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]

Tuesday, November 20, 2001

• 1111

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib)): I will call the meeting to order and we will resume proceedings.

Before we go on to the order of the day, I should inform you that on Thursday our consultation with the premier of the Yukon will be televised. So I urge all members to be on time. Although we don't need a quorum, I'm sure you'll want to be there, in Room 237-C.

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

You all have a new updated package. In essence, you can put aside all the (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) that we had last time and turn to page 21 of your new bundle.

We are on amendment PCDR-5, by Mr. Keddy. The reference, for your information, is 13499. The packages are in order.

Mr. Keddy, please.

(On clause 7—Duty toward other owners of nuclear fuel waste)

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): Mr. Chairman, I apologize to committee members that my voice is not up to standard today, so I won't be able to speak as long.

The Chair: There's no need to apologize. And we do have tea if it can help.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like to take a second to thank our support staff here for putting these all in order. It is much easier than trying to follow the six groups of paper we had in front of us the other day.

The amendment on clause 7 will change very slightly the wording that says “that is reasonable in relation to its costs of” and would add into that:

set by the organization that is reasonable in relation to its costs of

The reasoning behind putting that in is of course to bring a little more clarity to the bill and make sure that the costs that are being set are actually being set by the organization.

I realize the argument can be put forth that it's already expected that the organization is the waste management organization, but it clarifies the wording and makes it clear, without question, that the organization is the waste management organization. It refers back to it.

• 1115

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

The Chair: We now go to amendment BQ-6 moved by Mr. Cardin.

A voice: Which number is that?

The Chair: The amendment can be found on page 22. The reference number is 12552.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): It's a good question, Mr. Chairman. I too am back from a one-week break. I'm looking at this amendment and I'm not finding that it lives up to my expectations at all.

The amendment proposes that the bill be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 3 with the following. I just don't understand. I'm sorry, but it doesn't live up to my expectations. I'm reviewing my notes and if you can understand the meaning of this amendment, you're having better luck than I because...

The Chair: What page was that?

Mr. Serge Cardin: I withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I encourage you to continue in this vein, although I'm sure that will not be the case.

[English]

I should mention that when we have proposed an amendment and, as happens at times, we feel that it's probably not going to carry anyway, it's important for us as individuals to get on record why we have proposed that amendment, and I respect that. A good way to get it on record is to vote the motion and let it carry on division. It's a good way to get on record that it's not a unanimous vote. Sometimes it can save us a lot of time, rather than have every member speak on an amendment we know at the outset will not carry. A good way to get it on record is to vote on division. That's just a suggestion.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): How do we determine whether it will carry?

The Chair: Yes, I know you're lost without your consultant in the back there.

Mr. David Chatters: Well, I just wondered if you were telling us that in fact the government side wasn't going to allow any of our amendments to carry.

The Chair: I can tell you that if that's the case, I don't know anything about it. I told you I would be impartial, and I am.

[Translation]

We now go to amendment BQ-7 on page 23.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is consistent with several other amendments tabled during the previous analysis and review meeting. We still would like the matter to come before the House of Commons so that parliamentarians can discuss all issues pertaining to the management of nuclear waste.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll move to amendment PC/DR-6. Mr. Keddy.

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

The amendment would become subclause 7(2) and would say:

The waste management organization shall set the fee referred to in subsection (1) by means of a vote of its members, with each member having one vote.

As it's set up now, it's certainly not clear that each member will have one vote. One member may have a majority of the shares and have a superior position in the waste management organization. This is an attempt to make the waste management organization a little more democratic, if you will.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

• 1120

The Chair: We are now on CA-1, and I should mention that CA-1 has an effect on BQ-8, page 26, and on PC/DR-7, page 27. This means that if it carries, the others are redundant. Is that correct?

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: My amendment is an attempt to bring some independent, outside influence to bear on the organization, to try to prevent this from being simply an insiders' body. I think there needs to be some outside influence, some influence that is outside the control of the nuclear waste producers. I'm not sure that it necessarily has to be the particular body I suggested here, but there is a need for independence and outside influence, if you will, to keep the waste management organization honest. There should be some effort made so they simply don't appoint people of their choice who will help them achieve their agenda without anybody raising outside voices of concern. That was the intent of my amendment, and I hope that you would consider it as such.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any comments? Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, I would certainly support this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think it would make a big difference—and certainly everyone on committee should take a look—if there were something that actually provided an opportunity to have some outside influence on the panel. For the reasons Mr. Chatters gave earlier, I think it's important for this bill in that it would bring a lot more transparency and accountability to it. It's an amendment we would definitely support.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

The Chair: The next item is amendment BQ-8.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, if I'm not mistaken, I had moved an amendment to clause 6 concerning the board of directors. This amendment would have applied to that clause as well. Since the earlier amendment was rejected, I think I should withdraw this one.

The Chair: According to Mr. Cardin, this amendment would be redundant.

Then it can be withdrawn? Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

[English]

We'll move to amendment PC/DR-7. Mr. Keddy.

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

If you look at the wording in line 37 and 38 on page 3 of the bill, the way it is there now it states that “The governing body shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the Advisory Council's membership”. Then it goes into paragraphs 8(1)(a) and (b), which say “reflects a broad range of scientific and technical disciplines” and “reflects expertise, in matters of nuclear energy”.

I don't think it's efficient to put a clause in a government piece of legislation we're going to pass as members of Parliament that says “shall make all reasonable efforts”. Surely, we would expect the advisory council to absolutely ensure it happens, and that's what my amendment states. It says that the governing body shall ensure that the advisory council's membership reflects a broad range of scientific and technical disciplines and reflects expertise. Otherwise, we can simply have a group on the advisory council that says yes, we made all reasonable efforts to ensure that we reflected this, but we weren't able to do it. We appointed these people instead.

I'm not putting these amendments forth to simply delay this legislation or in any way to just waste our time here at committee. This is an amendment I feel should be passed. It makes it incumbent upon the advisory council to reflect its mandate. Its mandate is to “ensure”, not to make “all reasonable efforts”.

• 1125

The Chair: Are there any comments?

Mr. Comartin and Mr. Chatters.

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

I want to support this amendment for similar reasons. Without the mandatory aspect this amendment would incorporate into the bill, it is just too easy for the minister and the board to ignore the need for this type of input from other people. Without that mandatory nature, I think it inevitably becomes just too easy to walk away from the responsibilities we have here.

It goes back to some of the points I think I've made before, of the need for that sense of trust that certainly came out of the Seaborn commission, that sense of trust the community needs. Without this type of legislation, without mandatory legislation in this regard, that trust will definitely not be built in the community.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I would also support this amendment, simply because although it doesn't perhaps go quite as far as I would want, it is an effort to get people on that advisory panel who won't simply rubber-stamp the decisions of the organization.

As Mr. Comartin suggested, the greatest challenge this organization faces to be successful is to build confidence within the Canadian public and Canadian communities that this body can be trusted and that they will find a safe way to dispose of this nuclear waste. Again, if this body is simply a group chosen by the waste management organization, one that is prepared to rubber-stamp their agenda and not challenge any of those decisions, then the purpose of the bill will be defeated and they will not be successful. I think this represents at least some effort to bring in some of that outside accountability.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, do you have any closing remarks?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it's important to look at what level of responsibility changing the wording brings to the advisory council. I also recognize that there is some difficulty when you say “ensure”; that means that they actually do have to go out and get members of all the various legitimate organizations that should be represented. But the bill also, Mr. Chairman, states, when you turn the page to subparagraph 8(2)(b)(ii), “as needed, in other social sciences”. Then paragraph 8(2)(c) says:

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

There's a big difference in saying that we're going to have local, regional, and aboriginal representation on this group and making all reasonable efforts to ensure it happens. So if you say you “ensure” that this group will be represented, that means for your local municipal councillors, your members from your local town governments, and your members from the aboriginal community, you are absolutely ensuring, without question, that they're going to be part of this process. Without this amendment there is no guarantee that they will be part of that process. It's simply the old story of a kiss and a promise, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: It was defeated by one vote, so I encourage members to vote. If you don't vote and we lose the motion, I will call it as such.

We can now go to government amendments. We have two amendments on clause 8 that were presented to you this morning. We identified one as G-1, and the other one you have, for clause 19.1, will be G-2. The one you got replaces what is in your package at page 28. It replaces reference 13581.

Monsieur Serré.

• 1130

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

Basically, I felt that even though paragraph 8(2)(c) says that membership includes representation from aboriginal organizations, it was not strong enough in terms of reflecting the traditional knowledge of first nations. We added paragraph 8(2)(b.1) to make sure that the expertise of aboriginal people is taken into consideration.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I must admit, Mr. Chair, that I was more comfortable with the original draft. Through you to Mr. Serré, I'm concerned about the use of the term “expertise”. We've been doing clause-by-clause on the endangered species legislation and have heard a lot of testimony on traditional aboriginal knowledge in that committee. The concern I have—and we heard this from the first nations—is that the last thing they want is for experts of European descent to put themselves forward as experts on traditional knowledge. The first nations have been very careful about preserving that knowledge within their communities.

The concern I have is that by using the term “reflects expertise” we could have people who are positioning themselves as so-called experts in this area who are not from the first nations or other aboriginal communities. I think it's an excellent amendment, and it's one I wish I had thought of. Still, I'm concerned about that aspect of it, so I think that the original wording you used, Mr. Serré, was more appropriate.

I suppose either way I'll support this amendment because it is a good one. I think it's important, in particular with some of the potential plans that have been considered here and with the potential for wastes to be deposited in lands that are traditional first nations lands, that this knowledge be taken into account when those assessments are being made.

