Is the budget approved?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Now we will go straight to the two panels for today. We have witnesses with us. One witness is delayed due to air travel; that's no surprise today. We have as well one witness by video conference and one by teleconference. We will start with the presentations in their order on the agenda.
Actually, the first person on the agenda, Mr. Ullrich, isn't here yet, so we will take his presentation if he makes it on time. We will start, then, with Mike Smith, warden of Bruce County, and Mitch Twolan, mayor of Huron-Kinloss.
Go ahead, gentlemen, with your presentations, please.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and provide Bruce County council's perspective on the steam generator recycling project proposed by Bruce Power.
As you mentioned, I'm the mayor of Saugeen Shores and the Bruce County warden. With me is Mitch Twolan. He is the mayor of Huron-Kinloss and also a member of the Bruce County council.
We'd like to comment on a number of aspects of the project as it relates to the county and the lower-tiered communities in the county. We will first comment on our relationship with the proponent, Bruce Power, and our involvement specifically with this project; second, as a member of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, we will discuss our input, or lack of input, to the position taken by the board and how that position was communicated to the CNSC.
Bruce Power provides information to our communities in various ways. A delegation appears monthly before Bruce County council to report on safety; environmental performance, on and off the site; production; major activities on site, like the current rehabilitation of the units; and community events that the company and staff may be involved in.
Bruce Power is also a member of the South Bruce Impact Advisory Committee, a committee that was formed during the construction of the site. The mandate is to identify issues and address impacts as they affect the health, safety, environment, and economic well-being of the adjacent communities. There are five communities on that committee. Along with Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power is an active member of the impact committee. It reports monthly.
Specifically on the steam generator project, Bruce Power has hosted a number of well-advertised open houses in our community, and anyone could attend and get information or provide input to the project. There were a number of them throughout the county and the County of Grey.
Bruce County council became formally aware of the project at the May 6, 2010, session. We were informed that the generators were classified as low-level waste, and as a result of their size, Bruce Power intended to seek an approval for a special arrangement certificate from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The plan was to transport the generators through our community in late September or early October.
The proposed route was to be over county-owned roads and bridges and through three or four of our lower-tier municipalities. An oversize permit was going to be needed to transport the generators over Bruce County roads. As the transport of the generators was going to take place on our roads and through our communities, county council wanted assurances that the project could be completed safely.
Bruce Power offered to provide detailed briefings and to work with our county engineer--who is our professional road and bridge authority--the Grey-Bruce Public Health Board, the medical officer of health, and the lower-tier communities on the transport route. After careful consideration, both the county engineer and the county medical officer of health—I know we're going to hear from her today—concluded that the project did not pose a public health hazard.
With this information, and given Bruce Power's commitment and proven performance in safety, the county council was confident that the proponent could complete the project as planned. It decided to advise the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission at the September public hearing and to do so in the form of an oral intervention.
Bruce County council continues to receive monthly briefings on the project, and Bruce Power officials continue to work closely with our county engineer on the transport route.
At the May 6 county council meeting, we were also informed that the objective of the project was to reduce the amount of material going into long-term storage and recycle the majority of the metal in the generators. Although this is something that the county has no jurisdiction over, we believe it is an environmentally responsible action to take. Upwards of 90% of the material in the generators would be safely recycled, and the remaining 10% would be returned, in approved packages, and stored at the western waste management facility in Bruce County.
I want to mention, again briefly, that both Mitch and I are members of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, and we obviously do not agree with the position they have taken at the CNSC. I say that because we weren't given an opportunity for input prior to that intervention in September. I'll leave that with the committee.
Finally, Bruce County council continues to believe that the project can be completed safely through our communities. We believe that Bruce Power has the ability to complete the project in a manner that will not pose a public or environmental health hazard.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Smith, thank you very much for your presentation.
As I indicated, we will go through all of the presentations before we get to questions and comments.
We have now, by video conference from the Grey Bruce Health Unit, Dr. Hazel Lynn, medical health officer.
Ms. Lynn, as you're making your presentation, there won't be any problem; when questions are being asked later, you will see the questioner, but when you go to respond, you will be seeing an image of yourself. That's just so you're aware of that in advance.
Please go ahead with your presentation. You have up to seven minutes.
:
All right. Thank you very much.
As you said, I'm the medical officer of health for the Grey Bruce Health Unit. I'm a fellow in The College of Family Physicians of Canada and licensed to practise in Ontario. I also have a master's degree in epidemiology and community health from the University of Toronto in 2003.
