(Douze heures trente minutes)
La Modératrice : Bonjour et
bienvenue à ce point de presse de Québec solidaire. Prendront la parole Mme
Manon Massé, M. Alexandre Leduc et le Chief Lance Haymond.
Mme Massé : Oui, bien,
bonjour, tout le monde. Merci d'être là. Comme vous le voyez, aujourd'hui, je
suis accompagnée du Chief Haymond et de mon collègue Alexandre Leduc. Parce qu'hier,
pas plus tard qu'hier, j'ai envoyé une lettre et au premier ministre du Québec
et au ministre de l'Environnement pour leur demander, explicitement, de se
prononcer sur le dossier de... du dépotoir de pollution nucléaire que
représente Chalk River, et je leur ai demandé de prendre position contre, parce
que le Québec est en danger.
Je vais laisser le chef Haymond vous le
présenter, parce que lui, c'est un porteur, un leader, quelqu'un qui, depuis
plusieurs mois, voire années, essaie d'amener le gouvernement canadien à
reculer sur sa décision. Et nous, notre attente, c'est que le gouvernement du
Québec le... somme le gouvernement canadien de reculer. Chef Haymond... ah! j'ai
oublié de le dire, de la... de la nation Kebaowek, je suis vraiment désolée.
Chef Haymond...
M. Haymond
(Lance) :
Thank
you very much and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to say a few words
today. So, «kwe». Good afternoon. Bonjour. Lance... My name is Lance Haymond.
I'm the chief of the Algonquin Community of Kebaowek. And today I stand before
you in partnership with the Québec solidaire, the Parti québécois, whose
support for our cause has been unwavering.
We're gathered here
because of the fate of our lands, our waters and the future of our communities
is at a crossroads. Kebaowek First Nation has been at the forefront of
resisting the proposed near-surface disposal facility, a dangerous nuclear
waste site proposed by the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories on the unceded lands
of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people near the Ottawa River. This project has
sparked widespread opposition from Indigenous nations, environmental
organizations and municipalities across Québec and Ontario. It poses
significant risks to our health, the environment, biodiversity, and we will
continue to fight against it in all available arenas.
In January and February
of 2024, I had the first opportunity to meet with Minister Charette and
Lafrenière to express our deep concerns about this project. We had... We have
been advocating tirelessly to make sure our voices are heard. We've written letters,
launched a fundraising campaign to support our legal challenge and have filed
three judicial reviews against this project, some in collaboration with other
environmental groups, the Canadian Nuclear Coalition and the Sierra Club
Foundation. We are committed to challenging this decision at every level, and
we will not stop until we have justice for our people and our lands.
We're still waiting for
the decisions in the judicial reviews but barring a negative decision in all
likelihood we will appeal to the next level of court. And I'm sure that if the
decision is rendered in our favor, Canada will also appeal the decision.
One of our legal
challenges is grounded in the fact that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
approved this project without obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of
the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, including Kebaowek First Nation. This is a
violation of our rights under the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous People and the Canadian Constitution. For us, this is not just about
a project. This is about upholding the principles of respect, justice,
sovereignty that should be the foundation of every decision made by the
Canadian Government.
The support we have
received from over 140 municipalities and from political organizations such as
the Bloc québécois, and I want to give a shout out to Jean-François Blanchette
and Sébastien Lemire, who, at the federal levels, have been doing the same
great work that the Québec solidaire and the Parti québécois are doing here in
the province. They've been a strong advocate for Canada to do better.
We have also the support
of 20 environmental organizations and as a testament to the strength of our
movement. You understand that this is not just a matter of environmental
protection, but a matter of human rights, safety, Indigenous rights and
accountability for our future generations. You know, we should not be
supporting projects that leave a mess for our future generations to take care
of when we can solve that problem today.
The risks are staggering.
Should contamination occur, harmful isotopes like tritium, cesium 137 and other
dangerous isotopes could enter the Ottawa River, impacting the health and
livelihood of countless people. Beyond that, the project threatens local
biodiversity, bear dens, the eastern wolf and numerous species at risk. This
site is a biodiversity hotspot, and the proposed project would clear-cut old
growth forests, damage ecosystems that have been home to endangered species
like the Blanding's turtle, the Canadian warbler and many species of bats.
We must act now to ensure
the future generations will not suffer the consequences of a poor decision made
recklessly today. The Québec Government has a responsibility to stand with us
in this fight. It is not enough to remain silent on this issue. The people of
Québec and Ontario, including over 140 municipalities, including Gatineau and
Montréal, have spoken, this project must not go forward. We also call on... The
Québec Government must take a stand on the health of... safety of its citizens
for the protection of its natural resources.
