Centre Christian Studies, Winnipeg

The decisions that they have made have not been easy for either of them and I want all of you to know that I must respect their decision even though I am in full disagreement with the path that they have chosen. When an ordained person relinquishes the exercise of their ministry, it begs the question as to whether or not that includes the right to exercise ordained ministry within the whole of the Anglican Communion. None the less, this is the position that the two bishops have taken and I cannot in all conscience agree with their actions.

It is rather ironic that the day which I am called upon to write this pastoral letter is the day in the Church calendar that is dedicated to the memory of Clement, the Bishop of Rome who had to deal with a group of junior clergy who wanted to depose its ruling council of elders. Clement responded with an appeal for a compassionate and loving response. Those who were causing disorder and division needed to be admonished so that there could be peace between Christ’s flock and their appointed presbyters. Today we find ourselves in a similar situation and being mindful of the advice of Bishop Clement we need to remind ourselves of the importance of providing a unified witness to the communities that God has called us to serve.

The ministry of the Diocese of Athabasca was clarified at our last Diocesan Synod and we need to remind ourselves of the task that lies in front of us. To be Christ like in all that we do in our relationship with one another and those whom we serve. May God continue to bless all of us in our ministries together.

Yours in Christ’s service,

The Most Rev. John R. Clarke,
Archbishop of Athabasca and Metropolitan of Rupert’s Land

• The Mission Statement of the Anglican Church of Canada opens with these statements: “As a partner in the worldwide Anglican Communion and in the universal Church, we proclaim and celebrate the gospel of Jesus Christ in worship and in action. We value our heritage of Biblical faith, reason, liturgy, tradition, bishops and synods and the rich variety of our life in community.”
  
• It is fundamental to the values and mission of our Church that we welcome and respect freedom of individual conscience and the theological convictions of a diverse membership. Our General Synods have consistently strived to honour every voice as the Church works through contentious and difficult issues before it. This is particularly true in the way the Church has endeavoured to address matters of human sexuality including the blessing of same-sex unions.
  
• The report of the Primate’s Theological Commission commonly known as the St. Michael Report has described this issue as matter of doctrine but not core doctrine. General Synod concurred with this opinion last June. The St. Michael Report also declared that the matter need not be a Communion-breaking issue.
  
• It is in this context that we deplore recent actions on the part of the Primate and General Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone to extend its jurisdiction into Canada through the Essentials Network Conference. This action breaks fellowship within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion.
  
• We affirm the statement unanimously agreed to by the Council of General Synod which appeals to the Archbishop of Canterbury “to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism.” We too appeal to him in his capacity as one of the instruments of communion and as chair of the Primates’ Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention.
  
• The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are not necessary. Our bishops have made adequate and appropriate provision for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members of the Anglican Church of Canada, including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod over the blessing of same-sex unions. These provisions, contained in the document known as Shared Episcopal Ministry, were adopted by the House of Bishops and commended by the panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  
• The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are also inappropriate. They contravene ancient canons of the Church going as far back as the 4th century, as well as statements of the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor report and the Communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting earlier this year. Furthermore these actions violate Canon XVII of the Anglican Church of Canada which states that “No Bishop priest or deacon shall exercise ordained ministry in a diocese without the license or temporary permission of the Diocesan Bishop.”
  
• Any ministry exercised in Canada by those received into the Province of the Southern Cone after voluntarily relinquishing the exercise of their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada is inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid. We are aware that some bishops have, or will be making statements to that effect in their own dioceses.
  
• In the meantime we rejoice in this season of Advent in which we once again begin that great journey of tracing the steps of our Lord’s most holy life through the liturgy of a new year.
  
• We rejoice in the gift of word and sacrament. We rejoice in the gift of our baptism and in the great gift of the Eucharist. We rejoice in the gift of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth and empowers us to proclaim the gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ in word and action.
  
• We respect the diversity of opinion in our Church over many issues. We respect the manner in which we take counsel together and honour the intention of all those who even in the midst of struggle desire to remain within the fellowship of the Anglican Church of Canada.
  
• Let us renew our trust in the One who holds us together in the embrace of His love and peace.
  
• We call all Anglicans to a renewed emphasis on mission and prayer for faithful witness in the service of the gospel within our parishes and across the world.
  
• In him whose Advent sets us free.
  
  
• The Most Rev. Fred Hiltz, Archbishop and Primate
• The Most Rev. Terry Buckle, Archbishop and Metropolitan of British Columbia and Yukon
• The Most Rev. John Clarke, Archbishop and Metropolitan of Rupert’s Land
• The Most Rev. Caleb Lawrence, Archbishop and Metropolitan of Ontario
• The Most Rev. Bruce Stavert, Archbishop and Metropolitan of Canada

November 12, 2005

The Response of The United Church of Canada to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization Report, Choosing a Way Forward: The Future Management of Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel

Dear Mr. Martin,

The United Church of Canada has had policy, educational, and advocacy involvements over 25 years arising out of the church's concern about issues related to nuclear power including nuclear fuel wastes. Our active participation in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) study process has included involvement in public dialogue sessions and workshops, and formal submissions to NWMO, mandated and endorsed by the Justice, Peace and Creation Advisory Group of the Justice, Global and Ecumenical Relations Unit within the General Council of The United Church of Canada.

The United Church sees the NWMO study to date as one step in a series of broad public consultations that are necessary.

The United Church has been concerned throughout the NWMO process by the exclusion of aspects from discussions and assessments that were repeatedly raised by participants. As a necessary first step, social acceptability must be addressed in the full context of the issues in which it is perceived by society, including the full complex of problems in the nuclear fuel cycle starting with the mining and tailing issues; the risks of proliferation of military applications for nuclear materials including depleted uranium; and the question of the future role of nuclear power in Canadian energy and export policies.

