Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 28236
View Paul Dewar Profile
NDP (ON)
View Paul Dewar Profile
2011-03-25 12:16
Chair, it's very straightforward. The role of the department is to follow the wishes of the government, and they follow criteria. That's what Ms. Biggs did. That's why she signed off on it. That's what the dossier is all about.
The fact of the matter is that it was with the minister for a couple of months. We know that. What Mr. Walsh refers to is the fact that there was a political lens put on this. It's straightforward. Whether the government wants to say that's just the way it should be or not, it was....
My final point is that this is CIDA. CIDA is an agency; it has a president. It is different from other agencies. They conduct themselves in accordance with the criteria they've been given. They did that. The minister, at the last minute, directed one of her political officials to change that determination.
That has to stay in. Leave it as is.
View Paul Dewar Profile
NDP (ON)
View Paul Dewar Profile
2011-03-25 13:38
--just on relevance, we have a member who is actually aware that he supports the amendment. He has voted on the amendment. He supports the motion. I am just wondering if we could move things along, because he seems to be having the discussion with himself.
An hon. member: I think it's fascinating.
View Paul Dewar Profile
NDP (ON)
View Paul Dewar Profile
2011-03-25 13:38
But in light of the fact that he has already stated he agrees with the amendment and everyone agrees--
Mr. Tom Lukiwski: It's educational, Paul. You're a scholar. You should learn something too.
Mr. Paul Dewar: It's a point of relevance, and I know you're anxious to get things moving, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. Twice now we've got into a jam as to whether the vote was taken. Once I saw it was going to carry, I let it go, but if there was a chance it was going to lose, I was going to argue that it did carry at that meeting.
We've got into a habit of looking around, and if there's no agreement, we move on and the minutes don't reflect hard decisions. This is one example. The other one is there. I can't think of it right now, but there was another example in the last while.
I would urge that we make a point, even if it's unanimous...that you make some declaration, Chair, that finds its way into the minutes, regardless of how we did it, by vote, voice, nod. So it's clear we made that decision and it has the weight of an approved motion.
Thank you.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
Sorry, I was conferring with my staff during part of it, so if I'm off base, bring me back quickly.
It seems to me that the wording of the motion is the next available date. That would suggest, and Mr. D'Amours makes a good point, that we may actually skip over a couple of opportunities. Is it absolutely imperative that we hear them in that order only? I guess that is the question. I'm open to hearing the arguments for it. But I think Mr. D'Amours' point that this motion may block what would otherwise make sense....
We want to do something next Thursday, but we can't if somebody can't make it. The next thing we do is slot in important work as close to that subject matter as possible to get the file going. Through you, Chair, would the motion have the effect Mr. D'Amours is questioning, of negating our ability to call in those folks?
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
Chair, if I can, if I still have the floor, could I ask if there is anything that would preclude us putting in something that gives us a little bit of wiggle room? I'm just worried. Mr. D'Amours makes a very good point. If they don't come in, the two of them, and sit there, and we have that meeting, by supporting your motion, unless there's a new motion, we prevent ourselves, by rule, from bringing in anybody else. We may decide that we're having a problem, but for good reason, the next committee might want to do that in the next Parliament. So could we not leave a little wiggle room, rather than making it absolute today?
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
It's definitely complicated. But it's not the first time we've dealt with complex issues with copious amounts of detailed background. Again, there are a few of us here who can point to a couple of files where we went...I think it was 15 meetings in the case of the RCMP pension issue.
I have to tell you, Chair, when things start to get too complex, my reaction is always to pull back and ask what the fundamental questions are—back to the simplest questions. At this stage I'm listening. I'll listen to good ideas.
My inclination is bring them in, do it the way we usually do it, give them the time we usually give them, and if we find it's not working, then at that moment we can start to grapple with how we want to do this. There are a lot of options we can look at.
But I would suggest that rather than trying to figure out ahead of time what the right tweaking to our process would be, my inclination is to do it the usual way, bring them in, and we'll make decisions about how we move forward as we need to.
I guess I'm very much in the corner of Mr. Kramp because I think I just said what he said, with different words.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
My worry, Chair, is that we'll be back into the same loop. I agree with Mr. Shipley. They're going to play us off against each other. Eventually the lawyer, or Ms. Ouimet, is going to come out with some technical interpretation of why the Auditor General is wrong, and I'm not going to have a clue which, professionally, is the right answer.
