Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2022

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Indigenous peoples must be consulted in selecting sites. How would you characterize the consultations related to the nuclear waste management? Do you think the manner and the timeline determined in those consultations were determined by indigenous peoples? Do you feel that indigenous knowledge was valued in the process?

[Chief Duncan Malcolm Michano]

No.

I wish Chief Kocsis from Hornepayne were here, because they tried to be involved with the process there, in Hornepayne, and they were shut out of meetings. A lot of those meetings basically talked about the benefits of nuclear power and said nothing about any of the negative impacts that could be there. It was all one-sided. The messaging was all one-sided.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay—

[Chief Duncan Malcolm Michano]

The Hornepayne First Nation people were not even allowed in the room in those meetings.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Given that indigenous communities were shut out of those rooms and given the one-sided piece you just mentioned, do you feel that the NWMO has infringed upon indigenous right to self-determination?

[Chief Duncan Malcolm Michano]

I believe so.

In regard to the treaties and the people who signed on to treaties, I believe they have. With us, we are unceded territory. We have an aboriginal title claim in place, and I believe they understood that as well when they were talking to us, and that we weren't going to back down. We were all set to put cabins out in the middle of those sites and not let them drill.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much, Chief Michano.

[Chief Duncan Malcolm Michano]

Meegwetch.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I also have some questions for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. This may be a precursor to my next question, because I have only two and a half minutes.

The City of Ottawa has called for a regional assessment of radioactive disposal projects in the Ottawa Valley under the Impact Assessment Act, but the request was turned down by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

I was hoping the minister would be here to answer this question directly, but since he's not here, for my next questions I'll be asking about why the request for the regional assessment was turned down given—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

—what clearly seem to be regional impacts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We do have to finish at 8:30, so I'm going to have to shave a little time off the questions in the next round. I'll do four, four, two, two, four and four minutes, instead of the five and the two and a half minutes.

We will start with Mr. Dreeshen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly I know how disconcerting it is with nuclear radiation. I remember when I was a child, my dad had the job of using the Geiger counter, after the Cuban missile crisis going out to see whether or not we would be able to get back out into the communities. We saw that as a scare when I was a kid, and we've seen other types of things—acid rain, global cooling, global warming, Y2K and ozone depletion—lots of things that need to have our attention and have had it over the years. I think that's really important, but I suppose there is a little bit of a disconnect in that we do have the Department of the Environment, which talks about the need for different things to be dealt with and dealt with properly, but the Impact Assessment Agency hasn't really done a nuclear projects analysis. Where I'd like to go with my question is that it doesn't really matter what type of energy source we have—whether it's flooded lands from hydro, whether it's oil and gas well sites, whether it's solar and the sand you need to dig out of the ground and all the toxic materials with those, whether it's windmill sites or biomass—everything is going to have some sort of impact on our society. Of course, nuclear waste is like that.

I'm curious, perhaps Mr. Chapman, how you think the processes we have used to analyze the full life cycles and the cradle-to-grave assessments for those other types of energy sources will be used in order to properly analyze nuclear projects when the time comes?

[Steve Chapman]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Impact Assessment Agency has learned a lot over time about how assessments should be conducted from an administration standpoint and also from a science standpoint. We would expect to bring the learning we've done from those individual assessments to bear when we look at future nuclear projects entering our system. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, because of the way we've structured ourselves with the memorandum of understanding with the Nuclear Safety Commission, we'll be doing that jointly with the Nuclear Safety Commission.

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

Thank you.

Perhaps I could speak to Ms. Taylor on that. In the Department of the Environment, what is the education process? Do you have any responsibility there to educate Canadians? I know we did have some discussion with a professor from the University of Calgary about how this can be done. Is that part of the programs you have in order to make sure people understand exactly what the concerns really are in this case?

[Mary Taylor]

I would say we don't have outright education programs, but we review every project that is in process and we provide our specialists' and experts' advice on a range of issues, such as how the proponent has characterized the effects to water, to air and to biodiversity, including species at risk. That way we look at each project and provide that expert advice.

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

Thank you. I see that my time is closing, so I'll give you that extra 10 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks, Mr. Dreeshen. I appreciate getting that little bit of extra time back.

Mr. Duguid, please go ahead for four minutes.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for their presentations and for answering our questions today.

Perhaps this first question is for Ms. Taylor. We have two reviews going on at the same time—the review of CEPA, which is in the Senate and which will hopefully come to us sometime in the not-too-distant future, and a review of radioactive waste policy. I wonder if you have any reflections on how those two reviews can inform one another and provide some sage advice that helps decision-makers move forward with both of those policy reviews and that results in policy improvements.

[Mary Taylor]

I don't think I have a lot to contribute on how those two reviews can inform each other. I am not actually involved in the CEPA review. Certainly we are participating and providing our advice, as I said, on waste review and how we proceed on assessments and how we work on water quality and water quantity issues and biodiversity issues, among others. As to how those two would inform each other, I do not have anything else.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Since we're involved in both, we may have an answer to that at the end of our study.

Mr. Chapman, there are no major nuclear waste management facilities under review under the 2019 policy. If there were one, could you refresh our memories on what the differences would be...? I know there's the “one project, one process” approach, of course, which was the centrepiece of the 2019 policy.

Maybe you could comment a little bit on our processes, particularly with respect to indigenous communities and section 35. We now, of course, have UNDRIP, which is government policy.

In the time I have, could we get some reflections on the impact assessment process as it has evolved from 2012?

[Steve Chapman]

There are a number of differences that have come into play with the new Impact Assessment Act.

We have a new planning process. For example, we have a nuclear project that meets the requirements of regulation. That goes into a planning process where we would sit down with indigenous groups, talk about what needs to be assessed, whether it should be assessed, and then a decision is made early in the planning process as to whether a formal impact assessment is required for the project.

Once we're out of the planning process, we'd be looking at a body of new factors that weren't contained in our former legislation. We'd be looking at impacts on constitutional rights held by indigenous peoples. We're also looking at new health, social and economic factors that weren't contained in the former legislation.

The end of the process is also quite different compared to CEAA 2012. We now have under the Impact Assessment Act a public interest decision that didn't exist under CEAA 2012. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change can either make a public interest decision or he can refer that decision to the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.