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 8, 2001

• 1129

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will call the meeting to order.

We are gathered to hear witnesses on Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. We have with us today for the first hour the Sierra Club of Canada, Irene Kock, research consultant; Northwatch (North Bay), Brennain Lloyd, coordinator; and Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, George Ylonen, spokesperson.

• 1130

We have an hour together. We invite you to make a five-minute presentation each, after which time the members will be invited to ask questions. The questions will be a total of four minutes for the first round, and that means the question and the answer. Therefore, if I cut you off and you're ready to give a longer answer, or if the question was so long that there's no time left for you, you will have closing remarks, so you'll be able to put in the information you want to put in. On the next question you can sneak in the answer from the previous. That's the trick.

To my colleagues, if you have proposed amendments on this bill, it would be appreciated if you would share them so that our researchers can have copies made. I suspect from the rumours I hear that we will be here for a long time today.

[Translation]

We very much appreciate your sharing with us the amendments you intend to table and enabling us to make copies. We do expect amendments to be distributed in both official languages.

[English]

To our witnesses, please start, giving your name for the record before you start.

Ms. Kock.

Ms. Irene Kock (Research Consultant, Sierra Club of Canada): Good morning. My name is Irene Kock and I'm a researcher with the Sierra Club of Canada nuclear campaign.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on the topic of Bill C-27. I do have a concern that this committee stage review is not providing sufficient time for interested Canadians. However, I do appreciate the invitation to appear here.

I would like to refer you to the attachment to the submission I made, which I believe you have in hand. It outlines specific amendments we feel should be made to Bill C-27. I would like to note that many of these points relate to the recommendations of the Seaborn panel and are an attempt to incorporate these recommendations into the legislation. The Seaborn panel report was released in March 1998, and I trust you're familiar with that document.

The Seaborn panel recommended that an independent agency be formed at arm's length from AECL and the nuclear utilities in order to manage the programs related to long-term nuclear fuel waste management, including detailed comparison of waste management options.

Other Seaborn panel recommendations included initiating an aboriginal participation process, conducting an effective public consultation and review of the regulations governing nuclear fuel waste management—that would be the regulations under the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission—developing a comprehensive public participation program, and developing an ethical and social assessment framework for the review of all these options.

The draft legislation fails to incorporate these recommendations, and failure to amend this legislation accordingly will result in an inability to manage this issue to the satisfaction of Canadians. I would like to note in particular the issues raised in the following points in my attachment. These are the numbered paragraphs—numbered 1 to 32.

Item 2: the Minister of Natural Resources will be placed in a conflict of interest because Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a crown corporation for which the minister is responsible. AECL is also a waste owner and the proponent of one of the options being considered. The Minister of Environment should be the designated minister under this act.

In item 8 on my attachment, the waste management organization must be at arm's length from the nuclear industry, and this would be achieved with the amendment I outlined. This is a very key part of the recommendations from the Seaborn panel. It was a very well thought out conclusion and must be incorporated in this legislation. Linked to that, the idea of separating out an implementing organization is a key recommendation of ours. This would be established to carry out the selected option. This implementing organization would be made up of the nuclear waste owners.

In items 10 to 12 we discuss the advisory council that is noted in the legislation. We feel it must include a wide variety of interested parties, including non-government organizations, and must be adequately funded by the nuclear waste owners to undertake its mandate. Members must not be limited to people from economic regions where the industry is located or where the selected options may be implemented. This is a matter of national importance deserving of broadly representative participation.

• 1135

In item 19 of my list, the nuclear waste management at existing facilities must be upgraded to improve the security of these wastes and improve the methods for monitoring and containing the waste for the longer term. So this would be a key part of review of the second option listed in the legislation.

My item 25: A key finding of the Seaborn panel was that without broad public acceptance the chosen option would fail at the implementation stage, and fail utterly. It is essential that the public acceptance of the chosen option be fairly tested throughout the process and particularly at the stage toward the end before a decision is taken.

Item 27: Another key recommendation from the Seaborn panel was the requirement that if burial in the Canadian Shield is ultimately selected, the technical and social outstanding issues identified by the scientific review group under the Seaborn environmental assessment be addressed with a very specific process laid out in the Seaborn report.

I should clarify that in fact, because we're looking at addressing a number of options being reviewed by this organization, a lot of work has to be done to catch up in developing the alternative options other than burial in order to bring them up to the amount of information required to offer a fair comparison with the work that was done on the burial option.

The Chair: We'll give you thirty seconds to conclude.

Ms. Irene Kock: Thank you.

Item 29 refers to a very crucial omission in this legislation. We must have a legislated ban on the import of nuclear waste into Canada.

Finally, item 32, there's certainly no need to rush a decision on this matter. We feel that the three-year time limit outlined in the legislation must be dropped. It's completely unrealistic.

I thank you very much for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now, Ms. Lloyd.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd (Coordinator, Northwatch (North Bay)): Thank you, members of the committee, for your time this afternoon.

My name is Brennain Lloyd and I work with a regional group in northeastern Ontario called Northwatch. We have a lengthy history with nuclear waste issues. In fact, part of the motivation for creating our regional organization was the threat we saw from the proposed siting of a nuclear waste facility in our region.

I want to begin by adopting the proposed amendments presented by Ms. Kock, in particular her comments with respect to the purpose of the act, namely that the purpose of the act should incorporate and emphasize the goal of ensuring isolation of nuclear waste from the environment into perpetuity. This is of absolute key importance. It's paramount.

I want to briefly provide you with a summary of our written comments.

[Translation]

I apologize for having this only in English. I worked through the night on it and finished only this morning.

[English]

The Chair: Documents will not be distributed if they are not in both official languages.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Okay.

The Chair: I'm very sorry.

[Translation]

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I apologize.

[English]

I'll simply summarize my comments then into the record.

Firstly, the work you're undertaking today and in the coming sessions to review the Nuclear Waste Management Act must be based both in context and on key principles.

The context is that there have been a number of experiences on the part of the public with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and with the nuclear industries more generally, specific to this issue of nuclear waste management and related siting processes. They've been very negative experiences for the greatest part, and that needs to be kept in mind. The resulting mistrust and apprehension on the part of the public must be kept in constant consideration.

Secondly, there has been a lengthy federal review process with some sound conclusions that we would not adopt in their entirety but that as a whole do a reasonable job.

• 1140

Third, there's a public concern and interest in human health and the environment that is also paramount.

The principles that I would suggest you operate by and insist the legislation operates by include fairness, independence, and transparency.

I'm going to speak to just a few of the key deficiencies in Bill C-27. The first is that the Minister of Natural Resources will be placed in a conflict of interest, if he is made the designated minister. He is the minister to whom AECL reports. He is the minister responsible for the nuclear waste programs of the federal government. A more appropriate designate would be the Minister of the Environment.

Second, the purpose of the act is contradictory to the approach outlined in the act. I'll just say very briefly, without outlining that purpose, that one of the key conflicts is that the purpose says there will be a comprehensive approach, yet the timeline and the limiting to three identified options make that comprehensive and integrated approach an impossibility. That is a key conflict.

Third, the waste management organization lacks independence. Given the track record of a number of the agencies that are proposed to be involved, that's particularly problematic. The panel was clear that the waste management organization must be independent and it must be perceived to be independent. It said an independent agency, not an industry agency. Bill C-27 recommends the exact opposite. It recommends an industry-only agency, which can only be problematic, in terms of delivery, the ability to look more broadly at the issues, and the ability to engender public trust and engagement.

Fourth, the timeline is unreasonable. We've already addressed that in brief. But if you look at the work that is laid out and the work that is not laid out but should be emphasized, including the development of a social and ethical framework at the front end, I think the three-year timeframe is really unreasonable and will undermine the work.

Fifth, the act assumes a siting process, in advance of the three approaches being examined. It doesn't state that explicitly, but given that the advisory council members are to be chosen from the anticipated host regions, that assumes a siting process and identification of the host regions in advance, and that's very troubling.

I'll close with just three recommendations.

The Chair: In 30 seconds.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: In 30 seconds.

First, engage the Canadian public fully and fairly. Second, respect the panel's recommendations, with respect to the participation of aboriginal people within a framework that has been designed and executed by aboriginal people.

Third, ensure that any legislation, with respect to the management of nuclear waste resulting from your review, addresses the above concerns, adopts the recommendations made by Ms. Kock, and reflects the principles of fairness, independence, and transparency.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Just for your information, we are strict on time, but it's not a different way for us to proceed. We do that all the time.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Right. I accept that.

The Chair: I wouldn't want you to be offended.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Certainly I understand that. Thank you.

The Chair: It's not enjoyable for me to do that. We have to do that.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Certainly. No problem.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we have, from the Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, Mr. George Ylonen for five minutes.

Mr. George Ylonen (Spokesperson, Concerned Citizens of Manitoba): I will sit down, Mr. Chair. I am what you see: a citizen of Lac du Bonnet. My presentation won't take five minutes.

I've been involved with this so long, fighting it so long, and I see no end to it. I have to concur with my companions here. You have our Concerned Citizens of Manitoba presentation. I'm not going to read it because they present much clearer than I do. Your meetings are in the middle of the week when good presenters, very articulate people, could have been available. Only I was available, and I'm not very articulate. I am bilingual, but not French. If you want to speak Finn, I can speak Finn to you. I'll try my best in English.

• 1145

You have our presentation. Very many points are similar to those of my colleagues here. I'm going to give you my closing statement on Bill C-27 before I carry on.

The Minister of the Environment should be responsible for appointing a waste management organization that is arm's length from the AECL and the nuclear power industry.

I shall leave this with the clerk, Mr.—see, my mind has gone blank—Latimer, yes. Basically that's about it. I know for a fact I gave Mr. Latimer a few copies. I hoped to have more, but the people who printed it for me—the machine, like a computer, Jim—don't work all the time.

It states all the comments made by Senator Pat Carney. She was a member of Brian Mulroney's cabinet and came to Gimli a number of years ago to promote the commercial benefits of storing nuclear waste from foreign countries. The late David Iftody also mentioned that the underground laboratory could be expanded.

In the papers I gave you there's a picture of the possible enlargement of the underground laboratory into a demonstration facility, which is completely out of the question because Manitoba has a waste management act. It prohibits placement of radioactive materials underground in the province of Manitoba.

What was the Union of Manitoba Municipalities in 1981, and now is the Association of Municipalities of Manitoba, supports that act. The RM of Lac du Bonnet passed a resolution supporting that act, stating they do not want any of the radioactive material underground in the municipality of Lac du Bonnet. All the surrounding municipalities—the RM of Alexander, the RM of Brokenhead, the RM of Reynolds, the RM of Whitemouth—all support Lac du Bonnet. My presentation also lists almost 80 other municipalities in the province of Manitoba that support us.

