Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 15 - Evidence for March 12, 1997
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 12, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-23, to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 12:20 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, with us today are representatives from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility; Dr. Edwards and Ms Ostling.
We will hear your presentation and then my colleagues and I may have questions for you.
Ms Kristen Ostling, Coordinator, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout: We are very happy to be here today to present you with information pertaining to Bill C-23.
I wish to talk a bit about the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout. The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility is one of the steering committee members of the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout. CNP is a non-profit alliance of safe energy and environmental groups from across Canada. CNP was founded in 1989.
The Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout is dedicated to the phase out of nuclear power in favour of safer, cleaner energy alternatives. We have a solid base of support from 300 endorsing organizations from across Canada. Our major focus is on public education.
All the criticisms of Bill C-23 we made when we appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Commons stand. The major problem with this bill is that it focuses on the development and production of nuclear energy rather than looking at the realistic possibility of nuclear phase out.
Mr. Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility: I am a Ph.D. in mathematics. I graduated with a gold medal from the University of Toronto in mathematics and physics. When I graduated, I found that I knew very little about nuclear power. I had assumed until that time that nuclear power was clean, safe, cheap and abundant. I have found over the years that none of those adjectives is true.
I participated in 1975 in the founding of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. Since then, I have been concerned about the disenfranchisement of alternative points of view on nuclear power at the federal level and the lack of any realistic debate over the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power. As a result, a series of very expensive and dangerous decisions have been made and are still being made without a full scale debate at the federal level on the desirability of nuclear power or the extent to which Canada wishes to invest in this technology.
During the debate on this bill in the House of Commons, there was great difficulty in maintaining a quorum. That indicates how well nuclear issues have been isolated from the normal political process and not subjected to appropriate debate.
As far as I know, Canada is the only major jurisdiction with a large nuclear program that does not have a mechanism for discussing these issues. Ontario had a Royal Commission for electric power planning which legitimized many of the points raised by critics of nuclear power and which recommended a possible moratorium on nuclear power if certain conditions were not met concerning radioactive waste.
A royal commission of inquiry in Britain, headed by a nuclear physicist, examined nuclear power. One of the major findings of the commission was that we should not rely on nuclear energy unless there is no reasonable alternative.
Under the Carter administration, the United States did studies on nuclear power at the federal level. They concluded that one of the major things the United States could do for peace and disarmament world wide was to avoid promoting nuclear power because of the attendant risks of proliferation. That is the context in which my organization looks at this bill. One of the fatal flaws in this bill is that it keeps the Atomic Energy Control Board reporting to the same minister to whom it has always reported. That is the Minister of Natural Resources. The Minister of Natural Resources is simply not well equipped to deal with environmental, health and safety issues -- all the issues which reflect the dangers of nuclear power.
If this bill were to have just one change which would make for better politics and better decision-making, it would be to send it back to the House saying that it is time that there be a separation between the promotional and the regulatory aspects as they concern nuclear energy. Not only would we then have two voices in cabinet instead of one talking about nuclear power, we would also have a whole new pool of expertise.
I do not know if the committee is aware that, at the moment, there are no environmental standards for radioactivity in Canada. All of the standards for radioactivity are based solely on human exposures, not on exposures to any other plants or animals. One of the things that this bill envisages is a larger role for the environment.
You must also realize that this measure is intended to replace an act that is 50 years old, an act that was put into place in 1946, long before there were any nuclear power reactors. This was right after the Second World War. It was because of Canada's participation in the World War II atomic bomb project that this act came into force. At that time, it had primarily to do, not with protecting the environment, or even protecting health and safety, although that is mentioned, but rather, with safeguarding strategic nuclear materials that might be used for weapons purposes.
The concept of this new measure is radically different. Of course, the role of the Atomic Energy Control Board has evolved a great deal since the 1946 act was proposed, which is one of the rationales for bringing in this legislation. Unless an opportunity for more expertise is created to be directed on the nuclear question, you will never receive healthy advice. You have to create opportunities for scientists to become involved in the nuclear debate from different angles, other than belonging to the nuclear industry. At the moment, if someone were to quit the nuclear industry -- and there have been those who have, I know some of them -- they have nowhere to go in Canada. There is no other employer who is willing to hire them as a nuclear scientist, unless it is the Atomic Energy Control Board which, however, reports to the same minister to whom Atomic Energy of Canada reports. There is a built-in conflict of interest here.
