Debates of May 27th, 2015

The Environment

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to be rising here today to talk about an issue that I think is very important, not only for Canada but for the world, with respect to clean drinking water and the protection of our environment.

This government's consideration of allowing a deep geologic repository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste in Kincardine, which it has opened the door for, has caused great grief for many people, because our Great Lakes are so important for drinking water. Our American cousins are very concerned about this, and Canadians as well are very concerned about this.

In fact, over 155 resolutions opposing this plan have been passed, representing every Great Lake province and state and up to 20 million people. That is because the government proposes to store items that are radioactive for over 100,000 years, down a shaft, in a limestone basin. That has never been done before. It is an experiment.

What has happened, which is really concerning, is that the Conservatives single-sighted the Kincardine spot. It was not based on science. It was not based on research. It was not based on a real analysis of what would be the best decision. It was based on a guess, and the guess has gone back to the Minister of the Environment and has caused considerable damage, not only in terms of public confidence about the environment and water quality but also in terms of our American friends.

I point to the fact that the City of Chicago is among 115 groups that sent a letter to the Canadian government. What it pointed out, which is really interesting, is that Joe Clark, the then foreign affairs minister of Canada, asked the United States not to do this, and it agreed that it would not do what we are proposing within 40 kilometres of the Great Lakes, whereas we are proposing to do it within about one kilometre of the Great Lakes. The groups have pointed this out to us numerous times. They want us to behave according to the model we created, and that they abided by, for the greater region of our country.

They sent this letter and resolution to the Minister of the Environment, the premiers, the Prime Minister of Canada, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Natural Resources. The United States Secretary of State got it, and even the President of the United States got it.

This is an experiment. There are four of these in the world, and only one is left open. Two are closed in Germany, because they were not sustainable, and they created problems, and the other one right now that is open is in New Mexico, which had toxic radiation escape through the shaft and all the way to the surface, contaminating individuals who worked on the project.

We know for a fact that these are dangerous experiments.

Again, I ask the current government this: Why would it not examine this more thoroughly when we just chose to do a single-source evaluation in an experimental area next to one of the most precious resources in our country and in the world?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, there should be no doubt that our government supports the safe and responsible use of nuclear power and we are committed to ensuring that solutions are in place for managing radioactive waste over the long term. Indeed, Canada has a long history in the safe and responsible use of nuclear power and the waste it generates.

Our government has taken strong action to support this commitment to protecting the safety of Canadians and the safety of our environment. In fact, thanks to our government's strong legislative actions in recent years, Canada has established one of the most stringent nuclear regulatory systems in the world for all aspects of its nuclear activities. As the member opposite knows, the deep geological repository is a proposal by Ontario Power Generation to prepare a site and construct and operate a facility for the long-term management of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste at the Bruce nuclear site within the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.

In January 2012, our government and the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission announced the establishment of a joint review panel to assess the proposed project. The joint review panel has conducted an independent, extensive, open and science-based assessment of the proposed geological repository. The panel reviewed an environmental impact statement and determined that there was sufficient information to proceed to public hearings. It then invited the public to provide their views in the fall of 2013 and 2014. The panel report has been received and we will now take the time to carefully review its findings.

This report is public and can be found on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website. As required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, our government will issue a decision statement on whether the project may proceed. During this review period, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will continue to invite aboriginal groups and registered participants to comment on potential conditions relating to possible mitigation measures and follow-up requirements that would be necessary if the project is authorized to proceed.

These comments will be taken into account by our government prior to the environmental assessment decision statement. If the project is authorized to proceed to the next phase of the permitting process, the decision statement will include conditions related to the project that will be legally binding on the proponent. However, let me be clear. As this government has said time and time again, no project will proceed unless it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's response, but in that response a couple of key things took place. Here is a quote, “mitigation measures”. That is the ownership of a failure. Mitigation measures mean compensation, alterations or changes because the project failed. If the project fails, what does that mean? That means radiation exposure within a kilometre of the Great Lakes. That means the limestone where they are attempting to put this did not work and leached into the Great Lakes. For 100,000 years this has to sustain itself without causing problems.

The last point is “legally binding”. Legally binding does not do anything for people who get sick from radiation and putting this environmental disaster into the backpacks of our kids.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada supports the safe and responsible use of nuclear power and is committed to ensuring that properly funded solutions are in place for managing radioactive waste over the long term. The joint review panel conducted an extensive, open and science-based assessment of the proposed deep geological repository.

Our government has confidence in the review panel process and our government will carefully consider the panel's final report before making any decisions. The minister will also take into consideration comments received by aboriginal groups and registered participants who will be actively consulted regarding the proposed project.

Our government's bottom line for all major resource projects is simple: no project proceeds unless it is safe, safe for the public and safe for the environment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:34 p.m.)