ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Á

1110

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell (President, Nuclear Waste Management Organization)

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Á

1130

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Á

1135

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Richard Dicerni (Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nuclear Waste Management Organization)

Á

1140

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Richard Dicerni

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Á

1145

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Richard Dicerni

Mr. Julian Reed

Á

1150

Mr. Richard Dicerni

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Alan Tonks

Á

1155

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Â

1200

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

Â

1205

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1210

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Richard Dicerni

Â

1215

Mr. Bernard Bigras

M. Richard Dicerni

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Â

1220

M. Richard Dicerni

Mr. Bernard Bigras

M. Richard Dicerni

Mr. Bernard Bigras

M. Richard Dicerni

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Richard Dicerni

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

Â

1230

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 019

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, the committee will now begin its proceedings. I wanted to make a few announcements, but Ms. Scherrer has asked for the floor. Please proceed.

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I imagine you were probably going to raise the subject as well. This morning I received a draft document regarding a trip to England next week. I would like the people who are involved in the trip to comment as well. I am wondering whether this is really the right time to go and spend some time in England, more specifically in London, during the week ahead.

    I know that Mr. Comartin and Mr. Bigras were supposed to be on the trip. First of all, I would say that I am somewhat reluctant to travel, and I would like to discuss my views with the other colleagues who were also supposed to be involved in this trip.

    The Chair: I understand your reluctance very well, but I think the best time to talk about that will be Thursday morning, at the beginning of our meeting. We will talk about that on Thursday.

[English]

    On Thursday we also have a discussion with officials from two departments, Environment and Statistics Canada. They will come forward with their papers and views on the report on the state of the environment and its resurrection. We'll have two solid hours, so don't make commitments for lunch before 1:15 on Thursday. We could arrange for a lunch here, in which case we don't need to make arrangements for lunch at all and we can sail through until 1:30. Please indicate to the clerk your intentions.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I would suggest, because of the members of committee who aren't here today, that you notify them as to the decision Hélène has brought up, so that they know of this decision and that the names have to come forthwith for the trip overseas. We've known about it before, but I believe what my colleague is asking for is a definite answer, and I think they should be prepared to give it by then.

    The Chair: We will ask the clerk to phone each one of the members tomorrow. Things will not materialize that clearly until the weekend perhaps, but if the members wish to have a discussion on Thursday, that discussion can take place as well, though I hope we will compress it, so as not to keep the witnesses waiting. The clerk will inquire tomorrow with each member as to their latest intentions about travelling.

    Now we come to our distinguished guests today, who are here, if I understand it correctly, to alert and inform the members of this committee about their organization, their mandates, and their intentions, because they are inspired by a very sound principle, that it is better to inform parliamentarians upstream than downstream, to use an environmental term. So we are very grateful for their appearance.

    As a background document, in addition to what will be presented today, may I refer you to the Auditor General's report in 1995, which you can obtain, chapter three and the paragraphs beginning with 3.45 under the heading “Many research studies have been undertaken with the aim of developing a HLW disposal facility”. This tells us that this is an issue moving with glacial speed, because of the nature of the beast, and therefore it is still timely, or actually more timely now than ever. With that, I'd better introduce Madam Dowdeswell, a very distinguished civil servant, nationally and internationally. You have the floor, Ms. Dowdeswell, and you may wish to introduce your colleagues. Welcome to the committee.

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell (President, Nuclear Waste Management Organization): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear today before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

    With me are Mr. Richard Dicerni,who is the chair of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization board and executive vice-president and corporate secretary of Ontario Power Generation, Ms. Kathryn Shaver,the executive director of our organization, responsible for governance and regulatory matters, and Ms. Donna Pawlowski, who today is going to be providing any support I need on technical issues.

    In these early months of our mandate I'm pleased to introduce to you the NWMO and begin what I hope will be an ongoing dialogue. Certainly, any advice and suggestions the committee might provide as we undertake our study of approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste in Canada would be welcomed.

    My prepared remarks are quite brief. I look forward to spending most of the time discussing the issues members may wish to address and answering any questions you have.

    The Nuclear Waste Management Organization was established in response to the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, which received royal assent on June 13, 2002, and came into force on November 15, 2002. As required by the legislation, Canada's nuclear fuel waste producers, specifically Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec, and New Brunswick Power, created this organization. These are the companies in Canada that own nuclear generating stations. The board is committed to fulfilling all the requirements of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and has structured our organization to reflect the objectives of that legislation. Consistently with the “polluters pay” principle, the waste owners have developed cost-sharing provisions to support our organization. The board also established an advisory council, which includes a number of distinguished Canadians and is chaired by the Honourable David Crombie. The council is making an important contribution to the NWMO and its board through the ongoing advice and guidance it's providing above and beyond the legislative requirement that it comment on our study toward the end. The companies have also put into place trust funds to ensure that money is available to finance the nuclear waste management approach that ultimately will be adopted by the government.

    Essentially, the NWMO has been given three years to study approaches for the long-term management of Canada's nuclear fuel waste. It is to put forward a recommendation to government through the Minister of Natural Resources Canada. By way of background, there are approximately 1.5 million used fuel bundles in Canada. Once they're removed from the reactors, they're generally stored for about 10 years in water-filled pools at the power plants to cool and shield them until their radioactivity declines. They are then typically placed in dry storage containers with a design life of about 50 years. Our task is to recommend to government what should happen after that.

