Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2016

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here.

To the member from Pickering, I hope you'll be able to participate in future discussions on this committee. Some of the issues you discussed haven't come up before, and I think you bring an interesting angle to our discussions here.

Mr. Hopwood, I know you've commented previously on your concerns around the ability and rate of moving from R and D to commercialization within Canada, so I just wanted to welcome you to expand on that in terms of what you see as the major barriers, and also if, other than direct funding, you have any advice in terms of policy tools, fiscal measures, frameworks, or approaches that government could take to enhance that process. I would welcome both of your comments on that front.

[Jerry Hopwood]

Sure. It's a subject close to my heart, but I'll try to keep it short if I can.

We've seen a great deal of R and D in Canada that has not always resulted in achieved results in terms of new power plants built or new research results, so R and D is an unpredictable business. It makes sense—perhaps both of us being from the university side now would see it this way—to start small and to do R and D in an exploratory way if you have a lot of unknowns, and then build that program outward, but not to try to jump into a huge program.

I think that one of the challenges facing Canada in terms of R and D in the nuclear area is going to be that we cannot do it all by ourselves. It would be very foolish for a middle power like Canada to try to achieve what was amazingly achieved with CANDU, which we did all by ourselves. Today, I don't think that's going to be possible.

Glenn mentioned that there are 30 SMR designs out there. None of them is uniquely Canadian. All of them have some relevance to Canada and have an international domain. Therefore, my plea would be that as a country and as industrial members we team up, participate, partner with, and co-operate with agencies and international organizations overseas because that will vastly multiply the amount of intellectual gain we get from our R and D. That would be one way we could move forward.

I would echo Glenn's comments that at some point you have to focus and agree that you pick something. It may not be the best. We all remember the stories of the VCRs, that Betamax was the best tape but it wasn't the one everyone chose. That's okay, because sometimes you pick something that works and you go with it. I think waiting around to find the best possible option isn't necessarily a good way.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Hopwood.

Now, we'll go to Mr. Serré for three minutes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your presentations.

In the little time I have, I have two questions. First, can you provide to the clerk further evidence or suggestions when you talk about picking a lane on the R and D? I always say this, “pick a lane”, and I agree with you that we should be deciding whether it's a water reactor or a small modular reactor. If you could provide more information to the clerk, that would be really helpful so that we could share that in our report.

My other question is on the indigenous file. I wanted to get your opinion on this. With uranium mining, we have very good impact benefit agreements, and there's a good relationship happening with indigenous people, but when we look at social licence.... Mr. Strahl earlier commented that our public education is with The Simpsons. Maybe some of the indigenous communities don't watch The Simpsons, which might be a good thing.

What has the nuclear industry done, and what should it do to engage our first nation communities in the nuclear industry outside of the uranium mines?

[Prof. Glenn Harvel]

The only one that I know of was an attempt by a mining group to put a small modular reactor in the Arctic for mining support. They had approached the indigenous communities of the north, and they got a rather lukewarm response to that. They were quite happy with the fact that they would not have to pay $20 a litre for diesel, but they were still quite concerned about the nuclear aspect, and we didn't have a chance to follow up and have a good discussion on what the risks were.

One of the things that you can do.... Dan Meneley is a colleague of mine, and he has been chasing this idea. The American military is looking at ways to use nuclear power to generate fuels like aviation fuels and kerosene fuels, which you could do in the north with an SMR and then use that to fuel the native communities. The indigenous groups could run that business. That becomes an interesting option for them, but that would require some R and D. That's all I have.

[Jerry Hopwood]

I have just a very brief comment that the NWMO in Ontario is being engaged quite extensively with indigenous groups in siting waste depositories. I've heard debates and discussion, which I think have been constructive. Whether it's going to achieve its ends is another question, but at least there's a respectfulness and a recognition by the industry that it has to reach out.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Hopwood.

We'll finish up with Mr. Cannings for a couple of minutes, please.

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

Just quickly, if both of you could comment, and this might go a bit beyond the academic realm. Considering the big upfront costs of nuclear and the decreasing costs in other energy sectors' renewables, I wondered if you could comment on the challenges facing the nuclear industry when moving into new provinces. For instance, Ontario seems to be on board, but other provinces are picking other routes, and a lot of that choice is based on costs. Could you comment on that?

[Jerry Hopwood]

I think it's very timely, given the circumstances of the move to phase out coal. I think that if we only look at cost, first of all, then we're missing part of the dimension. Nuclear is a base load of power supply. It runs best when it's running full out all the time. It provides the constant, very reliable electricity that we're getting in our room right now. Other greenhouse-gas-free sources, such as wind and solar, are intermittent and provide very valuable power, but have a very different characteristic from base load.