There is also a lack of expertise in the Ministry of Natural Resources. I remember when a former energy minister told me that he really did not have much time to deal with nuclear issues because he was too busy dealing with oil and gas issues. Frankly, I think that is probably true. The Minister of Natural Resources has a big job in dealing with the extraction of minerals and the development of energy resources. That must be the main preoccupation and focus of the minister.
The Minister of Environment, on the other hand, is responsible for the environment, which is quite a different preoccupation. Within the Ministry of the Environment, there are many excellent research capabilities for setting water and air quality. There are many topics which are directly relevant to, for example, radioactive contamination from nuclear power plants and the effects that might have on the biosphere.
After 50 years into the nuclear age, is it not time to create a less sheltered environment so that we can discuss nuclear issues in a more balanced way? In this way they can be addressed, bringing to bear all of the scientific knowledge, not just the physics and engineering capabilities. It is worth noting, for example, that the Atomic Energy Control Board is extremely thin in terms of biologists and medical people. It has no epidemiological division.
I was hired by the Auditor General of Canada to participate as a consultant when they did a comprehensive audit of the Atomic Energy Control Board. At that time, we were discussing the fact that there is no specific environmental expertise within the Atomic Energy Control Board. There should be. That would be a healthy development, even if nothing else in the bill were changed, and there are things that could be changed. To have this board report to a different minister would be like a breath of fresh air. Over time, it would create a far healthier situation. I believe cabinet would get better advice and the politicians of this country might begin to take more interest in nuclear issues because they would begin to be able to read more than one version of the facts.
We have brought with us many documents which you may find interesting. I should like to mention just a few. One document you have in front of you is a paper written by me at the invitation of the editor of the Canadian Business Review entitled, "Cost Disadvantages of Expanding the Nuclear Power Industry". The reason I was invited by the editor to write this article is because he had just published an article entitled, "Cost Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Power Industry", in which he was disappointed because he thought it was shallow. He then took the unusual step of inviting me to write what was essentially a rebuttal article.
The context of this was the Trudeau administration had just concluded an internal review of the nuclear industry, not dissimilar to the internal review that this administration has undertaken within the last year, with no input from the public. In other words, it listened to various bureaucrats from various departments and representatives of the nuclear industry from its various branches, with no public input. Consequently, there was no public debate and, as a result, little political interest and little political enlightenment. That is the context in which that article was written.
The next study to which I wish to refer was published by the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout two years ago. It is called, "Nuclear Sunset: The Economics of the Canadian Nuclear Industry." Essentially, it is a critique of a report commissioned by Atomic Energy of Canada and done by Ernst & Young. That report was trumpeting the economic advantages of the nuclear power industry.
The reason I mention this report is because the Minister of Natural Resources simply took the AECL study as if it were gospel and floated it in public meetings, relying upon the information in it as if it were the truth. Never did the Department of Natural Resources undertake to commission a critique of the study to see whether or not what the study was saying was true.
I am willing to put my reputation on the line to tell you that that Ernst & Young study was deeply flawed. There are some obvious ways of pointing this out. When they talk about the subsidization level to the nuclear industry, they come up with a figure of a little over $5 billion; however, they do not use an acceptable economic methodology for arriving at it because all they do is add up the dollar figures in different years, going back to 1950, as if they were equal to each other, arriving at a total of $5 billion. If you just use the standard policy of putting it in present dollars, then it adds up to approximately $13 billion. This is just one small example of how allowing the nuclear industry to regulate itself, to cocoon itself and to exist in an environment which is free from any political debate and political expertise is unhealthy.
If we are to go into the second half of the nuclear age with legislation which is not much better equipped to deal with these problems, then God help us, because I do not think we will be in good shape to deal with them.
Neither the industry nor the government has so far contemplated whether they may be required to phase out this industry, like it or not. If the markets do not sustain themselves, if the problems continue to multiply, there may be a necessity to phase out this industry, and there is no plan. This is directly due to the fact that all the expertise has been cocooned.
I realize that under normal circumstances the Senate is simply taking a sober second look at legislation passed by elected representatives. However, I submit that, in this particular case, elected representatives do not know much about nuclear issues because there have not been the mechanisms in place to deal with the subject. If there is any place where the Senate might perhaps play a role, it is to say, "Look: At this stage of the game, surely we should separate regulation from promotion."
The Chairman: About your recommendation on splitting the ministers, which one would go to Environment? Would AECL go to Environment, or would it be the other way around?
Mr. Edwards: The AECB would report to Environment under my recommendation.
