Debates of Nov. 4th, 2024

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Please remember to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that.

We cannot get that through because the government will not live up to its expectations with regard to the documents, so we are stuck where we are.

As for the carbon price and the carbon taxing, the reality is that in Ontario, where I come from, we had cap and trade. Had the Liberals lived up to a proper policy on cap and trade, we would not have ever been in a carbon tax system, and the only reason we are in a carbon tax system in Ontario is that Doug Ford took us out of the cap and trade system, paid $2 billion to his industrial buddies for that, and now we are stuck with the carbon tax. Therefore, we got the carbon tax because of the Conservatives and we do not have a more progressive environmental issue to deal with that because of the Liberals' not even wanting to deal with it. That is the reality.

As far as getting to that point goes, we are happy and we have been supportive to get to that point. However, we cannot get to that point because we cannot get to a vote and the parliamentary secretary is partly responsible.

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

Madam Speaker, an individual working around the near surface disposal facility will receive less exposure to radiation in a year than an individual taking a flight from Vancouver to Toronto. What insurance company is denying, or potentially denying, coverage to anyone along the Ottawa River on the basis of the building of this near surface disposal facility?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can only speak with respect to the people whose farms I went to in South Bruce, and the member could go there herself as well, where the insurance agents have said to them that they do not know whether they are going to cover their insurance in the future should this go ahead. That is what the farmers have said. These are agriculture livestock farms. They have been sheep farmers, cow farmers and dairy farmers whose operations are there. Those are the specifics I know about that.

With regard to Chalk River, I am sure we are going to find some of that. I am willing to bet that the people in Chalk River, some in the agriculture community, do not realize or probably have not been told that their agricultural products might get tagged later when they actually leave the country and go to the United States. It has a whole certain program of identifying shipments of agricultural products that come from nuclear places like Russia, Ukraine and a series of different places across the globe that have contaminants in their area, and they get tagged.

We saw what happened before when the Conservatives mismanaged the COOL system with regard to supply, labelling and management of livestock and other products to the United States. We can imagine what would happen with Canadian products going to the United States and being tagged, but nobody wants to tell the Conservatives that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recommended that Environment and Climate Change Canada be part of the authorization process at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, just like the Department of Natural Resources.

Does my colleague approve of our proposal?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a great suggestion. Again, there needs to be more transparency about this and to tie it right back to Parliament. We are the ones who are generating and allowing nuclear waste to be managed. It also needs to be discussed with regard to openness and information in this place. In fact, the NDP has been trying to fix Crown copyright, which provides more of the research and data information that is done in-house, that other parties will not support here. Hopefully, the Bloc would support that if it wants more transparency in the use of publicly funded documents to go to citizens, individuals and businesses, so they can make educated decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to address this issue in two ways. We all, or at least, the government and a number of other members, recognize the true value of nuclear power and having that discussion. Having said that, I am going to tag on to that after a few opening remarks about what I believe are legitimate concerns of Canadians about what is taking place in the House of Commons.

This report we are debating today has been around for a couple of years, but it was a decision made by the Bloc party to bring it forward. I suspect, as we have witnessed more and more concurrence reports being brought to the floor of the House of Commons, it is because members are upset with the Conservative Party and the multi-million dollar game the leader of the Conservative Party is playing. That is the reason we are debating nuclear power today.

I will be sharing my time, by the way, with one of my friends from the Bloc. This is a wonderful compromise, I must say.

I received a letter from someone who has been mailing a number of members of Parliament. This email was a plea to all members of the House of Commons, and it was signed off by some very impressive groups that are in support of Bill C-63. One might wonder why that is relevant; it is relevant because the Bloc has brought forward a motion. It brought forward that motion because of frustration with the Conservative game being played. As opposed to debating the game, members want to talk about the importance of the nuclear industry here in Canada. If everyone stopped playing the game and we dealt with the concerns Canadians have, like the concerns in the email I have received from a long list of organizations, we would actually talk about what it is they are asking us to deal with, and that is Bill C-63, the online harms act.

