[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, September 25, 1996
.1539 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order, please. Thank you very much.
We're beginning a different phase in our committee hearings today, something a little different from what we've been working on in the past. We are commencing hearings on Bill C-23, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The committee will be spending some four or five weeks conducting hearings on this particular piece of legislation.
.1540
There has been a large number of groups, individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in appearing before the committee, asking for an opportunity to provide testimony. We have done our utmost to try to include as many as we can.
After today and tomorrow we will proceed a little bit differently in that we're asking four or five groups at a time to come. We will form panels and hold our hearings that way in an attempt to try to get as many people in as we possibly can.
The Nuclear Safety and Control Act is being enacted to cover nuclear safety regulations. The new act will explicitly reflect the regulators' current activities in health, safety, security and protection of the environment. I understand it is the first time in many, many decades that this particular area has had updated legislation applied to it.
I have a couple of notes before we begin. I know this is a very wide topic of interest and conversation amongst people, but I would remind the committee members that our specific task here is the study of Bill C-23, and although there's obviously room for some latitude, I would ask that we concentrate on our task here, the consideration of Bill C-23. Secondly, we will be proceeding with ten-minute segments when we get to the question period, starting with the Bloc, moving to the Reform and then to the government. We'll continue with that until we run out of questions.
I'm very pleased today that our opening witness is the Minister of Natural Resources, the Hon. Anne McLellan. She is going to provide some opening testimony.
I understand you have some officials with you: Mr. Morrison....
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Dr. Bishop from the AECB, and Dr. John McManus from the AECB.
The Chairman: Very good. Madam Minister, I would ask you to make an opening statement and then we'll ask the committee members to ask questions.
Ms McLellan: Bonjour. Merci, monsieur le président. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today to discuss Bill C-23, the proposed Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Let me say it's a great pleasure to be here. I always enjoy coming to the committee and engaging committee members in discussion. I'm sure this afternoon's session will be no exception to that rule, so it's a great pleasure to be back.
In my main remarks this afternoon I will review the main features of the bill and address some concerns that were raised during the second reading debate.
[Translation]
Before I begin, I would like to make some observations about the importance of the nuclear industry to Canada and its contribution to the well-being of Canadians.
[English]
It has been estimated that employment in the Canadian nuclear industry totals in excess of 26,000 people. Another 10,000 people work for suppliers providing non-nuclear components to the industry. Many of these are highly skilled jobs in engineering, manufacturing, construction and servicing that stem from orders for CANDU nuclear power plants.
Nuclear generating stations provide about 20% of Canada's electricity. In Ontario it's over 60%. High efficiency factors and low unit costs for fuel and operation make nuclear energy an economic source of electricity. Not only do nuclear generating stations provide a significant portion of Canada's electricity, they also have a significant environmental benefit of not emitting greenhouse gases. If any of you saw the front page of The Ottawa Citizen this morning, you know that the concern around global warming, climate change, is a growing one in this country and elsewhere. Replacing electricity generated by Canada's 20 nuclear power stations by power generated by fossil fuels could double Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. This is an important consideration in light of increased interest, as I've said, in the whole issue of global warming.
Canada is the world's leading producer of uranium, supplying electrical utilities in a large number of countries. We export some $500 million worth of uranium per year to be used for peaceful purposes only.
In addition, nuclear technologies are used extensively in medicine for both cancer treatment and medical diagnoses. In fact, one in four Canadians visiting a hospital undergoes some kind of diagnostic process that involves nuclear technology. A strong, independent regulator has been an important factor in the safe development of nuclear power and other nuclear technologies.
.1545
Bill C-23 will provide Canadians with modern legislation to regulate the Canadian nuclear industry. The nuclear regulator will have clearly defined powers and the hallmarks of a modern regulatory regime.
The Atomic Energy Control Board will be renamed the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The new name will clearly distinguish it from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, better known as AECL, and therefore we hope will eliminate confusion among Canadians concerning the roles of these two organizations.
Fifty years ago, the Atomic Energy Control Act was drafted primarily with national security in mind. However, as we all know, today the AECB's operations and responsibilities go well beyond issues of national security. The AECB devotes much of its efforts to ensuring that the development and use of nuclear energy does not pose an undue risk to Canadians or to their environment.
[Translation]
Bill C-23 makes it clear that the Commission's responsibilities include protecting the health and safety of nuclear workers and the public, and the environment.
[English]
Including environmental protection in the commission's mandate complements the requirement for an environmental assessment under CEAA and supports the government's priority to promote sustainable development.
Mr. Chairman, the commission will continue maintaining its role in national security. Let me make no bones about that. While the bulk of AECB's work has changed, it remains important in terms of its role in the maintenance of national security as it relates to the nuclear industry.
In that context, the commission will have the power to license the import and export of nuclear materials and technology. It will control the dissemination of information regarding nuclear technologies, and will have the power to implement in Canada those measures to which we have agreed regarding the international control of nuclear energy, particularly with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices.
Bill C-23 provides for more explicit regulation of the nuclear industry. It does so by clarifying the licensing powers of the commission, including the power to attach conditions to those licences; by clarifying the extensive regulation-making powers of the commission; by clarifying the powers of inspectors and designated officers; and finally, by clarifying the commission's power to support scientific or regulatory R and D or committees, distribute nuclear information and certify equipment and workers in the nuclear industry.
Bill C-23 will specify the federal regulator's powers in law and help the commission withstand legal challenges to its authority.
The commission will have the administrative tools for a modern regulatory regime. The number of board members will be increased to seven from five. This will allow the commission to broaden its expertise and will give the commission greater flexibility in establishing panels to hold hearings.
The commission will be a court of record with the power to conduct formal or informal public hearings as required. Members of the commission will be able to sit on panels and make decisions on issues before the panel on behalf of the commission. This flexibility will allow the commission to carry out its duties more efficiently. Bill C-23 also includes appeal provisions, for decisions and orders of designated officers and inspectors and for decisions by the commission.
Mr. Chairman, let me note the new provisions in this legislation. Bill C-23 will provide the commission with the clear authority to order companies or third parties, if necessary, to clean up contaminated sites and to allow third parties who carry out the remedial work to recover their costs.
The commission will have the power to request some form of financial assurance for decommissioning activities as a condition of licence. This will avoid situations where governments become the ``owner of last resort''.
