AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 1, 2001

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We're meeting today to deal with Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

We have with us today, from the Ontario Power Generation Inc., Mr. Richard Dicerni, executive vice-president and corporate secretary; Helen Howes, vice-president, sustainable development; Ken Nash

[Translation]

vice-president, Nuclear Waste Management Division.

[English]

I will say to my colleagues and to the people in attendance that since Ontario Power Generation is as large and effective as it is, and since Hydro-Québec chose not to appear, unless my colleagues find difficulty with this decision, I will allow a 20-minute presentation and then we'll move on to questions. Does anyone have problems with that?

We will proceed. I invite you to make your presentation of 20 minutes. We will then have questions, and you will have an opportunity for closing remarks.

We suspect that they may call a vote in the House. If they do, it will be a 30-minute bell. So we know we will get your presentation in.

I won't stall you any longer, so please proceed.

Mr. Richard Dicerni (Executive Vice-President and Corporate Secretary, Ontario Power Generation Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Dicerni, would you name yourselves before speaking, for the record.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: My name is Richard Dicerni. With me today are my colleagues Helen Howes and Ken Nash.

Thank you for inviting us to present on Bill C-27. Before I provide specific comments on the bill before you, I'd like to briefly discuss nuclear power's role in meeting the energy needs of people in Ontario.

[Translation]

Nuclear electricity generation is extremely important to the Province of Ontario, and to Canada. It has many benefits—nuclear power is economic, it is clean, and it is safe.

In Ontario, nuclear energy plays a big role by providing a reliable source of electricity. For example, last year, Ontario's nuclear stations provided close to 45% of the electricity used in the province. Nuclear power will provide an even larger percentage in the future.

Beginning next year, contingent on regulatory approvals, the nuclear sector's contribution to Ontario's electricity supply will grow as we return the Pickering A station to service. The four units of this currently-laid-up station have the capability of providing 16 terawatt hours of electricity annually—two and a half times the annual electricity consumption of the greater Ottawa area.

• 1110

The additional supply from Pickering A will be welcome given Ontario's continuously growing electricity demand. It will be especially welcome since nuclear power is clean power, free of the emissions that cause smog, acid rain and global warming.

Nuclear power is important in helping us meet these environmental challenges. In 2000, Ontario's operating nuclear stations avoided the emission of 60,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxide, a major contributor to smog, as well as 50 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. If Ontario Hydro had built coal-fired stations instead of nuclear stations in Ontario, the additional nitrogen oxide emissions would be equivalent to having another three million passenger cars on the road. We also estimate that Canada's current CO2 emissions would rise 7% without the multifaceted significant contribution of Ontario's nuclear stations.

Now I'd like to talk briefly about Bill C-27.

[English]

I'd like to briefly now talk about Bill C-27. OPG supports this bill, and we support it for a number of reasons. While we currently have state-of-the-art interim above-ground storage facilities for used nuclear fuel at our nuclear stations, there is an important need to address long-term nuclear waste management now, and not leave it as a legacy issue for our children and future generations.

Other countries with nuclear power are also in the process of making decisions on long-term fuel management. In our view, Bill C-27 provides the next step in a process that has been unfolding since the late 1970s.

In discussing proposed legislation, I'll focus my comments on four areas: first, our commitment to examine a wide range of used fuel management options through continuing research; second, the actual creation of WMO; third, financial considerations pertaining to WMO; and last, the importance we attach to openness and transparency in this process.

So there is a wide range of options. The task at hand is to develop a plan that has fully considered all of the options for long-term used fuel management. Together with other nuclear waste owners—a number of whom are represented here today—we are conducting research into those options. We have, for example, funded research into used fuel disposal technology for the past 15 years, and we are currently the main source of funds for this work. We have developed used fuel transportation technology for CANDU reactors and we have developed and implemented safe and above-ground storage technology consistent with international standards.

We have diversified our research across Canada, including the funding of a research chair in nuclear fuel disposal chemistry at the University of Western Ontario. We have information exchange and joint research programs with leading waste management organizations in several countries, and we participate in international programs such as those of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD as well as the Research Program of the European Commission. This broad-based research effort will provide a good technical foundation for the WMO's review of alternative management plans, and it'll help provide the means to implement the plan that, at the end of the day, is selected by the Government of Canada. As one of the companies that will be involved in WMO, OPG is open to looking at all of the options, and we intend to help ensure that all options are indeed thoroughly examined.

The second series of comments focus on the WMO and the process it will follow. The bill requires the industry to establish and fund WMO, to review options, and to conduct research into the various approaches for long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The WMO will then implement the option chosen by the government. This is similar to the approach that has been used in Sweden and Finland.

• 1115

The bill outlines the parameters of the study, the requirement for broad public consultation, and it specifies a timeline for completing this work. The WMO is required to have a plan submitted to the Governor in Council within three years of proclamation. There is indeed a fine balance between producing a plan within those prescribed time limits and ensuring that there is adequate dialogue involving all stakeholders, so that the full range of societal views can be considered.

Five or six years ago I was the deputy minister of energy and environment in the province of Ontario and had an oversight role over the Interim Waste Authority, which was an organization set up by the province to find three waste sites in the greater Toronto area. I came to appreciate during that exercise the importance of balancing the need for public input, public involvement, and public consultation with the need to achieve a timely outcome.

As one of the companies that will be involved in the future of WMO I can assure you that we will do our utmost to help find a balance between timeliness and full consultation. OPG is committed to the principle of an open and accessible WMO and to ensuring that the views of all stakeholders are taken into account. In this context three years is not a very long period of time—if you reference international standards—for conducting this type of study.

A timely outcome will require a concerted and determined effort by all parties—including potentially this committee down the road—in finding a solution for long-term used fuel management. This is very important for the communities that would be involved, for the nuclear industry, and—from a narrower perspective—the electricity consumers in the province of Ontario.

The third point I'd like to turn to now is the financial aspects,

[Translation]

the financial aspects. The proposed legislation defines the criteria that must be met to secure and control the necessary funding. We agree with this portion of the Bill.

The legislation sets out that long-term nuclear fuel waste management should be financed by segregated trust funds, which is consistent with the approach used by other countries with nuclear facilities. Contributions to these trust funds are to be made by the companies that own the used fuel. The funds can be used for no other purpose than nuclear fuel waste management.

Bill C-27 would see an immediate $500 million contribution by OPG to a trust fund. In addition, OPG would be required to make annual contributions of $100 million. We have analyzed these financial requirements and believe they represent a fair assessment.

OPG is ready to provide the necessary financing. When we were created in 1999, we established and began to set aside money into segregated funds to deal with long-term nuclear waste management and the eventual decommissioning of our stations.

These funds reflect OPG's commitment to sustainable development and the principles of environmental stewardship that require us to responsibly address the potential environmental impacts of our operations.

Fourth, I would like to deal with the provisions for openness and transparency.

The fourth and final aspect of the Bill that I want to comment on are the provisions for openness and transparency. The public interest must clearly be at the forefront of this exercise. Several mechanisms will ensure openness and transparency.

First, the Bill requires the WMO to carry out public consultations before formulating a plan.

Second, the WMO must also establish an Advisory Council, whose comments on the WMO's study and triennial reports are to be made public.

Third, upon receipt of the WMO report, the Minister of Natural Resources may also undertake consultations.

• 1120

Fourth, the WMO's study and reports to the Minister must also be made public.

Fifth, the option for managing used fuel waste selected by the Governor in Council will be subject to a federal environmental assessment required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The EA will involve public consultations.

And sixth, if the EA is accepted, then the waste management plan will require construction and operating licences under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. This process will also involve public consultations.

In summary, the Bill includes several mechanisms which will ensure transparency in the development and selection of a plan. We are confident that this will allow for the transparency of the whole process.