    At a minimum, the legislation requires us to study three specific approaches, deep geological disposal, storage at the nuclear reactor sites, and centralized storage, either above or below ground. We may also consider other approaches, but for each approach we study, we must fully describe what they entail, including risks, costs, and benefits, and we must develop a plan for implementation. All the approaches must then be assessed from a variety of dimensions, including ethical, social, economic, technical, and environmental. Once the Government of Canada takes a decision on the approach for managing Canada's nuclear fuel waste, the NWMO will then be responsible for its implementation.

    As most of you will know, the NWMO was born out of the government's response to the Seaborn panel, an environmental assessment of deep geological disposal, the concept developed by AECL to bury nuclear fuel wastes deep in the Canadian Shield. One of the important lessons from the Seaborn panel, one that was clearly embraced by Parliament when it passed the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, was that any acceptable plan for managing used nuclear fuel over the long term must have some form of informed public support or societal acceptance. It must be developed within a sound ethical and social assessment framework. Those requirements are reflected in our statement of vision, mission, and values. This statement is the starting point and the foundation for all the activities of the organization.

Á  (1115)  

    We see it as our purpose to develop collaboratively with Canadians a management approach for the long-term care of Canada's used nuclear fuel that is socially acceptable, technically sound, environmentally responsible, and economically feasible. People expect and deserve to be involved in finding solutions for the large public policy issues that affect them, including how nuclear waste is to be managed in Canada. That is why from the very beginning the NWMO has attempted to engage a range of communities of interest, first to help us shape our work plan, and then to shape the recommendation itself.

    We've called the first phase of our outreach, “Conversations about Expectations”. Over the past couple of months we've met with a number of individuals and groups, including people from nuclear site communities, environmental organizations, young people, industry experts, Canadians from different regions of the country, aboriginal peoples, and of course, parliamentarians. We've talked about who they are, what interests they have, and how they wish to be consulted and involved in our effort.

    In phase two of our work, which is just about to begin, we will build on what we have heard and learned. The next stage of our work will be to develop an integrated framework for analysis of the various management approaches I mentioned. This framework will broadly reflect the values and priorities of Canadians, as well as the best knowledge and expertise available on this issue. Sustainable development will be our conceptual underpinning as we develop assessment criteria that reflect societal, ethical, and community values, environmental integrity, economic feasibility, and appropriate technical standards. We plan to employ a variety of tools to engage communities of interest in this work. We expect to use tools like citizen panels, expert round tables, and scenario workshops, and we want to build on the public opinion research we've already undertaken, ensuring that we reach out to a broad range of Canadians.

    The core of our two-way dialogue with the general public will be our website. Our research and documentation will all be available and archived there, as will summaries of findings from discussions and activities completed at various points along the way. On-line polling and comment opportunities will be provided to hear the views of everyone, particularly those who may not be able to contribute through other means. Our website is now active, and I encourage you to visit it at www.nwmo.ca

    Throughout this second phase there will be a dynamic interaction between the engagement process I just mentioned and our research and analysis of the management approaches. There is substantial knowledge and experience in Canada and abroad on this issue. We are not alone. Many countries around the world are currently at the same stage of investigation as are we. We will harness the best available knowledge and understanding, including recent work that's been undertaken by the joint waste owners since the Seaborn panel reported in 1998. Our job is to satisfy ourselves that the right questions have been asked about the nuclear fuel waste approaches we are studying and that they have been answered well. Where we identify gaps, we will commission our own research. As I mentioned, we anticipate working with the international community to ensure that insight and knowledge from research already under way elsewhere in the world, as in Sweden and Finland, will be brought to bear on our study. We will continually integrate the insights gained from research and our dialogue with citizens through our analytical framework, passing questions to experts as they arise during the public engagement process and presenting the findings as we obtain them to stakeholders and the public for discussion.

Á  (1120)  

    It is important that our dialogue in its timing and method is appropriate for the variety of different audiences, interests, and capacities of the communities and individuals with whom we deal. We will continue to draw on the knowledge of experts and advisors who have managed similar outreach programs on other issues. We are committed to developing a meaningful consultation, for example, with aboriginal peoples, and our discussions in this regard are at a very early stage. A discussion paper articulating the options and proposing an analytical framework will be the product of this phase of our work.

    That leads to phase three, which will focus on actually evaluating the various management approaches. Public response to the discussion paper is going to be critical in that evaluation. It will be important to incorporate societal direction regarding how best to apply the analytical framework and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the management approaches as seen through the eyes of the public. Before we submit our final report to the government, we intend to undertake a process of testing and validation of our recommendations.

    Mr. Chairman, three years is not a long time to conduct this type of study. We are continually challenged to find a balance between producing a plan in a timely way and ensuring an adequate dialogue, so that the full range of societal views can be presented and factored into our recommendation. We certainly welcome this challenge and are pleased to be contributing to the government's decision-making on this most important issue. We are committed to fulfilling all the responsibilities conferred upon us by the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. One important responsibility we have is to report regularly to the Minister of Natural Resources. We will be submitting our first annual report, which covers the months October to December 2002, to Minister Dhaliwal within the next few weeks. I'd be happy to send each member of the committee a copy, and with your concurrence, Mr. Chair, I will stay in touch with the committee clerk to make arrangements to do just that.

