Serge Cardin

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, obviously if I knew the answer to that question and had I known why the government was going to reject all of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian Alliance, the NDP or the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative Coalition, I could quite easily have intervened and had our amendments accepted.

As my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie was saying, Quebec has about 3% of the nuclear waste, Ontario, 90%, and New Brunswick, 2%. Atomic Energy of Canada, with all its activities, produces about 5%. So one may really wonder why the government does not want the public consulted. Consultation was a key word that appeared in all the recommendations of the Seaborn panel.

For it to be acceptable, a nuclear waste management strategy must first enjoy broad public support. It is all very well to introduce any old system or technology to convince people that you have the problems of nuclear waste management under control. If you do not have the confidence of the public, this is all for naught, because at some point you will have to store the waste somewhere. The Canadian Shield was mentioned. Care must be taken here, because Quebec has 95% of the Canadian Shield within its borders.

Does another province, one that produces 90% of the waste, intend to store it elsewhere? This is a legitimate question. At this point, if we were to consult the public, environmental organizations, the public and experts in the waste management and nuclear field, the government might well have to make public its intentions, which at the moment it does not wish to reveal.

I think there was not enough consultation with respect to the bill, because the government figured there had been consultation in the course of the hearings of the Seaborn panel. So it washed its hands of it. However, it is not implementing the recommendations of the panel. The mechanism provided in the bill is the establishment of a committee by management organizations and producers of nuclear waste. It does not necessarily have a clear mandate and clear responsibilities. The management organization does not even have any responsibility for approving the recommendations of the committee as such, and so it becomes a hollow committee. The management organization can appoint whom it wishes to this committee.

There were proposals via various amendments to make consultation mandatory and to also consult the aboriginal people, which was one of the Seaborn recommendations. Given the government's intention of getting this bill passed, consultations would be risky. It would then be forced to start all over from scratch.

There are serious questions about waste management methods, but whose was the initial responsibility for deciding to produce energy this way, knowing it would produce waste that cannot be properly controlled or managed? Who made the choice originally? It would be far better to focus efforts on reducing energy consumption. We know we have become a nation of high energy consumption. This is where the focus must be, on decreasing energy consumption, because it has become too easy to consume. Often what is out of sight is out of mind, but we must take care. Nuclear waste does exist. Ideally, we should get rid of all of it. This should be the focus of research and development, in the same proportion as the profits being made by all of our energy industries, in Canada, the Americas, and the entire world.

All these profits should be reinvested in order to manage energy properly, find renewable energy sources and no longer have the problems we do in connection with pollution, with something that is going to be around for hundreds, indeed thousands of years, and will always represent a risk to the population.

Madam Speaker, in closing I again wish you a happy holiday season.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in one way, I am extremely pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

I am not taking this personally, but I realize that there are fewer people here since I started speaking. Is this because of the speaker, the topic, or the fact that people are anxious to get back to their ridings for the holidays? This is a multiple choice question, and the answer could be none of the above, or even all of the above. I hope there is no connection with the speaker.

Nuclear waste affects everyone. Everyone has questions. Everyone has certain fears triggered by the words nuclear and nuclear waste. Gasoline has been in use for 100 years or so, and coal for several centuries, and we have known for some years that certain fuels we use emit greenhouse gases.

In the 1970s, the nuclear era began. Nuclear technology came to Canada. Today, there are 22 Candu reactors producing electricity, 20 of them in Ontario, 1 in Quebec and 1 in New Brunswick.

We are told that nuclear energy ranks second lowest in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, behind hydro-electricity, of course. Since that time, nuclear energy has been expanding, in the United States, Europe and Japan of course, but also throughout the world.

However, when people describe nuclear energy as better as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned, they neglect to mention nuclear waste, a result of this technology. Now there is talk of burying nuclear waste.

