Marlene Cowling

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

In administering its licensing system, the AECB works closely with other federal and provincial departments with responsibilities in such areas as health, the environment, transport and labour. This ensures that the concerns and legislative obligations of these departments are considered during the licensing process.

The Atomic Energy Control Board is also responsible for regulating the import and export of nuclear materials, equipment and technology. The board is very active in the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and ensures Canadian compliance with the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In the latter task the AECB is concerned with both domestic and international security of nuclear materials and technology. In all its regulatory and licensing activities the AECB maintains a transparent approach. I believe that the board's responsiveness to public concerns has much to do with its reputation as an effective, responsible, independent regulatory body. However, more than ever before the public is concerned about health and safety issues and demands input into the AECB's decision making process.

The Atomic Energy Control Act gives the AECB significant responsibilities and broad scope for regulating nuclear activities. Through periodic amendments to regulations and licensing conditions, the AECB has regulated the development of the nuclear industry in Canada effectively while ensuring the health and safety of workers, the public and the environment.

Nevertheless there is an obvious and compelling need to modernize the legislation. Many people believe that the 50 year old statute as it now stands limits the AECB's effectiveness. The act's deficiencies have been noted by the courts, the media, special interest groups, parliamentary committees and the auditor general.

Let me mention some of the more troubling weaknesses. AECB inspectors do not have the formal powers they need to carry out their responsibilities. The AECB cannot hold polluters financially accountable for their actions, nor can it order remedial action. The ceiling on fines is $10,000 and is far too low.

The small number of board members hinders the decision making process and does not allow the agency the flexibility it needs to deal effectively with certain issues. The act does not provide explicitly for public hearings.

Bill C-23 corrects each of these weaknesses. It formalizes inspectors' powers so that they can ensure the safe use of nuclear materials whether in a home based business or a nuclear power plant. The bill provides an appeal mechanism as well. Bill C-23 also increases the maximum fine for violations to $1 million.

The proposed legislation will enable the AECB under its new name, the Canadian nuclear safety commission, to act quickly to clean up radioactive contamination when concerns over liability or the polluter's inaction could cause delays that could threaten public health, safety or the environment. The legislation also sets up reporting requirements that ensure that any contamination by radioactive substances or possible exposures to radiation are reported to the commission for remedial action.

Bill C-23 increases the number of commission members to ensure better professional and technical representation and to improve decision making. It allows the president to appoint members to sit on panels which will be more efficient in many cases than requiring decision making by the full commission. This legislation also requires the commission to conduct its proceedings in public wherever reasonable. This simply formalizes current practice by the AECB.

Make no mistake, the AECB has been and continues to be an active, effective regulatory agency essential to the high technology industry. Hon. members must recognize that new legislation is required to ensure that Canada's nuclear regulatory agency has the appropriate mandate and the authority to carry out its responsibilities today and in the future.

This proposed legislation acts on commitments made in the recent speech from the throne, commitments to sustaining our environment and to ensuring a modern regulatory regime suitable for the 21st century.

I urge my hon. colleagues to act in the interest of all Canadians by voting in favour of this bill.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about how the AECB operates.

The AECB is an independent regulatory agency reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. It is directed by a five member board, one of whom is the president of the board.

The president of the board supervises approximately 400 officers and staff. Most of these employees are based at AECB headquarters in Ottawa, with resident inspectors stationed at all nuclear generating stations, at four regional offices and at a uranium mining division in Saskatoon.

Hon. members may be interested to know that the large part of AECB's operating costs are recovered from operators through licensing fees. During 1994-95 licensing fees generated $28 million in revenues, reducing the net cost to the federal government of delivering AECB services to $15 million. This annual expenditure will be further reduced as the board's cost recovery program matures over the next five years.

Canada's approach to nuclear regulation is based on the internationally accepted principle that the operator of nuclear technology is responsible for safety and must justify the proposed use.

The role of the AECB is to set safety standards and to ensure, through a variety of compliance mechanisms, that these standards are met. Like other national nuclear regulatory bodies, the AECB licenses facilities that use nuclear energy or nuclear material.

One way to illustrate the scope of the AECB's regulatory activities is to note that about 4,000 licences or other permits are currently in effect across Canada. These include licences for nuclear reactors, particle accelerators used in industrial and medical applications, uranium mines and refiners, reactor fuel fabrication plants, heavy water plants, radio active waste management facilities and radioisotopes. Radioisotopes are used for everything from medical and research applications to oil and gas well investigations and in consumer products like household smoke detectors. In fact, radioisotopes account for about 90 per cent of AECB licences.

