Debates of May 18th, 2001

Petitions

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certain constituents in my riding have requested that the Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the sentencing of Robert Latimer be upheld and that parliament not intervene to alter this decision. I would put this on the table.

I would also add, while I am on my feet, that I agree with the constituents very strongly in this regard.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I just want to remind colleagues that we ought not to either add or delete from whatever petitions we table.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to present this petition signed by 380 of the fine residents of Saskatchewan who have a rural problem.

They are asking for amendment of the relevant regulations so as to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to registered farmers until such time as an effective alternative can be found.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, both of which are signed mostly by my residents in Mount Royal. The first petition calls upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their application are known.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again signed by many residents of my constituency, seeks to draw the attention of the House to the following: that the Government of Canada may be asked to support the U.S. national missile defence, NMD, program to be operated by the North American aerospace defence command; that NMD is a unilateral initiative of the United States which plans, as it states in this petition, to dominate space by integrating space forces into war fighting capability; that NMD would be a step toward the deployment of weapons in space and lead to a new arms race; and that it would violate the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty and run counter to Canada's commitment as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty to promote complete nuclear disarmament.

These treaties are the cornerstones of the international non-proliferation arms control and disarmament regimes long supported by Canada. Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to declare that Canada objects to the national missile defence program of the United States and ask that Canada play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-24, an act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take up where I left off prior to question period. I will use the few minutes I have left to summarize some of the points I was seeking to make earlier in the day.

First I want to restate my very heartfelt congratulations to the grand chief of the Kanesatake Mohawk people and the band council for the years of hard work that have gone into negotiating this historic settlement. It is not often that we as parliamentarians have an opportunity to take part in something that is so wholly necessary and that in fact makes history.

We are making history here today as we help the Kanesatake Mohawk carve out a new relationship with the federal government. They are casting off or clearing up many of the shortcomings of the former fiscal and legal relationship with the federal government and entering into a whole new era.

Earlier I started to go through some of the long drawn out history of the Kanesatake land claim. I was saying prior to question period that it goes back to 1717. I will not take hon. members through the whole long and ragged history of pre-Confederation negotiations. Suffice it to say that this is the culmination of 200 or 300 years of a maturing relationship.

Both parties should be complimented for the hard work they have done and for the fact that they have managed to undertake this by peaceful means through negotiation and not through any outbursts or violence or road blockades.

I would raise a cautionary note, though, so as not to sound like I am simply a booster for the federal government in this regard. I raise the cautionary note that these new relationships we are entering into with aboriginal communities as they strive to achieve self-government, which we fully endorse, are only as good as the resources they receive. The relationships will stand only if they are followed by implementation.

We have examples. I raise this as a criticism of the federal government. There are examples such as Naskapi Cree people of northern Quebec, who do have a unique individual self-government relationship. They have been complaining for years that ever since they finally got their own details hashed out, the implementation has been so painfully slow, shabby and wholly inadequate that there have been years of frustration.

Even though we are pleased to see the legislative framework put in place today, this whole feeling of goodwill could collapse if the federal government does not deliver all the resources necessary to fully implement the act we are voting on today.

I will use the remaining minute or two I have to restate again how disappointed I am that the House of Commons could not have dealt with this all in one day. After 300 years of tedious, frustrating negotiations we had the opportunity to bring this to its final conclusion today. Unfortunately the Canadian Alliance blocked the unanimous consent needed to go through all stages of reading the bill and voting on the bill in one day.

Let the record show that all parties in the House of Commons, except the Canadian Alliance, wish to see the speedy passage of the bill and the independence and the true self-governance of the Kanesatake Mohawk people.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to put our position forward and on the record on Bill S-24, the Kanesatake interim land base governance act.

I will start by echoing the comments of the member for Winnipeg Centre. A couple of days ago it was understood that we would be able to bring forward this piece of legislation, give it all readings and go to committee, come back to report stage and have this piece of legislation implemented fairly quickly. Certainly we in our party suggested at that time that it was a very important piece of legislation which should be able to go through the House unmolested.

I am very disappointed that we do not have that opportunity today and that the Alliance Party had, for whatever reason, a desire to impede the bill.

The bill, being an S bill, has had public hearings in the Senate. There are detractors and those who wish to put forward their concerns and difficulties with the bill. It has gone through that process. Unfortunately, for some reason the legislation is being held up by the Alliance Party. I am truly disappointed.

It is very good legislation. It deals with native self-governance, an issue that has been in the House for quite some time.

I will give a bit of background although I will not go back hundreds of years as did the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. The Mohawks of Kanesatake, a place most of us know as Oka, live on a tract of land approximately 50 kilometres west of Montreal. The land has been set aside for the Mohawks but does not constitute a reserve. Its inhabitants include aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples.

In 1990 unresolved aboriginal land claims erupted into the Oka crisis which we all recognize as one of the darker days in the history of this great country. Land claims disputes came to a crescendo in the Oka crisis, a crisis that, in my opinion, was not necessary.

The Mohawks erected barricades to block roads. At the request of the Quebec government, Ottawa sent Canadian forces into the area to resolve the confrontation and the ensuing conflict. As we all know, one Quebec police officer gave his life.