The Chairman: The Nuclear Safety Commission.
Mr. Edwards: That is correct.
The Chairman: I thought they were doing research, development and marketing on that side.
Mr. Edwards: No. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited currently is the agency responsible for marketing, research and development.
Senator Spivak: There is a new environment auditor within the Auditor General's department. When I spoke on this bill at second reading, I did not mention the fact that it seems contradictory for both of these bodies to report to the same minister and that it would be better if this body reported to the Minister of the Environment. However, since the Auditor General reports to Parliament and not to the government, perhaps it would be better, in whatever way we can, to bring this matter to the attention of the environment auditor with a recommendation? Perhaps we could do that here.
The issue of nuclear policy is vital. I agree with you that there has not been a proper debate in recent times, at least at the parliamentary level.
Mr. Edwards: Never.
Senator Spivak: It is evident that it needs to be debated. What do you think of the suggestion with regard to the environmental auditor?
Mr. Edwards: That is another avenue, and that has a role to play too. The Auditor General's office, for example, has been one of the few agencies to point out deficiencies. For example, the Auditor General has pointed out hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of liabilities which are unreported by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. That is a public service. However, it does not penetrate into the government. It does not seem to be reflected in government policy. Criticisms which have been made repeatedly by the Auditor General, for as long as five years running, in terms of how AECL keeps its books have not resulted in any action in terms of asking AECL to conform to the recommendations of the Auditor General.
In the United States, over the years, they have developed many pools of expertise on nuclear issues. It creates a healthier situation. For example, not only do you have the nuclear industry housed in the Department of Energy, you also have the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is the regulatory agency which issues licences and so on. You also have a strong nuclear subset within the Environmental Protection Agency which recommends environmental standards for radiation. You also have a whole division within the U.S. General Accounting Office which is dedicated entirely to nuclear issues and which puts out excellent reports on a whole host of issues.
Senator Spivak: What is that called?
Mr. Edwards: The U.S. General Accounting Office. It is almost parallel to the Auditor General of Canada but has a wider scope.
Senator Spivak: We met with them in Washington on agricultural matters. That is very interesting.
Mr. Edwards: There are also numerous state agencies, such as the California Energy Resources and Conservation Development Commission, which also have substantial expertise in the nuclear area. The United States, over the years, has developed different pools of expertise on nuclear matters. That is a healthier situation. When authority questioning comes up, it allows politicians and others to obtain diverse advice, to weigh the pros and cons, and to listen to all sides of the argument before making a decision. I fear that here in Canada, because of the institutional arrangements, this has been made very difficult.
Even if the Auditor General continues to report -- and I think he should -- on nuclear matters, it is important also to separate the regulatory function. The Auditor General will certainty not be regulating nuclear energy. If you separate the regulatory function from the promotional function, then you have created a mechanism which, over time, will lead to a more balanced view.
Senator Taylor: When examining other witnesses, I mentioned the issue of different ministers, and they correctly pointed out that that is a cabinet or a Prime Ministerial decision. These are two different departments, and nothing is set in stone indicating that both departments must report to the same minister, but they will be under this legislation.
Mr. Edwards: It is contained in the act.
Senator Taylor: Although your point is well taken, nothing says that there is only one cabinet minister involved in these matters.
Mr. Edwards: It is stated in the act.
The Chairman: Not quite, though. I think what Senator Taylor says is quite true. "Minister" is defined as "the Minister of Natural Resources or such member of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada as the Governor in Council may designate..." It could happen.
Mr. Edwards: That is right.
Senator Taylor: Many people agree with you. I encourage you to start campaigning now so that, in the next Speech from the Throne, you get what you wish.
We have heard that the Minister of Natural Resources has not been concerned with safety.
Mr. Edwards: No.
Senator Taylor: Perhaps oil and gas was occupying their minds too much. The Minister of Natural Resources has not only questioned the structural safety of mines and oil and gas, but also the question of radioactive cobalt or lead mining, dry mining, and gas and hydrocarbons in the coal mines. Much of the minister's job is safety, probably more than anything else. The minister does not go out to prospect for lead, coal, or anything else. The industry does that. Eighty per cent of the job of the minister is to deal with the safety factor, so there is a great deal of overlap.
If you wanted to phase out nuclear energy -- and we are now talking about 20 per cent of the electrical energy in Canada -- with what would you substitute it, outside of Sable Island gas? What would you substitute to generate that 20 per cent of the power of Canada and, in France, about 80 per cent of the power?