A number of years ago, when this was all coming up, there was a petition to support this, and within four weeks 2,200 people in the municipality of Lac du Bonnet supported that petition. I have the original copy David Iftody was given...and other...the province of Manitoba. Underground placement of radioactive materials from foreign countries, Europe, United States particularly because of the free trade, is unacceptable. Thanks to Pat Carney, we have free trade that cannot prohibit the importation of nuclear waste from United States, also from Asia.

There's another thing I learned not too long ago about these CANDU reactors that are operating in foreign countries. The fuel bundle we are all so familiar with—and they're all promoting because it produces so much power—that goes into these CANDU reactors for 18 to 22 months is leased, and it comes back to Canada for 500,000 years.

I don't know who is making these kinds of deals on our behalf, and at what cost. I'm really upset with all that happens in the billing on the other side. I don't know, is this a democratic dictatorship? I'm not too impressed with AECL. The community that has to deal with it has my sympathy, because AECL is not a good neighbour.

A number of years ago—I can present this to you because we were talking about birthdays a while ago—on January 30, 1980, AECL had a presentation at the school gym in Lac du Bonnet. After its presentation I questioned its representatives on their statement about fracture-free plutonium rocks. I've worked underground for over 30 years, and I said there was no such thing as fracture-free rocks anywhere. They questioned me on that.

After the meeting, three of those officials sort of tried to...they didn't throw punches, but it came close to that. They said “We've been here for 16 years, how long have you been here?” I wasn't used to that, and I'm still not used to that. I said “I've been here all my life”.

Since then I've researched it. We're living on my grandfather's homestead. He homesteaded there in 1905 and got the title from the Minister of the Interior in 1910. I don't know how they calculate it, but my family has been on that property for almost a hundred years.

I can say to you that my south boundary is a mile and a half from the north boundary of the Whiteshell research laboratory. I have no difficulty living close to a research facility, but at no time will I accept nuclear waste in that research facility. They brought that nuclear waste into the Whiteshell research facility from Ontario, because Ontario trucks with the emblem have been followed from Kenora—just by accident—to the Whiteshell research laboratory. If there's any nuclear waste in the Lac du Bonnet eastern region, it must be returned right back to Ontario Hydro.

• 1150

My wife says, “George, when you get mad, you're going to lose it”. I'm starting to get worked up, so I will thank you for listening to me. Take my comments seriously.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, and thank you all.

We will open the first round at four minutes. I will be clear with the members of the committee and our guests that it's four minutes for the question and answer. So if politicians go on too long, they're taking from your time to respond.

The second and third rounds will be reduced to three and two minutes. Usually we manage to get all the questions in that way. After that, you will have an opportunity for closing remarks.

We have 40 minutes left, and we'll start with Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

I listened with interest to your presentations. I don't have much time, but I'd like to refer you to page 3 of the bill. At line 34 we are proposing an amendment I would like to know your reaction to.

At the present time, the advisory council will be an in-house agency. We would like to pursue more accountability, and we would like to see this appointed by an outside agency. I would like your reaction to that and if you think that would be something you could agree to and would address some of your concerns.

Then I'd like you to turn to page 8 and go down to clause 16. We have a proposal there to ensure that whatever happens is made public. Rather than have those reports go to the minister, we would like the annual reports to be made public. We would like to see some transparency when this goes through, and I would like to know whether you would agree to that.

Thirdly, what science do you have to indicate that there is a problem with the underground storage as proposed by AECL?

First, comment on the two suggestions I have for the bill, and then let me know what studies have been done to counter that. Thank you.

The Chair: As you choose to respond, please give your name for the record.

Ms. Irene Kock: I'm Irene Kock with the Sierra Club.

I would agree that it would be preferrable that the advisory committee appointments be made by a minister as opposed to the waste management agency. I would agree with your second point as well.

Brennain has a point to make.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I'm Brennain Lloyd, from Northwatch.

With respect to your second question, I think making the reports much more publicly available would be helpful and I would encourage that, but in terms of openness and transparency, there needs to be much more than that.

For example, the public needs to have an ability to oversee and monitor the activities of the waste management organization in a much broader sense. If the waste management organization is to begin anything that could lead to a siting process, or in reality or perception, be part of the siting process, the public needs to be informed of and have an ability to monitor that.

Ms. Irene Kock: On the third item, regarding the science around concerns with the underground burial concept, I think it was clear from the evidence provided to the Seaborn panel in the 10-year environmental assessment that the containers that were proposed for use would in fact likely fail in the order of 500 to 1,000 years. There could be a risk of manufacturing faults in the containers that would result in failure much sooner. As George noted, there's no such thing as fracture-free rock on this planet, and the leachate resulting from those leaked containers would obviously find its way back to the surface.

There was no denial of that in the EA process, so it's clear we're talking about a concept that is not a real solution. It's going to lead to risks in the future, and that's the ethical debate we have.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: It's difficult to summarize the scientific findings in four minutes, and certainly in less than four minutes, but I'll just begin to list some of the deficiencies that the scientific review group identified. There were other expert opinions brought to the panel as well, which were also very critical and identified a number of deficiencies.

• 1155

The SRG found that AECL's reference case was too narrow, the conceptual framework for the case model was flawed, the choice of model inputs unsatisfactory, and the uncertainty analysis unconvincing. There were unjustified assumptions and a lack of reconciliation of socio-economic and technical factors. There were no exclusion criteria, the concept lacked definition, and the monitoring boreholes would impair the safety system. There were no criteria for retrieval of waste due to system failure or for sealing or permanent closure of the vault, the integrity and structure of bundles after decades in storage was uncertain, cracking on a horizontal plane around the vault is an unaddressed concern, and permeability was not assessed as a system.

That's getting about halfway through the one paragraph that I used to summarize just the SRG's identification of uncertainty. The concept was not demonstrated safe.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before we go Madame Girard-Bujold, to my colleagues, if you ask three questions, evidently they're going to run out of time to give answers. We will have other rounds.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I listened to your presentation this morning with both great interest and great pleasure. To my mind, you focused very exactly on what this bill should have been from the very beginning. This draft legislation does not meet the expectations of the Seaborn Panel, whose proceedings lasted 10 years in Canada and which managed to draw-up an overall plan under which we might have finally managed to store our nuclear waste safely.

I believe that the concerns you have voiced are very real. I agree when you say that it is a little bit too early to table a bill on the management of our nuclear waste. This provides neither for the powers nor for the accountability that are necessary to an adequate storage of the waste material. I am in full agreement with you.

Ms. Kock, you based your brief on the Seaborn report and I have read that document. As you know, the Canadian government has imported MOX fuel from both the USSR and the United States. In my own region of Quebec, people opposed those imports but they took place nonetheless and we realize today that this should not have happened. That, however, is another question.

I believe, Madam, that the 29 or 30 recommendations that you have drafted with regards to this bill are justified. Starting with the Seaborn Panel, what are the steps this bill should have followed initially in order to begin a process and make sure the amendments put forward by the opposition are acceptable?

[English]

Ms. Irene Kock: Thank you. I'm Irene Kock, with the Sierra Club.

In terms of the list of recommendations that I provided, one of the key ones that would help integrate the Seaborn recommendations into this legislation would be the one numbered 4, which includes initiating an aboriginal participation program, and so on. Those were part of the main recommendations of the Seaborn panel, and under our proposal, one of the objectives of the waste management organization would be to undertake those directions.

The other very key part of the Seaborn recommendations was to ensure that the waste management organization is independent and at arm's length from the industry, including AECL. It was so evident by the end of the hearings that there is zero trust in the industry to carry this out with integrity, and this will fail utterly if that alteration is not made. I'll leave my remarks at that.

Brennain, would you like to respond?

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Yes.

I'm Brennain Lloyd from Northwatch.

I'll simply add that I think it's very important that this committee take steps to amend the legislation, but helpful to you in doing that would be to open your process to more Canadians. I would suggest that you make more hearing time available, particularly throughout the five nuclear provinces, and most especially throughout northern Ontario, where we have some experience in these matters. Canadians, the people who may be affected, need the opportunity to provide input to this committee, and you need the benefit of their advice and wisdom.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

• 1200

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: —

The Chair: We ran out of time.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Good Lord, you don't give people much time!

The Chair: You took two minutes to ask your question.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I apologize. I will come back to this later.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

M. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NPD): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ylonen, in terms of the bill that Manitoba passed back in 1987-88 that prohibits in effect the importation of nuclear waste from any other jurisdiction, has any other province followed suit in that up to this point?

Mr. George Ylonen: To my knowledge, none has.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you aware that any of the provinces are contemplating that at this point?

Mr. George Ylonen: I have no idea. I live in Lac du Bonnet; I'm in a little area. I listen to the news once in a while, and as far as I know there's no other jurisdiction. But I believe this may be taking place in the very near future after this Bill C-27 is passed.

Just for your information, Acres International Limited did a report, a study, and a plan for AECL a number of years ago in the early 1970s or before that. The repository was called an “industrial-scale repository” and they changed that name to “commercial vault”. It would contain possibly two levels, but one level would be 2,500 rooms. In my mind, the amount of rock and excavation that would take place would compare to the Great Wall of China. It is a massive undertaking. It would contain millions of canisters weighing whatever weight they would be.

That is not Ontario's nuclear waste; that's waste from every part of the country. That's 2,500 rooms. These rooms are almost 900 feet long, 21 feet wide, and 15 feet high. According to that Acres consulting report, when it's in final motion—these numbers I can't believe, but they're Acres Consulting, they're engineers—in their final year of movement there will be 70,000 canisters coming in there a year. How could they predict that? It's too much for me. That's all I can answer.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I wonder if any of the other panellists know whether this type of legislation is being considered by other provinces.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I would like to add something. I'm Brennain Lloyd from Northwatch.

I'm not aware of other legislation, but I am aware of the positions the other provinces brought forward during the Seaborn panel review.

Saskatchewan stated that “the provincial government policy does not support the location of such a facility in Saskatchewan”. On Manitoba, we've already heard from Monsieur Ylonen. The Government of Quebec advised the federal government in the 1980s that it did not intend to participate in the AECL review and that it would not accept a repository either on its territories or in the proximity of its borders. And Ontario is on record also: as of February 14, 1995, prior to the review process, the minister said “I want to make clear that the federal review is not a joint federal process initiative. Ontario has only observer status.” The minister later stated that “the Government of Ontario has made no commitment to waste from other provinces being deposited in Ontario”.