    As I've said, I hope this is the beginning of an ongoing dialogue with this committee. Your advice, recommendations, and suggestions as the NWMO goes forward will always be welcome. I look forward to participating in a conversation with you and attempting to answer any questions you have.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    As a personal thing, when I first came in and took a look at the name plates, I thought maybe it was a regional conference from my own area. There are about eight families of Shavers there, and one is a Cathy Shaver, a former student of mine. The Dowdeswells were one of the first foundations of my community; they came with the railway in 1912, and there's some land that's still a Dowdeswell's. The Pawlowskis are quite a famous family, mainly because of a father and son as auctioneers. So I'm right at home here, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you very much for your presentation. I became very interested in this and other waste disposal. I've even spent some of the two weeks break on a different type of disposal, comparing what we and the people south of the 49th do.

    You mentioned, Ms. Dowdeswell, the trust funds. Who holds the trust funds?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: The trust funds are held by financial institutions in each of the three provinces where there are waste owners.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

    You mentioned that it takes some time before it can finally be put into deep caverns or whatever. I had a rather long, but beautiful conversation about the storage of nuclear waste with a young engineer out of Saskatchewan who was travelling back and forth. We don't need to have as much waste, we can continue to regenerate, and we would have one-tenth of the nuclear waste as we have today, but it's cheaper to get the new uranium than it is to regenerate that first used. I thought, if that be the case, maybe we should be looking at the process of not having all the waste. If you only had 10% of it, it wouldn't be as much of a concern. That's another topic. I just wanted to say I enjoyed that very much.

    There's one statement you made, though, that I really appreciate. This is true not only in this area, but in many areas. You mentioned informed public support. They key word there is informed. Uninformed people always come out with negativity. Informed people are more apt to come to a positive viewpoint. Could you explain, aside from the website, what your organization is doing to sponsor informed public support?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: It's my view that education is crucial for behavioural change with most environmental issues, and this is certainly the case with this one. We have not yet formulated a plan of action in great detail, but we do know we have to present information in as objective and neutral a way as possible whenever we have the opportunity to do so. Our initial months have been spent primarily preparing to use the website as the most effective way of reaching the greatest number of people, but we've also taken opportunity to have conversations with people and to talk about the facts involved in the case. We know from our public opinion research, for example, many people have misunderstandings even about the amount of waste that is generated and what is currently happening to it. So we will be designing fact sheets. We certainly will be talking to communities, at their request, and trying to get the message out.

    It has been suggested to us that we examine ways of preparing educational materials and presenting those in the appropriate fora. One of the things I have to be alert to, of course, is the timeframe within which we have to operate and the priority we need to attach to the activities we undertake. But I couldn't agree more that sound education is going to be critical in developing a public understanding.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The work you are doing for Quebec is quite significant, given, for example, the strategic choices that Hydro-Québec will have to make in the years ahead, for example as regards the Gentilly-2 nuclear power station.

    As you know, either the power station is to be renovated, at a cost of $845 million, or it may be closed, which will cost one billion dollars. We therefore think it is important to make a decision on this matter, given that at the moment there are over 3,000 tons of waste on the site, and it is expected that 100 tonnes a year will be added until 2013.

    You told us that consultation was important. In fact, the act provides quite clearly that the consultation process is to take place while the management corporation is being set up, and that this consultation process must be conducted in a transparent, rigorous manner. Ms. Dowdeswell, yesterday you made the following comment in the newspaper Le Soleil:

But she said that one thing was certain, namely that we will be consulting the communities living in the areas surrounding the nuclear power stations. They are one of our main concerns. We want to know what they expect.

    Mr. Chairman, I agree with such a comment, but what people want to know about is the timetable. You have three years once the bill comes into force, that is until 2005, to make proposals to the government. I realize that earlier you told my colleague, Mr. Bailey, that you had no action plan. You cannot tell us how soon these consultations will be carried out nor how people will be consulted. Past experience and the findings of the Seaborn Panel show that what people want is that consideration be given not just to technical aspects, but also to the social aspects as well. That is the major finding of the Seaborn Panel.

    Do you have an action plan to present to us today so that we can tell people how they will be consulted after three years and what type of recommendations will be made to the government?

[English]

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: Thank you for that question. Indeed, in phase one of our activities we wanted to have informal conversations with people across the country. I'm happy to report that we've just spent a very fruitful couple of days in New Brunswick, for example, and we had the opportunity to meet with workers at the plant, with the community liaison group, with aboriginal communities, with mayors, with the board of trade, the full spectrum of people who are interested. Such a visit is also planned for Quebec. I can't give you the specific date yet, because that's currently under consideration, but it was intended to take place before the end of April.

    These are simply the beginning conversations. We know all too well that often people go out to consult at the end of the process, after the questions have been decided and the plan of action is in place, simply asking people to say yes or no to various options. We've decided we don't want to do that. We want to allow people the opportunity to help us design the very process in the first place, and that's why we're having these initial informal conversations. We will then, of course, have more extensive conversations and opportunities for public consultation at various stages, both in phase two and phase three, as I described them.

    My response to the journalist from Le Soleil related immediately to this first phase of activity and I couldn't give him the specific date, because that hasn't been confirmed yet.