Mr. Edwards: This is a big argument. I suggest that you take a look at the report produced by the Royal Society of Canada. It deals with greenhouse gas emissions. If you want some decent scientific advice on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I recommend that report. You will see nowhere in that report is nuclear power figured.
Senator Taylor: As a substitute for greenhouse gas?
Mr. Edwards: It is not. It simply does not figure at all.
Senator Taylor: What about solar energy?
Mr. Edwards: Countries like Canada and France have allowed themselves to be convinced politically that nuclear power is the answer to a question we have forgotten.
You are saying that we have spent all this money building these nuclear reactors. I am sure Ontario Hydro would say in retrospect, "I wish we had not spent all that money." In fact, approximately two and a half years ago, The Globe and Mail Report on Business section did an article on the Darlington plant, in which they pointed out that in 1978 Ontario Hydro had projected, with 95 per cent certainty, the electrical demand by the end of the century, which is just around the corner. The amount projected, with 95 per cent certainty, was the equivalent of 14 Darlington nuclear generating stations. If we had followed their advice then, we would have built 14 more nuclear generating stations like Darlington.
In 1986 Hydro Quebec was planning to build 40 nuclear reactors along the St. Lawrence River, and they said that people would freeze in the dark if they did not have them.
I submit to you that if you look with a fresh mind at energy options, you will discover that nuclear is a solution, an expensive solution, but by no means the only solution. If that money had not been spent on nuclear, it would have been spent on other capacity.
Senator Taylor: Coming from Alberta, I am still with the oil and gas option. It seems to me a rather Hobson's choice, if I were in your corner, between oil and gas and nuclear.
Mr. Edwards: I am afraid you do not understand the point. The point is not that 14 Darlingtons were used instead of nuclear. The point is that alternatives took up the slack. One of those alternatives -- which the Canadian government has never acknowledged as having the power that it has and, as a result, they give absolutely no support to it -- is energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is capable of displacing an enormous amount of electricity.
I will give you one example. When Ontario Hydro was conducting hearings on its 25-year development plan, they were forced by critics to see whether they could get the same amount of electricity from Darlington through co-generation. They put out bids for co-generation and found they could get twice as much electricity at less cost than Darlington through co-generation. That is the type of research I am talking about.
Senator Taylor: What about the research they are doing? Is it advanced fusion?
Mr. Edwards: I am not here to debate that. I am here to debate the question of whether it is good politics to allow the nuclear industry to continue to have a monopoly on advice to the government and continue to shut out all other voices so that you do not even listen to the other arguments. That is the corner the Government of Canada has painted itself into.
Senator Taylor: It does sound difficult to me to shut someone like you up, though.
Mr. Edwards: It is easy when Ottawa is as it is.
Ms Ostling: One of the documents that we have tabled is called "Renewable Energy Options for Canada." This document shows how we could phase out nuclear power in Canada. One of the primary sources for energy is energy efficiency. There are also other suggestions; for example, wind and solar co-generation. The primary thing is energy efficiency. We would be glad to hear your comments on this document as well.
The Chairman: In respect of your comments in response to Senator Taylor, do you think the marketplace is ultimately dictating the fact of less expenditures in the nuclear power area?
When we were in California looking at the electrical industry, where because of cost they began a process of deregulation, we learned that an integral part of the cost of deregulation was paying off the investments they had made towards nuclear power, which they were no longer using. Perhaps some of your objectives will be arrived at through the interplay of market conditions. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Edwards: If Canada would allow market conditions to take place, that would be wonderful. However, Canada continues to pump money into this industry. If you look at table I of this Nuclear Sunset Study, you will see $13 billion of subsidies. To this day, the nuclear industry gets more direct federal subsidies for research and development than all other energy sources combined.
The Chairman: Is that money which is directed to the sale of our CANDU reactors and to the development of that expertise that has become a strong export for Canadians?
Mr. Edwards: Once again, is this really such a strong export? Every time you mention something like that, one must ask the question: How do we know that it is such a strong export option? Have we really made money? Has there ever been any accounting or financial accountability of past sales? Has Parliament ever received a detailed break down and report on how much money we made or lost on the Argentinean sale, the Pakistan sale, the Taiwan sale or the original Korean sale? These figures are simply not available. They are out of public sight.
The Chairman: Yesterday, numbers were given to us by representatives of the "nuclear" industry that showed some large figures. We have no reason to doubt that information. There were large figures with respect to jobs created, exports and the multiplier effect.
