Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

[Dr. Gordon Edwards]

The main problem here is that there's been no public discussion, no public debate, no environmental impact statement, no public hearings, and this material is extremely dangerous. One litre is sufficient to ruin an entire city's water supply, and every one of the 150 shipments will contain 252 litres. Although the packaging is very good, and the industry, of course, expects that everything will be just perfect, why run the risk of transporting this material in liquid form when, if the unforeseeable happens, and it does leak, it will be very damaging to water systems?

You mentioned quite correctly that they're planning to down-blend the highly enriched uranium in order to use it as fuel. They can do the down-blending part right at Chalk River. In fact, they've already done that in Indonesia. Earlier this year, in three months, they down-blended all of their highly enriched uranium liquid waste, and they're not shipping it. They're not shipping it to the United States. This could be done in Canada as well.

The idea of down-blending it for the purpose of using it as reactor fuel is frankly kind of ridiculous, because ordinary fuel is so cheap, comparatively speaking, and this fuel would be extremely expensive. It would also be contaminated with fission products, so it would be more costly than it should be, and it would be dangerous to handle.

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

But then 23,000 litres, once—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you. That's your time, Mr. Harvey. Sorry.

Now we have Mr. Strahl for seven minutes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming to talk to us today.

Mr. Stensil, I spent some time in the north, although not as much, obviously, as Mr. McLeod. After Greenpeace has done more to destroy the way of life, and the income, and the hunting and trapping, and the sealing industry, etc., with their international campaigns against Inuit people up there, I think they'll view your offer of help probably with suspicion, like they would from someone from Toronto. I think that has been a tragedy, and I note there are some Inuit organizations that are looking to bring a class action lawsuit, actually, to recoup some of the damages that have been inflicted on their communities.

Speaking of damages to the people of Ontario, I noticed your concern for significant taxpayer dollars having been spent on the nuclear industry, but between 2006 and 2014, hydro bills for homes and small businesses in Ontario rose 70%. Ontario's auditor general, Bonnie Lysyk, placed the blame on Ontario's Green Energy Act. She noted that hydro companies will pay a total of $9.2 billion more for wind and solar projects under the Liberals’ 20-year guaranteed price program for renewable energy. Soaring hydro rates are forcing people out of their homes, closing small and medium-sized businesses. We're hearing about people having to choose between heating or eating, or choosing between heating and paying for their prescription medication.

The premier herself, Kathleen Wynne, has admitted that high electricity prices were her mistake, and that people had been placed in an unacceptable position of having to choose between paying their electricity bill and, as I said, buying food or paying rent.

With about 60% of Ontario's energy currently generated by nuclear energy, I know that Greenpeace has also opposed hydroelectric projects. You said we shouldn't be making policy that benefits the nuclear industry. We've seen what the policy looks like. We don't have to guess. We don't have to pontificate. We don't have to model it. We've seen how disastrous the Ontario green energy policy has been, so why would we repeat that right across the country? Have you done any modelling that would show how much that would cost ratepayers, the people who actually have to pay the bill, if we repeated, right across the country, the mistakes that Kathleen Wynne has made?

[Shawn-Patrick Stensil]

Great. Thank you for the question.

I'll start out with a compliment to the Conservative Party. Greenpeace supported the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It was a good thing for ratepayers, and it is protecting ratepayers from ongoing cost overruns at Point Lepreau and future refurbishments in Ontario. So that was a good thing. Let's keep the dialogue open, because sometimes we can find common ground.

On your point around the Inuit, I can supply this information to you, but you may be very intrigued to see the work we've been doing in Clyde River. This summer we helped the community install solar facilities to help them get off diesel generation. That's been something going on. We've also been supporting their Supreme Court case against seismic testing. So there's a different type of relationship on which I'm happy to provide you with more information.

For clarity, for communities in the north—and this goes for Mr. Harvey as well—listen to what my message was: namely, be skeptical about the promise that's been given around SMRs but also look at what the other alternatives to SMRs are other than diesel, and that is renewable micro-grids. To get to a good decision, we need to have both options on the table, and right now, as I noted in my briefing note, the only options we have are SMRs against diesel. I think a fair way to approach those communities, to allow them to make their own decisions, is to say, “Here is an SMR option, and here are renewable micro-grids, which are already being done in Alaska. What do you want to do?” Right now that information isn't available, so I would encourage the committee to look for it.

When it comes to Ontario, you're right, there have been a lot of mistakes, and a lot of that has to do with the Green Energy Act and how it was implemented. The government bought a lot of solar power at really high levels. The way green energy acts are supposed to work, as in Germany, instead of putting out big offers and buying a lot of power at once, you buy it in small increments as the price goes down. What Ontario did was buy a lot of solar power in 2010, when prices were higher. They didn't do what Germany is doing, which is ratcheting the price down consistently.