The lengthy list of organizations includes the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Association of School System Administrators, Children's Healthcare, Canadian Medical Association, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and Empowered Kids Ontario.

What Canadians want us to be talking about is issues they know we can actually deal with, legislation that is before the House. Instead of dealing with that, we are talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power is an important issue, I do not question that. What I question is the motivation in the House to change the channel of what we should be dealing with. We should be dealing with issues Canadians want us to deal with, not the desires of the leader of the Conservative Party to become the prime minister or the filibustering the Conservatives do day in and day out.

That is something that I believe ultimately does need to be addressed. When I think of the issue of nuclear power, I think it is important for us to recognize that it does have a role to play as an industry. We hear a great deal about the benefits of nuclear power; I do not know to what degree people realize there are actually tens of thousands of Canadians directly employed.

We have two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, where nuclear power plays an important role in their economies and their communities as a whole. Ontario's consumption of nuclear power has increased over the years, as we have seen a shift away from emissions-sourced power generation to nuclear power generation. Ontarians have been a great beneficiary of it.

Even though my province and the province of Quebec, which I care very much about, have hydroelectricity in common, and I support green energy sources, there is absolutely nothing wrong in recognizing that nuclear power does have a role here in Canada. We should recognize and support it. When people think of nuclear power, they often think of power stations and that is it, when in fact, we have all sorts of uses for nuclear technology out there and how it is developed.

I would encourage members to reflect on health care, whether it is isotopes or how radioactive materials ultimately advance medicine here in Canada, it is an area of technological advancement using science that will do wonderful things in medicine into the future.

I recognize many ways that Canada could lead the world. CANDU reactors have been of great benefit not only to Canada, but also outside of Canada, where we have seen other countries look to us to see how we have been successful at generating energy through nuclear power production with these small, modular reactors. We have the technology and the expertise for Canada to play a very strong leading role. It is interesting to see the Bloc and their opposition to it.

Bill C-49 was the offshore wind energy legislation, which was huge for Atlantic Canada, and it is green energy. It is something the Prime Minister and the government have put right up front through supporting legislation. Now we have Atlantic provinces that are bringing in, or have brought in, mirror legislation because we have recognized that it is not only better for our environment but also good for the economy and the communities in which we live. It will generate millions, if not billions, of dollars of investment.

Whether it is looking to the future of green energy or taking a look at how it has benefited some of our provinces, in particular Ontario and New Brunswick, nuclear power is a major contributor to our economy in a very real and tangible way. It contributes immensely to our GDP, both directly and indirectly.

Whether it is members from the Bloc or the Conservatives, especially the Conservatives in their destructive approach to the House, rest assured that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians. That is why I would ask, again, about the concerns to stop the filibuster and let us start dealing with the important legislation that needs to be dealt with, along with other issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have a rare opportunity to talk about nuclear energy, although it is far too brief and without enough time for me to have a speaking slot.

The government over the years, starting with the government of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, began shovelling billions toward the nuclear industry and set up Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Then the government of Stephen Harper sold AECL for a song, at less than $17 million, to SNC-Lavalin. In all that time, there has never been a debate or a vote in the House on whether nuclear energy was a good idea.

The only prime minister who supported such an inquiry was the Right Honourable Joe Clark, and since his government was defeated, we have never had another chance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the idea that Canadians as a whole would not support the government's approach, whether it was the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau or that of the current Prime Minister in dealing with the issue of green energy and, in fact, the important role that nuclear energy plays in our communities today. We are talking about close to 60% of all power in Ontario. That is 16 million-plus people.

We are not in a position where we can ignore the need for nuclear energy.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of to unpack in my colleague's speech. First, whether it is still a question of small modular reactors, I will remind the House of the situation in New Brunswick. There were warnings that the two developers were young companies that needed money from the government. They always needed money from the government and taxpayers. It is funny, taxpayers are left footing the bill when small reactor companies go bankrupt. The New Brunswick nuclear power plant has been down for months and the province is nearly bankrupt.

