HANSARD

NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE

ON

RESOURCES

Thursday, March 12, 2009

COMMITTEE ROOM 1

Nova Scotia Environmental Network, Nova Scotia Mining Caucus

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Mr. John MacDonell (Chairman)

Hon. Patrick Dunn

Hon. Leonard Goucher

Hon. James Muir

Mr. Sterling Belliveau

Mr. Charles Parker

Mr. Wayne Gaudet

Mr. Leo Glavine

Mr. Harold Theriault

In Attendance:

Ms. Jana Hodgson

Legislative Committee Clerk

WITNESSES

Nova Scotia Environmental Network, Nova Scotia Mining Caucus

Ms. Gretchen Fitzgerald, Director,

Sierra Club Canada - Atlantic Canada Chapter

Dr. Mary Lou Harley, PhD

Mining the Connections Committee of

The Church in Action Committee,

Maritime Conference of the

United Church of Canada

Dr. David Maxwell, MD

Associate Professor, Family Medicine (retired),

Dalhousie University

Mr. William Zimmerman,

Citizens Allied to Ban

Uranium Mining

(CABUM)

[Page 1]

HALIFAX, THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

1:00 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. John MacDonell

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll call the meeting to order. This afternoon we have with us the Nova Scotia Environmental Network and Nova Scotia Mining Caucus. I think Gretchen Fitzgerald will probably make some introductions.

I want to say welcome. It's really nice that you could make it. I know it has been a while since we got the request so I'm really pleased that you are able to be here. Usually the format here is that the members of the committee will introduce themselves, then the floor is yours.

We have less than two hours now but usually the presentation is not two hours because we like to get questions in. Anyway, what we'll do is we'll have the members introduce themselves and then the floor will be yours and we would ask you to introduce yourself when you speak, just for recording purposes. So I'll start with Mr. Belliveau.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

Gretchen.

MS. GRETCHEN FITZGERALD: Well, thank you very much. It is a real privilege to be here before our elected leaders and thank you for allowing the mining caucus to present to you. My name is Gretchen Fitzgerald and I am the Director of the Atlantic Canada Chapter of the Sierra Club, Canada. The Sierra Club is a grassroots organization and we are committed to empowering people to protect, restore and enjoy a healthy and safe planet. Of course I am here on behalf of the Nova Scotia Mining Caucus.

1

[Page 2]

With me today are Dr. Mary Lou Harley, a retired consultant and professor with the mining committee of the Church in Action Committee, the Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada; also Dr. David Maxwell, who is a retired professor in the School of Medicine at Dalhousie University; and William Zimmerman, who is a professional engineer and expert in energy and energy policy and also with the Citizens Allied to Ban Uranium Mining.

Of course we are here today to talk about mining impacts, specifically focusing on uranium mining and also to discuss the broader context of why citizens' groups are becoming more and more engaged in mining issues.

I guess just to put this in context, we feel that things are changing in Nova Scotia and they are changing for the better. We have enacted in law now the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act which enshrines some of the principles of sustainable development. Canadians nationally are committed, even in the context of the current economic declines. They are still committed - according to a poll conducted and released this past February - to sustainable jobs and a sustainable economy. You have information in front of you about that, the results of that poll.

As you know, some mines and quarries have become flashpoints for community and environmental groups, as has uranium mining. This opposition is due to environmental and socio-economic impacts of mining operations and it often falls into two categories, sometimes both of these categories. First of all, the local community may oppose the mine itself, because or where it is, and/or there are broader concerns about whether or not we should be going after material such as uranium, in the context of the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act.

This opposition is given added weight by the decision by the joint federal-provincial Environmental Assessment Panel to reject the Digby quarry. Information revealed about mining and quarry impacts during this environmental assessment process and also the public engagement that that assessment involved was an eye-opener for us all - environmental groups, industry, community groups and decision-makers. For instance, we've learned since that - did you know that in 2008, 16 per cent of this province was staked for exploration for mines, which is close to one million hectares of the province. If you want to compare that, only 8 per cent of our land is currently legally protected, so the staking goes on without consultation with local communities, or very little.

I put up there the picture of my nieces and the vision statement for the Nova Scotia Environmental Network, which is "Connecting for a Sustainable Future". I just wanted to again emphasize the sustainable vision that we have. All too often, the word sustainable means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. It is used by a lot of people who assume their audiences - whether it is the Chamber of Commerce or the town council, youth groups, a

[Page 3]

scientist, community groups or their political leaders, they all assume that each other knows what sustainable means.

The difference in definitions can be critical. In fact, there is an internationally-recognized definition of sustainability and it means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. I don't think that can be said too often in this committee room or in any other committee room of the Nova Scotia Government, considering that we have made this law. I wanted to actually cut out parts of the law that were relevant to what I was going to say but I couldn't do it, all of it is relevant. These are the principles upon which it is based and it is law. All Parties committed to this in the House and we, as part of the Environmental Network and the environmental community and the Sierra Club, would like to see these principles enacted in all of our economic and social endeavours. We want to protect places like this or my home, which is Duncans Cove outside of Halifax.

Members of the Mining Caucus have a new perspective on mining. We are asking critical questions. If the minerals and rocks of this province are common property, then they should be used wisely to the benefit of all.

So you ask, why are mines and quarries of concern? It's often argued that actually mines have a small footprint relative to, for instance, clear-cutting but, in fact, when you look at the impacts on watersheds and water quality both in terms of geographic range that can be polluted and also longevity - hundreds to even thousands of years in the case of uranium - water quality use and diversion is a huge issue of concern for community groups and for all of us who are concerned about developing a water strategy for the province.

[1:15 p.m.]

When you dig up large amounts of rock, if this rock contains sulphur, when it's exposed to water and the air and certain types of bacteria, it actually creates an acidic chemical that in itself can be damaging to aquatic life when it runs off into local streams and rivers. It can also enhance the leaching of other toxic chemicals that may be contained in the rock or are used in the processing of the desired ore, so things like arsenic and cyanide. There are also issues with silt runoff and nitrification, which is the overgrowth of algae due to nitrates flowing into waters and streams.

As an example of water diversion and use, the Moose River Gold Mines - it's estimated that 1.5 million cubic meters will be discharged into Scraggy Lake every year as part of this mining project, which is located on the Eastern Shore, outside of Halifax, and this is about 7 per cent of the volume of Scraggy Lake. Wetlands will also be altered to process this waste. Again, I want to emphasize in the case of uranium mining, these consequences can be extremely severe and include release of radionuclides.

[Page 4]

We're also concerned about mines in the context of our commitment for wilderness protection and coastal planning. Right here we have a map in yellow of the outline of the candidate wilderness area, Ship Harbour-Long Lake wilderness area. In red above at the very top of all the sort of water bodies that you can see that traverse this wonderful new - and hopefully will be declared - wilderness area, you see outlined in red the Moose River Gold Mines, and that project is occurring a couple of hundred meters away from the headlands of that watershed. We're deeply concerned about the impacts of that runoff and, in the worst-case scenario, if there were to be a disaster, what would the impacts be on our ability to protect this beautiful gem?

Of course, as the Digby panel emphasized, we need a coastal plan for development. What are mines and quarries doing to our ability to protect our coastlines, both in terms of direct developments on our coasts and also effluent that flows into coastal areas? If you can remember from a previous slide, in the far right-hand corner, this was actually taken in Cape Breton, it's flowing out of a strip-mining site in Cape Breton.

Just to give you an idea of what this may look like for the Ship Harbour-Long Lake area. It's a photograph, of course, of a different mine, because the Moose River Gold Mines haven't proceeded, it's located in British Columbia. Then down below we have what we're trying to protect, which is the fish river system and the beautiful picture of what people are going to hopefully enjoy once this wilderness area is hopefully protected very soon.

Now we come to uranium. The issues having to do with uranium are far and vast and that's why I have three experts with me, and the concern is equally deep amongst Nova Scotians. I have a quote here from former Natural Resources Minister David Morse from last year saying that the moratorium was put in on a whim and it can be taken out also on a whim.

Firstly, I want to state that it was not put in place on a whim. There was an inquiry, there were intergovernmental reports, there were huge amounts of community awareness and engagement in this process that got us to where we are now, but the second half of this statement is correct, this moratorium can be lifted on the whim of government and we're here today to ask you to prevent that from happening. Of course, the experts on my right can explain why in many, many ways.

I also wanted to quote from Judge McCleave's report and to emphasize that often in the Hansard I'm reading, this report is being misused to try to indicate that Judge McCleave was either in favour of uranium mining or noncommital on the subject when, in fact, this quote indicates he was deeply concerned about the impacts of the tailings, "The decay of uranium takes place over a long time, thousands of more times than any civilization for which we have history", and do we have the capacity to manage those tailings for that period of time?

[Page 5]

Also I wanted to point out that Minister Morse at the time asked to hear from Nova Scotians. There were broad consultations carried out by Voluntary Planning, over 20 sessions across the province. We heard loud and clear that Nova Scotians do not want uranium mining and exploration in their province. When you look at the written submissions to Voluntary Planning, over 95 per cent of them say no to uranium mining.

I'm going to close with our recommendations and then I really am interested in your questions and answers.

First of all, of course, we need a legislative ban on uranium mining and exploration in this province. I'm asking this committee to write to the Natural Resources Minister to ask that once the House is called again and the next sitting happens, that a bill is brought forward banning uranium mining and exploration in Nova Scotia.