Over the past 10 years the Mohawks of Kanesatake have worked with the Government of Canada to resolve questions and grievances regarding land use.

In March of 1991, Kanesatake Mohawks and the federal government agreed on an agenda for negotiations.

In 1994 a memorandum of understanding over land purchases was signed between the Mohawks and the federal government.

In 1997 the Mohawks established their own police station and the federal government made land purchases in the name of Kanesatake.

On December 21, 2000, a new land governance agreement was signed between Kanesatake and the federal government.

Bill S-24 represents the culmination of 10 years of negotiations. It did not happen overnight. It was achieved through negotiations with the band, the Mohawk people and the federal government. The process began in 1991 and is finally, in 2001, coming to fruition in the House.

Bill S-24 would provide legal recognition of a land base for the Mohawks of Kanesatake. It would provide powers of law making, policing and other services by implementing the agreement with respect to Kanesatake governance of the interim land base.

Bill S-24 would ensure that lands in the Mohawk interim land base are reserved for Indians pursuant to the constitution but not as reserves under the Indian Act.

Bill S-24 would also provide a framework for the exercise of jurisdiction and would establish principles for the harmonious use and development of Mohawk lands. That is very important.

Under the legislation, the Mohawks of Kanesatake would have the legal capacity to acquire and hold property, enter into contracts, borrow, expend and invest money, and be a party to legal proceedings. These rights do not exist on reserve lands under the present Indian Act.

Bill S-24 would give Kanesatake Mohawks the ability to govern themselves as opposed to being forced to govern on the basis of the Indian Act.

The Mohawks of Kanesatake would also have the power to make laws formerly made at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. Subclause 7(1) of Bill S-24 states:

The Mohawks of Kanesatake have jurisdiction to make laws in relation to the use and development of the lands in the Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base, including in relation to

(a) the health and quality of life of residents;

(b) the protection and management of wildlife and fish;

(c) the observance of law and order and the prevention of disorderly conduct and nuisances;

(d) the prevention of trespass, including entry onto, or occupation of, the lands without lawful authority;

(e) residency;

(f) fire safety and fire protection services;

(g) the construction, maintenance, management and use of local works, including water supplies;

(h) the construction or alteration of buildings, including inspection in connection with the construction or alteration;

(i) zoning;

(j) waste management and public sanitation; and

(k) traffic regulation.

That list speaks to the abilities of a municipality. A municipality has the right to set laws with respect to fire and police protection, water, waste management and traffic regulations. Such bylaws are set by all municipalities. Bill S-24 would give Kanesatake Mohawks the right to make those rules and regulations for themselves and for their people. That is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve self-governance for Indian people.

While violators of those laws would be liable to punishment by the Mohawk of Kanesatake, fines or imprisonment could not exceed the limits established in subsection 787(1) of the criminal code. Kanesatake Mohawks could make laws but they could not exceed what is in the criminal code provincially or federally.

Subclause 8(1) of the bill specifies that Kanesatake Mohawks would not be governed by the Indian Act. That is a new way of governing. We should take the blinders off and see that it is the wave of the future. It is where we should be heading not only with this act and this band but with other bands across the country.

Before the Kanesatake Mohawks could enact the legal powers accorded to them by Bill S-24 they would need to adopt a land governance code that set out the law of the land. The code would establish rule of law, land use rules, conflict of interest rules, rights of appeal and redress, and procedures to amend the code. Again those same rules and criteria are necessary for the municipal level.

A land use plan must precede any commercial or industrial activity such as disposal of waste, storage or transportation of hazardous materials. A land use plan is important when planning a community. Kanesatake Mohawks must embrace a land use plan if they are to develop their lands.

Bill S-24 stipulates that Mohawk of Kanesatake law must be consistent with federal environmental protection standards and can exceed provincial environmental standards. This means that while Kanesatake would have rights over fisheries and hunting it would still need to comply with the Environmental Protection Standards Act and the guidelines set out by the provinces.

Bill S-24 would establish the process by which Kanesatake land use rules could be harmonized with the land laws of the municipality of Oka. That is an onerous task. The area inhabited by the Mohawk comprises many small land parcels which are occupied by aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents.

Bill S-24 addresses the issue of governance. It does not debate first nations treaty rights or other outstanding disputes and grievances. It does not deal with land claims.

The bill would, as I have said, allow reserves and bands throughout the country to look at different models of self-governance and adopt the one which suits them. The band, in this case the Mohawk of Kanesatake, could then provide its people the services they need. If its form of self-governance is successful it could serve as a model for other bands throughout the country. Perhaps Bill S-24 will take us out of the 18th century and into the 21st century when it comes to dealing with aboriginal rights.

I am happy to put the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on the table. We support Bill S-24. We are disappointed it could not go forward right away. As I have pointed out already, it is difficult to understand why the Alliance would not allow the bill to go forward to third reading. However it is better late than never. We hope the legislation is passed quickly and without too much turmoil.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from May 15, consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

The bill mandates the establishment of a long term management strategy to ensure nuclear waste is disposed of in a comprehensive, integrated and economically sound manner.

The bill has three key elements. The major owners of nuclear fuel must establish and implement a long term management plan for nuclear fuel waste. They also must establish a trust fund and make set payments to the fund on an ongoing basis.