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: So that concerned the social aspect of the initiative, more particularly. From a more technical perspective, as you said, using the Canadian Shield as “national dumping site” is a very strong possibility. So on a scale of “very strong possibility” to “very unlikely possibility”, where would you put that option? But more importantly, beyond the public discussion you have had with communities on this issue, how important are the technical consultations?

    For example, do you really plan to go across the country to see how the Canadian Shield dumping system would actually work? Is that feasible? Of course, the social aspect is fundamental because the communities want to know where the waste will be dumped, but the technical aspect is just as important to a long-term vision of waste management. So do you plan to tour the country to deal with the question of nuclear waste disposal in the Canadian Shield?

[English]

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: It will be very important for us to ensure that the technical aspects of all three approaches are studied. There has been considerable technical and expert study into the question of geological disposal. We have to ensure that we spend an equivalent amount of effort in examining the other two approaches as well. We also understand that much research has continued to go on in other countries--again, Sweden and Finland are examples--since the time of the Seaborn panel. Indeed, here in Canada all three of the waste owners have continued to do research work, as well as with AECL. We will be examining the research that has been done on all of those options and coming to a conclusion, with the assistance of international experts, as to what questions remain. We already know from a number of scientists where they have doubts and where they are relatively secure in their understanding. We will take that into account, also examining whether there are gaps in that understanding that we need to make sure are filled by our own research program.

    The Chair: Would you please answer the second half of Monsieur Bigras' question?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: Technical matters will also be a subject of consultation, absolutely.

    The Chair: But you will be undertaking travel across the country?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: Whether or not it's across the entire country has not yet been decided, but certainly, as a principle, you're quite right, this is a Canada-wide mandate, and we will be reaching out to all Canadians.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

    Mr. Comartin, please.

[English]

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here.

    I want to ask some questions about the board of directors. When we were reviewing the bill, there was a good deal of discussion on how the board would be composed and some pressure, mostly from the opposition parties, that there be representation from the aboriginal community, the environmental community, the labour community, and the local municipal councils that already had a good deal of these wastes on deposit in their communities. Does the board reflect any of those communities?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would ask the chair of the board to make an initial response to that.

    Mr. Richard Dicerni (Chairman of the Board of Directors, Nuclear Waste Management Organization): The legislation calls for the waste owners to assume accountability for the stewardship of the waste organization. You may recall that the Seaborn panel put forth an alternative model of governance, and the government chose to go with more of a waste owner model, similar to what they have in Scandinavia. The current board consists of representatives from OPG, New Brunswick Power, and Hydro-Québec.

    Regarding outreach to other constituencies and so forth, we have sought to establish an advisory council, which is as representative as we can make it at this point in time. The advisory council has seven or eight people. We are trying to move this as quickly as we can--the chair referred to glacial speed. We tried to have the organization up and running soon after the legislation was passed, appointing a president, and she in turn appointed a staff, and appointing an advisory council. What we have tried to do is reflect the diversity of perspectives through the advisory council. The president referred to David Crombie, and there are people representing, I think, a good diversity of perspectives. So that's where that goal of broad societal participation has been addressed.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Are the names and backgrounds of the advisory council on the website as well? They are.

    How often has the board of directors, the owners met?

    Mr. Richard Dicerni: Maybe three times, once for setting up the organization and reviewing various candidacies. There was another one that set up the broad framework, and we've had a recent meeting where the president updated the board on what her activities and major endeavours have been.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: When is the actual three year deadline?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: November 15, 2005.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: There was also, at the time the bill was working its way through, concern over parliamentarians having more ability for input into the process, with both the ongoing consultations and an ultimate review. Has any decision been made as to whether a parliamentary committee is going to be involved before November 15, 2005?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: I think this morning is an example of my intention to seek the views of parliamentarians. We also intend to respond to your sister standing committee, natural resources, and we know there's an interest in the Senate as well. I decided to seek an audience with this committee first because I believe fundamentally that the issue we're concerned about is an issue of sustainable development, and therefore I thought it appropriate, but that by no means excludes other parliamentarians. We have also spoken with and will continue to speak with those parliamentarians who have in the past exhibited a particular interest in this matter, particularly those who represent nuclear site communities.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I can't express how encouraging it is to see this organization in its formation, as one who's followed this issue for over 25 years. I have in my hand a copy of part of the new white paper on energy in the U.K. commenting on nuclear power, and the issue of nuclear waste has to be resolved still. So maybe bumping heads with the U.K. might provide some more insight into technology, I don't know.

    Nuclear waste, in my view, is the most important single issue if nuclear power is to have a future. It seems to me that with the head-in-the-sand attitude that's been taken for the last generation, the last 25 years, and now the decision to store high-level waste on top in Ontario, if this is not resolved, it's the writing of the epitaph, because the problem is there now. You mentioned in your opening speech social acceptance. I couldn't agree more, but I wonder how we relate to the gargantuan task of getting social acceptance for a problem that already exists and where we take that. The problem's there regardless. For the future, we can talk about social acceptance and so on. I don't envy you the tremendous effort that will have to take place.

    I should ask this question. In the British white paper there's a statement that “current economics make nuclear power an unattractive option”. In Canada nuclear power, if we examine it closely, is still an unattractive option, but over the years we have dealt with the nuclear agencies and so on selling us on the cheapness and all the rest of nuclear power. What will happen with the trust funds? Will the trust fund cost be passed through to the cost of electricity, or will it be hidden away in the general tax base?

