Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome.

Welcome, Ms. May. It's nice to see you with us. You were, of course, with us for Bill C-12 and contributed to the discussion on Bill C-12, so in a sense, it's your return to our committee.

Welcome to the witnesses for today's hearing. I just want to go over a few rules of procedure, more for the benefit of the witnesses than anyone else, since we're all used to the rules of procedure here during COVID-19.

For those who are in the room, please maintain a two-metre physical distancing. Please wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. There's hand sanitizer, if needed.

As for the witnesses, you can speak in the official language of your choice. When you are not speaking, please put your mike on mute, which would help in terms of avoiding ambient noise. Before speaking, and this goes for the members of the committee as well as the witnesses, please wait for me to call you by name.

Before we begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent, if possible, for the steering committee report.

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just want to clarify that we're creating a placeholder for the Conservatives on the third report. They'll submit something to the committee. The committee process will then take over from there once they've given something for us to consider as a study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, it's a placeholder. As I understand it, there's no specific study in mind at the moment, but there's a placeholder, so when we get to it—perhaps in a year's time, because we may be receiving legislation—we'll be discussing ideas from Mr. Albas.

Mr. Albas.

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

Just a quick question. When you say a year's time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's conjecture; it's not a ruling.

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

Okay, I was just wondering if you knew something you would want to share with the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I don't, actually. I don't know very much, Mr. Albas. I'm assuming.

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

You and I can agree, because I don't know very much either, so I feel better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Exactly. Maybe it'll be less than a year's time. Whenever we do a study, we have to review the report. That's usually three or four meetings, and then it's summer break. Hopefully, we'll get to your study as soon as possible. I don't have a timeline. It's all conjecture, Mr Albas.

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

Perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We could receive legislation. It's always a possibility, because we're a legislative committee.

Thank you for that, colleagues.

We can now proceed to the nuclear study. It's our first study of the 44th Parliament.

I would like to thank Ms. Pauzé for suggesting such a worthwhile study. This is an increasingly timely issue.

Today, we will be hearing from five witnesses. They will each have five minutes for their presentations. After that, we will have three rounds of questions. Since we don't have a new panel for the second hour, we'll keep going until the end of the rounds.

We have with us today Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility; and John Gorman, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Nuclear Association. From Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, we have Ole Hendrickson, who is a researcher. From Ontario Power Generation, we have Jason Van Wart, VP nuclear sustainability services. We also have Laurie Swami, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.

Welcome to all the witnesses.

We won't waste any time, and we'll begin—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

May I have the floor, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Sorry, I had my hand raised.

Just so I'm clear on how we'll be proceeding, I have a question about the first, second and third rounds. Do you mean that, during the first round, we'll have six minutes, and for each subsequent round, Ms. Collins and I will have just two and a half minutes each? Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's correct, since we aren't switching panels halfway through.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have no doubt you will have compelling questions that will help the committee gain insight. That is for sure.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You are too kind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Starting things off will be Mr. Edwards for five minutes.

We can't hear him. We'll come back to Mr. Edwards.

We'll go straight to you now, Mr. Gorman. You have five minutes.

[John Gorman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the environment committee, for the opportunity to participate today. It's truly a privilege.

In the spirit of reconciliation, I would like to acknowledge that while I'm coming to you virtually today, I am physically on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I'm John Gorman, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. I'm also former president and CEO of the Canadian Solar Industries Association.

The Canadian Nuclear Association represents the entire spectrum of the nuclear industry. That includes the mining sector, nuclear utilities, engineering, manufacturing and supply chain companies. We account for 76,000 direct and indirect jobs. It's a cornerstone of Canada's innovation system.

One of the reasons we're doing so much innovation in this very healthy nuclear ecosystem is the $26-billion refurbishment that is currently under way in Ontario, of the Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power units, proceeding on time and on budget and allowing for this extraordinary innovation in the areas of small modular reactors and life-saving medical isotopes and nuclear medicine generally. As I'm sure all of you are aware, we're also the second-largest exporter of uranium in the world. Cameco is a key global player in our nuclear ecosystem.

Before I speak to the nuclear waste and by-product aspects of our industry, I would like to provide a little bit of context on how the nuclear industry contributes to Canada's key goals and priorities. As you know, Canada, along with the rest of the world, has been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, but we're also witnessing the long-term impacts of climate change. We saw in 2020-21 the acceleration of fires, floods and heat waves worldwide, and we experienced it here at home, all validating the UN IPCC's warning that this is a “code red for humanity”. In fact, as this government and all of us have noted, this is a climate crisis that we're experiencing here and around the world.

As world leaders concluded at COP26, there is an urgent need for an all-out effort to address the climate crisis. As part of that effort, all the tools at our disposal, all non-emitting and clean energy technologies, including nuclear, are needed to play a role in dramatically reducing emissions. This view is reflected internationally. The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Finland and others have indicated that nuclear technologies, both large and small, will need to be part of the clean energy solution to address climate change. We saw that earlier this week as well, with the EU commission reinforcing this position when it issued its decision to include nuclear as a sustainable technology required for a net-zero future.

