Evidence of meeting #49 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was great.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Just to clarify that, Mr. Ullrich, a few times you referred to your review. I think that's what Mr. Coderre is referring to.
Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
We would be very happy to provide that. We did submit extensive comments with technical background to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and we would be very happy to provide all of that to you as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. Thank you.
Whether you're participating here, by teleconference, or by video conference, thank you to all of you.
I will suspend the meeting now as we change witnesses. We'll come back with the second panel in a couple of minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We're ready to start our second panel. This will be a bit of an abbreviated panel, so I would encourage everyone making a presentation to keep to the allotted time.
We have with us today, and we welcome, from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, president; from the Power Workers' Union, David Shier, assistant to the president; from the Union of Ontario Indians, Christopher Plain, southwest regional chief, Anishinaabek Nation territory, and Chief, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, along with Jody Kechego; and, via video conference from Owen Sound, Alan Barfoot, mayor, the Township of Georgian Bluffs.
We'll hear the presentations in the order in which they appear on the agenda, and we'll start with Mr. Edwards.
Go ahead, please, with your presentation.
Dr. Gordon Edwards President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present to you. Thank you very much for the invitation; I appreciate it.
I believe we have to acknowledge that nuclear energy isn't what it used to be. Nuclear energy in Canada is going through a mid-life crisis. When we see the failures of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in terms of the MAPLE reactors that turned out to be a fiasco, when we see the NRU reactor that has suffered some lamentable lapses, and when we see the cost overruns in the refurbishments that are going on, all of this shakes people's confidence in the ability of nuclear technology to solve all problems. The idea is that you have a problem and you just slap some technology on it, and that solves it. One has to realize that this is the situation we're in.
Also, I think that not only is there some degradation of confidence in AECL, for example, and therefore in nuclear technology, but also in nuclear regulation. The difficulty here, I think, is that while the CNSC does excellent work on technical matters, physical matters, engineering, geology, and various things, it really does not have much expertise in the biomedical field or in the human relations field, you might say, and the result is this.
We heard Mr. Binder the other day saying that basically this is just a new technology, that's all—a new technology for dealing with the steam generators. I think that's a very short-sighted view; it's more than just a new technology. There are millions of other people who are potentially concerned about knowing what this is going to do to their communities, even what kind of fears or anxieties might arise, so it's not just a question of switching technologies.
The idea that we don't need another environmental assessment because all it is doing is substituting one technology for another totally overlooks the fact that there is a whole other constituency—a much, much larger constituency—that would have had no reason to want to intervene in the original environmental assessment about the refurbishment when it was said that the steam generators would stay on site until the year 2043.
By the way, that facility already exists, and by the way, that's where the steam generators really are, and by the way, OPG had signed a contract with Bruce Power to build a segmentation facility to take those things apart. So there really is—and this, I think, is very important to realize—nothing consequential for the nuclear industry in sending these steam generators overseas or keeping them on site. Nothing. In no way does not shipping the steam generators.... We've talked about the consequences of shipping them. What about the consequences of not shipping them?
The consequences of not shipping them are zilch, except for the fact that shipping would save Bruce Power some money, and not shipping would reduce a lot of anxiety and perhaps not exacerbate the crisis of confidence that people are feeling in nuclear technology at the present time. Why stir up the pot when you don't have to? What is the advantage to Canada--or to Bruce Power, for that matter--in sending these things overseas?
Well, I've looked at the documents. I have the documents that were signed with OPG. All the prices are blotted out, but it seems quite clear that really, as you would expect with a private company, it is the bottom line. The company is trying to reduce its volume so that it can spend less money on long-term storage costs, and that's the advantage; that's the payoff for them.
There might be another payoff as well, which I won't speculate on, but it may be just simply that it wants to demonstrate that it can send this stuff whenever it wants, wherever it wants, without anybody really stopping it.
I would like to talk about the three precedents. I've given you a handout, which includes a copy of a letter I've sent to all members of Parliament. In our opinion, precedent one is that it will be the first time Canada has exported or imported radioactive waste from a refurbished or a decommissioned nuclear reactor. The concern is that this precedent will be followed by many other such shipments. In fact, we know for sure that Bruce Power is planning other such shipments, and I'm sure all the other nuclear operators in North America are watching to see what happens.
With regard to the comparisons, I understand the comparisons with the radiation levels, the isotope shipments, and the steam generator shipments, but people know the difference between goods and garbage. It's one thing to ship goods: you have a customer who actually wants to buy this stuff, you know what you're shipping, and you know the purpose of it. Then there's garbage, which nobody wants.
