Debates of Nov. 4th, 2024

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary was not finished his question, so I do not know what the question was. As the hon. member knows, there is some latitude during debate, but I do want to remind members that they are to speak to the issue that is before the House. I am assuming the parliamentary secretary's question will be in reference to that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to what is taking place today, when there seems to be a will to talk about an issue affecting our environment, it is a very important issue that I hope to be speaking to shortly.

Constituents are asking why the Conservatives will not allow for other debates to take place. How would the member respond to her constituents who are genuinely concerned about other topics of debate, not just nuclear energy?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the debate we are having today is in respect to an environmental statement that is wrong-headed and totally full of disinformation. We are correcting the record now.

Quite apart from that, the fact that at least $400 million was misappropriated and Canadians want it to be paid back just goes to show us what little disdain the Liberals think Canadians have for their waste of money. Canadians want to see that all the documents are presented so that we can get to the bottom of what exactly happened and perhaps how much deeper this corruption on the part of the government goes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are many things in my colleague's speech that I could talk about.

First, if we are going to talk about civil society groups, they include experts, academics, engineers and physicists. They are all against the Chalk River NSDF. They also question the financial aspect. They want to know how much it will cost. Nuclear power is extremely expensive. Projects always go over budget. They take time to build. Meanwhile, we are in a climate emergency. Wind power, solar power, geothermal power and energy storage cost far less.

Here is my question for my colleague. Why is there no credible cost estimate for the Chalk River NSDF, which is the flagship waste disposal project?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, there was a similar facility built just outside of Port Hope. Now, it is not exactly the same as the one at Chalk River because the one at Port Hope was specifically designed to work with the geology of the land in much the same way that the one in Chalk River would. With nuclear production, in any type of nuclear business, what is required is that, before the operators of the facility get their licence, they have to have a legacy plan and have that legacy plan fully funded.

My question back to the Bloc is this: With all this renewable energy, such as the wind turbines and the millions of acres of solar panels, where are the plans and the money put aside for when those fields become inoperable and go to waste?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question. In the NDP's supplemental report to this report, we spoke about the fact that AECL, which the member acknowledged in her speech, used to be government-owned. It was a Crown corp, but the Conservatives under Stephen Harper sold it in 2011 to SNC-Lavalin. SNC-Lavalin, of course, was charged with scandal, bribery, the defrauding of the Libyan government and so forth.

I want the member's explanation for why that happened at the time and how it impacts Canada now given that SNC-Lavalin effectively owns and operates many of Canada's nuclear assets.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two points to make. First, the member opposite and her party are propping up a government that was involved in trying to get SNC-Lavalin off the hook for all its corruption. Second, the real big piece of misinformation or disinformation, whichever we choose, is that the Government of Canada sold it off. AECL still owns Chalk River Laboratories. The company that came in to operate it is the operator. That is why we have a government-owned and company-operated, or GOCO, in CNL.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Telecommunications; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

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

Madam Speaker, those watching this debate today should be thanking a nuclear worker.

We thank the nuclear workers for keeping the lights on. Nuclear energy is the one technology that we have that has proven to have zero emissions, and it is low in cost and reliable. It is because of the workers, the men and women who work in nuclear, that this is possible. I thank them from the bottom of my heart. It is the technology that is going to get us through the challenging times right now with the Liberals.

We have a lot of things to be thankful for when it comes to nuclear, the supply chain that we have in Canada and the CANDU technology. Lights are on right now in this building, and 60% of electricity in Ontario comes from nuclear. It is true that we were able to phase out coal in Ontario and eliminate smog because of nuclear, but there are still some radicals who do not like nuclear. Some people just never change.

However, it was nuclear that got Ontario off coal. Nuclear is in a renaissance right now because of security. We have war in Europe and hot spots around the world. Its energy security is what future societies will need. Nuclear is positioned well to take advantage of that.

Another great benefit of nuclear is medical isotopes. There are literally millions of lives saved because of nuclear, and we are very grateful for the medical isotopes and the research that is done at facilities across Canada, especially at Chalk River. Some of the breakthroughs out of Chalk River have been a game-changer, as described to me by oncologists and other specialists in the medical community.