Le gouvernement du Québec doit prendre
position pour la santé et la sécurité de ses citoyens ainsi que pour la
protection de ses ressources naturelles.
We also call on Québec to
advocate for stricter regulations when it comes to nuclear waste management.
The lack of transparency in Canadian nuclear laboratories' application about
the origin, quantity and characteristics of the waste, a requirement under
Canadian law, undermines public trust. We are here today to ask the Québec
Government to, number one, publicly demand a halt to the NSDF project and
demand the Federal Government to reexamine its approval, with appropriate and
proper consultation, amplify the voices of over 140 municipalities that have
formally opposed this project, and ensure their concerns are addressed in the
National Assembly.
Nous sommes ici aujourd'hui pour demander
au gouvernement du Québec d'exiger publiquement au gouvernement fédéral l'arrêt
du projet afin qu'il revoie l'approbation, avec une consultation adéquate.
Québec's leadership is
essential. The Federal Government cannot move forward with this project without
a thorough re-examination, considering the impacts on the environment, public health
and, more importantly, on our indigenous rights. We need Québec to act, we need
Québec to stand with us. We are not just fighting for Kebaowek, we are fighting
for every community that relies on the Ottawa river, for every species that
calls this land home, and for the future generation, that deserves a world free
from the dangers of mismanaged nuclear waste. We will continue this fight, and
we will not back down. Non aux déchets nucléaires près de nos cours
d'eau.
«Meegwetch», merci, thank you very much.
La Modératrice : On va
continuer avec M. Leduc.
M. Leduc : Moi, ce que je
vois devant nous, c'est quelque chose d'assez impressionnant, plusieurs partis
politiques, provinciaux, fédéraux, qui sont inquiets, 140 municipalités,
des dizaines et des dizaines de municipalités qui sont inquiètes, des nations,
des Premières Nations autochtones qui sont inquiètes. En politique, ça
s'appelle un consensus, un consensus québécois. Qu'est-ce que fait le
gouvernement du Québec à ne pas reconnaître ce consensus là québécois et à ne
pas le mettre en valeur, à ne pas le défendre auprès du gouvernement canadien?
On le connaît, le... le gouvernement de la
CAQ, toujours prêt à... à expliquer ce qui ne va pas bien au Québec sur le dos
du gouvernement fédéral. Des fois, il a raison. Cela dit, là, ce serait bien
qu'il confronte le gouvernement fédéral, qu'il s'exprime, le gouvernement du
Québec. Son silence, je ne me... je ne comprends pas ce qui se passe. C'est un
consensus, en ce moment, au Québec, qui se construit contre ce projet-là. Il
faut que le gouvernement du Québec s'exprime, il faut qu'il soit du bon bord de
l'histoire. On devrait faire ce point de presse là avec Benoit Charette, le
ministre de l'Environnement. Où est-il? Où est la CAQ? Manon a écrit une lettre
importante au premier ministre sur le sujet. J'ai bien hâte de l'entendre, M.
Charette, dans les prochains jours.
La Modératrice : Merci. On
passe à la période des questions, une question, une sous-question.
Journaliste : Oui, bonjour.
François Carabin, Le Devoir. Je vais commencer avec une question en
français, mais j'aimerais que M. Haymond y réponde. Ensuite, là, je pourrais la
reposer en anglais, à la limite. Mme Massé, ça a été mentionné que le... le
ministre de l'Environnement, le ministre des Affaires autochtones ont tous deux
rencontré la nation de Kebaowek il y a un an aujourd'hui. Comment vous
expliquez qu'un an plus tard il n'y ait toujours pas de position claire, là, du
gouvernement du Québec dans ce dossier-là?
Mme Massé : C'est... votre
question est superpertinente, M. Carabin, je me pose exactement la même
question. Comment se fait-il, lorsqu'ils sont allés... ils ont discuté, avec le
chef Haymond, l'engagement de dire que le gouvernement du Québec reconnaît que
les Premières Nations ne sont pas trop bien consultées... Moi, je trouve que
ça, là, c'est vraiment un plancher en termes d'engagement. Mais le... mais M.
Charette avait, à ce moment-là, dit qu'il allait considérer son positionnement
politique... ce n'est pas ses mots, je le paraphrase... son positionnement
politique en matière du pour ou contre le projet de dépotoir, et, un an plus
tard, on n'a toujours pas de pour ou contre. On sait que la lettre a été
envoyée à M. Guilbeault, mais on n'a toujours pas de positionnement pour ou
contre.
