Environment Committee on April 18th, 2024

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.

On the agenda

Freshwater

MPs speaking

Francis Scarpaleggia
Lloyd Longfield
Michael Kram
Shafqat Ali
Monique Pauzé
Laurel Collins
Dan Mazier
Adam van Koeverden
Branden Leslie
Sophie Chatel
Leah Taylor Roy

Also speaking

Martin Bureau  Vice-President, Innovation and Head of the PFAS Center of Excellence, ALTRA
Anna Warwick Sears  Executive Director, Okanagan Basin Water Board
Nadine Stiller  Chair, Prairie Provinces Water Board
Fréderic Lasserre  Full Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
Roy Brouwer  Professor and Executive Director, Water Institute, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
Haidy Tadros  Strategic Advisor, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Melissa Fabian Mendoza  Director, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

4:55 p.m.

Strategic Advisor, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Haidy Tadros

There was a wealth of interventions that came, both for the project and against the project. CNSC staff's approach to this was very much down the middle. We were looking at the safety case. We were looking at the information presented, and that information was the basis of our technical evaluation. Again, a lot of that evaluation and information about how the commission came to its decision is found in the record of decision and the rationale—

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I'm sorry, but I don't know if you got the question, though. From your experience, what are the most common misconceptions? The Canadian public needs to understand. It's complicated. It is a new science that's going on in Canada, but what is the best way? What is the most common thing and how do we turn that narrative around?

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We have time only for the most common thing. We can get into the “turning it around” in the next question, but I guess what Mr. Mazier is asking is what fear comes up the most.

Go ahead, Ms. Tadros or Ms. Mendoza.

4:55 p.m.

Strategic Advisor, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Haidy Tadros

In general, it's a fear from understanding radiation, a fear from understanding the health impacts of radiation and a fear of its being too close to water bodies and areas where people can get exposed to it. I think that comes up regularly.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

We'll go to Madame Chatel now.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I have some questions for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as well.

As you know, my riding borders the Ottawa River. Sheenboro is practically across from Chalk River, so this is a very important issue for me. No one likes the idea of having radioactive waste near our beloved river, certainly myself. I visited the site, and my understanding is that the waste is there on the river bank, exposed to extreme weather events right now. So there is cause for concern.

I would also like to talk about the near surface disposal facility, or NSDF. First, I'd like you to confirm what waste will actually be stored. Second, will it improve the current situation, which is that the waste is there, in the form of a 1970s building, on the banks of the river? My understanding is that it will be destroyed because it was contaminated, and that these materials will be the ones to be stored more safely. Will this project improve the current situation on the site?

5 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, Ms. Pauzé?

5 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

I told myself I wasn't going to get into the NSDF because of the judicial review—

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

Excuse me—

April 18th, 2024 / 5 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Let me finish, Mrs. Chatel.

If we were to talk about this subject, I would have pages and pages of questions about it.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

What's your point of order, Ms. Pauzé?

5 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Yes. I don't think we can—

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

That's not a point of order.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I want to see what it is, Mrs. Chatel. I didn't quite follow what Ms. Pauzé was saying.

Ms. Pauzé, could you repeat it? I've stopped the clock.

5 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Since we started, the questions have all been on the NSDF. I didn't think we could talk about it, given that there is a judicial review of this case. That's why I'm a little surprised.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I guess the question can be asked, but I also assume that if we can't talk about it, the witnesses—

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

—won't answer.

Go ahead, Mrs. Chatel.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

The legal challenge is about consultation, not facts about Chalk River, so I don't understand what my colleague is trying to get at. Is she trying to stop me from talking about a project that's important to my riding?

5 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

It's an important project for all of Quebec.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

It's important for my Quebec in particular.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We're going to move on.

As I said, the witnesses have the right not to answer if they believe that we're getting close to something we shouldn't be discussing.

Go on, Mrs. Chatel.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

As I was saying earlier, my question is about the near surface disposal facility, or NSDF. Will this proposed facility make the situation safer when it comes to storing the waste that's currently on the banks of the river?

5 p.m.

Strategic Advisor, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Haidy Tadros

Thank you for the question.

I'll answer in English to make sure I use the right terminology, the terminology we work with.

As for the discussion that you've just had, we will not be able to speak to specifics on the near surface disposal facility, not just because of the consultation aspect but because the commission's decision speaks for itself. There's a wealth of information in the record of decision on every aspect that you're looking for in terms of what CNL is proposing, how CNSC staff did their technical evaluation and, in the end, the rationale the commission used to make its decision. In general, though, we can definitely go through how CNSC staff do their work.

Coming back to your question with regard to what is currently at the Chalk River site, effectively, you are right: There is low-level radioactive waste everywhere. It is in different areas and it is currently managed safely on site. It is part of CNL's requirement to have a radioactive waste management program that manages waste no matter where it is, whether it be in a disposal facility, in bags or in buildings. The radioactive waste that is currently at the Chalk River site is being managed safely.

Is there an opportunity to do better? I think that's what all of our licensees should be looking for. I'll stop there and see if there are any other questions.