Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Uranium Mining 1980

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1980_A6_7 A33.pdf
UBC_1980_A6_7 A33.pdf [ 9.16MB ]
UBC_1980_A6_7 A33.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0100257.json
JSON-LD: 1.0100257+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0100257.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0100257+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0100257+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0100257+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0100257.ris

Full Text

AIM EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO URANIUM MINING * by REBECCA JANE ABBOTT i a l C o l l e g e o f S c i e n c e and T e c h n o l o g y University . o f L o n d o n , 197B A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT DF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER DF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g ) hie a c c e p t t h i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA J u n e , 1980 <D R e b e c c a J a n e A b b o t t , 1980 Province Of ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY British Columbia HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION URANIUM MINING A D D R E S S A L L C O R R E S P O N D E N C E T O T H E S E C R E T A R Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S : D A V I D V . B A T E S . M . D . I C A N T A B ) . F . R . C . P . . F. R . C . P . I C I . F . A . C . P . . F . R . S . I C l . C H Al RM A N J A M E S W . M U R R A Y . P H . D . . F . G . S . E . . F . G . S . A . , F . G . 5 . V A L T E R R A U D S E P P , P . E N G . E X E C U T I V E S E C R E T A R Y : B R I G . - G E N . E . D . D A N B Y ( R E T I R E D ) C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L : R U S S E L L J . A N T H O N Y . B .A . . L L . B . . L L . M . P e r m i s s i o n i s h e r e b y g r a n t e d to Ms. Rebecca A b b o t t to r e p r o d u c e b o t h the " P r e l i m i n a r y R u l i n g s " and t h e F i r s t I n t e r i m R e p o r t on Uran i u m E x p l o r a t i o n of the R o y a l Commission of I n q u i r y i n t o Uranium M i n i n g i n her M.Sc. t h e s i s , "An E v a l u a t i o n of the E f f e c t i v e n e s s of the R o y a l Commission of I n q u i r y i n t o Uranium M i n i n g , " U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1980, and to the N a t i o n a l L i b r a r y of Canada to copy them on m i c r o f i l m and to l e n d or s e l l c o p i e s of the f i l m . A l l o t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n r i g h t s are r e s e r v e d . Dr. D a v i d V. B a t e s Commission Chairman B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby E x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y Dated 3724 WEST BROADWAY, VANCOUVER, B.C. V6R 2C1 (604) 224-2014 (604) 224-2412 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced, degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date J u n e 2 n d , 19BD ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study i s to evaluate a commission of i n q u i r y process i n B r i t i s h Columbia to determine how s u c c e s s f u l l y i t helps elected r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s r e f l e c t more a c c u r a t e l y t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s ' preferences i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of government p o l i c i e s . I t i s hypothesized t h a t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as s o l i c i t e d by a com- mission of i n q u i r y , may serve to transmit a wider range of informed p u b l i c opinion to d e c i s i o n makers than i s otherwise p o s s i b l e . Furthermore, mem- bers of the p u b l i c may provide governments with important i n f o r m a t i o n . Hence, i t seems worthwhile to assess how w e l l commissions of i n q u i r y f a c i l - i t a t e the type of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n that w i l l help elected r e p r e s e n t a t i v r e f l e c t more accu r a t e l y t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s ' preferences. In t h i s study, the procedures adopted by the B r i t i s h Columbia Royal Commission of Inquiry i n t o Uranium Mining (RCIUM) are so evaluated. While the a n a l y s i s i s case s p e c i f i c , I make some general recommendations t h a t should be of use to fu t u r e commissions of i n q u i r y . The c r i t e r i a used i n the e v a l u a t i o n stem from a p a r t i c i p a t o r y model of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e government. They r e f l e c t , a l s o , the s p e c i a l nature of both the uranium issue and RCIUM's terms of reference (namely, that the RCIUM Commissioners should recommend standards f o r worker and p u b l i c s a f e t y as a r e s u l t of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, f i r s t examining e x i s t i n g standards and r e c e i v i n g p u b l i c submissions on these m a t t e r s ) . The e v a l u a t i o n framework p o s t u l a t e s that RCIUM should design a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program that meets the f o l l o w i n g broad c r i t e r i a : 1) secures a r e l e v a n t body of accurate i n f o r m a t i o n ; 2) informs the p u b l i c of i t s f i n d i n g s ; 3) e l i c i t s p u b l i c views upon i t s f i n d i n g s ; k) communicates i t s f i n d i n g s and the range of informed p u b l i c views t o the f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers. Since RCIUM was s t i l l i n the process of c o l l e c t i n g information when the t h e s i s research terminated, only the f i r s t two c r i t e r i a are a p p l i e d . The most s i g n i f i c a n t RCIUM a c t i v i t i e s i n a c q u i r i n g a r e l e v a n t body of accurate information are community and t e c h n i c a l hearings. Because of l i m i t a t i o n s i n the general p u b l i c ' s a b i l i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the community hearings, RCIUM learned l e s s about l o c a l concerns than i t might have done. A considerable volume of rel e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s being reviewed at the t e c h n i c a l hearings. However, many of the p a r t i c i p a n t s at these proceedings are pressed f o r time and have i n s u f f i c i e n t funds; hence there are shor t - comings i n RCIUM's c o l l e c t i o n and t e s t i n g of a l l relevant evidence. Ex- tension of the t e c h n i c a l hearings and formation of c o a l i t i o n s between p a r t i - c ipant groups are recommended as ways of remedying these d e f i c i e n c i e s . I t i s argued that a commission of i n q u i r y , when faced with an issue as c o n t r o v e r s i a l as uranium mining, should perform a thorough p u b l i c edu- c a t i o n j o b . Although the RCIUM Commissioners do perceive t h e i r r o l e to be p a r t l y one of education, l i t t l e attempt i s being made to i n s t i l l under- standing of the issues i n the p u b l i c . Increased use of the media i s recom- mended; f o r example, p e r i o d i c , t e l e v i s e d d i s c u s s i o n s between RCIUM p a r t i - c i p a n t s . As an a l t e r n a t i v e to the procedures adopted by RCIUM, an approach i s o u t l i n e d that i n v o l v e s the p u b l i c i n the design of the RCIUM process. This approach appears to be f a i r e r than that used by RCIUM; probably, i t would serve to transmit a more complete and accurate body of r e l e v a n t information to the f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers than w i l l a c t u a l l y be the case with RCIUM. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract • i i Table of Contents i v L i s t of Figures ••• v i L i s t of Appendices ••• v i i Acknowledgements v i i i Foreword • • i x PART I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n & the Representative System of Government 1 Commissions of Inqu i r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia 5 The Royal Commission of Inquiry i n t o K Uranium Mining 7 Why I t Idas Set Up 7 The Terms of Reference 9 Eva l u a t i o n 10 The Concept of Ev a l u a t i o n 10 Rat i o n a l e f o r the Ev a l u a t i o n 11 I I THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 13 Background 13 Nature of the Eva l u a t i o n 19 I I I COMMISSION ACTIVITIES 21 In t r o d u c t i o n 21 P u b l i c Sessions 21 Commission Research 25 V i s i t s 26 L i b r a r y Network 27 P u b l i c i t y 30 PART I I Preface to Part I I 32 Lff CRITERION I : SECURE A RELEVANT BODY OF . ACCURATE INFORMATION 33 In t r o d u c t i o n 33 P u b l i c Sessions 33 iv CHAPTER Page Questions to be Addressed 33 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n 36 L i m i t i n g Factors 63 Commission Research • 68 Questions to be Addressed 68 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n * 69 L i m i t i n g Factors 69 V i s i t s 70 Questions to be Addressed 70 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n 72 L i m i t i n g Factors 75 L i b r a r y Network 76 Questions to be Addressed 76 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n 76 L i m i t i n g Factors 78 Summation 79 V CRITERION I I : INFORM THE PUBLIC OF COMMISSION FINDINGS 81 I n t r o d u c t i o n 81 P u b l i c Sessions • 82 Questions to be Addressed .................... 82 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n 83 L i m i t i n g Factors 87 L i b r a r y Network •• 88 Questions to be Addressed .................... 68 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n 88 L i m i t i n g Factors 90 P u b l i c i t y « 90 Questions to be Addressed 90 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n 91 L i m i t i n g Factors 93 Summation ....................................... 94 VI RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSIONS 95 I n t r o d u c t i o n 95 Commission Accomplishments 96 Commission Weaknesses: Proposed Remedies 97 Concluding Remarks • • 102 LITERATURE CITED 103 APPENDICES HO LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 191 v; L I S T OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE 9 2 LAYOUT AT COMMUNITY HEARINGS 37 3 NUMBER OF WITNESSES AT THE COMMUNITY HEARINGS 3B k TIME DEVOTED TO THE MINING COMPANIES IN THE COMMUNITY HEARINGS 5 MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE COMMUNITY HEARINGS 81 6 ATTENDANCE AT COMMUNITY HEARINGS Bk v i APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE PAGE 1 P r e l i m i n a r y r u l i n g s 110 2 The Commission s t a f f and t h e i r a d v i s o r s : r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 136 3 L i s t of witnesses: community hearings 141 4 V i s i t s to uranium mines and deposits 151 5 F i r s t I n t e r i m Report on Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n 154 6 Depository l i b r a r i e s • 167 7 P a r t i c i p a n t funding 169 8 P u b l i c N o t i c e : P a r t i c i p a n t Funding 174 9 Results of interv i e w s with s i x major p a r t i c i p a n t s 176 10 Cross-examination of ten witnesses by major p a r t i c i p a n t s 182 11 P r e l i m i n a r y budget estimate: EAAUM 184 12 Items i n the Commission l i b r a r y 186 13 P u b l i c education by s i x major p a r t i c i p a n t s ....... 189 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I uiish to thank both Professor Andrew R. Thompson and Pro f e s s o r I r v i n g H. Fox f o r t h e i r v aluable guidance and advice during the pre- pa r a t i o n D f t h i s t h e s i s . While Professors Thompson and Fox were my a d v i s o r s , others o f f e r e d advice or supplied i n f o r m a t i o n . Dr. David Bates and Mr. R u s s e l l Anthony of the Royal Commission of Inquiry i n t o Uranium Mining were p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l . I am a l s o deeply indebted to my f e l l o w c l a s s members and f r i e n d s f o r making these two years enjoyable, s t i m u l a t i n g and warm. v i i i FOREWORD On 27 February 1980, the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council approved and ordained Qrder-in-Council No. 442/80. This order, i n d e c l a r i n g a seven year moratorium on uranium e x p l o r a t i o n and mining i n B r i t i s h Columbia, terminated the Royal Commission of I n q u i r y i n t o Uranium Min- i n g . The e v a l u a t i o n presented i n t h i s t h e s i s a p p l i e s to the a c t i v i t i e s of the Commission up to the end of January 1980 and to the o r i g i n a l plans f o r the remainder of the I n q u i r y ; the a n a l y s i s i s unaffected, t h e r e f o r e , by the I n q u i r y ' s sudden termination.;; i x 1 PART I CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n and the Representative System of Government This study evaluates a commission of i n q u i r y process i n B r i t i s h Columbia to determine how s u c c e s s f u l i t i s i n h e l p i n g e l e c t e d represent- a t i v e s r e f l e c t more a c c u r a t e l y t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s ' preferences i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of government p o l i c i e s . Representative government p o s t u l a t e s that e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s r e f l e c t the preferences of t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of government p o l i c i e s (Fox 1978). This c l a s s i c a l form of democratic govern- ment i s not measuring up to the s t r a i n s of modern s o c i e t y (Thompson 1979a). For example, s i n c e I960, economic growth has r e s u l t e d i n devastating environmental p o l l u t i o n . In 1976, p u b l i c opinion p o l l s i n the United States r e g i s t e r e d widespread p u b l i c d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of Congress and governmental regulatory agencies i n c o n t r o l l i n g a i r and water p o l l u t i o n (Zentner 1977); and i n Canada, there was a growing lack of' confidence i n the a c t i v i t i e s of government agencies i n r e l a t i o n to problems of water q u a l i t y and environmental p o l l u t i o n i n the Great Lakes (Lee 1970). Because of the apparent f a i l u r e of current procedures of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e government, there has been a clamour f o r increased p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making, p a r t i c u l a r l y f ocusing on environmental issues (Thompson 1979b). Thus, the concerns of "government have m u l t i p l i e d i n number and complexity w i t h the f o l l o w i n g e f f e c t s : 2 (1) Because s u b s t a n t i a l a n a l y t i c a l resources are required to make in-depth analyses of a l t e r n a t e environmental p o l i c i e s , a f e u agencies monopolize the c a p a b i l i t y to analyse a l t e r n a t i v e s . Hence, a very l i m i t e d range of a l t e r n a t i v e s are examined. (2) Various groups have not been f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the p o l i t i c a l process and may f e e l t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s are not properly represented by ele c t e d o f f i c i a l s . (3) Elected r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s have to r e l y on c i v i l servants f o r i n f o r m a t i o n on which to base t h e i r judgements. How- ever, c i v i l servants do not have a constituency of t h e i r own; hence, i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r them to transmit p u b l i c o p i n i o n on which elected r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s should base t h e i r d e c i s i o n s (Law Reform Commission of Canada 1977; Fox 1978; Lysyk 1978). The d e s i r e f o r increased p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making i s a l s o based upon the e t h i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n that people have a r i g h t to be consulted on d e c i s i o n s that a f f e c t them, and e s p e c i a l l y on those that i n v o l v e the expenditure of p u b l i c funds or that impinge upon i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s . More and more planning and p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y those concerned with environmental q u a l i t y , are of t h i s type i n the resource management f i e l d ( S e w ell 1970). In a d d i t i o n , there i s the pragmatic c o n s i d e r a t i o n that planning and p o l i c y proposals may not garner the neces- sary p u b l i c support, or may r e s u l t i n unpredicted consequences, i f planners and d e c i s i o n makers do not ac c u r a t e l y take p u b l i c preferences i n t o account (Sewell 1970; Thompson 1979a). F i n a l l y , environmental d e c i s i o n making i n - volves both c o g n i t i v e and e v a l u a t i v e judgements ( N a t i o n a l Research Co u n c i l 1977). Since the p u b l i c i s the expert on i t s own values ( H e b e r l e i n 197Gb), the p u b l i c must be consulted i f r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s are to be made. Modern c o n d i t i o n s d i c t a t e , t h e r e f o r e , a more p o p u l i s t form of repre- s e n t a t i v e government; t h a t i s , a governmental system i n which e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are req u i r e d to co n s u l t with t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s between e l e c t i o n s . Such a system, i t i s hypothesized, would enable e l e c t e d 3 re p r e s e n t a t i v e s to r e f l e c t more a c c u r a t e l y the preferences of t h e i r con- s t i t u e n t s i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of government p o l i c i e s * This i s because p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as s o l i c i t e d , f o r example, by a commission of i n - q u i r y , may perform the f o l l o w i n g r o l e s : (1) Provide e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and c i v i l servants w i t h a b e t t e r idea of the p u b l i c ' s p r i o r i t i e s and preferences (Lysyk 1978; OECD 1978; Connor 1979). Although p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n cannot i n v o l v e every- one, i t should help to communicate more accu r a t e l y the views of those who do take part (Fox 1978). (2) Assure that d i f f e r i n g views about a problem and how i t might be solved are understood by government o f f i c i a l s . T his i s of great help i n seeing that a l l a l t e r n a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r d e a l i n g with a problem are considerded (Fox 1978; Connor 1979). In a d d i t i o n , p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n may: (3) Provide u s e f u l information that the c i v i l s e r v i c e , executive or l e g i s l a t u r e had not p r e v i o u s l y come across or conceived of (Lucas 1976; Robbins 1978; Connor 1979). (4) Inform, c l a r i f y and develop p u b l i c awareness and understanding of a complex iss u e (Thompson 1976; Lysyk 1978). (5) Increase p u b l i c confidence i n government (Heber- l e i n 1976a; A. Lucas 1976). In l i g h t of t h i s , i t seems worthwhile to evaluate commissions of i n q u i r y to determine how s u c c e s s f u l l y they f a c i l i t a t e the type of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n that w i l l help e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s r e f l e c t more accur- a t e l y the preferences of t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s . In t h i s study, the B r i t i s h Columbia Royal Commission of Inquiry i n t o Uranium Mining ( h e r e a f t e r r e - 1 f e r r e d to as RCIUM ) i s so evaluated. Two major problems with such an eva l u a t i o n are mentioned below. A l l a b b r e v i a t i o n s used i n t h i s t h e s i s are l i s t e d a f t e r the appen- d i c e s ; see p. 191. Problems of Representation Those who t e s t i f y at a p u b l i c i n q u i r y are not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the p u b l i c at l a r g e (OECD 1978; S i n c l a i r 1978; S a l t e r 1979); indeed, as Head (1971, p. 19) p o i n t s out: ". • • • i t i s almost impossible f o r any one group to represent the d i v e r s e i n t e r e s t s of a l l r e s i d e n t s of any area." Furthermore, the views of w e l l - o r g a n i z e d , a r t i c u l a t e i n t e r e s t groups tend to be given more weight than those of unorganized c i t i z e n s (Fox 1972; Heberlein 1976a and 1976b; S a l t e r 1979). As J o w e l l (1979, p. 141) notes: ". . . . the hearing. . . . provides no way i n which the preferences that are revealed may be ordered." Another problem i s that the views expressed are o f t e n s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d and p a r o c h i a l (People and Planning 1969; O'Riordan 1976). S a l t e r (1979, p. 9) concludes t h a t : ". . . . p a r t i c i p a t i o n u s u a l l y comes from a s m a l l , c o n s e r v a t i v e , middle c l a s s e l i t e anxious to p r o t e c t a l o c a l p r i v i l e g e against what might be a p u b l i c good." Dion (1968), Emond (1975) and Burch (1976) reach a s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n . Problem of N o n - P a r t i c i p a t i o n Most people have no i n t e r e s t i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g at p u b l i c i n q u i r i e s (O'Riordan 1976; Connor 1979). Of those i n d i v i d u a l s and groups wishing to p a r t i c i p a t e , some w i l l not, e i t h e r because they lack the time and/or resources to do so, or because they have l i t t l e f a i t h i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Fox 1978; OECD 1978). Sadler (1978, p. 6) notes t h a t : " N o n - p a r t i c i p a - t i o n becomes an issue where there i s a demand f o r involvement, but the p u b l i c i s e f f e c t i v e l y excluded from review and debate by p o l i t i c a l bureau- cracies.* 1 5 Commissions of Inquiry i n B r i t i s h Columbia Commissions of i n q u i r y are ad hoc» advisory committees e s t a b l i s h e d by government; that i s , they advise government on p o l i c y (Lysyk 1978; Pape 1978; S a l t e r 1979). Normally, t h e i r subject matter concerns more than one m i n i s t r y , and i s urgent and c o n t r o v e r s i a l enough to warrant s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n (Law Reform Commission 1971; Lysyk 1978). In theory, commissions of i n q u i r y are on equal f o o t i n g with the other i n s t i t u t i o n s of government and, once appointed, are not under any m i n i s t e r i a l c o n t r o l . However, they are dependent on government f o r funding and t h e i r mandates can be revoked by o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l (Le Dain 1971; Lysyk 1978). As an i n t r i n s i c p a r t of i t s appointment by government, a commission of i n q u i r y i s given i t s "terms of reference" (Cartwright 1975). The terms of reference are a statement of the problems the commission i s to consider; they are o u t l i n e d i n the o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l e s t a b l i s h i n g the commission (Hanser 1965; Chapman 1973). A commission of i n q u i r y prepares a report c o n t a i n i n g recommendations. Although commission recommendations are not binding on government, examples are r are where they have been completely disregarded (OECD 1978). Not a l l governments are l e g a l l y bound to r e l e a s e the rep o r t to the p u b l i c (as i s the B r i t i s h Columbia government) but i t i s u s u a l l y expedient p o l i t i c a l l y f o r them to do so; otherwise the commission i t s e l f may r e l e a s e the report i f the i n q u i r y proceeds as a p u b l i c hearing ( R i t c h i e 1973). As Le Dain (1971, p. 80) paints out, the r e p o r t : ". . . . can have important e f f e c t s on p u b l i c o p i n i o n and a t t i t u d e s , l e g i s l a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e , and i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s . " P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n may or may not be s o l i c i t e d by a commission of i n q u i r y . Most commissions do s o l i c i t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n , u s u a l l y by 6 holding p u b l i c hearings. Witnesses may make d e p o s i t i o n s i n w r i t i n g , give o r a l statements, or both (Cartwright 1975; Lysyk 1978). The primary r o l e of a commission of i n q u i r y i s to advise (Berger 1977). In order to do t h i s , a commission must i d e n t i f y the i s s u e s w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s of the terms of re f e r e n c e , o b t a i n the r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n and make p o l i c y recommendations (Le Dain 1970). Commissions may perform other than an advisory r o l e . For example, when the subject matter of a commission f a l l s i n the domain of more than one m i n i s t r y , i t may perform an i n t e g r a t i n g r o l e t h a t the normal f u n c t i o n i n g of government cannot ade- quately perform (Thompson 1977; Lysyk 1978). When there i s no general demand f o r p u b l i c involvement but i t i s , nevertheless, r e q u i r e d by law or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e code, a commission performs a r i t u a l i s t i c r o l e (Heberlein 1976a and 1976b; OECD 1978); sometimes, a commission performs an educational r o l e (Hodgetts 1940). The P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act The l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y of the B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act (R.S.BiC- 1960, c. 315) provides the s t r u c t u r a l and f u n c t i o n a l framework f o r commissions of i n q u i r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Under t h i s Act, the Cabinet may e s t a b l i s h a commission of i n q u i r y to advise i t upon: ". . . . any matter connected with the good government of the Province • . . ." ( s . 3 ) . The Act provides f o r the appointment of commissioners and o u t l i n e s t h e i r d u t i e s ( s s . 3,9). The Act a l s o o u t l i n e s the s p e c i f i c powers of commissioners: - to engage the s e r v i c e s of a s e c r e t a r y , c l e r k s and stenographers ( s . 8 ) ; The f e d e r a l I n q u i r i e s Act (R.S.C. 1971, c. 1-13) al s o a p p l i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia but i s not discussed s i n c e RCIUM was e s t a b l i s h e d under the p r o v i n c i a l Act. 7 - to summon witnesses and to c a l l f o r the production of documents ( s . 10); - to compel attendance of witnesses and to punish f o r contempt ( s . 10). A n a t u r a l reading of s e c t i o n 8 of the Act would lead one to b e l i e v e that the draughtsmen of the s t a t u t e intended not to authorize commissioners to appoint l e g a l counsel. However, as noted by Schmitt (1979, p. 14): ". . . . the power to appoint l e g a l counsel does e x i s t as a r e s u l t of the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council's power under s e c t i o n 12(e) of the Act to make p r o v i s i o n s : '(e) g e n e r a l l y , i n respect of a l l such a c t s , matters and t h i n g s , as may be necessary to enable complete e f f e c t to be given to every p r o v i s i o n of t h i s Act.'" I t i s the duty of commissioners appointed to conduct any i n q u i r y under the P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act to report t h e i r f i n d i n g s to the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l . Moreover, every report thus made i s submitted to the L e g i s l a t u r e and hence becomes a p u b l i c document ( s . 9 ) . I t i s apparent t h a t B r i t i s h Columbia's P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act gives to commissioners designated thereunder many of the powers and p r i v i l e g e s of a Judge of the Supreme Court of B r i t i s h Columbia. A c c o r d i n g l y , i t would appear t h a t inherent i n a l l commissions under t h i s Act i s an i n q u i r y process that i s p u b l i c and q u a s i - j u d i c i a l i n character; that i s , conducted i n the p u b l i c view and having regard f o r the p r i n c i p l e s of f a i r n e s s and the r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l s (WCELA 1979). The Royal Commission of In q u i r y i n t o Uranium Mining Why I t Was Set Up The Royal Commission of Inq u i r y i n t o Uranium Mining (RCIUM) was announced on 16 February 1979. In p a r t , i t was set up i n response to the c o n t r o v e r s i a l nature of the uranium mining i n d u s t r y and i n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c a i n t e r e s t i n the uranium question (Hewitt 1979, l e t t e r ) . Uranium deposits have been found i n s e v e r a l l o c a t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. There i s press- ure to develop these resources q u i c k l y because the p r i c e of uranium oxide (U,0 o) has r i s e n from j u s t over |15/kg. i n the e a r l y 1970's to about 3 8 $125/kg. today (EMR Report 1979). There i s a great deal of money to be made. For example, a Canadian mining company, Norcen Energy Resources L i m i t e d , has a c o n d i t i o n a l contract w i t h Korea E l e c t r i c Company f o r the s a l e of 1,965,366 kg. of U,0 Q, worth $300 m i l l i o n (Mews Release, 1979). T o t a l reserves of uranium i n (Moreen's B l i z z a r d property (53 km. southeast of Kelowna) have been estimated at approximately 4,767,000 kg. of U,0_ J o (Loucks et a l . 1979). A number of f a c t o r s should cause the p r i c e of U,0 to f a l l i n the mid-1980's. Therefore, i f B r i t i s h Columbia's deposits are to be e x p l o i t e d , mining companies understandably want to do i t immediately (Schmitt 1979). In response t o a c t i v e uranium e x p l o r a t i o n a l l over the province, about 27 environmental groups have declared t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n to nuclear energy i n g eneral and uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r (Schmitt 1979). In the case of G e n e l l e , a s m a l l r u r a l community i n southeastern B r i t i s h Columbia, o p p o s i t i o n amounted to non-violent p r o t e s t and c i v i l disobedience ( T e r r a l 1979). The r e s u l t a n t media coverage aroused p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n the uranium issue and thereby helped spur the p r o v i n c i a l government i n t o promising a p u b l i c i n q u i r y i n t o the i s s u e . A d d i t i o n a l reasons f o r s e t t i n g up RCIUM were o u t l i n e d by Mr. Hewitt (1979, l e t t e r ) as f o l l o w s : (1) There was a need to provide an assessment: ". . . . of the s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, which would be of s i g n i f i c a n c e i f uranium was mined i n the province." ( 2 ) There were such s i g n i f i c a n t unknowns t h a t a f u l l and open study of the subject /"safety, h e a l t h and environmental p r o t e c t i o n ^ was c a l l e d f o r . " 9 The Terras of Reference On 18 January 1979, the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council announced t h a t , pursuant to the B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act, three Commissioners had been appointed t o : ". . . . i n q u i r e i n t o the adequacy of e x i s t i n g measures to provide p r o t e c t i o n i n a l l aspects of uranium min- ing i n B r i t i s h Columbia." (Order-in-Council No. 170/79). The Commissioners are: (1) Dr. David U. Bates (chairman), professor of medicine and physiology and a s s o c i a t e member of the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, F a c u l t y of Medicine, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia (UBC) w i t h a con s i d e r - able knowledge of occupation and environmental h e a l t h hazards; (2) Dr. James U. Murray, p r o f e s s o r , Department of Geolog- i c a l Sciences, F a c u l t y of G e o l o g i c a l Science, UBC; (3) Mr. Walter Raudsepp, P. Eng., C i v i l Engineer, former Deputy M i n i s t e r i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and former c h a i r - man of the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Board and the P e s t i c i d e s C o n t r o l Appeal Board (PCAB) i n B r i t i s h Columbia, with a thorough knowledge of water resources and h y d r a u l i c engineering - ^Uranium Inquiry Digest (UID) l o j . The terms of reference of RCIUM are o u t l i n e d i n Figure 1 below. They are defined f u r t h e r by the P r e l i m i n a r y Rulings (PR) adopted by RCIUM (see Appendix 1 ) . FIGURE 1 TERMS DF REFERENCE (1) to examine the adequacy of e x i s t i n g f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l requirements f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of the h e a l t h and s a f e t y of workers associated with ex- p l o r a t i o n , mining and m i l l i n g of uranium i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of the environment and of the p u b l i c , and, (2) to re c e i v e p u b l i c input on these matters, and, (3) to make recommendations f o r s e t t i n g and maintaining standards f o r worker and p u b l i c s a f e t y as a r e s u l t of the e x p l o r a t i o n f o r the mining and m i l l i n g of uranium o r e s . ( O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l No. 170/79) 10 Evaluation The Concept of Ev a l u a t i o n The term " e v a l u a t i o n " r e f e r s to the process of making judgements of worth; i t i m p l i e s some l o g i c a l or r a t i o n a l b a s is f o r making such judge- ments. E v a l u a t i o n a l s o encompasses the understanding of the process being evaluated and the r e d e f i n i t i o n of the process i f i t s worth i s found to be low. The process of e v a l u a t i o n has both o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e elements. Thus, o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a are e s t a b l i s h e d as standards of performance and judgements are made as to how s u c c e s s f u l the process being evaluated i s i n meeting these c r i t e r i a (Suchman 1967; S t . P i e r r e 1977). Although some of the measurements made i n an e v a l u a t i o n are q u a n t i t a t i v e , as opposed to i n t u i t i v e (Homenuck et a l . 1978), whatever the type of measurement used, a judgement has to be made as to whether the amount measured was s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y c a l l i n g the process a success (Weiss 1972; Morgenstern et a l . 1979). A very b a s i c d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n the ev a l u a t i o n of any p u b l i c p a r t i - c i p a t i o n program; that i s , not everyone w i l l agree with the f i n a l outcome. I t f o l l o w s from t h i s t h a t one s i g n i f i c a n t way of judging the success of a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program i s to assess i t as a process r a t h e r than to look s o l e l y or predominantly at the r e s u l t s (Nelson 1978). Indeed, as Fox (1976, p. 746) notes: "Since i n s t i t u t i o n a l performance cannot be assessed i n terms of g o a l s , we must make our assessment i n terms of the process by which the course of a c t i o n was decided on." My e v a l u a t i o n of RCIUM i s , t h e r e f o r e , an ongoing e v a l u a t i o n ; that i s , i t does not concern i t s e l f w i t h the f i n a l output of RCIUM but, i n s t e a d , focuses on the RCIUM process. 11 Problems with an Ongoing Evaluation An e v a l u a t i o n t h a t occurs during the operation of a program has two inherent d i f f i c u l t i e s : (1) the presence of the evaluator may i n f l u e n c e the operation of the program, and (2) the evaluator may make demands on program per- sonnel (Morgenstern et a l . 1979). As Weiss (1972, p. 102 notes: Often, the evaluator wants the p r a c t i t i o n e r . . . . to f i l l out forms or submit to in t e r v i e w s and o b s e r v a t i o n . The p r a c t i o n e r i s t r y i n g to get a job done. He f i n d s the i n t r u s i o n time-consum- ing and d i s r u p t i v e . R a t i o n a l e f o r the Eva l u a t i o n L i t t l e e f f o r t has so f a r been devoted to the task of ev a l u a t i n g commission of i n q u i r y processes. This i s unfortunate because, without a systematic approach to e v a l u a t i o n , the worth of any such process i s determined by the i n d i v i d u a l impressions of the people who i n i t i a t e d or p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t . T his type of e v a l u a t i o n i s fraught with the pre- j u d i c e s and biases of a l l i n v o l v e d , and c o n t r i b u t e s l i t t l e to an under- standing of the p o t e n t i a l f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n commissions of i n q u i r y (Ebbin 1974; Homenuck et a l . 1978). By performing an independent e v a l u a t i o n , I hope to make a u s e f u l c o n t r i b u t i o n to the current s t a t e of the a r t . A frequent c r i t i c i s m of eva l u a t i o n s to date i s that they l a c k comprehensiveness (Sewell 1978). As Sewell and P h i l l i p s (1979, p. 357) point out: Most formal evaluations . . . . have been con- ducted from the standpoint of the sponsoring agency. As a consequence, the tendency has been to emphasize the p u r s u i t of agency goals . . . . Assuming t h a t the people's ideology i s a more p o p u l i s t form of repre- s e n t a t i v e democracy, my ev a l u a t i o n i s comprehensive. 12 Any e v a l u a t i o n provides b a s i c information f o r redesigning a process s i n c e i t seeks to determine not j u s t whether a process succeeded or f a i l e d but why i t succeeded or f a i l e d and what can be done about i t (Suchman 1967; Detomasi 1979). I expect my e v a l u a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , to suggest ways i n which the RCIUM process could be r e v i s e d , should t h i s seem ap p r o p r i a t e , such that i t might b e t t e r f a c i l i t a t e the type of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n that w i l l help the f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers r e f l e c t more ac c u r a t e l y the preferences of t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of government p o l i c y on uranium mining i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 13 CHAPTER I I THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Background As i s apparent from Figure 1 ( p . 9 above), the terms of reference of RCIUM have three elements. These elements are i n t e r r e l a t e d . Thus, while the second element, to r e c e i v e p u b l i c i n p u t , i s necessary, as demonstrated below, i n order f o r RCIUM to comply i n a f u l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y way with the f i r s t element ( t o examine the adequacy of e x i s t i n g r e q u i r e - ments r e l a t e d to uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n ) , the r e s u l t s of complying with the f i r s t and second elements must be weighed by RCIUM to a r r i v e at i t s con- c l u s i o n s and recommendations as c a l l e d f o r by the t h i r d element. The f i r s t element of the terms of reference r e q u i r e s the f o l l o w i n g types of i n f o r m a t i o n : (1) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the known impacts upon workers, the p u b l i c and the environment r e - s u l t i n g from the e x p l o r a t i o n , mining and m i l l - ing of uranium, and (2) an e v a l u a t i o n of the known impacts. When one considers t h a t there are major u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s sociated with the impacts of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia where there i s , as y e t , no uranium mining, two f u r t h e r c a t e g o r i e s of information can be recognized: (3) an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p o s s i b l e impacts upon workers, the p u b l i c and the environment r e - s u l t i n g from the e x p l o r a t i o n , mining and m i l l - ing of uranium i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and (4) an e v a l u a t i o n of the p o s s i b l e impacts. In a d d i t i o n to the above, the f i r s t element of the terms of reference r e q u i r e s a f i f t h category of i n f o r m a t i o n , namely: (5) an estimation of the c a p a b i l i t y of e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s (laws and agencies) to implement c o n t r o l s f o r achieving acceptable l e v e l s of impacts* E s s e n t i a l l y , c a t e g o r i e s (1) and (3) above are f a c t u a l types of i n - formation t h a t , presumably, can be de r i v e d s c i e n t i f i c a l l y . However, as noted by Wi l l i a m s et a l . (1976, p. 60S): ". . . . most pieces of tech- n i c a l advice come to have at l e a s t a penumbra of •transcience' • . • .," by which term i s meant questions a r i s i n g from the i n t e r a c t i o n of science- technology and s o c i e t y : ". . • • which can be asked of science and yet which cannot be answered by science." (Weinberg 1972, p. 209). A great many t r a n s - s c i e n t i f i c questions u n d e r l i e the uranium i s s u e . For example, consider the controversy over the b i o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of low l e v e l r a d i a t i o n . Weinberg (1972) de s c r i b e s how, from a p r a c t i c a l view- p o i n t , i t i s impossible to determine at the 95 per cent confidence l e v e l by d i r e c t experiment whether 150 m i l l i r e m s (the accepted y e a r l y dose of r a d i a t i o n exposure) w i l l increase the mutation r a t e by 0.5 per cent (as i s p r e d i c t e d by the l i n e a r dose-response hyp o t h e s i s ) ; to do so would re q u i r e about B b i l l i o n mice! This example transcends science s i n c e to get answers, and hence to reduce the l e v e l of u n c e r t a i n t y , would be im- p r a c t i c a l l y expensive. I n a d d i t i o n to the above, there are two f u r t h e r types of t r a n s - s c i e n t i f i c questions?^concerning: - the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l / i n s t i t u t i o n a l behaviour ( f u r t h e r u n c e r t a i n t y ) ; - the problem of e s t a b l i s h i n g p r i o r i t i e s i n s c i e n c e . 15 Concerning the l a t t e r , Swainson (1976, p. 15) notes t h a t : T e c h n i c a l s p e c i a l i s t s i n e v i t a b l y , . . . ., have t h e i r own views as to what the problems are and where the most l i k e l y roads t D t h e i r s o l u t i o n l i e . T h e i r per- ceptions have a major impact i n determining- the kinds • f data produced, the a l t e r n a t i v e forms of a c t i o n or behaviour assessed, the quantum of resources a l l o c a t e d to t h i s assessment, and the d i v i s i o n of the resources between the assessments. And, as noted by S a l t e r (1979, p. 12): ". . . . the nature of the expert's paradigm has profound impact upon the f i n d i n g s . " T his may be f u r t h e r f r u s t r a t e d by the perso n a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l ( W i l l i a m s et a l . 1976). I t i s imperative, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t p r o v i s i o n be made to ensure that a v a r i e t y of perspectives are brought to bear upon the i n s i g h t s of the experts i n order that they do not skew or m i s d i r e c t the information generated (Swainson 1976). As S a l t e r (1979, p. 12) points out: "There are some s u b j e c t s on which the p u b l i c i s the r e p o s i t o r y of e x p e r t i s e . " For example, l o c a l people are the source of s p e c i a l and expert i n f o r m a t i o n on the impact of development on community l i f e . In a d d i t i o n , community r e s i d e n t s may iden- t i f y impacts that the experts have overlooked. C l e a r l y , there i s an im- portant r o l e f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the impacts of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Information c a t e g o r i e s (2) and ( O (p,„13 above) r e q u i r e measurement of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of impacts. While some impacts can be q u a n t i f i e d i n commonly accepted measures of value ( t h a t i s , i n d o l l a r terms), others cannot be measured i n t h i s way because the market does not f u n c t i o n to measure t h e i r values i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner. Frequently, these l a t t e r types of values are r e f e r r e d to as i n t a n g i b l e s . As Berger (1977, p. 229) notes: " I f you are going to assess impact p r o p e r l y , you have to weigh a whole s e r i e s of matters, some t a n g i b l e , some i n t a n g i b l e . " E s s e n t i a l l y , 16 t h i s i n v o l v e s the weighing of fundamental values* For example, some of the people l i v i n g i n areas where uranium mining may be undertaken object s t r o n g l y to the e f f e c t s of such mining upon the v i s u a l character of the landscape. This a e s t h e t i c value of the landscape must be weighed against many other v a l u e s , f o r example, the monetary value of the U,QD t h a t i s t o j o be e x t r a c t e d by the mining companies. Since the p u b l i c i s the expert on i t s own values ( H e b e r l e i n 197Gb), the p u b l i c must be consulted d i r e c t l y . Uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n i n v o l v e s an important s et of i n t a n g i b l e s that may be r e f e r r e d to as e t h i c a l concerns. For example, because of i t s r a d i o a c t i v e character and the thousands of years i t takes to degrade, uranium can have f a r reaching e f f e c t s upon l i v i n g organisms. I s i t morally r e s p o n s i b l e , with regard to members of f u t u r e generations, to produce a commodity t h a t can have such e f f e c t s upon t h e i r w e l f a r e without g i v i n g them the choi c e as to whether or not they should be exposed to such r i s k s ? Such e t h i c a l dilemnas are unavoidably of general s o c i a l r elevance. F u r t h e r - mare, given that the f u t u r e s of B r i t i s h Columbians, and of t h e i r c h i l d r e n and g r a n d c h i l d r e n , w i l l be a f f e c t e d by the u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n on uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, i t i s extremely important that the c i t i z e n s of t h i s province be given the opportunity t o voi c e t h e i r opinions on the moral questions. In a s i m i l a r v e i n , i t can be argued that p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s on acceptable l e v e l s of r i s k and u n c e r t a i n t y must a l s o be determined. There i s a great deal of r i s k and u n c e r t a i n t y underlying the uranium issue ( f o r example, we do not know the exact e f f e c t s of low l e v e l r a d i a t i o n on human h e a l t h ; nor do we know the as s o c i a t e d r i s k s ) . Since i t i s present and f u t u r e generations of B r i t i s h Columbians that w i l l have to l i v e with these hazards and unknowns, i t i s only f i t t i n g t h a t the p u b l i c be consulted. 