My question is about Chalk River and the waste. Why will almost all the radioactive waste be moved to Chalk River?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, especially if I were from Atlantic Canada, I would find frustrating the degree to which members of the Bloc are prepared to write off Atlantic Canada, its energy needs and its potential to be a world leader in using offshore resources to generate power. When the Conservatives and the Bloc voted against that legislation, that was to the detriment of Atlantic Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard some nice words from the Liberals today about nuclear energy, which nuclear workers are used to. It is a lot of lip service but very little support. That is historical. It goes back decades and decades. The Liberals say one thing to one group and then something different to another group.

I am encouraged by the member's new and profound love of nuclear energy. I know the nuclear workers will probably be a little suspicious of the Liberals for a while now. However, where was he two years ago when his government labelled nuclear companies as sin stocks?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have actually been very focused on how we can support that industry. In fact, we can think about the legislation we passed in regard to net zero by 2050, which the Conservatives voted against, of course. Nuclear energy has to play a role in Canada being able to achieve net zero by 2050.

The Prime Minister and the government have consistently shown that we are looking toward sustainable development, caring for the environment and developing a stronger economy. This builds a stronger middle class in Canada, which is good for all of us. At the same time, we continue to work on programs that the Conservatives continue to oppose, such as dental care.

I did not even get a chance to talk about foreign interference and ask for the leader of the Conservative Party to do the right thing and get that done.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for agreeing to share his time with me. I especially thank my colleague from Repentigny for her leadership, her vision of a more pristine Quebec and Canada, and her commitment to bringing this debate forward today.

I rise to speak to the issue of nuclear waste and the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on this topic. This is not the first time I have raised the issue of nuclear power here in the House. I have asked various ministers questions but none of them have offered us any answer about the botched consultations with first nations on establishing a near surface nuclear waste disposal facility along the shores of a vital waterway that supplies drinking water to cities like Gatineau and Ottawa, among others.

Last night, as I was leaving Témiscamingue, after taking part in the Remembrance Day ceremony, I drove back along the Ontario highway that goes through the Chalk River site where construction of a near surface nuclear waste disposal facility is planned, at the same location and in close proximity to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL.

First, I cannot get over the fact that anyone can accept taking such a risk with drinking water. It makes no sense. It is a completely illogical decision. Why even consider burying nuclear waste near our drinking water source, which is so dear to our lives? Putting it at risk for highly toxic waste that we know can cause irreversible damage to our health and our environment is an absurdity that we cannot ignore. Neighbouring areas are home to precious biodiversity that could be irreparably damaged by this initiative. What a foreseeable mess. It is shameful.

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs is currently studying Bill C‑61, a bill on first nations water. I hope someone will put an end to this very risky project and that the ministers will stop being wilfully blind and start committing to respecting the will of the Anishinabe and their land where they practice their culture. In fact, they came to committee to oppose the Chalk River project and I asked them whether they had any concerns about the drinking water.

Having said that, there is also the issue of false indigenous claims, because that is what we are talking about here as well. In the pre-consultations, the government made room for “pretendians”. The government's actions have seriously harmed the Anishinabe people. It is inconceivable that, in 2024, no one is acknowledging this and we are still on the wrong track. The Algonquins of Ontario have no legitimacy to speak. These are Métis groups that are not currently recognized by law, and referring to them to build social licence is highly questionable.

Furthermore, as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories seeks to reassure the public that its storage mound will be secure, it is vital to remember that intermediate-level waste, while accounting for less than 2% of the volume, remains a major concern. This is waste that can last thousands of years, well beyond the promised monitoring period. We cannot afford to play games with the safety of our environment and our health for a project that, despite the technical promises, could have long-term consequences for our precious river. It is our duty to question and denounce this short-term vision, because the future of our region and its resources is at stake. We are talking about a one-million-cubic-metre reservoir of waste that they want to store right next to the Ottawa River, the Kichi Sibi, the rivière des Outaouais, which flows, let us not forget, just below Parliament Hill. This affects us directly.