The commission will have the power to charge fees for its services, including licence fees for regulated activities.
.1550
Fines for licence infractions will be increased to a maximum of $1 million from the current maximum of $10,000, which, as all of you know, represents little more than a nuisance cost for large licensees. Federal and provincial crown corporations, such as AECL and provincial utilities with nuclear facilities, will be bound by this law.
Bill C-23 also contains provisions that will expedite efforts by federal and provincial governments to reduce or eliminate regulatory overlap and duplication in the nuclear industry. This is very important in relation to this government's general and ongoing commitment to regulatory reform and efficiency, a subject I know you, as a committee, have already addressed your attention to.
Bill C-23 will allow the government to incorporate provincial regulations as federal legislation and to delegate the administration of those regulations back to a province. A similar mechanism was included in recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code with respect to labour matters and occupational health and safety at nuclear facilities.
In addition, Bill C-23 will allow provincial officials to be appointed as inspectors and designated officers of the commission and permit them to conduct federal responsibilities as agents of the commission.
As a final comment on the objectives of this bill, let me note that while Bill C-23 binds AECL as a crown corporation it does not affect the mandate or the operation of AECL, which is also established under the Atomic Energy Control Act.
One consequence of this bill you're considering is that the new commission and AECL will be governed by separate legislation, which I think we all agree is a step forward.
Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to make some brief comments regarding some of the issues that I know were raised during the second reading of this bill and during the debate on second reading.
First, with respect to the suggestion to include a provision that the commission be required to consult with industry on changes to licence fees, I should point out that fees are set by regulation. As such, they are published in Canada Gazette before they are promulgated. In addition, licensees have an opportunity to comment, and their comments are often reflected in the final regulations approved by cabinet.
This public consultation process is an important step in ensuring that regulations meet the needs and concerns of industry and the Canadian public. For example, several changes were made to the AECB's 1996 cost recovery fees regulations as a result of comments received from companies in the nuclear industry, particularly those involved in radiological inspection using portable gauges.
Provisions in Bill C-23 will ensure that licence fees will not exceed a reasonable estimate of the cost to regulate the licensed activity. Another suggestion concerned including a reference to cost-benefit analysis directly in the legislation. The government has discussed this issue and we've discussed it with the industry associations. The consensus indicates that it would not be appropriate to include such a provision at this time. The AECB is working with industry representatives to develop a position on when and how cost-benefit analysis should be used.
Regarding the question on the independence of the board members, let me state that the proposed legislation reinforces the independence of board members. They will no longer be appointed at pleasure but for a specified period, and can only be removed for cause. In addition, the government's power to set broad policy objectives for the commission will be conferred on the Governor in Council, not the minister.
Finally, let me address the issue of whether the proposed legislation is flexible enough to facilitate federal-provincial cooperation. The interdelegation mechanisms in Bill C-23 provide as much flexibility as possible within the existing federal nuclear regulatory regime. We are working with the Province of Saskatchewan to identify areas of overlap and duplication in the regulation of uranium mines and mills.
Let me say that as late as last week in Yellowknife I had the opportunity to meet with my counterpart from Saskatchewan, Eldon Lautermilch, the Minister of Energy and Mines. He and I addressed directly the issue of overlap and duplication in the context of this proposed legislation. I committed to him that I would continue to work closely with him and the Government of Saskatchewan within the context of the new legislation, if this legislation is approved as it exists, to avoid overlap and duplication wherever reasonably possible.
.1555
I think my colleague was reassured by my commitment and the commitment I made on behalf of my department to continue those discussions with the Province of Saskatchewan. I know it's a sensitive area. I know the discussions at times have been slow, but I have every confidence that we and the Government of Saskatchewan will reach an agreement that is beneficial to everyone.
I understand that during second reading debate there was also a reference to amending the Nuclear Liability Act. This is a separate issue, but the government does recognize legitimate concerns in relation to that act and my department is reviewing the act. The government intends to update that act to improve compensation schemes, to minimize the federal government's liabilities and to address certain technical problems with the Nuclear Liability Act.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note the support from all parties for this bill during second reading. I'm sure this committee will agree that Bill C-23 will establish a strong, independent regulator for an industry that provides many benefits for all Canadians. This legislation has been long overdue. The legislation you are reforming has in essence been in its state for close to...John, 50 years now?
Dr. John McManus (Special Adviser to the Secretary General, Atomic Energy Control Board): Since 1946.
Ms McLellan: So we're celebrating the 50th anniversary of the legislation that established the Atomic Energy Control Board. We all know, sitting in this room, that regulatory regimes have changed. The world has changed dramatically as it relates to nuclear energy, nuclear power and the concerns surrounding the nuclear industry. Therefore, I think it is time for all of us to seize the initiative and take the opportunity to reform this very important piece of legislation.
I look forward to your deliberations and certainly to your questions today. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Merci.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.
We will begin the questioning with the Bloc, Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): It is always a pleasure to welcome you Madam Minister. The legislation regulating nuclear energy in Canada certainly needs to be amended particularly in light of the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years.
This bill might be questionable as nuclear energy is a highly controversial issue. You said in your opening statement that this industry generates many jobs here in Canada. Large investments have been made particularly in Ontario where there is some 20 nuclear plants.
However, we might question the efficiency of those plants especially if we take into account the costs of nuclear waste disposal. The general public is interested to know if it will be consulted on the nuclear issue. Do you think that it should be the responsibility of your department, through the Atomic Energy Control Board, to hold public hearings on the creation of a nuclear generating station or a nuclear facility?
[English]
Ms McLellan: Perhaps Dr. Bishop, Dr. McManus or Dr. Morrison would like to say something in relation to that. But let me say that it seems to me the Atomic Energy Control Board is the appropriate agency to deal with licensing and regulatory issues. What one wants, it seems to me, is a panel of experts who understand the health and safety issues surrounding, for example, the construction of a nuclear generation station. It seems clear that one needs an independent body of experts to ensure that the very legitimate concerns you've alluded to of members of the public and communities close to which facilities such as these might be built...that there is an opportunity to make their case known to that impartial body and have their concerns assessed in a way that meets the very highest standards in the world. That is the reputation of the Atomic Energy Control Board.
