Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2022

[Steve Chapman]

It's very different, from the front, middle and end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Pauzé, you have two minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is going to be for Ms. Taylor.

In the specific case of the proposed near-surface waste management facility at Chalk River, there are plans to allow the disposal of radioactive substances near a river that provides drinking water to thousands of citizens, including myself, who live in the Montreal area. There are 140 municipalities and 37 indigenous nations in Ontario that are opposed to this project. Also, it really goes against the principles of the International Atomic Energy Agency, because the sources of cobalt 60 have not been properly categorized.

So, Canada's nuclear policy needed to be reformed so that there was a better waste management strategy. I think that policy and strategy reform has begun, but it is not yet complete.

Is there any evidence that this is really happening and that all sources of cobalt 60 at Chalk River are really going to be considered?

[Mary Taylor]

Yes. This particular project is currently under an impact assessment review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We are providing our expertise, and our information is available publicly on the website. It is currently under regulatory review. The CNSC will conduct the consultations and will do that work. We will provide our expert advice.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

My last question will be to Mr. Chapman.

Can the interim nuclear storage sites at Chalk River for intermediate, and even high-level waste be part of an environmental impact assessment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please provide a very brief response.

[Steve Chapman]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned to a previous committee member in one of my responses, the regulations dictate the type of nuclear activity or project that we would be assessing. When it comes to the storage of nuclear waste, section 28 of our physical activities regulations lays out which of those types of projects would automatically be brought into the Impact Assessment Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to stop there. Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To return to my question, for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, [Technical difficulty--Editor] request for a regional assessment was turned down, given what clearly seem to be regional impacts.

[Steve Chapman]

The request came from Mayor Jim Watson, City of Ottawa. The minister, in making public his reasons for the decision, cited the fact that in the original request for a regional assessment, there was reference made to the individual projects that are taking place and currently being assessed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

That process under CEAA 2012 involves an examination of the cumulative effects of each project, and because there's a very robust regime in place under CEAA 2012 and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Act to look at cumulative effects, the minister relied on that in making a determination that there would not be value added with a regional assessment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Do you think the switch to doing impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Agency makes for a more robust process?

[Steve Chapman]

I do. I think that—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm just going to pause you there.

If the Chalk River project were to start today, the Impact Assessment Agency, and not the CNSC, would conduct the assessment. So really, wouldn't public confidence be increased regarding the proposed disposal site, given that there is a more robust process available?

[Steve Chapman]

I think the public should have confidence in the assessments undertaken by the Nuclear Safety Commission. I have no reason to doubt that those are robust assessments.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

But the Impact Assessment Agency has a more robust process that we're now moving to.

[Steve Chapman]

I would say, as I mentioned, Mr. Chair, in my previous answers, that we've learned a lot about individual assessments, and we would use the Impact Assessment Act to look at future nuclear projects. The fact that Chalk River is undergoing an assessment under CEAA 2012 is something I can't change.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chapman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The two minutes is up, unfortunately, Ms. Collins.

Mr. Mazier, you have four minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Taylor, do you have confidence in your colleagues at NRCan and at the CNSC to independently govern nuclear waste management in Canada?

[Mary Taylor]

I have every confidence in them. We will continue to provide our advice and expertise, and they are charged to do that work.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Good.

Mr. Chapman, this committee has heard a lot about the dangers that misconceptions, misplaced fears and misinformation relating to nuclear energy can have with respect to industry growth and in preventing environmental targets from being reached. From a regulatory consultation perspective, how do you deal with people and organizations who raise concerns fuelled by misinformation and fear that contradict the science of nuclear energy and waste?

[Steve Chapman]

Mr. Chair, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada reviews some of the most controversial and polarizing projects that Canada has to offer. One of the hallmarks of our process is its transparency and our allowing of those views to come forward. It's really up to the agency, when we're conducting an assessment or a review panel, to place the appropriate weight on the information or evidence we gather. It's a forum. We provide forums for discourse, for understanding and for resolution of some of these issues as they come forward.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Can you explain the weighting a little bit more? As you say, it's a very hot topic. Does the public know that? Do the organizations know about that weighting before they go in?

[Steve Chapman]

Do they know that? I think it's one of the jobs of the agency or review panel to explain the process that's going to be applied to an individual project. Each time we harmonize, say, with another provincial jurisdiction or we're working with an indigenous group, there might be differences in the process. One of the jobs we have is to explain the process up front once we have a project come in.

Yes, I do think the public understands how information is treated. Again, one of the hallmarks of the Impact Assessment Act for many of the decisions the agency or the minister makes is that there have to be reasons for a decision. In those reasons for a decision, the public can see how information was treated and where the reliance was put on certain types of information to arrive at a decision.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

So those goalposts could move depending on what information is found. That's good.

Ms. Taylor, how much is your department spending on educational initiatives to inform Canadians about the safety of nuclear energy?