Over recent weeks, there has been much discussion in
THE EQUITY on the proposal to build a nuclear waste dump at Chalk River.
We have seen letters to the editor and opinion articles both for and against. We have reported the statements made by citizens at a public forum convened by the warden. There have been news stories reflecting the . . .
views of citizens’ groups such as the Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, Pontiac Environment Protection and Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
We have heard the views of First Nations, elected officials at the municipal, provincial and federal levels and of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, the proponent of the proposed Near-Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF).
We’ve read Ole Hendrickson’s arguments that, among others, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) should not consider approving the NSDF until the completion of a nuclear waste management audit, currently being conducted by the Auditor General, and the culmination of the federal government’s “engagement process to modernize Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy” launched by NRCan in 2020.
We have heard the objections raised by Chief Lance Haymond of Kebaowek First Nation over the lack of meaningful consultation with First Nations communities since the project began in 2016 that would see the construction of the dump on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabeg lands.
We have witnessed the expression of overwhelming solidarity among mayors of MRC Pontiac and the Municipality of Pontiac in their concern about the risks the dump would pose to the Ottawa River and their opposition to the current proposal.
We have seen the Pontiac Environment Protection (PEP) argument that the NSDF project fails to meet International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety standards for the disposal of radioactive wastes, and fails to satisfy provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and so, on both counts, fails to fulfill commitments recognized in Canadian law.
We have read of Pontiac MP Sophie Chatel’s concerns about these and numerous other aspects of the proposal which she plans to raise at the public hearings.
There have also been expressions of support for the proposal. One was in the form of a letter to the editor suggesting that many of the safety concerns are overblown. A nuclear worker intervening at the warden’s public forum asserted that his employers at CNL are very careful and that there are many Pontiac residents, like him, who earn their living there. There was a comment by one mayor at the MRC discussion that he had lived much of his life within close range of nuclear facilities and was not concerned about the risks, and by another who expressed appreciation for CNL’s contribution to the Pontiac economy. And we heard from CNL itself, in the form of both an opinion article and various paid advertisements.
All in all, there has been a good airing of the issues surrounding this challenging question. Whatever is decided by the CNSC regarding the granting of a licence to CNL to proceed with its current proposal, Pontiac will not have been silent on the matter.
The allure of the Pontiac derives not just from its natural beauty but from the fact that behind its appearance lies a healthy environment. A place where swimming, paddling and fishing in its rivers, hiking, skiing and snowmobiling through its hills and forests, and eating food grown across its rolling farmland are all good for the physical and mental well-being of anyone lucky enough to live here or just visiting for a nourishing break from their hectic lives elsewhere.
Those of us who derive sustenance from the Pontiac cannot afford to consider ourselves merely as its residents. We must also be its protectors. This is why we must speak up, and why we are grateful for the individuals, citizens’ groups and elected officials who have been speaking up and who will continue to do so, making our concerns heard, loud and clear, at the public hearings next week.
Charles Dickson