.1600
Maybe others would like to say something about that, but as a politician I think it is not only logical and right but reassuring to know that an agency of the quality of the Atomic Energy Control Board is assessing applications such as these, granting licences and determining the conditions on which licences are granted.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Madam Minister, the Canadian Environmental Evaluation Act already provides, to my knowledge, for an assessment during the construction of a nuclear generating station or a nuclear facility. Will there be a duplication or will it fall under your responsibility? I think it is important to clearly identify the responsible authority in the bill in order to avoid any duplication. If not, the two organizations will make two different evaluations. From the start, particularly after 50 years, it is important that the next legislation be as clear as possible in that respect.
[English]
Ms McLellan: I quite agree with that. You will see that there is a high degree of harmonization between CEAA, the Canadian environmental assessment legislation, and the new Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
Agnes, I'll let you deal directly with that.
Dr. Agnes Bishop (President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy Control Board): There's no question that we agree there should not be two separate environmental reviews for a new nuclear facility. In fact, CEAA applies to AECB. There is no intention to allow duplication of that type of environmental assessment, nor does this bill do so in any way. But after the initial assessment of whether a plant is suitable environmentally, remember there has to be ongoing management, including safety of the environment, for the length of that facility right into decommissioning. It is the responsibility of the board to see that this is appropriately carried out.
So from our perspective there is no duplication of effort, and we work exceedingly closely with CEAA.
The Chairman: Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): Good afternoon Madam Minister. Could you explain precisely how the new entity will be able to use the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to reduce overlapping and duplication with provincial regulation?
Your text describes Canada's nuclear installations as seven nuclear plants, 22 reactors, etc.. You mentioned earlier 26,000 jobs. How are those jobs distributed between Quebec and Ontario?
[English]
Ms McLellan: I wonder if Monsieur Canuel could clarify a point for me. In your first question you talked about overlap, duplication and the regulatory power. You referred to the elimination of services provided by provinces. Can you give examples of activities currently carried out by the provinces in this area that we or the Atomic Energy Control Board is in any way duplicating?
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: What could be the role of the Commission? Would it not interfere with provincial regulation? Do you not see a risk of overlapping between the Commission and some provincial regulations? I would like your assurance that there will not be any such overlapping.
.1605
[English]
Ms McLellan: Let me just deal with it generally, and then I'll call on Agnes or John to deal with specific examples.
The degree of overlap and duplication in this area is actually very low, because the provinces, including the Quebec, have never challenged exclusive federal regulatory jurisdiction over the nuclear industry. Therefore, except as it relates to certain occupational health and safety issues - and we are working very hard and I think have basically dealt with any problems with the provinces and any aspects of overlap and duplication in that area - and perhaps some of the specific concerns with the Government of Saskatchewan as it relates to the regulation of uranium mining and mines, I believe there is very little overlap and duplication with the provinces. Obviously we will continue to work very hard with the provinces within the existing regulatory structure, one that concedes federal regulatory jurisdiction, to avoid any other examples of overlap and duplication.
I'll turn it over to Agnes to see if there's anything she wants to add.
Dr. Bishop: What's important about this act is that it allows us to negotiate with provinces who may be willing and competent to look at whether we have overlap or duplication in areas. We are not interested in duplication. We are interested in cooperating and working with provinces in terms of trying to determine if we can identify areas of duplication and come out with one system.
An example of where we are already able and have done some of these is our ability with this act to reference provincial regulations within our licensing, so that we don't have two different types of regulations. That's exceedingly important.
If this act goes through we would also be able to appoint provincial inspectors if we thought that was beneficial. So what's really important about this act on the issue you have raised is that it allows us to negotiate these types of aspects.
We've also done things such as putting some of the labour issues under provincial regulations, because it became awkward at nuclear stations, for instance, to have one group of workers under provincial legislation and another under federal legislation. That type of thing is something we want to avoid in order to be able to handle labour issues.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Could it not be done only by provincial inspectors? I entirely agree with you that it would be inefficient to have this done by a federal officer and then again by a provincial officer. Why not assign this task at the provincial level only?
[English]
Dr. Bishop: We can negotiate any level, so theoretically we could sit and negotiate and say the inspectors could be coming from the provincial side of things, but it would have to be audited and monitored by the federal regulation.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Does it mean that you do not really trust those who work directly for the province and that you want them under your control? Staff at both levels will do about the same work. I wish to get an answer, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: We'll come back on the next round. We've gone over time and I want to go over to Mr. Ringma.
.1610
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, am pleased to see the minister here this afternoon. I have a couple of questions that I think bear on ministerial or departmental responsibility.
Picking up from some of the things I've heard this afternoon, it seems to me that the new commission, the Nuclear Safety Commission, would be concerned in its mandate by public reaction, particularly in Ontario, to the fact that, as you mentioned yourself, 60% of the energy in Ontario is nuclear driven, which is a pretty high amount.
Ms McLellan: Right.
Mr. Ringma: I therefore would like to link this to the Churchill Falls situation, without talking about contracts or anything like that, simply saying that the increase in demand for electrical energy in Ontario is increasing. I would think concurrent with that there would be public resistance to any increase in nuclear-driven energy production. Therefore, it might be reasonable to look at the Churchill Falls thing and say maybe there is a case to be made for that energy to be sold to Ontario, since it's hydro rather than nuclear power.
If there is a case to be made for that, it seems to me there might also be a case for the department, or the minister herself, to look at the situation and put aside the Quebec-Newfoundland thing for a bit and decide whether there should be a case made for looking at that to protect the situation in Ontario and even to do right by the Newfoundland authorities and say that maybe we should enter into discussions here to see if there is an appropriate deal that could or should be in the future facilitated between Newfoundland and Ontario.
Ms McLellan: Let me say, first of all, that in this country right now we're in a situation of excess of supply. We produce more power in this country than we use domestically. Interestingly, right now the United States also has an excess of supply and that's for a number of reasons. Even though there is economic growth and we anticipate increased economic growth into the future, because of things like energy efficiency, because of the growing concern with our industrial infrastructure, with issues like global warming, they are actually implementing all sorts of measures to reduce their energy needs and to use energy more efficiently.
Therefore, right now we have a situation of excess capacity, so it is not a case of bringing on new generation capacity in the province of Ontario, nor is it a case of bringing on new generation capacity anywhere. We saw that in the province of Quebec, one of the reasons they did not proceed with the Great Whale project was that there was no necessity, no market for the energy in question.
