Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2022

[Mollie Johnson]

Ultimately, we want to ensure that Canadians see themselves in the policy in the work they're doing.

To the questions that you're exploring, and equally the questions that we're exploring, it's how we can ensure that the three elements in the draft policy that really set out the vision and the federal commitments of health, safety, security and protection of the environment; openness, transparency and public engagement; and global excellence in the fields of radioactive waste management and decommissionings are being captured in the work they're doing, and that we can hold and sustain the long-term trust as we're moving forward.

My hope is that the work is complementary and that it can be an additive to the work we're doing.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Building trust seems to be one of the major themes. We had a lot of conflicting testimony. I'm certain that you probably would have experienced some of the same.

[Mollie Johnson]

I'd say we've heard a lot of things.

We've heard about the role that nuclear can play in Canada's energy mix. We've heard different perspectives and interests of indigenous people and the importance of setting measurable policy goals.

If you read all the reports that are on our website right now, they show two sides, a spectrum of perspectives, when you look at the issue. I think that demonstrates that there is no monolithic or no single view on these matters.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Velshi.

We agree that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission protects citizens and the environment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. There is no interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it okay now?

Are we getting the signal?

Do those listening to the English interpretation hear me?

Can you hear me in French?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was saying that my question is for Ms. Velshi.

As we know, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has a responsibility to protect citizens and the environment. In your opening remarks, you said that it was very safe and that safety came first.

I want to believe you, but I have some serious criticisms for you.

First, the commission has been pushing to exclude small modular reactors from environmental assessments. In addition, the commission wants to authorize a waste burial project near Rolphton, which is in breach of the safety standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. Finally, you have a responsibility to inform the public. You said it was important to do so, but you have not disclosed information about the import of spent cobalt‑60 sources and the cost of storing them in Canada.

I want to believe you when you say that safety is important to you, but I have reservations about that.

What do you say to these criticisms?

[Rumina Velshi]

Thank you, Madame Pauzé.

Let me just make sure I have understood your questions correctly. Maybe I'll start with the last one. It was about cobalt 60 imports and how to ensure safety on that.

You mentioned Douglas Point, I believe, and also something about SMRs, but I'm not quite sure what the question was on that.

Could I ask you to repeat that, please?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, of course.

The commission campaigned to exclude small modular reactors from environmental assessments.

In my opinion, this does not ensure the safety of citizens.

[Rumina Velshi]

Let me start with that last one on the impact assessment and which projects fall under an impact assessment or if they don't meet the threshold. I'll then review it by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission under our nuclear safety—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I can't hear the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is the interpretation back?

Are we back on?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, it's working now.

Thank you.

[Rumina Velshi]

The question about why SMRs don't undergo an impact assessment is that there's been a threshold that's been established based on the risk level. Perhaps it's a question better asked of the Impact Assessment Agency. It's not the CNSC being militant about it; this is part of the Impact Assessment Act and the project that's in there.

I want to reassure you and Canadians that whether a project is reviewed under the Impact Assessment Act—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Velshi, I...

[Rumina Velshi]

—or by the CNSC, there is a level—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Velshi, forgive me for interrupting you, but my time is running out quickly.

You said you wanted to reassure Canadians, but you refused to make the waste acceptance criteria public. Several people have asked for the revised waste acceptance criteria, but they have not received them. In our view, the document should be incorporated into the environmental assessment document because it specifies the waste acceptance criteria. But they refused to make it public.

How can the commission improve its relationship with the public if it refuses to disclose certain information to the public?

[Rumina Velshi]

If it's waste criteria you're asking about, those are in our regulatory documents. We specify what the classification is. It's consistent with international standards, and that is public.

Again, Madame Pauzé, I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what exact issue you are raising. I will ask my colleagues. Maybe Ms. Murthy has a better insight into what issue you're getting at.

Ms. Murthy.

[Kavita Murthy, Director General, Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Thank you.

The question is about waste classification and regulatory documents—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I am talking about the revised version of the waste acceptance criteria, not the old version. Witnesses have asked to participate in consultations on this revised version, but this has not been granted.

[Kavita Murthy]

It is not clear to me what documents you are referring to, Madame Pauzé, so respectfully, if you can send us a list of the documents that were not provided, we can provide them. I can assure you that all of the waste regulatory documents are—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm talking about one document, madam, one document, the waste acceptance criteria. I'm talking about the revised version, which people don't have access to.

[Ramzi Jammal]

I can respond, Mr. Chair.