Second, it is in violation of UNDRIP. This declaration emphasizes the need for informed and respectful consultation with communities affected by such projects. We know that there has not been adequate or sufficient consultation. I was there in August 2023 when they opposed the project. More importantly, I was at the Supreme Court when they challenged the decision, precisely because they had not been consulted. I would like to commend the leadership of the Anishinabe community of Kebaowek, in my riding, whose ancestral lands include the Chalk River territory, and its chief, Lance Haymond.

There is a very worrisome pattern of overlap between the roles of the government, the private sector and the lobbyists. I would like someone to explain that strategy to us. People who were appointed by the Liberals and who worked for ministers under this government are the ones who are on the ground right now campaigning for the nuclear industry. I am talking about former Liberal candidates and advisers to the justice, environment, indigenous affairs and industry ministers.

The former commissioner is currently in Europe lobbying for her company. The chair of a ministerial advisory committee was appointed as president of the commission. What is more, he is the owner of a nuclear company. Today, Lou Riccoboni, a former Liberal ministerial adviser and public servant, is introduced on the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories website as the vice-president of corporate affairs and vice-president of business development at CNL.

How much of taxpayers' money is being used to lobby ministers? He is a partner at Prospectus Associates, where he brags about assisting with procurement captures in the defence and nuclear sectors, including the first-ever government-owned, contractor-operated, or GoCo, management of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. That is not all. He is also the president of Nexus Government Services, a lobbying firm described on its site as assisting international companies pursue, position, capture, and execute significant federal government procurements. Looks like this is a small world with many close friends.

We have to ask questions and get to the bottom of things. The committee report is just the prelude to another scandal. The federal government is paying a consortium big bucks to manage its nuclear facilities, and the same consortium is lobbying the government to have its contract renewed. How much public money has been used to pay the salaries of these private industry executives so that they can lobby for big money? Did they disclose it on the lobbyist registry? No, they did not. When will there be real transparency? Honestly, the jig is up.

I am certain the Auditor General of Canada would be interested in Chalk River labs' contract renewal. Also, why is there such contempt for indigenous people? Why is hazardous material being moved to their land without notification? I would like someone to explain that to me. I look forward to seeing who is condoning everyone's actions in the House. On this side of the House, we have a talent for getting to the bottom of things and we will continue to do so.

We must question the transparency around this project. The contract for this waste site is about to be renewed without thorough review or open discussion in the House of Commons. This raises basic questions about the responsibility and diligence of our elected representatives. How could there have been no public discussion or democratic debate on an expense that exceeds the entire CBC/Radio-Canada budget, a considerable amount? It violates the very principle of transparency, whose implementation is long overdue.

Considering the recent declaration of bankruptcy by Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, which was also involved in an ambitious SMR project at the Chalk River lab, how much has the government already invested in this project and what financial risks did it take in pursuing its strategy of partnering on nuclear projects with the private sector? I hope the House gets some answers to these questions.

In conclusion, I invite all my colleagues to reflect deeply on these troubling issues and facts. The Anishinabe people are not the only ones paying the price for political decisions designed to separate them from their ancestral territory at a time of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. There is nothing encouraging about this project, whether in terms of transparency, good governance or management of public funds. Above all, there are environmental questions that arise, and I am still convinced that there is no such thing as zero risk. Waste will not just appear there. It will be transported, and there will be risks at every stage of transportation. We know that water has already leaked from the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories site. In this case, the incident was not made public because the laws are too lax.

I thank my colleagues for their attention and commitment to this fight for our future.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois member for his speech. However, there is one thing I did not hear mentioned even once, and that is the importance of nuclear energy. The focus seems to be on waste, which I can understand, but no one is talking about the importance of nuclear energy. In Canada, 15% of our electricity comes from nuclear power. In France, it is 63%. Nuclear power is a source of energy that emits no greenhouse gases and is inexpensive.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Is he for or against nuclear energy?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that makes me proud to be a Quebecker, it is the fact that we have turned our backs on nuclear power. We chose the safety of the people, both present and future generations, for centuries to come, even millennia. It was a responsible choice.

