Environment Committee on March 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call this meeting to order. This is the seventh meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I can assure members that the sound test with the witnesses has been done, so we're all set for our liftoff here.

I think everyone who is here as a witness has probably been a witness before at this committee or other committees during the hybrid format, so you all know the protocols. Please keep your microphones on mute when not speaking so we can avoid ambient noise, and so on.

Today we have two panels of one hour each.

We have with us, from 6:30 to 7:30, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission represented by Rumina Velshi, president and CEO; Ramzi Jammal, executive vice-president and chief regulatory operations officer; and Kavita Murthy, director general, nuclear cycle and facilities regulation.

From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Mollie Johnson, assistant deputy minister, low carbon energy sector; Jim Delaney, director, uranium and radioactive waste division; and Justin Hannah, director, nuclear energy division.

From each group we'll have an opening statement of three minutes.

Ms. Velshi, I imagine you'll be doing the opening statement. Go ahead, please.

[Rumina Velshi, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Chair and members of the committee, my name is Rumina Velshi and I'm joining you from Toronto in the traditional territory of many nations and now home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Beside being the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, Canada's independent nuclear safety regulator, I'm also currently the chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, commission on safety standards, which establishes standards for the global nuclear community, including for radioactive waste.

I want to register four points with you today. First, the CNSC was established by Parliament in 2000, by the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, as an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal with the authority to regulate all nuclear facilities and activities in Canada, including radioactive wastes. We report to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. We do not report to the minister. The minister exerts no control over the CNSC's day-to-day activities or on its decisions.

The commission's decisions, which are based on the best available science and an understanding of the risks involved, can be reviewed only by a federal court. These are the cornerstones of our independence.

Second, under the strong regulatory oversight of our highly competent staff, radioactive waste in Canada has been managed safety for decades, including its handling, processing, transportation and storage.

In Canada, licensees are directly responsible for safely managing all of their radioactive wastes. They are required to maintain financial guarantees that ensure they will have the resources to safely terminate their licensed activities and safely dispose of all radioactive material and equipment.

Third, the CNSC has a modern, comprehensive and mature regulatory framework that is consistent with the Government of Canada's nuclear policies. Our framework is also aligned with international standards and best practices. This was confirmed by a 2019 peer review conducted by the IAEA.

Finally, I want to stress to you the importance the CNSC places on ensuring that what we do is open, fair and transparent. Our hearing process is designed to encourage participation from everyone with an interest, especially indigenous nations and communities and the public. We are in communities early to build an understanding of our processes, we communicate with interested participants through a variety of channels and we offer funding to enable full participation.

Let me conclude by emphasizing that our interest is safety above all else.

Thank you.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Velshi.

I'll go now to Ms. Johnson.

[Mollie Johnson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Low Carbon Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

Fantastic. Good evening and thank you for this opportunity to speak about nuclear waste management and governance in Canada.

I would like to recognize that I am joining you today from my office in Ottawa, which is in the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Nuclear energy is an important part of Canada's energy mix. It currently accounts for 15% of our electricity generation and contributes to Canada's 82% non-emitting electricity supply. While nuclear provides Canada with a source of non-emitting energy, as well as medical isotopes that are vital to both Canada and the world, it also produces radioactive waste, which needs to be carefully managed.

Protecting the health and safety of Canadians and the environment is the government's top priority regarding nuclear energy. The government is committed to continuous improvement with respect to ensuring that safe solutions are in place for managing radioactive waste and decommissioning now and into the future. This commitment is supported by Canada's independent, international peer reviewed nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources and whose regulatory decisions are only reviewable by the Federal Court.

The most recent review by the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Canada has a comprehensive framework for nuclear and radiation safety covering current facilities and activities. It also noted that the CNSC strives to continuously upgrade its regulatory framework to address new challenges in relation to upcoming technologies, such as small modular reactors.

Our commitment to continuous improvement includes ensuring a strong radioactive waste policy is in place that further provides Canadians with confidence in the long-term management of all of Canada's radioactive waste.

The government is evaluating Canada's current radioactive waste policy, and we are developing a comprehensive new policy to ensure that we continue to have a strong foundation for the ongoing use of nuclear energy. That is why we launched an inclusive engagement process to develop a modernized policy for radioactive waste management and decommissioning, including any waste from future technologies, such as small modular reactors.

From November 2020 to May 2021, we met with and received written feedback from indigenous peoples, public interest groups, waste producers and owners, other levels of government and other interested Canadians on how they would like to see our radioactive waste policy modernized. From that feedback, we released on February 1—just about a month ago—a draft policy for radioactive waste management and decommissioning with a 60-day public comment period. We are seeking written feedback until April 2 from the public on this draft policy, which we then plan to finalize before the end of the year.

Our goal is to inform a modernized radioactive waste policy that continues to meet international standards based on best available science and that reflects the values and principles of Canadians, including our indigenous peoples.

I'm really pleased to be here tonight and to be joined this evening by Jim Delaney and Justin Hannah, directors from our nuclear group. We welcome any questions that you might have. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to questions. We have Mr. Seeback, for six minutes please.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Great. Thank you very much.

I want to start with the CNSC.

How far along in the process are you for finding a host site for the long-term geological repository?

[Rumina Velshi]

Finding a site for a long-term fuel depository is not something that's in the CNSC's mandate. That is the mandate of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The CNSC's mandate is to do the licencing of that particular facility, and the NWMO did appear before this committee a few weeks ago, and we are expecting them to start their impact assessment. We're expecting them to select a site in 2024 and to start an impact assessment after that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

One of the things that we're discussing here at the committee is whether or not the reporting should be through the Minister of the Environment to Parliament, as opposed to through the Minister of Natural Resources to Parliament. Does the Minister of Natural Resources have any role or decision-making in your organization?