Independent agents—and I used the International Energy Agency as an example—say you need both, and that trying to rely on one or the other is not the right approach.

I grew up in an era where the central planning of electricity supply was the norm, and people tried to get a balance between different types of electrical supply because that gave you the most reliable system. We're moving away from that for many good reasons, but the idea that you may need more than one type of electrical supply is still there. Based on that, I think there would be merit in a debate or a discussion between the nuclear industry and Saskatchewan, Alberta, and even Nova Scotia.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Hopwood. I'm sorry I have to cut off there. That's our time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Harvel and Mr. Hopwood, for being here with us today. Your testimony was very educational.

We'll take a two-minute break as our next witnesses get set up, and then we'll get going with our second group.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, everybody, for being here today.

I understand we have a little change to our witness list. Mr. Heysel is a bit delayed with a flight, but we have Andrea Armstrong and Karin Stephenson from McMaster University. We have Jean Koclas from l'École Polytechnique de Montréal, and we have Éric Turcotte, on video conference, from l'Université de Sherbrooke.

Thank you very much for being here. You will be given 10 minutes each for your testimony. Then there will be questions from our committee.

We'll leave McMaster for last, just in case Mr. Heysel is able to make it in time.

Perhaps we'll start with you, Mr. Turcotte, for 10 minutes, please.

[Dr. Eric Turcotte, Associate Professor, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Biology, Université de Sherbrooke]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the committee.

I am here as a representative of nuclear medicine specialists. I am an associate professor of nuclear medicine at the Université de Sherbrooke. I am also the clinical head of the Molecular Imaging Centre of Sherbrooke. Finally, I hold a licence for producing medical research isotopes, as well as a licence for producing private isotopes. In short, I am a professor in nuclear medicine, as well as a user and producer of medical isotopes. I am involved in all the stages of the isotope-use system.

In 2009, I was a member of the Expert Review Panel on Medical Isotope Production, which was created at the request of Minister Raitt of the Canadian government. That panel considered plans for developing isotopes in Canada. I am also part of a research group on the use of cyclotrons as a way of replacing nuclear reactors in the production of technetium.

Between 2009 and today—so since my last appearance before this parliamentary committee—a number of events have occurred. I would like to summarize them very quickly to establish context.

From 2009 to 2016, the National Research Universal, or NRU, reactor resumed its activities, much to the relief of all. Its presence helped put an end to the isotope crisis we experienced in 2009. Afterwards, a number of international committees were created to manage the supply. Those committees did excellent work to standardize production and the supply chains, as well as to ensure that no shortages would occur in the future.

Changes to nuclear reactors have been made slowly. Let's remember that reactors must shift from using highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium. For some reactors, the change has already been made. The same will have to be done for other reactors, since the United States will no longer provide highly enriched uranium.

The Canadian government has made investments in developing alternatives for the production of medical isotopes without the use of nuclear reactors. Among those solutions are projects carried out using linear accelerators and cyclotrons. I expect those technologies to become operational by the spring and summer of 2018.

I also want to remind you that many changes have occurred among isotope providers in Canada. The radiopharmacies of Lantheus Medical Imaging were sold to Isologic. That group is now the primary provider of isotopes in Canada. In addition, the NRU reactor was shut down in October 2016. It will have to remain dormant until March 2018.

I will speak on my behalf, and probably on behalf of a number of individuals involved in the medical field, when it comes to medical aspects. We do not anticipate a lack of medical isotopes over the short term given the striking and organized coordination of various nuclear reactors around the world. Unfortunately, that by no means makes us immune to a major failure. Such a failure could occur at any time and would destabilize the supply chain.

I would like to highlight a reality specific to Canada. Although we think that the supply should remain stable, we are headed toward another problem, that of supply costs and isotope use. With the shutdown of the NRU reactor, isotopes are no longer abundant. A few nuclear reactors are responsible for world production, and that is why there is no longer much surplus. In addition, the reactors that were heavily subsidized, such as the NRU one, are withdrawing from the market. As a result, the path is much clearer for smaller reactors to recover the full cost of isotope production in order to be profitable. We really expect that to lead to a cost increase.

We should add the drop in the production efficiency of low enriched uranium, and that means that the technology creates additional costs. Moreover, the withdrawal of Canadian distributors, following the creation of mega groups, could greatly encourage the appearance of monopolies in the supply of isotopes in Canada.