That said, Quebec and its border do not have to become the nuclear garbage dump for the rest of Canada. We know that small modular reactors are popping up, that they are going to be everywhere; that is the Canadian way. However, Quebec is assuming the risks, and that is totally unacceptable.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Chalk River site is directly opposite my riding. I am very concerned about the waste already there now, on the banks of the river. Although a plan exists to secure this waste, I would like to hear from my colleague about his plans for the waste currently on the riverbank, in an old building slated for demolition.

The current plan involves securing the waste. Does my colleague think the waste should be left at the site?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac for her interesting comment. I would like to add that 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario oppose this project, including the Pontiac RCM.

My colleague's question deserves an answer. Yes, nuclear activities were conducted at the Chalk River site a long time ago. Yes, a safe way and a safe location to store the waste must be found. I am especially concerned about the fact that waste is being classified at lower danger ratings so quickly these days, even though this will have long-term consequences.

To answer the question specifically, the Canadian Shield is certainly a safe location, if it were not for the fact that it sits atop a small hill from which water trickles down as it flows directly into the Ottawa River. That is totally unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having to ask my question in English.

The NDP's supplementary opinion to this report discussed, as the member spoke about, that numerous witnesses, like the chiefs from the Anishinabek Nation, talked about a lack of respect. One chief said that a nuclear waste management organization told his community that it could explain the process of nuclear processing, but the community would not understand it anyway.

Is that something the member heard consistently? This was one example, but in the desire to truly find out what Conservatives like to talk about as economic reconciliation—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am sorry. I want to leave enough time for the hon. member to answer the question. He should have an equal time to answer the question as the member had to ask it.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first nations have taken it upon themselves to respect and protect Mother Earth. In that regard, I commend their leadership, especially the leadership shown by the Kebaowek First Nation, which is being forced to challenge this in court. We are anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on this.

Let me share a personal anecdote that explains my fear of nuclear energy. I went to Fukushima with the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group, and we visited the city. Some of our colleagues here were with me. Once we got to the site, we saw a radioactivity index on a device we were wearing. Near a site that exploded 10 years ago, radiation levels were still above 72. This means that the problems we are going to experience could go on forever. We do not have the luxury of prioritizing short-term economics when making those decisions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

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.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent for his intervention, which represented his values well, all in all. I would like to appeal to him as a Quebecker. We know that the federal government has announced major investments in Volkswagen, Stellantis and Honda, all of which are located in Ontario. Why? It is because Ontario has no reservations about its energy needs.

That will cost it dearly later on, because it is choosing nuclear power. However, Quebec is the one that is going to bear the brunt of the risks Ontario is taking. If the Chalk River site has a spill or something, five million Quebeckers who live down the Ottawa River could suffer the consequences. My colleague trusts the experts, but I would remind him that it was experts who downgraded Chalk River and, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, they are industry people.

Would my colleague at least be in favour of an ARTEMIS review so that international experts could speak to the Chalk River issue—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will stop the clock for a moment so I can explain to everyone that I am trying to give each person 45 seconds of speaking time. This will allow members to ask a 45-second question, but also to give a 45-second answer. This way, a representative from each political party will be able to speak, and we may have enough time for a fifth question.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I was clear earlier when I said that nothing comes without risk. I think I was also clear when I said that Chalk River has been around for 80 years. I think I was clear when I said that hundreds of millions of people have benefited from the work that has been done at Chalk River. I think I also mentioned the major incident that occurred in 1952. Some of the people listening may not have known that Jimmy Carter came in response to that incident. The reality is that the record over those 80 years has been acceptable.

I do not need a lesson in Quebec nationalism or what it means to be a Quebecker from anyone. When I am here, I represent the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent, who are Quebeckers. When I am here, I am very proud to speak on behalf of Quebec, just as I am very proud to speak on behalf of Canada.