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

• 1531

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): The drafter has just received amendments on clause 2. He's evaluating where to fit them in, in the amendments that we have. So we'll suspend for two or three minutes.

• 1532

• 1542

The Chair: We will resume our work with amendment NDP-1.

Mr. Comartin, please.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

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

The amendment proposed is simply to remove from the existing draft in English the words “or disposal” in line 16.

[Translation]

In French, the amendment is to remove the words “or disposal” at line 14.

[English]

Mr. Chair, the bill as drafted is intentionally designed, if I understand it correctly, to deal only with storage, not with disposal. And I have to say to you, Mr. Chair, when I first saw that word, the word that immediately jumped into my mind was “dumping”. I was equating disposal with that. I can't see from reading the existing draft where disposal has any role to play at all. The fear I have is that if we leave that wording in there it opens up the possibility of some other methodology to be used to dispose of these wastes. So it opens that door, I believe, to some degree, and we should not do that.

As I said, if one looks at subclause 12(2), paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), in all three cases the methodology that's encompassed in the legislation as drafted is to limit what we do with these wastes to storage mechanisms and methodologies. There's no indication in there at all of any form of methodology to be used, other than storage. Therefore, I believe that by removing those words, both in English and in French, as I'm proposing, in fact it is in keeping with the act as proposed and avoids the possibility of another methodology being introduced. It opens that door.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I don't believe the honourable member is reading subclause 12(2) correctly. I don't see anything that says three things here are the sole basis. It says they are the sole basis of at least one approach. There could be a dozen other approaches. As the transmutation witness answered for us, we're dealing with nuclear physics. There may be a way to change the radium back into lead, or vice versa, as the case is. So I can't agree with the honourable member's amendment.

• 1545

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): I'm a little mixed up on exactly what's meant by the change, because what's being inserted is “means of storage, including handling”, and what's in the bill says “means of storage or disposal”.

I think we have to leave it open for the WMO to be able to dispose of the product. I can't see how you can limit it to strictly storage and whatever legal ramifications there would be between “storage” and “disposal”. I don't think I can support it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

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

I have carefully read the definition of “management” in clause 2. I would like departmental officials to tell me what they were thinking of when they included the words “by means of storage or disposal”. Right now, we are really talking about the storage of waste located at power plant sites. So, what is meant by “or disposal”? Does that mean that we want to include waste that may have been disposed of somewhere under this legislation? I would like to know what is meant by that.

[English]

Ms. Carmel Létourneau (Senior Policy Adviser, Legal Services, National Research Council): The term “storage” means a temporary solution, “disposal” means a permanent solution.

So under this act, you have both storage and disposal. If you look at paragraph 12(2)(a), it's “deep geological disposal”. So very clearly, both storage and disposal fall under this act.

[Translation]

The Chair: Is that OK, Ms. Girard-Bujold?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman. I don't understand your position.

In the French version, we seem to be talking about two separate things which each mean something different. I don't know whether that also applies to the English version. When you have wording like “storage or disposal”, the “or” is very important. That means there would be two procedures in terms of dealing with stored waste or disposed of waste. That's what the “or” suggests to me, at least in the French version.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Storage can be for a period of 100 years based on the options described in paragraphs 12(2)(b) and (c). This is still a temporary solution, because the waste is stored for 100 years, but obviously a permanent solution needs to be found. The permanent solution would be “disposal”.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: So, what you're telling me is that the term “management”, as used in the legislation, refers to a limited period of time, because a different approach will be required later.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That would therefore mean that it is temporary—that this legislation is not cast in stone. In other words, once the waste has been stored, some years from now—perhaps several hundred years from now or who knows when—it may have to be disposed of because it would be unsafe to leave it where it is.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: No, because the policy will then be one of permanent disposal. At some point, we will have to proceed with something permanent.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Why don't you say so then?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Paragraph (2)(a) sets out a permanent solution.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: We are talking about the definition, are we not? It's fine for you to repeat that and keep referring us back to another clause, but when you define something or you say you are going to define it, it's important that the definition be precise.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: In this bill, long-term management includes storage or disposal. It encompasses those two concepts. Under the bill, those are the two forms of long-term management, either storage or disposal.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: So, we're not dealing only with the current situation. Your bill also addresses the situation in future.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes, exactly.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

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

I'm afraid I can't help with the French interpretation, but in English it might have been better if the “storage” had “temporary” attached to it, because “deep geological disposal”, according to the technology as I understand it, is also retrievable if it is desired to be retrieved at some time in the future. “Disposal” carries with it here a little element of permanency. It is permanent as long as we want it permanent. If we want to reprocess that fuel, we can haul it out again.

• 1550

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): So disposal is meant to represent a permanent approach. When we read in paragraph 12(2)a) “l'évacuation en couches géologiques profondes” in French or “deep geological disposal”» in English, to me, the two versions do not mean the same thing.

If I suddenly said to you that everyone has to evacuate the room, that is what we would do, but we would still exist. We would be out there in the corridor. So what is permanent about that? I suppose the real intention here is to get rid of it completely, and perhaps even re-use it in a more positive way or do something to get rid of it.

Now all we do is allow the waste to accumulate and store it temporarily. I imagine that before nuclear technology was used, no one really paid much attention to waste management. When we do take action, we tend to correct our initial mistakes by making new ones. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we are human.

The term “deep geological disposal” already gives strong direction in terms of future action to be taken by those who have the mandate to act, to the people generating the waste and to others who encourage the creation of such waste. They're already being told to use specific methods. Disposal means complete, long- term disposal.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Was there a question there?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Well, it was more of a comment than a question.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Is it the translation of “disposal” that...

The Chair: Just a moment. Departmental officials are not here to provide answers to our questions. I will not allow members to elicit their comments, reactions or specific feelings towards this legislation. They are not here to take part in the debate, but rather, to provide information.

If you have a question, could you please ask it clearly?

Mr. Serge Cardin: My view is that we should try and get rid of the word “évacuation”, because it doesn't give a true reflection of what the whole bill is about, particularly when you read paragraph 12(2)a). So, I think we should delete the word “évacuation”.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: So, it's the use of the word “évacuation” in French to translate “disposal” that is problematic, as far as you are concerned?

Mr. Serge Cardin: No; it's just that to me, “évacuer” does not really refer to long-term action intended to dispose of nuclear waste. As far as I am concerned, it simply doesn't have that meaning.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: The term “évacuation” is the one used by the Atomic Energy Control Board, as well as by the International Atomic Energy Agency. So, that is the translation used by both national and international organizations. That is the common French translation of this meaning of the term “disposal”.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Finlay, the use of the term “disposal”, or

[Translation]

“évacuation” in French,

[English]

does not address itself at all to transmutation. We're not really sure what transmutation does, but as best we can tell from the scientific information we have now, you either use the substance, what is now waste, up completely, so there will be nothing to either store or dispose of.... So it's really not applicable.

On the issue of what we heard from the official with regard to “disposal” being the long-term geological disposal, that is in fact “storage”. It's a misuse of the term “disposal”. We had, from the witnesses we had from the industry, and you got a little bit of it more from the gentleman from Manitoba today, a very clear description of what the facility was going to look like. And you can go back and look at the analysis that was done, the computer models that were done—that's “storage”. That's not getting rid of the substance, which is what “disposal” suggests.

• 1555

By using disposal, we open the door, as I said earlier, to having in fact some kind of dumping that would in effect be permitted under this legislation. Mr. Chair, I feel strongly that by taking it out we eliminate any of the risk that we have with it.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll proceed now to amendment NDP-2. Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Not surprisingly, Mr. Chair, I can't find my notes. Here we go.

This is a proposed amendment to clause 2 at lines 17 to 21, where we are seeking to have this dealt with, because of the evidence that you have heard, under the authority of the Minister of the Environment, as opposed to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Privy Council.

The information is clear that given the responsibilities the Minister of Natural Resources has for AECL, he or she is clearly not in a position to conduct his or her discretion in an independent fashion. The recommendations that would flow through the board, including all the consultation that would go on, need to be filtered in a non-partisan, non-biased way. Having the Minister of Natural Resources play this role, you leave the obvious conflict of interest very apparent.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the enormous difference between the witnesses we heard today and the witnesses we heard last week from the industry, what became very clear was if this is going to work, if we're actually going to deal with this problem after 50 to 60 years of creating these wastes in society, we have to be sure that we have the trust of the public. You're not going to get it if you are faced with a public that sees the minister who has historically been responsible for AECL and all the problems and conflicts—both real and perceived—with regard to that agency and the way it has conducted itself over the last number of decades.... If we don't see this as a transparent, clean process, there is no way we're going anywhere with this program. You're going to have the provinces fighting you all the way. You're going to have the municipalities fighting you. You're going to have the aboriginal community fighting you, and on and on.

Mr. Chair, it seems to me that this is part of.... You'll recall, when I responded to your comment at the beginning of this process, that even though our party had voted in favour of sending this over after second reading in principle, we very much had the intent at that time to substantially alter the orientation of this bill. The principle we believe in is that we have to deal with this issue, and we're not going to be allowed to do that. We're just not going to get anywhere with it, unless in fact we have this transparent process that builds trust in this country, right across from sea to sea to sea. Unless we have one of the key players—the minister—seen as an independent person, we're not going to be able to build that trust. It's undermining the process right from the beginning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

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

When I originally read this motion, I was thinking that we really didn't need to designate the Minister of the Environment, because I saw it as Natural Resources' jurisdiction. I think after reading the motion there is good reasoning, sound reasoning, to support the motion on the basis that we're dealing with the environment, of course, but we're also dealing with waste. It would be very typical for the Minister of Environment and not the Minister of Natural Resources to deal with waste.

• 1600

Now, if we're going to treat the waste as two separate entities—some of it's irradiated fuel and perhaps recoverable, and other is simply waste—then we may have room for the Minister of Natural Resources.

I have a question for our legal experts. As it reads now, it says:

“Minister” means the Minister of Natural Resources or such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as the Governor in Council may designate as the Minister for the purposes of this Act.

Could the Governor in Council designate the Minister of Environment as the minister responsible?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman (Counsel, Legal Services, National Research Council): The answer is yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the amendment that has been moved by my colleague from the NDP. In my riding and the region I represent, we had evidence last summer that Atomic Energy of Canada was not conducting itself in a way that made it possible to have meaningful consultations. AECL, which is responsible for these issues, reports directly to the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from the Conservative Party pointed out, the Department of Natural Resources in no way, shape or form... I was the environment critic for three years. Everything having to do with waste, Mr. Chairman, comes within the purview of... Everything that relates to the environment—and this certainly does—concerns the Department of the Environment. Therefore, I don't understand why this bill comes under the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources.

We also know, Mr. Chairman, that huge quantities of nuclear waste that are currently stored on nuclear power plant sites can have a half-life of several hundred thousand years. We also now know that Atomic Energy of Canada, which was responsible for this file, has done nothing over the years to make the government aware of the kind of action that is needed.

Mr. Chairman, it is my view that the Minister of Natural Resources, whom I have great admiration for because he is a man that knows everything there is to know about energy, should not have any control over this issue, because Atomic Energy of Canada reports to him.

In this bill, it says that AECL officials will be designated to take part in the process implemented under the legislation, which means that they will be both judge and defendant. Mr. Chairman, I think that would be granting them powers... Even the Seaborn Report released a few years ago stated that Atomic Energy of Canada had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it could actually put into practice the management methods suggested for waste stored in certain sites.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me—and I hope that the Committee will subscribe to this view, if it wants to demonstrate a sense of decency and openness—that we need to recognize the specific responsibilities of each of the departments and assign this particular issue to the Minister of the Environment. The approach taken by the Minister of the Environment will be different, his powers are different and he will already have acquired some expertise with respect to waste management. Although for weeks and even years now, we have been asking the Minister of the Environment to take action to manage all kinds of waste, the Canadian government has not really given him the means to do so. You know that as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, and I think we can all acknowledge that.

As a result, we need to act now—not in the future, but in the present, when it comes to waste management. We are not against the idea of managing nuclear waste; we are against the approach suggested in this bill, and particularly against the choice of the department or minister designated to take responsibility for this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you.

Atomic Energy of Canada actually does report to the Minister of Natural Resources, just to set the record straight. But it's not Atomic Energy of Canada we're dealing with here. This has nothing to do with Atomic Energy of Canada. This has to do with the people that generate nuclear power, and there are three utilities in Canada that generate nuclear power. When we're talking about the storage, we're talking about the storage of high-level irradiated fuel. We're not talking about low-level storage or waste. We're talking about irradiated fuel. So this is an energy issue, and the energy issue belongs with the energy department. The energy department is the Ministry of Natural Resources. You can't be any more plain than that.