17 In summary,, p u b l i c input i s important to ensure adequate compliance with the f i r s t element of RCIUM's terms of reference f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: (a) RCIUM could overlook important i n f o r m a t i o n i f i t does not cast i t s net broadly and e l i c i t i n f ormation from a l l appropriate sources. (b) S c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s i s not completely n e u t r a l . Hence, d i f f e r i n g p erspectives are necessary i n order to a r r i v e at reasonable judgements about the impacts of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. (c) I n s t i t u t i o n a l behaviour i s not subject to pre- c i s e s c i e n t i f i c determination. Thus, the views of a wide range of experts must be e l i c i t e d . (d) The assessment of impacts i n v o l v e s the weighing of b a s i c v a l u e s ; the p u b l i c i s the expert on i t s values and must t h e r e f o r e be c o n s u l t e d . (e) Ulhat c o n s t i t u t e s an acceptable degree of r i s k and u n c e r t a i n t y , and what are appropriate answers to the moral questions underlying the uranium is s u e cannot be d e r i v e d from s c i e n c e . Instead, both must be derived from the p u b l i c . In a d d i t i o n to the above, there i s another reason why p u b l i c input i s important. Adherence to democratic p r i n c i p l e s r e q u i r e s t h a t : - people are informed about the consequences of d e c i s i o n s that w i l l a f f e c t them; - p u b l i c views upon these consequences are weighed by accountable e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n a r r i v - ing at the acceptable p u b l i c p o l i c i e s . The above i m p l i e s that RCIUM must make a p o s i t i v e e f f o r t : - to inform B r i t i s h Columbians of i t s f i n d i n g s ; - to e l i c i t p u b l i c views upon i t s f i n d i n g s ; - to communicate the range of informed p u b l i c views to the f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers. 18 In t o t a l , RCIUM should design a p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n program that meets the f o l l o w i n g broad c r i t e r i a : I . secures a r e l e v a n t body of accurate i n f o r m a t i o n ; I I . informs the p u b l i c of i t s f i n d i n g s ; I I I . e l i c i t s p u b l i c views upon i t s f i n d i n g s ; IV. communicates i t s f i n d i n g s and the range of p u b l i c views to the f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers. To elaborate on the above, c r i t e r i o n I i n v o l v e s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of: - the known and p o s s i b l e impacts of uranium ex- p l o i t a t i o n , some of which w i l l be t a n g i b l e ( f o r example, the economic b e n e f i t s of uranium min- ing) and others of which w i l l be i n t a n g i b l e ( f o r example, many of the s o c i a l c o s t s ) ; - the r i s k s and u n c e r t a i n t y a s s o c i a t e d with uran- ium e x p l o i t a t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g the u n c e r t a i n t y sur- rounding the c a p a b i l i t y of i n s t i t u t i o n s to im- plement c o n t r o l s ) ; - the moral questions underlying the uranium i s s u e . C r i t e r i o n I I r e q u i r e s the communication of t h i s information to the p u b l i c i n a comprehensible manner. C r i t e r i o n I I I i n v o l v e s the e l i c i t a t i o n of informed p u b l i c views on the above such t h a t : - the impacts are evaluated according to the range of value systems held by B r i t i s h Columbians; - the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the r i s k and u n c e r t a i n t y i s determined; - a t t i t u d e s towards the moral questions are under- stood and a p p r e c i a t e d . F i n a l l y , c r i t e r i o n IV n e c e s s i t a t e s the communication to the f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers of: - the r e s u l t s of the impact e v a l u a t i o n s ; - informed p u b l i c views on the r i s k , u n c e r t a i n t y and moral questions attached to the uranium i s s u e , f o r the range of value systems held by B r i t i s h Columbians. 19 The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s i s to evaluate the RCIUM process i n terms of how s u c c e s s f u l l y i t f a c i l i t a t e s the type of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a - t i o n t h a t can help f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers r e f l e c t more a c c u r a t e l y the preferences of t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s i n the formulation of government p o l i c y on uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s suggested that the extent to which the RCIUM process meets c r i t e r i a I to IV above (see p. 18) i s the best p o s s i b l e i n d i c a t i o n of i t s success i n f a c i l i t a t i n g such p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Because RCIUM w i l l not be e l i c i t i n g p u b l i c views upon i t s f i n d i n g s ( c r i t e r i o n I I I ) nor communicating i t s f i n d i n g s and the range of p u b l i c views to government ( c r i t e r i o n IV) u n t i l a f t e r I complete my t h e s i s , I am unable to apply c r i t e r i a I I I and IV. Since the c r i t e r i a are not expressed i n q u a n t i t a t i v e terms, i t i s impossible to provide a p r e c i s e determination of whether or not they are being met by RCIUM. I t i s p a s s i b l e , however, to describe the processes adopted by RCIUM and to i d e n t i f y the l i m i t a t i o n s of what i s being done i n terms of the c r i t e r i a , and then to suggest ways i n which RCIUM could have b e t t e r a r r i v e d at c r i t e r i a I and I I above should such improvement seem appro p r i a t e . Nature of the Ev a l u a t i o n E x t e r n a l E v a l u a t i o n I am an e x t e r n a l evaluator; that i s , I am not hi r e d by RCIUM or by a government agency or by any of the RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s . Ongoing E v a l u a t i o n My e v a l u a t i o n i s an ongoing e v a l u a t i o n ; that i s , i t focuses on the RCIUM process rather than on the outcome. I attended a l l the community hearings (except those held at Fort Nelson) and a s e l e c t number of the t e c h n i c a l hearings. I d i d not attend the inaugural meetings. My study terminated about h a l f way through the t e c h n i c a l hearings' schedule. 20 Im p a r t i a l E v a l u a t i o n I am an i m p a r t i a l e v aluator. I take no p o s i t i o n on the uranium is s u e i n B r i t i s h Columbia; as a matter of p r i n c i p l e , I n e i t h e r support nor oppose uranium mining. Comprehensive E v a l u a t i o n Assuming that B r i t i s h Columbians d e s i r e a more p o p u l i s t form of repre- s e n t a t i v e government, my eva l u a t i o n i s comprehensive. Information Sources My informa t i o n sources are as f o l l o w s : (a) the Commissioners, the RCIUM s t a f f , and the t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s ; (b) RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s . During the e n t i r e course of the study, I maintained repeated contacts with (a) and (b) above. Interviews with various people i n these two categories c o n s t i t u t e d an important source of i n f o r m a t i o n . (c) observations made during the hearings; (d) conversations with members of the audience at the hearings; (e) conversations w i t h people who, while not i n attend- ance at the hearings, have informed opinions on the RCIUM process; ( f ) the RCIUM T r a n s c r i p t s of Proceedings (TP) and assoc- i a t e d e x h i b i t s and statements of evidence; (g) media coverage of RCIUM (newspapers, r a d i o , e t c . ) ; (h) items published by RCIUM. 21 CHAPTER I I I COMMISSION ACTIVITIES I n t r o d u c t i o n Following t h e i r appointment, the RCIUM Commissioners e s t a b l i s h e d an o f f i c e i n Vancouver and h i r e d a s t a f f ( i n c l u d i n g t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s ) to a i d them i n t h e i r work (see Appendix 2 ) . Then, i n order to s a t i s f y t h e i r terms of reference, they decided upon a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s : - p u b l i c s e s s i o n s ; - Commission research; - v i s i t s ; - l i b r a r y network; - p u b l i c i t y ; This chapter describes each type of a c t i v i t y , thereby l a y i n g the ground- work f o r Pa r t I I of the t h e s i s i n which I perform the e v a l u a t i o n . P u b l i c Sessions On the 6 and 16th of March 1979, RCIUM conducted inaugural p u b l i c meetings i n Vancouver and Kelowna r e s p e c t i v e l y . The purpose of these meetings was to give members of the p u b l i c an oppor t u n i t y : ". • . . to express t h e i r views concerning the terms of refere n c e , the timing and conduct of the I n q u i r y , and to di s c u s s how they might e f f e c t i v e l y p a r t i - c i p a t e i n the work of the Commission" (Bates, TP, 1, p. 6 ) . RCIUM i s conducting two d i f f e r e n t and d i s t i n c t sets of p u b l i c hear- ing s ; namely, informal community hearings and formal t e c h n i c a l hearings. 22 The r u l e s of procedure f o r these hearings are o u t l i n e d i n Appendix 1. Community hearings mere held throughout B r i t i s h Columbia from 4?-June 1979 to 4 J u l y 1979, i n communities e i t h e r c l o s e to known uranium d e p o s i t s or c l o s e to areas of i n t e r e s t to the uranium mining i n d u s t r y . The purpose of t h i s f i r s t round of community hearings was to enable l o c a l concerns to be heard and to o b t a i n information from the mining companies (Bates 1979, i n t e r v i e w ) . In t o t a l , seven mining companies presented evidence and about 160 b r i e f s were heard from l o c a l groups and i n d i v i d u a l s (see l i s t , Appen- d i x 3 ) . Witnesses presented t h e i r b r i e f s under oath. A f t e r hearing each b r i e f , the Commissioners, and members of the p u b l i c , i f they so wished, questioned the witness and/or commented on the b r i e f . There was no cross-examination and no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of witnesses by lawyers ( w i t h one e x c e p t i o n ) , although opportunity f o r cross-examination by p a r t i c i p a n t s d i d e x i s t (Letcher 1979, i n t e r v i e w ) . Microphones were used and o f f i c i a l r e p o r t e r s were present s i n c e a complete t r a n s c r i p t of the proceedings at the community hearings was kept. The media were al s o present. The t e c h n i c a l hearings, which commenced on 25 September 1979 and continue' t i l l 27 June 1980, are subdivided i n t o ten phases /see PR No. 5, Appendix lj. They are held at the Devonshire Hotel i n downtown Vancouver. Phase X, however, w i l l be held i n V i c t o r i a . The purpose of these hearings, as explained by Dr. Bates (Vancouver Cable 10"s "Nuclear Crossroads?J 24 September 1979) i s to o b t a i n answers to the "tough" questions, both those suggested by and w i t h i n the terms of reference and those r a i s e d i n the community hearings. Dr. Bates (1979b, l e t t e r ) a l s o sees the t e c h n i c a l hearings as c o n s t i t u t i n g : ". . . . a major process of mutual education." Twenty-five groups, r e f e r r e d to as "major p a r t i c i p a n t s " p a r t i c i p a t e f u l l - t i m e i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings (see l i s t , PR No. 5, Appendix 1 ) . 23 Dr. Bates i s hopeful t h a t the major p a r t i c i p a n t s m i l l r a i s e , between them, s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to answer the "tough" questions r e f e r r e d to above (Vancouver Cable 10*s "Nuclear Crossroads", 2k September 1979). The procedures adopted at the t e c h n i c a l hearings are s i m i l a r , i n many r e s p e c t s , to those of a court of law. Sworn evidence i s presented by witnesses who are then subjected to cross-examination by Commission counsel; by major p a r t i c i p a n t s , some of whom are represented by lawyers; and by members of the p u b l i c , i f they so d e s i r e and i f s u f f i c i e n t time i s a v a i l a b l e . The ordering of witnesses and of cross-examination by major p a r t i c i p a n t s i s at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Commissioners (PR No. 1, B.5.2, Appendix 1 ) . Contrary to PR No. 1, B.5.1, a major p a r t i c i p a n t does not re-examine his/her witness f o l l o w i n g the cross-examination by other major p a r t i c i p a n t s . Neither does a major p a r t i c i p a n t examine h i s / h e r witness during the hearings and p r i o r to the cross-examination. Witnesses are allowed 15-20 minutes i n which to present a summary of t h e i r evidence; t h e i r f u l l statements or evidence are f i l e d w i t h RCIUM. No uniform time l i m i t i s set f o r cross-examination although vigorous l i m i t a t i o n s based on relevance are imposed, and a l l major p a r t i c i p a n t s wish- ing to cross-examine are required to g i v e a time estimate f o r t h e i r quest- ioning to the Executive s e c r e t a r y . As i n the community hearings, o f f i c i a l t r a n s c r i p t r e p o r t e r s and media r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are present. In March 1979, RCIUM created a T e c h n i c a l Advisory Group (TAG) c o n s i s t - ing of Mr. Hodge (research c o o r d i n a t o r ) , Mr. Brawner, Dr. F l e t c h e r , Or. Matthews, Dr. S i n c l a i r and Dr. Morrison (see Appendix 2 ) . In August 1979, TAG was f o r m a l l y d i s s o l v e d because i t s i n i t i a l purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g witnesses and d e f i n i n g t e c h n i c a l questions had come to an end, and the ex p e r t i s e of e x i s t i n g members was recognized as being l i m i t e d (there were no environmental, b i o l o g i c a l or s o c i a l impact e x p e r t s ) ; hence RCIUM drew 2k i n s i x a d d i t i o n a l t e c h n i c a l advisors who are unable to meet on a r e g u l a r b a s i s (Hodge 1980a, i n t e r v i e w ) . A l s o , i n August 1979, RCIUM h i r e d two more research coordinators (Mr. C u l b e r t and Ms. L e x i e r ) i n order to reduce the work load of Mr. Hodge. Hence TAG was replaced by a team of three research c o o r d i n a t o r s and 11 t e c h n i c a l advisors (see Appendix 2 ) . The o r i g i n a l t e c h n i c a l hearings* schedule recognized only four phases (see PR No. 1, Appendix 1 ) . On lk J u l y 1979, RCIUM expanded the schedule t D ten phases (see PR No. 2) s i n c e i t was recognized that the i s s u e was becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y complex as more and more inf o r m a t i o n was made a v a i l - able (Murray 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) . This second schedule was modified i n October 1979, i n that Phase UII was extended by four days and "overflow" hearings were planned f o r February 1980. On 30 October 1979, RCIUM announced an expansion of i t s t e c h n i c a l hearings' schedule from kB days to 66 days i n order to accommodate an increased number of witnesses and to allow f o r the f a c t that cross-exam- i n a t i o n was t a k i n g longer than expected (TP, 32, pp. 5016-8). This was met with a request from a l a r g e number of major p a r t i c i p a n t s to extend the hearings s t i l l f u r t h e r to a t o t a l of 96 days (TP, 35, p. 5569). In r e - sponse, RCIUM announced, on 13 November 1979, that the hearings would be expanded to a t o t a l of 92 days (see PR, No. 5 f o r the current schedule). Major p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to prepare a statement of the conclus- ions that they reach from the t e c h n i c a l hearings. These statements, which w i l l a s s i s t the Commissioners i n reaching t h e i r own c o n c l u s i o n s , are to be discussed at a p u b l i c session a f t e r the completion of the t e c h n i c a l hearings. A second round of community hearings i s scheduled f o r September and October, 1980. In these hearings, the p u b l i c ' s response to the evidence presented i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings w i l l be a s c e r t a i n e d (Bates 1979, speech). 25 Commission Research In March 1979, the RCIUM Commissioners decided upon and i n i t i a t e d f i v e research p r o j e c t s : - a b i b l i o g r a p h i c review of low l e v e l r a d i a t i o n exposure; - a study of the geochemistry of uranium i n n a t u r a l and man-made environments; - a survey of the geology and mineralogy of B r i t i s h Columbia's uranium d e p o s i t s ; - a review of uranium t a i l i n g s d i s p o s a l methods; - a study of n a t u r a l r a d i o a c t i v i t y i n b i o l o g i c a l pathways* (TP, 1, pp. 13-14). These p r o j e c t s were made the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of TAG. In May 1979, the research p r o j e c t s were terminated because they were serving no u s e f u l purpose f o r RCIUM (Hodge 1980d, i n t e r v i e w ) . The s o l e output of TAG's research was a report on uranium mining and waste d i s p o s a l and a b i b l i o g r a p h y on e p i d e m i o l o g i c a l data from miners (Bates 1980c, i n t e r - view). RCIUM has sin c e authorized about eight research s t u d i e s . For example: (1) An assessment of the environmental impacts through b i o l o g i c a l pathways of uranium mining and m i l l i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia by the B a t e l l e Memorial I n s t i - t u t e of R i c h l a n d , Washington. (2) An a p p r a i s a l of the p o s s i b l e b e n e f i t s of b a c t e r i a l - l y - a s s i s t e d f e r r i c i r o n l e a c h i n g of uranium ores by B r i t i s h Columbia Research. (3) A study on the a p p l i c a t i o n of i r r i g a t i o n and f e r - t i l i z e r to p o s t - g l a c i a l uranium i n the s o i l by Dr. L a v k u l i c h , Department of S o i l Science, UBC . (C u l b e r t 1980e, i n t e r v i e w ) » 26 V i s i t s In A p r i l and May, 1979, the RCIUM Commissioners v i s i t e d a number of e x t r a p r o v i n c i a l uranium mines i n order to acquaint themselves w i t h "con- temporary problems" (Bates 1979, speech). Appendix 4 l i s t s some of the observations made during these v i s i t s . The Commissioners are planning f u r t h e r v i s i t s to uranium mine s i t e s i n February and J u l y , 19BD. In Feb- ruary, Dr. Bates and B r i g a d i e r General Danby (the Executive s e c r e t a r y ) w i l l v i s i t the A u s t r a l i a n uranium mining i n d u s t r y , while Dr. Murray and Mr. Raudsepp w i l l v i s i t the Japanese uranium mining i n d u s t r y ; and, i n J u l y , Dr. Bates and Dr. Murray w i l l v i s i t a number of uranium mines i n Saskatchewan (Bates 1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . Concurrent w i t h the f i r s t round of community hearings, the Commissioners, together w i t h c e r t a i n members of TAG and l o c a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s , v i s i t e d a l l uranium deposits i n B r i t i s h Columbia; at l e a s t , those d e p o s i t s then known to RCIUM (TP, 6, p. 548). Appendix 4 l i s t s the d e p o s i t s v i s i t e d . As explained by Or. Bates (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) , the reason the Commissioners wanted to see the de p o s i t s f o r themselves was t w o f o l d : (1) "The Department of Mines i n V i c t o r i a had incomplete knowledge of the p r e c i s e s t a t u s of e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t y . Ide f e l t i t was necessary to know t h i s s t a t u s . " (2) "QJe wanted to be able to form an o p i n i o n on the v a l i d i t y of p u b l i c input about hazards. . . . For example, there was a huge p u b l i c outcry about r i s k at G e n e lle. Ule went to see i f what they were say- ing was t r u e : f o r example, was t h e i r water supply c l o s e to the d e p o s i t . • . .?" On 15 August 1979, the Commissioners sent t h e i r F i r s t I n t e r i m Report on Uranium Mining ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as the I n t e r i m Report) to the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l . P a r t s of t h i s r e p o r t are reproduced i n Appendix 5. The Report contains a l i s t of i n i t i a l recommendations concern- ing uranium e x p l o r a t i o n that the Commissioners f e l t should be brought to the government's immediate a t t e n t i o n . These recommendations are based, i n p a r t , on the observations made by the Commissioners at the uranium deposits (see p.71 below). L i b r a r y Network The RCIUM l i b r a r y ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as 'the L i b r a r y ' ) was e s t a b l i s h e d at the beginning of A p r i l 1979 i n the same b u i l d i n g as the RCIUM o f f i c e . I t contains a c o l l e c t i o n of: - books; - j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s ; - maps; - p e r i o d i c a l s ; - m i c r o f i c h e s ; - T r a n s c r i p t s of Proceedings; - statements of evidence; - e x h i b i t s ; - l e g i s l a t i o n ; - v i d e o c a s s e t t e s ; - e x p l o r a t i o n r e p o r t s ; - responses to Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n Questionnaire. This c o l l e c t i o n serves the needs of the Commissioners, the RCIUM s t a f f , the t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s , RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s and i n t e r e s t e d members of the p u b l i c (Uranium Information Centre Fact Sheet 1980). The L i b r a r y i s open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. In a d d i t i o n , as of 2 October 1979, i t i s open on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and on Saturday mornings from 9:Q0 a.m. to 12:00 noon, of weeks i n which the t e c h n i c a l hearings are i n s e s s i o n (TP, 248, pp. 3235-6). 28 The RCIUM l i b r a r i a n , Miss M c C a l l , maintains up-to-date Accession L i s t s of a l l the items i n the L i b r a r y , A I S D a v a i l a b l e i s a l i s t of 1';;::- l i b r a r i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia (depository l i b r a r i e s ) that hold copies of the T r a n s c r i p t s of Proceedings, statements of evidence, Accession L i s t s and the Interim Report, Copies of the e x h i b i t s are not sent to the d e p o s i t o r y l i b r a r i e s ; the e x h i b i t s , however, at l e a s t those f o r the t e c h n i c a l hearings, are s i m i l a r i n content to the corresponding statements of evidence (McCall 1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . F i n a l l y , a l i s t of depository l i b r a r i e s t h a t hold e d i t e d videocassettes of the f i r s t two phases of the t e c h n i c a l hearings and f a c i l i t i e s f o r viewing these can be obtained from Miss M c c a l l . Appendix 6 l i s t s the depositary l i b r a r i e s . B o o k s , j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s and m i c r o f i c h e s are added to the L i b r a r y c o l l e c t i o n as and when they are r e f e r r e d to or requested by the Commissioners, RCIUM s t a f f , RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s or i n t e r e s t e d members of the p u b l i c (McCall 1979d, i n t e r v i e w ) . The i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i o n adopted by Miss M c C a l l i s t h a t , while she attempts to r e f l e c t a l l s i d e s of the argument i n her s e l e c t i o n of m a t e r i a l s f o r the L i b r a r y , the items must be r e l e v a n t to RCIUM 1s terms of reference (McCall 1980a, i n t e r v i e w ) . There are about f i f t e e n s e t s of maps i n the L i b r a r y , i l l u s t r a t i n g such t h i n g s as: - the l o c a t i o n of mineral claims i n B r i t i s h Columbia; - the l e v e l of uranium i n streanv waters and stream sediments i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of B r i t i s h Columbia. In a d d i t i o n , there i s a map prepared by the RCIUM s t a f f e n t i t l e d : D i s t r i b u t i o n of Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n M i n e r a l Claims and Ra d i o a c t i v e Occurrences i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The L i b r a r y s u b s c r i b e s to about 30 d i f f e r e n t p e r i o d i c a l s r e f l e c t i n g the i n t e r e s t s of environmental groups, government agencies, mining 29 companies and pro-nuclear a s s o c i a t i o n s * In a d d i t i o n , the L i b r a r y r e c e i v e s s e v e r a l s c i ence j o u r n a l s and three d a i l y newspapers. In a l e t t e r addressed to UJCELA , (25 A p r i l 1979), Mr. Anthony, Com- mission counsel, explained that RCIUM was: ". . . • prepared to enter i n t o an agreement with UJCELA f o r the f o l l o w i n g research s e r v i c e s : . . . . (UICELA) w i l l h i r e one f u l l time student of law to research the law and p r a c t i s e i n e f f e c t i n B r i t i s h Columbia and s e l e c t e d other j u r i s d i c t i o n s as i t r e l a t e s to a l l of those i s s u e s f a l l i n g w i t h the terms of r e f e r - ence of/"RCIUM.?. . . . The research w i l l i n c l u d e a l l f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada, p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n i n other provinces of Canada and l e g i s l a t i o n i n the United States of America and other j u r i s d i c t i o n s of i n t e r e s t to the I n q u i r y . This research was conducted by Ms. Edwards from 1 May to 30 September, 1979. As a r e s u l t , the L i b r a r y contains some twenty volumes of l e g i s l a t i o n . The L i b r a r y contains e x p l o r a t i o n r e p o r t s from about 80 mining com- panies t h a t are, or have been, e x p l o r i n g a c t i v e l y f o r uranium i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and the responses of k& mining companies to a Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n Questionnaire (October 1979)* This questionnaire was sent, at the end of October 1979, to 5k mining companies t h a t RCIUM had i d e n t i f i e d as ex p l o r - ing f o r uranium i n B r i t i s h Columbia ( C u l b e r t 1980a, i n t e r v i e w ) . Included i n the Questionnaire are such requests as: - "Has your company taken out reclamation permits covering uranium e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia?" - "Are you in v o l v e d i n uranium e x p l o r a t i o n on or near I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n s ? " - "Are alpha and gamma l e v e l ground surveys done over s i t e s of d i s r u p t i v e e x p l o r a t i o n ? " In accordance with PR No. 1, B. 3.1 and B. 3.2 (see Appendix 1 ) , the L i b r a r y contains l i s t s of documents held by the B r i t i s h Columbia govern- ment, the f e d e r a l government, various boards and agencies, RCIUM major 30 p a r t i c i p a n t s and RCIUM, that are r e l e v a n t to the subject matter before RCIUM. Enclosed with each l i s t are d e t a i l s of how to obta i n documents, at l e a s t , those that are p u b l i c . The documents l i s t e d by RCIUM are a l l i n the L i b r a r y ; so too are those l i s t e d by the Atomic Energy C o n t r o l Board, Atomic Energy of Canada Lim i t e d (AECL), and the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission of R a d i o l o g i c a l P r o t e c t i o n , and that Miss McCall could get access t o . Miss McCall (1980d, i n t e r v i e w ) was d i r e c t e d : . . . . not to attempt to r e t r i e v e a l l the documents l i s t e d by the major p a r t i c i p a n t s but to be aware of where they could be located should i t be necessary to use them. P u b l i c i t y RCIUM sent p u b l i c n o t i c e s to a l l major newspapers i n B r i t i s h Columbia announcing: - the dates and l o c a t i o n s of the inaugural p u b l i c meetings, the community hearings and the t e c h n i c a l hearings; - the purpose of the various p u b l i c s e s s i o n s ; - the g u i d e l i n e s f o r funding of p a r t i c i p a n t s ; - the r e v i s e d schedules of the t e c h n i c a l hearings. In a d d i t i o n , RCIUM d i s t r i b u t e s f a c t sheets on the l i b r a r y network (Commission l i b r a r y p l u s depository l i b r a r i e s ) to i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s . In September 1979, RCIUM h i r e d the s e r v i c e s of a Mr. Grant and a Mr. Shaw to report on RCIUM'sapraeeedings. Mr. Grant i s RCIUM's news release o f f i c e r . His s e l e c t i o n was the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the a d v e r t i s - ing agency with which RCIUM placed a con t r a c t (Bates 1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) . He i s independent of RCIUM, and the informat i o n i n h i s r e l e a s e s does not r e f l e c t , n e c e s s a r i l y , the views of RCIUM. Mr. Grant issues a news r e - lease on each day that the t e c h n i c a l hearings are i n s e s s i o n . 31 Mr. Shaui w r i t e s , and i s e d i t o r o f , the Uranium Inquiry Digest (UID). L i k e Mr. Grant, he i s independent of RCIUM, and undertakes: ". . . . to re p o r t , o b j e c t i v e l y , the varying viewpoints expressed by those making submissions to the Commission." (UID 15). UID i s : " . . . . produced and d i s t r i b u t e d a f t e r each phase of the . . . . t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n s " and "• • . • i s . • . • sent to 269 p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s i n B.C. as w e l l as nearly 600 i n t e r e s t groups, i n d i v i d u a l s , mining companies, news media and major p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the I n q u i r y . " (UID 1 ) . By issue number 10 (5-15 February 19B0), about 1500 people had w r i t t e n to RCIUM asking f o r a s u b s c r i p t i o n (Bates ;19B0c, i n t e r v i e w ) . The Metro Media A s s o c i a t i o n of Greater Vancouver was contracted by RCIUM to videotape the proceedings at the t e c h n i c a l hearings. The un- edited videotapes are shown an Vancouver Cable 10, and as of the beginning of December 1979, on cable t e l e v i s i o n i n the i n t e r i o r and on Vancouver I s l a n d on a one-day delayed b a s i s from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. an Wednes- day to Saturday i n c l u s i v e of the weeks i n which the hearings are i n se s s i o n (TP, 44, p. 7499). Mr. C u l b e r t , RCIUM research c o o r d i n a t o r , i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r producing the ed i t e d v i deocassettes of each phase of the t e c h n i c a l hearings. As of the end of January 1980, only those f o r the f i r s t two phases had been completed; Mr. Culbert (1980f, i n t e r v i e w ) had not had time to do more. RCIUM s t a f f have been interviewed by the media on a number of occas- i o n s . For example, Dr. Bates had appeared on Canadian Broadcasting's (CBC's) "Evening News" (9 June 1979); Vancouver Cable 10's "Nuclear Cross- roads" (24 September 1979); and Vancouver Cable B's "Jack Webster Show" (24 January 19B0); and both Dr. Bates and Mr. Anthony were interviewed on Vancouver Co-Op Radio's "Legal S e r v i c e s Commission" (26 A p r i l 1979). , In a d d i t i o n , Dr. Bates made a speech at Simon Fr a s e r ' s U n i v e r s i t y ' s (SFU's) "Nuclear Awareness Week" (10 October 1979). 32 PART I I Preface to Pa r t I I The second part Df the t h e s i s c o n s i s t s of the evaluation of the RCIUM process against the f i r s t two of the four broad c r i t e r i a l i s t e d on p. 18 above. Chapters IV and V contain the evaluations against c r i t e r i a I and I I r e s p e c t i v e l y ; Chapter VI contains recommendations and c o n c l u s i o n s . Each of Chapters IV and V are d i v i d e d i n t o a number of s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n ("Introduction") l i s t s RCIUM a c t i v i t i e s that are relevant to the c r i t e r i o n under examination. Each of the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s (one f o r each r e l e v a n t a c t i v i t y ) are d i v i d e d i n t o three p a r t s : - "Questions to be Addressed" i n the e v a l u a t i o n ; - " A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n " (the a c t u a l e v a l u a t i o n ) ; - " L i m i t i n g F a c t o r s " (an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those f a c t o r s that i n f l u e n c e the extent to which the c r i t e r i o n i s not being met, i f , t h i s i s the case). I t i s argued that there are two orders of l i m i t i n g f a c t o r s , higher order and lower order. Higher order f a c t o r s i n c l u d e RCIUM's terms of refer e n c e ; the nature of the uranium i s s u e ; p o l i t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s ; com- missio n e r s ' powers as conferred by the P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act; RCIUM's budget; and the p r o v i s i o n of government funding f o r major p a r t i c i p a n t s i n RCIUM. In cases where these f a c t o r s operate to l i m i t the degree to which a p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n i s met, RCIUM cannot be held r e s p o n s i b l e . Lower order f a c t o r s i n c l u d e the Commissioners* understanding of the i n q u i r y process; the choice of methods f o r gathering and r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ; RCIUM's i n - t e r p r e t a t i o n of the use of i t s powers; and the c a p a b i l i t i e s and biases of the Commissioners, the RCIUM s t a f f and the t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s . These l i m i t - - ing f a c t o r s are self-imposed, and i n cases where they reduce the degree to which a p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n i s met, there are major o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r im- provement. The f i n a l s e c t i o n ("Summation") i n each of Chapters IV and V discusses RCIUM's o v e r a l l success i n meeting the p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n under examination. 33 CHAPTER IV CRITERION I : SECURE A RELEVANT BODY OF ACCURATE INFORMATION I n t r o d u c t i o n As described on p. IB above, a r e l e v a n t body of informa t i o n c o n s i s t s of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f : - the known and p o s s i b l e impacts of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n ; - the r i s k s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s sociated w i t h uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n ; - the moral questions underlying the uranium i s s u e . RCIUM's a c t i v i t i e s p e r t a i n i n g to c r i t e r i o n I are: - p u b l i c s e s s i o n s ; - Commission research; - v i s i t s ; - l i b r a r y network. P u b l i c Sessions Questions to be Addressed With i s s u e s that are c l e a r l y s c i e n t i f i c i n nature, the academic system of hypothesis and proof, conducted through s c i e n t i f i c congresses and published j o u r n a l s , i s used to a r r i v e at s c i e n t i f i c c o nclusions (Thompson 1976). However, as Weinberg (1972, pp 215, 216) notes: Where the questions r a i s e d cannot be answered from e x i s t - ing s c i e n t i f i c knowledge or from research which can be c a r r i e d out reasonably r a p i d l y and without d i s p r o p o r t i o n - ate expense, • • • • the adversary procedure seems . . . . to be the best a l t e r n a t i v e . 3k . . . . t h i s procedure • . • • has considerable merit i n f o r c i n g s c i e n t i s t s to be more honest, to say where science ends and t r a n s - s c i e n c e begins, as w e l l as to help weigh the e t h i c a l issues which u n d e r l i e . . . » ^ s o c i e t a l j c h o i c e s . . . . And as Thompson (1976, p. 20) points out: . . . . t e c h n i c a l . . . . accuracy, and sounder judge- ment and opinion are more l i k e l y to p r e v a i l where there has been f u l l d i s c l o s u r e and open challenge i n an ad- versary fashion . . . . The questions presented by the uranium issue are complex and many of them transcend s c i e n c e . I t i s argued, t h e r e f o r e , that the adversary process, as i s adopted at RCIUM's t e c h n i c a l hearings, provides a s i g n i f - i c a n t opportunity f o r a r r i v i n g at a r e l e v a n t body of accurate i n f o r m a t i o n . For such to occur, the adversary process must e x h i b i t the f o l l o w i n g char- a c t e r i s t i c s (Thompson 1976, p. 21): (1) There must be present e f f e c t i v e a d v e r s a r i e s who can take advantage of d i s c l o s u r e requirements, assemble competing t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n and p e r s i s t i n the hearings through the procedures of cross-examining witnesses and presenting t h e i r own cases. (2) A l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s must be represented by such a d v e r s a r i e s . The questions that a r i s e from the above are: (a) Are a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s represented during the process by RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s ( a d v e r s a r i e s ) ? (b) Are p a r t i c i p a n t s able to summon a l l r e l e v a n t witnesses? (c) I s there opportunity to cross-examine a l l witnesses? (d) Are a l l r e l e v a n t documents made a v a i l a b l e ? (e) I s there opportunity to assemble and present competing evidence? ( f ) I s there s u f f i c i e n t time i n which to study m a t e r i a l s , and to prepare witnesses and cross-examination? (g) Are adequate resources made a v a i l a b l e to do the above? 35 The purpose of the f i r s t round of community hearings utas: "• • . . to give the Commissioners the opportunity of understanding the l o c a l i s s u e s f a c i n g these communities that could be a f f e c t e d by uranium mining i n B r i t i s h Columbia." (Vancouver Express, 7 May 1979). In other words, there was opportunity to l e a r n from community people about known and p o s s i b l e l o c a l impacts of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n . Given t h i s purpose, i t i s f a i r to ask only question (a) above of the f i r s t round community hearings. In a d d i t i o n , i t i s necessary to ask whether RCIUM devoted s u f f i c i e n t time to hearing l o c a l concerns, s i n c e although most a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s may have been represented at the community hearings, they may not have been given the a t t e n t i o n they merited. I t was made apparent during the a c t u a l proceedings, that the pur- pose of the f i r s t round community hearings was a l s o : ". . • • to provide infor m a t i o n to the Commission and to the community on mining a c t i v i t y • . • . " (Anthony, TP, 3, p. 33); th a t i s , the hearings were to have an educative value ( C r i t e r i o n I I ) . I t i s argued that the in f o r m a t i o n r e - ceived by RCIUM from the mining companies should be challenged w i t h i n an adversary format. T h i s , i n f a c t , d i d occur during the t e c h n i c a l hearings (which are f u l l y evaluated against c r i t e r i o n I ) , although not i n the f i r s t round community hearings. P u b l i c views on the information presented i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings are to be e l i c i t e d i n the second round community hearings (see p.-2k above). These hearings do not q u a l i f y , t h e r e f o r e , f o r e v a l u a t i o n against c r i t e r i o n I . 36 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n Community Hearings Were a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s represented? I n d i v i d u a l s and or g a n i z - a t i o n s wishing to appear before RCIUM at a community hearing were required (1) w r i t e immediately to inform the Executive s e c r e t a r y , and (2) prepare a b r i e f to be forwarded to the Executive s e c r e t a r y p r i o r to t h e i r appearance before the Commission ( P u b l i c N o t i c e , Vancouver Express, 16 February 1979) There was opportunity, however, f o r i n f o r m a l p r e s e n t a t i o n to be made be- for e RCIUM without p r i o r n o t i c e being g i v e n . L o c a l people experienced a number of inconveniences concerning the timing of the community hearings. In the Kootenays, the hearings coincided with the ranchers' s p r i n k l i n g season, while i n the C h i l c o t i n ( W i l l i a m s Lake and Vanderhoof), they c o i n c i d e d w i t h the haying season. Daytime sessions were inconvenient f o r working people; however, evening sessions were held i n a l l the communities v i s i t e d . S e veral p a r t i c i p a n t s complained about the f o r m a l i t y of the proceed- ings adopted i n the f i r s t round community hearings. For example, Mr. Poole of the Committee f o r the C l e a r K e t t l e V a l l e y made the f o l l o w i n g comments (TP, 9, pp. 1282-3): We found ourselves i n a p h y s i c a l arrangement which, i n our o p i n i o n , was not designed to encourage dialogue or maximize p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p o s i t i o n of the Commissioners on a r a i s e d p l atform f a c i n g the assemblage suggested adversaries r a t h e r than comrades i n a common search f o r t r u t h . The ne c e s s i t y of being c a l l e d upon and of walking to a microphone before one could speak discouraged spontaneity and overlooked the f a c t that many people are more comfortable with speaking o f f the c u f f than reading a prepared s t a t e - ment. 37 . . . • What uie are g e t t i n g at i s [ t h a t ] t h e process . . . . seems formal enough to i n t i m i d a t e some people. 'It i s not s u r p r i s i n g that such comments were made about the f o r m a l i t y of the proceedings. For example, because the t r a n s c r i p t r e p o r t e r s , whose presence i t s e l f was somewhat daunting, had to see who was speaking, the l a y - out i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 2 ; below was e s s e n t i a l ; that i s , people could not s i t between the reporters and the witness t a b l e but had to s i t at some d i s - tance away from the Commissioners (Bemininster 19B0, i n t e r v i e w ) . At C a s t l e - gar, there was about 30 f e e t between the Commissioners and the audience. A d d i t i o n a l aspects that c o n t r i b u t e d to the f o r m a l i t y of the proceedings i n - cluded the f o l l o w i n g : - there were press r e p o r t e r s and a videotape crew at most of the community hearings; - sometimes the Commissioners sat on a r a i s e d p l a t f o r m ; - the Commissioners dressed f o r m a l l y ( s u i t s and t i e s ) . FIGURE 2 LAYOUT AT COMMUNITY HEARINGS Commissioners s s i o n n s e l n s c r i p t o r t e r s Audience LEGEND » MICROPHONE CABLE 38 Although the witnesses appearing at the f i r s t round community hear- ings represented a wide range of i n t e r e s t s (see Appendix 3 ) , except at Williams Lake, Vanderhoof, and Fort Nelson, those p a r t i c i p a t i n g were few i n comparison to the t o t a l number of people i n the audiences (see Figure 3 below), and sin c e they were few, i t i s probable that they were d i f f e r - ent from s o c i e t y as a whole ( H e b e r l e i n 1976a). Thus, based on my own observations, i t seemed that there were three d i s t i n c t groups of p a r t i - c i p a n t s : - p r o f e s s i o n a l experts (mining company r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , p r o f e s s o r s , lawyers, medical doctors and others) who were not i n t i m i d a t e d by the s e t t i n g ; - p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s who had s u f f i c i e n t l y high motivation to p a r t i c i p a t e ( i n d i v i d u a l s who would be d i r e c t l y and sev e r e l y a f f e c t e d by uranium mining); - i n d i v i d u a l s who were not p a r t i c u l a r l y aware of the behavioural norms of the s e t t i n g o r , i f aware, were not i n t i m i d a t e d by these norms ( t h e i r t e s t i m o n i e s tended to be l o n g , rambling and often impassioned). FIGURE 3 NUMBER OF WITNESSES AT THE COMMUNITY HEARINGS Loc a t i o n of hearing Number of people i n audience at most attended s e s s i o n T o t a l number of witnesses Number of witnesses as a percentage of audience s i z e Kelowna Clearwater Kamloops Rock Creek Grand Forks Castlegar Williams Lake Vanderhoof Fort Nelson A t l i n 6 100 150 200 60 150 250 100 25 80 28 22 18 16 23 26 9 7 0 17 18.67 11.00 30.00 10.67 9.20 26.00 36.00 8.75 0.00 17. 