The NWMO has acknowledged that the role of nuclear power generation in Canada should be subject to assessment and public process. The United Church urges the government to hold a broad public discussion on Canadian energy policy prior to a decision about future nuclear energy development, including refurbishments, and to have meaningful public participation on a decision about the future of nuclear energy before planning implementation of any long-term management approach for the waste.

The United Church recommends that the public and nuclear industry workers have input into the setting of regulations with respect to acceptable risk from ionizing radiation. We ask the government to determine "acceptable" risks and set standards, compliance periods, etc., within a public, transparent process that considers short-term and very long-term environmental impacts and a full range of health impacts including fatal cancers and serious genetic defects. Workers should be protected by whistleblower legislation. Public participation in how the risk is defined and the level of risk that is acceptable should be prior to Phase 1 of an implementation plan and remain an essential component in any implementation plan.

The United Church strongly recommends greater inclusion, understanding, and valuing of Aboriginal traditional knowledge and the previous experience of First Nations with uranium and the nuclear power industry prior to a decision on any long-term management approach for the waste. Regardless of the management plan selected, it should include an explicit commitment to respect Aboriginal rights, treaties and land claims.

The United Church supports the NWMO initiatives to raise public awareness of the nuclear issues and their start toward addressing the problem of getting accurate information on the nature of the hazard, the controversies, and the uncertainties. The study report reveals that more work is needed to get correct information and communicate information accurately. The cooperative dialogue process that NWMO has promoted should continue.

The United Church has concerns about the recommended option.

In recommending the adaptive management approach, Option 4, NWMO acknowledges some of the shortcomings and uncertainties in each of the three options required to be explored under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. The NWMO does not recommend Option 1, deep geological disposal. However, the United Church is concerned that the adaptive Option 4 may allow nothing other than stepwise implementation of the deep geological disposal, by a restrictive implementation plan and exclusion of changes at each decision point that could alter the course to the repository concept.

The adaptive approach could offer an opportunity to further explore management options by remaining open to continuous learning and directional change while moving through a series of public decision points. For the adaptive management approach to be something other than implementation of deep geological disposal

• the importance of social acceptability must be upheld as a fundamental decision-making criterion
• site selection must not be biased by early placement of the waste in centralized storage at the site
• decision points must have sufficient choice to allow change in the core concept and reversal of course of action
• public participation must be meaningful and remain broad, engaging communities directly impacted and those indirectly impacted as taxpayers, electricity rate-payers, and citizens

As well as the watching brief recommended by NWMO, the United Church recommends that Canada support research on the rapid reduction of the inherent hazards of nuclear waste in a manner that does not generate more environmental problems and wastes, or add to the proliferation risk.

The NWMO study emphasizes retrieval of nuclear fuel waste as a potential resource. The United Church sets priority on monitoring and retrievability for the purpose of employing potential hazard reduction techniques and allowing mitigation of harm when containment is breached; feasibility of retrieval and timely, effective mitigation following containment breach is not addressed in the NWMO study. Transparent public discussion cannot occur without these issues being addressed. It is surely better ethically to have been open with the public than to have people find that dangers still exist which could and should have been addressed in the planning process.

The United Church is concerned by the absence of independent decision makers because the recommendation comes from the board representing only waste producers and is passed to the minister of natural resources, responsible for AECL. It is encouraging that the NWMO Board of Directors has committed to review its membership. The United Church recommends that the minister of natural resources present the NWMO recommendation to Health Canada and Environment Canada for formal review, and to Parliament for debate and vote.

The United Church warns against the potential misuse of the recommendation.

There have been repeated indications of the intentions of NRCan and the nuclear industry to use the recommendation from the NWMO process to promote nuclear power. The United Church wants to make clear the central role that the limiting of the quantity of used nuclear fuel (to the levels projected for the life of the current facilities) has had in the assessments, analysis, public engagements, and conclusions of the NWMO. Exploration of the impact of future nuclear waste production on all factors in the assessments of the management options and its impact on social acceptability were excluded from consideration. It would be unacceptable to misconstrue the selective, very limited exploration of future used fuel scenarios in the NWMO study in order to promote nuclear power. Further, misrepresentation of the recommendation as a solution to the problem of nuclear fuel waste would be an abuse of the NWMO process and misuse of the recommendation. The broad public discussion on energy policy is a necessity prior to a decision about future nuclear energy developments.

The United Church asks the Prime Minister

• to initiate a federal and provincial government process of open public debate on Canada's energy policy and the place of nuclear power in Canada's future energy mix as an initial step in addressing nuclear waste management
• to require that nuclear fuel waste be considered within the context of the process that produces it, acknowledging all the other wastes and problems, and the full costs
• to acknowledge that none of the options under consideration are capable of solving the problem of nuclear wastes' long-term hazards and that the recommendation from NWMO is a plan by which a strategy for the longer-term management might be developed
• to ensure that the NWMO study and recommendation is not used to promote nuclear power expansion
• to require that the recommendation coming from the minister under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act be formally reviewed by Health Canada and Environment Canada and be put before Parliament for open debate
• to establish a mechanism whereby the public and workers in nuclear-related industries have input into the setting of regulations with respect to acceptable risk from ionizing radiation

Further, the United Church urges the government to amend the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act of 2002 to establish the waste management organization at arm's length from the industry with a broadly representative Board of Directors, funded by the waste producers; to change the minister named in the act from the minister of natural resources to the minister of the environment to avoid conflict of interest; and to require meaningful participation of broad civil society throughout this likely precedential decision-making process on a matter of national policy.

Yours truly,