We support the bill in principle although we have concerns. The onus to act should not fall entirely on industry. The government should have an observer capacity and should share responsibility for waste disposal. By and large, however, we support the bill.

There must be checks and balances to ensure waste is disposed of properly and safely. However it is a major challenge. There is an international aspect to the issue which, although not immediately evident, should nonetheless frighten Canadians. We are heading toward an environmental catastrophe not just next door but across the ocean. The impact will affect Canadians from coast to coast.

Radioactive waste is an intriguing problem because it lasts for tens of thousands of years. When we deal with radioactive waste we must make sure it does not come in contact with any aspects of our biodiversity or ecology for 10,000 years. The decisions we make today will affect generations far down the line. It is a very difficult problem.

Fuel rods used in nuclear reactors last about three to four years. Every nuclear plant deposits about 30 tonnes of nuclear waste per year. What happens to the rods? After three to four years they cannot carry on a nuclear reaction. However they still have a great deal of power. A lot of energy is locked away within used fuel rods and they can still be lethal to human beings, animals and plants.

People exposed to nuclear materials can be killed outright. However they also suffer from high rates of cancer, various malignancies and other profound health effects that dramatically shorten their lifespan.

We have about 18,000 tonnes of nuclear fuel in Canada. That will expand as time passes. The challenge is deciding what to do with it. How do we ensure public safety? That challenge will affect us south of the border as well.

A number of principles need to be followed. They are as follows. First, there must be a commitment to safety and environmental protection when disposing of nuclear waste. Second, nuclear waste materials must be accepted voluntarily by the host community. In other words, any community in which we deposit nuclear materials must give its consent.

The decisions that community makes could potentially affect it down the road. We do not know the long term affects of the disposal of this material. We worry about leakage and cracks in the tomb nuclear waste material is encased in. We do not know what will happen to that nuclear material 5,000 years from now when it will still be lethal and dangerous for human beings, animals and plants.

From the outset there has to be open communication of information with the communities involved. There can be no secretive or unilateral decisions made to deposit nuclear waste in areas near human habitation. The communities in the area must be made aware and they must buy into it. In fairness to the host community, a benefits provision in recognition of its service to the community at large has to be recognized.

Some very interesting experiments have been done on the disposal of this kind of material. I will talk about two of them. One is called the nuclear powered turbo reciprocating engine. Rather than burying the nuclear rods in the ground, can we extract the considerable amount of energy contained within those nuclear rods? That is an intriguing question. However the question also poses some very interesting potential solutions on how to use the nuclear rods by extracting energy from them for a longer period of time. That is where the nuclear powered turbo reciprocating engine comes into play.

This engine utilizes some of the remaining uranium within the rods. We use uranium-235 in nuclear reactors. However uranium-238, which cannot maintain a nuclear reaction, is in sizeable proportions in the effete rods. The rods can be bombarded with atoms which will break them apart and they will release considerable amounts of energy.

While the fuel rods in their original state are used for about three or four years in a nuclear reactor, they can be used for 13 to 15 more years, thus extracting more energy from the effete rods than what would have been received in the first three to four years. To use these rods for 18 years rather than 3 or 4 years is a very interesting proposal. When using the effete rods there is still the problem of disposal at the end of that period of time as they are still as radioactive as they were when they originally came out of the nuclear reactor.

The government should ask the National Research Council to explore this option with researchers in the United States who are doing similar research. It is a simple principle of burning rubbish rods and generating energy from them in a way that would be very useful for our environment. This would also lead to fewer rods being used if energy could be generated from the effete rods. Therefore the nuclear waste that we would have to deal with would be smaller.

Another option is called the fusion torch which was established some time in the seventies when the possibility of fusion reactions existed. For whatever reason there has been less interest in exploring the possibility of fusion. However the fusion torch can be used to burn the effete rods in a different way through fusion reaction.

While fusion is not a reality at this point in time, I would ask the government to have the National Research Council work with scientists in the international community who are working on fusion as a potential option for dealing with our nuclear waste problem.

What I am about to tell the House now is truly frightening. It is taking place in Russia and Ukraine and there is active Canadian involvement. We all know what happened to Chernobyl, the devastation that incident brought on the population there, and how radioactive nuclear tides were spread over a large area. What Canadians may not know is that there are many more Chernobyls in Russia and Ukraine. It is not only a problem for the people there. Radionucleotides are cancer causing and teratogenic materials that enter our ecosystem and bioaccumulate into other ecosystems far and wide.

I had the honour of participating in discussions with members of the government on this. We know many radionucleotides are bioaccumulating in the flora and fauna in the Arctic, and that is having a dramatic negative impact on the lives and health of the people living there.

A Mayak reactor, which is located near Ozersk in Russia, was supposed to be closed down. Lake Karachay, which is nearby, is the repository of nuclear waste materials from that reactor. The lake is the most radioactive place on our planet. If people were to bathe in the lake it would kill them. One would think the reactor would be shut down, but it is actually expanding, and it is expanding with Canadian taxpayer money.