00 To summarize, the f o r m a l i t y of the proceedings adopted at the f i r s t round community hearings, together w i t h the timing inconveniences, poss- i b l y l i m i t e d the Commissioners' success i n hearing about l o c a l concerns. In a d d i t i o n those p a r t i c i p a t i n g were probably not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of s o c i e t y as a whole. Was s u f f i c i e n t time devoted to hearing l o c a l concerns? Judging from the f o l l o w i n g comments, the RCIUM Commissioners were more i n t e n t upon o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from mining companies than upon hearing l o c a l concerns at the f i r s t round community hearings: (1) CBC's "Evening Mews", 9 June 1979. Moderator: Have the major l i n e s of debate come out? Bates: Yes. The major reason f o r coming /"to the communities_7 i s to understand the communities' i n t e r e s t s . A l l the aspects have come out; f o r example, t a i l i n g s , d i s p o s a l , i r r i g a t i o n water . . . . Moderator: Has anything s u r p r i s e d you? Bates: No. Anyone who knows anything about t h i s i n d u s t r y /uranium mining,/ i n B r i t i s h Columbia should r e a l i z e what a l l the concerns are /my emphasis^. (2) Ms. S t a i r s , RCIUM community r e l a t i o n s consultant (I960 i n t e r v i e w ) : I t i s my f e e l i n g that the Commissioners saw these hearings as t e c h n i c a l sessions w i t h a com- munity component. In a d d i t i o n : - the mining companies presented t h e i r b r i e f s f i r s t ; - mining company r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s occupied the witness stand f o r c o n s i d e r a b l e lengths of time r e l a t i v e to other witnesses (see Figure U,, page. kO, below). 4o FIGURE 4 TIME DEVOTED TO MINING COMPANIES IN THE COMMUNITY HEARINGS Loc a t i o n of hearing Approximate d u r a t i o n of hearing Cmins.) Approximate length of time devoted to mining companies (mins.) Percentage of t o t a l time devoted to mining companies Comments Kelouina 570 205 36.0 Clearwater 315 120 38.1 (Kamloops 300 85 28.3 Rock Creek 336 142 42.3 Grand Forks 290 65 22.4 ! Castlegar 430 43 i i 1 10.0 Stampede I n t e r n a t i o n a l Co. announced i t s d e c i s i o n to cease ex- p l o r a t i o n . W illiams Lake 130 0 0 No companies j appeared. Vanderhoof 140 0 0 As above. F o r t Nelson - - - As above. A t l i n - - - No data. At the Kelowna hearing, Dr. Bates (TP, 3, p. 35) s a i d that the mining companies presented t h e i r b r i e f s f i r s t s i n c e i t was f e l t that an assess- ment of the present s t a t u s of e x p l o r a t i o n and p o s s i b l e plans f o r develop- ment: ". • • . were e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n to get i n t o the record at the f i r s t and e a r l i e s t stage." Many p a r t i c i p a n t s were confused about the exact purpose of the f i r s t round community hearings. For example, at the Kelowna hearing, Mr. Chataway of the Okanagon Greenpeace Foundation expressed the concern t h a t these sessions should not be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as p u b l i c hearings ( f o r which a l l groups have had the resources with which to prepare b r i e f s ) , but r a t h e r 41 as community meetings (TP, 3, pp. 8-9). Mr. Anthony, Commission counsel. (TP, 3, p. 35) i n t e r p r e t e d Mr. Chataway's concern as f o l l o w s : . . . . The Qkanagan Greenpeace has some s e r i o u s concerns about t h e i r a b i l i t y t o e f f e c t i v e l y p a r t i - c i p a t e i n these s e s s i o n s . . . . w h i l e the companies have had the time and the resources to make pre- s e n t a t i o n s . . . . these • • • • w i l l stand l a r g e l y unchallenged by groups who may disagree with even the f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n . . . . and because of that . . . . these sessions . . . . may turn out . . . . to be more of a hearing than an i n f o r m a t i o n a l sess- i o n , and the community groups not having the time and the resources could not e f f e c t i v e l y p a r t i c i - pate • • • • Or. Bates d i d not acknowledge a d i f f e r e n c e between p u b l i c hearings and i n f o r m a t i o n a l s e s s i o n s . As a r e s u l t , many p a r t i c i p a n t s understood the f i r s t round community hearings t o be p u b l i c hearings, and hence numerous complaints were heard about the d i f f i c u l t y of preparing r e l e v a n t b r i e f s f o r these s e s s i o n s . Several p a r t i c i p a n t s complained t h a t the community hearings had been convened too h a s t i l y and that they had not been able to prepare adequately (see, f o r example, TP, 4, p. 461). Indeed, d e t a i l s of the dates and l o c a t i o n s of the f i r s t round community hearings d i d not appear i n the press u n t i l the end of A p r i l 1979 ( C h a r l t o n 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) . In a d d i t i o n , much time was spent hearing about the d i f f i - c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i n o b t a i n i n g r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . For example, at the Kelowna hearing, Mrs. Madsen of the S i e r r a Club and Mr. Moelaert of the Canadian C o a l i t i o n f o r Nuclear R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (CCNR) each took about 30 minutes d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r s t r u g g l e s t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on the uranium e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s of mining companies i n B r i t i s h Columbia (see TP, k, pp. 421-2 and pp. 288-95 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . At the inaugural p u b l i c meetings, Dr. Bates (TP, 1, pp. 3-4) ex- plained how the Commissioners had i n t e r p r e t e d RCIUM's terms of reference: k2 tile are committed to ensuring that a l l the relevant evidence i s brought before us r e l a t i n g to the • . . • terms of re f e r e n c e . That does not mean th a t a l l of the many iss u e s a r i s i n g out of the nuclear f u e l c y c l e or the use of nuclear energy are w i t h i n t h i s Commission's terms of re f e r e n c e . For example, i t seems c l e a r to us that the saf e t y aspects of segments of the nuclear f u e l c y c l e that go beyond mining and m i l l i n g f o r uranium such as the s a f e t y of nuclear r e a c t o r s . . . . are not w i t h i n our terms of re f e r e n c e . Nor are we d i r e c t e d to give advice . . . . an the comparative b e n e f i t s or hazards of nuclear energy compared with d i f f e r e n t methods of energy generation. But having s a i d t h a t , the words i n the Ord e r - i n - C o u n c i l . . . . d i r e c t us to examine the adequacy of measures designed . . . . "For the p r o t e c t i o n of the environment and the p u b l i c " These are very general words and we c e r t a i n l y have every i n t e n t i o n of l i s t e n i n g to any issues which any member of the p u b l i c wishes to present to us bearing on the general question of p u b l i c well-being and environmental p r o t e c t i o n a r i s i n g out of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n and mining. Despite these words, the Commissioners l i s t e n e d to numerous b r i e f s during the f i r s t round community hearings t h a t were o u t s i d e RCIUM*s terms of referenc e , at l e a s t as i n t e r p r e t e d by the Commissioners. They d i d not point t h i s out during the course of the hearings, but, i n s t e a d , allowed people to b e l i e v e that they had not narrowed the debate to the extent i n d i c a t e d at the in a u g u r a l meetings. T h e i r reason f o r so doing, as explained by Dr. Bates (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) , was as f o l l o w s : . . . . Ule /"the Commissioners^ had to be p a t i e n t . . . . hearing views and questions o u t s i d e our terms of r e f e r - ence i f we were not to r i s k l o s i n g important input on matters r e l e v a n t . Due to the time spent i n hearing: - the b r i e f s of mining companies; - the complaints of confused p a r t i c i p a n t s ; - b r i e f s that were outside the terms of re f e r e n c e , 1*3 l e s s time uias spent l e a r n i n g about l o c a l concerns, and hence l o c a l impacts, than might have been. In a d d i t i o n , because of RCIUM's f a i r l y t i g h t schedule and frequent underestimates of the number of l o c a l people wish- ing to present b r i e f s , i t was not uncommon f o r sessions to run l a t e into, the n i g h t . Hasty summaries of b r i e f s and condensed question periods r e - sulted.'' Technical Hearings Are a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s represented? The current l i s t of major p a r t i c i p a n t s i s included i n PR No. 5 (see Appendix 1 ) . Mr. Anthony, Commission counsel (Minutes of meeting with major p a r t i c i p a n t s , 1979b) explained t h a t a major p a r t i c i p a n t i s a group t h a t i s a c t i v e throughout the t e c h n i c a l hearings and recognized as such e i t h e r by i t s e x p e r t i s e , f u n c t i o n , r e c e i p t of funds, or expressed i n t e n t i o n . Fourteen of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s r e c e i v e p a r t i c i p a n t funding (see Appendix 7 ) . The g u i d e l i n e s f o r funding are as o u t l i n e d i n Appendix 8 ( P u b l i c N o t i c e , Vancouver Express, 12 March 1979). RCIUM seems to have recognized a l l major a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s i n i t s support of major p a r t i c i p a n t s at the t e c h n i c a l hearings. Ms. S t a i r s (community r e l a t i o n s c o n s u l t a n t ) was expected to go ahead of RCIUM to help s t r u c t u r e f i r s t round community hearings (see Appendix 2 ) . However,, sheisp,ent%werytalitt,|a t i m e i i n n t h e communities ̂ before tha^hearings. Ms. S t a i r s * (1980, i n t e r v i e w ) explanation f o r t h i s was as f o l l o w s : I was only h i r e d a few weeks before the hearings s t a r t e d and there wasn't much time. I had time to go to h a l f the places two weeks before and to the r e s t of the places one day before. No one r e a l i z e d t h a t t h i s r o l e /"structuring the community h e a r i n g s ^ was important u n t i l the hearings were r i g h t upon us. Had Ms. S t a i r s spent more time i n the communities before the community hearings, some of the above problems might have been ameliorated (see pp.65- 66 below). Are p a r t i c i p a n t s able to summon a l l r e l e v a n t witnesses? More than h a l f of the witnesses c a l l e d between 25 September 1979 and 17 January 1980 have been RCIUM witnesses (27 out of a t o t a l of 50). Mr. Anthony's (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) explanation f o r t h i s i s as f o l l o w s : In t h i s i n q u i r y we have a very p o l a r i z e d , two-sided debate . . . . The Commission has to c a l l most of the witnesses because the major p a r t i c i p a n t s ' witnesses are j u s t there to prove one s i d e of the debate. We/"the Commission^have to c a l l witnesses that w i l l r e f l e c t both s i d e s of the debate. On 7 August 1979, Mr. Anthony (Minutes of meeting with major p a r t i - c i p a n t s , 1979b) informed major p a r t i c i p a n t s t h a t : . . . . the Commission has agreed to consider f i n a n c i n g witnesses c a l l e d by ot h e r s . I t would s t i l l be the r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s to make the necessary arrangements f o r the witness. I t i s u n l i k e l y that t h i s a s s i s t a n c e w i l l be provided to government or other i n - dependently funded o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Decisions on funding w i l l be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Commissioners. As explained by Dr. Bates (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) , RCIUM agreed to the above i n order: ". . . . to save the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' money." Dr. Bates (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) maintains t h a t the c r i t e r i o n used by the Commissioners i n d e c i s i o n s on funding i s t h a t the witness has " a d d i t i o n a l , unpublished m a t e r i a l " to present to RCIUM. According to many major p a r t i c i p a n t s , RCIUM g e n e r a l l y pays only f o r those witnesses that the Commissioners consider to have a high l e v e l of t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e (Boyce 1979, i n t e r - view; Minutes of f i r s t and second Kelowna meetings of p a r t i c i p a n t s , 1979; Clark 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) . Major p a r t i c i p a n t s pay f o r the remaining witnesses i f they wish to hear from them s t i l l and i f they have s u f f i c i e n t funds. From time to time, however, RCIUM has funded witnesses who are not tech- n i c a l experts but have p r a c t i c a l experience that i s of relevance to RCIUM; f o r example, Mr. B. Newell of the P u l p , Paper and Woodworkers of Canada who has union experience ( C u l b e r t 19B0g, i n t e r v i e w ) . 45 To o b t a i n an idea of major p a r t i c i p a n t s * a c t i v i t y i n summoning rel e v a n t witnesses, I questioned r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of s i x major p a r t i c i - pant groups (see Appendix 9, column I ) . Their responses are presented i n column I I of Appendix 9. With the exception of Rexspar's witnesses, almost a l l the witnesses r e f e r r e d to i n column I I of Appendix 9 are being paid f o r by RCIUM ( C u l b e r t 19BDi, i n t e r v i e w ) . In t o t a l , because of the p o l a r i z e d nature of the uranium i s s u e , RCIUM has decided to c a l l i n most of the witnesses. RCIUM pays f o r witnesses i d e n t i f i e d by major p a r t i c i p a n t groups t h a t lack independent funds i f the Commissioners are s a t i s f i e d that such witnesses have u s e f u l , a d d i t i o n a l information f o r RCIUM. Is there opportunity to cross-examine a l l witnesses? C e r t a i n l y , the opportunity e x i s t s f o r major p a r t i c i p a n t s to cross-examine witnesses c a l l e d by o t h e r s . Column I I I of Appendix 9 d e s c r i b e s the way i n which s i x major p a r t i c i p a n t s make use of t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y . I t seems that most of them use cross-examination to b r i n g out t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l cases and to determine the c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses. In c o n t r a s t , Mr. Anthony (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) uses cross examination: - to o b t a i n more informa t i o n from a witness; - to t e s t the accuracy of evidence; - sometimes, to determine a witness* r e a c t i o n t D c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. At the beginning of the t e c h n i c a l hearings, Mr. Anthony t o l d the major p a r t i c i p a n t s not to r e l y on the order of witnesses being as i t i s l a i d out i n the t i m e - t a b l e (Minutes of meeting w i t h major p a r t i c i p a n t s , 1979a). Thus the Commissioners had agreed to the major p a r t i c i p a n t s * almost unanimous request that there be no time l i m i t on cross-examination of witnesses; hence, i n cases where the crass-examination of evidence takes longer than the time provided f o r i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings 46 schedule, the witnesses not heard from are re-scheduled t o appear during the "overflow" hearings i n February 19B0, and, i f necessary, precedence i s given to witnesses who have to t r a v e l great d i s t a n c e s to appear before RCIUM (Memorandum to major p a r t i c i p a n t s , 1979). Pursuant to PR No. 1, B.6.2 (see Appendix 1 ) , RCIUM may seek inform- a t i o n from p a r t i e s without them appearing at a hearing. Hence, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some i n f o r m a t i o n i s obtained by RCIUM from witnesses who are not cross-examined. The reason f o r t h i s r u l i n g i s as f o l l o w s . In B r i t i s h Columbia, a number of mining companies are i n t e r e s t e d i n mining uranium. A few of these companies have f a i r l y advanced proposals; f o r example, Norcen Energy Resources L i m i t e d . These companies may g i v e information to RCIUM only i f i t i s kept c o n f i d e n t i a l s i n c e otherwise they might l o s e t h e i r competitive advantage. The .problem!is, as explained by Mr. Anthony (19813d, i n t e r v i e w ) j t h a t : . . . . the Commission i s inv o l v e d i n an on-going competitive f i e l d . Lde are l o o k i n g i n t o an i n d u s t r y , not j u s t one company . . . . The Commission regarded i t / t h e uranium i s s u e d as broader than j u s t one or two companies and t r i e d to get information from a l l other companies t o o . Mr. Paterson, l e g a l counsel f o r CCU, does not regard the i s s u e as being very much broader than j u s t one company (Norcen). His op i n i o n i s that RCIUM i s d e a l i n g w i t h the one proposed operating uranium mine i n B r i t i s h Columbia f o r which there i s already a c o n t r a c t signed f o r d e l i v - ery of the mineral (see p. 8 above and TP, 48, p. 8423). Mr. Paterson would l i k e RCIUM to focus i t s energies on Norcen's B l i z z a r d property and demand f u l l p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e of a l l r e l e v a n t information from t h i s company. However, RCIUM's r o l e i s to recommend standards f o r uranium mining throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. As Dr. Bates (TP, 2, p. 12) has s a i d : "Our task i s to examine a l l of the dep o s i t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia kl and consider the p a r t i c u l a r i ssues r a i s e d by each so that the a c t u a l mining begins." I f RCIUM mere to concentrate s o l e l y on Moreen's pro- p o s a l , i t would run the r i s k of being able to make only s p e c i f i c recom- mendations and not general ones. Often the Commissioners have t o l d major p a r t i c i p a n t s to condense t h e i r cross-examination because time i s so short (see, f o r example, TP, 56, p. 10D25 and 59, pp. 10689-90). This " h u r r y i n g " reduces the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. I t i s p o s t u l a t e d that the time shortages are the r e s u l t of the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : (a) some of the witnesses take a long time to answer during cross-examination by major p a r t i c i p a n t s ; (b) time i s wasted with i r r e l e v a n t and/or r e p i t i t i o u s cross-examination; ( c ) the Commissioners are i n a hurry to f i n i s h . (a) Delays i n answering. Ms. B o g g i l d , l e g a l counsel f o r LdCELA, (Vancouver Cable ID's "Nuclear Crossroads", 26 November 1979),has noted t h a t : There's been a l o t of cross-examination by major p a r t i c i p a n t s who are against uranium mining. But i t ' s the proponents who are t a k i n g up the t i m e — t h e y take a long time to answer. Instances of such answering delays are documented by Ms. Konstantynowicz i n her r e p o r t s on RCIUM to AECL. For example: I t was apparent . . . . t h a t the panel /from the Department of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Re- sources./was i l l - e q u i p p e d f o r most of the q u e s t i o n i n g . They h e s i t a t e d and paused i n answering questions and q u i t e o f t e n gave c o n t r a d i c t o r y answers . . . many of the questions were not c l e a r l y answered. (Report No. 1, 11 October 1979). Mr. Anthony's (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) o p i n i o n on the above i s that the problem can be overcome by the way questions are posed, by which he meant that kB sometimes witnesses are asked questions that would be b e t t e r d i r e c t e d towards other witnesses who have the r e l e v a n t e x p e r t i s e . I t i s the r o l e of the Commissioner who i s a c t i n g as chairman at a p a r t i c u l a r s e ssion (not always Dr. Bates) to maintain c a r e f u l c o n t r o l over unnecessary r e p i t i t i o n or i r r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n i n g . However, as Ms. Rounthwaite, l e g a l counsel f o r EAAUM (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) ^ p o i n t e d out, the Commissioners do not do t h i s very r i g o r o u s l y . I t i s suggested t h a t t h i s i s because the Commissioners possess, between them, very l i t t l e l e g a l experience. Mr. Raudsepp does have a f a i r amount of experience i n c h a i r - ing l e g a l procedures (see p. 9 above). However, based on my own observ- ati o n s and c a l c u l a t i o n s , he presided over the proceedings on only about 12 per cent of the t o t a l number of hearing days between 25 September 1979 and 16 January 1980 i n c l u s i v e , the corresponding percentages f o r Dr. Bates and Dr. Murray being &k and 2k r e s p e c t i v e l y . On those occasions that he d i d p r e s i d e , Mr. Raudsepp imposed r i g o r o u s r u l e s of relevancy and proved himself t o be the most w i l l i n g of the Commissioners to r u l e questioners out of order (see, f o r example, TP, 23, pp. 2991, 3048-50 and 26, pp. 3636-7, 3780-1). (b) Time wasted i n cross-examination. On 13 December 1979, Mr. Anthony (Minutes of meeting with major p a r t i c i p a n t s , 1979c) urged major p a r t i c i p a n t s to adopt what he c a l l e d the "so what t e s t " to cross-examin- a t i o n . T his t e s t , as explained by T e r r a l (1980) i s : . . . . a u s e f u l t e s t , a way of keeping your eye on the t a r g e t and reminding y o u r s e l f what the b a s i c i s s u e s are . . . . I t goes something l i k e t h i s : suppose you ask your q u e s t i o n , and sup- pose you get your answer. Suppose you get the answer you expected. So what? What does i t r e a l l y mean? What does i t matter? And, as Mr. Anthony (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) added: "Does i t help you make your case or advance the knowledge of the Commission i n a meaningful 49 way?" Mr. Anthony's concern was that a l o t of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s ' cross-examination i s i r r e l e v a n t ; by which he meant that i t i s not draw- ing out much a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Or. Switzer of Rexspar (I960, i n t e r v i e w ) expressed the o p i n i o n that RCIUM has i d e n t i f i e d too many major p a r t i c i p a n t s with the r e s u l t t h a t a great deal of time i s wasted w i t h r e p i t i t i o u s cross-examination. But, as noted above, ( p . 48), i t i s the chairman's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to keep a check on unnecessary r e p i t i t i o n . Based on my own observations and c a l c u l a t i o n s : - 50 to 70 per cent of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s are i n attendance at any given t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n ; - l e s s than h a l f of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s c r o s s - examine any given witness (see Appendix 10). Appendix 10 i n d i c a t e s that the same few major p a r t i c i p a n t s (BCMA, BCCUCC, UBCIC, SKID, bJCELA and EAAUM) undertake the bulk of the cross-examination. These p a r t i c i p a n t s each r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t concerns ( w i t h the exception of UiCELA and EAAUM which cross-examined the same witness i n j u s t two cases out of the ten exampled i n Appendix 10); hence i t i s u n l i k e l y that there i s much overlap i n cross-examination. Indeed, as Mr. C u l b e r t , RCIUM research coordinator (1980h, interview),remarked, there i s only about 15 to 20 per cent overlap i n the questions posed by major p a r t i c i - pants, and s i n c e the groups involved question from d i f f e r e n t p erspectives a d d i t i o n a l information i s sometimes brought out. Both Mr. Rogers of UBCIC (1980d, i n t e r v i e w ) and Mrs. Boyce of BCCUCC (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) agreed, but painted out that there was more overlap at the beginning of the tech- n i c a l hearings than there was l a t e r on. I t i s Mr. Cul b e r t ' s (1980h, i n t e r v i e w ) impression that the major p a r t i c i p a n t s cooperate on a f a i r l y r e g u l a r b a s i s and thereby c o n s i d e r - ably reduce the length of RCIUM. Some of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s were 50 meeting once a week at the beginning of the t e c h n i c a l hearings to d i s c u s s strategy and to ensure t h a t a l l angles were being covered between them (Boggild 1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . These meetings broke down soon a f t e r they s t a r t e d s i n c e they i n v o l v e d too much work and the groups found i t e a s i e r to work alone (Rogers 1980d, i n t e r v i e w ) . Some major p a r t i c i p a n t s con- ti n u e to meet on a r e g u l a r b a s i s to d i s c u s s general problems, such as the areas that need more a t t e n t i o n i n cross-examination ( B o g g i l d 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) • ( c ) Hurrying to f i n i s h . Despite Dr. Bates (1979, speech) having s a i d that a government i s not permitted to put a time l i m i t on a commiss- ion of i n q u i r y , the Commissioners seem to be i n a hurry to f i n i s h . I t i s hard to determine e x a c t l y why t h i s i s the case. Their reasons f o r the 27 June 1980 d e a d l i n e on the t e c h n i c a l hearings, as i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the f o l l o w i n g e x t r a c t from the minutes of a meeting with major p a r t i - c i p a n t s (1980), are somewhat confused: L o i s Boyce (United Church) questioned the • • • • deadline asking why i t e x i s t e d and why couldn't t e c h n i c a l hearings not continue i n the F a l l ? . . . . . . . . Jim Murray suggested i t was d i f f i c u l t to get w i t - nesses to come i n the summer. L o i s Boyce asked again why hearings could not continue i n the F a l l . I t appears that there i s a predetermined mould r a t h e r than f i t t i n g the schedule to the job t h a t must be done. Jim Murray s a i d the Commissioners had not discussed i t i n d e t a i l but that the d i f f i c u l t y of o b t a i n i n g a d d i t i o n a l funding was an important f a c t o r . C l i f f Stainsby (EAAUM) asked why i t was not p o s s i b l e to agree to end the Commission when the job i s done. Walter Raudsepp pointed out that the Commissioners di d have some other commitments and a number of f a c t o r s had to be considerd. 51 The f e e l i n g of s e v e r a l major p a r t i c i p a n t s i s that the Commissioners* other commitments are sometimes t a k i n g p r i o r i t y . This i s not meant to be i n t e r p r e t e d as a c r i t i c i s m of the Commissioners. Thus, i t has to be r e a l i z e d that they have been drawn away from t h e i r normal commitments and that RCIUM i s t a k i n g longer than o r i g i n a l l y was expected. Hence, they are under a great d e a l of pressure and seem to have adopted a personal deadline date (Thompson 1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) . Concerning Phases VI to X, ten major p a r t i c i p a n t groups are happy w i t h the 27 June 1980 deadline p r o v i d i n g a minimum of 12 more hearing days are added to the schedule, these groups being: UBCIC, BCCUCC, BCMA, CCU, JCUTH, UCELA, CCNR (Vancouver and Kelowna), YEA and CCBIM. Th e i r concern i s that at l e a s t 12 a d d i t i o n a l hearing days are required i f a l l the witnesses scheduled f o r Phases VI to X are to be accommodated (Min- utes of meeting with major p a r t i c i p a n t s , 1980). To summarize, most of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s interviewed use c r o s s - examination to bring out t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l cases and to determine the c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses. In c o n t r a s t , Commission counsel uses c r o s s - examination to draw out f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n from witnesses. Because RCIUM i s l o o k i n g i n t o an on-going competitive f i e l d , and because i t s task i s to make g e n e r a l , as w e l l as s p e c i f i c , recommendations, i t i s conceivable that RCIUM i s r e c e i v i n g information i n confidence t h a t i s not cross-examined. Since RCIUM i s short of time, there i s l e s s opportunity to c r o s s - examine witnesses than might otherwise be the case. In l a r g e p a r t , the time c o n s t r a i n t s seem to be due to the 27 June 1980 deadline on the t e c h n i c a l hearings. Probably, t h i s deadline w i l l prevent RCIUM from hearing a l l witnesses. In p a r t , the time shortages are the r e s u l t of 52 inadequate c h a i r i n g of the t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n s ; the shortages do not appear to be caused by overlap i n cross-examination by major p a r t i c i p a n t s . Are a l l relevant documents made a v a i l a b l e : As described on pp. 251- 30 above, the RCIUM l i b r a r y contains l i s t s of documents held by the B r i t i s h Columbia government, the f e d e r a l government, various boards and agencies, major p a r t i c i p a n t s , and RCIUM, that are rel e v a n t to the subject matter before RCIUM. These l i s t s , as Mr. Anthony (1979b, i n t e r v i e w ) r e - marked: ". . . . may have i n a d v e r t e n t l y been l e f t incomplete." The pro- blem f o r Mr. Paterson, l e g a l counsel f o r CCU (19B0, i n t e r v i e w ) , i s that he l a c k s the time to f i l e a l l r e l e v a n t documents w i t h RCIUM. Several other p a r t i c i p a n t s expressed the same concern. As o u t l i n e d i n PR No. 1, B.4.1 (see Appendix 1 ) , each major p a r t i - c i p a n t , whether presenting evidence him/herself or c a l l i n g expert w i t - nesses on hi s / h e r b e h a l f , i s required to f i l e with RCIUM a d e t a i l e d statement of his/ h e r evidence, together with a l i s t of any r e p o r t s , s t u d i e s or other documents to which the witness may r e f e r , and biograph- i c a l notes on the witness (PR No. 1, B.4.1). This information i s d i s - t r i b u t e d to a l l major p a r t i c i p a n t s . Quite p o s s i b l y , as i n the above case, the l i s t s of documents are not always complete. Under the B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act, the Commissioners have the power to summon witnesses and to c a l l f o r the production of documents ( s . 1 0 ) . As explained by Mr. Anthony (TP, 50, pp. 8B2B-29): . . . . a subpoena . . . . i s a t o o l of coercion . . . . f o r c i n g a witness to attend before the t r i b u n a l and r e - q u i r i n g him, when he attends to bring a l l r e l e v a n t docu- ments with him. In other words, you f i n d out about the documents only when the witness appears. Mr. Anthony (1979b, i n t e r v i e w ) maintains t h a t : 53 Forcing someone to appear i s not the best may of g e t t i n g information s i n c e a forced witness w i l l not be p a r t i c u l a r l y forthcoming with i n f o r m a t i o n . The sub- poena i s o v e r r a t e d — i t i s j u s t the u l t i m a t e weapon. I t i s important to have i t because i t means th a t you can always t e l l r e l u c t a n t people that they can be subpoenaed—then they u s u a l l y cooperate. Mr. Anthony (1979b, i n t e r v i e w ) has t o l d major p a r t i c i p a n t s that they must t r y to o b t a i n documents themselves. I f they cannot, they must contact him and he w i l l t r y . I f he f i n d s d i f f i c u l t i e s , RCIUM w i l l issue a subpoena. A Task Force representing 21 funded RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s (1979, l e t t e r ) expressed the concern t h a t t h i s procedure i s too time consuming i n p r a c t i c e and the PR No. 1, B.7.1 (see Appendix 1) should be amended as f o l l o w s : Subpoenas should be issued by the Commission upon a p p l i c a t i o n by any p a r t i c i p a n t provided such p a r t i c i p a n t has demonstrated t h a t the evidence of the witness or the document i s r e l e v a n t to the Terms of Reference of the Commission. This means th a t the Commission w i l l i s s u e a subpoena on request, i n accordance with normal court procedure; relevancy being the only c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Mr. Anthony's (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) r e p l y to the above was that w h i l e i n court a party can be punished by having costs awarded against him f o r abuse of the subpoena power; there i s no such c o n t r o l i n i n q u i r i e s . But, Dr. Thompson, Commissioner of the West Coast O i l Ports I n q u i r y (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) , agrees with the Task Force's request: The Commission's r u l e £%%1.U goes too f a r . I t puts the onus on major p a r t i c i p a n t s to demon- s t r a t e relevancy of a document or witness. T h i s i s n ' t f a i r . The subpoena should be issued r o u t - i n e l y unless the Commission has a goad reason not to a l l o w t h i s — s u c h a r e f u s a l would have to be argued and would r e q u i r e a r u l i n g . In other words, RCIUM should have the r i g h t to refuse the subpoena i f i t f e l t t h i s power was being abused, but the onus should then be on 54 RCIUM to j u s t i f y such a r e f u s a l . This obviates Mr, Anthony's concern above. Some of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s c l a i m that Mr, Anthony i s g i v i n g very conservative advice to RCIUM concerning the use of i t s powers (Roberts 1979, i n t e r v i e w ; Paterson I960, i n t e r v i e w ) , Mr. Paterson (1980, i n t e r v i e w ) b e l i e v e s t h a t : The subpoena i s a normal way of g e t t i n g inform- a t i o n . Mr. Anthony's approach i s cooperation. But government departments aren't going to look through a l l t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n j u s t because the Commission asks them t o . You have to go i n and get i t , using the subpoena to f i n d out what's a v a i l a b l e — a n d you continue to use the subpoena power i f you don't get what you wanted the f i r s t time around. But,?as noted above ( p . 53), Mr. Anthony does not adhere to the use of the subpoena power as a t o o l of p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c o v e r y . He claims that PR Wo. 1, B.3.1, B.3.2 and B.4.1 (see Appendix 1) a l l o w f o r the c o l l e c t - i o n by RCIUM of a l l r e l e v a n t documents (Anthony 1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) . Dr. Thompson (1980c, interview),however, acknowledges the use of subpoena f o r d i s c o v e r y , although he concedes t h a t : • . . . i t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to get information i f you don't know what you're l o o k i n g f o r . . . . I f someone i s determined to hide something and i f you don't know t h a t i t e x i s t s , i t ' s r e a l l y hard to get i t . Perhaps, Mr. Anthony i s being wise i n not using the subpoena to f i n d out what informa t i o n e x i s t s , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e a f a v o u r i t e t a c t i c i s to respond to a subpoena with an avalanche of i r r e l e - vant paper. •n 30 October 1979, Mr. Paterson suggested t h a t RCIUM use i t s subpoena power to f i n d out what documents are i n the hands of re l e v a n t government agencies and mining companies (TP, 32, pp. 4896-8). Mr. Anthony's r e p l y to Mr. Paterson was that the subpoena had not been necessary thus f a r , but, should major p a r t i c i p a n t s demand one, he would support them (TP, 32, pp. 4899-4901). On 11 December 1979, Mr. Paterson 55 (TP, 48, p. 8414) made a request of RCIUM, on the behalf of JCUTH, that a subpoena be issued to Norcen to compel i t to produce c e r t a i n documents. And on 17 January 1980, ACA requested the subpoena be issued to developers of a northern B r i t i s h Columbia molybdenum mine ( P l a c e r Development Limited) to appear at the hearings (TP, 58, p. 10297). RCIUM turned down both these requests s i n c e the companies agreed to provide the inform a t i o n v o l u n t a r i l y . As Mrs. Boyce of BCCUCC (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) remarked, although RCIUM has not issued a subpoena: " I t has not been denied any witnesses or documents that i t went a f t e r . " RCIUM's subpoena powers are l i m i t e d because RCIUM i s a p r o v i n c i a l r a t h e r than a f e d e r a l i n q u i r y . As Mr. Anthony (1979c, i n t e r v i e w ) explained: The Commission can subpoena anything or anybody i n B . C . — t h a t ' s no problem. But there are problems i f i t wants to subpoena from another j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t would have to go to B.C. Supreme Court which might i s s u e a court order. I then'take t h i s t o . . , . , f o r example, _ the Ontario Court which may go along with the order. Quite p o s s i b l y , Mr. Anthony would not consider going to such lengths to o b t a i n an out-of-province witness or document, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e : "The e n t i r e Commission would have to go to Ottawa / o r wherever.7 to hear the witness. He can't be ordered to come to B.C." (Anthony 1979c, i n t e r - v iew). Pursuant to PR No. 1, B.G.3o(see Appendix 1 ) , RCIUM may r e t a i n c e r t a i n p r i v i l e g e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n confidence. Such inform a t i o n i s not subjected to cross-examination. The reason f o r t h i s r u l i n g i s the same as that f o r PR No. 1, B.6.2 (see p*.46 above). The Task Force of funded p a r t i c i p a n t s (1979, l e t t e r ) made the f o l l o w i n g comments about the r u l i n g on p r i v i l e g e : tile recognize t h a t a c l a i m of p r i v i l e g e could be made during the course of the hearings, tiie b e l i e v e that the c r i t e r i a to be ap p l i e d to any such c l a i m should be those a p p l i e d i n the B r i t i s h Columbia courts and estab- l i s h e d i n s t a t u t e or common law. We would ask that you 56 announce your:adoption of these c r i t e r i a w e l l before the hearings commence. We f u r t h e r suggest that you r u l e that any a p p l i - c a t i o n f o r p r i v i l e g e be made i n a p u b l i c hearing, on reasonable n o t i c e to a l l major p a r t i c i p a n t s , subject to submissions by a l l major p a r t i c i p a n t s , and that the Commission announce i t s r u l i n g w i t h reasons a t a p u b l i c h e a r i n g . These demands have been met by RCIUM i n the two p a r t i c u l a r i n - stances t h a t the question of p r i v i l e g e came i n t o p l a y . The f i r s t of these instances concerned D.G. Leighton and As s o c i a t e s ' document on young uranium d e p o s i t s ; the second concerned Norcen's co n t r a c t w i t h Korea E l e c t r i c Company (see p. 6 above). Each company announced, i n the hearings, t h a t i t had the information but i n s i s t e d on i t s c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Hence, RCIUM ret a i n e d the information i n confidence but, l a t e r , f o l l o w i n g requests from major p a r t i c i p a n t s , released D.G..Leighton's document and Norcen's c o n t r a c t to RCIUM, although some of the f i n a n c i a l aspects of the . contract were made a v a i l a b l e only to members of RCIUM. Mr. Anthony (19S0d, i n t e r v i e w ) assured me t h a t the f i n a n c i a l aspects of Norcen's c o n t r a c t i s the only item held i n confidence by RCIUM. In t o t a l , the l i s t s of documents held by major p a r t i c i p a n t s and RCIUM, and the l i s t s of documents r e f e r r e d to i n witnesses' statements of e v i - dence, may not always be complete, probably because of time c o n s t r a i n t s . Mr. Anthony's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the subpoena power i s time consuming i n p r a c t i c e and puts the onus on major p a r t i c i p a n t s to demonstrate relevancy of a witness or document. Although Mr. Anthony does not adhere to the use of subpoena f o r d i s c o v e r y , which i s perhaps j u s t i f i a b l e , RCIUM has not been denied any witness or document that i t has asked f o r . I t i s u n l i k e l y , however, that RCIUM would t r y to subpoena an out-of-province witness or document because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s and expense i n v o l v e d . 57 Because RCIUM i s i n v o l v e d i n an on-going competitive f i e l d , i t may have to r e t a i n c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n i n confidence. This appears to have occurred i n j u s t one minor i n s t a n c e . Is there opportunity to assemble and present competing evidence? A number of major p a r t i c i p a n t groups are performing, or have completed, s t u d i e s f o r RCIUM. I questioned s i x groups about t h e i r s t u d i e s . T h e i r responses are o u t l i n e d i n Column IV of Appendix 9. Apart from UBCICs study on the A t l i n area, a l l the s t u d i e s described are f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n during the t e c h n i c a l hearings; hence there i s opportunity to cross-exam- ine the authors of these s t u d i e s . Is there s u f f i c i e n t time? In accordance wit h PR Wo. 1, B.4.1 (see Appendix 1 ) , each major p a r t i c i p a n t i s given two weeks i n which to review and to prepare cross-examination on the evidence to be presented i n any one phase. On 13 November 1979, Mr. Anthony (Minutes of meeting with major p a r t i c i p a n t s , 1979c) informed major p a r t i c i p a n t s that each s t a t e - ment of evidence, together with the l i s t of r e p o r t s , s t u d i e s or documents to which the witness may r e f e r or upon which he/she may r e l y and the b i o g r a p h i c a l note on the witness, must be c i r c u l a t e d three weeks i n advance i n s t e a d of two. T h i s , as Ms. B o g g i l d , l e g a l counsel f o r UCELA (1980, interview);,remarked, puts a great deal of pressure on major p a r t i - c i p a n t s who are pressed f o r resources, but as Mr. Hodge, RCIUM research coordinator (1980d, interview);,explained, allows more time f o r the pre- p a r a t i o n of cross-examination. Frequently, the RCIUM research coordinators f e e l pressed f o r time (Hodge 1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . This i s because RCIUM has c a l l e d so many witnesses (see p. kk above) and hence a great d e a l of time i s spent i n helping witnesses prepare testimony; r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e time i s l e f t to 58 prepare cross-examination (Culbert 1980d, i n t e r v i e w ) . Due to time con- s t r a i n t s , the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of cross-examination prepared by the research c o o r d i n a t o r s f o r Commission counsel v a r i e s . As Mr. Hodge (1980b, i n t e r - view) commented: Sometimes our cross-examination i s t e r r i b l e . Some- times, given the time c o n s t r a i n t s , we do r a t h e r w e l l . There are only two or three s e t s of cross-examination t h a t we f e l t s a t i s f i e d w i t h . The RCIUM research c o o r d i n a t o r s ' work with RCIUM witnesses i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of t e s t i m o n i e s , i n that they review the d r a f t s of the s t a t e - ments of evidence and then advise the witnesses as to what r e v i s i o n s , i f any, are r e q u i r e d . RCIUM's t e c h n i c a l advisors a l s o review b r i e f s . The o b j e c t i v e i s to ensure that the testimonies address the questions that RCIUM i s concerned w i t h . However, as noted by Mr. Hodge (1980d, i n t e r v i e w ) : In some cases, d r a f t s are not submitted on time and there i s no time to work w i t h them. Sometimes they are submitted i n p l e n t y of time. Reviewing d r a f t s was moderately s u c c e s s f u l i n Phases I to V I . In Phase VII (Worker and P u b l i c H e a l t h ) , however, there were d i f f i - c u l t i e s ; - the subject m a t e r i a l was out of depth f o r the research c o o r d i n a t o r s ; - most of the medical people come from f a r away and there was i n s u f f i c i e n t time to go over a l l t h e i r b r i e f s . A l l major p a r t i c i p a n t s interviewed (see column I of Appendix 9 ) , except Dr. Switzer of Rexspar, experience time c o n s t r a i n t s . This i s because they review, and perhaps prepare cross-examination on, the s t a t e - ments of evidence of so many Commission witnesses. As Mr. Paterson (1980, i n t e r v i e w ) pointed out: "This puts a considerable burden on major p a r t i - c i p a n t s . " T h i s burden i s such t h a t the thoroughness with which major p a r t i c i p a n t s review evidence i s not always what i t could be (see column 59 V of Appendix 9 ) . The time c o n s t r a i n t s do not seem to heed major p a r t i - c i p a n t s i n the extent to which they work with t h e i r own witnesses i n preparing testimony (see column VI of Appendix 9 ) . Or, S w i t z e r (I960, i n t e r v i e w ) i s not pressed f o r time because: - Rexspar's witnesses are people who are f a m i l i a r with Rexspar's case and do not have to be helped i n preparing testimony; - very few of the other witnesses are saying things that are c r i t i c a l to Rexspar's p o s i t i o n (hence Dr, Switzer questions very few wi t n e s s e s ) . To summarize, the RCIUM research coordinators are pressed f o r time because they have so many witnesses to prepare. This reduces the e f f e c t - iveness of cross-examination prepared f o r Commission counsel. In add- i t i o n , the research c o o r d i n a t o r s do not always have s u f f i c i e n t time to work with RCIUM witnesses' d r a f t statements; f o r example,because some d r a f t s are submitted l a t e . A l l major p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t e r v i e w e d , except Dr. S w i t z e r , experience time c o n s t r a i n t s because they have to review, and perhaps prepare cross-examination on^he statements of evidence of a l l Commission witnesses. The r e s u l t i s that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c r o s s - examination by major p a r t i c i p a n t s i s reduced. Are s u f f i c i e n t resources made a v a i l a b l e ? The P u b l i c N o t i c e appear- ing i n the Vancouver Express on 12 March 1979 (see Appendix 8) announced that RCIUM had been provided with l i m i t e d funds (875,000) to a s s i s t i n t e r e s t groups i n the preparation of b r i e f s . RCIUM d i v i d e d t h i s f i r s t round of funding between 18 groups (see Appendix 7 ) . The money was received at the end of June 1979. At a community hearing i n June 1979, Dr. Bates (TP, 9, pp. 1125-6) made the f o l l o w i n g announcement: 60 You may have heard that we requested a d d i t i o n a l money to help p u b l i c input i n t o t h i s i n q u i r y and I uas very glad • . . . to l e a r n . • . . that the Cabinet has voted us an a d d i t i o n a l hundred and f i f t y thousand d o l l a r s . T h i s . . . . means tha t there i s a s i z e a b l e sum of money now a v a i l a b l e f o r us to help organize . . . . groups . . . . present evidence to the Commission . . . . This second allotment of funds was d i v i d e d between 21 groups (see Appen- d i x 7 ) ; i t was not d i s t r i b u t e d u n t i l August 1979. In r e a c t i o n to the delay i n the r e c e i p t of p a r t i c i p a n t funding, the Task Force of funded p a r t i c i p a n t s (1979, l e t t e r ) demanded t h a t : . . . . ^technical^7 hearings . . . . not commence before 90 days a f t e r a c t u a l r e c e i p t of a d d i t i o n a l funds • . . . In any event, the commencement date of the . . . . t e c h n i c a l hearings i s not to take place u n t i l November 1s t , 1979. I t s reason was that a d d i t i o n a l time i s required f o r : - cash o u t l a y s r e q u i r e d f o r r e n t a l of premises, payment of s t a f f , and pr e p a r a t i o n of documents. - r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n as to which witnesses w i l l be c a l l e d by the /Commission7 i n cont r a s t to those that w i l l be c a l l e d by the p a r t i c i p a n t s . Thus, as noted by Schmitt (1979, p. 3 ) , f o r major p a r t i c i p a n t s t h a t lack independent f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , time and money shortages i n t e r r e l a t e , s i n c e : "Only when the money has been a l l o c a t e d w i l l the concerned groups be i n a p o s i t i o n to r e a l i s t i c a l l y design t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s and develop t h e i r submissions." Dr. Bates' (1979a, l e t t e r ) response to the demands of the Task Force was as f o l l o w s : . . . . I do not thi n k i t e n t i r e l y reasonable that you should r e q u i r e there be a c l e a r 90 days between the s t a r t of t e c h n i c a l hearings and the r e c e i p t j j f the a d d i t i o n a l funds . . . . we /the Commissions are not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r sending out the a c t u a l cheques and t h e r e f o r e , we can not be hel d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any delay which occurs between our recommendations being sent to the Government and the a c t u a l money becoming a v a i l a b l e . As i s c l e a r from Appendix 7, none of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s received the amount that they requested; at l e a s t , not i n the f i r s t a l l o t m e n t . For 61 example, EAAUM requested $32,900 per month plus i n i t i a l funding of $5500 (see Appendix 11). EAAUM has rece i v e d a t o t a l of $45,000 f o r J u l y 1979 to January 1980 i n c l u s i v e . This amount represents about $6,400 per month, approximately o n e - f i f t h of the i n i t i a l request. Mr. Stainsby of EAAUM (1979, i n t e r v i e w ) made the p o i n t that t h i s amount does not permit f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n RCIUM. But, as Mr. Anthony (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) noted, no p a r t i c i p a n t group, not even RCIUM, a p p l i e d f o r two f u l l time lawyers, and RCIUM i s paying f o r the communication of i n f o r m a t i o n to the communities. In other words, EAAUM d e l i b e r a t e l y overstated i t s budget. However, judging from the minutes of the second Kelowna p a r t i c i p a n t s ' meeting (1979), EAAUM s i n c e r e l y b e l i e v e d , f o r example, that there was too much work f o r one lawyer to handle. On 30 October 1979, a l a r g e number of major p a r t i c i p a n t s requested that the hearings be expanded to a t o t a l of 96 days (see p. 24 above) and that the p r o v i n c i a l government be asked f o r a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t funding (TP, 35, p. 5569). The Commissioners agreed to seek a d d i t i o n a l funds. These, however, i f approved, would not be f o r new research of new p a r t i c i p a n t s (TP, 36, pp. 5791-2). Wo word had been received from the government regarding the a d d i t i o n a l funds by the end of January 1980. Hence, at t h i s time, groups d i d not know how much money they would be r e c e i v i n g i n the t h i r d allotment ( C h a r l t e n 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) . As i s evident from columns I I , IV and V of Appendix 9, a l l the major p a r t i c i p a n t s interviewed, except Dr. Switzer (Rexspar), Mr. Rogers (UBCIC), and Dr. Young (BCMA), complained of a shortage of funds. This l i m i t s t h e i r a b i l i t y to b r i n g i n witnesses of t h e i r choice; to perform independent s t u d i e s ; to thoroughly review the evidencejand to prepare cross-examination. 