Thank you for giving us this opportunity to appear for the first time before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
When I received the committee's invitation, the topic was indicated as the state of the nuclear industry in Canada and abroad, in the context of this particular bill that you are studying. For the committee's benefit, therefore, I decided that it might be useful, before going ahead and supporting the Canadian nuclear industry, to take the trouble to have a vision that is a little more comprehensive of the international situation, and to understand the origins of this nuclear industry that people have been keeping on artificial respiration for so many years.
Before getting into that, I thought it would be helpful to focus on countries that have the best track records in order to gain a better understanding of the industry's importance, weaknesses and aspirations. I picked France as my example, since it is, as you know, a major user of nuclear energy. Of course, I also thought about the United States, which has over 100 nuclear reactors. We know that France and the United States together produce nearly half of the total electricity from nuclear sources in the world. Canada is also a player.
Curiously, the history of how these industries developed shows that they have a great deal in common. I have provided some background documents to the committee. They include a research study carried out by Mariah Blake entitled Bad Reactors, Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again. This is an in-depth analysis of what is happening in the nuclear industry in the United States. What the study provides is really more or less the history of the nuclear industry around the world.
Where Canada is concerned, I provided the committee with the document that was prepared a few years ago by Ralph Torrie and Richard Parfett, who are Canadian energy experts. They carried out an assessment of the nuclear industry in Canada, including the history, the current situation, future prospects and possible alternatives that could move us in a harmonious way away from nuclear production in Canada. Those documents are available to everyone because I have provided them to the committee.
I have also submitted a document entitled Status and Trends of the World Nuclear Industries by Mycle Schneider from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It contains well-documented and up-to-date charts that provide an accurate and multi-faceted picture of the nuclear industry around the world.
We often hear about a nuclear renaissance in the world. That notion implies that the nuclear industry has been stalled for decades and that its survival has been under threat as a result. Why has the nuclear industry been stalled and unable to move forward for decades?
Everyone knows the reasons. There are the risks associated with the technology not being fully controlled. There have been incidents such as Three Mile Island and many others here in Canada. We can come back to this during the question period after my presentation.
There is the poor management of construction projects that has compromised the reliability of nuclear sites. The Finnish Olkiluoto project is a very good example of that. There is the poor financial planning of projects, which has led to huge cost overruns. There again, the Olkiluoto project is a very good illustration. There are the delays in getting projects up and running. The same things happen time and again.
There is the lack of skilled workers, which is something we see in Canada. There is clear documented evidence that this is a major crisis in the United States. Leaders in the nuclear industry themselves acknowledge the problem. There is the reduction in the quality and quantity of services available and the dwindling number of service providers. These are recognized facts. Projects are often delayed because the required parts are not available and services cannot be readily provided.
There is also the fact that the financial burden associated with nuclear infrastructure is so heavy that the industry cannot bear it alone. So it must assumed by taxpayers. In the United States, proposed nuclear projects have been the subject of fierce opposition, just recently, by major financial agencies and other groups, especially on Wall Street, to the point that they are threatening to discount companies that get involved.
Given all this, what has prompted the nuclear renaissance? Is it that the control problems have been resolved, that construction projects are being better managed, that financial planning has been improved, that deadlines are being met, that there are more skilled workers and a better supply of services, and that the industry is assuming the financial burden of its operations? No. There are daily indications to the contrary. Anyone who can read can find out about them.
So why is it that we are being bombarded with this notion of a nuclear renaissance from every side, as if it were genuine? This nuclear renaissance is due not to technological advances but to a good public relations campaign and effective government lobbying.
In particular, those pushing the nuclear option took advantage of the fact that our societies were in shock owing to the serious climate change crisis. It was the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that mobilized those trying to sell this industry. That is the angle they used. They invested all their effort in promoting their cause and led us to believe that the nuclear industry was undergoing a renaissance.
The concept actually had its origins in France. The flagship project that breathed life into the idea was Olkiluoto in Finland. In 2005, France managed to find a place to build its new generation reactor, the pride and joy of the nuclear industry, which is the EPR. Finland was given guarantees that there would be no cost overruns, that the technology would work flawlessly, that construction would be completed without a hitch and that greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced within the required timeframes as a result.
Today everyone is disillusioned because the Olkiluoto project is a failure across the board. This includes Finland, whose economic position has been hard hit by the delays in the project.
So the French embodiment of this renaissance is the Olkiluoto project. In the United States, it was the adoption of the Energy Policy Act. Because of the international context, American nuclear leaders finally managed to mobilize political support and create the conditions necessary for the nuclear industry to rise from the ashes in the United States. Since France and the United States have been able to kickstart the nuclear industry once again, what is the situation right now?
We have seen the failure of the Kyoto Protocol. In the United States, the financial sector has clearly rejected the idea. The concept has not been validated from a technological, financial or environmental standpoint. If the industry is not able to deliver the goods, it cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions as promised. Enormous costs have been incurred, meaning that this money cannot be invested in alternative energies. From a societal perspective, it is taxpayers who will have to pay the bills for this industry that was supposed to be so dynamic.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer your questions.