In the U.S., the Department of Energy has published a scientific report approving of a nuclear waste burial site; the cost of this was a mere $7 billion over 20 years. Hon. members can see what studies of nuclear waste can involve. Yet electricity is still being produced with nuclear power, and we continue to want to sell our Candu reactors all over the world.

What is special about this bill is that the new waste management organization is to be made up of the key stakeholders of the nuclear world, that is Ontario, Quebec, which has one reactor, and New Brunswick, along with Atomic Energy Canada. There are, therefore a number of specialists and involved parties. Some of the people who submitted briefs to the committee pointed out that this was a bit like letting the fox run the henhouse.

Nuclear waste is a problem that arises out of nuclear technology. We are letting those in the nuclear industry develop a waste management plan. We know that nuclear waste is the albatross around their necks. What are they really going to do?

Bill C-27 was the government's response to the Seaborn panel. On April 25, 2001, the government announced legislation dealing with nuclear fuel waste.

The government, through the Minister of Natural Resources, said, and I quote, “This legislation is the culmination of many years of research, environmental assessments and discussions with stakeholders and the public”.

He also said, “Together with the existing Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the legislation would ensure that the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste would be carried out in the best interests of Canadians—in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner”.

Having taken part in the different committee discussions and having heard different witnesses, the minister's words to the effect that the legislation was based on what Canadians wanted seemed quite surprising. When he referred to Canadians, the minister was likely alluding to consultation.

As regards consultation, there was a major consultation when the Seaborn panel was created, in 1989, if my memory serves me well. The report was published in 1998. The panel worked on the issue for close to ten years. It held a multitude of consultations and formulated a number of very good, even excellent, recommendations.

The minister refers to consultation in his report, but I do not know where in the history of this bill there was any real consultation.

We are told that the provinces that use nuclear energy were consulted. We are told that the people who live in and around the main areas where nuclear reactors are located were consulted. However, based on the evidence heard by the committee, if the provinces, including Quebec, were consulted, it was probably by telephone or very informally.

When this legislation was announced, we were told that all the provinces agreed with it. Let us take the example of New Brunswick. The New Brunswick Power Corporation appeared before us and proposed no less than 34 amendments to the bill. There may have been consultations at the time, but the fact that the corporation proposed 34 amendments to a bill that has only about 31 clauses is rather telling. We really wonder about the nature of the consultations that the minister promised at the time.

Environmental protection is another issue. As we know, the Minister of Natural Resources is responsible for the energy sector. However, as far as I am concerned, the nuclear energy issue is an environmental one. To be sure, nuclear waste has an impact on the environment. This was an important issue for most groups, not nuclear energy corporations but groups that submitted briefs or took part in the consultation process. One amendment proposed that at least the bill be under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment. It was also proposed that in certain clauses of the bill the word environment be included, but that term was avoided in the whole government bill.

When this legislation was introduced, an important point was mentioned. It was said that:

—the bill is based on a totally impartial environmental assessment made by the Seaborn panel over a period of 10 years.

This is what got to me. The government told us that this legislation was based on the work of the Seaborn panel, which was impartial, yet it came up with something like this. Most of the witnesses who took part in the committee's consultation process invariably referred to the Seaborn panel and said that the government did not really understand the panel's recommendations.

The government said that the legislation was based on the Seaborn panel, which was impartial, and it came up with a bill like this, which had most of the witnesses who took part in the committee's consultation process referring to the Seaborn panel. They said that the government had not really understood the panel's recommendation, because they naturally addressed various levels, but there were some very important elements in these recommendations which the government basically dropped.

The panel, I think, highlighted one very important element, which is the creation of a waste management organization. The representatives of the Seaborn panel always recommended the creation of an independent nuclear fuel waste management agency, or NFWMA. The report said that for various reasons many communities had a perception of nuclear energy that was detrimental to the activities and projects of the nuclear industry.

If the government hopes to restore any sort of confidence in a long term nuclear fuel waste management system, it must start off on the right foot this time and create a new agency, with no links to the current producers and owners of waste but with a safety-oriented mandate.

