Environment Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thanks.

I just wonder what initiatives you think the nuclear field can do to make the public more aware. Whether it's turning on your TV or whether it's saving a life in a hospital, there are various things the nuclear industry does. Could you tell us more about that?

[James Scongack]

The first thing I would like to see is a really important energy debate in this country. Often when we have that energy debate, we think of everything in absolutes: It's either all nuclear or all renewables, all oil and gas or all hydro. The truth is, when you're building public policy, you're looking at all of these factors and finding the right balance.

I have to admit, as somebody who works in the industry in the energy sector, I think we need to have a very balanced debate and discussion and not make all of these about binary choices. They're about building that right mix, and I think policy-makers like you in the debates in Parliament and in the issues we're looking at need to take this out of sound-bite politics and talk about these things very seriously.

Talk about issues like what we would do to treat cancer patients without nuclear power. We'd still be burning coal-fired electricity in Ontario. What does that mean? Does that mean that nuclear can meet all of our energy needs? Of course it doesn't, but it means that we need to have a balanced, responsible discussion.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

A balanced approach, for sure....

I am happy to hear your words this morning about Canada being a global leader in this field. I think it's very important and something that we don't hear enough about, Canada being a global leader, so I am happy to hear those words.

Do you see any path to net zero in 2050 without nuclear power?

[James Scongack]

I don't think anybody sees a path forward to net zero without nuclear power. If we are going to tackle climate change, we need every tool in the tool box on the table. If this is as serious as we all think it is—and I am at the front of the line saying that it's serious—we need to look at every tool in the tool box. It would be a massive mistake to not have nuclear on the table.

We need options. Options are absolutely critical when you're dealing with a challenge, so does it mean that nuclear is all the solution? No, sir, it does not, but it's certainly part of the solution, as demonstrated in Ontario through the phase-out of coal.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

That is a good point. Just like fighting COVID-19, we need every tool in the tool box.

To follow up on Madame Pauzé's question, you wanted to speak about legislation, and I think you ran out of time. I just wonder if you have a comment on that, James.

[James Scongack]

The first thing I would say, after listening to the discussion, is that I would respectfully encourage all members of the committee to consider the number of pieces of legislation in place, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, legislation with respect to fuel and the Impact Assessment Act. A lot of the questions you have are covered in current legislation.

We're having this discussion about whether we should have legislation. I think you should look at the existing legislation that is in place today, such as the Nuclear Safety and Control Act as a starting point, because I think that's the foundation on which you're going to build.

If legislation needs to be reviewed, it needs to be reviewed, but a lot of the questions and concerns you have are covered in legislation. I'm somebody who lives and breathes it every day.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thanks very much.

Again, thanks to all the witnesses this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Weiler for five minutes, please.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank all of the witnesses for joining today and for their great testimony up to this point.

I want to continue with Mr. Scongack.

You talked quite effusively about some of the economic opportunities with medical isotopes, among other things. I wonder if you could expand on whether you have a sense of what that economic opportunity is overall and how that translates between companies and the public, particularly in Canada right now.

[James Scongack]

Thanks. I'm happy to discuss medical isotopes.

The first thing I think we need to recognize is that there are only two ways of producing medical isotopes, through cyclotron technology like that amazing company called TRIUMF, out of British Columbia, which we have a very close partnership with. There are cyclotrons and reactors at universities and other institutions in Canada.

Not to get into physics 101, but the types of isotopes you can make in a nuclear reactor, like cobalt or lutetium, you can't make in a cyclotron. The types of isotopes you can make in a cyclotron, you can't make in a nuclear reactor. We need both, and that's why we have the Canadian Nuclear Isotope Council.

If you think about energy, an isotope is a modern form of energy that is used in modern health care across the world. As developing countries continue to move more people into the middle class and give people more access to cancer diagnostics and treatment, with more people fighting COVID-19 who need sterilized medical equipment, the demand for medical isotopes is going to increase. Canada is uniquely positioned to provide those isotopes.

On the reactor side, through our power reactors like the ones we operate at Bruce Power but also through our cyclotrons at areas like the University of British Columbia and TRIUMF Innovations—and they're both needed—it is a multi-billion dollar opportunity.

It will mean that we will have clinical trials come to Canada, so Canadians can have access to some of the best cancer treatments.

I happen to chair an organization in Ontario called the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, where we help families and kids with cancer. What I want as a parent and as a Canadian is to see everybody in the world have access to those kinds of cancer treatments, but I want Canada to be the world leader in medical isotopes in cancer treatment, and we can do that through our isotope advantage.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Scongack.

I want to look at it from the flip side now. You mentioned in your testimony already that the management of nuclear waste is going to be borne by the companies themselves.

Could you expand on that and explain to the committee why that's not going to be borne by the public down the road?

[James Scongack]

Exactly. I think it's a great comment.

The first thing I would say is that we pay for the waste we produce now and in the future. Independently, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission requires any licensee of a nuclear plant to have fully funded the cost of the waste—not just today, but going into the future—and the eventual decommissioning of our facility. We're the only industry in the world you can point to with that.