• 1605

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Is there anything else?

[Translation]

Do you have any other comments, Mr. Cardin?

Mr. Serge Cardin: I see the distinction Mr. Reed is making when he points out that there could still be energy in the nuclear waste. Yet you can still draw a parallel to other types of waste generated by our society and the disposal sites for such waste, which are ordinarily managed by departments of the environment, which have a responsibility to draft laws and regulations dealing with both biodegradable and dry waste, even if they constitute a potential energy source.

So, just to avoid confusion, what we're mainly talking about today is waste that represents not only a potential energy source, but a threat to the environment. It therefore has to be managed based on the fact that it is not only a potential source of energy but a threat to the environment, for the benefit of the entire planet and future generations. So, let's render onto Caesar what is Caesar's and give this environmental responsibility back to the Department of the Environment.

Another thing that would be easy to do, and which we see municipal waste managers trying to do, would be to clearly separate the people managing the waste from those responsible for drafting laws and regulations to protect the environment as a whole. If the person responsible for collecting waste is also in charge of managing waste as a whole, and also has responsibility for developing storage policies for disposal sites, and so on, it is clear to see where potential conflicts of interest could arise.

Of course, that is on a small scale, but it does relate to energy, and you know as well as I do the billions of dollars that are spent on energy. And when billions of dollars are at stake, you can be sure that conflicts of interest will arise.

So let's give this responsibility back to the Department of the Environment so that the latter can also play a watchdog role. The Department of Natural Resources is not necessarily there to protect the environment; it also has a responsibility to generate benefits and promote the economy. We all know the two do not necessarily go together and are in fact incompatible.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Are there other comments? Yes, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm going to need to ask a question of the official, because I have to take some issue with Mr. Reed.

I am correct, am I not, that AECL is in fact responsible for the wastes that are left over from the hospitals, universities, other experimental centres? They're responsible for the disposal of that waste, are they not—Chalk River? That was the information we got from Dr. Torgerson last week.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: No, they're not responsible. They offer the service to dispose of this waste, but they're not financially responsible for hospital waste or.... It's not irradiated fuel. Universities might have a few nuclear bundles. AECL is not responsible for those bundles. They can provide a service, but they're not responsible for those wastes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But in fact they do get all the waste from those institutions.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes, the low-level stuff. Right now there is no nuclear fuel waste. It's just the low-level stuff.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But that waste will still be part of what would be considered to be disposed of under this legislation.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: No, sir.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: This act only deals with nuclear fuel waste—the high-level waste, not the low-level waste.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Does that include Chalk River?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: It would include any waste at Chalk River that consists of irradiated fuel bundles. AECL has an inventory of that waste. AECL also has other kinds of waste at Chalk River.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To finish this off, if this legislation goes through, those fuel bundles will have to be disposed of through AECL, right?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: AECL's fuel bundles, yes.

• 1610

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We are now at amendment PC/DR-1. Mr. Keddy.

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

The first amendment—actually, it was my third amendment, but the first two will be my final two now that we have them in order....

For the benefit of my colleagues and for myself, I find it easier to read the clause and then insert the amendment into it so people can see the change. In clause 2, at line 23, it says “Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec, New Brunswick Power Corporation,” and then I would insert “Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and any other body”.

We've had this discussion a fair amount here today, and the reason I recommend that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited be inserted there is to allow for it to become a member of the WMO. It's my belief that it should be a member of the WMO.

I realize we have some interesting dovetailing here because AECL is a crown corporation; however, it does own irradiated nuclear fuel. It would be the sole owner of that fuel. You could expand this to say that the Government of Canada may own it, but I would say the crown corporation owns it.

The amendment was put forth by New Brunswick Power, with agreement, at least I felt, from the other generators of nuclear-powered electricity in the country. Since AECL manages radioactive waste that it needs to dispose of—this waste doesn't belong to Ontario Hydro, it doesn't belong to Quebec, it doesn't belong to New Brunswick Power, it belongs to AECL—it's important that it be a board member with the responsibilities of the other board members in the waste management organization.

Mr. Chairman, I put the amendment forth for this reason.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: The subclause clearly states “and any other body”. I don't know how you allow yourself to get trapped into a situation where you think AECL might be the only “any other body”.

In the future, there may be a number of “any other bodies” that will have nuclear fuel waste. So in my view, “and any other body” broadens the clause so that it would include reactors of the future we probably haven't even conceived yet that will have nuclear fuel waste, and they fall under this jurisdiction.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I may have been having some trouble following, particularly Mr. Reed's comments about what had been said.

As far as I'm concerned, the advantage of adding “Atomic Energy of Canada” to clause (a) would be to provide a complete list, as we do for other organizations—and you can tell me if I'm mistaken here—that produce nuclear waste. Mention is made here of Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec and the New Brunswick Power Corporation, which gives us a good idea of the bodies that currently exists. Then it says “and any other body...” because we can expect that new corporations will come into being over time. Tomorrow morning, our researcher may decide to start a company that will be managing a nuclear reactor for the purposes of selling electricity. That could happen, if his bank manager backs him.

So, what we're doing here is describing the current reality. And Mr. Keddy says that Atomic Energy of Canada is in place at the present time. So, if we want to have a complete picture of existing entities under paragraph (a), that corporation should also be mentioned. Obviously, we cannot possibly know which corporations might exist in future—hence the expression “and any other body”.

• 1615

But if you are saying that other nuclear fuel waste-producing entities currently exist that are not listed here, then I guess we could say that Atomic Energy of Canada is receiving the same treatment as other bodies that may or may not be listed at a given time.

However, if this is supposed to represent the current list of such entities, and if we are saying they are the only ones that exist, then Atomic Energy of Canada should be included. Paragraph (c) does not necessarily refer to Atomic Energy of Canada, since we use the term “assignee”.

So if we want to provide a snapshot of what currently exists, as we speak, AECL should be mentioned under paragraph (a).

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, this just seems so obvious. Even the industry people agree with us—at least the New Brunswick Power people were quite strong and vehement about AECL being involved at this level.

I suppose what jumped out at me as I was watching the interaction on the day when the industry people were here, including the AECL, was how the AECL was sitting back, looking like it was simply going to pick this off, to make some money off this. This is its sole motivation for being out of it, when in fact its responsibility—almost at a moral level, as my friend from the PCs was suggesting—is to be in with the rest of the industry.

Again, it goes to the points I've made about credibility here. AECL is very clearly going to try to be the provider of services in dealing with this, even though it is in such a clear conflict of interest, given that the proposal for deep geological storage was AECL's, and all its money was put into it, and it wants to follow through. It has a major motivation for not doing this, not fulfilling what is in fact its responsibility to deal with the waste it is responsible for.

This amendment seems to get us started down the road to putting the AECL in its proper position and letting it play the role it should be playing. Because as a country, we're again trying to deal with this problem that it was a major, major culprit in creating over the last five or six decades.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): When I reviewed the letter from Mr. Dicerni of Ontario Power Generation Inc., Mr. Chair, I specifically asked him to comment on the New Brunswick proposals. With regard to this particular one—unless I'm misreading the letter—he doesn't disagree, he doesn't agree, he doesn't even take a position; and he owns 92% of the waste.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, time for your closing remarks.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would take note that, as Mr. Godfrey mentioned, he didn't disagree. In rebuttal to what Mr. Reed has said, “and any other body” is already in there. It wasn't excluded by my amendment.

My amendment brings clarity. It also shows clear responsibility to a legal entity that owns irradiated nuclear fuel, which is AECL. It also makes AECL, partially at least, through this responsible for the cost of that. It has some obligation to pay for the ability to get rid of its own irradiated nuclear fuel. There's a certain amount of responsibility that comes with the fact that it happens to own nuclear fuel waste, if you will.

The attempt to put it in the group.... If it continues in the future not to own nuclear fuel waste, then the bill can accommodate that, and it would not be expected to pay its share of ongoing production of irradiated nuclear fuel. However, for clarity of the bill, it's absolutely essential to have it inserted. It's our responsibility as parliamentarians when we look at this and realize that the AECL is the entity there today.

• 1620

I realize the legislation includes reactors in the future. I didn't take away from that. AECL may continue to produce irradiated fuel in the future. There's nothing in this bill that prevents them from doing that. Yet they would have no responsibility for that fuel because they're not included in the bill. It's one thing to say “any other body that owns nuclear fuel waste resulting from the production of electricity”, and another thing to say that we're not going to include AECL. I think for clarity's sake AECL has to be in there. There's no way around it.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We'll now deal with amendment PCDR-2. Mr. Keddy.

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

Actually, there was some discussion of this during the debate about the last amendment on future responsibilities.

Line 28 would read “commercial nuclear reactor; and”. I would add “(b) any successor or assignee of a corporation mentioned in paragraph (a).” It's not clear on the other page.

This would bring in any future assignee or corporation mentioned, which could be AECL, and it removes paragraph 2(c), which allows AECL to be part of the WMO, and it's not treated separately.

You could argue perhaps that this is contingent on the first motion being accepted, but I would argue that it could not be contingent upon that. In order to accommodate future entities, whether or not they are mentioned here, I think we need this for clarity. I'd like a legal definition of that.

The Chair: Would you please state your name for the record?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: I'm Joanne Kellerman.

The current paragraph (c) would capture any organization that becomes responsible for AECL's waste through some legal means. I think that the proposed motion to amend would not capture that organization in future unless it was captured independently under the terms of paragraph (a). It would not be an organization that was owning nuclear fuel waste resulting from the production of electricity because AECL's nuclear fuel waste did not result from the production of electricity.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I had better wait.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, would you like to...

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just as a point of clarity, it was my understanding that we get our first round and we can go to the question, the definition.

The Chair: When I asked if there were any other questions, I was asking you if you wanted to make some closing remarks, because no one had indicated to me that they wished to speak.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's what I understood.

The Chair: I was scanning the room.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So I'll wait to give my closing remarks until after my colleague speaks.

The Chair: Madam Girard-Bujold wishes to speak. I would have appreciated it if you had let me know earlier. Then we wouldn't be discussing issues such as this.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you for pointing that out. I will try not to step out of line, Mr. Chairman.

I think the amendment proposed by the representative of the Conservative Party is perfectly in keeping with the motion he moved earlier, and that it does in fact complement it. Indeed, clause 10 of the bill reads as follows:

10.(1) Each body mentioned in this sub-section shall, either directly or through a third party [...] deposit to its trust fund [...]

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec and the New Brunswick Power Corporation, as well as an amount of $10 million for Atomic Energy of Canada.

• 1625

Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why this clause, which appears in the middle of the bill, is seeking to define something that we were not willing to define earlier. We don't want to say openly that it's defined in clause 10, because we are still in clause 2, which is the definitions section.

And yet it is important that all the other corporations mentioned further on in the bill be specified in the definitions clause. If we don't do that, it will mean that we are putting AECL to one side, even though we are assigning it specific duties under clause 18.

I think it's very important that this clause provide an accurate picture of those entities responsible for managing nuclear waste, as my colleague Mr. Cardin pointed out. If we don't do that, we are distorting the whole definitions process right from the outset. Definitions always have to be as accurate as possible, Mr. Chairman, no matter what you're dealing with, because a definition provides a guarantee as to what will be done in the future.

I know that perfection is not possible; in this world, no one is perfect. However, we should seek to provide to the people responsible for developing regulations for this Act, a complete picture of any and all corporations that are stakeholders and thus affected by the legislation.

I would therefore encourage the members of the Liberal Party, who are seated opposite and seem to be listening carefully to our observations, to give this serious thought. I say we need to provide a complete picture, even if we don't agree. It's important that that information be available to the people who will be responsible for enforcing whatever actions flow from the bill. I believe that you probably all—maybe not him—have nuclear power plants in your ridings; your constituents probably wouldn't be too pleased if they thought you hadn't done your job properly.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'd like to ask a question of Ms. Kellerman. I wasn't quite sure of your answer to Mr. Keddy, so I'm asking for an explanation. As I understand it, AECL only comes into the picture as a nuclear energy corporation if somebody becomes their assignee. Is that correct?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: That's correct, sir.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It goes back to this issue of their involvement. I'm not sure that the amendment fully takes care of this, although I think it probably does. It's amazing that if they assign their status, that group now becomes a nuclear energy corporation, but if they remain intact, it doesn't. It's not logical. The bill doesn't flow logically because of that. So I want to say to my friend from the PC/DR that I agree that the amendment probably goes to that degree and includes them by taking out the other paragraph. So I'm indicating that I would be happy to support the amendment as proposed.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

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

I am in need of some clarification. Subclause 2(a) reads as follows:

[...] and any other body that owns nuclear fuel waste resulting from the production of electricity by means of a commercial nuclear reactor;

I would like to know whether there are bodies that produce nuclear waste that does not result from the production of electricity by means of a nuclear reactor.

