ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

0910

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

0915

Ms. Cait Maloney (Director General, Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission)

0920

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Cait Maloney

0925

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

0930

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

0935

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Larry Chamney (Environmental Assessment Specialist, Processing Facilities and Technical Support Division, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission)

Mr. Joe Comartin

0940

Mr. Larry Chamney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Larry Chamney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

0945

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Larry Chamney

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

Mr. Larry Chamney

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

0950

Mr. Larry Chamney

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Julian Reed

0955

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Cait Maloney

1000

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Rick Laliberte

1005

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

1010

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

1015

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Lunn

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Gary Lunn

1020

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Mills (Toronto—Danforth)

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Bob Mills

1025

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Larry Chamney

1030

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

1035

Mrs. Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Ms. Cait Maloney

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Cait Maloney

1040

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

1045

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Cait Maloney

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Redman

1050

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Ms. Cait Maloney

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 077

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Bonjour, mesdames and messieurs. Good morning.

Firstly, I have good news from another committee; namely, the health committee yesterday reported the pesticides bill to the House of Commons for report stage, with several amendments. They are all good amendments because they strengthen the pesticides bill, Bill C-53. I invite you to participate in that debate, if you are interested, in order to protect the public and human health. It will possibly emerge for discussion in the House tomorrow or Thursday.

Secondly, we have received a number of amendments, the clerk informs me. The clerk has received some 20 or 30 amendments from some members of this committee, but not from all members, so this is another cordial invitation to please provide him with your amendments, those of you who have some to suggest. The government amendments have not yet been received, but I'm sure the parliamentary secretary is taking care of that aspect. I see that those from the minister's office are nodding. Once they're in proper order they will be translated and numbered, so if all goes well we could possibly start next week. That's the end of the announcements.

Today we have as witnesses representatives from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. On the committee's behalf I welcome them to the committee. I will invite them to take the floor in a moment.

Your appearance this morning was triggered by the brief from the Inverhuron & District Ratepayers' Association, which appeared before this committee a couple of weeks ago. Presumably you are familiar with their brief. In their submission, the association was seeking a number of reforms to the bill based on the experience they had with the Bruce power plant. They would like to have amendments. Their submission calls into question the usefulness of the existing act and also raises a number of questions as to the adequacy of Bill C-19 as presented to this committee.

Without any further delay, because I'm sure you're familiar with the issues that were raised, which I hope you will address, I will be glad to invite you to take the floor. We look forward to your presentation, which undoubtedly will be followed by a good round of questions.

Ms. Maloney, would you like to proceed?

¿ (0915)

Ms. Cait Maloney (Director General, Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to appear before you. I'm the director general of the Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation. With me today are Peter Elder, the director of regulatory management and government relations, and Larry Chamney, an environmentalist assessment specialist in our processing facilities and technical support division.

I appreciate this offer to brief you today on the CNSC staff experiences with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to present our views on Bill C-19, and to respond to your questions.

Since this is our first time in front of you, I thought I'd mention our mandate. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was established in May 2000 when the Nuclear Safety and Control Act was proclaimed. The CNSC, as we're known, replaced the Atomic Energy Control Board, which had been in existence since 1946. The CNSC is an independent federal agency and a quasi-judicial tribunal, which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. It consists of a commission tribunal that can have a maximum of seven members, of which our president is currently the only full-time member.

The commission employs about 400 staff who provide licensing recommendations to the commission tribunal as well as conducting ongoing compliance and other regulatory activities. Members of the commission tribunal are appointed by the Governor in Council.

[Translation]

The Commission's role is to regulate the nuclear industry in Canada in such a manner that the development and use of nuclear energy do not pose an unreasonable risk to health, safety, the environment and nuclear security. We also have responsibility for the implementation of certain international obligations relating to the safeguarding and non-proliferation of nuclear materials.

[English]

The commission has comprehensive licensing assessment and compliance processes to implement its mandate. Protection of the environment is considered in any licensing decision by the CNSC, and regulatory requirements impose ongoing environmental protection and monitoring obligations on licensees.

I will turn now to our role with CEAA. Most licensing decisions by the commission have the potential to require an environmental assessment under CEAA. Therefore, all potential licensing decisions are reviewed by staff to see if such an assessment is required. Consistent with environmental assessment being a planning tool, the CNSC initiates environmental assessments at the earliest possible point after we are notified of planned projects that will require regulatory approval by the commission tribunal or its staff. Often an environmental assessment is initiated before a formal licence application is made to the commission.

[Translation]

In a typical year, the CNSC conducts ten environmental assessments under CEAA with an average of one comprehensive study.

[English]

In the 1990s, the predecessor to the CNSC, the Atomic Energy Control Board, was involved in environmental assessments conducted under EARPGO and participated in several panel hearings. For example, staff appeared at hearings into the development of new uranium mines in Saskatchewan and on the concept for the management of nuclear fuel waste, the Seaborn panel.

Since the introduction of CEAA, the CNSC has conducted environmental assessments on proposals to decommission nuclear research facilities, construct or modify waste management facilities, build uranium processing facilities and uranium mines, and restart nuclear power reactors.

For major environmental assessments, whether they are comprehensive studies or screenings, the CNSC has an extensive public consultation process that also forms part of our licensing process. Public consultation is sought on the scope of the environmental assessment and can include involvement of the commission tribunal itself in setting the scope. Public comments are solicited on the completed assessment before it is submitted to the commission tribunal or to the Minister of the Environment for decision.

If an environmental assessment under CEAA is accepted, the CNSC licensing process takes over. The licensing process for major facilities includes public hearings. The regulations under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act require applicants to submit information on many technical areas, including effects on the environment and on the health and safety of a proposed activity as part of the licence application. Information submitted as part of the environmental assessment under CEAA is often also used to fulfil part of these licence application requirements. The information submitted by an applicant, staff's review of that information, and public comment on the issue is then considered by the commission tribunal at a public licensing hearing. The public is therefore afforded several opportunities to participate in the environmental assessment and licensing processes operated by the CNSC.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

The CNSC participated in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's consultations on the five year review exercise leading up to the current consideration of Bill C-19. Overall, we are pleased with the level of consultation undertaken by the Agency, and we view the proposed changes contained in Bill C-19 as positive steps in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental assessment in Canada.

[English]

We note that many of the proposals will help to enhance the purpose of the act as a planning tool for new projects. In particular, we are supportive of the proposed changes to the comprehensive study planning process, whereby greater certainty could be brought to the environmental assessment process through ministerial consideration at the project scoping stage. We are also supportive of measures taken to make the operation of the public registry more efficient.

The CNSC is committed to open and transparent processes in all its activities and we believe that the requirements of CEAA, as it now exists and as proposed in Bill C-19, complement the CNSC's licensing processes in affording the Canadian public reasonable access to the decision-making process with respect to health, safety, and security regulation of the Canadian nuclear industry.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and attention. We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have at this time.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Maloney.

We will hear from Mr. Lunn, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Comartin, Madam Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Reed.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll ask just one short question, and hopefully we can leave some time for my colleague, Bob Mills.

