Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 28 - Evidence, April 23, 2002
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 23, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 27, respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, met this day at 6:02 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the minister may be detained longer than we thought. I believe he is detained for a vote, so perhaps we will start with Northwatch.
Ms Lloyd, welcome. Please proceed with your presentation.
Ms Brennain Lloyd, Coordinator, Northwatch: Honourable senators, Northwatch is a coalition of environmental and social justice groups in northeastern Ontario. We were created in 1988 in response to the nuclear fuel waste- management concept and its, at that time, imminent review under an environmental assessment review program. As a number of small, community-based, largely volunteer organizations, this was an important process and something we wanted to participate in to the greatest degree possible. We felt we would be better able to do that as a regional organization, providing a regional voice to our experience and our concerns with respect to the management of nuclear fuel waste in general, and specifically in response to the concept put forward by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the proposal or motion that nuclear fuel waste should be or could be buried in the Canadian Shield in Northern Ontario.
I am here today to speak to Bill C-27. In general, we are very concerned, and I want to convey strongly my concern that Bill C-27 is moving us in a direction opposite from where we should and could go. We see Bill C-27 as taking us back to a period of conflict, of confrontation, of secrecy and of ideological efforts to deal with the nuclear waste problem, rather than efforts based on science or sound policy. We had and I think still have an opportunity to do much better and to move forward.
The Seaborn panel report, which I hope you will be familiar with, concluded with recommendations that would have moved us forward. As an organization that participated extensively in the nuclear fuel waste review under chairman Blair Seaborn, the panel report is not the report we would have written, but we were impressed by the success of the panel in blending the views, concerns, information and science heard throughout their 10-year review and actually finding a way that could move the debate forward. We are impressed. We are grateful to the panel for its efforts, and in March 1998, when the report came out, we thought we could move to a more positive place in the discussion and in efforts to find long-term management options.
I will speak briefly to the background; I had expected that Dr. Brown and the minister would be doing that before me. Nevertheless, I will take a few moments to give you some background on the nuclear fuel waste concept as proposed by AECL.
From our experience as a regional organization, this story starts in the 1970s when there was a policy decision to move forward with the burial of nuclear fuel waste in the Canadian Shield. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a number of our communities faced investigation, research drilling and other efforts by AECL to move AECL towards the siting of a nuclear fuel waste repository or nuclear fuel waste dump.
In 1988, the federal government referred this matter to an environmental assessment review panel. From 1988 to 1998, that federal eight-member panel worked with a great diligence. They held 15 weeks of hearing, toured the country, heard perhaps 100 submissions directly in the course of that process and at the end came out with a proposal to move the discussion forward. You will find in our brief a summary of the panel recommendations and also a summary of the government response to the panel recommendations.
In brief, the panel recommended that there be an independent agency established to further investigate management options for nuclear fuel waste, that there be a social and ethical framework developed, that there be a framework for Aboriginal participation developed by Aboriginal people, and that there be further evaluation of at least three options.
The government response came out just short of a year later and was in fact an almost total rejection of the key recommendations. The government response, instead, outlined an approach that would have an industry-only agency responsible for the next steps in the development of fuel waste management options or strategies. That was of great concern to us.
Now we find ourselves, and you find yourselves, almost four years after the panel report was released, with the subsequent legislation, Bill C-27, being referred to you.
I suggest that there is a context that we have to recognize and respect and some key principles that should guide our evaluation as a public and your evaluation, I would suggest, as senators in your review of Bill C-27.
The consideration of the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste and the delegation of related responsibilities must take place in a public policy environment, one that is informed by the public's experience, which, in many instances, has been mistrust of the nuclear industry. This mistrust has manifested itself both in the development of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's geological disposal concept and more recently in other activities of the nuclear industry, including Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. A lengthy review concluded that the AECL geological concept had not been demonstrated to be safe or acceptable, made a number of recommendations with respect to future approaches and identified at least 65 major deficiencies with the AECL concept.
Now we have Bill C-27 before us, and I want to identify for you what we consider to be the five key areas of deficiencies respecting Bill C-27.
First, as the minister responsible for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Minister of Natural Resources is placed in a conflict-of-interest position if designated as the minister responsible for the waste management organization. The minister of the environment is a more appropriate designate.
Second, in clause 3, under ``Purpose of Act,'' what is stated there is contradictory to the approach outlined in the bill. Clause 3 reads as follows:
The purpose of the Act is to provide a framework to enable the Governor in Council to make, from the proposals of the waste management organization, a decision on the management of nuclear fuel waste that is based on a comprehensive, integrated and economically sound approach for Canada.
However, the waste management organization's options, in terms of those recommendations, will be limited to the three identified approaches. As a result, it cannot be a comprehensive approach. They are also limited in the amount of time available to them. This may similarly circumvent the waste management organization's identification and evaluation of options.
Third, the waste management organization lacks independence. This is a key deficiency. The Seaborn panel report clearly said that there should be an independent agency. Instead, Bill C-27 offers an industry-only agency. It will undermine public confidence, create serious issues around conflict of interest and conflicts between the corporate good and public good, and it will likely circumvent any broadening of approach to long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.
Fourth, the process will be secretive. The waste management organization is proposed as an industry-only agency, and it will not be required to report to Parliament. During the three-year period that the WMO is to study the three identified options and develop its report to the minister, it is not required to report to the minister or to Parliament. Subsequent to its report in year three, the organization will be required to table its report only every three years and only to the minister. Only cabinet will make decisions.
The timeline is unreasonable. Within three years, the WMO must establish itself and an advisory committee, conduct detailed studies, develop descriptions, evaluations and implementation plans for each option, consult with the public and, in particular, with Aboriginal people. Again, it took four years to the day from when the panel report was released, March 13, 1998, to when it passed second reading in the Senate. It took four years for the government to manage a final report and to move the matter into legislation, yet the waste management organization only has three years to do what I would consider to be a much larger task.
Lastly, the bill assumes a siting process in advance of the three approaches being examined. This is evidenced by the indication that there will be representatives from the affected regions on the advisory committee. There cannot be representatives from the affected regions without knowing what the affected regions are. Unless a siting process has been commenced or some basic assumptions have been made about the siting, it is not possible to know what the affected regions are. We see that as problematic.
I will conclude with some recommendations. First, in general terms, we encourage the committee to engage the Canadian public in a review and revision of Bill C-27 or its successor legislation.
Second, we encourage respect for the federal environmental assessment review panel conclusions in whole, but in particular those recommendations with respect to the participation of Aboriginal people, with the process designed and executed by Aboriginal people — a recommendation that appears to have been ignored over these last four years.
Third, ensure that any legislation with respect to the management of nuclear fuel waste resulting from your review addresses the above concerns and reflects the principles of fairness, independence and transparency.
We also have five specific amendments that we want to emphasize today.
