Mr. Speaker, I will continue.
Industry witnesses repeatedly dismissed the public concerns and whistleblowing about the CNSC not acting at arm's length. Nevertheless, several witnesses and most of the briefs received by the Committee raised the appearance of a conflict of interest and recommended various solutions
Unfortunately, these concerns are not adequately reflected in the Committee's report. The Committee failed to provide an accurate overview of the cases that illustrated how the alleged conflict of interest [is possible]. As examples: the short deadlines in the consultation process, the refusal to release information requested, and so forth.
The Bloc Québécois submitted a balanced, implementable recommendation that would have placed Environment and Climate Change Canada in the CNSC's authority process, side-by-side with Natural Resources Canada. The Committee rejected our proposal.
Now let us talk about the near surface disposal facility, or NSDF, at Chalk River.
The critical principle of keeping radioactive waste away from source water is not being followed. In many respects, the project runs counter to the International Atomic Energy Agency...recommendations and guidelines.... Chalk River is located at the intersection of geological fractures and in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone, a seismic belt that spans the Ottawa Valley from Montreal to Temiscaming.... A significant volume of various radioactive wastes will be buried in the NSDF. Witnesses and experts pointed to the lack of clarity and identification of the substances to be placed in the mound.
The Bloc Québécois is extremely concerned about the hazards this project entails. The NSDF poses risks to the main tributary of the Ottawa River, a source of drinking water for millions.
First, there is the problem of the waste category. Specifically, I am referring to the “redefinition of what constitutes intermediate level radioactive waste, hidden inside CNSC ‘mega-regulation’ in June 2020”.
William Turner, a retired Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, or AECL, worker who lives in Deep River and Gilles Provost, a science journalist, said the following:
...we then run into a scientific absurdity: in physics, the level of radioactivity of a given substance depends on its decay rate. The faster it decays, the higher its activity. This means that a radioactive material with [higher] activity according to the law of physics, would now be low-level waste according to the new definition released by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission!
Can the impressive reduction of intermediate level waste inventories be explained...by this new [definition]?...Chalk River...is designed to accommodate only low-level waste.
It appears that, as a result of these regulations, intermediate level waste (according to physics) will end up in the mound, mixed in with low-level waste.
This also raises questions regarding the inventory at Chalk River. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL, invoked confidentiality. That is its privilege because it is private. However, we will never know the status of the inventory. “Invoking corporate secrecy provides cover for CNL...[however,] this should alert parliamentarians to exercise caution when it comes to the responsibilities of this consortium”.
I will go over some of our recommendations. In order to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest and thereby improve public trust in radioactive waste management and the nuclear industry in Canada, the committee recommends that the government make the necessary changes to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Financial Administration Act “so that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources.”
In another one of our recommendations, the committee recommends—