It could not be clearer. Obviously, when it came to its bill, the government was anxious that the waste management organization be made up of the principal stakeholders in the nuclear world. In the bill's definitions, we see that the nuclear energy corporations which are to make up the waste management organization are Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec, New Brunswick Power Corporation, and any other body that owns nuclear fuel waste resulting from the production of electricity by means of a commercial nuclear reactor.

The sole reference to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is in connection with any assignee of the company. Obviously, one of our proposed amendments had to do with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited being clearly identified along with Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec, and the New Brunswick Power Corporation as one of the actual nuclear energy corporations. We wanted this to be clearly spelled out, but our proposal was rejected.

Furthermore, the Bloc Quebecois was responsible for some 30 or so of the approximately 80 amendments put forward in committee. We were obviously in agreement with the other opposition parties, the Canadian Alliance, the NDP, and the Progressive Conservatives, on a number of points. On more than one occasion, the other opposition parties were agreeably surprised by the amendments we put forward and wondered why they had not thought of them first.

One of the amendments we had proposed concerned clause 6. It came from the recommendations of the Seaborn panel and concerned the creation of a board of directors that would bring together many more stakeholders than are provided for in the current bill, which includes only nuclear energy corporations.

The board would comprise seven people. During committee deliberations, the government was prepared to add more. I recognize my colleague from Jonquière, who has just joined us and who also took part in its deliberations.

She sat on the committee and asked the government some very good questions. Unfortunately, and I empathize with her, she never got very good responses.

The only answer we got, and I have already mentioned this in the House, was no, no, no. With each amendment we proposed, the answer was a flat-out no.

If only it had been a flat out no after what I hope had been careful consideration. But the way it worked was that the Liberal members were always having to consult about what they should answer.

While we were working on the amendment, and my colleague will testify to this, some members were indicating that things made sense, but, when we asked the question they looked around to see who was the cheerleader, and then it was no, no, no.

Anyhow, they missed an opportunity when they voted down the amendment to paragraph ( c ) that we put forward. We were up to eight directors. Initially, there were seven; we added one and had agreed that eight persons could be part of the waste management organization as board members. We were in agreement; we had improved the bill.

Of course, some people who took part in the committee's hearings said they did not want any nuclear energy corporation. We, however, suggested that with regard to the membership of the board of directors we should have two representatives of the nuclear energy corporations. We wanted to hear their views when the time came to make decisions regarding this very important bill because, after all, it is the tool that will be in place to manage our nuclear waste, and that is something people care about. We wanted to hear a different point of view from that of the nuclear energy corporations.

Of course, there was a representative from the government. In many areas of the bill mention is made of the governor in council, which is the government, and actually the Prime Minister, who for all intents and purposes decides what will happen with regard to nuclear waste management.

We wanted to change the provisions of the bill to make the waste management organization accountable to parliament to members of parliament, who are democratically elected. We could have been the voice of those who consistently say they are afraid of nuclear energy. We could have assessed the situation and voted on their behalf, but the government steadfastly refused to make the process transparent by involving members of parliament.

There were representatives from a well known non-governmental organization dealing with the environment. There was a representative from a scientific and technical discipline having to do with nuclear waste management.

Madam Speaker, you are signalling that my time is nearly up. I must say that in your company time flies.

If we had a Christmas present for Canada and Quebec, it would be to withdraw this bill, send it back to the committee and undertake real consultation. If there were another nice Christmas present to give Quebec, it would be for parliament to unanimously say right now that Quebec is a country, a sovereign state.

I take this opportunity to wish every Quebecer and every Canadian very happy holidays. I wish them whatever their minds and hearts desire.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to continue with the debate at this time, but I do not understand exactly what the motion that has just been moved is about.

