Thank you.
Thank you for being here, Mrs. Pétrin.
I, too, have concerns about the situation in Chalk River. My riding is just across the river, in Quebec. The municipality of Rapides‑des‑Joachims is nearby.
I very much share your frustration over the lack of alternative solutions. Certainly, the independent commission spent years hearing from experts from all over Canada and other parts of the world. It decided that the proposal, the only one submitted, was safe for the environment and human life. However, there wasn't an opportunity to conduct consultations on whether more suitable solutions existed.
If the radioactive waste is moved further away from the river, I know that it could seep into the groundwater, whereas the site that's been chosen is located on a bedrock ridge. Nevertheless, the primary concern people in my riding have is that the waste is currently on the shores of the river, in old buildings that housed nuclear reactors. All of those buildings—which are something to see if you've never been there—have to be demolished and the waste has to be secured.
What will happen if the project doesn't go ahead? Will the waste stay where it is, on the shores of the river, in a site vulnerable to forest fires, tornadoes and earthquakes? What's the answer? When you say that the project mustn't go ahead, I hope you aren't suggesting that the waste be left where it is.
I know that a protective membrane is in place, but it isn't a permanent solution. That's what people are worried about.