Et aujourd'hui, à Québec solidaire, on
vient dire au gouvernement de la CAQ : Il est grandement temps, au nom de
ce consensus québécois, au nom de vos concitoyens québécois et québécoises et
des gens des Premières Nations, qui s'inquiètent... Le principe de précaution
devrait s'appliquer dans notre loi environnementale, il existe, et ça voudrait
dire, à cette étape-ci, de refuser le projet de Chalk River.
Journaliste : Chef Haymond,
est-ce que vous préférez que je répète ma question en anglais?
M. Haymond (Lance) : Pardon?
Journaliste : Do you prefer that I ask the question in English?
M. Haymond
(Lance) :
Yes,
if you could.
Journaliste :
So, I was wondering, how do you explain
that one year after meeting with Mr. Lafrenière and Mr. Charette, there're
still hasn't been any change of position on the part of the government of
Québec?
M. Haymond
(Lance) :
So, I
can't speak for Minister Charrette, or Minister Lafrenière, but we had hope
that, you know, based on those first meetings that we had in January and
February, it was good that, you know, they pushed the Federal Government to do
a better job of consulting us. But, at the same in those meetings, we expected
that over time the Provincial Government would take a position on these
projects. Because what seems to be happening here is that when we say that the
project is in Chalk River, everybody says, «Well, that's Ontario, you know, so
why is it a concern for Québec?» Well, half of the Ottawa River is in the
province of Québec, and nuclear waste doesn't car whether it's being dump in
the Ontario or the Québec site. So, the silence that we're hearing from the
Provincial Government, again, I don't want to be speculative, but I feel that
they don't want to take a position because eventually they might have to talk
about sending some of the decommission waste from Gentilly-1 and 2 to Chalk
River to eventually be buried there. So, I think, you know, the silence speaks
to itself, is this government has to worry about its own nuclear waste and
what's it is to do with it. and maybe, you know, worrying about coming out
against a project that eventually some of the waste that will come from this
province may end up being transported to the very facility that we're asking
them to oppose.
Journaliste : M. Leduc ou Mme
Massé, j'aimerais juste savoir... En fait, dans le contexte actuel
d'incertitude économique, on se pose beaucoup de questions aussi sur l'énergie,
là, au Québec. Qu'est-ce que vous pensez que ça va avoir comme impact sur ce
projet-là d'enfouissement de déchets nucléaires? Est-ce que vous craignez que
le gouvernement du Québec profite de l'incertitude pour donner son accord, par
exemple, à...
M. Leduc : Pour relancer
Gentilly?
Journaliste : Bien, donner
son... Bon, on peut aller là, mais je...
M. Leduc : ...
Journaliste : Sur l'ensemble
de la filière nucléaire.
M. Leduc : O.K. Là, on
pourrait spéculer sur Gentilly aujourd'hui, mais c'est sûr qu'au regard de
la... le retour surprise d'Énergie Est et de GNL Québec dans l'actualité des
dernières semaines, ça serait juste une surprise de plus et, avec le
gouvernement Trump, on est de surprise en surprise de jour en jour. Est-ce que
je crains un retour de Gentilly? Pour l'instant, on n'en a pas entendu parler.
Fitzgibbon avait évoqué ça à l'époque, il n'est plus ministre. J'espère qu'on
ne reviendra pas avec un débat sur le nucléaire au Québec. J'espère que c'est
bel et bien enterré ce projet-là du nucléaire. Il faut qu'on se sèvre des
hydrocarbures, mais pour ce faire, il faut qu'on tourne vers l'énergie verte.
Il ne faut pas qu'on commence à retourner dans le nucléaire. On ferait un pas
en avant pour faire deux pas en arrière si on avait besoin du nucléaire pour se
sevrer des hydrocarbures. Ça serait une très mauvaise idée.
Journaliste : Kwe. Shushan Bacon, Espaces autochtones, Radio-Canada. Lance,
my question will be easy, but I would like to ask you, nobody want to listen
you instead of them. But why you don't give up?
M. Haymond (Lance) : Why we
don't want to give up?
Journaliste : Why you don't
want to give up about...
M. Haymond (Lance) : Well, again, because, as we indicated in our opposition to this
project, we've been opposing this project since it was first discussed in 2015.
We've putting forward our concerns in the fact that it's not a very well tough
out project. The technology that they want to use is not the appropriate, and,
of course, the site selection and the location is a really bad idea. Because
the nuclear dump that they are proposing, it's going to take them 50 years to
fill up that dump, and in those 50 years, it's going to rain, we're going to
continue to have episodes of climate changes, and in this time, until they put
a cover on it, all of that waste is going to leach. And then, you're going to
put a cover on it, and in 500 years they said that it's going to be
radioactive. We don't believe them.