So those are the positions we have of record.

Mr. Joe Comartin: If that type of legislation were passed right across the country, can I see if you agree with this statement, that in effect would make it necessary to develop long-term deposit sites in each one of the provinces, or at least in five of the provinces?

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: It would make it necessary to develop long-term management facilities in each province or at each location where the nuclear waste currently is stored.

Mr. Joe Comartin: And the cost of that would be phenomenal, as compared with just having to do one site?

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I don't expect so. I would expect that it would be less than a centralized facility, but I would refer that to Ms. Kock.

The Chair: Very briefly.

Mr. Irene Kock: There are too many variables to be able to predict that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Anyone else on the first round?

I've forgotten Mr. Keddy. Mr. Keddy, go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of quick questions and then a few others.

Brennain with Northwatch, where do you live? Where are you from?

• 1205

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I live in North Bay. Our organization is a northeastern Ontario organization. We go from the French River north and from the Quebec border to the east coast of Lake Superior, five districts of—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: A pretty good stretch of country.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: A pretty good stretch. A pretty good country.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

In the Seaborn commission's report of March 1998, they made the recommendation—and the Sierra Club spoke to this—that AECL shouldn't be a member of the panel of the WMO or waste management organization. I tend to disagree with that. Atomic Energy Canada Limited does own nuclear waste and they do own irradiated fuels. If the panel were set up properly, with one vote for each member, so one member didn't control the panel, would you agree to have the AECL as a member of the panel, with sufficient changes made to the proposed legislation?

Ms. Irene Kock: I'm Irene Kock with the Sierra Club.

What we were trying to do with our recommendation is separate the role of policy and direction and oversight—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Understood.

Ms. Irene Kock: —from the role of implementation. We have absolutely no problem with utilities and AECL maintaining ownership over the waste and implementing a plan, implementing what is determined. Where we want to see separation is in the oversight and direction, which is clearly where the waste management organization has to have some separation from the industry. I think it may be fair to have industry reps at the waste management organization level, but they certainly shouldn't be the majority and they certainly shouldn't be the exclusive members.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think the issue could also be between the waste management organization and the advisory council; there's a clear delineation of which controls which.

Ms. Irene Kock: Yes, but the advisory council is just that, so it has no decision-making clout at that level.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The other question I put forth to you—and I'm not trying just to be the devil's advocate here, I'm trying to get an answer—is on the timeframe. I know you're suggesting that the timeframe has not been sufficient, but, quite frankly, we've studied this, we've had public hearings on this, not just this committee but other committees of Parliament, and the issue has been before us for a long time. My fear would be that we could simply study it to death and never do anything. I'd like a response to that.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: It's certainly true that there's been a lot of public money and time invested to date. I believe that AECL, as of the close of the hearing, had spent $700 million; the federal government, to manage the process, had spent $7 million. So we certainly want to take the panel's conclusions as at least guidance, and I would say as direction, which Bill C-27 fails to do.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not disagreeing with that.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: We spent lots of time, lots of money, lots of energy, and we came up with a failure on the part of AECL to demonstrate safety or acceptability. Then we sat still for two years. So given that it's taken 50 years to create the waste, and we spent 21 years pursuing only the AECL concept, I think the other options, other opportunities, other approaches, deserve fair consideration and fair time. And I don't think the timeline in Bill C-27 does that in an equitable or fair or reasonable fashion.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Anyone else on the first round? We will start the second round now and we'll stay at four minutes.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

You could finish answering the question I posed in the first round, which wasn't complete because of lack of time. And I have another one that comes off some of the comments that were just made.

You said that there are many other approaches. I would like to know what other alternative storage methods you have proposed. I've briefly gone through your material here. What alternative storage method do you propose to the deep geological disposal? And you can also answer that first question on what science is available.

Ms. Irene Kock: I'll let Brennain answer the first part after, and I'll start with your second question.

• 1210

In terms of alternatives for managing nuclear fuel waste, it's clear from the international research community that one option may be something called transmutation, which is a process that may have the potential to reduce how long the wastes are hazardous. It is an exploratory venture at this point. There's no proof that this will actually be achievable, but there is a lot of international research going on in this sector, and Canada should probably be a partner in it. That would be one area that should be investigated further.

There are likely other options that have not been pursued because so much of our focus has been on the AECL scheme of burial in the Canadian Shield. There is a role there for this agency to further investigate other potential options, and that would begin with a review of what other countries are doing.

I have to point out that no country on earth has yet decided how to manage this waste and that there's a lot of work going on in a lot of countries. We need to be involved in that international community to make sure we're not missing any potential options.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I'd just add that there has been heavy investment in the AECL concept. The other options have not been given, I would say, due attention. If we keep focused on what the real goal is, which is to isolate nuclear fuel waste from the environment and from humans, then we have to look at what can potentially deliver that. That should be our starting point, and we should look at the short, medium and longer terms. We've spent a lot of time finding that AECL has not yet been able to prove that there's... I'll just finish reading this list, which is a snapshot of some of the public and scientific concerns that were identified, and then I'll close.

The potential for gross collapse of the vault was identified as a problem. New AECL reports have not been peer-reviewed. There was no assessment of intentional human intrusion. The depth was not fundamental to the concept. There were no identified biomarkers. They're not current on dose conversion factors. The geosphere and biosphere interface was not established. They relied on a linear analysis. That there were large volumes of new information without sufficient time for review is a more general comment. Site characterization was inadequate, particularly in contrast to other international programs.

I'll just close with this. If you've read the panel report, you'll recall that the issue of a worst-case scenario was something that was quite frequently debated, and I'll just give one example. The second case study AECL introduced in the last day of the technical hearings on their technical presentations proposed that the worst-case scenario we should accept consisted of a number of pinpricks in the copper container. In our view, total container collapse would have been a more appropriate worst-case scenario. That's just, I think, a very obvious example of some of the technical deficiencies of AECL's review and presentations, and there are many, many more.

The Chair: Thank you.

As a courtesy to Mr. Ylonen, whose hand I see go up, I'll point out that while I know you'd like to participate, the four minutes belong to the member. If they want to direct a question to another person, it's up to them to manage their time. That's the way it works.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are three questions I would like to ask our witnesses.

What do you think of having on the management committee one member representing a non-governmental organization and one member representing native peoples? This is what the Bloc intends to propose. Do you think that all meetings of the management committee should be made public? De you believe that the House of Commons should approve this management concept and recommend that the minister approve it?

Those are my three questions. I would like to know what your thoughts are on these points?

[English]

Mr. George Ylonen: I'll make just this comment. I've been in touch with Joe Daniels and Donovan Fontaine. They're both councillors in the Sagkeeng First Nation Council in Fort Alex. They knew nothing about this meeting, so they wanted me to bring back any information I could. I understand that the first nations people were consulted a few days ago. I just found this out a little while ago, so I'll certainly bring this to Joe Daniels' attention.

The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak on this question?

• 1215

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Thank you.

With respect to the proposal, there would be two representatives of non-governmental organizations and aboriginal organizations on the advisory council. I think that would be positive.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, not the advisory council, the management committee. We would like to see a board of directors that includes one non-governmental organization, one person representing native peoples and one person representing the public at large.

[English]

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I think that would be an improvement. To say whether that would provide adequate balance or not, we'd have to look at the whole composition of the organization. I would suggest the board of the waste management organization consist of first nations and aboriginal organizations, non-governmental organizations, independent scientific organizations, independent social science organizations, and representatives of other sectors of public life.

Ms. Irene Kock: On your second point, I think if all reports produced by the agency and the advisory council were made public, either to a standing committee or directly to Parliament, it would be appropriate.

We didn't get a good translation on your third question.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: We propose that the House begin by approving the management concept and then recommend its approval by the minister. That is one of the amendments that the Bloc Québécois is putting forward. What are your thoughts on this point?

[English]

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I think that would be appropriate. I also think right now the minister has the discretion to provide other consultation processes as he sees fit. I think that needs to be strengthened—I'm sorry, I don't remember the number of the section—to provide the minister with a mandate and direction to consult with the public to inform Parliament's decision. But yes, Parliament should ultimately approve or reject the proposed concept or the proposed option.

Ms. Irene Kock: That would be subclause 14(1).

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's right.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We have ten minutes left, plus two minutes for closing remarks. We have Monsieur Serré, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Keddy, and Mr. Godfrey. I'm reducing it to three-minute rounds.

Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very quick.

Just for your information, in terms of consultation with first nations and aboriginal people, the Seaborn report recommended the minister consult with first nations on how they would like to be consulted. Back in April the minister wrote the 26 leaders of first nations and Inuit across the country asking them if they wanted to be consulted and how. So far only one has answered. But all first nations and Inuit in the country have been advised of this legislation and the consultation process, and we're trying to work out a process with the first nations.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

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

In terms of the composition of the board, Ms. Kock, as you would envision it, I think one of the criticisms is that if you don't let the industry do it, there's not the expertise in the country to have, as you put it, appointees who are knowledgeable. Could you comment on whether that knowledge base exists in Canada?

Ms. Irene Kock: I do believe that knowledge base exists in the academic community, and there's likely relevant chemical engineering and physics backgrounds in other industries.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In terms of financing for the advisory committee, what do you envision? You have some proposal that there should be financing for them. The bill doesn't provide for that at all at this point, as I read it. What type of financing are you looking for?

Ms. Irene Kock: Are you referring to the advisory council?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

Ms. Irene Kock: The advisory council should have a budget that allows it to hire independent experts for independent peer review, essentially, because these people themselves may not be expert in these fields. They should also have secretarial support. They are required to produce a number of reports for the agency. We also believe members should be provided with a per diem.

• 1220

Mr. Joe Comartin: Have you made any attempt to work out a financial analysis of what that would amount to if those services and dollars were provided to the advisory council?

Ms. Irene Kock: To date, no, I have not done a draft budget for the advisory council.

Mr. George Ylonen: Could I make a comment?

The Chair: Yes, please do. I couldn't hear you because others were speaking louder.

Mr. George Ylonen: The bill will formalize an approach that may end up costing more than $12 billion over a 70- to 100-year period. We're talking about money. I thought nuclear-generated power was too cheap to meter. Why $12 billion? How can they come up with this kind of money when you're asking us to come up with some sum of money for a per diem or whatever?

I have nothing further to say.

The Chair: Thank you.

You have another 30 seconds, if you want it.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You were trying to make a statement earlier. Is there anything further you want to add, or have we covered it now?

Mr. George Ylonen: I've done whatever I could. I would like three copies of these hearings to take back to Manitoba, please.

The Chair: You can deal with that after.

Mr. Finlay.

