[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 22, 1996
.1109 
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. I'll call the meeting to order.
Today, clause by clause, we are considering Bill C-23, an act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Welcome, everybody. We shall begin immediately.
Clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). We will consider it at the end, so we will begin with clause 2.
.1110
Clause 2 agreed to
On clause 3 - Purpose
Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 3 in Bill C-23 be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 4 to 12 on page 4 with the following:
(a) the limitation, to a reasonable level and in a manner that is consistent with Canada's international obligations, of the risks to national security, the health and safety of persons and the environment that are associated with the development, production and use of nuclear energy and the production, possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed equipment and prescribed information; and
The Chairman: Thank you.
I believe there is a second amendment up for debate. Do we go to debate or do we put it in as a subamendment?
Not seeing any debate, I'll recognize the Bloc, which has a subamendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): I would like to point out that in clause 3, there is mention - and all my colleagues will agree on this - of a reasonable risk. I would like to suggest that we use the phrase minimum risk because it is a matter of nuclear safety. We cannot accept a reasonable level only.
So I move that we replace the word ``reasonabl'' with the word ``minimal''.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Is there any debate?
Mrs. Cowling: If I could just say a few words, the amendment to the English and French is not consistent, first of all. They don't mean the same thing. We do not recommend accepting this motion because it creates zero tolerance, which, practically speaking, is unmanageable. There is always a fraction of risk in our society. For that reason, we would not accept the amendment.
The Chairman: Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Madam the honourable member, when we talk about a minimal level, we're not talking about zero tolerance. We are seeking to reduce the risk to a minimum. Zero tolerance would mean there is no risk at all, but that is impossible, because there is always a risk.
When we talk about a minimal risk, we are seeking the lowest possible level of risk that would be acceptable to society. Can we say that the risk was acceptable in Chernobyl? Are the risks acceptable in Romania? Perhaps they are because of the economic situation. Philosophically, the bill should seek a minimal risk. When we talk about a minimal level of risk, obviously, there is always a risk, but there is none when you're talking about zero tolerance.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Mrs. Cowling.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I have with me Audrey Nowack. Perhaps I could call on Ms Nowack to make a few comments.
Ms Audrey Nowack (Department of Justice): All of what I am going to say is subject to advice that we may have to get from our legislative drafting counsel in the department.
As I read clause 3 as it is with the proposed amendment, the word ``any'' would precede the rest of what follows. So I'm not sure it would pertain only to national security. I think that's what the comment about zero tolerance is referring to.
The remainder of the comment about minimizing the level of risk is something the bill does not prevent as it stands with the amendment proposed.
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
.1115
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Obviously those of us who have the disadvantage of not being fluent in both languages are having a difficult time.
From what I'm hearing from the parliamentary secretary, the interpretation is that this amendment by my colleague from the Bloc represents zero tolerance.
A voice: No.
Mr. Reed: That's right, so I want to get that clarified. If it doesn't mean zero tolerance, then we've made some headway here. How can I interpret it so that I know what it means, as opposed to the word ``reasonable'' in the English?
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: You must understand that when you're talking about a zero level of risk, that means there is no risk at all. That would be absurd because there is always some unknown element. With the phrase ``minimal risk'', when a decision is to be made, decision makers will always seek the minimal risk, to the best of their knowledge. When we talk about an acceptable risk, that refers to a social situation. In the case at hand, is it socially acceptable to have any level of risk?
When any decision you make is based on a minimal risk, you must assess the scientific data first. In this kind of legislation, one must choose the words carefully. With the phrase ``minimal risk'', the decisions will be based not on the social and economic situation, but rather on scientific data. There will be a risk, but it will be minimal. However, it will not be a zero level of risk.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Cowling.
Mrs. Cowling: Any proposed amendment that has not been passed by Justice legislation drafters needs to be, so we must keep that in mind with this particular amendment. We can call them if we need to, but it would have to pass their approval.
The Chairman: Say that again. I don't think I caught that.
Mrs. Cowling: Any proposed amendments that the committee wants to accept have to be approved or passed by the Justice legislation drafters. We can call those people if the committee would like us to do so.
Ms Nowack: I'm not with the legislation section. There are expert counsellors whose function is drafting legislation. I'm not one of those. I'm the counsel at the AECB.
The Chairman: I would like to make a suggestion.
I don't have a great command of the French language, so you'll have to forgive me, but the advice I'm being given indicates that there is definitely a difference between the meaning of the English and the French versions of the Bloc subamendment. I'm being told the French version talks about needing to work to manage risk, while the English version talks about there being no risk. Really, there seems to be a discrepancy.