[English]

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: Yes, there are entities that produce waste within the terms of the bill that are not nuclear energy corporations, and clause 7 speaks to the obligation of the waste management organization to those other producers.

• 1630

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Perhaps you are referring to that. That would mean that if we relied only on the definition that refers to nuclear energy corporations, a corporation that does not produce electricity, but does produce nuclear waste, would not be included in the nuclear energy corporation category.

Would it be included? If a corporation produces nuclear waste, in future, it should... You're saying there are currently some. But how and where can such an entity be asked to contribute financially to the management, or development of a management plan, for storing nuclear waste if nowhere is it mentioned as a nuclear energy corporation? You tell me there are such cases, but they are not mentioned.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: The bodies that own the nuclear waste will go to a management corporation for the purposes of having their waste stored or disposed of. For example, McMaster University generates nuclear waste as a result of its research activity. Under the legislation, it could ask a waste management organization to manage its waste on a long-term basis and it would have to pay for that service.

Mr. Serge Cardin: So, even though we don't see them mentioned anywhere in the definitions set out in the bill, they will be subject... I imagine that somewhere, there is a clause stating that they are required to deal with nuclear energy corporations that will act as management organizations.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: No, it's the opposite. The management organization has to provide services to them. They do not go to the management organization; it's the reverse.

Mr. Serge Cardin: So, that means the management organization is responsible for identifying owners and selling its services, because I imagine these services are sold rather than provided free of charge.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Serge Cardin: So, after developing a management and storage plan, it sells its services to any and all bodies that produce such waste.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes. That's in clause 7.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Again, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is clearly an attempt to bring AECL under the fold of the bill, and it's independent, really, of paragraph 7(a). I'm not sure we need to spend all afternoon debating the merits of it. I'm not sure we're going to get this amendment, quite frankly. I'm willing to put it to a vote, and we'll move on.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We are now on amendment PCDR-3. Mr. Keddy.

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

This amendment speaks to the definitions, and there was a fair amount of discussion about the definitions when we had our hearings on this bill. It would specifically say any “research nuclear fission reactor that is located in Canada”. Again, the intent of this amendment is for clarity in the bill. We want to make absolutely sure we're not dealing with irradiated nuclear fuel from other countries, that we're not bringing irradiated nuclear fuel in from a Canadian company that has a plant in the U.S., Mexico, Trinidad, or some other spot. It's for the sake of clarity—and only that—this amendment was put forth.

I think we need to be absolutely certain—and without stating it in the bill there's no certainty—the waste management organization deals only with domestic irradiated fuel.

The Chair: Is there anyone else? Mr. Comartin.

• 1635

Mr. Joe Comartin: I suppose, Mr. Chair, it's again going at the clear point that there is nothing in this bill that prevents the importation of fuel from outside the country. Unless we address that issue, we expose ourselves to that type of importation, which is something that, I think, the country does not want. This is one way of getting at that, so it's clear we would not allow it in any form. We'd be limited to dealing with the problems we've created for ourselves, and not have to deal with problems that have been created around the globe.

It's a logical step to be taking at this stage in the life of the nuclear industry, one that would go some distance to making it possible for us to deal with this problem, rather than escalating the problem tremendously by allowing material of this nature to come in from all over the globe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Are there other comments?

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I fully agree with my colleague to the left.

We have a major problem here in Canada. We have tons and tons of nuclear waste stored at nuclear power plants. I believe this legislation has to deal directly with the situation here. We have to shut out imports of any kind, no matter what country they come from.

In both my region and in Ontario, MOX fuel from both the United States and Russia was imported last year.

Mr. Chairman, Atomic Energy of Canada says that it went ahead because people agreed. But I have in front of me resolutions from 122 municipalities in Quebec, as well as 20 or so regional municipalities. I can name all 122 municipalities, if you like. Those 122 municipalities have told the Canadian government that it has to listen to what they are saying. You know how frightened people are of nuclear energy. They are terrified of anything that has to do with nuclear waste. They have told the government to sit up and listen.

You say that you are consulting us and taking action, but you're not doing what we are asking. We want you to take steps to manage nuclear waste, because in the past, we have not dealt with this waste responsibly. I think there has been a lack of political will. The people who generated this waste thought that it would magically disappear over time. Well, that didn't happen. The waste has been stored. You are aware of the kind of leakage that is occurring. You know that all kinds of things have been happening.

Mr. Chairman, we have tons and tons of such waste in my area. This legislation has to ensure that all those tons of waste stored across our regions are properly managed. You also know that the corporation that is to be put in place will make money. Mr. Chairman, we are here to tell the truth. I have nothing against people making money, but I do have something against our importing this kind of waste because it is a money making proposition, and just letting things go at home while all that is happening. I don't want us to wait 20 or 30 years before taking the kind of action that is needed now.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to give a blank cheque to the individuals or private entities that will be managing this waste. They will not be performing this service out of the goodness of their heart. Mr. Chairman, let's be serious. We need to deal with this waste for the benefit of the current and future generations. This amendment provides a guarantee that action will finally be taken with respect to domestic waste. We have a nuclear power plant in Gentilly, Quebec, and the Government of Quebec wants to gradually move to other forms of energy. I hope the other provinces will also be open to that idea.

• 1640

I was quite affected by what the mayors said when they appeared this afternoon. They told me they had had enough—and you could almost see fear in their eyes—that they needed to be consulted and that we had to tell them what specific steps we intend to take in their regions and what will be stored there. They want to be full-fledged stakeholders in any action we take. They think we really need to focus on our domestic situation.

If we don't specify that in the bill... Mr. Chairman, it's important to be honest and realize that this is the position taken by the mayors of municipalities, citizens... Everybody who is either directly or indirectly affected is quite concerned about the whole nuclear issue. People want to be reassured and to be told that we will take action first and foremost to deal with the domestic situation, and then we'll see, in future... But we're talking about so many years—hundreds of millions of years—that we won't even be able to... So we need clear guidelines, and action to be taken along those lines.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Keddy, closing remarks.

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

Again, I think it's extremely important to have absolute clarity in this bill, and absolute transparency that we're only dealing with domestic irradiated fuel.

When you read the entirety of the clause, it says:

...any other body that owns nuclear fuel waste resulting from the production of electricity by means of a commercial nuclear reactor.

It doesn't say the nuclear reactor couldn't be an offshore reactor. It's my concern in the entire clause that we deal with it strictly. If clarity is not there already, then this clause would bring clarity to it. Perhaps we could ask our legal professionals for their definition.

The bill, in my opinion, is very clear in what it's trying to say. There are all kinds of little ends that are not clear at all. They are very circuitous and growing into other areas. This is one. If we're going to deal with Canadian nuclear waste, then we should say it's what we're dealing with.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: In paragraph 2(a), the definition of “any other body that owns nuclear fuel waste resulting from the production of electricity” would be taken to mean any other body within the territorial jurisdiction of Canada. Canadian legislation only applies within the territorial jurisdiction of Canada.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

Understanding what you said, your interpretation is it's within the territorial jurisdiction of Canada. I understand. It doesn't prevent “any other body that owns nuclear fuel waste resulting from the production of electricity” that has an offshore reactor, without clearly saying so.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The definition of a nuclear energy corporation would not capture the organizations outside the jurisdiction. The definition of nuclear fuel waste is silent on the point.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: My friends, on the document we have been working from, I have put a big A on the front. We'll be bouncing back and forth from different documents. This will be a way for us to work from the same document.

I invite you to put a B on the document that says C-27 at the top. Then, in writing, we have put the Roman numeric IV.

Does everyone understand which document I'm speaking about? Would you put a B on it, so when I refer to the document we'll all be on the same document?

Is everyone clear? There's a reference number on the left-hand side that is 13563.

On the document, we will come back to the first amendment. It is number 4 in numeric form.

• 1645

Beforehand, we must deal with the third page in the package. It is reference 13562. Are we all together? It is the third page of document B, reference 13562 on the left-hand side. Are we okay?

If you're holding document B, you're too far. It's page 3. Document B only has five pages. The first page is reference 13563. It is the one where the front has C-27 at the top. It is written over with Roman numeral IV.

Do we all have it?

An hon. member: We do now, sir.

The Chair: We will be coming back to the first page. Before we do that, we must deal with the third page of package B. It is reference 13562.

Are we together?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Comartin, you have the floor.

Mr. Joe Comartin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, why are we not dealing with the definition?

The Chair: I will ask our drafter to respond. It's the legislative clerk, sorry.

Mr. Philippe Méla (Legislative Clerk): You want to know why we're not dealing with the definition first?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

Mr. Philippe Méla: First, you can't add the substantive definition to the bill as it is right now. Procedurally speaking, it's inadmissible to add a definition to the interpretation clause of a bill.

The second point is it makes reference to subsection 7(1) in the definition, but subsection 7(1) doesn't exist yet. It's being created by the other amendments. You have to deal with the first amendment that creates subsection 7(1), and after that put it in the definition, if you want.

The Chair: If amendment reference 13562 carries, then we deal with 13563. If it is defeated, 13563 becomes redundant.

Mr. Comartin, you have the floor on 13562.

Mr. Joe Comartin: If we are successful in passing 13562, we'll then go to 13563 and vote on it? I have it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We all appreciate that the two sections are combined. It is a fundamental shift in how this legislation would work on the ground.

In effect, we're leaving the waste management organizations intact. Of course we haven't got to talking about or passing it yet. We're introducing a new body that would be the nuclear energy corporations. They would only be an implementing agency.

The decision-making, policy-making body, if I can put it that way, Mr. Chair, would be the waste management organization. The implementing agency would be the body that would actually carry it out, once the plan has been determined as to which way we're going with this waste. The scheme of the act would continue. A planning process would be undertaken, reviewed, and ultimately a decision would be made as to which way we were going, whether it be the ones already in clause 12 or others we may add.

I'll have some amendments on it at some point.

Whatever way we're going, the ultimate plan is going to be to deal with nuclear waste in this country. It would then be implemented by the agency I'm proposing to make, as an addition to the legislative framework we're building at this point in the legislation.

• 1650

You've heard some of the arguments already on the idea behind this. Let me just summarize those as quickly as I can.

First, this agency would not be the industry itself, obviously. I'm sorry, the implementing agency would be, but we would then have the waste management organization take a different format as to who was going to be on the board. It would be more broadly based.

The implementing agency would simply deliver the plan. So if it's the long-term storage in the Canadian Shield—which my friends from Quebec are just hankering to see happen, as we can all imagine—or ongoing, more long-term secure storage on the existing sites for bringing all of the waste together into one interim site, they would implement that decision. But the decision itself would be made by the WMO.

The advantage of this is that the people who actually work with this waste would be carrying out the plan. However, the country as a whole would be represented by a more community-based board—whether, as has been suggested to us, people with a scientific academic type of background who will be sitting on the board, or people desired by the local municipalities who have dealt with this issue for a number of decades, or environmentalists, or other appointments made by the government. It would be that type of a board at the WMO level. But the implementation agency would again simply be the people who have created this waste within their corporate structure and now would be directed by this policy-setting board as to how it would be disposed of.

Mr. Chair, I think there's one more issue I just wanted to touch on. If I could just have a look at my wording here....

The Chair: The last word.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, I thought I should just make a point about the funding that's mentioned in my proposed subclause 7(1). So if I can just speak to that—that the funds being established would in fact pay for this waste management organization—it would also provide funding in here for the advisory council. I think that's a point I just want to note. It's important because as it stands now with the existing draft we have, there is no specific provision for any support to be provided to the advisory council. It's like setting somebody up with the total inability to carry out the responsibilities that the drafters of this legislation I think are expecting this advisory council to carry out.

Certainly the people in Canada would be expecting the advisory council to carry out these responsibilities, which is to assist in researching the various proposals and potentials for dealing with the waste. That would probably include having to hire experts in the field to review whatever proposals are there, or perhaps to come up with proposals themselves to recommend to the waste management organization. It would include, as we heard, some per diems for the people who sit on this council. Thus, if they're taking time away from their work, they're not being adversely affected economically. It would provide them with a secretariat, that kind of thing. But the funding then would be there and could be drawn from the funds that are being proposed to support the purposes of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, you have the floor.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to know earlier is how that could be since we were moving to clause 7. It's clear that there are quite a few amendments to clause 7 coming up. We will certainly have to come back to this. If the clause passes as is, the proposed amendments will not necessarily apply.

The Chair: I will have to follow the advice of the experts. I won't get involved in the discussion, unless you give me a good reason to do so, because I am going to have to rely on our Legislative Clerk.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I was simply seeking clarification. I guess that means there is no problem in terms of the other amendments we will be discussing later on.

