Marlene Cowling

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, neither motion No. 7 nor motion No. 8 is acceptable.

I have this statement on motion No. 7. Many years ago it was the practice to include a representative from industry on the board. The government, as a matter of policy, abandoned that practice years ago. It is critical that members of the AECD or its successor, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, be unbiased. It is equally important that it be seen to be unbiased by both the public and the industry being regulated. Furthermore, in order for good decisions to be made by members of the commission, it is extremely important that the commission be made up of members appointed for their expertise.

This amendment, if accepted, would risk having poor regulatory decisions made because of lack of expertise or bias toward one agenda or another. It would also raise doubts about the objectivity of the regulator.

There may also be significant problems with interpreting or applying this amendment. It is not clear who the representative should be. It could be a member of an environmental group or a company employee, but it could also be a person simply appointed to speak for the environmental group or the industry. Nor is it clear how the terms, generally recognized, or work in environmental protection, would be interpreted.

The order in council process envisioned for this bill provides complete flexibility. Representatives of environmental groups or industry could be appointed if that is what is desired.

As for Motion No. 8, requiring approval of Parliament for appointments to the commission, there have been times when a new member had to be appointed to the board due to the death or illness of a member. Order in council appointments allow the government to fill vacancies speedily. Requiring candidates to be approved by Parliament could lead to situations where the decisions of the commission are delayed until new members are appointed.

I would suggest that hon. members consider what would need to be done if a vacancy had to be filled during the summer months in order for the commission to carry out its normal regulatory decision making. Should Parliament be reconvened during summer recess in order to confirm appointments to the commission simply so the commission could continue to operate over the summer?

However, if this amendment passes we would have to be prepared to do that or to tell the industry that it will simply have to wait for its regulatory decisions. This could lead to lapsed licences through no fault of the licensees, requiring companies to suspend operations in order to comply with this act.

As a final comment, members of the commission are appointed for their expertise. It is not the practice of this House to review such appointments. In only rare cases, such as where the person acts as an ombudsman, is this necessary.

These amendments are unnecessary and could impede the efficient operations of the commission. For these reasons they are not acceptable to the government.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 4 and 5 are not acceptable to the government. Both motions deal with deletions from the bill.

Motion No. 4 would delete clause 6. Clause 6 exempts nuclear capable vessels of a foreign state invited into Canada by the government from the application of the act.

Clause 6 has been included in Bill C-23 to make the bill consistent with a court decision, that is, Vancouver Island Peace Society v. the Queen, having to do with the royal prerogative of foreign relations.

The power to approve visits by foreign naval vessels to Canadian ports is a manifestation of the royal prerogative as related to the power of the crown to act in regard to the strategic objectives of the armed forces, foreign policy and military commitments, such as NATO. This power has been confirmed by the courts. It is critical that clause 6 remain in the bill.

With respect to motion No. 5 to delete clause 7, the bill creates general broad prohibitions preventing the conduct of nuclear activities or possessions of nuclear materials, unless licensed. There must be a mechanism in the act to exempt activities, persons or materials where the activity, person or the quantity poses no risk to the public, or where the risk is accepted as a part of the job.

Deletion of this clause from the bill would require that every activity using nuclear technology or nuclear material, every person who might come into possession of nuclear materials as a part of their normal duties and their quantity of nuclear material, no matter how small, be licensed. This would impose a prohibitive and unnecessary regulatory burden on Canadians.

Some of the exemptions contemplated include exempting peace officers, including customs officers-and if the member from the New Democratic Party would listen, he may well understand why this is not acceptable to the government-and commission inspectors appointed under this bill who may come into possession of nuclear substances in the course of exercising their duties.

This provision would also allow for the exemptions for possession of manufactured items that contains small amounts of a nuclear substance to make them work, such as smoke detectors, some time pieces and illuminated signs activated by tritium. Clause 7 must remain in this bill in order to make it workable.

Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are unacceptable to the government.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 3, the nuclear regulator must be and must be seen to be unbiased and neutral in its dealings with or support for the nuclear industry.

The nuclear regulator should be clearly seen by the public as avoiding the role of an advocate for the industry. This amendment has the potential to compromise the public's faith in the objectivity and neutrality of the AECB because it does not limit the scope of the regulatory information.

Motion No. 3 uses the word educate. Rightly or wrongly, the word educate is perceived to have a more proactive connotation than the word inform. It raises the possibility that this mandate

could be interpreted to include the possibility of advocacy for or against nuclear activities.

Providing the commission with a mandate to educate the public on non-regulatory nuclear issues would be inconsistent with its regulatory role.

With respect to Motion No. 6, it is the government's belief that clause 9(b) is the appropriate mandate for the commission on this matter. It specifies as one of the commission's objectives the dissemination of objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public on the effects of nuclear activities on health, safety and the environment. In fact, the AECB does this now through its office for public information. This is what is needed, no more and no less.

