Debates of Feb. 4th, 1997

Nuclear Safety And Control Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We now move on to debate on Group No. 1.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak at the report stage of Bill C-23.

First of all, to appreciate the amendments the Bloc Quebecois wished to propose, we must understand the purpose of Bill C-23.

In fact, Bill C-23, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, was introduced in this House to replace existing legislation that goes back more than 50 years. As a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I engaged in debate and listened to many submissions on the changes that should be made in the existing legislation, to adapt it for the next millennium.

Most of the testimony by witnesses appearing before the Natural Resources Committee fell into one of two categories. Basically, some said it was necessary to change the existing legislation, which was really obsolete, and that the bill as introduced was not a bad substitute.

There was another group which agreed the legislation was obsolete and had to be changed, but since the old legislation had been around for 50 years, we could have taken a few more months to make changes in the present bill that would have made it even better.

We should realize that the initial legislation was drafted after World War II, when, people will recall, atomic energy was associated with the nuclear bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When the Parliament of Canada discussed the matter, it was felt it would be useful to have legislation to control this energy which was, of course, synonymous with destruction.

After 1950, and especially between 1960 and 1970, nuclear energy was touted as a safe and cheap source of energy to which all Canadians would have ready access. However, after 1970, after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and the many problems, even with the Candu systems in Europe, one may well wonder how safe our nuclear facilities are.

That is why the new bill should reflect the public's concern for greater transparency. They want a bill that would give them some say, the right to oversee actions of the atomic commission such as giving powers to a business or an agency or other actions that might put the safety or health of Canadians and Quebecers at risk.

The Bloc's first amendment to the bill in Motion No. 1 proposes that the Department of the Environment and not the Department of Natural Resources oversee the legislation.

Why? Canadians feel much safer under the umbrella of the Department of the Environment than under that of the Department of Natural Resources. Clearly, the Department of Natural Resources wants natural resources to be developed to their fullest for Canadians, whether it be uranium mines or energy. At the same time, however, we are told that nuclear energy is hard to control, that it takes a lot of research and monitoring. The Department of the Environment would be much more capable of giving Canadians transparency. To this end, amendment No. 1 would be a fine addition to the bill.

Therefore, I recommend that all my colleagues vote for this amendment, which would permit greater transparency and give Canadians even more reasons to trust their institutions.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, there are several points that need to be made here.

First, the existing wording specifies the Minister of Natural Resources but also specifies "or such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as the governor in council may designate as the minister". This gives the Prime Minister full discretion when he or she appoints a minister through whom the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will report to Parliament. The existing wording therefore contains the flexibility that the NSCA should have.

I would point out to members of this House that both the Minister of Natural Resources and Dr. Bishop, president of the Atomic Energy Control Board, took the opportunity when appear-

ing before the committee to stress the independence of the AECB in regulatory matters. There was no disagreement on this important principle.

I would also note that while the commission will report to Parliament through the minister and the minister will be responsible for answering questions regarding the commission in this House, the minister does not and will not get involved in regulatory decision making.

The government must reconcile regulation with promotion at some level. This is done currently by having the AECB and the AECL report to the Minister of Natural Resources. This amendment would merely transfer the level at which regulatory and promotional interests are reconciled to the cabinet level and hence to the Prime Minister. Why not let ministers exercise the responsibilities that come with their portfolios?

As to whether the Minister of the Environment should be the responsible minister, while environmental protection is an object of this bill, it is not the only or even the primary object, which is the health and safety of workers and the public.

This motion is not acceptable to the government.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification are we on Motion No. 1 or Motion No. 2?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Motion No. 1.

Colleagues, in view of the earlier unanimous motion, pursuant to the order made, the question on Group No. 1 is deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred.

The House will now proceed to debate on motions in GroupNo. 2. I hope this is clear.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-23 and the report stage motions before us for consideration.

In addressing the motions put forward by my colleague, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, I note the emphasis that has been placed on providing the public with information. The motions should be viewed with some enthusiasm as they attempt to heighten the public awareness about what goes on in Canada's nuclear industry.