Subject to that one concern I have—and I would ask Mr. Serré to reconsider... I don't have a suggestion other than his original wording, which I was comfortable with. I don't know if we could do something along the lines of “reflect expertise from the aboriginal communities in traditional aboriginal knowledge” or something like that. Would he consider a friendly amendment like that? Then the message from this committee through the amendment would say very clearly that the information has to come from the first nations themselves. They're the ones who are the repositories of this knowledge.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Monsieur Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on something Mr. Serré said.

Obviously, it's quite noble to want the membership to reflect traditional aboriginal knowledge. Mr. Serré mentioned that this was important, but since the previous amendment was negatived, this is only a possibility now. In order to have some guarantees, you would have been better off adopting the previous amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

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

With all due respect to my NDP colleague here, I think we do a number of groups, including aboriginal groups, a disservice if we think there's only one group in the country that understands or has some understanding of nature and how it interacts and dovetails with so-called modern-day society.

• 1135

I don't think I can support this amendment, because I think the amendment I originally put forth was a better amendment to do the same thing. It ensured we had aboriginal representatives at the table. You're saying it reflects aboriginal knowledge, which absolutely needs to be in the bill. We shouldn't think, however, that's the final say on the interaction of nature and modern society.

Whereas my amendment, Mr. Chair, ensured we had an aboriginal component at the table, this one still doesn't ensure we have that at the table. It only says they will make all possible attempts. If it doesn't happen, then we don't have an aboriginal component at the table and don't have a reflection of aboriginal concerns and their special relationship with nature—although I would like to make it very clear that's not the final say on the interaction of nature and mankind. I think everybody is descended from an aboriginal community at one time or another, according to how far back you trace your line.

Gentlemen, I had a great debate over this.

[Translation]

The Chair: One last comment, Mr. Serré.

[English]

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

You have comments to be answered, Mr. Comartin. It's a question I would like to ask the legal experts—the reasoning for adding the word “expertise”.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman (Legal Counsel, Legal Services Branch, Department of Natural Resources): I'm Joanne Kellerman, from Natural Resources Canada legal services.

I think the wording “reflects expertise” was to parallel the language used in paragraph 8(2)(b) that states “reflects expertise” in other areas. I'm not aware there was a further rationale to it.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau (Senior Policy Adviser, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources): If you look back to the transcript of the presentation of Matthew Coon Come, he actually made the suggestion that traditional knowledge be inserted in this particular area before the GIC decision. It is really based on his testimony that we reconsidered amending this particular section.

The Chair: He spoke on it once.

Do you have other comments, Mr. Serré?

Mr. Benoît Serré: No.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We are now on NDP-6, reference 13529, by Mr. Comartin, on page 29.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, the effect of the amendment would be to completely replace subclause 8(2)'s paragraph (c) with the wording we have here.

Paragraph 8(2)(c) as presently drafted limits the representatives to those nominated by local and regional governments and aboriginal organizations. It actually goes on, beyond that, “that are affected because their economic region is specified.” It is very limiting in the sense that it excludes a large number of groups—NGOs, environmental and conservation groups: the list, quite frankly, is very lengthy—who have in fact been involved in this issue historically.

The effect of this is that it brings it down to the small local group that, as the present wording says, “is specified for the approach”—that “economic region that is specified for the approach”. If you are one of the national organizations that have been involved with this issue for 15 years or better, you in effect have no right to a representative, nor would you even be considered for the purposes of a representative unless the local regional government considers you. The likelihood of that happening is limited, depending on the size and scope of that region and that municipal or regional government.

This amendment allows that to continue to happen; that is, those groups—the regional municipal governments, the aboriginal communities—would still all be involved, potentially, but so would a large number of other groups who have had a great interest in this subject and on this issue have demonstrated it by their involvement over the last decade and a half. The effect of this is going some significant distance to include them.

• 1140

I come back again to the credibility of this legislation. If it's going to work, we have to show we've set up a structure here that takes into account all views. This subclause is just too limiting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I was just wondering if Mr. Comartin would agree to an amendment that would say “is representative of a”—

The Chair: Are you talking about an amendment or a friendly amendment?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: A friendly amendment, definitely a friendly amendment. It would say “is representative of a broad range of interested parties, including non-governmental organizations”, then still add: “and regional governments and aboriginal organizations that are affected” because of their economic area. I think this just brings a little more clarity so that we make sure we don't somehow lose the very groups we're trying to get, and it would allow other groups to be added.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, do you agree?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

The Chair: I would need a majority of votes. Do you agree to incorporate this in the amendment?

An hon. member: Could we read it back?

The Chair: I will ask Mr. Comartin to re-read his amendment just before we go for the vote on the motion.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It would read, starting in paragraph 8(2)(c), “includes representatives nominated”... I'm sorry.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You could start your paragraph (c) regularly. You could read yours and then just bring it in here: “is representative...including non-government organizations, and...”

Mr. Joe Comartin: Afterward?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Right here. In other words, paragraph 8(2)(c) would come to here, and then you would start there with the rest of it. This would stop.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Would you just give me a second, Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry.

It would be the wording I have now, which is “is representative of a broad range of interested parties including non-governmental organizations and...”—and then we're into the specifics—“regional governments and aboriginal organizations”.

The Chair: As a suggestion, maybe, to our researchers or legal advisers, should we not say local government? In Ontario you have regional and municipal.

A voice: Or you could add “local”.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The present wording is “includes representatives nominated by local and regional governments and aboriginal organizations”—

The Chair: It's “local and regional”?

A voice: That's right. Yes.

The Chair: Okay—“organizations and...”?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I suppose we might want to do commas rather than three “ands”. So it would be “local, regional and aboriginal...”. No, I'm sorry; we have to have it in there. It's “local and regional governments and aboriginal organizations that are affected because their economic region...”, and the rest of what is there now.

The Chair: So “that are affected...”?

Mr. Joe Comartin: It just goes on.

The Chair: Oh, you're going on to the regular text—

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, to the end of this subclause.

The Chair: Does everyone agree to incorporate this in the friendly amendment? It will become the amendment. Let's have a show of hands if you agree to incorporate it in the amendment.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, we just made it this time again, so it is the amendment.

Mr. Keddy has spoken on it. Mr. Comartin, may we have your closing remarks?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Well, I think it made sense to incorporate the suggested friendly amendment because the groups that are most directly affected, if we get into a specified region, should perhaps be acknowledged. I think the friendly amendment makes a lot of sense.

I don't think there's much I can add. It comes down, again, to the issue of these organizations—both existing ones and new ones that may spring up, depending on what happens with this legislation—having, I suggest, a right to be represented there, to be right there as the process is going on, to be much more intimately involved than just standing back. And the risk in leaving it to just having local and regional governments is they have their own interests they'll want to take care of. So these other organizations, who may have a broader interest, should be represented at the table.

The Chair: Mr. Méla.

Mr. Philippe Méla (Legislative Clerk): Mr. Comartin, I just have a question of precision to ask.

Your original amendment struck out lines three to nine, correct?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

Mr. Philippe Méla: And did you say you wanted to keep some part of the original text of the bill?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes. All we would be taking out now is line three, and we would be adding my wording and then the remainder from line four on right through to nine.

• 1145

Mr. Philippe Méla: So “that are affected” and so on would be kept.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

Mr. Philippe Méla: Thank you.

The Chair: As your chair, I try not to get involved in the discussions. I would just like to ask a question.

Could this put into conflict the local politicians who are responsible at the same time for the Planning Act? Can you sit on a board that requests things that affect the Planning Act and also be the one who makes decisions on the approval of amendments or additions? Having been a member of a planning board, I see a problem.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If I could, Mr. Chairman, I suspect that if that were the case, they would simply have a representative, such as a municipal or town councillor, who was not a member of the planning board committee. That way there would be no conflict of interest. I realize some councillors—

The Chair: The council is responsible for that employee. I don't want to get into the debate. But I see a problem.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Often there's a conflict of interest, and it's very common for municipal councillors and local governments simply to abstain from a vote because there's a conflict of some sort.

The Chair: But the total council would have to abstain when they request an amendment to the Planning Act, which is based on the—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't quite see the same link between the federal legislation and the local planning board after the waste management organization was actually in place and there was some type of depository there. I would disagree.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I can speak only from my own province's perspective with regard to the mergers that have occurred across Ontario, which in a number of cases were forced mergers. The more common situation now is that you have only a few members of the municipal council on the planning board. That's what has been happening over the last—

The Chair: But they only recommend to the council. The council ratifies.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I was going to go on to that, Mr. Chair. You're accurate in that regard. I think that would be a problem in any province and territory in this country where they in fact will have to pass zoning bylaws or amendments to official plans. So they would always be potentially in a conflict. Again, I have to speak only from Ontario's perspective because I know our conflict-of-interest law. This would not put them in a conflict, because the Ontario municipal conflict of interest act is about a financial conflict. That would not put them into a conflict here, obviously, unless they were a member of council and owned some of the land that was being considered. But that would be the only time they would be in a conflict, Mr. Chair. They're not in a conflict only because they're members of council and voting on that amendment to the zoning bylaw. They're in conflict because there's a financial fiduciary interest of some kind. I would think that in most cases they would not be in conflict. If they were, then they would declare a conflict, but it would be for financial reasons, not because at some other level they worked on the plan.

The Chair: I said I wouldn't engage in the debate, and as chair it doesn't matter to me which way this amendment goes. But the corporation could apply for an amendment to the Planning Act. Council could deny it, and the corporation could appeal to the OMB in Ontario. So the sitting councillors would sit on both sides of that case. I'll leave it at that unless you want to rebut that, and then we'll go to the vote.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think you're wrong, Mr. Chair, in terms of the way you're looking at the conflict. There is a conflict there, but it's not a legal one that prohibits them from partaking in the process. They're only in conflict where they're going to gain personally from it. It's the municipality they're representing at both of those levels. At the OMB hearing the municipality is simply acting as one of the parties and is either for the amendment or in opposition to it.

