Bill C-27 (Historical)

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

An Act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste

Nuclear Waste Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

It is the least we can do, as my colleague said.

We also asked that no nuclear energy corporation be a member or shareholder of the nuclear management organization.

The Liberal Party is against transparency, as the chemist said he wanted. It is against consultation and it supports the involvement of energy corporations within the waste management organization.

This is why, in 1989, the Seaborn panel was mandated to examine the merits of the techniques and solutions proposed by the government. This panel sat for 10 years and submitted its report in 1998.

One conclusion of the Seaborn panel that I remember and that should guide the government in its decisions with regard to Bill C-27 is this, and I quote:

Broad public support is necessary in Canada to ensure the acceptability of a concept for managing nuclear fuel wastes. Safety is a key part, but only one part, of acceptability. Safety must be viewed from two complementary perspectives: technical and social.

Therefore, I hope the government will accept the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois, and especially those of the people of Quebec.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to this important bill, Bill C-27. This bill may not seem important, but it is because it has given rise to major debates in various regions of Canada, most specifically in certain regions of Quebec.

Let us take, for example, the area represented by my colleague from Jonquière. He was eloquent in listing the realities surrounding the importing of MOX in his area, which was done without any real consultation by the federal government.

This bill is important because it also affects Quebec, particularly the Gentilly plant, where, inevitably—because Hydro Quebec will become a member of the waste management organization—Quebec will become involved in a broad debate involving not only the crown corporation, but over time, we hope, all Quebecers.

Four amendments by my colleague aim to improve transparency. Members opposite criticize my use of the word transparency. This bill demonstrates one thing: that this government never once listened to the opposition, including in committee, as my colleague mentioned, when it came time to make proposals regarding consultations. Not only did it not listen to the opposition, but in real cases, when it came time to consult the residents of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the federal government failed to set up a consultation process and mechanism that satisfied the expectations of residents.

What is the objective of this bill being considered today? One of them is to require owners to take on financial responsibility when it comes to nuclear waste management. As well, a second basic objective of the bill is to undertake waste management in a comprehensive, integrated and efficient manner.

It is important to highlight that there are three categories of radioactive waste. First, there is waste from nuclear fuel. The second type is low level radioactive waste. The third type is uranium mine and mill tailings.

The bill before us today deals primarily with the first of these three types of waste, namely nuclear fuel waste. Currently there are 1.3 million nuclear fuel bundles in Canada, which means that more than 18,000 tonnes of waste are stored in so-called pools. The nuclear fuel waste is put in these pools to neutralize it to some extent.

However we must not delude ourselves. This is not a long term solution. On the one hand, it is not intended to last some 30,000 years, as could be the case if the nuclear waste was buried in the Canadian Shield and, on the other hand, it is not a long term solution because the pools used to store nuclear fuel are currently overloaded.

We fully agree with the federal government's decision to establish a long term plan to better manage this waste. This is the first objective of the plan proposed at the time by the federal government.

The second fundamental objective of the plan is to permanently store waste over a 20 year period in the geological layers of the Canadian Shield.

This is where there is a problem. Even though a number of scientific studies indicate that the Canadian Shield could be a long term storage area, for a period of about 30,000 years in the case of nuclear fuel waste, the various consultations that were held, including by the Seaborn commission, show that, in several regions, the public is strongly opposed to the storing of such waste.

Scientists have confirmed the desirability of such a solution. For example, an article published on September 24 in Trois-Rivières' daily Le Nouvelliste refers to comments made by Don Wiles, a chemist from the University of Ottawa. The article said the following:

As a scientist, Mr. Wiles feels that the best solution to the problem remains the burial of nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield, where such waste could be stored for 30,000 years without posing any risk to people or to the environment.

The chemistry expert tells us:

Mr. Wiles hopes Atomic Energy of Canada will offer more transparent and simpler explanations, which might facilitate public acceptance.

Greater transparency is where the problem lies with Bill C-27. There is no transparency whatsoever and no desire to involve citizens or groups of citizens on the boards of waste management agencies.

Where the basic criticism lies is that only energy companies such as Hydro-Québec, New Brunswick Hydro and others with nuclear waste on their territory would have a say in this waste management agency, although from past experience we know that the public wants to be involved.

We have the example of the MOX in the riding of my colleague from Jonquière and the instances of public outcry when there were plans to bury waste or experiment with the possibility of burying nuclear fuel waste in the geological layers of the Canadian Shield. All of this demonstrates that people want to have a say in decisions.

But no, not only has the government not integrated these provisions in its bill, it also seems, for all intents and purposes, prepared to reject the four amendments by the Bloc Quebecois. First of all, Motion No. 6 calls for more consultation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the amendments to Bill C-27. The reason it is so important to have these amendments considered and added is that the lack of these amendments has drawn the proliferation of nuclear energy to a slower start.

In my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke we had the birth of and were responsible for the initial Canadian scientific research into nuclear energy. We have had many inventions relating to nuclear energy as spinoffs as a result of the growth stage of the nuclear industry, for example, the MRIs we have right now and the medical isotope research. We supply over 70% of the world's medical isotopes. That is a result of the acceptance of nuclear research.