I definitely think we need them both here. That is the way we do things. I need the ability, as a layperson—and I'm probably the biggest layperson here in terms of my lack of academic training—to ask the questions that I see, hear an answer, and then ask the other one, “What do you think about that?” Then I can make a judgment based on my intuition rather than just whether I know their profession or not.
It's a long way to say yes, we need them both.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
I have just one last thought. You mentioned earlier, Chair, your discussion with the AG about possibly having her deputy. There does come a point where if it's taking too long, we need to get practical about it. So I would hope that we would get dates that work for us and Ms. Ouimet first, and then put those to the Auditor General in the hope that she can attend one of your first round of short lists. But if that doesn't work, then hopefully somebody will look at whether the letter of that motion could be eight months from now, because it had to be the two principals, whereas if we could do it—assuming we were staying—within a few weeks with one and the deputy, I'd rather have it sooner than later, because that could be played against us too. “I can't make that” and “I can't make that”; by the time you bring in the AG's availability and our availability—it has to meet us too—we may be deliberately pushing this thing into foreverland. So a little flexibility....
If we nail down Ouimet, let's not let it go for lack of having the AG, when perhaps her deputy could make it, and that would make the hearing more timely.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
We always have the government member to remind us they have the hammer.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
I wish now that I'd spoken up earlier when the ruling was on. As most of you know, I try not to play partisan; when I'm being partisan, I put it on the table, say I'm about to be partisan, and away I go. To Mr. D'Amours, I am not here.
I'm having some real difficulty understanding the interpretation that the chair is holding based on the advice from the clerk. My understanding is that when we're in business and dealing with a particular file or a particular report, if somebody says, “I move that we have a system of dealing with that document in the following way”, that motion wouldn't need notice because we are seized of that issue at the moment and we're trying to work it through in the way that we make decisions and motions.
The line of demarcation is whether it's a substantive motion or not. This is not related to any matter in front of us. It's a policy matter of the committee that one of the members is asking us to consider changing. That seems to me to fit clearly in the notification period.
I can give you what the substantive parts are and why I have some difficulty with this. I can relate it to other officers, other reports, other things that go on. I have some feelings about it, but I'd like to do a little work on it.
Anyway, I would deem this to be a substantive motion, a stand-alone motion that affects the policy of the committee. It's a change in policy, and I think this does require notice. I would say that whether I was supportive of it or not, but I clearly think that this is brand new and it's big. Therefore, it needs to be given the 48 hours' notice, in my humble opinion.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Chair, could you just hear my point of order? It will take ten seconds.
It seems to me that the easiest thing is for you to either reaffirm your decision or to alter it. If you make a ruling, the way it normally goes is that the question is asked, I challenge it because I think it's out of order, and you make a determination. When there's debate, the committee then has the right to determine by vote whether we want to sustain the chair or not. That ends the matter.
The easy thing would be for you to make a ruling, and then the next step would be for this committee either to sustain your ruling or to overturn it.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
But I leave that with you. That's just my suggestion.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
No, no, Chair, what was defeated—
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
Well, again, I disagree with that. I don't think it's inadmissible. It's just that it's now been tabled and Mr. D'Amours, after 48 hours, has the right to move it at any subsequent meeting. That's not inadmissible. It's still tabled with the committee. We still take it in.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
That's right.
View David Christopherson Profile
NDP (ON)
Isn't there a report?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks, Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses.
This is taking place in the context of the tragedy that's going on in Japan. It's a confluence of timing that this committee is talking about energy security in Canada and how nuclear power fits into that question of security.
When we deal with energy security, two of the fundamental principles we deal with are safety of the energy supply and cost. I think those are fair definitions that we work with. We're also talking about public support for various options in power generation. Does the public want to see windmills? Do they want to see solar, gas-fired, nuclear, and what not?
We met with the nuclear regulator this morning.