We have tremendous energy capacity in this country, but we have an excess supply. It's an interesting suggestion you make that sometime in the future the Province of Newfoundland - I think this is what you are getting at - might want to wheel electrical power through the province of Quebec, through the transmission lines of Quebec, into either the northeastern United States or, in your example, Ontario, although it's much more likely it would be the northeastern United States as a prospective market for that power.
In fact, wheeling is an ongoing issue for discussion in the energy chapter between the provinces of this country, and I was very heartened to see the Premier of Quebec, last weekend, indicate that his province is willing to sit down with the Province of Newfoundland and other provinces like Ontario and discuss the issue of access to transmission lines.
This is a discussion that is now being carried on across the country, the whole question of wheeling electricity through other provinces' transmission systems to markets. As we restructure the markets in Canada, as they are being restructured in the United States, electricity is going to be deregulated in large part. It's going to be subject to market principles, much the way the oil and gas industries are, and you will have wheeling of electricity through provinces to new markets, for provinces like Newfoundland.
.1615
I was heartened by the Quebec premier's statements. In fact, in Yellowknife last week the deputy minister of energy was present and told me and the energy minister of Newfoundland directly that they are ready to sit down and discuss the question of access to transmission lines and wheeling at any time.
So I am encouraging both parties to proceed with those discussions immediately.
The Chairman: If I could interject for a second, because the chair has opened this, and said -
Ms McLellan: My answer was too long; I apologize.
The Chairman: It's not so much that. I appreciate the answer. Although the chair will give great latitude, there is the issue of relevancy.
The issue on the table is Bill C-23. I realize that we might want to go a little off that topic - and I will in fact allow that to happen - but there has to be a tie-back to the legislation we do have in front of us. I would ask all the members to be cognizant of that in developing their line of questioning.
Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: I have to admit, Mr. Chairman, that I'm seeking a precedent of another committee. I belong to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, where precisely this point was made. It was taken in advance of the fact that a minister was there on occasion to profit from it. So I thank you for that answer.
Ms McLellan: No, I'm quite happy.
Mr. Ringma: I would add that the same thing you explain goes on in my home province of British Columbia -
Ms McLellan: Yes.
Mr. Ringma: - where the totality of our energy is hydro-driven -
Ms McLellan: And in fact you -
Mr. Ringma: - and we're looking to the States and perhaps even to Alberta.
Ms McLellan: There are two provinces in this country that I think are further advanced than any others in the restructuring of the electricity markets. One is Alberta, and the other is British Columbia.
Mr. Ringma: The corollary of the first question that comes out from your answer - and again this is an observation rather than a question - could be that perhaps what will be sought is a diminishment of nuclear plants in Ontario as they age and as the aging becomes visible to the public. With that there would be a drive, perhaps on the part of the public, to say, let's replace it, to the extent we can, with this surplus energy elsewhere.
Now I'm going to test the chair, not the minister, because I suspect she's happy to respond.
I would like to bring up the cyclotron, the superconducting cyclotron research facility at -
Ms McLellan: TASC, at the Chalk River facility?
Mr. Ringma: Yes, at Chalk River. Here again I go back to your words, Minister, where you talked about overlap among the provinces.
TASC is said to be one of four or five such facilities - world class - in the world. But at the same time we have this same thing: we have TRIUMF in British Columbia, and I believe we have others in Saskatchewan and elsewhere.
Having read some things that...the minister has resisted talking with the TASC people - if it's true or not, I don't know - I'd very much like to get the minister's perspective on overlap, or your rationalization of what should be done. What overlap can you avoid in facilities of this sort?
Ms McLellan: Okay, you raise a couple of interesting points. First, let me talk about overlap. Dr. Morrison will be able to add flesh to these bones. It is my impression, my sense and my belief that there is very little overlap and duplication as they relate to these so-called big science projects.
There are different big science projects going on in this country. However, in terms of the research agenda being pursued by TASC and the project in Chalk River in comparison to what's going on in Saskatoon, Dr. Morrison, they are pursuing quite distinct research projects, both of which are valuable in their own right, but they are distinct. So there is not overlap in that sense of the word.
Let me say that you raise a very difficult question. Everybody is aware, of course, of the fact that the funding for TASC will be discontinued as of March 31, 1997. This is part of the restructuring of AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown corporation, the main business function of which is to sell CANDU reactors to the export market.
.1620
When that mandate was redefined, and when we went through the program review exercise with AECL, the direct Canadian taxpayer contribution to AECL was reduced by some 40%. They're being asked to make those reductions over a two-and-a-half-year to three-year period. Therefore, their direct contribution goes from something like $172 million down to $100 million.
That's a pretty tough adjustment for an organization to make, keeping in mind the fact that their main line of business is now the sale of CANDU reactors to the export market. The decision was made to discontinue funding basic science projects that did not directly relate to and support their main commercial function, which is the sale of CANDU reactors.
Let me make it plain that this was not an easy decision. The research done at TASC, the people, the scientists who do it, are top flight. It is with no pleasure that one has to make these tough decisions of government priorities, or in this case AECL, which, given the mandate by the government, had to reorder their priorities to meet the fiscal pressures.
And I am open to discussions. My political staff and officials have met with Dr. Hardy, the director of TASC. They have met interdepartmentally around the city, across this country, to try to determine if there is alternative funding or an alternative home for at least some part of what TASC does. I have to be honest that those discussions have not been terribly fruitful at this point.
We continue to pursue the possibility of private sector investment in some part of the research activity that TASC is doing at present. I am open to any kind of private sector interest, but so far there hasn't been very much of that either.
So what I would say is that AECL is confronted with a difficult choice: what are its priorities given its main mission? Therefore the scientific programs it will continue are those that are directly related to the CANDU reactor.
TASC will unfortunately not be funded as of March 31, 1997, unless we find alternative funding sources. I am certainly open to those discussions, and will continue to be open to those discussions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.
Mr. Ringma: I thank the chair for the latitude, and I certainly thank the minister for her forthright willingness to answer some.
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Mr. Chairman, may I just get a ruling from you at the beginning. I presume I will not be declared out of order if I address the minister's preamble in her opening statement?
The Chairman: No, if you address the minister's preamble, you won't be.
I assure all the members that I am trying to have as much latitude as possible here in questioning, because we do in fact have the minister here. But I again remind you, particularly as we move into this process with other witnesses, of the need for relevancy on Bill C-23.