As part of the course work for the master's, I completed a graduate-level course on radiological health offered at the school of industrial hygiene at U of T. This course covered both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Although I'm not an expert in this field, I certainly do understand units of measurement, measurement techniques, and relative exposure risks, and I have participated in various educational opportunities in this field to keep track of the new research and technology.
Public health practice in Ontario is mandated by the Health Protection and Promotion Act. It's defined by the Ontario Public Health Standards. Protection of our health is the cornerstone of the prevention of disease. The Health Protection and Promotion Act provides the legal authority for the medical officer of health to respond to a hazardous situation that threatens the health of the public. The Ontario Public Health Standards then provide the protocol to operationalize the risk assessment process.
The tool combines community surveillance and risk profile process, which is ongoing, and then a probability and consequence matrix that allows us to assign priority values to the identified hazard situations. Most of what we do in life has some hazard, but we have to have priorities in how we adjust our lives accordingly.
Considering the recycling of decommissioned boilers from Bruce Power, my jurisdiction and responsibility are limited to the health hazard assessment associated with the transport of the decommissioned boilers from the Bruce Power site to the port of Owen Sound and on to the ocean transport. More specifically, I need to determine the level of exposure risk and then the consequent health risk to the population of Grey and Bruce counties.
When the plan for transporting the decommissioned boilers was first proposed, the board of health requested information from Bruce Power. Representatives came and presented the project, answered questions, and addressed our concerns. A series of open houses were held, and an information website was set up and maintained. A radiation regulatory official and scientist from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission came to Owen Sound and presented to the city council and to the board of health.
The risk to human health from ionizing radiation exposure increases with the type and the magnitude of radiation and the duration of time the person is exposed. Based on the information provided by Bruce Power and the Nuclear Safety Commission, the type and magnitude of radiation released from the surface of the decommissioned boilers is very low, well below the regulatory limits for transport of such material. Our conclusion is that there is no increased radiological exposure risk related to these boilers if the population stays at least two metres away from them.
To ensure this protective distance is maintained, there will be continuous monitoring for emissions around the boilers. There is a contingency plan for transportation incidents on the roads. There is a police escort for the transport and security personnel at the harbour. These measures are in place to prevent inadvertent exposure to the public. With these measures in place, my conclusion is that the probability of radiation exposure to the population is, for all intents and purposes, practically zero.
The consequence of the exposure is the other side of the hazard matrix. Standing within one metre of the steam generator continuously for one hour would expose a person to a dose of about 80 microsieverts. This is an amount significantly less than a conventional chest X-ray, which is about 140 microsieverts. The consequence of this exposure is also very close to zero.
My conclusion, then, is that the probability of exposure and the consequence of exposure are both practically zero, so this proposal does not present a health hazard to the population of Grey and Bruce counties.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is the agency with the greatest expertise in the field of radiological health. I appreciate the board of health's willingness to provide information and consult with our community. We are strong supporters of recycling and reusing and we support the CNSC decision to provide the licence to transport these decommissioned boilers for recycling and reduction of the volume of radioactive material that requires long-term storage.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all committee members.
On behalf of my colleagues at the Regroupement des municipalités du Québec pour un futur énergétique socialement responsable, I want to thank you for the invitation to come and testify before your committee today on Bruce Power's plan to import and export radioactive waste.
In our view, the current political situation should encourage Canadian and Quebec parliamentarians to take action to put an end to Bruce Power's plan to proceed with the import and export of its radioactive waste for metal recycling purposes. Here we will be outlining the reasons for our request.
Our organization includes some 300 municipalities that, by resolution, have expressed their intent to promote investment in energy conservation, energy efficiency, the modernization of demand management and, if necessary, the production of new forms of renewable energy within a decentralized perspective. As you will understand, all energy production-related issues are a concern for us and nuclear energy production is no exception.
With respect to nuclear energy and the issue currently under review by the committee, the absence of any integrated nuclear waste management policy in Quebec and Canada is a concern for the members of our organization. In the circumstances, any project involving the production, transportation, categorization and permanent or temporary management of radioactive waste produced in Canada encourages us to get involved.
As a result, Bruce Power's plan has led us to notify the some 185 municipalities in Quebec most likely to be on the land path of the radioactive waste concerned. To date, 125 of those municipalities have endorsed a resolution submitted by our organization to oppose Bruce Power's project and to challenge the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's decision to facilitate its implementation. Those 125 municipalities represent nearly half a million citizens.
