Debates of Nov. 4th, 2024

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

One moment, please.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue.

Industry witnesses repeatedly dismissed the public concerns and whistleblowing about the CNSC not acting at arm's length. Nevertheless, several witnesses and most of the briefs received by the Committee raised the appearance of a conflict of interest and recommended various solutions

Unfortunately, these concerns are not adequately reflected in the Committee's report. The Committee failed to provide an accurate overview of the cases that illustrated how the alleged conflict of interest [is possible]. As examples: the short deadlines in the consultation process, the refusal to release information requested, and so forth.

The Bloc Québécois submitted a balanced, implementable recommendation that would have placed Environment and Climate Change Canada in the CNSC's authority process, side-by-side with Natural Resources Canada. The Committee rejected our proposal.

Now let us talk about the near surface disposal facility, or NSDF, at Chalk River.

The critical principle of keeping radioactive waste away from source water is not being followed. In many respects, the project runs counter to the International Atomic Energy Agency...recommendations and guidelines.... Chalk River is located at the intersection of geological fractures and in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone, a seismic belt that spans the Ottawa Valley from Montreal to Temiscaming.... A significant volume of various radioactive wastes will be buried in the NSDF. Witnesses and experts pointed to the lack of clarity and identification of the substances to be placed in the mound.

The Bloc Québécois is extremely concerned about the hazards this project entails. The NSDF poses risks to the main tributary of the Ottawa River, a source of drinking water for millions.

First, there is the problem of the waste category. Specifically, I am referring to the “redefinition of what constitutes intermediate level radioactive waste, hidden inside CNSC ‘mega-regulation’ in June 2020”.

William Turner, a retired Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, or AECL, worker who lives in Deep River and Gilles Provost, a science journalist, said the following:

...we then run into a scientific absurdity: in physics, the level of radioactivity of a given substance depends on its decay rate. The faster it decays, the higher its activity. This means that a radioactive material with [higher] activity according to the law of physics, would now be low-level waste according to the new definition released by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission!

Can the impressive reduction of intermediate level waste inventories be explained...by this new [definition]?...Chalk River...is designed to accommodate only low-level waste.

It appears that, as a result of these regulations, intermediate level waste (according to physics) will end up in the mound, mixed in with low-level waste.

This also raises questions regarding the inventory at Chalk River. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL, invoked confidentiality. That is its privilege because it is private. However, we will never know the status of the inventory. “Invoking corporate secrecy provides cover for CNL...[however,] this should alert parliamentarians to exercise caution when it comes to the responsibilities of this consortium”.

I will go over some of our recommendations. In order to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest and thereby improve public trust in radioactive waste management and the nuclear industry in Canada, the committee recommends that the government make the necessary changes to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Financial Administration Act “so that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources.”

In another one of our recommendations, the committee recommends—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you have also heard the clamour coming from the Liberal lobby. I cannot hear what my hon. friend is saying here in the House because of the noise coming from the Liberal side.

Could you please address that?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to reassure the hon. member that I already did. Before the hon. member got up, I sent some senior pages to ensure there was quiet back behind this place.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative Party. Another Bloc Québécois recommendation was:

...that the Government of Canada, through the Department of Natural Resources, review its governance practices on the boards of directors of AECL and the CNSC to ensure that they are different from each other; and that seats be set aside for members of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.

We also recommended that:

...in order to respect the principles of public consultation, the 140 municipalities and the large number of Indigenous communities that have specifically called for more rigour in the Chalk River NSDF project, Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conduct a regional environmental study as soon as possible.

I am spending a lot of time talking about the NSDF because the drinking water of millions of Quebeckers is at stake here, and this touches on everything the indigenous communities have spoken out against. I am going to list 10 reasons why we should oppose the project. They are detailed in a document written by Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.

First, the mound drains into the Ottawa River. The group says the following:

The Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) site was chosen for proximity to soil that is seriously radioactive from the nuclear research centre at Chalk River. It is on the side of a hill, partly surrounded by wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River less than one kilometre away [I invite the people who are in favour of the project to go drink the water from the river]. The site is tornado and earthquake prone; the Ottawa River is a major fault line. Underlying bedrock at the site is porous and fractured and the groundwater table is very close to the surface.

