Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 1st, 2016

[Justin Hannah, Director, Marketing, Strategy and External Relations, SNC-Lavalin International]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Justin Hannah. I'm the director of marketing and external relations for SNC-Lavalin and Candu Energy.

I'd first like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this committee to discuss the future of the nuclear energy sector. As a tier one nuclear company, SNC-Lavalin has a significant role in shaping and leading the direction of this important sector to the benefit of all Canadians. The global reach and pedigree of our organization puts us in a unique position to pursue significant opportunities that will help the Government of Canada achieve many of its objectives in the areas of innovation, climate change, and sustainable development.

Canada has played a leading role in the nuclear sector since the 1950s, and it is vital for this committee to understand the key issues and how government policy can support this further. Our role as a tier one nuclear nation is to some degree at risk, and it is important for this committee to understand the role Canada can play as technologies, issues, and new nations rise to the forefront in this sector.

The threat of global climate change is one of the most daunting challenges we face as a civilization. Decisions that are made over the next decade will have a profound effect on future generations. It has been widely recognized by credible organizations around the world that nuclear energy must play a significant role in any scenario that reduces global CO2 emissions.

In Canada, our unique CANDU technology, and the men and women who fostered its development, have made significant contributions to the economy and industry on a domestic and international scale. The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, known as the birthplace of CANDU technology, has been a source of significant innovation over the decades. As one of the largest R and D facilities in Canada, it has made scientific contributions in the areas of physics, nuclear medicine, and material science, to name a few. It has also contributed to the careers of two Nobel Prize winners from Canada, Dr. Bertram Brockhouse and Arthur McDonald.

CANDU technology has been exported successfully to China, India, South Korea, Romania, and Argentina, among others. The technology remains one of the single largest R and D investments ever made by the federal government, and it still supports many of its key policy priorities.

Going forward, our organization, with the support of the government and the Canadian nuclear supply chain, is well positioned to capture nuclear projects in the areas of nuclear new builds, life extension, and decommissioning.

We have expanded our geographic footprint to new markets, such as the United Kingdom and United States, and we are engaged with several others. Each one of these multi-billion dollar opportunities plays an important role in helping the industry flourish and expand. There are over 200 small and medium-sized enterprises throughout the country that benefit from ongoing investment in the sector. Just recently, a major step to a new CANDU unit in Argentina is both a significant milestone for SNC-Lavalin and an opportunity for the industry.

A project of specific interest is the joint development of the advanced fuel CANDU reactor with our partners at China National Nuclear Corporation. The project is aimed at adapting the unique design of the CANDU reactor to utilize recycled uranium fuel, and in the longer term, thorium. This significant innovation positions the AFCR as a more sustainable nuclear solution through its ability to consume spent nuclear fuel and to reduce overall waste volume by 30% to 40%. It will also allow China to expand its nuclear fleet while reducing dependence on imported uranium and coal-fired electricity, all while meeting the highest safety standards and environmental protections.

Just this past September, SNC-Lavalin and CNNC signed a joint venture agreement in Ottawa, in the presence of the Prime Minister and Chinese Premier Li, to signify the bilateral commitment of our organizations and countries to further progress this innovative technology.

The Government of Canada has a clear commitment to combatting climate change. We are encouraged by the feedback we have received on the role nuclear plays in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and in contributing to low-carbon power. Canada was one of eight countries that identified nuclear energy as part of it mission innovation commitments at COP21 last year. More recently, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change submitted a report to the United Nations that outlined the country's road map to meet its climate change commitments. Five of the six scenarios showed a significant need for increased nuclear generation capacity in Canada to meet these promises.

In Ontario the life extension of the ten CANDU units at Bruce and Darlington is one of the single largest investments in low-carbon technology in North America. It will allow these units to operate and continue to provide clean, low carbon power past 2050. The earlier restart of two nuclear units at the Bruce site was one of the key enablers that allowed Ontario to shut down its last coal-fired power stations and become one of the lowest-carbon jurisdictions in Canada.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the sector does have its fair share of challenges. The entire Canadian nuclear industry is keenly aware that delivering projects, such as Bruce and Darlington, on time and on schedule is critical to maintaining the faith of the public and stakeholders in government.