For Bruce Power, after we reduce, reuse, recycle, minimize and all those things, whatever final product or waste we produce.... Mr. Edwards made a comment that we set the cost of the waste. I guarantee you that we don't. The cost of the waste is set through this independent process and we pay for it. That goes in an isolated bank account. It's not a government IOU bank account. It goes in an isolated bank account that we have nothing to do with. That is to fully fund the cost of that liability long term. There are tens of billions of dollars that will build up over time in that.

We pay for the waste as we generate it, as we should. In fact, I believe that Parliament should be looking at what we do in nuclear as a model for other industries. What other industry can you point to that can say they safely manage their waste and they fully pay for it?

By the way, I know where every cubic metre of waste is that our facility has produced in 40 or 50 years. Name one other industry that does that. I think that's something Parliament should look at.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thanks for that.

My next question is for Mr. Isaacs.

You mentioned that the Blue Ribbon Commission had assessed Canada's regulatory structure and saw that there are many best practices there.

I was hoping you could explain where Canada is showing leadership in these best practices and where there are examples where Canada diverges from these international best practices.

[Thomas Isaacs]

Thank you for the question.

I would say the principle recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission was that in looking for a site, you needed to use a consent-based approach. You should build a site in a location where the communities that were going to be affected by it understand the implications and are willing to be the host voluntarily.

That was the first recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission that was largely reflective of the approach that was taken by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will put the question again to Mr. Gordon Edwards.

Canada is continually referred to as a leader and a model in terms of nuclear waste management and best practices.

Mr. Edwards, as someone who has 40 years of experience in the field, what do you have to say about that?

[Dr. Gordon Edwards]

I didn't realize that this was going to be a panel on the glories of nuclear power rather than on radioactive waste governance. I thought we were going to be focusing on radioactive waste governance.

Regardless of what benefits or not that nuclear power has, the wastes are going to be here forever and they have to be dealt with. That's really what the question should be.

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that it's wrong to bury radioactive reactors right where they are, on site. They should be dismantled and the waste should be taken off site. They should be packaged and so on. That's a feature of radioactive waste governance.

Here in Canada, the consortium is planning to do exactly the opposite. They are even going to rip up our contract to dismantle these reactors, which was already approved by the CNSC. Instead, they are going to bury them right beside major rivers—the Ottawa River and the Winnipeg River. These reactors remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years after the reactor is shut down.

There is more than one kind of waste. I think we have been focusing on certain aspects of waste and not all of them.

It's important to realize also that the Seaborn panel was the result of a 10-year environmental assessment program, yet their unanimous recommendation was turned down by the Liberal government of the day, which was the Chrétien government.

Now we have to look at all other kinds of waste as well. We need to have an agency that is really not an arm of the industry. The problem here is that, just as you have seen today, the people in the industry are far more excited and interested in talking about what their technology can offer to Canadians while it's operating, rather than the legacy that it's leaving behind.

We're seeing the same thing in our country. Parliament can really help to highlight the public interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Collins now, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To you, Mr. Edwards, in Ignace, Ontario, the Toronto Star reported that the NWMO was offering money to local landowners willing to co-operate. I'm a bit concerned about the consultation process to identify willing, informed host communities. There's no Canadian case law definition of a “willing host” or similar concepts specific to high-level waste.

Given the regional impacts of nuclear waste, is it concerning to you that the NWMO is offering funds to individual landowners? They're ideally supposed to be working with willing host communities.

[Dr. Gordon Edwards]

What is a willing host community? If you talk about the Ignace situation, the actual disposal site they're looking at is at Revell Lake, which is not in Ignace, but is halfway between Ignace and another major city on the Trans-Canada Highway. It should be a regional matter.

There's also going to be transportation of this waste on the highways leading up to that region. These transportations are going to be going on for many decades. Moreover, when they get to these regions, they're going to have to unpackage the radioactive waste bundle by bundle and repackage it in smaller containers. This has to be done with robotic equipment behind six-foot-thick leaded glass windows. People were not told about this until just last year, when I brought it up during one of my presentations.

People are being given incentives, they're being given money, but they're not being given the information about what kind of downsides they might have to deal with. I think that it's only fair that full and informed consent be, in fact, that: fully informed.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

This a quick yes-or-no question for Mr. Scongack and Mr. Isaacs.

Going back to the question of this potential for conflict of interest, it seems to be a no-brainer to switch the reporting to the Minister of Environment, because there would not be even the perception of a conflict of interest. Would either of you be opposed to the reporting to Parliament going through the Minister of Environment, instead of the Minister of Natural Resources?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

As Ms. Collins requested, give a yes-or-no answer, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The question is: Would you mind if it went to the Minister of Environment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Answer yes or no, please.

[James Scongack]

Unfortunately, the problem is that there aren't yes or no answers. Currently, it reports to Parliament through the Minister of Environment. When it comes to the impact assessment process, it's with the Minister of Environment. There are a few different components here, so I think that's—