It is my understanding that the question is on the motion for third reading of Bill C-27. I wonder how this can be because, as far as I know, the third reading debate has not yet been completed. Therefore, we should be able to continue with our speeches. We had reached the point where we are allowed to make 20 minute speeches, followed by a 10 minute question period.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member for Windsor—St. Clair for his speech, of course, but also and especially for his active participation in committees, particularly in the standing committee on natural resources. His participation is highly appreciated.

He talked about the many relevant and intelligent amendments brought forward by the New Democratic Party, by the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition and, needless to say, by the Bloc Quebecois. We often supported and helped each other in that regard, but of course the party opposite would not listen.

I would like the member to share with us his first impression of the government's perception regarding the Seaborn panel report. After all, it is the basis of this bill. The government says that it used that report as a basis to introduce this bill. However, we say that it goes against the main recommendations of the Seaborn panel report.

I would like to give the member for Windsor—St. Clair the opportunity to enlighten us, to enlighten the House and particularly to enlighten the members opposite on this issue.

[Natural Resources, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the right answer.

The federal government provided more than $1 billion in tax credits to support exploration off Sable Island.

Why is the government not giving Quebec or New Brunswick access to this natural gas when Gas Métropolitain is prepared to build the required gas pipeline, even without a subsidy? When will the federal government stop dragging its feet?

[Natural Resources, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is reassuring Americans and promising them that the oil from Canada's tar sands will be available to them in the years to come, yet the government is dragging its feet when it comes to the natural gas off Sable Island in Nova Scotia.

How can the Prime Minister's eagerness to make our oil available to the U.S. be justified when he continues to refuse to do anything to make the natural gas off Sable Island available to New Brunswick and Quebec?

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, like most of my colleagues usually say at the beginning of their speeches, I am pleased to rise on this issue. But it is not always obvious.

In dealing with a bill like this one, some analysis was required and we had to consider the amendments tabled in committee, all of which were received about the same way by the government, the governing party. The government categorically rejected every amendment that was moved.

During the clause by clause study of the bill in committee, some 75 amendments were introduced, and rejected. We succeeded in having a few of them adopted, as you indicated earlier, namely Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 8.

It would be appropriate to go back in time. We know that in February 1999, the Senate held a debate on the management of nuclear fuel waste, at which time they took a look back on the report of the Seaborn Commission. The Minister of Natural Resources of Canada also referred to that commission. He said that its work lasted for ten years and that a totally impartial environmental assessment had been conducted. That commission made very important recommendations dealing with the membership of a committee responsible for long term waste management.

The bill was introduced by the minister on April 25, 2001. As early as May 18, I spoke to the bill. At about the same time, the Minister of Finance tabled his budget and talked about the debt that had to be paid off, because future generations should not inherit such a burden and, for all intents and purposes, we were the ones responsible for that debt.

I had draw a parallel with nuclear waste management. Today, we are taking a decision on the management of nuclear waste that will last for hundreds, even thousands of years. The issue will last just as long.

On May 18, 2001, the emphasis was put on what is almost an anticipated reimbursement of the debt, while we were trying to manage nuclear fuel waste that will last for hundreds of years. Since I have my doubts about the efficiency of the government's management over a span of a few years, how could I not have doubts about its management of nuclear fuel waste over hundreds of years?

Incidentally, this bill provides for the establishment of a waste management organization. Its members will include the companies that are using nuclear energy and produce nuclear fuel waste, and Atomic Energy of Canada, which already has responsibilities concerning the development of systems and waste management. From now on, this organization will recommend to the government ways to manage nuclear waste over the long term.

It is quite simple. We have an obvious conflict of interests here. I did support the principle of the bill, because nuclear fuel waste management is important, after all. As a matter of principle, we agree that we should have a nuclear fuel waste management program. But we cannot agree on who will manage nuclear fuel waste and how it will be done. We cannot rely on those who produce nuclear waste to develop a management program. We should consider that important sums of money are involved. The natural resources department was talking about a $12 billion program over 70 to 100 years.