In addition, our ability to engage the public to maintain and strengthen social licence is an ongoing responsibility of the industry. We need to ensure that the public is engaged in a science- and fact-based discussion on the merits of nuclear technology and as one of the options before them as key policy decisions are made on energy.

The reinvestment of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories under the government-owned contractor-operated structure will also have a significant impact on the nuclear industry's future direction. The emergence of small modular reactor technology and the end of operating life of the NRU research reactor create both opportunities and challenges for the lab as it maps out its further direction.

Lastly, the establishment of a long-term spent fuel repository under the mandate of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization will be critical to assuring the public that the impact on future generations is strongly taken into consideration.

In closing, it is our view that nuclear energy and the Canadian nuclear industry have a significant role to play in the country's low-carbon future. Our accomplishments, our human assets, and our experience are world class. They put us in a unique position as a country to make a significant impact both domestically and internationally in the areas of climate change, but so much more. As the proud stewards of Canadian CANDU technology, SNC-Lavalin recognizes the leadership role we have in shaping the future of the Canadian nuclear industy and its future success. We view the Government of Canada as one of our key partners to enable this through sound policy, judgment, and support.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hannah.

Mr. Wiens or Ms. Craven, I'm not sure which one of you will present.

[Richard Wiens, Director, Strategic Supply, Gamma Technologies, Nordion]

That will be me.

Good morning. My name is Richard Wiens, and I'm the director of strategic supply at Nordion. I'm joined by Emily Craven, our marketing manager.

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for providing an opportunity for me to speak today.

In the early 1960s the Government of Canada, through AECL, was a major contributor to the creation of an important industry that endures today and benefits the health and well-being of millions of people in Canada and around the world. The lifeblood of this industry is a radioisotope called cobalt-60. Cobalt-60 is produced in nuclear reactors and is used to sterilize more than 40% of the global volume of single-use medical devices, things like drapes, gowns, syringes, gloves, and those sorts of things. If you go into a doctor's office or a surgical suite or an outpatient clinic today, almost one in two of everything you see lying around will have been sterilized with cobalt-60. A special form of this isotope is also used for the treatment of cancer and other diseases.

Today the majority of cobalt-60 is produced in CANDU reactors in the province of Ontario, although the isotope was first produced at Chalk River Laboratories. The isotope was produced and sold by a division of AECL, known at the time as the Radiochemical Company.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Wiens, can I interrupt you for a second? I understand the interpreters are having a little difficulty keeping up, so perhaps you could slow down just a slight bit.

Thank you.

[Richard Wiens]

Just as a point of record, we were introduced somewhere along the line as “MDS” Nordion. MDS doesn't exist anymore, so they don't own us.

In the 1980s this business was sold to a private company. Nordion has changed ownership several times, but continues to exist as a leader in the industry, proudly using this Canadian technology for the prevention and treatment of disease.

Production of cobalt-60 supports hundreds of high-quality jobs in Canada and represents significant exports. Virtually everything we produce is exported out of Canada. Canada is recognized globally for its contribution to the industry. Cobalt-60 sources are also produced in China, Argentina, and India, based on the original Canadian design, as well as in Russia on a different design. Nordion is the largest producer of cobalt-60 sealed sources in the world.

To produce cobalt-60, you take those cobalt-59 slugs, the little cylinders that are about an inch long and a quarter of an inch in diameter—25 millimetres and five millimetres, for those of you who are metric—and irradiate them in nuclear reactors. The cobalt-60 is removed from the reactor after about a two-year cook time and shipped to Nordion's facility, which is about 25 kilometres west from where we are sitting today. We use that and we make it into a sealed source. We take 16 of those slugs, we stack them together in a zircaloy tube, weld the ends, put that tube in another tube, and make what's called a “double-encapsulated” sealed source.

These sealed sources are shipped to about 200 facilities globally in more than 40 countries, where they are used for the treatment I described earlier: primarily sterilization of medical devices but also for the treatment of food and consumer products—cosmetics, pet treats, those kind of things. Sealed sources have a useful lifespan of about 20 years, or in radiological terms four half-lives. After those 20 years they're considered spent, and they get returned to Nordion. Today almost all those sources are recycled into new sources. We take the spent sources, cut them open, take the slugs out, mix those slugs with new fresh slugs from reactors, make a new source, and send them back out into the industry. The industry accepts this practice as really good stewardship.