My question goes back to when we had before us Mr. de la Chevrotière and the Inverhuron & District Ratepayers' Association, which I'm sure you're aware of, regarding the Bruce nuclear power development. When we listened to those witnesses, who had been to court and tried so many levels, it seemed that they had gone through so much and they were frustrated at the process all along the way. They seem to have raised some very legitimate concerns, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Quite simply, the impression I received was that there was a massive outpouring of public concern with respect to that project. Why did that public concern not trigger a panel review of that storage facility? That seemed to be the overriding concern. They tried desperately to get an independent panel review. There appeared to be public concern, yet a panel was not authorized. I'd like your comments with respect to that.

Ms. Cait Maloney: There was quite a bit of public comment associated with that project. Some interveners, such as Mr. de la Chevrotière and his group, were raising concerns about the project. We also had quite a few interveners who were actually in support of the project. There was some balance with that.

The types of issues that were being raised were ones that, when we analysed them, were going to be taken care of through the comprehensive study process and then in fact also reinforced by our licensing process. Issues such as the disruption of aboriginal burial grounds, the whitefish fishery, and the seismic concerns were raised and were all addressed during the process. We felt, and we were of the opinion, that the issues were raised and dealt with through the process that Mr. de la Chevrotière was afforded. I think that if you take a look at it, the courts went along with that as well.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you.

Perhaps I can defer to Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): On nuclear power plants, it would seem to me it would be an impossibility to ever get a new one. I wonder when the last one was commissioned. For instance, in Germany they're decommissioning them. Their parliament has said it will get rid of nuclear power plants.

It would seem to me that there are energy sources such as hydrogen and so on that will far outdistance the possibilities for nuclear power plants. It would seem to me to be an impossibility to even consider building a nuclear power plant today, and the hearings would be called by Bill C-19. Could you just reply to that?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Given that the CNSC does not have a policy mandate on new power plants, I would be in trouble if I speculated on the possibility of new plants in Canada. I will point out that Bill C-19 and the existing CEAA actually involve triggers on nuclear waste facilities and on other types of facilities. It would not just be on new nuclear power plants.

Mr. Bob Mills: When was the last one built?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Darlington was commissioned in 1992.

Mr. Bob Mills: As well, storage seems to be the big concern environmentally. Is there any way that concern can be alleviated? Can you destroy that spent plutonium and whatever else?

Ms. Cait Maloney: There is international research into what's known as transmutation, which would be destruction, but the bulk of the research effort and the technological effort is to safe isolation from the environment. A bill that I believe you have considered before, Bill C-27, which is looking into waste management, does get into various aspects of this. That will be coming. In fact, that's in the bill before the Senate at present.

Mr. Bob Mills: What about storage in the Precambrian Shield?

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's one of the options that will be considered if Bill C-27 is established. There will be a waste management organization set up, which has been charged with considering at least three options for managing waste, one of which is disposal in the Shield.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

The Chair: This is not a hearing on waste management, but also I can appreciate that we all want to know more about that aspect. It would be desirable if we could concentrate on Bill C-19 or issues related to Bill C-19, if at all possible.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to deal once again with the case put forward by Mr. de la Chevrotière which affects no less than 300 families living in the vicinity of the Bruce complex. What the group was asking is that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency establishes a panel to make an assessment of the proposal to add the waste site to the existing operations of the Bruce complex.

I would like to know what process was put in place to choose the Bruce site?

According to the Seaborn Commission, when discussing the storage of radioactive waste, the technical aspects were of course important, but the sociological aspects were as important. Well, I would like to know how you can refuse the requests of those citizens who, a few years after the Seaborn Commission, ask to be consulted, and want public interest to be heard, in fact. How can you come to such conclusions and not accede to the citizens' requests, through a panel, when the Seaborn Commission was clear on that matter?

¿ (0930)

[English]

Ms. Cait Maloney: First of all, the Seaborn commission was focusing on long-term storage and management of waste. What we're dealing with at the Bruce at the moment is interim storage, short-term storage. Bill C-27 responds to the concerns and recommendations raised by the Seaborn panel.

The issues raised by Mr. de la Chevrotière and the other interveners into the Bruce nuclear interim storage were dealt with through the comprehensive study process, which is public, and then also through our licensing process, where Mr. de la Chevrotière, the Bruce municipality, and local first nations all brought their issues to our commission. Those were dealt with and influenced the licences that have been issued.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: However, Mr. de la Chevrotière told us that they fought to have a panel review on the project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Did you agree with those arguments? Did you give Mr. de la Chevrotière what he was asking for?

[English]

Ms. Cait Maloney: We did respond to Mr. de la Chevrotière in terms of his issues associated with the interim storage. That's all that was being licensed. This was not a long-term storage or waste management process there. We did consider those issues.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would like to understand the difference, in your view, between a long-term and a short-term storage of nuclear waste? When speaking of the Bruce complex, it should be mentioned that it is high level storage and, it seems, one of the largest such facility in the world. How can you say in front of 300 families that the Bruce complex is different, that this is not long-term storage, since the Seaborn Commission was clear on the assessment not only of the technical aspects of storage but also and mainly on the sociological aspects? Thus, how can you make a difference between a short-term and a long-term storage, when the short-term storage is a high level storage and one of the largest facilities in the world? I have a lot of trouble understanding that.

[English]

Ms. Cait Maloney: There has been absolutely no difference in terms of our response to Mr. de la Chevrotière in respecting and dealing with his issues. The difference is in the project that has been approved and licensed. What we have said is that the technology and the storage being used are approved, and each of those, we assume, has a life of about 50 years. That's why this would not be long-term storage. The technology, or those concrete canisters, if you like, are good for that long.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I still do not understand. Once again, maybe I am the one who misunderstands but you have just told us that this is storage for 50 years, haven't you?

[English]

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: And according to you, 50 years is short term? You do not even think that it is mid-term? For you, it is short-term.

[English]

Ms. Cait Maloney: We have only two categories, either short term or long term. Long term, of course, is 10,000 years.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Could it be that an assessment you think is fort the short-term becomes long-term, at a certain time?

[English]

Ms. Cait Maloney: It would certainly be possible that the licensee could approach us on that. We would have to consider it at that time, look at the technology, look at the social aspects and consider all of them at that time. That is not in front of us at the moment, though.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have no further question.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Ms. Maloney, I think the aspect of the brief from the Inverhuron ratepayers' group that disturbed me the most was that the design changed midway through. Specifically, in August 1998, Hydro told the then AECB that it would use the Pickering design. The environmental agency said that they would publish a notice of that design change, which they in fact never did.

First of all, are you aware that there was a design change midway through the public consultation process?

¿ (0935)

Ms. Cait Maloney: In fact, there was not a design change. Both those designs were available in the public documents at the time. The way that Ontario Hydro had chosen to produce the information was to have a reference design and an alternate design. The alternate design was detailed in an addendum to the environmental assessment, but it was publicly available. In fact, we received public comment on both designs during the process. The Saugeen Nations and others commented extensively on both designs.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Was that sent specifically to the Inverhuron ratepayers' association? Was the notice published to that extent? Or was it simply--

Ms. Cait Maloney: The documentation was available to them. I can't say whether it was sent to them specifically, but all that information formed one package in the comprehensive study report. It was all there.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay. So during the comprehensive study report, the design, the addendum, was published and considered.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Then the study was published?

Ms. Cait Maloney: The study had been published. The addendum was published. All that information was available.