As I mention in my briefing note, it's very interesting to investigate where the price points in the renewable sector are going. If we do a forward-looking analysis, the cost is dropping consistently. In the last RFP the Ontario government put out, they got wind power in at 6.5¢ for the first time. That's lower than nuclear generation, and it's lower than wind was five years ago at 13¢. That is where, for this committee that's studying innovation, you can look at what the real deliverables are. There is a trend line there that we should look at as evidence for what's going on and how we, as the federal government, take advantage of that for ratepayers, for everyone.

I would urge you to keep an open mind. Yes, there have been some mistakes in Ontario. A lot of the problem in addition to the Green Energy Act—I'm right now working on Greenpeace's submission for the province's long-term energy plan—is the fact that we're exporting the entire output of Pickering, the nuclear station, about 20 terawatts, to Michigan at a loss. They have kept that station online. It's going to close in 2024. It should have closed in 2014. All of it is surplus, so right now ratepayers are buying that power at 7¢. We're selling it to Michigan at 2¢, and the ratepayers are paying that difference.

We also need to protect ratepayers, and I agree with you on that, but let's look at the evidence on the other side. I think you're getting some distorted views of where the renewable sector and clean tech sector are going. They're actually bringing their price points down. Between Greenpeace and Conservatives, we can find agreement that this is a good thing. We need to find out how it can be used in the public interest.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you. That's your time.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thanks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I appreciate it.

Mr. Cannings, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you both for coming here this morning.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Stensil, and talk about CNSC. I want you to talk about what you think its role should be and how it has measured up to that role over the last few years. We have heard of whistleblowers telling us of sloppy procedures within CNSC, and we've heard the environment commissioner talking about a certain level of disregard for those procedures and those criticisms.

I wonder if you could expand on that and talk about how we view the CNSC, perhaps, how confident we are in it, and how that should perhaps change in the future.

[Shawn-Patrick Stensil]

Thank you. That's a very good question.

It's important for the committee to realize that when it comes to nuclear accidents, the cause is often—for Fukushima and Chernobyl—attributed to something called “institutional failure”, which is basically when the regulator and the operator dismiss the risks that the technology poses and start to cut corners. That's exactly what happened at Fukushima. There was a bad regulator.

What really worries me about the CNSC is that, instead of acting as an independent, unbiased regulator, it has become over the past 10 years a promotional agency. That was caused—I already gave a compliment to one side of the table—when the Harper government fired president Keen in 2008. What was really driving that, according to Ms. Keen, was that she was imposing modern safety standards on the licensing of the CANDU 6 reactor, which is a pre-Chernobyl, pre-September 11 design. I mention that in my briefing note. Ms. Keen was saying that if they wanted to build it in Ontario, they needed to meet modern safety standards, and that that was the CNSC's job as an agency. That got Atomic Energy of Canada and SNC-Lavalin, who's since bought Candu, very upset because they were losing money and competitive advantage. They fired her for that and put in a new president, Mr. Binder, who you've seen.

These are some of the hard things to measure. The tone of the commission has changed considerably over the past 10 years. If you look at the likes of their communications, instead of just putting out simple facts, they're often touting the industry and its accomplishments. That's where you start to see a sort of conceptual capture that goes on. They're more interested in trying to prop this industry up.

So I'm very worried about the commission. I've been intervening at the commission for the past 15 years. There was no love lost between Greenpeace and Ms. Keen, either. We had our own fights. It has gotten significantly worse, though, under Mr. Binder. When I talk with international journalists from the nuke industry, they're shocked at some of the things that come out of the CNSC compared to other international regulators. This is actually a topic that the committee itself should look into more deeply, I think.

Gordon, did you want to say something?

[Dr. Gordon Edwards]

Yes, maybe I could add to that.

There are some alarming situations that have developed. One was that, through carelessness and through lack of monitoring, over 500 workers, a lot them just local workers who were tradesmen, were exposed to breathing, without respirators and without protective clothing, plutonium-contaminated dust over a period of weeks before it finally was detected, and they blew the whistle on it.

What bothers me is that nobody at Bruce Power, where this happened, or at the CNSC was taken to task, fired, demoted, or even investigated for allowing this to happen. There was absolutely no reason that this should have happened. All the information was there.

That kind of laxity is very hard to accept.

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

I just want to quickly ask about DGRs and their design. You mentioned a failure at Carlsbad. What would you recommend that we do with the nuclear waste that we have and that we have to deal with?

[Dr. Gordon Edwards]

To tell you the truth, for the first 30 years of the nuclear industry here in Canada, nuclear waste was not even mentioned. It was presented as a completely clean technology. It was only in 1977 that the federal government published its green paper on managing Canada's nuclear waste, the so-called Hare report. That's where the idea of a DGR, a deep geological repository, for this waste was put forward in Canada. Subsequently, there were many other hearings that commented on this.