[Rumina Velshi]

None whatsoever. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the decisions made by the commission, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal, can be reviewed only by the Federal Court, so there is no intervention, no influence by the minister in our decisions.

If you like, I can elaborate further on how that relationship is with NRCan and other departments and what the impact of that reporting is.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Please do. That was actually my next question.

[Rumina Velshi]

As you rightly said, we report to Parliament. That is per our enabling legislation, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The minister, as I said, has no role in our decision-making or in our day-to-day operations.

The CNSC has horizontal relationships with many departments—including the two witnesses following us—such as Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency, Health Canada, Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as well as our provincial agencies in environment and labour.

I want to emphasize that one reason I've heard in previous appearances is a concern about optics; that NRCan is responsible for promotion, and why would the regulator be reporting to that? However, as I've explained, our reporting is, in a way, strictly for us to get to Parliament with no political interference in our decision-making.

We did some public polling in 2020, when we reached out to Canadians, civil society organizations, licensees, host communities, scientists and intervenors, because we were trying to get a baseline on what Canadians' confidence and trust is in the regulator. The reporting relationship was never raised as an issue by anyone. Similarly, the international review that was done in 2019 never raised our reporting as a concern in terms of our independence or as compromising it in any way.

I've been a commission member and a president for 11 years. Whichever minister we report to, that's a decision of the Governor in Council. I can't see it making any difference in how we carry out our mandate.

I hope that helps.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes, it does. It's very helpful.

One of the questions I asked of our panellists on Tuesday was whether the system works. Are there any improvements you can think of that you might suggest? I'm going to ask you the very same question, because it's very important.

[Rumina Velshi]

Let me give you the regulator's perspective. The system works. You just need to look at the track record. There has not been an incident, certainly in the last 20 years since the Nuclear Safety and Control Act came into place—and it could be even longer than that—where waste management has impacted safety or the environment. The track record speaks for itself.

You've heard about the international reviews that have given us the confirmation of how robust our framework is, how strong the oversight is and how we know so well what and where the waste is. We have financial guarantees to make sure that any future liabilities have been looked after.

Frankly, if you look at any other industry or any other energy sector, waste is not managed from cradle to grave as well as it has been in the nuclear sector. It is a very highly regulated sector, and appropriately so.

If you ask me if there are opportunities for improvement, all of those are things that are under way right now. Finding long-term solutions for the management and disposal of waste is certainly one. Another one I would add is that there is public angst around radioactive waste. I believe the sector needs to do a much better job at listening to what those concerns are and trying to address them. However, overall, I think it works well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start with Mrs. Velshi. First of all, thank you for your years of service in the role you're fulfilling.

As a party to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, we have to do this comprehensive review, which we did in April 2021 on our waste management governance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé wishes to raise a point of order.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Could Mr. Longfield speak without his mask?

This seems to be causing difficulties for the interpreter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can you take your mask off when you speak?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I will if it helps and you're comfortable with it, and if I haven't lost a lot of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll start over.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

It's my first time in a committee room in two years. I don't know what the protocols are sometimes.

As a party of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, we have to do this comprehensive review that you've mentioned. The last one was published in April 2021.

Is this like an audit where there are action items that come from these reviews? Are we meeting our international commitments?

Are there any highlights? You've mentioned a few in the testimony you just gave.

[Rumina Velshi]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

I'll start answering that question and then I'll ask Mr. Jammal to add some more details to this.

As part of the convention we have signed, we do need to report every three years to this international body of peers on our used fuel and radioactive waste management. As you mentioned, the last report was in 2021, though the convention itself, because of the pandemic, was deferred.

It is an opportunity for peers to review the entire management system for waste management in Canada. We get feedback from them. We get questions from them. Areas for improvement are identified. In the spirit of transparency, it is presented to the commission as a public hearing meeting. By the way, this is not just the regulator. The entire sector presents and appears for this convention and the peer review. The feedback we get from our peers is posted, so there is great transparency on what we're doing well and what we can do better.

I'll turn to Mr. Jammal, who can probably give you some specific examples of the kind of feedback we have gotten and actions we have taken as a result.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Could I have that in maybe 20 seconds, if possible? I have another question to ask another witness.

Thanks.

[Ramzi Jammal, Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Thank you, Madam Velshi.

In 20 seconds, the process of the joint convention is established in accordance to a treaty. We call it a “convention”, but it is a treaty under the UN. The process is very much formalized.

You asked a question about what we call “areas for improvement”. It comes out as challenges. At the same time Canada and the CNSC receive [Technical difficulty—Editor]. At the last review of the convention we received good practices and areas for improvement.

We are legally bound to respond to these at the next meeting [Technical difficulty—Editor] these actions. It is not up to us to say that it's closed. The peer review process mentioned by the president determines the closure and the adequacy of the closure of these challenges.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

This study is on governance and you've just described the governance right there, so we could probably close our study. No, I'm just kidding.

It is very important to know that it's an independent governance, that it's not politically interfered with and that it's peer reviewed from international bodies. Thank you for that for our reporting.

Speaking of our reporting, I will go over to Ms. Johnson.

The review you're doing sounds very similar to the review that we're doing. Parliamentarians can get witnesses in, but I'm certain that the review we're doing isn't going to be as thorough as what you are in the process of, with the 60-day comment period coming back.

Is there anything our report could add to the review you're doing? Is this report that we're working on something that would be of value to you? I can't ask you to write our report, but is there an area of concern that we should make sure we cover in our report?