All too often the activities at facilities such as those under the administration of AECL are shrouded in secrecy. Granted, the public's right to know must be tempered with the considerations of national security. However all too often this has meant that the government is given a ready made excuse which it can use to limit Canadians' access to information where matters of atomic energy are concerned.

The stated goal of my colleague's motion is specifically designed to provide information to educate the Canadian public on nuclear activity in Canada. Further, the motions expressly target and entrust the Nuclear Safety Commission with the task of providing that information to the Canadian public.

These measures alone will not guarantee that the nuclear industry will function in a more open manner, but it should mark the beginning of a much needed step in the right direction. In doing so, the government could begin to redress some of the public apprehension and misunderstanding which has plagued activity within the nuclear industry for the past 50 years.

Again I submit to all members that there is a need to inform the public on issues where nuclear safety and energy are concerned. Given what has been going on at AECL facilities across Canada in recent months, public openness by the government is sorely needed.

For example, Canadians should be told about the closure of the Chalk River facility. Canadians should know that their research facility was closed down and effectively destroyed by this Liberal government on January 31, 1997 at 11 a.m. It did not matter that 719 scientists, including three Nobel laureates, had pleaded with the natural resources minister in October to keep this world class research and development facility open.

The government had spent $70 million on building the facility and now that it has been turned off, it is worth nothing. Many of the scientists who worked at that facility are preparing to move to the United States where evidently R and D in this field is taken seriously.

In addition, staff inside TASCC have indicated that equipment from Chalk River may find its way into the Brookhaven Institute which is also south of the border. Think of the message that is being sent out of here by the Canadian government.

Reformers and Canadians can speculate on the myopic vision of the government's commitment to R and D initiatives in Canada. However, the question still remains: Why was this facility closed? The Liberals will tell us it was due to financial constraints, yet for want of $3 million in operating costs the government has thrown away $70 million. In fact, companies like SPAR Aerospace of Canada had been financing much of the research effort at TASCC with private funds. This trend could have eventually seen the facility function independent of tax dollars.

Let us look at the government's priority and commitment to spending in general. The TASCC facility needed $3 million in operating grants which would allow it to continue its experiments. The government claimed it did not have the money. Yet, this is the same government that piddled away $20 million on a Canadian flag giveaway, $100 million toward its unmandated propaganda office in Montreal, $87 million in a loan to the financially sound and profitable Bombardier of Montreal. The Liberals also had $2

million, they found $2 million, to apologize to former Prime Minister Mulroney and pay his lawyers.

Perhaps highlighting those expenses is not fair to my colleagues across the way. After all, as my Liberal colleagues will quickly point out, those expenses are extraneous and unrelated to the workings of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and nuclear energy in general. The members across the way will dutifully bleat that their commitments to R and D is well in line with the red ink book promises. Really?

In much the same fashion Liberal spin doctors can refer to a $25 billion deficit as commendable. Liberals will no doubt see the loss of hundreds of jobs in Chalk River as enhanced R and D. No wonder many Canadians have changed the title of the red ink book to "Creative Opportunism".

But does anyone know what the real blow to the Canadian taxpayer is? It comes in the area of prioritized R and D spending at AECL.

Just before Christmas the government announced the sale of CANDU technology to the Chinese government. In order to get that deal signed the government of Canada committed to lend the Chinese government $1.5 billion, financed-

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is my understanding that we are speaking to Motions Nos. 3 and 6, which were grouped.

Just for clarification, I would like to know which motion the hon. member is speaking to. Is it Motion No. 2 or is it the grouping of Motions Nos. 3 and 6?

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 3 and 6. This is absolutely not a problem. I can understand why the member would be a little embarrassed that we gave the Chinese government $1.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer money, financed off their backs. They do not like that. They do not like to be reminded of that. But the people remember. Think what that means.

The government was willing to gamble over a $1.5 billion but could not come up with a fraction, a tiny fraction of about $3 million in order that the valuable research work could continue at Chalk River. Not even a fraction could it come up with.

The auditor general reported in November 1996 that the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites at federal facilities was estimated at $2 billion. But this does not show up in the government's official accounting of its financial position. It is not there.

The auditor general's report stated that the $2 billion estimate for the federal government's share of the clean-up excludes those costs associated with the clean-up of the radioactive waste and that it constitutes an unrecognized expenditure that could materially affect the government's reported financial condition.