The amendments, if accepted, would bring more clarity to and provide the general public with more insight as to what the nuclear industry is all about. Once we have more public acceptance of the nuclear industry, then we will have the support to go forward and do more research.

For example, for the past two years cabinet has been considering funding the Canadian Neutron Facility. Even though the member who spoke previously said that the Minister of Finance had accepted this in principle and that we are just waiting for the go ahead on the funding for the Canadian Neutron Facility there is still reluctance on the part of government to go ahead because it is not sure whether or not the public will see it as a positive move. The reason people will not necessarily see it as a positive move is that there is an element of secrecy surrounding the entire nuclear industry. What these amendments seek to do is demystify the nuclear industry.

Energy is the key to our future. The need for energy is growing exponentially. The electronics industry is an example. More computers are showing up in people's homes.

Right now in Ontario we are preparing for a potential shortage of electricity for the upcoming winter by building more coal fired plants. With coal fired plants we have the emission of carbon dioxide. As we all know, this contributes to global warming. The use of nuclear energy as a part of the overall mix in power supply is necessary not just to have an ample supply of energy but to save the environment.

In the amendments before us we have Motion No. 2 which deals with the outline of the establishment of an arm's length organization to monitor and dispose of nuclear fuel waste. We cannot support this motion because it takes away from companies the onus on dealing with nuclear waste. Companies and the producers of nuclear waste say that they want to have an active role in storing the spent fuel. In fact the whole issue of storing spent fuel can be an industry in itself. It can be an economic boon to the communities who accept it. Therefore we would not necessarily want to take away the opportunity for the power industries and companies to eventually use the spent fuel, the infrastructure and the jobs surrounding it, as a means of a profit sharing idea.

If we had a profit element to the spent nuclear fuel commodities, it would serve to subsidize fuel costs. Last year's high increase in fuel costs was debilitating for people on level incomes. We need to ensure that does not happen again. Anything that a power company can do to decrease costs for customers is a real plus.

Motion No. 4 would attempt to bring more accountability and openness to the activities of the waste management organization by making it subject to the Access to Information Act. We support this. A few years ago the riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke had the opportunity to house spent nuclear fuel. Some of Canada's brightest scientists could be found in this community. The community understands the chemistry and physics behind nuclear science.

People in the community were willing to accept this because they knew what it was all about since they had worked at the plant for over 40 year. It could have meant more retail jobs and more people coming into the community. Yet because of the fear of the unknown and the lack of accountability or the public not being informed of everything there was to know, this drew to a standstill and the community lost out on the opportunity.

Motion No. 5 would amend clause 12 which states that the waste management organization must submit plans to the minister for proposed disposal approaches as well as recommendations within three years of the act coming into force. The amendment would extend the deadline to 10 years, which is far too long to wait for the nuclear industry to be able to grow again.

It is important for the nuclear industry to go forth at this time because of alternate uses of energy and not necessarily nuclear energy itself. For example, the science behind hydrogen fuel cells was developed at the research station in Chalk River. When a nuclear reactor is not needed it does not have to be shut down. It could continue to operate but instead of being used for the production of power it could be used for the production of hydrogen. Rather than building a whole new plant to produce hydrogen for fuel cells these plants could be used to make hydrogen.

Car companies are looking for ways to store hydrogen and electricity in fuel cells. Instead of all vehicles being carbon burners we could use this technology. The science behind knowing what nuclear energy is all about has promise for not just the nuclear power industry but for other industries as well.

Another side advantage of the research behind the nuclear industry is the science of materials. Reactors are also used to look at different types of materials, to look for fractures and to examine structures. For example, when the space shuttle Challenger crashed it was Chalk River and the nuclear reactor science department, NRC, that examined it and determined that an o-ring was not responsible for the crash.

It is very important to discuss these amendments. Motion No. 8 would give further clarity and openness. The bill must be passed but with the proper amendments in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-27,an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

The Bloc Quebecois is not against the sound management of nuclear waste. There are currently close to 24,000 tons of nuclear waste stocked on the sites of Canadian nuclear facilities. These tons of waste have a life expectancy of 24,000 years. These figures just keep getting larger. It is therefore quite normal to try to manage these time bombs.

The Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of the bill at the second reading stage. We told the government that we would table amendments in committee and were hoping for some open-mindedness on its part. However, once again, it must be recognized that what has been going on these past two weeks is totally absurd.

The important amendments presented to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources were not read not heard. The liberals answered “No, no, and no.” This is all we could hear.

We are dealing with a major issue here. When I held a public meeting in my region about the importation of 24 grams--and I repeat grams--of MOX fuel from Russia and the United States, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited came to tell us that it had held consultations. There were 28 days of consultations on an Internet site. How many people from my riding said they were opposed? Well, 99.9 % of my constituents said they were opposed to any importation of nuclear waste from just about everywhere.