Mr. Joe Comartin: After the second design, the addendum, was published, was an opportunity given to take in public consultation?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes. That information had been available all the time.

I think the confusion arose because the reference design was the one that was getting the most attention. The other one was there as well. What happened was that Ontario Hydro, later in the process, said that it was not going with its new design; it was going with the one that was in the addendum, which in fact had been used at Pickering and was a known quantity.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The dates I have would indicate that the earliest the public groups, such as that ratepayers' group, would have received that addendum, the very earliest, from what I can see from the information I have, would have been in mid-fall of 1998. In fact, the Minister of the Environment approved the project in April 1999. During that period of time, the study was done and sent to the minister. What I'm getting at is that I see a very short period of time for any group--and let's assume an unsophisticated ratepayers' group--to be able to respond to that. Is that a valid assessment of the timeframe?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I'm going to ask Mr. Chamney to assist me on the dates.

Mr. Larry Chamney (Environmental Assessment Specialist, Processing Facilities and Technical Support Division, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission): Thank you.

Just to clarify the documentation and the timing, the main report was received from the proponent, which was reviewed by the technical reviewers, in December 1997. There were substantial comments from the government reviewers on it. It was sent back revised. In July 1998, the addendum was also submitted to us. That provided additional detailed information on several items, such as the first nations issues, but also on the alternate design for the container, the so-called Pickering design.

Both of those documents, once they were accepted by the CNSC staff and by the expert federal authorities participating with us, were compiled into the comprehensive study report, which was submitted to the minister and to the agency in September 1998. The agency then proceeded with that documentation into the public review, from September until November. Comments from the public were received on the comprehensive study report, which included the addendum that provided the information on the alternate design, the Pickering design.

So to answer your question, yes, that documentation was available as part of the comprehensive study report. The agency received several comments from several interveners on that design in particular. Those comments were reviewed and recommendations were then made, later in the spring of 1999, from agency staff to their minister for the decision in April 1999.

Mr. Joe Comartin: If I understand you correctly, there were two months or less for the ratepayers' groups and other interested groups to respond to that study.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Larry Chamney: Yes. The public review period was initially set for 45 days. That's set by the agency staff. At the request of some interveners--I believe Mr. de la Chevrotière was one of them, but I can't confirm that right now--the agency agreed to extend the public comment period into December for a full 60 days, which is typical of comprehensive study public reviews conducted by the agency.

Mr. Joe Comartin: A minute ago you said it was finished in November.

Mr. Larry Chamney: No. It was a 60-day period. Initially it was to be completed in November after a 45-day period starting on September 23, I believe. At the request of some interveners, the agency discussed that and agreed to extend the date by an additional 15 days.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you feel that 60 days is enough for unsophisticated groups, not funded, to deal with the largest storage site in North America? Is 60 days sufficient time for them to put a case together to deal with that kind of a project?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I think that's the formal part of the progress of the process. There certainly had been information given for that to the community that this project was under way. So it wasn't as if they were coming in cold. That wasn't given to them at that time as a brand new project.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The so-called Pickering design was a significant alteration to the original project, wasn't it?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I don't see it as a significant alteration. It was made available at the same time as the rest of the information was made public. It had--

Mr. Joe Comartin: Wait a minute: the initial proposal had been available for much longer than the addendum was available.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Was any consideration given at any time by the agency to recommend a panel review?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Consideration was given, as it always is, to reviewing the comments to see if a panel was warranted. The mindset was there. We were open when we were considering the comments.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In that regard, whether or not it has a significant environmental effect is a major factor. That's the test you look to. Is that correct?

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's one of the tests, yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In that regard, obviously the agency concluded that there were no significant environmental effects with this design.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct, with mitigating measures to be taken.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, in spite of the fact that you had substantial opposition from local groups?

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, you were developing the largest repository of nuclear waste in North America. That was going to be the end result of this design and this project.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: There was a study prepared by a Dr. David Hoel, a university professor from South Carolina, on the impact of nuclear plants on childhood leukemia. It showed that there was a 40% higher rate of that illness in the Bruce area. Was that given any consideration when you were looking at significant environmental impacts?

¿ (0945)

Ms. Cait Maloney: That study was reviewed by CNSC staff, by Health Canada staff, and by the Durham medical officer of health because it also included another nuclear power plant. It was reviewed and rejected. The conclusions were that there was no statistical significance to that increase. There was a very small number of leukemias involved. It was deemed not to have validity from a statistical point of view.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Did they conduct a study themselves or did they just review this study?

Ms. Cait Maloney: There has been a literature search done. We have commissioned other work in that area.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you saying that the 40% incidence increase is not accurate?

Ms. Cait Maloney: It may be accurate; it's not statistically significant.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I just wonder as a parent, you know.

The Chair: Who determines what is statistically significant?

Ms. Cait Maloney: There's a body of research, of course, carried out by biostatisticians who look at all of those types of things, that is to say, in the past that is where the links between smoking and lung cancer and various other links between disease and causal factors came from. There are epidemiologists involved in those types of things.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you doing any monitoring at this point--

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: --for childhood leukemia?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Of childhood leukemia, no. We do extensive environmental monitoring in the area. We have conducted other health studies. The monitoring of those types of things is also done by provincial and federal health agencies.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I could spend an hour on that one, too, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, then Mr. Reed, Madam Redman and the Chair.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on some of the questions that Mr. Comartin put forward. This has to do with the change in the design and I am going to quote from the brief of the Inverhuron ratepayers. They said:

In December 1998, the Agency and the AECB agreed that a new period of public comment was required to address the design change and to disseminate new design information to the public.

There was an agreement that Ontario Hydro would send out this newsletter, but it was never sent out and the new comment period never occurred. I'm wondering if you can comment on that and tell us why that never happened.

Ms. Cait Maloney: I'm going to ask Mr. Chamney to respond to that.

Mr. Larry Chamney: There are two issues, one with respect to the discussion between the agency staff and the CNSC staff. This took place after public comments had been received on the comprehensive study report. There was discussion as to the extent of those comments and whether additional supplementary information would be required to be provided for people to discuss in more detail the alternate design, the Pickering design, which was being put forward as the preferred design. It was discussed, the public comments were looked at, and it was accepted that the documentation in the CSR, the comprehensive study report, was adequate.

With respect to Ontario Hydro and any statements they may have put out about issuing a newsletter, that was entirely a matter of their concern. It was not a concern for us.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, but may I just go back to this? You've been talking about this addendum that was put together; however, there was an agreement between the agency and AECB in December 1998, after the public comment period to which you've been addressing your comments. It was decided in 1998 by both the agency and AECB that there would be a new period of public comment. I don't want to hear about the old period of public comment; we're talking about a new period of public comment. There was also a requirement to disseminate new design information to the public. I'm wondering why that did not happen.

Mr. Larry Chamney: There was no agreement for that. There were discussions between agency staff and CNSC staff as to the extent of the public comments received, and it was established that the existing documentation in the comprehensive study report was adequate.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But if the proponent was willing to send out this information in this newsletter, why was it then...? On the one hand I have information that is telling me the agency and AECB agreed to a new period of public comment and that new design information would be disseminated to the public, so we have two different sides to a particular story here. If the proponent had said that it was willing to send out a newsletter with this information in December, then why wasn't it done?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Larry Chamney: The proponent conducts its public consultation and public information program continuously. It was used as part of the consultation on the comprehensive study, but it existed prior to the project and it exists today. They use newsletters to advise the local communities of issues of importance to their facility.