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

I feel a little déjà vu, Mr. Chairman, after four or five years on the environment committee. I know the environment is of great importance to all of us, but here we are with almost, though not quite, NIMBY.

We have the benefits of nuclear power. Whether we agree with it or not, we're using the benefits of it. Therefore, we have to dispose of it. We can't escape that responsibility.

Ms. Lloyd said in her presentation that there were negative experiences with disposal of nuclear waste. I want to ask her what examples she has of that. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'm not aware of what she's referring to.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Thank you.

One of the experiences I was referring to predates my involvement with Northwatch, or even the establishment of Northwatch. It was the community of Massey on the north shore of Lake Huron, which was identified as... It depends who you ask, AECL in hindsight or the community members, but it was the subject of research or test drilling by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

The community had a number of concerns and issues throughout the process. In effect, they felt they weren't been given fair or accurate information about AECL's intentions and activities, and it raised a high level of concern in the community and throughout the area with respect to the possibility of becoming the location for a nuclear waste dump.

The community developed a means for holding a public debate. They held a referendum. The referendum was, I believe, 88% opposed to continued presence of AECL. And as I am told the story, AECL left the community literally under the cover of darkness. One day their office was open, and the next day it was not. AECL was gone, and it has left the community since then with a continued distaste and uneasiness for future dealings with AECL.

More recently, we had the experience of AECL and the import of mixed oxide fuel, plutonium, where there was a limited, and I would say reluctant, effort on the part of AECL to consult with the people who would be affected, the people of northeastern Ontario and the north shore of Lake Huron again. In the end what AECL did is they flew the stuff over our heads. The communities had objected strenuously, and again, under the cover of darkness, AECL brought the waste into Sault Ste. Marie, put it in a helicopter, and flew it over our heads—not a way to develop trust, not a way to develop confidence, and not a way to demonstrate respect for the communities you're dealing with and potentially—

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I—

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Keddy.

• 1225

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

There are a couple of issues here that we've been discussing that I just find a little bit problematic, and there are number of issues where I'm in complete agreement with the panel of presenters. I think the issues of accountability and transparency—I know I've certainly got 16 amendments that will be brought forth—hopefully the panel members will all see fit to support them all. I'm certain that they'll all get in the final report. However, they may not.

I don't want to waste too much time in preliminary talk, so I'll get to the question. The issue for me is still the fact that there's resistance on your part to see AECL as a member. I look at it from a different point of view. AECL is not a member of the waste management orgnization as it exists now. However, they own nuclear waste; they own irradiated fuel. They may be a branch of a crown corporation, but they're still responsible for that. Somehow, by not having them in the group, they're at arm's length from the group and have less responsibility, in my opinion.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I'll just start by saying that our resistance is not to AECL as part of the waste management organization. It is to the waste management organization being an industry-only agency. That's what our concern is. We want an independent agency—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Very quickly, I've also brought forth amendments to make sure there are clear appointments to the advisory council, which represents public and non-industry people and would have some say. Understand that under the wording of the bill, it's not the perfect...

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: It doesn't share power. It doesn't share decisions.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understand that.

The other issue—just quickly, because I think it's an important issue—is mixed oxide fuel. Again we're caught in a catch-22. If you believe in the concept of getting rid of nuclear weapons, what are you going to do with the MOX product?

Ms. Irene Kock: There are very reasonable solutions that don't involve the use of reactors to dispose of MOX fuel. I can't go into them now, without the time. It's a different topic.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Do you want to use what time you have?

Ms. Irene Kock: It's a different topic.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I know that.

The Chair: The MOX fuel that is brought in is for testing only. There were 20 milligrams of it. It came through my riding. I went to Chalk River with reporters and we held 16 pounds of it in our hands. There's a lot of information on this issue, but it's not in the bill.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Just very quickly—and I apologize because I was late coming in—if you've answered this question, don't bother doing it again.

The bill outlines three different approaches. I think I've got a pretty strong sense of your feelings about the first one—deep geological disposal: you're against it, at least as currently put forward. Which is your preferred solution among the two remaining ones—storage at nuclear reactor sites, and centralized storage either above or below ground?

Ms. Irene Kock: We support continued storage of these wastes at the reactor sites where they're located. I've added a provision in my suggestions to strengthen security and to improve the long-term monitoring and containment of those wastes at the reactor sites while we come up with an ethical option.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: I'd just add, that's our view at this time. We are certainly open to an evaluation of those two options, a comparison. The primary reason for favouring continued storage at site is it avoids the risk of transport and transportation.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Ylonen.

Mr. George Ylonen: Yes, certainly. If you're producing it, keep it where it's being produced. Why move it around?

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: We will have one minute of closing remarks each.

Ms. Irene Kock: There are just two points I would like to make in closing. The future liability for the costs of managing these wastes cannot be lost in this process. We must ensure that the industry finances and has guaranteed ironclad options for financing these wastes. We're talking about a multi-billion-dollar venture that's going to take at least 100 years to work through.

• 1230

My second point would be that regulation under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act needs to be reviewed in terms of having our regulator dictate what kinds of options are available. There's really a straitjacket placed on us by the regulator because they have outlined what will be acceptable in terms of long-term management. That has to be removed. So we need to have that review of regulations that's been put forward under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. LLoyd.

Ms. Brennain Lloyd: Thank you.

I also have a sense of déjà vu in this discussion.

I want to be clear in closing that we are not opposed to the establishment of a waste management organization, or the creation of a nuclear fuel waste management act. We think these are important issues, pressing issues. They deserve our time, attention, and resources, and certainly your time and attention. We are opposed, however, to a model we would expect to be incapable of solving the problem and that would simply create more division. It would simply delay us dealing with the real problems in a responsible way.

So I think that in terms of an evaluation of what will work and what won't work, it has to be fair, it has to be open, it has to be independent, and it has to respect the views and conclusions that have already been provided to you by the panel review.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ylonen.

Mr. George Ylonen: Thank you.

Members of Parliament—I'll say former members of Parliament and senators, or senator—have made all sorts of comments regarding the commercial benefits of bringing nuclear waste from foreign countries into Canada. I think the citizens of Canada have to know all of this. There are plans in these vaults over here for certain that the powers-that-be developed because of the commercial benefit.

Canadians must know if this is a fact. If it isn't a fact, publish it, and live by that fact that it's not going to happen. Plain and simple. Say it's not going to happen, and maybe we can live in Canada in peace and quiet and comfort, and no stress for our families, immediate families, and extended families.

I got involved with this many years ago when I saw an article about three girls in Algeria being contaminated by radiation. I don't know what happened. They were sent to Lyon, France, for treatment. I never heard anything about it. I had three daughters. I started attending these meetings, and the more I attended them, the more concerned I got. I continue to be concerned and will continue to be.

Thank you.

The Chair: If the question is asked if there's research as to the things you speak of, I am certain there is.

If you're saying to me that someone in the department, or somewhere, has a plan to store nuclear waste from other countries, I can say to you there are no laws allowing them to plan for that at this point. There is no law in place. Before there would be, there would be consultation nationally, provincially, and it would take years before that law would be in place. But it doesn't mean it will never happen. That is not a situation.

That concludes this consultation. We want to thank you very much for your presence and your contribution.

We will now invite, from the Municipality of Kincardine, Mayor Larry Kraemer.

I understand there may be other mayors with Mayor Kraemer. You are welcome to sit at the table with us if Mayor Kraemer agrees.

Mayor Kraemer, if you choose to split your time with your colleagues, you're welcome to it. You have ten minutes for your presentation. You are the one who is on the agenda, but we will allow you the privilege of choosing how you want to proceed for those ten minutes.

Mr. Larry Kraemer (Mayor of Kincardine, Ontario): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That eliminates my first question before we started.

I'll get to my second question before the clock starts to run.

We'd wish to confirm whether or not our proposed amendments have made it to the committee and been recognized by the committee thus far.

The Chair: The amendments are not received from mayors or individuals; they are received from members of the committee. I was led to believe that you did direct them to a member of the opposition, who I understand is introducing them.

• 1235

Mr. Larry Kraemer: That's right.

The Chair: Can that member confirm that for the sake of time-saving? Not yet? Okay.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: We had asked our member, Paul Steckle, if he could—

The Chair: And Paul has told me personally that he has asked Mr. Breitkreuz, who would be presenting them. Is that correct?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have to go through my own critic, because I'm not on this... I made the inquiry yesterday and was told it was too late to translate them and get them in because they were submitted yesterday. They weren't submitted in time.

The Chair: Oh, no.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Is that true?

The Chair: That's not acceptable. There is still time to submit amendments.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: They have to be translated.

The Chair: Therefore we'll move on.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for hearing us today. On my right I have John Mutton, the mayor of the municipality of Clarington, home of the Darlington nuclear plant, and to his right, Mayor Wayne Arthurs, the mayor of the city of Pickering, home to generating stations Pickering A and Pickering B.

I'd like to begin by introducing myself. I'm Larry Kraemer, the mayor of the municipality of Kincardine. We sit here today representing the steering committee for the Association of Nuclear Host Communities. Collectively, our municipalities represent 90% of nuclear generation in Canada and of corresponding waste volumes. Nuclear waste has been produced since 1962 with the creation of the first reactor in our municipality at Douglas Point on the Bruce site.

We are important stakeholders in Bill C-27 for at least three reasons: we have extensive experience in our municipalities with nuclear operations and nuclear waste issues; Bill C-27 specifically identifies on-site storage of waste at nuclear generating stations—thus our municipalities will be examined as priority sites; and as municipal governments we are responsible for the health of our citizens and for safety and nuclear emergency coordination.

First let me give you a brief description of our organization, the Association of Nuclear Host Communities. We represent the steering committee that has recently formed to launch an association of nuclear host communities. We are creating this organization to give a voice to the needs and concerns of Canadian municipalities that contain nuclear generating stations and/or waste disposal sites.

Clearly, our nuclear industry is evolving. For example, the municipality I represent is home to the first privatization of a nuclear generating station in Canada, as the Bruce nuclear units previously owned by Ontario Hydro are now being operated by Bruce Power Incorporated, a subsidiary of British Energy PLC.

Elsewhere in Canada there may be similar shifts of ownership and control of the nuclear industry away from public sector utilities toward profit-oriented private industry. Some of the systemic changes underway have begun to change the fabric of our relationships within the nuclear world. Public attitude and accountability for waste have become much less clear as the generators and managers of nuclear waste are now structurally separated, with different entities.