Because we have all kinds of resource people in this room, what I'm going to suggest is that with the mover's permission, we will defer dealing with clause 3 until the end while we try to get a proper English-French translation. We'll go through the other clauses while somebody is working on that translation, and we'll then come back to clause 3. Is that acceptable?
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): I would like to add something for hope of clarification.
[Translation]
If I heard my colleague from the Bloc correctly, he is talking about a minimal risk. I could accept that.
.1120
[English]
A ``minimal'' risk is very different from ``any'' risk, and you're highlighting that, Mr. Chairman. But I think if whoever works on it were to concentrate just on that... I can quite accept his French modification, being a minimal risk, whereas I think the English translation as it is here, no risk at all, is unacceptable. So if they can concentrate on that, it would be helpful.
The Chairman: Excuse me just a second. We have two people who are going to work on just that issue.
Clause 3 allowed to stand
On clause 4 - Her Majesty
The Chairman: I'll recognize Mr. Ringma first and then -
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chairman, I need your help. This is the first time I've been through clause-by-clause on a bill. I took the bill home with me to the riding last week and went through it. I have half a dozen points - no more - that I would like to see brought in or discussed. Possibly one of them concerns clause 3, but it is more likely to be clause 9. It concerns the assigned responsibility for public education.
The help I need from you, sir...I would hate to see us go bang, bang, bang through all of these clauses and then have me pick it up later and say, gee whiz, I've missed my opportunity.
Can you give me an overview of what we are likely to achieve here today and what the chances are of my coming in later with the things I want? Should I plunk it all on the table now or should I prepare it in writing for our next meeting?
The Chairman: You have two options, Mr. Ringma. As I call each clause, you can formally propose an amendment, structured in the correct format - it's the responsibility of the clerk to make sure your amendment is in the correct format - at which time we will debate the specifics of your amendment. Then it will come to a vote. That's option number one.
In option number two, you can go into the House at report stage and propose an amendment that will come up for debate in the House. So if there's anything that you don't - to use a colloquialism - get to deal with around this table, you'll have the opportunity at report stage in the House to deal with it.
The one thing you cannot do, and the clerk can correct me, is that if you propose an amendment here and it's defeated, you cannot propose the same amendment at report stage in the House. You've precluded yourself from doing that.
Mr. Ringma: Thank you. What's going to happen now? How much progress do you think we're going to make today? Is that anyone's guess? That would depend on the bill, surely.
The Chairman: It will depend on how much debate there is. I had notification of only ten amendments from the government side and one amendment from the opposition, so assuming there is a minimal amount of debate, we could conceivably go through the whole thing today. I have scheduled meetings for Wednesday and Thursday to do this as well, being a prudent chairman and never assuming things will go through necessarily that easily.
We have at least eleven amendments to discuss today, and I don't know whether you're in a position to provide a formal amendment today. If you're not, you can in fact present those at report stage in the House. That's your option.
Mr. Ringma: I think it would be preferable to do it here, because we're all trying to get at the same aim, I think. Let's go through it, I guess, bit by bit, and I'll see what I can do.
.1125
The Chairman: On that point, if we don't get clause 3 resolved while we're doing the other clauses, we can come back tomorrow afternoon and deal just with clause 3.
Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to
On clause 9 Objects
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend clause 9 of Bill C-23 by inserting the words ``to the public'' after ``regulatory information'' in the English version on line 30, page 5.
The Chairman: Debate. Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: That's a step along the way. The note I have made - this was during questioning of witnesses over the last couple of weeks and such - is that I would like to see some assignment of responsibility for public education. What the parliamentary secretary is proposing here is good in that you're talking about scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public. I don't think that quite encompasses what I have in mind, which is to give it a leading role in public education.
It's a little unfair of me to bring this up and say I'd like a change without having the precise words, but if I could have the time between now and tomorrow or Thursday, I could craft the exact words, unless...
The Chairman: If I could address that, I think you're really going to have to do that at report stage, because we scheduled this clause-by-clause six or seven weeks ago. You might not be aware of this, but I instructed the clerk to contact your office and the broader group of your party to remind everyone that's what we were doing today, and if there were any formal amendments to make sure they were ready for today. I know how things happen. I work here too.
Mr. Ringma: I can only offer the excuse that I haven't been on board long enough. I'm interested in what we're trying to do here and I think it's good for the country. Perhaps I'd better take that under advisement and see whether I should go for a report stage amendment or not.
The Chairman: Mr. Bélair.
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Superior): Is there any other place or instance in the bill where we talk about public education?
The Chairman: Mrs. Cowling.
Mrs. Cowling: I think it's important to note that the commission must appear to be neutral, and some might view education as crossing that line in that it could be viewed as promoting the industry.