That was the purpose of the newsletter. The purpose of the newsletter was not to give input into the comprehensive study report. That was a matter between the agency and CNSC staff.

Ms. Cait Maloney: If I might add to that, the proponent is free to put out newsletters when they want. There were certainly no directions given by either us or the agency that the newsletter not be put out. We just did not require one to be put out.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if we could receive documents from the witnesses that suggest there was no agreement reached on this issue with regard to a new public comment period and the requirement to put out new information to the public on the change in design.

The Chair: Mr. Chamney, can you provide that information as to how agreement was not reached? Is there anything on paper? Is there a paper trail?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I think it is reasonable. We will search our files. I'm not sure that we will be able to say if something did not happen; we will certainly be able to show what did happen.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to take a step back. I sat for four years on the hydro select committee in Queen's Park. According to my recollection, in 1979 the long-term storage technology was well established; we toured it at Whiteshell, Manitoba. There was never any consideration given to above-ground, dry storage of high-level waste at that time. It was to go directly from its temporary resting place, its interim storage, if you like, in water-filled containers, to long-term, permanent storage.

Isn't the real reason why we're dealing with this subject that the powers that be could not get public support for a long-term storage facility?

I'll take you back to Mount Moriah in the 1970s and the political upheaval that took place. Mount Moriah is a natural pluton, or impervious rock, and it was to be the final resting place, or long-term storage. There was never any discussion at that time about storing on top.

I'm just wondering whether the real reason we've even had to consider this is that politically the nuclear industry could not find a place for long-term storage.

Ms. Cait Maloney: The facts are, certainly, that we do not have a location for long-term storage or disposal, which of course in 1979 was what was being talked about at that stage; it was a disposal site rather than long-term storage. The difference between those two is that with disposal, it's something that's engineered so that you can just walk away from it, whereas with storage you have to keep an eye on it.

Mr. Julian Reed: Right.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's the difference there.

So you're correct: there is no long-term storage below ground. There is no disposal facility below ground. The idea of safe, dry storage above ground has been accepted and used nationally and internationally for 20-plus years.

Mr. Julian Reed: Is it not incredibly naive to talk about above-ground interim storage when one considers, for instance, the state of the world at the present time, and this statistically insignificant leukemia record and so on? After all, in 50 years, obviously there'll be another decision made to simply increase the size of the interim storage on top, assuming there's no catastrophe between now and then.

I'm just wondering if we're simply giving in to a situation here rather than dealing with it properly, the way it was originally intended.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Cait Maloney: It's difficult, of course, to speculate on what's going to happen in the future. I think that's certainly a discussion we've had in other committees in terms of the waste bill and the interest of our colleagues at Natural Resources Canada in establishing the waste management organization, which will have responsibility for looking for longer-term solutions for the waste.

However, at the moment, the CNSC, through its licensing process and through our inspection and environmental monitoring, is ensuring that this interim storage is not presenting a health hazard or an environmental hazard in the short or intermediate term.

Mr. Julian Reed: I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion, but I certainly cannot. I think the decision to put dry, high-level storage on top is, to be generous, naive.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Madam Redman, Mr. Laliberte and the Chair.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing today.

A few weeks ago, as I'm sure you're well aware, we had three or four groups come before us that had had experiences with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Certainly Bill C-19 is looking to improve past experience and make the bill work even better. The comprehensive study of projects, such as the one that was referenced by this group, would now include participant funding. There now would be three opportunities for public participation under the new bill we're currently discussing: for public input during scoping, and during the study phase, as well as continuing to have the comment on the comprehensive study review.

We heard from the Bruce nuclear storage facility group. When they gave their testimony, there seemed to be a bit of confusion as to exactly who you were. In your presentation you referenced your name change from the Atomic Energy Control Board to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, but I'd like to ask you a couple of questions to further clarify exactly what your role is.

First, you're an independent regulatory body and you're separate from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the electrical utilities. Therefore, you're a regulator, not a project proponent, and it is not your role to promote the nuclear industry.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Second, you mentioned that the members of the commission tribunal are appointed by the Governor in Council.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I'm interested in their role. Could you could tell us a little bit about how they act as a panel of independent fact-finders and decision-makers?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Certainly. The commission tribunal, as we say, is an independent group appointed by the Governor in Council and made up of one full-time member, our president, who is also the chief executive officer of the organization. The other members are part-time, academics and that type, who bring various subsets of expertise to the deliberations. They meet either in Ottawa or elsewhere in the country to consider licensing issues, because when we issue licences we do not issue indefinite licences. We review applications and licences are issued, typically for either two to five years, after which performance is reviewed. Ongoing licensing is contingent upon satisfactory performance.

The commission tribunal hearings are held in public. They are typically two-day hearings with 60 days in between so that interveners, including the public, can review first-day testimony and react to that. Our hearings, as I have said, are held in public. The applicant makes an appearance, with staff, and they address the tribunal as well, as do interveners, both in support of and in opposition to aspects of various projects. Our transcripts are public.

À (1000)

Mrs. Karen Redman: Would the tribunal make decisions on all projects that undergo environmental assessment?

Ms. Cait Maloney: No. They make decisions on the major projects. Some lesser projects, smaller projects--because we have over 4,000 licensees across the country--would be decided by a designated officer who is a senior staff member. The mechanism for that still requires reporting to the commission and designated officers can be questioned by them.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Would the tribunal be involved, for example, as part of a review of projects that are subject to the screening level assessments under CEAA?

Ms. Cait Maloney: They certainly could be. We do not differentiate between comprehensive studies and screenings. Some of our screenings have been projects of major interest. It's not just comprehensive studies that go to them; it's projects of major interest or major technical significance.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Just out of interest, can you define or put a face on how you would define that term in the context in which you've just used it?

Ms. Cait Maloney: We would certainly look at projects such as a restart of a reactor, or some of the waste projects. We have a waste project down in New Brunswick at the moment. The scope of that is being considered by the commission as we speak. In fact, we appeared before the commission two weeks ago just to discuss the scope of that. They're considering that.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Redman.

Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Bailey, and then the chair.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I have an overall question. When you're dealing with radioactive material, you're dealing with it from the source, from the mine site and the operations in a mine site, the transportation, the processing, the use of it as fuel and then the waste. So the whole journey is the jurisdiction you have, right?

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's one of our sets of jurisdiction. We also look at radioactive materials produced to help in cancer diagnosis and in other industrial uses such as industrial radiography, where they examine pipelines to see if they're intact, and also for use in efficient extraction of oil from oil wells. As we've been saying, we have 4,000 licensees in areas other than nuclear power production and mining.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Maybe the questions I have are issues of hindsight as well. There are abandoned mine sites in northern Saskatchewan in Lake Athabasca and in the Uranium City area. Everybody is well aware of the Uranium City operation, but there were previous mine sites that the Eldorado company bought out, I guess at the time when they created it, and they left them abandoned to kill off the competition from independents. To this day, these mine sites are still abandoned and the tailings in the main mine operations were pushed right into Lake Athabasca, so you have tailings that are now exposed to a great lake.