There was opposition from 124 municipalities throughout Quebec, the regional county municipalities, the Communauté urbaine de Montréal, the Communauté urbaine de Québec, the Quebec government, all the environmental groups and all the stakeholders. What did the government do in the middle of the night? I cannot figure out how they went about it. There is a military base in my region. There was sheer panic. They arranged to have armoured vehicles, and they were supposed to come our way. Ultimately, we did not see a thing, but nevertheless, nuclear waste was imported. It cost several hundred thousand dollars.

I consulted some American experts, who can also give us information on the nuclear issue. I consulted internationally renowned experts. They told me that governments must address this issue and must not import other countries' nuclear waste.

We asked this government to include in the bill a clause that would state quite humbly the position of the Government of Canada as against importing nuclear material from other countries. What did the Liberals say? No, no and no.

This bill does not even contain a guarantee that waste will not be imported from other countries.

When Bill C-27 was introduced, the Minister of Natural Resources said that it was in response to the Seaborn commission. I am not sure if the minister did indeed read the report, or if he was conscious that he was reading the Seaborn report, but this bill does not respond at all to the Seaborn report.

We wanted to improve it, we agreed. We said that we had the Seaborn report, that we wanted to improve it along those lines. We were aware that he wanted to act. We said that we would give him the opportunity to manage what needs to be managed in our region.

As for the committee chair, I would like to discuss this. Sometimes I wonder if he was not both judge and judged from the start. I think that the issue we are debating today is an extremely serious one, which we debated in good faith in committee.

Nobody listened. The first recommendation of the Seaborn commission stipulated that the government must consult Canadians, and that it have significant support from them. I do not know what happened to that consultation, nor the support. But the Liberals are moving ahead.

I am very sad to say that this is yet another dark moment in the history of Canada. This is a great tragedy. We are not talking about hospital waste. We are talking about nuclear waste. This is serious.

I do not even think that the government members on the committee knew what they were talking about. Yet, they were there to vote. They watched the parliamentary secretary vote and followed suit. We even explained the amendments that we had proposed, but they did not even bother to listen. In the end, it was clearly no use; it was almost a farce sitting on the committee.

I do not think this is something to joke about. It is a major issue for the present and future of our societies. We are talking about nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is not some little candle that can be blown out. No. It is very dangerous, particularly when there is also talk of burying this waste in the Canadian Shield. Three quarters of the Canadian Shield is located in Quebec.

Will Canada, and Quebec in particular, become a dumping ground for waste from around the world? We have only to think of household waste. People do not want that buried in their backyard. Imagine if it were nuclear waste.

I think that what we have here is a semblance of democracy. I will never accept this. The debate is beginning. The government was not interested in anything we had to say. We will never accept such an insubstantial bill. It is an ineffective response to a commission which lasted ten years and did some serious work. This is not what the commission was trying to accomplish.

Enough. As the House knows, we put forward four extremely important amendments at report stage. I hope the Liberals will pass at least one of them but I am sure they will not because they are deaf and blind. These are the Liberals' only attributes right now when it comes to this bill.

I said I was not going to get worked up today but I cannot help myself. This is frightening. We will fight the battle. We will, keep on fighting until third reading and, if they do not reconsider at report stage, I think they will have to be held accountable. As MPs, we are accountable to our constituents. These are not waste management organizations. The Minister of Natural Resources will be judge and judged. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports to the Minister of Natural Resources. So why does he have responsibility for a piece of legislation which makes him the judge and the judged? There is something very wrong with this.

I hope that the Minister of Natural Resources, for whom I have great respect, is listening today and that he will say to his parliamentary secretary “That was not what I wanted you to do in committee. I wanted you to listen to the opposition”. Like the eight other henchmen on the committee, he did not listen to the opposition. This is just the beginning and we will keep on fighting.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate today on amendments brought forth by the member for Sherbrooke to Bill C-27, the nuclear fuel waste act.

I agree with the member for Athabasca. The bill is not transparent enough, there is not enough accountability and it does contain too much ministerial and privy council discretion. That has been the position of the PC/DR coalition from the very beginning.

I want to speak specifically to the amendments. Several were put forth and a few were not allowed at this stage. I would have preferred to speak to all the amendments because I believe all amendments were very good. Although there are a couple of amendments that I will not support, they were put forth in a manner and a tone that was meant to improve the bill and to bring more accountability and transparency to the process.

I think it would benefit everyone if I were to review the bill and what it establishes. Bill C-27 would see the establishment of an independent waste management organization, or WMO, which has been referred to by other members, and would require the WMO to provide recommendations to the minister on long term nuclear waste storage possibilities. Some of those possibilities could be and are expected to be deep geological disposals somewhere in the Canadian shield.

The reports, statements and studies done by the WMO would be made public, and that is important. We fought diligently to make sure that occurred. The bill should ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not liable for the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, which again is extremely important. It is important to note that the industry players who fund the WMO, Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power Corporation, would not only put funding in place but they would have some say in what happens. These rates, however, would be arbitrarily established by the minister, which I do not think any industry player or any corporation in Canada would be comfortable with.