The emphasis on providing information is much more appropriate for a regulatory body. Also, what you might be suggesting could be outside the scope of the bill and may well be expanding the mandate of the commission.
.1130
The Chairman: Does Mr. Reed have a comment?
Mr. Reed: Yes, the experience I can perhaps throw into this mix is that it's absolutely necessary that the education of the public come from a body that is neutral and is perceived to be neutral. I am very sympathetic to my colleague's comments about the control board perhaps being that medium. Certainly the other areas that address atomic energy in this country are not neutral. Whether it's Ontario Hydro, AECL and so on, they are the promoters of nuclear power.
I'm not certain whether this is the right body, but it certainly could take the education of the public out of a biased or a one-sided kind of approach. I do ask the question, though, would it not be better to have that included as a separate clause rather than as an amendment? As the parliamentary secretary points out, it does change somewhat the mandate of the commission.
The Chairman: I have three requests to speak, first Mr. Bélair, then Mr. Ringma, and then the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Bélair: My first question has not been answered.
I also tend to agree with Mr. Ringma that if it's not anywhere else in the bill, something should be included somewhere in this bill to state very specifically that the public needs to be educated on nuclear use in Canada. Witness after witness has told us in so many words that the public is ignorant.
The Chairman: Mr. Bélair, take a look at paragraph 21(1)(e). I think you might have part of your question answered right there. Mr. Ringma, and we'll get back to Mr. Bélair.
Mr. Ringma: I was going to respond to both my colleagues across the way here and say maybe they have a good idea and we should think in terms of putting in a separate clause to get away from the difficulty pointed out here.
There is even a little more substantiation to that idea, because I see in my notes that there's insufficient clarity about the provision of the new commission for public consultation as well. I think you're heading us in the direction that maybe we should think in terms of crafting a new clause to be added that would take care of the unease we seem to feel here about the whole education/consultation side of it, and everything else.
The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Cowling: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the point here is that the commission's mandate does not include a public education role. If the committee wishes to place greater emphasis on this part of the commission's mandate, it should be noted in the committee's report.
I should also remind the committee that it has an opportunity to monitor the commission's activities on an ongoing basis. We have to be very careful here because the NGOs could see this as promoting the industry. I hope that's helpful.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I would like to underline that when we met with the board members, they pointed out that one of the mistakes of the last 20 years was their failure to educate the public, even though that was not part of their mandate. So that would have to be added.
.1135
Why are the people so afraid? Perhaps it is because we did not try hard enough to educate them, to bring them to the view that nuclear power is an industry that is similar to other sources of power generation, with benefits and drawbacks. Even though education is not now part of their mandate, perhaps it should be made a strong element of that mandate.
[English]
The Chairman: I would like to make a comment and then we can go around again.
My understanding of the amendment addresses some of the concerns that were brought to us in testimony and that it now calls upon the commission to disseminate - although I thought we were going to change the word ``disseminate''. The commission would be providing that information to the public. In essence, the bill is now going to require that the commission provide all of that information to the public. It's not using the word ``educate'', but it is taking a neutral stance in saying that it will provide the information.
I suspect the word ``education'' is a little bit of a concern in that it can be construed to have some sort of advocacy in it. There's a difference between simply making sure somebody has the information... Once you begin to educate them you're trying to bring them to a particular point of view, and I suspect that might be part of the concern of the commission.
I just throw that out, and I understand Mr. Bélair has another comment.
Mr. Bélair: Further to the discussion we're having now, ``disseminate'' is not enough, because witness after witness was here, and they could have used jargon that none of us understood. If the words ``disseminate information'' are what they are going to make public and nobody understands what they are talking about... This is the point I'm making.
Those scientists who were here, doctors in physics and chemistry, it a point to simplify the subject so that we could understand. In other words, we have been educated by the witnesses, and now the general public needs to be educated also.
Coming back to your suggestion that I look at paragraph 21(1)(e), it is basically a repetition of the clause we are discussing now. It only talks about dissemination. I would add to the government's proposed amendment, ``information to the public for educational purposes''. Education in the broad sense of the word means to present to the listeners an objective view - in other words, the pros and the cons on any issue - to instruct, to allow the person who is listening to you to make up their own mind.
So I do not view the word ``education'' at all as a promotion of the industry. You educate, you explain what you are doing today. You inform them so that they can make their own judgment.
The Chairman: It's interesting, Mr. Bélair - the researcher has been kind enough to provide this to me - the Canadian Nuclear Society, in their brief to us, used the word that you used, and that was ``objective''. They made the suggestion that it read ``disseminate objective information'', which is the word that you used.