Second, the enormous mound would hold more than one million tonnes of hazardous radioactive waste, as the group indicates:

The NSDF would rise up to seven storeys in height [on the hill. Modelled after an ordinary municipal dump, it will] cover an area the size of 70 NHL hockey rinks. Waste destined for the mound has accumulated over eight decades of operation at Chalk River Laboratories; waste is also being imported [from other domestic and international sites] for emplacement in the mound. It would contain dozens of radioactive and hazardous materials and tonnes of heavy metals [I will not list them all, there really are too many of them]. Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 sources in the dump would give off so much intense gamma radiation that workers must use lead shielding to avoid dangerous radiation exposures. The International Atomic Energy Agency says these are “intermediate-level waste” and require emplacement underground [should not be on a mound]. Dioxin, PCBs, asbestos, mercury, up to 13 tonnes of arsenic and hundreds of tonnes of lead would go into the dump. It would also contain thousands of tonnes of copper and iron, tempting scavengers to dig into the mound after closure.

There is so much waste inside the mound. It is appalling.

Third, the Algonquin first nations and the Assembly of First Nations oppose the plan. I will let my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue discuss the objections of indigenous communities and the Assembly of First Nations in greater detail.

Fourth, this waste site threatens the drinking water of millions of Canadians. We read the following:

The NSDF site is partly surrounded by wetlands that drain through Perch Lake into the Ottawa River, which is the drinking water source for millions of Canadians downstream including Ottawa, Gatineau and parts of Montreal. The mound is expected to leak during operation and break down due to erosion. Studies predict several types of leakage will occur during filling and after closure of the facility. The waste water plant for the NSDF would discharge contaminated water containing large quantities of tritium...and smaller quantities of many other radioactive substances [there are too many for me to list]. The proponent’s Performance Assessment study suggests the mound will break down after its predicted design life of 550 years and contents will be released to the environment and Ottawa River.

People may take the short-sighted view and say it does not matter, since we will not be here in 550 years. However, others will come after us.

Fifth, there is no safe level of exposure to the radiation that would leak into the Ottawa River. We read as follows:

All of the escaping radioactive materials would increase risks of birth defects, genetic damage, cancer and other chronic diseases. The International Atomic Energy Agency says radioactive wastes must be isolated from the biosphere.

Sixth, waste will remain radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. This point reads as follows:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says wastes like those produced by Chalk River Laboratories...are likely to be “intermediate-level” and in some cases even “high-level,” requiring emplacement tens of meters or more underground.

Reactor accidents have already occurred at Chalk River.

A former senior manager in charge of legacy radioactive wastes at Chalk River Laboratories says the waste proposed for the facility is “intermediate level” and requires underground emplacement. He says the mound would be hazardous and radioactive for many thousands of years, and that radiation doses from the facility would exceed allowable levels.... The radioactive waste will outlive the facility for many thousands of years.

Seventh, 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario oppose the NSDF. This point reads as follows:

More than 140 municipalities, including Pontiac County, Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal have passed resolutions of opposition or serious concern about the proposed project. The City of Ottawa resolution specifically asked for imports of waste to the Ottawa Valley to be stopped; the request was disregarded by the consortium.

Eighth, Canadian taxpayers are paying, but a multinational consortium is calling the shots. The group says the following:

Cleanup of the site was originally estimated to cost $8 billion in 2015 when a multinational consortium called “Canadian National Energy Alliance” was contracted by the Harper government to manage the Chalk River site and clean up the radioactive waste there and at other federally owned facilities. Since the consortium took over, costs to Canadian taxpayers for the operation and cleanup at Canada’s nuclear labs have ballooned from $336 million dollars per year to over $1.5 billion per year....Texas-based Fluor Corporation, which paid $4 million to resolve allegations of financial fraud related to nuclear waste cleanup....