I think what needs to be said and what I will say again at third reading is that the bill does not preclude foreign waste from being deposited or disposed of in Canada. The bill does not require aboriginal, environmental or municipal representation on the advisory council. It speaks in a very general way that it would be nice and warm and fuzzy if there were representation from the aboriginal community, the municipal players and the environmentalists but it does not make that an absolute. The bill does not establish the WMO at arm's length from industry. I have some qualms about that. Industry is funding this so I think it needs some control in the process but the Seaborn panel did recommend that it be at arm's length from industry.

One of the really serious failings of the bill is that it would continue to place power in the hands of the minister and the governor in council, and provides little role for parliament in decisions on the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

There could have been a number of things that would have improved this particular piece of legislation and I will speak to some of those amendments now.

Amendment No. 1, which was amendment No. 3, would prevent nuclear energy corporations, including Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power Corporation, from being members on the waste management organization. As the bill currently reads, the nuclear energy corporation shall not only be members of the WMO but always remain members of the organization. It would allow one of the recommendations made by the Seaborn panel when it studied the issue of nuclear waste disposal. That was the arm's length relationship which I have already mentioned.

The PC/DR coalition will not be supporting this amendment, although we would have considered supporting it had it provided for some nuclear energy corporations to be members of the waste management organization. When the power companies appeared before committee, they were clear about the need for active involvement in the WMO, given that they were the ones supplying the hundreds of millions of dollars for the management of nuclear fuel waste. The coalition supports industry on that point and cannot agree with this amendment.

The other question becomes one of liability. If industry could, and I expect it will, have some liability in this process, for example contamination of ground water, then it should be more directly involved in the process. Maybe the process could be nuanced so that industry would not have all the members, but it should certainly have some representation.

We totally agree with amendment No. 2, which was previously amendment No. 6. The amendment would require the minister to engage in public consultations on the disposal method recommended by the waste management organization. That is quite a bizarre thought I am sure for the government to engage upon. However it would be a nice way to give Canadians a Christmas present that does not cost them anything, by letting them know that it is looking at the bill, that it wants to make the bill more accountable and that it wants to involve and allow Canadians to participate in decisions that will concern them. Therefore, members of the PC/DR coalition support this. We supported a similar amendment at committee and we continue to support it now.

The last amendment would see the act come into force on January 1, 2003, instead of a day to be fixed by order of the governor in council. I think the amendment is meant to allow a little more time in the process and I understand why the member for Sherbrooke put it in, but it is not an amendment that I would tend to support. There has been enough time, studies and work on this. The bill is delinquent in a number of areas, but I do not see the day that the act would actually come into force as being one of those areas. This would not be an amendment that we would support.

However, I commend the Bloc member for Sherbrooke for his participation at committee and involvement in the bill. He, like many of us on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, has really quite serious doubts and problems with this specific piece of legislation, not the least of which is the fact that the legislation is just plain and simply poorly crafted, not unlike other legislation that has been gone through the House as of late. There has not been enough input from the parliamentary process and certainly not enough input from committee.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to add my comments to the report stage of Bill C-27. Although my party did not introduce any amendments at this stage of the bill, we still have mixed feelings about it, as well as with some of the amendments that the Bloc submitted.

Clearly we support the concept of the bill. An important principle is being established here in the nuclear industry which is past due. That is the principle of polluter pay and that the industry itself be made directly responsible for the costs of cleaning up and disposing of the waste it creates.

Most other resource industries have had that responsibility for a long time already. For a long time the mining industry and the oil and gas industry have had to post bonds to guarantee that the cost of the liability of the cleanup and disposal of hazardous waste is taken care of. The bill would establish that same principle within the nuclear industry. However it does not go far enough in that it only relates directly to the cost of disposal of high level nuclear waste. It should have gone further. The trust fund should also have been included and have been adequate enough to guarantee the cost of decommissioning of nuclear plants and disposal sites.

I do not think anybody has any idea what that cost would be. The minister has told us that the cost is somehow included in the electricity rates that are charged. With the kind of debt incurred in the Ontario industry mainly because of the nuclear plants, it gives me little confidence that Ontario Hydro has the resources put aside, or is prepared to put aside, to cover the cost of decommissioning of any of the reactor sites. While it is a beginning, the bill certainly does not go far enough.

I have another issue with the bill. Although some of our concerns were addressed at clause by clause in committee, it became clear that while the bill requires the establishment of a waste management organization made up of the producers of nuclear waste and the creation of a trust fund to cover the cost of disposal of that waste and it requires the waste management organization to produce a study and make recommendations to the minister on the best way to dispose of nuclear waste, it goes no further than that. Once the organization fulfills those obligations under the bill and makes a report to the minister, there is no timeline or requirement to implement the plan.

The bill would allow the waste management organization to fill the responsibility within the bill. However, nothing would really happen in the form of implementing a plan and disposing of nuclear waste in the country for another 20 years. We have been working for 20 years to try to figure out a way of what to do with nuclear waste up to now. The government and governments before it, and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. which is doing the research around the issue, have been working on it for 15 or 20 years and have not been able to come up with a solution. I am really not sure how the waste management organization created in the bill would come up with a solution when others could not, that would have the confidence of the Canadian public to proceed.