More troublesome in my municipality is the abrogation of previous compensation agreements that have been in place with Ontario Hydro to provide local benefits. In Kincardine, businesses were once offered low-cost steam energy in the business park adjoining the Bruce facility, as a local incentive for our municipality. Today, since a new operator of the site is not party to the agreement and the previous operator claims to be unable to sustain it, no one is honouring it. While some offers of short-term compensation in lieu have been put forward, fundamentally our community has lost an important economic development tool as a result of the changes in our nuclear industry, and our trust is shaken.

This is only one illustration of why we, as municipalities who have traditionally stood shoulder to shoulder with the nuclear industries that reside within our boundaries, feel we must join together and pool our resources to protect our own interests. The days when we could depend on others to consider us as a matter of course are clearly over.

A good, successful example is the agreement struck in 2000 between Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Municipality of Clarington, Hope Township, and the Town of Port Hope for long-term management of low-level radioactive waste.

I'd like to turn it over to John Mutton for a few minutes.

Mr. John Mutton (Mayor of Clarington, Ontario): Thank you.

In December of the year 2000, after approximately 25 long years, the Municipality of Clarington, the Town of Port Hope, and Hope Township entered into this agreement with the federal government, signed by Minister Goodale, for the long-term safe management of radioactive waste through on-site containment.

• 1240

The agreement recognized the socio-economic impact and provides for protection to the municipalities and its citizens through the following four areas: through costs for studies and peer reviews, etc.; through a host community fee; through a property-value protection program; and through protection for diminished municipal tax revenue.

This process was supported by the residents of all three municipalities and is highly defendable by all parties, including the federal government. We hope you will incorporate our amendments today, which apply the principles of the tri-community agreement.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: And now I'd like to turn it over to Mayor Wayne Arthurs to make a comment.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Mayor of Pickering, Ontario): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here this early afternoon.

Our city has a long history of dealing with the nuclear industry through Pickering nuclear generating station, from the standpoint both of its operation and of the containment of spent fuel—both in the wet form and more recently as dry-fuel storage.

The WMO study process envisioned in Bill C-27, in our view, should require public referenda to gauge local acceptance. This type of support can only be gauged by having the communities affected most directly involved in the complex and expensive process of education, consultation, and the overall study process. We note that as hosts of the three largest, high-level nuclear storage sites, we already have a socio-economic and financial disadvantage as hosts.

Specifically, with respect to Bill C-27, we're pleased that the bill will require a study process to be produced within three years. However, there's no certainty as to when the process will end or when the implementation would occur.

For as long as 40 years, the municipalities represented here have served as so-called interim storage sites. With the legislation currently before us, there's every likelihood we would continue to serve as stop-gap storage sites for decades more. In effect, we would become the de facto permanent storage sites for nuclear waste without adequate scrutiny, consideration, or preparation for what that means in the longer term.

The bill proposes the WMO be formed with a board composed of representatives exclusively from the nuclear industry. There are no seats allocated for third parties such as municipalities presently hosting nuclear waste. Clearly, as you are, we are directly representative of our constituency. It's important in the public interest that there be representation at the highest possible level in an organization this complex and with such profound implications for our communities.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of presenting before committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: One of our concerns is that effectively, Bill C-27 is putting the fox in charge of the nuclear chicken coop. We hope the committee will recognize that there needs to be more balance to this important organization and that it should at the very least include representation from the constituencies most interested in seeing this process reach a final conclusion. The people of our municipalities have a long history in dealing with the social issues associated with the storage of nuclear waste. Their voices are important and would have much to offer in this process.

We also advocate a cooperative siting process. Municipalities are stakeholders whose interest as a potential partner to the solution is equal to the interest of the nuclear industry.

Finally, I would like to raise the point that, up until today, nuclear host communities have had no opportunity to provide the government with input on this critical piece of legislation. In good faith, we trust that our input would most appropriately be put forward to this committee. However, we have been informed that this committee is scheduled to proceed immediately to clause-by-clause consideration as soon as this deputation is finished. If this is true, it is difficult for me to see how the process will allow the committee members to even have a cursory review of the issues we have described to you before all decisions are made.

We hope this committee will adopt our proposed amendments. If you have had insufficient time to evaluate our submissions, we ask that the committee adjourn in order to fully consider these important issues.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we go to questions, I will say that the request to appear was from concerned citizens from your cities. It came very late, although this has been going on for a long time. Because the approach of your representatives—your MPs—indicated that the mayors wanted to appear, we cancelled the concerned citizens and replaced them by the mayors. But the request came very late. I can attest to that.

Now, colleagues, would you agree to extend for an extra ten minutes? Otherwise we have twenty minutes left, and I have nine names for questions already. Is a ten-minute extension okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed. So I'll give the order as it sits now, and we're still adding some.

• 1245

We'll do three-minute rounds, and we'll do more than one round. It will be Mr. Breitkreuz, Madam Girard-Bujold, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Keddy, Mr. McTeague, Mr. Breitkreuz, Mr. Shepherd, Ms. Girard-Bujold, and Mr. Bagnell. Then it will be Mr. Keddy and Mr. Godfrey.

I may have to cut the list short if we run out of time. Please carry on.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'll be very brief.

I'm not sure if you heard, as you were sitting there listening, the two amendments we have proposed. I would like you to comment on them. The second amendment would provide for the annual reports to be made public after 60 days. The first amendment we're putting forward is to pursue accountability, and have the agency on page 3, clause 8 of the bill, appointed by an outside agency, not in-house.

I would like it if you would comment, and briefly outline what you had proposed as amendments.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: I believe we would favour the rapid reporting you're talking about. I think it would add to the process.

Could you explain the second one again to me, please, specifically?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: In the second one, the annual reports would become public. It is on page 8 of the bill, subclause 16(1):

The waste management organization shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year of the organization, submit to the Minister a report of its activities for that fiscal year.

We're saying don't report to the minister, make it public. They shall be tabled in both houses of Parliament so everyone can examine them.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: We would support it.

Mr. John Mutton: Perhaps to further expand on the issue of amendments, we are requiring the board of directors of the waste management organization to include at least one member who is nominated by the municipalities in which nuclear reactor sites are located.

We would be requiring that the mandatory approach to store nuclear fuel waste at nuclear reactor sites must include the terms and conditions proposed in a community impact agreement between the waste management organization and the municipalities. It would be to avoid or minimize socio-economic impact effects.

We would also require that the waste management organization must consult with the municipalities concerned, and state in a study, setting out the approaches submitted to the minister, whether it has consulted with them and has the approval of the municipalities of the proposed community impact agreements.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

You represent the citizens of your respective municipalities. I had to leave for a few minutes earlier on and I may have missed some of what was said. I assume that some of you have nuclear reactor sites in your area. Do you also have storage facilities on site?

That is one question which I would very briefly like to ask you just to have an idea.

[English]

Mr. Larry Kraemer: We all have generating and waste facilities on each one of our stations.

I represent the Bruce site in Kincardine, Ontario, on the shores of Lake Huron. We believe it to be the largest nuclear power development in the world. With it, we have, if not now, very soon, the largest nuclear waste site in the world.

In Canada, we are the main site for Canada's high-level waste, intermediate-level waste, as well as low-level waste, all of which are contained on our site.

I'll let Mayor Arthurs in Pickering explain their sites.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: The city of Pickering has a facility located on the shore of Lake Ontario adjacent to Toronto. We have wet fuel storage within the bays and plant, but more recently, in the past few years, have gone to dry fuel storage on the site as a first phase. OPG is currently proposing a second phase of dry fuel storage on the site. They will require, obviously, a licence and environmental assessment to proceed. We have both wet and dry fuel storage.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Excuse me, but the Chairman will be cutting me off at any moment.

• 1250

In the context of nuclear facilities and storage sites, what sort of relationship have you had with the various levels of government? How involved are the federal and provincial governments? Do you have any input into that sort of development in your respective communities?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: From our perspective, it has been extremely limited. I must say, most of our focus more recently has been on the relicensing and restart of the A plant at Pickering, and the environmental assessment with it. There has been very little consultation with respect to dry field storage.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Forgive me. I did not catch the interpretation and you were speaking a bit too quickly for me to understand what you said. Could I ask the people doing the interpretation tune into the right channel.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: It is not a problem. Within our municipality, we've had little or no consultation with senior levels of government. We have been focused on the restart process for the A plant at Pickering, with both the relicensing and the environmental assessment. We've had lots of consultation on that front, but little or no consultation in respect to dry field storage.

Mr. John Mutton: In our municipality it's a bit of a different situation, since we're the newest nuclear facility. We're going through the EA process right now for dry fuel storage at the Darlington nuclear generating station. Right now, we have the spent fuel bundles in pools. As I mentioned before, we've had an excellent rapport through the whole process with NR Canada and the storage of long-term, low-level radioactive waste in the Port Granby area of my municipality.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Mr. Kraemer, you said when the British firm took over you had available power cut off to some of your industries. Did it include the experiment with the greenhouses? Has that one been cut off as well?

Mr. Larry Kraemer: It's not that it has been cut off per se; it has been cut off from the nuclear source.

Let me say a few words about the project. It was originally envisioned to highlight the advantages and versatility of the CANDU nuclear system. As part of our site, we also at one time produced almost all of Canada's heavy water. There was an abundance of steam generation capacity built initially into the Bruce A nuclear generating station. As the demand for heavy water decreased, OPG—or then, Ontario Hydro—in cooperation with the Municipality of Kincardine, came up with the concept of firing local industry, and developing ourselves economically with very attractively priced steam energy delivered through an umbilical cord style set-up between the nuclear plant and the industries.

With the shutdown of Bruce A during the NAOP period, the steam was supplied to the industries on an interim basis through fossil fuels at a subsidized price. The contract currently runs for about another two and a half years at the nuclear-generated price. The oil-fired price ensures at least a doubling in energy costs to the local industries. If all costs are in, it will cause a tripling of it, undermine any development process originally envisioned through it, and cease the initiative to highlight CANDU's versatility.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Is there any suggestion from either level of government, provincial or federal, for some financial assistance to the municipality to offset these costs?

Mr. Larry Kraemer: We've been inquiring, with little success.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

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

I'd like to welcome our presenters. I appreciate receiving a copy of the proposed amendments.

The immediate question arises on including a member from the municipality, the mayor or some member from your municipal group, on the board as a bona fide board member. It becomes problematic, in that the way it's set up right now, the board members are obviously paying for the disposal. There's perhaps not a clear enough link between the advisory council and the WMO. The advisory council is just that, an advisory council. The WMO doesn't necessarily have to accept their advice.

• 1255

However—I'm just thinking this through and haven't had an opportunity to look at these—there is the question of on-site storage, which is waste management, which directly affects the municipalities and in which you want some direct involvement. So I think there's a good argument to allow a member from the municipality on each of the boards.

