Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2022

[John Gorman]

In terms of the request that's been put into the budget process, we've submitted the letter to Finance Canada, and I'd be happy to provide a copy to this panel. It talks about the need for a level playing field here with respect to existing tax credits and future investment tax credits.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I have about 30 seconds left, so I just want to thank all our panellists for being here today. Thank you for your expertise on this very important subject.

Again, my thanks to Madame Pauzé for suggesting that we have this conversation about nuclear waste and our regime here in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Ms. Thompson.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Ms. Swami, I'd like to go back to something you had said in the very beginning. I believe it was in your opening remarks. It is around the voluntary site selection.

Would you mind going into a bit more detail around what that looks like?

[Laurie Swami]

Thanks very much. I think this is a really important part of the work we did many years ago now.

We established a process for reaching out to communities to understand who might be interested in learning more about the potential to host a used fuel repository in their community. It was 2010. At the time, we had 22 communities come forward, from Saskatchewan as well as from Ontario.

Over the last number of years, we have been looking at the community, understanding their interest in this project. We've also looked at the geosphere or the rock that would be available in the communities to really understand interest. During that period of time, we've learned much about those communities, their interest in the project, as well as the indigenous communities where the traditional territory or the unceded territory might be.

Therefore, we've worked with many people to understand interest and the safety around deploying in that particular area. We are now working only in two communities, which I referenced earlier.

A very important part of our work is that we must have a willing and informed community, and communities, where we will deploy our project.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

As a link to that, would you mind speaking about the security aspects when you're actually transporting the waste to perhaps one of those two selected sites?

Are there any potential security concerns? How do you envision being able to deal with that?

[Laurie Swami]

Certainly. The transportation of the used fuel must move from the existing facilities where the used fuel is stored today, so the operating facilities in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. We have been working on a transportation program and framework where we're going out to Canadians to understand what's of interest to them with respect to that transportation program.

Of course, security and safety are quite important for Canadians, to understand what that would look like. We will be implementing programs with knowing where our trucks are at all times, understanding the areas they're driving through, and we will probably have escort cars and things like that for protection of the used fuel and do this in a very safe manner.

I will add that today used fuel is moved in Canada, not as frequently as it might be in the future, but right now it is moved and we have never had an incident or accident with used nuclear fuel transportation in Canada.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

As a link to that and around transparency, I realize this has to also be viewed through the realities of security, but do you envision a site where the general public will be able to access information in terms of processes?

I look at this through the lens of public safety, and not only the perception but the depth of information that really strengthens faith that indeed systems are secure and that reasonable protections and supports are in place.

[Laurie Swami]

I think there are a number of things where, of course—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 45 seconds about now.

[Laurie Swami]

We will be open and transparent about our work. We will have what we'll call a “centre of expertise” where members of the public can come and observe our work, observe the processes we have in place. Of course, we have very robust regulation around transportation in particular, but also around our facility, both through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as well as Transport Canada.

There are many regulators involved with nuclear facilities. One of them is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the primary one, but there are many others, including ECCC, that will be involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You have about 10 seconds, Ms. Thompson, to make a brief comment, but we don't have time for a question.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I'll just say thank you.

The transparency is incredibly important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to Leah for trying.

Directly to Ole Hendrickson, because I don't have much time, I want to drill down on some of the conflicts of interest that are inherent in the way nuclear waste is managed in Canada. Another aspect of it is the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which was created in 2002 by an Act of Parliament. It only allows nuclear reactor owners to sit on the organization.

Does that create a conflict of interest in your mind, Mr. Hendrickson?

[Ole Hendrickson]

Yes, unfortunately.

The Seaborn panel...and our organization participated in it and recommended an independent body to manage nuclear waste. That did not transpire with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. What we have is an organization that is owned and operated by only the nuclear waste generators.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The next one is that the first of these so-called small modular reactors which, as you say, exist on paper, is going ahead at Point Lepreau with $50 million. Another witness said there were no subsidies, but the federal government, between ACOA and other innovation fund, has put $50 million into it. The company that's building it has never built one. It requires going into the fuel repository of waste at Point Lepreau.

Could you comment on that?

[Ole Hendrickson]

Yes. Mr. Van Wart mentioned that there's interest in extracting plutonium and that's what the Moltex proposal is. It creates huge concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation when plutonium is put into commerce. Several eminent scientists have written to the federal government to say we should not engage in that type of activity—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Can I jump in and ask one quick thing?

AECL used to be a purely governmental Crown corporation, and SNC-Lavalin bought it for a song. SNC-Lavalin has some unsavoury partners that are involved in the nuclear weapons business.

Could you comment on that?

[Ole Hendrickson]

The three members of the coalition that are operating all federal nuclear sites are Fluor, Jacobs and SNC-Lavalin. Fluor and Jacobs have both had to pay large sums of money for legal problems in the United States.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. May and Mr. Hendrickson.

I have a very quick question for Ms. Swami. Is the Kincardine site the one near Lake Huron?

[Laurie Swami]

I can answer that.

There was a DGR that was proposed by OPG near Kincardine on its existing facility. Our project is looking at a deep geological repository for used fuel in South Bruce, which is inland.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What happened with the first site, the one by Bruce Power? There was some back and forth with the Minister of the Environment at the time. Did you report on it? Was it rejected?

I'm a little fuzzy on the history.

[Laurie Swami]

I can speak to that, but Jason may be in a better position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Van Wart.