Eventually, however, those sources can't be recycled any further and they're going to need a final home. The sources that don't get recycled get returned to the reactor site, where they're held in long-term storage very similar to the way that fuel is handled.

Currently there's no permanent disposal facility for these sources in Canada. Just for reference, the physical volume of all the sources produced to date probably number somewhere in the 80,000 range. If you took all those sources, most of which are still in use in the field, and collected them all, they would represent a volume of about 15 cubic metres, the size of an office cubicle, not very big at all.

This almost goes without saying, but the entire supply chain of cobalt-60, from production to transportation, to possession and use, and ultimately return, is highly regulated, both by the CNSC in Canada and other competent authorities around the world. The industry has an impeccable safety record, and the tracking of these sealed sources is thorough and extensive throughout their life cycle.

The Canadian government was one of the first signatories to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, also known as the “joint convention”, and has since been joined by more than 40 other countries. One of the principles of the convention is that radioactive waste is recognized to be the ultimate responsibility of the state, and that waste should be disposed of in the state in which it was generated. Furthermore, article 28 of the joint convention specifically makes reference to the disposal of disused or spent sealed sources.

Having an appropriate return and disposal path for sealed sources reduces the likelihood of a sealed source becoming orphaned or otherwise abandoned by its owner, which would create a security or safety concern.

The CNSC requires that manufacturers of sealed sources, like us, post a financial guarantee for the ultimate disposal of sealed sources. This creates a conundrum, because there is no current final disposal site for sealed sources in Canada, and as per the joint convention, they should be returned to the place where they were manufactured.

The industry that uses sealed sources is a for-profit industry and they are willing and able to support the cost of developing and maintaining long-term storage and disposal paths. Again, this is similar to what's happening in the reactor world around fuel. The Government of Canada, however, needs to develop and support policy that will allow this to happen, meeting its commitment to the joint convention and the obligation created by pioneering this industry more than 50 years ago.

We believe there are several options available in this regard. The first involves the NWMO, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, mandated to develop a disposal solution for spent fuel from reactors and currently pursuing the development of a deep geologic repository, as you've heard. By design, cobalt-60 sources have a very similar form to spent fuel and could therefore be integrated into the spent fuel waste stream. However, the current mandate of the NWMO restricts it to spent fuel only. A change in scope to accommodate the very small volume of sealed sources I spoke about earlier seems to be a logical solution that could be supported financially by our industry in much the same way that the DGR is being supported by reactor operators today.

Another option involves the use of the facilities at Chalk River Laboratories, currently operated by CNL. While we're pleased to see that CNL is moving forward with plans to build a near-surface repository, we would need, and they would need, additional government approvals before they could accept new types of waste like spent sources or increased volumes of waste as well.

In summary, we would like to invite the Government of Canada and the related stakeholders to work closely with us in developing alternatives that will support the ongoing contribution of this really important industry to the health and well-being of people in Canada and around the world, while ensuring a safe, secure, and commercially viable final disposal path. This would also provide an opportunity for Canada to demonstrate leadership in the area of nuclear waste management and fulfill its commitments to the joint convention.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wiens.

Mr. Tan, we'll go over to you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I had one question for the previous witness. I didn't get a chance to ask it, so I'll ask you at SNC-Lavalin. Actually, your company relates more directly to my question.

We heard from some witnesses from industry that there's a so-called competition, to use their language, between government and industry. A few years ago, OPG had a new-build proposal to build new reactors at Darlington. At that time, the Government of Canada made an announcement asking for the open bid process. It was willing to accept any nuclear technology. Actually, very likely the CANDU technology is not the technology to be chosen.

So everything looks fine because we have transparency. We have an open process and we have a focus on nuclear safety and security. But if you look into the whole picture, you see there is still something strange. If the Canadian nuclear industry cannot get a deal or a contract domestically, how can the industry survive? Why did the government not support its own child, its own Canadian nuclear technology? If it's a decision based on nuclear safety, where was the government? Why was the nuclear safety technology not ready at that time?