People may be willing to tolerate the risk of dangerous chemical goods coming through the communities and may draw the line when it comes to dangerous, toxic chemical garbage. I think trying to equate those two on a political level is wrong. Do we want to add another stream of nuclear garbage on top of the stream of nuclear goods? That's really the question.
My point here is that we want a political process, a democratic political process, to take stock of where we are in this country and what our policies should be. It's not up to Bruce Power to decide the right thing to do. It sounds as if Bruce Power is willing to do the right thing, even if you have to shove it down our throats. The point is that not everybody agrees that it's the right thing to do, obviously. What gives Bruce Power any special expertise in knowing what the right thing to do is?
What is it, in fact, they're planning to do? They're planning to send this stuff over to Sweden.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into this, but I'll ask you to look at the package of information I gave you. The main point is that in terms of safety, it's a very complex cocktail of radioactive substances, which are extraordinarily toxic. Plutonium amounts to more than 90% of the radioactive content. Moreover, when this stuff is shipped over to Sweden, some of that material will end up in the waste stream. Although the Bruce Power spokesmen here said that there was no radioactivity and that this was clean metal, that is not true. If you look at the record, you will see that Studsvik has explicit limits on how much plutonium, how much cobalt-60, how much of this, and how much of that can end up in the metal according to their standards. The Studsvik representative also said explicitly that they have to blend it with 10 parts of non-contaminated metal so that--what? Does anybody want contaminated metal? No. It's so they can pass it off as if it's not contaminated.
I call that more of a scam than a business. In a sense, they're not recycling contaminated metal; they're contaminating recycled metal.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you very much, Mr. Edwards.
We go now to David Shier, assistant to the president of the Power Workers' Union.
Go ahead, please, sir, with your presentation.
David Shier Assistant to the President, Power Workers' Union
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee. Thank you for taking the time to give us the opportunity to provide the views of the workers in the industry who are going to be involved with this project.
To start, I've provided a copy of my notes in English and French. Everybody should have copies of them.
The Power Workers' Union represents approximately 2,300 workers employed at the Bruce nuclear site. The PWU has been the bargaining agent for the majority of employees at Bruce Power since Bruce Power became the operator in 2000. Prior to that, the Power Workers' Union was a bargaining agent for the majority of employees of Ontario Power Generation, and before that with Ontario Hydro. We've been the bargaining unit for people in this industry in Ontario for more than 50 years.
We represent the front line of the day-to-day operations of this facility, as well as the workers at Ontario Power Generation's Pickering and Darlington nuclear power plants. We also have a bargaining unit at AECL's Chalk River facility.
Many of our members have experience working on these steam generators on maintenance, outages, and so on and so forth. The vast majority of PWU-represented employees at the Bruce site live with their families in the immediate and surrounding vicinity.
The PWU is also affiliated with the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council. The CNWC is a council of unions that represent nuclear workers across Canada. The PWU is also affiliated with the International Nuclear Workers' Union Network, based in Geneva, Switzerland. It is called INWUN. It is an organization similar to our Canadian council, and the Power Workers' Union has the role of coordinating that international network. The PWU is the source of information on nuclear power issues for the labour movement in Canada as well as internationally.
PWU members are very well aware of the situation around the transportation of the steam generators to Sweden. Their first choice, naturally, would be to have this work performed in Canada, but they understand that the technology is not currently available in Canada. That said, the Power Workers' Union is in full support of the CNSC's decision to allow Bruce Power to transport the 16 steam generators to Sweden.
The PWU has been briefed on the details of the proposed shipment and is satisfied that the steam boilers can be shipped safely. We also believe this is a true example of recycling and suggest that the majority of the public, when they know the true facts, will support this type of project.
The PWU is a stakeholder in the nuclear industry and actively participates in CNSC hearings on a regular basis. It should go without saying that we are very familiar with the nuclear industry. As previously mentioned, Power Workers' Union members live in communities in the vicinity of the Bruce site, along the proposed transportation route, and in Owen Sound. The PWU representatives have consulted with our members and have received no concerns at all in regard to this issue.
Our union has also contacted building trade unions on site that will be involved in transporting the steam generators to Owen Sound. We have also contacted the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council and the Grey Bruce Labour Council. All of these labour groups are in full support of the transportation licence being issued to Bruce Power.
The Power Workers' Union has been having discussions with unions that will be involved with the transportation process, including the operators of the locks in the Great Lakes, the union that represents the workers on the ship that these vessels will be transported in, and the union at the facility in Sweden. All of these unions have indicated their support. The only concern we received was from the Seafarers' International Union, as they believe that a Canadian ship should be utilized instead of an offshore ship.