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: The trust funds contributed to by the waste owners and currently being held will accumulate until the government makes a decision on the management approach and until there is clearance for a construction licence. In other words, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization cannot tap those funds until the licence to operate has actually been extended.

    Perhaps I can ask the chairman to address specifically your question about how the waste owners might manage that trust fund.

    Mr. Richard Dicerni: The moneys we put in the trust funds annually can be seen when you review our financial statements, so this is an expenditure item that is explicitly noted within OPG's financial results.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Well, OPG had a mandate that didn't force it to declare all its costs over the years. It could produce a financial statement, but capital costs were not included under the Power Corporation Act, the cost of refurbishing was not awarded to the cost of electricity. So over 25 years we had this stranded debt that built up of $38 billion, I think, and it was all done under the aegis of the Power Corporation Act. This brings me to the future of nuclear power. If nuclear power has an economic future, its economics have to be made absolutely transparent. We haven't got there yet.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Richard Dicerni: There is a huge difference between the Power Corporation Act and the recently passed Energy Competition Act in Ontario. The $500 million we put in as our initial contribution, as mandated by the federal legislation, is very transparent with regard to OPG's expenditures on that front. Similarly with the $100 million we put in annually. Hydro-Québec has an amount proportional to the amount of waste that is generated. The moneys are there in separate bank accounts, as Ms. Dowdeswell was saying, to look after the construction or whatever other strategy is adopted, and it is fair to say Ontario Hydro did not put moneys aside for that purpose.

    Mr. Julian Reed: I wish you well in your Herculean task, and if there's any support that can be given by the members of the House, I think we all are behind you.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your presentations.

    The Seaborn panel indicated a difference with respect to technical feasibility and its integrity in storage of nuclear waste and so on and social safety. I haven't been able to understand what the differences are. Could you please give the committee a thumbnail sketch of what the differences are between technical feasibility and social safety?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: I would make no claim to interpret the discussions that went on in the Seaborn panel, but I do know the issues of technical and social safety and ethical responsibility are bedevilling many countries at this point. Some would claim that it's fairly easy to describe in a technical way what a particular option entails and to do research on various aspects of that technical approach. The issue of high-level nuclear waste management, however, has, over the course of 30 years, generated a level of interest, if not anxiety, in the general public, and it is about uncertainty, complexity, and the long time over which these decisions have to be held accountable. We are talking, depending on who you talk to, about many thousands of years, and that's simply beyond many people's understanding.

    The social and ethical issues are ones that relate to intergenerational equity. Are we taking decisions now that preempt future generations from being able to take decisions? On the other side of the coin, if we created the waste, do we not have an ethical responsibility to clean up the waste? Those are the social issues, but they also relate to communities and their livelihoods, how they feel comfortable accepting waste for the long term. Whether or not you can approach this in a step-by-step fashion becomes critical to the debate, and under what conditions a community is willing to accept that responsibility.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm sure the committee appreciates the response that has been given. It would appear, from my perspective, that if you are going out for intense consultation, people would want to understand that it's not just the best available science with respect to the integrity of the decision, but also there's a sustainable development perspective, your point of not compromising future generations, whatever technology is accepted. I'm sure communities would want to understand that they too are having an opportunity to look at that kind of future. Have any communities in your consultation thus far indicated that they understand both aspects, the fundamental scientific safety issue and the matteer of sustainability? Are there any communities that have come forward and said, yes, we are very interested in having a technology in our particular area, having understood the pros and cons?

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: That question has not been put to communities in Canada yet, but we do have the experience of its having being put to communities in other countries around the world, certainly in Finland and Sweden--and I refer to them because I recently talked to people in those countries. For example, Sweden sent out an invitation to all municipalities that happen to be within a particular geographically suitable area, which was most of the country, to express their interest in pursuing the discussions further. They ended up with four communities that wanted to pursue it in greater depth, and now they are investigating two with a view to a final site. This relates to the site selection process. Our work is about the management approach, and any site selection would follow that, but I have assumed as part of my mandate that if I am to prepare an implementation plan for recommendation, one of the things that would be helpful is to at least lay out some potential criteria for willing site communities before the site selection process begins. But I think it's safe to say, worldwide, we have very limited experience as yet with being able to attract site communities.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I do understand the benchmarks that are put out for receiving input from the communities. Do you see your role as also bringing forward best available science with respect to other options, for example, your insights from visits to other countries, what they're doing? Do you see that as part of the dynamics of your role?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: Absolutely. We must do our work based on the best available science. The three options that are in the mandate of the legislation are the ones we must look at, but that is not to say we're not keeping a watchful eye on any others that arise, and we know some countries are looking extensively at other options.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Good.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Madame Scherrer, second round.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I must first admit that I am not very familiar with today's topic, except for what I learned during your presentation or through the media, in newspapers and on television; so I am speaking as a citizen rather than as a parliamentarian.

    My initial impression would be to say that the very mention of the words “nuclear waste”, scares me and raises fears among members of my community and those around me.

    From what I understand, the legislation was voted on recently and implemented because of poor management practices and bad decisions. It was not necessarily because of bad faith, but the fact remains that major damage has been caused. Perhaps the manner in which the management of toxic waste was dealt with was not forceful enough.