[English]

Those are my specific remarks pertaining to the bill. In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having invited us to address the committee. We believe that the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act is an important piece of legislation. As I mentioned, we are supportive of this bill and are prepared to accept our responsibilities for nuclear waste management, and we had initiated in some respects the implementation of this bill—at least financial aspects of it—prior to the bill even having been introduced.

The new legislation promises to help us develop an acceptable approach for long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. It is demanding of the industry, we believe, appropriately inclusive of stakeholders, and gives the federal government final authority for a timely decision on the best approach for Canada.

With the dedicated efforts of all involved, Bill C-27 should help ensure that used fuel will be managed in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, cost-effective, and integrated manner. We look forward to working with our industry partners and all stakeholders to identify an approach that is societally, environmentally, and financially acceptable.

My colleagues and I thank you again and are prepared to answer any questions, either now or after the other industry partners have made their presentation.

Merci, Monsieur.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I had allowed you 20 minutes and you used 13, so that will benefit. I think we can hear all three presentations before having to go for a vote, if they call one, because a surprise vote is a 30-minute bell.

Questions after will be addressed to whomever the members wish to address them to.

The next group to present is from the New Brunswick Power Corporation. We have with us, Mr. Rod White, vice-president, nuclear; Laurie Comeau, manager, health physics; and Mr. Peter Dykeman, general counsel and corporate secretary.

We have planned around 10 minutes, so the time is yours.

Mr. Rod White (Vice-President, Nuclear, New Brunswick Power Corporation): Do we have 10 minutes or do we have 20, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: You don't have 20 minutes, but if you go to 12, I won't interrupt. Whenever I turn on my light, it's because I'm becoming impatient.

Mr. White.

Mr. Rod White: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you and members of the standing committee.

New Brunswick Power thanks you for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-27. My name is Rod White. I'm the vice-president, nuclear. With me today is Peter Dykeman, our corporate secretary and general counsel, and Laurie Comeau, our manager of health physics.

New Brunswick Power operates Point Lepreau and Saint John, a 600-megawatt CANDU reactor, which is a major component of our diversified generating system in New Brunswick.

Nuclear energy is extremely important to New Brunswick Power, and so are the provisions of Bill C-27. In principle, N.B. Power supports the creation of the waste management organization to do the work and the research necessary to select approaches for long-term management of irradiated nuclear fuel.

The bill will enable the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources, to select a proposal from the waste management organization for the long-term management of irradiated nuclear fuel.

N.B. Power has been among the first of the domestic utilities to routinely use on-site, above-ground storage of irradiated nuclear fuel in concrete canisters. This system of storage offers safe, economical, and environmentally acceptable storage for an intermediate period or longer.

• 1125

We agree that long-term storage of irradiated nuclear fuel should be studied through the proposed waste management organization, and information should be gathered that will allow the selection of a method of long-term management of irradiated nuclear fuel.

While N.B. Power supports Bill C-27 in principle, it feels the bill is unfairly balanced in the following areas: first, it gives all the decision-making authority to the federal government while giving the utilities the cost of carrying out the studies and consulting with the public and various constituencies that fall under federal authority, such as aboriginals, and carrying all responsibility to manage irradiated nuclear fuel. As we understood our agreements when entering into the nuclear programs in 1994, there was an expectation and a commitment that the federal government would in fact provide resources to establish such a facility.

Second, it gives insufficient regard to federal responsibilities for its legacy issues, future contributors of irradiated nuclear fuel, and appropriate regional representation across the country, as environmental issues compel the increased use of nuclear energy in our country.

Third, it fails to provide for a continuing role for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, in assuming obligations for its own irradiated fuel and acting as the agent of the federal government in continuing to lead and promote the use of nuclear energy in Canada.

Fourth, it counterproductively taxes public funds held by the waste management organization to establish a waste management solution for Canada. You would know that as a crown corporation we are tax exempt.

Our major recommendations with regard to this bill are as follows: first, we believe that AECL should be identified as a nuclear energy corporation on behalf of the federal crown, looking after many of the issues we've spoken to. They carry on the role of being the day-to-day federal manager of the nuclear program in Canada, and we believe they should have a voice at the table and a continuing role both in technical support and being a voice for other parts of Canada.

Second, we believe that a governance issue may need to be visited in the bill. We think there should be one vote per nuclear energy corporation. The way the bill is written today, it allows us to be open to an inequality of balance, and we need a balancing mechanism to ensure that our voice is heard and is able to be effective in carrying on the work of the waste management organization. As I said before, we don't believe the waste organization should be subject to taxation.

Under paragraph 4 in our brief, New Brunswick Power has set out some 35 specific recommendations for potential changes to the bill. I will elaborate on a number of these.

Paragraph 4.1: we think the title of the act should refer to the long-term management of irradiated nuclear fuel rather than fuel waste. Irradiated nuclear fuel, we believe, is not necessarily waste, but rather a commodity that may have commercial value. Significant inventories of fissionable material that remain in the used fuel following discharge from the reactor may in the future become commercially attractive.

Paragraph 4.2(a): as I said, we believe the definition of “nuclear energy corporation” should include AECL. The bill recognizes that others, such as Bruce Power, which may choose to build or expand facilities in the future, would become members of it as well.

Paragraph 4.2(b): for the purposes of this bill, N.B. Power recommends that irradiated nuclear fuel be considered waste only when it is loaded for transport to a long-term storage facility, not as it comes out of the reactor, as it's currently phrased.

Paragraph 4.2(c): the words “long term” in the definition of “management” should be clarified by the recommendation in (b).

Paragraph 4.2(d): the word “beneficiary” should be defined, because clause 21 allows withdrawal by a beneficiary under some circumstances but does not define the word.

If more money is accumulated by the waste management organization than is needed, the excess should be returned proportionally to the nuclear energy corporation.

Paragraph 4.3: clause 3 needs amendment to include the ongoing management of waste nuclear fuel by the waste management organization following the decision of the Governor in Council. There's an anomaly in the act because the act is limited to a decision while the act requires also implementation and reporting beyond their decision and allows further decision-making if the first technology fails.

• 1130

Clause 5 should state that the act always applies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, not just while it is an owner of nuclear fuel waste for the foregoing reasons.

Subclause 6(1) of the bill should provide for one vote per nuclear energy corporation in the management of the waste management organization. If not, the structures, powers, and voting control of the waste management organization need to be defined. As I said, we believe AECL should be defined as a nuclear energy corporation, should fund the liabilities of the federal crown, and in some way there needs to be representation for the rest of the provinces in Canada, which we would anticipate some time in the future may enter into the nuclear business and so their concerns should be represented.

Subclause 6(2) should provide for cessation of membership in the waste management organization in the event a nuclear energy corporation should decommission its reactors or sell its nuclear operations. Currently there's no out for the named nuclear energy corporations.

In order to ensure that the revenues of the trust are not subject to income tax, or GST, or PST, or HST, subclauses 9(3) and 9(4), or equivalent, should be added as follows in 9(3): “All income earned by the trust fund referred to in this section shall be exempt from taxation under the Income Tax Act of Canada.” And subclause 9(4) should be added as follows: “The Waste Management Organization shall be exempt from all GST/HST and PST.”

The reference to paragraph 16(3)(a) in subclause 10(3) of the act should be referenced more appropriately to subclause 16(3). The minister's approval is in 16(3) and not in 16(3)(a).

In subclause 12(1) three years may not be sufficient time to complete the study and an option should be provided to deal with additional time, and that should be included in the act.

Clause 21 should be broadened somewhat to allow for reasons beyond the control of the waste management organization to implement the approach selected by the Governor in Council under clause 15 other than the technical reason. For example, force majeure, environmental, political reasons, and aboriginal issues may interfere and be beyond the control of the waste management organization.

In closing, I wish to repeat that N.B. Power's main concerns are: one, AECL should be identified as a nuclear energy corporation on behalf of the federal crown; two, the bill should provide for one vote in the waste management organization per nuclear energy corporation; and three, the waste management organization should not be subjected to taxation whether income or sales tax.