When Japan built that reactor, the specifications were not up to a 9.0 magnitude earthquake. The specifications were below that. Is that your understanding?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
The Gentilly-2 refurbishment will not be built to any standard above 7.5 or 8. Do we know what the standard is going to be for the Gentilly-2 construction?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
For the refurbishment.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
When did—
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
To what level of an earthquake, do you know?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
So what is it for your plant?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
So what happens above six and a half?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
I suppose that's what the Japanese said in terms of reasonable assumptions. When they were designing those reactors, they said it was outside of a reasonable assumption to assume a 9.0 quake.
I'm not suggesting a 9.0 earthquake is going to hit Ontario or Quebec or other places where there are nuclear reactors. I guess I wonder why you don't go up to a standard of a 9.0. Does it cost a lot more? Does it make the reactor unfeasible?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Sure.
Here's a question to Ms. Carpenter. You talked about full-cost accounting for nuclear power. What is the current liability limit for accidents in Canada?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
To what?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
So $650 million is what you—
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
You feel that a liability limit of $650 million is a reasonable figure.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Current estimates out of Japan for the accident there are going to run somewhere north of $180 billion.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
So you estimate the cost to the Japanese economy, in terms of the nuclear damage, is going to be less than $650 million?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Japan has a $1.4 billion nuclear liability limit right now. Right?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
The United States pools its liability to a figure of $10 billion.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
That's right. Australia's is unlimited.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Not only did the government not call this bill back, but the government has been sitting on this bill for four months, and it's been nowhere in their order paper. And that is not for you to answer, obviously, because you're not that connected to the government. But the question I have is that a $650 million liability limit seems to me at least half of anybody else's in the world and appreciably less than our neighbours to the south. I understand the system. They have more reactors there; they can pool liability. But help me out here. Anything above a $650 million cost is borne by whom?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
So in terms of sheltering the costs above $650 million, does your industry consider that a subsidy?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
What is the political agenda?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
That's an interesting point. How often does the nuclear liability regime get reviewed in Canada? Once about every 40 years.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
So we're in agreement—
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen.
To you, Dr. Cooper, one of the things that we struggle with at committee is being able to find studies around energy production and costs that truly compare apples to apples. I'm wondering if you could recommend to us, either now or through a submission later on, where you have found the best either North American or global studies in an attempt to understand what it costs to produce power from the various sources, in a full-cost accounting, an all-in basis, as opposed to where subsidies get extracted out. And I put that across all energy sources.
Do you point to one group or one information source that seems to do a consistent and reliable job of comparing energy prices?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you for that.
Here's a question I have for Mr. Tremblay. The Ontario government put out a bid in 2007, or an expectation of a bid, for the two new builds. They were expecting somewhere around $7 billion. It worked out to just a little shy of $3,000 per kilowatt. Am I getting the numbers even in the ballpark of the original estimation?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Right, because the province said something different when it was requesting those new builds, and I don't know what OPG's role is when the province does these requests, but I'm sure you're at least sharing information, you're involved in the bidding process.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
We're getting to this. I know they're going through the environmental assessment.
In 2007 they put out a number.... The expectation from the minister and from the government at the time was somewhere around a little shy of $3,000 per kilowatt. It said in its documents that anything above $3,600 will be considered uneconomical. AECL put in a bid for $26 billion, Areva came in at $23 billion. Perhaps these numbers were wrong, but I'm getting this off the Ontario government's website, so perhaps they're.... Then in 2009 they dropped plans, but the plans have been reinvigorated for the two new builds at Darlington.
Are we speaking of the same thing?
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
No, I understand.
Dr. Cooper, let me come back to you. Something that's confusing in this renaissance motif that the industry has put together is that there is some talk about 140 new builds globally. That was being referred to before us here even some months ago.
What I don't understand is that if the build estimates around the early 2000s that we're citing in the MIT report and others—and I know you don't like the MIT, but I'm trying to give us some sort of estimate.... We're talking about energy security here, and price security is important. What the industry site says, and I was looking at it earlier, and what the global industry site said is that because of the growth in the world economy, prices got more expensive for commodities and construction supplies and everything else. This is what caused the acceleration of costs.
In your research, you're saying that the alternatives during that same period of time came down, even though some of them also use heavy capital costs to get themselves up and started.
I don't understand why this confluence happened.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
Let me stop you just for a second.