It's problematic to bring the amendment in at this stage without looking at how it affects the legislation as it works its way through, because if you make a member now a full member of the board, do they have the same obligations as other board members vis-à-vis the requirement to pay the upkeep and maintenance and be a paying member of the board?

Can you quickly respond to that? I'm sorry for taking so long in preamble.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: The thrust of this proposal is essentially that, as I'm sure many of the members present can understand, there's an intricate political dance that goes along with this entire issue and very intense communication necessary in order to make things flow smoothly and in order to be up on everything that happens and to know and ensure proper communication with these challenges. We feel that it's necessary that we be involved at the very heart of the process.

It's not just the on-site storage that makes us involved in this. Because of the nature of the animal, we feel that we will need to be involved in anything, even if we go to the geological disposal, because it then becomes necessary to monitor, ensure emergency response capabilities, do roads planning and all the myriad of municipal responsibilities involved just in the removal of the waste only from a transportation point of view.

Each one of us is responsible for the safety of our constituents and to answer to any type of mishap or challenge that may come. I'm not going to expound on them. I'm sure you can all fill in the blanks there. I'll just leave it at that.

The Chair: Mr. McTeague.

[Translation]

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish first of all to thank all the witnesses for coming here today. I am not, obviously, a permanent member of the committee but I do have a nuclear reactor in my riding. I also wish to thank my colleagues for allowing me to ask a question.

[English]

Thank you for being here today, mayors. I too have an interest in this issue.

Mr. Kraemer, Mr. Arthurs, and Mr. Mutton, you have raised the issue of representation—I think you used the word “board”. My reading of the bill suggests that the members of the advisory council should be appointed by a governing body and include

...representatives nominated by local and regional governments and aboriginal organizations that are affected because their economic region is specified for the approach that the Governor in Council selects under section 15...

It would appear to me that the concerns you're raising are already covered in the bill. Perhaps I'm misreading your position, notwithstanding financial considerations perhaps. Does the bill go far enough, or do you want something more here that I haven't appreciated in your presentation?

Mr. Larry Kraemer: I believe what you're referring to is for the advisory council.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Correct.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: The management board itself for the WMO is what we have asked for, if you should find it appropriate.

Can I ask a counter-question? Is Gentilly in your riding?

Mr. Dan McTeague: No, I'm in Pickering, Mayor Arthurs'...

Mr. Larry Kraemer: Sorry, I misunderstood.

Mr. John Mutton: I think it's important that we do get in at the ground floor in the legislation, because it could be too late once it's passed. Especially with host community agreements, if we recognize that up front, I think we're all going to be able to go through a process similar to the Port Granby process, which was widely accepted by the public and all levels of government alike.

The Chair: Mr. Arthurs.

• 1300

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Mr. McTeague, I think Mr. Keddy pointed out one of the difficulties, and that is the advisory body does just that—provides only advice. Even within the context of the proposed legislation, as I read it, it talks about representatives of municipalities and others. There may be a means, if that is the outcome, if that is strengthened, to make reference to directly elected representatives. But I think it's important that it not just be, in that instance, appointed people, but people who do go to the public and directly represent communities.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Local or regional? Because I know in many instances there are conflicts.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: We are speaking here as the mayors of the local municipalities, as host municipalities to those facilities. I feel the local municipalities would be the appropriate jurisdiction.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sheppard.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I also have the Darlington nuclear reactor in my riding, so I have a very profound interest in that.

To Mr. Mutton, there are provisions in the act to deal with community consultation. Obviously you don't feel they are adequate enough and you have already reiterated that. But you also talked about the Port Granby issue. In my mind they are significantly different. An incident of low-level nuclear waste being dumped on a site without anybody's consent seems to be a lot different from a nuclear site that went through an environmental assessment review process, and everybody knew that was happening.

Do you feel there was an implied consent or an agreement with the previous Ontario Hydro and now with OPG that they would remove all nuclear waste from the premises?

Mr. John Mutton: I would agree with that.

When the legislation references community, I really think that it has to be focused on municipalities, because community could entail a huge area and further water down the affected community. As far as the difference between the low-level radioactive waste that was dumped in my municipality and being the host of this waste, because of my first answer regarding our thought that the waste would be removed from our municipality, if there is any change in plans now, I would say that's why we have to enter into a host community agreement up front.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: Can I speak to that, please?

The Chair: Yes, there is time.

Mr. Larry Kraemar: It was our understanding widely within our region that we would be responsible for the waste up until the point where it left the pools, while it was in wet storage. We believe—rightly or not—that the original concept expected to have the waste gone after it left the pools. It is significantly different to go the next step into dry storage.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Just one counter-question: why do your amendments not seek to simply eliminate the possibility of on-site storage?

Mr. Larry Kraemer: Because we feel they are unrealistic, given the circumstances. We don't feel it's a deliverable. We feel that no matter what happens, we have to be part of the process...

Mr. John Mutton: Maybe to help answer, I know that if there were a decision to store the waste in my municipality, it would be a referendum question to the citizens. They would have the decision as to whether the waste stayed—if they are supportive of it or if they are supportive of it going elsewhere.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mayors, I wish I had been able to be here for all your presentations, but as it is I did miss some parts of what was said.

As you know, this bill does not provide for public consultations. Nor does it state that the public will be represented on the board of directors of the waste management organization.

Mayors, would you like to sit on the board of directors? I hear you say that you have deep concerns regarding the management of nuclear waste and regarding also the consultation issue. Mr. Mutton, you have just stated that you would like a referendum on waste management in order to know exactly what should be done about nuclear waste. As members of the Bloc Québécois, we would like to see a board of directors that includes the mayors of municipalities where a nuclear reactor has been built and allows them to be involved in that activity. The board should also include representatives of NGOs and of native peoples as well as two other members from the industry. These last two would be appointed, but the others would be elected democratically.

• 1305

[English]

Mr. John Mutton: Absolutely, I would agree. There has to be broad community representation. I'm speaking on behalf of the municipalities. Of course, we have to be at the table. We have a saying: no contamination without representation. I think that follows suit, Boston Tea Partyish.

As to your question about referendum, obviously it would be necessary in my community, if there was any option other than removal from my municipality.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: One of our proposed amendments has spoken directly to that. We agree completely.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Your worship, you were saying that you did not wish to see this waste buried in your area. You feel this should be done elsewhere since you do not feel it is safe.

Where should this burial take place? In the Canadian Shield? As you know, 90% of the Canadian Shield is in Quebec. How do you think we should go about this? There was no consultation. We members of the committee do not have the same perspective as you. For years you have seen nuclear waste stored alongside your nuclear plants. Surely, over the years, you must have thought of a way of getting rid of that. Would you tell us what your position is in this matter?

[English]

The Chair: In 15 seconds.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: We feel we'd need to be part of the overall study. We haven't decided yet, as this committee has, what the end solution is, but we think it will take a very long time. As time goes by, the stockpiles will continue to build and the reactors will continue to age and the problem will grow with time. We feel we need to be intimately involved in the process, whatever the final end is. We're willing to look at the right solutions, provided the proper science and the proper guarantees and the proper economic considerations are given.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm not sure we're actually targeting the Canadian Shield, because the committee decides what method to use. So it could be anything. The Shield could be one of the options.

As per consultation, there definitely is consultation built in at subclause 12(7). As I mentioned to another witness, I think we all agree the industry shouldn't decide what's going to be done. That would be in the terms that you use.

We've been having a debate about which model, and I haven't been convinced otherwise that the present model wouldn't be one that would work with all the consultation and the advisory council and everything.

I was surprised at the suggestion about councils, about not having staff be...appearances. That's up to council. You have control over your council. We don't have to put that in our act, as to who you send to hearings. That's in your municipal act. So if you want council members to go, you should definitely send council members to anything where you're requested.

Some of the previous interventions have suggested processes longer than three years, or perhaps making it so complicated that who knows how long, almost indefinite. I would assume, as the host communities, you would perhaps not like to have an extremely lengthy procedure or one that could go on forever—at least one that's extenuated longer than is proposed in the bill.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: Yes, I'd like to answer that question. You're absolutely right. We would like to see this process move along. Within the municipality of Kincardine we have a rather graphic example of what this process can entail in the original Douglas Point plant. It has now been shut down for in the range of 15 to 20 years, and the reactor and all the fuel still sit there waiting for a solution. We would very much like to see that not be the case with the rest of this problem. So we are very much interested in seeing this come along.

• 1310

We would like to help the committee and the Government of Canada with this problem. I think we all speak similarly on this. We know that by default the economics of the situation very much favour option two. We think that has rather large implications for our communities and for our governments and for the political realities of our constituencies.

Mr. John Mutton: I recommend that we have an ambitious timetable, but one that doesn't leave any stone unturned. If you can imagine the impact of having a long-term storage facility of high-level waste on the assessment values of our houses and our industries and our municipality and how it translates into a loss in property taxes as well, there's very real financial risk for the municipalities.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

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

I'd like to go back to the issue we were discussing before—that the municipalities need to be intimately involved in the solution to the waste problem. I spoke for a fair amount of time on that. I didn't really feel you folks had time enough to answer, so I'd like to hear your view once again, because I think it's important to the committee. You've given us a submission. We're going to go to clause-by-clause, perhaps, and we really haven't had a lot of opportunity to study that—to look at how those amendments, if they were put forth, would change the entire thrust of the bill.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Maybe I could start.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Clearly you've identified and articulated some of the constraints under the current proposal for the board structure. But the point we need to make as municipalities is the importance of having a range of expertise and interest at a board level of any organization, such that the various interests are effectively heard. It's clearly our view that those of us who represent municipalities—represent citizens—should be a direct party to that.

In the absence of that, though, you also pointed out the difficulty with the advisory committee, because it simply provides advice. As an alternative, if that were to be strengthened in the fashion such that it was seen as a more influential part of the process, if the board itself couldn't be modified, then there may be some opportunities existing there.

Mr. John Mutton: I'd have to agree with the Mayor of Pickering.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: I would agree with that as well.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With regard to the mothballing of the reactor you mentioned, it has been mothballed for 15 years and we still have an on-site waste problem. I commend you, because most of the people who've come before us seem to want to put this problem off. I, for one, would agree with not putting the problem off. Let's try to find a solution to it. That doesn't mean that we have to find it this afternoon. We may actually have a little more time to deal with it. But I appreciate your submissions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I've been listening to the suggestions about your participation on the management board of this. What strikes me, as I read the legislation and as I understand the relationship between the government and this new organization, is that the new organization is also, in effect, even at the level of their management board, an advisory board. The final disposition is up to the government, and the ministry is collectively responsible, not just the minister himself.