The second recommendation calls for some explanation. The one-window process is a process whereby companies that want to carry out a mine or quarry meet with Natural Resources and other regulators and bodies to discuss their project. Unfortunately right now this one-window process happens without consultation with community groups, church leaders, environmental community. The Mining Caucus would like this one-window to be replaced with a door that obligates - at the get-go - consultation with communities, municipalities and environmental groups. We don't want to have another situation where a project proceeds, as happened in the case of the Digby quarry, sort of under the radar and then clear opposition is raised years later and much time and energy - I can't say it was wasted because it was so valuable, but could have been used in other ways instead of fighting a quarry that was unwanted by the community. People should know about industrial and mining projects at the get-go, at the start line not halfway through the race.

We want to eliminate the 3.9 hectare limit to environmental assessment. This was a recommendation of the Digby panel. Right now if you want to have a quarry or mine in the Province of Nova Scotia, if you can show that your mine or quarry is below the limit of 3.9 or lower, you elude assessment. The issue with quarries and mines is not how big they are, but where they are and what they are mining. I don't think this piece of legislation is serving us very well, so I'm also asking this committee to write to the Environment Minister to ask for a change in this policy.

Finally, the Nova Scotia Environmental Network's Mining Caucus would like mines and quarries to be allowed, but in the context of sustainable development as defined in this talk and planned use, including planned use for other uses which may be more valuable to the people of Nova Scotia. Thank you very much for your attention and I welcome questions. These are some of the folks who are engaged in the Mining Caucus.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I was curious if the other members of your panel wanted to make presentations or just respond to questions.

[Page 6]

DR. DAVID MAXWELL: I don't have a prepared presentation, but I would make a couple of points. I think the debate needs to be recast. No matter what the mining association may say, or any other group, radioactive materials are dangerous. They cause cancer, they cause changes to the genome, they cause birth defects. The issue is how much, and how much harm are we willing to tolerate for some perceived benefit. It comes down to a risk-benefit ratio.

This is an uncomfortable area for a politician to get involved in - to say, well, we will tolerate one extra lung cancer, we'll tolerate 10, 100, 1,000. How many extra lung cancers can we accept for the perceived economic benefit of opening a uranium mine or any other mine that involves uraniferous ores, ores that bear uranium? That's another issue that has arisen - what do we do if somebody wants to mine copper and it happens to be mixed up with uranium? To my mind, it's exactly the same issue.

The reason why we don't think it's a good idea to mine uranium is because it releases radon into the environment and as the members of the caucus are well aware, radon is now acknowledged as bad for you, it causes lung cancer and there is a program at the moment to test all the government buildings for the amount of radon in the basement. The radon in the basements of the government buildings is exactly the same as the radon that comes out of a uranium mine or any other mine that involves crushing up rock that has uranium in it. So I would leave it at that, I think, that the issue really is how much risk, how much harm to the population of Nova Scotia are we willing to accept for the perceived economic benefit?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Maxwell.

DR. MARY LOU HARLEY: I'm Mary Lou Harley, I'm not going to make a presentation at this time. I have brought on my memory stick a number of presentations that I've done in the past. As the questions arise, if it seems that one of the graphics I have will explain things most effectively, then I'll pop the memory stick up and pull up that particular piece of material for you.

MR. WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN: My name is William or Bill Zimmerman - you can call me anything you want. I had not prepared a formal presentation. I would like to reinforce, though, what Dr. Maxwell said - that is that we have uranium in our soils, in our rocks here in Nova Scotia. We have a relatively high level of uranium. We also have the highest cancer rate in Canada in the province. I don't know that there's a direct correlation between the two but we do know that the more exposure to these radioactive elements there is, the greater risk there is of cancers - particularly lung cancer because of radon - to the general population.

There's a public health issue here that's actually fairly large. The arguments about the permissible levels of radon in the air around uranium mines has largely been cast in the context of uranium mines, quite frankly in the middle of nowhere. The population

[Page 7]

surrounding uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan are very low. You may have a village or two in the vicinity of the mine. If we're talking about a mine at Millet Brook, we have a population - well, all of Halifax is within 100 kilometres of that site.

Dr. Maxwell can quote figures on the amount of radon spread over 400 kilometres from mining sites in Europe. So we have a serious public health issue to confront. As Dr. Maxwell said, it's not just if it's a uranium mine, it could be a copper mine, a tin mine, a zinc mine. We need to understand what the concentrations of uranium are in that ore body and what those implications are to the public health in the province. Frankly, I think that's an important issue that you, as a committee, have to consider but it's not just your committee, it's the environment committee and the Department of Health because these are all related issues.

I just note that there are two different studies, as far as I can tell, on uranium in well water and drinking water in the province. The one done by the Department of Natural Resources, I think, is sort of a prospecting tool, and the other is by the Department of Environment that is presumably looking at the impacts of those levels on the environment. Somewhere all of this needs to come together, to look at what the potential impacts are on our population of any release or any exposure of uranium-bearing ores to the environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have Mr. Parker down as my first questioner so the floor is yours.

MR. CHARLES PARKER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you folks for your presentation. Certainly this is not the first time that this issue has come before this Resources Committee. I think it was about a year ago that we had a discussion here on the very topic and on uranium mining in particular. As I remember at that time, we passed a resolution - it was supported by all three Parties - we supported the ban or a moratorium, I guess, on mining uranium, prospecting or any mine development leading from there, so that's clear.

Certainly I guess as a member of the Official Opposition, and we've made our position very clear that we're not in support of uranium mining in the province. My colleague, Graham Steele, introduced a private member's bill I think in late 2007 and then last Spring in the Legislature we did have a chance to debate it. Unfortunately time ran out and it wasn't passed but we certainly support a moratorium and we would like to see that legislated, like to see it permanent, so that's really where our position is.

[1:30 p.m.]

I guess we believe in the precautionary principle that it's better to err on the side of caution. There's certainly a lot of risks that have been identified and we don't think it's worth the risk, there are just too many for any benefit that might be out there.

[Page 8]

I and our caucus, I think, are in full agreement with that, with your position on a full moratorium. Again, we'd like to see it in legislation so that it would be permanent. I don't think there's anything further I can add to the discussion at this point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Glavine.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming in today. I know this is a very big issue and I really discovered it, as the Natural Resources Critic for the Liberal Party, when I appeared before the Whites Point inquiry in Digby which, of course, we strongly opposed and added our voice to that - I guess really our whole position was around an environmental thrust.

First of all, in terms of that particular inquiry, did the panel, in their final decision of course, really move beyond Whites Point to protection of the entire North Mountain, in terms of quarries?

I'm just wondering what your viewpoint is - not just uranium but quarries, mine operations and so forth. We all know that, you know we probably all travelled here today on our highways and we're going to need rock and building materials from time to time and I don't think you oppose that, but what about the position of taking a look at each individual kind of proposal that comes before the province, in terms of needing an environmental assessment and then making a decision around whether it goes or it doesn't go? I'm just wondering how you view that type of approach.

MS. FITZGERALD: I guess just to reiterate, the panel did say that there should be no more quarries on the North Mountain until the coastal plan was in place and I'm glad that you recognize that and I hope it will be upheld.

The Nova Scotia Environmental Network's Mining Caucus has spoken a lot about the concept of sustainable mining and can there be such a thing because, of course, in a mine or a quarry you're talking about a non-renewable resource. The only way it is renewable is if we do as our current minerals policy states, which is also focused on recycling, which is one aspect of the minerals policy that hasn't been, I think, enacted in full and I would recommend that as we move forward, that that part of the policy be re-emphasized.

I think your question sort of points toward our recommendation about the one window. The one-window approach, those meetings and sort of the approvals and relationships begin before an environmental assessment starts. There is an issue with the public being notified months to years after a project has been sort of walked through several hoops, relationships are established, obviously on the part of industry there is also an investment of time and money. If you're talking about whether the current environmental assessment process is adequate, I wouldn't say, unless we fix the one-window issue. Also I

[Page 9]

would recommend that there be greater co-operation and collaboration with the province and federal authorities such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada on these assessments, so that we get the highest level of assessment possible.

Another flaw with the environmental assessment process as it stands is that the company itself hires consultants usually or writes the assessment document themselves. Obviously, if you are a consultant or if you are the owner of the information given to you by a consultant, you have the ability to change that information at will and often, even if there are grave concerns on the part of the community, the assessment document itself or the focus report that's produced doesn't reflect those concerns adequately. There always seems to be a "no significant impact" or all impacts can be mitigated one way or another. I think disentangling that relationship would be good.

Of course, the company or proponent has to pay for the assessment, but perhaps that fund should go then to the Environmental Assessment office that then does a call for proposals and sort of farms it out, instead of having them answer directly to a company which obviously wants the project to proceed. So fixing the one window and disentangling that relationship would help with the environmental assessment process and also working more closely with the federal government.

MR. GLAVINE: You answered my first question that I had concerns about and that is the environmental assessment and its appropriate level of handling the issues around any type of application. Do you know if this is enshrined in legislation or policy in other provinces? Do we have another jurisdiction that we could actually say to Nova Scotians, that's something that we could move toward?