Our union has briefed other unions on the basics of this issue, and once they heard the facts, they were supportive and satisfied. As you are aware, the CNSC has given this project a very thorough review as per their mandate, in our opinion. As a union, we are naturally fully supportive of public consultation and open dialogue. We suggest that the public and the opposition groups have been more than fairly consulted on this issue to date. We believe, as has been suggested by others, that many groups have been spreading inaccurate information about this project. Most of these organizations, we suggest, are the same ones that oppose anything that is associated with the nuclear industry. We also suggest that true environmentalists should be applauding this project, as it meets their goals to recycle, reuse, reduce, etc. It is our belief that the high majority of Canadians have no concerns with this project.
We suggest it is time to move ahead and allow Bruce Power to begin the process of doing the correct environmental thing and transport these vessels to Sweden for recycling.
In conclusion, the PWU is in full support of this project, as are other unionized workers in the industry.
Thank you for your time. I will be very pleased to answer any questions that you may have in this regard.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you very much, Mr. Shier, for your presentation. It's very much appreciated.
We go now to the next group. From the Union of Ontario Indians, we have Mr. Plain and Mr. Kechego. Go ahead with your presentation; you have up to seven minutes.
Chief Christopher Plain Southwest Regional Grand Chief, Anishinabek Nation Territory; Chief, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, Union of Ontario Indians
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Plain, and I am the elected chief of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, which is just south of the city of Sarnia.
I am also the southwest regional grand chief representing my area, and my traditional territory stems from Walpole Island right up to Goderich at the Maitland River. I come from that perspective.
The Anishinabek nation, which I am here representing, consists of seven tribal groups. We are the original inhabitants of the Great Lakes region. We have lived in harmony with the environment and been self-sustaining as a result of this environment. The Anishinabek citizens understand and respect the delicate balance between the use and maintenance of the Great Lakes waters. These waters also provide a spiritual and maternal tie, as many of our teachings and our stories are behind these waters.
The Anishinabek nation incorporated into the Union of Ontario Indians in 1949 as a political advocate and secretariat to 39 first nations across Ontario that are all located within the Great Lakes Basin. The Union of Ontario Indians' mandate includes acting as a political advocate on behalf of the member first nations and coordinating our positions on a wide variety of issues. The Union of Ontario Indians also provides a policy analysis of legislation and policy of both federal and provincial governments.
This support includes the health and well-being of our Great Lakes and inland water, water management, and communicating the concerns and needs of our member first nations. The Anishinabek nation, as aboriginal people of Canada, opposes and disapproves of the Bruce Power plans and any other future plans to transport or ship any radioactive waste or radioactive contaminated equipment through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Anishinabek nation's reason for opposition is that the radioactive waste through the Great Lakes presents a great risk to our waters' environment and to aboriginal safety.
The Anishinabek nation has a long-standing use and occupation of the lands and waters in the Great Lakes Basin. This is seen through signed treaties. Some first nations did not sign treaties, and they still have rights that have yet to be extinguished. First nation treaty and inherent rights are protected as part of the highest law in Canada. Both treaty and inherent rights are constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada.
The Badger case in 1996 states that:
...the honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealing with Indian people. Interpretations of treaties and statutory provisions which have an impact upon treaty or aboriginal rights must be approached in a manner which maintains the integrity of the Crown. It is always assumed that the Crown intends to fulfil its promises. ...any ambiguities or doubtful expressions in the wording of the treaty or document must be resolved in favour of the Indians. A corollary to this principle is that any limitations which restrict the rights of Indians under treaties must be narrowly construed.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to accommodate and consult with first nations on completed actions that may impact upon constitutionally protected treaty and aboriginal rights.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s Taku and Haida decisions ruled that the crown has a legal duty to consult and where indicated to accommodate the concerns of aboriginal groups when the crown has knowledge of the potential existence of an aboriginal right and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.
The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled in the Mikisew Cree case that the principle is also applicable to treaty rights. To date there has been no accommodation or consultation with the first nations that are located in the Great Lakes Basin.
The Union of Ontario Indians provided correspondence, a letter dated July 26, stating that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to accommodate and consult with first nations. The UOI also requested a face-to-face meeting, but was never given that opportunity; in response, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission encouraged the Anishinabek nation to attend a public hearing on September 29. However, this forum was not consultation, nor did it allow for discussion, questions, or feedback.