The remainder of the items are in detail in our brief and I would presume that in your detailed review of the bill you will take those into account.

In summary and conclusion, I wish to thank you again for inviting New Brunswick Power to address the committee on Bill C-27, which is an important piece of legislation. N.B. Power wishes to see it enacted with the recommendations we have made here. We are pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm smiling because you say you support the bill and you'd like us to trash it and start over. They're all very good suggestions, don't get me wrong.

We now move on to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and we have with us Dr. David Torgerson, senior vice-president, technology, and Doug Christensen, general manager, external relations. You have around 10 minutes, please.

Dr. David Torgerson (Senior Vice-President, Technology, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to introduce Dr. Doug Champ, a technical expert on waste from Chalk River laboratories, and Mr. David Tregunno from our corporate affairs office, who are here with me today.

• 1135

AECL is a world-class nuclear technology and engineering company that provides customers in Canada and overseas with a full range of advanced energy products and services. We are a crown corporation with a commercial as well as a public policy implementation mandate, which is to create value for our customers and for our shareholder, the federal government, by managing the Canadian nuclear platform responsibly and cost-effectively by leveraging the platform to deliver nuclear products and services and by paying dividends from profitable growth to maintain the nuclear platform in Canada.

Our vision is very concise and simple: it is to become the top worldwide supplier of technology-based nuclear products and services, including radioactive waste management services.

AECL has the most experience of any Canadian organization in the field of radioactive waste management. AECL and its predecessor have had the responsibility of providing waste management services to Canadian nuclear waste producers for over 50 years. We are responsible for the management of low-, intermediate-, and high-level radioactive wastes arising from such activities as defence, medical applications, universities, from prototype CANDU reactors, and from our research reactors. There are some attached figures to this speech that indicate some of the concepts, designs, and facilities that AECL has developed over the years.

A substantial portion of Canada's investment in nuclear research and development performed by AECL scientists and engineers has focused on radioactive waste, including nuclear fuel waste, management and disposal technology and know-how.

We estimate that the federal government has invested, over a 50-year period, approximately $1 billion in developing AECL's integrated capability, experience, and know-how, from concept to operation in radioactive waste to nuclear fuel waste management.

We were responsible for the research and development on deep geologic disposal of high-level wastes, and we are providing services to Natural Resources Canada through our low-level radioactive waste management office. We know waste; that's part of our business.

This extensive capability can be put to use to the benefit of all Canadians. Indeed, our focus is to ensure that Canadians benefit from their investment. We believe this is achievable through the provision of AECL's services during the study phase and the actual implementation of the long-term management approach for nuclear fuel waste that is ultimately chosen by the Governor in Council.

It is against this background that we have reviewed Bill C-27 with considerable interest. Our submission to this committee is one of support. We support the principles of the bill. We believe the framework it establishes is essential to move forward and deal with the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. AECL is prepared to actively participate in the successful implementation of the act. We will make our services and technical expertise available. In so doing, we will work to achieve a return on the federal government's investment.

AECL fully supports the principles and the intent of the bill. The principles are: establishment of the waste management organization; user pay and the establishment of trust funds; and the Government of Canada's role to decide on the long-term approach to nuclear fuel waste management. The proposed legislative framework promotes a fully transparent implementation process that provides and encourages opportunities for a full range of participation. This includes participation in the preparation of studies, in the development of recommendations, and in actual implementation. We recognize that throughout all phases a balanced approach that takes into consideration a range of needs and interests will need to be developed, monitored, and maintained.

In our view, full transparency is essential for the government and for the public to have confidence in the successful implementation of this legislation.

AECL supports the legislative framework created by Bill C-27. This is a sound approach, in our opinion. We recognize the need for the waste management organization that is required to be established by Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec, and New Brunswick Power. This corporation will propose approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste and on a non-profit basis will be responsible for implementation of the approach that is selected by the Governor in Council.

Through the proposed legislative framework, the federal government will select the best option that will provide a comprehensive, cost-effective, and integrated approach to long-term management of nuclear fuel waste in Canada. Furthermore, it establishes that the financial responsibility lies with the owners of the nuclear fuel waste.

• 1140

In order for it to be responsive to the requirements set out in Bill C-27, including the three-year schedule for preparation of the study that includes public consultation, the waste management organization must access all relevant and reliable sources of technical information, technology, and expertise.

In conclusion, Bill C-27 is supported by AECL. An appropriate approach is being proposed to respond to an important issue and one that needs to be addressed in a fully transparent manner.

We look forward to working with the nuclear energy corporations in fulfilling our implementation obligations. We are ready to ensure, to the best of our ability, that Canadians benefit from their investment in research and development and from AECL's scientific, engineering, and management capability in waste management technology and services.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you all.

Before I go to questions from my colleagues, for those who don't know when this bill went to second reading, went through a vote, it was the first time I'd seen, in my short eight years, that 100% of members voted for it. It wasn't a request for unanimous consent. Everyone stood and it was 100%. I want to mention this because I've never seen that. I talked to MPs much more senior than I am and they had never seen that. So it's a good indication.

Unless I have objections from my colleagues, we'll go for the first round at four minutes. If you think you want longer you'll mention it, but there will be sufficient rounds whereby we can exhaust all the questions you will have. Is that okay? That is the question and the answer. So the ones who will be cut off will be the people answering. If the question is too long and the light comes on—I apologize for this right now—it means I'm becoming impatient.

We'll start with Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the witnesses for coming before us today.

I certainly was one of the ones who voted for the principle of the bill at second reading in the House. I, along with, it sounds like, most of you support the principle of the bill. However, there are some parts of the bill about which I think Canadians need some reassurance that their interests are primary, and I don't think they're there at this point. I think I did hear a number of you express the need for absolute transparency in the bill, in the process, and I have some concerns about that. It doesn't seem to be there to me.

It seems to me that it's a very closed process. I support the idea that the producers of nuclear waste are responsible for looking after it and paying for looking after it. I think that's a perfectly reasonable principle. But the creation of the waste management organization and the reporting of the work of that management organization seems too closed to me. There's no requirement, as was recommended by the Seaborn report, for an outside body to have input, for an outside body to appoint the advisory council or some outside oversight that's added there. It would only seem reasonable to me that if the producers of the waste are establishing an advisory council they would establish people with the right expertise, but also people who would have some sympathy for the position of the industry. I think there needs to be some outside oversight there.

The other part I have a concern with is that, as someone mentioned, the reporting of the waste management organization should be public, but I can't see that in the act. There's a requirement for the waste management organization to report to the minister yearly, but there's no requirement to report to Parliament, and there's no requirement for the minister to do anything more than make a statement on that report in Parliament. I don't think that's sufficient. I think if we're going to have this full transparency that you spoke about, there's a need to have that annual report go to Parliament and be publicly available for scrutiny by Canadians. So I have concerns there.

• 1145

The other concern I have—and I'll cut it off at that until a next round—is I think Mr. Torgerson mentioned, and someone else as well, that they had been involved in paying for research for 15 years. AECL has been in the process of doing research on nuclear waste disposal for 15 years, and nobody has yet come up with a process acceptable to the Canadian public, as determined by the Seaborn report again.

What in the world makes your group think that in three years you can come up with the answer nobody else could come up with in 15 years before you? I think that's a real concern as well.

I'll just ask for some answers to those and ask for another round later on, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The only question I saw there was the very last one.

Mr. David Chatters: I would like a comment.

The Chair: There remain 40 seconds for the response. If we're going to take four minutes to ask the questions, we won't get answers. I'm very sorry.

Dr. David Torgerson: I have to answer this as a scientist, and as a scientist I have to say there is a technical solution to the permanent disposal of nuclear fuel waste, on which I believe we need much more work about how to communicate it effectively to the public. That has been our downfall, but I believe the technology is extremely robust.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the witnesses for their presentation.

