Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative Party. Another Bloc Québécois recommendation was:
...that the Government of Canada, through the Department of Natural Resources, review its governance practices on the boards of directors of AECL and the CNSC to ensure that they are different from each other; and that seats be set aside for members of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.
We also recommended that:
...in order to respect the principles of public consultation, the 140 municipalities and the large number of Indigenous communities that have specifically called for more rigour in the Chalk River NSDF project, Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conduct a regional environmental study as soon as possible.
I am spending a lot of time talking about the NSDF because the drinking water of millions of Quebeckers is at stake here, and this touches on everything the indigenous communities have spoken out against. I am going to list 10 reasons why we should oppose the project. They are detailed in a document written by Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
First, the mound drains into the Ottawa River. The group says the following:
The Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) site was chosen for proximity to soil that is seriously radioactive from the nuclear research centre at Chalk River. It is on the side of a hill, partly surrounded by wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River less than one kilometre away [I invite the people who are in favour of the project to go drink the water from the river]. The site is tornado and earthquake prone; the Ottawa River is a major fault line. Underlying bedrock at the site is porous and fractured and the groundwater table is very close to the surface.
Second, the enormous mound would hold more than one million tonnes of hazardous radioactive waste, as the group indicates:
The NSDF would rise up to seven storeys in height [on the hill. Modelled after an ordinary municipal dump, it will] cover an area the size of 70 NHL hockey rinks. Waste destined for the mound has accumulated over eight decades of operation at Chalk River Laboratories; waste is also being imported [from other domestic and international sites] for emplacement in the mound. It would contain dozens of radioactive and hazardous materials and tonnes of heavy metals [I will not list them all, there really are too many of them]. Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 sources in the dump would give off so much intense gamma radiation that workers must use lead shielding to avoid dangerous radiation exposures. The International Atomic Energy Agency says these are “intermediate-level waste” and require emplacement underground [should not be on a mound]. Dioxin, PCBs, asbestos, mercury, up to 13 tonnes of arsenic and hundreds of tonnes of lead would go into the dump. It would also contain thousands of tonnes of copper and iron, tempting scavengers to dig into the mound after closure.
There is so much waste inside the mound. It is appalling.
Third, the Algonquin first nations and the Assembly of First Nations oppose the plan. I will let my colleague for Abitibi—Témiscamingue discuss the objections of indigenous communities and the Assembly of First Nations in greater detail.
Fourth, this waste site threatens the drinking water of millions of Canadians. We read the following:
The NSDF site is partly surrounded by wetlands that drain through Perch Lake into the Ottawa River, which is the drinking water source for millions of Canadians downstream including Ottawa, Gatineau and parts of Montreal. The mound is expected to leak during operation and break down due to erosion. Studies predict several types of leakage will occur during filling and after closure of the facility. The waste water plant for the NSDF would discharge contaminated water containing large quantities of tritium...and smaller quantities of many other radioactive substances [there are too many for me to list]. The proponent’s Performance Assessment study suggests the mound will break down after its predicted design life of 550 years and contents will be released to the environment and Ottawa River.
People may take the short-sighted view and say it does not matter, since we will not be here in 550 years. However, others will come after us.
Fifth, there is no safe level of exposure to the radiation that would leak into the Ottawa River. We read as follows:
All of the escaping radioactive materials would increase risks of birth defects, genetic damage, cancer and other chronic diseases. The International Atomic Energy Agency says radioactive wastes must be isolated from the biosphere.
Sixth, waste will remain radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. This point reads as follows:
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says wastes like those produced by Chalk River Laboratories...are likely to be “intermediate-level” and in some cases even “high-level,” requiring emplacement tens of meters or more underground.
Reactor accidents have already occurred at Chalk River.
A former senior manager in charge of legacy radioactive wastes at Chalk River Laboratories says the waste proposed for the facility is “intermediate level” and requires underground emplacement. He says the mound would be hazardous and radioactive for many thousands of years, and that radiation doses from the facility would exceed allowable levels.... The radioactive waste will outlive the facility for many thousands of years.
Seventh, 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario oppose the NSDF. This point reads as follows:
More than 140 municipalities, including Pontiac County, Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal have passed resolutions of opposition or serious concern about the proposed project. The City of Ottawa resolution specifically asked for imports of waste to the Ottawa Valley to be stopped; the request was disregarded by the consortium.
Eighth, Canadian taxpayers are paying, but a multinational consortium is calling the shots. The group says the following:
Cleanup of the site was originally estimated to cost $8 billion in 2015 when a multinational consortium called “Canadian National Energy Alliance” was contracted by the Harper government to manage the Chalk River site and clean up the radioactive waste there and at other federally owned facilities. Since the consortium took over, costs to Canadian taxpayers for the operation and cleanup at Canada’s nuclear labs have ballooned from $336 million dollars per year to over $1.5 billion per year....Texas-based Fluor Corporation, which paid $4 million to resolve allegations of financial fraud related to nuclear waste cleanup....
This issue therefore also includes the matter of financial fraud associated with the cleanup of nuclear waste.
Ninth, building the NSDF will destroy critical habitat for protected species. We all know about the importance of biodiversity. This point reads as follows:
The NSDF site is very rich in biodiversity due to the fact that it has been fenced off to humans for 80 years. Proximity to the Ottawa River and Perch Lake make it a good feeding ground for larger mammals.... The mature forest on the site hosts three endangered bat species, and several at-risk migratory birds, including Golden-Winged Warblers, Canada Warblers, and Whip-poor-wills. Indigenous led research revealed a healthy population of threatened Eastern Wolves extensively using the site; the Indigenous researchers also found three active dens of Black Bears, protected under Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. In January 2024, Kebaowek First Nation wrote to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada asking for the permit to clearcut the site to be denied.
Tenth, there are better ways to dispose of waste. The group says the following:
An ARTEMIS peer review coordinated by the International Atomic Energy Agency could provide valuable information to the Government of Canada about the best practices for managing wastes like those at Chalk River.
Those were their 10 points. The group also states that “[f]ederal government action to halt the NSDF project is urgently needed.”
This brings me to my conclusion. The voices of the people and organizations that contributed to this study through their testimony and submissions did not all generate the same level of interest at the report-writing stage. Discussions were held among committee members on the merit, or lack thereof, of certain written contributions. Choices were made to include some and exclude others, depending on individual leanings.
Hundreds of Canadians are demanding an explanation about the false statements made by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization over the last few years. However, no explanations are forthcoming. Nothing further has been heard. The Bloc Québécois believes that a study that has gathered well-researched content from the public and is backed by sources and links to support its assertions is a worthy contribution and has merit. Obviously, when such a large number of submissions express positions that clash with the industry's own positions, the content might well be selectively chosen.
The report reflects the choices made by the members of the government and the official opposition. The Bloc Québécois believes that it does not adequately serve the public or the common good.
When these voices feel they are not being heard...citizens turn to the public authority in which they have the most trust and believe they will truly be heard: the democratically elected representatives....
Then again, the democratically elected representatives need to listen.
Everyone should be concerned about efforts to “dismiss individuals and organizations (including many academics, as well as technical and scientific experts from the industry) who specifically bring up alarming issues that affect human health and the environment”. What people want is information. They do not want propaganda.
“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”, but Chalk River is moving us away from that goal.
We stand in solidarity with communities across the country, whether indigenous or non-indigenous, that have serious doubts about the nuclear industry. Our struggles are similar and are linked.