Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[Dr. Michael Binder]

I can tell you that there is a vocal minority that does not necessarily agree with the way we take decisions, but anybody who ever had any opinion about nuclear, about our facilities, or about a hearing, appears in front of us, and we have an informed discussion that feeds into our decision.

Internally, I want to get into the anonymous letter. You should know that we get all kinds of letters. Some of them are anonymous and some of them are on the record. Some of them originate internally and some of them externally. You have the licencee employees who write letters to us in confidence. We have a process in place. No matter who writes the letter, we have a responsibility to do due diligence to make sure the letter does not raise legitimate concerns.

If somebody writes me a letter saying we didn't do A, B, and C, right away we have to make sure that safety was not compromised. That's why you don't go into some external, lengthy kind of thing. We have to do an internal review very quickly to make the commissioners accept that no safety was compromised. That's why we did it, and why we did it internally.

Some of the press picked up on the fact that I gave my employees, my staff, the opportunity to say whether they actually knew where it came from. If people looked at it as a joke, it was nothing like a joke. It was actually a hearing in the public, by the way, for our staff to explain whether there was any safety issue in this particular letter.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay—

[Michael Binder]

Just to finish, we have been focusing on this scientific-based organization. We encourage debate and arguments, because science is not exactly black and white. At the end of the day we would like a consensus among our employees, and I will stand by the integrity and the ability of our employees to raise issues at any time.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay.

Just following up on public confidence and public concerns around the nuclear industry, the occasional critical event happens elsewhere in the world. I just wondered, has CNSC ever publicly released an assessment of the off-site consequences of a Fukushima-scale radioactive release at a Canadian nuclear plant, yes or no?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Absolutely.

We have a study. It's on our website. You can pick it up. It was a study that mimicked the severity of Fukushima and then assessed where the impact would be and how the emergency planning would deal with this.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Can you provide documentation for that?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Absolutely. It will be a pleasure.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'd like to move to Mr. Sexton.

You mentioned some of the waste disposal situations and the deep geological repositories. I think there is something—I don't know if it was in your deck or what—that talked about an $8-billion cost. I was talking with NRCan at our last meeting, and they said the cost was $16 billion for those deep geological repositories. Can you comment on that?

[Richard Sexton]

I think we may be talking about two different liabilities. The liability that AECL in Canada retains is principally for the Chalk River and the Whiteshell sites. Those sites have several hundred buildings, of which, during the 60 years, some were internally contaminated. One of the missions that we will see in the next 10 years is to remove and take down 120 buildings.

What Canada and Chalk River are doing at Chalk River is building a highly designed facility to move that material into for long-term disposal for that type of material. That material would not be required to be placed into a deep geological depository. It will be what we call a near-surface disposal facility, which we're engaging in with CNSC—actually, the licencee is engaging with CNSC.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Sorry, your time is up, Mr. Cannings. Thank you.

Now we'll go over to Mr. Harvey for five minutes.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

First of all, I'd like to thank you all for coming today and I apologize for the fact that we're going to have to end early, but I think we're going to get through the majority of it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

You have seven minutes.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Binder, for elaborating on the comments around safety. It does highlight not only the importance of nuclear safety, but also what a robust regulatory process we have in Canada on nuclear safety, and how we can trust, as Canadians, that you are working in our best interests in that we have developed a regulatory regime that supports the growth of a robust nuclear sector. I want to thank you for that.

Following up on Mr. Strahl's comments earlier, it is important that we all, both in government and in industry.... I'm going to use an analogy that refers back to agriculture. I grew up in agriculture and I've done a lot of advocating on behalf of agriculture, and when I'm meeting with agricultural sector groups I'm always telling them that we spent the last 100 years building the industry and if we want to be successful in the next 100 years, we're going to spend the next 100 years telling the story.

I think that's a large piece that's missing from the nuclear sector. You don't do a good enough job of tooting your own horn and making the public aware of how far nuclear technology has come and how good a leadership role Canada's nuclear sector plays, not only within Canada but on the global stage. It is important that we as government do whatever we can to support you in that, but also that you, within the nuclear sector, toot your own horn.

Get out there and talk about how nuclear can play an important role in baseload technology to support alternative sources of energy. That is an integral part of it, as is how small-scale nuclear can play an integral part for energy development in the north, and how nuclear can play an important part in this idea of an east-west energy grid, which could potentially be long term. That is something that not only government needs to focus on but the sectors need to focus on. There is a distinct opportunity for nuclear to do that.