So, at the end of the
day, you know, as an indigenous person... And clearly, we have a sacred
responsibility. And I've been reminded, at many times, by the women of my
community, that we need to protect the water. And so, at the end of the day,
that's exactly what we're doing. We're fulfilling our sacred responsibility to
ensure the protection of the environment, the continuation of the biodiversity.
And, at the end of the day, protecting the water as we were asked to do, not
only for us, but also for the future generations and the many millions of
people who depend on the Ottawa River for sustenance and for water.
So, we're not giving up
and we're going to continue this fight because it's the most important fight
that we've determined that's... that our nation needs to take on. And, if we
don't do it, nobody else is going to do it. And we don't want our future
generations to have to deal with a problem in 500 years. So, that's why we're
taking everything and the fight that we've done. And again, recognizing we're a
small First Nation community in the middle of nowhere, Québec, and we have...
don't have a whole lot of financial resources. But yet, we're going to court
engaging the best legal representatives that are available in this country to
help us with our fight. Because fundamentally, we believe that the protection
of the environment has to be the number one priority. Because, without water,
none of us are going to be able to survive. So, why would we risk, you know,
that water supply by approving a project that has the potential... I would go
even farther. It doesn't have the potential; it will over time contaminate the
Ottawa River to a point where our water will become undrinkable. It may not be
today and it may not be tomorrow, but it will happen. And we would like to make
sure that we do everything we can to stop that now so it doesn't happen in the
future.
Journaliste :
And, with this action, what do you hope
to have?
M. Haymond
(Lance) :
What
we hope to have is the recognition of our rights, and our ability to make
decisions for ourselves on our land will be used. We also hope to see that
Canada will implement in its full value the United Nations UNDRIP. Because
again, Canada professed that they would do this. And there's an article under
UNDRIP, 29.2, that says: No nuclear waste will be deposited or stored on the
territories of First Nations without their proper consent. Consent has not been
given in this matter. So, we want, at least, the decision to go back to the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and include the elements of UNDRIP in its
analysis and its final decision. We think it'll come with a different outcome
in court. Because Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission refused to take UNDRIP
into consideration, they said it wasn't a part of their responsibility. But
when Canada adopts that as their law, it absolutely becomes a part of their
responsibility to consider it in the decision. So, we want the decision to go
back and to see CNSC to take in all the information, including our own self-assessment
that we presented in August of 2023, that they, again, did not take into
consideration before they rendered a decision in January of 2024 to license the
nuclear safety, the nuclear waste dump project in Chalk River.
Journaliste : Bonjour. Savanna,
APTN. Ma question s'adresse à Manon Massé. Qu'espérez-vous accomplir en faisant
une déclaration dans une affaire opposant le gouvernement fédéral à une
première nation?
Mme Massé : Chef Haymond
vient de le nommer, on a des responsabilités comme allochtones, et l'État
québécois, comme l'État canadien, a des engagements face aux droits des
Premiers Peuples. Et ici, on a un exemple pétant que le Canada ne respecte pas
la déclaration des Nations unies pour les droits des peuples autochtones. Et donc,
par conséquent, nous, ici, au Québec, qui avons des responsabilités
environnementales, question de compétence, on a des responsabilités
environnementales, et on n'a pas pris position pour dire non à un tel projet. Il
n'y a pas de consultation des Premières Nations. Et le principe de précaution
dans la loi environnementale devrait, sans aucune question, faire dire au
gouvernement du Québec : Ça n'a pas de bon sens, ce projet-là.
Alors donc, c'est dans cet esprit-là
qu'aujourd'hui on est vraiment contents et contentes de marcher au côté de la
Première Nation de Kebaowek et de plusieurs Québécois et Québécoises qui
exigent que leur gouvernement soit protecteur aussi de cette eau qui va nourrir
les générations futures. Et je nous rappelle, là, le ministre de
l'Environnement, il est ministre d'une municipalité qui s'appelle
Deux-Montagnes, entre autres, et la municipalité de Deux-Montagnes a demandé à
ce que le gouvernement du Québec, à ce que le gouvernement canadien retirent ce
projet-là. Alors, je pense qu'il y a une question de cohérence du côté de la
CAQ. Et, pour nous, c'est important de marcher au côté des premiers peuples
pour cette raison-là, entre autres.
Journaliste : Merci. Est-ce
que vous pourrez répondre en anglais, s'il vous plaît aussi?