The bill seems to spell out in pretty straightforward terms, when it comes to the advisory council, that you clearly have a role here in whatever approach is undertaken:

...representatives nominated by local and regional governments and aboriginal organizations that are affected because their economic region is specified...

It also makes various other references to programs for public consultation—with all respect to Madame Girard-Bujold—“taking into account the economic region” and so on. There is lots of that language throughout—consultations with the general public. Knowing at the end of the day that the buck stops with the federal government, do you think it really matters very much that you be on the board of the organization itself, rather than the advisory board, where you clearly would have to be? You could appeal if you weren't.

• 1315

Mr. John Mutton: Absolutely. When you take a look at consulting the public, I know in the municipality just north of mine there's very little concern regarding the contamination and the storage of waste, whereas it is of great concern within my municipality. So I think it should be more focused in those terms.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: I'm not sure whether the committee understands how intimately involved in the nuclear industry a host community becomes. Because of the scale of the business and the types of issues that tend to swirl around this entire process it tends to take over much of the day-to-day business of a municipality. You could ask our CAOs and our top staff the type of timeframes these issues take.

And it is at the local level. We take on the responsibilities for our local roads, the interaction with the industries, the emergency coordination responsibilities, and all of these other things. And there is really no other place quite like our level of involvement with it. It is distinct and much different from anything else.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Could I just add to that?

The Chair: We must now proceed to closing remarks, so you will have the time. About a minute each, please.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Maybe I can start, if you like. I'll just follow up on that other question, and that will be the minute.

My municipality has a current population exceeding 90,000 and growing. My immediate neighbour to the east, which is adjoining us for all practical purposes, is 75,000 and growing. To the west is the city of Toronto, with 2 million people. We're at the eye of the storm as a city. In a current phrase, it's kind of like ground zero. It's very important for those who are so directly impacted to be able to influence a process and bring their point of view as close to the decision-making as possible. With all respect to the role of this government in the final decision-making, it's important to have that voice as close as possible to the decisions that are going to be presented to this government for consideration.

Mr. John Mutton: In my municipality we're very nuclear industry astute, not only because we have the Darlington nuclear generating station, but because we have the proposed Iter Canada facility that's going through the EA process now. It's been a very open process. We have the low-level radioactive waste. In fact, I called this past council meeting “nuclear night”. Everything, including the Sierra Club, was on our agenda. In my municipality there's a strong focus on the nuclear industry. We're supportive of it and supportive of landing the Iter Canada project. I think it's absolutely paramount that we be major stakeholders in this process.

Mr. Larry Kraemer: And Kincardine also is intimately involved in this entire process. We have the largest of Canada's nuclear stations. We have had virtually, with the exception of Iter, every major initiative of the industry through our area, right from Douglas Point through the heavy water process, the privatization, expansion—you name it within the industry; we've had it.

I know from a previous submission by the Sierra Club that they want to extend the process. We very much don't. We would like to work with the government of Canada to find the solution to this and would be willing to examine all options in concert with you. Sierra Club wants to keep it where it's produced. They've said that has its own implications.

I would like at this point to say I believe the involvement of our municipalities could add efficiency to this process, if we have the right type of say in it, because of our understanding and our intimate involvement with the people most deeply concerned, who are the local residents. We host the workers, we host the engineers, and all those other people are residents of our sites, so they're also very close to it.

I would like to request transcripts, if we could, from this committee so that we can keep ourselves up on the views of the others. I would very much like to thank the committee for seeing us today. We encourage you and add our support to your deliberations.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Transcripts will be available on the website.

• 1320

Mayor Kraemer, Mayor Arthurs, and Mayor Mutton, thank you very much for appearing. It would have been a mistake not to have you here. I thank you very much for appearing at the last minute. I commend the members for having been astute enough to make sure you were here. Thank you very much. It was very helpful.

I now invite the department to the table, please.

Colleagues, our legislative clerks have put things in order—because when you get 51 amendments on a bill that has 32 clauses, it means there are duplications, and the experts are the ones who have put them in order. And because we got the amendments late, they have been able to put in order the amendments that have been tabled so far up to clause 10. That means the others are being processed and will be fed as we proceed.

I have one question for you. In all fairness to you, I think we need unanimous consent. If you agree, do you want to sit through question period?

Voices: No.

The Chair: No? Then we will adjourn from 1:55 until 3:30, when we will meet in Room 536 of the Wellington Building. Okay?

Monsieur Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make, if we all agree. It is already 1:35 PM. You were saying that we have just received various amendments from the legislative counsel. Amendments that go right up to clause 10. But with respect to clause 10, there are several amendments I have not yet received. Since some of us must go attend question period and since everyone is in a bit of a hurry, I propose the committee try to settle all this before 3:30 PM. Then, at 3:30, we can then begin since we will have all we need to tackle the question.

• 1325

The Chair: I understand, but the committee has decided to pursue the clause by clause right up to question period and then to start again at 3:30. This is what the committee has decided.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the committee.

The Chair: Are you asking the committee whether it wishes to adjourn the meeting until 3:30?

Mr. Serge Cardin: I am.

The Chair: Does the committee wish to adjourn until 3:30?

(Motion negatived: nays, 7; yeas, 4)

Mr. Serge Cardin: Now, Mr. Chairman, we can say that the committee has decided.

[English]

The Chair: The way we will proceed, unless the committee has other suggestions, will be the way we proceeded for the other bill we did together. I will run through the clauses, and if you have a question...

I think we should all pay attention, because last time we had...

I'll continue. I'll come back: if you have a question or a comment, or you want to debate, or you have an amendment on any of the clauses, when I get to that clause you just yell out “Pull it” or “Retirez”, and we will pull it. If we don't pull it, I will ask you if it carries, and it will be considered to have been carried. Okay? It's very clear.

After that, we will come back with all the clauses that have been pulled, and in numerical order we will deal with each one of them. We have agreed that we will do the clause-by-clause today. With cooperation we can finish early; without, we could go very late into the night.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we did agree to do clause-by-clause today, but that doesn't necessarily mean we must do it today. It's incumbent upon the committee members to decide whether we do clause-by-clause—

The Chair: That's right, but—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm making a point here, excuse me—

The Chair: Well, if you're making a point, but there's no room for—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: —and I'm going to make a motion—

The Chair: If it's a point of order, I'll accept it, but it is not. If you wish to proceed past—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's a motion, actually, that we adjourn until after break.

The Chair: We're not accepting that motion. If you wish to proceed past five o'clock, at that point you suggest to the members that we not proceed tonight. Okay? That's the way it works. We have an agenda and we're going to follow it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We have an agenda as long as committee members are agreed to the agenda. If committee members are not agreed to the agenda and you want to use the majority of the committee members to force it through, that's fine, but we have a submission from three municipalities in Ontario that we got late. That means their amendments will get discussed, I assume, during clause-by-clause, but it takes a lot of time to discuss amendments we haven't had time to study.

The Chair: What is your request?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would request, with all due respect, Mr. Chair, that we forgo clause-by-clause today and come back to it after the break, and the first day after the break do clause-by-clause and get this bill moved through. I'm supporting moving the process. That would give us time to study the issue and the other amendments.

The Chair: We have a request, which I accept as a motion—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chair: —to reconsider the decision you made to go to clause-by-clause today by a two-thirds majority. You're reconsidering a decision you made. Those in favour of suspending clause-by-clause until after the week break, raise your hand.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Shall we carry on? Thank you.

Pursuant to the committee's order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, 2001, the committee will now resume consideration of Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. As agreed, the committee will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I should mention that the department representatives are here with us. They will be with us for the duration of the clause-by-clause and they are here to answer your questions. Thank you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

I remind everyone, if you want even a question, just yell out “Pull” or “Retirez”.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Some hon. members: Pull it.

• 1330

(Clauses 2 and 3 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Are you going to say no to all of them? Tell me now.

An hon. member: No.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, this makes no sense. You are going too quickly. We have to know exactly what it is you're having up agreeing to or rejecting. I have not even seen all the amendments.

The Chair: But the bill was handed out to you long ago.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of amendments and I simply do not have them all.

[English]

The Chair: I will slow down.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Excuse me. Please.

The Chair: I will slow down.

[English]

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(Clause 6 to 21 inclusive allowed to stand)

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): I have a point of order.

The Chair: Point of order.

Mr. Gérard Binet: I think if we're going to lose ten minutes, we might as well go to clause 2 and start the discussion, because this is an exercise in futility here.

The Chair: I'm almost done.

(Clause 22 to 29 inclusive allowed to stand)

The Chair: All of them?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: We're playing games.

All of them are going to be dealt with after.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a question on procedure, Mr. Chairman.

I'm assuming that when we approve clauses, if we were to get a successful amendment passed, or have an amendment pass, that may change subsequent amendments. So even though some of those clauses were passed, if there were an amendment passed that affected that, I assume it would automatically be retroactive; it would apply.

The Chair: If that happens I would recommend to the committee to reconsider.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chair: If we want a document that stands—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't think it will, but—

The Chair: It's reasonable. What you're asking is very reasonable.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chair: And I would encourage the committee members to do exactly that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, on a point of order as well.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have, I believe, eight more amendments that I sent over I think 48 hours ago. I don't have them back. I wonder if the clerk has any idea if we're going to get them this afternoon.

[Translation]

Mr. Philippe Méla (legislative clerk): They will be ready this afternoon for the second part of the clause by clause, at 3:30. We decided to separate the pile into two because we did not have enough time this morning. So we prepared a stack going up to clause 10. This afternoon, we shall have a second stack that covers clause 10 to 32.

[English]

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

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, we have 25 minutes left. If I understand what the legislative clerk is saying, we will get the other stack this afternoon. Why not wait until 3:30 to begin the clause by clause, Mr. Chairman? We would then have both stacks.

The Chair: As I said at the beginning, we already have the stack containing amendments right through clause 10. We do not intend to go beyond clause 10 before having the required amendments. We have them now.

[English]

We will deal with clause 2.

[Translation]

The amendment to clause 2 is put forward by Mr. Cardin.

[English]

Do we have more than one? We have one from Mr. Comartin. We have another from Mr. Comartin. We have one from Mr. Keddy. And we have another from Mr. Keddy. They will be dealt with in the order in which they appear in your document.

• 1335

[Translation]

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I propose that section 2 of the bill C-27 be amended by placing what is presently at line 12 of page 1, by the following:

“management” In relation to Canadian nuclear fuel waste from existing Canadian nuclear power stations.