AECB licencees are found throughout Canada. They range from corporate giants like Ontario Hydro to small companies providing inspection services to the industry, to private individuals operating out of-

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me say-

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to speak in the House today regarding Bill C-23, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

The current legislation in this area is 50 years old. As the minister noted earlier, it suffers from several deficiencies and is outdated. The development application and the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes brings many benefits to Canada. However, it also entails some important responsibilities.

It is high time we had modern legislation to govern the regulation of nuclear activities. The benefits of nuclear technology include a safe and secure supply of energy, some 26,000 direct and 10,000 indirect jobs and significant export revenues from the sale of Candu reactors and uranium.

Nuclear science has brought us advanced medical treatments, agriculture and scientific applications and real environmental advantages. To maximize these benefits and minimize the risks, Canada has had to take certain precautions to protect public health and safety as well as the environment.

Canadians insist on very high standards for the regulation of nuclear activity, higher than for most other forms of technology.

Since 1946 the agency charged with enforcing those standards, the Atomic Energy Control Board, has done an excellent job. Its vigilance is one reason that Canada has an enviable nuclear safety record. However, the agency needs our help.

I would like to take a few minutes to expand on the role of the AECB and to demonstrate why a new, modern framework is needed to ensure that the nuclear regulatory authority in Canada can continue to fulfil its mandate.

As has already been mentioned, the Atomic Energy Control Act was proclaimed in 1946, shortly after the end of the second world war. Apart from one amendment in 1954, the act has remained essentially unchanged for half a century. During that time there have been dramatic changes in the extent and nature of nuclear activities in Canada and abroad and in society's expectations of government regulations. There has also been a shift in emphasis at the AECB. The agency continues to be concerned with the security of nuclear information and materials. Today, however, most of its activities focus on regulating the health, safety and environmental aspects of nuclear technology.

In fact, these have been the most important issues for the AECB since 1960 when the first health and safety regulations were established under the Atomic Energy Control Act. In the 1970s and 1980s concern for the environment surged to the forefront of the public agenda. This has also helped shape the AECB's modern mandate.

Let me say a few words about how the AECB operates. The AECB is an independent regulatory agency reporting to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. It is directed by a five member board, one of whom is the president of the board.

The president of the board supervises approximately 400 officers and staff. Most of these employees are based at the AECB headquarters in Ottawa-

[Infrastructure Program, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Canada infrastructure works program is a success. Just look at some of the statistics which help to tell the story.

For example, in my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River, more than $9 million has been invested. These types of projects have included road repairs, the development of water systems, culvert replacements and the construction of bridges.

The Canada infrastructure program is a great benefit to rural areas. Almost 62 per cent of the projects were for rural Canada.

In order to market our goods and services locally and abroad, another program is necessary for our communities' continued development.

The Canada infrastructure works program is contributing to a stronger rural Canadian economy, including my riding of Dauphin-Swan River, and that is what I am working toward.

Without a doubt the Canada infrastructure works program is a major accomplishment.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, neither Motion No. 18 nor 19 is acceptable. The motions deal generally with the affairs and management of the commission and how the commission is kept accountable to Canadians.

Motion No. 18 appears to be intended to provide for some form of oversight on the commission's activities in order to promote efficiencies in the commission's internal operations. However the way it is worded would require the commission to publish any comment made to the commission at any time during the year and the commission's response to those comments and to publish those comments in its annual report regardless of whether those comments are reasonable or not. This is an unreasonable burden and would impede the efficient operations of the regulator.

I would like to point out that both the auditor general and Treasury Board provide oversight on the commission's activities: the auditor general, in his intermittent review of the AECB's operations, and Treasury Board when it reviews and approves the AECB's annual estimates.

I would also like to point out that the minister, under clause 12(4), has the right to request the board to provide reports on its general administration and management and to have the results published in the annual report if the minister wishes. Therefore mechanisms are already in place which provide for oversight over the operations of the commission, as this amendment proposes to do. It is unnecessary.

The requirement in Motion No. 19 to hold a public hearing on the internal management, operations and business practices of the commission would impose a significant administrative burden on the commission and a significant cost as well.

Motions Nos. 18 and 19 would both establish a precedent regarding the public scrutiny of the internal operations of the regulatory bodies. There are broad policy implications involved and it would be unwise to do this until the government assesses the implications. For these reasons, the amendments are not acceptable to the government.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the due diligence defence is available in law for regulatory offences under the charter of rights and freedoms, even if not specified in an act. Therefore, it is not necessary to explicitly provide for this defence in this bill. However, there are instances where due diligence is explicitly found as a defence in other acts. Therefore, the government is agreeable to this amendment.