Mr. Bélair: Well, that's a step in the right direction. I may consider that.
The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that you make a ruling as to whether this notion of public education falls within the scope of the bill.
The Chairman: If that's a request, I'll take that under advisement right now. Excuse me.
An hon. member: We could put anything we want in the bill.
The Chairman: This discussion is in order.
Mr. Ringma
Mr. Ringma: On that very subject, we could ask ourselves the question: if not the commission, then who in Canada would be charged with this responsibility, of which we have discovered there is a lack?
.1140
An hon. member: That's a very good question.
The Chairman: Mr. Canuel. You had a comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): When you have a lot of information, you are able to make your own judgment and to take a stand on one side of the issue. In my view, that's what education is all about.
I do not think that it is our role to go that far. We must provide as much objective information as possible. Thereafter, it is not necessarily up to us to determine whether they should also be educating the public.
How would that be done in practical terms? The information can be provided through various means, such as television, publications and so on. In my view, adding the word ``educate'' will be a complete waste of time, in that we will never be able to verify that the expected results are attained. So I would stick to the word ``information''.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, I could accept the word ``objective''. I think there have been enough opinions put forward about the word ``education''. I don't necessarily agree with him that education leads to the support of one thing or another. But in deference to that argument, I would support the inclusion of the word ``objective'' any place where it calls for the dissemination of information.
The Chairman: So in reality on this clause, what you would be suggesting, Mr. Reed, is that in the first line of paragraph (b) of clause 9, which would be line 29, that the word ``objective'' be inserted after the word ``disseminate'' and before the word ``scientific''. That's more or less what you're suggesting.
Mr. Reed: Yes, I would.
The Chairman: Plus the government amendment, which says ``to the public''.
Mr. Reed: Yes.
The Chairman: Does the parliamentary secretary have comments?
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I have been told by Ms Nowack that this could be accepted subject to a comment from the Justice drafters.
The Chairman: That's perhaps the way it works behind the scenes, but it's our prerogative as parliamentarians to change it as we wish to change it. If the drafters are not happy with that I'm sure we will hear about it, but it is our prerogative to put it forward. What I would suggest is that if it is the consensus of the committee to insert that word, then I am the servant of the members of the committee. I'm sure no committee members want to draft a bill that would not stand up to a legal challenge in court or whatever, but it is the prerogative of these members to pass what they will.
Is there a subamendment on the table?
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Ringma, you spoke about it first. Do you want to move it? If not, one of us will.
Mr. Ringma: I'd like to move it if I can. We're back to clause 9 and we insert... I'm going to pick up your wording, am I not?
Mr. Reed: Actually, the chairman inserted it in the right place for us.
The Chairman: The clerk is pointing something out to me, and he's quite correct. There are two separate issues here, because it doesn't deal with the same line.
So let's dispose of the amendment that is in front of us, which is to add the words ``to the public''. Are we all agreed to that amendment, which adds ``to the public''?
.1145
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Now we have a second proposed amendment, which is that clause 9 of Bill C-23 be amended by adding, in line 29, the word ``objective'' after the word ``disseminate''.
Somebody has to move that. I can't.
Mr. Ringma: I so move.
The Chairman: Debate? Parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, what we need is the equivalent in the French text as well. Could we have it read?
The Chairman: We have a suggested wording, which is to add, after the word informer on line 31, the word objectivement. Okay?
Is there any further debate?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 9 as amended agreed to
Clauses 10 to 19 inclusive agreed to
On clause 20 - Court of record
Mrs. Cowling: I would like to move that clause 20 of Bill C-23 be amended by replacing line 28 on page 10 with the following:
- tions of fairness permit, but, in any case, within the prescribed period of time.
It responds to the submissions made by the witnesses with respect to timeframes. We heard that several times.
The Chairman: We should try to ensure that the process happens in an expeditious way so that the licence applicant can get the job done in a reasonable period of time.
Mrs. Cowling: Absolutely.
The Chairman: Mr. Serré.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): Is there anywhere else in the bill where this prescribed period of time is defined?
Mrs. Cowling: No. ``Prescribed'' means by regulation.
Mr. Serré: So it would not be in the act; it would just be a regulation.
Mrs. Cowling: Yes.
The Chairman: Is there any further debate?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 20 as amended agreed to
On clause 21 - Powers
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: I don't know where I read it, but clause 21 somewhere gives an example of the commission's power to certify smoke alarms that contain radioactive materials. It's paragraph 21(1)(h). It seemed to me kind of picayune. I'm wondering if the commission couldn't delegate that sort of small-fry stuff. Just because there's a bit of radioactive substance in a smoke alarm, is it a proper subject for the commission to concern itself over?
