Debates of Nov. 4th, 2024

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to Halton Hills to see what comes out of a gas-powered electricity-generating station. I can see colour just fine. It was brown effluent. I would invite him to come. I know the member's community still burns coal to create electricity. That is the dirtiest way known to make electricity, and natural gas is not far behind. There are net-zero ways of producing electricity onto our grid. Indeed, sometimes the effluent is brown.

Conservatives who are against doing anything to fight climate change, even though it is hurting our economy and communities, are anti-science. We have seen it with the NDP, which recently flip-flopped on carbon pricing, and we have also seen it with the Bloc Québécois, whose members voted against Bill C-49, even though this legislation enables the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to build offshore renewable energy for the first time, reducing emissions and creating tens of thousands of jobs. It will attract billions in investment and unlock a $1-trillion offshore energy industry. What a remarkable thing to vote against. Conservatives voted against Atlantic Canada and so did the Bloc Québécois. It is astonishing.

The decisions around nuclear waste are being managed properly, following rigorous scientific study, consultation and environmental assessment, and with safety measures in place. It is reckless for the Bloc Québécois to suggest politicians should be making these decisions instead.

This report concludes that Canada is safely managing our nuclear waste according to best practices and best international policies. This will continue to be the case and will only be more important as we utilize this technology to reduce our emissions, fight climate change and support good, sustainable jobs as we go forward.

I would like to transition a bit to a bill that I am excited to have come to this House when we can dispense with the current filibuster that the Conservatives are engaging in. I am looking forward to discussing Bill C-73. Bill C-73 is a bill that focuses on biodiversity, our environment and nature-based solutions for fighting climate change.

I am very proud to live in Halton region. I grew up in Halton region, and it is one of the most biodiverse areas in Canada. It surprised me when I heard that, so I looked it up. It also surprises a lot of people who live in that area because it is home and it does not look or feel like a rainforest or like the most biodiverse area in Canada, but indeed it is. That is something worth protecting. I do a lot of school visits and I hear from kids all the time who are concerned about biodiversity loss and pollution, and the impacts of climate change. We have to fight against that.

As we are fighting against that and trying to make progress, the Conservatives are introducing bills, trivial ones and rather silly ones like a bill to bring back the plastic straw. They are very proud of it. They will applaud. They are very proud of their legislation to promote the use of single-use plastics.

I spend a lot of time on the water. Sometimes when I am on the water, I see Tim Hortons lids and straws—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, to answer the question from my hon. colleague, I do in fact clean it up quite often. I host cleanups in my community with kids and we pick up garbage, but picking up garbage is not going to solve climate change. The members think it is hilarious that a politician might actually get dirty every once in a while and pick up some garbage, but I would invite my colleagues to try to get engaged.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I am being heckled and I have not heard any sort of an attempt to ask them to calm down a little. As I have been speaking, I have had three or four of them speaking to me at this—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There has been some heckling; it calms down and then it starts up again. I remind members that if they want to ask questions and comments, they should wait for the appropriate time. I would also ask members to not run in here and then run out after they have made some loud comments.

The hon. member will have 10 minutes of questions and comments, so I would ask members to please hold on to their thoughts and comments until the appropriate time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. I hope members opposite have not used up all of their clever heckles while they are sitting down, because I want to hear what they have to say when they stand up and it is their turn to speak. Sometimes, when I do school visits, teachers have to remind their students they should not speak out of turn. They are usually in grade 5, so 10 years old and 11 years old. It is disappointing to see the Conservatives using similar tactics as schoolchildren do.

I want to talk about Bill C-73, which is an act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Canada is a huge country. We have so much biological diversity from coast to coast to coast. We have a global obligation. This is not a choice. We need to protect it. We are the stewards of this global biodiversity framework. We hosted the meeting in Montreal last year and have made that commitment internationally.

We know the Conservatives have talked about commitments as outlandish as leaving the United Nations altogether. They make fun of the sustainable development goals. They ridicule members like me when we wear our SDG pins in the House. In fact, they promote this misinformation, and actually it is disinformation because it is quite harmful, about some kind of a globalist agenda with respect to the SDGs.

I wonder if the Conservative members ever read what the 17 SDGs are. If they would like, they could perhaps share which sustainable development goal they find most reprehensible. Perhaps it is clean water; perhaps it is no hunger; perhaps it is education for all, or perhaps it is equity. Perhaps it is partnerships, because we know the Conservatives think they can operate in a silo all on their own, without international co-operation, without international frameworks and agreements, and without attending United Nations meetings or going to COP.

