Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 35602
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
Well, I'd—
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
Maybe that will avoid the other thing.
I'm going to sustain the ruling, and if you want to challenge the chair, then we can get it reversed.
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
If he doesn't want to withdraw it, I'll just say that it's still in order and you can challenge me and we can deal with it with a vote.
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
Those of you who would sustain the chair's decision that it is in order, please put up your hands.
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you. The chair's ruling is defeated 6 to 4. The motion by Mr. D'Amours is withdrawn. He can always bring it back at another time. It's defeated.
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm sorry, it's deemed inadmissible. That's the correct language.
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
Mr. D'Amours can re-present that motion at any time he wants with the appropriate notice.
Thank you.
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll put that question right away.
Those in favour of adjournment? Hands up those who want to adjourn.
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
Sorry, no. I'm dealing with this motion.
Those in favour of adjourning right now, put up your hand.
(Motion negatived)
View Joseph Volpe Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Shipley.
I think the nays have it. We are going to proceed with that first report.
We'll go in camera, so we'll suspend for about two minutes.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
View Denis Coderre Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Clearly, today's meeting is rather special, particularly given what is happening in Japan. So it is understandable that our questions may be influenced by that to some degree. We will try to define where we stand on that issue. That is quite clear.
Canada must have a variety of energy sources, but the fact remains that the nuclear issue is a very sensitive one now, both in terms of transporting waste and in terms of the waste itself. A lot of people say that nuclear power plants do not emit a lot of CO 2, but if we look at what is happening in Japan, we can see that, when an explosion occurs and radiation is released, people are worried.
I would like us to dig a little deeper. I understand that you see things from the point of view of the industry. No one wants things to work badly, even if they want to make a profit. I understand that. So safety must be the priority. In any case, it is up to the regulators and to governments to ensure that checks and balances are in place in this area and to ensure that things go well.
Ms. Carpenter, you said that Canada's nuclear facilities are safe. We know that there are several plants in Ontario and that we have to face certain realities in New Brunswick and at Gentilly, in Quebec.
Do you think it will require a lot more money to ensure that we never have a Fukushima here? Or do you believe that what we currently have is sufficient and that we need not be concerned?
I am talking about construction and additional investments.
View Denis Coderre Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm not looking to compare, because they are two totally different things. But I think it is legitimate to ask some of those questions, because we never know specifically regarding earthquakes and all that. Of course you have your own grid of worst-case scenarios and what you have to plan and what to do. But because this is a public standing committee and there are a lot of people who are, I hope, listening to us and they have a lot of questions without any answers, I think reassuring people is also part of our job.
Do we have some technique to make sure or do we have kind of a map of what might happen for natural catastrophes? Do we have in some of the reactors and the placement of those reactors vis-à-vis...? We never know. Today we're talking about the Champlain Bridge and there are some experts who say it might fall down if something happens. We don't want the worst, but we want to expect and try to figure out what is the reality of the situation right now.
View Denis Coderre Profile
Lib. (QC)
You mentioned, Madame Carpenter, that we are not recycling the nuclear waste and that it might become energy there eventually. But there is an issue of managing nuclear waste. Now we have to transport them up to Sweden to recycle them.
Do you believe that now Canada needs to take a look at other recommendations--and it's not just for Bruce Power, it's for the overall--to have a better policy for nuclear waste and recycling?
View Alan Tonks Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first question is to Mr. Tremblay. With respect to the timetable that has been established by CNSC on risk assessment, what is the target date for a report on matters related to safety?
View Alan Tonks Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Hawthorne mentioned a substantial dislocation of power in 1973 with the blackout. And the implications in Japan with respect to that example were the lack of ability to pump coolant into the reactors and cool the rods.
Would a factor in the safety review be to look at a power dislocation that would create the same situation, not as a result of earthquake or whatever, but just as a matter of system overload? Would you say that a 72-hour risk factor was adequate, or would you be looking to substantially increase that, say to 11 or 12 days or perhaps 20 days?
Results: 136 - 150 of 35602 | Page: 10 of 2374

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data