Natural Resources Committee on May 15th, 2012

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but what you're saying is that for the moment, the commission has not developed unique criteria for these types of applications.

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Oh, no. We've just released a regulatory document that at very high level and in general terminology does define the minimum criteria.

Mr. Howden, you may want to jump in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Howden.

[Barclay Howden, Director General, Directorate of Regulatory Improvement and Major Projects Management, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Thank you very much.

Within our regulatory framework we do have two documents focused on small reactors. One is “Design Requirements for Small Reactors” and the other is “Deterministic Safety Requirements for Small Reactors”. What these do is to set out the safety goals.

They set out the safety goals for accident frequencies and consequences. One of the things we look at is external events, whether they would be weather events or security type events, and those are assessed uniquely in the particular site that is chosen.

Based on the Fukushima events that occurred last year, events that were then thought to be beyond the design basis are now considered to be within the design basis. So we require our proponents to come in and explain, regardless of how they got there, how they are going to survive without power and water. Then they really have to show that their safety case could hold up. Then we don't worry as much about what caused it, but how the reactor is going to survive the event regardless of what caused it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you.

I'll move on to Mr. von Mirbach.

I have two questions for you, Mr. von Mirbach. First, in the commission's presentation that you've just heard, they talked about consultation with aboriginal people. You as well have spoken repeatedly about the importance of consultation. I would like you to come back to what you raised when you talked about ensuring that any offshore oil and gas exploration be coupled with a regional marine spatial plan. Then you referenced the Beaufort Sea partnership as a basis for this.

Could you give us a little more detail about the Beaufort Sea partnership, how you see that as a foundation for consultations with aboriginal peoples? As well, can you offer some suggestions both for the nuclear commission and for any other regulatory agency in the north as to how they should be consulting appropriately with aboriginal peoples in the north?

[Martin von Mirbach]

Thank you.

I'll perhaps respond to your second question first and just urge everyone to look at the ICC declaration on resource development, which, in 57 principles, gives more detail than I can and is really appropriate. It's really a valuable document for all resource development users—and done in a very thoughtful way.

ICC was challenged in doing this. It was a protracted process because its members have varying degrees of confidence and interest in resource development. So it's a nuanced document, and I think valuable because of that.

That, in some ways, is a segue to the first question around the Beaufort Sea partnership. Its characteristic is that it's a multi-stakeholder body that has developed an integrated ocean management plan for the Beaufort Sea, involving all of the key management agencies from the federal and Inuit land claims holders and also a variety of stakeholders, including industry, environmental organizations, and municipalities.

The virtue of the Beaufort Sea partnership, and in some ways what is offered through this initiative, is that it has in its mind and its planning the idea of developing a marine spatial plan, but at this point it hasn't yet established the momentum to actually to do that and is operating quite carefully and cautiously.

The characteristic that I would say distinguishes what the Beaufort Sea partnership might do with a marine spatial plan, as opposed to what is currently done, is that instead of dealing with a particular issue in a sector-specific way, which currently is the case with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, which looks at licensing in the offshore areas and specific leases and particular conflicts around those leases, there is, in a larger sense, an opportunity to look at all of the issues, including shipping, commercial fishing, and other subsistence uses, and assess all them together in a plan.

The virtue of it, ultimately, is that while a plan including a variety of stakeholder perspectives can be a little more complicated and lengthy to put together, once it's done, it's more politically robust, I would say, in producing a decision that is likely to be sound. Any politician would like a clean recommendation to approve, and that's more likely to happen if all of the interests of stakeholders are involved at the front end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for your questions.

We'll go now to Mr. McGuinty for up to seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here today.

All three of you have referenced environmental assessment directly.

Mr. Binder, you conduct environmental assessments—your council does.

Mr. Mowry, you said there were two important issues to be addressed, one of which you referred to as getting environmental assessment better.

Mr. von Mirbach, you repeatedly referred to both environmental assessment and strategic environmental assessment.

In that context, Mr. Chair, because we're talking about energy in the north and energy and its exploitation and use, the government is obviously bringing in some pretty interesting changes to environmental assessment procedures. Were any of you consulted?

Mr. Binder, was the CNSC consulted with respect to those changes that are now in the budget?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Yes, we were. It's not going to affect us much.

I have to explain. Take a new uranium mine. We are dealing with uranium mines from cradle to grave. It means a 60- to 70-year relationship with a mine, with the mining operation, and with the community that lives around it, so we have always done environmental assessments.

More importantly, the mitigation that comes out from the environmental assessments is written into our licence conditions. Then we monitor it on an ongoing basis, on an annual basis, with inspectors, etc. So to us, it has always been the same. These changes make it a little bit more timely and clarify responsibilities.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So on a 60- to 70-year relationship with a community, for example, are you going to be able to conduct an environmental assessment within, ostensibly, an arbitrary timeline of two years?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

We believe we can do that—absolutely.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You said you have done 66 environmental assessments since 1996. How many have gone over two years?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

I don't have the figures right here. But going over two years is not only a function of us; it's a function of proponents for a variety of reasons. They stop the clock, consult with other departments, etc. Many did go over. But in terms of lapsed time, from our perspective, by and large, it's been less than two years.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You also say that at CNSC you've just made additional funding available. You said, “we launched our participant funding Program to make it easier for the public, including Aboriginal groups, to participate....”

Will the changes being brought to bear now, circumscribing who can testify and be invited to testify, based on either immediate vicinity impacts or expertise only, have a bearing on who—

[Dr. Michael Binder]

That's not the way the program runs. We announce a public hearing, and anybody who thinks they have some value-added to bring in front of the commission can apply.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So your processes won't be affected by the new tests being applied by the government now in the budget bill.

[Dr. Michael Binder]

They won't, to my knowledge.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Are you sure about that?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

The way I read the proposal right now, the way it's being consulted, it will not affect our public hearing and our public consultation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. von Mirbach, was WWF consulted on the changes that are contemplated on environmental assessment?

[Martin von Mirbach]

No.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

To your knowledge were any hearings held or any meetings convened—round tables, councils?

[Martin von Mirbach]

As you know, a number of environmental groups have raised concerns around the measures. One of the concerns is the fact that they're embedded in a budget bill. I should qualify that and say we are a member of the green budget coalition. The green budget coalition did indeed consult on financial and budget issues during the development of the budget. It's just our contention that quite a few of the measures in the budget bill should be assessed separately from the strictly financial mechanisms.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. von Mirbach, Mr. Binder was asked whether he could give a number on the cost of Fukushima.

I'm hoping, Mr. Chair, we can get those numbers other than from media reports.

Do you know, or can you provide this committee with numbers, for example, on what it cost to deal with the Exxon Valdez spill and the BP spill?

[Martin von Mirbach]

I'm afraid I don't have those numbers at hand. I can look into them and get them to the committee.