As you said earlier, Mr. Chairman, everyone would have voted for the bill at second reading. Everyone agrees with the principle of nuclear waste management; that's obvious. Every witness who appeared before us agreed on the principle of managing nuclear waste.

However, Mr. White, for his part, has made enormous efforts because he came here with a long list of recommendations. I rather agree with various elements.

Mr. Chairman, you were saying earlier that there was an agreement in principle, but there is in there some recommendations that I would support rather easily. If we want the bill to be passed unanimously by Parliament, we will certainly have to make some significant amendments to it. In any case, Mr. Chatters asked many questions. Perhaps I should leave the seconds or minutes remaining to allow you to answer the questions that Mr. Chatters has asked earlier. It would be helpful to me as well. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Dicerni.

[English]

Mr. Richard Dicerni: Thank you.

Perhaps I could address the issue of transparency. I would make four points.

One, there has to be some sort of balance between getting the job done and, on the other hand, ensuring full participation in consultation. I think during second reading—and I read the debates—the matter was discussed in the House, where people were concerned, for example, that if you have a three-year clock you won't have enough consultation because you're force-fitting a specific constraint on the consultation and the process. It's a balancing act.

When I refer to my previous job in the environment, I know some of the environmental legislation can be a never-ending source of consultation, discussion, and further consultation. At some point in time you have to strike a balance as to an adequate amount of input, and then you put forth a proposal. That's comment one.

Comment two is that I tried in my remarks to briefly address some of the processes in the legislation that will permit openness. At the end of the day, if this thing is not broadly supported, it ain't going to work.

We know, as one company, that we will need public involvement in this process in order to make it successful. We wish it to succeed. We're going to put $500 million into this. Every year we're going to put in $100 million. People who buy electricity in Ontario are going to be contributing to this. As a friend of mine says, “Pretty soon you're talking real money” if you're putting in $100 million every year. We don't want this to be a never-ending process. We want to have an outcome that is societally acceptable and financially responsible.

Briefly, I'll make two other points. Concerning the advisory committee, obviously we would want to have one that is helpful to the outcome, not one that is simply a mirror of the industry.

On the other hand, we think it's useful that the industry or the WMO should be appointing it because we are the ones who have the accountability. We are the ones putting this money in. And again, there are fairly significant amounts of money being put into this.

• 1150

Lastly, regarding the various reports, my understanding is that the three-year report is there through the environmental process and through the CNSC process. All of these will involve some measure of consultation, so I think on balance there's an adequate consultation.

I see the chairman's light on, so I'll shut up.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just supposed you'd make this point: our party did in fact vote in favour of this on second reading, but if you look at my speech and those of some of the other members, you'd realize we have some serious reservations about the bill the way it's prepared at this point.

Dr. Torgerson, as I read the bill as it is, the approach of transmutation—using that kind of approach to disposal—is not even considered. Am I reading the bill right in that regard?

Dr. David Torgerson: I believe the bill allows for a number of options to be looked at, but you are referring to the destruction of waste through some transmutation method, either by burning the waste in a reactor or using accelerators to destroy waste. I'll only say that AECL has ongoing research in the destruction of nuclear waste in reactors, but there are also many other viable technologies, and I understand all of these technologies will be assessed by the WMO.

Mr. Joe Comartin: How much of the $1 billion you've spent on disposal up to this point, or on research into disposal, would have been spent on alternatives to storage?

Dr. David Torgerson: Alternatives to storage?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Either above- or below-ground—

Dr. David Torgerson: Most of the effort, in fact, has dealt with permanent disposal of the nuclear fuel waste in geological disposal, but the rest of the amount has been spent on such matters as decommissioning, dealing with low-level waste, dealing with medical isotopes, and dealing with university wastes, which we are managing on a day-to-day basis at Chalk River laboratories. If you would like a technical opinion on that, I can refer your question to Dr. Champ, who could give you more details.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Perhaps, being aware of time, we could have some information from AECL subsequent to this meeting, with a breakdown as to how much has been spent on storage and how much on other methodologies.

One more question, Mr. Chair.

The United States has been spending a fair amount on research, specifically on alternatives to storage. I think they've allocated contracts to a variety of sources of well over $1 billion U.S. at this point, a lot since 1998-99. Are we participating in any of those studies with the United States?

Dr. David Torgerson: We have, over the years, done a number of contracts with the Department of Energy in the United States on various aspects of permanent disposal of nuclear fuel waste. This has been ongoing for many, many years.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do we have that information as well, as to which ones we're cooperating with them on?

Dr. David Torgerson: Yes, we can provide that information.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Is any other research going on in conjunction with places elsewhere in the world—other than the United States?

Dr. David Torgerson: Yes, there's research going on all over the world on the permanent disposal of waste. In fact, in Finland, they have now defined a site for the permanent disposal of their waste and are proceeding within the next couple of years with a program of intensive research at that site.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But that's for storage.

Dr. David Torgerson: That is for permanent disposal of their waste.

The Chair: Thank you very much. If you do have information to provide, do it through the clerk, who will share it with all members. This invitation is to all of you, or to anyone anywhere who has information. We will share it with all members.

Mr. Comartin has shown that in three minutes and twenty-six seconds you are able to ask four questions, so I encourage all of us to observe.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So do I have another 34 seconds?

The Chair: I used up the balance. Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't even attempt it in three minutes and twenty-four seconds. I do have a couple of direct questions and I'll try not to waste too much time leading into them.

This is to the Ontario Power Corporation. New Brunswick Power brought in a number of recommendations here—some of them fairly minor changes to the bill, some of them more technical—and Ontario Power has basically said they're happy with the bill. I'm wondering, after reading the recommendations from New Brunswick, if you would agree with some, any, or most of them.

• 1155

Mr. Richard Dicerni: I have three comments. One, I tried to address in my remarks that I have some doubts regarding the three-year clock. If you look at what's been done internationally, this would be a very tough process to accomplish within three years and not be subject to criticism by external stakeholders that you have rushed the thing through.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Short answers—I have more questions.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: Okay. Secondly, I think there's something to be said regarding the taxation matters that would benefit.

On the issue of one company, one vote, I would defer to the more fundamental principle of rep by pop.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: To New Brunswick Power on the issue, you deliberately set aside the above-ground storage, as long as the irradiated fuel or waste, if you wish, has some commercial value. Was that the direct link between the two? You don't blatantly say that, but I suggest that would be the only reason why you might want to continue above-ground storage of fuel with some commercial value. Am I correct?

Mr. Rod White: Not necessarily. There may be solutions in this formula that are different for different places in the country. Above-ground storage is quite a feasible way of handling the fuel in the short term. We obviously need some long-term solution, which is what this is aimed at, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to rush into it. We could literally go on another 50 years here without finding this solution, by just using above-ground-type storage.

Secondly, in some places in the world nuclear fuel is recycled today. I was in Sellafield, England, last week, and they recycle 96% of some of their fuel. So the economics fit.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I want to just move a little bit to the creation of an advisory council. It states that the members of the advisory council shall be appointed by the governing body of the WMO, and the governing body shall make all reasonable effort to ensure that the advisory council's membership reflects the broad range of individuals.

It doesn't actually direct the WMO to appoint specific individuals from other fields outside the nuclear field. Would you agree or disagree with that? It says in paragraph 8(2)(b):

(b) reflects expertise, in matters of nuclear energy,

(i) in public affairs,

(ii) as needed, in other social sciences;

Who do you think these individuals would be?

Mr. Rod White: As I read that clause in the bill, we see them as being individuals who would bring a variety of society's views, as well as technical understanding of what the recommended solutions are, so they could properly address the two issues. First, are the technical solutions that are being proposed logical in a vetting process and a review process? Second, are they bringing external views of society, in a broader range?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm specifically—

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I encourage my colleagues to do as Mr. Keddy did and manage the four minutes. You did that very well. If the answers are too long, they're your four minutes, so manage them.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In my discussion with the general public and environmental groups, I seem to sense a misconception that the industry, AECL, and the government have already made a decision in favour of the deep geological disposal approach. I think the bureau should be looking at a broad range of alternatives.