First, the Seaborn Panel recommendation that the waste management organization be independent is crucial. Its members should be appointed by the minister to reflect the range of Canadian interests, concerns and expertise. Appointees must be free of any conflict of interest. That would effectively eliminate the nuclear industry and the industry-only agency approach.
Second, the minister rather than the waste management organization should appoint the advisory committee. It should be representative of a wide variety of interests, with emphasis on the social sciences, ethics and emerging research in the physical sciences.
Third, the investigative approach undertaken by the waste management organization should be inclusive of other alternatives in addition to the three siting options. In particular, the proposed act should direct the WMO to participate in and support international research efforts focused on new technological methods to isolate or reduce the hazards of fuel waste rather than restricting the consideration of new technological approaches, as clause 20 of Bill C- 27 does.
Fourth, the waste management organization should report to Parliament rather than to the minister, and all decisions as to future approaches should be decided by Parliament rather than by cabinet.
Fifth, the waste management organization and any future implementing organization should report annually to Parliament rather than reporting every three years to the minister. The annual reports should be available to the public on the same schedule as their submission to Parliament.
Contained within appendix 1 are 32 amendments developed by the late Irene Kock of the Sierra Club of Canada Nuclear Campaign. These were provided to the parliamentary standing committee in November of last year. I have also included summaries of the Seaborn panel report and the government response.
The Chairman: You mention the independence of the organization. The nuclear fuel organizations are mandated by law to put money into a trust account. The trust account is then drawn upon. That is similar to what we call the conservation boards or energy boards across Canada and the provinces, where the oil companies and the mining companies finance the agency. However, they do not have a choice in it. The government mandates what they have to contribute. These organizations can be independent because, while they depend on the oil industry for money, the provincial government mandates the amount of money they receive from the oil industry. Consequently, they are very independent and they exercise their independence often.
Knowing that it is operating out of a trust fund, is your question of independence perhaps not valid?
Ms Lloyd: I do not think that addresses the issues around independence and the model of an industry-only agency versus an independent agency. We are supportive of those clauses of Bill C-27 that require the funds to be set aside. We have no quarrel with the notion that the nuclear industry continues to be responsible and continues as owner of the nuclear fuel waste. We would view favourably proposals that would split the functions of the waste management organization and the future implementing organization.
We anticipate difficulties when you have a closed group consisting only of the nuclear industry — the waste generators and the waste holders — setting the research priorities, directing the research, interpreting the research conclusions, arriving at a decision and a recommendation on what is a conclusion on the best approach. That is problematic for a number of reasons. We have had 25 to 30 years of that, and it has not gotten us far.
AECL spent $700 million up to the point of the conclusion of the Seaborn panel review. We had a concept that could be generously described as weak, with a number of failings from a technical engineering scientific perspective, as the panel heard from a number of experts throughout the review.
We need an independent agency that is accountable to the public through Parliament and that represents the broad array of Canadian views and values rather than the single interest of the nuclear industry, which, as it has stated explicitly in the past, views nuclear waste as a public relations problem as opposed to a real health and environmental hazard. I am sure the industry share that concern as well, but its emphasis may be different.
The Chairman: I do not share your opinion when I read the bill. The idea behind that independent body about which you are talking is to have it financed by the nuclear fuel people as opposed to the taxpayer. As far as I can see, the nuclear fuel people can actually be sidelined and be kept out of the picture completely.
Senator Banks: I am confused by what you said about the report. There is a provision for an annual report to the minister and to Parliament that is different from the triennial report. In fact, clause 16 states:
The waste management organization shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year of the organization, submit to the Minister a report of its activities for that fiscal year.
That is for each and every year. Does that give you any comfort?
Ms Lloyd: You are quite right, senator. I was reading the later clauses referring to the triennial reports after the first triennial report when they report on their preferred option.
Obviously, annual reports give me more comfort than triennial reports. There are still difficulties in that they are not publicly available.
Senator Banks: They are. They must be laid before Parliament, which makes them publicly available.
Ms Lloyd: That is not my understanding.
Senator Banks: Clause 16 further states that the minister will lay them before Parliament.
Ms Lloyd: Clause 19.1 states that the triennial reports would be laid before Parliament.
Senator Banks: Clause 19.1 states:
The Minister shall cause a copy of each report to be laid before each House of Parliament...
Ms Lloyd: This refers to the triennial report. In the marginal note beside clause 18 in the bill, there are the words ``Triennial report''. To my knowledge, clauses 19 and 19.1 were the only amendments made in the House of Commons standing committee, which I mentioned in my comments.
My understanding is that it is the triennial report and that it would be laid before Parliament. It is not clear to me from that clause when and how it becomes public; however, I am certainly optimistic that it would be.
Senator Banks: Once something is laid before Parliament, it is public on that day. When the bill refers to reports, as it does in clause 19.1, it does not distinguish between the triennial reports and the annual reports. The bill states that when the minister receives the reports he will lay them before Parliament. In my view, that would include the annual reports.
Ms Lloyd: Clause 18 states, in part:
The annual report of the waste management organization for its third fiscal year...and for every third fiscal year after that...
Senator Banks: You have to begin reading at clause 16.
The Chairman: Are you indicating that it should be a yearly report? Obviously, the triennial report has to be filed and made public.
Senator Banks: All the reports have to be filed.
The Chairman: Is there provision for an annual report?
Senator Banks: Yes, in clause 16.
As I read it, each annual report and each triennial report will be given to the minister. The minister will lay those reports before Parliament. They are then public.
The Chairman: Not only that, the minister will have to comment on the reports once they are laid before Parliament.
Senator Christensen: Are you suggesting that the WMO be an agency of the Crown?
Ms Lloyd: That would be an option. The key point is that it be an independent agency, whether it is a Crown corporation or a Crown agency. I make no submission on the legal form; not being a lawyer, that is beyond my legal grasp. However, it should be an independent agency, which is the point we wish to make.
Senator Christensen: If it were a Crown agency, the fiscal liabilities would be on the federal government. It would seem more desirable, in my opinion, if the waste owners were the ones responsible for carrying out and looking after the fiscal management of the waste activities under federal government oversight, which is set out in this bill.
Ms Lloyd: That is the rationale for having an independent agency responsible for the research and evaluation of waste management options. The waste itself remains in the ownership of the generator operators and the nuclear waste industry.
Senator Banks: There are those who would suggest to you that a Crown agency would be less independent specifically because it is a Crown agency. We have heard arguments in another committee to that effect.
Ms Lloyd: I am making no proposal to you with respect to the actual legal form of that agency or independent organization.
My point is that it should independent of the nuclear industry, the waste generators and the waste holders.
Senator Sibbeston: In reading clause 3 of the bill, I asked myself why it is set up so that the federal government is dependent on proposals from the nuclear industry.
Apart from the federal government and the nuclear industry, do you feel there is expertise out in the independent world to deal with this waste material? Is it your view that this could be done independent of the nuclear industry?