Following up on Mr. Serré's comments earlier, I think he did a good job of hitting the points on a whole-of-sector approach to exportation of the innovation, but not only the innovation but the supply chain and the technology itself, the implementation and the supply chain as a whole-of-sector approach to exportation of that nuclear technology on a global scale, whether it's in Romania, Argentina, or wherever.

We have the capabilities to do it, but we have the capabilities as a country to not only export the technology and the know-how but also the physical parts to do those projects and put Canadians to work on those projects around the world. I wanted to highlight that.

I really want to touch on the fact that I think nuclear plays a very integral role in helping us reach our climate change initiatives, and that's something else the sector needs to do a good job of, getting out there and saying how important it is. Mr. Strahl was absolutely correct when he said that the small splinter groups that are opposed to nuclear are opposed to everything, and they're very vocal and they do an amazing job of getting their story out there. So I commend you for everything you do, but I think we need to do a better job of getting the message out to Canadians that nuclear has come a long way and it does play an integral role in our energy future in Canada.

With that, I'm going to open it up to comments and whoever wants to go first.

[Ron Oberth]

I think this is an area where government and industry should work together. I commend John's organization. The CNA, I think, does a wonderful job of telling the story. The difficulty is finding people to listen and to write about it.

For example, when the Minister of the Environment talks about climate change and does not include nuclear in her speech, which is read by a lot of people, it's seen to be a bypassing of our industry. Our challenge, of course, is to then get not only the public and the reporters to write what we say, but to get some of our political leaders to embrace our message and talk about it.

I was at an event in Ontario last evening, and the Ontario minister of energy talked about how proud he was of our clean energy system in Ontario, and he attributed that to wind, solar, hydroelectric, and biomass, stop, period. I'm not sure if there were reporters there, but that sort of thing happens. We heard Premier Wynne do the same thing when she was at Globe. John and I were there. She talked about how proud she was of her grid in Ontario, and did not mention the nuclear word. Our challenge is to get the political leaders whose voices are heard and respected to begin to include nuclear in the dialogue. It's a struggle and we'll keep at it.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I totally appreciate your comments on that. I think that, as you've seen so far, Kim is very supportive of your industry, and I can assure you that on behalf of the one nuclear power plant that we have in New Brunswick, we're very proud of that nuclear power plant. I know that our minister of energy in New Brunswick is constantly flogging that within our province, and how supportive he is of that.

I agree it is something that needs political leaders to support, because it has had such a negative connotation in the past. This isn't reflective of the Canadian industry at all; it's reflective of circumstances that have been created by other jurisdictions around the globe in the past. But I think it's our responsibility, both within government and within industry, to help to change those myths surrounding nuclear and see it as the forefront of a natural strategy for energy going forward, because it will be an integral part of our energy strategy in the future.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Look at you, right on seven minutes.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I knew you were going to cut me off.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Yes, I was waiting. I was so excited.

I think we'll have time for a second round, if we can keep everybody on time.

We'll now go to Ms. Stubbs, for five minutes, please.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for being here.

Let me just start my comments by saying that as a member of Parliament from northern Alberta who represents a riding where the livelihood of the people in the community depends on Alberta's world-leading responsible oil and gas, heavy oil, and oil sands development, I am keenly attentive and very sensitive to the comments that have been made here today about the impact of maybe less-than-fact-based, small, well-organized groups, and the damage they can do to the public confidence in an industry on a number of fronts, relating to everything to do with regulation standards, exploration, production, and transportation of certain projects.

I look forward to my government colleagues, who have spoken so passionately here today and consistently on other opportunities about nuclear, joining me over the next couple of years in the same sort of fact-based advocacy campaign for Alberta and Canada's world-leading responsible oil and gas, heavy oil, and oil sands development, just as we will all join together in the advocacy for the nuclear industry and the important role it will play in the broad spectrum of Canada's responsible energy development well into the future.

I would just like to focus on a couple of comments you made, Mr. Binder, and some quotes in your opening remarks. I also want to recognize the value and highlight the importance of your comments about the regulatory process and measures most importantly being flexible so that they don't act as a roadblock to innovation and investment in development, your comments on the importance of predictability and timelines, and also your point about regulations being clear and flexible enough to address current and future requirements. I think those are probably best practices in an approach to regulatory framework that should be advocated and should apply to all the sources of energy development, exploration, production, and transportation right across Canada.

I just want to start by inviting any or all of you to comment specifically on any particular fiscal measures or other public policy measures governments could take that would help facilitate continued innovation and investment in your sector. On the other hand, which I think might be just as important, would you like to highlight any red flags, roadblocks, or measures you think would be unhelpful and that could stifle or hamper innovation or investment?