Mr. Edwards: If you asked the tobacco industry about smoke, you would also get some strong opinions about that subject. If you want to put the tobacco industry in charge of telling the truth about smoking and the economic benefits and possible harmful effects of it, fine. However, you should listen to others than just the industry.
I was hired by the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning to cross examine nuclear safety experts for a period of 15 weeks. I found that often their claims simply did not stand up. This applies to their claims on economics, too. I recommend you look at the study entitled "Nuclear Sunset". I will bet you that those figures are contained here. We have found that those figures are seriously flawed. They should at least be subject to scrutiny. I do not know whether the military lied about the Somalia affair, however, one should certainly investigate and be open minded as to whether or not they may be telling the truth.
When is this done with the nuclear industry? When does anyone ever question them or hold them to account?
The Chairman: I do not mean to belabour this point, but it is interesting to me. I do not know whether it assists the committee with the legislation before us. Are you saying that the money expended by the federal government in support of the CANDU reactor program has never been scrutinized, that the Public Accounts of the Government of Canada and all the remedial investigative powers that are there are never used?
Mr. Edwards: The only time that I can remember -- and I may be wrong, I may be unaware of certain procedures, however, if so, they are deeply hidden -- public scrutiny of AECL finances was in 1978 when the House of Commons Finance Committee looked into large amounts of money which were transferred to anonymous Swiss bank accounts by AECL.
The public accounts committee found that AECL representatives, including the president, would not answer questions. They were obstructive, and the House of Commons committee concluded that they had reason to believe that large sums of taxpayers' money were used for corrupt or illegal purposes.
Subsequently, the president of Atomic Energy of Canada was fired. That is the last time I know of a public scrutiny or a House of Commons scrutiny of AECL finances.
The Chairman: The power is there, it is simply not being done.
Mr. Edwards: It is simply not being done.
For example, recently, AECL's man in Korea was arrested and is still in jail in Korea for bribery, for taking a paper bag full of large sums of money to a South Korean executive on behalf of AECL. AECL denied that it knew that this money was being used for that purpose. What did they think that money was being used for? What kind of accounting does AECL have?
Kenneth Dye, the former Auditor General of Canada, said on CBC that he thought it would be an awfully good example if some executives went to jail for things like this. He believed that an executive of a Crown corporation responsible for taxpayers' money should be fully accountable. There has been no investigation and no process of calling AECL to account for that particular episode and on how they control their own agents overseas.
I have been involved in this matter for many years as a concerned Canadian. My message from the beginning has always been the same: Just open up the political process and allow for some accountability. Let us put the cards on the table.
When the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility was formed in 1975, the first thing we did was to come to Ottawa, meet with representatives of all parties and say, "Can we get a public inquiry into the benefits and problems with nuclear power for everyone's benefit so that we can have it all on the table, see the good and bad points more clearly and come to more rational decisions?" This is not being done. As a matter of day-to-day business, it is being prevented.
The Chairman: If I understand what you are saying, it is not really a matter of what you recommend be in the legislation; it is more a case of whether the practice of government is right at this point in time.
Mr. Edwards: I despair of Canada continuing in this fashion for another 60 years. If Canada does not do something to rectify this situation, I suspect that there will be a lot of chickens coming home to roost.
The United States Department of Energy has taken a close look at radioactive pollution in the U.S. military. They have come up with a figure of $200 billion to clean up and manage the radioactive pollution at their military complexes.
In Canada, the problem is not that bad, but no one knows how bad it is because no one has looked. There is no official inventory of radioactive sites in Canada with price tags as to how much it would cost to clean them up. I think that is irresponsible.
If the Atomic Energy Control Board reported to a different minister, I could see it possibly leading to such things being done, because there would be greater accountability with a separation between those two points.
There is the point of just managing the industry safely in its operations, as you were saying, senator. I agree with you. The safe operation of mines is certainly a concern, but not the environmental impacts and certainly not the long-term environmental impacts.
Senator Taylor: Were you aware that the new act calls for provision of public hearings, the very thing you are talking about? As well, it is not negative as to funding. We asked about funding, and were told that it might depend on intervenor status. The whole area is opening up so that people of your talent and knowledge will be able to appear.
Mr. Edwards: My object in life is not just to appear, senator. I do not care if I appear or disappear from this issue. I would like to see Canada in a position where it could make better decisions about such matters. This legislation is a very half-hearted step. It is in the right direction, but it is very half-hearted.