The Union of Ontario Indians maintains that aboriginal and treaty rights and any first nation interest in its traditional territory cannot be abrogated, derogated, or infringed in any way. These rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. The Canadian government has a long history of neglecting first nation reserve lands that have been contaminated through the actions of others. First nations have been struggling for decades for remediation of their lands and waters. We do not want to see the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River contaminated or tainted with radioactive waste. The Anishinabek cannot accept assurances of safety or remediation in the event of an accident. The potential long-lived contamination to the environment and to all living entities is too great, and it is very real to our communities.
Forty million people retrieve drinking water from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. In addition, many communities are currently battling invasive species, loss of traditional foods, contaminated sediments, decline in fisheries, decline in water levels, areas of concern, and the list goes on. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway cannot take any more impacts. The lack of protection for the environment has affected the way of life of our first nations citizens.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has also failed to recognize Anishinabek or first nations jurisdiction. We were never conquered nor were these lands uninhabited. The Great Lakes waters and lake beds were not ceded under any treaty.
In the Van der Peet decision, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that section 35(1) of the Constitution Act protects aboriginal rights that extend to both land and water. Under the Badger decision, the onus of proving that aboriginal and treaty rights have been extinguished lies with the crown, and there must be “strict proof of extinguishment”.
The Anishinabek nation has treaty rights with respect to the management of waters. Anishinabek lands occupy the Great Lakes shoreline; the Anishinabek nation maintains that they have title and inherent rights to those waters. As a result, the first nations have jurisdiction over them, and that should be respected.
The Anishinabek nation opposes any nuclear shipment or transport of radioactive waste or radioactive contaminated equipment.
Given the risk of harm to human health, to aquatic habitat, to species, and to the environment, and given that there is immense international concern in relation to Bruce Power's licence, the decision should enforce that the lakes be protected. The Anishinabek nation still should have been consulted and involved in the decision-making process of this initiative.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Chief Plain.
We go now to the last presenter on this panel. By videoconference from Owen Sound, Ontario, from the township of Georgian Bluffs, we have Mr. Alan Barfoot, mayor. Welcome, sir; go ahead with your presentation.
Alan Barfoot Mayor, Township of Georgian Bluffs
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Grey County is the adjoining municipality to Bruce County on the land route to Owen Sound, where the generators will be loaded onto the ship.
Bruce County spoke to all the affected municipalities and all the local councils, as well as to the highways committees and the health board. In addition, open houses were held, and all the opportunities were there for everyone to ask questions and to have them answered.
The following motion was endorsed by our council at Georgian Bluffs as well as the Grey County Council:
Whereas Bruce Power has provided detailed presentations about the proposed project to transport used steam generators to Sweden for recycling to Grey County Council, the transportation and public safety committee, and the municipalities that are on the proposed route;
and whereas Bruce Power has a proven track record for safe operation;
and whereas Bruce Power had a proven track record for responsible environmental performance;
and whereas the proposed project will significantly reduce the volume of material that will need to be managed in long-term storage;
and whereas the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is providing nuclear safety oversight to the project;
now therefore be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the County of Grey extends its full support of the proposed project to transport the used steam generators from Bruce Power to Sweden for recycling and the return of the residual low-level radioactive waste to the Western Waste Management facility.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you for your presentation, Mayor. If it's agreeable to everyone, we can go beyond the time the bells start. We'll start with Monsieur Coderre from the official opposition, followed by Mr. Tonks. Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, this is a bit frustrating because there are a lot of issues that we could have delved into further, but we can resolve that amongst ourselves later on.
Dr. Edwards, it seems that you're the master puppeteer. I'd like to know, straightforwardly, why do you think the commission delivered a permit.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
The commission is in the business of delivering permits. It has almost never denied a permit. Every time they're asked, they've given one. I don't recall any situation in which they have denied a reactor operator a permit. That's their business.
I don't think a licensing agency should be setting Canadian government policy. That is the job of elected officials and that is what I would like to see. I'd like to see a policy coming out.
In Quebec, for example, the René Lévesque government had a policy on nuclear reactors. That policy then governs what Hydro-Québec can do. Other provinces in this country have had policies on uranium mining, which govern what uranium mining companies can do. Where is the policy from the federal government or the provincial governments on all this radioactive waste? Are we just going to leave this to the proponents to manage?
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I read the report. I read all your issues you sent.
The question is about safety too, right? Do you believe the commission did the right thing and had the proper expertise to say that it's safe? Do you believe this transportation will be safe?