This issue therefore also includes the matter of financial fraud associated with the cleanup of nuclear waste.

Ninth, building the NSDF will destroy critical habitat for protected species. We all know about the importance of biodiversity. This point reads as follows:

The NSDF site is very rich in biodiversity due to the fact that it has been fenced off to humans for 80 years. Proximity to the Ottawa River and Perch Lake make it a good feeding ground for larger mammals.... The mature forest on the site hosts three endangered bat species, and several at-risk migratory birds, including Golden-Winged Warblers, Canada Warblers, and Whip-poor-wills. Indigenous led research revealed a healthy population of threatened Eastern Wolves extensively using the site; the Indigenous researchers also found three active dens of Black Bears, protected under Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. In January 2024, Kebaowek First Nation wrote to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada asking for the permit to clearcut the site to be denied.

Tenth, there are better ways to dispose of waste. The group says the following:

An ARTEMIS peer review coordinated by the International Atomic Energy Agency could provide valuable information to the Government of Canada about the best practices for managing wastes like those at Chalk River.

Those were their 10 points. The group also states that “[f]ederal government action to halt the NSDF project is urgently needed.”

This brings me to my conclusion. The voices of the people and organizations that contributed to this study through their testimony and submissions did not all generate the same level of interest at the report-writing stage. Discussions were held among committee members on the merit, or lack thereof, of certain written contributions. Choices were made to include some and exclude others, depending on individual leanings.

Hundreds of Canadians are demanding an explanation about the false statements made by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization over the last few years. However, no explanations are forthcoming. Nothing further has been heard. The Bloc Québécois believes that a study that has gathered well-researched content from the public and is backed by sources and links to support its assertions is a worthy contribution and has merit. Obviously, when such a large number of submissions express positions that clash with the industry's own positions, the content might well be selectively chosen.

The report reflects the choices made by the members of the government and the official opposition. The Bloc Québécois believes that it does not adequately serve the public or the common good.

When these voices feel they are not being heard...citizens turn to the public authority in which they have the most trust and believe they will truly be heard: the democratically elected representatives....

Then again, the democratically elected representatives need to listen.

Everyone should be concerned about efforts to “dismiss individuals and organizations (including many academics, as well as technical and scientific experts from the industry) who specifically bring up alarming issues that affect human health and the environment”. What people want is information. They do not want propaganda.

“Under the leadership of Pauline Marois's Parti Québécois government, Quebec made the choice to leave nuclear power behind. Quebec has the resources to accomplish the energy transition and move closer towards a truly net-zero future, without nuclear technologies”, but Chalk River is moving us away from that goal.

We stand in solidarity with communities across the country, whether indigenous or non-indigenous, that have serious doubts about the nuclear industry. Our struggles are similar and are linked.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for her speech.

I want to say that I am proud of Ontario's electricity system because our system is clean and it includes nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is safe and important.

I am going to get into it in my speech, but in 2005 in Ontario we still burned coal for electricity, and we do not anymore. There were smog days back then, and there are not anymore. Our system in Canada is clean. It is renewable. Nuclear plays a really strong role, but I hear the member opposite disparage the nuclear industry, when it is also responsible for developing isotopes, which save lives. I am eager to get to this in my speech.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not saying that it is against all nuclear options. Medical isotopes are very important.

What we are saying is that the nuclear industry, which wants to expand, which wants to grow, never deals with its waste management. It tells us all the time why we could support it, but it never addresses its waste management.

That is what is wrong with the industry.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, what does my hon. colleague make of the shortage right now of medical isotopes? Last year, there were some critical shortages that unfortunately may have cost lives in Canada, and we are very grateful for Chalk River. Some of the developments of utilizing the CANDU reactor to make medical isotopes would not have been possible without Chalk River, so I thank the men and women who work there for their innovation and hard work to perfect how to make isotopes with the CANDU reactor.