That is the key to this bill. That is basically the subject of some of the amendments the Bloc has put forward and many of the amendments that were put in at committee stage. The aim was simply to try to change the bill in a way that would allow the waste management organization, because of transparency, openness and accountability, to gain the confidence of the Canadian public that it was doing the right thing, that it was safe, and that it was addressing all of the social and economic issues around this.

There are still some real weaknesses in the bill. In my opinion it will not give the Canadian public the kind of confidence needed to make it a success.

Some of the amendments the Bloc has produced, specifically Motions Nos. 2 and 3, were an attempt to change the bill to comply more fully with the Seaborn recommendations in moving the whole issue away from the industry, from the producers of the waste. I do not support that.

I like the idea of the producer pay principle. If it is going to put up the money to cover the cost, then it is reasonable that it be the one to create and manage the organization that actually does it. I would certainly feel no more comfortable in having the government, through AECL or any other government created agency, responsible for implementing and coming up with the plan than I do with the industry. The industry has produced the waste and it is paying for the disposal of the waste. As long as it is properly regulated and there is proper oversight, then that is the form it should take. I do not support Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

Motion No. 6 is an attempt to bring more clarity to the issue of public consultation, transparency and accountability. We heard at committee that everyone wanted to see that in place. The industry itself clearly stated in testimony that this process could only be successful if there was absolute transparency, openness and accountability to the public so that the public could have confidence in the process that was taking place.

Motion No. 8 is another amendment which I support. There is no legislative requirement in the bill that would have the waste management organization move to implement its chosen form of disposal, to get busy and start taking care of some of this stuff. All it has to do is report to the minister. The minister could sit on it for years and years and we would be not much further ahead than we have been for some time. Motion No. 8 specifies a date when the act comes into force. Maybe it does not answer every aspect of the issue but at least it brings some certainty to the requirement that the bill be brought into force and that we proceed with it.

Some good concerns have been brought forward and, as you said when you grouped the amendments, Mr. Speaker, reflect some of the concerns that were also addressed in committee. There again the government would have been wise to take note and perhaps to have accepted some of the amendments that were made in committee to make the bill more accountable and transparent and to give the public confidence that the industries that are producing nuclear waste in the country are thinking on the broader picture of the public interest and public good, and not simply of their own economic interests and other interests.

With that, I will save my other comments for third reading debate on the bill.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-27, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“6. (1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons, shall”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-27, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 7 on page 3 with the following:

“(2) No nuclear energy corporation may be a member or shareholder of the waste management organization.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-27, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 8 with the following:

“14. (1) The Minister shall engage in such consultations with the general public on the approaches set out in the study as may be necessary.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-27, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 15 with the following:

“32. This Act comes into force on January 1, 2003.”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The Chair will first proceed with a ruling concerning Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

There are eight motions in amendment on the order paper relating to the report stage of Bill C-27.

Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 will not be selected because of their similarity to motions proposed in committee.

The other motions have also been examined and it is the opinion of the Chair that they meet the criteria of the note to paragraph 76.1(5) of the Standing Orders concerning the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 8 will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.

I shall now put Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 8 to the House.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the House will not sit tomorrow as is the usual courtesy to a political party holding a national convention, in this case the New Democratic Party.

Our business for next week is fairly straightforward. First, we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. When this is completed we will turn to second reading of the public safety bill that was introduced earlier this day by the Minister of Transport.

On any days next week, particularly in the early part of the week, should the debate on any of these items end earlier in the day, it would be my intention, then, on Monday to call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill and, if time permits, second reading of Bill C-43, the technical legislative amendments bill which I introduced earlier this day.

If debate collapses on or after Tuesday, it would also be my intention to add to the list that I have just made Bill C-35, the foreign missions bill, at third reading.

Committees of the House

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, the committee has considered Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste, and has agreed to report it with amendment.

I thank and commend all members of the committee from all sides of the House for the fine work they did.

Management of Nuclear Waste

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many years ago in Quebec, there was a popular song about a doll that said no.

This was pretty much what happened yesterday in the initial hours of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources as the Liberals kept saying no to amendments from the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition.

The indifference of the Liberals was striking when we put forward our suggestions to improve Bill C-27 on the management of nuclear waste.

Repeatedly, they rejected the creation of a board of directors representative of the local community, including the aboriginal community, in order to ensure public confidence and add some credibility to the bill, which needs it.

They said no to blocking the import of nuclear waste from other countries, no to including an environmental clause, and no to referring the recommendations of the new waste management organization to the House of Commons.

The Bloc Quebecois has interesting proposals to make and the public has a right to know what they are. The Liberal puppets with their “no, no, no, no, no, no” will not stop us.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with Bill C-10, the marine parks bill.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill S-31, respecting a number of tax treaties.

As indicated by the deputy House leader for the opposition, next week is a week in our constituencies. When we return we will consider: report stages and third reading of Bill C-38, respecting Air Canada; second reading of Bill C-41, respecting the Canadian Commercial Corporation; report stages and third reading of Bill C-27, the nuclear waste legislation; Bill C-35, respecting foreign missions; and second reading of Bill S-33, respecting carriage by air. During that week the government may introduce another bill dealing with public safety and we would begin debate on that matter as soon as possible.

