Evidence of meeting #5 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was radioactive.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Edwards, thank you very much for talking about Chalk River. I would now like to ask you another question.
One witness said that the process followed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was an independent regulatory process.
I'd like your opinion on that, given that you've worked for 40 years in the nuclear field and have extensive knowledge of the subject.
Noon
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
I think it would be useful if the CNSC—the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission—reported directly to Parliament on a regular basis. Parliament could summon people who have dealt with the commission and have been unhappy with their findings so that some light can be shone on this matter.
The experience of most interveners is that the commission has what appears to be an open process, but in fact they never refuse to grant a licence. In fact, in their entire history they have never once refused to grant a licence that has been requested of them.
It's rather ironic that the people who speak most highly of the CNSC are the people they're supposed to be regulating. You would think that the people who they are regulating would be complaining about them as being harsh taskmasters, but they're actually not actually harsh taskmasters. Instead of being like a referee in the hockey game, they're like the coach. They don't send them to the penalty box; they just give them a talking to.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
Finally, I'd like to ask you two questions about conflicts of interest at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
First of all, do you have anything to say on that subject?
I'm going to ask you the second question right now.
Do we need a law to ban the import of nuclear waste into Canada?
12:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Both of those questions are very important.
The conflict of interest arises, for example.... To give you an example in another country, in Germany, the industry was using an underground waste repository for low- and intermediate-level waste, called the “Asse II” salt mine. It was leaking radioactive poisons into groundwater and surface water for more than 10 years before anybody spoke up about it, because they had a conflict of interest. They didn't want to give the industry a bad name by revealing that this repository was a failure. Now the government of Germany is spending the equivalent of about $5.7 billion to get all of that radioactive waste out of the repository and back to the surface, and it's going to be dangerous and costly work.
This conflict of interest means that we have to have people who are devoted only to the health and safety of the environment, not to the promotion of the nuclear industry. We have to avoid not only conflict of interest, which is real, but even the appearance of conflict of interest. As long as everything reports to the one minister who is responsible for promoting uranium expansion and nuclear expansion—that is, the natural resources minister—we're in a bad situation.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Yes. We need regulation for that. We need a law that dictates that. It is said so by NWMO, but without any basis in law.
12:05 p.m.
Chief Development Officer and Executive Vice President, Operations, Bruce Power
Mr. Chair, if I could add one very quick thing to the question, I would suggest—
12:05 p.m.
Chief Development Officer and Executive Vice President, Operations, Bruce Power
I'm sorry, sir.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
My first question is for Mr. Edwards.
Regulatory independence is my most pressing concern, though I'm going to follow up on a few questions posed by Madame Pauzé.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned the Seaborn panel, which unanimously recommended that Canada create an independent, arm’s-length radioactive waste organization in 1998. The Liberal government at the time ignored that recommendation and established the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.
I was really sad that you weren't here in the last panel. I asked the president and chief executive officer of the NWMO if she thought the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should be reporting to the Minister of Environment, instead of the Minister of Natural Resources, to mitigate this potential conflict of interest. I was surprised that she firmly said no. You'd think that you would hear that firm “no” from someone with an interest in keeping that conflict of interest alive.
I wanted to see if you had any response to her comment that it was not necessary.
12:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
My main concern is that Parliament has been excluded from nuclear debates from day one. They go ahead with the nuclear operation as if it is a state within a state that doesn't have to be accountable to Parliament. It has to be and should be in a healthy society. This is particularly the case when we deal with radioactive waste. With regard to nuclear safety, the industry has a stake in keeping the reactors safe. It's for their protection, as well as anybody else's.
When it comes to radioactive waste, it's really future generations who are going to bear the burden. By the way, the industry is not always going to be here, so it's going to become a legacy for future generations. We have to think about that, and we have to start working now to prepare for that eventuality. This has to be seen as a transition from an industry problem to a societal problem, and one that is, essentially, never-ending. It's certainly multi-generational.
It's very important that we pass legislation now and investigate thoroughly to see whether those long-term interests are truly being looked after by listening to the people who have complaints to make. Let's see if those complaints are justified.
There are, after all, three underground repositories for radioactive waste—only three—that have operated, and all three of them have failed.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Edwards, on the issue of the NWMO, since it's not a government department—it's exempt from access to information requests and not subject to the same accountability for its decisions—I'm curious whether you think there is an issue of transparency here.
12:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
I think there is an issue of transparency. As I say, the people who are in these small isolated communities, which oftentimes have no more than a thousand people, are being given millions of dollars just for listening to the NWMO year after year after year. But in all of the years, in all of the monthly meetings, NWMO has not bothered to explain to them exactly what the radioactive wastes are, what the radioactive materials are and why they're considered harmful.
If they're so harmful that they can't be left where they are at the reactor sites, why do they suddenly become safe when they're transported up into these remote communities? I don't believe the NWMO is doing a good job of.... The people are not having an opportunity to truly be educated. Really, they're receiving a sales pitch punctuated with scientific studies that support that sales pitch.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
What would be the policies and strategies that would ensure that when this is happening, when we have engagement with indigenous peoples, with the Canadian public and with civil society, it's not simply formulated by a kind of sales pitch or industry influence?
12:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
I think Parliament can play an important role here. One of the important roles for Parliament is simply to bring things to public attention through parliamentary debate. Parliament has never debated the nuclear issue and has never had a full debate as to the pros and cons. In fact, when my organization started, we wrote an open letter—I'll send a copy to the committee—to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau asking precisely for a national debate on both the benefits and the risks of nuclear power for the sake of everybody, so that citizens and parliamentarians alike could understand what the upsides and the downsides were.
We've never had that. Consequently, Parliament, you might say, is basically flying blind and has to rubber-stamp decisions made by others that are not publicly debated or subjected to any truly democratic process.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On something as serious as managing nuclear waste, credibility and public trust are so vitally important. The review of Canada's nuclear waste policies and development of waste management strategies has been under way since November 2020. In your opinion, has the process been open and transparent? Have all Canadians been given equal opportunity to participate?
12:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
What's happened is similar to what happens at the CNSC. Everybody is given an opportunity to say what they have to say, but it's more in the spirit of getting it off your chest. These recommendations are simply not taken seriously by the government.
I believe there were some 400 submissions to the nuclear waste review panel that you're talking about, the one that's looking for a new, more acceptable radioactive waste policy. By the way, this is being managed by the one department that is promoting nuclear power, which is Natural Resources, but—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We're going to have to go to Mr. Davidson now, unfortunately.
Well, it's not unfortunate that we have to go to Mr. Davidson. It's unfortunate that we have to interrupt this discussion.
12:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
February 15th, 2022 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Chair, you're a beauty. Thanks.
Good morning, witnesses, and thanks for coming this morning.
You know, there are pros and cons to everything. I was on my way here—I guess this question is for you, James—and there was an ad on the bus shelter. It talked about Bruce Power isotopes and cobalt-60, a medical isotope produced at Bruce Power as an essential element in the treatment of cancer. I stepped out of the bus shelter and talked to a few people walking down the road. I said, “I just want to talk nuclear power for a second, about some of the great innovations. Do you know what an isotope is, or helium, or cobalt-60?” People were looking at me cross-eyed, James, I have to be honest with you.
I just wonder if you could talk about companies like Bruce Power and what you're doing and what nuclear power does for Canadians and saving lives. A lot of people on the street, I'm going to say boots on the ground, just don't realize what nuclear power does.
12:15 p.m.
Chief Development Officer and Executive Vice President, Operations, Bruce Power
I think it's a great question. I always like to say that facts are our friends. It concerns me that members of the committee hear a lot of misinformation and items that are not built with facts. There's nothing worse than developing policy when we're not talking facts.
If I take a step back, nuclear power right now in the province of Ontario is generating 60% of our power. It's the main power source that allowed us to phase out the use of coal. We're producing life-saving medical isotopes. We're providing isotopes that are used around the world in sterilization, and we do this under an independent....
By the way, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission does report to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources, so I'd encourage people to read the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. We do it safely and we do it reliably, but we also do it recognizing, sir, that we produce a by-product. That is a by-product that we reduce, we reuse and we recycle. Any of that remaining by-product we fully fund through independent regulation. It's included in our cost of generation.
One thing I would say is that we do not do enough effective communication. Any time we engage with people.... You know, I live right next to a nuclear plant. I grew up right next to a nuclear plant. My father worked at the nuclear plant. People who are engaged in the industry and understand these facts tend to be very supportive. I think we have a lot of work still to do to get our message out and get the facts out about the industry.