Having said that, we must exempt offences under section 50, which deals with offences regarding nuclear weapons, from having recourse to this defence. This is because the penalty for this offence, which is up to 10 years imprisonment, indicates that this is more in the nature of a crime than a regulatory offence, making a due diligence defence inappropriate.

We agree with the intent of this motion so long as a due diligence defence is not available for the offence associated with nuclear weapons. We therefore propose an alternative amendment. I move:

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 36 the following:

51(1). A person shall not be found to have contravened any provision of this act, other than section 50, if it is established the person exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 10 to 14 all deal with clause 44, the regulation-making powers, and for various different reasons each of these proposed amendments is not acceptable in its present form. Furthermore, some of them could create problems. However, for Motions Nos. 11 and 12 the government wishes to propose an alternative amendment that would achieve the proposed objective.

With respect to Motion No. 10, the inclusion of cost benefit analysis in this legislation is something that the government has discussed with industry representatives on several occasions. There was a consensus that there is a role for cost benefit analysis in the regulatory process, but that it is premature to include cost benefit analysis in this legislation. Most important, there is no consensus on the role that cost benefit analysis would or should play in the regulatory decision making process.

For example, should economic considerations be given more, less or equal weight as safety considerations? There are also significant differences of opinion with respect to the application of cost benefit analysis. For example, how do you value a human life or place a value on environmental protection? What cost and what benefits are to be included in the analysis? Until these issues are addressed the government believes strongly that it would be unwise to include a mandatory requirement for cost benefit analysis in this legislation, as this amendment would do.

The government does recognize the importance of this issue and is working with industry to draft a policy for the application of cost benefit analysis to regulatory decision making. That policy will attempt to address how and when cost benefit analysis is to be used in the regulator's decision making process.

With respect to Motions Nos. 11 and 12, the government recognizes the importance of consultation on regulations, particularly on fees. Treasury Board policy requires that all regulations under this act, including regulation regarding fees for services and licences, be published in part I of the Canada Gazette and interested parties be given an opportunity to comment. The AECB often consults with industry before publication in the Gazette . Therefore, the consultation process already exists.

The proposals from the opposition do not specify the manner of consultation. There is no requirement that it be made public nor is there any requirement for a reasonable opportunity to comment. Any consultation process should address these issues.

Motion No. 13 is not acceptable and as I explained when speaking to Motion No. 5, the power to create exemptions must stay in the bill.

With regard to Motion No. 14, clause 44(5) assigns to the governor in council the power to make regulations on matters not otherwise assigned to the commission but which may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the act.

The proposed amendment is counter to normal regulatory practice. It would in essence defeat the intention of the provision, which is to assign the residual regulation making power to the governor in council. It would also be inefficient from a regulatory point of view in that it may lead to unnecessary delays and additional costs associated with having the regulations reviewed and approved by Parliament. For these reasons the government does not find this amendment acceptable.

With regard to Motions Nos. 11 and 12 concerning consultations on fee regulations, we would like to propose the following. I move:

That Bill C-23 in clause 44 be amended by adding after line 20 on page 32 the following:

(12) A copy of each regulation that the commission proposes to make under paragraphs 1(i) or (j) shall be published in the Canada Gazette and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to persons to make representations to the commission with respect thereto.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is an unworkable amendment. With regard to inspections, there are some points to make. First, there are occasions when inspections are and must be unannounced, as in many regulatory regimes, in order to permit an accurate evaluation of compliance with regulations and licence conditions.

Second, in many cases, particularly in the case of nuclear power plants, this amendment would be inefficient in that it would place an unworkable burden on inspectors as well as on the industry. The AECB has inspectors at each plant and on site inspection of a plant is a part of their daily routine.

To require those inspectors to be accompanied on their daily rounds would be unduly disruptive to the performance of their duties in addition to creating an unnecessary demand on the licensees.

This amendment may also compromise the regulator's ability to meet Canada's international obligations regarding non-proliferation of nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes.

To satisfy new requirements currently being developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency to strengthen nuclear safeguards, the commission will need the capacity to inspect any facility where it believes unregulated nuclear activities are carried out. This amendment does not provide an exemption for this situation.

While this amendment is intended to apply to inspections, the wording of this amendment does not restrict the requirement to be accompanied by a member of the health and safety committee to that function. It would apply to all activities of inspectors.

The amendment is too broad in its scope for objectivity and efficiency. This amendment is unworkable and not acceptable to the government.