In the case before us, the metals contaminated by radioactivity from Bruce Power would be transiting through Quebec on their way to Sweden. This explains our involvement in the Bruce Power plan and our decision to attend today's hearing and that organized by the CNSC where we were also represented.
Our organization must express its disappointment with the quality of the consultation process conducted by the CNSC in this case. Committee members should take note of the fact that we learned, to our great surprise, at the hearing that neither the project promoter nor the CNSC had had the courtesy to inform Quebec's political authorities about the nature of the project. The Quebec municipalities potentially concerned by the transportation of the proponent's radioactive waste were also kept in the dark. How then is it possible to explain why a plan to transport radioactive waste produced in Canada, involving the use of Quebec land, could be developed without the political authorities more specifically concerned being informed of the fact?
We were also disappointed by the lack of consideration shown by certain commission members at the hearing before the CNSC following the presentation of our brief. Certain comments suggested that the Quebec municipal councillors who had endorsed the resolution submitted to them had acted without the appropriate knowledge. Our resolution was even compared to a circular letter. When our brief was filed with the CNSC, 30 municipalities had endorsed the resolution at the time. Now there are 138 municipalities.
Allow me to reassure the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. In Quebec, when resolutions are adopted by elected members, they are adopted upon careful reflection. We have appended the wording of the resolution to our presentation and you will be able to determine whether it is appropriate.
Further to the CNSC hearing, we sent a document to Mr. André Régimbald, engineer and director general of nuclear substance regulation at the CNSC, informing him that it would be useful for CNSC staff to read our resolution and that we would like CNSC staff to be able to inform us in a detailed manner of any factual error that it might contain. That request was sent to him on January 26. At that time, 113 Quebec municipalities had adopted the resolution. We are still awaiting a response.
I must note the vigilance of the municipal elected representatives of our organization. Without the alert issued by my colleagues, the plan secretly developed by the Ontario Bruce Power company to use the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway and Quebec's road system to transport this radioactive waste to Sweden would not have received all the attention it deserved from the Quebec public and their provincial and municipal elected representatives.
Bruce Power's conduct and the CNSC's attitude have shown Canadians and Quebeckers the sad example of a private business and government agency utterly lacking the slightest respect for democratic rules that should actuate them in a matter with such obvious geopolitical implications.
The factual reasons for not authorizing the Bruce Power project for so-called metal recycling purposes are numerous. Even though they were stated by many stakeholders, the CNSC decided, in spite of everything, to support Bruce Power in its project.
In the circumstances, the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources will have a historic role to play. They will have to set aside all partisan political considerations in order to overturn this decision by the CNSC. Based on our analysis of the situation, the decision made by the CNSC has political consequences, and if carefully assessed by parliamentarians, they would want their direct intervention in this matter and the immediate withdrawal of the licence granted to Bruce Power.
In our view, the CNSC has exceeded the limits of its mandate by granting Bruce Power the licence. Did Mr. Binder do so in full knowledge of the facts? Did the CNSC take advantage of the absence of clearly defined policies to favour the nuclear industry to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian public?
One statement by Mr. Binder at the commission's public hearing leads us to believe that he was aware the decision he would have to make in fact exceeded his mandate. The evidence given at the hearing by Mr. Miles Goldstick, from the Swedish Environmental Movement's Nuclear Waste Secretariat illustrates this statement. During his remarks, Mr. Goldstick mentioned that the recycling project proposed by Bruce Power raised significant issues regarding the future management of nuclear waste on a global scale. President Binder called Mr. Goldstick to order, clearly stating that that aspect of the issue exceeded the mandate of the public hearings.
In fact, Mr. Binder should have adopted Mr. Goldstick's argument and added it to other policies in the matter to justify the decision to stay Bruce Power's application. The potential consequences of the interprovincial and international geopolitical issues involved are too serious for the members of this committee to remain silent on this matter.
Now I'm going to speak to the political reasons for withdrawing the CNSC's decision. The CNSC's decision to grant Bruce Power a licence to export and import radioactive waste for recycling purposes is utterly unacceptable from a political standpoint. A rigorous analysis of the situation should have led president Binder to inform the minister responsible for these activities that the political implications of a decision favourable to Bruce Power put it in a situation in which it exceeded its mandate.
