, to satisfy the opposition, I move this friendly amendment once more and I hope I have my colleagues' support on this.

The Chair: I will call the vote then on the friendly amendment. We are merely voting on whether to allow it. Is everyone clear on this? I'm not so sure that I am. Could someone reread the friendly amendment as presented? Who can do that for me? Could one of our witnesses do the honour? I believe you need to read the amendment in its entirety, Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Fine.

24. La société de gestion rend publics les documents suivants:

a) les études, les rapports et les rapports financiers qu'elle a l'obligation de présenter au ministre

[English]

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: In clause 12 in the French version, the word “études” is not used; the term is “exposé de ses propositions”.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey: Nevertheless, I think the word “study” should be avoided, as it is not the appropriate word. The word “report” is still used in 24(b), is it not?

[English]

You have to keep the second category for the financial statements, because I think they're of a different category. Can you lump them all into category (a)? I think you'd keep the financial statements separate, wouldn't you?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: There are two categories of financial statements. There are the financial statements of the waste management organization. They are covered by (a). There are the financial statements of the trust fund holders. They are covered by (b).

• 1630

Mr. John Godfrey: So you have to keep (b).

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: Yes.

The Chair: That stays, yes.

Based on that, are we in agreement with the friendly amendment?

Mr. Benoît Serré: No, I will remove the friendly amendment. I'd like to have a vote on the main one.

[Translation]

The Chair: Therefore, the friendly amendment is out.

(Amendment G-3 carried)

(Clause 24 adopted)

(Clause 25—Auditors)

The Chair: We now go to amendment BQ-15A on page 70, as moved by Mr. Cardin. The reference number is 13514.

This amendment would have some consequences.

[English]

If BQ-15A is agreed to, BQ-15B cannot be put.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly self-explanatory. An auditor is required to oversee the agencies involved. Each year, when the Auditor General of Canada presents his analyses, studies and audit findings, he is widely praised for his good work. I wouldn't want to deprive myself of his services. Accordingly, I propose that the Auditor General of Canada be the person to audit the operations of these institutions.

The Chair: That's all in the way of comments. We are ready for the question.

(Amendment BQ-15A negatived)

The Chair: Next up is BQ-15b.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Cardin: The intent is the same, Mr. Chairman. The minister should be calling on the Auditor General to report on the application of this act.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 25 adopted on division)

The Chair: Amendment BQ-16 on page 72.

Mr. Cardin:

Mr. Serge Cardin: This point was discussed during the clause-by-clause study. A number of concerns were raised at the time about possible imports of nuclear waste.

We propose a new clause 31.1 which would state clearly that no one shall import nuclear waste into Canada or into any province, including Quebec. That is the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, I think we've talked about this on a number of other occasions, in various ways, and I have to say, I never got a.... I think it's clear that the bill as drafted does not prohibit the import of fuel. Both from, I think, general knowledge and also from some of the witnesses, we know that the possibility of this happening—that is, Canada being seen as a repository of waste from around the world—is at least a reasonable concern. This isn't one of those scenarios we're just drawing out of the air.

The reality is that to some degree it's already happened—in very minute quantities, admittedly. In many respects, Russia and the United States are looking to Canada as a potential for depositing these wastes they themselves have created in their own countries.

• 1635

I don't think there's any question—I don't believe there would be, from anybody sitting around this table—that there would be great concern among the citizens of this country if this began to happen. It's hard to imagine that anywhere near a majority, other than a very small minority, of the citizens of this country would be in favour of bringing in waste from other parts of the world.

For us to go ahead with this legislation and not put this prohibition in is just a way for us to throw up our hands and say we're going to let the waste management organization do whatever they want, and if that extends to the companies running the waste management organization bringing in waste from outside the country, we're going to let them do that.