The Conservatives think Canada is this tiny island that can operate alone. They think we do not have any obligations to lower our emissions here, despite them being some of the highest in the world, or obligations to promote biodiversity and end nature loss.

I will just end by saying nuclear energy is an asset and a solution to the triple threat of pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss we are experiencing. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise and it is reckless to not take action. I am proud to be standing here on the government side with a government that is taking action on all three and utilizing every tool in our tool box to achieve those goals.

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

Madam Speaker, the member started off by saying the world is on fire, Canada is on fire.

It was revealed that Parks Canada had wanted to do controlled burns for Jasper since 2022 yet was denied by the government. Did the Liberals intentionally allow Jasper to burn to justify their carbon tax that is sending a million Canadians a month to food banks?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing that when the member gets up and shares the tabloid-style rhetoric she always does in the House, other Conservative members clap. It is also disgusting that the member would insinuate that our government, or any government, would encourage a park to burn intentionally, where a brave firefighter lost their life and thousands of Canadians lost their homes. That is disgusting.

Under the Conservative government from 2010 to 2015, there were no controlled burns. That government did no mechanical removals. It cut all funding for Jasper National Park by $30 million a year. That creates a hangover effect. The Conservative government did not have a mountain beetle strategy. We started that in 2016. We took action in Jasper National Park. We have been doing the mechanical clearing. We have been doing the controlled fire and burning. We have employed the Indigenous Leadership Initiative and the indigenous guardians program.

The members opposite who are on the environment committee know that, because they listened to the amazing people, like Dr. Amy Cardinal, who have been doing that work for over a decade. Those members opposite ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves that they would insinuate any government would allow a park to burn. It is that kind of rhetoric that leads to the misinformation and disinformation that leads to Canadians feeling less confident about science and the science of climate change. Shame on that disgusting rhetoric.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members on both sides of the House to please wait until the appropriate time to be recognized. At this point, I have recognize the hon. member for Repentigny, and I am sure that everyone wants to hear the question she will ask or the comments she will put forward.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member has, on a number of occasions now, spoken out of turn. Unless he is recognized, I would ask him to please be quiet.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my committee colleague kept saying that the Bloc Québécois is against nuclear energy. It is true that the Bloc Québécois does not support nuclear development, but we recognize that it is a legitimate preference for other stakeholders. However, to say that nuclear power is clean energy is just plain wrong. I did not specify all the different types of radioactive waste in my speech, but I could list them all. It is extremely hazardous.

Let us talk numbers. Wall Street estimates that renewables are already three to seven times cheaper than nuclear. Even the International Energy Agency says that, globally, non-hydro renewables will account for 90% of all new electricity generation over the next five years. It seems to me that these are valid alternatives that are cheaper and that may be much cleaner than nuclear energy.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is important to note that that Quebec is very lucky to have a strong electricity generation system thanks to hydro power. That is, of course, a major asset for Quebec, but the other provinces are not in the same boat. Not every province in the country has a system like that. Nuclear power may not be an option or necessity in Quebec, but it is a great opportunity for all the other provinces.

With regard to nuclear waste, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has confirmed that the waste water is not a radioactive contaminant and does not pose any threat to the public. It is also important to note that public health and safety and environmental health are top priorities for us.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member was speaking about Bill C-373. I would like to ask him about Bill C-372.

António Guterres, the head of the UN, has called fossil fuel companies the “godfathers of climate chaos”. He said they are moving us to a living hell and that countries and governments have to stop acting as “enablers”. Part of that, for Guterres, is a ban on fossil fuel advertising, as it is a threat to human health and a threat to the health of the planet.

Would the member support Bill C-372, which would limit fossil fuel advertising? It is a direct threat to human health.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend and colleague for his work on his private member's bill. I have met with stakeholders who feel very strongly that we ought to pass legislation to ban fossil fuel advertising.

Before I commit to supporting it, I will say that when I was an Olympic athlete, many of our activities were sponsored by Petro-Canada, which is owned by Suncor. I am not going to stand in the House and be a hypocrite. I am going to acknowledge that the oil and gas sector and the energy sectors across the country do good work, providing contributions to our economy and jobs. However, it is also the case that they do a lot of greenwashing. It is very dishonest when a truck with billboards on it, purchased by the Alberta government, is driving around town in Ottawa promoting the idea of getting rid of a cap on pollution.

