Environment Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Noted.

This is still a fairly broad discussion, because we are talking about the cost-benefit ratio. However, I would ask the witnesses to consider Ms. Pauzé's comment.

Go ahead, Professor Donev.

[Prof. Jason Donev]

Thank you, Madame Pauzé. I'll try to focus on that.

All forms of energy production produce waste. Nuclear's waste is more hazardous on a per kilogram basis, but on energy delivered it is actually less hazardous. Coal produces tremendous amounts of waste. The amount of waste produced by our coal, our oil and our natural gas every week worldwide, if it were elephants, would stack from the earth to the moon. That's roughly 10 days of waste from coal, oil and natural gas. The waste from solar, from wind and from hydro is enormous compared to the waste from nuclear.

As the previous panellist, James Scongack, pointed out, the nuclear industry is actually keeping track of all its waste. While it is hazardous and must be handled safely, Canada has done a good job of managing that waste. As we go forward addressing the issues of climate change, nuclear is a key part. As was said earlier, we can't demonize nor can we idolize any form of waste or any form of power generation, but nuclear power is surprisingly safe, reliable and absolutely essential going forward.

I'm speaking as somebody who actually teaches university courses on both hydro and solar. Those are also necessary. We can't do this with nuclear alone, but we can't do it without nuclear. Nuclear power, especially the upcoming technologies of small modular reactors, will require us to continue to be actively engaged in what kinds of wastes and how those wastes—

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

Thank you, Professor Donev.

If I could interject, I appreciate you filling in parts of the question that had come from the Bloc member, but I'd like to get back to the small modular reactors and the discussion you have. I'd like to go back and speak to the importance of education, not just to researchers at university but to the public in general.

How do you think we can get that message across?

[Prof. Jason Donev]

I spend a lot of time worrying about that. Thank you for that question.

There's a lot of misinformation about nuclear, and I think one of the reasons is that there are very few courses at universities or even high schools that properly deal with energy as an entire issue. With the exception of the courses that I have at the University of Calgary and a course at Mount Royal, I'm unaware of any university course in Canada that is talking about nuclear power as part of our energy mix for people outside of engineering departments. Our nuclear engineers get trained on this, but people outside of nuclear engineering, even people within physics departments, often don't understand how nuclear reactors work or how solar panels work, for that matter.

I believe that we should be broadly educating people and I would like to see that happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Longfield, it's over to you. Again, if you could keep your eye on the time, that would be great. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks.

I'm sending my time over to Ms. Taylor Roy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here this morning.

We've had some very interesting conversations. One of the things I'd like to go back to on the issue of waste is the issue of education and the idea of full, informed consent.

Mr. Niganobe, can you comment on whether you feel that with the proposals for nuclear waste facilities, the indigenous communities are fully informed and that their consent is being obtained in these processes that we have going forward right now?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

That's a pretty complex question, because we heard from a lot of witnesses previously about how indigenous communities need to be engaged, but none of those individuals were indigenous or represented indigenous communities, and that's part of the root of the problem.

These processes can't move forward without full and deep engagement. Many communities have disagreed that these processes are welcoming and accessible at this current time, especially for indigenous peoples. Whatever process you are going through now, whether it be the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, they definitely aren't working in our favour.

I heard you highlight the opportunity for jobs and those sorts of things earlier, but part of that issue is that you highlight it as an opportunity for work and jobs, all these sorts of things, and different economic benefits. For communities that are far behind the Canadian standard in terms of infrastructure, housing and all these other sorts of different things—forgotten communities—it's coercion at this point.

Indigenous nations that are impacted are the ones that will be the final decision-making authority on any project. The Anishinabek Nation and other nations in Ontario have their own forms of government that have been interrupted by colonialism. The opportunity to return to these systems will allow for more consensus on development projects as we rebuild our traditional legal systems, but Canada could start the work on creating an effective and broad consultation policy, co-developed with indigenous communities that would be applied to the need for any consultation.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a follow up question on that, because we have the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's “Compendium of Indigenous Consultation and Engagement Practices”.

Do you feel that the framework that was established is appropriate? Has it taken into consideration the things you mentioned in terms of developing it with first nations?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

That's complex, too. You can develop anything you want, but part of it is the understanding with and the basis on which you come to us for consultation and who you send to us for consultation.

My community was part of this NWMO process at one point and one of the panellists who the NWMO had sent on their behalf remarked to our community that, “We could explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand it anyway. We'll give you all the information and you wouldn't understand it.”