In our view, this matter emphasizes the fact that the appropriate political authorities in Canada and Quebec should, on an urgent basis and in cooperation with the public, develop a policy clarifying, first, Canada's policy on the import and export of radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors that are decommissioned or rebuilt. Second, that policy will have to clarify Canada's policy—
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Distinguished members of the natural resources committee, my name is Denis Lapointe, and I am the mayor of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, a town in Quebec, and chair of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. I am also chair of the environmental policy committee of the Union of Quebec Municipalities. With me is David Ullrich, our executive director, and we appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
First, I would like to point out that, contrary to what may have been said, we are not associated with any anti-nuclear organization. Our interest in our presentations and efforts is the public health and safety of the people we represent.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence are the largest body of surface fresh water in the world. They provide drinking water to about 40 million Canadian and United States citizens and are the foundation of the economy of our two provinces and eight states, which together is the second largest in the world. The Great Lakes basin is home to 98% of Ontarians and the St. Lawrence basin is home to over 90% of Quebeckers, with over 50% along the shoreline of the St. Lawrence.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative is an organization of over 70 local governments, two-thirds from Canada and one-third from the U.S., with over 13 million citizens. We provide a voice for local leaders on key issues relating to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, and work together with other stakeholders to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource with balanced economic, social and environmental progress.
We are very concerned about Bruce Power's proposed shipment of 16 decommissioned nuclear steam generators containing radioactive waste through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. Our concerns are: there was not adequate consultation with other governments and stakeholders about the shipment; the shipment exceeds the International Atomic Agency's safety standards for total allowable radioactivity on a single ship; the environmental risk presented by the shipment was not characterized adequately; and the shipment sets a precedent for the future.
Concerning consultation about the shipment, we believe it has been inadequate with cities, the province of Quebec, first nations and the general public. Many of our members learned about this only from newspaper accounts or from our organization. Although there were some efforts to brief local officials once it became clear that the shipment was controversial, these were initially limited and selective. The decision to hold a hearing was announced only after the controversy developed.
We recommend in the future with a matter of this nature that there be public notice at the time an application is received, full disclosure of all the information that forms the basis of the application and proposed action on it, opportunity for consultation with the applicant and decision-makers, answers to questions raised by stakeholders, and a public hearing to raise concerns.
I will now ask Mr. David Ullrich to address our other concerns.
:
Thank you very much, Mayor Lapointe.
Chair Benoit, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today.
The second major concern we have is that the shipment exceeds the International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards for total amount of radioactivity allowed on a single ship. The CNSC’s February 4, 2011, decision acknowledges the shipment would exceed the safety standards by a factor of six, which is why the special arrangements that include compensatory measures are necessary.
These IAEA standards are set for a reason—to protect public health and the environment. It is the large amount of radioactive waste exceeding the safety standards on a single ship that leads directly to our next concern.
We do not believe that the environmental review was adequate to characterize the risk presented by the shipment. The risk increases as the steam generators are moved from secure storage onto trucks, transported over land to a port, unloaded on a ship, and moved through three Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, and a system of locks and narrow channels.
The risks to Canadian and U.S. citizens and waters are not adequately characterized, quantified, or differentiated, based on the various conditions present in open lakes, locks, flowing rivers, and channels. If there were an accident, the seriousness of the accident is not adequately quantified, except that an assumption—a very rosy assumption of 1% of the radioactive waste from one of the 16 generators—is made.
The next step in assessing the risk is to determine what happens to the released material. The review essentially concludes that there is so much water in the lakes, rivers, and channels that the problem can be diluted away. Our review indicates that a release as the result of an accident could exceed drinking water standards in Canada. Places with the smallest volume of water are the most vulnerable.
Our fourth concern is that the shipment sets a precedent that could lead to many more shipments. This shipment is not routine. To our knowledge, no shipment of this large a number of nuclear steam generators containing radioactive waste has ever occurred on the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence. Yes, there are shipments of other hazardous materials, but those are beyond the scope of this matter.
With Bruce Power alone having 64 nuclear steam generators that may be shipped, and with the amount of additional radioactive waste from nuclear plants along the Great Lakes, the potential for many more shipments is very real. This shipment certainly should be viewed as precedent-setting.
To address the concerns we have raised, we recommend that a thorough, rigorous, comprehensive environmental review be performed of the entire proposed shipment, and be subjected to full public scrutiny and review. If that risk is above levels acceptable under Canadian law and policy, either the shipment should not be made or additional measures should be required to reduce the risks to acceptable levels.
Thank you very much again for this opportunity to speak.
:
When you look at a risk and a hazard, you need to look at the probability of the event happening and then the consequence of the exposure.
