Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

[Steven Schumann]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Sorry, that's your time, Mr. Tan. Thank you very much.

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for being here today and for your comments.

In the same vein as the conversation that we've been having, on November 24 we did have a representative from the Office of the Auditor General here who had conducted an audit on the CNSC. She did express concerns that were outlined in her report about protocols, data management, and follow-ups for the CNSC site inspections and practices. She went on to say, similar to the comments you were making, that it's likely the industry and the workers are well ahead of the regulator on all of these fronts.

She said that like the Canadian energy, oil and gas, and mining sectors, safety is in their DNA. It was echoed again by a representative from Bruce Power on the same day, who said that when looking at the spectrum of energy development or responsible resource development in Canada broadly, we are blessed to have a three-legged stool here, with the first leg being the strong and successful oil and gas sector, the second leg being hydroelectricity, and the third leg being nuclear. He said it's important that all of these sectors are supported, promoted, and acknowledged as world-leading sectors, as well as the performance of workers in Canada, which is second to none on the planet. That seems to align with the comments that you were making.

Another witness said that in particular to nuclear, we punch above our weight as a country, and that Canada's regulatory regime in the post-Fukushima period was one of the first to step up, and it was internationally recognized.

I'd invite you to expand on your comments about whether you agree with the assessment that the nuclear industry and the workers, in their performance and their commitment in Canada, are dedicated to responsible development and to safe operations.

I wonder if you might comment personally, on behalf of the members you represent and you work with, on whether you find it insulting that organizations, sometimes foreign-funded organizations who protest against your way of life, your expertise, and the economic opportunities for the men, women, first nations, young workers, and older expert workers in the sector consistently, it seems to me, are making the argument that the construction and the operation of these facilities are guaranteed to result in failure and in catastrophic risks to your neighbours, to your fellow Canadians, and to the communities neighbouring these operations that provide so many economic benefits to their communities and sustainable energy for all Canadians.

[Steven Schumann]

First, we work very closely with our contract partners and those who hire us, to ensure we meet their standards of what they need. For example, with the refurbishment of facilities, as I said, they want nuclear-ready workers. We sat down with our contractors, those who had bid on the work, and the operators and asked them what they meant by nuclear-ready workers. They explained it to us. They showed us what they needed, their concerns. We took that back to our locals who provide the training, saying this is the training they need, and asked if they could meet it.

We ensure that we sit with our contractors, and we train our workers to those higher standards they will need to ensure the safety of things being constructed. I can safely say here that things that are constructed in any energy sector by a unionized Canadian workforce will be by the best-trained workers you'll see, and we will follow the highest standards out there. Again, as you said, for us, worker safety is paramount. We breathe it through and through in our training, on the sites. When we build it, it will be safely built through the requirements that have been laid out to us.

To the second part of your question about the protesters, I'm of two minds. Everyone has a right to protest and express their views. Do I find it insulting? No. That's their point of view. All I ask is that they have an informed point of view. Unfortunately, when we come to a lot of these arguments, they're don't.

Again, I will go back to oil and gas, because I know it better. When we talk about pipelines in B.C., you see the baby duck from the Exxon Valdez. That was 30-odd years ago. It's the same baby duck you see over and over again. That's not an argument: the pipelines are the safest thing out there. Let's have a real argument. If you have concerns about nuclear, let's talk about the concerns. Let's not talk about the construction, because it's going to be built to the safest standards. Let's have an honest discussion about your concerns.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schumann.

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Now we'll go to Mr. Whalen, for five minutes, please.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schumann.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Following up on Ms. Stubbs' questioning regarding whether workers feel insulted, I like your answer. It's very to the point. It's important to have a robust public debate on this.

Further to that, earlier we heard from very informed environmental groups, who raised some important issues about the long-term liabilities and long-term obligations Canadians have to protect the environment with respect to nuclear waste. Has your organization been consulted by Ontario about the development of the deep repository?