We have a debt of gratitude for all the workers in the nuclear supply chain as well. It keeps the lights on and drives our economy with powerful paycheques. It is something that should be championed, not disparaged.

Those same workers have been getting a little whiplash with the current government. Sometimes, it is very cold to nuclear, calling it a sin stock and refusing to fund nuclear in the ways that it should be funded. It is typical.

Something was mentioned earlier in the debate about SDTC, which is the Sustainable Development Technology Fund from which the Liberals got caught funnelling $400 million to Liberal insiders: Those dollars were to go to technology. I cannot think of a better one than nuclear. Whenever we have an election and there is a change in government, the workers out there will be respected for the good work they do in providing clean, affordable electricity for all Canadians. We will see that change as soon as we elect common-sense Conservatives in the next election.

Another big change that is going to happen is for Conservatives to get rid of the carbon tax. People have probably heard this many times: It is technology, not taxes. There are a lot of different technologies to pick from. Renewables have a place in our grid, but there are issues with renewables. The waste that comes from renewables is the biggest issue, but we will get into that in a bit.

A newly elected Conservative government will axe the carbon tax and invest in such technologies as nuclear, which has emissions-free electricity that has powered Ontario for decades. Now, with the right support and environment, I believe that nuclear can make the next renaissance here in Canada.

This is a stark difference from what the NDP-Liberal government is promising to do. It is talking about quadrupling that tax to 61¢ per litre. When that happens, there will be economic carnage from coast to coast to coast. We are all suffering in a cost of living crisis, and they are planning to quadruple the tax. A better solution would be to invest in nuclear. We should be having the conversation on what is the best way to encourage more nuclear power production across Canada. It is happening.

Today, the Liberals might be a little bit warm on nuclear; I know that many mistrust them in the industry, and it is for good reason. There is a long history of a lot of lip service from the Liberals but not a lot of the action that is required to fully fulfill the promise that is nuclear in Canada.

We talked about the SDTC green slush fund the Liberals set up. Right now, we have such companies as Cameco and Westinghouse out of Saskatoon developing an eVinci microreactor that could be used in northern Canada to meet the electrical needs of industry or consumers, or for security. If we only had a government that believed in nuclear, it would have allowed an eVinci reactor to access some of those funds; instead, the funds went out the side door. Some funds went to the chair of the board itself. A Liberal insider gave money to herself, which is just horrendous when we know that there are solutions out there.

There is great hope at Darlington with GE Hitachi and the SMRs. I am really excited to see how they come onto the grid scale. That is a technology that SDTC could have helped bring to market quicker; instead, the money went to Liberal insiders.

There is the CANDU reactor itself, the Canadian-owned pride of the nuclear world. Our contribution is CANDU. What could we do with that technology if, instead of utilizing the green slush fund for Liberal insiders, we actually invested in CANDU? Could members imagine, for the men and women who work on that reactor, the refurbishments and the supply chain, if we had a government that actually had common sense and used a fund like the SDTC not to get their friends rich, as the Liberals have done, but to invest in technology? That is where this has to go.

We talked about waste. There is waste. Roughly, if we used nothing but nuclear electricity for our whole life, on average, it would be enough. The waste would be only one cupful. That is a concern. We have technologies for how we properly store that, but we do not have a proper way to recycle some of the other technologies out there. We know that solar panels are mostly created in China and shipped over to North America. They may be assembled on a structure or a house here, but that is not really helping the economy in great numbers. However, it is a technology that, in remote areas and for select grids, could provide a solution. I would say that the worst thing about it is that there is no way to recycle the panels, which are the waste that comes from solar. We have to compare that to alternatives, and we will get to nuclear waste in a minute. However, the panels are just buried. The leaching of the chemicals found in the solar panels is a real concern; we should be debating that, talking about it and figuring out how to fix it. For some of the other renewables, such as the blades on wind turbines, there is no way of recycling them. We dig a hole in the ground, put the blades in there and cover them up. That is the end of life for those renewables. It does not have to be that way.