There is a dialogue in the province on how to clean this up. To my mind, there should be an assessment. If you're the agency responsible, there should be an assessment of whether to leave these mine sites untouched or to clean them up. There are risks on both sides.

The other question I have is about the early 1980s when an accident happened and a yellowcake truck hit a train in Montana. In the cleanup process--this was on U.S. soil--why were the waste, the actual train and the actual truck all shipped back up to the mine site in Key Lake? If this happens on American soil, what are the agreements? What do we have in international agreements about other wastes being brought back onto our soil?

The other question I have is on eco-regions. Most of the mine sites in northern Saskatchewan are part of the Mackenzie River system. The watershed area has a northern flow, but the decision-makers are in the south. Most of the decision-makers are in the Saskatchewan legislature and the environmental departments would be anywhere from Regina to Saskatoon to Prince Albert, but none of them are in the eco-region of the north.

How do we look at cumulative effects of these mines? There are huge mines now. You have Cluff Lake being decommissioned. You have Key Lake, Rabbit Lake, and Cigar Lake, and now McArthur is one of the hottest mines. What is the cumulative effect? Are there any studies to do tests on the high incidence of cancer in our northern communities as well, in a lot of our Dene communities?

I'm looking at overall effects of the long-term industry, but I'm also looking at the journey. The reason why I say the “journey” of this uranium is that we also have the worst roads. The roads in northern Saskatchewan are incredibly bad. They weren't too bad--nobody complained about it--but the complaint we have now is that Saskatchewan has a timber policy where logging is happening at an incredible rate so you have logging trucks and uranium trucks on the same piece of road, and the roads are falling apart. These roads are incredibly dangerous and not only for private travel; now you're looking at dangerous material on these yellowcake trucks. What is the overall vision? Is somebody looking at this? Is somebody monitoring this? Our communities certainly are not apprised of this information or the dialogue that should take place.

À (1005)

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, the question you're asking is certainly worth putting in the form of a written question on the order paper because it's so comprehensive and wide-ranging.

However, Ms. Maloney, would you like to attempt an answer, please?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I can start, but I'm more than happy to respond outside this forum, if you want, in any way I can.

We'll start with your eco-region question first of all. Certainly when we were involved in the panels that considered the new mines in the mid-1990s, we were very interested in the cumulative effect on, as you call it, the eco-region there. There is environmental monitoring done to capture the whole impact of the mining up there.

We don't look at the mines as separate entities. Similar to the approach we've taken to the abandoned mines in the Elliot Lake area, we look at their impact on the environment in total. We work with the Saskatchewan government and with the Northern Mines Monitoring Secretariat. We meet regularly with the environmental quality committees that have been established in the area. In fact, we have a meeting coming up two weeks from now to discuss an enhanced, integrated regulatory regime we're putting in place with the Saskatchewan labour and environment departments. I think we have tried very hard to work with the communities up there to get them to understand what we're going to do. When we're up doing inspections on site, we do meet with the communities and we work with those committees.

In terms of the yellowcake, that one I would like to respond to outside of this. I don't know the specifics of that case, so I don't know who owns the material. This material is transported across the border on a regular basis. Whether it is deemed to be waste or owned material that is being returned, there are several nuances there.

On the third one, you were talking about the two abandoned mines in Saskatchewan. We are at present in discussion with the Government of Saskatchewan about the desirability and necessity of a cleanup of those sites. They only came under our potential regulatory regime with the establishment of our new act two years ago. Obviously there are several aspects there that we have to deal with at that stage.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

It will be Mr. Bailey, then the Chair, and then we'll go for a second round.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for appearing today. I have two quick questions.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, I would think, has connections with other similar committees around the world, internationally.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct.

À (1010)

Mr. Roy Bailey: Do the other organizations share with you, under whatever name they have--it's under safety, I remember--any of their research and findings, particularly in regard to the health care of the other nations?

Ms. Cait Maloney: There are two aspects there. We work closely with other national nuclear regulators and also through the International Atomic Energy Agency to share experience on nuclear safety, radiation protection, and environmental protection.

The main body that is responsible for radiation protection work is the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which is a volunteer group, if you like, that rolls up all the research. It works under UNSCEAR, the United Nations group, which has strong Canadian representation on it. So, yes, work done in Canada, standards set in Canada, reflect international experience in this area.

Mr. Roy Bailey: A second quick question I have concerns the figure of 400 that you list as being employees or part of your group. Are these all employees of your group, or do they also include employees from other associated organizations that fit into the Nuclear Safety Commission?

Ms. Cait Maloney: They're all employees of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, because we have a few staff at each of the nuclear reactor sites on a permanent basis. We also have regional offices in Calgary, Saskatchewan, Mississauga, and Laval. Mainly they look after radioisotopes or the mines.

Mr. Roy Bailey: The employees are not just...like at the present time, you don't have a new site proposal in Canada for a new reactor?

Ms. Cait Maloney: No, but we look at ongoing--

Mr. Roy Bailey: All right, ongoing.

Ms. Cait Maloney: --because we re-license every couple of years or every five years. We have to ensure that the information for our commission is up to date.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Therefore, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has 400 employees across Canada.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

Ms. Maloney, does the commission's mandate include the precautionary principle?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Our mandate does not because there is a good body of knowledge about the effects of radiation. That's why the precautionary principle in its pure form is not part of our philosophy.

The Chair: Do you think it would be desirable to adopt it as part of your philosophy in light of this discussion this morning?

Ms. Cait Maloney: It's certainly something we could consider, but given that the precautionary principle is mainly directed at unknown factors and we believe that there has been a lot of evidence, especially in the area of radiation effects on the human, this is something we can bear in mind but we wouldn't be adopting per se.

The Chair: More than addressing unknown factors, the precautionary principle in essence states that one should not wait for the smoking gun. The history of lead in gasoline, for instance, is a good example. Do you see merit in continuing with this body that determines what is statistically significant?

Ms. Cait Maloney: We operate on a principle called ALARA, “as low as reasonably achievable”, which is the idea that dose limits or doses accepted should be whatever can be reasonably achieved by using various bits of technology or procedures to keep radiation away from people or the environment.

The Chair: How is ALARA arrived at and by whom?

Ms. Cait Maloney: It's arrived at in two ways. First of all, we establish dose limits above which no licensee can go.

The Chair: Is this an internal process within the commission?

Ms. Cait Maloney: The dose limits, the first step, are published. That's part of our regulation. The second step, which is how far below that, comes at--

The Chair: Was the ALARA principle arrived at with public consultations?

Ms. Cait Maloney: The ALARA principle is an internationally accepted radiation protection principle.

The Chair: All right, but was it arrived at with public consultations or not?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Not within Canada per se, except that we have a policy document on ALARA, which was subject to public consultation.

The Chair: Would you provide the committee with that document?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Certainly.

The Chair: In light of your experience, since a 40% incidence, as you indicated or as Mr. Comartin indicated in his questions earlier, is not sufficiently significant, would you like to comment on that conclusion?

Ms. Cait Maloney: If I could clarify, the point that was made there was that the number of cases was so small that the 40% is not statistically significant.

À (1015)

The Chair: How large should a sample be?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I cannot give you that information at hand, but we can respond in writing to you.

The Chair: Who is to provide that determination as to how large a sample ought to be? How many dead bodies are required?