Canadian taxpayer money is being used to maintain the Mayak reactor that is dumping radioactive waste materials into Lake Karachay. This is having a dramatic, negative and lethal impact upon the population there. Why is Canada funding a reactor in Russia that is dumping radioactive waste materials into a lake where people could be killed?

The goal has always been to shut down a lot of these reactors that are effete. In the last 10 years Canada has put almost $90 million into shutting them down but we now know that a lot of the money was not used for that purpose. These reactors are not only open but a lot of the money has gone into the pockets of the Russian bureaucracy.

Why is $90 million of Canadian taxpayer money being sent to Russia in good faith only to be dumped into the bureaucracy and into the pockets of private individuals, and then chewed up with no end result?

As a G-7 country, Canada committed almost $300 million to make sure those reactors were shut down, closed and cleansed of radioactive material. That has not happened. Russian nuclear weapons are being sent to the Mayak reactor so they can be reprocessed into MOX fuel, which is a radioactive and lethal fuel.

The Canadian government should be asking some tough questions of the Russian government, such as where is the money that was sent, why are the reactors not being closed down, and why is radioactive material being dumped right into the biosphere with no checks or balances whatsoever.

We were supposed to close the reactors down. Canadians will be shocked to know that we are funding 40 new reactors in Russia. However the reactors are using 30 year old technology that has been widely dismissed as being dangerous and unsafe by western standards. Why is Canada funding 40 new reactors in Russia that have 30 year old technology? We are exporting to the international community technology that is unsafe for us. Why are we doing this?

This will lead to more Chernobyls, more Mayak reactors and more nuclear waste being dumped into the biosphere. It will not affect communities in the former U.S.S.R. but it will affect all of us. Our government does not know where the money has gone or where we are supposed to spend it.

Little has changed in Russia in terms of nuclear reactors, cleanup mechanisms, and checks and balances that ought to be there. There are many other Chernobyl-type situations just waiting on the horizon.

Another aspect that would be frightening for Canadians to realize is that in Ukraine, which has a number of nuclear reactors, the government has stripped the regulating body of its monitoring powers. What is happening is that fewer checks and balances are being put in place. This will have a lethal and devastating effect not only on that country but on all former eastern bloc countries.

CIDA has said that the money that it sent has simply disappeared. Millions of dollars have disappeared. Money was also sent through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to finance a program that would increase the operating safety of nuclear reactor plants. That was a great idea. Who could argue with that?

It also wanted to clean up Europe's largest nuclear power plant, the Leningrad nuclear power station near St. Petersburg, because it was unsafe. The power plant continues to operate. The money that was sent to clean up these operations and to close them down has done absolutely nothing at all.

CIDA also gave $500,000 to Russia's nuclear regulatory agency, GAN, but legislation currently before the Russian parliament will transfer the GAN's licensing powers to another group called Minatom. Minatom will be a self-regulating company beyond the reach of government. Why are we sending money to the Russian government to fund a regulatory agency that will have no powers?

We are sending money to an agency that will have nothing to do with regulations because the regulatory body has been moved to something else and will be a toothless tiger. It will have no checks and balances, no government regulation, no transparency and no public involvement. That is very frightening. Canadians would never tolerate that type of situation here.

Canadians would demand, and rightfully so, that the nuclear regulatory agency be monitored by a public transparent organization. What Canada is doing with its international aid money is sending millions of dollars into a big, black hole where it is not producing the intended effect.

I encourage the minister responsible for international development, when she hears about these issues, to take a very aggressive position. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should also make immediate interventions with President Putin and the Russian government to get to the bottom of it.

If he cannot do that, Canada should choke off all moneys going into these programs and should rally the international community to say that no more money will be sent to clean up Russian nuclear waste sites or to decommission nuclear reactors until we know where it will go and where the other money has gone. The Russian government has a great deal to answer for and has poisoned the good will of Canadians and the international community.

The last aspect I want to talk about is the issue of depleted uranium. This came up as a big issue after the war in the former Yugoslavia and the gulf war. A number of our soldiers came back with strange illnesses such as malignancies, weaknesses and depressed immune systems. No answers were found as to the cause. The Department of National Defence said very clearly that it did not believe it was due to anything in particular and that these people just got sick as a matter of course.

There is the larger question of whether or not depleted uranium, which is radioactive and can have lethal effects on individuals, contributed to the illness of men and women in uniform, not only those from our country but also other participants who came back from both the gulf war and the former Yugoslavia.

I emphasize that it is essential for the Minister of National Defence to work with the international community to obtain an answer for our soldiers. They deserve one. We must have an answer to determine whether depleted uranium has a negative effect, whether on impact the dust created that can travel for more than 100 kilometres has a deleterious and potentially lethal effect on the health of our soldiers. We have a responsibility in that regard.

Many people from around the world are looking at this question. If we work with our international defence partners on the matter together, we will have the answer for our soldiers who have been affected in some unknown way as yet by some terrible diseases.

Actually a group on the east coast has done some very interesting studies. It found residues of radioactive uranium in the bodies of individuals who came back. If my memory serves me, I believe residue has been found in the bodies of 12 of 20 individuals.

The department of defence has said this was not a problem. I urge the department not to take such a cavalier attitude toward the problem and not to completely dismiss it. It should deal with and explore the facts and the signs. It should not deal with it individually but work with the international community that is struggling to find an answer to this very important problem.