Ms Lloyd: There are issues around expertise and where expertise is available. Equally, there are issues around ensuring that the expertise you retain is science driven as opposed to corporate driven. Our difficulty in Canada is that the research work has been done largely, if not solely, by Atomic Energy of Canada. I feel that creates a difficulty.
Another difficulty is the long-standing policy approach of the federal government that we have seen over a period of decades, and approach that favours the geological disposal concept. This began in 1973 with the Hare report and has continued through to this day.
In fact, in the course of the Seaborn panel review the federal government introduced a nuclear waste policy framework that is very supportive of the approach outlined in Bill C-27.
There are challenges in terms of having independent expertise, and expertise outside just AECL. Those are the challenges we need to face fairly and squarely. We would be better positioned if we did that in a more international context and if we were recognizing the difficulties of having all research coming from one source to date.
The Chairman: On the second page of your presentation, under ``Context and Key Principle,'' you say that there have been a ``number of experiences wherein the public has gained a mistrust of the nuclear industry.'' Is that still your opinion, despite the fact that Kyoto has brought the nuclear industry back into the corner of the radar screen as part of a preferred method of bringing down the global warming effect?
Ms Lloyd: I believe it is still that way. I will speak solely from our regional experience in Northern Ontario. One example is the experience we had with the siting exercises in the late 1970s and early 1980s, where we had AECL investigating and occupying a number of communities. There were bad relations between the communities and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The trust level was not increased or improved throughout the 10-year environmental assessment review panel for a number of reasons. It was often the experience, or perception, that the industry was not as forthcoming as it could be or as it needed to be.
For example, we had a case study that was the basis of a concept for review. We worked with that case study from the release of the environmental impact statement in 1994 through to the technical hearings. On the final day of the technical hearings in Toronto, June 1996, AECL introduced a new concept — a completely different case study — and a very different scenario. In the context of the environmental review process, that engendered a great deal of mistrust and uneasiness in terms of the openness of the process and the responsiveness of AECL.
We had a recent experience with the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, whereby they wanted to import mixed oxide fuel, plutonium, for test burns in the research reactors at Chalk River. One of the routes for transport was to come through Northeastern Ontario from Sault Ste Marie to Chalk River by road. We had a limited number of community meetings and a limited time for the public to actually comment or respond to the proposal. It was an overwhelmingly negative proposal. Communities — the municipalities, the community organizations and the First Nations — were not comfortable or confident with it. The response to the public discomfort was to fly the MOX fuel over our heads — under the cover of night to bring the MOX to a helicopter station in Sault Ste Marie and then fly the fuel literally over our heads from Sault Ste Marie to Chalk River. That is not the way to give communities a message of openness, trust and reliability.
Those experiences continue to weigh heavily on the public and speak again to the need for independence and a sense of fair play when determining our direction with nuclear fuel waste management options.
Senator Cochrane: This legislation directs that three options be examined. Could you give us your thoughts on the three proposed options for the long-term management of waste? What risk do you think these methods pose to the Canadian public?
Ms Lloyd: Our purpose must be to isolate nuclear waste from the environment. That has to be our purpose, and we would like to see it reflected in the bill; it is not currently. To protect the environment and human health from the deleterious negative effects of nuclear waste, we need to either isolate the waste or neutralize it. At present, there is not, to my knowledge, a known method for neutralizing or diminishing the hazard of nuclear waste. Those are our two options — diminish the hazard or isolate it.
Beginning with the geological disposal concept, we already know that AECL spent 25 years and $700 million on that, but they were not able to demonstrate that they could do it safely. In fact, the discussion in the hearing and the debate was not whether these canisters would leak but how soon and how much they would leak, and what the effect of that would be. That is the geological disposal concept.
I suppose a centralized storage facility at ground or below ground level might be construed as the middle option. That carries with it many of the same hazards related to the geological disposal concept in the transfers and transports of waste. Additionally, how do you isolate that waste from the environment in perpetuity? There certainly are a number of hazards in that. Another suggestion is to leave the waste at the reactor site where it is stored in either water- concrete pools or above-ground dry canister storage facilities. The industry tells us that these are safe and effective. We do not know now and we certainly do not know over time how safe or how effective they will be. They do have the advantage of being more easily and effectively monitored and the containment more effectively repaired, remediated or replaced when problems do appear.
There is not any real solution at this point. I do not know if there will be a solution in 10 years or 20 years or 50 years. I do know that we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching and billions of dollars creating the waste. It has taken 50 years to create the problem we currently have. We need to look at options that give us the most room to find something in the future that will isolate or neutralize the waste. We need to remain focused on that task.
I am certainly not one to endorse keeping the waste on-site in perpetuity, but that may be the default option. If that were the case, it would have to happen with the most strenuous of effort in terms of monitoring, containment and re- containment, and continued research.
Senator Cochrane: Whom would you like to see as a representative of this organization that you are anticipating?
Ms Lloyd: Are you referring to the waste management organization? There are two bodies: In terms of the waste management organization, we would like to see a range of physical and social sciences represented on that agency, with a range of management skills and expertise. On the advisory committee, we would like to see a similar array of representation, but there is a greater role for community-based public interest organizations, churches, women's organizations and municipalities.
Senator Cochrane: Would you like to see the industry involved here?
Ms Lloyd: There is an opportunity for the industry to have a role in both organizations and for the industry to, perhaps, even have some positions within the waste management organization. It is unacceptable for them to have sole control and full responsibility, but as part of a mix that may be workable.
Senator Cochrane: You say it is crucial that the WMO report to Parliament. I want to know what your concerns are in that regard?
Ms Lloyd: My concerns are that decisions will be made without public knowledge, scrutiny, comment, participation and so on.
I am not suggesting that the parliamentary process is the most accessible one, but it is our check and balance. It is how we maintain some openness and accountability within the Canadian system. That is very different from a decision going to the minister and cabinet only. Those decisions are not open, they are not available to the public for their consideration and input.
Senator Gauthier: You talked about responsiveness. You used the word independent several times in your comments. You want an independent panel to investigate management options, as well as expertise outside of AECL. Do you know of anyone else in Canada, outside of AECL, who has expertise that we could refer to?
Ms Lloyd: There were a number of interventions and presentations made to the Seaborn panel. There was a scientific review group, made up of 10 scientists, the Royal Society, a number of persons within academic organizations and so on. I do not have a list of names to present to you today.
Senator Gauthier: Maybe you could send the committee clerk a list of people you think would have outside, independent expertise.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, you might start with the members of this committee first.
Senator Gauthier: I always thought the clerk worked for all of us, and would distribute the material in both official languages.
The next question I have is in regards to the WMO. I am not an expert, but I have visited a CANDU installation. I believe 96 per cent of the waste is produced by provincially owned industries. AECL accounts for less than 2 per cent, and research in Canada about the same amount, or maybe a little less. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment about the WMO reporting to Parliament. The bill says — and I have read it several times — that the WMO will report annually for the first three years, then triennially after that. Every year, the WMO must report through the minister, of course, but you did not seem to agree with that. What made you say that?