To me, clearly there was lack of long-term planning or vision from the government on the survival and the development of nuclear technology in Canada. Maybe the current government can learn from that lesson.

Maybe you can comment more on that.

[Justin Hannah]

Sure. I'd be happy to comment.

There were two procurement processes for nuclear new-build run by the Government of Ontario, actually, not the federal government. In 2009 I was an employee of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a federal crown corporation. There was a lot of discussion, to your point, on the support for the domestic nuclear industry vis-à-vis international vendors. What I can say is that the approach and the mandate of the provincial government, which was running the procurement, was to find best value for the taxpayers and also have an open and transparent procurement process.

We were one of multiple bidders on both the 2009 and 2011 process. In 2009 there were three bidders, and in 2011 it was two. Neither of those two procurement processes ended up moving forward on nuclear new-build. But you're quite right in saying that it would have been a significant setback for the Canadian nuclear industry, and particularly CANDU technology, if an alternative technology were chosen for new-build in Canada. From a practical operations standpoint, almost all of the infrastructure in Canada supports CANDU technology, and it would have been a significant departure from the R and D and the whole body of engineering work that's been done over the past 50 years to support that technology.

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

Thank you.

For a person like me, who worked in the nuclear industry for many years, if our CANDU technology were not chosen, I would have said that's the end of the Canadian nuclear industry. Anyway, that's another story.

I know that SNC-Lavalin purchased Candu Energy, which it's called right now, a few years ago. Since that time, how has your company maintained your technical talent that you inherited from AECL? The committee heard from many witnesses that the Canadian nuclear industry needs access to the global market if it's going to remain sustainable. Let's assume that you have just signed a contract with another country. Would you still have the necessary technical resources here in Canada to carry out that project?

[Justin Hannah]

That's a very good question. We do have a number of significant project commitments in our pipeline, as I'll call it, playing a significant role in the life extension of both the Bruce and Darlington stations. I mentioned the commitment for new-build in Argentina.

Candu Energy's nuclear business, based in Mississauga, has approximately 1,000 people—engineers, scientists, technicians—who support the development of technology. We did, through the restructuring of AECL, streamline those operations to a private sector company with private sector rigour, and did, through attrition primarily, lose a lot of knowledge and skills that we are slowly rebuilding.

Based on the work that we foresee over the next three to five years, we expect, just in 2017, to hire up to 300 new engineers to execute the work that we have. That's not an easy task. As you know, Mr. Tan, nuclear engineering is a specialized field. There is a huge draw of talent and a huge competition for talent by both the Bruce and Darlington projects. What we offer is a unique opportunity for both mid-career professionals and new professionals to be part of the next chapter of CANDU deployment internationally and hopefully in Canada in the not-so-distant future.

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

Thanks very much for your answer. It's very encouraging to me, because right now there's a concern in the nuclear industry about the future of our industry. We just heard professors from Queen's University, and I agree with them, that it's quite likely that the future of Chalk River is going to be just one of decommissioning.

We know right now that there are 4,000, or probably closer to 5,000, dedicated people—scientists, engineers, other researchers—at Chalk River. I don't believe that by doing only decommissioning we can support so many talented people over there, so there's got to be some strategy from the government on how to maintain our talent, otherwise we're going to lose this talent. Once they've gone, you can never call them back.

I have a quick question for Nordion. You just mentioned that your main business is in cobalt-60. But from your presentation, I don't see any need to.... There's no impact on you. The recent closure of NRU has no big impact on your company, because you still get a main supply from Bruce Power, from Pickering's six, to harvest that cobalt-60. I don't think NRU is a big supplier of cobalt-60 for your company.

[Richard Wiens]

There are two parts to that answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Wiens, I'm going to have to ask you to answer it as quickly as possible

[Richard Wiens]

Yes.

We do two things. We do cobalt-60 and we do medical isotopes. NRU was the primary supplier of our medical isotope molybdenum-99, and that has stopped. That had a gigantic impact on our business. NRU also continues to be a cobalt-60 supplier for that specialized segment of cobalt-60 for cancer treatment today. But you're correct that the majority of our industrial cobalt comes from power reactors.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate our witnesses being here today. It has been a very interesting study. We learned a lot about some of the options that we've had.

I'm going to direct my first question to Mr. Bagger, but a couple of other witnesses might want to chime in on that as well.

