Environment Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[James Scongack]

Absolutely.

First, on the work we do with post-secondary institutions, especially in the environmental area, we share that openly. We have no reason not to. I think it's very important for our research institutions to share data, but to the previous member's question around public confidence, how do we take some of this data and put it into a context for people that is understandable? Sometimes I find we're data rich but information poor. So how do we do that?

One other thing I would note about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is that in certain areas they also have independent monitoring. While we do our own environmental monitoring and we report on that, and we work on that with some of the best and the brightest across Canada at institutions, the CNSC also have their own independent monitoring program. That data is available.

I think it's very important that we share this. The more information gets shared, it builds public confidence. I think we can do a better job of putting that information in a form that is understandable to the non-specific clinical people who are working in that area.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I have about 40 seconds left here.

Just thinking of other uses of that data, it could be helping indigenous communities with water quality or with the quality of the food and the impacts on toxins within their food chain. This data could help in a lot of other ways.

[James Scongack]

I think sharing data is really important. In fact, we've partnered with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation on what we call a cesoastal waters monitoring program, to do that monitoring together. I think there are huge opportuniti for indigenous communities to have businesses in this area and actually do the monitoring for industry performance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank all our witnesses for a very interesting discussion.

We will take a brief break while we bring in the next panel and keep going. I'll suspend temporarily and we'll come back in a few minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I just want to ask you for a clarification, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have the floor, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Will we still have an hour with the second panel of witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is up to the members of the committee to decide. As for me, I am willing to continue for another hour so that everyone can take advantage of the time reserved for the question period.

I am prepared to continue until 1:45 p.m. at the latest. The decision will be up to the committee, no doubt, but that is my objective.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It would be mine as well, especially since it will probably be the only time we have French-speaking witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right; noted.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Colleagues, time is running out quickly, so we will continue the meeting.

Three witnesses will be making an opening statement, and they will have five minutes to speak. However, we would be very grateful if they could be brief.

Chief Niganobe, you have the floor.

[Chief Reg Niganobe, Grand Council Chief, Anishinabek Nation, Chiefs of Ontario]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Witness spoke in indigenous language]

[English]

Good afternoon. My name is Reg Niganobe. I'm the elected Grand Council Chief of the Anishinabek nation and part of the Sturgeon clan.

I join you today from the home territory of Mississauga first nation. My community is no stranger to the nuclear industry, as we are the host for Cameco's Blind River refinery, which rests on the east bank of the Mississaugi River.

I have been asked to present to you on behalf of Ontario Regional Chief, Glen Hare, on the importance of this committee's responsibility to respect indigenous rights.

The Chiefs of Ontario support 133 first nations in Ontario, including the 39 that I represent in the Anishinabek nation. Guided by the chiefs in assembly, they uphold the self-determination efforts of the Anishinabek, Mushkegowuk, Onkwehonwe and Lenape peoples in protecting and exercising their inherent and treaty rights.

As Anishinaabe people, we don't acknowledge land. We honour and we protect it along with the air and the waters.

I'm not afforded the time today to be able to describe the history of our efforts to manage and maintain our territories and homeland. Since time immemorial, each of the 133 first nation communities in Ontario have endeavoured to fulfill our traditional legal responsibilities by ensuring that our decisions are made with the best interests of the next seven generations. We must be collective in decisions about the land, think only of future generations, and allow this inherent responsibility to determine our decisions.

It is the custom of the Anishinabek nation to recite the Ngo Dwe Waangizid, but due to the time restrictions, I will recite a line that speaks to how we consider this revitalization of our nation-to-nation relationship based on the number 45 of the TRC calls to action: Debenjiged kiimiingona dedbinwe wi naagdowendiwin, which means to us that the Creator gave us sovereignty to govern ourselves.

Limited time frames to present on these important issues are not in the best spirit of reconciliation, and the Anishinabek would like to highlight in our conversations that how nuclear fuel is stored, transported, consumed or disposed of must have deep engagement and consultation with all affected indigenous nations.

Canada has ignored the role of traditional ecological knowledge systems before and has been subject to judicial review. Involving indigenous rights holders during the decision-making processes and not at the end will help rebuild our relationship and avoid costly and lengthy legal challenges. In fact, indigenous communities have expressed dismay of the time frames for the development of nuclear policies, which seem to be moving ahead very quickly even though we are still in the midst of a pandemic. If there is to be authentic and fair engagement, indigenous nations must be able to co-design the process.

The Anishinabek nation and the Iroquois caucus have agreed on the five principles on nuclear waste.

First, there should be no abandonment but rather a policy of perpetual stewardship. Climate change has made weather events unpredictable; therefore, human-made storage must be resilient to ensure that radioactive materials stay out of the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe and the land we live on.

Second, the best possible containment must be used with adaptable packaging to align with changing environmental conditions.