An hon. Member: This changes the order. All the others will be renumbered subsequently.

The Chair: Are there any other comments?

• 1655

[English]

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd just like to ask for a bit more clarification from Mr. Comartin on the funding of the advisory council. When I first read over this amendment, it struck me that we have to come up with some type of solution that's workable, whether we support it at the end of the day or we don't.

If you have too much bureaucracy in there and too many levels of it, it may simply become unworkable. However, if the bill's delinquent in setting out funding for the advisory council, then obviously that's a problem with the bill and we need to provide funding for the advisory council.

I'd like Mr. Comartin to enlarge, perhaps in his closing remarks, on that principle.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin...unless there's someone else with a question.

If you're addressing a question to the department, that's fine. Otherwise you get time to make a comment. If Mr. Comartin gets the floor, it's closing remarks.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then perhaps I'll ask for legal advice, if the funding for the advisory council is clearly, in their opinion, set out and whether this admendment may actually be needed for it. I realize we're jumping all over the place here, but it's not going to get any better.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes, it's clear. The advisory council is an organ of the WMO.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: So the WMO would be funding the budget of the advisory council.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We would hope.

The Chair: Ms. Kellerman.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The bill doesn't speak to the budget. It is considered part of the responsibilities of the WMO to address the point.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not clear on Mr. Keddy's question, Mr. Chair. He's asking about the funding, I understand that. But I'm not clear if he's asking me where it's to come from....

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, you had stated that this implementing agency would “(a) fund the waste management organization and its programs, including the Advisory Council”. I wasn't clear that the legislation, as it was laid out, had a clear funding arrangement for the advisory council. I just wanted to get a professional opinion on that.

The Chair: Did you get it? Your question was answered?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, thank you. It was explained to me.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't know if I can add much more. The only other point I would make is that in paragraph 7(b)—I wasn't sure if this is what Mr. Keddy was getting at, but I'll emphasize it—this agency, the implementing agency, would in fact charge a fee for the services. It's similar to the structure we have in the existing bill. They would extend that, as it says here, to all owners of nuclear fuel waste produced in Canada that are neither members nor shareholders of the implementing agency, along with AECL, which is in paragraph 7(a). So there would be fees coming from that.

Beyond that, the funding is already established in the rest of the bill and would be the funds used to draw on for the purpose of the WMO and the advisory council.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: That means that reference on the first page of document B, reference 13563, is redundant.

As I make these rulings, I would appreciate being put on the right track if I am not correct.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

The Chair: So clause 2 is done. We are now going to document A, correct?

A voice: Yes.

• 1700

The Chair: Reference 13520. Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it's five o'clock by my clock, and I believe we would be stopping this meeting at this point.

The Chair: Not correct. This committee decided to complete clause-by-clause today. So we'll stay all night to—

Mr. Joe Comartin: As I understood the resolution at that point, it was to—

The Chair: We have the room until five o'clock. The decision by you.... I don't think you were here.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I was here.

The Chair: You were here. Then you agreed that we would complete clause-by-clause today. That's why we're here.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I believe the resolution at that time was—

The Chair: There was no resolution. It was a consensus asked for by the chair and agreed to by the members.

If I'm wrong, correct me, my colleagues.

Mr. Joe Comartin: If I can, my recollection was that we were coming back to start clause-by-clause at 3:30 and go until 5 o'clock and that we would then make another decision as to whether we were going beyond 5 o'clock. That was my understanding.

The Chair: That wasn't suggested. The decision was made that we would complete it today. We're here all night unless the majority of you want to suspend proceedings.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I will make a motion that we adjourn at this time until the week following next.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: We are continuing. We will complete it today unless you guide me or direct me to suspend.

We are now on amendment reference 13520.

[Translation]

Mr. Cardin, please.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, just as an aside, you said we would be completing the clause-by-clause consideration today. That seems doubtful to me. It will probably be tomorrow.

The Chair: Yes, probably tomorrow.

Mr. Serge Cardin: As regards amendment 13520, I am not sure what you have written on your sheet, but I want you to know that it should say “House of Commons” rather than “Parliament”.

When you talk about the nuclear industry or nuclear waste with people from different backgrounds or representing different organizations, you get many different reactions that range from tremendous pessimism to a certain amount of optimism; many people see this form of energy as the answer to energy crises. In any case, one does note there is a certain lack of information about certain aspects of nuclear energy. Rightly or wrongly, people are often quite concerned about the management of nuclear waste and its effect on the environment and future generations. Because, as I say, these concerns are often the result of inadequate information, people want to get the full story from their representatives.

Yet in this bill, there is ongoing reference to the Governor in Council, the Executive or, I would say, government members, wherever a choice needs to be made that involves the government as a whole, the party or even the House. That being the case, all the decisions, evaluations and advice should be under one rubric that encompasses the environment and nuclear issues. When I refer to nuclear issues, I am obviously referring to the environment and people's concerns in that regard.

I think that things should always be completely transparent so that all concerned—the House of Commons, Members of Parliament, and people representing citizens, who are always concerned and even torn between using nuclear power for energy and the environmental repercussions of that—are fully aware of the commitments they make and the positions they defend as representatives of the people with respect to the future and future generations.

So, when decisions are made or policy directions are determined and we make choices as a society, it is important that they be presented to all elected Members of Parliament and that the House of Commons take a position on all these issues and on measures aimed at managing nuclear waste, so that those responsible can make their decisions accordingly.

• 1705

That is why I see this as being important. So, you have the list of clauses where “Governor in Council” would be replaced with the word “House of Commons”. If I have forgotten some, I am sure you will make any consequential amendments that are needed once this has been passed.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

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

When I saw my friend's amendment, I was kicking myself that I hadn't thought of doing the same thing. So I congratulate him on having caught it, because I certainly should have also.

We've had all this discussion—for I don't know how many years now—about this government not paying any attention to Parliament; that the role of individual members of Parliament has been denigrated to a great degree. Here we have an opportunity to redress that sorry history as far as democratic principles are concerned.

For an issue like this, which has been simmering in this country for as long as it has, to be sidetracked from the fully elected House that's responsible for making laws in this country seems to me to be a challenge we simply shouldn't pass up.

I'm sure we may hear, if there are people still awake on the other side of the table, comments such as “Well, this is really more of an administrative function.” If they believe that, they don't understand, Mr. Chair, the nature of this bill and just how important this issue is to the country. An issue like this should not be decided by the Governor in Council. It should be decided on the floor of the House after full and complete debate.

I'm not sure we all appreciate—and I'm going to speak now as an environmentalist—just how crucial an issue this is to that community, and I think to all Canadians. The only way we're going to get that full debate and a satisfactory response from the community, wherever these wastes end up, is if this amendment goes through, along with a number of others concerned with consultation, public involvement, and a sense of trust being built up. Hiding this in cabinet—in the Governor in Council—just reinforces the perception that's out there.

The Seaborn report was very clear on this. They didn't trust the industry, and quite frankly they didn't trust the government to do this with the methodologies in place at that time. That's why we're here today trying to deal with this issue finally. We're not doing it in a transparent fashion, and this would be one of the ways to begin to accomplish that result.

So again, I congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for having brought this forward. I think it would be a great day for democracy if in fact this issue were brought back to Parliament—after all the investigation was done and all the reports were done and were given to Parliament—and we had an open, free debate on it and then a decision made.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that when we faced our constituents in our respective ridings, we told them we would go to Ottawa to forcefully present our views and represent our electors.

Mr. Chairman, the nuclear issue is not something we just suddenly started talking about. I am not sure whether everyone here knows that we've been discussing this for quite some time now. At every meeting we attended during the election campaign, people talked to us about nuclear waste. We told them not to worry, that all they had to do was come and talk to us and that we would be their spokespersons; that we would make decisions, make strong representations and present our views forcefully.

• 1710

Mr. Chairman, people were not asking that the Governor in Council make decisions for them and that this be specified in the legislation. As parliamentarians, we do not represent the Governor in Council. We represent our constituents and we do so in the House of Commons.

I often hear elected Members of Parliament say in the House of Commons, and elsewhere—in provincial legislative assemblies and even city councils where there are political parties—that they are stuck: they would really like to say their piece, but they have no forum in which to do so. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely essential that they be given a forum to do that.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, could you please tell us what relationship that bears to the amendment we are considering?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman.

It's very important that reference be made in this bill to elected Members of Parliament, who have a duty to act as spokespersons for their constituents, rather than speaking for the Governor in Council. These issues should be debated in the House of Commons, and not within the close inner circle of the Governor in Council. I think it's high time the constituents we represent were given their rightful place and that place is inside the House of Commons where we represent them.

The Chair: Thank you. You did finally make a connection between the two.

[English]

Mr. Keddy.

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

I'd like to speak perhaps a bit more briefly to Mr. Cardin's amendment, because I don't think it really requires a lot of discussion.

Part of what's been wrong with legislation passed in this and other Parliaments is that the legislation doesn't ever come back to Parliament. This is an attempt to bring transparency to the process—that Parliament should be responsible to receive the annual reports; that Parliament should understand what is going on, not just the Governor in Council or the cabinet, or perhaps the inner circle, but Parliament itself. It doesn't exclude Governor in Council from also receiving the reports, but it certainly would allow Parliament to be part and parcel of the process. I think it's a great amendment and one that we should, as Parliamentarians, expect in all legislation that we pass, Mr. Chair.

As a very quick closing comment, I would ask the discretion of the chair, since we do have coffee back there, that we perhaps provide tea for some of our members who are tea drinkers.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear, hear.

An hon. member: I think that's a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

The Chair: We will ask the providers to get some tea. Will somebody make a phone call and order some tea? The members are working hard, and if they want tea, we'll get them some tea. If I had my way, I'd put something in it, and I mean something good.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Mr. Cardin, do you wish to add something?

Mr. Serge Cardin: I want to come back to this, because I consider our democratic process to be extremely important when we're talking about such a crucial issue. It's important to come back to this again because, as I said earlier, I see it as a very important issue. In fact, I displayed my colours this morning: I intentionally wore my green jacket. Some mornings, I put on my blue jacket and I even occasionally wear pink, but I never wear anything red—except maybe burgundy, because that would be all right.

It's important to realize that this is a crucial issue, because we're talking about nuclear waste. According to some experts, we are talking about hundreds, and possibly even thousands of years. We won't even be here to see what is going to happen; so we essentially have to decide what direction should be taken for the future. People will be making decisions about different waste management methods. I hope they will be able to find some way to get rid of it altogether. But that is not just what you call “disposal”; it's getting rid of nuclear waste altogether. Perhaps that waste can be used for other things. Perhaps we could even recycle it back into the environment.

• 1715

I think this is so crucially important that I see no reason why I would be cast aside when the time comes to choose a method that will have an impact on future generations for hundreds, and possibly even thousands, of years. I see no reason why I should be completely shut out of the process when it's time to make that decision.

If things happen the way they often do, people will present their respective positions and we will have an opportunity to debate people's concerns, particularly as regards the future, through the speeches we make; but at least we will have a chance to do so in Parliament, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about management approaches that will affect people hundreds and possibly thousands of years into the future. I would not like to be completely shut out. It is up to the House of Commons, which represents the people who elected their Members of Parliament, to take a position on the long-term future of our society and our environment. I therefore ask that we be allowed to make a contribution when the time comes to choose the methods, procedures and possibly the bodies or organizations that will be protecting the environment in future, and thus guaranteeing that the those who come after us will not face problems.

My colleague is asking that I call for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. I would therefore make that request.

The Chair: We will immediately call a recorded vote.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: I invite you to now apprise yourself of document BQ-5C, which you can identify with the letter “C” for the purpose of our document identification. It's a two-pager; it's the Bloc's BQ-5C, reference number 13568. Does everyone have the document?

[Translation]

I repeat: the reference number is 13568.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I had an amendment 4B.

The Chair: I'm sorry?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, you're jumping now to clause 6. This may need a ruling, but in document A we've got another amendment.

The Chair: You question why we're going to this one?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Our legislative clerk, please, would you identify to us why we are dealing with this document at this point.

Mr. Philippe Méla: The Bloc amendment BQ-3 is creating or making reference to—

Mr. Joe Comartin: The chair has indicated that we're going to BQ-5C.

Mr. Philippe Méla: Yes, but it's because of the reference to the board of directors made in BQ-3. The board of directors is dealt with in BQ-5C, so those two are consequential. If you adopt the BQ-5C amendment, it goes to the same as BQ-3.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can I just have a moment, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: “It goes to the same” means what?

Mr. Philippe Méla: The vote would apply.

The Chair: Okay, so if BQ-5C is defeated, BQ-3 is also defeated. And BQ-3 you will find in document A.