I am just wondering what my colleague's answer would be for the shortage of isotopes, not just in Canada but around the world. We are back-filling some countries that have difficulties creating isotopes; does the member not think it would be wise to pursue this more?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is funny how we have just had two questions about medical isotopes. That is a smokescreen. These are misleading questions, because members know full well that the nuclear industry is not interested in medical isotopes.

The nuclear industry is interested in the famous small modular reactors, which are really just a pipe dream. The nuclear industry was in decline. Now, it is trying to recover and, in order to do that, it is focusing on those small reactors. There are people who listen only to the nuclear industry lobby and are blindly charging forward toward this solution.

How much will it cost taxpayers for something that exists only on paper right now?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for her speech and for all the work that she has done on this really important issue.

I have also met with groups of citizens who are extremely concerned about nuclear waste management, particularly when it comes to the Chalk River project, which involves surface disposal near a water table and beside a river. People are understandably concerned about their safety and that of their children. It seems so obvious to me that this is an ill-advised, poorly managed project that should be cancelled.

My colleague met with a lot of witnesses in committee. Why are we moving forward with a project that is obviously very dangerous?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, why are we moving forward? One hundred and forty municipalities say no. Ottawa says no. Indigenous nations say no. Everyone who is consulted says no, but the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is moving forward. Who is in charge here?

Why bother holding consultations when no one is listening? Of the 41 briefs submitted to the committee, 36—the majority—said no to nuclear expansion. No one is listening. We hear nothing but radio silence because some elected officials are pandering to the nuclear industry and listening to no one but the lobby.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Repentigny and the Bloc Québécois as a whole for their work.

I read this supplementary report to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I agree entirely with all of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations for better protecting our environment and human health from the dangers of nuclear waste.

My only question for my hon. colleague is this. Why does she think our approach leans so heavily in favour of the nuclear industry when there is no evidence?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question.

Why are we taking this approach? I have some idea why. The nuclear lobby is doing its best to ensure that the regulations are relaxed. Basically, one could argue that nuclear energy is a carbon copy of oil and gas. They all do the same thing. They have a strong presence. They do a lot of lobbying.

What they do is go through the Privy Council Office to make recommendations to cabinet. They go around anything that might stop them and go straight to cabinet. Not only are the majority of nuclear projects exempt from impact assessments under the act, but the industry also wants reactors to be exempted so that there are no constraints on the development and installation of nuclear reactors. They go straight to the Privy Council Office to make recommendations to cabinet. They have a fast track to try to impose their will.

Unfortunately, this country's government is only too eager to listen to what the lobbies want and nod along to whatever they say.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Repentigny on behalf of all Quebeckers, Canadians and even the entire planet for the incredible, sophisticated, rigorous and detailed work that she has done. She has really done an outstanding job. I admire her a lot, and I wanted to take this opportunity to tell her that.

I would like to ask her one last question.

In light of what she said, what could be done to ensure that this powerful lobby is held to account? One day someone will have to answer for these mistakes.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the recommendations that the Bloc Québécois made in its supplementary report contained at least one thing that could give citizens some reassurance. That was the idea of separating the mandates.

The Department of Natural Resources currently has a mandate to promote nuclear power, but it also has a mandate to oversee nuclear waste governance. It is as though the right hand is undoing what the left hand does. One of our recommendations is to make those mandates separate, as several witnesses suggested.

The Natural Resources Canada should deal with nuclear power and the promotion of nuclear power, while Environment Canada deals with nuclear waste governance. If nuclear power gets developed too quickly without the waste being dealt with properly and Environment Canada demands accountability, this might curb the sector's ambitions a little.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to allow me to go to Questions on the Order Paper so I could read off the questions, as we have done in the past. It will be very brief.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2966, 2970, 2976, 2982 and 2983.

Question No.2966—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to simultaneous interpretation services provided by the Translation Bureau since January 1, 2020: how many requests were received for interpretation at meetings of the Cabinet or its committees where the Translation Bureau was unable to fulfill the request at the originally suggested or scheduled time due to a lack of resources, broken down by calendar year?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, the Translation Bureau, or the bureau, is continuing to meet its clients on a regular basis to review priorities, discuss processes and optimize resource allocation. It is also continuing with its efforts to foster the next generation of interpreters and enhance its interpretation capacity. These efforts enabled the bureau to cover all interpreted events for cabinet and cabinet committee meetings.