There are two schools of thought in Canada. One is that we have no obligation to the environment. However, on the Liberal side, we believe that we have to fight climate change, and that involves lowering pollution and addressing our emissions.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that I think his commitment and his government's commitment to nuclear energy is entirely misplaced and lacking any evidence making any kind of reasonable case that nuclear energy contributes to addressing the climate crisis.

I note the parliamentary secretary's point to the hon. member for Repentigny about radioisotopes. I recommend that he look at what cyclotrons do, particularly the TRIUMF cyclotron in North Vancouver. The government has also invested in producing radioisotopes without the threats to the environment and human health presented by relying on nuclear energy.

The reason the Greens continue to oppose nuclear energy and do not see it as a solution to climate change is very simple and practical: It does not produce electricity at anything like the cut-rate cost of renewables. We are now getting solar in at less than three cents a kilowatt hour. We can roll out solar, from the minute we decide to do it to when it is producing electricity, in a matter of months. Any new nuclear reactor takes more than a decade, and the costs break the bank of any province.

To that, I would add for the parliamentary secretary to please consider that this Parliament has never once had a debate on nuclear energy and a vote on whether it is a good idea or not. The last time and the only time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry; I have to allow for one more question after this.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend and colleague for the debate today.

Not all Greens agree with the hon. leader of the Green Party. I know many Greens who believe in nuclear energy. I consider myself an environmentalist and know many environmentalists, and many of us agree with the notion that nuclear energy is green, renewable and necessary to power our green revolution and innovative approach to sustainability across the country. I point to Ontario as a great example. We would still be burning coal if it were not for nuclear in Ontario.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Bill C-73. I know that at the standing committee on the environment, a motion has been put forth not once but three times to have a prestudy on that piece of legislation. Given what has taken place inside the House of Commons, unfortunately it has not been passed. My understanding is that it is because there is a coalition, which includes the New Democrats and the Conservatives, to prevent a prestudy from taking place.

Perhaps the member could provide his thoughts on that issue.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately it is true. The three- or four-week Conservative-led filibuster in the House of Commons has extended to committee as well. The Conservatives open most meetings by saying they would like to see the minister at committee. I presented a motion today that would see the minister come to committee on Wednesday to discuss Bill C-73. Of course, they would be more than welcome to ask any question they like on any subject they like with the minister there. However, they filibustered it and ended debate, so unfortunately we will not be starting the debate on Bill C-73. I hope they will change their minds sometime soon and end the filibuster.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the nuclear-supportive residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak against the Bloc's dissenting report recommendations that put my constituents' health and safety at risk.

The Bloc calls on the government to pull the plug on over a decade of work toward securing low-level radioactive waste located on the grounds of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Chalk River, Ontario. Many of my constituents are deeply troubled by the anti-science ideology this motion represents. If the government were to even entertain the report's recommendation, it would set us back years, if not decades.

Despite the government's best efforts, Canadians can be proud of our history and in particular Canada's incredible contributions to the development of nuclear science. Much of that science was done at Chalk River, just 200 kilometres west of here. What the scientists, engineers and all the staff at Chalk River have accomplished over the years is remarkable. There is an incredible history that not enough Canadians hear about. Maybe if Chalk River was in Montreal or Toronto, the CBC would have told that story by now.

While the Bloc's dissenting report and recommendations are environmentally harmful, this debate provides me with an opportunity to tell more Canadians about the proud legacy of AECL. I think it is important that we understand the history of how we got here, the science behind how we got here and where we go from here.

Before I dive in, if any Canadian watching at home or half-listening in the House wants to know more about the plans for securing low-level waste, they can check out my YouTube channel. That is where I posted a series of videos from an interview that I did with the former president of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories about its plans to secure the waste in what is now known as the near surface disposal facility, or NSDF for short. All they need to do is click the videos and scroll down, way down in fact. This is because the interview is from seven years, which was essentially the halfway point in what has been a long and thorough process.

In the years leading up to that, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories had been conducting in-depth studies on where to locate the near surface disposal facility to contain the low-level radioactive waste from nearly 80 years of operation at Chalk River. The reactors at Chalk River did not produce electricity; they were research reactors. Along with the Nobel Prize-winning research, the reactors produced more than a billion life-saving medical isotopes. Hundreds of thousands of people are living happy, healthy lives because of the work at Chalk River.

During those 80 years, the staff at Chalk River always sought to apply the best methods to contain waste that were available at the time. This included burying some types of waste in sand pits on site. In fact, 90% of the waste that is to be stored in the facility is at the site right now.