    You spoke of public awareness. I am going to speak to you as a citizen rather than a parliamentarian versed in the topic. As Mr. Read says, you have a long road ahead of you to convince people that it really is possible to manage nuclear waste without any deleterious impact on the community. I also wish you a lot of luck when it comes time to choose a site.

    Even if the entire population ended up believing that these operations are not necessarily dangerous, you would still have to live with the nimby syndrome, or “not in my back yard”. Even if they understand the facts, people will always refuse a site in their community; they will not hear of it.

    To ensure better nuclear waste management and a more objective approach to the topic, I think people must be assured that the damage caused in some communities can be corrected. If we could prove to people that despite the bad management that caused the damage or uncontrollable accumulations in some places, we will henceforth be able to counter these negative effects and ensure proper waste management, I think we will be able to inspire confidence. There will have to be proof that it is possible to manage nuclear waste throughout the country.

    Will your phases 1, 2 or 3 include specific operations to repair the damage or to implement measures to inspire public confidence in the feasibility of that type of waste management?

  (1200)  

[English]

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: The phase one exercise has been focused on helping us to understand the concerns people have, not to force people in any way to make a choice among three alternatives, but rather, to understand their perspectives on the issue of high-level management of nuclear waste. I don't think it's fair to say there have been bad approaches in the past to the management of high-level nuclear waste. I'm very new to this whole field, but my understanding is that the world community as a whole has simply not arrived at the technical solutions with the social acceptability that allows them to move forward. They have focused their work, in a step-by-step approach, on ensuring that there are methods of interim storage that could be considered best practice, but it is the long-term management issues that we're looking at at this stage, and this is not directed by particular practices in the past, it's simply been a matter of not being able to find both technical and economic feasibility and social acceptability yet.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Scherrer.

    Let me first congratulate you for the plain and transparent naming of your organization. It's very refreshing in this day and age not to see Orwellian terms used in an attempt to camouflage the real intent of an organization.

    You asked for advice and suggestions, and members of this committee have certainly offered advice already. I would like to put to you a couple of thoughts along these lines. It seems to me you have, as an organization, two options, a passive examination or an active examination. By that I mean, first, an examination that deals with the situation as it is and how to manage it. You are given a certain quantity of spent fuel, you will be given a certain quantity as projected into the future, and you'll deal with that problem, as Mr. Bigras already has commented, from a technical and a social perspective. The active approach would probably start with the question, do we want to encourage more or less nuclear waste? In other words, how do we want to shape the future? Not having the future shaped by those who produce it, let the future be shaped by you, the organization. Because if you do go into an active mode, you will want to examine all the taxation measures, federal and provincial, that encourage the production of nuclear waste and do nothing about finding ways of reducing it. That is quite an exercise, but it could be a very rewarding one.

    To give you an example, at the federal level, since 1952 billions of dollars of subsidies have been given to the nuclear industry. Every year in the budget there is an allocation. In 1998 alone it was $220 million, this year the figure is $120 million, and every year there is that amount. Do you want to deal with that? Do you want to ask some questions? It seems to me that provincially also there are measures that need to be examined, but all flow from one of the basic questions you may want to examine: do we want to encourage more or less nuclear waste? So the funding of the nuclear industry, it seems to me, and the subsidies to it are of paramount importance.

    Another issue has been raised already by my colleagues, whether electric charges include, and where, and to what extent, and whether in separate funds or not, the whole question of the commissioning costs. In Ontario, in Quebec, in New Brunswick, you name it, the whole issue of the commissioning also needs to be examined, because it is not yet part of the total cost of the waste production. You can't just be, as Mr. Tonks outlined, and Madame Scherrer too, dealing with this problem in isolation from other components and dimensions. This is why Mr. Reed is commiserating, it's a hell of a difficult task, but if you don't tackle those items, you will not be doing, as far as my ability to judge your assignment goes, your duty.

  (1205)  

    Then we come to the process of the testing and validation of your recommendations, which will be the crunch. We'll certainly look forward, as a committee, to discussing them with you, if you wish to come forward, of course.

    To conclude, then--because this is a subject that lends itself to phenomenally long discussions--I would like to draw to your attention something I find worthwhile from an historical point of view. In the Auditor General's report of 1995, there is this little jewel of a sentence in paragraph 3.53:

Canada's initial schedule, developed in 1978, anticipated that a disposal demonstration program would commence in 1985, with a full-scale facility being operational by 2000.

So I'm sure you're motivated by a high degree of optimism and determination.

    With that, we start the second round with Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

    I apologize for being late and not hearing your presentation, but I have a few questions and comments.

    First, I'm a little concerned that your advisory committee has no western Canadians on it. I think there is expertise there as well on nuclear energy.

    Second, I'm hearing more and more possibility of looking at nuclear energy, for a couple of reasons. The tar sands are the biggest reason. They require a lot of energy, they're using natural gas now to generate the steam for their process. Rising energy costs and the onset of Kyoto are reasons they now are looking at nuclear energy. Do you see that happening on a broader base than just there, as energy costs go up, as environmental concerns go up, etc.?

    I wonder as well how much you have put into your thinking the whole area of terrorism and the potential there. That's what I would hear from my constituents: hey, this is a different world since 9/11, and we're really concerned about the waste and the potential danger if it gets into the wrong hands. I always will remember my visit to Murmansk, looking at that valley with those spent rods lying out in the open and thinking, that's how they're storing their nuclear material. That's pretty scary stuff when you think about where it's going, how long it stays alive, and so on.

