Election 2019: What your candidates are saying ?

October 1, 2019

Caleb Nickerson

caleb@theequity.ca

Denise Giroux – NDP

1 – Mr Amos is on record as saying the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) would conduct an “independent, science-based process” to assess the safety of SNC Lavalin’s radioactive waste disposal plans at the Chalk River site.

As a lawyer, Mr. Amos should have been aware that the CNSC’s assessment practices are weak and its safety standards are well below international standards for nuclear waste management. Liberals hoped this boondoggle could be kept under the radar, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a damning report just last week revealing the extent to which his party is willing to ignore real risks so they can pay their friends at SNC Lavalin $1 billion a year!

Even a grade six science student understands that tonnes of nuclear waste piled on porous rock right next to the potable water of millions of Canadians is insanity; radioactivity cannot be filtered out and lasts thousands of years. It means the death of the Ottawa River and all the creatures who live in it.

We can’t trust the Nuclear Safety Commission. The IAEA reports the Commission’s rules which “guide” their assessment of proposals like SNC Lavalin’s are inadequate. Staffed by friends of both Harper and Trudeau, it includes no public health or waste management experts (ie. not part of the industry); none of them dare to ask whether nuclear waste management should be put in the hands of for-profit corporations at all.

Canada needs a strategy for Radioactive Waste Management. It needs to align the Commission’s radiation protection requirements with international safety standards at a minimum before any project is approved. Even now, Mr Amos suggests voters should be satisfied that he asked SNC to tweak their proposal for the same location. Just how far is he prepared to blindly follow his leader’s demands to protect their rich and powerful friends? Amos defends the indefensible. The region deserves a Member who will walk the talk.

2 – This project can’t go ahead: it is unnecessary, costly, and dirty; nuclear power is on its way out through much of the Western world. Who stands to benefit from it? Only the nuclear industry; there is no business rationale for expanding Canada’s energy supply in this direction. The model is still in development, its safety record very spotty. There is no plan for decommissioning the reactor or for dealing with the waste generated; the developers’ rely on the same friends at SNC Lavalin to manage all the radioactive waste generated from the Reactor in the giant mound beside the river. We need to insist the money used in this project is redirected to safe alternative energy sources.

Jonathan Carreiro-Benoit – Bloc Quebecois

1- It’s actually a total mess, we are in 2019. You know, if you agree or not with this project, you should take a step back and look on the disaster potential. Let’s say the Near Surface Disposal Facility has a breach in it, basically all the Great Lakes basin would be contaminated. Even if the security is the number one on the list, I will not take this big risk. I think the federal government should take part in the economic and social transition for our future. The sustainable development match with green energy and what I just said, if we have investments for this kind of project in Pontiac, we are able to promote the hydropower of Quebec and all our SMEs. The Bloc’s plan is built for the future of our families and our industries. So we need to play more safely and logically with the environment.

2- It is obvious that I will categorically oppose to this project. As with the Near Surface Disposal Facility, the Small Modular Reactors is not going in the way of an environmentally friendly idea. So it’s not a sustainable development, and it will harm the quality of life from the population near Chalk River and the beauty of the landscapes. There are so many ways to obtain and make energy with renewable resources. Developing small modular reactors does not change the fact that nuclear energy has dangers and it is not a green resource. We have to put this money in the development of eco-friendly projects and energy like wind or hydroelectricity. We have to think about the future of the next generations.

Dave Blackburn – Conservative Party

I am not in a position to comment on this issue because the Conservative Party’s election platform has not yet been released.

However, on a personal note, I have serious concerns about installing a nuclear dump a few metres from the Ottawa River. I am a university researcher by training and for me, it is absolutely essential to have independent scientific research results to consider all the ins and outs of this important issue.

Will Amos – Liberal Party

1- I have consistently been a champion for the protection of the Ottawa River, and will always support stronger measures to ensure we can swim, drink and fish in our watershed for generations to come. There is no question that our Liberal government is committed to resolving the radioactive waste liability that Chalk River already represents.

I have been transparent, accountable and actively engaged with constituents, groups and CNL on the NSDF file. As early as 2016, I brought the concerns of Pontiac constituents to the attention of our Liberal government and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This led, in part, to formal demands by federal departments like Environment Canada and DFO (Fisheries and Oceans) for CNL to provide more detailed project information before they could submit a final project for Commission review. CNL has yet to submit complete information and no final project submission has been sent to the CNSC at this time. I will remain fully engaged in this process and will never compromise on protections for the Ottawa River.