On its own, the example just given highlights the lack of proper accounting procedure by the federal Liberals and represents one more example of mismanagement and lack of accountability to the taxpaying public.

However, when we place that alongside recent efforts by the Minister of Natural Resources to delay and possibly renege on her government's promise to dispose of low level radioactive waste near the town of Deep River, we get the feeling that this government is not serious about conducting such needed research in the area of nuclear waste disposal. This is a schizophrenic government. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

To recap, the government will not recognize the environmental disaster in its own back yard or the potential costs associated with its clean-up. It is scaling back on its promise to the people of Deep River and closing R and D facilities all because it claims it does not have funds needed to pay for services in these areas. However, it has found $1.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers money to lend to the Chinese government.

Sadly, I must conclude my remarks on this matter. In doing so, I would like to remind members on both sides of the House that Bill C-23 is the first such effort in 50 plus years at redefining the relationship between the public and the nuclear industry within Canada.

As such, there is the expectation among Canadians that the government will put measures in place which will open up the nuclear industry to greater public scrutiny. On the other side, it is hoped that the Nuclear Safety Commission tasked with providing information to the public would be more transparent in its dealings.

By supporting these amendments I believe the government would be taking the first tentative steps in this direction and I encourage members on both sides of the House to support the motions before us now.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No. 3, the nuclear regulator must be and must be seen to be unbiased and neutral in its dealings with or support for the nuclear industry.

The nuclear regulator should be clearly seen by the public as avoiding the role of an advocate for the industry. This amendment has the potential to compromise the public's faith in the objectivity and neutrality of the AECB because it does not limit the scope of the regulatory information.

Motion No. 3 uses the word educate. Rightly or wrongly, the word educate is perceived to have a more proactive connotation than the word inform. It raises the possibility that this mandate

could be interpreted to include the possibility of advocacy for or against nuclear activities.

Providing the commission with a mandate to educate the public on non-regulatory nuclear issues would be inconsistent with its regulatory role.

With respect to Motion No. 6, it is the government's belief that clause 9(b) is the appropriate mandate for the commission on this matter. It specifies as one of the commission's objectives the dissemination of objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public on the effects of nuclear activities on health, safety and the environment. In fact, the AECB does this now through its office for public information. This is what is needed, no more and no less.

If the proposed amendment is intended to restate the intent of clause 9(b) in different words, it is redundant and unnecessary. If it is intended to go beyond 9(b), it goes too far. The proposed amendments are not acceptable to the government.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, the importance of this bill is in promoting greater transparency in Canada's nuclear energy sector. Mon hon. colleague from the Liberal Party suggested that providing information and education to Canadians in that respect would amount to propaganda or promotion of some sort. I completely disagree with her because, in my opinion, it is extremely important that Canadians make their own choice regarding nuclear energy.

If we want them to be able to make a choice, they need information. How can one be expected to decide whether there should be more or fewer nuclear plants in Canada without appropriate information on their impact on the environment, including the human environment?

The committee heard from stakeholders. People living in the vicinity of the Pickering plant came before us saying that they are excluded from the decision-making process. They said that surveys and polls are conducted but that, when the time comes to make a decision, the board ignores the views of the Pickering area citizens' committee.

I support all the motions moved by our colleague from the Reform Party and, therefore, think one of the purposes of this bill should be to inform and educate, because there is a difference between information and education.

Who do you think would be in a position to provide this information and education, if not the atomic energy board? This is not the kind of information you can get through the education system. The board being the primary nuclear energy regulatory authority in Canada, it is up to its members, who are familiar with the various studies on the public impact of atomic energy, to provide clear information to the public, depending on what their objective is, so that Canadians can make an informed decision.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will support these two motions, which, in my opinion, improve the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since no one else seems interested in talking to this group of motions, pursuant to the agreement reached earlier today, all motions in Group No. 2 are deemed to have been put and recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to debate on the motions in group No. 3.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to rise and give our position with respect to Bill C-23, an act to establish the Canadian nuclear safety commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts and, in particular, motion No. 4 and motion No. 5.