Certainly as we're going through this study we understand that we have to look at alternative options in terms of energy for Canada. There has always been a discussion about renewables, whether it's solar or wind. In terms of my riding in southern Alberta, we don't have nuclear in Alberta. It has certainly been a hot topic of discussion for decades but never has gotten that along. I have 600 wind turbines in the southern part of my riding, which is very controversial. I know some of my farmers and ranchers would rather run them over. It's interesting that earlier in this study we heard that nuclear could be done at a fraction of the cost of wind and solar. When we're talking about alternative energy, we rarely talk about the opportunities with nuclear.

I look at Ontario, where nuclear is 60% of the energy for that province, where wind is around 10% and solar less than 1%, yet we spend millions or probably billions of dollars on the research for those two sources when we could be looking at a much more stable, reliable energy source in nuclear.

Can you maybe talk about the opportunities that are there to invest in nuclear and the opportunities that are there to have additional nuclear energy as a renewable energy source rather than wind and solar, and maybe compare nuclear with wind and solar and the chances there?

[Dr. Jonathan Bagger]

I'm probably not the right person to answer that question, because TRIUMF is primarily a laboratory in areas of fundamental nuclear physics. On the other hand, we do a fair amount of material science, which is useful for testing the materials, for example, that would go into nuclear reactors.

One thing we are very focused on, though, is increasing the public awareness and acceptance of nuclear technologies broadly writ, so we are increasingly investing in our communications efforts. We train 150 students a year who come through TRIUMF, and they are also being exposed to the nuclear technologies, the nuclear industry. I think our job at TRIUMF is to really break down some of the misconceptions about the role of nuclear physics.

Now, speaking more as a layman and as an educated scientist, I would argue that the future should be a mix of technologies. Nuclear is a very important piece of that mix, especially once the waste issues are resolved. There is another nuclear technology that's up and coming, called “accelerator-driven fission”, for producing nuclear power. I believe China is investing heavily in that area. That's where you use particle accelerators to drive the reactor critical. It is not ready for deployment; it's an area of future research, and it's an area where we would be positioned to contribute if the country wished to investigate that way further.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

To Mr. Hannah, I was pleased to hear you talk about advanced fuels. Certainly earlier in this study we heard about molten salt reactors and advanced fuels and some of the opportunities that are going to be there. Can you perhaps talk about a couple of things: how many CANDU nuclear power facilities are being planned globally; and are the opportunities there with the advanced fuels?

I think the key to this is two things. One is to change the misperception with nuclear across Canada. Certainly I'm in the heart of the oil and gas industry in southern Alberta. I understand the fight that you have, because we deal with that every single day, about pipelines, which is obviously a very hot topic right now. Are there some advancements in terms of the cost associated with the CANDU reactors? Is there a future for CANDU reactors in Canada? Do we have some opportunities here too, or is your future of CANDU around the world and not in Canada? Do we have some chances to make affordable opportunities within Canada as well?

[Justin Hannah]

That's a very good question. Thanks for letting me have the opportunity to answer it.

I'll talk about the international front first. I talked a little bit about how we've been successful in exporting CANDU technology. We are pursuing right now four major new-build opportunities. I talk about Argentina, where a single CANDU unit project is being committed, as per our press release about a week and a half ago; Romania, where there are two additional CANDU units; the U.K., concerning which we're conducting a study in which the eventual decision would be for the deployment of four CANDU units; then China, where the initial discussion is for two new CANDU units—there are two existing there already. Those two demonstration units, as we're calling them, for the AFCR are being planned, and we're looking with our partners at a large-scale fleet of CANDU reactors. We're talking about six to twelve units.

In the Chinese context, we're positioning the AFCR as a synergistic technology with China's existing light-water reactor fleet. China is going to build about 150 reactors in the next 20 years, and we've shown that through the use of CANDUs consuming recycled uranium, the optimal ratio for deployment is about 4:1. When we talk about 100 units, we can talk about 20 CANDU units in the long term.

The numbers I just gave you there are for something we'd talk about as happening in the five- to ten-year term, but this is still a substantial number, eight to ten units.