Mr. Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Minister, I was 10 years old when the first control act was passed.
Ms McLellan: I wasn't even born.
Mr. Reed: No, I know you weren't. So I just want to remind you that I'm old enough to remember that the sales pitch for nuclear power at the time was that it would be so cheap that it would be virtually non-recordable on domestic meters at home.
I see that this need to continue the sales pitch has found its way into your preamble in a couple of areas. I don't know who the author of the statement was, but I think it should go on the record that there are a couple of questions that arise.
First, there is the statement about the economics of nuclear power, that nuclear power is economical. I think that in order to establish that, maybe the committee should have in its possession the actual cost per kilowatt of production at Darlington.
.1625
It would help a great deal because it's somewhere around 13¢ a kilowatt-hour, and that's assuming that the plant will last 40 years. We haven't had a nuclear plant live past 20 yet without being totally reworked at a cost generally higher than the original capital cost of the plant.
So I think that to say nuclear power is an economical source of power...there's a bit of salesmanship in those lines.
Ms McLellan: Can I respond to that?
Mr. Reed: Yes.
Ms McLellan: You raise a very interesting point. I believe - and I believe Dr. Morrison certainly has data to support the view - that nuclear power as a power source can be economical.
I give you for example, the Wolsong 1 in South Korea. In fact the Koreans, as you probably are aware, are very tough taskmasters when it comes to efficiency and cost to kilowatt-hour.
I was in South Korea in May, and in fact there you have an example of a nuclear reactor that is producing power cheaply, efficiently and competitively. What you can't do is perhaps confuse the corporate entity Ontario Hydro with the more general issue of the economics of nuclear power.
It is not for me to comment upon the efficiency with which Ontario Hydro is run or has been run. It's clear the chairman of the board of Ontario Hydro, and the president of Ontario Hydro have both indicated that they are deeply concerned about the way the nuclear assets of Ontario Hydro have been run, managed, administered, and operated over the past number of years. As I understand it, that is why they have undertaken a thorough review of the nuclear side of Ontario Hydro.
So you may well be right, Julian. I'm sure you probably are in terms of some of the lack of efficiency as it relates to nuclear power generation at Ontario Hydro.
But I don't think that means that nuclear power per se cannot be economical and competitive. I would suggest that you take a look at Wolsong 1 as an example of where it is.
Mr. Reed: That point is very well taken. Let's do Wolsong and look at the complete cost there.
Ms McLellan: Dr. Morrison, do you want to add anything?
Dr. Bob Morrison (Director General, Uranium and Nuclear Energy Branch, Department of Natural Resources): We can provide that data from Ontario Hydro. Darlington was an expensive plant, and it is producing fairly expensive power.
On average Ontario Hydro's nuclear generation is fairly cost-effective. It doesn't compete with the two provinces on either side, Manitoba or Quebec, because Canada is blessed with very low-cost hydro power...and as well in British Columbia, and in Labrador with Churchill Falls. So that is the lowest-cost power in the world. And Ontario does stand out as being higher cost with respect to its Canadian neighbours.
With respect to selling into the American market, it's pretty competitive, and once you've built it, the marginal cost of operating and paying for the nuclear fuel is very small. So it makes the marginal sales of Ontario Hydro into the American market very competitive.
Mr. Reed: If you can get into, if you're willing to accept, creative financing the way Ontario Hydro operates, yes, that's right. But if you're a private developer of power generation and you have to take the total cost - the capital cost and everything - into account, it ain't on. I tell you right now, it ain't -
Dr. Morrison: Well, I think the issue there is one of capital-intensive investment. In both hydro and nuclear you do have a lot of upfront costs. To the extent that those plants run well over their lifetime, you get savings way down the road. And it's true the private investors don't want to wait that long.
So in today's environment small gas plants are probably more competitive for private investors, but there are benefits to having that capital investment in a capital-intensive project that runs well over a long lifetime, as we see in Quebec, Manitoba and the other hydro provinces as well.
.1630
Mr. Reed: I'd be out of order getting into the nuances of hydro plant operation versus nuclear plant operation, the fact that hydro plants last over 100 years and nuclear plants don't last beyond 20.
Ms McLellan: No. That's not quite -
Mr. Reed: There was one other statement in the opening line, and that was that nuclear was compared with coal.
Dr. Morrison: That's right. That was the alternative Ontario Hydro would have considered as the competition when it made its decisions in the 1970s.
Mr. Reed: But it wasn't compared to other hydraulic plants.
Dr. Morrison: Not in Ontario, because they didn't feel they had that opportunity.
Mr. Reed: And if it was proven to them that they were wrong, which it has been since that time, it would seem to me that you have to include the water option. You can't leave it out. It doesn't pollute. It doesn't put stuff into the atmosphere. It doesn't give you the problem of what to do with your waste products. It's part of the sales pitch, yet it's not used in the comparison. The United Nations, in its own publications, sets up hydro power as being the choice in the world.
Dr. Morrison: Hydro power is a wonderful source of power and it supplies 60% of Canada's electricity. It does have its own problems getting through the environmental assessment process with some of the -
Ms McLellan: Talk to some of our friends in the province of Quebec.
Dr. Morrison: - the local opposition. But for Ontario I think the choice is how far away do you want to go to get your hydro power. Ontario has exhausted its large hydro sources and it would have to go to Manitoba or Quebec, which involves very long transmission lines. That's certainly an option.
Mr. Reed: That's a viewpoint that is -
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Thalheimer, I hope you have a question.
Mr. Thalheimer (Timmins - Chapleau): The Nuclear Safety and Control Act will control the safety and so on in Canada. How do you take this act and apply it to Romania, where we're putting up a CANDU? How do we control it outside of Canada?
Ms McLellan: I'll let Dr. Bishop deal with the details of that, but wherever AECL and its private sector partners are involved in the development of nuclear power plants.... AECB has been in the field for some time, as I understand it, before one gets close to flipping on the switch, especially in developing countries where the training of men and women....
First of all, if you're going to get into the nuclear power business, you need a regulatory regime that we hope looks a little bit like ours to ensure the highest standards of health and safety. Developing and third world countries often do not have any of that infrastructure. So one of the things that we as a nation and a responsible user and developer of nuclear power do is ensure that we work with countries and local communities and government agencies in that country to make sure they understand and hopefully adopt a regulatory regime that looks a lot like ours.