Motion No. 4 basically calls for the deletion of clause 6, which exempts nuclear submarines. We feel that any vessel, whether it is fixed or moving in the water, should be very stringently subjected to regulations under the Canadian nuclear safety commission and that is what motion No. 4 calls for.

Motion No. 5 would in effect delete clause 7. Clause 7 gives the commission the power to exempt certain nuclear substances. It is our view that no nuclear substances should be exempt under the provisions of this act, the Canadian nuclear safety and control act.

This bill is an update and replacement of the Atomic Energy Control Act. It is supposed to modernize the statute to provide for more explicit and effective regulation of nuclear energy. It deals with regulatory and development aspects of nuclear safety. It establishes a basis for implementing Canadian policy and for fulfilling Canada's obligations with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It increases the number of members of the commission from five to seven. The commission is more powerful, with the ability to hear witnesses, to gather evidence and to control its proceedings as well as to call witnesses to hearings.

We are very concerned, since we have an obligation as a country with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, that submarines are included, that they are not exempt under this bill, and we are asking for support from other members with respect to that.

We are concerned about the harmonizing of the federal and provincial regulations in the private sector. The bill decentralizes nuclear regulations and in some cases provides more powers to the provinces, which in the case of the major uranium mining province of Saskatchewan is probably good news. This bill provides minimum levels of protection for workers and minimum requirements

with respect to how nuclear fuels and uranium are handled. In Saskatchewan's view, we have always maintained that uranium mining is a beneficial livelihood. It is beneficial to those who work in the industry, but only if there are very stringent, high level health and worker protection laws, which we have in Saskatchewan. Ours are very stringent. We hope that a bill like this will raise the level of health and worker safety. However, Saskatchewan has a higher level than this bill calls for.

We are also very concerned about the impact on the environment with respect to uranium mining. Saskatchewan has been able to establish and prove over the long haul that its environmental regulations with respect to uranium mining are the toughest anywhere in the world. We are very proud of that.

This bill provides the province of Saskatchewan with the flexibility to continue to lead with respect to worker and health safety in this country and also in the world. It provides us with the flexibility and the opportunity to continue to have the highest environmental standards with respect to the mining of uranium.

I would ask all members of the House to consider these two very important amendments, not exempting nuclear submarines from the provisions of this bill and not providing any exemptions of any nuclear substances which the bill, without amendment, is suggesting.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 4 and 5 are not acceptable to the government. Both motions deal with deletions from the bill.

Motion No. 4 would delete clause 6. Clause 6 exempts nuclear capable vessels of a foreign state invited into Canada by the government from the application of the act.

Clause 6 has been included in Bill C-23 to make the bill consistent with a court decision, that is, Vancouver Island Peace Society v. the Queen, having to do with the royal prerogative of foreign relations.

The power to approve visits by foreign naval vessels to Canadian ports is a manifestation of the royal prerogative as related to the power of the crown to act in regard to the strategic objectives of the armed forces, foreign policy and military commitments, such as NATO. This power has been confirmed by the courts. It is critical that clause 6 remain in the bill.

With respect to motion No. 5 to delete clause 7, the bill creates general broad prohibitions preventing the conduct of nuclear activities or possessions of nuclear materials, unless licensed. There must be a mechanism in the act to exempt activities, persons or materials where the activity, person or the quantity poses no risk to the public, or where the risk is accepted as a part of the job.

Deletion of this clause from the bill would require that every activity using nuclear technology or nuclear material, every person who might come into possession of nuclear materials as a part of their normal duties and their quantity of nuclear material, no matter how small, be licensed. This would impose a prohibitive and unnecessary regulatory burden on Canadians.

Some of the exemptions contemplated include exempting peace officers, including customs officers-and if the member from the New Democratic Party would listen, he may well understand why this is not acceptable to the government-and commission inspectors appointed under this bill who may come into possession of nuclear substances in the course of exercising their duties.

This provision would also allow for the exemptions for possession of manufactured items that contains small amounts of a nuclear substance to make them work, such as smoke detectors, some time pieces and illuminated signs activated by tritium. Clause 7 must remain in this bill in order to make it workable.

Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are unacceptable to the government.