Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I take part today in this debate at second reading of Bill C-236 introduced by my colleague from Fraser Valley East, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into Canada.
I want to remind you at the outset that, in May 1995, the report of the Auditor General of Canada contained a chapter on this issue, entitled: Federal Radioactive Waste Management. Page 3-5 of this report provides, and I quote: "Canada has no disposal facilities for any of its high-level or low-level radioactive waste." And further on: "Decisions still have to be taken in Canada on whether and how to proceed to a disposal solution. Despite the significant investment, in Canada, of about $538 million in research and development, there has been no consideration of alternative approaches for moving Canada's high-level radioactive waste program forward after March 1997, when current federal funding ends."
Clearly, Canada is not yet equipped to receive foreign countries' radioactive waste. Since Canada does not know yet what to do with its own waste, how could it deal with, dispose of or store other countries'?
In this sense, the bill by my Reform colleague may seem premature and untimely, since Canada is not soon going to become the nuclear waste dumpsite of the world. But as untimely as it may be, Bill C-236 is to me a good message to send to the authorities so that they seriously question the appropriateness of bringing foreign countries' nuclear waste to our shores.
Currently, Canadian nuclear authorities are considering two projects for our nuclear waste. The first one deals with the permanent storage of spent fuel, or highly radioactive waste, and the other one deals with the development of a low radioactive waste disposal site in Ontario, in Deep River to be more precise.
As far as the permanent storage of spent fuel is concerned, the authorities are considering the possibility of storing this highly radioactive waste in a huge cave dug into the Canadian shield. According to present plans, this cave should be ready by the year 2025 and more than 4 million spent fuel clusters could be stored there. For your information, a cluster is about the size of a fireplace log and the anticipated 4 million clusters represent a volume equivalent to that of seven Olympic swimming pools. This spent fuel, 85 per cent of which is produced by Hydro Ontario reactors, remains highly radioactive for at least 500 years, and its handling requires appropriate steps to ensure the protection of human beings and the environment during this period.
In fact, certain elements of this fuel remain harmful for tens of thousands of years if they escape containment and are ingested or inhaled.
In view of this portrait of the Canadian situation, not to say Ontarian, we must ask if we really want more of such hazardous waste, especially coming from abroad. An article published in the Globe and Mail on October 27, 1994 entitled:
"Canada eyed as world site for nuclear waste, proposal to use Canadian Shield called dangerous".
-shows the fears and apprehensions of environmentalists with regard to this issue of permanent disposal. The article says at the beginning, and I quote:
"It may take 20 to 50 years to happen, but Canada has moved one step closer to becoming the world's nuclear waste dump site, environmental critics charged yesterday".
Environmental groups argue that Canada cannot legally ban the import of radioactive waste from the United States and that Canadian nuclear authorities might find it beneficial to open their future site to foreign waste. One can also read, and I quote:
"You build a dump here and you can bet the U.S. will be beating the bushes to get rid of their stuff".
These are very real concerns of environmentalists that we must consider very seriously.
More recently, the Prime Minister of Canada gave his support to a feasibility study to import into Canada plutonium from Russian and American nuclear warheads to burning it as fuel in our CANDU reactors. This plutonium considered waste by these countries is considered fuel by Canada.
That is about one hundred tonnes of plutonium that we would burn in the interest of a peace effort, according to the Prime Minister. But once this plutonium is burned, it produces highly radioactive waste. How many bundles will be added to ours, to the 4 million bundles expected by the end of 2033? This roundabout way for foreigners to dispose of their plutonium waste raises some serious questions.
Would it not be better to sell them Candu reactors so as to make them autonomous and responsible for their own waste? And why should those countries not find their own solutions to this problem?
This overview of the status of highly radioactive waste clearly shows we must be careful and the apparent danger of linking the issue of financial profits to that of the environment in this matter.
Spent fuel is and must be considered extremely toxic, with all the adverse effects that may occur in case of management problems.
As for low level radioactive waste, Canadian authorities are also considering a type of permanent storage. Deep River was chosen as the site, as I said earlier. One of the technologies being developed involves the use of an underground structure protected against intrusion, consisting of a series of concrete vaults where waste would be stored for 500 years, after which it would be harmless. This project is not going down smoothly in this Ontarian locality and serious concerns are being expressed throughout the region. Can you imagine the reaction the communities concerned would have if, in addition, they were to receive waste made in the USA?
I look favourably on the bill put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. While Canada may be renowned around the world for being accommodating, it should not have to become the nuclear waste-basket of the world just to live up to its reputation.
Finally, I would suggest that the Prime Minister and his ministers and members of Parliament take a good hard look at what impact importing plutonium will have in Canada.
Members from Ontario, and particularly those in whose riding CANDU reactors have already been designated to burn plutonium, thereby adding to the radioactive waste problem, should consult their voters on this issue.