So as one final crack at this one, Mr. Chair, it seems to me appropriate that we in fact pass this amendment. It's almost ludicrous that we don't have this kind of a provision either in this bill, eventually to become law, or in some other one. The fact is, we don't, and it's time we do.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I would certainly concur with both the mover of the amendment and the previous speaker. I think we should address this issue in the strongest possible terms. I speak from experience with the hazardous waste treatment plant in Alberta that was created to dispose of hazardous waste in Alberta. We were promised by the politicians at the time that it would be restricted to hazardous waste from Alberta. Because it wasn't addressed in the legislation, through Order in Council changes we now are accepting hazardous waste from all over the world. That goes against the spirit of the bill, and I think it would go against the spirit of this bill as well.

I don't know whether the wording is just right here, but the intent, I think, is important, and we should seriously consider it.

I'd like to ask our witnesses specifically if, in their view, anything in this bill would prevent the waste management organization from importing hazardous waste from other countries.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: We were asked that question earlier, and we tried to explain that the bill does not address the issue of either import or export of nuclear fuel waste. There are other federal mechanisms for overseeing such activities—the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. David Chatters: If another agency were to approve the importation of nuclear waste, would it be imported then to the jurisdiction of the waste management organization that we are referring to in this bill?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: I can't speculate on that. There are absolutely no plans for importation of nuclear fuel waste, or that we see. We're not aware of Russian or American plans to import nuclear fuel waste. There's absolutely nothing indicating that this practice will be done in Canada.

Mr. David Chatters: That, in my opinion, is clearly a dangerous vacuum that needs to be addressed.

The Chair: Am I correct in saying that the Canadian government could not allow importation of nuclear waste without national consultation, provincial consultation, and legislation to allow that, and the process would take about ten years? That's what I've been told. The time it takes doesn't matter, but am I correct in saying it could not happen without national consultation plus provincial?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: As I mentioned, federally there are two acts, and within those two acts is a requirement for public consultation, and substantial consultations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Chair: It could not sneak up on us?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: No.

The Chair: Okay. I think that needs to be clear.

Mr. Chatters, the floor is yours.

Mr. David Chatters: In that case, some clarity, please; how did the importation of nuclear waste into Canada already happen without that process taking place?

An hon. member: It wasn't nuclear waste.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: We're dealing with two issues here. This is nuclear fuel waste as defined under this bill.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Chair: And in terms of what came through my riding, there was less radiation in that than the shipments that go to the hospital in Sudbury. So let's not misrepresent the shipments of MOX fuel that came through our ridings. It was 21 milligrams, less radiation than the shipments of goods that go to Sudbury Regional Hospital.

• 1640

So that needs to be corrected. And I don't have to verify it, because I'm certain of it.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The Bloc Québécois is proposing this amendment to ensure that Canadians are not deceived in any way. Their safety must be guaranteed. Even though you claim the evidence shows that one milligram of MOX is less dangerous than some of the substances used in hospitals, people are frightened by anything nuclear and by the importation of waste. I surveyed my constituents and 99.9 per cent were opposed to the importation of even one milligram of MOX. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to ensure the safety of Canadians. Everyone agrees that our waste must be treated and that this problem must be carefully addressed. When waste is imported, how are we expected to know the exact nature of the waste we are handling? Do we really expect to be provided with a list of the contents of this nuclear waste?

Mr. Chairman, as parliamentarians, we do not have the right to put the lives of Canadians in jeopardy.

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, you have the final word.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I'd just like to point out that last week, people in my riding were alerted to the issue of the importation of nuclear waste. You can't imagine the outcry! The reaction was immediate.

I have already begun to circulate information contained in the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Sections 185 to 192 grant the minister the authority to issue permits for the importation and exportation of waste. Division 8 of Part 7 of the Act notes the following:

No person shall import, export or convey in transit a hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material, or prescribed non-hazardous waste...

This could even go so far as to apply to the importation of nuclear waste. If at some point in time, there is money to be made from importing nuclear waste into Canada for treatment, then the government may be tempted to take this route. It may be cheaper to import this waste into Canada because our treatment facilities are more efficient. We see this with other types of hazardous materials. Treating this kind of waste in the United States is a very costly process, whereas in my region, the cost is perhaps $25, $30 or $40 per tonne. Just imagine how many people are tempted to ship waste to Quebec and especially to my region.