[Steven Schumann]

I can answer that generally. I believe if there were to be discussions, it would be with the Ontario building trades, our umbrella organization. I can't answer if there have been discussions.

But if the government is serious about building it, it likely would have reached out to our Ontario building trades. Again, they'd look for our expertise in creating something like that.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Are there specialized understandings, techniques, and safety requirements in construction within the nuclear industry that your members are experts in that other tradespeople in a similar field but in other industries would not have the same knowledge about?

[Steven Schumann]

We have 14 different trades that cover different things. As I said, we're the heavy equipment aspect. I think some of the technical things.... Ours is more applicable to all sectors. Those who work probably more inside the facilities, such as the electricians and the pipefitters so on, may have more expertise particularly around certain aspects of the structure itself, in that, again, they would be trained to have that. Non-union workers wouldn't have that, because they don't get the same training that unionized workers have.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

For us to manage the long-term environmental liabilities associated with nuclear waste, do you think we need a critical mass of active nuclear industry so we can generate the new and improved techniques, the higher safety requirements so we can maintain these deep geologic repositories over the long term? Or do you think that over time we can completely phase out nuclear and just focus on the storage, without further development investment in the actual industry?

[Steven Schumann]

I'm not the expert on that side. As I said, our workers just like to build things.

In moving forward on any model you have for storage—this is for any energy facility you have out there—don't be afraid to regulate to no end. Safety is huge. Regulation is paramount. Workers abide by the regulations. Those who want to build it...if they regulate it, they will still build it. Let's not skimp on that.

Yes, if we move forward on this let's have that robust discussion about how we build the safest facility and ensure its long-term viability. That is a discussion not only between those who want to build it, the operators, but also those who are going to build it as well.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Are you advocating for a higher standard of regulation in the Canadian nuclear construction industry?

[Steven Schumann]

For the construction side, I think we're pretty well regulated, because in Ontario particularly our members are the highest trained. So I would not want to comment on that. I think the trade themselves would have comment on that. But again, we already meet the highest standards, and I've never heard of an issue on the construction side, so I think on the construction side right now we're quite good and the regulations work quite well.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

You can have another 30 seconds.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Great.

In terms of the trades, then, the expertise that your union members get working in the nuclear construction industry is fully transportable to other industries including renewables, including other types of projects. Those workers, if they're going to be displaced, could be displaced into the renewable sector if more investment was put there.

[Steven Schumann]

Yes. As I said, if they are given the training and opportunity to get the hours to become a proper journeyperson, yes. It only takes a little bit of training to move them off to another facility.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thanks for confirming that the environment and development can go hand in hand.

[Steven Schumann]

Yes, it does. Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Whalen.

Mr. Cannings may have one more question. We're getting close to the end. Does anybody else have any other questions, or are you guys fine? Okay.

We'll close with you, Mr. Cannings, if you have question left, please.

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

Okay, thanks.

I have just one quick comment. You mentioned the Exxon Valdez. Even though it was thirty or some years ago, there are still more than 20,000 gallons of oil on those beaches in Alaska.

[Steven Schumann]

I understand that. That was my—

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

[Inaudible--Editor] those dangers seriously.

[Steven Schumann]

Yes.

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

You mentioned that SNC-Lavalin had a five-year contract with an option to renew. What are your thoughts about what the government could and should do if SNC-Lavalin decides not to renew?

[Steven Schumann]

It's hard to say, because who knows what the facility will look like in five years from now? Right now, at the facility we have a lot of issues in retaining and attracting new talent to come out there. So obviously in five years, if there has not been a significant investment into the facility, it's going to look very different.

I don't want to navel-gaze on it, but I'll be very interested in five years from now—again, if that is the length of the contract, from what we understand—to see if they want to continue. Again, I don't believe a facility like Chalk River should be in any way private sector, because I think what's researched before....

I understand the commercialization side. My own personal thing is that I just don't know this was the best model to approach into....but I'll leave it at that.