There really has to be.... Whom you send on the part of your delegation and your behalf as Canada or your organization helps determine these processes. You could have all these processes, but depending on who you send...it makes a lot of difference.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I understand that. Thank you very much.

I have one more question about the consultation. I understand that the NWMO goes to a host community, or tries to find a community that would like to host a disposal site. We've heard from previous witnesses that in fact money is offered sometimes to landowners within the community. Do you feel that just within the community is sufficient, or do you feel it has to be more of a regional approach? I'm thinking of the Chalk River near the Ottawa River—the Chalk River location near rivers. Do you feel that a regional approach would be better in trying to determine where these facilities should be located?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

It is absolutely a regional approach, and you should take a regional approach. That is how indigenous nations have always approached anything—through our kinship, our relationships, our nations themselves, our clan-based system. We all have a connection to each other and we all have a responsibility to each other, and we have a responsibility to the land. We have a responsibility to all of our relations and into the future for the next seven generations. Therefore we do take a regional approach in these discussions, and that's what is needed. Like I said before the interruption, how we come to that decision-making process and determination through our different clan systems of governance are affected in that way. But should those be implemented again, we could definitely come to those consensus decisions on if it could be a yes or if it could be a no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank all our witnesses for their testimony.

I would like to put a question to Mr. Provost, who ended his last intervention with some horror stories.

Mr. Provost, what are the implications of the lack of solutions in relation to intermediate level waste?

What are the implications of the new categorization of activity levels of radioactive waste? I am sure you have some stories to tell in this regard.

[Gilles Provost]

In fact, it is because there are no intermediate level waste storage facilities that we are forced to pour concrete over the old NPD plant and Canada's first CANDU nuclear reactor. Not only is there no place to store the waste, but there are no plans to even create such storage facilities.

Canada has been using nuclear power for 75 years, but it has no permanent storage facility, not for low-level waste, not for intermediate-level waste, and not for high-level waste. Storage is always temporary. The lack of solutions means that we have to delay the dismantling of the plants, the dismantling of the facilities.

Changes to definitions were also discussed. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have been saying all along that the future waste management facility near the surface of Chalk River will be used to store intermediate level waste. In fact, 98% of the radioactivity in this waste mound comes from cobalt‑60. This radioactive material certainly does not fall into the low-level waste category.

The definitions have been completely changed along the way. As several speakers have mentioned, cobalt‑60 is wonderful. Cobalt‑60 kills microbes, sterilizes laboratory instruments and destroys cancer cells. However, it is also very dangerous because it is highly radioactive. It only takes two kilos of cobalt‑60 to produce 98% of the radioactivity in the dump. There will be about 1,500,000 tonnes of radioactive waste. So this is highly radioactive waste.

They say there's only going to be low-level waste, but the public is being lied to. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has a legal responsibility to provide Canadians with credible and unbiased information, but it is complicit in this false information.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In your opinion, should the import of all radioactive waste into Canada be stopped?

[Gilles Provost]

Yes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So do we need a law to prevent its importation?

[Gilles Provost]

Yes.

At the moment, Canada sells cobalt‑60 and agrees to take it back afterwards. So it's going to be the world's cobalt‑60 dumping ground, precisely at the Chalk River near-surface storage facility, where there's supposed to be only low-level waste.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Provost.

Ms. Charbonneau, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for protecting citizens and the environment from the risks arising from nuclear energy and radioactive pollutants.

Why do you say it is not credible in this role?

[Ginette Charbonneau]

First, it advocated for small modular reactors to be exempt from environmental assessment. Yet the commission is supposed to protect us.

Then it wants to authorize plans to bury reactors, even though this is contrary to International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines.

Moreover, when it examines new projects for the so‑called small modular reactors, it does not even consider the nature of the waste they will produce or whether it can be stored in a deep geological layer. In fact, the commission only examines the supplier's concept, which does not take into account the nature of the waste at all. This should not be decided at the licensing stage, but at the prototype design stage.

Finally, the commission is not prescriptive enough. It leaves it to the polluters to decide on the classification of waste and the management solution. Sometimes this solution is neither expensive nor good, and it does not protect the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds left to make a comment, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Charbonneau, what do you think of the consultation undertaken by Natural Resources Canada on the new radioactive waste policy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would ask you to respond in 15 seconds, Ms. Charbonneau.