This is a very costly program. People dealing with problems related to nuclear waste could be tempted to go for, perhaps, simpler systems to the detriment of efficiency.

Another key element of this bill relates to the public. The Seaborn Commission said that some of Atomic Energy of Canada's projects barely passed the technical assessment test, but clearly indicated that they could not stand the test of public perception with regard to nuclear waste management.

Where, in this legislation, is the public provided with an input? Of course, we heard evidence in committee. On this, I indicated that I was somewhat disappointed with the way things went on. The clause by clause study of the bill had already been planned for a specific time and date, and half an hour before that we were still hearing witnesses.

It became obvious that our consultation process was bogus. If it was bogus at the development stage of the legislation, just imagine what it will be when the time comes to develop waste management systems.

The bill nevertheless provides, without really stressing the point, that emphasis will be put on consultation. So just imagine that, when faced with such difficult issues, people who rally to voice their concerns about nuclear waste management could very well do so also to voice their dissatisfaction with the process once the government has decided how it will proceed.

Therefore, in the whole development process for this system involving the major producers of nuclear waste, there will be a need to get the public on board so that the government's approach can have some credibility.

For all intents and purposes, in presenting our amendments, we also touched upon the way the House does things, since the decisions made about a specific nuclear waste management program were never brought back to the House.

As we know, in due course, MPs, those elected by the people of Canada, will be held to account to the people on how nuclear waste was managed. This is after all an issue of grave concern to most, if not all, Canadians. Nuclear waste will last almost forever, since we are talking about hundreds, or even thousands of years.

Most of the facilities—there are some 22 producing nuclear waste across Canada—are located in Ontario. Also, most of the electricity in Ontario is generated by nuclear plants. Ontario is therefore a province with a vested interest in the management of nuclear waste.

In Quebec, we often talk about the Canadian Shield as offering a possible solution for the disposal of nuclear waste. We know that a large portion of it is located in Quebec.

Perhaps we should revert to the principle whereby everyone is responsible for the waste they produce. Each person or company who produces waste should be accountable. However, we should ensure that the people have a say regarding these projects.

[Shah Ismatullah Habibi, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Quebec citizenship week, which took place from November 19 to 23, a citizen from the riding of Sherbrooke was honoured for his contributions to the community.

Shah Ismatullah Habibi received the Jacques Couture award from Quebec's minister of citizen relations and immigration for his work bringing cultural groups closer together.

Mr. Habibi came to Sherbrooke in 1993 with the first wave of Afghan refugees. Since then, he has become actively involved in our community and has occupied a number of important positions, such as on the new immigrant welcome committee, with the world traditions festival, on the family advisory committee, with the transcultural educational association and the support program for new Canadians, to name but a few.

On behalf of all of the residents of the riding of Sherbrooke, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr. Habibi for this prestigious award.

[The Environment, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has enacted regulations banning the importation of waste material.

As for the Canadian government, starting in 2003, its Environmental Protection Act will allow waste material to be brought into regions such as the Eastern Townships.

Is the Minister of the Environment going to respect Quebec's environmental protection regulations so as to prevent areas like the Eastern Townships from turning into dumping grounds for our neighbours to the South?

[Management of Nuclear Waste, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, many years ago in Quebec, there was a popular song about a doll that said no.

This was pretty much what happened yesterday in the initial hours of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources as the Liberals kept saying no to amendments from the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition.

The indifference of the Liberals was striking when we put forward our suggestions to improve Bill C-27 on the management of nuclear waste.

Repeatedly, they rejected the creation of a board of directors representative of the local community, including the aboriginal community, in order to ensure public confidence and add some credibility to the bill, which needs it.

They said no to blocking the import of nuclear waste from other countries, no to including an environmental clause, and no to referring the recommendations of the new waste management organization to the House of Commons.

The Bloc Quebecois has interesting proposals to make and the public has a right to know what they are. The Liberal puppets with their “no, no, no, no, no, no” will not stop us.