If the proposed amendment is intended to restate the intent of clause 9(b) in different words, it is redundant and unnecessary. If it is intended to go beyond 9(b), it goes too far. The proposed amendments are not acceptable to the government.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is my understanding that we are speaking to Motions Nos. 3 and 6, which were grouped.

Just for clarification, I would like to know which motion the hon. member is speaking to. Is it Motion No. 2 or is it the grouping of Motions Nos. 3 and 6?

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are several points that need to be made here.

First, the existing wording specifies the Minister of Natural Resources but also specifies "or such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as the governor in council may designate as the minister". This gives the Prime Minister full discretion when he or she appoints a minister through whom the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will report to Parliament. The existing wording therefore contains the flexibility that the NSCA should have.

I would point out to members of this House that both the Minister of Natural Resources and Dr. Bishop, president of the Atomic Energy Control Board, took the opportunity when appear-

ing before the committee to stress the independence of the AECB in regulatory matters. There was no disagreement on this important principle.

I would also note that while the commission will report to Parliament through the minister and the minister will be responsible for answering questions regarding the commission in this House, the minister does not and will not get involved in regulatory decision making.

The government must reconcile regulation with promotion at some level. This is done currently by having the AECB and the AECL report to the Minister of Natural Resources. This amendment would merely transfer the level at which regulatory and promotional interests are reconciled to the cabinet level and hence to the Prime Minister. Why not let ministers exercise the responsibilities that come with their portfolios?

As to whether the Minister of the Environment should be the responsible minister, while environmental protection is an object of this bill, it is not the only or even the primary object, which is the health and safety of workers and the public.

This motion is not acceptable to the government.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That all motions at report stage of Bill C-23 be deemed to have been read and seconded at this time and a recorded division requested and deferred for each motion.

[Petitions, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions in the House today.

The first petition is signed by 75 Manitobans. The second is signed by 300 Manitobans, many of whom live in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the negative impact pornography has on men, women and children. They urge Parliament to strictly uphold Canada's laws against obscenity.

[Radioactive Waste Importation Act, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to conclude this debate in the House of Commons on the proposed legislation, Bill C-236.

Throughout the debate we have heard many arguments for and against this bill. The members opposite repeatedly stressed that they want to prevent Canada from becoming the world's dumping ground for radioactive waste. The image of a dumping ground is misleading. Today radioactive waste in Canada is managed in an environmentally reasonable way. All forms of radioactive waste management and disposal are strictly regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board, the independent federal nuclear regulator.

As the House is aware, the Government of Canada has recently introduced modern and comprehensive legislation, the Canadian nuclear safety control act. Bill C-23 updates the Atomic Energy Control Act. During the debates the Government of Canada presented its reasons for not supporting Bill C-236 and the three main reasons can be summarized as follows.

First, this bill is simply not needed. The regulatory system in Canada already strictly controls the management of radioactive waste, including imported waste specifically. Canada has the knowledge base, the expertise, the infrastructure and the regulatory systems to ensure that radioactive wastes are treated in such a way that they pose no undue risk to human health or the environment.

In Canada an independent federal agency, the AECB, strictly regulates the nuclear industry. This bill adds nothing to Canada's current regulatory system. It adds nothing to the regulations under the Atomic Energy Control Act, nor to those under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Compliance with these regulations is mandatory for all licensed applicants to the AECB whether they be individuals, companies or groups, including aboriginal groups. There are no exceptions.

The current concept for the disposal of nuclear fuel waste in Canada is intended for handling waste from domestic CANDU reactors. There are no plans to import nuclear fuel waste from other countries.

In Canada, the owners and the producers of low level radioactive waste are planning for the disposal of their own waste. Under the radioactive waste policy framework, waste producers and owners

are responsible for funding, organizing, managing and operating disposal and other facilities for these wastes.

Uranium mine and mill tailings will be decomissioned at the mine sites.

Second, the bill is a threat to Canadian companies exporting medical equipment containing radioactive substances or the substances themselves.

Let me offer two examples to highlight the government's concerns. Nordion International Inc. is a worldwide leader in the production of medical radio isotopes. In 1995 its total revenue was $191 million. About 98 per cent of its sales come from exports and it sells to more than 70 countries. Should the bill pass, the company expects to lose half of its annual revenues.

This is because its clients around the world in developed as well as developing countries require sales contracts to include a take back clause for the spent radioactive sources. These spent materials are considered radioactive waste.

Nordion is quite willing to include such a clause since Canada can indeed effectively deal with the disposal of such waste. Take back provisions and practices are highly recommended by international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency since it ensures that the wastes are managed by the most capable authorities under effective regulatory regimes.