So we see that all the ingredients are there to increase the cost of isotopes in Canada. Some could drive up the costs by 10$ or 20$ per patient. Individually speaking, those amounts may seem trivial, but when we multiply them by the hundreds of thousands of procedures done annually, they turn into millions of dollars. Canada's health system cannot absorb such a rapid increase.

I yield the floor to you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Monsieur Koclas for 10 minutes.

[Dr. Jean Koclas, Professor, Nuclear Engineering Institute, Engineering Physics Department, École Polytechnique de Montréal]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Even though I could give my talk in French, I think I will give it in English for the benefit of most of the people here.

I am currently a professor of nuclear engineering at École Polytechnique in Montreal. I have been there for almost 25 years. Previously, I worked for 10 years at Hydro-Québec, doing nuclear safety analysis and reactor control system analysis. Before that, I worked for almost two years at the AECL laboratories in Chalk River, so I have quite a good view of what is going on in this industry.

The nuclear industry is a very large and very complex industry in Canada. We have this idea that it's about reactors, but there are many companies that are providing both services and goods of extremely high quality to the industry because of its specific requirements. This particular industry in Canada has always been based on the CANDU system. The CANDU reactor is a very complex reactor.

If you ask any person working in a CANDU plant, when they compare a CANDU plant to other types of plants that are commercially viable on this planet, they will always tell you that the CANDU reactor is a complex reactor. It has many systems and subsystems, much more so than other plants. It is because of this complexity that, if our CANDU plants are to stay competitive on a global scale, we must absolutely rely on top-notch R and D at many levels.

If I concentrate on the Chalk River laboratories, I have grave concerns about the future of our industry if the NRU reactor is closed down in the short term and is not replaced by an equivalent reactor to do specific research. First, one thing that distinguishes CANDUs all over the world is the fact that it must be refurbished or retubed every 20 to 25 years of operation, which means that these reactors have to be stopped for a year or two, three years sometimes, to refurbish and to replace the pressure tubes.

Other technologies do not have this. This is one aspect. The other aspect is the fuel development itself. The only place in Canada where advanced materials for the future of the CANDU reactor can be studied with confidence is when we have a high neutron flux in a high volume, not in a very small location but in a very large core area where conditions resemble what we have in nuclear power plants. You need this type of facility to conduct such research.

You also need a larger research reactor to accommodate actual fuel from CANDU reactors. In the absence of a large research reactor in our country, we will have to send fuel designs outside of the country. It should be clear to anyone that the facilities outside this country do not provide what is required to restore fuel in the complete fuel bundle of a CANDU reactor; they can only provide small parts.

It means that in the medium to long term, the Canadian way of dealing with nuclear power plants will simply get off the grid in global terms. We will not be able to go from generation II reactors, which we have now, to generation III, and even less so, for generation IV.

Therefore, please consider giving Canada a replacement to the NRU, or at least, let us try to keep NRU working for a longer time, which I perceive as an administrative constraint, rather than a purely technical constraint on the life of the NRU reactor.

This is one subject that I have close to my heart. I think the Chalk River laboratories will continue to do very good work in many areas. The word “laboratories” clearly states that there are many labs at the Chalk River facility, but it is vital for the country, if we are to keep the CANDU system alive, not only in Canada but abroad, that we should make all efforts possible to keep NRU and/or replace NRU itself.

This is one point. The other point is that I want to make people aware of how fragile this system is. In Quebec, we had a fully working CANDU reactor. It was going to be refurbished and the Quebec government, with a single signature, was able to completely shut this plant down, so we do not have nuclear power in Quebec anymore.

I'm not talking in a disgruntled fashion. I just want to make people aware that because of increasing cost differentials between the production of nuclear energy and the production of a softer or easier way of producing power, such as shale gas at very low prices, that puts a lot of pressure on keeping the nuclear industry alive, whether it's here or abroad.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Sorry, Mr. Koclas. Thank you very much. We have to move on to the next witnesses and perhaps you'll be able to answer a bit more with some of the questions.

I see that Mr. Heysel's made it.

Thank you very much for being here. The timing was perfect. You have 10 minutes for your presentation.

[Christopher Heysel, Director, Nuclear Operations and Facilities, McMaster Nuclear Reactor, McMaster University]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Chris Heysel. I'm the director of nuclear operations and facilities at McMaster University.

First, let me take the opportunity to thank the committee for the opportunity to address you this morning.

Prior to coming to McMaster, I spent 14 years working at the national research universal reactor, or NRU, at Chalk River, and served as the engineering manager for the facility before coming to McMaster.

McMaster is a medium-sized, research-intensive university, located in Hamilton, Ontario. It is home to an extensive array of nuclear research facilities, including the McMaster nuclear reactor, a five-megawatt research reactor. Once the NRU is permanently shut down in March 2018, McMaster's nuclear reactor will be the most powerful research reactor in Canada.