The probability of something going wrong once the boilers are loaded and transported down to Sarnia is very low. When was the last time a boat sank? When was the last time a boat of this sort had an accident? There isn't any history of that.
Then on the consequences, what would happen if it if did sink, and how quickly could they get the boilers back out? What is the thought on damage? For all these things, if you've read the CNSC proposal, some of this has been dealt with. The risk of exposure is very low, and the consequence is also very low.
To me, this is not a huge human health risk. If you consider the risk due to a motor vehicle accident or to the results of smoking and so on, those increase the risks to humans far more. Even on the amount of radiation, the amount of radiation that is shipped every day to hospitals doing cancer therapy is orders of magnitude higher than this, and it is shipped without anybody's knowledge.
:
From the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, no, we were not.
I first became aware that they were getting involved.... I think it was sometime in August that the chair sent a letter to Mr. Binder saying he had some concerns. At that time, I got hold of...I believe it was David. I wrote a letter to the chair saying that we had some information we could provide, that this was important to our community, and that we wanted an opportunity to comment on it. I didn't get that.
We then came up to the hearing on September 23 and intervened. Then we had lunch with David and Sarah Rang. Again, Mitch and I talked to him about it. I asked for another opportunity, and I was included in a teleconference with three members of the board for 15 minutes.
There was a second filing on November 22, and I specifically asked David if I could see that filing and comment on it before he filed it with the CNSC. I got a copy of the filing 10 minutes after the filing date.
So, no, we were not consulted.
:
We're ready to start our second panel. This will be a bit of an abbreviated panel, so I would encourage everyone making a presentation to keep to the allotted time.
We have with us today, and we welcome, from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, president; from the Power Workers' Union, David Shier, assistant to the president; from the Union of Ontario Indians, Christopher Plain, southwest regional chief, Anishinaabek Nation territory, and Chief, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, along with Jody Kechego; and, via video conference from Owen Sound, Alan Barfoot, mayor, the Township of Georgian Bluffs.
We'll hear the presentations in the order in which they appear on the agenda, and we'll start with Mr. Edwards.
Go ahead, please, with your presentation.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present to you. Thank you very much for the invitation; I appreciate it.
I believe we have to acknowledge that nuclear energy isn't what it used to be. Nuclear energy in Canada is going through a mid-life crisis. When we see the failures of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in terms of the MAPLE reactors that turned out to be a fiasco, when we see the NRU reactor that has suffered some lamentable lapses, and when we see the cost overruns in the refurbishments that are going on, all of this shakes people's confidence in the ability of nuclear technology to solve all problems. The idea is that you have a problem and you just slap some technology on it, and that solves it. One has to realize that this is the situation we're in.
Also, I think that not only is there some degradation of confidence in AECL, for example, and therefore in nuclear technology, but also in nuclear regulation. The difficulty here, I think, is that while the CNSC does excellent work on technical matters, physical matters, engineering, geology, and various things, it really does not have much expertise in the biomedical field or in the human relations field, you might say, and the result is this.
We heard Mr. Binder the other day saying that basically this is just a new technology, that's all—a new technology for dealing with the steam generators. I think that's a very short-sighted view; it's more than just a new technology. There are millions of other people who are potentially concerned about knowing what this is going to do to their communities, even what kind of fears or anxieties might arise, so it's not just a question of switching technologies.
The idea that we don't need another environmental assessment because all it is doing is substituting one technology for another totally overlooks the fact that there is a whole other constituency—a much, much larger constituency—that would have had no reason to want to intervene in the original environmental assessment about the refurbishment when it was said that the steam generators would stay on site until the year 2043.
By the way, that facility already exists, and by the way, that's where the steam generators really are, and by the way, OPG had signed a contract with Bruce Power to build a segmentation facility to take those things apart. So there really is—and this, I think, is very important to realize—nothing consequential for the nuclear industry in sending these steam generators overseas or keeping them on site. Nothing. In no way does not shipping the steam generators.... We've talked about the consequences of shipping them. What about the consequences of not shipping them?
The consequences of not shipping them are zilch, except for the fact that shipping would save Bruce Power some money, and not shipping would reduce a lot of anxiety and perhaps not exacerbate the crisis of confidence that people are feeling in nuclear technology at the present time. Why stir up the pot when you don't have to? What is the advantage to Canada--or to Bruce Power, for that matter--in sending these things overseas?
Well, I've looked at the documents. I have the documents that were signed with OPG. All the prices are blotted out, but it seems quite clear that really, as you would expect with a private company, it is the bottom line. The company is trying to reduce its volume so that it can spend less money on long-term storage costs, and that's the advantage; that's the payoff for them.