Finally, I intend to consult colleagues later this afternoon, given the uncertainty in the airline industry, to see whether there would be a favourable disposition, notwithstanding the tabling of the report on Bill C-38 today, to see if the House would agree with dealing with third reading tomorrow. I intend to consult later this day on this matter.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-27. The question is on the motion.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste. This is a matter which has interested me for many years. If I recall correctly, one of the first questions I ever asked in the House of Commons had to do with this issue.

Marc Lalonde was the minister of energy and his parliamentary secretary, Roy MacLaren, had a reputation for giving some of the most boring late shows one could ever imagine. He later went on to great heights as the high commissioner in London.

What I was concerned about then, and I raise this in a way to counterpoise my view of what has happened since then with what was said by the hon. member for Halton, was the fact that AECL was initiating a process that we are now near the end of, that is to say a process by which it set out to prove that deep geologic disposal of high level nuclear waste was the way to go.

I have chosen my words carefully because it did not set out to find out whether or not it was the best way to dispose of high level nuclear waste but to prove a conclusion it had already arrived at. The hon. member for Halton reinforced this earlier today when he said that 22 years ago he went to the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment where he was exposed to the technology, whatever that means.

The technology, the method of deep geologic storage or disposal of high level nuclear waste, had not been developed yet. In fact the lab is separate geographically, although in the same area, from the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment. It had yet to be built in 1979. If we listen to the hon. member for Halton we might have the impression that all this was fully developed in 1979. At that point they had yet to dig into the ground and create the underground space that they would use to test their theories about the safety of deep geologic disposal of high level nuclear waste.

That underground lab did not open until the mid-eighties. I first visited it very soon after it was opened in February 1986. For the hon. member to suggest that somehow this was already entrained in 1979 is not so.

What happened was that there was a process. The problem with the process all along was that the impression was never dispelled to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of a great many others. There were certain people who knew what the outcome would be from the day the process began. The process was not open ended and did not allow for the possibility of coming to a different conclusion.

If we do not have the possibility of coming to a different conclusion it is not science. If we already know what the result of an experiment will be, and we are not open to the possibility that it might not work out the way we think it will, it is not science. It is politics.

It was a predetermined outcome based on a political decision that Canada as a maker, producer and seller of Candu reactors was determined to be able to tell its potential clients that it had a way of disposing of high levels of nuclear waste that would be produced by those reactors.

This is ultimately the conflict of interest at the heart of the entire process which has never been rooted out. We see it in the bill. Even now, at the end of the process, it is the industries themselves that will be put in charge of dealing with nuclear fuel waste without any participation by people who do not have a vested interest in the issue.

As long as the country continues to want to sell Candu reactors through a crown corporation, not only the crown corporation but the government itself will be in a conflict of interest. They and others involved in the industry who also have a vested interest are charged with the responsibility of determining whether there is a safe way to dispose of these high levels of nuclear waste. If they cannot say that, they will have a hard time selling the reactors.

This is a prima facie conflict of interest, yet we have not been able to successfully make the argument over the last two decades that the debate has been ongoing. That is my primary objection to the bill. It continues the conflict of interest of the government, AECL, and for that matter even AECB, although from time to time it does tell AECL what to do.

The nuclear club is a very small club. It is almost like a religion subscribing to a particular world view. Anyone who does not share the basic presuppositions about the wonders and benefits of nuclear energy can never become a member of the club.

The member for Halton said that it was best to leave it up to the people who know how to do it. He asked why they would want to leave such a question up to us. That is a fair question.

I do not claim to be a nuclear scientist or physicist, but there are experts in the field who are not tied to the industry. There are people in academia and NGOs that know a lot about the subject. They are trained in the same way the people in the industry are trained. They would be capable of rendering an independent decision while participating in a collective judgment made at a table at which they and members of the industry were present.

That sort of thing was recommended by the Seaborn panel but it is not in Bill C-27. Instead there is the same closed little circle of so-called expertise tainted by vested interest.

Another point made by the member for Halton was the concern he had that there was a provision in the bill for third party funding in the financing of waste management costs. He was worried that the loophole might be an opportunity for a subsidy.

I actually started to listen with some sympathy to what he was saying at that point in his speech. I felt he had the narrative sort of wrong up until then, but when he talked about subsidy and the need for us to know the full costs of particular energy options he made a lot of sense.

One of the things that is wrong with our economy and that has all kinds of environmental and social consequences is that we externalize the costs of various ways of doing things instead of internalizing them and having them built into the price of things. That sounds to me like a market argument, yet when it comes to something like energy we do not have a market. We have all kinds of hidden subsidies.

One of the greatest acts of subsidy, that is the subsidy to the nuclear industry that has taken place over the years in Canadian society, has not always been that hidden. In some cases it has been right out front.

The member for Halton used the figure of $16.2 billion. He was worried about there being the opportunity for further subsidy, and I think that is a legitimate worry. I commend him for that worry because we need to be aware of and take into account the full costs of the way we do things, particularly the full environmental costs, not only with respect to the nuclear energy option but also with respect to other energy options.