MS. FITZGERALD: That's a great question. Not that I'm aware of, however, I may not be aware of all avenues. I know, for instance, in Ontario I think there's a commissioner you can go to if you want to appeal the decisions made in the environmental assessment process, there's sort of a second look that's arm's length from obviously the public servants and the ministerial body that made the decision, so that would also help if we did have sort of an arm's-length kind of commissioner that you could go to to appeal a decision.

Members of the Nova Scotia Environmental Network Caucus appealed a decision not to assess a quarry that is in Upper Granville that in terms of footprints seems to be smaller than 3.9 or at the 3.9 hectare limit. We argued that if you included roads and other facilities that are part of that project it would exceed that limit and should require assessment. We were denied, our letter of appeal was denied basically and we had nowhere else to go for a second opinion or for an arm's-length opinion. Having that office to appeal to would be a great asset to the assessment process in Nova Scotia and give it more credence.

MR. GLAVINE: You were going to make a comment, Mary Lou.

[Page 10]

DR. HARLEY: In the past I have done consulting for environmental assessments. I know the frustration from the consultant's point of view where you generate a document and you give it to your client. Client confidentiality then locks you in the ethical situation where you cannot speak to the fact that what comes from the client to the panel that is doing the assessment has left out some critical points that you have found. That is why I left consulting - ethically it's a very difficult position for a consultant to be in.

What should be done is when the panel is appointed, the funding from the proponent should go to the panel to engage the consultants to address the guidelines that have been defined by the panel. That's the step that is missing to give the independence to the consultants. There isn't one in Canada functioning that way, but that's one area.

Another area that runs into trouble with respect to environmental assessments is that we have a history of environmental assessments from a technical point of view. Really, before the Seaborn Panel looked at deep geological disposal which was the first time we looked at a concept instead of an actual project, but a concept, we didn't really give environmental assessment the critical eye that the Seaborn Panel did because they were having to look at something that didn't have a physical substance, then they had to start looking at what is it that defined whether something is safe or isn't safe. They defined for us that safety has to be looked at from both a technical and a social perspective.

Technically, someone can come to us and say, we are defining the risk and this is the definition of the risk that you're facing. But it is up to society to say whether that risk is acceptable or not. What has happened is that technically we're being handed a definition of a risk and it's assumed because it is coming from a technical body that it will have social acceptance. It's an elitist approach that says, believe us, this risk is acceptable and society hasn't had a chance to say, it isn't acceptable to us. That is part and parcel of some of the problems that we're facing.

We still haven't got that in environmental assessments. The other aspect, the Seaborn Panel said, look at the social considerations as well as the technical considerations. We have seen environmental assessments respond to that. We are seeing more consideration of cultural social impacts, before it was mainly technical and economic impacts. In terms of the social-ethical considerations, we're seeing that enter the language of assessments. In terms of social acceptability of risk, we still aren't seeing that in assessments.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: If I may briefly. It's a very interesting point because I think we assume that if we get the right technical process in place with the right scientists and consultants giving us information everything will happen. I think the social aspect that was just referred to is very, very important and frankly, it's the political aspect that all of you have to answer to every time you go to the polls.

[Page 11]

There are other countries that have developed processes that allow much more citizen participation in technical determinations. I'll go back to my favourite one because I was studying it when I was at the London School of Economics - the study circles that went on in Sweden over the whole question of nuclear power in the mid-1970s. Those study circles, which involved 3 per cent of the population of the whole country, actually turned the whole process on end. The citizen participation changed the overall goals of the government in the process of studying the issue.

I think we really have to realize that the people out there - well they elected you so they've got to be smart - but when they express their opinion, and again the response to the question about uranium mining in Voluntary Planning was overwhelming. It seems to me at that point the people have said, the risk doesn't seem worth it to us. Maybe the mining industry would say they need to be better educated on what the risks are because we have real benefits here, but the process is very heavily weighted toward abstract technical information at this point. Again, it can be selectively presented by the proponents.

I think we have to realize that we need to have a deep dialogue with the people on these issues all of the time if we're going to come out with decisions which are wise, not just expedient. Very often the temptation of the revenue from a particular activity - it could be uranium mining or something else - seems much more attractive when the deaths that are going to occur - and there will be deaths that occur, I don't care what the process is - are very abstract because they're almost statistical; only four people per 1,000 will die because of the radiation from that mine. But that's four people per 1,000 and if you're one of them, that's very important to you. It's those kind of trade-offs that we're engaged in.

I just want to point out that the Utility and Review Board in 1995 undertook a study to examine how they could include social and environmental concerns in their decisions. They were particularly looking at Nova Scotia Power and how you dealt with pollution issues, how you dealt with social impacts of not employing Nova Scotia miners anymore, or whatever, but they were trying to figure out how to include those in their decisions. When it came right down to it, they felt restricted by the economic and technical issues. It was very hard to figure out how to put those things in the context of that kind of hearing process, but those are the things we really need to do. We need to understand how we can consider economic and social considerations on any of these projects and it's not accounting, it doesn't come down to accounting.

One of the approaches is, you put a certain value on trees because of the environmental services they provide. Well, that is all fine and good but that's always from our perspective, it's not from the perspective of the environment. When you start to do social costs, some of the problems, and it's a traditional problem, that dirty plants occur in low-income neighbourhoods. That's just the way it happens. I don't care whether it's a waste-burning power plant or whatever, they tend to happen where the people don't have the social

[Page 12]

power to make a difference. So it's really hard sometimes to include all those social considerations in.

I just argue that from the long-term perspective of running a healthy province, and I mean healthy not only physically but socially and in every other way, we have to be able to find a way to consider those non-technical issues. Thanks.

[1:45 p.m.]

MR. GLAVINE: There's nobody on the list there so I'll ask one more. I was at West Kings District High School when we had a study to look at whether radon was present because the school, of course, was just on a cement slab. At the same time I was building a home into the North Mountain, so I decided that I would get a check done.

Now I was very fortunate in that I was actually in a clay belt, kind of sitting on top of a ledge and there were no detectable amounts there. However, if I just walk down in the Nictaux area, whether it's either outcropping or from the quarry there to get the granite, I can pick up a piece of rock that has uranium in it. In fact, we've passed Nictaux uranium around in here, at our committee hearing.

I'm just wondering, how do we go about having better information for Nova Scotians, in terms of where there are detectable amounts, in terms of their building, in terms of their drilling wells, in terms of, as was just said to us, a safer, healthier Nova Scotia? How do we reach that kind of comfort of knowing?

MS. FITZGERALD: The engineer should answer.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: First of all, here's a report from the Department of Natural Resources, Mineral Resources Branch, 2008, map showing uranium and related radionuclides in groundwater in Nova Scotia. You've all been made aware of this, maybe or maybe not, but there is work underway. The trouble is that it doesn't get publicized very much.

The other thing is that we now can - and Mr. Smith didn't appear before you from the mining coalition, I don't think . . .

MR. GLAVINE: No.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: . . . but he will show at meetings occasionally an aerial survey that is an aerial radiometric survey that shows you where you will find hot areas in the province. He will say this wouldn't happen without - is that his? (Interruption) That's another one. He will show you pictures and it's got red spots on it. He will claim that the only way you can do that is if you have prospectors out looking for uranium.

[Page 13]

I'm sorry, the federal government does overflights, they can measure those same things and, in fact, have over the years, I've been told by geologists. I have an acquaintance who is a geologist and thinks uranium, as in any mineral resource, should be mined. He will tell you that you can get that information from the government resources.

The thing is, we have to understand that it's an important bit of information. On the way up, Dr. Harley and I were talking about the fact - I was questioning whether the Mi'kmaq had areas in the province where they decided they didn't want to settle, that they would sort of stay away from areas. That kind of traditional knowledge, which may sound sort of wacky to us, could be based on birth defects, sterility, disease, whatever, but they could have said that this is a place with bad medicine - I'll use that somewhat negative term, I mean in terms of our scientific understanding, but they may have known a lot about that. If you look at those kinds of things, you will find that there are areas that are not healthy to be in. There's an area in India in which the health statistics are awful and it seems to be directly correlated with the occurrence of naturally-appearing uranium. So natural levels don't necessarily mean healthy levels.

If we need to understand what parts of the province should have some kinds of restrictions, that's a project and it may, in fact, turn out that, unfortunately, a lot of this province is hot. A lot of it isn't, but we need to understand that - we need to understand what the implications are.

Again, I think the point that was raised is, just because you're not mining for uranium does not mean you are not causing those same kinds of concerns that we have with uranium mining. In fact, at least in uranium mining, you're trying to remove the U-235. If you're mining for tin and you have all this waste pile and you don't pay any attention to it because you got the tin out, it could have uranium-235 and uranium-238 in it, which are constantly producing dangerous elements.

Now I noticed that when Mr. Dickie was here, he promised you a copy of the decay tables, did he give you that? I don't know, maybe it wasn't an urgent issue.

MR. GLAVINE: I did get a copy.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay, well I brought a printed copy which I'm more than willing to leave with you, of uranium-238 and uranium-235.

DR. HARLEY: Is thorium-232 in there too?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, it's all of them: thorium-232, uranium-235 and uranium-238. I'll just leave this and if you want copies or whatever, that's fine. The thing is, it's never just one element that is the issue, it's that whole chain of daughters that appear naturally through the process of the decay of the primary products, that are of issue and we don't know

[Page 14]

where they are. If we mine - I've been told, I think Mr. Dickie said this actually, that in the gold-mining areas you're not likely to find uranium, which is a good thing, but it's not necessarily a good thing if gold mining causes other kinds of disturbances, but at least we'd be okay on that one.