62 Mining companies, while not r e c e i v i n g p a r t i c i p a n t funding, do have the b e n e f i t of Sectio n 2 D ( l ) ( c c ) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.B.C. 1961, c . l ) : 20.(1) Notwithstanding paragraphs 18(1) ( a ) , (b) and ( h ) , i n computing a taxpayer's income f o r a t a x a t i o n year from a business or property, there may be deducted such of the f a l l o w i n g amounts as are wholly a p p l i c a b l e to that source or such part of the f o l l o w i n g amounts as may reasonable be r e - garded as a p p l i c a b l e t h e r e t o : . . . . (c c ) an amount paid by the taxpayer i n the year as of on account of expenses i n c u r r e d by him i n making any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r e l a t i n g to a business c a r r i e d on by him, (1) to the government of a country, province or s t a t e or to a municipal or p u b l i c body per- forming a f u n c t i o n of government i n Canada . . . . C l e a r l y , the companies' expenses i n r e l a t i o n s to RCIUM are deductable from taxable income s i n c e RCIUM i s a: " p u b l i c body performing a f u n c t i o n of government." (Schmitt 1979). Given t h a t Rexspar can expect to make about $200 m i l l i o n from development of i t s B i r c h I s l a n d deposit (UID 1 ) , and i n l i g h t of the above tax deduction, I f a i l to see how Dr. Switzer can j u s t i f y h i s complaints about a lack of f i n a n c i a l resources: the p o t e n t i a l gains f a r outweigh the c o s t s . N e i t h e r Mr. Rogers (UBCIC) nor Dr. Young (BCMA) mentioned money as a c o n s t r a i n t . However, both the UBCIC and BCMA are l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and have other funds to draw upon. But as Mr. Rogers (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) pointed out: Without p a r t i c i p a n t funding we /UBCIC/ would not have been involved i n the I n q u i r y . I f e l t t h a t the money we recei v e d was adequate except that i t wouldn't have been s u f f i c i e n t f o r r e s e a r c h . However, the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development gave us funding a s s i s t a n c e f o r our A t l i n and P e n t i c t o n s t u d i e s . Dr. Young has o f f e r e d h i s s e r v i c e s f r e e of charge to BCMA f o r the du r a t i o n of RCIUM (Kansky 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) . 63 In g e n e r a l , the amount of funding a l l o c a t e d to major p a r t i c i p a n t s determines t h e i r access to t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e . On questioning s i x major p a r t i c i p a n t s about p r o v i s i o n of t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e during pre- p a r a t i o n of cross-examination, I obtained the responses presented i n column VII of Appendix 9. P o s s i b l y , the complaints of v a r i o u s major p a r t i c i p a n t s about fund- ing shortages a r i s e from the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : (a) The Commission has spread the a v a i l a b l e government p a r t i c i p a n t funding too t h i n l y . C e r t a i n l y , the funded major p a r t i c i p a n t s interviewed (Mr. Rogers, Ms. Raunthwaite and Mrs. Boyce; see column I of Appendix 9) merit the funds they r e c e i v e s i n c e they r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t concerns and t h e r e f o r e cross-examine from d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s , t h i s sometimes add- ing to RCIUM's a c q u i s i t i o n of r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . However, given that many of the other funded major p a r t i c i p a n t s have s i m i l a r concerns to those interviewed ( f o r example, the i n t e r e s t s of Greenpeace p a r a l l e l those of EAAUM, and the concerns of CCNR are s i m i l a r to those of BCCUCC), RCIUM may have done b e t t e r had i t i n s i s t e d t h a t more of the i n t e r e s t groups band together (as d i d three environmental groups to form EAAUM). Each c o a l i t i o n thus formed would then have a s i z e a b l e allowance and would be able to do more with i t (money saved on l e g a l f e e s , o f f i c e r e n t a l pay- ments, and so on, could be used to b r i n g i n a d d i t i o n a l witnesses, h i r e more t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e and perform more s t u d i e s ) . (b) The funding i s Inadequate however i t i s d i s t r i b u t e d . I f the a v a i l - able p a r t i c i p a n t funding ($225,000) had been d i v i d e d between f i v e c o a l - i t i o n s , each c o a l i t i o n would have recei v e d $45,000, assuming th a t the money was s p l i t e q u a l l y . EAAUM, however, which received $45,000 (see Appendix 7 ) , f i n d s t h a t t h i s amount allows f o r i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n only i n the Environmental Impact Phase (see column V of Appendix 9 ) . To have 64 p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a l l phases, and hence to have questioned a l l witnesses from an environmental p e r s p e c t i v e , would have re q u i r e d at l e a s t f i v e times as much funding. To have f a c i l i t a t e d the p a r t i c i p a t i o n throughout RCIUM of f i v e funded c o a l i t i o n s would have n e c e s s i t a t e d , t h e r e f o r e , $1,250,000. But only $225,000 was made a v a i l a b l e (see Appendix 7 ) . Ne i t h e r the RCIUM research c o o r d i n a t o r s nor Commission counsel have r e f e r r e d to a shortage of funds, but then RCIUM has i t s own budget estim- ated at $2 m i l l i o n (The Vancouver Sun, 28 February I960). In summary, the delays i n the r e c e i p t of p a r t i c i p a n t funding incon- venience major p a r t i c i p a n t s , many of whom complain about t h e i r monies being inadequate. Lack of funds l i m i t s the a b i l i t y of major p a r t i c i p a n t s to b r i n g i n witnesses of t h e i r c hoice; to perform s t u d i e s ; to thoroughly review evidence and to prepare cross-examination; and to h i r e t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e . I t seems th a t the funding shortages f o r major p a r t i c i p a n t s a r i s e from two f a c t o r s . F i r s t , the a v a i l a b l e funds are spread too t h i n l y ; and second, the funds are i n s u f f i c i e n t anyway. RCIUM s t a f f do not appear to be short of funds. L i m i t i n g F a c t o r s Community Hearings A l l the f a c t o r s operating i n the f i r s t round community hearings to l i m i t RCIUM's success i n l e a r n i n g about community impacts from l o c a l people appear to be of the lower order (see p. 32 above). The most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r seems to be the choice of p u b l i c hear- ings over other mechanisms of p u b l i c involvement. E s s e n t i a l l y , repre- s e n t a t i o n at p u b l i c hearings tends to be biased ( H e b e r l e i n 1976a). Fur- thermore, most people at a p u b l i c hearing do not p a r t i c i p a t e i f the pro- ceedings are too f o r m a l . As Heberlein (1976b, p. IB) notes: " . . . • 65 the s t r u c t u r a l format of communication which i s necessary at l a r g e meet- ings i n h i b i t s i nformation t r a n s f e r . " P u b l i c hearings, however, do serve to transmit information from a p r o j e c t proponent to the p u b l i c , and, i n the case of RCIUM, a l s o to the Commissioners. I t appears that the RCIUM Commissioners viewed the f i r s t round com- munity hearings predominantly as t e c h n i c a l sessions s i n c e mining companies were given p r i o r i t y over l o c a l people. In a d d i t i o n , because Dr. Bates con- fused some p a r t i c i p a n t s about the purpose of these hearings, much time was spent l i s t e n i n g to people's complaints about not being able to prepare adequately. Furthermore, numerous b r i e f s were heard that were outside RCIUM's terms of r e f e r e n c e . O v e r a l l , l e s s was l e a r n t about l o c a l impacts than might have been. Due to timing inconveniences, i t i s conceivable that a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s were underrepresented i n the Kootenays and the C h i l c o t i n . In a d d i t i o n , and probably because RCIUM had not appreciated the existence of such a high l e v e l of i n t e r e s t i n the uranium i s s u e , the numbers of witnesses wishing to appear at many of the hearings were underestimated and the schedule was too t i g h t . Had the Commissioners appreciated the importance of a community r e l a t i o n s consultant sooner than they d i d , the above f a c t o r s might have been l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus Ms. S t a i r s , had she had more time i n the communities, could have: - ensured, perhaps, the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the hearings of more p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s ( p o s s i b l y , by convincing people th a t t h e i r f e e l i n g s about uranium mining were important); - ensured, perhaps, a more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e range of p a r t i - c i p a n t s at W i l l i a m s Lake, Vanderhoof and F o r t Nelson; - given p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s a c l e a r e r idea of what the Commissioners wanted to l e a r n from them; - explained how the Commissioners had i n t e r p r e t e d t h e i r terms of refe r e n c e ; 66 - i n v e s t i g a t e d the l e v e l of i n t e r e s t i n each community p r i o r to the drawing-up of the hearings schedule. Technical Hearings Both higher and lower order f a c t o r s operate i n the t e c h n i c a l hear- ings to l i m i t RCIUM's success i n securing a r e l e v a n t body of accurate i n f o r m a t i o n . Since RCIUM c a l l s most of the witnesses, both the RCIUM research coordinators and many major p a r t i c i p a n t s are pressed f o r time; the former because they have to prepare so many RCIUM witnesses, and the l a t t e r because they have to review the statements of evidence of a l l these witnesses. The o v e r a l l r e s u l t i s that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c r o s s - examination i s reduced. In a d d i t i o n , the Commission research coordinators are l e s s able to work with witnesses and ensure t h a t a l l witnesses' d r a f t s are submitted on time. Mr. Anthony maintains that the nature of the uranium i s s u e i s such that RCIUM has to brin g i n most of the witnesses s i n c e i t s witnesses w i l l r e f l e c t both s i d e s of the debate (see p. kk above). I t i s u n l i k e l y , however, t h a t an expert on any aspect of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n can take a n e u t r a l p o s i t i o n on the uranium i s s u e . Hence, RCIUM's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t s r o l e (lower order f a c t o r ) r a t h e r than the nature of the i s s u e (higher order f a c t o r ) i s l i m i t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of cross-examination. The nature of the uranium i s s u e i s a l i m i t i n g f a c t o r , but i n a d i f f - erent sense. Thus, because RCIUM i s lo o k i n g i n t o an on-going, competitive f i e l d , the only way th a t i t can o b t a i n a f u l l body of re l e v a n t information may be to accept c e r t a i n types of informa t i o n i n confidence. Such inform- a t i o n i s not teste d by cross-examination and ,therefore, may not be accur- ate . In a d d i t i o n , the nature of the i s s u e i s such that there i s l e s s cross-examination to b r i n g out f u r t h e r information from witnesses that might otherwise be the case. Most major p a r t i c i p a n t s put a great deal of 67 e f f o r t during cross-examination i n t o e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r cases and i n t o determining the c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses who do not support t h e i r cases. There i s nothing unusual or unexpected about t h i s . As Dr. Thompson (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) pointed out: "The natio n that i n t e r v e n e r s w i l l be i m p a r t i a l searches f o r t r u t h i s u n r e a l i s t i c . " Since the amount of government funding f o r major p a r t i c i p a n t s i n RCIUM i s so small (higher order f a c t o r ) and because RCIUM has o v e r - f r a c - t i o n a l i z e d i t (lower order f a c t o r ) , major p a r t i c i p a n t s are l i m i t e d i n t h e i r a b i l i t y : - to b r i n g i n witnesses independently of RCIUM; - to h i r e t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e ; - to conduct s t u d i e s ; - to thoroughly review evidence and prepare c r o s s - examination. In a d d i t i o n , delays i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of funds (higher order f a c t o r ) l i m i t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of funded groups* p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n RCIUM. The Commissioners' subpoena powers are l i m i t e d because RCIUM was e s t a b l i s h e d under the B r i t i s h Columbia P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act r a t h e r than under the f e d e r a l I n q u i r i e s Act (see p. 55 above). Due t o the d i f f i c u l t y and expense involved ( h i g h e r order l i m i t i n g f a c t o r ) , i t i s u n l i k e l y that RCIUM would go to the t r o u b l e of subpoenaing an out-of-province witness. Mr. Anthony's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the subpoena power (lower order l i m i t i n g f a c t o r ) i s time-consuming i n p r a c t i c e and puts the onus on major p a r t i c i p a n t s to demonstrate relevancy of a witness or document. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, has proved to be s u c c e s s f u l , and i s , perhaps, a wise one given that i t i s very hard to get informa t i o n from someone who has something to hide. The Commissioners' other commitments may w e l l be determining the 27 June 19S0 deadline on the t e c h n i c a l hearings schedule. I t i s also 6a p l a u s i b l e t h a t the government has e s t a b l i s h e d an a r b i t r a r y r e p o r t i n g time-frame on RCIUM. While the former f a c t o r i s p a r t l y higher order, p a r t l y lower order ( t h e Commissioners can only be expected to go so f a r i n reducing t h e i r other commitments), the second f a c t o r i s e n t i r e l y higher order i n nature. The f i n a l l i m i t i n g f a c t o r concerns chairmanship of the t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n s . I t appears that the Commissioners do not c h a i r the proceedings r i g o r o u s l y enough. As a r e s u l t , more i r r e l e v a n t and r e p i t i t i o u s question- ing occurs than would otherwise be the case. I t i s suggested that i n - e f f i c i e n t c h a i r i n g i s a lower order r a t h e r than a higher order f a c t o r , given t h a t the Commissioners could do a b e t t e r j o b , perhaps by having Mr. Raudsepp c h a i r more f r e q u e n t l y or by having procedural r u l e s of relevancy included i n the P r e l i m i n a r y R u l i n g s . Commission Research questions to be Addressed Research conducted or authorized by RCIUM may c o n t r i b u t e to the a c q u i s i t i o n of a r e l e v a n t body of accurate i n f o r m a t i o n . This research, i f i t i s o r i g i n a l , should be subjected to the adversary process. Hence, the f o l l o w i n g questions must be addressed i n the ev a l u a t i o n of the r e - search a c t i v i t i e s a g ainst c r i t e r i o n I : (a) I s the research relevant to RCIUM's terms of reference? (b) I f i t i s o r i g i n a l research, i s i t subjected to the adversary process? I f the response to (b) above i s a f f i r m a t i v e , the e v a l u a t i o n of the tech- n i c a l hearings against c r i t e r i o n I w i l l i n d i c a t e how thorough i s the r e - view of RCIUM's research a c t i v i t i e s . 69 A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n Is the research r e l e v a n t ? The f i v e RCIUM research p r o j e c t s (see p. 25 above) mere decided upon by the Commissioners w h i l e they were review- ing the i s s u e s f o r the f i r s t time (Bates 1979, i n t e r v i e w ) . They appear to r e f l e c t the i n t e r e s t s of the Commissioners, except perhaps, f o r the l a s t one (study of n a t u r a l r a d i o a c t i v i t y i n b i o l o g i c a l pathways). Be- cause of t h e i r very general nature, i t i s u n l i k e l y that they would have co n t r i b u t e d to RCIUM's a c q u i s i t i o n of a relevant body of i n f o r m a t i o n . As Dr. Thompson (1980a, i n t e r v i e w ) remarked, t h e i r t e r m i n a t i o n (see p. 25 above) was q u i t e p r e d i c t a b l e : r : ' TAG's p r o j e c t f a i l e d . . . . so too d i d those of WAG /Northern Assessment Group^3 funded by J u s t i c e Berger f o r the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e I n q u i r y . NAG went o f f on i t s own t r i p . I t had no idea how the in f o r m a t i o n i t c o l - l e c t e d would be used i n the I n q u i r y or of i t s relevance. A l o t of time and money was wasted on t h i s . The more r e c e n t l y authorized research s t u d i e s are very s p e c i f i c i n focus (see p. 2;5 above). They were decided upon by the RCIUM research c o o r d i n a t o r s and t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s , i n conjunction with the Commiss- i o n e r s . They serve t o get answers to p a r t i c u l a r questions t h a t RCIUM has i d e n t i f i e d as being r e l e v a n t to i t s terms of reference ( C u l b e r t 1980h, i n t e r v i e w ) . Is the research subjected to the adversary process? The author- i z e d research s t u d i e s , a t l e a s t those t h a t are o r i g i n a l , are f o r present- a t i o n at a t e c h n i c a l hearing ( C u l b e r t 1980e, i n t e r v i e w ) . The opportunity e x i s t s , t h e r e f o r e , to cross-examine the authors of each commissioned research p r o j e c t . L i m i t i n g F a c t o r s L i m i t i n g f a c t o r s here appear to be the Commissioners' understand- ing of how TAG's research p r o j e c t s would have been re l e v a n t to RCIUM's 70 terms of reference and the a b i l i t y of the RCIUM research coordinators and t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s to i d e n t i f y questions t h a t RCIUM r e q u i r e s answer- i n g . While the former f a c t o r i s e n t i r e l y second order i n nature, the l a t t e r f a c t o r i s p a r t l y f i r s t order, p a r t l y second order. Thus, even i f RCIUM had access to i n f i n i t e funds such that i t could a f f o r d to h i r e a l l the e x p e r t i s e that i t needed, the required e x p e r t i s e may not always, be a v a i l a b l e at the r i g h t time. RCIUM does not have i n f i n i t e funds but, perhaps, could have put more money i n t o h i r i n g r e l e v a n t e x p e r t i s e . V i s i t s Questions to be Addressed The Commissioners undertook v i s i t s to uranium mines i n order to acquaint themselves w i t h contemporary problems (see p. 26 above). Not having seen a uranium mine before, i t i s understandable that they should wish to v i s i t one or two; t h i s , no doubt, would save them some embarrass- ment at a l a t e r stage. Indeed, as Commissioner of the West Coast O i l Port quiry (WCOPI), Dr. Thompson toured s e v e r a l l a r g e o i l tankers before holding p u b l i c hearing. His r a t i o n a l e f o r so doing was that he might b e t t e r understand and i n t e r p r e t the testimony he was l a t e r to hear (Thomp- son 1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . As described below (see pp. 72-3), i t seems th a t the Commissioners c o l l e c t e d some r e l e v a n t information on t h e i r uranium mine v i s i t s . Since they were s e l e c t e d because of t h e i r e x p e r t i s e , they are s u r e l y q u i t e competent to assess the accuracy of such i n f o r m a t i o n , and q u i t e j u s t i f i - a b l y , t h e r e f o r e , can make use of t h i s information i n drawing c o n c l u s i o n s . Hence, the only question to be addressed i n the e v a l u a t i o n of the uranium mine v i s i t s against c r i t e r i o n I i s : "How much r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n d i d the Commissioners c o l l e c t from t h e i r v i s i t s to uranium mines?" 71 The Commissioners v i s i t e d uranium deposits i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n order to l e a r n the exact nature of these deposits and to form an opinion on the v a l i d i t y of p u b l i c input about hazards (see ;p«. 26 atyove). How- ever, they made more use of t h e i r observations of uranium d e p o s i t s than i s suggested by the above. Thus, on 15 August 1979, the Commissioners released t h e i r I n terim Report. The recommendations i n t h i s r e p o r t are based on: i ) the uranium d e p o s i t s ' o bservations, as i s evidenced by the opening sentences of paragraphs 1, 10 and 12 of the Report (see Appendix 5 ) . i i . p r e l i m i n a r y data a v a i l a b l e to RCIUM (paragraph 3U of the Report), t h i s data having been used by RCIUM f o r : . . . . a study of i t s /uranium explorations'-^ impact on the environment, and of p o s s i b l e h e a l t h hazards t o e x p l o r a t i o n crews and to the p u b l i c . (paragraph 3 ) ; and • . . . a p r e l i m i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n of, the r i s k s to the p u b l i c which these a c t i v i t i e s _uranium e x p l o r - a t i o n / might cause. (paragraph 1 ) ; i i i . the e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i n g to mineral e x p l o r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia ( s e c t i o n VII of the Report). I t i s suggested that the degree to which the informa t i o n i n the Report i s accurate and r e l e v a n t w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the responses to the f o l l o w i n g questions: (a) How r e p r e s e n t a t i v e were the observations made by the Commissioners during t h e i r v i s i t s to uranium dep o s i t s ? (b) What p r e l i m i n a r y data was a v a i l a b l e to the Commiss- i o n e r s , how accurate was i t , and how accurate was their- e v a l u a t i o n of the r i s k s to the p u b l i c of uranium ex- p l o r a t i o n ? ( c ) How accurate was t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e l e v a n t l e g i s l a t i o n ? A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n How much information was secured from the uranium mine v i s i t s ? I t i s hard to determine how much r e l e v a n t information the Commissioners secured from t h e i r v i s i t s to uranium mines s i n c e there are no p u b l i c reports on these v i s i t s (the Commissioners' memoranda on these v i s i t s are kept as c o n f i d e n t i a l RCIUM documents), and the Commissioners r a r e l y r e f e r to the v i s i t s i n the hearings. In the t e c h n i c a l hearings' T r a n s c r i p t s , I found only two r e f e r - ences to the uranium mine v i s i t s , each of which was a mere passing com- ment by Dr. Bates (see TP, 29, p. 4313 and 32, p. 4983). G e n e r a l l y , i n h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y remarks a t the community hearings, Dr. Bates mentioned the f a c t t h a t these v i s i t s were made, and sometimes, b r i e f l y a l l u d e d to t h e i r purpose. For example, a t the Kamloops h e a r i n g , Dr. Bates (TP, 8A, p. 811) explained why the Commissioners had v i s i t e d S a l t Lake C i t y : There are many abandoned t a i l i n g s ' s i t e s i n Utah and Wyoming, but the p a r t i c u l a r one i n S a l t Lake C i t y happens to be of i n t e r e s t and importance because i t ' s i n the middle of a b u i l t - u p area, and t h e r e f o r e we wanted to go and look at that very c l o s e l y and discuss w i t h people what they plan to do about i t . At the Kelowna hearing, Dr. Bates (TP, 3, p. 4) discussed the v i s i t s to the Sherwood and M i d n i t e Mines i n Washington S t a t e : They're the c l o s e s t uranium mines to us . . . • and have s p e c i a l t h i n g s to teach us, not only because i n a g e o l o g i c a l sense the deposits they're working are almost the c o n t i n u a t i o n of the dep o s i t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia . . . . but a l s o because one of them jTMidnite^? was estab- l i s h e d on an I n d i a n t r i b a l r e s e r v e , and the i n t e g r a t i o n of the Indian community i n t o the q u i t e major operation there was a matter of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to t h i s Com- mi s s i o n . In v a r i o u s speeches and i n t e r v i e w s , Dr. Bates has been more s p e c i f i c about the types of in f o r m a t i o n that the Commissioners obtained from t h e i r v i s i t s to uranium mines. For example, i n a speech given l a s t f a l l , Dr. Bates (1979, speech) described how the Commissioners, while v i s i t i n g the 73 Midn i t e Mine, met with Indian c o u n c i l there to d i s c u s s the impacts of uranium mining on Indian communities; and, i n a recent t e l e v i s i o n i n t e r - view, Dr. Bates (Vancouver Channel 8's "Jack Webster Show", 24 January 1980) described b r i e f l y the French uranium i n d u s t r y ' s worker p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e . C l e a r l y , the Commissioners c o l l e c t e d some relevant information during t h e i r uranium mine v i s i t s . How r e p r e s e n t a t i v e were the observations made, during the uranium de p o s i t s ' v i s i t s ? On 4 October 1979, a map was made a v a i l a b l e to a l l major p a r t i c i p a n t s and others who were i n t e r e s t e d . The purpose of the map, according to Mr. Anthony (TP, 26, p. 3697): ". . . . i s to present as comprehensive as p o s s i b l e a p i c t u r e of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia." Although the map i n d i c a t e s that there are a s i g n i f i c a n t number of uranium deposits i n B r i t i s h Columbia not v i s i t e d by RCIUM, many of these are not regarded as having p o t e n t i a l commercial value at t h i s time and are u n l i k e l y to be of much i n t e r e s t to the mining i n d u s t r y . However, the d e p o s i t s i n the North Okanagan and near Summerland are of considerable i n t e r e s t to the i n d u s t r y ; RCIUM has planned v i s i t s to communities near these l o c a t i o n s i n the f a l l of 1980 and, no doubt, w i l l v i s i t these de- p o s i t s at that time ( C u l b e r t 1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . O v e r a l l , RCIUM has v i s i t e d , or w i l l v i s i t i n the near f u t u r e , most of the commercially v i a b l e uranium deposits i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I f the p r i c e of uranium oxide continues to r i s e , however, some of the deposits not v i s i t e d may w e l l a t t a i n s i g n i f i c a n c e . What p r e l i m i n a r y data was a v a i l a b l e to the Commissioners, how accurate was i t , and how accurate was the e v a l u a t i o n of the r i s k s ? The pr e l i m i n a r y data, apart from a t a b l e of r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s at rock surfaces and m a t e r i a l adjacent to d r i l l holes (see Appendix 5 of the I n t e r i m Report), 7k are not included i n the Interim Report. Hence the p u b l i c has no means of e i t h e r assessing the accuracy of the data or of determining whether the Commissioners' recommendations are i n i t s i n t e r e s t . Mr. Cu l b e r t (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) i s wondering why the Commissioners made recommend- a t i o n s concerning uranium e x p l o r a t i o n before the E x p l o r a t i o n Phase of the t e c h n i c a l hearings. Judging from the f o l l o w i n g statements made by Or. Murray (TP, 25, pp. 3325-6) during the t e c h n i c a l hearings, i t i s u n l i k e l y that the Com- missioners had access to a l l the data required to evaluate the r i s k s that they d i s c u s s i n the I n t e r i m Report: I t i s very c l e a r to us i n the Commission that we must have r e l e v a n t data. . . . on a number of aspects of e x p l o r a t i o n and e s s e n t i a l l y we are unanimously agreed that we need to have data on radon gas surveys before and a f t e r d r i l l i n g progresses. We need to have data on uranium and radium con- c e n t r a t i o n i n su r f a c e waters, groundwaters, seeps and hot s p r i n g s both before and a f t e r e x p l o r a t i o n . We need data on gamma r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s at explo r - a t i o n d r i l l s i t e s and c l a i m blocks before and a f t e r e x p l o r a t i o n . We need . . . . data on radon i n working l e v e l months i n a l l places of e x p l o r a t i o n . We need informa t i o n on personal dosimetry and we al s o need general geochemistry background da t a . Since Dr. Bates possesses a considerable knowledge of occupational and environmental h e a l t h hazards, he i s presumable q u i t e competent to handle data that are used i n the e v a l u a t i o n of he a l t h r i s k s and the l i k e . The f a c t that he was the Chairman and author of the Science C o u n c i l of Canada rep o r t e n t i t l e d : P o l i c i e s and Poisons: The Containment of Long-Term Hazards to Human Health i n the Environment and i n the Work- place (October 1977) and author or co-author of 151 other such published s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t s g i v e s support to t h i s c l a i m . The unknown f a c t o r , how- ever, i s the s u b j e c t i v e element i n v o l v e d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c 75 information (see p. 15 above). T h i s , together wi t h the f a c t s t h a t : (1) the p u b l i c was not consulted about the r i s k assessment; and (2) the Commissioners probably lacked a l l the relevant data, suggests that the recommendations i n the Report are not n e c e s s a r i l y i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . How accurate was the Commissioners' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l e g i s l a t i o n ? As Mr. Anthony (1980a, i n t e r v i e w ) e x p l a i n t e d : The Commissioners heard numerous submissions from many v a r i e d sources i n the community hearings as to what i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes were f e l t to be necessary. They then examined the e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n to see what types of changes were f e a s i b l e . But as he went on to say: "Although I advised them as to what the l e g i s - l a t i o n says or doesn't say, the Commissioners d i d n ' t always f o l l o w my advice." Perhaps we should not be too confident about the Commissioners' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l e g i s l a t i o n given that none of them are lawyers. However, l e g a l advice was a v a i l a b l e to them whether they chose to f o l l o w i t or hat. L i m i t i n g Factors The Commissioners based t h e i r I n t e r i m Report on what appears to have been an untested body of incomplete data. T h i s has l e d many people to wonder why the Report was produced before the t e c h n i c a l hearings com- menced. Perhaps the Commissioners were responding to p u b l i c pressure; perhaps they f e l t that they should p u b l i s h a report to prove that they had accomplished something. But whatever the reason, we must question t h e i r understanding of the p u b l i c i n q u i r y process (lower order l i m i t i n g f a c t o r ) s i n c e t h e i r recommendations were not the product of a f u l l p u b l i c review process. 76 L i b r a r y Network Questions to be Addressed The RCIUM l i b r a r y contains a l a r g e amount of information that the Commissioners w i l l make use of when they come to w r i t e t h e i r f i n a l report (Bates 1980a, i n t e r v i e w ) . Questions p e r t a i n i n g to the e v a l u a t i o n of the L i b r a r y m a t e r i a l against c r i t e r i o n I are: (a) I s the i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t ? (b) I s i t complete? and f o r i n f o r m a t i o n that has been s p e c i a l l y generated f o r RCIUM: (c) I s i t accurate? To the extent that s p e c i a l l y generated information i s drawn upon by w i t - nesses i n t h e i r testimonies at the t e c h n i c a l hearings, or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , i s d i r e c t e d at a witness i n cross-examination, the opportunity to determine i t s accuracy does e x i s t . A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n I s the information r e l e v a n t ? Most of the information i n the L i b r a r y i s h i g h l y r e l e v a n t to RCIUM*s terms of reference. Appendix 12, which l i s t s L i b r a r y items 261 to 269 ( r e c e i v e d i n May 1979) and 1410 to 1416 ( r e c e i v e d i n November and December, 1979) i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s p o i n t and a l s o supports Miss McCall*s (1980a, i n t e r v i e w ) comment t h a t : "As time has gone by, the l i t e r a t u r e has become more and more focused as the issues have become more and more c l e a r l y defined." I s the information complete? There i s no reason to b e l i e v e that the information i n the L i b r a r y i s complete. We cannot assume that i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s have requested, between them, a l l r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . In add- i t i o n , some of the l i s t s prepared by governments, boards, agencies and 77 major p a r t i c i p a n t s , as r e q u i r e d by PR No. 1, 8.3.1. and B.3.2„(see Appendix 1 ) , are incomplete (see p-.»52 above). Furthermore, edited videocassettes have been prepared only f o r the f i r s t t_o phases of the t e c h n i c a l hearings (see p. 31 above). F i n a l l y , the Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n Questionnaire (see p. 29 above) has not been returned by a l l mining companies. Is the information accurate? As noted above (p . 76), i t i s necessary t o ask t h i s question only of i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t has been s p e c i a l l y generated f o r RCIUM. The e x p l o r a t i o n r e p o r t s , f o r the most p a r t , and the responses to the Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n Questionnaire c o n s t i t u t e such i n f o r m a t i o n . On k October 1979, during the E x p l o r a t i o n Phase of the t e c h n i c a l hearings, 26 mining companies (who had been i d e n t i f i e d by RCIUM as p a r t i c i p a t i n g or having p a r t i c i p a t e d i n uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia) were i n attendance f o r questioning on t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , as described i n t h e i r ex- p l o r a t i o n r e p o r t s . Only nine of these 26 companies were cross-examined; there was not s u f f i c i e n t time to hear from the r e s t . I t became apparent during the a c t u a l proceedings on t h i s day, that a number of major p a r t i c i - pants had s i m i l a r questions f o r each company. Hence, i n order to save time, i t was agreed that RCIUM would c o l l e c t these "overlap" questions together and send a standard l i s t of r e l e v a n t questions to the various mining com- panies i n v o l v e d i n uranium e x p l o r a t i o n (TP, 26, pp. 3580-2). This l i s t of questions c o n s t i t u t e s the Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n Questionnaire. In the "overflow" hearings, RCIUM plans to hear from c e r t a i n of the mining companies that have responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . As Mr. Anthony (TP, 26, pp. 3795-6) exp l a i n e d , i f major p a r t i c i p a n t s f e e l t h a t the r e t u r n of a company i s n e c e s s i t a t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses, RCIUM w i l l consider the r e c a l l i n g of the company; and as he advised the Commissioners: 78 I t ' s up to you . . . . to decide whether the witnesses should be returned, once you know the nature of the evidence we're /Commission counsel and major p a r t i c i p a n t s / seeking and we can demonstrate to you th a t i t would serve the i n t e r e s t of the Commission to have the witness r e t u r n . There w i l l be opportunity, t h e r e f o r e , to cross-examine a few mining com- panies on t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses and f u r t h e r on t h e i r e x p l o r a t i o n r e p o r t s . But due to time c o n s t r a i n t s , i t i s u n l i k e l y that many companies' w i l l be r e c a l l e d (Schmitt 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) . Mr. Rogers of UBCIC (TP, 26, p. 3594) expressed h i s doubts about t h i s process and wondered whether: . • • .we Ahe Commission and major p a r t i c i p a n t s - ? haven't somehow moved away from the philosophy of what a P u b l i c Inquiry i s . . • . " a Mr. Anthony had s t a t e d at an e a r l i e r s e ssion t h a t : I t ' s one t h i n g to rece i v e a r e p o r t , but there's another th i n g to be able to question the b a s i s of the report and how that report was prepared and do the other things that cross-examination permits us to do. O v e r a l l , i t seems th a t there w i l l be very l i t t l e opportunity to c r o s s - examine mining companies on the uranium e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . L i m i t i n g F a c t o r s Two lower order f a c t o r s seem to l i m i t RCIUM's a b i l i t y to ensure accuracy and relevancy of the m a t e r i a l i n the RCIUM l i b r a r y . F i r s t , RCIUM's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t s r o l e ( i t has to b r i n g i n most of the w i t - nesses, see p. 66 above) i s such t h a t members of RCIUM and many major p a r t i c i p a n t s are pressed f o r time. As a r e s u l t ^ n o t a l l r e l e v a n t documents are f i l e d w i t h RCIUM and Mr. Culbert has only prepared two edited video- c a s s e t t e s . Second, the Commissioners' understanding of the i n q u i r y process can be questioned given t h a t the e x p l o r a t i o n r e p o r t s and questionnaire responses of many mining companies are not being subjected to the adver- sary process. 79 Summation The f i v e RCIUM research p r o j e c t s mere a waste of time and money, and d i d l i t t l e to c o n t r i b u t e to the a c q u i s i t i o n of a relevant body of i n f o r m a t i o n . The more r e c e n t l y authorized research s t u d i e s are of much more relevance to RCIUM's terms of reference and are f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n at a t e c h n i c a l hearing where they are subjected to cross-examination. While there i s a l a r g e volume of r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l i n the RCIUM l i b r a r y , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s not n e c e s s a r i l y complete, and that which was s p e c i a l l y generated f o r RCIUM i s hardly subjected to cross-examination. The Commissioners obtained some r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r v i s i t s to uranium mines. I t i s l i k e l y t hat t h i s information i s accurate, given the high degree of e x p e r t i s e possessed by the Commissioners. The recommendations i n the I n t e r i m Report, which were p a r t l y based on the Commissioners' observations of uranium d e p o s i t s , were not the product of a f u l l p u b l i c review process and are t h e r e f o r e questionable. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of cross-examination i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings i s l e s s than i t might be f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons; (1) RCIUM has brought i n most of the witnesses, and hence many p a r t i e s are pressed f o r time; (2) many of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s are under- funded. (1) above a l s o reduces the RCIUM research c o o r d i n a t o r s ' a b i l i t y to work with RCIUM witnesses and to ensure that a l l d r a f t s are submitted on time. (2) above a l s o l i m i t s the a b i l i t y of major p a r t i c i p a n t s to brin g i n witnesses independently of RCIUM; to h i r e t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e ; and t o perform s t u d i e s . I t seems that the time shortages faced by RCIUM are due, i n l a r g e p a r t , to the 27 June 1980 deadline on the t e c h n i c a l hearings. The time c o n s t r a i n t means that there i s l e s s time to cross-examine witnesses than 80 might otherwise be the case, and that not a l l witnesses may be heard. In a d d i t i o n , the deadline imposed on the t e c h n i c a l hearings increases the time pressures F e l t by many of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s and by the RCIUM s t a f f . The time shortages are p a r t l y due to some r e p i t i t i o u s and i r r e - l evant cross-examination that could be reduced i f the sessions were chaired more r i g o r o u s l y . The nature of the uranium is s u e i s such that cross-examination by major p a r t i c i p a n t s to b r i n g out f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n occurs a t the expense of cross-examination to determine c r e d i b i l i t y and to bring out p a r t i c u l a r cases. Furthermore, because of the competitive nature of the uranium mining i n d u s t r y , RCIUM may be r e c e i v i n g some inf o r m a t i o n i n confidence. Such i n f o r m a t i o n i s not te s t e d i n cross-examination. F i n a l l y , the Commiss- i o n e r s ' subpoena powers are not p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r c e f u l and may l i m i t , t h e r e - f o r e , RCIUM's access to c e r t a i n types of rel e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Concerning the community hearings, RCIUM learned l e s s about l o c a l impacts than i t might have done. This i s l a r g e l y due to RCIUM's choice of p u b l i c hearings to l e a r n about l o c a l concerns; i t i s a l s o due to the Commissioners' l a t e a p p r e c i a t i o n of the importance.of a community r e l a t - ions c o n s u l t a n t . 81 CHAPTER V CRITERION I I : INFORM THE PUBLIC OF COMMISSION FINDINGS I n t r o d u c t i o n As o u t l i n e d i n Chapter I I (see p. 18 above), the second c r i t e r i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t RCIUM communicate the information i t r e c e i v e s t D the p u b l i c i n a manner that i s comprehensible to a l l B r i t i s h Columbians. In other words, f o r t h i s c r i t e r i o n to be f u l l y met, RCIUM must thoroughly educate the p u b l i c about a l l aspects of the uranium iss u e t h a t are w i t h i n i t s terms of r e f e r e n c e . I t can be argued t h a t i t i s not a commission's r o l e to communicate the i n f o r m a t i o n that i t r e c e i v e s to the p u b l i c ; t h a t , i n s t e a d , i t i s the r o l e of the media to perform such a f u n c t i o n . However, i t i s a w e l l under- stood p r i n c i p l e that the media are event o r i e n t e d and t h a t they are i n - e f f e c t i v e at s u s t a i n i n g i n t e r e s t i n a long and drawn-out i s s u e (Thompson 1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . This i s i l l u s t r a t e d below. While very few news r e p o r t e r s attended the f i r s t round community hearings (see Figure 5 below), attendance at the t e c h n i c a l hearings i s even lower. As T e r r a l (1980) notes: FIGURE 5 MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE COMMUNITY HEARINGS Lo c a t i o n of Hearing Number of Reporters Rock Creek 1 Grandforks 2 Castlegar k Williams Lake 2 Vanderhoof 3 A t l i n 1 82 The press t a b l e i s almost i n v a r i a b l y empty. This has l e d , among other t h i n g s , to n a t i o n a l coverage f o r . . . . //BCMA's_7 b r i e f on uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . The st o r y quoted the b r i e f e x t e n s i v e l y as i f i t had i n f a c t been presented to the Commission. But the t r u t h i s t h a t the b r i e f uias never heard. M i s r e p o r t i n g of the above type has a l s o been r e f e r r e d to during the proceedings at the t e c h n i c a l hearings (see f o r example, TP, 48. pp. 7497-9 and 58, pp. 10302-3). Since the media cannot be r e l i e d upon to cover RCIUM proceedings i n a r e l i a b l e manner, i t becomes the r o l e of RCIUM to communicate the inform- a t i o n t h a t i t receives to the p u b l i c . Furthermore, i t i s the r o l e of RCIUM to communicate the information i n a comprehensible form i n order that people can have informed opinions on the uranium i s s u e . In point of f a c t , the Commissioners do perceive RCIUM's r o l e to be p a r t l y one of edu- c a t i o n . As Or. Bates (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) commented: . . . . d e f i n i t e l y i t ' s the Commission's r o l e to educate the p u b l i c ; the /"RCIUM/ process i s more im- portant than the outcome. RCIUM's a c t i v i t i e s p e r t a i n i n g to c r i t e r i o n I I are: - p u b l i c s e s s i o n s ; - L i b r a r y network; - p u b l i c i t y . P u b l i c Sessions Questions to be Addressed Those i n attendance at a p u b l i c s e s s i o n may d e r i v e some educational b e n e f i t from the proceedings. In a d d i t i o n , these people may t e l l others about what they have l e a r n e d . A f i n a l p oint i s th a t those who read the T r a n s c r i p t s of Proceedings may l e a r n about the uranium i s s u e . Questions to be addressed i n the e v a l u a t i o n of the p u b l i c s e s s i o n s a g a i n s t c r i t e r i o n I I are as f o l l o w s : (a) Houi many people attend the p u b l i c sessions? (b) What i s the educative value of these sessions? (c) To what extent da those i n attendance at the sessions t e l l others about what they have learned? (d) How many people read the T r a n s c r i p t s ? (e) What i s the educative value of the T r a n s c r i p t s ? A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n How many people attend the p u b l i c sessions? The audiences at the f i r s t round community hearings were g e n e r a l l y q u i t e l a r g e (see Figure 6, p. 84 below). Thus a s i g n i g i c a n t number of people would have learned about the a c t i v i t i e s of mining companies that presented b r i e f s at these s e s s i o n s ; t h i s , indeed, i s what the Commissioners had intended (see p. 35 above). In c o n t r a s t to the community hearings, the audiences at the tech- n i c a l hearings are very s m a l l . On average only about 15 people attend any given s e s s i o n and hence I f e e l that the educational b e n e f i t s to thes people i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s , however, ignores the attendance of major p a r t i c i p a n t s at the t e c h n i c a l hearings who b e n e f i t from the "major process of mutual education" that Dr. Bates envisages these sessions as being (see p. 22 above), and those who view the t e l e v i s e d proceedings or vid e o c a s s e t t e s of these s e s s i o n s . 84 FIGURE 6 ATTENDANCE AT COMMUNITY HEARINGS Loc a t i o n of Hearing Date Time of day of s e s s i o n Approximate Number of People i n Audience Kelouina 5 June 5 June 6 June 7 June morning evening morning morning 75 150 70 25 Clearwater 8 June 9 June evening morning 1 200 30 Kamloops 11 June 11 June morning evening 30» 50 Rock Creek 18 June 19 June evening morning 150 ! 50 | Grand Forks 20 June 21 June evening morning 250 j 30 ' Cast l e g a r 21 June 22 June evening morning 100 35 ' Williams Lake J 26 June 26 June j morning evening 25 ; Vanderhoof 27 June evening 80 Fort Nelson 3 J u l y evening 6 A t l i n 4 J u l y evening 100 What i s the edu c a t i o n a l value of the p u b l i c sessions? The information presented by the mining companies during the f i r s t round community hearings was not t e s t e d by cross-examination and may not, t h e r e f o r e , have been com- p l e t e and t o t a l l y a ccurate. Hence, i t ' s educative value i s d i s p u t a b l e . The community hearings, however, were obviously not the ones i n which to t e g t , through cross-examination, the v a l i d i t y of evidence presented. This would have hindered RCIUM's success i n l e a r n i n g about l o c a l concerns. 85 The Commissioners were not i n t e n t upon informing or educating the people attending the community hearings themselves; rather they mere there to r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . As Dr. Bates (TP, 1 7 , p. 2300) remarked at the F o r t Nelson community hearing: . . . . as a Commission uie spend ninety-nine percent of the time l i s t e n i n g and one percent r i g h t at the end say- ing what we t h i n k . So that i t ' s a l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t f o r us to come and provide information . . . . For major p a r t i c i p a n t s , the educative value of the t e c h n i c a l hear- ings i s p o t e n t i a l l y very high. To the extent that c r i t e r i o n I i s met f o r these s e s s i o n s , the i n f o r m a t i o n presented i s accurate and r e l e v a n t ; t h i s , i n t u r n , determing i t s educative value to major p a r t i c i p a n t s . Those who watch the t e l e v i s e d proceedings of the t e c h n i c a l hearings may be educated about the uranium i s s u e . However, s i n c e the t e l e v i s i o n broadcasts are shown during working hours ( w i t h the exception of those on Saturdays), i t i s u n l i k e l y that many people view them. In a d d i t i o n , because the information presented i s h i g h l y e s o t e r i c and t e c h n i c a l , i t i s of l i t t l e educative value to most l a y people. The videocassettes are no more comprehensible than the t e l e v i s e d proceedings; furthermore, they provide a very slow means of c o l l a t i n g evidence (as of the end of January, only the f i r s t two had been produced; see p. 31 above). In t o t a l , the educative value of the f i r s t round community hearings was very low. That of the t e c h n i c a l hearings i s p o t e n t i a l l y very high f o r major p a r t i c i p a n t s , but i s low f o r those who view the t e l e v i s e d proceedings or edited videocassettes of these s e s s i o n s . 1 To what extent do major p a r t i c i p a n t s educate others? Dr. Bates, (1980 i n t e r v i e w ) maintains that RCIUM alone i s f u l f i l l i n g the educational 1 The extent to which RCIUM educates others i s the theme of t h i s chapter. This a s i d e , only major p a r t i c i p a n t s are discussed here s i n c e only they d e r i v e s i g n i f i c a n t educational b e n e f i t from the p u b l i c s e s s i o n s . 86 r o l e and hence he has not: . . . . given out ̂ p a r t i c i p a n t funds/ s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r education . . . . /although some/ groups have used some money f o r t h i s ; f o r example, the United Church's w i t - nesses have been used on TV f o r p u b l i c education. However, some money has been a l l o c a t e d to major p a r t i c i p a n t s , a t l e a s t i n the f i r s t round of funding, f o r p u b l i c education (see Appendix 13). A number of major p a r t i c i p a n t s are p u t t i n g a great deal of energy i n t o p u b l i c education. Appendix 13 discusses the p u b l i c education a c t i v i t i e s of a sample of major p a r t i c i p a n t s . In a d d i t i o n to the a c t i v - i t i e s l i s t e d i n Appendix 13, members of a l l these groups took part i n an "Open Forum on Uranium Mining i n B r i t i s h Columbia" during SFU's "Nuclear Awareness Week" (9-13 October 1979). Apparently there e x i s t s a great deal of confusion among major p a r t i - c i p a n t s concerning the use of p a r t i c i p a n t funds f o r p u b l i c education. Whether they use these funds f o r t h i s or not, a l l groups interviewed put considerable e f f o r t i n t o educating the p u b l i c . Ms. White (1980, i n t e r v i e w ) explained t h a t the opponents of uranium mining f e e l o b l iged to educate the p u b l i c : ". • . . because the Commission i s doing t h i s so inadequately." This s t i l l remains to be seen. 1 L How many people read the T r a n s c r i p t s ? Appendix 6 l i s t s the l i b r a r i e s which hold the T r a n s c r i p t s . Major p a r t i c i p a n t s are fu r n i s h e d w i t h f r e e c o p i e s . Based on Miss McCall's Commission l i b r a r y use s t a t i s t i c s (see p. 89 below), i t i s exceedingly u n l i k e l y that many l a y people read the T r a n s c r i p t s . Witnesses, major p a r t i c i p a n t s and members of RCIUM, however, make considerable use of them. What i s the educative value of the T r a n s c r i p t s ? The educative value of the T r a n s c r i p t s i s a f u n c t i o n o f : 1 Only the T r a n s c r i p t s of the t e c h n i c a l sessions are r e l e v a n t here s i n c e only these sessions are of educative value. 87 - the extent to which the in f o r m a t i o n presented at the t e c h n i c a l hearings i s r e l e v a n t and accurate ( c r i t e r i o n I ; see Chapter I V ) ; - the comprehensibleness of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . Concerning the l a t t e r p o i n t , i t i s exceedingly d i f f i c u l t f o r the l a y - person to understand much of the information presented at the t e c h n i c a l sessions because i t i s so e s o t e r i c and t e c h n i c a l . A d d i t i o n a l problems with the T r a n s c r i p t s are: - they are not p e r f e c t l y i n t e l l i g i b l e i n a l l p l a c e s ; - they are not completely a c c u r a t e — f r e q u e n t l y Mr. Cul b e r t (1980, i n t e r v i e w ) f i n d s e r r o r s i n the T r a n s c r i p t s of the t e c h n i c a l hearings, e s p e c i a l l y where testimony i s very t e c h n i c a l i n nature. L i m i t i n g F a c t o r s The educative value of the proceedings of the t e c h n i c a l hearings and the corresponding T r a n s c r i p t s , e d i t e d videocassettes and t e l e v i s e d proceedings are l i m i t e d by the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : - RCIUM's success i n meeting c r i t e r i o n I ; - the somewhat b o r i n g , e s o t e r i c and t e c h n i c a l nature of the information presented at the t e c h n i c a l hearings; - the length of time i t takes to produce edite d video- c a s s e t t e s ; - the broadcasting of the t e l e v i s e d proceedings pre- dominantly on week days. The second f a c t o r above i s of the higher order (see p. 32 above). RCIUM's terms of reference and the nature of the uranium i s s u e are such that the Commissioners have to hear a great d e a l of hi g h l y t e c h n i c a l and e s o t e r i c evidence, much of which i s exceedingly d u l l . The t e c h n i c a l i t i e s , i n t u r n , present problems f o r the T r a n s c r i p t r e p o r t e r s , none of whom are experts on any aspect of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n . Hence, o c c a s i o n a l i n a c c u r a c i e s i n t h e i r r e p o r t i n g i s understandable. 88 Mr. C u l b e r t does not have s u f f i c i e n t time to prepare e d i t e d video- c a s s e t t e s ; t h i s i s a r e s u l t of RCIUM's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t s r o l e (lower order f a c t o r ; see p. 66 above). The f a c t that the proceedings of the t e c h n i c a l sessions are shown on t e l e v i s i o n predominantly during working hours i s presumably a higher order f a c t o r ; there i s a great deal of competition f o r evening and weekend viewing time. This a s i d e , bothitne e d i t e d v i d e a c a s s e t t e s and the t e l e v i s e d proceedings are of l i m i t e d educat- i v e value because of the nature of the uranium i s s u e and RCIUM's terms of reference (higher order f a c t o r s ) . The t e c h n i c a l hearings are p r i m a r i l y of educative value to major p a r t i c i p a n t s , many of whom take i t upon themselves to educate the p u b l i c . I f indeed, RCIUM i s doing an inadequate job of educating the p u b l i c , the major p a r t i c i p a n t s ' perceived o b l i g a t i o n to do t h i s themselves i s r e a l - i s t i c , and red u c t i o n of the confusion (second order l i m i t i n g f a c t o r ) surrounding such a c t i v i t i e s would be b e n e f i c i a l . L i b r a r y Network Questions to be Answered B a s i c a l l y , a l i b r a r y i s a resource f o r those i n t e r e s t e d i n o b t a i n - ing i n f o r m a t i o n about a given s u b j e c t . Questions p e r t a i n i n g to the e v a l - u a t i o n of the l i b r a r y network against c r i t e r i o n I I , t h e r e f o r e , a r e : (a) How many i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s make use of the l i b r a r y network? (b) What i s the educative value of the m a t e r i a l d i s - t r i b u t e d throughout the network? A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n How much use i s made of the l i b r a r y network by i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s ? According to Miss M c C a l l , the RCIUM l i b r a r i a n (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) : 89 About 30-40 people use the Commission l i b r a r y each week. Approximately, 75 per cent of these people are major p a r t i c i p a n t s , witnesses or members of TAG; 15 per cent are students; and 10 per cent are r e p o r t e r s (or o t h e r s ) . On average, I answer 7-10 l e t t e r requests per week. These in c l u d e requests f o r documents, out of town lo a n s , general information packages, and so on. Most of these requests come from B r i t i s h Columbians who l i v e outside of the lower mainland area. In add- i t i o n , I handle about 45-60 telephone reference c a l l s each week. Over h a l f of these c a l l s come from the Van- couver area. Questions range from the very s p e c i f i c to the very general ( f o r example, "When i s the L i b r a r y open?") A l s o , there are about 5-8 new s u b s c r i p t i o n s per week to the Accessions L i s t s . These o r i g i n a l l y came from B r i t i s h Columbia e n t i r e l y , but i n c r e a s i n g l y are now coming from the r e s t of Canada, the United S t a t e s , and sometimes from Europe. I do not have l i b r a r y use s t a t i s t i c s f o r the depository l i b r a r i e s . In t o t a l , Miss M c C a l l f e e l s t h a t the L i b r a r y i s very a c c e s s i b l e : " I t i s used h e a v i l y f o r such a small l i b r a r y , " and: "People can even phone i n c o l l e c t w i t h i n B r i t i s h Columbia" (1980d and c r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n t e r v i e w s ) . However, some of the major L i b r a r y users (those d i r e c t l y i n volved i n RCIUM) lack the time to read as much L i b r a r y m a t e r i a l as they would l i k e t o . For example, Ms. L e x i e r , RCIUM research coordinator . (1980, i n t e r v i e w ) , pointed out t h a t : " I don't use the books and a r t i c l e s i n the L i b r a r y very much. I'd l i k e t o , but I don't have time." And while Mr. Hodge, RCIUM research coordinator (1980c, i n t e r v i e w ) , r e f e r s to L i b r a r y m a t e r i a l as much as p o s s i b l e when he i s preparing cross-exam- i n a t i o n , he noted t h a t : "There's never enough time to do t h i s as much as I'd l i k e t o . " Dr. Bates (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) i s reading L i b r a r y m a t e r i a l : ". . . . a l l the time." In summary, most use i s made of the L i b r a r y by those d i r e c t l y i n - volved i n RCIUM. Because of time c o n s t r a i n t s , i t i s u n l i k e l y that these people read as much L i b r a r y m a t e r i a l as they would l i k e t o . 90 What i s the educative value of the m a t e r i a l d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the l i b r a r y network? The educative value of the T r a n s c r i p t s , v i d e o - c a s s e t t e s and UID are commented on elsewhere i n t h i s chapter. The question remaining, t h e r e f o r e , i s : "What i s the educational value of the books, j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s , p e r i o d i c a l s , m i c r o f i c h e s , e x p l o r a t i o n reports and Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n Questionnaire responses that are i n the RCIUM l i b r a r y ? Given that the main readers of t h i s m a t e r i a l are those d i r e c t l y involved i n RCIUM, the educative value i s determined by the answers to the questions p e r t a i n i n g to the evalua t i o n , o f the L i b r a r y m a t e r i a l against c r i t e r i o n I (see pp. 76-8 above); c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y of the m a t e r i a l by these users i s assumed. L i m i t i n g F a c t o r s The f a c t o r s operating to l i m i t RCIUM's success i n educating the p u b l i c about the uranium i s s u e through the l i b r a r y network appear to inc l u d e those l i m i t i n g RCIUM's a b i l i t y to ensure accuracy and relevancy L of the m a t e r i a l i n the RCIUM "'Library (see p. 78 above). In a d d i t i o n , RCIUM's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t s r o l e (second order f a c t o r ) i s such t h a t many of those d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n RCIUM are pressed f o r time and hence are unable to do as much reading of L i b r a r y m a t e r i a l as they would wish. P u b l i c i t y Questions to be Addressed RCIUM's p u b l i c i t y mechanisms (described on p p . 30-31 above) are: - p u b l i c n o t i c e s ; - l i b r a r y network f a c t sheets; - t e l e v i s e d proceedings of the t e c h n i c a l hearings; - v i d e o c a s s e t t e s ; - v a r i o u s i n t e r v i e w s and speeches; - news r e l e a s e s ; - UID. Only the l a s t two of the above warrant c o n s i d e r a t i o n against c r i t e r i o n I I si n c e these represent RCIUM's attempts to communicate i t s f i n d i n g s to the p u b l i c i n a comprehensible manner. Questions p e r t a i n i n g to the eva l u a t i o n of these mechanisms against c r i t e r i o n I I are: (a) What p u b l i c s do they reach? (b) What i s t h e i r educative value? A p p l i c a t i o n of C r i t e r i o n What p u b l i c s are reached by the various mechanisms? The news r e - leases are sent to a l l major newspapers i n B r i t i s h Columbia and are used by many press r e p o r t e r s : ". • • . as the k e r n e l of t h e i r r e p o r t s . " (Grant 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) . Presumably, the in f o r m a t i o n i n the news r e - leases i s absorbed by a l a r g e number of B r i t i s h Columbians. UID i s read by members of the p u b l i c who are p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n RCIUM. At l e a s t 1500 people are on the UID m a i l i n g l i s t . Perhaps , there would be a longer m a i l i n g l i s t i f RCIUM a d v e r t i s e d UID more widely than i t does. To my knowledge, Dr. Bates has r e f e r r e d to UID only twice during the t e c h n i c a l hearings (see TP, 19, p. 2459 and 44, p. 7499). In a d d i t i o n , Dr. Bates r e f e r r e d to UID during h i s i n t e r v i e w with Mr. Webster on Vancouver Cable 8's "Jack Webster Show" (24 January 1980) and i n h i s speech at SFU (1979). However, he d i d not e x p l a i n how members of the p u b l i c could o b t a i n copies of UID except when asked about t h i s i n a "phoned-in" question to the t e l e v i s i o n show. Dr. Bates (1980d, i n t e r v i e w ) explained t h a t i f RCIUM had a d v e r t i s e d UID: ". . . . the government may have been extremely upset." s i n c e , as he went on to e x p l a i n : 92 You must be very sure that you're not using p u b l i c money to p u b l i c i z e the proceedings f o r p o l i t i c a l purposes . . . . A l l i n q u i r i e s have been accused of t h i s * In t o t a l , i t i s probable that the neuis releases reach the a t t e n t i o n of a l a r g e number of B r i t i s h Columbians. The same can not be s a i d of UID, l a r g e l y because RCIUM i s doing an inadequate job of a d v e r t i s i n g i t . What i s the educative value of the various mechanisms? Mr. Grant (1980, i n t e r v i e w ) , RCIUM's news r e l e a s e o f f i c e r , has made the f o l l o w i n g comments about h i s work: I t ' s hard to make good news out of t h i s i n q u i r y every day. Some of my releases are not as newsworthy as I would have l i k e d but I have t o report what happened each day. Sometimes, I f e e l that I have missed some of the f i n e p oints because i t ' s hard to f o l l o w a l l the argu- ments and the t e c h n i c a l language. The reason why Mr. Grant's r e l e a s e s are sometimes d u l l i s that they are attempting to convey to the p u b l i c the f a c t t h a t RCIUM i s addressing, i n d e t a i l , the informa t i o n that i s needed to answer t e c h n i c a l questions. They are not e d i t o r i a l i z i n g , f o r example, on the answer to what i s an acceptable r i s k as many press r e p o r t e r s do (see TP, 44, pp. 7497-9), without f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t i n g what the r i s k i s and how ac c u r a t e l y i t can be determined. In a d d i t i o n , Mr. Grant's r e l e a s e s are a l i t t l e "dry" s i n c e : - they r a r e l y acknowledge the presence of uranium mining opponents; - they focus on the contents of witnesses' b r i e f s and have l i t t l e t o say about the cross-examination that ensues. In t o t a l , w h i l e Mr. Grant i s re a s s u r i n g the proponents of uranium mining that t h e i r s i d e of the argument i s being attended t o , the opponents, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , are wondering whether anyone i s representing t h e i r p a r t i - c u l a r concerns at the t e c h n i c a l hearings. Given t h a t many news re p o r t e r s take advantage of Mr. Grant's r e l e a s e (see p. 91 above), t h i s i s not a s a t i s f a c t o r y s i t u a t i o n . 93 UIO provides an e a s i l y comprehensible record of the proceedings adopted at the t e c h n i c a l hearings. I t describes the cross-examination by a l l p a r t i e s as w e l l as the witnesses statements of evidence. To summarize, only UID i s of s i g n i f i c a n t educative value to B r i t i s h Columbians. L i m i t i n g Factors The news releases have a low educative value f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: - Mr. Grant misses some of the " f i n e p o i n t s " ; - they are one-sided (focus on the proponents' arguments); - they say l i t t l e about cross-examination. I t i s suggested that RCIUM's terms of reference and the nature of the uranium i s s u e (both higher order f a c t o r s ) are such t h a t the r e l e v a n t e v i - dence i s h i g h l y e s o t e r i c and t e c h n i c a l , and thereby l i m i t Mr. Grant's a b i - l i t y to r e p o r t f u l l y the proceedings of the t e c h n i c a l hearings. In a d d i t i o n , Mr. Grant faces the dilemna that h i s news releases w i l l be unacceptable to the m a j o r i t y of newspaper e d i t o r s unless they c o n t a i n information that w i l l catch the p u b l i c ' s a t t e n t i o n ; he would be wasting h i s time, t h e r e f o r e , i f he attempted to w r i t e very d e t a i l e d accounts of the proceedings at the t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n s . RCIUM does an inadequate job of a d v e r t i s i n g UID. Dr. Bates' r a t i o n - a l e f o r t h i s (see pp. 91r2 above )is unacceptable; there i s l i t t l e p oint i n using p u b l i c money to produce a d i g e s t i f i t i s then not a d v e r t i s e d . In t o t a l , i t i s suggested t h a t a lower order f a c t o r l i m i t s RCIUM's success i n educating the p u b l i c ; namely the Commissioners' understanding of how they should attempt to do t h i s . Summation RCIUM i s doing a very poor job of educating B r i t i s h Columbians about i t s f i n d i n g s . The proceedings at the t e c h n i c a l hearings are only s a t i s f a c t o r i l y summarized and presented i n layperson terms by Mr. Shaw i n UID. UID i s inadequately a d v e r t i s e d by RCIUM and i s read probably by no more than 2000 i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s . Given the above, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that major p a r t i c i p a n t s put so much e f f o r t i n t o p u b l i c education. I t mould be p r e f e r a b l e , however, i f RCIUM bore t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y more f u l l y s i n c e i t i s not advocating a p a r t i c u l a r case and i s i n the best p o s i t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , to inform the p u b l i c about a l l aspects, i n c l u d i n g a l l s i d e s of the argument, of the uranium i s s u e . 95 CHAPTER VI RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS In t r o d u c t i o n As described i n Chapter I (see pp. 2-3 above), the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the p u b l i c i n a commission of i n q u i r y may r e s u l t i n elected represent- a t i v e s r e f l e c t i n g more a c c u r a t e l y t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s ' preferences i n the form u l a t i o n of government p o l i c i e s . Concerning RCIUM and p r o v i n c i a l gov- ernment p o l i c y on uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, i t was post- u l a t e d t h a t t h i s m i l l occur i f four broad c r i t e r i a are met. These c r i t e r i a ( described on p. IB above) stem from a p a r t i c i p a t o r y model of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e government; they r e f l e c t , a l s o , the s p e c i f i c nature of RCIUM's terms of refer e n c e . Because of the time frame f o r my t h e s i s research, I was unable to apply two of the four c r i t e r i a . Hence, I evaluated the RCIUM process only i n terms of i t s success i n : (1) securing a r e l e v a n t body of accurate i n f o r m a t i o n ; and (2) informing the p u b l i c of i t s f i n d i n g s . For these two aspects of RCIUM, I was able to i d e n t i f y a number of major accomplishments and weaknesses. The remainder of t h i s chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o three s e c t i o n s . In the f i r s t s e c t i o n , I d i s c u s s the accomplishments of RCIUM; as much can be learned from these as can be learned from RCIUM weaknesses. In the second s e c t i o n , I d i s c u s s major weaknesses i n the RCIUM process, focusing on those t h a t a r i s e from lower order l i m i t i n g f a c t o r s s i n c e f o r these 96 there^Sre magor o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r improvement. Recommendations are made as to how the d e f i c i e n c i e s might be remedied. Rather than make s p e c i f i c recommendations, a p p l i c a b l e only to RCIUM, I make general recommendations t h a t should be of use to f u t u r e commissions of i n q u i r y . The f i n a l s e c t i o n presents some b r i e f concluding remarks. Commission Accomplishments RCIUM should be commended f o r i t s use of a d i v e r s e range of a c t i v i - t i e s to f u l f i l i t s terms of refe r e n c e . Thus i t i s holding community and t e c h n i c a l hearings; a u t h o r i z i n g research; v i s i t i n g uranium mines and de p o s i t s ; maintaining a l i b r a r y network; and p u b l i c i z i n g i t s proceedings. C e r t a i n l y , the f i r s t round community hearings were a p o s i t i v e e l e - ment i n the t o t a l RCIUM process s i n c e they made i t p o s s i b l e f o r many i n t e r e s t e d groups and l o c a l people to p a r t i c i p a t e . However, as pointed out i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , these hearings were not as e f f e c t i v e as they might have been i n securing community involvement. RCIUM seems to have recognized a l l major a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s i n i t s support of f u l l - t i m e p a r t i c i p a n t s at the t e c h n i c a l hearings. In a d d i t i o n , RCIUM's requests f o r a d d i t i o n a l government funds enable the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n RCIUM of groups that lack independent f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . RCIUM i s r e c e i v i n g evidence from a large number of h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d witnesses. I t s expansion of the t e c h n i c a l hearings, at which there i s the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, recognizes the complexity of t h i s evidence. Although Commission counsel has narrowly i n t e r p r e t e d RCIUM's subpoena power, RCIUM has not been denied any witness or document tha t i t has gone a f t e r . Neither has i t s h e l t e r e d very much informa t i o n from p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e , d e s p i t e the competitive nature of the i n d u s t r y t h a t RCIUM i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g . 97 Some major p a r t i c i p a n t s groups are performing s t u d i e s , which, together with those authorized by RCIUM, are almost a l l f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n at a tech- n i c a l h earing. Hence, there i s opportunity to cross-examine the authors of most of the s t u d i e s . In a d d i t i o n , RCIUM i s c o l l e c t i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i n i t s Library and from i t s v i s i t s to uranium mines and d e p o s i t s . O v e r a l l , RCIUM i s gathering and t e s t i n g a la r g e body of re l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . C e r t a i n l y , i t w i l l be able to advise the p r o v i n c i a l government on expert s o l u t i o n s to the uranium i s s u e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The Commissioners do perceive RCIUM's r o l e to be p a r t l y one of edu- c a t i o n , and, f o r t h i s reason, have e s t a b l i s h e d a l i b r a r y network and pub- l i c i z e d t h e i r proceedings. However, as the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n suggests, these a c t i v i t i e s have not been very s u c c e s s f u l . Commission Weaknesses: Proposed Remedies Securing a Relevant Body of Accurate Information Community Hearings As a mechanism of p u b l i c involvement, community hearings of the type conducted by RCIUM have s e v e r a l disadvantages. For example, because of t h e i r formal nature, many people are i n h i b i t e d from p a r t i c i p a t i n g . Fur- thermore, those who do p a r t i c i p a t e probably represent only very narrow bands on the spectrum of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s . A d d i t i o n a l problems with RCIUM's community hearings were as f o l l o w s : - some p a r t i c i p a n t s were confused about the purpose of these hearings and what was required of them; - summer time hearings were inconvenient f o r various a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s ; - mining companies were given p r i o r i t y over l o c a l people; f o r example, companies presented t h e i r b r i e f s f i r s t . 98 O v e r a l l , l e s s was learned about l o c a l impacts than might have been. At the commencement of a commission of i n q u i r y , three a c t i v i t i e s seem to be r e q u i r e d : (1) The p u b l i c should be informed of the commission's e x i s t e n c e . (2) The p u b l i c should be a l e r t e d to the iss u e s that the commission i s to i n v e s t i g a t e and advise upon. In the case of RCIUM, B r i t i s h Columbians should be i n - formed about the uranium e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s of mining companies i n t h e i r province. (3) The p u b l i c should be consulted about appropriate procedures f o r : - c o l l e c t i n g and t e s t i n g r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n ; - communicating information to the p u b l i c ; - e l i c i t i n g informed p u b l i c views. In other words, members of the p u b l i c should be asked to comment on such things as: - how to ensure the f u l l e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the p u b l i c as p o s s i b l e ; - how to i n t e r p r e t the terms of reference; - how much funding i s required f o r i n t e r e s t e d groups; - what r u l e s of procedure are r e q u i r e d . O v e r a l l , the p r e l i m i n a r y stages of an i n q u i r y should be concerned with l a y i n g the groundwork f o r a f a i r p u b l i c process. The f o l l o w i n g approach i s suggested as an a l t e r n a t i v e to th a t adopted by RCIUM i n i t s e a r l y stages. F i r s t , RCIUM would hold one or more workshops at which t e n t a t i v e r u l e s of procedure would be d r a f t e d . About 15 people, both r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of i n t e r e s t e d groups and i n d i v i d u a l s from areas l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d by uranium mining i n B r i t i s h Columbia would be i n v i t e d to each workshop. The small s i z e of these meetings would serve to promote an u n i n h i b i t e d exchange of id e a s . 99 F o l l o w i n g the workshops, a f i r s t round of community hearings would be held throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. At these s e s s i o n s , the p u b l i c ' s response to suggested r u l e s of procedure would be e l i c i t e d . RCIUM com- munity r e l a t i o n s ' c o n s u l t a n t s would ensure that community people knew about the community hearings and what type of p u b l i c involvement was r e q u i r e d . Also at the f i r s t round community hearings, mining company r e - p r e s e n t a t i v e s would present b r i e f submissions, i n layperson's terms, on t h e i r uranium e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s to date. L a s t l y , based on the pro- ceedings at the community hearings, a f i n a l i z e d v e r s i o n of the r u l e s of procedure ( P r e l i m i n a r y Rulings) would be produced. These r u l e s would be widely d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the P r o v i n c e . I t i s recognized t h a t l o c a l people can provide RCIUM with a s i g n i f - i c a n t amount of r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Hence i t i s necessary f o r RCIUM to conduct a second round of community hearings to tap t h i s r e s e r v o i r of e x p e r i e n t i a l knowledge. Perhaps these community hearings could be held c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h the t e c h n i c a l hearings. RCIUM could break o f f i t s t e c h n i c a l s e ssions from time to time to conduct a number of second round community hearings; at these hearings a d d i t i o n a l information could be c o l l e c t e d , and, i n a d d i t i o n , p u b l i c views on the inform a t i o n being pre- sented at the t e c h n i c a l sessions could be e l i c i t e d . In order to ensure a wide range of p a r t i c i p a n t s at the second round community hearings, commun- i t y r e l a t i o n s ' c o n s u l t a n t s could v i s i t the communities ahead of RCIUM, en- couraging people to p a r t i c i p a t e and ensuring that p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s understood what i s r e q u i r e d of them. Technical Hearings A b a s i c d e f i c i e n c y i n RCIUM's t e c h n i c a l hearings i s a l a c k of ade- quate funding f o r many major p a r t i c i p a n t s . Funding c o n s t r a i n t s l i m i t the a b i l i t y of groups. 100 - to b r i n g i n witnesses independently of RCIUM; - to h i r e t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e ; - to conduct s t u d i e s ; - to thoroughly review evidence and prepare cross-examination. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a commission of i n q u i r y by p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups that lack independent f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e could be enhanced by encouraging the formation of c o a l i t i o n s s i n c e l e s s money would then be required f o r h i r i n g l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e , r e n t i n g o f f i c e space, photocopying documents, and so on. In the case of RCIUM, there i s a f a i r l y d i v e r s e range of i n t e r e s t s ; hence, at l e a s t f i v e c o a l i t i o n s could have emerged representing the f o l l o w i n g concerns: - w e l l - b e i n g of r e s i d e n t s i n communities c l o s e to proposed uranium mines; - w e l l - b e i n g of n a t i v e Indian populations l i v i n g c l o s e to proposed uranium mines; - h e a l t h of miners and the general p u b l i c ; - e t h i c s ; - environmental p r o t e c t i o n . Mining i n t e r e s t s would support themselves. Because RCIUM i s c a l l i n g most of the witnesses, both the RCIUM research coordinators and most major p a r t i c i p a n t s are pressed f o r time w i t h the r e s u l t that the o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of cross-examination i s reduced. The 27 June 19BQ deadline on the t e c h n i c a l hearings aggravates t h i s problem, with the consequence that there may not be s u f f i c i e n t time f o r cross-examination of a l l witnesses, i n c l u d i n g many mining companies on t h e i r uranium e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s suggested t h a t the r e s p o n s i b l i t y of b r i n g i n g i n witnesses should f a l l more or l e s s equ a l l y on the s t a f f of a commission of i n q u i r y and i t s f u l l - t i m e i n q u i r y p a r t i c i p a n t s . In a d d i t i o n , p a r t i c i p a n t s should 101 DE funded to c a l l witnesses independently of the commission. Having recog- nized p a r t i c i p a n t groups, i t i s only f a i r that a commission f u l l y t r u s t groups with t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Otherwise, the commission of i n q u i r y process i s not as p u b l i c as i t should be. F i n a l l y , a commission of i n q u i r y process cannot f u n c t i o n w i t h i n a r b i t r a r y deadlines i f i t i s to r e c e i v e and cross-examine a l l r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . C e r t a i n l y , i n the case of RCIUM, the t e c h n i c a l hearings' schedule should be extended by at l e a s t 12 days so tha t a l l witnesses can be heard. Informing the P u b l i c RCIUM's p u b l i c education a c t i v i t i e s are not s u c c e s s f u l . While the t e l e v i s e d proceedings of the t e c h n i c a l hearings and the edited video- cassett e s have l i t t l e educative value, RCIUM's news releases are d u l l and UID reaches only a t i n y f r a c t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbians. In a d d i t i o n , the : RCIUM l i b r a r y i s used by very few members of the p u b l i c . Lacking a thorough p u b l i c education job, i t i s u n l i k e l y that RCIUM w i l l be able to e l i c i t i n - formed p u b l i c views on the uranium i s s u e and transmit these to the f i n a l d e c i s i o n makers. When faced with an i s s u e as c o n t r o v e r s i a l as the f u t u r e of uranium mining, a commission of i n q u i r y must recognize the importance of perform- ing a thorough p u b l i c education job and should a l l o c a t e a s i z a b l e f r a c t i o n of i t s budget to t h i s a c t i v i t y . While i t i s recognized that i t i s extrem- e l y d i f f i c u l t to gain news coverage i n a fr e e media s i t u a t i o n , a conscien- t i o u s e f f o r t should nevertheless be made to u t i l i z e the media more e f f e c t - i v e l y . For example, the f o l l o w i n g could merit more a t t e n t i o n : - r a d i o broadcasts of summaries of the evidence presented at each t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n ; - p e r i o d i c , t e l e v i s e d d i s c u s s i o n s between i n q u i r y s t a f f and p a r t i c i p a n t s about the proceedings at the t e c h n i c a l s e s s i o n s , 102 both at convenient times to members of the p u b l i c . Perhaps, i n the case of RCIUM, the neuis r e l e a s e o f f i c e r could have been made r e s p o n s i b l e f o r arranging the above, r a t h e r than i s s u i n g bland press r e l e a s e s . Concluding Remarks Without doubt, RCIUM has had some major achievements and, as a r e s u l t , b j i l l be able to supply the p r o v i n c i a l government uiith a cons i d e r a b l e volume of informed advice on uranium mining i n B r i t i s h Columbia. However, pre- vious s e c t i o n s i n t h i s chapter have i d e n t i f i e d a number of l o s t opportun- i t i e s . F i r s t , there were shortcomings i n the general p u b l i c ' s a b i l i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the f i r s t round community hearings; second, the e f f e c t - iveness of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n by i n t e r e s t groups i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings i s reduced because of funding and time c o n s t r a i n t s , and lack of a b i l i t y to bring i n witnesses independently of RCIUM. F i n a l l y , there are major shortcomings i n the p u b l i c education a c t i v i t i e s of RCIUM. As Berger (1977, p. 224) notes: . . . . commissions of i n q u i r y have became an important means f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n democratic d e c i s i o n - making as w e l l as an instrument t o supply informed advice to government . . . . Hence, i t i s important to consider the way i n which commissions of i n q u i r y are conducted and whether or not they have f u l f i l l e d the above f u n c t i o n s . I t i s hoped that f u t u r e commissions of i n q u i r y w i l l p r o f i t from the e v a l - u a t i o n presented i n t h i s t h e s i s and w i l l give s e r i o u s a t t e n t i o n to the recommendations contained t h e r e i n ; here, i t i s suggested, i s an opportunity to l e a r n . 103 LITERATURE CITED Accessions L i s t s 1 to 13. Uranium Information Centre,RCIUM. 