I'd like to have maybe a one-minute comment from each of the three witnesses on that issue.

The Chair: Mr. Dicerni.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: We agree with the importance of looking at all options. We recognize that in the past the focus has been perhaps more on deep geological, but I think the bill is quite explicit on the need for all options to be looked at. WMO would not be doing its job if it did not.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Rod White: I believe there may be different solutions in different places and maybe in different timeframes, as I've already explained. We could logically say that we might continue with above-ground storage for 50 years or 100 years, before we'd want to move to another solution that might be quite acceptable to ourselves and to the public. That might be different for a different region in the country.

• 1200

The Chair: Dr. Torgerson.

Dr. David Torgerson: We agree there is sufficient flexibility in the legislation to allow all other opportunities and options to be looked at over this three-year period.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I'm going to follow up on Ben's comment a little more. For the enlightenment of the committee, could somebody tell me, given the three-year timeframe when the recommendations have to go to the minister, what options are available?

Dr. David Torgerson: Perhaps from a technical perspective, one option is deep geologic disposal. In other words, we're returning the material to where it came from and has been tied up successfully for many hundreds of millions of years.

The second option is long-term storage. The technology has been developed in Canada and is currently in place, as Mr. White has said, for storage of this fuel for decades.

Mr. David Chatters: Above ground?

Dr. David Torgerson: It's above-ground storage.

There are some further-out technologies, such as transmutation, but these technologies call for reprocessing of the fuel.

Mr. David Chatters: They won't fit in the three-year timeframe.

Dr. David Torgerson: In my view, it's a question of policy, whether you decide to reprocess fuel or not. But there are options within these options I have stated.

For example, you can go to what I would call retrievable disposal, where you make the decision to put the material into permanent disposal, but you don't go the final steps, so you can always retrieve the fuel.

So there are many different options the WMO can assess over the three years, which will turn out to be viable.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for Atomic Energy of Canada.

In your brief, you mention on page 2 that “a substantial portion of Canada's investment...”. It says as well:

[...] by AECL scientists and engineers has focused on radioactive waste, including nuclear fuel waste, management and disposal technology and know-how [...]

Has Atomic Energy of Canada sponsored studies by Canadian or American universities and other university institutions or has it conducted on its own studies, research and visits north of the 49th parallel, in the province of Ontario or in Quebec, in order to dispose of nuclear fuel waste and, if so, how many studies have been carried out, what are the titles of these studies, when have they been carried out and what sites have been visited?

[English]

Dr. David Torgerson: The work we have done has been generic, in the sense that we have not visited a specific site that we would consider for permanent disposal of nuclear fuel waste. We have, however, built a research laboratory in Manitoba, where we have for many years now studied the characteristics of what a permanent site would look like.

We recognize from our work that there are probably many sites in Canada that would be suitable for this purpose, but we have not done site-specific work to define a location for permanent disposal. That would come subsequent to the WMO's look at what the options are.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Did your organization provide funding to universities to undertake studies on nuclear waste?

[English]

Dr. David Torgerson: We have given funds to universities to carry out generic research and development, but as I said, we are not into a site selection phase, and the universities have been doing generic research and development for AECL under contract.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: My third question is this. Is it possible that Atomic Energy of Canada has provided funding to the University of Waterloo to visit, in 1984-85, the Sigma mine in Val-d'Or, the Lamaque mine in Val-d'Or, the Selbaie mine in Joutel, the Matagami mine and the Norita mine in Matagami, in order to obtain information for sample analysis, in order to better understand the geochemical characteristics of the deep water in the whole Canadian Shield area, information that will be useful, in general terms, to the Canadian nuclear waste management program? What was the amount of that funding? Is it still going on? Are you providing other funding to universities, Canadian or American, to undertake studies?

I have asked that question in the House in 1991, ten years ago. I have the answers. We want to know to what universities you are providing funding and what the amounts are.

• 1205

[English]

Dr. David Torgerson: This will be, of course, up to the waste management organization as to which universities and what programs are awarded funding for research and development. I will simply say that in the past many Canadian universities have participated in the programs AECL has had, including—I believe you mentioned—the University of Waterloo in a number of contracts to elucidate such things as groundwater flow, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and many other areas of science and engineering.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I come back to the issue of the vote that has been proposed by Mr. White: one company, one vote. Mr. Dicerni would rather go according to the population. Then Mr. Torgerson told us about the potential site, that has not yet necessarily been identified.

Does that mean that at one point, Ontario Power Generation, which produces around 90% of the nuclear energy and possibly 90% of the waste, could, in a situation where it would have to vote on the determination of potential sites, send the issue over to Mr. White?

That is what I mean about the mechanism, at the level of the vote, at the level of the interests... We know that the “not in my backyard” syndrome exists for nuclear waste just as for any other kind of waste. So, even if everyone agrees on the management of nuclear waste, the site that we will have to find will still have to take into account the producers because they are responsible. That was both a comment and a question and it is addressed to all three witnesses.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: You are assuming that there is a site. To be clear, I will say that the bill considers the possibility for the agency to have to consider various options. However, if we take for granted that the agency concludes that the site specific option is chosen, it remains to decide where the waste will be sent, and I believe that there is a way to agree on the agency's management mechanism. Without necessarily talking about a right of veto, we could agree between us to manage the file in an intelligent and coherent way. What I mean is that the one company, one vote solution may not be the only way to find an equitable mechanism, because we have to consider the other side of the coin. As I was saying, we are putting in $100 million per year, while other participants are injecting perhaps $3, $4 or $5 million. We have to balance the risks for the organization.

That being said, I am well aware of the fact that we cannot find ourselves in a situation where, because we are putting in all the money, we would be sending all our nuclear waste on to the neighbour. That would not work.

Mr. Serge Cardin: No. I suppose that you have the profits that come with the expenditures as well.

The Chair: Did you want to hear the answer from the other witnesses?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes. If Mr. White—

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like him to answer the question that I asked earlier about the debate surrounding potential sites.

[English]

Mr. Rod White: Those are big questions. I raised the issue on one vote from the point of view that one needs to be heard in this process, and the way the legislation is written, it says we're all members, but therefore doesn't give any governance criteria under it. Somehow you have to sort out that governance. We have processes already with the utilities, such as our CANDU owners group, where we have the principles of one vote. We recognize there are differences in the amount of funding that are put in here, but the issue, from our point of view, is to make sure we have a balance of voice that is able to be heard.

Where the site is located is the issue that I identified earlier. Certainly there may be in different timeframes different solutions that are appropriate at this time. It may be appropriate that we keep our waste on our site for a hundred years. It may not be as well, and that kind of thing. Shipping can be an issue with these kinds of facilities. We know what happened with PCBs moving across the country.

Until you get into those things and see many of the public reactions, the solution and the number of sites are all issues that need to be appropriately looked at. Then we can try to come up with one that's most equitable and most appropriate for the utilities concerned.

• 1210

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): When I look at the three presentations, one thing strikes me as different. Obviously, Mr. White's presentation on behalf of New Brunswick is far more detailed.

I have two questions. The first is directed to AECL, since part of Mr. White's recommendations seem to have to do with AECL, and I'm curious to know what their reaction is to these suggestions. The second is, if these suggestions are to have any weight with the committee, it would be interesting to know how the other affected people view the specific recommendations. We're not in a position to work through recommendation by recommendation.

I'm wondering if the other two affected parties, in order that we can get a unified point of view, might be prepared to send to the committee their reaction to the specific suggestions, starting with the title, of course. By the way, I think it would be good form to also, if we decide to proceed in this fashion, let Hydro-Québec know what we are doing, so that they might take advantage or not of the opportunity to comment on the very specific suggestions of Mr. White.