It is not only important because of what happened in the past but because depleted uranium is still being used. It is being used in the anti-tank ammunition of the A-10 warthogs and anti-tank weapons that are used on the ground. The number of countries that are using it has expanded dramatically over the last few years. Pakistan and India, our NATO partners, and many other countries are using DU munitions in their military.

This is not only a problem that has happened in the past. It will happen in the future. We must find the answer. A concerted international effort by defence departments and scientists from around the world will get to the bottom of it. We owe it to our men and women in uniform not only to find the answers but to make sure they are treated with more care and consideration. That is our minimum responsibility to them.

We support the bill. We recognize that nuclear waste is a very serious problem, but for it to be disposed of wisely we must have buy-in from the communities. There must be an open and transparent process for where it will be put, how it will be disposed of, and the tomb these nuclear materials will be encased in.

I also encourage the government to work with the international community to look at alternatives. I have spoken about the fusion torch. I have spoken about the NPTRE that can be used as another way of burning effete nuclear rods. We can use these things to decrease the amount of nuclear waste that we will ultimately have.

I encourage Canada to work with the international community to do it. It is another one of those problems that not only affect us but affects the international community and all those who are in possession of nuclear reactors.

We have to deal with former U.S.S.R. countries to find out where the tens of millions of dollars have gone that we have sent to Russia and Ukraine for decommissioning nuclear reactors and other nuclear waste material.

It has not gone where it should be going. There are other Chernobyls on the horizon. People will be killed. Canada can play a very important international role with our other partners in this regard. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that nuclear waste is disposed of wisely. I encourage the government to work with all of us and the international community to make sure that happens.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill on the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

First, I would like to draw a parallel with the discussions on open line shows this morning. Yesterday, the finance minister gave his economic update. On a local radio show in my riding people were expressing their views on various elements of the minister's statement, including the debt.

Why am I talking about the debt? People where saying that over the past 30 years previous governments had been accumulating the debt. The government is now taking steps to pay it down as quickly as possible so that future generations are not stuck with reimbursing the amounts borrowed by previous generations.

What I want to stress here is responsibility. We must take responsibility for what we are doing now and for what we did in the past. When it comes to the nuclear world, nuclear waste in particular, we are told, depending on the source, that nuclear waste can last 200 years, 300 years or 500 years. Other sources mention 1,000 years, or even several thousands of years.

How can we deal responsibly with waste that will affect people throughout the world for hundreds, even thousands of years?

Since we have been talking about the nuclear industry for a number of years, I would like to step into the past and point out a few things about the background to the bill.

In February 1998, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency published the “Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel”, known as the Seaborn report.

In a 1978 joint statement, the governments of Canada and Ontario asked Atomic Energy Canada Limited to develop a concept for the deep geological disposal of nuclear fuel waste.

In a later joint statement, in 1981, they agreed not to go ahead with the selection of a site for that purpose without first holding proper public hearings at the federal level and submitting the concept to the approval of Canadian and provincial authorities.

In September 1988, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred the concept, along with a broad range of nuclear fuel waste management issues, for public review.

On October 4 1989, the federal Minister of the Environment appointed an independent environmental assessment panel to conduct the review.

At that time, the panel's mandate was to review a concept rather than a specific project at a specific site. The panel was also mandated to review a proposal for which the implementing agency was not identified, and to establish a scientific review group of distinguished independent experts to examine the safety and scientific acceptability of the proposal. The mandate also involved reviewing a broad range of policy issues. Finally, all those elements had to be reviewed in the five provinces concerned.

AECL describes its concept as a method of geological disposal of nuclear fuel waste in which the waste form is either used CANDU, or Canada deuterium uranium, fuel or the solidified high level waste from reprocessing. The waste form is sealed in a container designed to last at least 500 years and possibly much longer.

Waste containers are placed within the confines of underground disposal rooms or in boreholes drilled from the rooms. The disposal rooms are between 500 and 1,000 metres below the surface. The geological medium is plutonic rock of the Canadian Shield.

Such a facility would cost an estimated $8.7 billion to $13.3 billion in 1991 dollars, depending on the amount of waste to be disposed of. The panel conducted its review in several provinces, including Quebec and Ontario. It did environmental impact assessments and consulted the public, namely the natives.

Among other activities, the terms of reference directed the panel to examine the criteria by which the safety and acceptability of the concept for long term waste management and disposal should be evaluated. It also required the panel to prepare a final report addressing whether AECL's concept is safe and acceptable or should be modified, and the future steps to be taken in managing nuclear fuel wastes in Canada.

Here are some key panel conclusions. Broad public support is necessary in Canada to ensure the acceptability of a concept for managing nuclear fuel wastes. Safety is a key part but only one part of acceptability. Safety must be viewed from two complementary perspectives: technical and social.

To be considered acceptable, a concept for managing nuclear fuel wastes must have broad public support, as I was saying earlier, and must be advanced by a stable and trustworthy proponent and overseen by a trustworthy regulator. Therefore, for the public, the level of confidence in the people and organizations managing nuclear wastes is very important.

After applying these criteria to the AECL disposal concept, the panel came to a number of key conclusions.