How did nuclear get it right? There is a service charge embedded in our power rate. In Ontario, a portion of the rate we pay for that power goes into a fund that takes care of the waste. That sounds pretty good versus renewables. It is probably going to come down to the taxpayers or the environment that will pay if we rely solely on them. There has to be a balancing act. One is not better than the other in all circumstances, but for baseload power generation, there is nothing that beats clean, reliable nuclear.

The debate today is a bit about what we do with Chalk River. It has managed our nuclear research. It has facilitated breakthroughs in medical isotopes. The smartest people working on nuclear are working at Chalk River. They live in and around that area, upstream or downstream, and they know the positive impacts that the Chalk River laboratory has had on the environment, not just locally, but internationally.

Earlier we heard another speaker talk about the export of the CANDU technology, which is wonderful. We should be encouraging more of that.

I want to come back to the workers in nuclear and make this commitment to them. The new, common-sense Conservatives respect them and their technology, and we appreciate the work they do. We thank them for keeping the lights on.

[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, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide are gaseous air pollutants composed of nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen. They are one of the groups of related gases called nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides. The health effects of nitrogen dioxide pollution include increased inflammation of the airways, worsening coughs and wheezing, reduced lung function and increased asthma attacks. They are, in fact, all a group of gases that, when we burn fossil fuels like natural gas and diesel, are burned at high temperatures. NO2, CO2 and other nitrogen oxides occur in the air and contribute to particle pollution; indeed, those effluents, those exhausts, are yellow-brown in colour. This is in response to my hon. colleague's earlier point of order when I suggested that the Halton Hills gas-fired power plant emits yellow and brown fumes. It does.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a lot of hot air coming from that politician. There are no words to describe the hypocrisy of this. We have a Prime Minister who jet-sets all over the world, not worrying about the carbon he is emitting, and then lectures us to turn down the heat, to not drive our car and to be better for the planet. His boss is jet-setting everywhere and anywhere he wants to go. The carbon footprint of the current Prime Minister is larger than the footprints of every other prime minister combined. It is the hypocrisy in the Liberal Party, which is worried about brown smoke coming from stacks. They have to look at what is coming out of the back of the Prime Minister's jet to understand how much of a hypocrite these guys are.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member talked a lot about small modular reactors. I had a strong hunch that his question would be about that.

In November 2023, the first small reactor project, NuScale, was launched in the United States. It was cancelled because prospective clients were put off by the rising costs. The United States has stransparency requirement that we do not have here in Canada. Some provinces have made progress in producing or developing small reactors, but the costs are not known.

What does my colleague think about the need for transparency when developing such things?

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

Madam Speaker, on the question on SMRs, the GE Hitachi reactor being developed at Darlington is the very first of its kind. We do not know what the price is actually going to be on that SMR, just as when we have innovations and we try a new model of something.

The story she recapped, that NuScale SMRs were actually leading the campaign to bring a grid-scale reactor online, is accurate. I would not celebrate anyone's failure, but this is almost a good thing for Darlington. Once we prove the technology with GE Hitachi, as is hoped, we will know its cost and reliability. We will then be able to lead once again in nuclear, as when we brought forward CANDU.

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

Madam Speaker, the Chalk River project is meeting with a lot of public resistance. Communities are extremely concerned and want nothing to do with this project. The Algonquin first nations share that opinion, with 10 of the 11 groups opposing the project.

What does my colleague have to say about the fact that there is no social licence for the project? Does he want to force people to accept a project that many have deemed dangerous?

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

Madam Speaker, the Algonquins supported it from day one, so his facts are wrong. As for the process, we welcome feedback. Most government programs should be run this way. It does not mean someone will get their way, but they will get a say. Encouraging dialogue has taken place with indigenous groups, suppliers and local communities that want this technology and want nuclear in their community.

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

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.

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

Madam Speaker, there are some people within our communities who are concerned about what appears to be the New Democrats' shifts in policy. One of them is in regard to the price on pollution and backing away from a price on carbon. Another one is just dealing with Bill C-73, which is a very important piece of legislation that is very beneficial to the environment. On at least three occasions, we have tried to get a prestudy done on that legislation. It seems that the NDP members are siding with the Conservatives and it is causing some frustration.

