Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham. In fact, I am the warm-up act, because he is the great orator.
I am very happy to participate in this debate on an energy source that Canada and the world need: nuclear energy. It helps supply us with energy, and God knows we need it. Nuclear energy is one of the five green energy sources that we on this side of the House have been promoting for years. Yes, we need to decarbonize, but we also need to have practical solutions, and nuclear energy is one of them.
On March 22, I visited the Chalk River facility. Like all Canadians, I had obviously heard about it. I had seen documentaries and news reports on it. There are some entirely valid and relevant concerns about the safety of this site, which, let us not forget, has been around for more than 80 years. It employs thousands of people and produces hundreds of millions of isotopes to help people overcome cancer. It is not a minor part of our history. It is not minor in terms of environmental impact, and it is not minor in terms of the impact on public health and applied health when it comes to treating cancer.
The question is where to put the nuclear waste. Let us not forget that the site itself has already had a place for storing nuclear waste for decades. Yes, it is very close to the research centre and lab, about a kilometre away. Yes, it is very close to a river. Because of its layout, this site has been protected, to a certain extent, for decades.
That is why assessments have been carried out over the years since 2016. Atomic Energy of Canada conducted assessments and consulted with people across Canada, particularly those who live nearby, to see which locations were the most favourable. Approximately 15 locations were analyzed, and the assessment found that this is the best place to store the waste and continue processing it.
This finding is based on decades of experience and on the type of waste involved. We are not talking about nuclear bombs here. What we are talking about is used materials, like old wooden planks, coverings that had to be worn on certain visits, tools that people used while working in the research centres, or debris from buildings. This waste is no longer useful, but it was directly involved in production. Ninety per cent of it is low-level radioactive waste.
I want to make a very clear distinction here. Low does not mean insignificant. On the contrary, it is very significant, but in this case, every possible measure has been taken for decades. It has not prevented incidents from happening. I will talk about that later. In general, however, overall, the situation at Chalk River is well managed.
Also, the waste centre will be located 50 metres above the river and 163 metres above sea level. It does not sit right on the river. It is also important to understand that this site has already been made safe, in a way. It has been extensively studied, and so has the water quality. Of course, there have been incidents, as I said earlier, but overall, it is considered to be the safest place.
It is also important to note that some first nations are concerned, while others are less so. However, we have to look at the whole picture. There is an expression we sometimes use back home that relates to an idea that is currently going around, and that is “not in my backyard”. Most people do not want certain things in their backyard. However, the people in Chalk River who work there and are linked to the facility are not concerned about it. It is not everyone, but some people have lived there for generations and are not unhappy about the situation.
That is why we need to address this issue properly, seriously and rigorously. Yes, the drinking water is there. Yes, there have been incidents, but generally speaking, people are still able to drink the water there on a regular basis. As I said earlier, the Chalk River facility has been around for over 80 years. Millions of isotopes have been produced there. Nobel Prize winners have worked there.
Chalk River is also the locus of Canada's nuclear energy development. For example, the CANDU reactor was developed there. Some regions of Canada, such as Ontario, which is not exactly a minor player in the Canadian Confederation, get 60% of their energy from nuclear power. Quebec once had expertise in nuclear power, but it was not successful, to say the least. The nuclear power plant in Quebec operated for a total of 183 days.
Let us not forget that, in the early 1960s, when hydroelectricity was booming thanks to the very wise decisions made in the 1940s and 1950s and implemented in the 1960s, including the construction of the iconic Manic-5 generating station, the Lesage, Johnson and Bertrand governments considered the possibility of building a nuclear power plant. The decision to move forward was made in the early 1970s, but the primary focus was to be hydroelectricity and the James Bay megaproject. Need I remind members that some people wanted us to put that project aside and focus all of our efforts on nuclear power? Mr. Bourassa, the premier at the time, who, as we know, was willing to compromise, said that we were going to do both at the same time.
Let us also not forget that, at the time, a certain person said that he was not against hydroelectricity, but that he thought that maybe Quebec was already producing enough. He said that it was not necessarily smart to erect a dam on every single Catholic French-Canadian river. The person who said that was none other than former premier Jacques Parizeau. He later changed his mind, as did the party he represented at the time. Yes, we have been down this road in Quebec. It did not produce the desired results, but we are currently reviewing nuclear energy in Quebec, and it is not impossible that, as some prominent politicians and energy stakeholders have said, perhaps within a few decades, we will need nuclear energy. We are therefore studying the possibility of reviving the Gentilly-2 plant, which, I should note, was shut down in 2010 or 2012, if memory serves. As I recall, I was one of the last politicians in Quebec City to defend nuclear energy, not in order to put all our eggs in one basket, but rather to open it up to everyone.
In closing, I would simply like to say a word about the history of Chalk River. As I said earlier, its story began in 1942, in the middle of a world war. On July 11, 1944, General de Gaulle, head of the provisional government of the French Republic, came here on a visit. He met with three French scientists who were working at Chalk River specifically to develop nuclear energy. As we know, later on, in 1945, that energy was used in warfare.
I would also like to mention a few historical events. On December 13, 1952, a major incident occurred at Chalk River, requiring an emergency response. Not that many people knew what nuclear energy was or how to handle it, so a dozen people were brought in from the United States, some of whom had worked on a nuclear submarine. The young lieutenant who led the clean-up efforts eventually rose through the ranks to reach the highest office in his nation, becoming president of the United States. The person who responded to the incident at Chalk River in 1952 was none other than Jimmy Carter.
In closing, we are fully aware that nothing is perfect and that every form of energy has its challenges and risks. However, after more than 80 years in operation, after enabling millions of people around the world to beat cancer thanks to the isotopes produced at Chalk River, we feel that we have good track record overall. It can be improved, but it is good overall. After studying this for nearly eight years and evaluating some 15 potential sites, we feel that this is the right choice. We have to say yes to Chalk River. We have to have this disposal facility for very low-level radioactive waste.