.1150
The Chairman: Mrs. Cowling.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer this to Mr. McManus.
Mr. John McManus (Atomic Energy Control Board): Mr. Chairman, that's a process we follow right now. For items such as smoke alarms, once the design has been approved and the design proven safe for use by members of the public, those certified pieces of equipment can then be obtained by members of the public without a licence. So in fact it's a mechanism for approving the design process and then releasing those pieces of equipment to the public without a licence where that design is appropriately approved.
Mr. Ringma: Okay, then it's a perfectly justifiable power to give the commission, then.
Mr. McManus: Yes. We use it for other pieces of much larger, more complex equipment, but I gave the example at the bottom to illustrate the point.
Mr. Ringma: Thank you.
The Chairman: I would suspect, although I'm not certain, that Mr. Ringma might want to move a second amendment on paragraph 21(1)(e) along the same lines as clause 9. In order to be consistent, he would add the word ``objective'' after the word ``disseminate'' because it's repeated in this clause.
Mr. Ringma: Yes.
The Chairman: So that would read, then, that clause 21 be amended on page 12, line 6, by inserting the word ``objective'' after the word ``disseminate''. Then on the French version it would be the same clause, same page, line 8, and you would be inserting the word objectivement after informer.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 21 as amended agreed to
Clauses 22 and 23 inclusive agreed to
On clause 24 - Licences
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 24 of Bill C-23 be amended by replacing lines 1 to 4 under ``Refund'' in subclause 24(7) on page 15 with the following:
(7) The Commission shall grant to any person who provided a financial guarantee under subsection (5) a refund of any of the proceeds of the guarantee that have not been spent and may
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: I don't have a debate on that particular issue, but elsewhere on clause 24 I do.
The Chairman: After we debate this one, I'll come back to you for your second point.
Are there any comments on that proposed amendment? Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. I take it the word ``shall'' has been inserted here to replace ``may''.
The Chairman: That's in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma, on clause 24.
Mr. Ringma: On clause 24, my question is are the decommissioning requirements adequate? The provincial guarantee looks okay until we think in terms of the federal government's responsibilities for waste disposal in this country, which have accumulated since the 1940s. It's just gone on, and we are collectively stuck with this problem of waste disposal. I'm wondering, because I heard again arguments here from witnesses about the whole decommissioning process, if there are any other arguments on behalf of other committee members on that topic.
Mr. Bélair: Which subclause?
Mr. Ringma: I don't know. I'm going back to last week's review.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bélair. I'll get that for you. The parliamentary secretary has a comment.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer this to Mr. McManus for response.
.1155
Mr. McManus: The bill provides the commission with the power to demand from every major licensee whose operation would cause decommissioning problems financial guarantees adequate to decommission that plant and return it to a green field. So those powers, we think, were carefully designed and are adequate to deal with every major facility we can imagine now.
They are also adequate to deal with this retroactively where there is an institution from whom we can recover. We can't recover from mines that have disappeared, but certainly this bill treats the federal government and the Crown in the same fashion as it treats private industry. So there will be a requirement for all agencies that have possible decommissioning costs to demonstrate where the money is for that program.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Iftody.
Mr. Iftody (Provencher): Mr. McManus, could you clarify whether that cash allocation would have to be demonstrated prior to the development of any kind of site or on application to decommission?
Mr. McManus: Given that we must start in the middle, the intent is that for a new site licence the mechanism will be approved, and the actual money set aside will be reviewed each few years as the licence is reviewed to make sure that at any moment the decommissioning fund is adequate to decommission that facility. So it might grow and decline with the life of the facility over the 10 or 20 or 50 years.
Mr. Iftody: Thank you. So you're saying that these same stipulations apply equally, of course, to those bodies and agencies of the federal government that are currently undertaking...and are active in the nuclear business.
Mr. McManus: Yes.
Mr. Iftody: Are you satisfied right now that those resources are available for current government undertakings?
Mr. McManus: We have no such knowledge; the purpose of this bill and this provision is to begin that process.
Mr. Iftody: Are you saying right now that you don't have sufficient knowledge as to whether there would be the necessary resources available to do that kind of decommissioning with federally regulated companies or crown corporations that are currently engaged in those kinds of activities?
Mr. McManus: This is a new process that will be instituted with this bill.
Mr. Iftody: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ringma: This clause makes it start to happen, and therefore it's a good thing.
Clause 24 as amended agreed to
Clauses 25 and 26 inclusive agreed to
On clause 27 - Records and reports
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma, on clause 27.