• 1150

The Chair: The point is that a city or town is a corporation.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I recognize that. I'm speaking in terms of a legal interpretation of that. That conflict is not one that would prohibit them from participating.

The Chair: My comments were made just as a cautionary measure.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: To my colleagues in opposition, Mr. Keddy and Mr. Comartin, I hope my comments didn't affect the vote. With the way it's going, I don't think they did. Believe me, they were well intended.

Next is amendment NDP-7 on page 30. The reference is 13532. Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't think we dealt with clause 8 in its entirety.

The Chair: There are two more on page 30.

Mr. David Chatters: The point is that he's suggesting we defeated the friendly amendment to the original amendment. Do we not now have to go back and deal with the original amendment?

The Chair: No, we agreed to incorporate it. It became the amendment. I made that comment.

We are now on page 30, NDP-7, reference 13532.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This is straightforward in terms of providing funding to the advisory council. I don't think it's prohibited anywhere, but it's not mandatory. If this advisory council, as limited as it is in terms of its composition, is going to be able to do its job, they're going to need financial assistance. This would provide a framework that would allow them to hire experts, if that was required, and administrative support staff and to cover any expenses and per diems the council members incurred.

I've been involved in committees and tribunals, and without that kind of assistance, the advisory council really becomes a sham. It's always that issue about giving somebody some right and not giving them the ability to enforce it. Without this type of financial support, the council is simply stuck with, these are the kinds of things we'd like to do and this is what our position might be if we had this kind of assistance. If you're not going to give them that, it affects their ability to do the job we're expecting them to do, which is to provide a broader scope to the process.

I can appreciate perhaps some of the arguments one might hear against this. One is, how do you cap that? I just want to address a comment to that. There are in fact a whole bunch of areas where public interest groups have been provided with this type of funding. There are all sorts of precedents for it now, and I don't think that's a valid concern. To think that people will just run rampant with this is, I think, a red herring.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments? Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think this is an excellent amendment. I have to say that having read the bill over, I would not only support the amendment, but it's one I wish I had brought forward myself. This is a good amendment.

Again, there have been a number of what I and the PC/DR have felt are shortfalls in this piece of legislation. One of them is lack of clarity, and this again speaks to that, that we absolutely guarantee and ensure that not only do we have an advisory council, but we have one that's going at least to have some kind of budget so that they can function and be a contributor to the process.

• 1155

Unless you state it in the legislation, there's nothing that forces anyone to do it at a later date. So I think it's important to put it in. These are not just amendments, Mr. Chairman, to waste your time being here. This is a good amendment. I think we should support it.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Comartin and Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Rather than the government members, particularly the parliamentary secretary, sitting silent while we make our case, it would be helpful to hear his perspective on why they would not support such an amendment.

The Chair: You have the option of asking the department. Members of this committee are equal, and I have no intention of putting anybody on the spot.

Mr. David Chatters: It's just a thought.

The Chair: That doesn't prevent you from asking. The freedom is there—

Mr. David Chatters: But if I were to ask, would I have to ask the officials rather than the parliamentary secretary? Is that what you are telling me?

The Chair: You can ask the question, but the parliamentary secretary will get the floor when his turn comes. I will not have debates this way.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay. That was just a thought.

The Chair: If we spent less time on each clause, I would probably consider changing my ways.

Mr. Comartin, closing remarks.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't think there's much I can add. It's pretty straightforward why you need this kind of supporting structure within a bill of this nature, when you're setting up this type of an advisory council.

There are all sorts of precedents for it. This is not a dramatic departure from a process that's been used by both levels of government, going back now probably 30 years in this country and across a number of other governments at the provincial and territorial levels. It's not sort of a radical departure, whatsoever. It's much more in the mainstream.

Again, if we're going to convince the communities out there that are interested in this issue, there's no way we can do that without these types of amendments that will strengthen the bill and build that community trust.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay. I apologize to a member who wished to speak. We're at the closing remarks and I will not reopen.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: On NDP-8, page 31, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I must admit, the amendment we passed earlier goes some slight distance toward the necessity of—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, did we pass clause 8?

The Chair: This is the last amendment to clause 8.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm sorry, I was out of order.

The Chair: As a point of information, you're not out of order.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Paragraph (8)(1)(a) is to compel the involvement of the aboriginal community very directly in the process. I don't know if we've addressed it enough, but we certainly heard testimony on that from the first nations.

I think we are all knowledgeable of the fact that because of the nature of the areas that are being considered as potential sites, if we go to what I think is the first alternative of long-term disposal in the Canadian Shield, the chances are very strong it will involve the first nations and their traditional lands, which may or may not be subject to land claims negotiations at the present time.

So to take that into account as the reality is really important right from the beginning. So even before we get to where the site may be, this would require some ongoing contact negotiations with the first nations and the aboriginal community, to prepare them and let them participate at the very early stage, and then right on through.

• 1200

I believe I'm accurate in saying these three paragraphs all came out of specific recommendations of the Seaborn commission.

The next one is with regard to a complete and public review of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulatory documents, as to how, up to this point, they've treated nuclear waste: what they've done with it and how they've managed it.

The argument there is that without doing that, the waste management organization, in terms of making their recommendations, will not be sufficiently based in their knowledge. In fact, we need to know where we came from in order to decide where we're going. Without doing this type of extensive and detailed review, to suggest an organization could then make the representations and recommendations to cabinet that this law will ultimately require, we'll simply be saying we're going to do it in a halfway measure.

We're not going to treat this seriously enough and do the research to be sure our knowledge is solidly based on what we've done up to this point with these wastes, how we've treated them, and how we've managed them. From there we can make the recommendations as to where we're going. In effect, the paragraphs proposed in this amendment will give the waste management organization some very specific work to do that would involve the use of the advisory council, in terms of doing this review.

I believe I'm accurate in saying paragraph 8(1)(c) came out of the Seaborn commission. We all know the fundamental recommendation that came out of there was that you're just never going to be able to do this because you won't find a community in Canada that will allow the disposal of these wastes in their community, unless they trust the process and the group making the decision. It must be transparent and there must be full accountability.

Without preparing the community or communities, and the country generally, we're never going to be able to convince them to deal with this issue, if it's going to affect them in some close proximity to where they live and work.

So the work must be done in advance. Nothing's been done in this regard that I can see in the country since the Seaborn commission reported on it. We're saying before that recommendation comes to the government for a final decision, this type of participatory process must be initiated, with the background work done on it and the communities prepared for their participation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I've listened very carefully to what Mr. Comartin has said, and there's a certain amount of repetition here and handing over what is probably the job of this committee or the ensuing standing committee, representing the people of Canada in the Parliament of Canada, to some groups that are really not defined, although I've seen aboriginal participation mentioned already in two or three places.

These documents are public. I'd just like to ask the legal brains here and the department's people if there's something I'm missing that this would fill in, or is it a little bit of overkill?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: Paragraph 8(1)(a) would require the waste management organization to carry out an aboriginal participation program. In the present draft of the bill, that obligation is incorporated in subclause 12(7). They have a duty to consult the public—in particular, aboriginal people.

• 1205

The requirement to set out their public consultation program is set out in paragraph 12(6)(d), and their requirement to include in their study the ethical and social considerations is set out in subclause 12(4). There is no requirement in the draft bill that would address paragraph (b).

The Chair: Are you ready for closing comments?

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have just one, Mr. Chair, with regard to a concern of Mr. Finlay's that by putting this in we're abdicating our responsibilities as members of Parliament and our responsibility to represent our constituents.

My response to that has to be that we're not going to be there. This committee's not going to be there, our successors are not going to be there, as this process is going on to any significant degree at all. I think for us to stand back and look at this and ask “What do we really want to have happen in this process?”, to give some guidelines in that regard, which in this case I recognize are mandatory, is not an abdication of our responsibility as members of Parliament. It's just the opposite. It's carrying that responsibility out so that the process is as well conducted as is possible under all the circumstances.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: I see some food being placed on the tables at the back. I urge members and departmental representatives at the table to take turns, and we'll proceed through this.

If at any time we're doing a vote or something, we'll wait for whoever's at the back. Let's not do like the smokers—when one lights one, everybody lights one.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Unfortunately, other than the next one, the next few aren't mine.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Comartin, I don't think you're having lunch today. We'll make sure you do.

We have amendment NDP-9, reference 13539, page 32. Mr. Comartin.

(On clause 9—Trust funds)

Mr. Joe Comartin: This is an amendment to clause 9. It's about the funding scheme, Mr. Chair, in terms of how the funds are going to be provided.

Subclauses 9(1) and 9(2) in effect set up a trust fund, and they go only that far. The rest of the bill then begins to deal with it more specifically.

There is no provision in the bill as it is for any auditing of that by a government agency. So the purpose of adding this amendment, proposed subclause 9(3), is to have the Auditor General, who, obviously to all of us, is the person who traditionally would conduct these types of audits in order to give us... Perhaps it goes back to what our responsibility is, so we know what's happening. It would give us one aspect of knowledge that this bill as it is now is lacking, because we don't get any particular information on how the trust fund is being managed, whether it's being properly maintained, on through.

It seems to me we all feel strongly about the whole political movement, if one can call it that, of transparency that is in the country, no matter what part of the political spectrum one is on, and it's a demand that's coming from our constituents all the time. So it seems to me it behoves us to add this to the bill.

The Chair: Is that it, Mr. Comartin?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): This is a question for our technical advisers.