Emissions targets agreed to at COP26 will require a significant amount of new electricity, as we all know, an amount two to three times the amount of electricity generation we have here in Canada. Provinces like Ontario, which were able to transition away from coal due to nuclear, will also need significant amounts of new non-emitting electricity as we fuel-switch from fossil fuels.

We also see this interest growing provincially in a pan-Canadian way, with other provinces recognizing that they need small modular reactors. The premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick have all identified new nuclear as needed to meet their low-emissions targets. They have signed a memorandum of understanding on this.

Some have raised issues associated with nuclear waste. I think this study provides an opportunity to give an overview about how robustly the nuclear industry and its products are regulated. Canadian nuclear waste is the most highly regulated and managed waste possible from an energy waste perspective. All energy sources, including renewables, generate waste. Nuclear is the only industry that can account for all of the waste, and of course we don't emit any pollution. Nuclear waste is regulated by our regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and we're monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It's important to note that not all waste is high-level. We tend to think of waste as spent fuel, but nuclear waste includes low-, medium- and high-level waste by-products in uranium mine and mill tailings waste forms. It's important to distinguish what we're talking about.

Canada has led the way in creating and supporting the efforts by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to identify a suitable site for a deep geological repository, a DGR, for a permanent storage solution for our waste.

DGRs are recognized worldwide. I'd like to add that France, Finland and Sweden have all taken similar paths.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Gorman. We've passed the five minutes, but there will be many rounds of questions, so you'll be able to speak about those during the meeting.

We'll go now to Mr. Hendrickson from the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.

[Ole Hendrickson, Researcher, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the committee for instituting this important study. I'll make eight points.

Number one, permanent disposal facilities for nuclear reactor waste have never been approved in Canada. Such facilities will impact many future generations and we must get them right.

Number two, prior to 2015, the nuclear legacy liabilities program was under the management of Natural Resources Canada. In fall 2015, the government transferred responsibility for oversight of public expenditures for decommissioning of its nuclear facilities and reduction of its nuclear waste liabilities from NRCan to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. AECL issued a 10-year, multi-billion dollar contract to a multinational consortium under a government-owned, contractor-operated—or GOCO—model.

The GOCO contract was based on similar arrangements in the U.K. and U.S., but in April of 2016, the U.K.’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority terminated its GOCO contract with the consortium operating the Sellafield nuclear site. Problems included escalating GOCO costs, increased liability amounts, large GOCO executive turnover and questionable contractor expenses.

Then, in March 2017, the NDA announced that its GOCO contract with the nuclear Cavendish Fluor partnership would be terminated after five years instead of 14 years. Texas-based Fluor was a partner in that partnership and is a partner in the Canadian National Energy Alliance, which is AECL’s GOCO contractor, so does AECL, which now has 40 staff, have sufficient capacity for oversight of the GOCO contract and associated subcontracts?

This raises concerns about government accountability, fiscal responsibility, public oversight of Canada's nuclear waste liabilities and our ability to meet international obligations related to nuclear waste and nuclear safety. Intervention by Parliament is recommended to restore public control and oversight of federal nuclear facilities and their radioactive wastes and to ensure public funds are spent wisely to contain and isolate these wastes.

The third point is that AECL’s discounted $7.4-billion liability for federally owned nuclear sites, which is an “asset retirement obligation” in the Public Accounts of Canada, exceeds the $7.1-billion federal liability for over 2,500 contaminated sites. AECL’s undiscounted liabilities are estimated at $16 billion.

Deloitte recommends discounting of asset retirement obligations only if the “aggregate amount of the liability” is “fixed or reliably determinable” and “the amount and timing of cash payments are fixed or reliably determinable”. However, future liability amounts and payments are uncertain. The 2021-22 main estimates include $808 million for AECL’s nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management expenses. As of September 2021, AECL had $59 million in a trust fund reserved for disposal of federal high-level spent fuel and $47 million in a long-term disposal of waste fund to manage commercial wastes.

The fourth point is that commercial wastes, some imported from foreign countries, are transferred from private to government ownership and stored at AECL’s Chalk River Laboratories. This has potential to increase the government’s nuclear liability. Proposals to build small modular reactors on AECL’s properties could also increase the liability.

The fifth point is that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, owned by the GOCO consortium, is proposing three permanent radioactive waste disposal projects on AECL’s properties. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is assessing these proposals under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. An environmental assessment expert panel noted an apprehension of bias regarding CNSC’s role as the responsible authority for nuclear projects. The panel recommended that CNSC not retain this role, and the new Impact Assessment Act reflects that for future projects, but proposals continue under the old regime.