Mr. Ringma: In regard to subparagraph 27(b)(i), which legislates that reports on ``any theft or loss of a nuclear substance, prescribed equipment'' my question is where is the regulation, if there is one, on covering the maintenance of inventory lists of such materials and equipment? This may be coming in a little bit from left field, Mr. McManus, but you might have an answer.
Mr. McManus: There are all sorts of very legitimate questions. The inventories of those materials, the requirement to keep them, and the requirement to make reports and have them inspected are all in the regulations. That is set out in great detail.
Mr. Ringma: Okay.
Mr. McManus: This is the cover to allow that system to happen.
Mr. Ringma: Thank you. I couldn't read it in the bill, so...thank you.
Clauses 27 to 29 inclusive agreed to
On clause 30 - Inspection
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma, on clause 30.
Mr. Ringma: I may see problems with clause 30 and other clauses. I'm sorry, I hope I'm not being a hindrance here.
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: No, take your time.
Mr. Ringma: I've done a review and I say, gee, clause 30 talks about nuclear-powered vehicles. I wonder if it's desirable here to define what a vehicle is, because ships could fall in that category. Naval ships are exempt, I know that. But I wonder if we should discuss that. Should we define what a nuclear-powered vehicle is, or is it already there somewhere?
.1200
The Chairman: I'll go first of all to the parliamentary secretary, and then to Mr. Reed.
Mrs. Cowling: I would ask Mr. McManus to respond.
Mr. McManus: That includes a ship. There have been postulations about other nuclear-powered vehicles beyond ships, but ships are the only ones we've ever had created. So this would include, for example, a civilian nuclear-powered ship such as a Russian ice-breaker or any other civilian nuclear-powered ships.
Mr. Ringma: How do we know that is so as a definition? Is it defined somewhere?
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, if I could just point it out, there is a definition of ``vehicle''.
Mr. McManus: Air and water.
The Chairman: Page 3 of the bill defines what a vehicle is.
Mr. Ringma: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: I was just going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that since this is the first change in nuclear safety in half a century, it may well be half a century before the bill is redone again. We have no idea what kinds of vehicles may be nuclear-powered in the next fifty years, but as long as the bill is broad enough to cover them, I think that is what we should do without being specific.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to
On clause 32 - Powers of inspector
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-23 in clause 32 be amended first by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 18 with the following:
- Powers of inspectors
and secondly, Mr. Chairman, by replacing lines 32 to 38 on page 18 with the following:
(g) examining any records that are required to be kept or reports that are required to be made under this Act, or any books, records, electronic data or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds relate to such records or reports; or
Amendment agreed to
Clause 32 as amended agreed to
Clauses 33 to 39 inclusive agreed to
On clause 40 - Commission to provide opportunity to be heard
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 40 of Bill C-23 be amended by adding, after line 10 on page 24, the following:
- Public hearings
(a) the proposed exercise by the Commission, or by a panel established under section 22, of the power under subsection 24(2) to issue, renew, suspend, amend, revoke or replace a licence; and
(b) any other matter within its jurisdiction under this Act, if the Commission is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to do so.
- Exceptions
The Chairman: Is there any debate?
An hon. member: Could we get some clarification on these subsections here? We're all confused.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary is being asked what the exception applies to.
Mrs. Cowling: To telephone conferences.
The Chairman: Thank you. Is there any further debate?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 40 as amended agreed to
Clauses 41 to 43 inclusive agreed to
On clause 44 - Regulations
The Chairman: We have comments from the parliamentary secretary and Mr. Ringma.
.1205
Mrs. Cowling: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move that Bill C-23, at clause 44, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 29 with the following:
(o) establishing requirements to be complied
So we're inserting ``requirements''.
The Chairman: Are you inserting it or are you replacing something?
Mrs. Cowling: I'm sorry. We're replacing.
The Chairman: Is there any debate? Mr. Bélair?
Mr. Bélair: No.
The Chairman: That, as I understand it, is making sure there is standard language throughout all of the legislation.
Mrs. Cowling: That's right.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: I believe there is a second amendment to that clause. Or am I mistaken?
While we're doing that, Mr. Ringma, you have something.
Mr. Ringma: I notice that all of clause 44 gives the commission, with the approval of Governor in Council, the ability to make regulations. Very simply, my question is who or what is the review authority for all of those regulations? Is it the Governor in Council only, or what? They can make regulations ad infinitum and there's no one to say yea or nay.
The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Cowling: I'm going to refer this to John McManus.
Mr. McManus: This process is subject to the normal government regulatory review program, which requires public consultation and requires publication in the Canada Gazette - twice, in parts I and II - unless there's some emergency. But that's normally the situation. A public consultation is mandatory in this process.
Mr. Ringma: Okay, good.