One thing I don't understand. You say that nuclear suppressed the cost, in a sales pitch or something, to promote the industry. That's fine; industries do that. But one of those promoters—one of those enthusiasts you talk about—would certainly be somebody like John Rowe, who heads up Exelon, the largest nuclear provider of energy in the Unites States. He is coming out and saying that safety isn't their major concern right now, although what has happened in Japan will give them some thought. The main concern they have is costs, in terms of those new builds that are projected in the U.S.
View Nathan Cullen Profile
NDP (BC)
I have a very small point of order.
As you know, we have critical votes tomorrow afternoon, and it seems to be likely—all the campaign buses have been rented—to precipitate an election. First of all, I wish everyone the best of luck in what comes in the next 35 days.
Mr. Scott Andrews: No you don't.
Mr. Nathan Cullen: I do, except for Scott. As part of my point of order, can we change the record to say “except for Scott”?
Mr. Scott Andrews: He took all my money in poker last night.
Mr. Nathan Cullen: That's right, I took all his money in poker.
To the committee members, I hope the committee is able to reconvene this particular study. I think it's been of great interest to many of us. It's an important one, and I hope it doesn't get dropped in the next Parliament.
But mostly I want to say good luck to everybody. Knock on doors.
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 15:55
Madam Chair, on a point of clarification, how much time do we have?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:21
Thanks for the indulgence of the committee.
Welcome back, Madam Chair. It's nice to see you.
And welcome back, Madam Minister and other panellists. It's nice to see all of you again.
We have been talking about antibiotics and livestock at committee, and, Madam Minister, when you weren't here, the other panellists were answering some questions about this, which leads me to this question. In 2005, Canada was directed by the UN to create a national infectious disease strategy, and it was supposed to be created by now, by about 2008, and implemented by 2012. The Auditor General's report on public health in 2008 cited numerous problems we have with the surveillance of infectious disease. In thinking about the 2012 deadline, I don't think we're going to make it because we haven't heard anything about this strategy.
My question is, what is the status of the strategy and which department is actually responsible for it? Is it Health or the Public Health Agency?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:23
Just to clarify, you're saying that the pandemic strategy is part of the infectious disease strategy?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:24
Other than the ongoing conversation, do you have a deadline for when the strategy will be complete?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:24
But this is infectious disease--
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:24
I don't think it is.
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:25
--Mr. Butler-Jones, the last time you were here, a couple of weeks ago, you testified that the CIPARS reports having to do with the utilization of antibiotics in Canada were available publicly. In checking the website, we see that they haven't been available publicly since 2007.
This makes me quite worried that the government is actually treating these as a political document instead of a useful tool of simple surveillance reports. I'm wondering who actually vets them. Who actually makes the decision and approves them before they're released? Which department? Or is it the Prime Minister's Office?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:26
So you have the last say? You don't have to vet them?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:26
Okay.
Thank you.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2011-03-24 16:26
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is with relation to healing programming for aboriginal communities. Last year, the request to extend the funding for critical programming to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was denied. We were told repeatedly that Health Canada was going to take on the role of providing necessary healing programming for residential school survivors in communities that are struggling with the trauma of residential schools. Those programs were taken away from the region that I represent in northern Manitoba, and also, I know, from regions across Canada.
Here is my question. Despite those commitments, I don't see any reference in the estimates, and certainly not in the budget, to an understanding of what exactly Health Canada has done, or of course is planning to do, most importantly, to ensure that this programming is available, not in terms of NNADAP work, not in terms of addictions work, but with a focus on healing, and a focus on community healing in the decentralized model that was so successful under the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
View Niki Ashton Profile
2011-03-24 16:28
If I could, I will just ask a quick follow-up. I appreciate that these services might be available, but they are not available north of 53 in Manitoba, so my question is, where exactly are these programs available? And certainly at the community level, not in flying people out to be counselled in Winnipeg.... Also, exactly what is that vision for the next year to provide that necessary community-based counselling?
View Megan Leslie Profile
NDP (NS)
View Megan Leslie Profile
2011-03-24 16:29
I do. Thanks, Madam Chair.
I'm looking for a yes or no answer from the minister. I know that the minister and the federal, territorial, and provincial health ministers met in the fall; I think earlier you may have said it was in September. Pharmacare wasn't on the agenda, was it?
Results: 1 - 60 of 28236 | Page: 1 of 471

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data