We also have to train the people to carry out the regulatory function and the inspections. You raise a good question, because in countries like Romania it's not a given that they have local people on the ground with the degree of training to ensure the highest standards as it relates to health and safety, and that is why the AECB does a great deal of its work offshore.
Mr. Thalheimer: That's my question: how can we apply this act in Romania? I have seen television coverage on what was happening in Romania, and I wouldn't want to go anywhere near that place. And that's our reactor in there.
Ms McLellan: I guess you're not going to go into tourism promotion for Romania.
Mr. Thalheimer: My question is this: does this act apply to our reactors outside the country?
Dr. Bishop: Obviously we can't force a Canadian act on another country.
Mr. Thalheimer: Exactly.
Dr. Bishop: However, as a regulatory body we can help other regulatory bodies throughout the world when they come to us for help in training. What the minister has just said regarding countries with CANDUs, particularly the newer generations of CANDUs.... Korea and Romania, for example, have come to the board and asked us to help train their regulators. They do that because we have the experience of regulating CANDU reactors. We work very closely with them, sometimes for years. They send their regulators to Canada for training, and we sometimes allow secondment of AECB staff to those countries while that reactor is being built to work directly with the regulators.
.1635
We also have many requests from countries that do not have CANDU reactors to come to the board for training in regulatory policy and in how to set up regulatory bodies, as well as to look at technical issues. So we do participate internationally in that way.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bélair is next.
Ms McLellan: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Morrison just wanted to add one thing to Mr. Thalheimer's question.
Dr. Morrison: I just wanted to add that there is a lot of international cooperation in this area. There is an international convention on nuclear safety. That whole exercise was chaired byMr. Domaratzki, who was the chief regulator for nuclear safety at the Atomic Energy Control Board for many years. He's now the deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. There is a lot of cooperation, and the Canadian regulators are very influential in that kind of discussion. So it's not only the direct training of regulators abroad who have to come to learn how to regulate the CANDU system, but our practices, and I suspect this legislation, may well serve as models for other countries to follow.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bélair.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Supérieur): My colleague Peter has already raised many of the questions I wanted to put to you and I wish to continue in that vein. First of all Madam Minister, in your opening statement, you said that Canada is exporting some $500 million worth of uranium per year everywhere in the world. In how many countries?
[English]
Ms McLellan: A number.
Dr. Morrison, you could tell Mr. Bélair the main ones.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair: Give me an approximate number.
[English]
Dr. Morrison: Something like 10, 12 or 15. We export uranium to almost every industrial country that has a nuclear power program.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Morrison, you referred earlier to some agreements. Are agreements signed before uranium is exported?
[English]
Dr. Morrison: Absolutely. We have a very strict bilateral cooperation agreement with each country to whom we export any nuclear equipment, technology or material. The Atomic Energy Control Board is the administrator for those agreements.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair: Do those agreements provide for on-site inspections?
[English]
Dr. Morrison: Yes, but that's an international one. Once we have an agreement -
Mr. Bélair: Yes, but what?
Dr. Morrison: But it's an international safeguards regime that we support through the International Atomic Energy Agency. When we make a nuclear cooperation agreement with another country, we insist that they accept a full-scope international safeguards regime.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair: In light of what you just said, will the new members of the Commission have the power to say yes or no? How will they operate? Will they have to report to the Minister?
[English]
Dr. Morrison: I think the AECB should answer that. The agreements we make are approved by the government at cabinet level, so we enter into these nuclear cooperation agreements on a government-to-government basis after they've been thoroughly vetted and after we agree that -
Mr. Bélair: And accepted by the commission.
Dr. Morrison: The commission would make a recommendation in that sense, yes.
Mr. Bélair: Okay.
My last question has to do with the operation of nuclear generating stations. I will refer to docket B. The pages are not numbered but it would be on page 5 - this piece of legislation in relation to other acts.
Have we got the same thing?
Ms McLellan: No, I'm not sure.
Mr. Bélair: Nuclear Safety and Control Act, overview legislation. Have you got that docket B?
.1640
Ms McLellan: Page 5, ``Relation to Other Acts''.
Mr. Bélair: Point 2 says:
- As current practice the Commission will consider the recommendations of CEAA review
panels as part of its licensing the decision process, and will regulate all stages in the
development, construction and operation of nuclear facilities in cooperation with other
regulating agencies.
Ms McLellan: It's a very difficult issue.
Mr. Bélair: What do we do? It stills scares the Canadian public.
Ms McLellan: With all the science around the world dealing with long-term storage and disposal, I wish I could say the world had come up with a concrete answer, especially on the disposal side, to the question of nuclear waste once and for all. We're not there, although the science continues to be done in this country and elsewhere to push the boundaries of our understanding and capabilities related to both long-term storage and disposal of nuclear waste.
Having said that, the federal government is very conscious of our obligations in dealing with the nuclear waste issue. In fact, the Auditor General as recently as two or three years ago was very critical of the federal government for not putting together a comprehensive policy framework to deal with all the different kinds of nuclear waste, be it historic waste, low-level, high-level, what have you. We did that and that's the reference to the policy in the announcement in July. If committee members don't have that framework policy, I'm sure Dr. Morrison would be happy to provide it. It is a policy that was approved by full cabinet a few months ago, and it outlines the framework by which we will move forward as a government, working with our partners where relevant, working with the provinces in some cases, working with big utilities, working in a number of cases with the private sector, to deal with the issue of nuclear waste.
We are making progress. We are bringing order to an issue, the implications of which are sometimes hard to get a handle on, the costs of which are sometimes mind-boggling. The Auditor General offered some global numbers for what we as a nation may be looking at as the cost of dealing with all kinds of nuclear waste. The costs in the United States are trillions and trillions of dollars to ultimately deal with their nuclear waste problem.
It is something we are very conscious of. We are working both at home and globally, with partners around the world, to improve our ability to store nuclear waste long term and to deal with ultimate disposal.
As well, CEAA is currently in the midst of an environmental review process to assess the environmental appropriateness of disposing of nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield.
Mr. Bélair: There was an article in Time not so long ago.
Ms McLellan: CEAA is carrying out that assessment process and we all quite anxiously wait the outcome of that panel. It will tell us a great deal about the future of long-term storage and disposal.
Mr. Bélair: Is there a timeframe attached to the recommendations?