Let me be clear: 90% of the low-level waste is located at Chalk River on the shore of the Ottawa River right now. This Bloc report is recommending that the government politically interfere in the operations of AECL and restart the entire process. That would set us back 15 years and leave the low-level waste where it is currently stored around the campus, including in sand pits. The separatists cannot claim to care about the Ottawa River, then demand we delay cleaning up the waste sites along it. That is like putting a round peg in a “Bloc” hole.

The dissenting report calls on the government to restart the review process, but this time under the Liberals' unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. Opponents of nuclear science can restart the process as many times as they like, but it will not change that the site selected was the best location based on a detailed geological analysis of the lands around the campus. Those opposed to the project claim its location is the problem; it is only a kilometre away from the Ottawa River.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University, by the way.

How far or how close the river is is not as important as what is underneath the chosen site and its elevation. The selected site sits on bedrock, and the foundations would be 50 metres above the water. That would ensure that it would be safe from flooding. Moving the site further from the river would increase the chance of flooding and leakage. That obviously sounds counterintuitive, but countering our intuitions is why we invented the scientific method. The scientific method allows humans to check their bias.

I will give some credit to the Bloc. The separatists are open and upfront about their bias in the report. Here is what the Bloc wrote in the dissenting report:

The Bloc Québécois’s energy policy does not support the development of the nuclear industry....

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.

Most people know not to make virtue out of a necessity, but the Bloc seeks to make virtue out of opportunity. As the Bloc made clear, who needs nuclear power when we can flood more indigenous territory for the next dam project? Quebec's access to hydro power does not make it more virtuous. Claiming that one opposes nuclear science based on environmental and indigenous concerns is highly hypocritical for a party that seeks to build a new nation atop the legacy of Hydro-Québec.

The Bloc believes that Quebec can reach net-zero carbon emission without nuclear science. It is wrong. Whether it is fission or fusion, nuclear power is the only way humanity could power a net-zero world. The laws of physics set an absolute minimum amount of energy required to pull CO2 out of the air. Unless the church of climate socialism has a plan to have all animals stop exhaling, the energy of the future will be powered by nuclear science.

Ontario's electric grid operator examined the power requirements to reach net zero. It found that using renewables would require an area of land 400 times the size of Toronto. There is no future in which Canadians would accept the destruction of the environment to save the planet. If the far left truly wants a net-zero future, it must reconcile with a fundamental truth: A net-zero future is a nuclear-powered future.

I do not expect those of the far left to accept that truth. They will cover their ears and stomp their feet in their Marxist temper tantrums. They will resist pursuing the leading-edge technology to reduce emissions because, for them, this is just the latest excuse to pursue their socialist agenda to de-industrialize and decapitalize the world.

While the government's response to the committee's report says all things about nuclear science in Canada, it was prepared by the Minister of Natural Resources. If the Bloc had its way, the power to meddle in nuclear science and safety would be moved to the Minister of the Environment.

The Bloc should be happy to know that that proudly socialist anti-nuclear minister is working hard to invent new species of wolves that just happen to call Chalk River home. Whether the government will scrap 15 years of research, public consultations, environmental studies and multiple rounds of hearings before the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission because of a wolf-coyote crossbreed is now an open question. That should satisfy the anti-science MPs in the Bloc, yet no matter what the minister decides, or what the Bloc writes in its report, it will not change the facts on the ground.

The fact is that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to clean up Chalk River. The constant demands by the anti-nuclear, anti-science activists to restart the process are not about health and safety. As each concern that opponents had were addressed, new concerns were invented. Those concerns are starting to sound more and more desperate. One of the Bloc recommendations demands that the government set aside seats on the board of AECL and the Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission for “members of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.”

Does the Bloc believe that these boards are controlled by hermits? I can assure the Bloc that every person on those boards is currently from either an indigenous community or a non-indigenous community. That is because everybody in Canada is from either an indigenous or non-indigenous community.

The Bloc may be sad and desperate, but I am happy that I could share with Canadians that the dedicated staff at Chalk River is working hard to keep the community, the Ottawa River and all of Canada safe and healthy.

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

Madam Speaker, we are having this debate today because ultimately there is a question of privilege, which is being filibustered by the member's party, as it has now had well over 100 people stand up to speak to it.

Interesting enough, I received an email with a list of many organizations whose members are quite concerned about the fact that we have legislation, Bill C-63, that is on the Order Paper. We have attempted to get the bill debated, but it is not being debated because of the ongoing filibustering by the Conservative Party. Can the member provide her thoughts as to why it is that—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, how is this relevant to the debate?