Mr. Chairman, this is my last question, you'll be happy to hear. I've accepted an invitation to dinner. The Speaker is entertaining someone from Ghana, I think, so I'm going to have to go.
But I'm going to leave with my colleagues, if I may, this one outstanding question that I have overall, and again it comes from all the witnesses who asked this. Should there be a different minister responsible for safety, separate from the one responsible for the promotion of nuclear technology? I don't know if this comes up specifically in one of the clauses from here on in. I'm not going to be here to cover it, but can I charge my colleagues to think about that one and to discuss it if it is applicable?
The Chairman: I'll also remind you that if you want to address that specific issue at some point in time during report stage, you'll have the opportunity to do that as well.
I believe there is a second amendment to clause 44.
Mrs. Cowling: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move that Bill C-23, at clause 44, be amended first by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 31 with the following:
- incorporating an Act or instrument shall, with the consent of the ap-
- and secondly, by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 31 with the following:
- incorporating an Act or instrument shall, with the consent of the appro-
Clause 44 as amended agreed to
Clause 45 agreed to
On clause 46 - Contaminated land
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Cowling: Thank you.
I move that Bill C-23, at clause 46, be amended first by replacing line 12 on page 32 with the following:
- the Commission may conduct a public hearing in
- and secondly, by replacing line 38 on page 32 with the following:
- shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with the
The Chairman: Do we have a second amendment on clause 46?
Mrs. Cowling: I move that Bill C-23, at clause 46, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 39 on page 32 with the following:
- prescribed rules of procedure to determine whether
Clause 46 as amended agreed to
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to
On clause 49 - Offence to withdraw services
The Chairman: Parliamentary secretary.
Mrs. Cowling: I move that Bill C-23, at clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 33 on page 34 with the following:
- Offence re security at nuclear facility
(a) while in charge of a nuclear facility, fails to ensure that there is present in that facility at all times the staff required, under the licence for that facility, to maintain that facility in a safe condition; or
(b) does not report for duty at a nuclear facility or who, while on duty at a nuclear facility, withdraws their services, except where the person is not required to report or is relieved in accordance with a procedure set out in the licence for that facility.
.1210
The Chairman: In essence, that is in response to the concern of the Canadian Labour Congress that we were identifying only labour and not management as well. Now we're identifying both.
Is there any further debate?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 49 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood (Nipissing): I don't know if the procedure will allow this, but everybody has finished all their amendments up to clause 79. Could we have unanimous consent that the clauses from 50 to 78 inclusive be carried?
The Chairman: Yes, we can.
Clauses 50 to 78 inclusive agreed to
On clause 79 - Transfer of staff
The Chairman: We will now have the amendment by the parliamentary secretary, Mrs. Cowling.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 79 of Bill C-23 be amended by replacing line 38 in the English version on page 43 with the following:
- employee of the Board, to have been em-
The Chairman: We'll forgive the department.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 79 as amended agreed to
Mr. Wood: Mr. Chairman, could I make the same request, that the clauses 80 to 124 inclusive be carried unanimously?
The Chairman: Yes, we can carry those clauses severally.
Clauses 80 to 124 inclusive agreed to
On clause 125 - Bill C-3
Mrs. Cowling: I move that clause 125 of Bill C-23 be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 54 in the English version with the following:
ter after consultation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Governor in Council
Amendment agreed to
Clause 125 as amended agreed to
Clauses 126 and 127 agreed to
The Chairman: Clause 1 has to be done last, so we're going to deal with the clause 3 that we skipped.
On clause 3 - Purpose
The Chairman: You're now getting the amendment, hopefully with the English and the French coinciding with each other.
Mr. Bélair: We also have to come back to Mr. Ringma's point. This was very strongly suggested by the witnesses.
The Chairman: We shall do that, Mr. Bélair.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering at this point if we could adjourn for about 10 minutes so that we could call the legal drafters to ensure that this fits the requirements and that it doesn't change other things within the bill.
The Chairman: Mr. Deshaies has something to add to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: We could reach an agreement on the amendment to clause 3 and if, by mistake, the formulation was not legally acceptable, we could then ask committee members to come back and discuss it at a next meeting. However, I would be surprised if it was unacceptable.
.1215
[English]
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary has a comment.
Mrs. Cowling: I would like to ask Mr. McManus to make a comment.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Chairman, this deals in particular with the use of the word ``minimal''. It is the nature of a regulatory body to strike an acceptable compromise between the risks and benefits of any technology and its impact on our society. If the word ``minimal'' is inserted in a very important clause such as clause 3, this provides the grounds for argument that you can always make things safer. We think this would be a risky and dangerous word to put in because there is no activity that could not be made safer if more money is spent.