Ms. Cait Maloney: The information would be based on statistical methodology, which I can't give you at hand today.

The Chair: In the brief prepared by Inverhuron, they express a concern that under the amendments to Bill C-19, and I will quote from the text:

the responsible authorities will rarely, if ever, conclude on their own, at the outset, that a comprehensive study will not adequately address issues relating to the project.

Would you like to comment on their observation?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I can say that from our own point of view we approach each project with an open mind and certainly would be prepared to go to panel when that's warranted. I can't comment on their belief.

The Chair: That's correct. That's only fair.

Can you, in light of the experience with IDRA, indicate to this committee whether in your opinion Bill C-19 addresses the problems raised by that association?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I believe some of the proposed changes would go some of the way. We welcome the fact that there is more regulatory certainty or process certainty, I think, afforded to individuals through Bill C-19 and there is more mandated public access. I should indicate that we believe that our process has already been doing that. We're just seeing that Bill C-19 is establishing that for all types of comprehensive studies.

The Chair: Would you like to see further amendments made at this stage to Bill C-19?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I've been told no. We have been informed--

The Chair: By whom?

Ms. Cait Maloney: My staff member, Larry Chamney, who has been involved with some of the committee work done to propose the amendments there, indicated and in fact has reminded me by saying this, that we have been involved in the process and we are satisfied with the amendments that are proposed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Second round, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have a few questions, one that is really short. I believe I'm correct in this, but it is true that your agency is 100% funded by the federal government. Is that correct? Is it a federally funded agency?

Ms. Cait Maloney: We're federally funded. However, we do cost recover. Our cost recovering goes back into central funds.

Mr. Gary Lunn: You have to appreciate that we received some very passionate testimony from the Inverhuron & District Ratepayers' Association about their frustrations. Of course, as you are aware, they took this to court and you challenged them all the way through. The judge even stated that it's not for the judge to decide which projects are to be authorized as long as they follow the statutory process. In other words, they were technically within the law, so the judge had no option but to rule in your favour and actually award costs against the ratepayers' association.

So you can imagine these taxpayers who are trying to find out more information, trying to scrutinize the process--and I'll get to my question in a minute--and their incredible frustration. They're trying to be diligent and ensure that there's the appropriate level of safety. They take it to the judicial review, to a federally funded agency--and I appreciate it's cost recovery--and then costs are awarded against them. This is where I'm going on my question. You talked about this 50 years being short term, of course, and I appreciate that maybe in storage of nuclear waste it is short term, but it's quite long to me because I probably won't be here in 50 years.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Nor I.

Mr. Gary Lunn: This is the point I am getting at. This is the largest nuclear waste storage facility we have in Canada, if not in North America, although I'm not positive on that. It seems to me--and I'd like your comments because we have to put in amendments on Bill C-19--that a project of this magnitude, a project of this scope, should automatically get a panel review, period. That's just common sense to me. Obviously if the agency is doing their due diligence and the proponent's doing their due diligence, it'll go through the panel review and everyone could be assured. Right now it's the proponent that's doing all of the review work, I believe.

I'd like your comment. Would you support an amendment that would automatically make a project of that scope, of the scope of that waste facility, subject to a panel review in the matter of the public interest? Do you believe that would be a good amendment for Bill C-19?

À (1020)

Ms. Cait Maloney: I would suggest that any decision to amend should be based on risk. However, I don't think it would serve to single out this type of project. There may be others. I think that's the way the comprehensive study lists and the exclusion lists were set up: it was to try to talk about the most risky projects.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Right.

Ms. Cait Maloney: I would certainly support something like that.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn, probably your question could have been put to the minister last week because it would be more of a policy decision than--

Mr. Gary Lunn: It is a policy decision.

The Chair: Carry on.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Which means I'll get my knuckles rapped for talking about it.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Maybe it's not just in the area of nuclear waste, but at some point--and we have to struggle with this--is there an appropriate situation? That's where I was trying to lean. You said maybe on the assessment of risk, so that's where I was going with that. I was wondering if at some point there should be a mandatory panel review, and I think you've answered. You've said you're not sure. That's where I was going with this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Just following along on my colleague's comment, it seems kind of unbelievable to me that something of this magnitude... As Mr. Reed said, once the 50 years is up, they then may apply for 100 years or whatever, unless of course the technology becomes available to actually destroy these wastes. I'd like to follow up on that, too. It would seem to me to be in all of our interests if we could do something about that. You mentioned that there's some work being done on the technology.

The real thing is that the significance of cancer to those proponents, to those people who live there, those residents, just can't be underestimated. It would seem to me that getting all the facts on the table would have been in your best interests. It would have been in the power plant's best interests and in everybody's best interests to just have the review and look at the health situations. Because as soon as you avoid a review, it seems to me that you are trying to hide something and that you are in fact helping to hide what the residents of the area think may or may not happen to them. I'm no expert on that; I don't know. It just seems to me that it would have been in everyone's best interests to have that review. I wonder why you fought them so hard through the court system.

Ms. Cait Maloney: I'm not saying we did not fight them through the court system about going to a review. The fight, as you characterized it, was a challenge on process. As it was characterized earlier, there was an allegation that we had not followed due process. Our position was that we had followed due process.

So putting that to one side, I could point out that in our licensing process, which follows the environmental assessment, information was brought to the commission by both sides concerning health studies and concerning the potential state of the environment with this project running, so it did get a review in that forum.

Mr. Bob Mills: Again, I guess it's fine for people who are paid to do their job, as you and your staff are, but it seems to me that a member of the public out there has huge... As Mr. Comartin pointed out, having 45 days and then 60 days to deal with all this technical information, obviously without funding, trying to get people scrounging information from people, it just seems to me that the public gets the short end of the stick. If we can make any amendments to Bill C-19, it would seem to me that public involvement, public information, and public health are really what we should be aiming at.

I'm sure other members of the committee here are tired of hearing me stick up for that little guy, but those little guys need a lot of help against you and against industry out there. They need help so they can counteract projects that might in fact damage their health.

Thank you.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Coming back to the specific proposal at Bruce, in all honesty I'm not sure if we got some misinformation, so that's really what I'm seeking.

Our understanding from the witness we heard was that waste was going to be transferred to Bruce from Darlington and Pickering. Is that information accurate under the proposal?

Ms. Cait Maloney: The high-level waste all comes from the Bruce site. The used fuel comes from there. However, for at least a decade, if not more, lower-level waste has come from other sites in Ontario.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This is the waste clothing and items like that.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It comes in those bins stored at Pickering and Darlington and is then shipped up.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay. Is the rate of that low-grade waste, if I can call it that, going to increase under this proposal?

Ms. Cait Maloney: No. This proposal was for high-level. This was the expansion of the site to have dry storage, which is for fuel, only from the Bruce site. So there's no transport off-site, if you like.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So the only transfer in is of the low grade, which is already being done.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's right. That's been going on for years. In fact, I understand the amount of waste has decreased dramatically over the last few years because Ontario Hydro, as it was then--it's now Ontario Power Generation--initiated a better triage system at the origin, so they don't send up as much.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The other suggestion that's come up is that without any further review, the bundles in fact could be transferred in, that there is nothing in the regulation that would now be in place under this design which would prevent waste of that nature, that highly radioactive waste--

Ms. Cait Maloney: Being transferred in...?