There might be another payoff as well, which I won't speculate on, but it may be just simply that it wants to demonstrate that it can send this stuff whenever it wants, wherever it wants, without anybody really stopping it.
I would like to talk about the three precedents. I've given you a handout, which includes a copy of a letter I've sent to all members of Parliament. In our opinion, precedent one is that it will be the first time Canada has exported or imported radioactive waste from a refurbished or a decommissioned nuclear reactor. The concern is that this precedent will be followed by many other such shipments. In fact, we know for sure that Bruce Power is planning other such shipments, and I'm sure all the other nuclear operators in North America are watching to see what happens.
With regard to the comparisons, I understand the comparisons with the radiation levels, the isotope shipments, and the steam generator shipments, but people know the difference between goods and garbage. It's one thing to ship goods: you have a customer who actually wants to buy this stuff, you know what you're shipping, and you know the purpose of it. Then there's garbage, which nobody wants.
People may be willing to tolerate the risk of dangerous chemical goods coming through the communities and may draw the line when it comes to dangerous, toxic chemical garbage. I think trying to equate those two on a political level is wrong. Do we want to add another stream of nuclear garbage on top of the stream of nuclear goods? That's really the question.
My point here is that we want a political process, a democratic political process, to take stock of where we are in this country and what our policies should be. It's not up to Bruce Power to decide the right thing to do. It sounds as if Bruce Power is willing to do the right thing, even if you have to shove it down our throats. The point is that not everybody agrees that it's the right thing to do, obviously. What gives Bruce Power any special expertise in knowing what the right thing to do is?
What is it, in fact, they're planning to do? They're planning to send this stuff over to Sweden.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into this, but I'll ask you to look at the package of information I gave you. The main point is that in terms of safety, it's a very complex cocktail of radioactive substances, which are extraordinarily toxic. Plutonium amounts to more than 90% of the radioactive content. Moreover, when this stuff is shipped over to Sweden, some of that material will end up in the waste stream. Although the Bruce Power spokesmen here said that there was no radioactivity and that this was clean metal, that is not true. If you look at the record, you will see that Studsvik has explicit limits on how much plutonium, how much cobalt-60, how much of this, and how much of that can end up in the metal according to their standards. The Studsvik representative also said explicitly that they have to blend it with 10 parts of non-contaminated metal so that--what? Does anybody want contaminated metal? No. It's so they can pass it off as if it's not contaminated.
I call that more of a scam than a business. In a sense, they're not recycling contaminated metal; they're contaminating recycled metal.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee. Thank you for taking the time to give us the opportunity to provide the views of the workers in the industry who are going to be involved with this project.
To start, I've provided a copy of my notes in English and French. Everybody should have copies of them.
The Power Workers' Union represents approximately 2,300 workers employed at the Bruce nuclear site. The PWU has been the bargaining agent for the majority of employees at Bruce Power since Bruce Power became the operator in 2000. Prior to that, the Power Workers' Union was a bargaining agent for the majority of employees of Ontario Power Generation, and before that with Ontario Hydro. We've been the bargaining unit for people in this industry in Ontario for more than 50 years.
We represent the front line of the day-to-day operations of this facility, as well as the workers at Ontario Power Generation's Pickering and Darlington nuclear power plants. We also have a bargaining unit at AECL's Chalk River facility.
Many of our members have experience working on these steam generators on maintenance, outages, and so on and so forth. The vast majority of PWU-represented employees at the Bruce site live with their families in the immediate and surrounding vicinity.
The PWU is also affiliated with the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council. The CNWC is a council of unions that represent nuclear workers across Canada. The PWU is also affiliated with the International Nuclear Workers' Union Network, based in Geneva, Switzerland. It is called INWUN. It is an organization similar to our Canadian council, and the Power Workers' Union has the role of coordinating that international network. The PWU is the source of information on nuclear power issues for the labour movement in Canada as well as internationally.
PWU members are very well aware of the situation around the transportation of the steam generators to Sweden. Their first choice, naturally, would be to have this work performed in Canada, but they understand that the technology is not currently available in Canada. That said, the Power Workers' Union is in full support of the CNSC's decision to allow Bruce Power to transport the 16 steam generators to Sweden.
The PWU has been briefed on the details of the proposed shipment and is satisfied that the steam boilers can be shipped safely. We also believe this is a true example of recycling and suggest that the majority of the public, when they know the true facts, will support this type of project.
