Environment Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Niganobe, your communities were not part of the decision-making process. They were included at the end. I listened carefully to your comments, and one of the things you said was that it was a paternalistic process. In terms of the money received, you even used a very strong word. You talked about coercion.

Did all the reconciliation principles put forward make you feel manipulated?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

No. There is much work that needs to be done there. We still have a long way to go. There is some that has been done, but there is still a long way to go.

Like I said, the imposition of the Indian Act and all of these different things that are in our way.... That's not to say that we can't come to agreements and we can't come to decisions. There are several co-developed projects right here in Ontario, right here within the 39 communities I represent, like a hydroelectric project in Dokis First Nation going forward that has the “run-of-the-river”.

That was a community decision that the first nation came to on their own, so these sorts of things can be done. However, it's that relationship between Canada and the first nations that needs to be repaired. You need to view us as equal partners, because you are treaty partners with us. We are on the same level. We view it that way; you do not. Hopefully, we can get back to that level again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have time for a brief comment, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

Chief Niganobe, are the indigenous communities you represent and other civil society groups unanimous about the five principles you mentioned?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Give a yes-or-no answer, please, Chief Niganobe.

I'm sorry about the brevity.

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

Those ones were adopted in Ontario with 133 first nations in Ontario. They were voted upon by the leadership of the 133 first nations, so they do agree with the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

I'll continue with my questions to Chief Niganobe.

One of the things that came up in the previous panel and in some of the conversations here is around the potential conflict of interest. One of the issues that I'm really interested in is regulatory independence.

From what you've heard so far and from your perspective, do you have any thoughts or comments on the need to mitigate the risks for potential conflicts of interest? Do you think that would impact any of the nation to nation communication, consultation and the relationship that is happening so far when it comes to managing nuclear waste?

[Chief Reg Niganobe]

Yes, absolutely. There always has to be oversight. Even within our own systems, there is always oversight. Our own Anishinabe governance systems are historical systems. There is always independent oversight. There are always those mediators who help make decisions between two separate parties. Within our clan-based system, we have a clan that does that sort of mitigation process.

Yes, it would impact it; very much so. I am in agreement that there needs to be some sort of oversight in that manner.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes. You're speaking of the ways in which our government can learn from your government.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's integrated regulatory review service did a peer review of Canada's radioactive waste policies in 2019 and found that Canada's policies and strategies for management of radioactive waste were inadequate.

Here in my home province of British Columbia, I'm “zooming in” from the homelands of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples. We have been experiencing extreme impacts from climate change. Thinking about future generations and the management of this waste, I'm curious what your thoughts are from an indigenous perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we're over the two-minute mark. There might be another opportunity to address that question.

We'll go to Mr. Albas now for four minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I want to say, first of all, thank you to all of our witnesses today.

Mr. Provost, I have a question. You said earlier that you believe that the exportation—or is it the importation—of cobalt-60 should be halted. Maybe I missed a detail.

[Gilles Provost]

Canada exports cobalt‑60, then imports the waste. The Canadian public is unaware that all of this highly radioactive cobalt‑60 comes back home at the end of its useful life and is subsequently transferred to storage facilities at Chalk River, for example.

In the tens of thousands of pages of the environmental assessment, the study of the Chalk River dump, there is never a mention of cobalt‑60 sealed sources. This is the main source of radioactivity throughout the dump.

It is clear that Canada does not want to tell the public how much...

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I think you've clarified that.

My question though is, where is the world supposed to get its cobalt-60? Obviously, cobalt-60 is an immensely used medical isotope, and Canada supplies 90%. Where would they, then, source it?

[Gilles Provost]

I think Canada can continue to export cobalt‑60; it's not a problem. Each country, once it has purchased it, should, however, manage the waste itself.

There are solutions. I am thinking, for example, of the deep drilling that is proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Countries can easily manage small amounts of waste. But bringing all this waste back to Canada and storing it on a hill near the Ottawa River, without ever informing the public, is a deceptive way to proceed. Canada should not be doing this, in my opinion.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Again, sir, you still have to answer the problem. Where would the world get its isotopes for this purpose?

Canada has made this because our CANDU reactors utilize heavy water and natural uranium. If they get it from someone else....

Again, I believe in the polluter pays principle. I believe there's a premium that's brought in. I really doubt we would be able to produce isotopes affordably for Canadian hospitals if suddenly we weren't allowed to export those.

I take your point that you don't like the use of it, but the problem is a very real one. What would be used instead? I'd like to hear you say that.

[Gilles Provost]

Sometimes you can use accelerators. My point is that Canada may well continue to sell them, but then the buyers have to manage their own waste. I have nothing against Canada exporting it, if countries want to buy it, but they have to be responsible for their waste. They're the ones using the cobalt‑60. Canada then brings the waste back into the country without ever informing the public.

We manage to debate for four years where this waste is going to go, but we never mention its existence. This is bad faith, and it is acting deceptively—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I do appreciate there's a difference of opinion on this, sir.

At the end of the day I trust Canada. We are a responsible country, and we have the technical expertise that can go along to dealing with something that has a half-life of 5.27 years. Unless there is a viable alternative, I would just suggest that the current arrangement seems to be proper for me. We produce, and then we take care of a very important isotope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're over time.

We have Ms. Thompson for four minutes or less, please.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. I'll go quickly.

Professor Donev, I have a question for you.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is nearing its decision on the environmental assessment of the near-surface disposal facility at Chalk River. Do you think public confidence in the proposed disposal site would be increased if the proponent, the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, requested having the assessment done under the Impact Assessment Act, as opposed to continuing with an assessment conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

[Prof. Jason Donev]

I don't know that the public's confidence in this would actually be swayed one way or the other, truthfully. I don't really see that's what's going to inform the public. Feelings are feelings. The facts are the facts, but the feelings are the feelings, and it feels like what you've asked me is how would the feelings be if the facts were slightly different. I don't actually think it would have any impact on public confidence, truthfully.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Let me ask you this. What do you think is needed, first of all, to ensure that the information going to the public is indeed the information that is defendable as evidence-based? Also, how is it that we frame it so that, to your earlier point, as the general public we are dealing with facts and not fear and myth and the things that really confuse arguments going forward?

[Prof. Jason Donev]

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which does report to Parliament but through Natural Resources, is a well-respected international body.

I'm sorry, I don't actually know. I don't think there is a magical solution for just suddenly making everything fine. Perceptions take time to change.

There had been a different deep geologic repository that was proposed at the Bruce site, and there hadn't been sufficient indigenous consultation with that. As a result, people didn't feel comfortable.

The nice thing about the situation, though, is that it's not an urgent problem. It's important. It needs to be dealt with, but it's not an urgent problem in that it needs to be dealt with right now, so if the public consultation winds up halting this process it's not like people are going to be in danger while the conversations continue.

I'm not sure if that fully addresses your question or not.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

It's very helpful. Thank you.

It's back to you, Mr. Chair. I'm finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We finished a minute early at 1:44 instead of 1:45, so I thank all the witnesses for their succinct and informative comments, and the questioners for their pointed questions.

This has been a very interesting panel, as was the one before.

To the witnesses, your testimony will inform our report in one way or another, and we really thank you for taking the time today to be with us. I'm sure you look forward as much as we do to the publication of the report at some point.

On that, I would like to adjourn.