• 1210

Given the legal nature of this corporation, which seems to me not to be a crown, as I understand it, or one that is that close to the government, what can we mandate? Can we mandate the Auditor General to do anything on an annual basis? That's really what I'm asking, given the nature of the corporation.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: It's correct to say that the waste management organization as the legislation is structured is not a crown corporation and would not fall within the Auditor General's purview in the normal course of events. An amendment like the amendment proposed, I think, would impose a duty on the Auditor General to carry out an audit. Absent that amendment, the legislation in clauses we haven't come to does provide for a requirement for independent audits and sets out a requirement that financial statements be made public.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to be clear, can we, through legislation, impose such a requirement on the Auditor General for an organization like this? Is it technically legal to do that?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: I think it can legally be done. I think it's within the constitutional capacity of the Parliament of Canada to do that, because it ties into the administration of funds to carry out a matter that's within Parliament's jurisdiction.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: By the way, that is a quorum call for the House.

Mr. Comartin, closing remarks.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Parliament can do whatever they want. In this regard, there's no constitutional prohibition for Parliament to pass the kind of bill that would have this provision in it. Again, it's back to giving members of Parliament, once the Auditor General doing this audit reported back to the House, the guarantees that the trust fund's being handled properly, that it's being funded and handled appropriately.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

The Chair: We now move to amendment BQ-8A.

Go ahead, Mr. Cardin. The amendment can be found on page 33.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the representatives of the New Brunswick Energy Corporation had alluded to this, as did we. Now, we would like to formally move the following amendment:

"(3) The accumulating income of a trust fund referred to in this section shall be exempt from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

It's a question of ensuring that income accumulating in a trust fund over an indefinite period of time will be tax exempt.

The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions?

[English]

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I must admit at first blush when I saw this I was supportive, when we heard from the representative from New Brunswick.

Through you, Mr. Chair, perhaps in his closing comments Monsieur Cardin could respond to this. The concern I had was if the funds sat there for a lengthy period of time—and we have to look at this situation as one where there's a potential for that—should we be looking at limiting the length of time the funds could be there tax-free?

• 1215

I suppose the scenario I'm thinking about is something like the following. There's a glimmer of hope of a scientific breakthrough, so the decision then is all right, so we won't expend these huge billions of dollars on drilling into the Canadian Shield and dumping them there so we're going to just hold and we're not going to spend the money. So this money is sitting there accumulating funds and accumulating funds. If I recall the bill, if the funds aren't spent, eventually they go back to the sources from which they came. I think that's provided for.

So then these corporations would have gained a windfall at that point, having earned a fair amount of interest off this money, let's say over a decade period of time. This issue's gone on for longer than that by far.

I wonder if, again in his closing comments, he has any thoughts about how one might deal with that, either as some kind of an amendment or maybe a further amendment somewhere down the road.

That's the one concern I have. Otherwise, in terms of the representations we've heard from New Brunswick Power, it certainly made sense that in the short term these funds not attract income tax, that the funds grow and be used for the ultimate disposal. But I'm worried about that one scenario, and I don't think it's a far-fetched one. It's at least a reasonable possibility that something like that could happen.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, you are entitled to one last comment.

Mr. Serge Cardin: If the money held in trust generates revenues over a reasonably long period of time, and if the sum involved is relatively substantial... Practically speaking, the aim is to fund the implementation of a nuclear waste management plan. Any money in the trust fund should therefore be used for this purpose. I would be unfavourable to the idea of this money not being earmarked for such a plan and to the government casually taking some of the accumulated income in the fund until such time that it can be applied to a management plan.

However, if a scientific discovery was made, one that resulted in the elimination of nuclear waste at a very reasonable cost, the trust fund would, technically speaking, no longer have its raison d'être. I would imagine the legislation makes no provision for this possibility.

If, at some point in time, I invest $100 in a trust fund which later yields a return of $150, I know I will be paying taxes on this amount. However, the income accumulating in a trust fund should not be touched as long as the fund is in place and should only be used to implement a management plan. If the fund generates income, this money should not go to Revenue Canada.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

The Chair: We will now move to amendment BQ-8B, which bears the reference number 13516.

You have the floor, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: On the issue of taxation, the same rationale applies here. Any income generated should be invested in the development and implementation of a nuclear waste management plan. This shouldn't be another thing funded through taxes.

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

The Chair: NDP-9A, reference 13571, Mr. Comartin.

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

The idea behind this is to provide some additional direction as to how these funds would be used. It's specifically there in my proposed paragraph (a). I think it's obvious already, and it may be a bit redundant, but it's just to be clear that it would fund the waste management organization. But it also provides in proposed paragraph 3(a) in my amendment that the advisory council would be able to be funded from that source. That's not provided for, as it is now. And as I read subclause 9(1) now, it may in fact be prohibited by a general interpretation of subclause 9(1). The purpose is so that there's no question that the fund can be drawn on to help the advisory council in their work; I think we need to specify that.

• 1220

Mr. Chair, in that regard, because of some previous votes, there's reference then to “and the implementing agency”. I would have to withdraw that, because it would have been in effect struck down by the prior amendments that were defeated on that issue, on that point.

The Chair: We'll get a ruling on that.

You are correct, Mr. Comartin, but Mr. Chatters has a comment on that.

Mr. David Chatters: I am a little bit confused by some of the comments that have been made. I would ask our departmental people if this—

The Chair: Mr. Chatters, before we go on, there's a chance that this would be withdrawn. Is that the point you were making?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Just the wording, “and the implementing agency”.

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mr. Joe Comartin: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I haven't given up my spot here. I have some other comments I want to make on other parts of this.

The Chair: On opening remarks? You're still on opening remarks?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.

Mr. David Chatters: At whatever time then.

The Chair: Yes. We'll go back to Mr. Comartin.

I would appreciate, and I'm sure colleagues will appreciate, if we would tighten up our comments, especially when we have an opportunity to speak first and last. It's not an obligation.

Mr. Comartin, the floor is yours.

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

Those are the comments I have on paragraph 3(a). And in terms of tightening up my comments, Mr. Chair, I was just mentioning the need to remove that implementation agency wording.

With regard to paragraph 3(b), going back to the implementations that are coming in clause 15, what this paragraph is doing is saying that—I suppose if one keeps in mind the evidence that we heard from the three mayors from the communities in Ontario that presently have nuclear plants within their boundaries—in terms of the use of this fund that this be taken into account. They were looking for some type of structure, so I hope I'm providing some of that.

They sought assurance that the fund, in being dispensed, would have as one of its objectives the avoiding or minimizing of any significant socio-economic effects on the home community. These would be the ones that already have the nuclear plants, but obviously, Mr. Chair, it would also be looking at other communities if at some point we in fact do transfer these wastes into another municipality, or it could be an aboriginal community. It's so the socio-economic effects are taken into account.

Finally, with regard to subclause (4), which is being proposed as an amendment, it provides in there in terms of the nature and type of trustee that we specify three people: somebody from the nuclear energy corporations, somebody from the waste management organization, and somebody appointed by the minister. As it stands right now, there are no specific provisions over who the trustees will be for this trust fund, which I think is an omission, quite frankly. I'm not sure why the government hasn't addressed that, but it seems to me that there should be directions as to who the trustees are. The composition I'm suggesting I think is the appropriate one, given the nature of who's funding this and the interests that are involved.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we go to Mr. Chatters, I'd like to be assured that Mr. Comartin has an opportunity to get some food and then we'll open it up to anyone in the room.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I could afford to lose a few pounds, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: If you wish to go, we'll certainly wait for you for your closing remarks and then everyone is welcome to food.

Mr. Chatters, please.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you.

I'm referring to this clause 9 and some of the comments that were made on previous amendments. It was my understanding that this trust fund was set up not only to fund the disposal of nuclear waste, but it also existed to cover the cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants and reactors, whenever that should become necessary. Is that not true?

• 1225

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: No. The trust fund does not cover decommissioning of nuclear reactors; it is just the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

Mr. David Chatters: I see.

The Chair: Any other comments or questions?

Mr. Comartin for closing remarks.

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

The Chair: We suggest you have food but we won't let you eat it.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I don't have the next amendment. I can wolf it down then.

Again, in terms of subclause (4), I'm surprised, Mr. Chair, that the government in drafting the bill did not make a specific provision for the trustees. Subclause (3), in terms of setting some guidelines for them, and really some direction to them as to how the funds are to be spent, I think is important for that. But I think most important is that we know who the trustees are, that we have in effect some participation there from the government level, which obviously a representative of the minister would provide us with.

That's all I have. Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 9 agreed to on division)

(On clause 10—Initial deposit to trust funds)

[Translation]

The Chair: We will now move to amendment BQ-8C on page 36. The reference number is 13517.

Go ahead, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Philippe Méla: I'm sorry to have to tell you that your amendment is out of order because it amends the ways and means motion passed in the House and tied to the bill.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Therefore, we withdraw our request to increase the amount to be deposited to $20 million. However, we maintain that Ontario Power Generation Inc. should be required to deposit $500 million into its trust fund.

The Chair: Are you saying that this particular amendment is redundant?

Mr. Philippe Méla: No, I'm saying that it is out of order.

Mr. Serge Cardin: What this means, Mr. Chairman, is that in the case of a bill specifying amounts of money, technically speaking, ways and means are approved even before the bill is passed. There are some aberrations in our system.

The Chair: In fact, there are many.

Mr. Serge Cardin: We won't start...

The Chair: Do you wish to respond?

Mr. Philippe Méla: You could seek another ways and means motion at the report stage and move the same amendment in the event a ways and means motion is tied to the report. The minister has that option.

Mr. Serge Cardin: The minister can do that.

[English]

(Clause 10 agreed to on division)

The Chair: We have amendment PC/DR-7A, on page 37. There's a conflict between this amendment and NDP-10. The consequence of that is what?

Mr. Philippe Méla: If PC/DR-7A is agreed to, the question on NDP-10 cannot be put, because there is a conflict of line between those two amendments.

The Chair: I see.