Imagine how tempting it would be, from a financial standpoint, to import or export nuclear waste, depending on which side of the border you live, considering how advantageous it is to do the same thing already with everyday household waste. Imagine the overall impact on the public.

If we don't make it clear that we want no part of other people's waste, in light of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it is possible for the minister to issue permits for the importation or exportation of hazardous waste, or other non-hazardous material. If we say nothing, then at some point, someone will import tonnes of nuclear waste into the country right under our noses. We will be faced with a fait accompli.

In my opinion, it's important to mention, when discussing the subject of nuclear waste management, that we want no part of any imports.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 31 adopted on division)

• 1645

[English]

(On clause 1—Short title)

The Chair: I have PC/DR-15, which borders on being accepted or not, because the title intended in this amendment is not reflected in the work we have done in clause-by-clause. However, I will accept to put it to a vote.

Fair enough? If I have erred by accepting it, they can fix it in the House. It's not reflected in the work we've done.

Do you understand what I mean?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Because it deals with the name, it will automatically change.

The Chair: I'm accepting it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is one of my earlier amendments. Obviously we pass the bill and then we pass the title, and therefore the amendment is at the end. It's a bit incongruous, perhaps, to deal with it at this time. The point here is, again, listening, and trying to listen, to the witnesses who appeared before us. In this case it was those from the nuclear sector who wanted to see the name changed to the “Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Act”.

The basis behind this is the fact that it's not nuclear waste. There's all kinds of nuclear waste. There's high-level nuclear waste and there's low-level nuclear waste. Many of the rod bundles still have extractable energy in them, and that's why they want to call it “irradiated” fuel. It would allow that energy to be recycled or reused in some instances.

It doesn't prevent anything in the bill from going forth the way it's meant to go, but taken from the advice from the nuclear sector, who came before us and asked for this, it certainly would allow taking their advice and calling it the Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Act.

Now, I will say, Mr. Chairman, I had one little nagging issue in the back of my mind when I heard that. Again, I feel that the act does allow—and it does, we've had expert witnesses say it—for too much storage on site. If we call it the Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Act, then perhaps this would encourage on-site storage instead of a central depository somewhere.

So I did have some concern over that, and yet, when you look at it, it's not waste; it's irradiated nuclear fuel. It still has energy that's recoverable in it, and that should be the name of it. The bill is going to allow for on-site storage anyway, regardless of what we call the product, whether we call it waste or whether we call it irradiated fuel.

That's my presentation. I really think that if we're going to call witnesses, as parliamentarians we have some responsibility to try to put forth amendments that reflect what our witnesses bring to the table. In the many instances we've done that, we've not been successful always in getting them approved, but I think the majority of them have tried to portray what either we've done in our own research or what our witnesses have brought to the table. This is an attempt to reflect what the nuclear sector has asked us to do.

That's it for me. It's my last amendment.

The Chair: Those are the opening and closing remarks?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Opening and closing; the door swings both ways.

The Chair: We're ready for the question.

On PC/DR-15.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: On PC/DR-16.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed on division.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed on division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed on division.

The Chair: I've tried to be really good and not influence your votes. However, on the next one I very much would like to influence your vote. I'm looking for a “no”.

• 1650

Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Now, that represents thousands of dollars.

[Translation]

Those who would like a reprint...

[English]

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With respect to the expense, we want to save on expenses in this place as often as we can. At the same time, I think it's quite important to be able to read this bill again, before we get into third reading in the House, and actually see the amendments as they're put forth. You know, most of us don't have photographic memories, and we have 74 amendments here.

The Chair: There are two amendments.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, there are 74 we tried to get in.

The Chair: They won't be reflected in the reprint.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Two passed; understood.

The Chair: Are we clear on this?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes. We can insert them. I'll insert them.

The Chair: Okay.