.1645
Ms McLellan: We would hope that their report would come sometime in mid-1997.
Isn't that right, Dr. Morrison?
Dr. Morrison: That's correct.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bélair.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. As Minister you have the duty to promote natural resources and nuclear energy as well as mining. I think there is a difference between promoting nuclear energy and the sale of CANDU reactors in other countries on the one hand and, as minister, being responsible for the Nuclear Safety and Control Act on the other hand.
Would it not be better, as far as public perception is concerned, to separate the research component from the control component of the Atomic Energy Control Board? You might leave to the Minister of Environment the part that does not relate to the use of natural resources but rather to their control and which has more to do with environment than the use of uranium.
[English]
Ms McLellan: As I think Dr. Bishop has explained - I will call on her in a minute - one is dealing with a number of component parts here. Certainly the environmental assessment, that which is covered in CEAA, is an important part of any new project involving the resource sectors generally, whether it's a nuclear generation facility or a mine or whatever it may be. It attracts environmental assessment at either the federal or provincial level, or in some cases a joint assessment.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: But Madam Minister...
[English]
Ms McLellan: I'm sorry, my next profound statement just slipped my mind.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Do you think...
[English]
Ms McLellan: Ah, yes! Environmental assessment is one part of a project, but as Dr. Bishop has explained, there are ongoing licensing and regulatory issues as they relate to a nuclear generation plant, for example. That's not appropriate for CEAA to carry out. That, in fact, is much more appropriate for a separate, discrete regulatory agency whose expertise is in the area of nuclear power and nuclear energy.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: As environmental assessment is only one element of the whole issue, there is a conflict if you are at the same time the person that sells a product and the one that controls the industry. Even if it does not prevent you from doing your work, as far as public perception is concerned, the Minister of Environment might be a better defender of public interests than the Minister whose duty is to promote the industry.
[English]
Ms McLellan: In fact, I am, I hope, the defender of the environment, because I would never, ever suggest that anyone pursue any form of power generation without being fully aware and conscious of the environmental impacts of that choice and the costs, environmental, economic and social, of that choice. We have independent, quasi-judicial agencies whose job it is to make assessments in terms of environmental costs and benefits and other kinds of regulatory health and safety concerns.
Let me just clarify my role. I would hope that nobody sees me as a huckster for the nuclear power industry. When I visit other countries, countries such as China and South Korea, where their energy demands are escalating on an annual basis in ways we cannot imagine any longer - 11%, 12%, 13% energy demand increases year over year - I talk about Canadian technology, just as my colleague John Manley talks about Canadian technology when he travels abroad, or Art Eggleton talks about Canadian technology.
.1650
There are other forms of reactors out there, but the CANDU, the heavy water reactor, is one example of Canadian technology that we believe is safe, reliable, and in most cases efficient. It's one we are proud of, one we would ask a market like China to take a look at.
But that's all we do. We do that when we're selling computer software. We do that when we're selling the technology surrounding nuclear reactors or Canadian mining technology or horizontal drilling technology to the Chinese. We're selling Canadian skill and ability and pride - the technology. It is then up to the individual country to choose whether nuclear has any place in their energy mix.
That's how I see my role. I apologize if you think I am a huckster.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: This is not what I said. I said that after those 50 years, it might be a good opportunity to reorganize and separate the two components of the Atomic Energy Control Board. But it is a mere suggestion as we shall not necessarily wait 50 more years before we change this law.
[English]
Ms McLellan: It's a good comment. I want to reiterate what I said in my opening comments, that in fact one of the things we want to do, and one of the things this legislation does, is to separate the regulatory agency now known as the AECB from the commercial crown corporation AECL, Atomic Energy Canada Limited, whose mandate is to sell CANDU reactors and support those sales, be it domestically or around the world.
So you make a good point in that there has been confusion in the minds of some in the public. They think these two things are the same, and how can you both sell and regulate these things? Good point.
What we're doing is in fact making it absolutely plain through this legislation, Bill C-23, that the regulatory agency has a new name and clearly defined functions. In fact, the crown corporation AECL will find its creation in a different statute.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chatters, you had a question.
Mr. Chatters (Athabasca): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a quick question arising from your opening remarks and from some of the remarks you've made since about your concerns about greenhouse gases from the fossil fuel generation of electricity.
I'd like to ask you where you stand on the cost of nuclear disposal as it relates to the companies that have produced the vast majority of nuclear waste, those that generate electricity in Ontario and Quebec and New Brunswick. Is that cost of nuclear waste disposal built into the cost of the energy -
Ms McLellan: It is.
Mr. Chatters: - and would you see that responsibility to pay that cost on the companies that produced the waste, that it would be theirs?
Ms McLellan: As a government we have adopted the principle of polluter pay, to put it crudely. Therefore, utilities like Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Québec, which produce nuclear waste, are responsible for the full costs of long-term storage and disposal.
In fact, Dr. Morrison, I think in most cases that's built into the rate base?
Dr. Morrison: That's right.
Mr. Chatters: Beginning when? When do they start becoming responsible and where does the taxpayer...? For some of the accumulated stockpiles the taxpayer must have some responsibility there - or at least that's the way I understand it.
Dr. Morrison: The taxpayer would be responsible for some of the waste generated by research reactors at AECL, which is a federal crown corporation, but the vast bulk of Canada's nuclear fuel wastes are from the utilities, and they're responsible for every gram of it, right from the beginning.
Ms McLellan: There are some historic wastes, right, Dr. Morrison, that had been left by mines?
Dr. Morrison: Mostly low-level, though.
Ms McLellan: That's right.
Are you interested in only high-level?
Mr. Chatters: Well, that's the one the public would be most concerned with.
Ms McLellan: Okay. Because there are some historic waste issues with companies that no longer exist.
Mr. Chatters: I have some of those in my riding.
Ms McLellan: Exactly. You'd be well familiar with that. We're dealing with those, and that is a responsibility -
Mr. Chatters: Of the taxpayer.
Ms McLellan: - we undertake very seriously.
.1655
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma has a very short but relevant question.
Mr. Ringma: It's a very short one on high-level radioactive waste disposal.
Have you or your officials ever heard of a serious proposal to dispose of this high-level waste through finding - in fact, they've already located them - a fault in the earth's crust that leads down into whatever the bowels of the earth are? It has a name. Have you heard of this?