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Those are two separate questions.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
I don't think the commission did the right thing; they bent the rules. They themselves acknowledge that at least six times more than the maximum amount of radioactivity normally allowed on a single vessel has been exceeded, and they're not obliged to give a licence in that condition. They may give a licence. It is said they can make a special arrangement, but why should they, when there is no health or environmental reason to do so? In other words, there isn't a health or environmental justification for this project. Therefore, the CNSC is wrong to have made this decision.
It is also wrong that they act like a proponent. They have done more work in promoting this concept and selling it.... They have even been using slogans from Bruce Power, such as “reducing our environmental footprint” and “it's the right thing to do”. I think this is the wrong thing for a regulatory agency to be doing, and I think that for the Government of Canada, the difficulty here is lack of oversight. I believe the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has grown so close to the industry that there is no longer much separation between them, and that's not good for the future.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
No. As for safety, very likely this shipment would proceed without danger, I agree, but we're setting a trend here, and remember this: from the beginning of the nuclear age, people have been assured over and over again that nuclear waste will be isolated from the environment of living things. It will be sequestered. It will be stored securely. Now all of a sudden we're talking about recycling nuclear waste. This is very sudden. It wasn't so a few years ago. This is very alarming. We don't recycle bubonic plague, pardon the language. We don't recycle poison ivy. We should not be recycling radioactive waste.
According to Bruce Power:
For example scrap metals which are proven not to be radioactive are recycled. However, much of the waste, and particularly low and intermediate level waste containing radioactivity cannot be recycled for safety and environmental reasons.
That's from Bruce Power giving a presentation to the Saugeen First Nation.
Here is the CNSC in their screening report for the environmental assessment:
Some of the waste is directly recyclable; however, the largest waste quantities are associated with the pressure-tube/calandria tube replacement and the steam generator replacement, since the replaced components cannot be recycled and must be disposed of at the Western Waste Management Facility.
There has been no explanation of this very sharp U-turn in the policy of the CNSC and Bruce Power, and I don't believe the Government of Canada should sit by and let this--
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I'm sorry; I have only five minutes, Dr. Edwards.
If we have a policy and you feel the safety is there, you don't have a problem.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
I don't believe it is safe in the long run. Bruce Power assured workers at the refurbishment site that they were perfectly safe to go in and work there without any protective equipment. As a result of this, almost 500 workers now have breathed plutonium dust into their lungs over the course of the weeks before it was detected, and those men will be carrying that radioactive material in their bodies for a long time to come.
By the way, nobody was fired. There were no fines. That's the kind of watchdog we have. It's more of a lapdog than a watchdog.
The problem here is that these assurances of safety are really not true. The same dust that contaminated those 500 workers is in those steam generators.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
We now go to the Bloc Québécois. Monsieur Pomerleau, you have up to five minutes.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm surprised and delighted to hear you, Mr. Edwards, for the simple reason that, of all the people I've heard, you're the only one who has asked the real question, the question that kills. Do we need to transport these generators? And the answer is no. There's no need to do that except to enable a company in Ontario to make more money. That's the basis of the matter. Is it safe? We can debate that for a long time. Is it risky for aboriginal people? Of course. We never take care of them; we never take care of their rights. Of course it's risky for them, but we don't need to carry out this project.
I'd like you to comment on the subject a little. You didn't have enough time to explain yourself, and your answers are of greater interest to me than my questions.
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
In Canada, I think we need a broad consultation at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on what we should be doing with the toxic radioactive waste, a consultation on whether we should be allowing it to be exported, imported, or transported over our precious lakes and rivers.
Also, the classification of the waste is ridiculous. Low-level waste is simply anything that isn't high-level waste, and high-level waste is simply irradiated fuel. Anything that isn't irradiated fuel is automatically low-level waste. That's ridiculous. It doesn't have any reality to it.
For example, with respect to the steam generators, we've heard the comparison with isotopes. Medical isotopes have a half-life of 66 hours, which means that in a matter of weeks, if there were an accident, the stuff would be gone. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. There's the comparison.
We have to classify our nuclear waste. The Americans have done this. When the Americans have plutonium-contaminated waste, they do not call it low-level waste; they call it TRU waste, transuranic waste, and it's treated just like high-level waste. It's treated very, very carefully; it's not treated casually. They have another category called Greater-Than-Class-C waste, which also can cover some of these toxic materials.
We have a very inadequate system of regulation of waste--even classification of waste--in this country. Unless the government, the elected officials, insist upon a review and a careful look at this, we're going to find ourselves in a difficult situation in a few years, because the danger mounts.