The CNSC recently announced a licensing hearing for the near surface disposal facility, or NSDF, which involves the permanent disposal of a million tonnes of federal and commercial radioactive waste in a landfill-type facility at Chalk River.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Hendrickson. I'll have to stop you there, but as I said before to Mr. Gorman, there will be plenty of time to delve into these issues. Thank you for your opening words. They were very interesting.

We'll go to Ontario Power Generation with Mr. Van Wart, VP, nuclear sustainability services.

Mr. Van Wart, please go ahead.

[Jason Van Wart, Vice-President, Nuclear Sustainability Services, Ontario Power Generation Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting OPG here today.

I am the vice-president of Ontario Power Generation's nuclear sustainability services division. Nuclear sustainability services handles all of the by-products of nuclear power generation from OPG-owned nuclear stations in Ontario, including the Pickering, Darlington and Bruce power plants.

First, I'd like to take a bit of time to talk about our company and what we do for Ontario and Canada. OPG is Ontario's largest clean energy producer. We generate 50% of the electricity consumed in Ontario, and 60% of that total energy in Ontario comes from nuclear power.

Thanks to the reliability of nuclear energy, Ontario was able to stop burning coal in 2014. As a result of this transition from coal to nuclear, Ontario now has the cleanest electricity grid in North America.

OPG's climate change plan, which we released in 2020, commits the company to being net zero by 2040 and will help the Canadian economy reach net zero by 2050. Last year, OPG released our first ever reconciliation action plan to support reconciliation with indigenous peoples. It makes a series of specific commitments, including achieving $1 billion in economic benefits for indigenous peoples over the next 10 years.

On the urgent issue of climate change, as has been stated by Natural Resources Canada, no credible path exists to net zero by 2050 without nuclear. As we move off fossil fuels, Canada needs a lot more electricity to meet future demand. In a scenario of high electrification, including in the transportation sector, Ontario electricity demand may increase by 40% by 2040. Globally, the International Energy Agency has forecasted a near doubling of electricity demand by 2050.

In this context, we must remember that nuclear is the lowest carbon form of energy measured by its entire life cycle, as reported by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Renewables such as wind and solar cannot do the job alone. They're part of the clean energy mix, but they only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. We need a reliable baseload of electricity. We need nuclear energy. It helps keep our hospitals, businesses and homes running 24-7.

As for nuclear by-products, or waste, it is all tracked and safely stored, which no other form of energy can claim. By-products of fossil fuels go into the environment as air pollution, releasing CO2 emissions and contributing to global warming. Solar panels go to landfills and they contain toxins, such as cadmium, chromium and lead.

It's important that I note that some of the by-products of nuclear energy are, in fact, extremely valuable assets to Canada. For example, medical isotopes produced in nuclear power plants are helping to save millions of lives every year. These include cobalt-60, which has been produced at the Pickering nuclear station for over 50 years, and molybdenum-99, which will be soon produced at the Darlington nuclear station. These isotopes are used in sterilizing medical equipment, diagnosing disease and treating cancer. I think we all know someone whose life has been touched by these medical isotopes.

Even by-products once thought of as nuclear waste are proving to be strategic assets for Canada. For example, tritium, which is produced in a nuclear reactor as a by-product of generating electricity, is used in emergency lighting, as a biomedical tracer and in international research on fusion power. Tritium, in turn, is a source of helium-3, which is an extremely rare isotope. It doesn't occur on earth. It's used in quantum computing, border security, neutron research and medical imaging.

Our nuclear governance in Canada is strong, with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulating the industry under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Canada's regulatory regime is aligned with international best practices guided by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

All nuclear waste is well regulated in Canada by the CNSC and managed safely by owners, with an excellent safety record at OPG and across Canada. In my division, good stewardship of the waste is our mission. We embrace the three Rs—reuse, reduce and recycle—to minimize the volumes that we store. We're continually researching, investing, innovating and applying new technologies to reduce the volumes. All of the waste is currently in interim storage. While this is safe in the short and medium term, it's not a plan for the long term. Interim storage cannot be maintained in perpetuity for thousands of years. Buildings and packages degrade over time and need to be continually maintained. What is needed is permanent disposal. It's the right thing to do for our future.

On the subject of permanent disposal, OPG supports the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's, NWMO, process to see a deep repository for permanent disposal of used fuel, and we'd like to see it in service by 2043. We thank the Government of Canada for its foresight in creating the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act 2002, which set the stage for the NWMO to develop a solution for all of Canada. Canada's on the same path as Sweden and Finland, which have already approved construction of DGRs for their used fuel.

For the disposal of lower levels of waste, OPG notes that NRCan released its draft of a modernized policy framework this week, following a period of public engagement that began in 2020. We participated in that public process and will be providing comments on the new draft.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Van Wart.

We will come back to you during the round of questions.

We now have Ms. Swami from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization for five minutes, please.