The key panel conclusions are the following: from a technical perspective, the panel believes that safety of the AECL concept has been on balance adequately demonstrated for a conceptual stage of development, but from a social perspective, it has not. It also says that, as it stands, the AECL concept for deep geological disposal has not been demonstrated to have broad public support. The concept in its current form does not have the required level of acceptability to be adopted as Canada's approach for managing nuclear fuel wastes.

Then the panel considered the steps that must be taken to ensure the safe and acceptable long term management of nuclear fuel wastes in Canada.

Here are its main recommendations.

A number of additional steps are required to develop an approach for managing nuclear fuel wastes in a way that could achieve broad public support.

Among other things, we should issue a policy statement governing the management of these wastes; initiate an aboriginal participation process; create a nuclear fuel waste management organization, or NFWMA—but its better to use the full name, so we know what we are talking about; a public review of the regulatory documents of the AECB through effective consultation processes.

We also need to develop a comprehensive public participation plan, to develop an ethical and social assessment framework and to compare the options for the management of nuclear wastes.

Taking into account the views of participants in our public hearings and our own analysis, the commission developed the following basic recommendations to governments with respect to a management agency.

It was recommended that a nuclear fuel waste management organization be established quickly, at arm's length from the utilities and AECL, with the sole purpose of managing and co-ordinating the full range of activities relating to the long term management of nuclear fuel wastes.

Another recommendation was that the agency be fully funded in all its operations from a segregated fund to which only the producers and owners of nuclear fuel wastes would contribute.

It was also recommended that its board of directors, appointed by the federal government, be representative of key stakeholders, and that it have a strong and active advisory council representative of a wide variety of interested parties.

It was also recommended that its purposes, responsibilities and accountability, particularly in relation to the ownership of the wastes, be clearly and explicitly spelled out, preferably in legislation or in its charter of incorporation.

It was also recommended that it be subject to multiple oversight mechanisms, including federal regulatory control with respect to its scientific-technical work and the adequacy of its financial guarantees, to policy direction from the federal government and to regular public review, preferably by parliament.

Finally, the commission pointed out that until the foregoing steps have been completed and broad public acceptance of a nuclear fuel waste management approach has been achieved, the search for a specific site should not proceed.

If the AECL concept is chosen as the most acceptable option after implementation of the steps recommended above, governments should direct the NFWMA, together with Natural Resources Canada and the AECB or its successor, to undertake a review all the social and technical shortcomings identified by the scientific review group and other review participants, to establish their priority and to generate a plan to address them. The nuclear fuel waste management organization should make its plan public, carry out public consultations and then implement its plan.

As members will recall in the Seaborn report, the panel recommended that the federal government establish a management committee with the objective of finding solutions for nuclear fuel waste management and implementing them.

However there has been a change of approach and through Bill C-27 the government has decided to pass the waste management responsibility off to the provinces. In Quebec, Hydro-Quebec should be the one in charge of establishing a waste management organization. I point out that the WMO must establish, by appointing its members, an advisory committee to study proposals and make recommendations.

The idea is to establish a waste management organization whose objective will be to set out nuclear fuel waste management proposals for the federal government and to implement the proposal it accepts. The WMO established by Hydro-Quebec must then make available to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and to any owners of nuclear fuel waste produced in Canada, at a reasonable cost of course, nuclear fuel waste management services as provided in the proposal approved by the governor in council.

When I gave details about Hydro-Quebec,, I must say that I was venturing an opinion and was interpreting a little. Would Hydro-Québec make recommendations? If so, would it do so individually or in conjunction with the group mentioned in the bill? This group is comprised of the Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec, a New Brunswick power corporation and Atomic Energy of Canada.

Some aspects of the bill are not clear. For example, we presume that all these stakeholders will work on a nuclear waste management policy but we can also presume that this would be done individually.

As for financing, the nuclear energy corporations, such as Hydro-Québec and Atomic Energy of Canada, would individually or jointly, as I said earlier, create a trust fund that would be used for implementing the approved waste management proposal.

Under the bill, Hydro-Quebec would have to pay, 10 days after the day on which the bill came into force, $20 million for its fund, and $4 million in each subsequent year. Afterward, the waste management organization, Hydro-Québec, would be able to propose shares to the federal government.

We also know that there is interest on any late payment. I suppose members know about this. We all get into situations where payments are due but not in arrears, of course. If the funds or the interest are not paid, the bill provides for fines not exceeding $300,000 for each day on which the offence is committed.

In this trust, the first withdrawal of funds must be for an authorized construction or storage activity. The funds must be used to implement the proposal approved by the minister.

Examination of the bill shows that the proposal to the minister should include three management approaches, particularly concerning the following: disposal in the Canadian Shield; storage on site at nuclear plants; centralized storage, either above or below ground; a comparison of the benefits, risks and costs taking into account the economic area to be determined; a description of management services; an implementation plan; a timeframe, and especially a program for public consultation and an annual financing formula for policy implementation.

However there is a hitch in the bill, which provides, as I read it and I think that I am right, that only the minister can hold public consultations. As we know, consultation is crucial because we also know that the capacity to rely on those who will manage nuclear waste is just as crucial.