The difficulty is with the experience that we've had worldwide. The United States has failed eight times to locate a waste repository for their high-level waste. In Carlsbad, New Mexico, a drum exploded, and plutonium dust went 475 metres up. It contaminated 22 workers, and then drifted downwind to Carlsbad. There are also the two episodes I mentioned in Germany. These experiences should teach us to be cautious. Our organization has come to the view that, certainly for the foreseeable future, we should adopt a policy of rolling stewardship. That means we should not be irrevocably burying nuclear waste underground where it's beyond human control, but rather keeping it monitored and retrievable until we know a whole lot more than we do now.

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

How am I doing?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

You have one minute.

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

Mr. Stensil, maybe I could get a quick response to the question about how CNSC has modelled Fukushima-level incidents as if they were to occur in Canada. How important is that? Is it something we should be concerned about?

[Shawn-Patrick Stensil]

Yes, it is something we should be concerned about, because for emergency planning purposes we should be ready for worst-case scenarios. That's what other countries such as Germany and Belgium have done since Fukushima. They've actually modelled these types of accidents and asked what they need to be ready for off-site, so that they can protect the public.

The CNSC, at hearings in 2012 and 2013, heard from hundreds of Ontarians that we need to look at these types of studies, whatever you think about the nuclear industry, to better our emergency plans. They've consistently dodged modelling a Fukushima-scale accident and done a lot of—I don't know—bafflegab to avoid actually addressing the question.

This goes back to your original question about the CNSC. It really worries me that they haven't been direct with the public about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much. That's your time.

I believe, Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Harvey, that you're going to split your time.

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

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Mr. Lemieux will go first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the two witnesses for their presentations this morning.

As you know, I am from the province with the smallest carbon footprint in Canada, thanks to its hydroelectric facilities and its wind farms. In Quebec, we have also chosen to close the only nuclear plant that we had, the one in Gentilly.

Examples of nuclear disasters abound, such as the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The disposal of nuclear waste and the decommissioning of nuclear plants are costly aspects of producing this type of energy. On the other hand, I am a person who believes in looking at both sides of the coin.

In Canada, we have developed nuclear technology and expertise that are respected the world over. In addition, our nuclear safety system is among the safest in the world.

Do you think that the government's announced carbon tax of $50 per tonne starting in 2022 will encourage the development of the nuclear industry in Canada, which boasts of producing energy without any CO2 emissions?

I would like to hear from both witnesses on this.

[Shawn-Patrick Stensil]

Thank you for the question.

I doubt that the carbon tax will lead to growth in Canada's nuclear industry since the cost of building and refurbishing reactors is rising steadily.

Ontario, for example, is closing eight reactors. The province has put forward a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also reducing the number of reactors. In other countries, such as Germany, good greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are set without resorting to nuclear energy. Like Quebec, Belgium and Switzerland are doing away with nuclear energy. These countries will use other technologies because renewable energies are more competitively priced than nuclear energy, and their costs keep dropping.

As I said in my presentation, we expect the cost of wind power to drop by 50% by 2050. There is a lot of innovation in this sector. The challenge facing the nuclear industry involves not only the costs of disposing of waste and the risk of accidents, but also the competition. Technologies are improving very quickly.

If you do a study of the cleantech industry, you will find, as Wayne Gretzky said with regard to hockey,

that's “where the puck is going”.

Everyone is going in that direction. Germany and Japan, which are the third and fourth largest economies in the world respectively, are doing away with nuclear energy while striving to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Investments in renewable energy are transforming economies and businesses everywhere. Companies such as General Motors, Google, and many others are setting targets and using renewable energy to meet their energy needs.

To answer your question, I doubt that a carbon tax will make nuclear energy more competitive. In addition to the costs, there is still the problem of the social acceptability of this source of energy.

As to small modular reactors, it takes at least 15 years to build a demonstration facility, and then buyers have to be found. So that would be too late to fight climate change.

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

Do you agree with that opinion, Mr. Edwards?

[Dr. Gordon Edwards]

Yes, I am. I do believe the writing is on the wall with regard to....

Again, the simple fact is that nuclear costs keep going up. They never go down. Renewable costs go down. This is a mathematical certainty that they're going to cross and have already crossed in many places. The real problem here is learning how to store energy efficiently. Please bear in mind, though, that even the nuclear people are talking about electrical vehicles. Well, electrical vehicles do not work unless you have a breakthrough in storage. We are getting some of those breakthroughs. Tesla has some fantastic batteries that have been developed, and that's only the beginning.

The point is that we haven't really devoted our ingenuity to this. We've been spending our ingenuity on other things. Once engineers and scientists start concentrating on that problem, I believe we'll see the storage problem solved. This means that nuclear will be outpaced completely by renewables.

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

I would like to hear your opinion on this, Mr. Harvey.