Within Canada we're always pursuing opportunities. Some of my colleagues, when we were AECL, were pursuing opportunities in the oil sands back in about 2008 and 2009, particularly working with oil companies on finding ways to decarbonize oil extraction technologies. We had a lot of progress there.

New Brunswick has a licensed site and would be very interested in building another CANDU unit there. At the Darlington site there is an environmental assessment and availability for two additional CANDU units. It's a function of load growth within the various provinces.

I mentioned the environment and climate change report that they submitted to the UN, which saw five scenarios, in which there's a fivefold increase in nuclear in Canada. That would have to happen outside of Ontario. Whether it's in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Quebec, British Columbia, or the north, there have to be opportunities outside of the province of Ontario.

We think there are a number of opportunities. For Saskatchewan, Premier Brad Wall actively talks about the role that nuclear plays, as they have uranium there. Alberta has not been a hotbed of activity, I'll call it, these days, but the move towards a carbon pricing mechanism and decarbonization presents a real opportunity for nuclear in that province. These are discussions that we're very interested in engaging in.

We won't deny that nuclear is a politically sensitive topic. Windmills and solar panels are not so, in some contexts, but as your colleague mentioned, when people start talking about nuclear, sometimes there is a lot of negative reaction.

Our view, as per my statement, is that we want to engage, as I said, in a science- and fact-based discussion. That really should be the underpinnings of the policy decisions that are made.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Cannings.

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

Thank you all for being here this morning.

I want to start with you, Dr. Bagger, to let you expand what you were saying, that there was a lack of government leadership on the isotope file. You mentioned your proposal for IAMI. Maybe you could expand on that and let us know what you think the federal government should be doing on that file.

[Dr. Jonathan Bagger]

Sure. Thank you.

The medical isotope file is presently housed in the federal government in NRCan. That is primarily because of the fact that the NRU reactor was a prolific source of medical isotopes, many of which were in fact marketed through Nordion. Now that the reactor is closing down, NRCan has declared its exit, really, from that space. They said this is not really their responsibility.

Who should be responsible for medical isotopes in the government? They're strategically important for health and for other reasons, so somebody needs to be looking and ensuring that there's an adequate supply across Canada. Where the private sector can provide the isotopes, that's fantastic. Where the private sector cannot, because of subsidies elsewhere or inefficiencies in the market, is the place for the government. Where should the home be? I could imagine three homes. One is that NRCan continue its responsibility for isotopes. I can imagine ISED, because of the fantastic opportunities for innovation that come through novel applications for isotopes. I could also imagine Health Canada, since one of the primary applications of isotope technology is in the field of health.

Right now, with our proposal for the IAMI facility, which really is to ensure isotope security in Canada, we're being passed from agency to agency, and nobody is willing to stand up and say, “We'll speak with you”.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Hannah, the nuclear industry is kind of new to me. I've learned a lot here over the past few weeks. I've heard of CANDU 6, I've heard of AFCR, I've heard of CANDU 9 and your partnership with China on these things. I just wonder if you could explain how CANDU 6 relates to CANDU 9 and whether your deal with China has applications that your company can use within Canada or in marketing that technology to other countries.

[Justin Hannah]

Absolutely. The joint venture agreement that we signed was for a joint partnership to complete the development of the advanced fuel CANDU reactor for deployment, initially in China, but then for international deployment together.

With the geneology of CANDU reactors, the CANDU 6 reactor is what I would call the workhorse of the international fleet. It's a 750-megawatt pressure tube reactor that uses natural uranium that we deployed internationally in the markets that I mentioned.

The enhanced CANDU 6 is what we call the generation III variant of that design. That went through the three stages of pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. That meets all of the post-Fukushima safety and regulatory updates that were required. We designed the reactor to meet those qualifications.

The AFCR is basically taking an additional variant on the EC6 design, taking all of those upgrades and making what I would say are minor modifications to optimize it to use this recycled uranium-type fuel.

Fundamentally, all of the reactors, including the ones at Bruce and Darlington, come from the same fundamental concept, which is horizontal pressure tubes utilizing natural uranium fuel and heavy water as a moderator.

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

Just getting back to Mr. Barlow's question, I believe, about possible new nuclear reactor builds in Canada, they would likely be using, if they were using CANDU technology, something like that AFCR design?