For example, the damage that is done to highways, the atmosphere, the safety of the travelling public and the tremendous overreliance on trucks instead of trains is a cost borne by society and government through road construction and repair. It will be borne by everyone in terms of health care and other environmentally related costs in the future, thanks to the greenhouse gas effect, et cetera. These are not costs that are figured into the cost that we pretend is associated with a particular energy option.

The member from the Alliance talked about the fact that our nuclear establishments were potential targets of terrorism. Unfortunately this is true. However, even more unfortunate, this is something that people who have been against nuclear energy have been saying since the beginning of this industry.

Having nuclear reactors and nuclear waste is much more dangerous in terms of potential terrorism attacks or political and social instability and everything that goes with it than having hydro dams, coal plants, natural gas plants, solar power, wind power or whatever the case may be.

There is something qualitatively different here. There is an infinite qualitative difference between the danger of nuclear waste and nuclear reactors if they were to be damaged and the damage that can be done by other energy sources, other energy factories or whatever, should they be the object of attack.

I say to the hon. member from the Alliance that it is a real concern, but it is a concern that has been raised for decades by opponents of nuclear energy. They have said it is a mistake to assume that the world would be exactly like it is today. We should plan our energy options, particularly when we are taking account of various risks, not on the basis of some sanguine view of the universe but with some account being taken of various worst case scenarios. That has not been done and that is why we are in the position we find ourselves in today.

Someone said that even if we stopped producing nuclear power today and shut down all the reactors we would still have to deal with the problem of nuclear waste. I agree. We still have all kinds of nuclear waste and we have to decide what to do with it.

I am not trying to argue for the status quo. There is an opportunity for Canada, and this is the sense in which I regret the dismantling of the Whiteshell research nuclear establishment at Pinawa.

There is all kinds of work to be done on the question of how to deal with high level and low level nuclear waste. It should be done in a way that does not contain within it all this conflict of interest. There is work to be done in determining how best to decommission nuclear reactors because there will be reactors that will need to be decommissioned.

Whether or not we choose to build new ones, we have a lot of old ones around that will not last forever. In terms of the people who are interested or who have already had their training in nuclear related technologies, it is not as if there is nothing to do.

It is not as if there is not some worthwhile task out there. It is not as if their raison d'être should depend on the making and marketing of more Candu reactors. There is a generation of work to be done by people who know something about this field in figuring out what to do with the waste, how to decommission reactors, and for that matter, improving and enhancing some of the useful ways in which nuclear science can be used for various medically related purposes and other purposes.

This is only second reading, and we hope against hope, we hope for things unseen, we hope for things never seen in this place, we hope that finally this conflict of interest will be seen for what it is and that the government will adopt the recommendations of its own panel and try to set up a more independent, arm's length agency to deal with the question of nuclear waste. Or is it, as I suspected back in 1979, a fait accompli from the beginning, all this process, 22 years of process to arrive at exactly where the Liberal minister of energy at the time thought the thing would end up in the first place.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

As members know, I am very interested in the whole nuclear energy issue. Last year, Quebecers, and particularly people in the Saguenay region, realized that when the federal government had the ill-conceived idea of importing, by air, a radioactive product, namely MOX plutonium, over their heads.

Today's debate deals with an extremely important issue. Since Canadian nuclear power plants first came into operation, the federal government has never bothered to develop a long term management plan for its nuclear waste. To this day, hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium and plutonium are stored close to nuclear power plants, thus posing an explosive risk to the environment and to public health.

In light of this situation, in 1989, the Minister of the Environment asked an independent panel, chaired by Blair Seaborn, to examine the long term management of our nuclear waste.

The panel released its report nine years later, in February 1998. In a speech delivered on May 15, the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned that he would follow up on the recommendations of the commission to the effect that, to be considered acceptable, a concept for managing nuclear fuel wastes must have broad public support. It must, among other things, enjoy broad public support and it must be advanced by a stable and trustworthy proponent and overseen by a trustworthy regulator.

I must make a short digression here. Again, any management concept must enjoy broad public support. Hon. members will remember that, less than a year ago, I fought along with other groups against the import of MOX fuel. In spite of the short time frame given to the public to express its views and in spite of the fact that this was really a bogus consultation, hundreds of people took time to make comments and suggestions to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Natural Resources, and to say that they did not want other countries' radioactive waste.

I have in hand Transport Canada's report following these so-called public consultations. It is a 700 or so page document where virtually all of the stakeholders said no to this plan to import. The report also contains resolutions from close to 200 municipalities, including the Montreal urban community, the Quebec urban community and other regional municipalities that are also against importing plutonium into Canada.

Furthermore, a unanimous report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade mentions, and I quote:

The Committee recommends that the Government reject the idea of burning MOX fuel in Canada because this option is totally unfeasible.

Did the government take this comments into consideration? No. It proceeded against the whole world to import 680 grams of Russian military plutonium.

What is happening with Bill C-27? Is the minister going to take public opinion into consideration? The Minister of Natural Resources waxed eloquently during his speech about how Bill C-27 had not been created in a vacuum, but took into account comments make by the public. I find that strange, because I do not recall reading in the papers any announcements regarding any “Consultation regarding establishing a long-term nuclear fuel waste management plan” with the lovely Canada logo above it.