Do any of you have any other comments or specific items in addition to your recommendation of a nuclear innovation council that you would like the committee and Canadians to know about? What sets Canada apart in terms of our global position and achievements in your sector?

[Dr. John Barrett]

Mr. Chairman, may I start on that and then hand it off to others around the table?

In the remarks I made, I mentioned a number of funds that have been created by the federal government, and it was alluded to earlier by Ron Oberth that we're not always first and foremost in the mind when it comes to areas of innovation. Mission innovation is a very important doubling by the federal government of clean tech, clean energy funding.

In Canada, we as an industry are now accepted as part of that clean energy, clean tech, array of technologies, but we want to access that. That's why, as I mentioned, we're preparing a technology road map to set out for the government and others a better understanding of the decision points and the type of role that the government will play in partnership with industry in co-funding or working out different types of arrangements that allow the innovations to go forward.

I'll just stop at this, but the point is that we are an industry where.... If you look internationally, you will see that there is no other country that is an active vendor of technology for international markets that does not have a very significant role for the government to play. Our efforts now are to help articulate and identify what that role would be, in a way that does not, of course, expect the government to do everything for us. We want to meet partway, halfway, or wherever possible, to bring these ideas and say, “Here is the policy framework. Here is the access to the investment funds that you've already set. Can you include us? This is what we think we can deliver.”

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thanks, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Tan.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I heard a few comments or questions from that side of the committee asking about a report to the CNSC.

Mr. Binder, you just gave a very good answer, very reasonable. However, as a person who has been working in the nuclear industry for more than 10 years, I know that my mentality and that of my colleagues is that we cannot afford any mistakes. For us, for the people working in the nuclear industry, I have to say that science is black and white, right or wrong, because any decision we make could cost big consequences in the future. That's a big potential. I just wanted to mention this mentality of ours.

I have a question for AECL. AECL has been there for more than 60 years. It has enjoyed a long history as a highly regarded organization, in particular with respect to our CANDU reactor design technology at the Chalk River lab. When I joined the Chalk River lab 10 years ago, I was very proud to be part of an organization with such a glorious history. Now, though, it seems that this is all history.

AECL has three divisions. The first division, CANDU engineering, I mean, Sheridan Park, has been sold. The second part, R and D technology division, is now under the so-called GOCO model, so AECL would just oversee that. It's not hands-on management. The third part of AECL, the liability management, I'm sure will eventually be taken care of by other organizations such as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or other facilities such as a deep geological repository for long-term storage of nuclear waste.

What is the motivation for this transition of AECL's role in Canada? How can we maintain our R and D capability when AECL's importance has been so greatly diminished? What is the benefit to Canadians? There are a whole bunch of questions. To any people, any observer from our side, it will appear as though AECL will not have hands-on management but will become a shell of its former self. Why?

[Richard Sexton]

I'll start and then Shannon might add some things.

First of all, the proud history of the facility is still there. The employees are proud to work there. They are engaged in the same type of scientific study you were probably involved in. What the GOCO model brings is a degree of efficiency, a degree of commercial rigour, that will actually ensure the long-term history of the lab. This model has been used in other countries, and it has proven to be successful in revitalizing. Those who have visited the lab will see that it is in need of revitalization. I want to assure you that the pride, the innovation, which the lab has a long history of, will continue, and I believe it will be accelerated as we move forward.

Shannon, do you have any...?

[Shannon Quinn, Vice-President, Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited]

I would like to comment on that because I think there are perhaps some misconceptions out there around science and technology in nuclear in Canada because of the restructuring of AECL.

I assure you that from my perspective within AECL there has never been a better opportunity than right now for nuclear science and technology to continue to flourish and play the same very significant role as it ever has, both from an innovation perspective and from a jobs and economy perspective.

We've heard much around this table today about the role of AECL, and frankly many other research organizations across this country in academia and industry, in creating the foundations for what is today a domestic nuclear industry that contributes about $6 billion to the economy and has a significant export opportunity. The reason this happened was that back in the very early days the Government of Canada made a very strong commitment to pursuing all the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

At this point we see we're at a turning point in the nuclear industry. There is renewed interest in nuclear, particularly as a clean technology, but also in new energy technologies that can serve other socio-economic needs, including energy for remote communities, energy for indigenous communities, energy to support other natural resource industries, including very large industries in this country, across this country, in Alberta, in northern Ontario, and elsewhere. We have a particular interest in Canada but that interest is shared by many other countries around the world. There's a growing attention on this.

In Canada, recently—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Sorry, Ms. Quinn, we have bells. I'm asking you to wrap it up really quickly, and then we'll have to end it there.