Mme Massé :
Oh yes. I'll do my best. So, I didn't
that... do that for a long time. Yes, for us, for Québec solidaire, it's so
important to be here by side of the First Nation Kebaowek because the
«gouvernement du Québec» have to protect the right of the First Nation. He
didn't sign by himself the... but he's accept the principle of the... «de la
déclaration.» So, we have to protect the right to be consult. He have to
protect the right of the territory, the right of the First Nation. This is the
first reason.
To second reason, it's
the water on the Outaouais water. Chalk River is so close to this river. The
Minister of «Environnement», Environment, the Minister of... not «the
Minister»... The Minister? Yes, the Minister of Environment have to protect the
environment. And we know that in the Environmental Law we have an article who
say that if you're not sure... it's called «précaution», if you're not sure,
choose the precaution side. So, that's why we're asking, by side of the First
Nation, that the «gouvernement du Québec» have to say no to this project. One
year after I've met the First Nation, it's time now to say something, to say
something to the Canadian Government and to say : «Restez debout face au
gouvernement canadien.»
La Modératrice :
Merci. En terminant? Go ahead.
Journaliste :
My question is for Chief Haymond. Do
you think an alliance with provincial politicians is going to help provide
Kebaowek with the support it needs to fend off the waste depot?
M. Haymond
(Lance) :
Again,
well, I don't think it can hurt. I think it's really important that, as we
present our issues and the facts related to this situation, we're getting
support from municipalities, and really appreciative of the fact that we have
political parties' support for our position. We think it's fundamentally key to
ensuring that this Government takes the issues that we're raising seriously.
And so, again, at the federal level, we've had, you know, great support from
the Bloc québécois and the Green Party. And so, you know, having and working
with the provincial parties makes a lot of sense when we shared the same vision
and the same issues and concerns around this issue. So, we're absolutely
hopeful that, by working with and getting support from the provincial parties,
that the Government will, you know, be more inclined to sit up and listen to
the messaging. Because, again, we've been doing this since 2015 and we're
finally starting to make inroads into getting the support that we need from
federal and provincial politicians. And it's really fundamentally key, as I've
expressed, because, if we don't have that political support, it's really hard
sometimes to get our agendas in front of politicians who, ultimately, can, you
know, make a decision that could help our cause.
Journaliste :
Thank you. And I just have one
follow-up. Do you feel uncertain about allying with parties involved in the
debate about independence?
M. Haymond
(Lance) :
Say
that again. Sorry, I missed that.
Journaliste :
Do you feel uncertain about allying
with parties involved in the debate about independence?
M. Haymond
(Lance) :
To a
certain extent, I guess we have reservations because of the underlying, you
know, things that they want to do. But, at the same time, I think, if we always
got hung up on that one particular topic, then, you know, we would be remiss in
trying to get their support. So, absolutely, when we talk about independence,
it causes me some heartburn, but, at the same time, you know, we need to build
alliances, and we need to build support from all the parties.
And, you know, we're
talking today about nuclear waste and its impacts, and the support that we have
from the party. I'm sure we'll have a different conversation down the road when
we talk about potential independence and separation, but that's a different
conversation for a different time. But at the end of the day, I think, you
know, it's a concern for us, but we really appreciate the fact that they're
amplifying, you know, an important message and our voice to make sure that, you
know, Quebeckers, all Quebeckers and this Government, understand the importance
of taking a position.
La Modératrice : Merci, tout
le monde.
Journaliste : Mme Massé,
je voulais juste une petite précision sur la question du principe de
précaution. Vous dites, bon, c'est dans la Loi sur la qualité de
l'environnement. Est-ce qu'à vos yeux... En plus, j'aimerais soulever quand
même que le conseiller de la radioprotection du ministère de la Santé a déjà
émis un avis défavorable au projet. Donc, je veux juste comprendre. Est-ce que,
selon vous, le gouvernement est en contravention de la loi avec sa position
actuelle?
Mme Massé : Écoutez, je ne
vais pas me prononcer. Est-ce qu'il est en contravention? Moi, ce que je dis,
c'est, principalement, le nucléaire au Québec, avec tous les appuis dont on
vous a parlé depuis le début, il est clair que les Québécois et Québécoises ne
veulent pas mettre en jeu la rivière Outaouais avec le projet de Chalk River.
Alors, considérant ce consensus là,
considérant même des avis publics que je ne connaissais pas, honnêtement, moi,
je suis plus dossier autochtone que dossier... mais que je ne connaissais pas,
mais, peu importe, considérant tout ça, je ne comprends pas que les gens qui
gouvernent le Québec, donc qui sont supposés les représenter, qui ont la loi de
leur côté, même si c'est face à Ottawa, ne prennent pas la position claire de
ne pas appuyer ce projet-là.
La Modératrice : Merci.
(Fin à 13 heures)