We would find it difficult to say, when we're ready to issue a licence for any facility or any activity, that it could not be made safer. This will always be the case. Therefore, that will not be the minimal risk.
It's not the quantitative level that is implied by ``minimal'' but the acceptable nature of the risk that is the fundamental thrust of regulation. We would be very uncomfortable with the word ``minimal'' in there. As regulators, we think it would put us at a disadvantage in seeking the fundamental compromise we're reaching, which is ``acceptable''.
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: The committee's job is to ensure that the permit application by an organization or agency is made according to the rules and that the risk is reduced to a minimum. I believe you are already doing so. After you have decided that the risk is minimal, people could question your decision. It is normal that you should be subjected to such a pressure, so that your decisions are perceived as the best possible ones for the general public.
The term ``acceptable'' in the French version is way too broad. When you say that something is acceptable, it is always in relation to something else. When you seek to reach a minimum level, it is only an effort in that direction. In any case, I am certain that you are presently making your decisions based on the pursuit of the minimal risk.
Obviously, pursuing a minimal risk rather than an acceptable risk makes the decision process more difficult. In my opinion, such an important industry should always seek the minimal risk rather than an acceptable risk.
[English]
The Chairman: We'll have Mr. Reed first, then Mr. Serré.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, it's pretty obvious that regardless of the wording that goes in here, it's wide open for challenge. I've sat through many debates on nuclear power and through many arguments about what is acceptably safe and what is not acceptably safe. It seems to me that whatever verbiage we use it's always going to be challenged. It never escapes that.
I'm rather ambivalent about it now. It doesn't matter. Whether it's ``acceptable'' or ``minimal'', there are forces in the country that are going to challenge it either way.
Mr. Serré: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, what the feeling would be if we put both the words ``minimal'' and ``acceptable'' in there. It's a bit of a compromise.
.1220
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: It's a hell of a good one. It's perfect.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary and then Mr. Canuel.
Mrs. Cowling: One of the things we have to be very careful about is putting any restraints on the commission and the whole side of cost-benefits... We don't want to tip that scale so it is in fact a negative as well.
I'm going to ask Mr. McManus to respond to that.
Mr. McManus: Mr. Reed pointed us to one very clear fact: the ultimate regulatory decision is made in public with many pressures from many sides, and that is the source of the acceptability. It's not made uniquely by the commission in isolation. It's also made with many quantitative inputs, such as exposure levels, which are internationally set and adopted by the commission after public consultation and debate.
Another element in the licensing process of course is cost-benefit, which you heard many of the industry members support strongly. Using the cost-benefit in the process means you weigh benefits and risks and come then, again, to not a minimal but an acceptable solution. ``Minimal acceptable'' means the same as ``acceptable'', but ``minimal'' alone is a very dangerous process, and we would be in serious trouble if we had only ``minimal'' in the objects of the -
The Chairman: So what you're saying is you think Mr. Serré's recommendation of ``minimal acceptable'' is acceptable.
Mr. McManus: It's implied by ``acceptable''. We would never go to the maximum acceptable. We're always at the bottom of the envelope.
The Chairman: Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: I am not altogether happy to see that officials from the department are coming to the committee in order to... I agree that they should provide information to us, but to try to influence us, that's another matter. I find that difficult to accept, because for me, the word ``minimal'' is objective. We can establish a floor limit and everyone could agree on it. If you say ``acceptable'', that is very subjective and that is why we do not have any choice. We must add the word ``minimal''. The committee will quite simply have to live with that decision. It is not enough to say how we would do it. We have a recommendation to make and I believe that we should recommend the word ``minimal'' as an extra precaution.
So, I repeat what I have said: ``minimal'' is objective; ``acceptable'' is too subjective.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Is there any further debate?
Mr. Reed: I'll just go back something I said before. When this is open to public scrutiny and public debate, there are people who will tell you there is no minimal level. It doesn't exist, especially for nuclear radiation and what's acceptable and what's not.
I've sat through months and months of these debates, and it doesn't matter if you say ``minimal'', because lots of people will say ``What's minimal? There isn't any.'' The only minimal that's acceptable to them is zero.
Maybe using both words is a compromise, but I fear in our efforts to construct a horse we may be constructing a camel.
The Chairman: Is there any further debate?
I call the question on the subamendment moved by the Bloc that Bill C-23 in clause 3 be amended by inserting the limitation:
- to a minimal level and in a manner
- That is the subamendment in front of the committee.
.1225
The Chairman: Now we're dealing with the amendment we had debated before.
Amendment agreed to on division
Clause 3 as amended agreed to
Clause 1 agreed to
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.