Environment Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[Ginette Charbonneau]

The department has not addressed the significant comments received from the public. In addition, the minister mandated the NWMO to consult on the strategy arising from the policy before it was formulated, which is not rational.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Ms. Charbonneau, did you want to finish that thought, if there is anything else on that process?

[Ginette Charbonneau]

Thank you.

We worked very hard on this consultation. We have held seminars and we have been very conscientious. To our surprise, however, the Department did not take our comments into account. Yet it was a serious process. It is not for civil servants to decide at this stage to maintain the status quo. Otherwise, what is the point of consultation?

When the minister gave the NWMO the mandate, he included so many restrictions that only 10% of Canada's radioactive waste will be covered by the proposed solutions, which makes no sense. The strategy does not even take into account projects that have been licensed.

Furthermore, the department does not even address the waste produced by small modular reactors. Why are these small modular reactors so protected in Canada?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Ms. Charbonneau, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have some other questions.

Chief Niganobe, I want to follow up on some of the questions asked by Ms. Taylor Roy.

Indigenous people must be consulted in selecting sites or issuing regulatory approvals for the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, but I'm curious how you would characterize those consultations related to nuclear waste management so far.

Specifically, you had mentioned timelines. In your opinion, have indigenous peoples been engaged in a manner and on a timeline determined by those communities that choose to participate?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

Something you have to bear in mind on the difference between Canadian governance and Anishinabe and other indigenous communities is that individuals don't delegate their decision-making authority to others.

When Canadians vote, of course, they empower members of Parliament with their trust to make decisions on their behalf, whereas in Anishinabe, people take a more direct approach. They never delegate their authority to make decisions that affect the entire community. It's done as a whole and it's done as discussion. That's how we get to either a yes or a no. We inform our own processes within that in terms of creating laws, creating parameters around things and those sorts of things. It takes in a whole discussion around the social, the economic, the land, the people and everything. It encompasses a whole decision-making matrix and process. Everybody gets to speak. That's where we get rid of that delegation of authority.

I guess to put it this way, Canada has to take steps to ensure that the entire community is involved in decision-making to meaningfully consult.

Like I've said before, it's about rebuilding indigenous systems of governance that were interrupted by colonialism. That's how you'll get to your yes or your no from us. That's how we can have our full engagement. To us, that is full engagement, fully informed processes and discussions. In the Anishinabe way we may not all agree, but at a point we come to a consensus of yes or no, all together.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

We spoke in the previous panel a little bit about willing host communities and about how certain landowners were being paid money in the consultation process. You spoke a bit about the need for a regional approach.

From your perspective, from an equitable ethics perspective and from an indigenous perspective, what does it mean to be willing hosts? Could you also expand a bit on your comments around coercion?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

Yes.

As you're well aware and as you see in the news, a lot of indigenous nations or first nations—some here in Ontario and especially in northern Ontario and along the route—struggle just to get clean water, despite their location. They might be in proximity to southern Ontario where you would assume they would have clean water and all the infrastructure in the world to be able to help do that, but that's not necessarily the case. Some of them are just coming online now for clean water and these sort of things.

Of course, the Indian Act, as you are fully aware, has hindered the growth and the possibilities of communities both economically and socially. That coercion tactic of offering money, hundreds of thousands of dollars and the potential to have these jobs sounds like a benefit to the communities, but they're being forced to take it because there is no other way out. The Indian Act hasn't gone anywhere and it's not moving anywhere.

It needs to be addressed, like I said before, to help make these decisions. These sort of things must be removed, so that communities can move forward and not be coerced into doing what they need to survive. To survive, they have choice—either their community or their money and their land.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Has indigenous knowledge been valued in the process of the selection of nuclear waste storage sites, in your opinion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Answer very briefly please, Chief.

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

I'll just say that part of the NWMO's reconciliation policy says:

The NWMO understands that Indigenous Knowledge, together with western science, is part of good decision-making when built on a foundation of trust and sharing of information in a respectful manner.

However, as I related earlier, some engagement was very condescending. There was no exchange of knowledge that considered the importance of our traditional knowledge about the land, about the spiritual value inherent in specific places or our indigenous rights to gather on those lands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the second round. We want to be done at 12:45, so I'm going to make it four, four, two, two, four and four. Of course, you can go for less than four minutes if you want.

We'll start with Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Donev, the science seems quite clear that nuclear energy is safe and environmentally sustainable, but a lot of Canadians out there are still rather skeptical of this form of energy.

Why do you think that is? How can the government better promote nuclear energy as a safe form of energy?

[Prof. Jason Donev]

Radiation is scary. It is understood within the scientific community really well and, as was said in previous panels, which I've watched, we just haven't talked about it terribly well.