If the minister thinks that asking the advice of a handful of specialists working in the field of nuclear energy constitutes a transparent process, he should think again.

The Seaborn panel's second recommendation asks that all nuclear fuel waste management proposals be advanced by a stable and trustworthy proponent and overseen by a trustworthy regulator.

Yet in his speech the Minister of Natural Resources said that, under this bill, the major decisions will be made by the governor in council.

As far as the methods of management are concerned, the bill as it reads states only that the minister “may” consult the general public. Everyone will agree with me that there is nothing transparent about this bill, since all decisions will be taken by the Minister of Natural Resources. Once again, all comments by the public will be shunted aside and public opinion will be ignored. But the question of nuclear energy is too important to be ignored.

I will also point out that the way our nuclear waste is to be disposed of is not yet defined. Here is a quick quiz question: who will define the selected method? The public? Of course not. What the bill indicates instead is that the final choice of method will be made by the Canadian government.

There is no nuclear tradition in Quebec. Of course, we have the Gentilly 2 generating station, but its output is insignificant compared to the hydroelectric output of LG-2 and Manic 5. Unlike Ontarians, the people of Quebec are not receptive to nuclear industry. The concept of long-term nuclear waste management, therefore, must not be implemented at the expense of Quebec.

The Seaborn panel recommended that nuclear fuel waste be stored permanently in a geological formation similar to the Canadian shield. From a geographic standpoint, this geological area represents about 90% of the area of Quebec.

Are we to conclude that all Canadian radioactive waste will be stored in Quebec in the Canadian shield? With C-27, it appears that that could be the case, since the final decision rests with cabinet and the Minister of Natural Resources.

How could such an approach be acceptable to Quebecers? After the fight waged by the people of Abitibi and Témiscamingue against the disposal of waste in an abandoned mine in northern Ontario, does the government think it will be able to bury radioactive waste in old mines in Val-d'Or or Amos without anyone having any say? I doubt it very much. Rest assured, because Quebecers are not the only ones who do not want this matter buried on their land.

Clearly, we cannot oppose the long term management of nuclear waste, but does this issue have to run afoul of Canadians and Quebecers? The minister has to realize that fear of things nuclear is strongly entrenched in people, and we cannot blame them, especially when we consider Canada's nuclear infrastructures.

In his speech, the minister refers to the “unequalled security record of Canadian nuclear facilities”. I beg to differ.

On August 17, the French network of the CBC reported that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had concerns about the quality of maintenance of the main reactor at the Chalk River nuclear facility near Ottawa. It feared that the numerous departures of experts and engineers in recent years might jeopardize the safety of its activities.

According to Paul Lafrenière, director of the Chalk River nuclear facilities, since 1957 its technicians have been trained on the job, believe it or not! I find this most disconcerting. As well, this is where building 220 is located, and military plutonium was stored there between 1950 and 1957.

I would like to revisit the question of importing the plutonium from dismantled ballistic missiles.

As the bill stands, there is no indication that the disposal of nuclear waste will involve just Canadian waste. The door is therefore opened to imports of MOX from the U.S. or Russia.

Let us recall the Prime Minister's promise made in April 1996 at the Moscow summit, that Canada would import close to 100 tonnes of this over the next 20 to 25 years. In January 2000, 120 grams of MOX arrived by helicopter from the United States, and another 680 grams from Russia.

At the time, the Minister of Natural Resources said that Canada would not import additional MOX until it had developed a concept for the long term management of nuclear waste.

Now, the last building block is in place. With this bill, the legislative framework will be complete. Once this concept is accepted, all by recommendation of the governor in council, 100 tonnes of plutonium will be transported by airplane, helicopter, boat or truck across our country to be burned in the CANDU reactors.

Setting aside the events of September 11, why is the Canadian government offering up on a silver platter to the Americans an easy way to dispose of their plutonium? All members know that the Americans are large producers of nuclear energy. Recently, we learned that the United States had extended the authorized operating life of their nuclear generating stations by 60 years.

More than ever, it is clear that the federal government is trying to prolong the life of its nuclear reactors. With this concept of waste management, it will be able to continue along this road. But what benefit does it hope to achieve?

Historically, the federal government has invested over $5 billion dollars in nuclear energy and has been putting about $150 million annually into this form of energy since 1994. Everywhere in the world, even among the nations which are the greatest users of nuclear energy, questions are being asked about this kind of energy and there are plans to gradually dismantle the stations. In this regard, we need only mention the case of France and of Germany.

In November 1999, during the meeting of parties to the convention on climate change in Bonn, Germany, Canada put forward a plan which would give emission credits to countries exporting nuclear reactors, thus allowing Canada to meet its objectives indirectly, without reducing its own emissions.

Despite growing opposition from the public, Canada is continuing down the nuclear path instead of promoting renewable energy and adopting strong policies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

We know that Canada is way behind when it comes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.To remedy this, Canada is pushing nuclear energy, which does not give off greenhouse gases. This is a position which can even be found on the home page of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's website. In fact—