Mr. Joe Comartin: From Pickering and Darlington.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Actually, no. The environmental assessment was done on waste from the Bruce site. That's specific to the scope of the project. So if there were a proposal to expand the scope, we'd need to review that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: An obvious question; would that trigger a panel?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Nothing automatically triggers a panel at the moment.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That's your opinion as well. That's the Nuclear Safety Commission's position. Nothing automatically triggers--

Ms. Cait Maloney: It's actually the technical words in CEAA. There has to be a judgment made to move. It's not an automatic referral.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So even if we decided to take nuclear waste from other countries, it wouldn't automatically trigger a panel review.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct, but of course the Minister of the Environment has the power to put something to a panel.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So does the proponent. The proponent can ask for a panel review.

Ms. Cait Maloney: The responsible authority, yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Of course you can recommend that.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes, but that wasn't the question.

Mr. Joe Comartin: My question really is that there is nothing automatic for you to recommend the panel review.

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chamney, I want to ask you this because I think you have a better sense or feel for this. Under the proposed amendments to Bill C-19, in regard to what happened at Bruce in spite of the opposition from the Inverhuron & District Ratepayers' Association, there would be nothing different in the result, that is, there would not be a panel review under the amendments that are coming through under Bill C-19.

Mr. Larry Chamney: In terms of the issues that were raised, including those by Mr. de la Chevrotière on the project itself, not on the process necessarily, that's correct. Using the criteria in terms of what the potential adverse effects are that should be scoped into this project, what degree of consultation we have at scoping, that's correct.

À (1030)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Ms. Maloney, in response to Ms. Kraft Sloan's question, did I hear you correctly? Did you say that if the tribunal does sit the inquiry lasts a day or two?

Ms. Cait Maloney: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you honestly feel that's sufficient for, again, the largest repository of nuclear waste in North America? Do you feel you're going to get any kind of a meaningful hearing out of one or two days? I mean, what does a proponent do? How much can a proponent do? How much evidence can they call, or how much can they put forward? How much can the interveners put forward in what is in effect six or eight hours over a two-day period?

Ms. Cait Maloney: The commission has the discretion to extend the hearings, if it were necessary.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Have they ever done that?

Ms. Cait Maloney: We have done that, yes; for example, for Pickering.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You didn't do it in this one, in Inverhuron.

Ms. Cait Maloney: No, we didn't do it for this one, but we did do it for the restart of Pickering.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Did you actually have an inquiry at all for Bruce?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes, it went to a licensing hearing.

Mr. Joe Comartin: How long did that last?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Two days.

Mr. Joe Comartin: How much time did the interveners get?

Ms. Cait Maloney: They would have had about 10 to 15 minutes for oral presentation. They're free to put in whatever volume of written material, which is considered by the commission and commission staff as well.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Again, they would have no intervener funding at all at that stage.

Ms. Cait Maloney: CNSC has no provision for intervener funding.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Next are Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Karetak-Lindell, Mr. Reed, Madam Redman, Mr. Laliberte and the Chair.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When we take a look at the issue of what happens underneath a comprehensive study or what happens under a panel review, it seems to me to be very disturbing when community members and other people have, I would suggest, legitimate health and environmental concerns, particularly when we're talking about high-level radioactive waste. It seems to me that community members have legitimate concerns.

Under a comprehensive study, as I understand it, yes, science plays a role; however, the way the science is communicated is through documents that community members perhaps have an opportunity to comment on. In many respects this is a rather inaccessible way for the community to be involved in such an important issue as the storage of high-level radioactive waste. As well, you can look at a document but perhaps you have a lot of questions, so you don't have this give and take.

Under a panel review, you have the opportunity to examine and cross-examine expert witnesses, and other community members can sit in the audience and listen to these cross-examinations and the questions and answers. Not everyone is going to be able to read these incredibly technical documents. Quite frankly, even with nine years' experience on the environment committee, as a social scientist I would find it very difficult to get through this stuff, let alone someone who has never had the opportunity to be exposed to these issues.

It seems to me that in many respects, at least to allay the community's concerns and fears, panel reviews would be a very important way to communicate in a very full way what the issues really are and to have this opportunity for give and take with the experts. I'm wondering how else this can be accomplished other than by having a panel review.

The Chair: I'm sorry, but before the reply, the clerk has just informed me that we have to leave this room in 20 minutes, for another committee. I would urge members of the committee and our witnesses to compress their interventions.

Ms. Maloney, please.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the ways in which the public can be and is involved is through public meetings on issues, held either by the proponent or by ourselves. We have an expectation for both comprehensive studies and major screenings we're involved with that there will be a public outreach program, not just of newsletters, but that there will be public meetings, at which time the experts will be accessible to members of the public.

À (1035)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But it's a little different when the proponent or the agency or your commission is putting forward information, and I don't think that engenders a high level of comfort. It's a different situation, whereby independent, and certainly perceived to be independent, witnesses and experts come before a panel review and there is this free give and take on examination and cross-examination, so that a lot of individuals who may not have the time, the motivation, or the ability, what have you, to get through these hugely technical documents can sit and hear independent witnesses questioned.

I would think, just as a matter of encouraging public comfort on these issues--and we're talking about high-level radioactive material, Mr. Chair--that it would be more advisable to work through a panel review process.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Karetak-Lindell, please.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments are very similar to Karen's, only to add that the submission I'm looking at here is for Cogema Resources up in Baker Lake. Not only do we have difficulty with very technical documents, but language is also a factor. If English-speaking people in southern areas have difficulty with this type of information, you can be sure that if people don't read English it's that much worse.

There were requests to have the hearing held in Baker Lake, and I understand that with financial implications it was not possible to have it there, but how do people get the information? With the amendments, would you see people being given the funds to be able to participate in these types of hearings? We had perhaps three interventions, only because they happened to be here in Ottawa. With the financial resources that would be available to people who want to make submissions, would those people then have an opportunity to come to wherever the hearings are and make submissions?

Ms. Cait Maloney: The issue you're talking about, of course, came before the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It was not feasible for us to get the commission and its staff up to Baker Lake. We did actually establish a phone line with an Inuktitut translator in the town. Unfortunately, technology beat us and our live line died, but we did send transcripts in Inuktitut up to that facility. In fact, we're going up there in the summer. I'm probably going to be spending a week there myself trying to communicate some of the issues that are there.

To come to your specifics about financial support and if such support were offered, anyone is welcome to turn up at our meetings and make an oral intervention. However, the commission also takes written submissions, notes them, and will actually ask questions of staff and of the proponent about them. Obviously, one would feel better if one were in the room, but the commission members do take those issues very seriously, and if you look at our transcript, you'll see they do respond to them, as well.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Earlier you talked about public meetings. Who is obligated to hold public meetings? When a submission is given to the commission, who obliges that proponent to have a public meeting?

Ms. Cait Maloney: It's a staff expectation, and the commission certainly expects that. One of the elements when we're considering licensing is that we look at the proponent's public information campaign and what they intend to do, not just leading up to the licence but following the licence, to ensure that the affected public or the interested public do have access to information. Again, that proposal is reviewed by our public information staff and comments are made to our commission members.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to add a couple of comments. It's really not a question for the witnesses, and again, I thank them for coming.