PC/DR-7A, Mr. Keddy.

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

Again, the intent of this... I'm trying to find clause 11 here. I'm on the wrong page. Sorry.

• 1230

This amendment was put in on behalf of the municipalities. There are some general concerns, certainly, on this side of the committee table, as to the municipalities, the regions, and the aboriginal communities—and the bill pays a certain amount of lip service to them—but there's absolutely nothing in the bill to ensure they have some input, into either the advisory board or the waste management committee. There's way too much corporate or ministerial power involved in this piece of legislation.

So the amendment would read:

The waste management organization may make withdrawals only for the purpose of implementing the approach that the Governor in Council selects under section 15 or approves under subsection 20(5), including

—and I think this is the key to the amendment—

avoiding or minimizing significant socio-economic effects on a municipality's or a community's way of life or its social, cultural, or economic aspirations and making payment of amounts due to a municipality pursuant to an agreement between the waste management organization and the municipality.

Again, we're bringing added accountability and clarity to the bill. It ensures the local region is compensated for any significant socio-economic effects that may result from the waste management organization and some type of depository of nuclear waste being in the vicinity of the community.

It's important we recognize, Mr. Chairman, that I'm putting this amendment forward on behalf of the municipalities appearing before committee. This was a part of the bill they had looked at. They also had their legal experts look at it. In particular, we're talking here about municipalities already affected by the nuclear industry. The attempt here is to support those municipalities—Clarington, Kincardine, and Pickering in particular—from the effects of this bill, to mitigate, if you will, the effects of this bill upon those municipalities.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to indicate my support for it, and add that because of the evidence we've heard from those mayors, we also have to take into account the communities—those municipalities or other communities—that may be affected in the future by way of the deposit. It seemed to me the three mayors were very eloquent in being able to express the type of impact a nuclear plant has on a community.

Think of what it's going to be like, the impact it's going to have, when all we're talking about with a community is how it's not going to get any benefit out of it. It's not going to create jobs to any significant degree, which is one of the ways we've sold the nuclear plants to communities in the past. In the future we will be saying to a community that there are going to be minimal jobs created, if we go with the first option of the long-term disposal of deposits in the Canadian Shield. There will be minimal pluses here for you, and you're going to be left with the uncertainty of having this in your community.

This is a way for this committee to speak to those communities—if in fact that's the way the waste management organization and the government eventually go—to say that we're concerned about you and we're looking at ways of protecting your interests. The amendment we have from the Progressive Conservatives here is a very good one to address this concern that's going to be coming down the road.

The Chair: Do you have closing remarks, Mr. Keddy?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There's not a lot to add, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But there's always something to add.

• 1235

The Chair: Yes, your voice is getting better, I noticed.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It is.

The Chair: It must be a miracle.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, it's timely; let's put it that way.

Again, I would ask the government members certainly to recognize that this is more than just an opposition motion. This is a motion put forth by the municipalities directly affected by this legislation, those who already have some knowledge and expertise about living with the nuclear community. So on their behalf, it's important that we recognize their unique position on this bill, the fact that they're part of a jurisdiction that understands the industry. I think it behoves us to support them.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We are now considering amendment NDP-10, page 38. Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Oh, it was only out if Mr. Keddy's passed.

The Chair: Is this one redundant?

Mr. Joe Comartin: No, not any longer.

Mr. John Godfrey: If it had passed it would be redundant.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes. I had misunderstood the interpretation we had gotten.

The Chair: I'm just trying to move along.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Nice try.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The attempt here is again to take into account the local interests and to have funds available to address those that are set out in subclause 6(1).

I don't know if there's a lot more I can add. The point is to take into account the trust issue that's out there—we know for sure it's out there—and this is a way of trying to get at it. This is only one small way of doing it, Mr. Chair. Again I would urge the government to take it into account in its vote.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

The Chair: NDP amendment 11, page 39. If NDP-11 is agreed to, BQ-9 cannot be put.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This is an attempt to get at the time limit issue we've heard evidence on.

Rather than going with the specifics of the three years—and we heard directly from the industry some concerns over the ability of the organization to do it in that time, the three years running from the time the act comes into effect... In this respect we have to take into account that it's going to take some time for the organization to get up and running, and then it has to go through this whole assessment process.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, it's almost to the point of being clear in my mind that it's just not possible to meet this three-year timeframe. We're talking a longer period of time. Life just doesn't move this quickly, in spite of the rapid pace at which our society functions.

My amendment is to do away with a specific timeframe and replace it, putting in context when it would report out. It would be after conducting the comprehensive study and when it would be prepared in effect to make the recommendation to the minister for final decision. It would be triggered by the completion of the work, not by some arbitrary standard of three years that's in the bill as presently composed.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Therefore we deal with BQ-9.

[Translation]

We now move to amendment BQ-9 on page 40 which bears the reference number 13547.

You have the floor, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, everyone who testified before the committee seemed to agree that the three-year timeline for a study was rather short. We listened to their concerns which are reflected in the record. I've often heard people mention a five- year timeframe. How is this timeframe legislated? Mr. Comartin's earlier amendment contained the phrase: "as soon as".

• 1240

When the situation calls for all kinds of experts to be called in to prepare various relatively costly studies, we realize that it is often very much to their advantage to extend the timeframe. Therefore, at some point, we have to set a time limit to ensure that the report, analysis or study is completed by a specified date.

Obviously, it's hard to say whether the witnesses we heard from would have preferred an extra year or two. A time limit was set. The witnesses were unanimous, though, in stating that three years was not long enough. That's why we are proposing a four-year period.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Through you, Mr. Chair, to Monsieur Cardin, I would ask if in his wrap-up he could address any thoughts he's had, because I didn't have a solution to this when I was looking at my amendment.

What happens if it's not in a position to report in three years or four or in any other specified time we might choose? If I could ask the officials, what would happen simply from a straight, practical standpoint?

We have to remember what it has to do. It has to get set up, conduct the assessment—for which, as Monsieur Cardin was saying, it has to hire scientific expertise. The big one, of course, is it has to convince a community someplace, if we're going with the first one, to take the waste.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes.

I'd like to make a few points to clarify the issue. First, where did the three years come from? Well, our starting point was Seaborn. Seaborn actually suggested that this could be done in two years. We consulted with the industry. They said two years was a bit short. We agreed and extended it to three years.

To respond to the issue of actually finding a host community, the study does not require a WMO to find a host community. That's going to happen 10 or 15 years down the road. It's not part of the three-year study. The industry did say that although it's challenging, they are prepared to do it within three years and they can do it during three years.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It didn't answer my question, which was what happens if they don't?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The way the legislation is drafted, there's not an obligation on nuclear energy corporations to establish the waste management organization except implicitly through the wording in clause 12. Because the study has to be filed within three years, there's effectively a requirement on the nuclear energy corporations to establish the waste management organization itself within three years and then get the work done.

If they don't get the study filed at the end of the three-year period, on the draft bill that you have in front of you, they can be prosecuted in the offence section. There is a daily penalty provided for.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can I have another question to follow up on that, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: The floor's still yours.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, to Ms. Kellerman, if they are penalized by a monetary sum, can this money come out of the trust fund, or does it come...

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: No, sir, it cannot.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So where does it come from?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: It would come from the nuclear energy corporations. Because they are the shareholders or the members of the waste management organization, it would be their responsibility to address this financial issue.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But they have no assets.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: It's intended to focus the mind.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think that answer meant, Mr. Chair, that there's no effective penalty in this bill.

Let me finish with that in terms of my comments. In fact they will have no meaningful assets. They have some furniture and some equipment. So if they don't meet the time limit, and we did prosecute them—and it sort of boggles the mind that we would do that, as we haven't exactly had a big history of doing that in this country—and they were fined substantial amounts of money, there's no way we'd be able to collect it. That is in effect what we've got.

• 1245

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

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

I certainly couldn't support the concept in the previous amendment that the time period be open-ended. We'll never achieve anything if there aren't timelines involved.

We heard the concerns about the three-year time limit, and I'm a little surprised at the comments from the department in that the report doesn't have to include a solution to the disposal of nuclear waste. It simply has to identify the type of disposal we're going to have. We've already got that. The Seaborn commission and AECL both suggested that deep geological disposal is technically sound. The problem is that the community at large won't accept that proposal.

It would seem to me that the challenge before the waste management organization is to gain the confidence of a community somewhere this stuff can be placed. If that doesn't have to be part of the report in three years, then probably two years or even one year is more than adequate. All they have to do is copy the technical data from the work that has already been done and present it to the minister. Somewhere down the road, another 15 years later, we'll find the solution because we'll find some place that's acceptable to put it.

I certainly don't think three years is long enough to find a solution, so I would support this motion of four years, still thinking that it probably isn't enough time to really find the solution. But it's enough time to copy the data from the technical research that has been done as to the method of disposal. It's a bit confusing there.

The Chair: Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: My comments have in part already been made by the department official. This is not the final product. We've been studying nuclear waste disposal for the last 25 years. It has been three years since the Seaborn recommendations, and they had given them three years to come up with a solution. We're giving them another three years. I don't think we should be studying that for another 20 years.

Although the corporation said it would be challenging for them, they said it can be done. I know corporations as a rule don't like to be given deadlines—nobody likes to be given deadlines—but I think three years is enough. We have to deal with this issue. That's the reasoning behind the three years.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

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

As to the three or the four years, I tend to agree with Mr. Serré that perhaps three years is enough. However, I certainly don't have any reason not to support having an extra year in order to formulate this correctly.