The bureau does not track the initial times for scheduled events, as the calendar for cabinet meetings is constantly being updated. Rather, the bureau keeps track of assignments as they are completed. It does not retain information about originally suggested or scheduled times in its records.

Question No.2970—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

With regard to the government’s commitment in the 2019 National Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking to establish a federal advisory committee of victims and survivors: (a) on what date was the committee established; (b) who are the members of the committee; (c) who is the Chair of the committee; (d) how many times, and on what dates, has the committee met; (e) for each meeting in (d), what were the agenda items; (f) what are the details related to the individuals and organizations the government consulted related to the establishment, structure, composition or any other aspect of the committee, including (i) when was each consulted, (ii) what feedback was received; (g) how much was spent on the consultation process, in total, and broken down by type of expense; (h) how much was spent on the committee and what was the committee budget (i) each year since 2019, (ii) for each of the next three years; and (i) what are the details of all memorandums or briefing notes provided to the Minister of Public Safety or his office, or the Prime Minister or his office, including, for each, the (i) internal tracking number, (ii) date, (iii) title, (iv) type of document, (v) sender, (vi) recipient, (vii) summary of the contents?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s commitment in the 2019 national strategy to combat human trafficking to establish a federal advisory committee of victims and survivors remains pending. A range of preparatory work was commenced and advice was provided in an effort to launch and formally establish a federal advisory committee since its announcement in 2019.

In reference to the details on memorandums or briefing notes provided to the Minister of Public Safety or his office, two dockets were provided to the Minister of Public Safety or his office between 2020 and 2023. The first is PS-032565, from November 2020. This memorandum to the minister, signed by the deputy minister, is entitled “Establishment of a Human Trafficking Survivors Advisory Committee”. The contents recommended the establishment of a survivor advisory committee, along with proposed terms of reference and list of those who may be interested in participating. The second is PS-036368, from June 2022. This memorandum to the minister, signed by the deputy minister, is entitled “E-binder – PS-036368 – Establishment of a Human Trafficking Survivors Advisory Committee”. The contents are classified secret.

Question No.2976—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

With regard to the CRA’s audit and subsequent revocation of the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund (JNF): (a) since 2015, how many meetings with external stakeholders, either virtual or in-person, did the CRA have regarding the JNF’s charitable status; (b) how many meetings did the CRA officials have, either virtual or in-person, with JNF officials since 2015; (c) what are the details of the meetings in (a) and (b), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) names and titles of the attendees, (iii) purpose of the meeting, (iv) agenda items, (v) summary of what occurred at the meeting, including anything that was agreed to; and (d) what are the details of all meeting requests the CRA declined or did not respond to from the JNF since 2015, including, for each, the (i) date of the request, (ii) names and affiliations of those who made the request, (iii) purpose of the requested meeting, (iv) reason the meeting was declined or not responded to?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above question, what follows is the response from the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, as of September 17, 2024, the date of question.

The CRA is committed to increasing the transparency and accountability of charitable organizations by providing relevant information about them to the public, in accordance with the disclosure provisions of the Income Tax Act, or the act.

The confidentiality provisions of the act prevent the CRA from commenting on specific cases without the consent of an authorized representative of the organization. However, as an exception to the general rules around taxpayer confidentiality, the act allows for certain information about registered and revoked charities to be released to the public. The CRA’s legal authority for the public disclosure of that information is found in subsections 149.1(15) and 241(3.2) of the act. Any information or document that is not explicitly identified by those disclosure provisions cannot be provided to the public.

For further details on what information is publicly available, please see “How to get information about a charity” at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/charities/information-about-a-charity.html.

As such, the information requested in this question is considered taxpayer information and cannot be provided without the consent of an authorized representative of the organization, that is, the Jewish National Fund.