I think there's a very large public health issue here that may far dominate the potential benefits of uranium mining that really requires our attention.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much.

DR. MAXWELL: Can I add one extra little bit to that. There is a difference between what we're exposed to, willy-nilly. We can't avoid being exposed to the uranium and radon that comes out of the ground naturally, other than by moving and living somewhere else. But if we dig it up and crush it and reduce it to a fine powder, we release thousands of times more radon and other radionuclides than we would otherwise be exposed to. So we've increased our exposure several orders of magnitude. That, I think, is something that is not morally acceptable.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gaudet.

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that same topic, Dr. Maxwell earlier you made a comment about when you crush rock that has uranium in it, it produces radon. I'm just curious, what is radon and how much radon is in uranium? We talked about the risks, what exactly does it do?

DR. MAXWELL: Radon is generated by the breakdown, if you want, of uranium. Uranium decays according to the sequence that Bill is giving you. Radon is a gas. It is created by the breakdown products and normally, as long as the uranium is in the ground undisturbed, it is generated, it lives for approximately three days and it then changes into a sequence of lead, bismuth and polonium isotopes. Just parenthetically, the last one in that sequence is polonium-210, which is what was used to poison Litvinenko in London and is probably the most toxic of that series.

The issue is that as long as the uranium is left undisturbed in the ground, the radon is generated and then turns into insoluble compounds. If you crush the uranium ore, you release the radon into the air, into the environment. It drifts for long distances, it is inhaled by the animals, including us, it deposits on the vegetation and after a half-life of three days it turns into these solid materials. So you breathe the radon into your lung, it turns into radioactive solid particles that irradiate little areas of your lung, probably no more than 20 or 30 cells, but they are intensely radiated because the amount of radiation that comes off those particles in a matter of 20-odd days is equal to the amount of radiation that was in the

[Page 15]

original uranium, which was decaying over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. So you've concentrated that amount of radiation in a very short time and localized it to a small area and it causes disruption of the DNA in the cells that are being irradiated.

MR. GAUDET: Two questions - how far out would they travel and in terms of the volume, how do you measure the volume of radon?

DR. MAXWELL: You can measure the concentration of radon and it's measured in becquerels per cubic metre. This is one of the few areas in this whole area that is relatively well defined. For every 100 becquerels per cubic metre additional to the background, you will cause about a 12 per cent increase in lung cancer rates. Otherwise put, for about 65 becquerels per cubic metre, if you expose the population to that concentration, you can expect six additional lung cancers per 1,000 population exposed.

In the current situation, if there were a mine at Millet Brook generating an additional 65 becquerels per cubic metre of radon, you could expect whatever six times 500,000 is; that's a lot. Now that is distributed over a long period of time, it's calculated on a 70-year lifespan and that's another one of the problems in this, that the epidemiology is poorly defined, the numbers are uncertain, they are based on models rather than actual studies of populations for the most part, in fact, almost entirely.

Quoting numbers is based in large measure on theoretical considerations rather than measured considerations. In the case of radon, there is reasonable epidemiologic information available from studying miners who are exposed to measured quantities of radon and then seeing how many lung cancers did the miners get with a given exposure to radon and that's where that figure of an additional 12 per cent of lung cancers per 100 becquerels per cubic metre comes from.

The next question to that, if I'm not being tedious, is how much can we expect? This is remarkably difficult to get information on. I have been unable to find any published figures on the amount of radon that comes out of a uranium mine, other than total quantities which are measured in terrabecquerels, this is huge quantities. But when the Wizmut mines in East Germany failed or disappeared with the changing regime, all the information that the East Germans had accumulated, in their typical Germanic precision, they collected vast quantities of data which suddenly became available with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The amount of radon that was coming out of the Wismut mines, which is an area in southeastern Germany in the Thuringian Region of Germany, ranged between about 50 becquerels per cubic metre, up to 400 becquerels per cubic metre. The current standard in Canada is 200 becquerels per cubic metre, anything more than that in your basement you must do something to get rid of it. There is a proposal to drop that to 100 becquerels per cubic metre in new construction, that the construction must be made in such a way that you can reduce the level to 100.

[Page 16]

So to give you an order of magnitude, 100 to 200 is considered unacceptably high and what was coming out of the mines in Thuringia was as high as 400, so it is substantial, it is real. Would we get that amount coming out of Millet Brook? Not likely because Millet Brook isn't going to be nearly as big as the mines in Thuringia. How much would come out? We don't know.

[2:00 p.m.]

MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, one more question. That leads me to my final question. Several months ago, I believe in the ChronicleHerald, there was an advertisement to advise all homeowners in Nova Scotia if they wanted to have radon testing done they could request a kit. My question is twofold. Why would homeowners request a kit; how would we know if we should be testing for radon? The second part - if a household does decide to explore this further and radon is discovered in their basement, what course does a homeowner have to rectify the problem?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: We did some extensive radon testing in the Wolfville area. Professor Barkanova at Acadia University ran a project to do that. This is anecdotal, but a friend of mine said, I had the test done and was shocked at how high the numbers were. They suggested I just cover my sump pump pit and it reduced them down to acceptable levels. What you're looking for is a place where that exterior ground is exposed in your basement, so cracks in your foundation wall, sump pump pits.

The other solution to that which solves your basement problem but not necessarily the wider one is ventilation and that's what they do in mines to control radon exposure to miners, they ventilate the mines. Mr. Dickie told you about that - we just ventilate, we have ventilation standards. So you can ventilate your basement and pump the radon into the outdoor air. Well, in theory, it clears once you've done that; that depends on where you live. You could live in a valley in which you get inversions in the air, it just sits there and you're actively pumping all the radon out of your basement into the neighbourhood. When you get radon testing done, if they find high levels, at least in our case, in Wolfville we were fortunate because of this project, they would tell you specifically what you could do to lower the radon levels. It has to do with sealing, crack sealing, sump pump pits, all of that kind of thing and ventilation, a combination of the two.

MR. GAUDET: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have nobody else on my list - yes, I have somebody else on my list. Minister Muir.

HON. JAMES MUIR: Just a question in terms of the exposure to uranium. The Elliot Lake experience which is now turned into a senior citizens community, do you know

[Page 17]

anything about that? Is there any science on the people who worked at Elliot Lake or the community itself now, the environmental desirability of the community?

DR. MAXWELL: Are you asking should you retire to Elliot Lake? (Laughter)

MR. MUIR: Actually, I'm the only person in this room that has actually worked in mines so I know a little bit about them, I worked underground in five. I'm just curious, you talked a lot about the data in the community and I just wondered, is there any data on Elliot Lake? Clearly, that was really a going concern back in the 1950s and I don't know when it stopped, the 1950s and 1960s.

DR. MAXWELL: There were studies done on the rates of cancer in the Elliot Lake miners. To my knowledge nobody has studied the civil population, the non-miners, in the Elliot Lake region. There's a problem here - I suppose in some sense it's a political problem. The nuclear industry is owned by government. Funding for studies on such things as the impact of uranium mining on the population comes from government. It is inimical to the interests of government to fund such things, so there is remarkably little good science behind a lot of all this.

Another influence in this is that uranium was tied to the weapons industry, to the Department of Defence, extensively in western countries and I suppose in Europe as well. Because this had to do with making bombs, a lot of information is censored or suppressed. The most dramatic example of this is an agreement that the World Health Organization signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency that they will not study radiation-related things without the prior approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is bizarre, this is extraordinary, and they do it, they don't study things because the IAEC won't give them permission. So there's a lot of data that we need that we don't have. I don't know whether that's an answer to your question.

MR. MUIR: Not really, no. Let me go on . . .

MS. FITZGERALD: Can I answer just some aspects of it first? I'm using data that's in the report produced by the Pembina Institute . . .

MR. MUIR: I'm sorry, I don't hear as well as some people, which is of benefit sometimes.

MS. FITZGERALD: A report produced by the Pembina Institute on the nuclear power industry and uranium mining and its impacts. The section I'm referring to is called, Uranium Mining: Nuclear Power's Dirty Secret. They talk about studies that were done on miners who worked in uranium mines who were exposed to high doses over the short term or low doses over the long term of radioactive waste and they found increased cancer rates by two to five times. There were also studies done looking at folks who consumed caribou

[Page 18]

from areas around the mines. The caribou eat lichens that might have radioactive dust on them and then it sort of accumulates in them and they found higher incidences of cancer in that population as well, those who were consuming the caribou that had been exposed.

Also, I don't know if it was the Elliot Lake mine particularly, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency would define effluent from some of these mines historically as toxic; it was toxic, some of the stuff that was coming out of these mines historically. As has been pointed out, a lot of this waste hangs around for a very, very long time. I think it's something, obviously, as Dr. Maxwell has pointed out, that needs to be looked at and I hope that the folks who are living there and dealing with this, especially as there seems to be more and more arguments to dig up more and more uranium in Saskatchewan, to deal with climate change, which I hope that Bill Zimmerman can address that argument.

MR. MUIR: There were two or three areas in that section of Ontario where Uranium City was going on at that time. Another question that I have getting back to this, I read a book a couple of years ago written by a Davies woman called, The Secret History of the War on Cancer. One of the things that she pointed out in that was the research that had been done in Germany about a good many things, actually a lot of it was done by the Nazis and prior to that, but because of its source wasn't very well received at the end of the war. Cigarettes, you talked a lot about lung cancer and uranium. Which is worse?