1 A p r i l 1979 to 12 February I960. Anthony, R u s s e l l J . Senior Commission counsel to RCIUM. Inte r v i e w s , 22 June 1979a; 5 J u l y 1979b; 21 January 1980a; 29 February 1980b; 19 March 1980c; 23 March 1980d. Anthony, R u s s e l l J . L e t t e r of 25 A p r i l 1979 to WCELA, 2 pp. Bates, David V. Chairman of RCIUM. Interviews, 11 June 1979; Ik January 1980a; 12 February 1980b; 20 A p r i l 1980c; 25 A p r i l 1980d. Bates, David V. L e t t e r s of 25 J u l y 1979a and Ik August 1979b to the Task Force of funded p a r t i c i p a n t s (k pp. and 2 pp. r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Bates, David V. Speech at SFU's "Nuclear Awareness Week", 10 October 1979. Bemister, W i l l i a m . T r a n s c r i p t report f o r RCIUM. Interview, 27 June 1980. Berger, T.R. Northern F r o n t i e r , Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e I n q u i r y , V o l . 2. Ottawa: M i n i s t r y of Supply and S e r v i c e s . 1977. Bo g g i l d , K r i s s . Legal counsel f o r WCELA. Inter v i e w , 25 January 1980. Boyce, L o i s . Representative f o r BCCUCC i n RCIUM. Interviews, 16 J u l y 1979; 15 January 1980a; 1 March 1980b; 8 A p r i l 1980c. Burch, J.R. and W i l l i a m , R. "Who P a r t i c i p a t e s - A S o c i o l o g i c a l I n t e r - p r e t a t i o n of Nat u r a l Resource Decisions." N a t u r a l Resources Journal 16 (1976): pp. kl-5k. CBC. "Evening News." 9 June 1979. Cartwright, T.J. Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees i n B r i t a i n . London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975. Chapman, Richard A. ( e d . ) . The Role of Commissions i n Policy-Makinq. London: George A l l e n and Unwin L t d . , 1973. Ch a r l t e n , Lorae. Senior A d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r RCIUM. Interview, 12 March 1980. C l a r k , B e r t . Member of CCNR (Vancouver). I n t e r v i e w , 17 March 1980. 104 Commission photograph c o l l e c t i o n . RCIUM. April-May, 1979. Commission s t a f f t i m e t a b l e . RCIUM. June-July,1979. Connor, Desmond M. "Design and Implementation of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Programs." A paper prepared f o r the N a t i o n a l Workshop on P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Environmental Decision-Making held i n Banff, A l b e r t a . A p r i l 17-20, 1979. (Mimeographed). C u l b e r t , Robert R. Research coordinator f o r RCIUM. Interviews, 14 Janu- ary 1980a; 28 January 1980b; 5 February 1980c; 29 February 1980d; 3 March 1980e; 11 March 1980f; 21 March 1980g; 8 A p r i l 1980h; 6 May 1980i. Detomasi, D.D. "The E v a l u a t i o n of P u b l i c P r o j e c t s : The CMHC Eva l u a t i o n of NIP." Plan Canada 19/1 (March 1979): 56-73. Dion, Leon. " P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the P o l i t i c a l Process." Queen's Quarterly 75 (1968): 432-48. Ebbin, Steven and Hasper, Raphael. C i t i z e n Groups and the Nuclear Power Controversy: Uses of S c i e n t i f i c and Technological Information. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT P r e s s . 1974. Emond, D. P a u l . " P a r t i c i p a t i o n and the Environment: A Strategy f o r Democratizing Canada's Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Laws." Osgoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l 13 (1975): 784-837. EMR Report EP-79-3. 1979 Assessment of Canadian Uranium Supply and Demand. Fox, I r v i n g . " I n s t i t u t i o n a l Arrangements f o r Dealing with the Environ- mental E f f e c t s of Energy Production and Use." Paper presented to the Conference on Energy and the Environment, Puerto Rico, March 1972. (Mimeographed). Fox, I r v i n g K. " I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r Water Management i n a Changing World." N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l 16 (Dctober 1976): 743-59. Fox, I r v i n g K. " P u b l i c Involvement and Canadian Government" i n Background M a t e r i a l s f o r Workshop on P u b l i c Involvement i n P i p e l i n e Impact Man- agement. Whitehorse, Yukon. 22 A p r i l , 1978. Grant, Owen. Press Release O f f i c e r f o r RCIUM. Interview, 15 January 1980. Hanser, Charles J . Guide to D e c i s i o n : The Royal Commission. New Jersey Bedminster Press, 1965. Head, Wilson A. "The Ideology of P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , i n C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Canada: A Book of Readings, pp. 14-29. Edited by James A. Draper. Toronto: New Press, 1971. He b e r l e i n , Thomas A. "Mechanisms f o r P u b l i c Involvement: the Hearing, P u b l i c Opinion P o l l , the Workshop and the Quasi-Experiment." N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l 16 (1976a): 197-212. 105 He b e r l e i n , Thomas A. " P r i n c i p l e s of P u b l i c Involvement." S t a f f paper S e r i e s i n Rural and Community Development, Department of R u r a l S o c i o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison. A p r i l 1976b. (Mimeo- graphed). Hewitt, James J . M i n i s t e r of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. L e t t e r of 23 November 1979 to author, 2 PP. Hodge, R. Antony. Research coordinator f o r RCIUM. Interviews, 17 Janu- ary 1980a; 5 February 198Db; 12 February 1980c; 13 March 1980d. Hodgetts, J.E. Royal Commissions of In q u i r y i n Canada: A Study of I n - v e s t i g a t i v e Techniques. M.A. T h e s i s ; U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1940. Homenuck, P e t e r ; J e r r y Durlak, and Jim Morgenstern. "Ev a l u a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Programs", i n Involvement and Environment. Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n , V o l . 1. pp. 113- 19. E d i t e d by Barry S a d l e r . Edmonton, A l b e r t a . 1978. J o w e l l , J e f f r e y . "The L i m i t s of the P u b l i c Hearing as a Tool of Urban Planning." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Review 21, No. 2 (1969): 123-52. Kansky, M a r i l y n . Representative of BCUIC (as of the end of January 1980). I n t e r v i e w , 29 February 1980. Konstantynowicz, K a r i n . Report on RCIUM f o r AECL. 1979-80. Law Reform Commission of Canada. "Commissions of I n q u i r y . " A d m i n i s t r a t - i v e Law Working Paper 17. Ottawa: L.R.C.C., 1977. Le Dain, Gerald E. "The Role of the P u b l i c I n q u i r y i n our C o n s t i t u t i o n a l System" i n Law and S o c i a l Change, pp. 80-97. Edited by Jacob S. Z i e g e l . Osgoode H a l l Law School, York U n i v e r s i t y , 1971 Lee, T.R. "Perception of Goals i n the Management of Water Q u a l i t y of the Great Lakes," i n Perceptions and A t t i t u d e s i n Resources Manage- ment, Selected Proceedings of a Symposium on the Role of Perceptions and A t t i t u d e s i n Decision-Making i n Resources Management, pp. 121- 24. Edited by W.R. Derrick Sewell and Ian Burton, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Ottawa, Canada. 1970. Letcher, Gary A. A s s o c i a t e Commission counsel to RCIUM. Inte r v i e w , 17 October 1979. L e x i e r , J i l l . Research coordinator f o r RCIUM. Interview, 14 March 1980. W.A. Loucks, D.A. Sawyer, J . N e v i l l e and P.G. Sagert. Submission of Norcen Energy Resources L t d . to RCIUM. Kelowna, B r i t i s h Columbia. 5 June 1979. Lucas, A l i s t a i r , R. "Legal Foundations f o r P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n E n v i r - onmental Decision-Making. N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l 16 (January 1976): 73-102. 106 Lysyk, Kenneth M. " P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s and the P r o t e c t i o n of the P u b l i c I n - put i n Resources Development P r o j e c t s . " J o u r n a l of Nat u r a l Resources Management and I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Studies 3, No. 1 (1978): 2-9. Mc C a l l , K e l t i e . L i b r a r i a n f o r RCIUM. Inte r v i e w s , 17 January 1980a; 1 February 1980b; 4 February 1980c; 6 March 1980d. Memorandum to major p a r t i c i p a n t s from Mr. Anthony of RCIUM, 15 August 1979. Minutes of f i r s t and second Kelowna meetings of RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s . 14 J u l y 1979 and 18 August 1979 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Minutes of meetings with major p a r t i c i p a n t s , RCIUM. 25 September 1979a; 7 August 1979b; 13 November 1979c; 21 February 1980. Morgenstern, Jim; J e r r y Durlak, and Peter Homenuck. "Making the Evalu- a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Programs F e a s i b l e . " I n s t i t u t e of . Environmental Research Inc., Toronto, O n t a r i o . March 1979. (Mimeo- graphed). Murray, Jim. Commissioner of RCIUM. Interview, IB January 1980. Nat i o n a l Research C o u n c i l . A n a l y t i c a l Studies f o r the U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, v o l . 1: Per s p e c t i v e s on Technic a l Information f o r Environmental P r o t e c t i o n . N a t i o n a l Academy of Sciences, Wash- ingt o n , D.C., 1977. Nelson, J . Gordon. " S e t t i n g the Stage," i n Involvement and Environment, i b i d . , v o l . 1, pp. 13-25. . News Release, RCIUM. 11 December 1979. Q'Riordan, Timothy. " P o l i c y Making and Environmental Management: Some Thoughts on Processes and Research Issues." N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l 16 (1976): 54-72. Orders-in-Council Nos. 170/79 and 442/80. Executive Chambers, V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. 18 January 1979 and 27 February 1980 r e s p e c t i v e l y . O.E.C.D. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Decision-Making Related to Science and Technology. P a r i s , September, 1978. Pape, A r t h u r . " I n q u i r i e s - A P o l i t i c a l Phenomenon." Energy F i l e 1, No. 4 (May-June 1978). Paterson, C r a i g . Legal counsel f o r CCU, KNSG and YEA. In t e r v i e w , 27 February 1980. People and Planning. Report of the Committee on P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Pla n n i n g . London: HMS0, 1969. P u b l i c N o t i c e s : RCIUM. Vancouver Express, 16 February 1979; 12 March 1979 and 7 May 1979. 107 R i t c h i e , Ronald S. "Sources of P o l i c y Advice: Royal Commissions, Task Forces, Advisory C o u n c i l s and the Research I n s t i t u t e " , i n Bureau- cracy i n Canadian Government, Edited by W.D. Kernaghan, Methuen Pub, Co., 1973. Robbins, Richard L. "Organizing f o r Involvement: C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n Groups i n Great Lake D e c i s i o n s " , i n Involvement and Environment, i b i d , v o l . 2, pp. 23-B. Roberts, Kim. D i r e c t o r of WCELA. Inter v i e w , 23 June 1979. Rogers, John. Representative of UBCIC. Inte r v i e w s , 22 January 1980a; 26 February 1980b; 14 March 1980c; 8 A p r i l 1980d. Rounthwaite, Ann. Legal counsel f o r EAAUM. Inte r v i e w s , 26 February 1980a; k A p r i l 1980b. R.S.B.C. Income Tax Act, 1961, c l . R.C.B.C. P u b l i c I n q u i r i e s Act, I960, c.315. R.S.C. I n q u i r i e s Act, 1971. c.1-13. S t . P i e r r e , P a ul Robert. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n an Inter-Agency Committee: The A i r p o r t Planning Committee i n Vancouver. M.A. T h e s i s . UBC, 1977. Sa d l e r , B a r r y . "Basic Issues i n P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n : A Background Per- s p e c t i v e " , i n Involvement and Environment, i b i d . , v o l . 1, pp. 1-12. S a l t e r , L i o r a . " P u b l i c Process and the P u b l i c I n t e r e s t . " SFU, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. 1979. (Mimeographed). Schmitt, Doug. "The B.C. Uranium I n q u i r y . " Paper presented to the E n v i r - onmental Con t r o l Technology Seminar, March 1979. (Mimeographed). Schmitt, R o l f . A s s i s t a n t to Dr. S i n c l a i r , t e c h n i c a l advisor f o r RCIUM. In t e r v i e w , 10 A p r i l 1980. S e w e l l , W.R. D e r r i c k . " I n t e g r a t i n g P u b l i c Views i n Planning and P o l i c y - Making", i n Perceptions and A t t i t u d e s i n Resource Management, Selected Proceedings of a Symposium on the Role of Perceptions and A t t i t u d e s i n Decision-Making i n Resources Management, i b i d . , pp. 125-32. Sew e l l , W.R. D e r r i c k . " P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Towards an E v a l u a t i o n of Canadian Experience", i n Involvement and Environment, i b i d . ' , v o l . 2 pp. 205-24. Sewell, W.R. D e r r i c k and P h i l l i p s , Susan D. "Models f o r the E v a l u a t i o n of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n Programmes." Na t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l 19 ( A p r i l 1979): 337-58. S i n c l a i r , Margaret. "A Review of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission's P u b l i c Hearings on the Great Lakes: 1972-74," i n Involvement and Environment, i b i d . , v o l . 2, pp. 321-29. 108 Smith, Judy. Representative of JCUTH. Interview, 15 January 1980. Stainsby, C l i f f . Member of EAAUM and D i r e c t o r of SPEC. Inte r v i e w , 16 J u l y 1979. S t a i r s , Sonia. Community r e l a t i o n s consultant f o r RCIUM. In t e r v i e w s , 6 June 1979a; k October 1979b; 17 March 1980. Suchman, E.A. E v a l u a t i v e Research. New York: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1967. Swainson, N e i l A. "Defining the Problem", i n Managing the Water Environ- ment, pp. 1-30. E d i t e d by N e i l A. Swainson, Vancouver: UBC Press, 1976. Swi t z e r , Bruce. Environmental c o o r d i n a t o r of Consolidated Rexspar Min- e r a l s and Chemicals L t d . Int e r v i e w , 27 February 1980. Task f o r c e of funded p a r t i c i p a n t s . L e t t e r of 19 J u l y 1979 to RCIUM, 7 PP. T e r r a l , Jim. The Hazards of Uranium Mining. Slocan Park, B r i t i s h Columbia: Rainweed Books, 1979. T e r r a l , Jim. Representative of KNSG. Interview, lk January 1980. T e r r a l , Jim. "The 'So What' I n q u i r y " , The Energy F i l e 3, No. 1, February 1980. The Trumpet. 1. November 1979. BCCUCC. The Vancouver Sun, 28 February 1980. Thompson, Andrew R. "In Defence of A c c o u n t a b i l i t y . " Paper presented to the SCC Seminar oh Northern Development. January 1976. (Mimeo- graphed). Thompson, Andrew R. Opening Statment to WC0PI. Westcoast 1, No. 1 (1977) Westwater Research Centre, UBC. Thompson, A.R. "A D i s c i p l i n e d Framework f o r P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " Paper presented to the Second Banff Conference on P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n , 1979. (Mimeographed). Thompson, Andrew R. " P u b l i c Involvement i n Environmental Impact Assess- ment." Paper presented to the second Environmental Impact Assessment Conference, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, November 1979b. (Mimeographed). Thompson, Andrew R. D i r e c t o r of Westwater Research, UBC and Chairman of WC0PI. Inte r v i e w s , 7 February 1980a; 19 February 1980b; 7 March 1980c. T r a n s c r i p t s of Proceedings: RCIUM. Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: Allw e s t Reporting L t d . , 1979-80. 109 Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n Questionnaire, RCIUM, October 1979. Uranium Information Centre Fact Sheet, RCIUM, 1980. UID 1 (17 September 1979); 10 (5-15 February 1980). Edited by Robert Sham. Vancouver Cable 10. "Nuclear Crossroads." 24 September 1979; 26 Nov- ember 1979. Vancouver Cable 8. "Jack Webster Show." 24 January 1980. Vancouver Co-Op Radio. "Legal S e r v i c e s Commission." 26 A p r i l 1979. Weinberg, A l v i n M. "Science and Trans-Science." Minerva 10 (1972); 2-9-22. Weiss, C a r o l H. E v a l u a t i o n Research: Methods of Assessing Program E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1972. WCELA. Submission to the Inaugural P u b l i c Meeting of RCIUM, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. 6 March 1979. (Mimeographed). White,"Del. O f f i c e Coordinator of EAAUM. Interview, 10 January 1980. Wi l l i a m s , Roger and Bates, David. "Technical D e c i s i o n s and P u b l i c A c c o u n t a b i l i t y . " Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 19 (1976): 604- 32. Young, E r i c . Representative of BCMA. Interview, 26 February 1980. Zentner, R.D. " P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s on Environmental P o l l u t i o n . " E c o l i b r i u m 6 (1977): 13-15. 110 APPENDIX 1 P r e l i m i n a r y r u l i n g s I l l Province of British Columbia ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION URANIUM MINING A D D R E S S A L L C O R R E S P O N D E N C E T O T H E S E C R E T A R Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S : D A V I D V . B A T E S , M . O . ( C A N T A B ) , F.R. C P . , F.R. C P . (C>. F. A. C P . . F . R . S . I C C H A I R M A N J A M E S W . M U R R A Y . P H . D . . F . G . S . E . . F . G . S . A . . F . G . S . V A L T E R R A U D S E P P , P . E N G . E X E C U T I V E S E C R E T A R Y : B R I G . - G E N . E . D. D A N B Y ( R E T I R E D ) May Ik, 1979 C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L : R U S S E L L J . A N T H O N Y , B .A . , L L . B . . U L . M. PRELIMINARY RULINGS NO. 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE In f u l f i l l i n g i t s Terms of Reference as o u t l i n e d i n Order i n C o u n c i l No. 170 dated January 18th, 1979, the Royal Commission of Inqu i r y Into Uranium Mining w i l l hold p u b l i c hearings throughout the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. To ensure maximum p a r t i c i p a t i o n the Commission w i l l gather evidence and re c e i v e p u b l i c comments regarding the matters described i n i t s Terms of Reference by holding p u b l i c hearings, con- s i s t i n g of formal hearings and l o c a l hearings, and by r e c e i v i n g w r i t t e n b r i e f s . 112 A. PROCEDURE FOR LOCAL HEARINGS 1. The Commission w i l l , through the Executive Secretary, advise the various communities l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d by proposed uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , mining or m i l l i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia and the major p a r t i c i p a n t s of the l o c a t i o n s and times f o r l o c a l hearings. The dates, l o c a t i o n and time of the commun- i t y p u b l i c hearings m i l l be a d v e r t i s e d through the l o c a l media w e l l i n advance of the hearings. 2. Apart from r u l e s of decorum and courtesy there w i l l be no formal r u l e s governing the l o c a l hearings. Those who have something to say w i l l be asked to come forward and be sworn and then can g i v e t h e i r evidence i n whatever way they are most comfortable. Several persons may make t h e i r present- a t i o n i n a group r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l l y i f they so wish. I n d i v i d u a l s presenting d e t a i l e d or t e c h n i c a l evidence are encouraged to f i l e t h e i r presentations w i t h the Commission i n advance. 3. The Commission members w i l l be e n t i t l e d to ask questions of persons making presentations but no one e l s e w i l l be accorded t h i s p r i v i l e g e . I f someone wishes a matter c l a r i f i e d he may request the Commission to seek such c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the person making the pr e s e n t a t i o n or request the at t e n d - ance of such witness at the formal hearings where the e v i - dence can be te s t e d under cross-examination. 113 B. PROCEDURE FOR FORMAL HEARINGS 1. P a r t i c i p a n t s 1.1 Any person who advises the Commission i n w r i t i n g of h i s i n t e n t i o n to appear and gi v e evidence at any formal hearing or who a c t u a l l y appears, g i v e s h i s name and address to the Commission and s t a t e s h i s i n t e n t i o n to give evidence w i l l be deemed a p a r t i c i p a n t . 1.2 The Executive Secretary s h a l l maintain a l i s t of p a r t i - c i p a n t s and the l i s t s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n - s p e c t i o n at the Commission's o f f i c e . 1.3 The Commission s h a l l , from time to time, i d e n t i f y c e r - t a i n p a r t i e s as "major p a r t i c i p a n t s " i n the proceedings i n the sense that they e i t h e r have i n d i c a t e d an i n t e n t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the proceedings on a more or l e s s r e g u l a r b a s i s or have been i d e n t i f i e d as possessing information of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t and relevance to the work of the Commission. The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of these major p a r t i c i p a n t s s h a l l be governed by f u r t h e r procedural r u l e s of the Commission. 2. Phasing of Formal Hearings 2.1 The formal hearings s h a l l be d i v i d e d i n t o the f o l l o w i n g phases: 114 Phase I : Overview This phase w i l l c o n s i s t of evidence c a l l e d by Commission Counsel designed to d e a l g e n e r a l l y w i t h the occurrence and geochemistry of uranium and the p h y s i c a l environ- ment of i d e n t i f i e d uranium deposits i n B.C.; des c r i b e e x p l o r a t i o n , mining, m i l l i n g , t r a n s p o r t , and d i s p o s a l techniques and o u t l i n e the j u r i s d i c t i o n and a u t h o r i t y of monitoring and r e g u l a t i n g bodies. The purpose of t h i s Overview i s to present i n f o r m a t i o n of a background and i n t r o d u c t o r y nature and i s designed p r i m a r i l y as a p u b l i c information s e s s i o n . For that reason cross-examination, except f o r questions by the Commissioners themselves, w i l l not be allowed. A l l issues r a i s e d i n the Overview w i l l be reviewed at the appropriate time during the subsequent formal hearings of the Commission and, at th a t time, f u r t h e r evidence and cross-examination w i l l be allowed. A copy of the witnesses' statements s h a l l be c i r c u l a t e d f o r comment before the witnesses appear. This phase of the Inquiry w i l l be held i n Vancouver• Phase I I ; P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n s Included w i l l be a d e s c r i p t i o n of the geology and p h y s i c a l environment at s p e c i f i c s i t e s ; a d e s c r i p t i o n 115 of the present and proposed p r o j e c t development p l a n s , i n c l u d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the design, engineering and c o n s t r u c t i o n techniques proposed and an examination of a l t e r n a t i v e s . Phase I I I : Impact of Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n , Mining and M i l l i n g on the P h y s i c a l and L i v i n g Environment This phase w i l l examine the impact on the environment of each of the major a c t i v i t i e s a s s o ciated with uranium mining - e x p l o r a t i o n , mining, m i l l i n g , p rocessing, t a i l i n g s and wate d i s p o s a l and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; i d e n t i f y the impacts on the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and t e r r a s p h e r e , i n both the short and long term; review the techniques a v a i l a b l e f o r environmental pro- t e c t i o n , conservation and reclamation and examine the adequacy of environmental monitoring and r e g u l a t i o n . Phase IV: Impact of Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n , Mining and M i l l i n g on the Human Environment This phase w i l l examine the p o t e n t i a l impact on i n d i v - i d u a l s and s o c i e t y at l a r g e of the various aspects of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , mining and m i l l i n g . This w i l l i n c l u d e an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of hazards to workers, the e f f e c t s on the p u b l i c at l a r g e p a r t i c u l a r l y the com- munities adjacent to uranium s i t e s , an a n a l y s i s of the 116 proposed monitoring and p r o t e c t i v e measures r e s p e c t i n g the human environment and the s o c i a l and economic impact of proposed uranium mining. 2.2 The d i v i s i o n of the formal hearings i n t o phases i s f o r purposes of convenience only. Commission Counsel m i l l i n v i t e p a r t i c i p a n t s to consult w i t h him from time to time to determine whether there should be any f u r t h e r d i v i s i o n s of the hearings w i t h i n each phase, whether a d d i t i o n a l phases are r e q u i r e d or otherwise determine the most e f f i c i e n t and f a i r e s t way to have a l l the rele v a n t evidence presented before the Commission. 2.3 The Commission w i l l determine the place and date f o r the commencement of hearings f o r each of the phases as soon as i t i s i n a p o s i t i o n to do so. A f t e r the date and place f o r a p a r t i c u l a r phase are determined the Executive Secretary w i l l send to each p a r t i c i p a n t a n o t i c e of hearing. In a d d i t i o n , the Executive Sec- r e t a r y w i l l , through the news media, advise the p u b l i c g e n e r a l l y of the commencement date of each phase, the place of hearing and the matters to be considered during such phase. 3. Produetlonadf T Studies.^' 'Repgrts;Jand-uOther; Docum'entsr 3.1 Commission Counsel w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r requesting that r e p o r t s and documents of i n t e r e s t to the Commission 117 i n the possession or power of the government of B r i t i s h Columbia, the Federal Government and various boards and agencies, both p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l , are made a v a i l a b l e . To that end, Commission Counsel w i l l com- municate w i t h these v a r i o u s governments and boards and arrange f o r them to provide the Commission with the documents and reports r e q u i r e d . 3.2 A l l of the major p a r t i c i p a n t s and the Commission Counsel s h a l l , no l a t e r than June 15, 1979, f i l e with the Commission and c i r c u l a t e to the other major p a r t i c i - pants a l i s t of the r e p o r t s , s t u d i e s and other docu- ments w i t h i n t h e i r possession or power which are r e - levant to the subject matter before the Commission, i n c l u d i n g those f o r which p r i v i l e g e may be proposed to be claimed. 3.3 Supplementary l i s t s are to be f i l e d from time to time as f u r t h e r r e p o r t s , s t u d i e s or other documents come to the a t t e n t i o n of major p a r t i c i p a n t s . 3.4 Each l i s t of reports s h a l l to the extent p o s s i b l e i d e n t i f y the study, r e p o r t or document by s t a t i n g , (a) the name of the person or persons who made or compiled i t ; (b) The date i t was made or compiled; (c) A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the subject matter with which i t i s concerned; 118 (d) Whether the study, report or document i s a v a i l a b l e to the general p u b l i c and, i f i t i s , the name and address of the p u b l i - sher or d i s t r i b u t o r ; The l i s t s h a l l a l s o c o n t a i n the name, address and phone number of the person to be contacted to review the documents l i s t e d . 3.5 The l i s t of documents s h a l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r inspec- t i o n by any p a r t i c i p a n t and, upon n o t i c e to Commis- sio n Counsel and to the major p a r t i c i p a n t f i l i n g the l i s t , any p a r t i c i p a n t may demand production of any document on the l i s t f o r review. 3,6.- Upon.reasonable? notice,being~giveh>to the Commission and to Commission Counsel, any p a r t i c i p a n t may b r i n g before the Commission an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r production of any l i s t e d document i f production has been refused or f o r a f u r t h e r or b e t t e r l i s t of documents. A par- t i c i p a n t may, i n a d d i t i o n , request production of any r e p o r t s , study or document rel e v a n t to the subjet matter before the Commission known to them and i n the possession or power of any of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . 3.7 I f any di s p u t e a r i s e s as to any c l a i m of p r i v i l e g e or c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y made re s p e c t i n g a document, such d i s - pute s h a l l be r e f e r r e d to the Commission f o r a r u l i n g . 119 3,8 For purposes of Rule 3 only ( P r o d u c t i o n of S t u d i e s , Reports and Other Documents) the f o l l o w i n g s h a l l be regarded as major p a r t i c i p a n t s required to f i l e a l i s t of documents: (1) Commission Counsel, on behalf of the Commission s t a f f and Government Departments and Agencies; (2) A l l i a n c e Against Uranium Mining (3) The A t l i n C o u n c i l (4) Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club (Grand Forks) (5) B r i t i s h Columbia & Yukon Chamber of Mines (6) Canadian C o a l i t i o n f o r Nuclear R e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Kelowna) (7) Canadian K e l v i n Resources L i m i t e d (8) Committee f o r a Clean K e t t l e V a l l e y (9) Consolidated Rexspar M i n e r a l s & Chemicals L t d . (10) E a B E x p l o r a t i o n s L t d . (11) The Greenpeace Foundation (Vancouver) (12) Greenpeace (Okanagan) Foundation (13) Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere (14) The Kootenay Nuclear Study Group (15) The Mining A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia (16) Noranda E x p l o r a t i o n Company L i m i t e d (17) Norcen Energy Resources L i m i t e d (18) P l a c e r Development L t d . (19) PNC E x p l o r a t i o n (Canada) Co. L t d . (20) S h e l l Canada Resources L i m i t e d (21) South Okanagan Environmental C o a l i t i o n (22) Union of B.C. Indian Chi e f s (23) The United Church of Canada - The B r i t i s h Columbia Conference (24) United Fishermen and A l l i e d Workers' Union (25) West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (26) Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n - Clearwater (27) Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n - Kamloops (28) Chinook Co n s t r u c t i o n & Engineering L t d . ' (29) Stampede I n t e r n a t i o n a l Resources L t d . (30) S o l a r A l t e r n a t i v e s to Nuclear Energy 120 t*m N o t i c e of Evidence to be Presented 4.1 Every p a r t i c i p a n t before g i v i n g evidence or c a l l i n g witnesses on i t s behalf at the formal hearings s h a l l f i l e w i t h the Commission (5 copies) and c i r c u l a t e to the major p a r t i c i p a n t s and Commission Counsel, at l e a s t two weeks before g i v i n g or c a l l i n g such evidence, a t e x t or f u l l synopsis of that evidence, a t e x t or f u l l synopsis of that evidence together with a l i s t of any r e p o r t s , s t u d i e s or other docu- ments to which the witness may r e f e r or upon which he may r e l y and a b i o g r a p h i c a l note on the witness. 4.2 Where a witness i s c a l l e d by subpoena the p a r t i c i p a n t requesting the subpoena s h a l l comply with Rule 4.1 as much as p o s s i b l e i n d i c a t i n g the i s s u e the witness i s expected to address and h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . 4.3 I f a p a r t i c i p a n t cannot comply with the two week r u l e t h a t w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y preclude the t a k i n g of evidence of the witness i n question but i t may mean the witness w i l l have to be r e c a l l e d l a t e r f o r cross-examination. 5. Examination of Witnesses 5.1 The p a r t i c i p a n t c a l l i n g a witness s h a l l be permitted to examine him f i r s t . The witness s h a l l then be cross-examined by Commission Counsel and by the other p a r t i c i p a n t s . The p a r t i c i p a n t c a l l i n g the witness s h a l l be e n t i t l e d to re-examine. 121 5.2 The order f o r presenting evidence and cross-exam- i n i n g m i l l be determined by the Commission from time to time as the nature of the evidence r e q u i r e s . G e n e r a l l y , Commission Counsel m i l l lead o f f the cross-examination to be followed by Counsel f o r other major p a r t i c i p a n t s and f i n a l l y by any other p a r t i c i p a n t . 5.3 Witnesses may give evidence i n d i v i d u a l l y or as part of a group or panel t e s t i f y i n g c o n c u r r e n t l y . In the Commission's d i s c r e t i o n , any witness or witnesses may be c a l l e d more than once. 6« Documentary Evidence 6.1 Any study, report or other document r e l i e d upon i n the evidence of any witness s h a l l be f i l e d as an e x h i b i t at the hearing unless the Commission ot h e r - wise d i r e c t s . 6.2 Where ap p r o p r i a t e , the Commission may seek informa- t i o n from p a r t i e s , whether they are p a r t i c i p a n t s or not, by having Commission Counsel communicate with them. The questions posed and the answers received s h a l l then form part of the evidence before the Commission. The Commission may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , r e q u i r e t h a t the person p r o v i d i n g such answers appear at a hearing to v e r i f y h i s evidence and be cross-examined. 122 6.3 Where a p a r t i c i p a n t claims that a study, report or other document, or any part t h e r e o f , i s of a c o n f i d e n t i a l or p r i v i l e g e d nature, the p a r t i c i p a n t s h a l l produce such study, report or other document f o r i n s p e c t i o n by the Commission and the Commission, without d i s c l o s i n g the contents t h e r e o f , s h a l l r u l e upon the c l a i m . 6.4 The Commission may, i n t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n and i f they think i t j u s t and necessary f o r c a r r y i n g out t h e i r Terms of Reference, consider as part of the evidence before them any study, report or document or any part thereof though i t may be r u l e d to be c o n f i d e n t i a l or p r i v i l e g e d . 7. A p p l i c a t i o n s to the Commission 7.1 Subpoenas may be issued by the Commission, at i t s d i s c r e t i o n , upon a p p l i c a t i o n by any p a r t i c i p a n t pro- vided such p a r t i c i p a n t has demonstrated he has attempted to o b t a i n the attendance of the witness or the docu- mentary evidence without success, t h a t a subpoena i s necessary to obtain the witness or document, and that the witness or document i s necessary and r e l e v a n t to the Terms of Reference of the Commission. 7.2 Notice of an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a subpoena to o b t a i n the attendance of a p a r t i c i p a n t or an employee of or c o n s u l t a n t to a p a r t i c i p a n t or f o r production of a document i n the possession or power of a par- t i c i p a n t s h a l l be given to that p a r t i c i p a n t . 123 7.3 An a p p l i c a t i o n may be made by a p a r t i c i p a n t to the Commission f o r any r e l i e f whatsoever provided i t i s made upon reasonable n o t i c e to the Commission, Com- mission Counsel and the major p a r t i c i p a n t s as w e l l as any other p a r t i c i p a n t s t h a t may be a f f e c t e d . 8. Changes i n These Rules 8.1 The Commission r e t a i n s the power to add t o , a l t e r or modify these r u l e s , to suspend the operation of any or part of them or to r e q u i r e any p a r t i c i p a n t not already bound by them to comply i n whole or i n p a r t , as w e l l as the power to exempt any p a r t i c i p a n t from complying with these r u l e s i n whole or i n p a r t , as the j u s t i c e of the s i t u a t i o n demands. C. RULES RELATING TO WRITTEN BRIEFS 1. The Commission s h a l l at any time accept w r i t t e n b r i e f s from anyone, whether a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the proceedings or not. I f p o s s i b l e , the b r i e f should be t y p e w r i t t e n and f i v e copies provided. 2. The Commission may request that the person or group pre- senting a w r i t t e n b r i e f attend before i t so that the issues r a i s e d i n the w r i t t e n b r i e f may be explored before a p u b l i c hearing. 124 Province of British Columbia A D O R E S S A L L C O R R E S P O N D E N C E T O T H E S E C R E T A R Y ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION URANIUM MINING C O M M I S S I O N E R S : D A V I D V . B A T E S , M - D . f C A N T A B l . F . R . C . P . . J A M E S W . M U R R A Y , P H . D . . F . G . S . E , , F.G.S V A L T E R R A U D S E P P , p , E N G . . C H A I R M A N E X E C U T I V E S E C R E T A R Y : B R I G . - G E N . E . D. D A N B Y ( R E T I R E D ! July 24, 1979 C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L : R U S S E L L J . A N T H O N Y , B.A. , L L . B . . L L . M . PRELIMINARY RULINGS NO. 2 - TECHNICAL HEARINGS The following Rulings are supplementary to the Preliminary Rulings No. 1 - Rules of Procedure, issued on May 14th, 1979. 1. Where the words "formal hearings" were used they shall be replaced by the words "technical hearings". This does not denote any change in the nature of the hearings. 2. Pursuant to Technical Hearing Rule No. 1.3 the following are hereby declared as major participants for the Technical Hearings. From this date these organizations w i l l be regarded as major partic- ipants and, as such, are entitled to receive the f i l e d statements of evidence circulated pursuant to Rule No. 4.1 and otherwise be bound by the Procedural Rules as they apply to major participants. 125 MAJOR PARTICIPANTS LIST (1) B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines 84D West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6C ICS 681-5328 (2) B r i t i s h Columbia Conference, United Church of Canada 2D0 - 1955 West 4th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6J 1M7 A t t : Michael Lewis, Chairman Uranium Working Group (3) B.C. Department of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources c/o Mr. George Cumming, Q.C. Cumming, Richards, U n d e r h i l l , F r a s e r , S k i l l i n g s B a r r i s t e r s and S o l i c i t o r s S u i t e 600 - 900 West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1G1 682-3664 (4) B.C. Federation of Labour & United Steelworkers of America 3110 Boundary Road Burnaby, B.C. V5M 4A2 430-1421 A t t n : Mr. David Rice (5) Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and A l l i e d Workers (CAIMAW) c/o Sun, Paterson & B r a i l B a r r i s t e r s and S o l i c i t o r s 305 Dominion B u i l d i n g 207 West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1H7 669-7311 A t t n : Mr. Craig Paterson (6) Canadian C o a l i t i o n f o r Nuclear R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Kelowna Branch P.O. Box 1093 Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 7P8 764-4949 A t t n : Mr. John Meolaert, Chairman (7) Consolidated Rexspar Minerals and Chemicals L t d . P.O. Box 11575 650 West Georgia S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N7 669-2226 A t t n : Mr. Bruce S w i t z e r (8) Environmental A l l i a n c e Against Uranium Mining #405 - 2D7 W. Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1H7 688-8361 A t t n : Mr. David G a r r i c k (9) J o i n t Committee - Uranium T e c h n i c a l Hearings c/o Andrew Orkin Box 30 Rock Creek, B.C. VOH 1Y0 446-2392 (10) Kootenay Nuclear Study Group Box 205 Nelson, B.C. V1L 5P9 354-4195 & 359-7618 A t t n : Mr. B r i a n Carpendale (11) Mining A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia 480 - 1066 West Hastings S t r e e t P.O. Box 12540 Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3X1 681-8429 A t t n : M i l l e r H. Mason, Counsel (12) Norcen Energy Resources c/o R u s s e l l & DuMoulin B a r r i s t e r s and S o l i c i t o r s 17th F l o o r - 1075 West Georgia S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3G2 688-3411 A t t n : D.M.M. G o l d i e , Q.C. (13) P l a c e r Development L i m i t e d 700 - 1030 West Georgia St r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3A8 682-7082 A t t n : Mr. Ian M a r s h a l l , Legal Counsel (14) PNC E x p l o r a t i o n (Canada) Co. L t d . 3060 - 650 West Georgia St r e e t Box 11571, Vancouver Centre Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N8 681-6151 127 (15) Union of B.C. Indian C h i e f s 3rd F l o o r - 440 West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1L1 684-0231 A t t n : Rosalee T i z y a , A dministrator (16) Vellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Box 23 Clearwater, B.C. VQE IND 674-3330 A t t n : Ms. Colleen F o s t e r , Secretary (17) Commission Counsel 1900 - 1D3D West Georgia S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3E9 689-1811 A t t n : Mr. R u s s e l l J . Anthony P a r t i c i p a n t s e a r l i e r named as major p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r purposes of f i l i n g a l i s t of documents are no longer regarded as major p a r t i c i p a n t s but are r e q u i r e d , i n any event, to f i l e supplementary l i s t s of documents as f u r t h e r documents come i n t o t h e i r possession. 3. Procedural Rule No. 2.1 o u t l i n i n g the phases of the Tech- n i c a l Hearings i s hereby deleted and the f o l l o w i n g phases are e s t a b l i s h e d . A l s o , pursuant to Procedural Rule No. 2.3 the dates and times f o r hearing evidence at each phase w i l l be as set out below. PHASE I - Overview September 25th - 28th, 1979 PHASE I I - E x p l o r a t i o n October 2nd - 5th, 1979 PHASE I I I - Mining October 16th - 19th, 1979 128 PHASE IV - M i l l i n g and Chemical E x t r a c t i o n October 3Dth - November 2nd, 1979 PHASE V - Waste November 13th - 16th, 20th - 23rd, 1979 PHASE VI - Environmental Impact December 4th - 7th, 11th - 14th, 1979 PHASE VII - P u b l i c and Worker Health P r o t e c t i o n January 8th - 11th, 1980 PHASE V I I I - S o c i a l Impact January 22nd - 25th, 1980 PHASE IX - E t h i c a l questions January 22nd - 25th, 1980 PHASE X - J u r i s d i c t i o n , Regulation and Enforcement February 5th - 8th, 1980 Phases I through IX m i l l be held i n Vancouver, B.C., at the Devonshire H o t e l , 849 West Georgia S t r e e t . Phase X m i l l be held i n V i c t o r i a , B.C.. at the Empress H o t e l , 721 Government S t r e e t . A l l sessions m i l l commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:00 p.m. each day. P a r t i c i p a n t s may c a l l evidence and cross-examine witnesses c a l l e d by others i n a l l of the ten Phases. 129 Province of British Columbia ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION URANIUM MINING A D D R E S S A L L C O R R E S P O N D E N C E T O T H E S E C R E T A R Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S : D A V I D V . B A T E S . M .D . IC A N T A B 1 . F . R . C . P . . F . R . C . P . I C t . F . A . C . P . . F . R . S . l C l . C H A I R M A N J A M E S W . M U R R A Y , P H . D . . F . G . S . E . , F . G . 5 . A . . F . G . S . V A L T E R R A U D S E P P , P . E N G . E X E C U T I V E S E C R E T A R Y : B R I G . - G E N . E . • . D A N B Y ( R E T I R E D ) September 11, 1979 C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L : R U S S E L L J . A N T H O N Y . B .A. . L L . B . . L L . M . PRELIMINARY RULINGS NO. 3 - TECHNICAL HEARINGS The f o l l o w i n g Rulings are amendments to Pr e l i m i n a r y Rulings No. 2, issued on J u l y 2k, 1979. 1. Pursuant to Tec h n i c a l Hearing Rule No. 1.3 the f o l l o w i n g are changes to the l i s t of major p a r t i c i p a n t s : Added to Major P a r t i c i p a n t s B.C. Medical A s s o c i a t i o n West Coast Environmental Law Removed as Major P a r t i c i p a n t s P l a c e r Development Limited Province of British Columbia ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION URANIUM MINING A D D R E S S A L L C O R R E S P O N D E N C E T O T H E S E C R E T A R Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S : D A V I D V. B A T E S . M . D . ( C A N T A B ) . F . R . C . P . . F . n . c . P . ( C > . F . J A M E S W . M U R R A Y , P H . D . , F . G . S . E . . F . G . S . A . , F . G . S . V A L T E R R A U D S E P P , P . E N G . C H A I R M A N E X E C U T I V E S E C R E T A R Y : October 10, B R I G . - G E N . E. D. D A N B Y ( RET IRED ) C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L : R U S S E L L J . A N T H O N Y , B . A . , LL.B., L L . M . PRELIMINARY RULINGS NO. k - TECHNICAL HEARINGS The f o l l o w i n g Rulings are amendments to P r e l i m i n a r y Rulings No. 3, issued on September 11, 1979. 1. Pursuant to Tec h n i c a l Hearing Rule No. 1.3 the f a l l o w i n g are changes to the l i s t of major p a r t i c i p a n t s : Added to Major P a r t i c i p a n t s B.C. M i n i s t r y of the Environment B.C. M i n i s t r y of Health Greenpeace Foundation Confederation of Canadian Unions (CCU) i s to be recog- nized as a Major P a r t i c i p a n t i n place of Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l , Mechanical and A l l i e d Workers (CAIMAW). 