Third, it should be monitored and retrievable in a relationship of continuous guardianship. Information and resources must be passed from one generation to the next to ensure that any signs of leakage are able to be addressed.

The fourth principle declares that nuclear waste should be away from major water bodies. When we poison our waterways, we poison ourselves. Rivers and lakes are the blood and lungs of mother earth.

Finally, exports and imports of waste should be forbidden except in truly exceptional cases after full consultation with all those whose lands and waters are being put at risk.

In closing, I want to impress upon everyone that it is our inherent responsibility as an Anishinabe to preserve and protect mother earth, not just for us but for all living beings who live upon it. We hold the Government of Canada to account to respect the rights of first nations, including all 133 in Ontario. No decisions concerning nuclear waste storage, the development of small modular reactors, transportation or decommissioning can be made absent of our free, prior and informed consent, as set out in article 29.2 of UNDRIP. The government must consider all indigenous nations as per our section 35 rights outlined in the charter. Transparency and full disclosure are essential but not a substitute for full engagement.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Chief Niganobe.

We will go to Professor Donev for a maximum of five minutes, please.

[Professor Jason Donev, Senior Instructor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you.

To open, in the spirit of reconciliation, I want to acknowledge that I live, work and play on the traditional territories of the Blackfoot Confederacy—the Siksika, Kainai, Piikani—the Tsuut'ina, the Îyâxe Nakoda Nations, the Métis Nation region 3, and I want to acknowledge all who make their homes in the Treaty 7 region of southern Alberta.

I teach nuclear, solar, hydro power and a general course on energy at the University of Calgary. I run a free online encyclopedia that covers the entire energy sector. As far as we know, it's most used web-based resource dedicated to explaining energy issues to adults in the world. I'm also a reviewer for the IPCC's report to the United Nations.

Society needs aggressive decarbonization and nuclear power is essential to that process.

I'm often asked if I would live on top of a deep geologic repository. Yes, and I would raise my family there.

My wife and I moved to Alberta to raise our family specifically because we thought this province would be getting nuclear power. Most of the 70,000 Canadians working in the nuclear sector live and raise their families around nuclear reactors and with radioactive materials like spent nuclear fuel.

Aren't radioactive materials dangerous? Canadian nuclear technology has saved millions of lives. Radioactive materials for medicine and many industrial applications are a societal good, but radioactive material must be handled carefully at every stage.

The Government of Canada regulates the use of radioactive materials. These regulations keep workers, the public and the environment safe. The Canadian nuclear industry has an extraordinary record of safety, safe practice and compliance.

Power plants have stored spent fuel on site for decades. Over the decades of storage, the radioactivity naturally dies down, making the fuel easier to handle. Unlike most types of waste, spent nuclear fuel gets less hazardous with age, rather than more hazardous. The waiting was prudent.

The NWMO developed a robust plan. The science and technology are sound and thoroughly tested. The waste can be moved to either site they're considering safely and stored safely. Why not leave it on the surface? Every country in the world that faces the decision of what to do with spent nuclear fuel has said the same thing: Put it safely underground, out of the weather that we're talking about. We are the society that benefited from the power. We are the society that must dispose of the waste.

Will new nuclear reactors technology make more electricity and transform the spent fuels? Maybe. We should aggressively fund research and development to deploy a suite of nuclear reactors that can burn this waste to make more carbon-free electricity. However, even those reactors still generate waste that will eventually lead to long-term needs for storage—probably underground. In the mean time, it is responsible to move forward with a plan of building a long-term disposal site until these reactors exist.

How do we know it won't leak?

Radiation is like light from a flashlight. A few metres of rock stops the radiation. The 500 metres of rock that is proposed will stop all of the radiation. Where environmental concerns get tricky is that radioactive material could be spread through water in the environment. Water could move those little flashlights. The system is designed to limit water in the repository. No water in, no water out. The fuel is a ceramic that doesn't dissolve in water, in a bundle that's watertight, in a used fuel container that's watertight, in a bentonite clay box that absorbs water, isolated from the biosphere by half a kilometre of solid rock.

How do we know it will stay stable for a million years? Geologists see natural systems around the world that kept their radioactive materials isolated from the surface biosphere hundreds of time longer than necessary, without any engineering. The engineering works with nature to be even more confident the radioactive material will stay put.

Why bother? Our world needs energy to feed, clothe and care for its people. It needs more energy than ever before. However, five-sixths of that comes from burning fossil fuels, which are changing the climate in disastrous ways. The worlds needs nuclear power along with hydro, wind and solar to meet the challenging world of the 21st century.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Professor.

Who will be speaking on behalf of the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive?

Will it be Mr. Provost or Ms. Charbonneau?

[Ginette Charbonneau, Physicist and Spokesperson, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive]

I'll start, and I'll tell you about our recommendations first. Then, Mr. Provost will talk about the historical issues in radioactive waste management.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right.

You have five minutes in total.

[Ginette Charbonneau]

Thank you.

