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.