  (1210)  

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: You've given a very good example of the kind of thing that is emerging in the initial conversations I've described with certain communities. Those are precisely the kinds of issues that we're trying to understand and are weighing on people's minds. Security definitely is one of those. We now have to turn, in phase two, to deciding how best to develop an analytical framework that accommodates those concerns the public are raising. As well, with those issues that are amenable to research, we have a responsibility to seek out the best possible answers.

    I should also, to some degree, allay the chairman's concerns about the financial questions. In the legislation we are required to examine the financial aspect of any of the options we're putting forward. In our view, that does mean a life cycle analysis of those costs. While I can't tell you precisely what that analysis will look like, I can assure you that the issue of the financial examination is very much, as you would expect in any sustainable development context, one of the key elements we have to look at.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions; I will start with the most important one, the one on financing.

    I reread sections 9 to 11 of the act; among other things, they stipulate the initial shares from each of the four companies, namely Hydro-Québec, the New Brunswick Power Corporation, Atomic Energy Canada and Ontario Power Generation. I was quite surprised to see the amount that each of those companies had to pay, especially Atomic Energy Canada, that plans to spend $10 million for the fund and the financing.

    I look at those numbers and draw a comparison with what you said earlier, namely that the federal government, over the years, has encouraged the nuclear industry to the tune of $5 billion per year. Atomic Energy of Canada's net profit in 2000—I do not have the most recent figures—was $43.3 million and the federal contribution was $137 million. In our view, the company obviously has the means to pay more than the $10 million required at the outset.

    It is important to take into account what is going on elsewhere. In 1998, the Seaborn Panel stated that the estimated cost of a long-term combustible nuclear waste management site was between 8.7 and $13.3 billion, in 1991 dollars. That translates into $15 billion nowadays for most countries, including France and the United States.

    I would like to know how you will ensure that the choice that is made between the various recommendations will not be based on the amounts that are currently considered unacceptable in terms of achieving the dumping objectives as recommended by the Seaborn Panel and some foreign countries, and that it will not jeopardize public safety.

    Mr. Chairman, it is critical that Canada's choice not take into account only the financial restrictions imposed on the firm, when Atomic Energy of Canada, as I said, made significant profits. How can you guarantee us that the financial resources you have will enable us to make a safe choice and that the decision will not be made solely on the basis of established financial limits?

    Mr. Richard Dicerni: Thank you for that question. I would first like to give you some reference points.

    First of all, the Government of Canada reviewed the situation before setting amounts based on the percentages of nuclear waste accumulated by companies.

    Secondly, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission imposes restrictions on the amounts we can put into safe funds. In fact, the company I work for, Ontario Power Generation, is to appear April 10 before the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; at that time, we will tell them how we plan to set money aside, be it for decommissioning or nuclear waste. So if we don't manage to convince them—I do, however, think we have enough information to do so— that will have an impact on the operating licences for our nuclear plants.

    As far as we are concerned, it is not just a question of the $500 million we have to pay and the $100 million we set aside every year in the pot; it is more a question of the type of global commitment that will ensure that the funds will be there.

    So we will appear on April 10 with the Government of Ontario. The documents are already available, and I would be pleased to forward them to you.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Is the general fund that should enable you to set up long-term nuclear waste management facilities similar to what the Seaborn Panel suggested in 1998? The estimated cost of a facility was between 8.7 and $13.3 billion, in 1991 dollars.

    Will the envelope you have to reach that same objective, regardless of the method chosen, be sufficient for you to reach that objective? There seems to be a significant discrepancy between the sums you have available and what the Seaborn Panel, as well as some countries, have recommended.

    M. Richard Dicerni: I would like to make two comments.

    First of all, the document in question, which will be discussed on April 10, deals directly with that issue. We believe that the envelope we have will provide us with the returns we need to make up the difference between today's levels and what will be needed in 10, 15 or 20 years.

    We are not talking about a solution that will be implemented over the next two or three years. It will take a certain number of years before all the consultation and environmental approval processes are carried out. So if we are looking at a solution for 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, we are confident that the funds necessary for implementation will have been set aside and that there will be enough money.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: That means that all the ideas on the table can be implemented with the financial framework that you have. Is that what you are telling us?

  (1220)  

    M. Richard Dicerni: Yes.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Then how do you explain the gap between the Seaborn Panel's estimates and your current level of funding?

    M. Richard Dicerni: It was the government, in fact, that set these amounts. The government provided an initial $600 million or so, and that amount is slated to increase by around $110 million each year. With interest and investments, as well as the annual contributions, there will be enough money accumulated in 15 to 20 years to implement the solutions.

    As I told you, however, all of this will be laid out in a formal presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on April 10, and we have very solid documentation that I believe will answer your questions.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have another concern, Mr. Chairman, which relates to the composition of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. One of the Seaborn Panel's strong recommendations was to see whether it might be possible to create an arm's length agency with a broad mandate to examine the various scenarios. You are telling us today that there will be an advisory council, but it will be made up of the nuclear energy corporations which will be setting it up, is that not right? Or are you telling me that it is the other way around?