Ms Lloyd: What I wished to do was emphasize the importance of having some openness to the process. The understanding I took from my reading of the bill is that there would be triennial reports placed before Parliament, based on the amendments made at third reading in Parliament. In my remarks, I tried to convey that that was an improvement; I wanted to emphasize the importance of that.
Senator Adams: At the beginning of your brief, you said Bill that C-27 moves backwards instead of ahead. Could you explain that for me? Is it the wrong policy? How would you like to see it?
Ms Lloyd: In the Seaborn panel report, there were a number of key recommendations: an independent agency, the development of a social and ethical framework, a framework for Aboriginal participation and the evaluation of a number of options. We saw that as moving forward by picking the conversation up from where we left it at the end of the hearing and moving it forward.
In the environmental assessment hearing, AECL and Ontario Hydro effectively acted as co-proponents. They were co-sponsors of a number of aspects of the AECL proposal. What I see as moving backwards is that we are moving into a regime where the nuclear industry, it is used to be AECL, now it will be the WMO, made up of AECL with Ontario Hydro as the largest player, will not be required to develop the social and ethical framework at the front end, or develop the framework for Aboriginal people and their participation, as recommended by the Seaborn report.
Senator Adams: You mentioned Aboriginal people. Are you concerned about the storage sites close to where Aboriginal people live? I remember when Aboriginal communities were chosen as potential storage sites. Perhaps it was because some of those communities have abandoned mines. Are you concerned about Aboriginal people living close to nuclear power generators? What is your concern related to the Aboriginal people?
Ms Lloyd: I have concerns in both cases. The emphasis of the panel, and my own emphasis, comes from my regional experience perspective in northeastern Ontario, and northern Ontario generally, where we can quite rightly presume an underground disposal facility would be sited in the traditional treaty areas of Aboriginal people. The panel heard repeatedly from Aboriginal people that there had been failures in terms of how they were included in the process, decision making and discussion up to that point. The panel recognized that and wanted to rectify that in the future.
The Chairman: We will take your opinions and recommendations into consideration when we make our final report.
Senator Gauthier: Could you tell me how many of the Seaborn recommendations were accepted by the government and how many were rejected?
The Chairman: Our researcher will copy all members with that.
Welcome, Mr. Minister. Please proceed with your presentation.
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal, Minister of Natural Resources: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. I am pleased to appear before this distinguished committee today to discuss with you Bill C-27, a timely bill of importance to all Canadians on the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.
Existing nuclear fuel waste is currently stored safely at the reactor sites. Bill C-27 provides a framework that will allow the Government of Canada to make a decision on the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. It is the culmination of a quarter century of government, industry and the public working on and debating the best ways to manage nuclear waste over the long term. This bill is consistent with the government's 1996 policy framework for radioactive waste that made clear that the government will ensure that radioactive waste disposal is carried out in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, cost effective and integrated manner. It also stresses the government's responsibility to provide effective oversight and the waste owners' responsibility for funding, managing and carrying out waste operations.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the federal government's responsibility on health, environment, safety and security aspects of management of nuclear fuel waste. This is provided by the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the regulations made pursuant to it. Bill C-27 is needed to implement fully the policy framework by ensuring that long-term waste management activities are carried out in a comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner that addresses financial, social, ethical and socio-economic considerations.
This proposed legislation builds on the 1998 Government of Canada response to the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel, better known as the Seaborn panel. The Seaborn panel carried out a decade-long public review of nuclear waste disposal, including public consultations from Saskatoon to Saint John, New Brunswick. Its recommendations were largely adopted by the government. Subsequently, there has been general support for the new legislation. However, some concerns have been raised by critics of the bill. Principally, there has been some disappointment that the government did not adopt fully the Seaborn recommendation to create a new federal Crown corporation to carry out the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.
A basic principle of this bill is that it is the waste owners who are primarily responsible for financing and carrying out waste management activities, and that they will do this under strict federal oversight. The government's role is one of appropriate and effective oversight and not of control over the business affairs of the industry. This approach provides for an effective way forward and allows for a clear separation between those who carry out operations and those who oversee them, thereby increasing efficiencies and avoiding potential conflict of interest.
Creating a new governmental organization to carry out industry responsibilities is not appropriate. The responsibility should remain with those who own the waste and who directly and firstly benefit from nuclear electricity generating operations. Utilities, which are the main nuclear fuel waste owners, welcome the increased certainty provided by Bill C-27. It provides them with a clear framework to fulfil their responsibilities without imposing an unmanageable financial burden.
In developing this proposed legislation, the government consulted with the affected provinces, namely, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. We addressed many of their concerns and showed as much flexibility as possible without compromising the government's policy objectives for federal oversight. The provinces recognized the federal leadership in this manner and were all supportive of the bill's principles.
The Government of Canada agreed to the Seaborn panel's recommendation that ``the federal government immediately initiate an adequately funded participation process with the Aboriginal organizations who should design and execute the process.'' My predecessor and colleague, Minister Goodale, contacted Aboriginal groups that showed interest in this federal initiative. He then met with a number of Aboriginal leaders to discuss how they wished to be consulted on next steps.
Department officials continue to carry out consultations with the five national organizations. I am pleased to report that discussions are well advanced and that a good working relationship has been forged.
The nuclear energy option attracts interest on broad matters: on the appropriate mix and supply of energy sources, on the sustainable development of energy projects, on waste import and export, on the social impact of high technology and globalization, on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and, recently, on acts of terrorism. These are serious issues, but all outside the scope and the purpose of this bill. Addressing broader nuclear energy policy matters should not serve as an excuse to delay dealing with existing responsibilities. Ensuring appropriate and responsible waste management is an important objective to be pursued in its own right.
I will conclude on Bill C-27. This is important proposed legislation that is needed now. Existing storage activities are safe but were not designed to be permanent, long-term solutions. There is international scientific consensus that the technology already exists to manage nuclear fuel waste properly over the long term. The Canadian nuclear industry is now ready to move forward to meet its waste management responsibilities. Concerning the long lead times envisaged before a solution can be implemented, embarking now on a solution for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste is the only responsible course of action. This proposed legislation, the culmination of many years of work, was not established in a contextual vacuum. Policy development was guided by extensive consultations with stakeholders, by experience gained in other countries, by modern regulatory practices and by social justice concepts. Of course, policy development was significantly influenced by the invaluable groundwork done by the Seaborn panel.
The challenge for the government in developing this bill was to be fair to all stakeholders and to strike an effective balance between conflicting demands, while always bearing in mind the public interest. I firmly believe that Bill C-27 fully meets this challenge. With a sound legislative framework, Canada will be able to select and implement a long-term waste management approach that takes into account not only technical matters but also incorporates in an integral way the social and ethical values of Canadians. I am confident that the committee's review will conclude that this proposed legislation should be enacted as soon as possible in the best interests of this generation of Canadians and those to follow.