Dr. Morrison: Subduction.
Mr. Ringma: Yes, subduction, that's it. If you have, could I have your quick opinion on it?
Dr. Morrison: We've had some correspondence on that. We've passed it on to the experts at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and they felt that their disposal concept, which is now undergoing review by that CEAA panel, is the one that Canada should focus its limited resources on. I think they've made the judgment that the other concept is not one that we're going to pursue.
Mr. Ringma: It's not something they would look at too seriously. Could I get the name of the panel that is doing this review from your office?
Ms McLellan: Yes.
Mr. Ringma: I'll phone over tomorrow.
Ms McLellan: Absolutely.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Madam Minister, I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask directly on Bill C-23.
Mr. Thalheimer: Not too long, though, right?
The Chairman: I've been patient while all of you have asked.
In terms of the cost to the Canadian taxpayer for the implementation of the changes that are being proposed with Bill C-23, is there are an increased cost in respect to the new regulatory regime that will exist?
Ms McLellan: I would ask Dr. Bishop, perhaps, or Dr. McManus to comment on that, but one of the things.... I suppose there are always some indirect and incremental costs when you reform a regulatory regime, but in terms of the bulk of the cost that you expend in your licensing and regulation activities, you do those on the basis of full cost recovery.
Dr. Bishop: I think there are two issues. First, I think you're asking about long-term, ongoing, continuing costs of implementing, of carrying out the regulations in the act.
The Chairman: Essentially, there's a certain cost involved in operating AECB right now. Will there be an increased cost in operating whatever we're going to call the new entity?
Dr. Bishop: We do not see any significant increased costs in operating AECB because of this new act. By increasing the number of members of the commission from five to seven, we're estimating an increased cost of approximately $100,000, and that's including travelling, etc., for the members.
Otherwise, we see no significant increased costs after the upfront costs are finished.
The Chairman: That leads me to another question that I have some concern with, and there are really two parts to it. First of all, if I understand the bill correctly, all of the regulations are going to be by Order in Council, they're not going to be referred back to Parliament - and that includes all of the fees and everything else that you're going to be dealing with. So once my colleagues and I pass this act, as a parliamentarian I'm not going to really have that.... You're basically going to set your fees by Order in Council, which leads into another concern.
Since you operate on a cost recovery basis and you're not dealing directly with tax dollars, what's to stop the board from deciding to have 58 regulations because it knows it can recover that from the user groups? As a parliamentarian, I don't have any say about it because, first of all, it's done by Order in Council. Second of all, it's probably not going to be public money anyway because you've just passed on the cost. The people in the industry are going to start to be concerned that there is no public scrutiny taking place, because you've simply passed the cost on to the user.
Ms McLellan: Let me just say a couple of things and then Agnes can respond.
Somewhat flippantly, Andy, I suggest that you do not know very well the corporate culture involved in dealing with companies like Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Québec. If they think for one minute that they are being charged anything other than that which is minimally, absolutely necessary, I think we will all hear from them in spades. They go to local MPs or whatever the case may be. So I think there is, first of all, a very vigilant corporate culture with the clients and the provinces in which those clients operate.
.1700
Secondly, any increase would in fact be gazetted. That permits anyone to provide input in terms of fees. This is the normal course of business, whether it's in the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Health.
When I was on the committee dealing with Orders in Council, we saw a lot of these in which there were increases of fees proposed. They were gazetted, input was received, the minister and officials dealt with that within the department - in some cases interdepartmentally - and our committee asked searching questions, very often in terms of the fee structure, why it was the way it was, and what kind of criticism it had received through the gazetting process.
So I take some comfort from the fact that fees are not set in an arbitrary fashion, that there is an opportunity for significant public input, and that there is then a high degree of accountability.
The Chairman: I bring that up, Madam Minister, because some of the briefs that we've already received from some of the witnesses express that concern - and we'll hear that at some length, I suppose.
Ms McLellan: Dr. Bishop, do you or John have anything to add?
Dr. Bishop: I would just add this. Remember that we cannot willy-nilly keep adding regulations and keep adding charges. We have to have approval from Treasury Board, and our appropriations have to be approved by Parliament. The money we receive from cost recovery, of course, does not come to the board. It goes into the Treasury Board, and we have an annual budget appropriation.
The Chairman: You feel that generally there are proper safeguards.
I have another question that has to deal with clause 47 of the bill. I'll just read a little bit. It says:
- Notwithstanding any other position of this Act, in case of an emergency the Commission may,
without conducting any proceedings, make any order that it considers necessary to...maintain
national security.
Dr. Bishop: No, because if you note, this is for emergencies only, and it is for emergencies only where an immediate action must be taken. Otherwise, there would be a safety issue.
You will also notice in other sections that under other circumstances, you indeed have to go through the normal process. But to not have an emergency clause that allows us to order something to be done immediately would at times leave us in a situation in which an unsafe situation could be taking place while we waited days and weeks for hearings.
The Chairman: After the fact, could somebody litigate the issue if they felt they had been unfairly treated?
Dr. Bishop: Yes, they can absolutely appeal that decision, and you'll see that in the appeal area.
The Chairman: I have one last question, and that is the issue of nuclear material that is in the hands of the military. I take it that is not covered by anything in this bill.
Dr. McManus: The provision that we have exempts material that is in weapons systems. The military has a significant amount of material as normal industrial material, for the reactor at the Royal Military College, for example, or in hospitals. That material all comes under the normal control system operated by the board. But material that is temporarily attached to or is part of weapons systems comes under the responsibility of the Department of National Defence while it's in those systems.
The Chairman: But only while it's in those systems. So if they were trans-shipping material on a commercial shipper, it would still come under your control?
Dr. McManus: We would have to find out when it came under and when it went out. But because they manage the weapons system, it would be under DND's control if it was going back and forth as part of that weapons system.
The Chairman: If somebody was shipping radioactive material from the United States to Europe and they overflew Canadian airspace, would you have control over it through this proposed act?
.1705
Dr. McManus: Yes, we have provisions for transit control. A person who wishes to do that must inform us of the mechanical protections, the shipping container, the protection of the material and the way it's contained, and we give permission for that transit.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. We appreciate your taking the time.
Ms McLellan: It was my pleasure to be here. I look forward to coming back sometime soon.
The Chairman: We look forward to having you.
The meeting is adjourned.