131 Province of British Columbia ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION URANIUM MINING A D D R E S S A L L C O R R E S P O N D E N C E T O T H E S E C R E T A R Y C O M M I S S I O N E R S : D A V I D V . B A T E S . M . O . I C A N T A B I , F . R . C . P . . f . R . C P . I C ) , F . A . C . P . . F . R . S . l C l . C H A I R M A N J A M E S W . M U R R A Y , P H . D . . F . G . S . E . , F . G , S . A . , F . G . S . V A L T E R R A U D S E P P , P . E N G . E X E C U T I V E S E C R E T A R Y : B R I G . - G E N . E . D. D A N B Y ( R E T I R E D ) November 21, 1979 C O M M I S S I O N C O U N S E L : R U S S E L L J . A N T H O N Y , B.A. , L L . B . , L L . M . PROCEDURAL RULINGS NO. 5 - TECHNICAL HEARINGS The f o l l o w i n g Rulings are f u r t h e r to P r e l i m i n a r y R u l i n g s No. 1 to 4 f o l l o w i n g the i n i t i a l Rules of Procedure issued May 14th, 1979. (1) Pursuant to Te c h n i c a l Hearing Rule No. 1.3 the Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n (Kamloops) i s added as a Major P a r t i c i p a n t . (2) Pursuant to Tec h n i c a l Hearing Rule No. 1.3 the C o a l i t i o n of Con- cerned C i t i z e n s of the Bulkley-Nechako i s added as a Major P a r t i c i p a n t . Attached i s an updated and re v i s e d L i s t of Major P a r t i c i p a n t s . (3) T e c h n i c a l Hearing Rule No. 2.1 s e t t i n g out the phases of the Tech n i c a l Hearings i s deleted i n i t s e n t i r e t y and the f o l l o w i n g phasing i s s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r : - Overview - E x p l o r a t i o n Phase I I I - Mining Phase IV - M i l l i n g and Chemical E x t r a c t i o n - Waste Disposal - Environmental Impact - P u b l i c and Worker Health Phase V I I I - S o c i a l Impact Phase IX - E t h i c a l Questions Phase X - J u r i s d i c t i o n , Regulation and Enforcement Phase I Phase I I Phase V Phase VI Phase VII TECHNICAL HEARINGS MAJOR PARTICIPANTS LIST (1) A t l i n Community A s s o c i a t i o n Box 125 651-7648 A t l i n , B.C. VOW 1A0 A t t n : Ms. Ann Wright (2) B r i t i s h Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines 840 West Hastings S t r e e t 681-5328 Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1C8 A t t n : Mr. F.G. Higgs (3) B r i t i s h Columbia Conference, The United Church of Canada c/o Mrs. L o i s Boyce, Secretary 277-4527 Uranium Working Group 8971 Heather S t r e e t Richmond, B.C. V6Y 2R7 (4) B.C. Federation of Labour & United S t e e l u o r k e r s of America 3110 Boundary Road 430-1421 Burnaby, B.C. V5M 4A2 A t t n : Mr. David Rice (5) B.C. Medical A s s o c i a t i o n Academy of Medicine B u i l d i n g 1807 West 10th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6J 2A9 A t t n : Dr. E r i c Young 736-5551 (6) B.C. M i n i s t r y of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources c/o Mr. George Cumming, Q.C. 682-3664 Cumming, Richards, U n d e r h i l l , F r a s e r , S k i l l i n g s B a r r i s t e r s and S o l i c i t o r s S u i t e 600 - 900 West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1G1 (7) B.C. M i n i s t r y of Environment P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch 387-5321 1106 Cook S t r e e t V i c t o r i a , B.C. V8V 1X4 A t t n : Mr. Joe Negraeff Mr. K e l v i n Hicke 133 (8) B.C. M i n i s t r y of Health 828 West 10th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 1L8 A t t n : Dr. Wayne Greene (9) Canadian C o a l i t i o n f o r Nuclear R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Kelowna Branch P.O. Box 1093 Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 7P8 874-2331 764-4949 < (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) A t t n : Mr. John Moelaert C o a l i t i o n of Concerned C i t i z e n s of the Bulkley-Nechako Box 61 567-9451 1636 Columbia S t r e e t Vanderhoof, B.C. VOJ 3A0 A t t n : Mr. Bruce Kanary Confederation of Canadian Unions (CCU) c/o Sun, Paterson a B r a i l 669-7311 1400 Dominion B u i l d i n g 207 West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1K5 A t t n : Mr. Craig Paterson Consolidated Rexspar Minerals & Chemicals L t d . P.O. Box 11575 669-2226 650 West Georgia S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N7 A t t n : Mr. Bruce S w i t z e r Environmental A l l i a n c e Against Uranium Mining EAAUM c/o Ms. Del White 688-8361 S u i t e 405 - 207 West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1H7 Greenpeace Foundation c/o Environmental A l l i a n c e Against Uranium Mining 688-8361 S u i t e 405 - 207 West Hastings S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1H7 At t n : Mr. Peter Chataway J o i n t Committee - Uranium Technical Hearings S u i t e 405 - 207 West Hastings S t r e e t 688-8361 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1H7 At t n : Mr. Ralph T o r r i e Kootenay Nuclear Study Group #2 - 2828 West 6th Avenue 731-3287 Vancouver, B.C. V5M 1R8 At t n : Mr. Jim T e r r a l 134 (17) Mining A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia 480 - 1066 West Hastings S t r e e t 681-8429 P.O. Box 12540 Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3X1 A t t n : Mr. M i l l e r H. Mason, Counsel (18) Moreen Energy Resources c/o R u s s e l l & DuMoulin 688-3411 B a r r i s t e r s and S o l i c i t o r s 17th F l o o r - 1075 West Georgia S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3G2 A t t n : Mr. John B.L. Robertson (19) PiMC E x p l o r a t i o n (Canada) Co. L t d . c/o R u s s e l l & DuMoulin 688-3411 B a r r i s t e r s and S o l i c i t o r s 17th F l o o r - 1075 West Georgia S t r e e t Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3G2 A t t n : Mr. John B.L. Robertson (20) South East Kelowna I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t c/o Robin Luxmoore 763-6011 C i t y H a l l - Engineering Department 1435 Water S t r e e t Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 1J4 (21) Union of B.C. Indian C h i e f s 3rd F l o o r - 440 West Hastings S t r e e t 684-0231 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1L1 A t t n : Rosalee T i z y a , A d m i n i s t r a t o r (22) West Coast Environmental Law A s s o c i a t i o n #1012 - 207 West Hastings S t r e e t 684-7378 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 1H7 A t t n : Mr. Kim Roberts (23) Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n (Clearwater) c/o Dr. Robert MacKenzie B r o o k f i e l d Medical Centre Clearwater, B.C. V0E 1N0 (24) Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n (Kamloops) c/o Mr. L. I s e r t 578-7537 R.R. #3 4868 Spurraway Road Kamloops, B.C. V2C 5K1 (25) Commission Counsel 1900 - 1030 West Georgia S t r e e t 689-1811 Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3E9 A t t n : Mr. R u s s e l l J . Anthony 135 ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO URANIUM MINING Revised Schedule of Hearings As of November 13, 1979 Devonshire H o t e l , Vancouver 1979 Nov. 13-16; 20-23: Dec. 4-7; 11-14: 1980 Jan. 8-11; 15-16: Jan. 29 - Feb. 1 Feb. 5-8; 12-15: Mar. 4-7; 11-14; 25-28; Apr. 1-3: Apr. 15-18; 22-25; May 27-30: Jun. 3-6: Jun..l?i.20 : i : Jun* 24-27: Phase V: Waste Management Phase V I : Environmental Impact: Ground- water, Surface Water, B i o l o g i c a l Pathways. Phase V I I : P u b l i c and Worker Health Continuation of Phases: I I - E x p l o r a t i o n ; I l l - M i n i n g ; I V - M i l l i n g ; V-Waste Management Phase VI: Environmental Impact: B i o l o g i c a l Pathways, Atmosphere, Decommissioning, Reclamation, Long Term C o n t r o l , Emergency Measures Phase V I I : P u b l i c and Worker Health Phase V I I I : S o c i a l Impact Phase IX: E t h i c a l Questions Phase X: J u r i s d i c t i o n , Regulation and Enforcement Community hearings w i l l be rescheduled to September and October, 1980. APPENDIX 2 The Commission s t a f f and t h e i r a d v i s o r s : r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 137 FIGURE 1 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION STAFF AND THEIR ADVISORS Commissioners Commission counsel Techn i c a l s t a f f : Research coordinators L i b r a r i a n , T r a n s c r i p t indexers T e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s -) A d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f : Executive s e c r e t a r y , Adminis- t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t , Senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r , C l e r i c a l workers Commission counsel 1. Senior Commission counsel: Mr. R u s s e l l Anthony, whose r o l e i t i s : (a) to advise RCIUM on procedural matters and any other " l e g a l i s s u e s " j ;£b) to set up and s t r u c t u r e the t e c h n i c a l hearings i n con- j u n c t i o n w i t h the Commissioners; ( c ) to meet w i t h RCIUM p a r t i c i p a n t s to schedule witnesses f o r the t e c h n i c a l hearings; (d) to work with the T e c h n i c a l Advisory Group to i d e n t i f y problems and RCIUM witnesses; (e) to arrange to have RCIUM witnesses attend; ( f ) to attend t e c h - n i c a l hearings to cross-examine witnesses; and (g) to help w r i t e and review the f i n a l r e p o r t (Anthony 1979a, i n t e r v i e w ) . Mr. Anthony r e - presented a p u b l i c i n t e r e s t group (Canadian A r c t i c Resources Committee) before the Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e I n q u i r y , appeared f o r the p r o v i n c i a l F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch i n the Revelstoke hearings, and was Commission counsel f o r the West Coast O i l P o r t s I n q u i r y . 2. Associate Commission counsel: Mr. Gary Letcher, whose r o l e i t i s to a s s i s t Mr. Anthony. Mr. Letcher attends c e r t a i n phases of the t e c h n i c a l hearings i n the place of Mr. Anthony. 136 T e c h n i c a l s t a f f 1. Research c o o r d i n a t o r s : uihose r o l e i t i s to a s s i s t RCIUM i n : (a) the s t r u c t u r i n g of the t e c h n i c a l hearings; (b) the d e f i n i t i o n of the t e c h n i c a l questions that must be addressed by RCIUM; (c) the t e s t i n g of the evidence i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings; (d) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , h i r i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n of RCIUM witnesses; (e) the w r i t i n g .of the f i n a l r e p o r t . The three research c o o r d i n a t o r s are: (1) Mr. R.A. Hodge who has a background i n engin- eering geology and groundwater; (2) Mr. R. Cu l b e r t who has a background i n c i v i l engineering and works f o r a c o n s u l t i n g f i r m (Talisman P r o j e c t s ) i n Vancouver; (3) Ms. J . L e x i e r who has a background i n geo- l o g i c a l engineering. 2. L i b r a r i a n : Miss K e l t i e M c C a l l . 3. T r a n s c r i p t indexers: Ms. M a r i l y n Kansky and Ms. Karin Hanstantynowicz. Technical Advisors The r o l e of the t e c h n i c a l advisors i s to give t e c h n i c a l advice to the research c o o r d i n a t o r s . The s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and backgrounds of the 11 t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s are as f o l l o w s : Dr. B. Morrison: low l e v e l r a d i a t i o n exposure. Dr. Morrison i s a s t a t i s t i c i a n w i t h a background i n cancer research. She i s a medical doctor and works i n the F a c u l t y of Medicine at UBC. Mr. Frank Everard: m i l l i n g of uranium. Mr. Everard has a background i n m i l l i n g and metallurgy and has h i s own c o n s u l t i n g f i r m i n Toronto. Dr. Pervez Umar: mining of uranium. Dr. Umar i s a mining engineer and has h i s own c o n s u l t i n g f i r m i n Toronto. Dr. Lloyd Skarsgard: e f f e c t s on healt h of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n . Dr. Skarsgard has a medical background. Dr. J . M i l l e r : e f f e c t s on health of uranium e x p l o i t - a t i o n . Dr. M i l l e r has a background i n medical g e n e t i c s . 139 Mr. CO. Brawner: e s t a b l i s h e d Golder f i r m , and r e c e n t l y at UBC. uranium mine waste d i s p o s a l . Mr. Brawner A s s o c i a t e s , a geochemical engineering entered the Mining Engineering Department Dr. UI.K. F l e t c h e r : geochemistry of uranium. Dr. F l e t c h e r i s a geochemist i n the Department of G e o l o g i c a l Sciences at UBC. Dr. Ul.H. Matthews: p h y s i c a l environmental s t u d i e s and impact of uranium on the n a t u r a l environment. Dr. Matthews has a background i n engineering geology, ground-water and environ- mental s t u d i e s ; he works i n the Department of G e o l o g i c a l Sciences at UBC. Dr. A.J. S i n c l a i r : geology and mineralogy of uranium deposits i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Dr. S i n c l a i r i s a g e o l o g i c a l engineer : w i t h a background i n m i n e r a l deposits and g e o s t a t i s t i c s . He works i n the Department of G e o l o g i c a l Sciences at UBC. Mr. C T . H a t f i e l d and Mr. J . V i l l a m e r e of H a t f i e l d Consultants L i m i t e d . This company, which s p e c i a l i z e s i n environmental and p o l l u t i o n management, a s s i s t s i n the cross-examination of various witnesses i n Phases I-VI of the t e c h n i c a l hearings. Dr. Arthur S c o t t : r a d i o l o g i c a l aspects of uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n . Dr. Scott has a background i n nuclear physics and has h i s own c o n s u l t i n g f i r m i n Toronto. In a d d i t i o n , RCIUM has a community r e l a t i o n s ' c o n s u l t a n t , Ms. Sonia S t a i r s . Ms. S t a i r s i s : " h a l f s t a f f , h a l f a d v i s o r " (Hodge 19B0d, i n t e r - v iew). While her r o l e i n the community hearings i s to intervene between the community p a r t i c i p a n t s and RCIUM, and to thereby keep the p a r t i c i p a n t s informed of RCIUM's a c t i v i t i e s ( S t a i r s 1979a, i n t e r v i e w ) , her r o l e i n the t e c h n i c a l hearings i s : (a) to a s s i s t community p a r t i c i p a n t s through o r i e n - t a t i o n to both the procedure and the i n f o r m a t i o n ; (b) to a d v i s e , to some extent, on the dissemination of appropriate and u s e f u l information to the communities ( S t a i r s 1979b, i n t e r v i e w ) . Ms. S t a i r s , as a member of the S e c r e t a r i a t of the Canadian Council of Resources and Environment M i n i s t e r s , undertook the conceptual design and i n i t i a l planning of the Man and Re- source Conference Program. She a l s o helped s e t up the Community R e l a t i o n s Department and the inter-departmental work groups of the B r i t i s h Columbia Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y . IkO A d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f 1. Executive s e c r e t a r y : B r i g a d i e r General E.D. Danby ( r e t i r e d ) , whose r o l e i t i s : (a) to act as the Commissioner of Baths; (b) to take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the e x h i b i t s ; ( c ) to contact p a r t i c i p a n t s , c e r t a i n other o r g a n i z a t i o n s and expert witnesses to arrange f o r t h e i r appearance at a s u i t a b l e time and pl a c e ; and (d) to supervise the a c t i v i t i e s of the r e s t of the s t a f f . In Dr. Bates' words: " B r i g a d i e r General Danby . . . . i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o r g a n i z i n g the work D f the Commnssion so th a t i t i s done e f f i c i e n t l y and done w e l l . " (TP, 1, p. 5 ) . B r i g a d i e r General Danby has been r e - spo n s i b l e f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of numerous commissions and i n q u i r i e s , i n c l u d i n g the Royal Commission of I n q u i r y on Property Assessment and Taxation. 2. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t : Mr. John Erb, whose r o l e i t i s to a s s i s t General Danby during the p u b l i c s e s s i o n s . In General Danby's absence, Mr. Erb a c t s as the Commissioner of Oaths. 3. Senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r : Mrs. Lorae C h a r l t e n , an a d m i n i s t r a t o r , personnel manageress and co o r d i n a t o r of in f o r m a t i o n flow i n the RCIUM o f f i c e . <+. C l e r i c a l workers. APPENDIX 3 L i s t of witnesses: community hearings 142 Kelowna - June 5 and 6 P r e s e n t a t i o n s P l a c e r Development L t d . PNC E x p l o r a t i o n (Canada) Co. L t d . Norcen Energy Resources L t d . Vernon Branch of SPEC ver b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n South Okanagan Environmental C o a l i t i o n Greenpeace (Okanagan) Foundation v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n B r i t i s h Columbia Conference - The United Church of Canada Inter-Church Committee Anglican Church South and East Kelowna Okanagan Mi s s i o n L o c a l of the B.C. F r u i t Growers A s s o c i a t i o n South East Kelowna I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t Canadian C o a l i t i o n f o r Nuclear R e s p o n s i b i l i t y - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n S t . Paul's United Church - Kelowna c e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Machineists - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal Kelowna Chapter of Registered Nurses Assoc. of B.C. v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Witnesses Mr. D. Howard Mr. UJ. Bulmer, Mr. B. J e n k i n s , Mr. M. Suginohara Mr. Ui.A. Loucks, Mr. D.A. Sawyer, Mr. J . N e v i l l e , Mr. P.G. Sagert Ms. L. Warrington Mr. J . B e a t t i e , Mr. J . Lewis, Mr. J.W. Warnock, Mr. C. Johnson Mr. P. Chataway Dr. T.R. Anderson Mrs. D. B u r n s t i l l Mr. M. I r w i n Mr. R. Luxmoore Mr. J . Moelaert Mr. J . Oakes Mr. A.E. B e a u l i e r Rev. S.W. Rowles Mrs. C. F l e t c h e r 143 South Okanagan Similkameen Union Board of Health Canadian P u b l i c Health A s s o c i a t i o n Personal Holy S p i r i t P a r i s h I n t e r n a t i o n a l Hostess S e r v i c e v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n S i e r r a Club of Western Canada Okanagan Group Union of B.C. Indian C h i e f s v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Summerland United Church - read i n t o the record by B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby Kelowna Business and P r o f e s s i o n a l Women's Club - read i n t o the record by B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby Personal Personal - read i n t o the record by B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Dr. D.A. Clarke Ms. E. C l a r k e Mr. W. McGrath Mr. W. Gilmour Rev. J . Smith Mrs. J.R. Donati Ms. K. Madsen Miss L. B a s i l , Mr. J . Rogers Mr. W.A. Gray Ms. L. Reinertson Ms. M. Fedison Mr. F. Snouisell Mr. D. Cursons Mr. A. Proudfoot Clearwater - June B and 9 Consolidated Rexspar M i n e r a l s & Chemicals L t d . B.C. Medical A s s o c i a t i o n Personal Upper North Thompson Liv e s t o c k A s s o c i a t i o n B.C. Federation of Labour and United Steelworkers of America Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n - Clearwater Mr. B. S w i t z e r , Mr. J . M i t c h e l l Mr. J . Kerr Dr. R.F. Woollard Dr. R.F. Woollard Mr. W.H. Sedgewick Mr. K. Graham, Mr. E. S t e e l e Dr. R.E. MacKenzie North Thompson Chapter of Registered Nurses A s s o c i a t i o n of B.C. Ms. H. MacKenzie Clearwater Secondary School Students' C o u n c i l - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Ms. G. Watson Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. L.W. Sakals Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. G. Brigg s Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n S i s t e r Regina Jacek Personal Mrs. J . N i s t o r Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. UJ. MacLennan Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Ms. H. MacLennan Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. K.D. Simmerling Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Dr. R.E. MacKenzie Personal - read i n t o the record by B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby Mr. and Mrs. Voysey Personal - read i n t o the record by B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby Mr. D. Boudreau Personal Dr. C. Lam Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. G. Blidook Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. L. Bishop Personal Mr. R. Jackson Kamloops - June 11 Pres e n t a t i o n s Witnesses Consolidated Rexspar M i n e r a l s & Chemicals L t d . Mr. Mr. B. J . S w i t z e r , Mr. Kerr Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l Assoc. Kamloops Mr. L. I s e r t , Mr. J, North Shuswap Environmental Mr. D. Charlton Committee Canadian Union of P u b l i c Employees, L o c a l 90D Mr. B. Ferguson Ms. M. Bentley B e a v e r d e l l Concerned C i t i z e n s Committee f o r a Clean K e t t l e V a l l e y Diocese of Kootenay, A n g l i c a n Church Personal Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n H y d r o l o g i c a l Map - Norcen Property B r i t i s h Columbia Conference United Church of Canada Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Rock Creek Women's I n s t i t u t e v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. C. H o l l y Mr. li). Poole Rev. T. Mumford Mr. R. Rexin Mr. A.J. Drkin Mr. F. Cromwell Mr. J . N e v i l l e Mr. D.A. Sawyer Dr. E.G. M i l l e r Dr. C. L e v i t t Ms. S. S t a i r s demons Mrs. N. McGarvie Mr. G. Dihm Ms. L. Taylor Ms. M. Cannon Grand Forks - June 2D and 21 Presentations Chinook C o n s t r u c t i o n & Engineering L i m i t e d R a d i a t i o n P r o t e c t i o n S e r v i c e , M i n i s t r y of Health, Government of B.C.. Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club Personal Committee f o r a Clean K e t t l e V a l l e y v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Witnesses Mr. T. Schorn Dr. W. Greene Dr. L. Olsen Mr. B. Bloom Mr. D. White Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. J . K e l l y 146 Personal - read i n t o the record by B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby Mount Paul United Church Thompson-Nicola Regional D i s t r i c t V erbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Kamloops Medical Society v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n H o s p i t a l Employees Union, L o c a l ISO Personal Personal Personal B.C. Honey Producers' A s s o c i a t i o n v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal Personal PROBE - BRITISH COLUMBIA C i t y of Kamloops - read i n t o the record by Dr. D.V. Bates Personal - read i n t o the record by B r i g . Gen. E.D. Danby Kamloops and D i s t r i c t Labour Council v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. K.M. W y l l i e Ms. C. Foster Rev. P. Rolston Mr. K. Simmerling Ms. J . Lee Dr. C L . Webster Mr. H.A. Theobald Mr. L.P. Jensen Mr. J.R. Kerr Mr. L. I s e r t Mr. A.E. Hooper Mr. P. Jones Mr. P. Bamford Mr. D. E l l s a y Mayor R.M. L a t t a Ms. B.M.A. Wheatcroft Mr. D. MacPherson Mrs. J . Jensen Rock Creek - June 18 and 19 Prese n t a t i o n s Witnesses PNC E x p l o r a t i o n (Canada) Co. Ltd, Norcen Energy Resources L t d . K e t t l e R i v e r Stockmen's Assn. Mr. W. Bulmer Mr. J . N e v i l l e Mr. D.A. Sawyer Mr. W.H. P r i c e , Mr. J . Eek'; Mrs. D. Bubar Personal Mr. D. Planedin Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club Mr. P. T c h i r USCC Union of Youth (Union of S p i r i t u a l Communities of C h r i s t ) Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Union of S p i r i t u a l Communities of C h r i s t Ms. L . P l o t n i k o f f Mr. N. Reynolds Mr. S. B a s t i e n Mr. 111. Kootnekoff Personal Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Ladies O r g a n i z a t i o n of the USCC ver b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Union of S p i r i t u a l Communities of C h r i s t Committee f o r J u s t i c e and Human Rights - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. R. Anthony Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. R. Anthony Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club - v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. J . Carson Mr. K. Ga r r i s o n Mrs. M. Fofonoff Mrs. I . M a l l o f f Dr. R. Walton Mr. D. Campbell Dr. E. Rice C a s t l e g a r - June 21 and 22 Prese n t a t i o n s Witnesses Stampede I n t e r n a t i o n a l Co. Mr. E. Amendolagine Kootenay Presbytery of the Rev. C. MacGuire United Church of Canada R e l i g i o u s S o c i e t y of Friends - Argenta Mr. N. P o l s t e r Personal Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal Slocan V a l l e y Resource So c i e t y Genelle Concerned C i t i z e n s Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n T r i n i t y United Church Women of Creston Personal Personal Personal Personal Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. R. Banner Personal Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal Personal Personal Personal C i t y of C a s t l e g a r Personal Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Mr. R. B r i s c o , MP f o r Nelson/West Arm Mr. E. Clough Ms. C. Gaskin Mrs. S. Lamare Mr. T. MacKenzie Mr. H. McGregor Ms. D. Moore Mrs. L.B. Beduz Mr. 3. T e r r a l Mr. D. Jack Mr. B. Carpendale Ms. Joan Renold Mr. Ul. Schwartz Ms. Penny Bonnett Ms. B.N. Daniel Rev. T. Bristow Mr. E. Taylor Mr. D. P i e r c e Mr. G. Rutley Mr. Ul. Niemann Mr. R. Banner Alderman B. Godderis Mr. R. P l o s s Mr. K. Tucker Williams Lake - June 26 Presentations Personal Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. G. Letcher Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. G. Letcher Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Troopers of W i l l i a m s Lake ve r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Troopers of W i l l i a m s Lake ve r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Greenpeace Foundation v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Witnesses Alderman M.M. H a l l a u r Mr. E. Sager Mr. G. E i c h e l Mr. R. Woods Mr. D. Diether Ms. L. Enquist Mr. R. Marining Rev. P. Davis Mr. G. Rainey Vanderhoof - June 27 P r e s e n t a t i o n s B.C. C o u n c i l , Confederation of Canadian Unions Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Smithers Conservative Centre Vanderhoof Environmental Society CAIMAW, L o c a l 10 ver b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Nechako V a l l e y Regional Cattlemen's A s s o c i a t i o n Stuart Trembleur Indian Band Witnesses Mr. G. S c h l e s i n g e r Mr. A. P a t r i c k Ms. L. P r i c e Mr. B. Kanary Mr. J . B e l l Mr. D. Weaver Mr. C. Gregg F o r t Nelson - J u l y 3 No formal presentations A t l i n - J u l y k P r e s e n t a t i o n s Serapheim Engineering v e r b a l presentation P l a c e r Development ve r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n D.G. Leighton & Associates v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n Department of Energy, Mines & Resources Government of Canada v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n B.C. Energy C o a l i t i o n A t l i n Community A s s o c i a t i o n B.C. Conference, United Church of Canada A t l i n Community A s s o c i a t i o n v e r b a l presentation Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. Ul. S p i r a Verbal p r e s e n t a t i o n Personal - read i n t o the record by Ms. M. Ripple A t l i n D i s t r i c t Board of Trade - read i n t o the record by Mr. Anthony Personal - read i n t o the record by Mr. Anthony Witnesses Mr. T. L y l e Mr. S. Tennant Mr. J . Wallace Mr. D. Culb e r t Mr. B. B a l l a n t y n e Mr. D. Dobyns Mr. W. Merry Mrs. L. Boyce Ms. A. Wright Mr. J . Davidson Mr. L. V e r l i n d e n Mrs. J . S p i r a Mr. A. P a s s e r e l l , MLA f o r A t l i n Mr. B. Johnson Mr. J . F u l t o n , MP f o r Skeena Mr. H. Loken Mr. R. Yorke-Hardy APPENDIX 4 V i s i t s to uranium mines and deposits 152 A. V/ i s i t s t D Uranium Mines 1-11 APRIL, LIMOGES, FRANCE Beny open p i t mine Fanay underground mine Health p r o t e c t i o n l a b o r a t o r y F i l l e d i n , revegetated p i t mine Bessines m i l l Bessines t a i l i n g s pond with surface l e a c h i n g pipes Dr. Chameaud's experiments on r a t s exposed to radon gas 8-9 MAY, ELLIOT LAKE, ONTARIO Quirke Lake barium treatment pl a n t Quirke t a i l i n g s d i s p o s a l Quirke s i t e , r e v e g e t a t i o n experiment Quirke Lake t a i l i n g s - dry and wind blown Quirke Lake t a i l i n g s dam with experiment water treatment pl a n t Nordic t a i l i n g s , g i v i n g a c i d Quirke Lake s e t t l i n g ponds below t a i l i n g s Ik MAY, MIDNITE MINE, WASHINGTON Mid n i t e mine open p i t Newly constructed pond to contain seepage from p i t Seepage waters from open p i t T a i l i n g s pond with saw m i l l waste being used to cover t a i l i n g s Dyke at open p i t M i l l t a i l i n g s wind blown m a t e r i a l Open p i t o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s Seepage from p i t : r a d i o a c t i v e calcium sulphate (?) white p r e c i p i t a t e 153 15 MAY, SHERWOOD MIME, WASHINGTON Sherwood mine open p i t Sherwood mine m i l l R e servoir below open p i t Berns to prevent water washing down to the r e s e r v o i r Ore b i n Barium sulphate (BaSO^) s e t t l i n g pond f o r heating e f f l u e n t T a i l i n g s pond Seepage from BaSO^ treatment pond going underground Seepage from BaSO^ p r e c i p i t a t i o n pond re-emerging i n g u l l y above main highway 17 MAY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH V i t r o p l a n t , S a l t Lake C i t y t a i l i n g s p i l e S a l t Lake C i t y V i t r o s i t e Farming adjacent to V i t r o s i t e V i t r o p l a n t , p a r t l y revegetated B. V i s i t s to Uranium Deposits k June - B l i z z a r d , Fuko, L a s s i e Lake, Donen and Hy d r a u l i c Lake deposits i n the east Okanagan of c e n t r a l B r i t i s h Columbia B June - B i r c h I s l a n d d e p o s i t on the south slope of the North Thompson V a l l e y , 100 km. north of Kamloops 19 June - B e a v e r d e l l d e p o s i t , south-east of Kelowna 20 June - Boundary d e p o s i t , near Grand Forks 21 June - China Creek d e p o s i t , near C a s t l e g a r 27 June - Nechako River d e p o s i t , near Vanderhoof 5 J u l y - S u r p r i s e Lake and Ruby Creek d e p o s i t s , northeast of A t l i n (Commission s t a f f t i m e t a b l e , June-July 1979). APPENDIX 5 F i r s t Interim Report on Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n 155 ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO URANIUM MINING PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FIRST INTERIM REPORT ON URANIUM EXPLORATION August 15, 1979. I . INTRODUCTION 1. The Commissioners have now v i s i t e d the major s i t e s of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, and have completed a pr e l i m i n a r y evaluation of the r i s k s to the environment and to the p u b l i c which these a c t i v i t i e s might cause. We have come to the p o s i t i o n that the present methods of c o n t r o l of e x p l o r a t i o n f a r uranium are not yet adequate to ensure proper p r o t e c t i o n Df the p u b l i c and the environment, having at t h i s time i n mind the e x i s t i n g r a d i a t i o n standards set by the Federal and P r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s . 2. The purpose of t h i s FIRST INTERIM REPORT i s to d e t a i l t h i s evalu- a t i o n and to recommend changes i n the e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s and enforce- ment procedures. We wish to s t r e s s that our present conclusions and recommendations are only p r e l i m i n a r y , and may.be modified or expanded a f t e r we have heard the evidence presented to us at the Hearings due to be held i n the F a l l of 1979 and Spring of I960. I I . QUESTION OF A TOTAL MORATORIUM ON EXPLORATION 3. To date, our c o n s i d e r a t i o n Df uranium e x p l o r a t i o n has been l i m i t e d to a study of i t s impact on the environment, and of p o s s i b l e h e a l t h hazards to e x p l o r a t i o n crews and to the p u b l i c . 4. The P u b l i c Hearings we have conducted so f a r have i n d i c a t e d to us that some members of the p u b l i c b e l i e v e that there are e t h i c a l grounds which are s t r o n g l y h e l d , f o r a t o t a l p r o h i b i t i o n of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . We have planned s p e c i f i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n of these e t h i c a l questions e a r l y i n 1980 and wish to make i t c l e a r that the recommendations i n t h i s Report are those which we f e e l to be necessary at t h i s p o i n t of time, viewed from the standpoint of p u b l i c and environmental p r o t e c t i o n . We are not yet prepared to i n d i c a t e our p o s i t i o n on the e t h i c a l questions which are inv o l v e d , though we a n t i c i p a t e making a comment on t h i s aspect of the questions we have been asked to consider when our F i n a l Report i s submitted. 5. I t may be argued by some that our u n w i l l i n g n e s s at t h i s p o i n t to recommend a t o t a l ban on e x p l o r a t i o n f o r uranium represents a t a c i t con- sent to the e x t r a c t i o n of any ore found, and i t s l a t e r u t i l i z a t i o n f o r nuclear energy; t h i s does not f o l l o w . I I I . ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR INTERIM REPORT 6. The Atomic Energy Con t r o l Board of Canada has r e c e n t l y i n d i c a t e d that i n the f u t u r e i t w i l l not be l i c e n s i n g uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , unless t h i s i n v o l v e s removal of more than ten kilograms of uranium or thorium from 156 any one deposit i n any one calendar year. (See Appendix I ) . In our view t h i s makes i t necessary f o r the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia to accept the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to l i c e n s e uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , and i t i s now e s s e n t i a l that the P r o v i n c i a l Government should move e x p e d i t i o u s l y to c o n t r o l t h i s a c t i v i t y . 7. A f u r t h e r reason f o r submitting t h i s Interim Report i s that we have been made aware i n p u b l i c testimony of some hardship, f o r example, extra c o s t s to i n d i v i d u a l prospectors, c u r r e n t l y being caused by un- c e r t a i n t y concerning f u t u r e p o l i c y i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia i n r e l a t i o n t o uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . IV. SPECIAL HAZARDS FROM URANIUM EXPLORATION ACTIVITY 8. I t has become c l e a r to us that the P r o v i n c i a l Regulations con- t r o l l i n g e x p l o r a t i o n were o r i g i n a l l y d r a f t e d with a view to general coal and mineral e x p l o r a t i o n and were not concerned with the p o s s i b l e s p e c i a l hazards associated with uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . 9. Uranium e x p l o r a t i o n raises' p a r t i c u l a r problems from three points of view. F i r s t l y , the p o s s i b i l i t y of contamination of water by m a t e r i a l released as a r e s u l t of e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t y ; secondly, the p o s s i b i l i t y of radon gas and i t s daughters being emitted from exposed r a d i o a c t i v e sources; and t h i r d l y , the importance of some s p e c i a l p r o t e c t i o n methods needed f o r employees. 10. An examination of the main s i t e s of e x p l o r a t i o n f o r uranium i n B r i t i s h Columbia re v e a l s that the p o s s i b l e hazards occasioned by t h i s a c t i v i t y vary g r e a t l y i n d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s , p a r t l y because the n a t u r a l l e v e l s of r a d i o a c t i v i t y are d i f f e r e n t , but more p a r t i c u l a r l y be- cause the l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s are f a r from uniform. We wish to s t r e s s that some of the p u b l i c f e a r s expressed to us i n testimony i n r e l a t i o n s to the p o s s i b l e hazards r e s u l t i n g from d r i l l i n g f o r uranium do not, i n our op i n i o n , c o n s t i t u t e a s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k . Some members of the p u b l i c have been l e d to b e l i e v e that a s i n g l e d r i l l hole some miles from the nearest h a b i t a t i o n could present a hazard by v i r t u e of the leakage i n t o the general- atmosphere of gas containing radon and i t s daughters. Such a p o s s i b i l i t y i s unsupported by data, and the physics of gas d i s p e r s i o n and d i l u t i o n make i t exceedingly u n l i k e l y that any enhanced r i s k could r e s u l t from such l i m i t e d e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t y . However, a more extensive program i n c l u d i n g l a r g e numbers of d r i l l holes i n a known r a d i o a c t i v e d e p o s i t , could pose a hazard to nearby h a b i t a t i o n unless these holes were promptly c l o s e d . 11. A p o t e n t i a l hazard, i n our o p i n i o n , i s that d r i l l holes w i l l d i s r u p t the patter n of groundwater flow causing a compositional change i n the water and leading to contamination of a water supply p r e v i o u s l y unaffected. The p o s s i b i l i t y of increased uranium content, or the i n t r o - duction of other c o n s t i t u e n t s such as radium 226 or t o x i c heavy metals associated with uranium d e p o s i t s , makes the problem p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i - c u l t . The contaminated water might be used f o r p u b l i c d r i n k i n g purposes, or i r r i g a t i o n , or f o r the watering of l i v e s t o c k . 157 V. PRESENT SITUATION 12. hie have noted examples where the hazards of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n are i l l u s t r a t e d . At the B/D deposit of Consolidated Rexspar Mines ( B i r c h I s l a n d ) , broken r a d i o a c t i v e rock i s d i s t r i b u t e d downwards i n t o Foghorn Creek. At China Creek near C a s t l e g a r , there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y of contamination of the creek which s u p p l i e s the water to the l o c a l p o pulation of Genelle from e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t y on both sides of the creek. Southeast of Kelowna i n the H y d r a u l i c Lake area the problem i s that of p o s s i b l e f u t u r e waterborne r a d i o n u c l i d e or uranium a f f e c t i n g the Southeast Kelowna I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t . Another problem e x i s t s at Eneas Creek west of Summerland, where uranium i n the creek water at the present time appears to be n a t u r a l l y i n excess of the proposed p u b l i c d r i n k i n g water standard (20 ppb uranium). A recent i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of e x p l o r a t i o n and d r i l l i n g i n t h i s area might have the e f f e c t of f u r t h e r i n c r e a s i n g the uranium content i n t h i s and other creeks. VI. PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION 13. I t has been brought to our a t t e n t i o n at a number of the P u b l i c Hearings we have so f a r conducted, that there have been d i f f i c u l t i e s with communication between a l l l e v e l s involved i n uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . Not only has the p u b l i c found i t d i f f i c u l t to get information to which one would have supposed i t was c l e a r l y e n t i t l e d , such as e x p l o r a t i o n programmes, sa f e t y measures, e t c . , but the extent of information d i s - t r i b u t e d to l o c a l h e a l t h o f f i c e r s seems to have been exceedingly v a r i - able; the communication between mining i n s p e c t o r s and health o f f i c e r s and the p u b l i c seems to have been d e f i c i e n t ; the communication between the e x p l o r a t i o n companies and the p u b l i c has been v a r i a b l e and i n some instances u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ; and the Atomic Energy C o n t r o l Board, which has been i s s u i n g l i c e n s e s f o r uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , seems to have been too d i s t a n t from the problems i n the area to have provided an e f f e c t i v e source of i n f o r m a t i o n . 14. The p u b l i c testimony that we have heard has provided us w i t h a great d e a l of evidence of the f r u s t r a t i o n encountered by concerned members of the p u b l i c , i n c l u d i n g p h y s i c i a n s ^ m i n i s t e r s , and represent- a t i v e s of cattlemen, f r u i t growers or other food producers. I t i s c l e a r that an improvement of t h i s aspect of the present s i t u a t i o n should be a p r i o r i t y . V I I . PRESENT LEGISLATION 15. The i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s so recent that proper information channels have not yet been developed, and the e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s covering e x p l o r a t i o n have not been amended to take s p e c i f i c account of the problems associated with uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . 158 16. UJe note that i n the present Mines Regulation Act, the d e f i n i t i o n of "mine" i n Section 2 means "any underground, open-pit, or quarry working, or other working of the ground, f o r the purpose of p r o s p e c t i n g , mining, opening up, developing, or proving any>mineral or mineral-bearing substance . • . ." L a t e r i n Section 11, subsection 18, there occurs the paragraph "Notwithstanding the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s s e c t i o n i n respect of a l l p l a c e r mining operations other than h y d r a u l i c monitoring, and i n respect of a l l mines i n the e x p l o r a t i o n stage, the Chief Inspector has the same power and a u t h o r i t y that i s granted to any person, except the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l , under t h i s s e c t i o n , where the employment of mechanical equipment i s l i k e l y to d i s t u r b the surface of the land i n c l e a r i n g , s t r i p p i n g , t r e n c h i n g , or such other operations as the Chief Inspector may consider l i k e l y to cause s i g n i f i c a n t disturbance D f the surface of the land, and he may approve programmes f o r reclamation and conservation of the land surface and i s s u e permits required under t h i s s e c t i o n , s u b j e c t to such terms and c o n d i t i o n s as he may p r e s c r i b e . " 17. UJe i n t e r p r e t these s e c t i o n s as c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i n g that the Chief Inspector of Mines has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . I t seems c l e a r that he has power to r e q u i r e a wide v a r i e t y of a c t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n t o e x p l o r a t i o n , or a c t i o n s which should be taken i n advance of e x p l o r a t i o n ; but i t appears to us that up to t h i s point i n time these powers have not been widely used. For example, they would i n our view have empowered the Chief Inspector to designate what ba s e l i n e s t u d i e s of water or a i r concentrations of r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s should be made on a given s i t e before any e x p l o r a t i o n i n v o l v i n g d e t a i l e d d r i l l i n g or trenching on a l a r g e s c a l e had been permitted. UJe have not found evidence t h a t the l e g i s l a t i o n has been used f o r t h i s purpose, though i n our view i n some instances i t c l e a r l y should have been. 18. The wording of the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act seems to us to b r i n g contamination of water with uranium or with r a d i o n u c l i d e s , and a i r with radon daughters c l e a r l y w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n of " p o l l u t i o n " . However we have not found evidence that the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch to t h i s point has been involved i n a d i s c u s s i o n or survey of problems that might be caused by c u r r e n t uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . The l i c e n s e s p r e v i o u s l y issued by the Atomic Energy Con t r o l Board required the e x p l o r a t i o n company to s t a t e what h e a l t h and s a f e t y p r o v i s i o n s i t had made i n r e - l a t i o n to i t s a c t i v i t i e s , arid what precautions i t was t a k i n g to protect the environment. The undertakings which were given to the Atomic Energy Cont r o l Board by i n d i v i d u a l companies under t h i s s e c t i o n do not appear to have been g e n e r a l l y known by the D i s t r i c t Mining Inspectors, although these i n d i v i d u a l s have presumably been res p o n s i b l e f a r checking whether or not these commitments were being discharged. V I I I . TYPES OF EXPLORATION 19. M i n e r a l e x p l o r a t i o n i n v o l v e s those a c t i v i t i e s designed to l o c a t e mineral d e p o s i t s and evaluate t h e i r economic p o t e n t i a l . In order to describe what steps should be taken to c o n t r o l uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , i t i s h e l p f u l to view these a c t i v i t i e s i n an o r d e r l y framework. Consequently, we have adopted the f o l l o w i n g general s t r u c t u r e f o r those a c t i v i t i e s which f o l l o w the i n c e p t i o n and design of an e x p l o r a t i o n program. 159 LEVEL DIME - REGIONAL EXPLORATION 20. This i n c l u d e s the compilation and assesment of e x i s t i n g information and the c o l l e c t i o n of e x p l o r a t i o n data of a reconnaissance nature i n c l u d - ing : (a) Airborne and ground geophysical surveys (b) G e o l o g i c a l mapping (c ) Sediment, s o i l and mater sampling (d) Radon determinations LEVEL TUP - DETAILED GROUND EXPLORATION 21. E x p l o r a t i o n procedures at t h i s l e v e l are designed to thoroughly evaluate l o c a l areas of i n t e r e s t . Common a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d e : (a) D e t a i l e d ground geophysical and geochemical surveys often r e q u i r i n g l i n e c u t t i n g i n forest e d areas. (b) Road b u i l d i n g , trenching ( i n c l u d i n g b l a s t i n g ) and s t r i p p i n g . ( c ) Diamond and/or percussion d r i l l i n g . LEVEL THREE - DETAILED SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 22. D e t a i l e d subsurface e x p l o r a t i o n provides a thorough information base f o r e v a l u a t i n g the f e a s i b i l i t y of mineral production. In p r a c t i c e i t may be d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n where Le v e l Two ends and L e v e l Three begins. A c t i v i t i e s at t h i s l e v e l i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : (a) Systematic d r i l l i n g and sampling (b) Excavation of la r g e surface p i t s and/or d r i v i n g exploratory a d i t s and s h a f t s . 