MS. FITZGERALD: That has been well studied. There were studies in the 1980s as well, but recently both European and North American epidemiological studies have looked at the risk of lung cancer with respect to smoking, the risk of lung cancer for people with respect to radon who have never smoked and the risk of people smoking and being exposed to radon. In those studies the proportion that are damaged, with respect to radon, is much higher and people who have smoked will, of course, have more cancers in that group but the overall percentage of increase, the rate of acceleration of the disease, is the same whether you have smoked or have not smoked.

So although there were some questions raised in the 1970s about saying things like, well, if the people just weren't smoking those miners wouldn't be getting cancer, we can't separate cancer from being in uranium mining from cancer from smoking in those communities. They now know that whether you smoke or do not smoke, your likelihood of getting cancer and the increase of the severity and death from cancer and the whole aging process of the cells is irrelevant to whether you smoked or didn't smoke, you are equally susceptible.

DR. MAXWELL: Smoking and radon are additive, if you want. So if you are a smoker and you're exposed to radon, you have a much higher risk of lung cancer.

DR. HARLEY: But not smoking doesn't remove the risk.

[Page 19]

DR. MAXWELL: But not smoking does not remove the risk. The American National Institutes of Health estimates that somewhere in the order of 12 per cent to 15 per cent of all lung cancers are due to exposure to radon and we are exposed to radon in our environment.

MR. MUIR: We have a lot of the stuff here in Nova Scotia, we have all kinds of it. I don't think we can live in Nova Scotia without it.

DR. MAXWELL: Exactly.

MR. MUIR: I mean when we talk about avoiding it, we pack up and go away some place, which I'm not particularly interested in.

DR. HARLEY: It's a question of not increasing exposure.

DR. MAXWELL: But adding to it is the issue, and adding significantly.

DR. HARLEY: I would like to just go back to your Elliot Lake point and sort of take it somewhere else. We have a history within the nuclear industry, whether it's from uranium mining or nuclear fuel waste, of being very optimistic about our technological capabilities and we have a record, up to this point, of not being able to meet that optimism. So they are looking at things they have done at Elliot Lake to try to control the radiation exposure. There is an assumption that technologically, what they've done will be adequate, that they can have safe housing there.

It is, in fact, an experiment. If you look at the 1994 intergovernmental uranium committee report, you will see that they talk there about Rabbit Lake as an area where they were trying a new way of handling uranium tailings, called an in-pit uranium tailings or pervious surround uranium tailings pond.

The report in 1994 from the intergovernmental committee believed the optimism of the technology at the time that this was the answer. In fact the report says we have now a walkaway solution for uranium tailings.

Well, in fact, here we are in 2008, and that was 1989 that that project started. Last year, Rabbit Lake was called up for renewal of various licences and one of them was the fact that their uranium effluent concentration is still way above guidelines. Their response was, well we are working on this new technology and it's going to get it down to the required levels. So the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission staff used the projections from the proposed new technology to say yes, Rabbit Lake looks like it will be able to meet the requirements, so they were given their licence again, but this time the CNSC said to them, we can't keep doing this - well, for decades they have been doing it - we can't keep doing this, we can't give you a licence based on projections that you're going to meet the

[Page 20]

requirements. Be prepared, when you come back for your licence next time, you have got to have met the guidelines.

We have done this in the industry over and over again. Every time there's a problem we say, we're going to get a technology to fix it and then, when we come to look at the technology, it hasn't met the needs. So down in the United States they build Yucca Mountain to put the nuclear waste in and then they found out the Yucca Mountain repository is not going to be a safe place to put the wastes. So this whole idea that we can safely bury the nuclear fuel waste is up in the air again.

The fact that they are saying, we've got Elliot Lake safe, is in the same mindset - we've done a technology, we think it's going to be safe, let's go ahead and do it.

MR. MUIR: So you're not going to move to Elliot Lake?

DR. HARLEY: I'm not going to move to Elliot Lake.

Now with respect to our exposure, I would just like to raise the point that our natural background level, if we didn't have man-released and man-made radiation, would be about half of what we're presently experiencing. So since the 1950s, we have almost doubled the exposure that we cannot escape from and our biological systems have come to an equilibrium with radiation at half the level that we are now.

So we have been talking here about how many deaths there are going to be per thousand but when we look at the health consequences, we're talking about the actual overall health, the public health. So we're talking about reduced immune response, we're talking about reduced mental capacity, we're talking about more Down's syndrome babies being born to mothers who are of a younger age, so we're talking about accelerated aging of various cell tissues. So we're talking about a whole regime of health issues that we can't escape from. We're at the point where we have to start looking at how we can reduce the exposure that we're already having to deal with. So we're having to look at some of those lifestyle choices that we've made that expose us to more ionizing radiation.

[2:15 p.m.]

People are going to be looking at their granite countertops and are now, you see in the literature, people are asking for the granite countertops to have a radiation reading written on a given countertop and if there are any hot spots, they are to be removed before they go into the countertop construction.

We are looking at situations where we're getting a lot of nuclear power plants that are aging and being decommissioned and there are metals that have been contaminated but it's low level contamination. Those metals in some markets are being allowed to go back into

[Page 21]

the international metal market. So you're going to be zipping up your pants with a zipper that's got a low level of ionizing radiation. We're going to be using forks and spoons. (Interruptions)

This sounds like science fiction but this is true - low level ionizing radiation has moved into the metal market. If you look at our international food market, Codex last year passed regulations that require that countries import radioactively contaminated food up to a regulated level, if there has been a nuclear incident. You think well, thank goodness there hasn't been one.

We had Chernobyl 20 years ago - 21 now - it contaminated the lands in Scotland to the point where the sheep in some highland areas have not been able to enter the international market. The level has been set for 1,000 becquerels, which is very high. That's 1,000 emissions per second coming at you, coming out of the meat. That's the level that internationally we have to accept that meat. They are getting to the point where that meat is almost down to the level being produced off those highlands. It was in the news recently, within the last few months.

The Scottish farmers are so misled and the public is being so misled. Then they made the statement - when our meat comes on the market, it is going to be the safest meat on the market because we've had to go through so much inspection. They have no understanding that they have been given a special permission to release contaminated food because they were contaminated by a nuclear event and the international market has said, we can't ground international trade to a halt when there's a nuclear event; we have to accept a certain amount of contamination.

So you, as a government, looking at Nova Scotia, have to understand that you are trying to protect a population that's increasingly being exposed to ionizing radiation. If you make decisions that locally expose them to more, then you have to accept that you are asking them to accept extreme health consequences because it's becoming additive.

If we look, we don't need to look far, we can find areas where we've seen this happen before.

MR. MUIR: I've got one other question. I gather what you're saying is that a good deal of problems - you were talking about the number of children who were born with birth defects.

DR. HARLEY: Down Syndrome.

MR. MUIR: Down Syndrome and whatnot. The issue is not essentially with longevity, it's with the condition of people who are living.

[Page 22]

DR. HARLEY: We're at the point where we're not talking about just what's going to happen to future generations, but we are beginning to live the results because this all started . . .

MR. MUIR: I guess, let me just finish. We're living longer than we ever did before.

DR. HARLEY: But that's what I'm saying, it's not just the number of deaths, it's the health.

MR. MUIR: So it's not the age or it's not the dying that's the problem, it's the living that's a problem.

DR. HARLEY: It's the health of the people that are living. We're having more people with allergy issues and with immune disease problems. We're seeing situations like in Sweden, they have followed the babies that were in fetus at the time that the Chernobyl cloud of high radiation went over Sweden. They know that the number of children with reduced mental capacity in that particular age group has increased tremendously. So we're seeing situations where we may be keeping people alive, but their quality of life is being reduced.

MR. MUIR: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Maxwell.

DR. MAXWELL: There is a specific kind of change in the chromosome that has been clearly associated with exposure to radiation. The significance of this is not currently known, we don't know what this is going to do, but we are altering the genome - meaning our genetic makeup, our map which is passed through generations. These changes - this is in mice that this is being demonstrated - do not dilute out with successive generations. As I say, we don't know what the significance of this is, we don't know what it means, we don't know what is going to happen in the future. We do know that we are making changes to our human genome. I don't think that future generations are going to be terribly forgiving if we say, ah but we didn't know what was going to happen. We know we have made changes, these are demonstrable, visible changes under the microscope, we don't know what the significance of it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goucher.

HON. LEONARD GOUCHER: Just for clarification, I wasn't going to ask this, but I think I will. Hold your map up just for a second there again, would you? The one that you had there - basically, Halifax is living on a uranium stockpile.

Dr. Harley, just back to your comments, because we are talking about mining here, but the course of average development in an area like Halifax, Fall River rather than Bedford

[Page 23]

- does not the simple course of development increase the actual activity, the actual levels of radiation in an area, especially pretty well anywhere in Nova Scotia and especially in some of the hotter areas? Would that not in itself also raise the levels?

DR. HARLEY: We are in the situation where yes, if we're going to be disturbing the ground, because we know we have a high uranium concentration - I know that David Morse used the idea of being a trace element everywhere, well that's actually a misuse of the way trace element is used. We have, in fact, got a distribution of uranium within our province - that's an issue, it has to become part of the planning. So if somebody says, can we have housing in a given area, what you want to know is, at what depth is the uranium ore body and what's the radiation level that they're just going to be at, at normal ground level walking around?