In all fairness, what does a reprint cost, and how many copies? I think we should have that information. Who can help us with this?

Mr. Philippe Méla: It's 1,000 copies at 7.5¢ per page. So it's 7.5¢ times 1,000, more or less—ballpark.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, aren't we going to have to reprint this bill anyway with the amendments? We have to have a clean copy in the House of Commons. We're not going to have the old copy there.

I don't quite understand the debate here.

The Chair: If we need 1,000 copies, we should order them. If we don't, we shouldn't.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You have copies in the House. You can ask for any bill, the amended version, and have it brought forth. It's going to be debated in the House. Unless we're suspicious here, I don't think anyone on this side of the table is under the illusion that more amendments are going to be coming forth in the third reading. Now, maybe we're going to be able to get more amendments in the third reading, but....

The Chair: I want to clarify it from my position. The only reason I tried to influence the vote, which I should not have done, was that I figured it was onerous and costly. I had no other reason for saying anything.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No offence taken.

The Chair: Can you please explain this.

Mr. Philippe Méla: The copy you would have at reprint, at committee stage, is a copy for working purposes at report stage. So it would say that on the first page. After that you go to third reading, and there's another reprint for that. So you would have two reprints, where here you would get this one, at committee stage, plus two amendments.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There has to be some reason we're even having this discussion. Are we trying to get the bill in the House sooner, are we going to have to wait for it, or...?

The Chair: No. We're having this discussion because I thought it was a fait accompli. I should not have made the comments I made. That's the reason.

You have more information?

Mr. Philippe Méla: Usually we don't ask to have a reprint done when there are so few amendments. It's a question of practicality.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't have any problem with that. Go to the question.

The Chair: Are you in favour of a reprint?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Before we move to future business, I'd like to put it on record, as your chair, that I made comments before that it was a 100% vote, and it shouldn't take long. It did take long, but I want to say that the work done, and mostly by opposition members, was serious work. It was worth doing, and I commend you for it. That goes to my colleagues as well. We can say that we really gave this bill the attention it deserves, so congratulations to all of you.

• 1655

Thank you very much to the department representatives for your great contribution.

I have distributed a calendar for future business. Hopefully we can agree. If not, well....

November 20 is done. On Thursday of this week, as you have agreed, we will have the department officials, between 11 and 12 o'clock, and the premier of the Yukon from 12 until 1 o'clock. This will be televised.

Will the two hours be televised or just the last hour? Does anybody know this? It doesn't matter, we'll take what they send.

On Tuesday, November 27, the Government of Alberta has indicated a possible interest in either appearing or doing videoconferencing or presenting a written document. Whatever they decide to do, we will accommodate them from 11 until 12, and go directly to clause-by-clause from 12 until 2.

Any problems with that? All the suggested witnesses were contacted, and Alberta is the only one that indicated a possible interest. So next Tuesday is set up.

Mr. Bagnell, did you have a question?

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Can you remind me as to why Bill C-39 is on Tuesday afternoon instead of on Thursday morning, before the premier?

The Chair: Bill C-39 is on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Tuesday afternoon.

The Chair: No, not Tuesday.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Well, it says so here.

The Chair: Oh, that's later. We're doing Bill C-39 and we're hearing the premier because they happen to be in town.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Okay.

The Chair: Then we're going back to Bill C-37, hopefully on Tuesday, November 27. Then on the 29th, because the members have requested that we do supplementary estimates—and I'd like you to look at this, because I hope I'm allowing enough time—we will have one hour, 11 until 12 with the Minister of Indian Affairs, and 12 until 1 for the Minister of Natural Resources.

I'm told that this has to be done by...?

The Clerk of the Committee: On or about December 3.

The Chair: The Monday.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): On that, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could please clarify something. At 11 o'clock we start with Minister Nault and at 12 o'clock we finish with Minister Nault, at which time we start with Minister Goodale....

The Chair: And at 1 o'clock finish with Minister Goodale.

Mr. John Finlay: Oh, all right.