Senator Taylor: When a politician says he wants people to make better decisions, he usually wants people to agree with him. However, I do not know what a scientist means by such comments.
Senator Spivak: With respect to funding, you left out China. They have just received a loan of $1.5 billion.
I wish to ask you about energy efficiency. In the United States, as the chairman pointed out, they have come to the conclusion that they could save more money by conservation than by building new power plants, regardless of the kind. That has been a very successful program in the United States. It has also affected sales of hydro in Canada.
Canada does not have such a program. Is that what you are saying, that we do not have a determined program of energy efficiency and retrofitting because we have such abundant energy resources?
Mr. Edwards: There are things going on, of course. Energy efficiency is something which makes good sense to many of people. The difficulty is that it is not a coordinated effort. For example, here in Canada, Ontario Hydro did a pilot project at Espanola.
A tremendous amount can be accomplished through the use of coordinating resources if you approach and organize energy efficiency on a community basis. Ordinary homeowners or businessmen feel that they do not always know enough about quality control and the best measures to be taken. When this can be planned on a community basis, the possibilities are very great.
In Canada, federal involvement in the energy scene -- for example, monetary support for research or implementation in energy efficiency -- is zero. There is nothing there.
Senator Spivak: I must put in a plug for the previous Progressive Conservative government and the Green Plan. The current leader had some of those ideas, but they are gone.
The chairman asked the officials about who will have the final decision on where nuclear waste will be stored? Do you feel the processes are sufficient for examining the scientific evidence? Is it fine to put it in the Canadian Shield?
Crown corporations are not under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They were supposed to be, but the regulations have not been put in place. There is also the issue of the export of nuclear power, which brings us back to the whole question of what is Canada's nuclear policy. With the export of CANDU reactors, there was an intent under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to put that policy in place, but that has not been done.
Would you give us your thinking or information on those issues?
Mr. Edwards: I do not know if they are directly related to the act.
Senator Spivak: Yes, they are, because the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is supposed to be in operation now, but yet there are areas where it will not operate.
Mr. Edwards: That is right.
On Thursday, I will be in Trois-Rivières giving a presentation before an environmental assessment panel on this concept of geological disposal. It is very odd to have an environmental assessment of the concept. What is the environmental impact of this assessment? Yet, that is what they are attempting to do.
The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that most people who are not scientists regard science as a single thing -- that is to say, science is science. In fact, there are many different kinds of science. There are the physical sciences, biological sciences, environmental sciences, and so on. At the present and historically, the nuclear industry is dominated by physical scientists. In the Atomic Energy Control Board, physicists and engineers are making all of the decisions. These people will be conducting the hearings. I do not have much confidence that they will be able to cope with the problems they will face.
You have those scientists in the Department of the Environment, but you also have scientists who are more biologically oriented. They specialize in biology and studying living systems. It is a whole different orientation. I believe that is the kind of orientation you need to come to grips with the problems.
Senator Spivak: You are talking about problems of waste management and storage.
Mr. Edwards: That is right. Unless you get that biological element into the study of underground storage schemes and so on, you will not have a realistic appreciation of the problem. That is the way I look at it. Unfortunately, we again have the same situation I mentioned earlier.
In 1977, a green paper entitled "The Management of Canada's Nuclear Waste", commonly known as the Hare Report, was written in three months by three men; Hare, Aikin and Atkinson. That report was subject to both federal and provincial hearings. The federal hearings were conducted by the House of Commons committee on natural resources and public works. The committee received over 300 briefs, most of them critical of this AECL proposal to bury the nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield. Meanwhile, hearings were underway in Toronto before the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning which was also looking into radioactive waste disposal.
In June of 1978, the Government of Canada pre-empted both of these hearing processes by signing an agreement with Ontario to proceed with the implementation of the Hare report. In other words, without waiting for the outcome of the hearings, the government proceeded to implement the proposal. That is the way in which Canada has approached this issue.
You mentioned the Green Plan. The Green Plan was put forward at the same time as the mandate was given to proceed with the hearings that are now under way on high level waste. Lucien Bouchard was the Minister of the Environment at that time and Jake Epp was the Minister of Energy. When Jake Epp put forward the mandate to study the concept of geologic disposal, he included in that mandate no debate about the role of nuclear power, no discussion of stopping the production of nuclear waste. He discussed the burial of the waste and nothing else.