I do have a question for clarification from our legal experts. I'm going to another issue. I didn't quite hear what you said about the legal responsibility of the WMO vis-à-vis the nuclear organizations themselves. What happens if they're not set up and if there are penalties applied within the three years? You were answering Mr. Comartin's question.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The bill does not provide a deadline for the nuclear energy corporation. It does not say you must set up the waste management organization within three years of the bill coming in to force. What it says is the waste management organization must file the study. The inference is that first the waste management organization must be established and then it has to have done its work and filed a study.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If it doesn't file the study, would the waste management organization be negligent or would the individual nuclear power corporations be negligent?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The bill provides for an offence in relation to the waste management organization. That's in subclause 28(1).

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That was the clarification I was looking for. Thank you.

• 1250

[Translation]

The Chair: One last comment, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I have a few brief comments about another matter. It was mentioned earlier that the Seaborn Commission requested a two-year time limit. It wanted to act quickly and to propose solutions as quickly as possible. The industry is apparently calling for a three-year period. However, those industry representatives who testified wanted more time.

I've heard about a number of other aberrations. We've heard that technically speaking, there won't be any consultations and that it may take anywhere from 10 to 15 years before these provisions are implemented. I have to wonder why we are even bothering with this, because nuclear waste is currently managed in some fashion. Now we're being asked to come up again with long-term management plans.

Until such time as consultations are held in 10 or 15 years' time, I hope that sufficient funding will be allocated to R&D so that our nuclear waste can be managed. The likelihood is great that scientific discoveries will make nuclear waste management possible. Basically, I'm saying that whether we set a two, three, four, five or six year time limit, it won't matter. Technically speaking, we're waiting for scientific breakthroughs that will allow us to manage this waste as adequately as possible.

To my mind, it's clear that Bill C-27 is merely smoke and mirrors. However, given that the industry is requesting a little more time, I would accept a four-year timeframe.

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

The Chair: We now have amendment PC/DR-8, and it's followed by BQ-10. You will note that PC/DR-8 says “organization shall table in both Houses of Parliament” and BQ-10 says “organization shall submit to the House of Commons”. I'd like to suggest that we debate both of them at the same time and that at the end we vote on them separately. Is that acceptable?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then will we vote on them in order?

The Chair: Oh, we will definitely vote on them separately in order.

For the debate you will be able to speak on both of those amendments.

We will start with Mr. Keddy.

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

The difference here is that in subclause 12(1) we're talking about the study that will be brought down by the waste management organization after the three years, which we just debated. As it reads now, the waste management organization “shall submit to the Minister a study”. The difference here is that we're trying to make the WMO accountable to Parliament and not just the minister. The amendment reads:

organization shall table in both Houses of Parliament a

That is, the waste management organization shall table a study in both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, the intention here is obviously to make the WMO accountable to Parliament. This doesn't mean just the House of Commons, of course, but the Senate as well. Too often we, especially in the House of Commons, tend to forget about the Senate. We all have our individual opinions and views on the Senate's role, but in the system we have we do have a Senate. I think it's important that when we ask for information to be tabled, we table it in both Houses so it's reflective of the system we have.

The intent here is of course that not just the minister should be allowed access to the report. Parliament should be allowed access to the report. This will therefore ensure that the public has access to the report, because there's absolutely no provision that the minister does or does not have to make a report on this. There is some question, at least in my mind, as to how soon—or even if—the minister would have to report to Parliament. If the waste management organization reports to Parliament, it's done.

• 1255

The Chair: The next speaker will be Monsieur Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Obviously, I won't comment on every one of Mr. Keddy's points. Clearly, we want this to be brought before the members, as they are accountable to the public for their actions and decisions. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, this information should first be brought to the attention of the elected representatives. Of course, if only one amendment was adopted, and mine was rejected, I would support Mr. Keddy's because it calls for an automatic review by Parliament. The important thing for us is that the information come before Parliament, the home of the elected representatives who are accountable to the people.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I would just ask the officials this. If this is in fact defeated and the report goes to the minister, would the study that is sent to the minister be available through access to information?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: If there were commercially confidential information, perhaps there could be components in it, but I don't believe that this would be a restriction. Certainly, it's been my assumption that this would be a public document.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: If the question is whether the study would be available under access, the ATIP, the answer is that this particular legislation would still apply. However, the bill says that once something is submitted to the minister, it is simultaneously made available to the public. It immediately becomes a public document when it's submitted to the minister.

The Chair: So you will not have to access it; it will be there.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I'd like to believe that. Could you remind us where it says that?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The reference to reports in clause 24 does not, I believe, include the study.

Mr. David Chatters: So your colleague isn't correct there?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: No.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: But it says that reports will be made available to the public. That's all reports—

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: I think the intention has been that it would be made available to the public. The difficulty is with the use of the word “reports” there, which does not include the study.

The Chair: I don't think we're clear on it. Could you help us out, please?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The word “reports” in clause 24 does not include the study contemplated in clause 12.

The Chair: And the consequence of that is...

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: There's no obligation in the bill for that document to be automatically made public. I think that may have been a terminological oversight on our part in the drafting process.

The Chair: And now back to the question: is it available under access to information?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: I apologize to the committee. We're getting conflicting legal information here, and we're going to have to revisit this. Apparently all reports submitted to the minister are automatically public. We're going to have to verify that.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: It goes to the French and English drafting. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Colleagues, do you wish to suspend clause 12 until we have this information?

No, there is another amendment, and it has nothing to do with this. We will deal with NDP-12.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, let me just find the line here.

• 1300

The Chair: While you're looking for that, I have a question to the department. Has someone gone to a telephone or gone to get the information to clear up, or does that mean bringing—

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: I'd have to step away from the table, sir, to address the point.

The Chair: So during question period?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, the floor is still yours.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The attempt with this amendment, Mr. Chair, is to provide some additional direction to the WMO with regard to the storage. This would be alternative two, if we can call it that, as opposed to the deep site permanent—again I say so-called permanent—disposal. This is one of the other alternatives.

I believe the wording we have now is simply too general, and that the WMO should have more directions as to what the expectation is with this type of storage. So the wording I'm adding is taking out the word “and” and adding “that would ensure the maximum physical security of the waste, including improved methods for the perpetual care and monitoring of radioactive waste at those sites”.

It was interesting, Mr. Chair, when I had the opportunity to go to Darlington to listen to the staff there and the experts there, to realize the amount of work they had done just in the last three to five years to improve the monitoring they've done of the storage at that site. I had the sense from them this was the same in the other two nuclear site plants in Ontario.

The attempt here is to say not only what we have now in the way of proper monitoring and storage at what are still temporary sites, but in the long run to always be looking at what improvements have been made in Canada or elsewhere in the world, be constantly monitoring that, so we would provide the absolute, most up-to-date, and thereby, presumably, the safest methodology of both storing and monitoring the storage. The wording we have now, as I say, is very general. This I think buttresses it to some significant degree.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I recognize the objective of this amendment. I tend to support it, but I'm a little concerned about the phrase “maximum physical security”. That could mean anything from an armed battalion on down, and it seems to me that's—

Mr. Joe Comartin: Some days that may not be a bad idea.

Mr. David Chatters: Considering the resources available through our armed forces, it's not very practical. I think if you could include the word “practical” there or something as a friendly amendment it might... I certainly agree with what you're saying, in that we need to do it, but your idea or someone else's idea of maximum might not be the same as mine or the government's.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, are you prepared to adopt this?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have no problem with introducing the concept of practicality into this.

The Chair: Where will you put it in?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I was just going to ask that through you to Mr. Chatters. I would think probably either—

Mr. David Chatters: I would say before “physical”.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, before “physical”.

The Chair: All agreed? That becomes part of the amendment. It is not a subamendment.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is NDP-13, Mr. Comartin, page 44.

Mr. Joe Comartin: What we're attempting to do here, Mr. Chair, is to add some additional alternatives to the three that are specified in the bill. So paragraphs (a), (b), (c) in subclause 12(2) provide for the deep storage, which again is being classified as a permanent storage. I take some exception to that, but it's the wording that's being used. The next one in (b) is the storage at existing sites, and then the third one is really just bringing all of the waste together into one central site but a temporary storage.

• 1305

Those are the options the WMO is being given at this point under this legislation. What I'm proposing with my amendments of (d) and (e) is to augment that by first having in (d) really a broad, wide-open suggestion; so it's “a method the waste management organization has identified as safe and effective for the management of nuclear fuel waste”. This is one we have no contemplation of, but it leaves the door open.

That's the problem with the bill the way it's drafted. In effect, if some other alternative comes up, as I read it—I remember taking my interpretation class in law school a long time ago, and I don't believe the rules have changed—if you don't provide for it, that organization in effect can't take it into account. So it's a flaw in the legislation as it is now in terms of drafting.

I don't think we should let it go through to a law without providing for what in effect would be another alternative that has not been contemplated by the scientific community up to this point.

In terms of my final one, (e), we've heard some evidence about transmutation, but this deals with the whole idea behind that. What it is encompassing is... I must admit, Mr. Chair, if I were drafting this now, I would have reversed (e) and (d), because you always go with the specifics, then the general. So the (e) would be in effect that—

The Chair: If you wish to re-sequence that, I could ask members for their consent.

Mr. Joe Comartin: If we could, Mr. Chair, it's better drafting.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to reverse (d) and (e)?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Done.

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

We heard some evidence about transmutation, which is being investigated at this point. In fact, the United States has let some very large contracts both inside that country and internationally to continue the research on this point. I didn't use that term. The term I used was “reduction at source”, which is the same concept. The idea behind it is that the waste is actually sent back through and is used up some more. So we actually get some advantage of it in terms of producing some power, but we reduce the volume. There is at least a scientific theory that says this is possible. If it comes to fruition, if these contracts that the U.S. has let out do reach a point where it is feasible to be done, then it seems to me the WMO should be given the opportunity to include that as one of their potential recommendations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I'd like to ask the department abut this, because it seems that I may or may not have seen something. Is there a provision in the bill somewhere for emerging technology, scientific advances, and how they fit into the picture?