That concludes my opening comments. I would be happy to answer any questions that honourable senators may have.
Senator Kenny: Welcome, Mr. Minister. You mentioned that, in preparing this bill, you consulted other countries and examined how they handled their nuclear fuel waste management. Can you share what you found with the committee and compare it with the Canadian approach?
Mr. Dhaliwal: My understanding is that our approach is very consistent with other countries. The challenge for everyone is managing our nuclear waste in the long term. As you may have seen in the American discussion, they are looking at this as well. They were recently looking at a long-term geological deposit in the Yucca Mountain area. How we can manage nuclear waste is an area that we are all working towards. Right now, the waste is all stored at the sites. That was always seen as a short-term issue, because it was not in the long-term interests to store them at the sites.
We have ensured that a permanent fund can be established. We are saying the industry should ensure that they come up with a solution, with oversight from the federal government, by creating the waste management organization that we talked about.
If you are interested in what other countries have done, we have looked at Sweden, the United States and the U.K. The Seaborn panel looked at all the other countries and the way they have handled their waste. We can provide you with a detailed table showing what each of these countries has done. Mr. Brown can give you a short synopsis, but all these things were looked at during the Seaborn panel review.
Senator Kenny: I was really asking for your assessment of how we compared with the other countries and whether you feel we will meet and match international standards in terms of our care and management of this waste.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I have been informed that some countries are doing a better job and are ahead of us and that others are not as good as us. We are somewhere in the middle.
Senator Kenny: Will Bill C-27 bring us to the head of the pack or keep us in the second quarter?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Bill C-27 ensures that we are forcing the owners to allocate funds towards looking at the long-term solution. It also ensures that there is good oversight. We are counting on the industry to come forward with resolutions on how to deal with the long-term waste. Of course, they will look at how other countries are doing it because they cannot continue doing what they are doing now.
It depends on the industry how they will move forward. The biggest player in the industry is Ontario Power Generation, which is responsible for 90 per cent of the nuclear waste. They will be the major body looking at it. Much of this will depend on how quickly industry moves forward. We have now set up the legal framework and this bill will ensure there is funding available to move forward so that we come up with a long-term plan for dealing with nuclear waste.
Senator Kenny: Will this cause us to be a model that other countries will look to or will we still be behind other countries? When we are travelling overseas, can we refer to this as a framework that will set a benchmark for other countries to consider?
Mr. Dhaliwal: One area where we are probably ahead of other countries is the public consultation process that is outlined, and the fact that we are looking at a long-term plan as opposed to just accepting the short-term situation. There will also be a substantial amount of funds deposited immediately. A huge amount of funds — over $500 million, and that will build up — is initially deposited into the fund. That puts the resources there. It will move us towards looking at long-term waste management and being a leader in developing those proposals.
Senator Kenny: I am hearing that it is a good first step, but there are other steps —
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes. We have set the framework for that, and then we have to move forward to see what results come from the industry.
Senator Gauthier: Good evening, Mr. Minister. In your statement you seemed to say there is international scientific consensus that technology already exists to manage nuclear fuel waste properly over the long term. So there is known technology. Could you share with us where you found that? I have asked around, and they do not have it as yet in Europe. Maybe it is somewhere else. Can you tell me more about where this international scientific consensus originates?
Mr. Dhaliwal: There are different ways, one of which is depositing the waste in deep geological locations that the United States recently announced they are looking at. I will ask Mr. Brown to comment on areas that other countries may have looked at.
Mr. Peter Brown, Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Natural Resources Canada: Basically, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency meets on a regular basis to review scientific progress in long-term management techniques that are available in OECD countries. It has put out a number of publications. One, in particular, states that there is a scientific consensus that disposal of nuclear fuel wastes is a viable, technologically acceptable technique. The NEA has very clearly indicated that, from a technical scientific perspective, it is possible to do this. This does not mean that any given country has any acceptable technique in place. The United States, for examples, has moved ahead. President Bush has made a clear statement that he wants to see Yucca Mountain go ahead, but there are still technical scientific details to be evaluated within the context of Yucca Mountain. Nonetheless, the NEA, from an international scientific perspective, has indicated that disposal is a viable technology.
Senator Gauthier: Public consultation seems to be a rather important procedure at this time. Mr. Seaborn took 10 years to publish a report, and I think the government adopted most of the recommendations, modified some of them and did not accept others. If we are going to go through a public consultation process, what are your intentions in regard to consulting with the Aboriginal peoples? Do you have any ideas on what we as a political body could be doing to assist you in your consultations prior to this bill being accepted?
Mr. Dhaliwal: First, the Seaborn panel did a huge amount of consultation. It took them a long time to come forward with their recommendations. We accepted, as you say, the vast majority of the Seaborn panel. I know that my colleague, Ralph Goodale, was active in consulting with the Aboriginal people, and that will be continued.
Under the waste management organization, Bill C-27 requires that consultation take place with Aboriginal people and with communities. There will be an advisory council. Therefore, ongoing consultation will be required under Bill C-27.
Prior to that, the Seaborn panel had done the major consultation. I do not know all that my colleague Ralph Goodale did, but he did consult with the Aboriginal communities.
Senator Cochrane: The minister talks about communication with Aboriginal people. I should like to know what communication plan you have to deal with the public in general. As you know, when it comes to nuclear fuel waste, a red flag goes up because of all the health risks. What plan do you have in place to communicate to Canadians in general with regard to nuclear fuel waste?
Mr. Dhaliwal: This bill requires consultation by the waste management organization. They will have a responsibility to ensure that, when they are taking action or making decisions on nuclear waste, they would have public consultations. The most important part of Bill C-27 is that there has to be consultation with Canadians because Canadians are concerned about nuclear waste.
Senator Banks: The bill says that you may consult the public. Will you consult with the public?
Mr. Dhaliwal: On this bill?
Senator Banks: Clause 14 reads as follows:
The Minister may engage in such consultations with the general public on the approaches set out in the study...as the Minister considers necessary.
There is a difference between ``may'' and ``shall.''
Mr. Dhaliwal: What this refers to is that if as minister I am not satisfied with the consultations carried out by the WMO then I may carry out consultations. If I were not happy with the way the WMO had carried out its consultations, I could carry out consultations.
Senator Banks: Is there any contemplation of, so far as you know, and would you permit, the importation of spent nuclear fuel from outside of Canada into this facility?
Mr. Dhaliwal: We have —
Senator Banks: If this company finds a way to make a great deal of money by importing nuclear fuel would that be permitted?
Mr. Dhaliwal: There is no plan at this time to import nuclear fuel, because we are a country with a large amount of uranium. We are a major producer, so there are no plans for us to import any nuclear fuel.
If anyone did, they would have to comply with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Transportation Act. However, there is no plan, because we are a major producer of uranium.