2 – We all know that we need to be transitioning away from fossil fuels to clean and sustainable energy sources. Nuclear technology has the potential to produce a clean source of energy, including to rural and remote communities. In Canada, nuclear activities fall within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. Its role encompasses research and development, as well as the regulation of all nuclear materials and activities in Canada. The federal government has an established comprehensive legislation framework which focuses on protecting health, safety, security and the environment. That said, the decision to invest in electricity generation rests with the provinces. It is up to the provinces, in concert with the relevant provincial energy organizations/power utilities, to determine whether or not new nuclear power plants should be built.

Therefore, while a Liberal government will always place top priority on health, safety, security and the environment in relation to nuclear activities in Canada, Ontario would be responsible for determining whether the proposed Small Modular Reactor project could go ahead at Chalk River. A license from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would also be required for the project, and a federal environmental assessment must be completed before a license can be granted. As MP, I will always fight for the protection of the Ottawa River Watershed.

Mario Belec – People’s Party

1 – One of our environmental priorities is the protection of water, soil and the air, and in this perspective it is imperative that the Chalk River complex be moved much further inland, we also want to ensure, as part of our environmental commitment, that all Canadians, including First Nations, have access to safe drinking water, we want a country that flourishes both economically and environmentally, this will be our legacy for future generations.

2 – If we really look at the bottom of things, we realize that if we really want to be green for the planet, nuclear energy is the cleanest. Now, are we willing to take the risk? Personally, I believe that the new generation of nuclear complex is on the cutting edge of technology, but we still have to convince the rest of the population. It does not matter, whether we are for or against nuclear power, the Chalk River facility do not have the right to be along our river, again it would have to be move inland.

Claude Bertrand – Green Party

1- As the candidate for the Green Party, I am firmly opposed to the construction of the proposed storage site in the vicinity of the Chalk River nuclear facility.

The construction of this above ground nuclear waste landfill is unacceptable, primarily because of the proposed location. Any risk of leakage or seepage of radioactive material into the Ottawa River will undermine the confidence in the safety of the water supply for the millions of people who live along the Ottawa River and the St-Lawrence.

CNL’s prime motivation for burying the low intensity nuclear waste at the Chalk River site is financial; they want to save money. Any nuclear storage facility will require personnel to supervise the facility, collect water samples and measure the radioactivity in the vicinity of the site on a regular basis. If the facility was located in a more remote location, away from a major tributary, the cost of keeping nuclear engineers and technicians at such a location would be greater than it would be if the storage site was kept at Chalk River.

Not only is CNL planning on digging out the low intensity nuclear waste that is presently buried at Chalk River, even though it has not yet received approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build the facility, CNL has already started receiving from other nuclear plants from Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and even from the United States. Thus, it could be said that the proposed above ground nuclear waste land fill is only a “foot in the door” and it may not be unreasonable to suspect that this low intensity storage site is not CNL’s end game.

At first, CNL had stated its intention on storing low and medium intensity nuclear waste but after public outcry, CNL renounced the storing medium intensity nuclear waste. It must be said that the distinction between low and medium intensity not completely clear.

Not surprisingly, CNL’s record of practices in storing its nuclear waste is not sterling. As recently as two weeks ago, an international team of 24 specialists, including 20 experts in nuclear regulations from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) carried out an audit at the urging of five First Nations and 40 groups of concerned citizens. In its report, the IAEA recommends that the Canadian Government bolster its policies and management strategies pertaining to nuclear waste. It also suggests that the CNSC considers aligning its safety standards with those of the IAEA.

2 – Some praise the concept of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as the new beginning of nuclear electricity generation. A number of designs are being researched and developed in the United States and other countries but as anything involving nuclear energy, the design, prototyping and long-term testing of such designs is a very long haul indeed.

Now that we face a climate emergency, it has been said that SMRs may be the energy bridge our society needs to generate electricity after phasing out coal, natural gas and diesel power generating stations. We must keep in mind that even though we have been building cars for a long time, it still takes from three to five years to design, build and test cars even though they all incorporate time-proven technology. It will take a very long time to develop, prototype, test and refine SMRs, and very long time to test there reliability and durability in order to demonstrate the safety of such reactors.

More importantly, the Achilles heel of the case for nuclear power remains the issue of waste disposal. To date, there exists no permanent solution to the disposal of nuclear waste. The Green Party of Canada cannot support a nuclear energy strategy for which there is no proven long term waste disposal solution.

Register or subscribe to read this content

Thanks for stopping by! This article is available to readers who have created a free account or who subscribe to The Equity.

When you register for free with your email, you get access to a limited number of stories at no cost. Subscribers enjoy unlimited access to everything we publish—and directly support quality local journalism here in the Pontiac.

Register or Subscribe Today!