Just to point to some of the concerns expressed by Ms. Karetak-Lindell as well as Mr. Mills, there are 52 million new dollars going into the application of CEAA when we receive royal proclamation of Bill C-19, and they will go to greater transparency and a more expeditious process as well as providing participant funding. Those are all done by the government as something that we see would help to facilitate the exact issues that have been identified.

I would also add, for Mr. Comartin's benefit--I realize this is a televised committee meeting--that over the past year, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has actually put dealing with hazardous waste and how it moves from one country to the other on its work plan.

So those issues are being addressed in other arenas, and clearly it's something that not just Canada is concerned about.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Redman.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to bring you back to a point you highlighted: the environmental quality committees that exist in northern Saskatchewan as a result of the provincial government's wisdom in trying to promote community involvement. Maybe that's something that should be considered nationally as well, under federal jurisdiction, because, as I mentioned, you have huge eco-regions that are interprovincial in boundaries.

Maybe the issue we have with language and community communications could be addressed, because to create a safety regime and a commission that overlooks this is viewed as something that is away from the region. It seems as if there's somebody coming down from Ottawa to bring the good news or anoint us and say we're okay. Maybe a little more integration could take place. There should be something from the community level implementing something with the commission, especially with environmental issues and especially with nuclear issues.

In terms of technical aspects, of experience from work, when we wear a dosimeter for measuring radioactive exposures, the mines will tell us we get radioactivity from natural exposure and that flying to the mine site probably gives you more radiation than you get from the mine site. Why don't we wear the dosimeter from our residences, then, and measure the dose all the way because it's in the purview of the reality of flying to these mine sites?

I look at it this way. I think it's time that we demystified this language, the technical language of nuclear safety, and brought it down to a level of language that is common and can be translated into Dene, Cree, Inuktitut, and all these different languages. I think it's time we took that responsibility. If you connect somehow with these communities, as the province of Saskatchewan has tried to do, and I think you would agree that relatively speaking it's a success story, there's still a question of independence for those bodies as well, for them to independently study. They are still depending on your statistics to analyse things.

In terms of health risks, I just wanted to specifically ask with respect to the cumulative effects of those mines, have you done studies on the health risks in those communities? What's the most recent study you've done?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I'm sorry. I do not have that information with me. I can get that.

In terms of your suggestion about greater community involvement for the commission, I certainly welcome that. That's an idea I'll take back to our president to discuss.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your deputation. I'm sorry I missed part of it.

We have been under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the provincial assessment review. We have been attempting to harmonize where possible, such that with respect to bump-ups and panel review and so on the process will be a little tighter and much better coordinated.

In terms of one thing you mentioned as it relates to the notion of natural justice, the notion that people have an opportunity to participate on an equal footing, the amendments we're making to the Canadian assessment act are to empower people through intervener funding, in particular for comprehensive studies during that particular portion of the process. That's in keeping with empowering. You can't say that all people are equal if they don't have access to the means.

One thing stood out with respect to your observations of your process: that you do not provide intervener funding. How, then, would it be possible in a very serious sense for people to feel that this accountability is there if they don't have equal opportunity to hold the commission to account, if they don't have the resources available to them to participate? That's one of my questions. Or is it possible for you to review that particular aspect of the process and perhaps report back to us in terms of how you would do that?

À (1045)

Ms. Cait Maloney: I can certainly review that. I think the short answer is that our act does not make provision for us to provide intervener funding, so we're rather constrained in that area, but I can certainly give you a more fulsome answer.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I think the committee would appreciate that, because this is a very, very important facet of what we're involved in.

Mr. Chairman, if we don't honestly believe that we are building capacity into our processes, then really it's farcical to expect that people are going to be able to participate, no matter how well intended we are.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Ms. Maloney, if I understand the Bruce proposal that came from Ontario Hydro at that point, if you had turned it down they basically would have had to close Bruce, because they wouldn't have had any way of disposing of the waste and therefore being able to continue to operate.

If in fact that assumption is correct, do you take that into account when you're doing your assessment? I guess what I'm suggesting to you is this: when your staff, all of them, are reviewing the proposal, are they really operating with a gun to their heads?

Ms. Cait Maloney: I certainly don't feel that we have a gun to our head. I can't--

Mr. Joe Comartin: Bruce produces about 5% to 10% of all the energy for the province of Ontario right now. Your decision to not allow that would shut it down. That's the alternative.

Ms. Cait Maloney: In the long run, that would be... I don't like getting dragged into a theoretical debate. Do we consider, or does the commission consider, the overall impact? That is one thing that is figured into their discussions. However, we are on record as saying that if there's a health and safety issue we will not hesitate to shut the places down.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You've never done that, though.

Ms. Cait Maloney: Not as yet.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can I ask the parliamentary secretary if she made a major announcement a few minutes ago with regard to funding? I don't know. Have I misunderstood her?

As I understand Bill C-19, there is funding only in the situation where there is a panel review. I don't know if she said to us today that an amendment is coming from the government that is going to extend intervener funding to the study stage.

Mrs. Karen Redman: The $52 million worth of funding I mentioned has already been announced, I believe. It will go to agencies and government departments. As well, about $1 million a year will go to participant funding.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But the participant funding is available only under a panel review, which of course we never have in this country.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would have to seek clarification. That was not my understanding. I would also point out that we have had ten panel reviews, so it's not like they never happen.

I can clarify that and get back to you. My understanding was--

À (1050)

Mr. Joe Comartin: You do the math: 10 out of 30,000 isn't a lot.

Mrs. Karen Redman: It was across the board and would apply to other processes, not just panel review, but I'll get back to you on that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Will you let the committee know as well?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

The Chair: I have two brief questions before we conclude, Madam Maloney.

One is a follow-up to Mr. Comartin's question. Is the primary mandate of the commission, as spelled out in your act, the protection of human health?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Human health and the environment.

The Chair: This is the primary objective of the commission?

Ms. Cait Maloney: Yes.

The Chair: Secondly, drawing from your overall experience, consider the fact that the workload of cabinet over the years has increased and is going to continue to increase at a substantive rate in the future, and consider that at the same time the volume of work generated by citizens' actions, triggered by projects being proposed, will lead to a lot of paperwork, which in the end will be submitted to cabinet to decide whether a comprehensive study should be triggered or not.

Do you see merit in leaving that decision to an increasingly overloaded cabinet and do you see alternatives to that type of political decision?

Ms. Cait Maloney: With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think it's well outside my remit to speculate in that area. I think cabinet will make decisions based on the information they have. It's not something I should speculate on.

The Chair: I'm not asking you to speculate. I'm asking whether the triggering agent should be cabinet or an alternative to cabinet.

Ms. Cait Maloney: I'm sorry. I really don't have an opinion on that, sir.

The Chair: Then on behalf of the members of the committee, thank you for appearing before us. It was extremely informative and helpful. We hope to see you again.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Just before adjournment, Mr. Chair, I understand that you were querying at the beginning of the meeting as to the readiness of the government amendments on Bill C-19.

The Chair: Yes, we were inquiring when the amendments would be forthcoming.

Mrs. Karen Redman: It's our intention to table them this week, hopefully on Thursday.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned until tomorrow, when will hear from officials from the fisheries and oceans department.