Mr. Cardin.

[Translation]

An hon. Member: What number are we talking about?

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, is there not a board of directors of the WMO in spite of what's in subclause 6(1)?

• 1720

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, where do you think it should be fit? At what point should we deal with it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I just think—

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That has been added. The bill does not refer to a board of directors.

The Chair: It doesn't refer to it.

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay, I'm wrong. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

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

I was wondering how we were going to work this with clause 3.

We know that the Seaborn Commission, that sat for close to ten years, was, to quote the Department's own description, both impartial and objective. It was praised to the skies. It had made very specific recommendations, namely to establish an organization that would avoid conflicts of interest and in which Aboriginal people, environmental groups and citizen's representatives, rather than just the people who work in the nuclear industry or are responsible for nuclear waste, would participate.

All the witnesses we have heard from the outset have suggested a different way of operating than the one proposed in Bill C-27. I would even go so far as to say that some of the nuclear waste producing corporations would have no objection to that happening, since some of them referred in their testimony to representation in terms of votes. Some were asking that every corporation have a vote. Others, representing companies that produce 90 per cent of our nuclear energy, were saying that we should perhaps be thinking of a different method of representation.

In light of that testimony, and having been influenced by Mr. Comartin's conduct in relation to environmental issues—since he must have been a source of inspiration in some way—I arrived at this particular proposal, which involves having the management organization run by a board of directors.

Before I go any further, I want to digress for one moment. I am prepared to enhance this amendment. If you have any ideas—if you say it would be better for there to be eight board members, I would have no objection to that. If you are of the view that another expert in the field should also be a director, I would be open to that as well. In that sense, Mr. Chairman, we are very open to any suggestion. We will certainly cooperate with anyone who wants to make improvement to this amendment.

The management organization would therefore be run by a board of directors composed of seven members, based on what I am suggesting here. Of course, the board would include representatives of nuclear energy corporations, at least one government representative and, as everyone has been saying, one representative of the Aboriginal community, one representative of a recognized environmental non-governmental organization, one representative of a scientific and technical discipline relating to nuclear waste management, and one expert in matters of nuclear energy in public affairs.

An important component of this bill is consultation, as was already mentioned. Citizens must also be drawn into the process. It is important that people not be frightened of nuclear energy and be properly informed. Consultations are a necessary component of any public information process. So, all the ingredients are there to ensure that this board of directors would truly reflect the reality of our society. I think it's important to state that everyone agrees on the need for effective nuclear waste management, but at the same time, we mustn't leave threads hanging here and there in this bill. We need to ensure there are no apparent conflicts of interest.

If we could count on the participation of nuclear energy corporations and other representatives in all fields, either directly or indirectly affected by the nuclear industry or the environment, I think that would generally greatly enhance this bill.

• 1725

Proposed sub-clause 6.1(2) states that the representative of the non-governmental organization shall be appointed by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, that the Aboriginal representative shall be appointed by the Assembly of First Nations, and that the five other members shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. Did I make a mistake? I have a problem with the Governor in Council, as you saw in the previous amendment. We'll come back to that when we deal with the other one.

Proposed paragraph 6.2 (1) reads as follows:

6.2 (1) The board of directors shall:

(a) ensure that the waste management organization has the staff required to operate efficiently;

(b) propose approaches in accordance with section 12;

(c) inform the public about the policies of the waste management organization.

Proposed sub-clause 6.2(2) reads as follows:

(2) The members of the board of directors shall hold office for a term of four years, renewable twice, except for the environmental and Aboriginal representatives, who shall hold office for a term of five years, renewable once. A maximum of three seats may become vacant on the board of directors in any one year.

This is to ensure that there is some continuity and appropriate expertise on the board.

Mr. Chairman, that is basically the amendment being proposed. You have heard from all the witnesses and, I am quite certain they would agree to that amendment. When we hear from citizens, it is not enough just to listen to what they have to say. It is important to understand all the shadings of opinion and take action accordingly.

That is what I would respectfully request. I would repeat that if you have any suggestions to make that would improve the amendment, I would be only too happy to hear any recommendation you may have. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Member for Sherbrooke, 200 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a summary of the Searborn Report which says, and I quote:

In Chapter 6 of its report, the Commission considered steps required to ensure safe and acceptable long-term management of nuclear fuel waste in Canada.

It says that the Commission recommends putting a process in place to ensure the involvement of the Aboriginal people and creating a nuclear fuel waste management agency. It says that this agency should operate at arm's length from both utilities and Atomic Energy of Canada, and that its sole aim should be to manage and coordinate a whole range of activities associated with long- term management of nuclear fuel waste.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of other recommendations, but that one is particularly relevant to the amendment that has been introduced by my colleague, the Member for Sherbrooke.

Mr. Chairman, if we really want an agency, and particularly a management organization, to properly fulfil its role, which is a management role, it needs to be run by a board of directors. Clause 6 of the bill currently refers to a nuclear waste management organization. So, although we are creating an organization here, we have not put forward any operating framework. We are prepared to allow the people directly involved in the nuclear industry to make decisions and convey their suggestions to the Governor in Council.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to be consistent and demonstrate transparency, we have to understand that everything related to the nuclear industry also affects the environment. This afternoon, representatives of the Sierra Club appeared before us and contributed their expertise. They have been very closely involved in all environmental issues for years now. In my view, the government has the right and indeed the duty to establish a board of directors for this organization, which would include one representative of an environmental NGO.

• 1730

Mr. Chairman, here I have a chart taken from the Seaborn Commission report showing how this organization should be structured. The Commission says that the Aboriginal people must be stakeholders in this whole process. Yet I don't see that mentioned in the provision dealing with this waste management organization. There is no one. There are only people who, directly or indirectly... The bill says:

6. (1) The nuclear energy corporations shall establish a corporation, in this Act referred to as the waste management organization [...] to do the following on a non-profit basis [...]

Mr. Chairman, the reference here is to nuclear energy corporations only.

I think we have to be more open minded. This government needs to be serious. If Members of Parliament that represent the Liberal Party, sitting opposite us this evening, don't understand that it is essential to involve environmentalists, the Aboriginal people and the public... No provision is made for any public consultations whatsoever in this bill. But the public will eventually have to be given its say. Even if Liberal Party members have no desire to be accountable to the people in the House of Commons and speak on their behalf, at the very least, the public must be accountable, Mr. Chairman.

I believe my colleague's amendment makes perfect sense, and I hope the Liberal majority will come to that realization and support it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

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

Again, I think it's an excellent amendment brought forth from Mr. Cardin, the member for Sherbrooke, and it's very specific. It speaks directly to the bill and specifically to the waste management organization and the management of the board of directors.

The recommendations that we look at not just nuclear energy corporations but have a representative of government and aboriginal communities, some are those are laid out in other parts of the bill, and most of our members, I realize, are familiar with that. But again, for the process of transparency and clarity, it lays it out under his proposed subclause 6.1(1) with six paragraphs, and I couldn't agree with it more.

The other thing this does that I think is extremely problematic of the bill is to allow for terms. Members of the board of directors shall hold office for a term of four years, renewable twice, except for the environmental and aboriginal representatives, who shall hold office for a term of five years and be renewable once. A maximum of three seats may become vacant on the board of directors in any one year. So it actually allows for the makeup of the board and for some continuity. And because the terms are staggered, it also allows for some corporate memory to remain on the board. I think the amendment was well thought out and well balanced and would be a real improvement to the legislation as it exists now.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, I may need some direction from you on this, or perhaps from the staff. I have a problem, because I had an amendment proposed as to the composition of the board and it's not here. At least I have not been able to find it. What worries me is there may be two or three other amendments that haven't shown up yet. But let me deal with this one and suggest that I'm prepared—

The Chair: Let's get an answer. If there are amendments missing and our legislative clerk is under the impression that we have them all, we have to resolve that now.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This one in particular, just so he'll know what to be looking for, was, in light of September 11, to have a member from one of the security forces or the military—in fact I was waiting to see how they had worked out the wording I had proposed—be added to the board of directors of the WMO. I'll speak to the obvious reasons why that should be.

I understand from my friend—just so you're aware, Mr. Chair—Monsieur Cardin is prepared to treat this as a friendly amendment, so it would be an additional person on the board as part of the list he has there. Instead of—

• 1735

The Chair: Instead of a subamendment, if you get his agreement to add it to his amendment, you would do that?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes. So it would be number (g), paragraph 6.1(1)(g).

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, do you agree to that addition to your amendment?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes, but for the benefit of all present, Mr. Comartin will explain it in more detail.

The Chair: Before we agree to it?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes. I have some idea of what his amendment is all about, and I am favourably inclined towards it, but I would like him to explain it further.

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'd like to add a quick comment, and then I will go into the explanation.

It would be in (g), and then that would also require in 6.1(2) the number 5 to be changed to 6.

The reasoning behind this, as I've indicated, is that it's in light of everything, quite frankly, that's happened since September 11, the rumours that are floating around the world of bin Laden and the al-Qaeda perhaps already having some waste material.

We've all, I'm sure, heard the descriptions of the “dirty bombs”, which is just using conventional explosives that are wrapped in waste material, which would then have the impact of contaminating quite a large area, depending on the size of the explosion.

It seems to me that we have a responsibility here that as we're going through this process to look at that security issue and to ask, do we have people who are going to be involved in the decision-making and the planning toward that decision-making who have any background at all in security? As I see the existing bill, there's no contemplation of who is going to be on the board, other than it will be decided by the industry. Clearly there's nobody specifically contemplated in the existing bill who would have a security background, nor is there in Mr. Cardin's amendment, and I think it's appropriate that we add it here for those reasons.

It's interesting, Mr. Chair, if we look at the reports that the Globe and Mail has been getting access to on the industry and the, quite frankly, fairly blatant lack of security that's gone on, at least up until 1999—we don't have any reports more recent than that—it's obvious that the industry has not done a good enough job to provide security for themselves.

We just had that incident on the Bruce Peninsula at Douglas Point with those reactors. Two people who had been stranded on the lake wandered in, got over the fence, and actually broke into one of the buildings so they could make a telephone call. That was as recently as this summer.

There was another attempt at a break-in at that plant since September 11, and those people were apprehended. It's quite obvious that it's not been good enough up to this point. Given the changes we've had to deal with since September 11, it calls out for that need at this point, and to have the specific expertise, which we clearly don't have either in the bill as drafted or in the amendments that Monsieur Cardin is suggesting at this point. I would urge him to accept that as a friendly amendment and add it to the list of people who would be part of his contemplated board of directors.

The Chair: At this point, we would ask you to dictate what you wish added as a paragraph (g), and then I will ask Monsieur Cardin if he accepts that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think I will, if I can, Mr. Chair, use the type of wording that Mr. Cardin has in number (f) on that first page, and say “one expert in matters of public security”, and just stop at that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, is that acceptable?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Could I ask Mr. Comartin a question?

If we're talking about an expert in matters of public security, should we do the same thing as in paragraph (f)—in other words go even further as regards nuclear energy or security in order to protect...? We are very anxious to get rid of nuclear waste, but we also want to protect it and store it properly.

• 1740

Does the word “security” only relate to nuclear energy or does it also apply to security measures inside nuclear energy facilities themselves? The term “public security” is quite broad and inclusive.

Mr. Joe Comartin: My problem is that I don't know whether we have an expert in nuclear security here in Canada. I am thinking of someone at the senior management level within the RCMP, but I don't know whether we actually have a nuclear safety expert here.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I agree with the principle of including that specific dimension.

The Chair: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... the addition recommended by Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: In terms of security, we might want to think of specific wording.

The Chair: I don't want to get into a debate about that in case it doesn't pass. If we do pass it, that will be part of the amendment and we can debate the wording at that time. I don't want to spend 20 minutes on that now only to find out that it has been defeated.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I can go along with the idea of adding the concept of security.

The Chair: In that case, do you want us to refer to public security or to public security in the nuclear energy field?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes, but I don't want it to be restricted in terms of the kind of security we are talking about. At some point, the board of directors will also have to develop a security plan that directly addresses nuclear issues, general security issues and the protection of property, if nuclear waste can be considered property. I guess you understand the principle. So, yes, I want this to cover security from A to Z.

The Chair: I understand the principle, but before I can accept it, I have to have exact wording.

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Let me say, then, be an expert in matters of public security concerning nuclear energy,

[Translation]

“concerning nuclear energy”.

The Chair: Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Cardin?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes.

The Chair: Do the majority of members agree to add that without making this a sub-amendment?

[English]

Do I have the support to join this to the amendment? Any objection?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It is now forming part of Mr. Cardin's amendment.