I'll start with the AECL comment.

Dr. David Torgerson: AECL agrees in principle with what is being proposed by New Brunswick Power, namely that we play a major role in this whole area of nuclear fuel waste management. We believe the legislation is flexible enough so that we can develop and define that role very clearly to the extent we think appropriate. While a lot of the issues raised by Mr. White are very specific issues, our feeling is that we can accommodate many of those issues within the current flexible legislation. There are many good comments there and very thoughtful comments.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: As I mentioned on the taxation matters, I believe something is there that would require further consultation and review. Our tax people are indeed also looking at it in regard to taxation status of moneys that are in the trust and so forth. But in effect we have spoken to the issue of representation and governance.

With regard to the other suggestions put forth, what I would propose, subject to the committee's agreement, is that I would review Mr. White's presentation perhaps more thoroughly and then submit something in writing.

Mr. John Godfrey: Would AECL be prepared to do the same?

Dr. David Torgerson: We are prepared to do the same.

Mr. John Godfrey: And we would send it, in turn, to Hydro-Québec.

The Chair: That will be discussed later. We'll discuss this as a committee. We'll pause the clock please.

Hydro-Québec was invited, and they accepted. Here is the message we received.

We received a notice of meeting by fax. However, I must advise you that as a result of certain corporate decisions, we are not authorized to appear before the committee.

They were invited to participate. I'll leave it at that. But if the committee decides to do whatever, we will do what the committee decides.

The clock is back on your time.

Mr. John Godfrey: I am finished.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, the end of the second round.

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

I would like to finish the premise of my last question on the makeup of the advisory council. What I was specifically interested in is that most boards or organizations allow for some input from people or organizations outside of that board and outside of that field of expertise. I don't see that this particularly allows for input from aboriginal peoples or from environmental groups. I'm not suggesting for a moment that someone should have a majority of members on the board. I'm just saying that the input should be heard. In your reading of the bill, do you see that? Am I correct or incorrect in my summation?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: We would see the advisory committee to be indeed very broadly based, representing a wide range of sectors, groups, and individuals. If I were to identify some types of individuals—to your point about specifics—it would include perhaps people who have been former presidents of community colleges and universities, perhaps former elected officials—people who have an understanding of what societal interests are and how they can be best articulated—and obviously environmental groups or people who have an environmental background. I think those, if I read the transcript—

• 1215

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Paragraph (c).

Mr. Richard Dicerni: That's what we would have in mind.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: All right. Good.

The bill does state that, but it says from local governments or aboriginal peoples involved. That doesn't necessarily mean you get that different point of view from local governments—maybe friendly local governments or not. That's my concern. I just make that as a statement because I think it's important to have different opinions brought forth.

The question Mr. Godfrey started on to AECL brings up another question, and that's the whole point of AECL's own nuclear waste and the fact that you want to be, as I understand it, not a full member of the WMO. You're not going to be responsible for your own nuclear waste.

Dr. David Torgerson: Well, first of all, we are responsible for our own waste. This waste—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: After the act comes into place?

Dr. David Torgerson: Well, we are responsible right now for managing our nuclear waste and we do so. We have developed, for example, dry storage technology. We have developed deep geological disposal technology, and we are managing our waste on our sites.

The question of how AECL interacts with the WMO is still under discussion, and the nature of that interaction is being worked out as we go through this process. We are awaiting the passing of the act. With that mandate AECL can proceed to decide how it's going to interact with the WMO.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understand your answer, but I find it extremely problematic that we have a group, whether it's a crown corporation or not, that owns nuclear waste, yet somehow they're going to wait until after the act is passed to decide what role they're going to play in the WMO. That's a little vague for politicians to try to grasp at least.

Dr. David Torgerson: Well, AECL will play a role in the WMO. What that role is, is to be determined.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: To be defined later.

Dr. David Torgerson: We want to be a supplier of full products and services to the WMO, because we have the technology. So we have to work out our relationship with the WMO very carefully.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Do I have time for another question?

The Chair: You have about a minute.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I was not expecting this much time.

I just want to preface my comments by saying this is problematic. It's certainly problematic for me. I would expect that the legislation should clearly define...it shouldn't be left up to legislation to define something after it's passed. It should be defined before it's passed so that all the stakeholders, including the rest of the stakeholders in the act, understand what the interaction is and how AECL will dovetail with the WMO. I think that's absolutely essential if we're going to support this type of legislation.

As you see the bill written, do you see...? Anyone can answer this because it's another one of the issues brought up by New Brunswick Power. In recommendation 4.5 of their brief they're saying that subclause 6(1) of the bill should provide one vote for the NEC and the management of the WMO, or alternatively.... I read through that and my question was, does this bill as it's written allow for new members?

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I was going to give you the time, but I'm not.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You can ask that question.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have some others. Next round.

Mr. Dicerni, I think OPG has giving me this answer. I just want to get it confirmed on the record. The amount of dollars that the bill and subsequent law will commit you to will not result in an increase in charges to the consumer of electricity in Ontario. Am I right about that?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: All right.

Mr. White, do you have the same position in New Brunswick?

Mr. Rod White: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'll direct this question to all of you, but perhaps Dr. Torgerson, I should start with you. Post-September 11, do any of you have any suggestions about provisions for this bill that would provide us with additional security that should actually be written into the bill?

• 1220

Dr. David Torgerson: Again, I believe the bill is sufficiently flexible and allows the WMO to deal with any issues, such as security, as well as the technology of permanent disposal.

It's probably very difficult to make many specific comments in the bill or to anticipate everything that's going to happen over the many years. We're talking about a decades long activity now of the WMO. My view is that the flexibility of the wording currently there will allow the WMO to do what it needs to do over the next several decades, including issues with respect to security.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. White or Mr. Dicerni, do you have any comments?

That's all for now, Mr. Chair, thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sure you've all read the Seaborn report. Critics of the bill are telling me it does not reflect the recommendations proposed by Seaborn. Again, I would like to have maybe a short comment from each of you. To what extent do you feel this bill represents the recommendations of the Seaborn report?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: The Seaborn panel involved a greater role for government as compared to industry in terms of who, at the end of the day, is the proponent.

The bill, on the other hand, provides for a much more significant public transparency process, which perhaps compensates for the fact that it's not run by and through government. There's an issue about public transparency and about public participation. Some of the other features of the bill more than offset the fact that the proponent is not the government.

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Rod White: The Seaborn report dealt with the issue I spoke to early in my presentation. There is a change in responsibility going on in this bill.

In fact as we entered the nuclear program it was our understanding that we had some commitment from the federal government to provide the resources to deal with this issue of nuclear waste, and the Seaborn work identified that it really wasn't able to come up with the solution and now it's moving over into the utilities camp.

We are therefore receiving an additional burden as a result. I highlighted this issue. I think there's a transfer here of responsibilities that originally were more in the federal camp and are now being moved with this bill into the provincial and the utility camps. And maybe that's not an equitable sharing.

Dr. David Torgerson: The bill clearly states the overview of responsibilities of the federal government, and these are well established in the legislation. At the same time, it passes over to the WMO responsibility for the actual operation and effecting of the ultimate disposal. The bill does in fact retain federal overview of the entire process.

The Chair: This brings us to our third round, which will be three minutes, question and answer.

We'll start with Mr. Chatters, then Monsieur St-Julien.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To go back to this issue of transparency, no one has yet to really address it. I would ask each one of the groups if in their estimation the annual report under clause 16 and the three- and five-year reports under clause 18 will contain information too sensitive for release to the public. In other words, is the material in the report too sensitive to deliver to Parliament, as opposed to reporting it to the minister?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: As I said in my remarks, we are committed to an open and transparent process and we think the bill has a good balance while we are getting there, because as I say, we needed to go through an EA when we were trying to find just usual, regular waste sites.

