Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my outstanding colleague from Windsor West, who will share his thoughts on this critical issue with us.
I want to talk about the environment, because the Minister of Environment and Climate Change made an important announcement today about the much-vaunted cap on oil and gas emissions that which we have been waiting for for years. This is an old Liberal promise, and yet the oil and gas industry is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. The government also set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 38% to 43% by 2030. What is mind-boggling about today's announcement is that the emissions cap for the oil and gas industry will take effect only in 2030. How are we supposed to meet our 2030 targets if the most polluting industry only has to start making an effort to reduce its emissions in 2030?
I just do not get it. Once again, the government is putting off taking action. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change cannot be serious. How many federal elections will there be between now and then? He may not even be Minister of Environment at that point. These are decisions that should have been made years ago. Once again, thanks to their lack of political courage, the Liberals have just punted the issue to future generations. It also undermines Canada's credibility on the international stage when the government fails to live up to its Paris commitments.
The topic we are discussing is the environment in general, but I want to get back to some very concrete concerns expressed by people who live near nuclear facilities. I find it interesting that the Liberals and Conservatives, who are both proud supporters of the nuclear industry, are not saying much about renewable energy. I am making a connection with today's announcement by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Nuclear energy is not evil. It is a technology that is available. I love science, and it is absolutely fascinating that humans were capable of creating this.
However, the very concrete result is that it produces radioactive waste that cannot be dealt with and that will remain in the environment and in ecosystems for thousands of years. Why should we continue to produce energy that is highly polluting and potentially hazardous when we have much cleaner, greener renewable alternatives? That is what I do not understand. Is it stubbornness? There are other technologies, other ways of producing electricity and energy. Why not invest in them instead of having projects that are potentially dangerous for the public?
Of course, I am talking about Chalk River and the plan to have a nuclear waste dump on the surface near a water table, very close to a river that supplies drinking water to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. These people are worried because if there were ever a leak or runoff, if the water ever became contaminated, it would be extremely harmful to people's health. There is widespread public opposition in the region from concerned citizens' groups, municipalities as well as the Algonquin first nations. As I said earlier, 10 out of the 11 communities oppose the project. I do not understand why the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission insists on going down this path when things could be done differently.
The Chalk River site is already problematic. Canada's first nuclear laboratory began operating there in 1952, and a huge amount of radioactive nuclear waste has already been stored in trenches in the ground, in aging facilities that were not designed for the long term.
These facilities were meant to be temporary but were never replaced, so I can understand why people are even more concerned about what could happen in the future. These storage facilities do not meet today's international standards and obligations. Contaminants from the Chalk River laboratory have already been found in the Ottawa River. The thing that is truly worrisome is the government's decision to build a near surface dump and facility for nuclear waste despite opposition from first nations and despite the fact that this probably goes against the spirit of reconciliation with first nations and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There are problems on many levels.
In this report, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development examined radioactive waste management. The NDP submitted a supplementary opinion because we agreed with some of the recommendations. There are some interesting things in the report, but a few things are also missing. One of the recommendations we support, of course, is that Canada comply with international standards. It is frankly astonishing that Canada, a G7 country, is not meeting the 2024 international standards for radioactive waste management. The least we can do is meet them. I learned that we are still not meeting them, and that is rather troubling.
Our supplementary opinion states:
The focus of this study was the governance of radioactive waste in Canada. It was not within the scope of this study to look at the role of nuclear power generation in Canada's energy mix. Regardless of the future of nuclear power generation in Canada, existing radioactive waste and waste that will be created by existing and future nuclear power generation is a pressing issue that must be dealt with seriously to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.
The committee heard from witnesses and received numerous briefs that raised concerns about the governance of radioactive waste in Canada, with particular focus on the consultation for the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River and the search for a suitable site for a future Deep Geological Repository (DGR). It is important that these concerns are taken seriously, and that Canadians are able to meaningfully participate in the process around decisions that could have serious consequences to the environment and the health and safety of Canadians, now and into the future.
With regards to the governance structure for radioactive waste, the committee heard concerns about potential and perceived conflicts of interest and concerns about independence from industry. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) currently reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources, who is responsible for promoting and regulating the nuclear industry. While this may not create an actual conflict of interest, it was clear from witness testimony that the perception of the possibility of a conflict of interest impacts public trust in Canada's radioactive waste management. [The commission and the industry representatives who promote this type of energy are far too close.]
To eliminate the appearance of a potential conflict of interest and ensure that Canada is in alignment with guidance [from] the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), New Democrats recommend that the government make the necessary changes under the Nuclear Safety Control Act and the Financial Administration Act so that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission report[s] to Parliament through the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, instead of through the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), which is responsible for the management of used nuclear fuel, is funded by, and comprised of[,] nuclear energy producers, effectively putting industry in charge of designing and implementing Canada's plan for the safe, long-term management of used nuclear fuel.
This concern over the commission's independence was a key component of the testimony we heard during the study. I could talk about that at greater length when I answer my colleagues' questions.