Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 469
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Professor Cooper. It is a pleasure to speak to you.
Much has been made—as you mention—of a nuclear renaissance. It seems to me that, since we have been talking about it, things have never gone so poorly. In Canada, we are in the process of reassessing it all. In fact, from your comments, we realize that the costs of constructing and refurbishing nuclear plants are enormous, not to mention the timelines. We have what went on at Point Lepreau as an example.
I live in Quebec. The refurbishing of the Gentilly nuclear plant has raised many questions. If you are familiar with that plant, perhaps you could tell me more about it. It has always seemed to me that nuclear energy was not really clean energy. In order to sell us on the idea of nuclear energy, we were told that it was clean energy because there were few CO2 emissions, but they forgot to talk to us about the disposal of nuclear waste.
I have two questions. If you are familiar with Gentilly, what do you think of the refurbishment of that plant? Because of the nuclear bubble that you are telling us about, have we not fallen behind in developing truly clean energy?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Tremblay. You may have to defend a toxic and volatile fuel. What do you think of what Professor Cooper has just told us?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Tremblay, the Ontario Government is planning or was planning to buy two new reactors for the Darlington plant. What is the status of that? Do you still intend to proceed with those purchases?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, madam. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
My name is Paule Brunelle, member for Trois-Rivières. The beautiful St. Lawrence flows in front of my house.
Mr. Ruest, are you still with us?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Good afternoon. First, I want to congratulate you and all the municipal elected representatives for your vigilance. We're talking about 125 municipalities here that alerted us and signed a petition. That's important.
Congratulations to you as well, Mr. Lapointe.
Mr. Ruest, Mr. Binder told us two days ago that you had been influenced by environmentalist groups. Listening to him, we got the impression that these were anti-nuclear groups and that they had even drafted the petition for you. He told us something even more important, as president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and that's that this first shipment would take place and that there would be others. We at the Bloc Québécois are concerned about the precedent that is setting.
What do you say to those comments?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
So you're suggesting that the licence be immediately withdrawn and that we adopt a policy.
I'm speaking to Mr. Lapointe and Mr. Ullrich. You're telling us that this might set a precedent. The Bruce Power station alone has 64 generators that will be decommissioned and that are likely to go the same way. You're telling us about an in-depth and rigorous environmental review.
In your view, is that a step that should be taken in advance? Is it important for you that we establish a policy, or is an environmental review enough?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you. One comment concerning the quantity of waste troubled me. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said that it was not possible to assess the quantity of waste that there actually was in the generators because they couldn't access them. So we really wonder.
Ms. Lynn, you're telling us that, at two metres from the generators, there's no problem; we're talking about radiation, but not contamination of drinking water. Have you assessed the potential consequences this could have for drinking water in the event of an incident during shipment? In my constituency, some citizens get alarmed simply because there's fluoride in the water they drink. We should really be reassured.
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
I, like other ordinary people, have a lot of questions about this initiative. I have here a copy of the resolutions against the shipping of nuclear waste passed by 61 municipalities, including Montreal and Quebec City, and by five Regional Municipalities. The Minister of Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec, Pierre Arcand, has criticized the way you operate. Do you not think that you have failed to provide people with sufficient information?
Bruce Power failed to inform people. It appears to me, that given the scale of the project, you were pretty cursory in your efforts. Minister Pierre Arcand pointed out to you in a letter that Quebeckers would feel the impact of any potential accident. To my mind, it is only natural that there be a public outcry. People are wondering why you authorized this shipment.
The public has always thought that waste should be dealt with where it is produced. Ontario chose nuclear power. It opted to operate nuclear power stations and, as a result, should dispose of its waste at home.
You contend that you are not setting a precedent. However, you are indeed creating a precedent in terms of the size of the generators. People are also concerned that other plants may be decommissioned and that the Saint Lawrence may become a nuclear waste highway. That would be quite simply unacceptable.
No matter your arguments about the small quantity of radioactive material and the low risk, the fact remains that there are dangers. People are worried. Why did you agree to conduct the assessment and authorize the project?
I really fail to understand. It seems to fly in the face of everything the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is supposed to stand for.
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Despite your contentions, there are concerns. Did you consider any alternative solutions as part of the project assessment process? We are aware, and you have confirmed this, that your role is to issue licenses. I have read your report, which is liberally peppered with arguments submitted by Bruce Power. You failed to mention the issue of plutonium. As a result, some people are contending that the shipment may exceed permitted limits. Your poor and scanty presentation undermines the message. You held two cursory public meetings. In addition, you failed to consider alternative solutions.
Is this due to shortcomings in the legislation? Should there not be an alternative solution? It appears to me that your role stops at assessing whether the project is dangerous and whether it can be authorized. However, it seems to me that you could have attempted to develop a plan B. Did you have a plan B?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
I will be sharing my time with Mr. Pomerleau.
Mr. Binder, I would like to pick up on a point you made. You clearly stated that if this shipment of nuclear waste goes well, further shipments may follow. As I see it, you are admitting that there would be a precedent. This worries me.
I would like to reference a separate multi-year initiative by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to identify a Canadian waste burial site. Apparently, the Canadian Shield would be the best place. I am sure you can see my concern. Would any waste disposal site in eastern Canada mean that the Saint Lawrence would become the main route for the transportation of nuclear waste? You have indicated that if this project goes well, it will lead to many more waste shipments.
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
Good afternoon gentlemen.
Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Hawthorne, but I think that your nuclear energy generation license requires you to specify the way you dispose of waste. Did you decide from the outset to ship the generators through the Saint Lawrence?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
Fine. You say that there are two facilities that recycle your type of waste, one in Sweden and the other in the United States. The United States would be a better choice and would avoid you having to ship through the Saint Lawrence. This would suit me down to the ground.
Have you developed a plan B for the disposal of the waste from these generators? Are you shipping through the Saint Lawrence because it is less expensive?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
What about insurance for this type of shipment? Not that there will be the slightest incident because you will not be shipping through the Saint Lawrence. Nevertheless, I would like to know what these policies cover and how much they cost. What are your obligations on this front?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
The vessel is just one aspect of the issue. However, it takes 10 years to train a pilot to navigate this highly difficult waterway. Part of the reason it is so challenging is because it is so narrow. This type of shipment raises concerns. I imagine that you are aware of this fact and that you will be using an officially-licensed Saint Lawrence pilot.
I have another question. You require authorization from the United States, the United Kingdom and Denmark for this initiative. Have you obtained this?
View Paule Brunelle Profile
BQ (QC)
One issue troubles me. Your company has stated publicly that if it were required to conduct an environmental assessment—which has been a possibility—it would abandon the project. Why? Would this entail additional costs for you? Have you lobbied the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission against an environmental assessment?
Results: 1 - 15 of 469 | Page: 1 of 32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data