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: Yes, that would be in the section called “New approach—technical innovation”. That's in the far future if there's some new methodology that arises. The bill is flexible to consider that technology.

I also want to clarify that in subclause 12(2) we say “Each of the following methods must be the sole basis of at least one approach”. So the WMO has to look at these three approaches but can consider other approaches, as many as it wants to consider, and include this in the report. So if transmutation, which by the way is a waste treatment methodology and not a waste disposal methodology... If there are other approaches that the WMO wants to include, such as exporting it to another country or shooting it into space, or the disposal concepts that were previously raised during the research program back in 1978, they can do so if they wish. The bill does not constrain the number of options the WMO wants to propose, but it has to propose at least the three that are mentioned in the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, do you have any closing remarks on that information? I think you've covered everything else. No other comments?

Mr. Joe Comartin: I disagree with the official, Mr. Chair. I know she is giving her interpretation of the statute, but I don't believe she has a legal background. I think subclause 12(1) is more general, and if you go into the specifics, as we do in subclause 12(2), in fact we are limiting them to those that... The wording is very strong, very harsh. It “must be”, so we have “must” in there, which is mandatory, “the sole basis”, which eliminates at least one approach. I know if I'm sitting on the board of the WMO, which is not likely to ever happen, Mr. Chair, I'm limited to those three.

• 1310

The Chair: The last thing I want at this committee is two lawyers arguing.

You have a comment, Ms. Kellerman?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: I'm the legal counsel on file and Ms. Létourneau is the technical expert.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: I would also clarify that the Minister of Justice gave us that interpretation of the words “at least one approach”. So the industry—

Mr. Joe Comartin: We've been fighting with them a lot on other committees.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: The industry is aware that they can propose other approaches that they want.

The Chair: In this court case, things are done in reverse. There are 12 judges.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mr. David Chatters: We've provided an interesting reference for the court when it gets to it.

[Translation]

The Chair: We now move on to amendment BQ-11 on page 45.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: The amendment pertains to line 1 of clause 12 on page 7. The provision now reads as follows:

(4)... Each proposed approach must include a comparison of the benefits, risks and costs of that approach with those of the other approaches, taking into account the economic region in which that approach would be implemented as well as ethical, social and economic considerations...

There are, strangely enough, some fundamental environmental considerations associated with this bill. I wonder why the word “environmental” was not included. I don't dispute the fact that there are ethical and social considerations, but clearly there are environmental considerations as well. Therefore, I have to wonder why the word “environmental” was omitted.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like, Mr. Chair, to briefly speak in support of this amendment. I think Mr. Cardin has picked up on something here that's important, and I truly would believe that it's simply been overlooked by the crafters of the legislation. We have gone out of our way in the legislation to discuss ethical, social, and economic considerations, and obviously in terms of environmental considerations, especially dealing with waste disposal, given the amount of discussion we've had at this very committee about the fact that perhaps even there should be an environmental bill, we should use the words “environmental” considerations in there. It's just adding one word, and I think it's a very good amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I again would refer to the department. Would you consider this in fact to be an oversight in the drafting of the bill?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: No, sir, it's a policy issue. I'll turn to Ms. Létourneau.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: This issue was raised earlier. The federal government already has a federal oversight mechanism to deal with the environmental, health, safety, and security aspects of the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, and that's the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. So these two acts together are complementary; they deal with different issues, but both deal with the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

So that's why we didn't put the word “environmental” here, because there's another act that deals with that.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Through you to Mr. Cardin, I'm not clear that the amendment... I think he's leaving in the words “economic consideration”. I'd like him to confirm that. I think he is, but I want to be sure of that.

With regard to more generally, obviously I would be in support of the addition of “environmental”. There's no downside here if in fact this is covered by CEPA or other federal legislation. We're simply confirming that environmental concerns have to be taken into account. We're not losing anything by putting it in. It's not a redundancy, or if it is, it's a very minor one. To be sure that environmental concerns are taken into account, it's better to risk putting the word in and having a little bit of redundancy than leaving it out and missing something.

• 1315

[Translation]

The Chair: One last comment, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: What struck me when Ms. Létourneau noted that there are references elsewhere to environmental considerations in the bill is that no where else in the bill is mention made of ethical, social or economic considerations. In the case of draft legislation such as this pertaining to nuclear waste management, it's clear that even though mention is made in other clauses of environmental considerations, in the context of nuclear waste management, there should at the very least be some reference to environmental considerations in this particular clause.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Just as a point or order, I am looking for confirmation that we're not taking out economic considerations.

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, would you like to respond to that? Closing remarks.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: No, the reference to "economic considerations" would remain.

[English]

The Chair: In the future I won't accept coming back.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Then I would have asked for an interpretation from the staff.

The Chair: You would not have had the floor. But I will grant it so we understand the rules, because we can't be bouncing back and forth. Now we know the rules; we didn't a few minutes ago.

Please respond.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Indeed, the clause would read: “... ethical, social, environmental and economic considerations”. Obviously, the word “economic” would remain.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: If PCDR-8A is agreed to, NDP-13A cannot be put. If PCDR-8A is negatived, PCDR-8B cannot be put. I'm sure we'll get coached along as we go.

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

The Chair: Point of order, yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: NDP-13A is out anyway because of the earlier vote. It's just reference to the implementation agency. That was voted down.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Therefore, on PCDR-8A, Mr. Keddy... Mr. Comartin, if you have other questions I'll gladly receive them.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I won't be out of order if I do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

The attempt here again is to give more input from the waste management organization to the local community's way of life. I'll read the amendment, but its intent is to involve the community and local municipalities. It's the same rationale as behind the last amendment, to represent what the municipal groups brought to us as a committee—to represent their thoughts and put in amendments they've asked us to give.

I realize that many of our members have previous experience at the municipal level. Surely, with that taken into consideration, we should recognize the third level of government in this country. There's federal, provincial, and municipal.

The amendment replaces lines 14 to 19 on page 7 in clause 12 with the following:

(c) the means that the waste management organization plans to use to avoid or minimize significant socioeconomic effects on the municipality's or a community's way of life or on its social, cultural or economic aspirations including where the nuclear reactor site is located in a municipality, the terms and conditions of a proposed community impact agreement between the waste management organization and the municipality to avoid or minimize significant socioeconomic effects and to provide for the payment of a host community fee to the municipality.

• 1320

I think it's fairly significant that we would look at the payment of a host community fee. It's not provided for and should be provided for in the bill.

The other point I've take issue with in the legislation is that although there's some requirement on the government—and I'll ask for legal counsel on this—to bring in the study within a certain timeframe, the study could be made and we could continue to store on the surface at the site for the next 10 to 30 years. There's no requirement that we suddenly find some other way to deal with nuclear waste.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The proposed provision contemplates that there will be storage at the site, or centralized storage. On my understanding of the technical meaning of “storage”, it is not a permanent solution, but it is one that could continue for an indefinite period of time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's my point exactly. We're trying to deal with permanent storage. We have a bill that allows for indefinite non-permanent storage at the site from any nuclear reactor. We need to have temporary storage there, obviously. If that continues to be the case, the municipalities and towns that already have nuclear reactors within their boundaries should be given some compensation for that, given the fact that we can continue forever and a day to have nuclear storage on site, with no compulsion to ever find a permanent solution.

We're trying to find a permanent solution, but maybe in ten years' time we won't have a permanent solution. We'll have done our study and everything will have been committed. Then it would further strengthen the resolve for the advisory council and the waste management organization to actually find a solution here, and not just fall back on their laurels and do what they're doing now, which is store on site. It's going to cost them a little more if we put this amendment in. They'll have to recognize that the host community should be given some compensation for that.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In spite of the fact that my friend and I disagree on several points—he's always wrong—this is one of the times he's right. I don't know if he stole this one from us, Mr. Chair.

There's been some interesting work—

The Chair: The two of you are really the odd couple.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm the neat one, Mr. Chair.

I must say that historically, over the last decade or so, on environmental matters the PCs have been closer to our position than some other parties. I think this is another one of those times when they've taken an idea from us.

There's a whole concept growing within the environmental movement about the need to compensate in situations where there is environmental degradation, or because of the changes that are going to come about in certain communities as a result of the Kyoto agreement. The list is actually quite lengthy. As we get serious about cleaning up the environment, protecting our environment, and making it healthier for all of us, some people, groups and communities suffer as a result. So I think my friend is trying to recognize that, and again I commend him for it.

• 1325

This is just one aspect, but what we really need is an overall scheme. There's been some attempt to do that. I've read some documents on just transition. That's a term that's beginning to be used, as far as I can see, to denote the circumstances where, because of environmental concerns and changes that are occurring in society as as result of those concerns, you need to go in; sometimes it's to compensate individual people.

Historically, of course, in common law, if it's an expropriation situation, we have compensated the landowner and the lessees and people whose businesses have been affected. It's really an extension of that concept, but to extend it from the individual now to communities. This payment of a fee is one aspect of that overall scheme. I won't say it's fully developed, but I suppose it behooves us at this period of time, considering what we're faced with and what these communities are faced with.

So whether it's a new community where we're going to be depositing these wastes or the existing community that is faced with the reality that maybe the plant has now shut down because its life is over and they're left with that plant, plus substantial radioactive waste, whether it's payment to that community for the reality of what they have to deal with or a new community where radioactive wastes are going, that as part of this process they should be compensated for what it's going to do to them financially makes a lot of good sense.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

We're working on your agenda, because we have another bill and estimates and we're trying to accommodate you. I apologize.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I recognize where this clause wants to take us, and I don't disagree with the idea of providing payment of a fee to a host municipality; I'm just not sure that this is the place where it should be entrenched. For any existing and certainly any future site chosen for either a reactor or a disposal site, if it is within the boundaries of a municipality, it's within the power of the municipality, through its land-use bylaw and through its licensing process, to require the payment of a fee to itself. I think that would be more appropriate than including in this federal bill a requirement of a fee with no definition of the fee.