We now go to Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I agree with Mr. Comartin that the issue needs to be taken care of, but it's probably in another area. It's already been dealt with since September 11. The minister has been asked in the House and explained a whole plan to deal with that. And I have to again refute the suggestion that was made that public consultation isn't in the bill; as I said the last time this was brought up, under clause 12, in subclause 12(7), public participation is definitely included.

As I've said earlier, I think we all agree with the objectives; we're just discussing different models. We all agree that the industry shouldn't be deciding on its own and they should definitely have the advantage of hearing from environmentalists, first nations, municipalities, and scientists who are expert in the field.

Probably all the models proposed would allow that in some form or other, but as I said earlier, no one has provided me any convincing arguments that this particular model wouldn't work so that there's a need to change. I actually gave some examples of how some other models haven't worked in the past. So this model allows possibly four times for that input, definitely twice, with the advisory council and the public consultation. It allows for the input of all those specific expertise groups, but also everyone in Canada plus those on the advisory council.

Moreover, it hasn't been determined exactly who will be on that board of directors. That's a possibility, but definitely you'll have a possibility to appeal to the elected government and put your input as people of Canada into the government you've elected.

So I think this model is worth a try, not being convinced otherwise, and I wanted to make the comment that it will obviously reflect all the consequential other amendments that affect the model itself, the different boards and things. I'm not going to repeat it again.

Thank you.

The Chair: Other comments?

Mr. Keddy, you have spoken on this amendment.

• 1745

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On the amendment, right?

The Chair: Because we have joined it, let's do the round again.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you recognizing me. I realize I spoke to the original amendment, but to amendment (g), it would be. Amendments (d), (e), (f), and (g) speak indirectly about the security representative.

I think the amendment as it's proposed fleshes it out and allows a representative for security vis-à-vis what has happened in the world since September 11.

Just for Mr. Bagnell's information, I'm not certain he's not mixing up two separate issues here. There is security for our nuclear power plants since September 11, and that has been beefed up. We're talking about a new organization entirely here. I think we've left out the issue of security for that group. It's important we don't miss anything, that we cast a very large net here and include everyone, not just aboriginal peoples, not just people who are experts in nuclear energy public affairs, not just the sector itself, but everyone, including experts in security. So I would support the amendment, absolutely.

The Chair: Are there other comments?

[Translation]

If you would like to speak, just give me a signal.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: It was obvious, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, it is not obvious.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Just to conclude on this amendment, I want to say that the added wording with respect to security... Of course, since the events of September 11, there has been quite a lot of fear in our communities. And of course, when you're talking about anything nuclear, it does seem relevant to include the security dimension. People are deeply concerned because of the terrorist attacks, the anthrax threat, the envelopes that have been going around, and so on. Just to illustrate how frightened people really are, people who take part in the televised game show called La Poule aux oeufs d'or don't choose the envelope anymore! So, it is quite clear that people are very concerned about security. That being the case, it is important to reassure citizens in that respect.

Mr. Bagnell was saying earlier that there is no reason to believe that what is put forward in Bill C-27 will not work. We have been talking about the Seaborn Commission. The senator who appeared before our Committee yesterday was on the Commission for some ten years, and was also saying that it was an extremely impartial and objective commission and that its recommendations always made sense. Actually, one of the priorities she identified in her recommendations was establishing a board of directors that all representatives would be part of. That would mean grouping them because you have to have an appropriate balance to ensure that people's confidence in the nuclear industry is the best it can be.

We have been talking about people's confidence in security since September 11, but we shouldn't forget their confidence in the director of an organization operating in a highly specialized field, which can be extremely frightening to people because it is a total unknown. I think we need a board of directors, in keeping with the recommendations of the Seaborn Report and the overall testimony we have heard here in the last few days and weeks. I think it is not only important but imperative to agree to the establishment of such a board to run the proposed nuclear waste management organization.

Once again, if members opposite have any suggestions to make that could improve this amendment, I would be very open to hearing them up until the very last minute.

• 1750

The Chair: Thank you. Before we call the question, I want to remind you that proposed subclause 6.1(1), which refers to seven members, should actually read “eight members”, and that in proposed 6.1(2), in the second last line, the words “five other members” should be changed to “six other members”.

[English]

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Therefore, your document C has been completed, and you won't get it involved with other letters. It's not coming back.

If we go back to document A, BQ-3 becomes redundant. Does everyone have that?

Now we'll go to BQ-4, reference 13560, and Monsieur Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Give me a few seconds to get back on track.

I move that Bill C-27, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the following:

to make, on the recommendation of the House of Commons, from the proposals of the waste

This brings us back again to the idea of referring to the House of Commons, and therefore to parliamentarians who legitimately represent the people. It is important that citizens' representatives continue to have an opportunity to express their views on all issues in an area as important and sensitive as the environment and nuclear energy. That is the essence of this recommendation.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we'll move to amendment PC/DR-4, reference 13495, and Mr. Keddy.

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

This is a very straightforward amendment. I would insert the word “domestic” into line 26 on page 2 so it reads:

management of domestic nuclear fuel waste that is

It's similar to earlier amendments I made. I still think, Mr. Chair, that it's extremely important for the clarity of this bill that we understand exactly that we're dealing with domestic nuclear fuel waste and that it be spelled out in the language of the bill itself.

I realize the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canada Transportation Act, and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act all have some bearing on this piece of legislation. But in none of them is it absolutely clear, at least in my opinion, that a company that's operating in Canada is prevented from importing radiated or nuclear fuel waste from a company outside Canada. We've had a ruling on that. I just want to repeat it one more time. I see absolutely nothing wrong with inserting the word “domestic” before “nuclear fuel waste”.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there other comments? Mr. Comartin.

• 1755

Mr. Joe Comartin: This is so simple, Mr. Chair. We're adding the one word. It deals with the concern we have. Again, I think that concern is pretty widespread across the country. It's not a complicated amendment, but it accomplishes certainly what I want and what I believe the mover of the motion wants, namely to limit what our responsibilities are in the volume of the nuclear fuel waste we're going to have to deal with.

It's a nice simple way of doing it. It accomplishes the task. It's hard to imagine anybody would vote against it. I think it's a brilliant amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We only have four hands up over there.

The Chair: I counted more than that. Do you want a re-vote? Will it satisfy you? We have five. We had four before that you didn't see.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Point taken, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: No, no. We should not conduct ourselves as 20 years ago, when I was on municipal council and we played games and repeated everything five times. We're more professional than that, and I know we all are—all of us.

Now we will deal with amendment BQ-5, reference 13551. Monsieur Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: It's my turn again, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 3 reads as follows:

[...] from the proposals of waste management organization, a decision on the management of nuclear fuel waste that is based on a comprehensive [...] approach [...]

The image that immediately comes to my mind when I see that is that the comprehensive approach refers only to nuclear fuel waste management. We know there is a direct relationship with the environment, and that is something that we should never lose sight of. So, in terms of this comprehensive approach to the management of nuclear waste, there is a need to ensure that such an approach includes environmental considerations. Of course, it would still be integrated, transparent and, of course, economically sound.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that in this case, it is necessary to state that environmental considerations are paramount in this area; this has to be clearly stated somewhere in the bill.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

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

I believe this to be a very important amendment. When we're talking about the environment, when we're talking about what goes on in our society, Mr. Chairman, we're talking specifically about steps we will be taking to ensure better land use and better management of our waste, so that people can enjoy a safe environment. I think nuclear waste management is an essential part of both the broad and more restricted environment referred to here, and that this process must be based on an integrated, transparent and economically sound approach.

In the clause that has been referred to, there is no mention... Mr. Chairman, clause 3 states the purpose of this bill, which is to provide a framework for decision-making. If we don't provide a framework for everything we want to do, or if we don't decide on the nature of the framework in which decisions are to be made, we will be missing an essential component of the decision- making process, as well as missing environmental considerations and the need for a transparent and efficient approach.

Mr. Chairman, if we want to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what action will be required under this bill, we have to ensure, because they have rejected the amendments proposed, that it will be the House of Commons taking a position as part of this process. Beyond that, this needs to happen as part of a transparent, integrated and comprehensive environmental approach, because essentially, everything is included in this bill—natural resources, the environment, nuclear waste, and so on. It affects everything. So why not be specific? Why separate this from the concept of providing a framework, since it does have to do with the environment?

• 1800

Mr. Chairman, this is not redundant; it simply means adding an element that will make the legislation more transparent. I think this evening, rather than being partisan, we are here to introduce transparency into a bill that will affect our environment. Why would we not want to do that? This will affect the environment, and whenever the environment is involved, there is a need for transparency.

You are well aware of the extent to which there has been tremendous secrecy in the past surrounding everything environmental. Because we weren't experts, we couldn't get involved. But everything we enjoy today, even what we have in our plates, is linked to the environment. If we make wheat with GMOs, that involves the environment. So, it is very important to include it in this process. The purpose of the legislation should be reflected in the framework provided for decision-making. In Canada, we need a comprehensive, integrated, transparent and economically sound environmental process. To me, that is a given. Mr. Chairman, I think we will make real progress by passing this amendment, which can only enhance the bill.

Although we heard from many different witnesses, when developing legislation and throughout the hearing process, we need to keep an open mind, at least to try to respond somewhat to the specific comments and concerns they have raised. If we shut the door, if we refuse to make the slightest change to this legislation we are currently considering, then what was the point of calling witnesses?

The witnesses we heard from told us to ensure there would be transparency and to include the environment. That is what is important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You repeated the same thing five times. That is your privilege, but it is important to have some consideration for people at this table. It will be a very long night indeed if everyone repeats each point five times. It could make things unpleasant for everyone, but you have every right to do so.

[English]

Mr. Keddy.

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

The amendment allows for a more comprehensive.... Mr. Cardin uses specifically the words “comprehensive, environmental, integrated, transparent”. I think that's exactly what the amendment does. What I think needs to be said, and maybe our legal advisers can correct me if I'm wrong—you don't need to correct me if I'm correct—

The Chair: Liberal advisers?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Legal advisers.

The Chair: Legal advisers. Thank you. I would have corrected it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You wouldn't have made that mistake, I'm sure.

Mr. Chairman, it would be my understanding that this would again add to the bill. It would not take away from the bill to have the word “environmental”—“comprehensive, environmental, integrated, transparent”—understanding we have a substance here that's not environmentally friendly, but we do have a responsibility to deal with it. We have to deal with it in the most environmentally safe way we possibly can. That's how I interpret the word “environmental”.

I would be concerned if the interpretation for environmental was that we can't deal with this at all, that we somehow just have to leave it because it's extremely dangerous. So if we're looking at environmental interpretation as dealing with this substance as safely and as practically as we can, understanding that it's going to have an extremely long shelf life and it's going to be around for a long time, and we're going to have to deal with it, that would be my interpretation of putting “environmental” in there.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: I think I'd like to add at this time a point of clarification.

Of course the environmental aspects of this project are very important, and there's already an act that deals with the health aspects, the safety aspects, all the environmental aspects, and the security aspects of the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. That's the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. So all these environment aspects of this project will be overseen by that act. The purpose of this act is a bit different. The environmental aspects of whatever government-approved approach will be regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

• 1805

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): I'd like to make two points.

First of all, I'd like to thank the PC/DR and the Alliance Party for providing us with the amendments in advance. We had a good chance to look at them, and we're prepared to accept some of the Alliance amendments.

I believe that if you had done the same thing, we would have been able,

[Translation]

to perhaps accept some of your amendments after looking at the specific context involved, to ensure they would not conflict with others. As regards this amendment, I believe Mr. Keddy made a very good point. We have heard the opinion of our legal experts on this: such a change would result in a conflict with another statute.

I would be prepared to accept the amendment if the word “environmental” were removed, because there is nothing comprehensive. But we certainly have no problem with the idea of a comprehensive, transparent approach.

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I want to go back to what Mr. Serré was saying, to the effect that if we had provided our amendments in advance... Of course, we did discuss this at a previous meeting. I said that I was aware of the fact that time was passing and that there were more and more witnesses on our list and that as they provided their testimony to the Committee, our own views and positions would be evolving on an ongoing basis, assuming we were keeping an open mind. I already knew what was going to happen. I told you so, but you informed me that it was a decision made the Committee as a whole, which I respect, even though a decision can be changed. I made the point that we would probably end up having to table our amendments rather precipitously and that that would clearly mean Committee members might not have the time they needed to put them together properly and still meet the deadline.

So, I don't really feel that comfortable with this process, as some well-known experts in the field of sports have said before, it ain't over until it's over. So, we will keep going until it's over.