If you judge that that's fairly safe then your biggest next question is, if we disturb that ground, we're going to accelerate radon. So what kind of planning do we need to have in place, regulations for housing in this particular area, in areas where the ground has got a potential contact with uranium ore body? Then you might be talking about basements in this area need to have a different kind of sealing handling, it might have to meet different building regulations than in another area of the province where we don't recognize high radiation levels. It becomes part of the planning. It doesn't mean that we have to say, run away, run away - it means that we have to say stand up and face it.

MR. GOUCHER: I guess, Mr. Chairman, I was a little concerned when I started hearing about the numbers and the increased levels because we are talking, presumably, about mining.

Sitting on planning within the region for the last 20 years, knowing that there's probably enough development on the books in my area to double the population in probably the next 10 to 15 years - and I also know that we're basically sitting on a uranium stockpile in HRM. I won't say it's the same everywhere and I do agree with you but there are issues there. I'm not trying to take away from the mining aspect of it but there are aspects of this that go far beyond the actual issue of mining.

DR. HARLEY: If I might just mention, we've talked about radon - imagining it coming through as a gas. We have a situation where radon also gets into the water table, so that's another thing that has to be looked at in planning - when you start to draw water into a house, are you going to have radon coming out of the water when you have your shower? Is the radon gas going to be released?

That's a little more difficult to control, unless you know up ahead that this is something you have to watch for in your water supply.

MR. GLAVINE: Especially when you're talking about deep wells.

[Page 24]

DR. HARLEY: Yes.

MS. FITZGERALD: It's a public health issue and I feel it is the responsibility of our government and all of us to be involved in finding out where the high-risk areas are and what to do about it. I don't think the argument that the mining association seems to put forward - that we need to dig it up - that's the solution, because as Dr. Maxwell has said and Dr. Harley has emphasized, that just increases our risk.

So I think that obviously it's something that we have to work together to solve, but I don't think it can be solved by mining it.

MR. GOUCHER: And I do appreciate that. I will add, though, that - and I have no problem with the moratorium, I'll say that right up front, right now - but mining in this province does affect 6,300 jobs and about $500 million a year, which is significant to a lot of people. I understand from the health side that you can't sacrifice one for the other but it is still a significant part of our economy. So it is something that we do have to look at very carefully, without any question. I'm not trying to argue that point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Harley.

DR. HARLEY: I just want to mention that we have to remember that we talk about sustainable mining but we're talking about a non-renewable resource. It's not something you can take some of and it's going to replenish itself. So if we designate particular zones of the province that aren't open for mining because the uranium levels are just known to be too high in that area, it's not like we had a right to take all of the resource out of there anyway.

This generation doesn't have the right to take all the minerals out of Nova Scotia. So if we have to leave some behind so that those who are optimistic that a technology is going to come where we could safely access that without bringing the uranium up to the surface, then leave that for that generation that does get that technology proven.

MR. GOUCHER: I think also, Mr. Chairman, and I stand to be corrected on this, but I also believe that as mining exploration occurs once they hit a certain level, if there's any uranium through the development side or through the core drilling or whatever, they must stop immediately, am I correct in that?

DR. HARLEY: At 100 parts per million.

MR. GOUCHER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zimmerman, did you want to . . .

[Page 25]

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, with respect to the planning. First of all, I brought a copy of that study that was done by the Mineral Resources Branch and actually Halifax itself is probably a pretty good area, it's other places that get worse. I can give you this also. This is, again, a government document that is published.

For example, and I say this from other points of view, basements are probably not a good idea in a lot of places. You might simply say, I'm sorry, in these areas of the province you build slab on grade. You don't build basements because basements are a radon trap and also you're digging into the substrate you might not want to dig into.

It's important to know these things and to say that the only way we're going to know them is if we mine for them, I think, is a big mistake. There is a public interest in knowing what these criteria are. Again, probably one of the biggest issues is a lot of these standards that have been established, even the 100-parts-per-million standard, has not a clear relationship to health because no one bothered looking at that. It was the economic level that says, well, we can live with it at that level. Even some of the other criteria that have been established for health, for levels of radiation, are based on what we can achieve with reasonable technology, not what's good for us.

So there's an assumption that we're going to do it and all we have to figure out is how well we can apply the technology to reduce the dangers. Well, maybe in a lot of these cases the answer is, that's not good enough. I know there was a big argument about the levels of radon exposure for mining operations that said well, you know if we're going to mine in northern Saskatchewan, there's nobody there so we shouldn't have to meet those standards. So it's not necessarily a health issue, it's what is economical and will work wherever you can get away with it.

I think part of the problem here is, we really have to do more research on this before we start permitting anything that's out of what we're doing now. Again, I think one of the issues about the ban - if I just bring it back to the question that is part of the initial concern - I think one of the concerns now is that you could argue, and the minister has, that it was a whim that led to the initial moratorium. I think that in the long run it was probably a good whim. The thing that I think a lot of us are concerned about is that this ban can be lifted without consideration before our elected officials - it can be lifted at a whim.

I think all of us say, well if there is a really good reason to lift this, this is something where all our elected officials have to stand up and be counted and become educated and that research will be required. We are concerned that the whim could apply. If someone says oh, we can create another 6,500 jobs by putting a uranium mine here, there will be a tremendous pressure on the province to say, oh, let's go for it.

[Page 26]

[2:30 p.m.]

What we're concerned about is that we don't have any good reason to go for it at this point. I think there is research that needs to be done, I think that frankly, interestingly enough, the mining interests have raised a good point and that we have serious public health concerns that need to be addressed. They need to be addressed carefully and across the spectrum.

The occurrence of uranium is one big issue and certainly the geologists can help us with that but when it comes to the impact on public health, the geologists can't help us at all. We have to look at public health officials, we have to look at trying to see that the federal government possibly funds studies that will give us some kind of sense about the impact of large population exposure because as Dr. Maxwell said, those studies haven't been done. They've been avoided because there was another national interest that was overriding them, just like we saw the Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fired because there was a sense that there was an overriding need to produce isotopes, even if the reactors weren't particularly safe.

We have to get to the point where we look at this from a public health perspective and get the numbers and understand what we're doing.

I will just say this, no one brought up the need for nuclear power, which is often an excuse for mining uranium. I just brought another paper, that I am more than glad to leave with you, which looks at the implications of nuclear power and alternative ways of meeting that energy demand in an economic context. One of the things it points out is really the only places where nuclear reactors are being built now is where they're being built through subsidies because the market is not building them, they don't see it as a valid economic prospect.

It's governments that are driving it, because of a voracious demand for energy and it seems like the easiest solution. Anyhow, I think this report might be of interest when it comes to addressing that need for uranium mining because I think it ends up not being a need.

Interestingly enough, obviously the uranium prices have been going down lately, not up. I think there's probably less interest in mining uranium now in Nova Scotia than there was a year and a half ago because when President Bush announced that "we're going to have nuclear reactors everywhere" initiative, the prospects for higher uranium prices were there, drove the market up, but since then it has been fairly steadily downhill because again, the market is not buying into it. You don't see Wall Street eager to build nuclear reactors. They're eager to have the business provided by governments that tell you to build nuclear reactors.

[Page 27]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I have the start of a new list but before I go there, I'm putting my name on the bottom of the first list.

I really appreciate all the information that you've given us and I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit. Interestingly enough, I had a conversation with my local veterinarian the other day, who I was willing to agree that neither one of us were specialists on uranium, even though I think he is a specialist at least in something. When it comes to the nuclear fuel waste, people seem to assume, or some do, just put it down a mine shaft, a mile under the ground and seal it and what the heck, it came out of the ground anyway. So I'd like to know - I'm somewhat skeptical in the sense that I think probably along the same argument you made around the technology, the technology that never seems to work - you know, by such a date we'll have this figured out.

I have issues around the fact that this is a particularly dangerous by-product and as much as anybody has ever said, gee, if we only knew then what we know now, we probably would have done that. So I'd like to know what your issues might be around a movement of that calibre that would say it's safe to put this stuff a mile in the ground.

DR. HARLEY: First of all, I'll tell you why I'm speaking up first. I've been involved in the nuclear fuel waste issue since the 1980s and I was one of 16 experts called by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Canada, when they wanted to define the nature of the hazard of the waste because it's so controversial. Of those 16 people who were called together, the first words out of one of the officials who was there was, they didn't want the public to know the nature of the hazard of the waste. This was from someone whose job it is, as far as I'm concerned, to make sure that the public does know the hazards of the waste. So that's where we had to start from in the morning in an attempt to get 16 of us to come to consensus on what we would agree was not controversial and could be said about the nature of the hazard of the waste. I would say the most significant thing that came out was a final admission that it will be hazardous forever.

There are three levels of hazard. One is the heat, the actual physical heat of the material, because it continues to react. You have a whole bunch of unstable stuff there. The unstable material doesn't need to have any impetus to get acting. It is radioactive, which means it's unstable by its nature, so it's giving off particles. When it gives off particles, they come off with tremendous energy, they impact other particles and you get heat going. So when you start talking about how are we going to deal with that waste, they start talking about the quantity of waste. You have no comprehension of how much space you're going to need in order to safely store this waste, separate it from other waste so that the heat from one isn't affecting the heat from another, and you end up with a great big meltdown - or worse, a nuclear event happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What kind of temperatures are we talking about when you say heat?

