SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE

In 1984-85 twenty point seven million cubic metres of wood was harvested in Ontario. If it was stacked one metre high by one metre wide that pile would cross Canada three times.

"The volume of wood lost because of insects and disease each year in Ontario's forests exceed the volume harvested ." Hon. Vincent G. Kerrio, Minister, MNR 1986

In 1986 at least 20 Northern Ontario communities were forest industry dependent, in whole or in part.


Ontario had 120 operating pulp and paper mills, and 160,000 people working directly or indirectly for the forest industries in 1986.

In 2004 the number of direct jobs had dropped to 50,000. By 2009 we were at 27,500 jobs.

In 2010 we had seven operating Pulp and Paper Mills in Ontario. - Dryden, Espanola, Fort Frances, Iroquois Falls, Kapuskasing, Thunder Bay and Trenton. 

Job loss was more than economic, it undermined the worker's ideas of self-reliance, hard work and independence.

With the loss of the mills comes the loss of the industrial tax base. Just how desperate these towns are has surfaced this last year as they entertain thoughts of Nuclear Waste Storage.

In 2004 I was randomly selected by the Canadian Policy Research Networks, an independent, policy think-tank based in Ottawa, to take part in a Citizen's Dialogue on Management of Used Nuclear Fuel in Canada, to be held in Thunder Bay on February 14.  The CPRN was asked to lead these dialogues by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The NWMO was created in 2002 mandated to recommend to the Federal Government a long term approach for managing the used Nuclear Fuel produced by Canada. One other person from Nipigon was also selected.

We were not asked to make technical decisions but to define our expectations with respect to safe and effective management of the used fuel. We were given a list of the nine key organizations involved in managing nuclear fuel in Canada, but not as a flow chart that we could use to plot responsibilities.  We were given some information on three technical methods to be used: disposal, storage and treatment.

Disposal means to isolate used fuel from humans and the environment, with no intention of retrieval. Storage means to maintain the used fuel in a way that will allow access for retrieval of future use. Treatment is to change the characteristics of used fuel, to reprocess it for further use or to reduce the toxicity / hazard.

Through our group conversations we drew upon the diversity of points of view to develop insight and build a common ground in our approach to four scenarios.

• Scenario 1 - A long-term management will be adopted now using today's knowledge and leaving little responsibility to the future generations.
• Scenario 2 - Existing storage is good for many years let the future generations come up with new technology to make a better informed decision.
• Scenario 3 - The government should take responsibility and be held accountable.
• Scenario 4 - Affected communities and civil society expect to have a voice in long-term decisions about their future health, safety and environment.

We pooled the results of the group discussions of those four scenarios and came up with our vision for long-term management of Used Nuclear Fuel that shared the rights and responsibilities across generations and would ensure confidence and trust in that approach.

• We want a kind of approach that would allow us to keep the decision open, rather than store the used fuel permanently. We need an ongoing management of it.
• We don't want deep disposal in the North. Keep the material on site where it is now, until a better solution can be found.
• There is immediacy to the issue - don't delay taking action.
• WE need more research and knowledge to find options to manage used fuel better
• Allow future generations flexibility to change decisions if other technology or uses for used fuel are found.
• Elected government officials need to implement and enforce the decision but citizens/communities should be part of making the decision.
• Affected communities should have more say and get some assistance to help them understand what is involved for them.
• The approach needs to give priority to public health, safety and security for this generation and future generations.

This vision was the basis for the afternoon group dialogues.  We were asked to consider what choices we are prepared to make to move us towards the kind of approach we want for managing used nuclear fuel in Canada over the long-term. Then the four groups pooled their key measures and actions to find similarities and differences in their approach. Topping that list was phasing out Nuclear power generation followed by Alternative power research, managing spent fuel on site as it is now, education on all levels, organization of groups for action, more research, policy changes that were Public driven, citizen coalitions, no transporting of used fuel bundles , accountability, public forums, money for the above actions, proper financial accounting and report openly to all citizens.

I think we said a lot.

I was so intrigued by the demand that no used fuel bundles be transported that I wrote Michael Gravelle, M.P.P., with a copy to Joe Comuzzi, M.P., the next day.  You see, Canada had been experimenting with underground storage of used fuel bundles at a location just across the Manitoba border and it looked like that would be a prime site, even though the concept of deep geological disposal in stable rock formations had just been found totally unacceptable to a group of random citizens who lived on that rock.

Thunder Bay had long ago declared itself a Nuclear Free Zone.  Likely a few other places between the Reactors and the Manitoba border were too.

My question to Michael and Joe was: "Can the Federal or Provincial government over-ride the Nuclear Free Zone designation of certain communities if they are in the economic path of transporting used Nuclear Fuel?"

Michael replied on March 31, 2004.  He was pleased I had sent the same letter to M.P. Joe Comuzzi. Michael had forwarded my letter to the Minister of Energy for Ontario. In short order I got his answer, which being a provincial answer to a federal problem was phrased in a neat way.

"If the city had a By-law that shut the street lights off at seven o'clock and the government needed them on at nine - the lights would go on."

No word from Joe.

A federal election came and went with quite a bit of newspaper coverage on the nuclear issue.

No word from Joe.

2006 has passed and the NWMO has handed in its Final Report to the federal government for review and decision for the long-term management of Nuclear Fuel Waste.

2010 Northern Ontario communities are being courted.

Will it be dumped on us?

Say it ain't so, Joe!