When you hear about radiation, which certainly relates to the waste that we're talking about, you hear about it in comics, comic book movies or on The Simpsons. There's this perception that nuclear waste is green glowing goo.

This is what a fuel pellet would actually look like. This is a piece of plastic; it's not an actual fuel pellet. It's a ceramic. It doesn't melt in water. It doesn't dissolve in water. It would then sit in something like this. This is what nuclear waste looks like. This is what a fuel bundle looks like.

I think it's really necessary for Canadians to understand that this is what it looks like. It's not the green glowing goo of The Simpsons.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

How do you think the government can better promote this energy?

[Prof. Jason Donev]

I think it's getting clarity about more jobs. The nuclear industry is actually facing a grey-out. That means there's an awful lot of people in the nuclear industry who are in the process of retiring, and so forth.

It's getting conversations started at the technical schools specifically. There's a huge need not just for scientists, but really for plumbers and pipefitters, welders and so forth, and starting to talk about it, starting to talk about nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of energy.

We have a lot of hydro. Provinces such as Quebec have an awful lot of access to hydroelectricity. In Alberta, where I live, we don't have access to hydro like that; we just don't have the right geology for it.

It's starting to talk about it, having more of these conversations within Parliament, having a full discussion on the parliamentary floor about the advantages of Canadian nuclear reactors, getting more indigenous education and consultation conversations going. I would really like to see more indigenous voices brought to the table to have these conversations about nuclear power, because we should absolutely be talking about this more. I think as we talk about it more, the fear will actually subside.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

That's a really nice segue into my next question.

There was a lecture that you gave where you referred to a framework of FEAR. Can you expand on that and explain it to the committee here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 45 seconds. Thanks.

[Prof. Jason Donev]

“False evidence appearing real” is a wonderful acronym for fear and that's what happens with nuclear. We hear “nuclear” as if it's the worst poison in the world. The phrase, “I wouldn't touch it like it was plutonium” speaks to our false evidence appearing real and we need to start facing everyone and responding. The nuclear industry has done, traditionally, a terrible job at this. They're trying to move forward and I'd like to see them work with the government to have more of these conversations about what people's fears are so we can separate out the false evidence appearing real from legitimate concerns and legitimate hazards.

This is dangerous stuff, but we know how to handle it safely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Okay. We'll go to Mr. Duguid now, for four minutes, please.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be brief.

I have two questions: one for Chief Niganobe; and the other for Professor Donev.

My question to Chief Niganobe is that I wonder whether he has followed some of the major development projects in our north, particularly in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. I'm thinking about projects like Agnico Eagle, involving the Inuit communities. Community benefit agreements were negotiated, with employment quotas. The communities play a very strong role in monitoring.

Are there lessons there for your communities, and other indigenous communities in my home province of Manitoba, and whether that may apply to nuclear development as you're considering it?

Then, to Professor Donev, I'm a University of Calgary graduate, by the way. I spent too much time in “The Den”. I wonder if you could comment on Norway and Sweden. Norway apparently has been successful in siting nuclear waste, and Sweden is on its way. What would have been some of the keys to success in dealing with nuclear waste?

First, Chief Niganobe, I'll go over to you. Have you any thoughts on success in the north and whether those principles would be applicable in your region?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

That's a very good question, but I think to start that question you have to understand that there's a difference between the Indian Act system where we are located and what's taking place in the north with their own agreements that they've set up, up there.

Of course, we do have treaties in this area that impact the relationship between Canada and the first nations that have signed on to the different treaties. That's the regional approach again, and the resource revenue-sharing approach and all these different things where our communities should be able to do these sorts of things but they're not, because of the confines in the Indian Act and because of the economic sanctions and constraints that are put on us through the Indian Act.

These agreements sound great, they sound perfect and they sound awesome to anybody who is not under the Indian Act, who isn't forced into these agreements because of these constraints that we have placed upon us.

This is the only way out for us; those sorts of agreements and contracts are the only thing forward and the only remedy we have—which goes back to the coercion part again.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Go ahead, Professor.

[Prof. Jason Donev]

Norway, Sweden, Finland and all 30-some countries that have nuclear power have to deal with the spent nuclear fuel, and not just the spent nuclear fuel, but the intermediate- and low-level wastes that have been produced as well. This is an issue. Every form of energy has waste.

What's really exciting about what's happening in Norway, Sweden and, for that matter, Finland, is that they are a little further along in the process than Canada is. That's less true of Finland. What they're doing is working together. That's one of the really nice things about the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry will say things like there's only one nuclear industry and it's in every country.

The best practices from these Nordic countries are being shared with Canada and other countries, and the scientists and engineers are talking with each other about how the deep geologic repositories that they're planning on building there are giving them information that we in Canada can—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two minutes.