[Page 28]

DR. HARLEY: It depends on how old the waste is. When they first take it out of a nuclear reactor as its early waste, they have to store it, separate it in huge swimming pools, with water circulating all the time to try to keep it under control. After 10 years of that kind of storage, depending on what original fuel went in because the characteristics can be a little bit different if it's enriched fuel compared to CANDU fuel, but CANDU fuel coming out after 10 years in water storage can go into canisters, separated from one another. When they're talking about nuclear fuel waste being long-term storage, they're talking about huge vaults a quarter of the size of Toronto for our present waste. If they were to put it in that location, it would be excavated in order to have a cavern big enough for the kind of storage, because you need to separate the stuff. So that's just from the heat alone.

The other hazards, the more health-concern hazards rather than technical hazards, are the chemical toxicity. With uranium-238, it's its chemical toxicity that's of greater concern than its radioactivity. But for various of its daughters, as it starts to decay the radiation is a bigger component than the chemical component, but both of those persist and at its very best it finalizes in lead-206, and lead is a chemical toxin. So there is no time in the future where that waste will not be chemically toxic, but it's most chemically toxic at its early stages.

Then there's the radiation issue and they will often talk about its radiation levels after 10,000 years and say, well, by then it's really no more radioactive than the uranium ore we took out in the first place. Of course, it's not the same chemical characteristics, it has a different chemical toxicity altogether because of all the other things you've made by having it in the reactor that would never occur in the uranium ore body. So chemically it's much more toxic than the body.

The other thing is if you look at its potential for health - and that has been done by ACL and published - after 100,000 years it's still more toxic, just from should you get a particle inside you, than the uranium ore. If they look at it with the ore body and this waste, the graph just keeps on going, there is no point in the future when that's not going to be at a radioactivity level that is a hazard. What they don't tell you is that what this was originally set up by - Dr. Thomas Pigford in the States originally set this comparison up and he would note very carefully, I'm comparing this material, nuclear fuel waste, to another known hazardous material, uranium ore body, and telling you how long it's going to be before this terrible material gets to be at least almost comparable to something that we know that's already existent, in an attempt to tell us, we're making something that is horrendously toxic.

Instead, the industry has used the uranium ore standard as though it was some sort of safety standard and so they reassure people saying, well, in some thousand years it's not going to be any worse than the ore we took out, so putting it back in is a good idea. The other thing is, when you take the ore out you're taking it from a stable ore body. When you put it back in, by the very fact that you've mined the hole that you're putting it in - and you being involved in mining will know you can't mine without generating fractures, you can't put the stuff back in a stable geological way, the way you took the stuff back out, and this is what

[Page 29]

we're finding. No matter where we've made a hole, it turns out the hole isn't good enough, so far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I go to Mr. Zimmerman, I wanted to just ask the lifespan on the radiation side, I have some understanding of that. I'm curious about the heat side and the change in the chemistry, will that continue to react for thousands of years and will the heat be produced for thousands of years?

DR. HARLEY: Yes, the heat does go down on a pretty predictable regular - the older it is the less heat it generates. Chemistry, in terms of the chemical toxicity, that changes because you've got a changing soup - actually, it's only a soup if you've gone through the reprocessing, then you've got a liquid - you've got a changing material and there are times it changes from solid to gas, like we've been talking about. It not only changes to a different element it changes its chemical characteristics, it changes its physical state. So you have material with over 200 different chemicals in it and many of them continue to change through that whole time period. At the very best, it's never going to be as safe as the uranium ore, if you were to age the uranium ore over that same time period.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zimmerman.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: If I could, one comment. First of all the big nuclear repository that has been designed in the United States, Yucca Flat, has not yet been commissioned and it's already full. In other words, if they took all the waste that was destined for long-term storage and moved it to Yucca Flat, Yucca Flat would be full, but it's not even commissioned yet, so they have to start on the next one to accommodate it and they aren't even sure that one is going to work yet. So there's a problem there again, it's the technological optimist that said, oh yes, we can do this and we'll do it here, and by the time they got the hole in the ground there were big questions about the suitability of that, particularly with groundwater movement through the site.

The other thing is, just to put this into context, some people in the nuclear industry would tell you that the kind of reactors we're talking about now are just outdated, because, in fact, the real reactors we should be building are fast breeder reactors which will essentially require no new uranium, they will be constantly breeding fuel that can be used in the reactor. Now, the trouble is no one has built one that really works yet, but again, certain technological optimists will tell you that's the solution to our problem.

I don't know if you remember, back when they first talked about nuclear reactors, the energy would be cheap to sell, I mean you couldn't bother metering it, it would just be too cheap. Well, we know that hasn't happened and if you look at the paper that I circulated here, it's getting more expensive almost all the time. The industry is continually trying to reinvent itself and you may know that the new CANDU reactor that is being proposed, (a) it has not been licensed yet and (b) it has not been built yet, so we're looking at least at a 15-year time

[Page 30]

period before any one of those reactors are commissioned and they now require enriched fuel - moderately enriched, but enriched. It's a moving target. Part of the problem is that there hasn't been a settlement on a good technology yet and again you have the question of waste management, which is a further question.

I would simply say, if you think uranium mining is going to solve our energy problems anywhere, that's probably a mistake, certainly because of the time frame. Our energy problem can't wait for nuclear reactors to be built in a lot of cases, unless we have a rapidly-growing economy like China in which they're racing to figure out what to do. They're starting to mine coal plant residues for uranium at this point, because some coal seams will have some radionuclides in them that could be useful in the future.

We have to look at an energy economy that is sustainable over the long term and, frankly, that means one not based on anything you have to mine, whether it's coal, bitumen, oil or uranium. We have to aim ourselves toward an environmentally sustainable energy system and that's a process that we delay by seeking the magic bullet of something like nuclear power stations.

[2:45 p.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask one more question and then I'll go to Mr. Parker. If my memory is right, Mr. Dickey talked about mining uranium in Scotland. I'm not sure if anybody has any information on that, but he made it sound as though it was a pastoral setting . . .

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Actually, that was France.

MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . that there really was no downside to this, it was my impression. I'm curious if you have any information on that and would like to speak to it.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: That's lobbing a softball at us, really. (Laughter)

DR. HARLEY: We're all anxious to take that one. Go for it, Bill.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: The last uranium mine closed in France in 2001 and since then the management of the residues from those plants has been a continuing concern, leading to ongoing inquiries as to what to do with it. Of course, the argument is that they're no longer economical to mine in France, that could be partially because of the standards that are now being imposed. Now they get all their uranium ore, almost all of it from Niger, which is again displacing that inherently messy process that causes problems to a developing - I don't even know if you can say that Niger is a developing country, but to where the social conditions will permit you to do what you want to do with those miners and the environment surrounding them without protest. But again, that pastoral setting, it may look pastoral but

[Page 31]

the implications on the health impacts on the community are not necessarily pastoral. Looks can be deceiving.

DR. MAXWELL: Radon is colourless, odourless, tasteless, totally indetectable. Uranium in your water supply is completely undetectable, you cannot sense any of these toxins. If you mine the stuff you release the toxins, it's as simple as that. So it may look beautiful and you don't know how bad it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Parker.

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess on the topic of nuclear reactors, I was just wondering, do you know how many there are in the world? Secondly, what other dangers are there, besides direct radiation when an accident occurs, like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, are there day-to-day dangers to the workers in those plants or in the air quality area around the reactor or even, especially water? I know it takes a lot of water to cool a reactor, that wastewater is going somewhere. Is there a danger to the environment from that? So how many and what dangers?

DR. MAXWELL: I think I can probably answer all of those questions. In answer to your first one, how many reactors are there, there are just over 400 - I think it's about 430 - of which only 120 or 130 or so are currently functioning, the other ones have all been decommissioned.

DR. HARLEY: Well, no, they haven't been decommissioned, but they're just not functioning. We haven't figured out decommissioning yet.

DR. MAXWELL: They're not functioning, okay. Are nuclear power plants dangerous? This is a fascinating question, this is really neat, because there has been persistent reassurance from the industry and government that the power plants are safe. It has been known for 20 years or so that there seems to be - well, there is - a higher incidence of childhood leukemia in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.

There have been all manner of bizarre explanations for this, everything except that the power plant has something to do with it. In Germany, this became a political issue and the government commissioned a study that was going to be the definitive proof that nuclear power plants were safe. They have 20 or 21 power plants and they set about looking at the incidence of childhood leukemia in the vicinity of these power plants, in the study called the KiKK Study.

To the horror of the government, the results were absolutely unequivocal - not only is there an increased incidence of childhood leukemia in the vicinity of power plants, but there is a linear relationship, an inverse linear relationship with distance. So the closer you

[Page 32]

are to the power plant, the higher the incidence of childhood leukemia. If you get far enough away, it drops back to the background.

It is extraordinarily difficult to maintain that the observed incidence of childhood leukemia has nothing to do with the power plant. In fact, the KiKK researchers tried to do that - they tried to say, well, we know that it can't be the power plant because our models don't explain it and therefore it cannot be so.

Fortunately, there was an oversight committee that was looking at this that said look, this is ridiculous, we've got a linear relationship here, there has to be a relationship. Even though we don't know why, we cannot explain it, our models must be at fault rather than the data. So that's where we now stand.