Senator Banks: I was not asking about importing fuel. I was asking about importing spent fuel for disposal.
Mr. Dhaliwal: You are referring to a pilot project done when the government was looking to see if we had a role to play in terms of disarming nuclear weapons and examining the potential for the use of the fuel in nuclear weapons in CANDU reactors.
It was a one-time issue. I am not aware of a situation where we as a government planned as a program to do that. It was looked at on a one-time basis.
Senator Banks: I will ask my next question in the context of a situation of which you might not be aware in Alberta in which the government had got into the business of disposing of not nice stuff. The Government of Alberta thought it could profit by importing for the purposes of disposal not nice stuff that people in other countries did not want to have.
If a WMO — which I know would not be a for-profit organization — found that it could do well and reduce thereby the costs of its putative shareholders by importing spent nuclear fuel from somewhere — the most obvious country being the United States — for disposal for a fee, would it be permitted to do that?
Mr. Dhaliwal: First, the WMO would have to comply with a number of acts if any fuel were to be brought in, including the Nuclear Safety Control Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Export and Import Permits Act. The WMO would be required to get a permit and go through all the necessary processes, but we are not envisioning this as a business opportunity.
This is for the long-term management of our nuclear waste. It could change by decision of the government of the day, but a WMO would have to go through all the processes under the existing acts if it wanted to import waste fuels. I cannot predict what any future government may allow or disallow.
Senator Banks: It is not precluded in the proposed act?
Mr. Dhaliwal: I do not believe that the bill precludes that it could never be done. It would have to be a government decision. A WMO would have to comply with all the acts that are there now. The bill is silent on this.
Senator Banks: This will be a not-for-profit corporation, as I understand it?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes.
Senator Banks: Under the Canada Corporations Act?
Ms Joanne Kellerman, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Natural Resources Canada: It could be incorporated under federal legislation, or it is possible it could be incorporated under provincial legislation. The bill before you proposes that it would carry out certain activities on a not-for-profit basis.
Senator Banks: Certain activities?
Ms Kellerman: As described in clause 6.
Senator Banks: Does it contemplate that there might be activities that the company would carry out that would be other than not-for-profit?
Ms Kellerman: It is silent on that point. It does not contemplate it.
Senator Banks: It will be a corporation?
Ms Kellerman: Yes.
Senator Banks: There is a limited liability? Corporations have limited liabilities. That is the purpose of corporation.
Ms Kellerman: That is correct.
Senator Banks: There will be $500 million put into the fund. If our estimates were wrong, perhaps there would not be enough money in the fund to take care of some doomsday event, such as a leak or whatever, in the future. If the corporation is unable to act from its resources, would the corporation simply declare bankruptcy and go away? Would the government take over? What would happen in that circumstance?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Anything that the waste management organization does has to be overseen by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They would not be able to just take action or store it on their own. It would be something requiring our approval.
The fund will build on an ongoing basis, with a huge investment at the beginning. In 100 years, you will be looking at a $12-billion fund. The fund will replenish itself.
You were asking me what would happen if there were a major liability. I do not know if there is an answer. Perhaps Mr. Brown could speak about the liability, if there were to be such a situation.
Mr. Brown: There are two parts to the financial side. One is that Bill C-27 proposes putting forward a fund with real monies. If there were a serious issue and there was not enough money in that fund, you should be aware that the Nuclear Safety and Control Act has a requirement for financial assurances to be put in place. When a commission appears in front of you, you will be able to ask them how that operates. They require financial assurances up front.
What we have is an absolutely seamless approach. The financial assurances provided by, for example, Ontario are high at this particular time and they are resting with the commission. As the money increases in the fund, the requirement for the financial assurances decreases, until the point where there is more than enough money in the fund. What we have is a seamless approach with the regulator and Bill C-27 to ensure there will be money under financial assurances to make sure this job gets done appropriately.
Senator Banks: We hope it is enough, whatever enough is. My question was entirely hypothetical.
The storage on-site, which you describe as safe, is safe so far. Will that also be the responsibility of the WMO? That is to say the spent nuclear fuel must spend some time cooling down, which is normally at the site, before it is taken to deep disposal.
At what point after the spent nuclear fuel is removed from the reactor will the WMO assume responsibility for it?
Mr. Dhaliwal: First of all, the present owners would be responsible for the fuel on their site. That is their responsibility, and they have insurances that are provided to the nuclear safety commission.
I would presume that they would continue to be responsible for that, because it is their nuclear waste. The WMO is creating a situation where you can move from what is received as short term to long term.
Where does the WMO take responsibility from the owner who is storing it now? That is a good question. I do not know where that line is drawn, where it says from this day on, when it is actually stored in the new area. That depends on the proposal they come up with, which the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would have to look at. We do not know that; it would depend on their proposal.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Minister, my question is one that I think many Canadians have, and it relates to this mysterious, threatening thing known as nuclear fuel waste. Can you give us a definition of nuclear fuel waste. How long does it last? What risks does it pose to us? How is it even possible to dispose of nuclear fuel waste?
Mr. Dhaliwal: The bill clearly defines ``nuclear fuel waste.'' Scientists may have different definitions, but ``nuclear fuel waste'' is defined as follows in the bill:
``nuclear fuel waste'' means irradiated fuel bundles removed from a commercial or research nuclear fission reactor.
I am sure there may be other definitions, but for the purposes of the bill that is the way nuclear fuel waste is defined.
Regarding the life of spent nuclear fuel, I suppose it varies. I am not a scientist and thus cannot give you a scientific explanation. There are many different radioactive materials used in Canada. I had a tour of Nordion, which produces isotopes for medical purposes, and learned of a nuclear material that has a life of 66 hours. I presume there are a variety of nuclear materials, with different life spans; however, the proposed legislation is mainly concerned with commercial fuel used in nuclear plants. It depends on the physical characteristics of the radioactive material that you are talking about. It varies. Some would have to be stored for longer periods of time.
Senator Cochrane: Can you give us your version of how the three proposed long-term management options work — geological disposal, storage at reactor sites and above-ground storage at central sites?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Once again, the waste management organization would have to put forward proposals that would be evaluated and overseen by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They would have to come forward with a proposal as to what they think is the best way to manage this on a long-term basis, and they would be assessed on the basis of the proposals brought forward.
Senator Cochrane: The general public has many concerns with nuclear fuel waste. Can you give us your version of how these three options work? There is the deep geological disposal, the storage at reactor sites and the above-ground storage at a central site. Just tell us how each one of these options work.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Brown can probably provide better examples; mine would be a layman's version.
One option is to store the waste right at the nuclear plant. Another is to deposit the waste into deep geological areas. In that regard, the Canadian Shield was discussed. Is that an appropriate location? A deep geological pit could be dug, the waste could be stored underneath, and that would provide protection, I presume. The other option is to build a warehouse in which to store the waste.
