Evidence of meeting #104 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pfas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
With the melting of the north, I was thinking of other, less friendly neighbours, such as Russia or any other state around the north.
Unfortunately, my time is up. Did you intend to send us a supplementary brief? I invite you to do so, because I think this is a very important topic. However, the committee has its restrictions: A brief mustn't exceed 10 pages.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.
Mr. Lasserre, we'd appreciate it if you could send that documentation to the clerk of the committee.
Ms. Collins, you have a minute and a half.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, for my last question, I'm going to ask Mr. Brouwer.
B.C. and Alberta have been facing these multi-year droughts. The water allocation system in Alberta is under scrutiny.
Given the likelihood of more dry summers, wildfires and people being worried about access to water, can you shed light on some of the water economic issues as these increasing climate-related stresses happen in communities? How do we protect people's essential uses of water—like drinking water—if we're talking about water markets?
5:35 p.m.
Professor and Executive Director, Water Institute, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
That's a very complicated question.
What I know from research is that, if you start introducing economic criteria in the allocation of the water, you will reduce losses. We had a speaker in the previous session who was talking about wildfires and the need for prevention, instead of treating the results or the damage costs afterwards. I think it's a matter of a cost-benefit analysis and identifying preventive measures in water allocation for specific essential sectors or water uses. What are the benefits? In the case of wildfire, it's avoiding damage costs.
You can do that for every sector. You can identify how much it costs if we pump the water in one direction and not in the other, and what benefits are involved. I think there is a need for more of that kind of economic analysis in the allocation of water.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to circle back to our witnesses from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Ms. Tadros, I believe it was you who said there is still low-level radioactive waste at Chalk River.
For the benefit of people who don't know the backstory, why is there low-level radioactive waste at Chalk River and what exactly went wrong there in the 1950s?
5:35 p.m.
Strategic Advisor, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Thank you for the question.
Chalk River, as you noted, has been on site for a wealth of years now—from the very beginning in terms of the Cold War and working through different research. The low-level radioactive waste currently being overseen at Chalk River—we have site inspectors doing regular walkabouts to ensure radioactive waste management and monitoring programs are adhered to—is in things like overalls, cleaning supplies and mopheads. Those make up the bulk of the low-level radioactive waste found at Chalk River. Again, why are they there? When you work with radioactive material, you need to clean things up, so other things get contaminated.
We have a classification system we've identified in our regulatory documents to better understand the difference between low-level, intermediate-level and high-level waste and tailings, because we have uranium mines here in Canada as well.
I hope that answers your question.
I don't know if Ms. Fabian Mendoza has anything further to add on the low-level waste inventory at Chalk River.
5:40 p.m.
Director, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I have nothing to add. Thank you.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
All right, but this is all stemming from those couple of accidents that happened in the 1950s. There are no new ongoing problems separate from the 1950s accidents. Is that correct?
5:40 p.m.
Strategic Advisor, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
It's not only a question of problems. There is currently research being done at Chalk River. They undergo research and they use radioactive substances. Any time there is anything that touches radioactive substances, there is going to be a transfer. That could be on paper, lab benches or things they use—gloves that they wear—in hot cells. There could be equipment...so it is there. It's not just from the early days when these spills occurred.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think we're out of time, Mr. Kram.
I mention to everyone that President Jimmy Carter, when he was—I think—in the navy as a nuclear physicist, came and got us out of trouble in the 1950s during a particularly difficult moment.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Lasserre, I remember reading one of your texts in Policy Options, entitled “Transferts massifs d'eau au Canada: entre mythe et réalité”. I'm going to go back and read your article. Thank you for being with us.
Thank you to the members. I wish everyone a good weekend.
The meeting is adjourned.