23. Ground a c q u i s i t i o n by claim s t a k i n g or purchase normally c o i n c i d e s with the onset of Lev e l Two. IX. GUIDELINES FDR URANIUM EXPLORATION 24. E x p l o r a t i o n surveys and a n c i l l a r y p h y s i c a l work can be c l a s s i f i e d as d i s r u p t i v e or non-disruptive of the p h y s i c a l environment. There should normally be l i t t l e or no s i g n i f i c a n t disturbance of the land surface up to and i n c l u d i n g Level Two a c t i v i t y ( a ) . Ue are the r e f o r e most concerned with those a c t i v i t i e s o c c u r r i n g i n Levels Two and Three that can r e s u l t i n p h y s i c a l and/or chemical contamination of the environ- ment. The general problems as s o c i a t e d with these a c t i v i t i e s are common to e x p l o r a t i o n f o r a l l n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l s , but i n the case of uranium there i s the added p o s s i b i l i t y of problems a r i s i n g from uranium and the r a d i o a c t i v i t y of i t s decay products. 25. I n s o f a r as s p e c i a l hazards are associated w i t h uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , we wish to suggest that the f o l l o w i n g g u i d e l i n e s be used to supplement the present r e g u l a t i o n s , some of which are contained i n "Gui d e l i n e s f o r Coal and M i n e r a l E x p l o r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia" (B.C. M i n i s t r y of Mines and Petroleum Resources, 1978). 160 ROAD BUILDING 26. Removal of cover m a t e r i a l during c o n s t r u c t i o n of access roads to uranium e x p l o r a t i o n s i t e s may r e s u l t i n exposure of r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s . Consequently, such roads should be surveyed r a d i o m e t r i c a l l y and r e s u l t s provided to the Inspecting O f f i c e r as soon as i s f e a s i b l e . Where p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous r a d i o a c t i v i t y i s recognized, the Inspecting O f f i c e r may r e q u i r e b u r i a l , redesign or r e l o c a t i o n . STRIPPING, TRENCHING AND TEST PITTING ( i n c l u d i n g B l a s t i n g ) 27. S t r i p p i n g , trenching and t e s t p i t t i n g lead to the p o s s i b i l i t y of exposing high grade uranium con c e n t r a t i o n s , i n c r e a s i n g the r a t e of radon emission, producing d e b r i s p i l e s subject to new c o n d i t i o n s of e r o s i o n , and a l t e r i n g the surface drainage regime. A l l these problems can be avoided or minimized by s t r i c t adherence to the G u i d e l i n e s f o r C l e a r i n g , S t r i p p i n g and Trenching and other r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s on Reclamation and Revegetation i n "Guidelines f o r Coal and M i n e r a l E x p l o r a t i o n " (B.C. M i n i s t r y of Mines and Petroleum Resources, 1978) uiith the added p r o v i s - ions that excavated overburden should be sorted according to l e v e l of r a d i o a c t i v i t y . In b a c k f i l l i n g the most r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l should then be replaced f i r s t . F o llowing r e c l a m a t i o n , a s c i n t i l l o m e t e r survey should be undertaken to ensure that r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y ex- ceed those present p r i o r to the d i s t u r b a n c e . DRILLING 28. Water flo w i n g i n d r i l l holes may lead to contamination of p r e v i o u s l y uncontaminated surface or groundwaters. Therefore, a l l d r i l l holes not approved by the Inspecting O f f i c e r f o r monitoring purposes must be f i l l e d to depth with appropriate s e a l i n g m a t e r i a l . The s e a l i n g procedure must be acceptable to the Inspecting O f f i c e r . A d d i t i o n a l contamination may a r i s e from d r i l l i n g muds, sludge and unused c u t t i n g s . To minimize the d i s p e r s a l of these m a t e r i a l s a sump tank i n an ex- cavation s h a l l be used f o r t h e i r containment. On completion of d r i l l i n g , such m a t e r i a l s s h a l l be covered by overburden to a depth of at l e a s t one meter or more as d i r e c t e d by the Inspecting O f f i c e r . An e f f o r t should be made to reuse d r i l l i n g mud from one d r i l l s i t e to another. 29. On the completion of d r i l l i n g , the s i t e should be reclaimed as s p e c i f i e d i n "Guidelines f o r Coal and M i n e r a l E x p l o r a t i o n " (B.C. M i n i s t r y of Mines and Petroleum Resources, 1978) and checked by a f i n a l s c i n t i l l o m e t e r survey to v e r i f y that no s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n l e v e l s of r a d i o a c t i v i t y have occurred. 30. Upon completion of a d r i l l h o l e , the l o c a t i o n , date, and name of the e x p l o r a t i o n company must be posted at the d r i l l hole s i t e i n a permanent manner analogous to a c l a i m post. 161 31. In cases of d e t a i l e d d r i l l i n g programs corresponding to L e v e l Three - " D e t a i l e d Subsurface E x p l o r a t i o n " a monitoring program s h a l l be i n s t i t u t e d as f o l l o w s : (a) Samples of surface waters are to be taken before and during d e t a i l e d subsurface e x p l o r a t i o n . These must be analyzed f o r uranium and other c o n s t i t u e n t s as required by the Inspecting O f f i c e r . (b) Groundwater should be analyzed f o r uranium and other c o n s t i t u e n t s and flow system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ( c ) A i r samples should be taken f o r determination of radon co n c e n t r a t i o n s . ADITS AMD SHAFTS 32. A d i t s and Shafts are normally d r i v e n as a means of d i r e c t i n - v e s t i g a t i o n of bulk sampling of mineral d e p o s i t s . In our o p i n i o n , the hazards a s s o c i a t e d with these a c t i v i t i e s correspond more c l o s e l y to those encountered i n underground mining 0;f uranium than i n s u r f a c e ex- p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s c u r r e n t l y t a k i n g place i n B r i t i s h Columbia. For t h i s reason, we recommend a moratorium on the d r i v i n g of exploratory a d i t s and s h a f t s at s i t e s of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . This moratorium should be concurrent with the e x i s t i n g moratorium on uranium mining i n B r i t i s h Columbia. SAMPLE AMD CORE STORAGE 33. Many of the e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s r e f e r r e d to p r e v i o u s l y g i v e r i s e to a v a r i e t y of samples i n c l u d i n g d r i l l core, r e q u i r i n g storage p r i o r to examination and/or a n a l y s i s . Much of the more h i g h l y r a d i o - a c t i v e m a t e r i a l encountered i n an e x p l o r a t i o n program w i l l be represented i n such samples. I t f o l l o w s that sample storage must be undertaken i n an o r d e r l y f a s h i o n , e i t h e r on s i t e or at some other s i t e agreed to by the Inspecting O f f i c e r , but i n premises to which only authorized personnel have access. These premises should be c l e a r l y posted, w e l l v e n t i l a t e d to avoid accumulation of radon daughters, and monitored f o r l e v e l s of radon and gamma r a d i a t i o n . A d e t a i l e d record of samples shipped must be maintained. 34. On the basis of the pr e l i m i n a r y data a v a i l a b l e to the Commission, we recommend: X. RECOMMEMDATIOMS R - l . That the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia should l i c e n s i n g procedure f o r uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . i n s t i t u t e a R-2. That the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia should p r o h i b i t the d r i v i n g of exp l o r a t o r y a d i t s and s h a f t s at s i t e s of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . R.3 That s t r i c t g u i d e l i n e s and r e g u l a t i o n s f o r the c o n t r o l of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n be introduced as part of the l i c e n s i n g process. 162 R-4. That c o n s i d e r a t i o n be given to t r a n s f e r r i n g the responsib- i l i t y f o r the s u r v e i l l a n c e of e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t y i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia from the D i s t r i c t Mines Inspector to the D i s t r i c t G e o l o g i s t . The D i s t r i c t G e o l o g i s t should be given such s t a f f as i s r e q u i r e d to c a r r y out the s u r v e i l l a n c e program i n h i s r e g i o n , having regard t o the extent of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n w i t h i n i t , and he should a l s o be r e q u i r e d to be the main and p u b l i c i z e d source of information i n the l o c a l i t y on a l l matters concerned with uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . This inform- a t i o n should i n c l u d e p u b l i c information on e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v - i t i e s , on the l e v e l of r a d i o a c t i v i t y around i n d i v i d u a l d r i l l s i t e s , and on the status of reclamation on e x p l o r a t i o n s i t e s . In oarpiview, the D i s t r i c t G e o l o g i s t i s w e l l equipped to super- v i s e l o c a l s u r f a c e e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t y . He has d e t a i l e d know- ledge of the geology of the r e g i o n , he i s very i n t e r e s t e d i n the r e s u l t s of d r i l l i n g programs, he has means of access to any l o c a t i o n i n the region, and he i s equipped to make the measure- ments of surface r a d i o a c t i v i t y which would be r e q u i r e d . L i a i s o n between the D i s t r i c t Mines Inspector and the D i s t r i c t Geologist should be simple s i n c e i n general they occupy adjacent o f f i c e s . R-5. That dosimeters should be worn by e x p l o r a t i o n s t a f f f o r at l e a s t a month DO any s p e c i f i c d r i l l i n g p r o j e c t , but at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Inspecting O f f i c e r the wearing of dosimeters could be d i s c o n t i n u e d . With most su r f a c e work there seems to be l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y that s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s of r a d i a t i o n exposure e i t h e r from gamma sources or i n h a l a t i o n of radon gas and i t s daughters would be l i k e l y . R-6. That in f o r m a t i o n on l e v e l s of r a d i o a c t i v i t y recorded at d r i l l s i t e s or from surface rock or core storage areas should be r o u t i n e l y sent by the D i s t r i c t G e o l ogist to the l o c a l Health O f f i c e r and the Regional Manager of the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch, so t h a t both of those o f f i c i a l s and the p u b l i c are f u l l y informed of the present s t a t u s of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n the d i s t r i c t . R-7. That where r a d i o a c t i v e cores are being stored on the s i t e , un- r e s t r i c t e d p u b l i c access to these should not be p o s s i b l e , and t h a t there be proper p r o t e c t i o n f o r members of the d r i l l i n g crew who would have access to the storage area. This area must be w e l l v e n t i l a t e d and measurements of radon gas concentration should be made p e r i o d i c a l l y i f workers are to be employed i n the immediate l o c a t i o n of such core samples. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r ensuring worker p r o t e c t i o n on the s i t e should be shared with the l o c a l Health O f f i c e r and the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch a f t e r n o t i f i c a t i o n by the Inspecting O f f i c e r that r a d i o a c t i v e cores were present i n the area. 163 R-B. That there be a p u b l i c warning displayed at places where outcrops of rock are s p e c i a l l y r a d i o a c t i v e . During the course of our v i s i t s to the main s i t e s of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, we have had an opportunity to take read- ings of r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s at rock surfaces ( t a b u l a t e d i n Appen- d i x I I ) . In two instances the r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s seemed to us to be high enough to r e q u i r e some s p e c i a l a c t i o n . (a) The r a d i a t i o n count at the surface of the Fuko d e p o s i t , i n the upper K e t t l e River watershed, which i s immediately adjacent to a p u b l i c road, i s approximately 1,000 microrems per hour or about 500 times the average n a t u r a l background. I t would seem to us that the existence of t h i s exposed rock should n e c e s s i t a t e a p u b l i c warning n o t i c e which would i n - d i c a t e the nature of the d e p o s i t , with p o s s i b l y the f o l l o w i n g wording: DANGER HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE ROCK IN THIS AREA We suggest t h a t t h i s n o t i c e could be pasted on the a u t h o r i t y of the l o c a l Health O f f i c e r . (b) S i m i l a r high count r a t e s were noted at the rock face of the B/D deposit above B i r c h I s l a n d on the Consolidated Rexspar c l a i m s . This i s also adjacent to a logging road to which the p u b l i c has u n r e s t r i c t e d access, and a s i m i l a r n o t i c e should be posted i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The other data i n Appendix I I i n - d i c a t e that some m a t e r i a l adjacent to d r i l l holes has a count r a t e of up to 200 and 500 microrems per hour. At these s i t e s the s p e c i a l precautions we have i n d i c a t e d i n S e c t i o n IX would e l i m i n a t e any s i g n i f i c a n t hazard. R-9. We recommend the development of a province-wide r a d i a t i o n observation network. This i s n e c e s s i t a t e d by the considerable v a r i a t i o n i n n a t u r a l r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s . Lde a n t i c i p a t e making a more d e t a i l e d recommendation on t h i s matter i n our F i n a l Report. XI . CONCLUSIONS 35. A f t e r v i s i t i n g the e x i s t i n g s i t e s of uranium e x p l o r a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, we have concluded that the operation of the e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s i s s t i l l u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . We concluded that a d d i t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y needed f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n to be r e c t i f i e d , but have recom- mended a change i n i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , together with the i n v o l v e - ment i n the l o c a l i t y of the l o c a l Health O f f i c e r and the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Branch i n d e c i s i o n s concerning the p r o t e c t i o n of water resources or the p r o t e c t i o n of p u b l i c ? h e a l t h . We b e l i e v e at t h i s time that these recommendations, i f implemented, would e l i m i n a t e the poss- i b i l i t y of s i g n i f i c a n t p u b l i c hazard from uranium e x p l o r a t i o n . We a l s o recommend th a t the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia should i n i t i a t e a l i c e n s - ing procedure f o r uranium e x p l o r a t i o n , and p r o h i b i t the d r i v i n g of a d i t s and s h a f t s i n e x p l o r a t i o n areas at the present time. 164 36. UJe wish to emphasize again that t h i s Interim Report on Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n does not preclude our making other or more d e t a i l e d recom- mendations on these matters i n our F i n a l Report. The s e r i e s of Technical Hearings scheduled to s t a r t i n September 1979, may lead us to modify these recommendations, but we wish to bring them to the a t t e n t i o n of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia at t h e i r present stage of f o r m u l a t i o n . (Readings of Radiation Levels at Rock Surfaces and M a t e r i a l Adjacent to D r i l l Holes Appendix I I Interim Report on Uranium E x p l o r a t i o n dated August 15, 1979 DATE SITE LOCATION DETAIL SCINTILLOMETER MICROREM/HOUR SOUND/MINUTE 23 June 3 June 4 June 4 June 8 June 18 June 20 June MANNING PARK VANCOUVER BLIZZARD (Norcen) DONEN (PNC) FUKU OUTCROP BIRCH ISLAND (Consolidated Rexspar) PENTICTON ( P a c i f i c Petroleum) GRAND FORKS BOUNDARY SHOWING (Chinook Construction) Alpine Meadows Po i n t Grey Top of B a s a l t dome Stream N.W. edge Cores Core Storage Road grave l on way to FUKO Ce n t r a l surface Above Deposit B Zone - general over d r i l l hole 30 yards up h i l l Road to A s i t e A Zone - general over d r i l l hole B-D Zone rock face Rock i n t o Foghorn Creek Abandoned core hut Apex Road (Potassium r a d i o a c t i v i t y ) Outcrops F a r l e i g h Lake Pink coutcrop on bank Showing No. 2 Borehold PH78C25 Country rock KIWI d r i l l s i t e c u t t i n g s 2 - 3 2 - 3 2 - 3 ^ : ?Bo 6 20 - 25 800 - 1000 15 - 20 100 120 25 18 25 20 1000 200 40 - 80 40 25 25 40 12 - 15 200 - 500 35 10 - 15 25 - 32 c 90 c 90 - 100 i-1 cn 20 June 21 June 27 June WILLIAMS LAKE GENELLE (Stampede I n t e r n a t i o n a l ) VANDERHOOF 5 J u l y ATLIN Nat u r a l outcrop Road to cabin Snowball Creek Inside o l d cabin Sample bags Granite outcrop A l e x i s Creek China Creek H i l l t o p d r i l l & b l a s t s i t e Nechako River Kenney Dam Road S i t e EN1 (E & B Co.) Cuttings Perimeter D r i l l cores S i t e EN2 S i t e 2 cores KLUSKUS Log Road S i r e E l ( S h e l l Co.) Core remains on s i t e Cemetery S u r p r i s e Lake (lower end) Road by Surprise Lake Ruby Creek Granite bed Molybdenum d r i l l cores & boxes ID 6 2 - 16 10 - 18 2 - 3 20 - 25 6 5 10 - 11 l e s s than 5 2 - 3 2 - 3 2 - 3 2 - 3 15 - 17 1 5 - 2 5 5 - 1 0 NOTE: These measurements of r a d i o a c t i v i t y were made by the use of a s c i n t i l l o m e t e r (Ludlum Measurements Inc., Sweetwater, Texas, Model 19 micro/R meter) which was k i n d l y l e n t to the Royal Commission f o r t h i s p e r i o d of i t s work by Dr. Wayne Greene, Chief Radiation P r o t e c t i o n D i v i s i o n , Department of Health, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, to whom we are g r e a t l y indebted. APPENDIX 6 Depository l i b r a r i e s 168 A. L i b r a r i e s Holding T r a n s c r i p t s , Statements of Evidence, Accession L i s t s and the Interim Report v Abbotsford P u b l i c L i b r a r y A t l i n Community L i b r a r y Campbell R i v e r L i b r a r y Castlegar P u b l i c L i b r a r y Fraser V a l l e y College-Learning Resources Centre, C h i l l i w a c k Clearwater L i b r a r y Cranbrook P u b l i c L i b r a r y Dawson Creek P u b l i c L i b r a r y F o r t Nelson P u b l i c L i b r a r y Grand Forks P u b l i c L i b r a r y Greenwood P u b l i c L i b r a r y Cariboo-Thompson-Nicola Regional L i b r a r y , Kamloops Kelowna Branch of the Okanagan Regional L i b r a r y Vancouver I s l a n d Regional L i b r a r y , Nanaimo New Westminster P u b l i c L i b r a r y P r i n c e George P u b l i c L i b r a r y P r i n c e Rupert P u b l i c L i b r a r y Quesnel L i b r a r y Revelstoke L i b r a r y The L i b r a r y , North West C o l l e g e , Terrace Royal Commission on Uranium Mining, 3724 W. Broadway, Vancouver The L i b r a r y , B.C.I.T., 3700 W i l l i n g d o n Ave., Burnaby S p e c i a l Sciences Division-Documents, Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , Burnaby The L i b r a r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 2075 Westbrook Pl a c e , Vancouver Vancouver P u b l i c L i b r a r y , 750 Burrard S t r e e t , Vancouver Vanderhoof P u b l i c L i b r a r y B. L i b r a r i e s Holding Edited Videocassettes F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e , Learning Resources Centre, Abbotsford S e l k i r k C o l l e g e , L i b r a r y , Castlegar East Kootenay C o l l e g e , L i b r a r y , Cranbrook Northern L i g h t s C o l l e g e , L i b r a r y , Dawson"-Creek Cariboo C o l l e g e . Library,,Kamloops Okanagan C o l l e g e , L i b r a r y , Kelowna Malaspina C o l l e g e , L i b r a r y , Nanaimo College of New Caledonia, L i b r a r y , P r i n c e George North West C o l l e g e , L i b r a r y , Terrace B.C.I.T. L i b r a r y , Burnaby Royal Commission on Uranium Mining, 3724 West Broadway, Vancouver, B.C. Camosun C o l l e g e , L i b r a r y , V i c t o r i a 169 APPENDIX 7 P a r t i c i p a n t funding NAME1 INITIAL REQUEST FIRST ALLOTMENT NEW REQUEST ADDITIONAL ALLOTMENTS TOTAL EAAUM (B.C. Federation of N a t u r a l i s t s , SPEC, Western Canada Chapter of the S i e r r a Club) $34,0D0/mo 130,000 $15,000 $45,000 ACA $ 2,050 $ 2,000 119,025 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 B e a v e r d e l l Community Club Funds to sent to rep- r e s e n t a t i v e s $ 3,700 $ 3,700 BCCUCC $ 5,600/mo. +11,500 $ 2,000 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 B r i t i s h Columbia & Yukon Chamber of Mines 118,275 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 Boundary Environment and Outdoor Club $ 1,625 S 1,600 $ 1,870 $ 1,800 $ 3,400 CCNR - Kelowna 119,000 S 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 7,000 CCNR - Vancouver $ 5,560/mo. x 6 months =33,900 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Canadian P u b l i c Health A s s o c i a t i o n 1 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 Consult L i s t of Abbreviations f o r the legend. o NAME INITIAL REQUEST FIRST ALLOTMENT NEW REQUEST ADDITIONAL ALLOTMENTS TOTAL CCCBN $ 8,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Committee f o r a Clean K e t t l e V a l l e y $56,050 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 Greater V i c t o r i a Environmental Centre $ 2,000 $ 2,D00 $ 2,000 Greenpeace Foundation (Okanagan) $25,200 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Greenpeace Foundation (Vancouver) $10,968 (6 mos.) $ 2,000 $ 6,000 NIL $ 2,000 Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere $63,750 $ 500 $ 500 OCUTH representing I n t e r e s t Groups i n Kelowna, B e a v e r d e l l , C h r i s t i a n V a l l e y , Westbridge, B r i d e s v i l l e , Rock Creek, Midway, Greenwood, Grand Forks $42,000 $25,000 $25,000 Kamloops Honey Producers* A s s o c i a t i o n $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 KNSG $ 3,525/mo. $ 4,000 $ 4,450 ( f o r a d d i t - i o n a l p r o j e c t ) - - $20,D00 $24,000 NAME INITIAL REQUEST FIRST ALLOTMENT NEW REQUEST ADDITIONAL ALLOTMENTS TOTAL North Shuswap Environmental Committee u n s p e c i f i e d ($ 3,700 held i n reserve) So l a r A l t e r n a t i v e s to Nuclear Energy $ 5,500 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SKIP u n s p e c i f i e d $ 3,700 $ 3,700 South Okanagan Environmental C o a l i t i o n , $ 5,500/mo. ($ 2,000 withdrawn) - UBCIC $96,815 $ 9,500 $10,000 $19,500 United Fishermen & A l l i e d Workers' Union $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 WCELA $ 9,780 $ 1,500 $ 3,500 $ 5,000 YEA $ 8,000 $ 2,200 $ 5,800 $ 8,0D0 TOTAL Reserve $71,500 3,500 $75,000 $129,300 20,700 $150,000 $200,800 24,200 $225,000 173 NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING NAME REQUESTED B.C. Energy C o a l i t i o n U n s p e c i f i e d P a t r i c k B r i t t e n $ 500 Douglas C.5. C a l d w e l l S 4,250 B r i a n Carpendale $ 5,210 Consumers' A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada (B.C. Advocacy) $ 6,900 F i r s t B a p t i s t Church S 750 Fusion Energy Foundation $ 4,000 Mike G i l f i l l a r S 4,450 (2 mos.) Kelowna Prospectors $ 1,000 Scott Lawrance Un s p e c i f i e d The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Workers' Compensation Board Representatives - Gary 0. Newell S 3,150 South nkanagan 8 Sjmilkameen Union Board of Health $10,000 174 APPENDIX 8 P u b l i c Notice: P a r t i c i p a n t Funding Province of British Columbia PUBLIC NOTICE ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO URANIUM MINING PARTICIPANT FUNDING The Commission has been provided with limited funds for interested groups within the Province of British Columbia to assist them in preparing their briefs for presentation at a Public Hearing. GUIDELINES The guidelines for funding of participants before the Commission are as follows: (a) There should be a clearly ascertainable interest that ought to be represented at the Inquiry. (b) It should be established that "separate and adequate represen- tation of that interest will make a necessary and substantial contribution to the Inquiry. (c) Those seeking funds should have an established record of concern for, and should have demonstrated their own commitment to, the interest they seek to represent. (d) It should be shown that those seeking funds do not have sufficient financial resources to enable them adequately to represent that interest, and will require funds to do so. (e) Those seeking funds should have a clear proposal as to the use they intend to make of the funds, and should be suf- ficiently well organized to account for the funds. in order to avoid duplication, various groups of similar interests are encouraged to jointly prepare a brief for presentation. APPLICATION FOR FUNDS Application for funding should be made in writing to the Executive Secretary at the address beiow, and should provide the following infor- mation: (a) A statement of how the applicant satisfies the guidelines for funding. (b) A description, including a detailed budget, of the purposes for which the funds are required, how the funds will be disbursed and how they will be accounted for. (c) A statement of the extent to which the applicant will con- tribute funds and personnel to participate in the Inquiry. (d) The name, address, telephone number and position of the individual within the group who will be responsible for administering the funds. The deadline for submitting an application will be Monday, April 30, 197S. On behalf of the Commission; Brig. Gen. E D . Danby (retired) Executive Secretary Royal Commission of Inquiry Health and Environmental Protection — Uranium Mining APPENDIX 9 R e s u l t s of i n t e r v i e w s with s i x major p a r t i c i p a n t s COLUMN NUMBER I II I l l i-IV | Representative interviewed, name erf group and description of groups' primary concern Witness i d e n t i f i e d Use of cross-examination Studies Mr. Roger (laid graduate) of the Union of B r i t i s h Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBC1C) uhoae prime con- cern i s the Indian s i t u a t i o n (1980b, i n t e r v i e w ) . C a l l i n g i n witnesses f o r the S o c i a l Impact 8 J u r i s d i c t i o n Phases. We would rather do t h i s than leave i t to the Commission to bring i n and fund these w i t - nesses. Thoroughly cross-examine evidence that i a : - important & relevant to the Indian s i t u a t i o n s ; - contentious; - vulnerable; - h u r t f u l to our case. B a s i c a l l y , use cross-exam- i n a t i o n to bring out our case, but, sometimes, to determine a witness' cred- a b i l i t y . We are f i n d i n g out which Indian bands would be affected by uranium min- ing i n B r i t i s h Columbia and preparing two studies: - a land use and occupancy study i n the A t l i n area ( f o r presentation at the second round of community hearings); - a development c o n f l i c t study i n the Okanagan ( f o r presentation i n Phase W i l l ) . Dr. Young (medical doctor) of the B r i t i s h Columbia Medical Associat- i o n (BCMA)-whose prime concern i s public health (1980, interview) I d e n t i f i e d on our own i n i t i a t i v e : - one witness f o r the 0v. view Phase; - one witness f o r the Waste Management Phase; - f i v e witnesses f o r the Pub l i c & worker Health Phase; - one witness f o r the Environmental Impact Phase. Only cross-examine evidence that: - i s i n c o r r e c t ; - could be seen from other points of view - could a l t e r the f i n a l out- come of RCIUM. Use cross examination: - to assess whether a wi t - ness i s competent; - to d i s c r e d i t a witness i f he/she i s biasing the evidence; - to show that the evidence i s not u n i v e r s a l l y agreed upon; - to point out the existence of new evidence; - to bring i n t o focus r e - levant p o i n t s . BCMA i s doing a study on baseline epidemiology and a comparison of occupationa L health i n Canada and the United States. — — — — — -0 1 -J See pp. 180-1 f o r columns V, VI and VI I . I II I l l IV Dr. Suiitzer, environmental coor- dinator of Consolidated Rexspar Minerals and Chemicals L t d . (Rexspar)-whose prime concern i s acceptance of a s p e c i f i c uranium mine proposal (I960, i n t e r v i e w ) . I d e n t i f i e d as many witnesses as we can a f f o r d . Rexspar i s a small company and cannot a f f o r d numerous consultants and lawyers from other com- panies. Prepare a thorough cross- examination of evidence that: - can help along our f i n a l cause; - may not be accurate ( i s the witness c r e d i b l e ? ) Have done a l o t of preliminary work on our uranium mine pro- posal. Ms. Rounthwaite (lawyer), l e g a l counsel f o r the Environmental A l l i a n c e Against Uranium Mining (EAAUM). EAAUM i s a c o a l i t i o n between the Federation of B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l i s t s , The S i e r r a Club of Western Canada, and the Canadian S c i e n t i f i c P r o t ection and Environmental Control Society (19B0a, interview). I d e n t i f i e d s i x witnesses f o r the Environmental Impact Phase whose testimonies cover ground not covered by Commission witnesses; for example, radio-ecology. Prepare a thorough cross- examination of witnesses appearing i n the Environ- mental Impact Phase. I f something important has not been covered by a witness but he/she i s com- petent i n t h i s area, w i l l question him/her about i t . EAAUM i s presenting a major submission f o r Phase VI (March) on the p o t e n t i a l environmental impacts of uranium min- ing i n B r i t i s h Columbia. EAAUM has commissioned Aspect Consultants to do a study of the e n v i r - onmental i m p l i c a t i o n s of uranium derived radio- nuclides i n b i o l o g i c a l systems with p a r t i c u l a r reference to B r i t i s h Columbia. Mr. Paterson (lawyer), l e g a l counsel, p r i m a r i l y , f o r the Confederation of Canadian Unions (CCU), whose prime concern l a the health and safety of workers, but also f o r the Kootenay Nuclear Study Groups,(KNSG) and the Y e l - lowhead Eco l o g i c a l Association (YEA), and from time to time, f o r the A t l i n Community Association (ACA) (1980, interview). CCU, YEA & KNSG do not have the money to c a l l many wit- nesses themselves. Hence, we lobby the Commission to bring i n witnesses of our choice; t h i s has been suc- c e s s f u l . The CCU has iden- t i f i e d four witnesses f o r the Public & Worker Health Phaae. Given the nature of the CCU's concerns, focus cross-examination on evidence to do with: - worker and public health; - the r e l a t i o n s h i p be- tween government and industry; - government administra- t i o n . Use cross-examination: - to bring out a d d i t i o n a l paints; - to emphasize important information; Presenting a major b r i e f i n Phase X on j u r i s d i c - t i o n and enforcement. Updating two items i n the Commission L i b r a r y (see numbers 262 and 263 i n Appendix 12). We would have done more but our funds are l i m i t e c CD I II I l l IV CCU, KIM5G, YEA (cont 'd) - to test the c r e d i b i l i t y of the wi tness ; - to determine the p h i l o s - opy of the wi tness . O v e r a l l , t ry to get points i n the t r a n s c r i p t s that can be used to make our f i n a l case . M r s . Boyce of the B r i t i s h Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada (8CCUCC) (I960, i n t e r v i e w ) . C a l l i n g s ix witnesses for the Ethics Phase. We would l i k e to hear from a resource economist s t i l l . Prepare questions on the evidence. Use cross-ex- amination: - to t ry to s e n s i t i z e witnesses to moral quest ions ; - to get points i n the t r a n s c r i p t s that can be used i n the E t h i c s Phase; - to make witnesses aware of the t e c h n i c a l uncer- t a i n t i e s i n t h e i r e v i - dence and the value judgements they are making that are based on theBe u n c e r t a i n t i e s . Make summaries of those statements of evidence that are s i g n i f i c a n t , focusing on the moral and e t h i c a l p o i n t s . Pass these onto a "reference group" of theologians and e t h i c i s t s . M r . Evans, outreach educator f o r BCCUCC, w i l l prepare a b r i e f f o r Phase IX based on the summaries. COLUMN NUMBER I \l UI UII Representative Extent of review tilork with witnesses T e c h n i c a l ass is tance Mr. Rogers (UBCIC) Review each b r i e f before and a f t e r i t s presentation at the t e c h n i c a l hearings . Time i s a c o n s t r a i n t . D e f i n i t e l y work alongaide our witnesses. U s u a l l y , have no t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e . For the S o c i a l Impact Phase, however, w i l l rece ive help from other people i n UBCIC. D r . Young (BCMA) Review each b r i e f . More time i s needed (suggests an extra week o f f between each phase) . Work with our witness as much as p o s s i b l e . U s u a l l y , have no t e c h n i c a l asa is tance . D r . Switzer (Rexspar) Thoroughly review a l l evidence that has a baais i n f a c t ; look up the s c i e n t i f i c reference too . Absolutely no time con- s t r a i n t s . However, we have l i m i t e d funds ; hence I do not have the statements of e v i - dence reviewed by outside ex- p e r t s . Edi t (grammatically) our own witnesses' statements; that i s a l l . Rely s o l e l y on my own experience . ( D r . Switzer has a P h . d . i n Zoology and has worked alongaide the beat lawyers i n the United S t a t e s ) . Ms. Rounthwaite (EAAUM) EAAUM p a r t i c i p a t e s only i n the Environmental Impact Phase and parts of other phases that deal with environmental con- cerns . Not s u f f i c i e n t time or money to attend a l l phases. L i s t e n to evidence as i t i s presented. Make notes on statements that I can make use of i n cross-examination. Want our witnesses to pre- sent parts of our caae so we send them a l i s t of ques- t ions that we want addressed. Also we suggest to our wit - , nesses what they should con- centrate on i n t h e i r verbal presentations at the hear- i n g s . Tony Pearce of Aspects Consultants helps prepare cross-examinat ion. CD o I V VI VII M r . Paterson (ecu, KNSG, YEA) Cannot do as thorough a r e - view of the evidence as the government agencies and the mining companies can s ince our f i n a n c i a l resources and my time are l i m i t e d . Work with our witnesses to a considerable extent; that i s they send ua t h e i r evidence and we c r i t i q u e i t and send i t back, and so on u n t i l we are happy. Also we send the witnesses copies of the r e - levant t r a n s c r i p t s and s t a t e - ments of evidence. Have two s c i e n t i f i c reaearchers working with me. Mrs . Boyce (BCCUCC) r Review each b r i e f , concen- t r a t i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r , on the e t h i c a l and moral com- ponents. Not enough time to read the references c i t e d , except f o r those on e t h i c s . I f the Church did not help us out f i n a n c i a l l y there would be no one mono- tor ing the hearings. •ther people i n my group w i l l work with the witnesses; for example, Dr . Anderson and Mr. Evans. Receive no t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e - no funds f o r t h i s . Some of the t e c h n i c a l information i s beyond my understanding. 182 APPENDIX 10 Cross-examination of ten witnesses by major p a r t i c i p a n t s • 3 CD C B cr 1 a a rt »—i tH «= c II I III v-t ~—-— f Phase Number CO !-• 1 (0 3 X O m • 3 H* O 3 -» ra a e R- rt- 3 Dr. John Nelson Dr. Frank Patton Dr. Donald Langmulr Dr. John Cherry 1 Dr. Al Henry Dr. D'Appol- onia Earl J. Klohn -< P» 3 O 1 C 3 . i-J H 3! rt • • 3 cn o) • rt X rt • 3- C0 E CD Norcen panel Provincial De partment of EMPR, Mine & Inspection & Engineering Branch Witness — ID — CD CD CD 10 X X X X X X X 1 X BCMA X X X X X X X BCCUCC Ĵ X X X X X X X UBCIC -o X" X X X X X X SKID cn X X X X X X WCELA ui X X X X X EAAUM X X X X KNSG 3 B C_l 13 70 TJ B 70 - t t-H n t-H TJ B Z —1 cn X X X X CCC/BN X X X X ACA X X X NOR CEN X X JCUTH X X GREEN- PEACE , X MABC I-* X REX-SPAR 1—1 X BCM EMPR X BCF LUSA h-« X PNC X CCNR KELOWNA CD o t-» o •J cn ^1 01 T o t a l no. of major p a r t i c i - pants cross- examing 184 APPENDIX 11 P r e l i m i n a r y budget estimate: EAAUM 185 Senior Legal Counsel: $75/hr. 8 hrs./day, 29 days/month Ju n i o r L e g a l Counsel: $5D/hr. 8 hrs./day, 20 days/month Co-ordinator: Researchers (2) $1200/month each Secretary: O f f i c e and Overhead: Communication with Constituency: (a) IMewletter: Twice/month, 15000 copies (b) Meetings, t r a v e l f o r 10 people: Twice/month Documents and Research M a t e r i a l s : Reproduction of Documents: f12000/month $ 8000/month S 1500/month $ 2400/month $ 1000/month $ 2000/month $ 2000/month $ 4000/month $ 3000 T o t a l : $32,900/month plus i n i t i a l funding of $5500 f o r documents, research m a t e r i a l s and reproduction t h e r e o f . 186 APPENDIX 12 Items i n the Commission l i b r a r y 187 Sample of items received between 23 May and 30 May, 1979 261 Sweet, Ul. "Unresolved: the f r o n t end of nuclear waste d i s p o s a l . " The B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s . May 1979. pp. 44-48. 5 p. 262 Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l Mechanical and A l l i e d Workers. Correspondence on mining s a f e t y , 1978-1979. CAIMAUJ. 1979. va r i o u s pagings. 263 Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l Mechanican and A l l i e d Workers. Proposed amendments to the Mines Regulations Act; submission to the m i n i s t r y of mines and petroleum resources of the Province;-,of B r i t i s h Columbia. CAIMAW. Jan. 1978. 264 p. 264 Band, P., et a l . P o t e n t i a t i o n of c i g a r e t t e smoking and r a d i a t i o n : evidence from a sputum cytology survey among uranium miners and c o n t r o l s . 1977? 22 p. 265 Boulton, J . , ed. Management of r a d i o a c t i v e f u e l wastes: the Canadian d i s p o s a l program. AECL-6134. Oct. 1978. 135 p. 266 Organization f o r Economic Co-operation and Development; Committee f o r S c i e n t i f i c and Technological P o l i c y . P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making r e l a t e d to science and technology: a b a s i s f o r the forum d i s c u s s i o n held on October 10, 1978. Sept. 1978. 139 p. 267 U.S. Dep't. of Health, Education, and Welfare. A review of the use of i o n i z i n g r a d i a t i o n f o r the treatment of benign d i s e a s e s : v o l . 1; a r e p o r t . HEW P u b l i c - a t i o n (FDA) 78-8043. Sept. 1977. 53 p. 268 R o t b l a t , J . "The r i s k s f o r r a d i a t i o n workers." The B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s . Sept. 1978. pp. 41-46. 6 p. 269 Morton, J.D. Surface d i s p o s a l of uranium t a i l i n g s and mine waste: a geotechnologi viewpoint: presented to the Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Mines and Me t a l l u r g y ; 81st A.G.M.-Montreal, A p r i l 1979. 10 p. Sample of items r e c e i v e d between 2 November and 27 December 1979 1410 R u s s e l l , R.S., et a l . " N a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g r a d i o a c t i v e substances: the uranium and thorium s e r i e s . " Radio- A c t i v i t y and Human D i e t , Chap. 17, 1966. pp. 365-379. 8 p. 188 1411 Tanner, kJ.U. "Natural r a d i a t i o n e f f e c t s of v e r t e b r a t e animals i n h a b i t i n g the uranium areas of Southeastern Utah." Radioecology, 1963. pp. 325-326. 2 p. 1412 Dobson, R.L. "Binucleates lymphocytes and l o w - l e v e l rad- i a t i o n exposure." Immediate and l o w - l e v e l r a d i a t i o n exposure, 1960. pp. 247-251. 5 p. 1413 Delarue, N.C., et a l . " M u l t i p l e fluoroscopy of the chest: c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y f o r the female breast and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r breast cancer screening programs." Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , vo. 112, June 21, 1975, pp. 1405-1413. 7 p. 1414 Myrden, J.A. et a l . "Breast cancer f o l l o w i n g m u l t i p l e f l u o r o s c o p i e s during a r t i f i c i a l pneumothorax treatment of pulmonary t u b e r c u l o s i s . " Canadian Medical Associa- t i o n J o u r n a l , v o l . 100, June 14, 1969. pp. 1032-1034. 3 P. 1415 Cohen, B.H., et a l . "The e p i d e m i o l o g i c a l study of mongolism i n Baltimore." Annals of the N.Y. Academy of Science, v o l . 171, 1970. pp. 320-327. 8 p. 1416 Lyon, J.L., et a l . "Childhood leukemias a s s o c i a t e d with f a l l o u t from nuclear t e s t i n g . " The New England Journal of Medicine, v o l . 300, no. 8, Feb. 22, 1979. pp. 398- 402. 6 p. (Accessions L i s t s 1 and 4, Uranium Information Centre, 1979). APPENDIX 13 P u b l i c education by s i x major p a r t i c i p a n t s 190 Major p a r t i c i p a n t P u b l i c education a c t i v i t i e s EAAUM (White 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) EAAUM was given money f o r p u b l i c education i n the f i r s t round of funding; t h i s w i l l not happen i n the second round of funding. The EAAUM o f f i c e i t s e l f serves an educational f u n c t i o n . KNSG ( T e r r a l 1980 i n t e r v i e w ) I /YerralJ attend the t e c h n i c a l hearings. R i c h - ard Banner w r i t e s press releases and produces the KNSG Newsletter i n the i n t e r i o r (Nelson). Both of us r e c e i v e p a r t i c i p a n t funding. The Commission knows that the KNSG uses some funds f o r p u b l i c education. JCUTH (Smith 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) We d i d n ' t put down p u b l i c education when we ap- p l i e d f o r the second round of funding because we knew the Commission would ignore t h a t . We face a r e a l d i l e m n a — s h o u l d we intervene i n the Inquiry or educate the p u b l i c ? We decided to intervene but, i n so doing, we perform some p u b l i c education s i n c e we communicate what hap- pens at the t e c h n i c a l hearings back to the com- • munities. WCELA ( B o g g i l d 1980, i n t e r v i e w ) WCELA i s doing same p u b l i c education, f o r ex- ample, I've been on r a d i o and TV, and so has Kim Roberts. The a s s o c i a t i o n has a l s o done some workshops on nuclear i s s u e s . We haven't used p a r t i c i p a n t funds f o r p u b l i c education. BCCUCC (Boyce 1980a i n t e r v i e w ; " The Trum- pet 1 November 1979). The United Church.hired Mr. Moelaert to educ- ate p r i m a r i l y members of the Church, but also i n t e r e s t e d members of the p u b l i c about the issues i n v o l v e d i n uranium e x p l o i t a t i o n . We didn ' t use p a r t i c i p a n t funds to h i r e him; indeed, the Commission probably wouldn't have given us money to have Mr. Moelaert touring around the province. The United Church produces a weekly half-hour t e l e v i s i o n s e r i e s c a l l e d "Nuclear Crossroads." I t i s scheduled on Vancouver C a b l e v i s i o n (Cable 10) Mondays at 8:00 p.m. and repeated Sundays at 1:30 p.m. Western Cable- v i s i o n (Surrey, etc.) c a r r i e s the s e r i e s on Wed- nesdays at 6:30 p.m. and V i c t o r i a C a b l e v i s i o n plans to run the s e r i e s on i t s mid-band (E-18). In t h i s program, Mrs. Boyce (hostess) takes a look at the RCIUM hearings, i n t e r v i e w i n g a d i f f - erent a c t o r (Commissioner, major p a r t i c i p a n t , witness, etc.) each week. BCUIC (Rogers 1980a in t e r v i e w ) I t i s BCUIC's p o l i c y to use a l o t of money f o r p u b l i c education. We hold workshops, is s u e n e w s l e t t e r s , and so on, and use p a r t i c i p a n t funds f o r a l l t h i s . The Commission knows that t h i s i s how we use a l o t of our funds. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACA A t l i n Community A s s o c i a t i o n AECL Atomic Energy C o n t r o l L i m i t e d BCCUCC B r i t i s h Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada BCMA B r i t i s h Columbia Medical A s s o c i a t i o n BCFLUSA B r i t i s h Columbia Federation of Labour and United Steelworkers of America BCMEMPR B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation CCNR Canadian C o a l i t i o n of Nuclear R e s p o n s i b i l i t y CCCBN C o a l i t i o n of Concerned C i t i z e n s of the B u l k l e y - Nechako CCU Confederation of Canadian Unions EAAUM Environmental A l l i a n c e Against Uranium Mining EMR Department of Energy, Mines and Resources JCUTH J o i n t Committee - Uranium T e c h n i c a l Hearings KNSG Kootenay Nuclear Study Group MABG Mining A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia MVP I Mackenzie V a l l e y P i p e l i n e Inquiry OECD Organi z a t i o n f o r Economic Cooperation and Development PCAB P e s t i c i d e s Control Appear Board PNG Power Nuclear Corporation of Japan PR P r e l i m i n a r y Rulings RCIUM Royal Commission of Inquiry i n t o Uranium Mining RSBC Royal S t a t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia RSC Royal S t a t u t e of Canada sec Science C o u n c i l of Canada SPEC S c i e n t i f i c P o l l u t i o n and Environmental C o n t r o l S o c i e t y SFU Simon Eraser U n i v e r s i t y SKID Southeast Kelowna I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t TAG Tec h n i c a l Advisory Group TP • T r a n s c r i p t s of Proceedings UBCIC Union of B r i t i s h Columbia Indian C h i e f s UBC U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia UID: Uranium Inquiry Digest UJCELA West Coast Environmental Law A s s o c i a t i o n U1COPI West Coast O i l Ports Inquiry YEA Yellowhead E c o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 28 2
China 21 0
Japan 5 0
France 3 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 21 0
Boardman 14 0
Ashburn 10 0
Tokyo 5 0
Unknown 3 4
Mountain View 2 0
Redmond 1 0
Seattle 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items