The PWU is a stakeholder in the nuclear industry and actively participates in CNSC hearings on a regular basis. It should go without saying that we are very familiar with the nuclear industry. As previously mentioned, Power Workers' Union members live in communities in the vicinity of the Bruce site, along the proposed transportation route, and in Owen Sound. The PWU representatives have consulted with our members and have received no concerns at all in regard to this issue.
Our union has also contacted building trade unions on site that will be involved in transporting the steam generators to Owen Sound. We have also contacted the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council and the Grey Bruce Labour Council. All of these labour groups are in full support of the transportation licence being issued to Bruce Power.
The Power Workers' Union has been having discussions with unions that will be involved with the transportation process, including the operators of the locks in the Great Lakes, the union that represents the workers on the ship that these vessels will be transported in, and the union at the facility in Sweden. All of these unions have indicated their support. The only concern we received was from the Seafarers' International Union, as they believe that a Canadian ship should be utilized instead of an offshore ship.
Our union has briefed other unions on the basics of this issue, and once they heard the facts, they were supportive and satisfied. As you are aware, the CNSC has given this project a very thorough review as per their mandate, in our opinion. As a union, we are naturally fully supportive of public consultation and open dialogue. We suggest that the public and the opposition groups have been more than fairly consulted on this issue to date. We believe, as has been suggested by others, that many groups have been spreading inaccurate information about this project. Most of these organizations, we suggest, are the same ones that oppose anything that is associated with the nuclear industry. We also suggest that true environmentalists should be applauding this project, as it meets their goals to recycle, reuse, reduce, etc. It is our belief that the high majority of Canadians have no concerns with this project.
We suggest it is time to move ahead and allow Bruce Power to begin the process of doing the correct environmental thing and transport these vessels to Sweden for recycling.
In conclusion, the PWU is in full support of this project, as are other unionized workers in the industry.
Thank you for your time. I will be very pleased to answer any questions that you may have in this regard.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Plain, and I am the elected chief of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, which is just south of the city of Sarnia.
I am also the southwest regional grand chief representing my area, and my traditional territory stems from Walpole Island right up to Goderich at the Maitland River. I come from that perspective.
The Anishinabek nation, which I am here representing, consists of seven tribal groups. We are the original inhabitants of the Great Lakes region. We have lived in harmony with the environment and been self-sustaining as a result of this environment. The Anishinabek citizens understand and respect the delicate balance between the use and maintenance of the Great Lakes waters. These waters also provide a spiritual and maternal tie, as many of our teachings and our stories are behind these waters.
The Anishinabek nation incorporated into the Union of Ontario Indians in 1949 as a political advocate and secretariat to 39 first nations across Ontario that are all located within the Great Lakes Basin. The Union of Ontario Indians' mandate includes acting as a political advocate on behalf of the member first nations and coordinating our positions on a wide variety of issues. The Union of Ontario Indians also provides a policy analysis of legislation and policy of both federal and provincial governments.
This support includes the health and well-being of our Great Lakes and inland water, water management, and communicating the concerns and needs of our member first nations. The Anishinabek nation, as aboriginal people of Canada, opposes and disapproves of the Bruce Power plans and any other future plans to transport or ship any radioactive waste or radioactive contaminated equipment through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Anishinabek nation's reason for opposition is that the radioactive waste through the Great Lakes presents a great risk to our waters' environment and to aboriginal safety.
The Anishinabek nation has a long-standing use and occupation of the lands and waters in the Great Lakes Basin. This is seen through signed treaties. Some first nations did not sign treaties, and they still have rights that have yet to be extinguished. First nation treaty and inherent rights are protected as part of the highest law in Canada. Both treaty and inherent rights are constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada.
The Badger case in 1996 states that:
...the honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealing with Indian people. Interpretations of treaties and statutory provisions which have an impact upon treaty or aboriginal rights must be approached in a manner which maintains the integrity of the Crown. It is always assumed that the Crown intends to fulfil its promises. ...any ambiguities or doubtful expressions in the wording of the treaty or document must be resolved in favour of the Indians. A corollary to this principle is that any limitations which restrict the rights of Indians under treaties must be narrowly construed.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to accommodate and consult with first nations on completed actions that may impact upon constitutionally protected treaty and aboriginal rights.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s Taku and Haida decisions ruled that the crown has a legal duty to consult and where indicated to accommodate the concerns of aboriginal groups when the crown has knowledge of the potential existence of an aboriginal right and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.