• 1225

I can tell you that these processes can be hijacked and then you never get anywhere. We have no problem with providing reports to the minister, to the government, and keeping the public informed. If we don't do that, we will not get there.

This company is committed to having an outcome, and it will not be in our vested interests to be secretive and not transparent. On the other hand, some people have to be accountable for getting there, for achieving results, partially because, as I say, we're spending $100 million a year on this.

Mr. David Chatters: Well, you didn't really answer my question, and I don't see how delivering your annual report to Parliament would better your ability to achieve things.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: That is up to the ministry, the department, the drafters of the bill to determine. Our process, is—

Mr. David Chatters: But you would have no objection.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: With one caveat, sir. If you do annual reports on a process for which other countries take seven, ten, fifteen years, these reports become sitting targets for charges of not enough consultation, inadequate involvement, superficiality, and you spend three months out of the 12 months writing a report and another three months defending it. These are things with a long shelf life. And you have to have some equilibrium.

Mr. David Chatters: Of course, if you're going to have transparency you have to defend it.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: We could do it, but it depends on the frequency.

But I don't want to spoil it for my colleagues, who I'm sure want to say something.

Mr. Rod White: New Brunswick Power is a crown corporation. Its annual reports are public documents and they go through standing committee reviews. These are funds New Brunswick Power is putting into this organization and we would expect it would need the same public reviews.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Mr. Dicerni from Ontario Power Generation. You say in your brief, on page 2, that your nuclear generating stations have interim above-ground storage facilities. What percentage of Canada's nuclear waste do you have? Is it more than 89%?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: It is around 90%.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Okay. Could it be 91%?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: My colleague here is the expert.

[English]

Mr. Ken Nash (Vice-President, Nuclear Waste Management Division, Ontario Power Generation Inc.): The quantity of waste we have, on a proportional basis, is about 90% of the used fuel ever produced in Canada. It is currently stored by Ontario Power Generation Inc. in water pools and in above-ground dry storage adjacent to our power plants.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: My second question is for Mr. Dicerni. We know that you have developed a deep geological technology to dispose of nuclear waste. My question will be the same one that I have put to Atomic Energy of Canada.

Have you made studies? Did you have studies conducted by Canadian or American universities, and have you, in the course of these studies, found sites in Northern Ontario, in the far North, and in Quebec, in the James Bay Cree area and in Nunavik? Have you made studies? Are these studies available?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: I will ask my colleague Mr. Nash to answer the question since I was not there at the time.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Okay.

[English]

Mr. Ken Nash: Regarding research on specific sites, Ontario Power Generation Inc. has not done any research specific to any site. It has not started a siting process and it has no particular sites under investigation.

Regarding the first part of your question, the research in which we are engaged, currently most of the research carried out on long-term management of used fuel in Canada is funded by Ontario Power Generation Inc. We're currently funding the work AECL is doing in the underground research laboratory.

As mentioned in Mr. Dicerni's presentation, we have diversified our research to other parts of Canada at the University of Western Ontario. We're also participants in international programs and we have direct agreements with Finland and Sweden because they have similar geologies to Canada's Canadian Shield. We participate in OECD studies and studies in the European Commission.

• 1230

We have a broadly based research program that not only looks at geological disposal but also at prolonged above-ground reactor site storage and at centralized storage. We also keep a watch in brief on the question of partitioning and transmutation, which is an emergent technology, not yet matured, that actually could be applied to long-term nuclear waste management.

The Chair: Monsieur Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Obviously, you will make some proposals; you are looking for methodologies to manage nuclear waste in the long term. Let us suppose that you find some rather conclusive and effective solutions. Among this group, as we know, someone has a lot of expertise in the nuclear field and is, for all practical purposes, marketing and selling reactors. There are users as well.

Is it possible to imagine that there will be in the future a wide proliferation of nuclear applications, so that we would then go forward and promote and market the solution that would have been found to manage the waste, and we would then produce more and more nuclear waste? And if the solutions are so effective, can we expect, given that you constitute the management organization, that you would go as far as treating waste that would come from elsewhere, that would be imported?

The Chair: To whom was your question directed?

Mr. Serge Cardin: To the three members in good standing of the future...

The Chair: We will begin with Mr. Torgerson, at the other end of the table.

[English]

Dr. David Torgerson: Well, the WMO is for our domestic Canadian waste. Dealing with anyone else's waste would mean a redirection of policy, so that particular area is not within the purview of the WMO.

Having said this, the technology being developed in Canada could be applied in many other countries as a part of their solutions as well. As was stated by Mr. Nash, we in fact have had a number of contacts and contracts with the international community on the technology. But the WMO is really dealing with our Canadian situation, not with external situations.

Mr. Rod White: I don't know that I have a specific comment on that, but if you look at our neighbour to the south and its efforts to try to create a waste solution, there may be a third alternative for us if these efforts happen to be successful.

The Chair: It might send its waste here.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Dicerni: Look, if we are ever faced with the option of finding a site, dealing strictly with the Canadian waste would be a demanding enough task. The importation of waste would create quite a challenge that would be really impossible to sell to the population.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm still trying to puzzle through the AECL role...of course triggered by Mr. White there.

My first question goes to AECL. Why is AECL not defined as a nuclear energy corporation under clause 2, but is referred to instead under subclause 2(c) as “any assignee of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited”? Why not the mother house? What's the assignee business about? That's the first question.

Then there's something I find puzzling under clause 7 of the bill. It states that the waste management organization shall offer, without discrimination of the fee, various services to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and all owners of nuclear waste produced in Canada are neither members nor shareholders of the waste management organization. Does AECL take care now of, for example, university reactors or small-scale amounts of waste? Where does that stuff go?

If you can squeeze it in, the third part of it is that you have a kind of privileged relationship of providing services to the waste management organization. How privileged will it be and is this part of your concern about being in a conflict position?

Dr. David Torgerson: First let me talk about what AECL's role is in the national waste management picture. We basically operate the waste management centre for Canada, other than the high-level nuclear fuel wastes coming from the utilities. Therefore, all universities, hospitals, and other users of nuclear technology who generate waste are dependent upon AECL for the management and disposal of that waste. That waste is managed by AECL, so we are de facto the national manager.

• 1235

Mr. John Godfrey: Where, physically, does it go?

Dr. David Torgerson: It goes to the Chalk River laboratories.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

Dr. David Torgerson: At the Chalk River laboratories we have been developing the technology as part of the investment over the last 50 years in how to deal with that waste. All countries, of course, have these facilities in one place or another to deal with their national wastes from various activities.

In terms of AECL providing services to the WMO, I think that will be based on the fact that we have the expertise to do so. We think it's very important to maintain that expertise in Canada, because all industrialized, advanced countries will be dealing with wastes of all types, including nuclear waste, as long as they continue to function as industrialized countries. So we think it's very important that AECL stay involved in the provision of technology services.

Mr. John Godfrey: What about the nuclear energy corporation? Why aren't you one of those?

Dr. David Torgerson: We do not generate energy as a business. We design and build the plants that generate the electricity, but it is the utilities that actually generate the electricity and generate most of the waste.

The Chair: Before I go to our next questioner, just to put everything in context, if we were to put the existing nuclear waste into this room, how many times would we fill it? Can anybody answer that?

I won't hold you to the milligram.

Take a guess.

Mr. Nash.

Mr. Ken Nash: If we're talking about nuclear fuel waste, it would be more than five, but less than 100, certainly—maybe 20. That would be my estimate.

The Chair: Twenty rooms like this?

Mr. Ken Nash: Yes.

The Chair: It's just to put it in context. That's good.

Mr. Ken Nash: Not 200. Twenty, or in that order of magnitude.

The Chair: Okay. I don't know what it accomplishes, but it helps me, that's for sure.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to challenge him a bit on that. You're talking just about the fuel itself, not all the storage containers?