Nuclear research reactors are important because they produce neutrons. Neutrons are important because they are used by hundreds of Canadian researchers to solve research problems in all five of Canada's science and technology priority areas. Neutrons are used in environmental and agricultural research to improve Canadians' understanding of plant nutrition as we work toward global food security in an era of climate change. They are used to analyze the flow of pollutants in our ecosystems and to understand the impacts of these pollutants on Canada's lakes, streams, and aquatic life. Researchers are also using neutrons to examine how radiation exposure affects organisms at the cellular level.

In the natural resources and energy sectors, neutrons are used to identify deposits of resources, including gold and uranium, and they are used to determine the composition and geological age of Canada's landmasses. In fact, tens of thousands of assays are conducted at McMaster's nuclear reactor every year, in support of Canada's mining industry. Neutrons are used to create the nuclear gauges used in the oil and gas sector to characterize underground wells and pipes, and to detect leaks in these systems. As well, emerging small modular reactor technologies have tremendous potential to power resource extraction equipment at remote sites and provide energy for our remote communities in northern Canada.

In the health and life sciences sector, Canada has a long and proud history of using neutron-based medical isotopes to diagnose and treat disease. Research into new medical isotopes and new pharmaceuticals using these medical isotopes is ongoing throughout Canada. Researchers at McMaster are also developing neutron-based techniques for diagnosing heavy metal poisoning in occupationally exposed workers.

Neutrons are especially important for research into materials sciences because they penetrate deep into materials and provide information about interior structures of matter at the atomic level. This is important for developing advanced materials for clean energy technologies, high-efficiency engines, and information technology hardware.

Neutrons are routinely used to detect flaws in parts for the aerospace industry, to ensure the safety of Canada's air transportation industry. Researchers are also examining the effects of cosmic radiation on aerospace components toward designing the next generation of satellites, space telescopes, and interplanetary space probes.

Neutrons are important. Research reactors are important. Maintaining Canada's small fleet of nuclear research reactors, which includes several SLOWPOKEs and the significantly higher-powered McMaster nuclear reactor, is critically important, especially post-2018. Without research reactors to serve as sources of neutrons, none of the above-mentioned research can be performed.

The McMaster nuclear reactor also plays an important role in education, especially through our outreach program. Thousands of high school students, university students, science camp participants, and everyday Canadians visit McMaster's nuclear reactor every year to learn about nuclear energy and nuclear research in Canada.

McMaster has an extensive suite of nuclear facilities that complement its research reactor, including a 24,000 square-foot nuclear laboratory facility and a new cyclotron facility that produces the medical isotope fluorine-18, which is used for cancer diagnosis.

Our new, industrial-size, post-irradiation examination hot cell facility allows researchers to safely handle and test highly radioactive materials, such as components from Canada's nuclear power plants. This enables scientists to ensure the safety of Canada's existing nuclear fleet, while developing appropriate materials for use in next-generation technologies. Our expansive suite of nuclear facilities, infrastructure, skills, and equipment has earned McMaster the title of “Canada's nuclear university”.

I'll speak more specifically to the questions posed by the committee. The main challenge facing nuclear energy development in Canada today is the impending closure of the NRU reactor, with no clear plan to relocate the vital research being done at this facility. The McMaster nuclear reactor is the only facility in Canada capable of supporting this work. While we are working toward expanding our capacity to accommodate researchers from NRU, we can't do so without support.

The McMaster nuclear reactor is the only self-funded research reactor in the world. It receives no direct funding from the university or from any level of government, federal or provincial. We attempted to secure funding to expand our research capacity through the Canada Foundation for Innovation's major science initiatives program. However, the MSI committee ruled that it was not even able to consider our application on the grounds that neutron-based research activities remain a responsibility of the federal government through NRCan.

The future of nuclear research, development, and technology in Canada is very precarious. When NRU closes, a community of approximately 250 Canadian neutron beam researchers will be displaced. These scientists may well relocate to foreign countries to access neutron sources or change their research areas entirely.

The Canadian industries that rely on this research, including advanced manufacturing and medical sciences, are also in jeopardy. We, at the McMaster nuclear reactor, are working to increase our capacity to support Canada's neutron source researchers and technologies and to minimize the impact of the closing of NRU, but we need your help.