Of course the waste management organization will have to submit an annual report of its activities. The form, the updated estimated total cost, the financing formula, the amount of the deposit to be paid, of course, and the amount of the final guarantees to be included in the annual report must be approved by the minister.

All these reports will be tabled and the minister will make a public announcement in this regard. Let me repeat that this report still provides for fines of $50,000 to $300,000 per day of violation. Should we consider that as an incentive for the tabling of these reports on time? I think so. Are the fines too high given the importance of the reports to be tabled? It is a question worth asking. The members will answer if they want to.

The Canadian government is the only one that regulates the nuclear industry. It has invested more than $5 billion in this area over the years and approximately $150 million a year since 1994, whereas all the other countries of the world, even those that use nuclear energy the most, are reviewing their use of this type of energy and are even thinking about progressively decommissioning their nuclear power plants and opting for alternative energy sources.

The Liberal government is determined to promote this type of energy as an interesting alternative to fossil fuels, which create more pollution in spite of the virulent public opposition and the major problem of radioactive waste. Last year, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited estimated that it would cost $377 million to decontaminate its plants and dispose of the waste.

However, the Seaborn panel clearly indicated in 1998 that the estimated cost of a long term nuclear waste management facility ranged from $8.7 billion to $13.3 billion in 1991 . Today, the amount is estimated at $15 billion for most countries, such as France and the United States.

Therefore, the amount of $20 billion, plus $4 million annually for Quebec, raises questions in our minds. Will it be enough? In November 1999, at a meeting of the parties to the convention on climate change held in Bonn, Germany, Canada proposed a plan that would give emission credits to countries that export nuclear reactors, which would enable Canada to meet its targets indirectly without reducing its own emissions.

Despite growing opposition from the people, Canada is continuing down the nuclear path instead of favouring renewable energy and adopting strong policies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

During the last election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois promised to suggest that the federal government cancel any funding to the nuclear fission industry and that the $150 million that go to that industry every year be retargeted for research and development in the area of clean energy.

Since this opens the door to exporting nuclear waste, one has to wonder if the government really understands the public's opposition to this type of project.

On the subject of importation, in a previous committee sitting, I had the opportunity to discuss with officials from the Department of Natural Resources.

I asked one of them, with respect to importing nuclear wastes, if the waste management organization were to find relatively good solutions—being taken for granted, of course, that we support nuclear projects and therefore consider that the proposals are relatively good—should we fear that nuclear waste might be imported to get a better return on our investment in various waste management programs or projects that Canada might implement?

This is a major risk because in every one of our communities there are waste disposal sites for solid waste or domestic waste. We know what this is all about. When I was on the municipal council in Sherbrooke, we had a waste disposal site. There is one in my ward. One can imagine the problem it creates.

When it comes to the management of nuclear waste or any other kind of waste—of course technically they cannot be compared, although as far as a process is concerned it is the same thing—nobody wants it in their backyard. We all know that. We do not want to see waste imported because it has happened before. It has happened in Quebec and I am convinced it has happened in other provinces too. We should avoid it.

In view of the fact that often the only thing that matters for our Liberal government is money, I am afraid that at some time in the future waste will be imported to make our nuclear waste management system more profitable.

It is something we must keep in mind because the official from the Department of Natural Resources told me that for the time being they had more than enough to do in dealing with our own waste. What concerns me, not to say scares me, is the fact that he said that for the time being they are not considering this.

When I am told “For the time being, we are not planning on it”, am I to understand that their plans may change tomorrow, next week or next year?

That is why the bill must really be transparent. All its details must be clear, precise and, to the extent possible, be assessed. Moreover, even though consultation is provided for in the legislation, we must never neglect to consult. The population must be consulted.

Even if the urgency is evident, we believe that public consultation—and let it be clear that we do not want the kind of bogus consultation that was held in regards to MOX and that lasted only 28 days—is necessary and fundamental.

Another thing will have to be closely considered. The bill intends to force Quebec or, more precisely, Hydro-Quebec to operate according to the proposal that will be adopted by the natural resources minister in Ottawa and to the criteria set by him. Is Quebec really in agreement with these criteria? That is what we will determine later.

We also have a concern about the fines provided for in the bill. Do members not think that the fines imposed for each day of infraction are excessive, considering that this type of bill always contains variable factors? We know that the bill contains provisions allowing additional delay, but the issue of fines is still of concern us.

If we look briefly at the situation of Canada's nuclear power stations, we find that the obligation to treat nuclear fuel waste is unfortunately something that the Bloc Quebecois cannot oppose, but we do strongly oppose the use of fuel and the operation of power plants using nuclear fission.

As members know, in his most recent report, the auditor general clearly indicated that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission needs to improve its regulatory regime for power reactors. Among other things, the audit pointed out that the commission does not use quantitative measures to rate nuclear power facilities.

According to the auditor general, the rating systems used are not always based on specific criteria but rather on the judgment and expertise of staff.

While we do not believe that the staff would be dishonest and is probably competent, we would like to point out that the auditor general said, and I quote:

The criteria for what is acceptable or unacceptable are subjective and could be misunderstood.