Mr. Ken Nash: Yes, let me qualify that—nuclear fuel waste.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But the containers would have to be disposed of as well, would they not?

Mr. Ken Nash: Excuse me. I just want to clarify the question to make sure I understand it.

Currently we store nuclear fuel waste in containers, above-ground, dry-storage containers. Those become slightly contaminated, so the plan would be to take the nuclear fuel waste out of them, and the containers would be decontaminated and disposed of almost as regular waste, because they themselves do not become highly active waste in the same way that nuclear fuel waste is highly active.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The pools you're currently...short-term storage for them. Are you taking that into account in your estimate of 20 rooms?

Mr. Ken Nash: Yes. For the kinds of waste that would arise as a result of what we would call decommissioning, the current water pool storage would be part of decommissioning the nuclear plants themselves. And we do have a good estimate of how much waste that would be. That would be classified mainly as low-level waste and would be dealt with as low-level waste. It would not be dealt with under this proposed act. Those quantities would be in addition to the analogy of the quantities related to the size of this room.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. White, regarding your estimate that three years would be too short, do you have a specific period of time in mind for what it will take to reach a conclusion on what the appropriate methodology is?

Mr. Rod White: No, I don't have a specific time in mind. I recognize that within the bill as it's written today, it doesn't allow a period longer than that.

• 1240

As we've discussed around this room, Seaborn panels and others looked at this thing for 10 years. AECL has been in the business for 20 years looking at waste. OPG has been leading a lot of the effort in R and D to try to come up with appropriate ways of managing this. So one needs to be realistic in recognizing that three years is a short time when you start talking about consultations that need to go on in the public.

As Mr. Torgerson explained, the technical issue is probably solvable, but the real issue is the gut of the public being able to accept this. We may be able to come along with a recommendation in three years, but it may still not be acceptable to people, so you need a mechanism within the act that allows a longer period.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dicerni, in your presentation to us you mentioned on page 3 that you have developed and implemented safe above-ground storage technology consistent with international standards. A little further down on that page, and I think it was mentioned by Mr. White or you just now, you said it is similar to the approach used in Sweden and Finland, where it has worked well. That is the approach of the WMO in choosing a method.

Can you give me a brief thumbnail sketch of where the rest of the world is with this problem? What are these international standards?

Mr. Richard Dicerni: Mr. Nash will provide insight.

Mr. Ken Nash: I think there are really two parts to that question.

Internationally, as water pools become full, the decision on how to provide for incremental storage that's almost universally being taken is to supply that need by dry storage. We have above-ground dry storage at our power plants. New Brunswick Power and Hydro-Québec have dry storage at their power plants. That's what I'm saying is an international standard. You will find that in various parts of the world.

The reference to Sweden and Finland is related to the way the waste management organizations are constituted in Sweden and Finland. Both Sweden and Finland have waste management organizations that are industry waste management organizations. The board of directors are appointed by the industry and are very consistent with the structure of this bill. Those waste management organizations work extremely well in terms of transparency, openness, and consensus-building for waste management plans.

For instance, in Finland, the waste management organization presented a plan to the Finnish Parliament and it was almost unanimously voted for—150 for and 3 against, or numbers approximately like that—and that plan had the support of the local community that was eventually going to receive that waste.

So that's why the structure of this bill, in terms of how it's constituted in relation to the ownership and structure of the waste management organization, is consistent with best international practice.

The Chair: That completes the third round. We'll now proceed to a partial fourth round of two minutes.

It will be Mr. Chatters, then Mr. Keddy.

Mr. David Chatters: Just very quickly—

The Chair: And no more. That's it. There will be Mr. Chatters, Mr. Keddy, and no more.

Mr. David Chatters: I wanted to go back to the timeframe that Mr. White expressed concerns about. Mr. Torgerson suggested there's a technical solution there, and it's one or a variation of above ground or below ground. Those are the two.

The problem is the perception of the public. Do you, as members of the waste management organization, have a strategy to sell the idea to the public, and if so, can you give us an idea of what strategy will convince the public in three years that this is a good idea, when nobody could do it in 15 years?

Mr. Rod White: I don't know if I'm the first to respond, but I would say my concern is the same as yours: How do you actually get out there and make that happen? We can solve the technical problem, and I think, again, that's the issue I referred to initially. We believed that was a federal government area of responsibility to begin with, and it's been downloaded onto us—and downloaded without the monetary value that should go to help support it. I think that's a big challenge.

• 1245

Mr. David Chatters: I agree with you.

The Chair: Mr. White, if it's a federal government responsibility, maybe that's why it took 15 years.

Mr. Keddy.

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

My final question is, again, about a point raised by New Brunswick Power. Since they've already stated their opinions on it, I'd like to hear from both AECL and Ontario Power Generation.

In clause 19 it reads very plainly that “The Minister shall issue a public statement on each report submitted to the Minister”, but there's no timeframe. Obviously, for most of us that's problematic. What would you recommend, as most of the parties will be making amendments? I would expect that the minister should issue some type of public statement within 30 days, six months, or a year. He has the report, he has had time to read it, and he has staff.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: Whatever can be done to bring a greater degree of certainty to the process would be welcomed.

The Chair: Okay.

Dr. David Torgerson: I can't add any more than that. I think that's a good comment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chair: Now we'll have three minutes of closing remarks each, and then I'll save a minute to thank you.

Who will go first? Will we do it in reverse order this time and give Mr. Dicerni a little break? Mr. Torgerson.

Dr. David Torgerson: My remarks will be very brief. In conclusion I will reiterate that on reading the bill, AECL believes the bill meets what is required. We believe there is sufficient flexibility in the bill that many of the details that have been discussed today in this room can be dealt with within the framework of the bill. We would like to see the bill move forward, and we look forward very much to working with the WMO as we proceed with the solution to the permanent disposal of nuclear fuel waste.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. White.

Mr. Rod White: I would reiterate the three key issues that have been brought up here. AECL should, we think, in some way be a representative of the federal government here. It should take a view towards regionalization and should bring its purse along as well so all this is not in fact downloaded onto everybody else.

The governance of the Waste Management Organization is of some concern. There's no clarity in the bill, so we raise the issue of one vote for each member of it. There may be other solutions, but we raise that issue on governance.

Certainly, the issue of taxation on this should be clearly spelled out to the effect that these are non-taxable organizations, which is in keeping with the fact that we as a crown corporation are non-taxable.

We appreciate the opportunity to come here and interact on what to us is an important subject.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dicerni.

Mr. Richard Dicerni: Thank you for listening to us.

The three years is, I think, short by societally acceptable standards because we never want to stand accused of having rammed the process through simply to meet a legislative commitment. I'm not sure the public stakeholders would buy it.

Next, in terms of transparency and commitment to openness, I can assure you I don't want to come back here in three or four years and be accused of having done things in secret or having done things in an incompetent, socially unacceptable manner. We are committed to doing this thing in a correct way, and I can assure you we'll do our utmost to achieve that.

The point raised by New Brunswick Power regarding taxation does need to be addressed. It's an administrative matter. I don't think it speaks to changing in any way the policy direction but just calls for clarification.

The governance issue could be addressed through the bylaws of the company to ensure that no jurisdiction ends up with an outcome they are uncomfortable with. This would be preferable to casting it in legislation, which would then make it very rigid.

• 1250

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you to my colleagues.

Chairing a committee with five different political parties is not usually easy, but I can tell you that we have excellent members on this committee on all sides. In addition to having five political parties, we are a dual committee of aboriginal affairs and natural resources. They're the two easiest committees on the Hill, I'm sure, but I still want to commend my colleagues.

We were able to get in three presentations, twenty questions, and three closing remarks, and it's all to the credit of the committee members and our invited guests.

Thank you very much. Thank you all.

The meeting is adjourned.