My name is Ginette Charbonneau, and I am a physicist. I am a spokesperson for the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive.

I will first present our recommendations. The Government of Canada is the main promoter of the nuclear industry that it created itself, but it does not care enough about the rigorous management of radioactive waste. Its recipe remains the same: exploit all the profitable aspects of the nuclear industry, defer waste management costs as long as possible, and deny any risk of nuclear proliferation.

There is a conflict of interest. That is why we recommend, firstly, that one department deal with the nuclear industry, and another deal with radioactive waste management. We propose that the management of radioactive waste should be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Climate Change. We would also like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to report to Parliament and report to the Department of Environment and Climate Change.

Second, we recommend that Canada retain the polluter pays principle. The polluter must deal with his waste, but in our view it is not up to him to decide on solutions. The current regulations are too general and the commission should be tougher and impose rules. After all, it is the regulator. We don't want the fox to be in charge of the henhouse.

Third, we recommend that all licensees be required to provide a detailed inventory listing radioactive contaminants and describing their radioactivity. We are not talking about a construction company, but we are talking about radioactivity. Even small volumes can generate a lot of radioactivity. We would therefore like this to be more precise, because at present, it is the polluters who adopt their own waste classification, and this is a real Tower of Babel. It's a hindrance to identifying risks and solutions across Canada.

Fourth, we recommend that Canada give the highest priority to a solution for intermediate level radioactive waste. For years, no planning has been done for intermediate level waste, and this opens the door to incredible abuse. For example, the demonstration nuclear reactor in Rolphton cannot be dismantled because there is no place to put the waste. Therefore, they want to bury the reactor in a tomb. The problem is that it will sink in a few years, and this goes against the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA.

Fifth, we recommend that Canada ban the import of foreign radioactive waste, even for medical sources. We are not against medical radioisotopes, because that is a good thing, but why do we have to repatriate radioactive waste from around the world? This waste represents about 98% of the radioactivity that will be at Chalk River. Selling radioisotopes is a good thing, but repatriating waste when Canada can't even manage its own waste is an outrageous abuse.

Sixth, we recommend that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission stop misleading the public by including highly radioactive waste among low-level waste. Cobalt-60 sources are an example. In addition, definitions are being changed, giving the impression, on paper, that intermediate-level waste inventories are being reduced. The impression is given that from 2017 to 2022, the inventory of intermediate level waste at Chalk River was reduced by 95%. This doesn't add up.

Seventh, we call for a regional environmental risk assessment along the Ottawa River. Each project is considered individually, but overall, radioactivity is increasing, and so are the risks. So we need to assess all the projects together in a regional assessment.

I now hand over to my colleague Mr. Gilles Provost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 20 seconds, Mr. Provost.

[Gilles Provost, Retired Journalist and Spokesperson, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive]

All right.

Ms. Charbonneau has presented our solutions, and I'm ready to talk about the problems and horror stories that justify those solutions in response to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for your co-operation, Mr. Provost. We are very grateful to you.

I might shave some time off during the rounds of questioning, but we'll start with Mr. Dreeshen for six minutes, please.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair; and thank you to all the witnesses who are here today.

I'm a former math and physics teacher. I taught for 34 years in high school. That was a great discussion of nuclear energy, and of course all forms of energy, which I think are important. In the last panel, witness Scongack, from Bruce Power, stated something that I've advocated for years; that is, we shouldn't idolize nor should we demonize any energy source.

Mr. Donev, the fact that it's part of what your educational program is all about is very significant. I look at things as trying to bring the full life cycle point of view into the discussion, whether it be hydro, solar or oil and gas, and so on. That's really one of the things that I think are rather important.

From your research, though, can you speak to the significance of nuclear energy on the road to net zero, and can you expand upon the new technologies and innovations with the nuclear industry that can help us get a little closer to this goal?

I know you spoke of significance of the TRIUMF life science program, and of course the University of Calgary is associated with that.

I wonder if you could tie those two things together.

Thank you.

[Prof. Jason Donev]

Absolutely.

We are facing a huge problem going forward in trying to eliminate carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. This is a huge problem. It's actually almost beyond the scope of imagination how much oil, gas and coal gets used in putting C02 into the atmosphere. Nuclear has been able to completely decarbonize, or not completely decarbonize, but take out all the coal from Ontario. That's the only jurisdiction that has ever removed all its coal-fired power plants.

When Germany recently decided to decommission nuclear reactors, I was not at all surprised that their C02 went up. A lot of environmental policies that are seeking to try to protect the environment are actually making things worse.

We absolutely need to be aggressive in deploying nuclear reactors. The nuclear industry has expressed interest in small modular nuclear reactors—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sorry, Mr. Donev.

Ms. Pauzé, did you raise your hand?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I would like to raise a point of order.

Our motion is not about carbon neutrality, it is about nuclear waste. So I would like to refocus the discussion, please.