Can the member provide some clarity in terms of the NDP position in regard to Bill C-73? Would he be okay with getting into a prestudy? Let us keep in mind what is taking place today and in the last number of weeks in the House in terms of the Conservative filibuster.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to speak for my colleague, the member for Victoria, our environment critic. I am not familiar enough with this issue to provide an informed answer.

However, I would like to keep speaking to the responsibility of the current and former Liberal governments as it relates to concerns over the commission's independence and potential conflicts of interest. During the testimony, Chief Duncan Malcolm Michano said, “I liken it to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.”

In fact, when it created the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in 2002, the Chrétien government, a Liberal government, disregarded the unanimous 1998 recommendation of the Seaborn commission concerning the creation of an independent, arms-length organization responsible for radioactive waste.

That is where the problem started. The Liberals caused it and they are refusing to fix it now.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member talk about a fox in the henhouse when the NDP's supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals has allowed the foxes to be in charge of the henhouse for the last two and a half years in their coalition.

I really do believe that nuclear is an important part of our energy mix that is required with everything that we are doing, not just in reducing emissions but also in ensuring that we have a robust and diverse energy supply out there to do everything from powering our laptops and iPhones, to continuing to electrify with more and more vehicles.

We know that renewables like hydro, which we have an abundance of in Manitoba, are not available to everyone out there. If we are going to provide clean energy to small communities, northern communities and remote communities, SMRs are the way to go.

In my riding, we have Whiteshell Laboratories. It is being decommissioned. It is safely disposing of all that nuclear-contaminated waste there, incinerating it and then entombing it. Nobody in the area is one bit concerned about it.

Does the member support the development of small modular nuclear reactors as a way to bring more energy to communities right now that are reliant upon diesel generation, as well as provide that diversity in energy that we need to keep Canada going toward green?

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

Madam Speaker, one thing is certain: The solution to meeting our Paris commitments and combatting climate change is not to produce more oil, drive more cars and consume more fossil fuels. The Conservative Party and I have fundamentally different positions on that point.

Second, of course we need to have a mix of energy to produce the energy that communities need. However, the current technology of small modular reactors is not ready. It is extremely expensive. There are other potential along the lines of cleaner, greener energy for the future.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want my colleague to talk about the nuclear lobby. Right now, the nuclear lobby is going directly through the Privy Council Office to recommend that there be no environmental assessment. They want to turn it over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. As we said earlier, that would mean putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I have the same concern.

I remember back in the day, when Catherine McKenna was the environment minister, and she passed the new environmental assessment bill, Bill C‑69. I asked her directly whether there would be assessments for these small reactors. The answer she gave me at the time was clearly no.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the important issue before us. The NDP environment critic is under the weather at the moment. I wish she could be in my place, but I will try to do some justice to the file, which I have been working on in the Ontario region for quite some time, in the South Bruce region.

South Bruce has had proposals for the storage of nuclear waste facilities that have had complications because they have threatened the Great Lakes Basin system and international relations. It has been highly complex, and force has been thrust upon the community to make a decision. It has already said no to one project. Recently there was a referendum for another project that passed with only 51% in favour. Despite the fact that the project passed, the lobbying was intense and significant, and the voting process, I have to say, was rather suspect in the sense that no paper balloting was allowed and there were people who felt they could not get their vote. It passed with only 51% and, ironically, it still has to go through more hurdles.

Some of the proposals in the past have failed in other countries when it comes to nuclear waste. In fact, to go back to what I learned about it, an OPG scientist involved was a whistle-blower who talked about the proposal at that time to bury intermittent nuclear waste for the length of the CN Tower into the ground in Ontario, within about a kilometre of the Great Lakes Basin waterway system. The proposal to bury it in rock formations that were known to be suspect for containment and expect it to be there in safety and perpetuity, for over 100 million years, boiled down to a decision of the small community.

Ironically, in the past the Conservatives under Joe Clark, a Progressive Conservative, intervened. I was fortunate enough to be in the chamber when he was here. It was a much different Progressive Conservative Party than what we are faced with now, which is the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party becoming the Conservative Party. Clark was foreign affairs minister at the time and intervened in the U.S. decision, saying not to put nuclear waste next to our Great Lakes. That was lived up to, and now there is a series of letters from Congress members and Senate members in the United States who have been actively lobbying against Canada's proposal for another project.