Mr. Brown: These were the three options that were looked at and proposed by Seaborn. If you wish information on them, we can certainly provide it. The proposal in Bill C-27 is for deep geological disposal, centralized storage, either surface or sub-surface, and on-surface storage at the reactor sites. Those were three of the options that Seaborn specifically asked to be included.
I would like to add that the bill itself does not preclude the waste management organization coming forward with other options, should it desire to do so.
Senator Cochrane: I wanted this information mainly for the general public, who really have these concerns about nuclear waste, not myself.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate that in some respects you are probably new to this. Would I be correct that Minister Goodale was more involved in bringing matters to this stage than you were? You are the minister now.
The federal government set up the environmental assessment panel to review the whole subject of nuclear waste; they spent 10 years looking at the matter and came forth with recommendations. While I appreciate that most of the recommendations have been accepted, the main recommendation was with regard to a body to deal with waste materials. The federal government decided to do other than what was recommended in the report. I believe that the federal report recommended that a federal agency be established. The government has chosen, rather, to set up a waste management organization that consists of the nuclear energy companies and AECL. It will be an in-house body it seems. One could even say that it is a bit incestuous, in the sense that there is no independent group. I note as well that there is provision for an advisory council that is to be chosen by the nuclear companies.
Therefore, it appears that it will all be in-house and that there will be no opportunity for an independent body.
In its submission, Northwatch makes the point that the minister would be in conflict because he or she would be responsible for this issue as well as the nuclear industry in the country. There are shortcomings in what the government has done to date in terms of the three approaches it is considering. I will state again that it lacks independence.
I am interested in your view on whether I am correct in sensing that it is a bit in-house, a bit incestuous, and that we really need more openness and independence. It is obviously a big problem; if we do not handle things properly, the entire country will suffer.
Mr. Dhaliwal: That is a very good question, Senator Sibbeston. I am responsible for this file and I support it fully. Your question is whether a government agency should bear responsible about waste management and whether it should be totally involved in the solution for nuclear waste.
The view was that this is part of the cost of business for the nuclear industry. The fact is that they have nuclear waste and they must have solutions to store it. I do not think the government should subsidize that. It is their responsibility to ensure that they can deal with nuclear waste. Therefore, it is the industry that should come up with the appropriate solutions and bear the costs. The philosophy is that of ``polluter pay.''
The important question is how to ensure that industry deals with this properly. We tell the industry that nuclear waste is their responsibility and they must come up with the solutions. We believe it is better for us to oversee this and ensure that any proposal they put forward deals with environment, health and safety. They cannot decide on their own how best to store nuclear waste. They must bring any proposal to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which will either accept or reject the proposal.
I do not think the taxpayer should subsidize the industry. This is a cost they should bear as part of the normal business cost of producing electricity. It is the industry's responsibility, but government should oversee it.
Some may say that overseeing the issue as well as providing the solutions might create a conflict in itself. Yes, the government has a very important role to play through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They will have to ensure that any solution put forward complies fully with environmental and safety issues, all the things that Canadians think the government must take responsibility for.
The industry cannot walk away from this. It is required to put in place an ongoing segregated trust fund that cannot be taken away or used for other purposes.
Senator Sibbeston: I noted the amount of money that various companies are required to contribute. Are there sufficient profits in those businesses to enable them to put such large amounts of money in a trust fund? Five hundred million dollars is a lot of money. Is that to come from the profits of these companies?
Mr. Dhaliwal: There is a large initial investment, but it is reduced on a yearly basis thereafter. I believe it is a little over $100 million in the second and third years. Beyond that, it depends on the long-term solutions and what the fees would be. The companies were consulted and they agreed. Of course, no company wants to put any money in, but they can live with the amount of money they are supposed to put in trust. I have not heard any objections from the companies. As I said, the vast majority comes from Ontario Power Generation.
The Chairman: I am bothered a bit by the independence business. In your submission you said that waste management activities are carried out in a comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner. That sounds like the operators will be telling you what is cost effective and what is not. Naturally, if you are producing the waste and you are paying to get rid of it, you will argue that it should be dumped out in the back 40 rather than disposed of in a more expensive way. Of course I am exaggerating, but you did say ``cost-effective.'' What business is it of the utility company whether or not the disposal is cost effective?
Mr. Dhaliwal: We will ask the industry what the best solution is. They will obviously look for the most cost-effective way to deal with it. That does not mean we would agree to it. If there were any environmental, health or safety issues, we would not agree.
The Chairman: You went on to say that the waste owners are primarily responsible for financing and carrying out waste management activities. In spite of the public's worries about keeping this arm's length, you said a couple of times in your presentation that they will be able to make management decisions on how to handle the waste. Yet, we want to make it as independent from them as possible.
Mr. Dhaliwal: The bill talks about an economically sound approach for Canada.
The Chairman: When you make presentations on this bill you should include ``for Canada.'' It sounded like it is to be economically cost effective for the corporations, which is not too encouraging.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Clause 3 of the bill clearly states that under ``Purpose of Act.'' It says ``integrated and economically sound approach for Canada.''
Senator Christensen: We are dwelling on the issue that is causing the public a lot of discomfort, and they want to have comfort. You have said that the industry should be responsible not only for the fiscal resources and management of the waste, because they are the ones creating the waste in the first place, but also for coming up with a solution in terms of how we dispose of the waste in the long term.
Then when a solution has been developed and put forward, I take it that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will review that solution. However, is there not a lot of industry involvement in that organization as well?
Mr. Dhaliwal: In the organization itself?
Senator Christensen: Yes, in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Mr. Dhaliwal: No, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is an independent body at arm's length.
Senator Christensen: How independent is that body?
Mr. Dhaliwal: It is very independent. There is no influence by the industry or even by the minister. They will not be influenced by me. They will make their decision based on safety, not based on industry or other things.
Senator Christensen: It is a very small group of persons with the expertise. I would think the persons in that organization are also involved in one way or other with the industry.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes. However, they do that now for the storage of radioactive material.
Senator Christensen: Yes, I realize that.
Mr. Dhaliwal: They have a strong mandate. The commission is independent of me as well as independent of the industry. The commission has a very important role. I think Canadians expect it to have a strong independent role, and that is what it has under statutory law.
Senator Christensen: I have another point of clarification: Were you referring to Yucca?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yucca.
Senator Christensen: Not Yukon?
Mr. Dhaliwal: No, Yucca, which I believe is in the state of Nevada.
Senator Christensen: That is fine.
Senator Gauthier: I wish to follow up on some of the questions put by Senator Christensen. This Nuclear Safety Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of the Environment or through you?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Through me.
Senator Gauthier: Through you. You do not see a conflict of interest at all?
Mr. Dhaliwal: No, because they are an independent, quasi-judicial body that is at arm's length from me.
Senator Gauthier: The witness who preceded you here, Ms Lloyd, thinks you do have a conflict of interest, although she did not mention the commission. I did not have a chance to ask her why she thought that.