I'm just doing your work for you, Ben. You should be making this argument.

The Chair: There's another odd couple. What's happening here?

Mr. David Chatters: Yes. I just think there are other ways to achieve this that would be more efficient than in this piece of legislation.

The Chair: I wondered how to end it quite nicely.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, closing remarks.

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

I recognize the point that Mr. Chatters brought up. However, I think if you look at the reasoning behind putting this amendment in here, the clarification we got from our legal advisers was that this does two things: first of all, it recognizes that there should be some provision for compensation for a host community or municipality; and secondly, if the owners of nuclear waste in Canada decide to do nothing—they bring their study in, they follow the provisions of the act, and in five or ten years' time we still don't have a long-term depository of some sort that actually looks after what this bill is supposed to do and they're still storing it on site—then they should be going back to the municipalities and saying, listen, we obviously need to have some type of an agreement here, because what we intended to do in this bill we haven't done, we're still storing on site, and we're going to continue to store on site at least for the next short term, therefore you should have added compensation to whatever agreement is there now, and provide not only that but another opportunity for the communities to come back and perhaps even renegotiate. That's the attempt of the amendment.

• 1330

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment NDP-13A has been dealt with or was redundant. Amendment PCDR-8B is redundant. So then we have amendment NDP-14.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: He says he has not given up.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I haven't given up on it.

The Chair: You haven't given up, but it has been dealt with anyway.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, we're going to deal with it right now.

The Chair: Just a moment. I will rule on that. I'm being advised that we need not deal with it. I want to hear the reasoning for not dealing with it.

Mr. Philippe Méla: Sure. Amendment PCDR-8B on page 48 refers to, on the second line, “shall consult the municipalities referred to in clause (6)(c)”. We just dealt with those municipalities; they're not there any more.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's why we need clarification.

The Chair: I thank you, because you would have challenged my ruling.

I wouldn't blame him.

On amendment NDP-14, Mr. Comartin.

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

This again is to attempt to expand the responsibility of the WMO to consult beyond what's provided in the bill as drafted. It's a general one in the sense that they are required now, and it does say “shall”. This would say it

shall consult the general public in accordance with the public participation program, and in particular aboriginal peoples in accordance with...[that] program.

I have no further comments, Mr. Chair. It's really making it mandatory that they “shall consult”, and then the specifics with regard to the aboriginal peoples.

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Upon our return, the first thing we will do is deal with the two amendments on article 12 so we can complete it. So it's deferred until that time.

Clause 13 wasn't carried before. There were no amendments on it. We were asked to withdraw it.

(Clause 13 carried on division)

(On clause 14—Minister may consult public)

The Chair: We'll now go to amendment PCDR-9. I'm told if this amendment is agreed to, amendment NDP-15 cannot be put.

Mr. Keddy.

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

This amendment was quite honestly and strictly an amendment to bring a little more clarity to the legislation and to the process. As it reads in the legislation, “The Minister may engage”. There's absolutely no compulsion or anything in this that forces him to engage

in such consultations with the general public on the approaches set out in the study as the Minister considers necessary.

If you change that one simple word from “may” to “shall”, it forces the minister to engage in consultations with the general public.

• 1335

I think the attempt of this bill is to deal with a product we haven't dealt with in this country, that we've continually put off for future generations to deal with. If we're going to do it, the only way to ever get the public's support is to inform them of what is going on with the legislation. To do that, this amendment says “the Minister shall engage in such consultations”, rather than “may engage”, because the text as drafted doesn't force him to engage in them.

An hon. member: That's pretty straightforward.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

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

I'll make an exception, because I had called the question.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm back to the ruling that my amendment would be consequential. No, it's all right.

The Chair: Does this have an effect on that?

Mr. Joe Comartin: It would be out if this goes through, but it's okay.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: It's defeated—or negatived. My first language is French, so it's defeated—direct translation.

[Translation]

We now move to amendment BQ-12 on page 51.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the previous amendment and this one could have been combined into one. Clearly the minister must engage in the necessary consultations. I'm not questioning his judgment, but as soon as any mention is made of consultations, then these should be mandatory.

That's what I would like to accomplish with this provision. I don't want the consultations to be at the minister's discretion. Ideally, we would have said: “The Minister shall engage in the necessary consultations”. However, we'll have to be satisfied with the reference to necessary consultations. We can always say that the minister may engage in consultations, but that these are in fact necessary.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

[English]

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Just as a comment, I'm looking at the translation too, and it doesn't click at all.

The Chair: You're absolutely correct, in my view. In French, it's “consider”—considérer—I mean, if you translate it from the English. One says “to consider” and the other one says “mandatory”.

An hon. member: I like “mandatory”.

[Translation]

The Chair: “Necessary”.

[English]

Mr. David Price: “Necessary consultations” is almost a direct translation and would work better than “consider”.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: “Mandatory” is a good thing.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

The Chair: “Necessary” and “mandatory” mean the same thing.

[English]

Will it make a change? Can we vote on it anyway? It only makes a difference if it passes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What are we voting on?

The Chair: It's on the amendment as written—if you wish to vote; if not, we'll clarify it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And would it mean “mandatory” in the French translation?

The Chair: I won't be the judge of that. I'll ask for the legal expert.

Mr. David Price: Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. David Price: May we vote on it in the French—the original that was presented—and handle the translation after?

The Chair: The question is that we vote on it, and that the intent of the amendment be the French version. Do we have a problem with that?

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): It would be nice if we knew we were voting on that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin, could you explain the rationale behind your amendment for the benefit of committee members?

Mr. Serge Cardin: My amendment would clarify that the minister must engage in consultations. Given the current wording “consultations as the Minister considers necessary”, the minister could decide that consultations are in fact not necessary. The clause currently reads as follows: “The Minister may engage in such consultations with [...] as the Minister considers necessary”. This provision is relatively vague and allows the minister considerable discretion. I simply wanted to emphasize through this amendment that consultations should be required, hence the reference to “necessary consultations”.

• 1340

(Amendment negatived)

[English]

The Chair: Next is NDP-15. Mr. Comartin.

Is it redundant, Mr. Comartin?

Mr. Joe Comartin: No, Mr. Chair. What we're attempting to do here with this amendment is this. It would be mandatory for the minister to consult, but we're really modifying that to some significant degree by the wording we've used, by saying that he'll “take all steps necessary to ensure that the public has been fairly and effectively consulted” in order to “establish whether or not the proposed option has broad public acceptance.”

It's an attempt to box the minister in a little bit, but not a lot. It's partially mandatory. It would allow for the consultation that at least this side of the table feels strongly is necessary that the minister undertake, but he has some discretion as to the extent and degree of that consultation. That would be the effect of this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Because this is the third amendment that's trying to achieve the same thing, I would like to ask the department officials why they chose the wording “The Minister may” rather than putting in some certainty that would require the minister to consult the public.

Ms. Carmel Létourneau: One of the reasons is that the WMO might have done an excellent job consulting the public, and it would be a waste of resources to duplicate that effort and go back to the same public and consult them once again. We needed some flexibility in this clause, so he can or cannot—

Mr. David Chatters: But how, without the minister consulting with the public, would he know that the waste management organization did or did not do a good job of consulting the public?

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: The study has to set out the comments that have been received as a result of public consultations—that's in subclause 12(7)—so there will be some substance in the document that indicates—

Mr. David Chatters: The degree of consultation.

Ms. Joanne Kellerman: —the amount of consultation and the outcome of that consultation.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, do you have closing remarks?

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's interesting to hear the comments from the department, because I believe strongly my proposed amendment gives the minister the discretion he's looking for.

Let's assume there has been full consultation at the stage that the study was being prepared and that the minister in fact is satisfied with it. Subclause 14(1) would not compel him or her to continue any further consultation. All the minister has to do is to satisfy himself or herself that the public has been fairly and effectively consulted. But if the determination is that they have not been, at the various stages through the study, then he is compelled. So it's mandatory at that point for him or her to take on that responsibility and assure us that all of the community has been properly consulted and they in fact have reached a consensus of broad public acceptance of the study.

I think it accomplishes what the intent was of the department originally, but it puts that extra bit in that we're looking for—that the minister would then be responsible for carrying out that consultation.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1345

(Clause 14 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

(Clause 15 - Decision of Governor in Council)

The Chair: We now move to amendment BQ-13.

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: I was getting ready to leave, Mr. Chairman.

The reference in clause 15 on page 8, line 30, is to: "on the recommendation of the Minister". I would like any decisions to be made on the recommendation of the House of Commons, to ensure more transparency in the process and to give back to elected representatives the right to receive information and ultimately, to make recommendations.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 15 agreed to on division)

The Chair: We won't start 16, because there are five amendments, but I would ask you if you would agree to deal with the ones that have no amendments. I will start, and if it's not practical, just tell me, and I'll stop.

(Clause 17 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 26 to 30 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Clause 32 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we just passed clause 24, but I think there's a discrepancy between the French and the English.

The Chair: Oh, that's right. No, that's clause 19. We have no amendment on clause 24.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I think there's a discrepancy between the French and the English. The English needs the word “study” added where it's included in French.

The Chair: Okay, clause 24 is not carried. Do you agree? Do I have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We'll come back to it afterwards. We'll reopen clause 24, in all fairness. It's reopened, and I thank you for agreeing to this. If we went too fast and made an error, we will reopen any clause we just passed.

Now we are adjourning to 10 or 15 minutes after the vote. I understand there's a vote at three, so we'll meet ten minutes after, so that we have a quorum, in Room 209 West Block.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.