The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled in the Mikisew Cree case that the principle is also applicable to treaty rights. To date there has been no accommodation or consultation with the first nations that are located in the Great Lakes Basin.
The Union of Ontario Indians provided correspondence, a letter dated July 26, stating that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to accommodate and consult with first nations. The UOI also requested a face-to-face meeting, but was never given that opportunity; in response, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission encouraged the Anishinabek nation to attend a public hearing on September 29. However, this forum was not consultation, nor did it allow for discussion, questions, or feedback.
The Union of Ontario Indians maintains that aboriginal and treaty rights and any first nation interest in its traditional territory cannot be abrogated, derogated, or infringed in any way. These rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. The Canadian government has a long history of neglecting first nation reserve lands that have been contaminated through the actions of others. First nations have been struggling for decades for remediation of their lands and waters. We do not want to see the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River contaminated or tainted with radioactive waste. The Anishinabek cannot accept assurances of safety or remediation in the event of an accident. The potential long-lived contamination to the environment and to all living entities is too great, and it is very real to our communities.
Forty million people retrieve drinking water from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. In addition, many communities are currently battling invasive species, loss of traditional foods, contaminated sediments, decline in fisheries, decline in water levels, areas of concern, and the list goes on. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway cannot take any more impacts. The lack of protection for the environment has affected the way of life of our first nations citizens.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has also failed to recognize Anishinabek or first nations jurisdiction. We were never conquered nor were these lands uninhabited. The Great Lakes waters and lake beds were not ceded under any treaty.
In the Van der Peet decision, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that section 35(1) of the Constitution Act protects aboriginal rights that extend to both land and water. Under the Badger decision, the onus of proving that aboriginal and treaty rights have been extinguished lies with the crown, and there must be “strict proof of extinguishment”.
The Anishinabek nation has treaty rights with respect to the management of waters. Anishinabek lands occupy the Great Lakes shoreline; the Anishinabek nation maintains that they have title and inherent rights to those waters. As a result, the first nations have jurisdiction over them, and that should be respected.
The Anishinabek nation opposes any nuclear shipment or transport of radioactive waste or radioactive contaminated equipment.
Given the risk of harm to human health, to aquatic habitat, to species, and to the environment, and given that there is immense international concern in relation to Bruce Power's licence, the decision should enforce that the lakes be protected. The Anishinabek nation still should have been consulted and involved in the decision-making process of this initiative.
:
In Canada, I think we need a broad consultation at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on what we should be doing with the toxic radioactive waste, a consultation on whether we should be allowing it to be exported, imported, or transported over our precious lakes and rivers.
Also, the classification of the waste is ridiculous. Low-level waste is simply anything that isn't high-level waste, and high-level waste is simply irradiated fuel. Anything that isn't irradiated fuel is automatically low-level waste. That's ridiculous. It doesn't have any reality to it.
For example, with respect to the steam generators, we've heard the comparison with isotopes. Medical isotopes have a half-life of 66 hours, which means that in a matter of weeks, if there were an accident, the stuff would be gone. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. There's the comparison.
We have to classify our nuclear waste. The Americans have done this. When the Americans have plutonium-contaminated waste, they do not call it low-level waste; they call it TRU waste, transuranic waste, and it's treated just like high-level waste. It's treated very, very carefully; it's not treated casually. They have another category called Greater-Than-Class-C waste, which also can cover some of these toxic materials.
We have a very inadequate system of regulation of waste--even classification of waste--in this country. Unless the government, the elected officials, insist upon a review and a careful look at this, we're going to find ourselves in a difficult situation in a few years, because the danger mounts.
:
If you do come across something, it would helpful for the committee to understand that. Otherwise, essentially we have to take the word of Bruce Power that it's a wash economically.
I have a question for you, Chief Plain--is it Grand Chief Plain, or Chief Plain?
Chief Christopher Plain: It's Chief Plain.
Mr. Nathan Cullen: With respect to section 35, I represent the area that is both Haida and Taku, so I'm familiar with the court decision. I was at the Supreme Court that day. This is not a small thing in terms of consultation and accommodation. There is an obligation of the federal government, the crown, to talk to you, and to consult and to accommodate if there's any need for accommodation. That's not an aside; it's embedded in the Constitution. It has also been decided all the way to the Supreme Court.
It seems that the CNSC hasn't consulted with you. It has broken a constitutional agreement and obligation. I'm trying to understand how this can be so lightly dismissed as part of this whole process in law.