Moreover, as the auditor general pointed out in the report, CNSC faces significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified staff. Combined with its current regulatory regime, which relies heavily on the expertise and judgment of staff, the lack of human resource capacity could impact its ability to function adequately in the future.

Considering that only a responsible approach is necessary on this matter, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-27, while maintaining major reservations. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to follow the matter very carefully because there are major issues involved in this bill.

These issues relate to the huge economic investment required for a management regime based on the protection of the environment and of the health of Quebecers. The Canadian people and even the American people would be affected by this bill. While Mr. Bush is not giving a lot of hope on this matter and the Canadian government has a strange approach toward this, we consider it our duty to ensure first and foremost that the bill does not have negative consequences and that the issues will be carefully considered at all stages. At this point, we agree on the bill but we have very major reservations.

In conclusion, people need to have a good relationship with the main stakeholders, as, of course, with the federal government in its responsibilities on waste management. There must also be a trust relationship with the fuel nuclear waste management organization.

If it is possible to create this trust, we will get the support of the public. The public will have to be consulted, but it has to be real consultation and not token consultation, as I said earlier.

The bill will have to be very specific on the potential for importing nuclear waste. It must be clear that the waste management organization's sole purpose is to manage nuclear waste from Quebec and Canada. We know very well that nobody would accept nuclear waste from other countries, with all the risks involved.

Our responsibility today is crucial. We are making decisions that will have an impact on events that could occur in hundreds or thousands of years. Some people are used to managing without any long term vision but here we need to consider future generations, and much more than the next few generations, as we are talking about hundreds and thousands of years.

We will get a chance in committee to deal with various aspects of the bill and we retain the right to move amendments to Bill C-27.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you seek the consent of the House to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion.

International Child Abduction

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I believe our caucus is the only one that has not had the opportunity yet to participate in the debate.

Debate is on the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. The motions states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership on the international stage: (a) by taking action designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; (b) by signing bilateral treaties that include commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally handed down by the courts; and (c) by taking the necessary steps within its own borders to combat international child abduction.

I read with some degree of interest what the spokespeople for all other parties in the House had to say on this topic. It is very timely that the Bloc member introduced the motion. I note it has the support of the government, the Official Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, and now the New Democratic Party today.

There are three parts to the motion. It is not necessary to go into great detail because it has the unanimous support of all five parties in the House of Commons. I am pleased to be adding the weight and support of the New Democratic Party to this and would take my seat on that point.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I add on behalf of the Canadian Alliance our support of the motion, which deals with a very important and tragic situation affecting quite a number of families. It is a problem that is largely unrecognized. Therefore we support the essence of this private member's motion and compliment the member responsible.

The motion asks Canada to show leadership in the following ways:

(a) by taking action designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; (b) by signing bilateral treaties that include commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally handed down by the courts; and (c) by taking the necessary steps within its own borders to combat international child abduction.

The scope of this problem is significant. In the United States in one year, 341,000 children were abducted from their parents. This is a huge number. In the United Kingdom roughly four children per week are abducted and that number has actually increased by 58% over the last three years. In our country there are similar statistics. We can see that this is not only an international problem but also very much a domestic problem, and the impact upon families is quite significant.

We support the Hague convention that deals with missing and exploited children, but there are some problems with it. I will point out some of them which need to be addressed by our country with the international community. There is a lack of systemic data on the operation of the Hague convention. It does not allow a country by country comparison. There are also wide variations in outcomes that point to systemic problems with the application of the Hague convention in different countries. There is a lot of difficulty in locating children who are subject to this convention and there is a lack of adequate support for the victims' families.

There are also interesting variations among the judicial community, especially judges and lawyers. A lot of people are not aware of this. There are great inter-country variations in regard to knowledge of the convention. I would encourage our country to work with other signatories to the Hague convention, not only, as the motion says, to add more countries to the convention but also to educate the judiciary within the signatory countries about the application and the importance of this convention. There has also been quite a significant lack of enforceability on some of the orders we have seen with respect to the Hague convention.

With respect to our own laws, the motion asks that we take the necessary steps within our own borders not only to combat international child abduction but to ensure that access orders are respected within our own borders.

Many members of the House have spoken to constituents who are non-custodial parents and have court orders allowing them access to their children. Unfortunately many of these court orders are not respected by the custodial parents. As a result, non-custodial parents continue to engage in battles to see their children. There is not enough protection within our own borders today to ensure that non-custodial parents have access to their children. At the end of the day, children need two competent parents, not one, if it is at all possible. If there are two parents, they should still remember, no matter what has come between them, that the children come first. With the safety of the children paramount and where both parents are competent, even though they may not be together, they should both have access to the children, according to court decisions. Too often that is not the case.

A senate report done on custody, access and divorce shows very clearly that Canada is lagging behind in its enforcement of these orders and that many non-custodial parents are denied access to their children. I would encourage the government to review that report. It is an excellent report supported by members from across party lines. The government should fulfil and implement the conclusions within that report. The report contains many excellent suggestions that would help children who have been racked by the divorce of their parents.

In closing, I can only compliment the member responsible for this motion and emphasize that the Canadian Alliance supports this private member's motion. We also encourage the government to work with its international partners to strengthen the Hague convention and to ensure that the signatories are living up to the requirements therein.