Of course, I heard the comments made with respect to the environmental dimension of this issue. It's not even like our human duality: the body and the soul. To me, nuclear issues and the environment go together. So it would be unthinkable in my view to remove it and still talk about transparency. To me, you can't have it both ways, so I prefer to keep the amendment intact, as currently worded.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[English]

You had spoken on this already.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You skipped over me once, Mr. Chair. I signalled you a second time, and you nodded your head.

The Chair: I apologize, then. I crossed your name out. So I apologize.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Given that I'm the environment critic for my party, I wanted to speak to this amendment.

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Serré, I don't want to get overly aggressive about this. I don't agree with you that, if we'd have had these amendments in earlier, it would have been a better process. Why do we bother having the witnesses come? Do we just ignore them and go through a charade? I couldn't help but think we've heard the comments two or three times from that side of the table that this is going to be a great consultation process once this bill's in place. If that's the attitude, those witnesses who came today would have been absolutely useless, because we'd have had our amendments in 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours before we ever heard from them.

The information I had today from the mayors was something I had not heard before. I was affected by it in terms of some of the positions I would take on this bill.

I just have to say to you, I cannot accept the position that we get the amendments through. I quite frankly resent the fact that we're going through this clause-by-clause so rapidly that we cannot reflect some of that information we had from the witnesses. In fact it does bother me that if this is the way the bill is going to be treated once it's passed into law, if that's the kind of consultation we're going to go through with some of the groups that are going to be involved in that advisory council, again it's going to be a charade and a farce.

• 1810

Coming back, Mr. Chair, to the issue at hand around the environment, I agree with Mr. Cardin that it does add something to the bill. The words “comprehensive” and “integrated” do not cover the environment. I think anybody who has an environmental background would stand strongly on that. I applaud him for attempting to get this in here.

An amendment from me will be coming up shortly, and it takes a somewhat different tack. But I'd be quite happy to support him in this one, and I hope the committee as a whole would agree. It adds to the bill and rounds it out somewhat. It certainly gives the WMO some additional perspective on how they would conduct their investigation and the ultimate plan that they'll propose. So I think it's important that we go ahead with it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

With regard to the point you make that we are rushing through the amendments, we are averaging 12 minutes per amendment. With 63 amendments, we will be here for 12 hours. That's not exactly my idea of rushing through.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Next is amendment NDP-3, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This would be an addition to the existing wording in clause 3, Mr. Chair. It picks up from the end. It would take the period out and replace it with a comma.

Going to what I again see as a major flaw in this bill and the list the government is giving us as to how we're going to deal with the waste, I believe a very clear direction has to be given. If we're going to deal with this through our responsibility to the generations that will follow us—and I think we all accept that this issue is going to outlive all of the people in this room, no matter how young we are—we have to look at this as a solution, if it is a permanent solution, and we have to respect the environment and not endanger it.

You heard from some of the witnesses today, Mr. Chair, their concerns around the proposal that AECL floated ten years ago now, maybe twelve. They believe, and they think they have the science behind them, that there is not a safe way of doing this in the shield. I think we have to impose that kind of test or criterion on the WMO so that when they go to decide, that criterion is in place, and it says to them that unless this is safe for the environment in perpetuity, we don't do it that way.

The hope I would express for mankind—I'm sorry, that's probably sexist, Mr. Chair, but I'm starting to get tired—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We know what you meant.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The hope I would express for humankind is that we take that into account, that the natural environment is not exposed and that we protect it on the basis of applying the precautionary principle, which is that we don't do something that has the potential to cause damage to the environment. If we put that criterion in, we have a much better chance that the end result will in fact be a safe one for the environment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Keddy.

• 1815

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would concur with Mr. Comartin's statement. I support the principle of what he's saying, but I have some concern about putting in the bill that we isolate this nuclear fuel waste from the environment in perpetuity. However, after saying that, as I understand the bill, that's what we really intend to do. We do intend somehow to store this substance in perpetuity, although we haven't really decided what the venue will be. When you see that language in front of you, that's a huge responsibility for us as parliamentarians to take on, and maybe I'm a little wary of that.

I'm going to get a legal opinion. Are we already doing this, and is this a redundant statement? We are attempting to be responsible for this radioactive waste, irradiated fuel, in perpetuity. Perhaps “perpetuity” is the wrong word, and we mean until it's no longer radioactive.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: I'm going to defer to the technical expert on this point.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I was looking for help.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes, it is redundant. I don't think these words are needed. I think they would be problematic because of the definition of “environment”. How do you isolate nuclear fuel waste from the environment? So the words are problematic, and I don't think they're needed to attain the objective of this bill.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm worried about the language. Would the mover accept a change so that instead of saying “from the environment in perpetuity”, it would say “ensuring isolation of nuclear fuel waste from the natural environment”? That would be a small change.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Just so I'm clear, is he suggesting we add “natural” before “environment” and take out “in perpetuity”?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes. She's saying that perpetuity is considered.

Mr. Joe Comartin: She's also worried about the definition of “environment”, which I don't agree with.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: You're isolating it from what? The wording is very problematic, and I don't think it's needed to attain the objective of this bill.

The Chair: Therefore—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll withdraw the amendment. I'm not going to bog us down on that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, a report of the Environmental Assessment Commission dealing with the concept of nuclear fuel waste management and storage, entitled the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Storage Concept, stated that there were environmental consequences, consequences for human health, economic consequences, social consequences and consequences in the area of transportation. I am not inventing this; this is taken from a 1998 report.

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, it has to be related to clause 3.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is related to the environmental issue. It says that the environmental consequences have been very clearly identified. It says that, as would be the case for any major work site located in a naturel environment, the construction of surface facilities and access corridors could affect land habitat, as well as wetland and freshwater habitat. It also states that potential contamination of waterways and changes to wildlife migration patterns, as a result of project activity, could have repercussions for both Aboriginal and northern populations that depend on them for their survival.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this clause of the legislation is very significant, because what I have just told you demonstrates the very serious environmental impacts associated with storage. As a result, it is absolutely essential, for the purposes of protecting the environment, to ensure that nuclear waste will be permanently isolated, which is extremely important, given what I have just mentioned.

• 1820

That must be specified in the bill, even if Ms. Létourneau says it isn't necessary. Given what I've just said about the recommendations made by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, it is clear that this is needed and that there could be negative environmental impacts if we don't clearly state this in the purpose clause of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I've read this a couple of times, and I obviously understand what Mr. Comartin is driving at, but this could be a bit of a problem. There is no doubt that making provisions for the isolation of nuclear waste from the environment in perpetuity is an important consideration. A long time ago, someone decided that domestic and human waste could be pumped directly into the river. I'm wondering whether it was an engineer, a lawyer or a politician who first suggested that means of isolating human waste in perpetuity. At the time, he may have believed that if you put things out of sight, they cease to exist. The same applies to nuclear waste. But at one point, the chickens came home to roost, and we had to develop comprehensive schemes to purify our waterways, rivers, and so on.

As for domestic waste, well, we simply hid that away in landfill sites. That was an attempt to isolate them in perpetuity, even though we realized, as time passed, that this could only be a very temporary solution. What we're dealing with here is similar. It is certainly a noble goal to want to isolate this waste in perpetuity, but I still have doubts as to whether it is actually possible to get rid of nuclear waste permanently.

At the same time, I think it's important to mention it. It's simply a matter of stating an intention and a desire to ensure that nuclear waste that could have environmental impacts is completely isolated from the environment as a whole. It has to be completely isolated to avoid any potential environmental effects. That may not be the best way of putting it, but I think it's important to say that this material will be completely isolated from the environment in order to avoid any and all potential environmental impacts.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, closing remarks.

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

Maybe it's just the region of the country that I come from—and this government doesn't do enough of an inventory—but in southwestern Ontario there are somewhere between 200 and 300 toxic hot spots that previous generations left for us to clean up. So when I use the term “in perpetuity”, I'm taking into account the responsibilities we have to those subsequent generations, and those toxic hot spots are of no consequence at all in comparison with what this could leave for our subsequent generations. We know how to get at those. If we find them, we know how to clean them up. I'm not sure we know how to find the money to do it, but we know how to do it. We have the technical scientific skills to do it.

We don't have that here with this material, and so I have no reservations at all about having “in perpetuity” in there for what it means. We have a substance here that has an unknown shelf life. We don't know how long this could be a pollutant. So when I strive, with this amendment, to protect the future environment, I think you have to talk an indefinite period of time.

• 1825

I could put in 300 years. There's a suggestion in some of the material we've had circulated that after about 300 years this waste is only dangerous if we ingest it by breathing or if it's diluted through water. Quite frankly, then, it has a shelf life of an unknown period of time—thousands of years, probably, as much as 5,000 years or more—and given the fact that rock is never solid and human structures are never completely inaccessible to the weather, to earthquakes and phenomena like that, we cannot protect it. So that has to be the test; we have to say that we are going to protect it forever, in perpetuity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: On amendment NDP-4, Mr. Comartin.

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

This brings us back to the security issue. I'd be open to some suggestions either from the officials or the clerk as to whether this is more appropriate in another section of the act, but as I read the act, this is the most logical place to put it. I'm actually getting somewhat irritated at the number of times I've said this, and I think we all have, that September 11 has changed everything. I think that's true even though we've heard from the official already that we have other legislation that addresses this, and from Mr. Bagnell, that he feels the minister has indicated that we have our security systems in place. I have to say to you, Mr. Chair, I'm not convinced that either the legislation or our present procedures are adequate.

I'm sure we would have heard similar statements from officials and other elected people prior to September 11, that our aviation security measures were more than adequate to deal with any terrorism. We've obviously been shown to be wrong on that.

Similarly, I don't think our present methodologies of dealing with security are sufficient, and we have to say to the WMO here that this has to be a priority above and beyond the other ones. So if there are other issues here that would say, yes, we can go ahead with this plan, but security is not sufficient or perhaps is not even taken into account—which is the way the bill is now, because under this bill there's no reference to security any place—it seems to me we have to be communicating that to them in a very strong fashion. I think this wording goes at least some distance to doing that. I'd be again open to anything that would strengthen it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Mr. Keddy.

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

Again, I would appeal to all committee members that although we're not going to agree with all the amendments, certainly this is an amendment that adds to the substance of the bill as it's proposed. There was discussion earlier about the so-called dirty bombs that could be wrapped in radioactive material, or biological material, or whatever. I think that has been an oversight in the bill. We haven't really looked to national and international security concerns. I do believe and agree with Mr. Comartin that because the bill has neglected that, it can be added here. It would be a very proper opportunity to add that, and it should be considered in the long-term storage possibility, absolutely.

Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with this, but I believe it's already covered under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. I'd like the advice of the legal experts on that.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: As I said before, the health aspects, the security aspects, the environmental aspects, and the safety aspects are covered under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, so they would be regulated under that act. Any government-approved option under this act would be regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act for those aspects.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: In the nuclear regulations, does it refer directly to terrorist attacks?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes.

• 1830

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The Nuclear Safety and Control Act creates the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as an independent tribunal. Part of its mandate is the implementation of Canada's international obligations, with respect to the security of nuclear materials. There are direct references in that legislation to security.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin. Final word.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's interesting—and we heard it a little bit today from, I think, Ms. Kock—that when the AECL ran those computer tests, do you remember what she said the worst-case scenario was? It was pinpoint-size holes in the containers. That was the worst-case scenario. It wasn't terrorism, or somebody intentionally trying to get at this material. That was never run through by AECL.

So when you hear that the legislation uses those words, yes, there's security in those words. Is it serious? When you look at the practice—far from it. If we go with the historical attitude—that test AECL showed was their worst-case scenario, quite frankly, I can't speak for New Brunswick or Quebec, but I know that the tests they used for the worst-case scenarios in Ontario for nuclear reactors had absolutely nothing to do with intentional terrorist acts—flying a plane into them or using explosive devices. It's the same in the United States.

You look at what the U.S. has now done, in terms of air space. They've multiplied it tremendously over ours. We're not doing any of that. To suggest that our existing framework of legislation and practices is sufficient is misleading, quite frankly.

I think we need this kind of wording in the bill, to be very clear where we're going in this field, in order to say to that WMO, when they eventually get set up, they have have to be more serious about security.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Now for the question on amendment NDP-4.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, can I have a recorded vote on this one?

The Chair: Yes, you may.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Clause 4 has been carried. Clause 5 has been carried.

You have the document that has III at the top. I don't know what it stands for. It's BQ-5A. Do you have the document? That becomes your document D.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, could you go back through those numbers?

The Chair: It's the document that has III on the front. Do you have it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, I found it. Thank you.

The Chair: The reference on the first amendment is 13569. That is document D, for your records, so we're all working from the same documents.

[Translation]

Mr. Cardin.