Then it says “consideration of the estimates”. I thought that's what we were doing.

You said 11 until 12 with Minister Nault—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: —12 until 1 with Minister Goodale—

The Chair: Yes, and then consideration of estimates from 1 until 2.

Mr. John Finlay: Oh, all right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would like to comment on the agenda.

The Chair: It's just a suggestion, so please do.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think the agenda's quite fair. I realize that everyone doesn't sit on both committees, but speaking personally, I'd like to see Goodale here a bit longer, more than an hour, as the Minister of Natural Resources. I suspect our aboriginal affairs colleagues would feel the same way for Minister Nault.

I realize they have busy schedules, Mr. Chair—I think we all do—but the principle here is to be able to bring the ministers of the department to committee to discuss estimates, and an hour is a pretty short period of time. As well, it's usually our only opportunity in this setting to ask the minister other questions. At committee, you're not totally restricted just to estimates.

With respect to the ministers' schedules, I would think even two hours wouldn't be too much, but I certainly would be happier with even an extra half-hour.

• 1700

That would not only give the opposition members more time, but in the second round, which is shorter, it would give us all an opportunity to raise questions and get on the record on several issues.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, what I'm hearing is that you would prefer to have Minister Nault for an hour and a half—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would settle for the hour and a half, yes.

The Chair: —but have his presentation, all of your questions, and deal with the estimates in that hour and a half?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No; we would have the minister for an hour and a half.

The Chair: Now, that means we'd cover 11 until 2 o'clock, because we'll need an hour and a half for each.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chair: Then can I make a suggestion that we meet Wednesday afternoon for one minister and Thursday for the other?

I'm trying to accommodate the committee, because we need to report on the fourth.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd be happy with that, yes.

The Chair: I should tell you, I haven't asked these ministers if they're even in town. We'll do what we can.

So it's Minister Nault, 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 28, until 5:30 p.m. That would be an hour and a half with the minister.

Is a half-hour enough for you to deal with it after?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You know, I'm trying to be respectful of their schedules, too. We all understand that the ministers are busy, so if we get the extra half-hour, I'm satisfied with that, if we have an hour and a half for questioning.

I would encourage that we get the ministers' statements ahead of time. Then we'd have an opportunity to absorb them, and formulate some of our questions beforehand.

The Chair: Okay.

The two parliamentary secretaries are here. The request is that the opposition is prepared to sit for an hour and a half, and it would be very helpful for them to have the statements ahead of time. I'm just passing that on to you.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Just as a point of information, I'm on duty for the minister on November 29 and 30, so he's not going to be here, unless you have it on the Wednesday. I assume he could be here on the Wednesday, but I don't know.

The Chair: Is the minister here on November 28? Because that's what we've slotted.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes, I think that will work. I'm just telling you that he won't be here on November 29 or 30.

The Chair: Okay.

My only concern is we're finding time to have the minister appear, and I'm looking for help as to when you will deal with the estimates.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I don't think we can make a decision until we talk to the minister's office and see what his schedule is. It's fine for me to say he'll be here on November 28, but I don't know. I don't have my agenda here, and I don't know if I'm replacing him.

So before we do this we have to talk to the minister's office to see if he's available.

The Chair: The problem I'm having is that I must do it next week. Otherwise we miss the deadline. We have been duly requested to do this, and we will do it.

Can I have the leeway of tentatively booking Wednesday afternoon and Thursday at 11 o'clock, and finding time somewhere in there to do the estimates?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'll report to you on Thursday, in two days.

Mr. David Chatters: You could also use Tuesday afternoon, if you have to, to work that in, could you not?

The Chair: We would also use Tuesday afternoon if need be. We will do this before December 4.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, we need to.

The Chair: Absolutely.

We're putting back Bill C-39, because of this, to December 4, with department officials at 11 in the morning. And if you're prepared for clause-by-clause, we'll do that too. Then we'll wish you a Merry Christmas for the rest of the month.

Anything else?

I will report to you on Thursday on that schedule. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

We are adjourned.