Canada is among the world's leading nations in nuclear research, as described earlier. Canada is also a world leader in the production of medical isotopes. The NRU reactor currently supplies about a dozen different medical isotopes to the world. Indeed, McMaster University's research reactor is the world's largest supplier of the medical isotope iodine-125, which is used to treat prostate cancer. Our staff are proud to produce cancer treatments for over 200 dads a day. The McMaster nuclear reactor's research and development team works with researchers from all across Canada to develop new medical isotopes and technologies. We are also developing our capacity to produce many of the medical isotopes now produced at NRU.

In conclusion, Canada is facing a massive disruption of its neutron-based research in 2018. The McMaster nuclear reactor already plays a large role in Canada's neutron-based research, and that role will only grow going forward, particularly if a reactor core upgrade is explored as a long-term solution to the impending neutron gap.

We are excited to have the opportunity and the privilege to work with some of Canada's leading scientists and engineers as they pursue research that will meet Canada's domestic science and technology priorities and improve the health, environment, and standard of living of all Canadians.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Heysel. I appreciate your presentation.

Just as a reminder, there is a headset to your right, underneath or on your desk, for translation if you need it.

Now we'll go to Monsieur Lemieux.

Mr. Lemieux, you have seven minutes.

[Denis Lemieux, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our three witnesses for their excellent presentations, which were very thought-provoking.

My first question is for Dr. Turcotte.

You are the head of clinical research at the Molecular Imaging Centre of Sherbrooke, one of the most recognized research centres in Canada when it comes to positron emission tomography. Could you tell us more about that research centre and about the work you are doing there?

[Dr. Eric Turcotte]

I really appreciate your question. There are several aspects to our work. The Molecular Imaging Centre of Sherbrooke was created in 1998, with the installation of a cyclotron, a device that runs on electricity and is used to produce research isotopes.

Afterwards, the centre grew a lot thanks to the hiring of radiophysicians and radiochemists, the team needed to produce isotopes. So the centre shifted from research to clinical use. The isotopes used in animals for scientific research needs will also be used in humans for diagnostic purposes.

Our centre combines two devices for manufacturing isotopes. We use two cyclotrons that provide us with a wide range of isotopes. We have devices to perform imaging of both the animal model and the human model. Those are positron emission tomography devices.

We also have magnetic resonance imaging devices and other high technologies that enable us to perform imaging.

Ours is a unique laboratory that enable us to take an isotope—a radioactive substance—and apply it to a disease.

[Denis Lemieux, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Could the Canadian government do more to support your research centre?

[Dr. Eric Turcotte]

The government has been heavily involved since 2009 in terms of funding programs for the use of accelerators to produce isotopes. The Sherbrooke centre has twice received funding from the Canadian government to find a way to use cyclotrons to produce technetium.

We can produce technetium and we are allowed to use it on humans, but we are still at the research stage. However, when it comes to producing technetium isotopes, we expect that, by March 2018, we will even be able to move on to the commercial stage and then supply other Quebec hospitals with isotopes produced in Sherbrooke.

[Denis Lemieux, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

That's very interesting.

Other witnesses have told our committee that a lot of improvements have been made, but that those improvements are marginal in the various sectors of nuclear research. So they recommend that the government make research efforts more focused in order to have better results.

I would like to hear what our three witnesses have to say about that. Do you think that nuclear research is too scattered in Canada?

[Dr. Eric Turcotte]

We do feel that the research is scattered. Unfortunately, the funding is diluted as a result, and that does not foster the installation of high technology in a specific location.

However, the competition created in a number of areas forces us to challenge ourselves. Canada even has the reputation of doing a lot with very little. Sending money to various groups actually helps maintain that type of leadership.

If a decision was made in the nuclear sector to concentrate everything within a single centre, all the other centres would close within one or two years, and that would be catastrophic.

[Denis Lemieux, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I would now like to hear what other witnesses have to say about this.

[Dr. Jean Koclas]

It is a bit difficult for me to answer your question directly.

At the École polytechnique de Montréal, we cannot say that we cover all the disciplines related to nuclear engineering.

However, we have developed software that is now used by the entire CANDU nuclear industry, not only reactors in Canada or those of the now defunct Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant, but by all CANDU reactors, around the world.

That happened because we focused our efforts and received fairly steady funding. Before we were successful, those efforts were put in over at least 25 years, if not 30 years of development. During that time, Atomic Energy of Canada was trying to develop software similar to what we have created.

However, since our software was already accepted by the rest of the nuclear industry, the niche we found has borne fruit thanks to a concentration of individuals who were all working in the same direction. Had some of us worked separately—one on waste disposal, another one on civil engineering of containment venting, and another one on long-term uranium supply—we would not have experienced this development, this success.

I could tell you that, on a large scale, it is necessary to focus....