Lucien Bouchard objected. As Minister of the Environment he found it difficult to talk about a waste disposal concept without discussing the source of the waste and the possibility of reduction of source. Jake Epp then promised that the Government of Canada would hold parallel hearings on the role of nuclear energy to provide a kind of balance, but he did not want it to be connected with the hearings on high level waste disposal.
Those parallel hearings have never taken place. In fact, the chairman of the panel has publicly apologized for that because he told me and many other people not to worry, that our concerns would be addressed, that the Government of Canada had promised that there would be parallel hearing into the role of nuclear power.
Unfortunately, this is the history of how nuclear power issues have been handled by successive Canadian governments. It is not something we can pin on any one government. It is a pattern. That pattern has resulted from the fact that the sole source of advice for ministers on nuclear issues are people from the nuclear industry. Because there has been no mechanism available at the federal level for an open debate putting the issues on the table in a fair and honest way, I believe that the Government of Canada has allowed itself to be manipulated by the industry, and I do not think it should continue to do so.
Senator Anderson: I understand that these nuclear power plants have a definite life span and that the pressure tubes must be stored somewhere. Have any of those tubes been stored in Canada?
Mr. Edwards: It is actually the spent fuel that must be stored. It is a little difficult to comprehend. When the fuel goes into the reactor, one would think it is very energetic and, therefore, very radioactive, but that is not the case. When the fuel goes into the reactor it is only mildly radioactive. It is when it comes out of the reactor as spent fuel that it is intensely radioactive. That is because inside the reactor the uranium atoms are actually broken, and what is left in the fuel are the broken bits of uranium atoms.
When the Chernobyl accident happened, the emission that caused all the contamination was little broken bits of uranium atoms. That is what is in this spent fuel. It is a very toxic substance. In fact, the royal commission points out that if an unshielded human being were to stand one metre away from a spent fuel bundle, he would get a lethal dose of radiation in about 20 seconds. They are very dangerous objects, and they are what will be buried.
The answer to your question is that they have not buried any of this stuff yet. They have just stored it on site. They first stored it in pools of water. The water is necessary to remove the heat. Without the water, they would overheat, damage themselves and therefore release radioactivity. After seven to ten years, they can remove it from the pools and put it into dry storage.
However, since it remains dangerous for literally millions of years, where do we finally put it? That is what they are talking about now. They do not want to talk about stopping the production of the waste because they intend to continue to produce it for as long as possible. It is basically a management problem, from their point of view. It is not so much a waste disposal problem in the sense of burying all this stuff to get rid of it forever; it is a problem of clearing the decks in order to be able to produce more to keep the industry going indefinitely.
That is the attitude which both the Government of Canada and the industry have expressed in their presentations to the panel. They see this not as a way of phasing out nuclear power or getting rid of nuclear waste, but as a way of allowing us to sustain the production of it.
Ms Ostling: I wish to address a couple of Senator Spivak's questions and also the questions with regard to subsidies.
One of the documents we are tabling here today is called "Exporting Disaster: The Cost of Selling CANDU Reactors". This was prepared by David Martin of the Nuclear Awareness Project. We have distributed this document quite widely and are hoping that you will look at it.
This study concludes that there are high costs to nuclear exports, especially CANDU exports. In particular, with the CANDU export deal to China we know that there is a loan of $1.5 billion. It is very lamentable that at the last minute the Government of Canada changed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act regulations pertaining to environmental assessments that had an impact on this CANDU export to China. Canadians should have the right to have some input on the issue of the export of CANDU reactors. We are finding that there is less and less legitimacy for nuclear power development in Canada. In order for the nuclear industry to stay alive in Canada, it needs an export business.
This is very serious because we are exporting the same problems that we face here in Canada; the long-term problems of nuclear waste and the day-to-day problems that we see in CANDU reactors in the nuclear provinces. I encourage you to look at that document.
In terms of the nuclear subsidies issue, we released this year a document called "Nuclear Budget Watch 1997". I am also tabling copies of the executive summary of that, and it is available in French as well.
This was prepared by economist David Argue and Dave Martin. They find that subsidies to the nuclear industry now total over $15 billion when inflation is taken into account. This is a very large amount of money to put into an industry that is supposed to be providing us with so many fantastic benefits. I would like to see the material submitted to you by the Canadian Nuclear Association yesterday in order to compare their figures with ours. I would like to encourage you to do the same.