Theratronics International Ltd. is a worldwide leader in cancer therapy machines. It would also be hurt by this bill. In fact, Theratronics executives say that the legislation would probably put the company out of business since the repatriation of radioactive sources for disposal is an integral element in its contract and is often a condition for new sales.

The company feels that it has an obligation to offer disposal services such as services for a good way to keep track of spent radioactive sources. This tracking is essential to avoid the kind of tragic radiation accident that occurred a few years ago in Brazil where several people died after being exposed to radioactive materials that had been carelessly abandoned.

If we are not prepared to take back the spent radioactive substances resulting from the use of medical equipment abroad, then Canada may have to stop exporting to countries that cannot deal with the waste.

This would deprive the people in those countries of access to modern medical devices. The result could be needless illness and death in client countries, the disappearance of these successful Canadian high tech companies and significant job losses.

Third, the bill would impair our co-operation on radioactive waste management initiatives with other G-7 nations, especially the United States. It would also hurt our reputation with developing countries.

Again, let me be more specific. The law in both Canada and the United States covers on-site storage of radioactive waste at hospitals. Under some circumstances it may be more practical, effective, efficient and environmentally sound to use the disposal or storage facilities across the border, but this co-operation has to work both ways.

Developing countries, many African nations for example, have recognized that they do not have the expertise, the infrastructure or regulatory authority to safely handle these wastes and have banned their import. They are well aware that they will have to export such waste if they are to avail themselves of modern medical devices that contain radioactive material. This is not the case for Canada, which has leading expertise in this area.

If passed, this legislation would send a signal to developing countries that we are indifferent to their medical needs. As a developed nation, Canada is an active and effective participant in international fora to develop conventions, codes and guides to ensure that all countries adopt proper radioactive waste management practices.

Up to now Canada's views have commanded respect in the international community. Our opinions are actively sought because we have the expertise, the infrastructure and the regulatory authority to deal with radioactive waste safely. This legislation would show the G-7 countries that Canada is no longer prepared to effectively participate in international fora.

I will address the specific issue of nuclear fuel waste. Canada has developed something called the deep geological concept, a proposed method for disposing of nuclear fuel waste generated in this country by burying it deep within the stable granitic rock of the Canadian Shield. In the international scientific community there is general agreement that the deep geological method is the best form of disposal for nuclear fuel waste.

I re-emphasize that Bill C-236 offers no advantages and entails many harmful consequences related to the import of radioactive waste. This bill would produce no benefit whatsoever for Canadians and would add nothing to Canada's current regulatory system. On the contrary, it would inhibit environmentally responsible practices both here and abroad and would result in significant job losses in the nuclear medical equipment industry in this country. I strongly urge members of the House to vote against this bill.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question of sustainable forest management is one of the most important challenges facing Canadians.

It is fair to say that people from around the world are asking that the global forest be managed in such a way that the whole array of social, economic and environmental values associated with forests are protected. In Canada this is a major priority for governments, industry and our citizens.

At a recent meeting of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, we confirmed again our commitment to sustainable forest management. Ministers agreed to adopt a Canadian criteria and indicators as a means to monitor sustainable forestry. We agreed that the national forest strategy be renewed.

At the international level, we have been working hard to ensure that the principles of sustainable forestry are promoted in the discussions on global forests. Recognizing the need to manage forests on a sustainable basis, the Canadian forestry industry has also been promoting sustainable forest management through the development by the Canadian Standards Association of a sustainable forest management standard. This standard has been approved by the Standards Council of Canada. It is now available to Canadian companies that wish to seek certification that they have a process to ensure sustainable forest management.

They have taken the initiative outside of government to promote sustainable forest management. Forest certification provides a transparent, scientifically based and inclusive approach for industry to demonstrate its commitment to and practice of sustainable forestry.

The Canadian industry is a world leader in this regard. It has led an international industrial group in approaching the International Standards Organization, seeking access for companies who wish to be certified under the environmental management standard provision of the ISO. This is an additional step toward a better standard of forestry in Canada, increasing the confidence that Canadians have in the industry's ability to manage the forests and help to ensure access for Canadian forest products in world markets, products which are made from wood from sustainably managed Canadian forests.

[Mining, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to speak about how the government's new minerals and metals policy will help Canada internationally.

The mining industry in Canada plays a vital role in the continued well-being of our economy. Nowhere is it more important than in many rural and remote communities that depend on it for their very survival. However, the continued success of this industry is heavily dependent on its ability to export what it produces.

Ensuring that our minerals and metals producers enjoy open access to foreign markets is a central objective of the new minerals and metals policy. Its principles will guide the government in its participation in international organizations like the World Trade Organization and in its efforts globally to protect all Canadians who are dependent on a prosperous industry for their livelihood.

As the world's leading exporter of minerals and metals, Canada must play a leadership role in the management of international issues affecting th industry. The new minerals and metals policy-