That study was publicized widely in Germany and has been not suppressed but certainly not publicized anywhere outside Germany and people don't know about it. As far as I am concerned, that was the definitive study that proved - it was impeccable from a scientific point of view. The science was absolutely irrefutable.

MR. PARKER: What about water discharge from plants? Is there any environmental damage evidence?

DR. MAXWELL: This one is less agreed upon, if you want. There are people - Chris Busby has said very loudly that the discharge from Seascale is washing up on the shores of Northern Ireland and causing a lot of problems. His conclusions have not been endorsed by the international authorities, the experts. The problem is that the experts may not be as independent as one would like them to be, if you want. That gets into a whole area of the relationship between science and ethics and the purity of science and who is your master, who is paying for your conclusions?

MR. PARKER: Okay, thank you.

DR. MAXWELL: (Interruptions) Okay, tritium. This is specific to CANDU reactors.

DR. HARLEY: Yes, I'll just mention that we are at this time looking at a situation with a small reactor at Chalk River that's responsible for generating the medical isotopes, having had dumpages of tritium into the Ottawa River. Although the government would say that it's not an environmental problem because the attitude is, as long as the releases were done in a way that diluted them sufficiently to meet the regulations, it can't be a problem.

But, in fact, the regulations weren't based on safety, the regulations were based on what's feasible to meet in an economic way. So those regulations are under contestation as we speak. There is a large movement asking for another look at how much tritium is released. There have been pressures for about 10 years, and the United Church has been one

[Page 33]

of the leaders in that, trying to get the regulations to have risks that respond to the health consequences.

It's a lot easier for the person running the industry to have a number that they can say, as long as what I'm dumping out there is below this number or, if you're talking about the mining, as long as what I'm digging up hasn't got uranium of this content, then I can keep working. We need those kinds of things so people can keep working, but the numbers we set can't be based just on what's feasible or what's economical, it has to also be based on where the health risks lie. That's the missing piece in most of our present regulations, we do need both components. We need that regulation that's easy for the operator, we need the regulations set in response to the health consequences.

DR. MAXWELL: Can I add one rider to that. A regulation, a regulatory limit is simply saying - and it harkens back to what I started with - that we accept one in 100,000 cancers at this level, we recognize we're going to cause one in 100,000. In the case of the tritium, the level is considerably lower but it's never posed in those terms. It's posed in, at this level we're safe. We're not safe, we are producing what is judged to be an acceptable level of cancers, or whatever.

DR. HARLEY: And that level of acceptability has not been challenged. It has not been agreed to by the workers or the public. That's the part that has been missing and that's the part that you're going to be facing.

MR. PARKER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other members?

DR. MAXWELL: There were 23 trillion becquerels of tritium released by our regulatory authority into the Ottawa River. This is a lot of radiation. Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen, so they released an incredible amount and they said it was safe.

Now, the level of tritium under the Canadian regulations at the moment is 7,000 becquerels per litre. This is 7,000 discharges per second, 7,000 breakdowns per second; in California it's 14.7. Why do we have 7,000? Because our CANDU reactors make tritium, it's a feature of our reactors. If we were to set it at 14.7, we couldn't run our CANDU reactors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, five minutes left. I just wonder if you have some summation comments that you would like to make.

MS. FITZGERALD: So to summarize, actually this is not uranium-related, but I do want to make one quick comment on Mr. Glavine's question about environmental assessment. Another thing that happened last year is the Nova Scotia Auditor General released a report on enforcement and monitoring of environmental approval processes and

[Page 34]

pointed out several cases where there are insufficient resources for the Environment Department to monitor and to make sure that everything is going according to regulation. They found that of 60 approvals given, there were three cases where ownership wasn't proven, like on the books. I mean maybe they did own it but there was no proof. So just simple things like that.

Then there are other cases where there was no comprehensive monitoring going on. I guess I would just ask this committee to also look to giving the resources and putting that emphasis on monitoring and compliance, once approvals are given for projects that are deemed to be sustainable which, of course, would not include uranium mining.

I guess I'll sum up by just thanking you so much. This has been a real thrill for myself, coming from Sierra Club, and just to be part of this democratic process with our provincial leaders has been a real privilege. To be with these experts, of course, has been a huge privilege for me as well, I learned as well. I just wanted to put it back in your court, saying we are asking for you to ask the Natural Resources Minister - once the House sits again - to bring forward a bill that will create a legislated ban on uranium mining and exploration in this province, and that you also ask for changes to the environmental assessment process so that we do have effective or more effective approvals and disapprovals, if deemed necessary, of mining projects. So thank you again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, on behalf of the committee. We really appreciate your ability to come here and everything you've been able to tell us, it has been very educational, I want to say. I appreciate your time and your information. Thank you very much.

Committee, we have a couple of things to look at. I know a couple of members are really needing to get out of here by 3:00 p.m., so I don't really want to hold them back or at least be accused of doing such a thing. Members have a copy of the letter from my colleague, the honourable member for Pictou West. Mr. Parker, do you want to speak to that?

MR. PARKER: Yes, I think the letter is fairly self-explanatory. I just feel this is an important public issue, there's certainly widespread concern out there and I'm sure I'm not the only member getting calls on it. I think it's important that we retain at least some of this land for Nova Scotia's use, whether that's the forest industry or for recreational purposes, and we are concerned that it could end up as perhaps gated communities. I'm just trying to facilitate if there's a workable solution here, so I'm suggesting we invite the parties that are mentioned there to come before this committee and see if we can find a workable solution.

[3:00 p.m.]

I guess I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman, and then we can discuss it, is that a possibility?

[Page 35]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, okay.

MR. PARKER: I move that representatives from J.D. Irving, the Department of Natural Resources and the Buy Back Nova Scotia coalition appear before this committee at the earliest convenience.

MR. GLAVINE: I'll second it to get it on the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Glavine.

MR. MUIR: I've got some real concerns about that, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, the Irvings and the province, I mean the province clearly isn't interested in that land, right now we're looking at dollars and cents. If we bring them in here we're going to start to negotiate in a public forum and that's just not appropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else? Mr. Gaudet.

MR. GAUDET: I'm supportive of this motion, but the concern I have - and I don't know the answer before we ask - are all three parties willing to appear all at once? At the same time when I hear the Minister of Finance, this is definitely not the place to allow the province to negotiate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goucher.

MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I have some serious concerns from the standpoint of the negotiations that are going on and again, I'm not the minister so I'm not exactly sure what's occurring at this point in time. To me the land itself in large part, from what I understand, is scrubland, it has already been forested or deforested. But having said that, there are some areas which I would consider probably, through my own small part in what has happened around my area, to be environmentally sensitive. These areas possibly may have an opportunity through the negotiating process to maybe go somewhere. There are some areas that are probably identified as environmentally sensitive. If we bring this in here at this point in time, I am really concerned that could go by the boards. I think it's really important at this point in time that if you're going to bring this forward, bring it forward at a later time, but not right now, this is not the time to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I get some clarification from Mr. Parker? I share the concern of the members who have spoken on this, so I want to know, Mr. Parker, was it your thought that all three would appear at this committee, because I have some doubts as to how profitable that would be? But certainly, if each one were to appear separately, I think that would be a sensible thing. Actually, I don't think it's fair.

[Page 36]

MR. PARKER: No, I think separately is fine, but I think it's important to air the issue and get everything on the table. I know time is of the essence here, I believe there is a deadline. It doesn't say in the motion whether it's separately or together, but individually is fine. I think it's important we hear from the parties on the importance of protecting Nova Scotia's interests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we just have a vote or a say from the committee about whether the committee would be agreeable to have them come separately before the committee and we can try to get them at whatever possible time that it can happen?

MR. MUIR: I'd just like to make a comment. I wouldn't want to bring them in here to talk about the J.D. Irving lands because there's all kinds of land out there, Charlie, that's for sale. I mean I think the issue is . . .

MR. PARKER: The particular pieces of land in Digby, Shelburne County, that general area, Yarmouth.

MR. MUIR: I think you're going in the wrong direction if you're going to talk about a specific company and that specific land, unless you've got parts that are environmentally sensitive, and they probably are. I think we can do better if we talk about conservation in the province and the province's goal to get - what is it? - 20 per cent, or whatever it is . . .

MR. GOUCHER: No, 12 per cent.

MR. MUIR: I'm really worried about getting into a specific thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we're into a specific thing. So I just want to know from the committee, how many would like to have those three individual presentations come before the committee?

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried. I think they're coming. Thank you.

Now, for the committee's purposes, we have our witness for April, Nova Scotia Egg Producers. That's one of the Progressive Conservative caucus requests which we've been trying to get for some time. Actually, we missed them in January.

For May, we have the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, I think people would remember from our Select Nova Scotia presentation; and also the Chicken Farmers of Nova Scotia, which was a Liberal request. So if it's okay with the committee, if it turns out that the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors can't come in May, is the committee

[Page 37]

fine with the Chicken Farmers of Nova Scotia coming in May and then maybe vice versa would be the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors?

I can't see that these three are going to come in a rush, ahead of who the committee already agreed on in the last meeting. So unless the committee wants to totally throw that out the window, but I think in the case of the staff trying to arrange presenters, I don't think that's fair.

MR. PARKER: Well, what we said in our motion was at their earliest convenience, so whatever that might be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so we'll go with hopefully what we planned for May and June and we'll see.

Thank you, members. We are adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 3:06 p.m.]