In "Nuclear Budget Watch 1997", we have included in the subsidy table the $1.5 billion loan to China for their purchase of two CANDU reactors. We will try to find out more about the hidden subsidies to the nuclear industry. That is crucial, and the government should be doing more of that as well.
One of the things I should like to point out is the fact that nuclear exports are not covered in this bill. It is something that should be covered as part of the phase out of nuclear power. It is not just in Canada that no new nuclear reactors are being built; globally, it is a reality. Increasingly, we are seeing that there are very positive possibilities for replacing nuclear power with renewable energy sources -- and I am not talking about fossil fuels -- with, primarily, energy efficiency and other environmentally sustainable energy alternatives.
The Chairman: I was just looking through the submission of the Canadian Nuclear Association of yesterday. The numbers are not there, although they put them up for us on a screen. That material is not contained within this report, although you are certainly welcome to look at the material that we have. We could talk about getting those numbers for you.
Ms Ostling: Would the numbers be available in the transcript of the hearing?
The Chairman: Yes.
Thank you, Ms Ostling and Mr. Edwards, for coming here today and for sharing some important information with us. I would be most happy to receive your information in order for my colleagues to examine it.
Senator Taylor, shall we proceed now with our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-23?
Senator Taylor: There have not been many complaints about the bill, except for the question of responsibility of cabinet ministers. Do we want to do this clause-by-clause or approve it as is?
The Chairman: The committee could, by way of recommendation, say to the government, "We would like you to look into the recommendation put forward by Dr. Edwards and Ms Ostling to examine the feasibility of making the split between ministers."
Senator Spivak: Senator Carney has asked me to put forward an amendment, one with which I agree. I should like to move that amendment now.
Senator Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-23, to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be adopted without amendment and reported to the Senate this day.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Senator Spivak: I move that clause 2 be amended by deleting the words "natural resources" and substituting the word "environment" therefor.
Senator Taylor: Senator Spivak, I believe the intent of that motion can be handled much better with a recommendation. In other words, this motion is trying to tie the hands of future cabinet ministers and prime ministers to say what they well do.
Senator Spivak: Exactly.
Senator Taylor: I am not in favour of the amendment. I would ask, as the chairman suggested, that there be a recommendation attached to the report stating that there be two different ministers in charge of the two different offices.
The Chairman: Will all those in favour of the amendment, please say "yea"?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chairman: Will all those opposed please say "nay"?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chairman: I declare the motion lost.
Senator Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move that we add a recommendation to the report stating that the responsibility for the two different departments be put under two different ministers.
Senator Spivak: You should clarify that.
The Chairman: You would like us, as a committee, to make a recommendation to the government that we have two ministers, each one being responsible for AECL.
Senator Taylor: That is right. I do not want to specify the ministers, but just say two ministers.
Senator Spivak: I do not agree. We should say that the AECB should report to the Minister of the Environment. I think it is clear we do not want it to report to the Minister for International Trade or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as they are involved in promotional activities. What we want is another view point, for example, the Department of the Environment where there are scientists other than physical scientists. That is the point that impressed me the most, namely, a variety of expertise. I hope that expertise is available from the Department of the Environment.
The Chairman: You would like a recommendation that the AECB be put under Environment Canada and the CNSC under Energy, Mines and Resources Canada?
Senator Taylor: We would be frozen in a time warp. Who knows how the Prime Minister will structure the next cabinet. I have seen environmental issues handled by the Department of Energy. Perhaps we should have a minister of technical resources, as we once did. In other words, there are many ways of structuring cabinet. We have had ministers of energy; ministers of mines and resources; ministers of natural resources; and ministers of environment.
I am saying that we should leave it open so that it can be the minister of health, the environment or energy, to name but three.
The Chairman: First, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion moved by Senator Taylor to adopt the bill as it stands?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried.
May I suggest that we recommend a split, as is the case in the bill now, or that such other ministers as the Governor in Council may direct, which covers your point, Senator Taylor?
Senator Spivak: I do not understand what you are saying, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The clause you read, Senator Spivak, talked in terms of the specific minister, or such other ministers. Our recommendation would be that we split, as of now, and then say "or such other ministers as the Governor in Council may direct." Titles change and ministries change, as Senator Taylor has suggested.
Senator Spivak: Are you suggesting that in the recommendation that one be under the Minister of Natural Resources and one be under the Minister of Environment?
The Chairman: Yes. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Spivak: I am sorry that Senator Carney is not here because I know she would want to associate herself with that motion.
The committee adjourned.