We would add the word “Canadian”. The definition would then include neither imported waste nor the management of any but Canadian waste.

The Chair: Are there any comments? We accept the two amendments, which means that we will now go on to Mr. Comartin's amendment, is that not so?

[English]

The procedure is that I accept two amendments, but it's not workable, as I'm told. We will vote on the amendments as we deal with them. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Who are those in favor of Mr. Cardin's amendment, amendment BQ-1?

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Sorry, Mr. Chair, aren't we going to get to speak to it?

The Chair: I'm very sorry, I'll slow down.

Anyone else on this amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is very important that the definition of “nuclear fuel waste” and of “management”, include only waste that is presently here in Canada. That is waste that comes from our own nuclear reactors.

Mr. Chairman, the government wishes to have this bill passed very quickly. But for the time being, this bill is ours and in its present version nothing prevents importing nuclear waste from other countries. It is therefore important to specify that it must be Canadian nuclear waste.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we specify that it must be existing nuclear waste. What do we have with the present version? Its intent is to manage existing waste. If we open the door to future waste, we will simply prevent the Canadian government from going ahead and transforming its vision and no longer promoting nuclear plants both nationally and internationally. The government is going to have to green its policies in this matter and this is very important to future generations.

There are wind generators and hydroelectric plants. There are all sorts of other means that the government is going to have to consider. If the government wishes to abide by the agreements it signed in Kyoto and reduce its emissions, it will have to move to more ecologically sound policies. If we do not include in this new legislation certain guideposts and if we do not ask that the government choose a precise direction to enable future generations to finally be able to...

Mr. Chairman, you have children. I, too, have children, and, Mr. Chairman, we also have grandchildren and we are accountable to future generations. If we open the door to just anything and don't include in the draft legislation the necessary guideposts and simply go hurriedly about our work of considering the new legislation, we are not respecting the generations to come. We are not opposed to managing our present waste. The waste we have accumulated over these past years, but we have to devise a framework that enable us to stop producing more waste. Furthermore, we must not become the garbage can of the world.

This amendment put forward by the Bloc Québécois is most important and I ask the liberal majority to consider it very closely and to bear in mind the well-being of future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1340

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments regarding the amendment?

Mr. Serré and then Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Should we not be setting a time limit concerning amendments? There are close to 100 amendments. We will still be here two weeks from now.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is not so bad.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I think I am being reasonable in asking this and I believe that there is something to that effect in the Standing Orders.

The Chair: In all fairness, let us conclude our consideration of the present amendment. If members want us to take your suggestions into account, I will submit it to all the members.

[English]

Mr. Comartin.

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

I want to express my support for this amendment. It draws to the committee's attention the need to consider what we're really doing here in terms of trying to deal with these wastes, and the last thing we need is to have a huge increase in the volume of those wastes coming in from outside our jurisdiction. We have more than enough, which we don't know how to deal with, to deal with within our own country.

Quite frankly, given some of the comments of the Prime Minister over the last couple of years on this subject, I'm quite concerned that it's time for this country to take a firm, solid position that we're not going to bring wastes in from outside the country. We heard from some of the witnesses today of the almost surreptitious approach that the government took to bring those experimental wastes in.

My community was one of the ones that passed a resolution in effect prohibiting the transport of those wastes across their boundaries. In order to get around that type of resolution that came in from a number of municipalities around the province, the government decided to just airlift it, which was an extremely unsafe process. Given the light of what happened on September 11, I think even more so.

We're under tremendous pressure from other countries, Russia in particular, but the United States as well, to enter into some kind of international arrangement where they see us as the dumping grounds. This amendment to the interpretation of the act would go some clear distance to say to the country and to the rest of the world that we're not going to do that. This is a problem we've created, and we'll deal with our problems.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, if the end result of all the work that's going on is that we come up with a solution, given Canada's history, I think we would be quite happy to share it with the rest of the world. But this means we don't bring their waste in here.

I want to strongly indicate to my colleagues from the Bloc that I'm very much in support of this amendment.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reed.

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

I wondered if we could ask our learned staff if they would comment on the intent of this bill and whether it does allow for external material to come in from outside the country.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau (Senior Policy Adviser, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Natural Resources Canada): The intent of the bill does not cover the question of the import of nuclear fuel waste. There are no foreseeable plans to import nuclear fuel waste whatsoever. Should, in the far future, there be such plans, then there are already other federal mechanisms for oversight to deal with it, and it would be under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

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

I thank Ms. Létourneau for her interpretation, but I'm not certain that it is adequately controlled with other acts. I'd like a clear legal definition, because it doesn't clearly mention it. If it did clearly mention that this is not to deal with the importation of nuclear fuel, there certainly would be no problem with adding that to the bill. It would very clearly then state, and we would know exactly what we're talking about—not some supposition that might happen in the future—that it doesn't deal with importation of nuclear fuel waste from another country. I don't agree that the bill is clear, that it absolutely excludes it.

• 1345

A voice: It doesn't.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): I apologize, Mr. Chair, I don't have the text of the motion in front of me. I've just asked whether it would be possible to receive a copy.

My name is Joanne Kellerman. I'm the legal counsel from Department of Justice responsible for the file.

Thank you. I now have it.

The definition of “management” in the current draft clearly does not relate to the location of waste. The question I have about the proposed amendment is that when we speak of Canadian waste and Canadian power stations, to me it is not clear whether we're referring to waste located in Canada or waste owned by the Canadian owner of a nuclear power station. There is a distinction, and there are legal differences in relation to it.

What I would like to point out to members of the committee is that we do have obligations to U.S. and Mexican investors under NAFTA. If there were Mexican or American owners in Canada of a Canadian nuclear station—which there are not today, but if there were—then our obligation under NAFTA is to treat them the same way we treat Canadian owners of nuclear fuel waste located within our country.

So I have that comment on the scope of the motion to amend. I realize, sir, that doesn't respond to the question you've raised, but perhaps you could repeat...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: —

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Exactly. It raises the question if there is nuclear fuel waste in Canada now, or if there's nuclear fuel waste that's brought in in the future. I realize it's subject to other acts, but I'm not... We don't have those other acts, and the clarity of those other acts, in front of us.

For me, in my understanding of it, this bill would be clearer if the act stated clearly that it doesn't deal with the importation of nuclear fuel. That doesn't affect NAFTA. If Mexico wants, sometime in the future... If a Mexican company builds a nuclear power plant in Canada, that allows them to be a signatory under this act and to join the WMO. That's all very clear, and it's here. However, it doesn't allow them to import more nuclear fuel waste from a plant that may be already in existence in Mexico, for instance. I don't see that as problematic. What I see as problematic is that it doesn't clearly state they can't import fuel.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The scope of the bill does not touch on importation of nuclear fuel waste from outside the boundaries of Canada. It does not speak to that point.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Exactly.

The Chair: Any other comments? Ready for the question?

[Translation]

We will now go on to Mr. Cardin, who has proposed the motion, and allow him one final comment.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Ms. Kellerman, you say that imports are not mentioned. But neither is it clearly stated that imports will not be allowed. When you say that there is a potential problem arising from the phrase “Canadian nuclear fuel waste from Canadian nuclear power stations”, you are alluding to the fact that we might have Canadian-owned nuclear plants operating outside Canada. In that case, my amendment will not prevent Canada from bringing in the nuclear waste of a Canadian company operating outside Canada.

In that case, we can simply add the phrase “in Canada” or state clearly, if we really want to be clear on that point, that we will import no nuclear waste.

[English]

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: Your first point, sir, was that the bill does not prohibit the importation of nuclear fuel waste. That's correct. The bill does not do that.

• 1350

Your second point related to the definition of “management” and the word “Canadian”. I think the word “Canadian” is ambiguous here and that a reference to “nuclear power stations located in Canada” would address my point.

Your third point had to do with the clear prohibition. That would not go in the definitions clause of the bill. That would be in another place in the bill; it wouldn't be in the definitions.

The Chair: That closes debate on the amendment.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like a vote on...

The Chair: We are in the process of voting. Are you rising on a point of order?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I would like a recorded vote on this, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 4)

The Chair: Do we have a point of order?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes. I handed in my amendments some time ago to the clerk. I'm just trying to go through the amendments as they're listed here.

The Chair: Are they from one to ten?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes. I'm having a bit of confusion here. My first amendment and my second amendment were prior to this amendment and amendments one to ten that we just began to deal with. The first amendment dealt with the title, which was not passed, to my knowledge.

The Chair: We do that at the end.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay. And the second amendment was again the short title. So that's why we're waiting?

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, the end. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now deal with the amendment NDP-1. Mr. Comartin.

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

I'd just like to note that I expect we will stop sharply at 1:55, because I have to make a statement for my party at question period.

The Chair: If I can be of assistance, I can defer this until we come back.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, if we could.

The Chair: If you would prefer that, Mr. Comartin, it's your amendment.

Mr. Joe Comartin: We'd just stand it down then, and then do it a little bit later?

The Chair: We'll deal with it immediately at 3:30 in this room.

Mr. Joe Comartin: We're not going to Wellington?

The Chair: No, we're not—well, unless you choose to go there, but the room is here.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can we leave our notes here?

The Chair: Yes, the room is available; we can leave everything here. Is that okay—just on that issue?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chair, I want to make a motion before we adjourn.

The Chair: No, we will deal with whether we stay here at 3:30 or go to the Wellington building. Is there anyone who wants us to go to Wellington at 3:30?

There we go; we solved that.

Mr. Serré, you have a point, and then Madame Bujold has a point.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes, I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we limit the debate of all the other amendments to five minutes per amendment.

The Chair: We can't do it procedurally. We cannot do it.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is exactly what I wanted to say. That's section 116 of Standing Orders.

The Chair: I don't know what I would do without you.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I knew that you were made to get along.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

[English]

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, she checked with the clerk, and I'm told that...

The Chair: There's an old ruling on it, and you cannot do it. I tried to change it five years ago, and our House leaders have not done it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If we're breaking anyway, Mr. Chair, if I may say so for the benefit of all committee members here, the amendments that have been put forth have already been passed by the clerk. None of them is frivolous or simply put in to delay or obstruct the bill. All the amendments have already been passed as being legitimate amendments, and you know we're not trying to delay the process. What we're trying to do here, certainly in the PC/DR coalition, is raise important points of deficiencies that we see in the bill. That deserves a certain amount of discussion. Now, it may not deserve an hour per amendment, but I think you have to bear with us on this.

The Chair: One rule I will stick to is that only the mover will be able to speak twice on the amendment. He will be speaking first and last. No other member will get two chances at speaking at any amendment.

• 1355

We will suspend until 3:30 in this room.