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

• 1835

I guess you're not surprised to see this amendment. It is intended to amend line 40 on page 2 where reference is made to the Government of Canada. The current wording is as follows:

[...] proposed to the Government of Canada approaches for the management of nuclear fuel waste;

I am proposing to replace that with the following:

(a) propose to the House of Commons

The elected representatives of citizens across the country should have an opportunity to present their views on the acceptability of a nuclear waste management model, which is in keeping with my previous proposed amendments. So, I feel perfectly comfortable moving this kind of change again.

[English]

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We're back to document A, amendment NDP-5, reference 13533. Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, I've been looking at this and I'm trying to figure out where this fits in because it doesn't have a page number here, and clause 6 obviously doesn't start with lines....

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's on page 3, lines 1 to 6.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay, I've got it.

I believe when I made this amendment it was based on the fact of my earlier amendments that have been defeated, with regard to the implementation. This section would have been part of that scheme. So I won't move this motion.

The Chair: You withdraw it?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes. I won't move it.

The Chair: It's been signed, so we need a majority vote to withdraw the amendment.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you; it's been withdrawn.

Now we have document E. These are amendments from Mr. Keddy, I understand. It's a two-pager. Do you all have it?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's from the municipalities.

The Chair: We'll deal with amendment 1. Mr. Keddy.

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

[Translation]

The Chair: Is there a point of order?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes. My colleague and I have only the English wording for these amendments. Do you have the French version?

The Chair: The Standing Orders state that it is not mandatory to introduce them in both official languages, although they do have to be translated immediately afterwards.

Mr. Serge Cardin: The interpreter asked to be given a copy so she could quickly translate it.

The Chair: In English?

Mr. Serge Cardin: At the beginning of the presentation, she said she did not have the document.

The Chair: They do have it. Could I therefore ask our interpreters whether they have located the document?

Mr. Serge Cardin: That way, it will be easier for her to provide a translation.

The Chair: Yes, I imagine it can be quite difficult for our interpreters. They deserve that consideration. Is that all right then?

[English]

Mr. Keddy, on amendment 1.

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

• 1840

I apologize to Mr. Cardin for any misunderstanding. It was not the intent to simply put forth the amendments in one official language only; it was a question of timing. Obviously, had the timing been different we would have definitely had them in both official languages.

These amendments were put forth by the last group of presenters. They represent amendments submitted by the municipalities of Clarington and Kincardine and the City of Pickering to our committee. I read the amendments over and we all listened to the representatives from the municipalities who presented them. I had some difficulty with amendment 3, so I didn't submit that on behalf of the municipalities.

However, I do think it's important that we recognize the role the municipalities play. They play a very important role here. They will also absolutely be the site for on-site storage, before some type of longer-term arrangement is made. I think their request to be part and parcel of the agreement and the bill is only common sense. It recognizes their role, not only in the on-site storage but in the long-term management of this very toxic substance.

The first amendment recognizes that

Once the waste management organization has been established, every nuclear energy corporation shall become and remain a member or shareholder of it.

We already know that. However, it would be added that:

The board of directors of the waste management organization shall include at least one member who is nominated by the municipalities, within whose areas of jurisdiction are located nuclear reactor sites.

I thought to put this forward on their behalf because the first one certainly speaks directly to the bill and the issue of on-site storage. Perhaps they all speak to the issue of on-site storage, but I don't think we can ignore major political players in this mix. They certainly have a huge responsibility, a number of constituents they answer to, and a real legitimate reason to want to be players and at the table.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

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

As I said earlier to Mr. Serré, I quite frankly had not seen this. I've been up in Kincardine on a number of occasions, for both recreational and professional reasons over the years. I know the kind of impact that facility has had on that community, both positive and negative.

It wasn't until today, when I heard the mayor speak to us, that I was as impressed by their need to participate, not at the advisory council level either, but at this level. They very much are on the front line of this industry, in terms of dealing with it on the ground. We're here; we're much more isolated from this. I don't think any one of us lives in a community that has a nuclear reactor in its backyard.

They're the ones who have to confront the problems that are created, like items being shipped into their area. Up in the Bruce Peninsula, both Pickering and the other reactor around Toronto, ship up light and mid-level waste. That has been going through their community on a regular basis—I think on a weekly basis, Mr. Chair.

So when you look at that and the responsibilities they will have to deal with it, cope with it, and the economic fallout that occurs in communities like this, we're talking about land values and items like that, none of that shows up on the board of directors, as it will be composed under the draft legislation.

• 1845

It seems to me the arguments they made were very telling ones that we, as other elected officials, should be responsive to, by giving them the opportunity to participate very directly in the decision-making that will go on around how those wastes are disposed of and, quite frankly, around the negative fallout that's going to impact on their communities.

So I would support Mr. Keddy's motion quite strongly.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would again like to briefly respond to the comments made with respect to amendments that are tabled at the last minute. I understand, Mr. Keddy, that you were unable to table your amendment in French. We met with these witnesses this morning, leaving very little time before the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration. The fact is, we didn't have enough flexibility to be able to do our job properly.

When I was young, one of the questions we'd be asked at catechism class was: “Who is your fellow man?” We would always answer that it was everyone, especially the people closest to us. Some of us here started out as city councillors. And that is indeed the level of government that is closest to the people. On a daily basis, you are able to have a close appreciation for people's fears, apprehensions and aspirations. The testimony I heard this morning reminded me of those wonderful years when I was a city councillor and had a real feel for the will of the people. That is what our immediate environment is all about. I always hoped that when I came to Ottawa, I would continue to have close ties to the people in my riding. Municipal authorities manage land use and protection on a daily basis; that is one of their responsibilities. Safety is also part of their fundamental mandate. I believe including municipal representatives on the board of directors will fill an important gap in this bill. The people have to be directly involved in the development and acceptance of nuclear waste management plans.

I therefore support Mr. Keddy's amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't think there's a lot more to add to what's already been mentioned. However, I think it's worth reiterating one more time that the group did appear before us; they articulated their message very clearly. They would like to have some input into this legislation, and I think it's important that they do.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now for the question: it's on amendment 1, amending subclause 6(2), so that we all understand what we're voting on.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: May I have a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Now we go to your document D.

[Translation]

Now let's deal with amendment BQ-5b, reference number 13572.

Mr. Cardin, you have the floor.

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

I move that clause 6 be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 3 with the following:

(3) The waste management organization shall be subject to the Access to Information Act.

• 1850

We have to ensure that this will be a democratic bill and respond to the concerns of both citizens and environmental organizations reflected in the Seaborn Report and in their testimony today. We have to demonstrate transparency, as I pointed out when I presented previous amendments, just as Members of Parliament should have an opportunity in the House of Commons to make their views known on this issue as a whole.

If we want there to be transparency, not only in terms of the position we take on issues, but as regards the management and enforcement of the Act, we have to ensure access to information about how this waste management organization operates.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

Are there any other comments?

[English]

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chair, could I ask our Justice representative whether, if we don't mention this, it means that the waste management organization is not subject to the Access to Information Act?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The scope of the Access to Information Act is that it applies to records held by government institutions. The waste management organization would not come within the definition of a government institution in the Access to Information Act because that definition refers, to my recollection, to schedules to the Financial Administration Act. It's organizations that are part of the federal family—departments, boards, and agencies.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I'm very pleased that the gentleman—I'm sorry, I don't know his name—asked the official to explain why such an organization would not be subject to the Access to Information Act. Thank you very much for that information.

I see here that there is a major oversight in this bill. As far as I'm concerned, this is a very important point. We should not be allowing an organization or agency of any kind that is established through legislation not to be subject to the Access to Information Act. We're talking about public funds here. The people responsible for administering and managing waste must operate in a transparent manner.

Even if the minister's parliamentary secretary doesn't want to talk about environmental transparency, I think the Access to Information Act will ensure that there is transparency far beyond what would be gained by adding something to the wording. So, I see this as a crucial point and believe we must make provision for this in the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Just to put the record straight, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, you had asked for the floor.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have a question to Monsieur Cardin through you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not clear if his intention is to delete the existing subclause 6(3) and replace it with his subclause 6(3), or if his subclause 6(3) is really an add-on. I'm not clear which is his intent. I don't think he spoke to this when he addressed his original comments. Could I just get a response on that? And then I would like to hold my place on the floor.

The Chair: Yes, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Our colleague referred to a major oversight, but I think there was a clear intention to avoid being subject to certain requirements, since at lines 8 and 9, the bill reads:

(3) For all purposes the waste management organization is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

The Chair: The answer is no.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like to ask another question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No. First we want to get an answer to that one, because you will be the final speaker.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I was convinced that those words meant that the waste management organization was not subject to the Access to Information Act. That is why I wanted to make this change.

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Monsieur Cardin.

Obviously, given some of the history of this industry, having the use of the Access to Information Act—and again I appreciate, Ms. Kellerman, your information, since I quite frankly was operating from a different perspective, that in fact it doesn't apply—it seems to me this amendment should go through so that we and the public would be able to use the Access to Information Act in appropriate circumstances.

I applaud my friend once again. He's got some really good amendments. I'm jealous of it, quite frankly, Mr. Chair. But I would certainly indicate my support for the amendment as proposed.

• 1855

The Chair: Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just to put the record straight, Mrs. Bujold referred to public money. The fact of the matter is that this bill was put in place to apply to oblige the producers of nuclear waste. So the money's put in by the producers, number one.

Number two, she talks about transparency. We agreed a while ago to an amendment that would have used that word, and they refused to cooperate. The fact of the matter is that on the one hand they talk about national or international security and on the other hand they want the information to be made public.

The bill already states that they have to report to the minister. The information is made public. The minister has to make a response in due time, and I think there will be an amendment to have it before 60 days. So it's already in the bill.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I think I understand what the government was trying to do by stating that this organization can submit reports. Does that mean it has to submit all its reports and pass on all this information? If certain organizations are asking for this legislation, they must have had a good reason.

We know that public opinion is very sensitive to nuclear issues. People want to be protected, for obvious reasons. I just want to digress again for a moment. Everybody is in favour of sound management of nuclear waste. But I, personally, am not so keen on the idea of a bill primarily intended to protect corporations that deal with nuclear waste. At the same time, we know that public opinion is very sensitive to these issues. This bill is intended to ensure that the Government of Canada, and the Governor in Council, provide for appropriate protection. Even if these reports are mandatory, will they actually be made public? That can sometimes be a very touchy area.

By not making this organization subject to the Access to Information Act, you are preventing citizens from receiving the information they need to form an opinion about how nuclear waste is being managed and thus on potential environmental impacts.

Therefore, I believe this organization should be subject to the Access to Information Act.

The Chair: Thank you. Let's move now to BQ-5b, reference number 13572. All those in favour, please signify.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Benoît Serré: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we adjourn until we come back on the twentieth of—

The Chair: We're about to vote on clause 6.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Okay, we'll do clause 6, then I'll come back.

The Chair: A motion is not a point of order; therefore, I will not accept it as a point of order.

(Clause 6 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Monsieur Serré, do you have a motion? If you are moving that we adjourn, I would hope that in your motion you will give us two or three minutes to decide when we're going to meet again, because I will have suggestions to make to you. So you can move it, and if you choose to, can put in your motion that we discuss future business for a few minutes; otherwise we'll be crippled.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: I am prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman, but I am not sure what the exact wording should be.

[English]

I would like to move that we adjourn and that we decide before leaving on the date of the next meeting to continue clause-by-clause.

The Chair: The motion is accepted without debate.

• 1900

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We will be adjourning, but before doing so we will decide when we shall come back.

A suggestion I'd like to make to you is that we are now scheduled on November 20 to receive the department, and I'd like to suggest we defer the department to Thursday the 22nd. We have an hour there.

We also have the Premier of the Yukon. These are two different bills, but they will have an hour each. The reason we are receiving the Premier of the Yukon is that she is in town that day.

Is that acceptable, that we move the department to the Thursday?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Do you agree that we meet at 11 o'clock on the morning of November 20 to resume clause-by-clause and that we do it that day? If on that day it's prolonged and somebody wishes to put in a motion that we defer, we have Wednesday afternoon open to us. Is 11 o'clock on Tuesday the 20th okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now, I will say to you that in our plans and our suggestions and my suggestions I made a grave mistake, which I will never do again; that is, to suggest to do clause-by-clause on a Thursday. It's a faux pas; I didn't see the problems it could cause. For clause-by-clause, any suggestion coming from me will be for Tuesdays or Wednesdays, but not Thursdays. But you will be the ones to decide. Thank you.

Mr. Joe Comartin: We're prepared to let you make it up to us, Mr. Chair, by buying dinner for all of us this evening.

[Translation]

Hon. Members: Agreed.

[English]

The Chair: I'll respond before we go: after listening to every intervention repeated three times each, I don't want to hear you repeat it again at dinner. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.