    The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is made up of the nuclear energy corporations. Who will appoint the members of the advisory council?

    M. Richard Dicerni: We have to operate within the legislative framework that the government has proposed and that Parliament has adopted. I agree with you that the Seaborn Panel had recommended a different approach. The government did not choose to go that route. We can only operate within the context approved by Parliament.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: In that case, what guarantees can you give us that, in proposing choices and making recommendations to the government, the nuclear energy corporations will not be in a conflict of interest situation, since they will have to make decisions and therefore provide recommendations, but will in fact be acting as both judge and jury?

    I just want some guarantees, basically. I know that the legislative framework exists.

    Mr. Richard Dicerni: The second part of your first question dealt with the composition of the advisory council. As far as I am aware, the council members have no past connections with the corporations. We have asked people like David Crombie, a former federal minister and former mayor of Toronto, Helen Cooper, former mayor of Kingston and former chair of a provincial agency, the president of Lakehead University, a political scientist from the University of Toronto, and someone from the Engineering Physics Department of the École Polytechnique de Montréal. We could provide a list of all the members to the committee, but these are not people from the nuclear energy corporations. We tried to find people who could give independent advice to Ms. Dowdeswell as well as to the board.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to pick up on the projections of the volume of the waste you're going to deal with. Has any decision been made as to whether the assumption is going to be based on the existing plants, or is there going to be an allocation for disposal of waste of a larger volume with the potential for new plants coming on, or even the possibility of waste being imported from other parts of the world?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: The working assumption right now is that we have to deal with as much as 3.8 million fuel bundles over the life of the existing plants. There has been no discussion about whether we would ever consider import of waste, and there has been no discussion as to whether there would be new and additional waste created.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Some of the plants are looking at the possibility of extending their lifespan, and that would increase the number of bundles. Has that been taken into account?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: I would have to go back and look at the figures to see whether that's true or not, as I don't want to mislead you. I assume there is some flexibility in that number, but not a significant amount.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Have there been assumptions made or has planning taken into account the decommissioning of the plants, in particular the one where there seems a good prospect at this point of decommissioning, at Lepreau in New Brunswick? Has it been taken into account how those wastes are going to be dealt with?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: It has not yet, but as we examine the situation, the current state of play, whether it's refurbishment or decommissioning, will have to be part of the study.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Forgive me, but I remain very skeptical that the amount of the trust funds is going to be sufficient. Historically, all things nuclear have been underbudgeted. The Darlington nuclear plant started at $3.5 billion, was bumped up to $5 billion, came in at $15 billion or $16 billion. The refurbishment of Pickering A is another gargantuan project that's way over budget and way over time. Are you leaving the door open for future contributions to this trust fund? I know you say it's going to build up itself, with proper investment etc., and that's all very good, but the way estimates have been made historically, there has always been an enormous gap at the end of the day. I'm just wondering if you're preparing for that possibility.

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: I should assure the committee members that in our mandate we are required to present a funding formula for the long-term management of high-level waste when that approach is recommended. So we see it as part of our responsibility to examine that question and make a recommendation.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to follow up on the technical safety issue. You're under a very short timeframe for carrying out your mandate, and the matter of urgency Mr. Mills has referred to with nuclear energy to fuel continuing value-added activities is one that seems to be driving your panel to come up with solutions that are compatible with sustainable development and the community interest. So it seems to me that you would very quickly have to take off the table technologies that do not fit the benchmarks you yourself have indicated you would like to establish. Perhaps this question is somewhat premature, but I'll put it to you anyway. Can you tell me whether you're prepared at this point to state with some degree of certainty that underground storage is technically safe?

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: I'm not in a position to declare that definitively at this stage. We haven't undertaken the study to my satisfaction. We haven't yet developed the criteria for the assessment, in which I indicated the public would be very much a part. The thing that is driving us is very specifically the timeframe identified in the legislation, and I am not working to any other agenda. That's my current direction. We do know a great deal of research has already been undertaken, both in Canada and in other countries, and we have already established the kinds of linkages with other countries and with academic institutions that will allow us to use the information that is available. Certainly, the three options that have been presented appear to be reasonable ones that have been studied here and around the world. There remain questions we have to satisfy ourselves about, but other options that are talked about in some circles seem to be ones the world community agrees are much further out and are really not on the table at this point.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Well, as you can see, the level of interest on the part of committee members is quite high, and perhaps increasing. We appreciate very much the fact that you took the initiative to come forward and inform this committee of your work. Further, we appreciate very much your intention to test, as you put it in your paper, and validate your recommendations before you finalize your report to the government. That is certainly a very fine initiative, for which we applaud you all, and it's also very refreshing--it doesn't happen every day.

    To conclude, as a footnote, it seems to me your mandate is broad enough that you will have to say something about energy production and energy consumption, because that's where it all ends up, in waste. Therefore, your mandate offers a terrific opportunity, and perhaps a very timely one, considering the Kyoto protocol and other dimensions, to examine why we produce so much waste, how we want to manage in future the production of that waste, possibly reducing it, and how we want to shape the energy future. In that respect you could produce some very interesting and useful material. I don't need to tell you that, I'm sure.

    So we thank you very much again and wish you well.

    Ms. Elizabeth Dowdeswell: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for allowing us this opportunity. I sincerely hope there will be many more opportunities during our existence to have conversations with you.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.