The Chalk River project is similar to what South Bruce went through. Chalk River, of course, is by fresh water as well. It is very significant heritage-wise with first nations, similar to South Bruce. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has been described as being the fox guarding the henhouse, but I think it is more significant than that because it is an active lobbying organization that gets deep-rooted into the communities. What is sad is that it divides communities with promises of a magical vision of how things will be versus what can and will take place afterward.

Ironically, successive Conservative and Liberal governments have tried to pass on the Nuclear Waste Management Organization as something they cannot touch or be involved in or that is independent, such as in the case that happened most recently, in October. There were 1,604 people who voted in favour of hosting a nuclear waste facility versus 1,526 who voted against it, to determine the outcome of the Great Lakes and its future should there be a failure or a problem. We need to think about the gravity of that.

I have been in South Bruce several times over the years to meet with people there. I have met with Michelle and others who have very much done the right thing. They are farmers. What is not being said and what is always pushed against them as neighbour is pitted against neighbour are the issues that come up about whether their properties can even be used for the businesses they have right now.

Some businesses, like the famous Chapman's ice cream business, will be opposed because, with U.S. export and import laws, there are different conditions that can actually be put on products that go into the United States and that have nuclear waste associated with them.

There are also issues, as I have mentioned, for some of the farms, whether they be sheep farms, beef farms, dairy farms or other livestock farms. They could lose their insurance, or their insurance companies threaten them by saying that they are not sure whether they will insure them in the future. We are looking at some of the largest farm operations, significant businesses, and health. Even if there were never a problem, they would have consequences put on them, their families and the agricultural food industry, which is very significant in a practical, immediate term. Heaven forbid something else happens, as it would be long-term.

What is always put to the residents, which is insulting, is that they have to come up with the solution. There have been a couple of recent developments that have some elements that are new and different but that, in the history of storage of nuclear waste, have failed. We have gone through some really wild rides when it comes to nuclear waste. At times there were people who proposed putting it in rockets and sending it off into space.

There have been other times when nuclear waste machinery, equipment and so forth has been proposed to be shipped across the Great Lakes over to Europe for the waste to get processed and shipped back. It was said that the only concern people should have if they were standing on the shore is that they might get nuclear radiation similar to that from an X-ray. Heaven forbid that an accident or something else would take place.

In addition, what nobody will talk about in the situation is the fact that we have to transport nuclear waste across communities. They focus specifically on the hosting communities and about lobbying supporting organizations, trying to get money into the hands of different projects that electorally are significant to people and so forth, to put pressure on winning the vote.

I am concerned that winning the vote becomes the excuse, because it says to people and organizations, whether in Chalk River or South Bruce, “You asked for this”, which will be forever remembered. There is no funding or response of a “no” with regard to the situation of all the community organizations, no commitment there, so when the first one in South Bruce failed, they just moved over a little and another project emerged.

Yes, we have to deal with the storage of nuclear waste. I want to thank Bruce Power for having me there and allowing me to tour the facility and see it. It is independent because of the way Ontario has set up the system of the production of energy versus transmission and versus storage. However, we do not factor storage and treatment, the billions upon billions of dollars' worth, and the legacy, into the cost of nuclear energy. We just kick it down the road and expect somebody else to deal with it.

What was amazing about the situation that I saw was the mere fact that there has been the expectation and the push placed on the residents to find a solution, dividing residents from one another, instead of there being the proper accountability that is necessary.

I want to at least thank the committee for putting in some recommendations and shedding some light on this, but the reality is that nuclear energy is something of a legacy that still is not being treated responsibly.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member the same question I asked his colleagues.

There have been concerns in regard to the NDP's backing away from sound environmental policy. One of them, of course, is related to the carbon tax, the price on pollution, versus the carbon rebate, and the NDP's most recent position on the issue. The second one is in regard to Bill C-73, nature accountability legislation on which we have attempted three times now to get a prestudy done in committee.

The member is familiar with the filibustering that has been taking place in the House. Having a prestudy would be a good thing, but again we are just not able to get it through without support from the NDP.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we cannot get that through because of you and your colleagues. That is why we cannot get that through and we cannot even have that—