My question concerns the transportation issue: Most Canadians feel strongly about the means that are to be used to transport this waste from wherever it is produced to wherever it is to be disposed of. Nothing in this bill touches this issue; is that right?
Mr. Dhaliwal: That is right, because a number of acts already exist that controls that aspect. Four federal acts would be involved in that: the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Export and Import Permits Act. All those acts are responsible for the movement of goods. The WMO would also obviously put forward a transportation proposal, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would have to review that proposal before approving it. There are a number of checks and balances for the transportation —
Senator Gauthier: However, they are mostly through Environment, not through you?
Mr. Dhaliwal: In putting a proposal before the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, part of the WMO's proposal would be the movement of it. So it would be another check in addition to what we have existing, which is the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act that comes under the Minister of Transport. It would not be my decision. The waste management organization would have to get approval under a number of acts under different ministers before radioactive material could be moved.
Senator Gauthier: I was pleased to hear your answer to Senator Sibbeston's question about the importing of nuclear waste; you said there would be no such thing under this proposed act. The WMO will not be allowed to import nuclear waste. If we were to sell a CANDU to Romania or Argentina, for example, and the ``polluter pays'' type of issue were put to us — that is, ``CANDU pollutes, so therefore you must supply us with the disposal of the waste product, and you have in Canada the technology to do it'' — the WMO would come forward requesting an exception. The WMO would say: ``We will need an exception because we want to sell a CANDU reactor. It creates jobs; it is economically good for us.'' That scenario is not covered in this bill.
Mr. Dhaliwal: First, there are no plans for Canada to import or export nuclear fuel waste. Bill C-27 is silent on that. It does not say one or the other. That would be a government decision in the future. However, there are no plans to import or export nuclear waste.
Senator Gauthier: I wanted you to say it because it is not in the bill. You said it, and I believe you.
Senator Banks: We had a discussion with the previous witness, Ms Lloyd, about reporting. For the record, I want to confirm that the WMO will report to you each and every year and that, every third year, beginning in the third year, it will be a special report with some additional considerations. Then in the fourth year there will be an annual report and in the fifth year. Is that correct?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes, there will be annual reports. They will be tabled in the House for the public as well. It will be a public document.
Senator Banks: Every third, year the report will be a little more detailed than otherwise; correct?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes.
Senator Banks: I will direct my next question to Mr. Brown because I will know that he will have contemplated these things. My next two questions are short and hypothetical.
Could we make in Canada a place that would be as safe for storing nuclear spent fuel as Yucca Mountain is purported to be in the United States? Someone has looked around; otherwise, we would not be talking about this. Is there such a place? Is it geologically as sound as Yucca Mountain is claimed to be, just by way of example?
Mr. Brown: The answer I would like to give is that the Nuclear Energy Agency has clearly indicated from a scientific point of view that deep geologic disposal is viable technology. The United States has gone forward and looked at one particular type of geology called volcanic chuffs. In Canada, the program for geologic disposal has been focused on granitic rocks of the Canadian Shield.
In Bill C-27, we are asking that the WMO come forward with three proposals: First, the disposal of waste in granitic rocks of the Canadian Shield, and they would only come forward with that if it were acceptable; second, centralized storage either on surface or below surface, and Sweden has implemented that at this time; and third, long-term surface storage at the reactor sites. The WMO needs to come forward and evaluate the pros and cons of each of those proposals. It is up to them to determine whether they are willing to come forward with a safe and acceptable concept that can be implemented. As the minister keeps saying, the Nuclear Safety Commission will take a look at those options from the health, safety, environment and security perspectives.
Senator Banks: Given that people now fly airplanes into things, do you think that there is any such thing as safe, above-ground storage for spent nuclear fuel?
Mr. Brown: As a result of September 11, one of the options that should be accelerated is indeed deep geological disposal, precisely for that reason. That is certainly one of the positive arguments in favour of deep geological disposal.
The opposite opinion would be that it would take a long time to develop a deep geological concept, should that be the option chosen. Hence, there would not be an immediate solution to an immediate problem. It is a long-term solution.
There is a little bit of a disjoint with that view, but nonetheless for the very long term that point has been made.
Senator Banks: Finally, to return to my liability question, we have heard previously that there are limits in the insured's liability that exists under other acts and that other means of covering potential putative theoretical liabilities have been contemplated.
In this case, and this is just blue sky, what would happen if the WMO were found in the event of a disastrous accident with respect to storage to have been negligent and were then susceptible to lawsuits that in the aggregate exceeded the amount that was in fund? Would the government step in to cover those liabilities? Would there be an obligation on the part of the government to step in and cover those liabilities, or would those liabilities be limited to the amount in the fund or that which the WMO might have been able to obtain by insurance?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Let me first say that there do exist financial insurances that are required under the Nuclear Liability Act. This is something that must be looked at to bring it into modern requirements. It is something that I will be looking at closely because it has been a long time since we have had a look at that act. I want to ensure that we review that.
Senator Banks: We have determined that it is not enough.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I know that the Senate has already provided some interim information. I will be reviewing it to ensure that we modernize that act. Sometimes I feel that all acts should have a sunset clause, which would force us to modernize the legislation, but the house leader does not agree with me. We are forced to look at acts that sometimes get outdated and do not make sense for what today's realities are. I am very much committed to ensure that we look at that.
To more directly go to your question, there are financial assurances now that reflect what could be a liability. Those financial assurances will exist until the fund builds up to a point where we feel it will deal with any future risks that could occur.
If our estimates are proven wrong at some time in the future, it is difficult to say what would happen. Based on what we feel are the liabilities, we require financial assurances right now. We will have to review whether those are acceptable for today's risks. Those will be required, and they will only be reduced as the fund builds to a point where we feel it is acceptable and would be able to deal with any unexpected liabilities that may occur at some future time.
Senator Banks: Is the Government of Canada on the hook if the liabilities were found to be in excess of the combination of that fund and the available insurance?
Mr. Dhaliwal: It would be difficult to deny the possibility. In any case where there is a problem, people turn to the government. From a legal point of view, the government is not on the hook. An evaluation would have to be made vis- à-vis the situation. However, legally the government would not be liable.
Senator Gauthier: Can we sunset clause 16 dealing with the waste management? You seem to be agreeable.
Mr. Dhaliwal: The government leader will not agree with me. I would like to sunset all legislation at time frames, but they do not agree. It is not my decision. The government leader said he would never get through existing legislation.
Too many acts become outdated because of the changes in society. Until the pressure builds up, people do not look at them.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for attending here this evening.
I might mention that the Senate's final report on safety of the nuclear power companies should be out in the next month or six weeks. Obviously, we are flattered to hear that you have read our first report already. The second one will be even better.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your report. I look forward to working with this committee. I know the good work that has been done by this committee on an extremely important issue to Canadians.
I look forward to seeing your recommendations so that we can work together on these important issues.
The committee adjourned.