Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

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

Witnesses who have appeared before our committee have said that the future of nuclear energy in Canada will revolve primarily around exporting our technology, to China among other countries, and selling nuclear fuel.

Do you agree with that assessment? Or do you think instead that there will be growth in the nuclear industry in Canada?

[Steven Schumann]

As I said earlier, we build it all. We're huge fans of all types of energy. We're big fans of oil and gas, pipelines, wind, solar, and nuclear. We mainly try to focus on building the energy facilities for people. We try to stay away from the commentary side. If there is a will, a desire by government, to continue with nuclear, we'll be there to help ensure the facilities are built to the best standards. We—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I'm sorry, Mr. Schumann. That's seven minutes. I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to expand on that.

We'll go to Mr. Strahl, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When we have witnesses that come through, I often wish sometimes the panels would be arranged so that, for instance, in the last panel we could have the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility actually appear with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, so they could deal with some of the comments.

I think it would have been good, as well, to have the International Union of Operating Engineers appear with Greenpeace in the last panel, because I note with interest the IUOE has supported the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the Line 3 pipeline expansion, has supported the nuclear facility refurbishment. I met with the BC Building Trades Council, which also supports pipeline development, supports the Site C dam, supports responsible resource development.

I guess I'm looking for your perspective. I know you said you don't like to get into the policy. If it's going to be built, you want to build it. I think on this, certainly from the Conservative side, we're not too concerned about oil companies or pipeline companies or nuclear companies, but we are concerned about the women and men who gain family-supporting jobs and who pay the mortgage and put food on the table because of the projects that are approved by government.

Can you perhaps talk about the tension that sometimes comes up where we have organizations that are actively involved in opposing much of the work that sustains the families that you represent? How do you deal with that? Do you have campaigns to try to educate people on the nature of your work, the important economic benefits that it provides to communities and families? Or is that the job of government?

[Steven Schumann]

For a long time in the past we relied on others to do that because we were busy working and building stuff; however, over the recent time and in the previous government's tenure, we saw it more. Certain groups were very loud in protesting development. We ourselves, as operating engineers, and some of the building trades have started to promote the projects we work on and highlight the fact that these are jobs for the women, men, first nations, youth, for the future of Canada.

For example, just quickly, on the pipeline ones, we create some social media campaigns to inform people that we're ready to work, we want to build these pipelines, and here are the benefits. The protests have been very loud on the pipelines, so yes, we've been very active on that.

In terms of promoting nuclear, no, we've not been very active in promoting the benefits of the work that we do, in part because most of the work is in Ontario, at the two facilities, and there has not been a very loud, boisterous protest over these refurbishments like there is on some of these other projects.

But yes, if in the future we see the discourse going against what we build, we will become more active. We want to work with the governments who help put us...employed, and that will be of any political stripe. We both need to get the message out, because I believe that governments haven't done a good job as well of expressing the actual economic impact on the people who build the jobs. I think we all need to take a better role in that as well, but we are actually being more active in taking a role in that.

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

Okay. I appreciate that, and I think that's a fair criticism of governments of all stripes.

I did want to get an indication in terms of, as you mentioned, the demographics of your workforce. Perhaps some of us started to look at ourselves when you mentioned some of the demographics you're dealing with. Can you indicate for the committee what the average wage is for your members, especially when it comes to, perhaps, the nuclear side? What are we talking about in terms of an hourly wage or an annual wage for the average workers, for the 11,000, I think you mentioned, who are going to participate in refurbishment?

[Steven Schumann]

Off the top of my head, I can't give you that, because it is varying. You would be looking at an hourly wage, off the top of my head, in the high $20s, low $30s, to start off, and higher, depending on the experience, apprenticeship, and the role—the piece of equipment or what part of the work the person is doing.

In fact, I believe under the Pickering plant there is actually a document that touches on some more of the economic skills of the workforce, and I can try to get that to the committee and share that with you if you wish. Unfortunately, I don't want to speak on the generalities, but they are very well-paid jobs. We take it very seriously because our members are trained to work in these sectors and work on the equipment. It is not an easy piece of equipment.

Just to let you know, if you look at the three cranes on West Block, you'll see three of our members. It takes anywhere between 4,500 to 6,000 hours to become a journeyperson on a crane. There's lots of training, there's lots of investment, and these people are paid for the work they do.

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

Thank you very much. That's all I have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Cannings.

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

Thank you, Mr. Schumann, for being here today. I'd like to start off by thanking you and all of organized labour for the role you've played in ensuring that Canadian workers have well-paying jobs—jobs that can support families—and in the great role you mentioned in training. This is one of the things that has been abandoned over the last couple of decades. For various reasons—I don't want to cast aspersions on any governments—there have been attacks on organized labour, to the great detriment, I think, of Canadian workers.

I want to pick up on the training. You said this work in refurbishment would be a great opportunity for young workers to get trained in various trades. I just wondered if you could point out the applicability of these jobs to other sectors. You say you build everything. If these workers are training in building nuclear reactors or refurbishing them, how applicable is that work to pipelines, wind, or solar, those other energy sectors you mentioned?

[Steven Schumann]

I'll just speak on behalf of operating engineers. We're heavy equipment. When you deal with a nuclear facility, there are certain things you need to be specifically trained on about how to deal with taking down part of a structure or stuff like that. Our members are trained on the equipment. To be an excavator or crane operator, those skills are applicable anywhere. For example, after focusing on the safety parameters of the job site, a crane operator can go to work at Bruce or at Darlington.

For electricians, they have certain codes and safety protocols they would have to meet to go and work in a facility like this. But they're trained as an electrician and that can be applicable to another job anywhere else, such as to build a wind turbine or something else like that. The key is to get the apprentices trained on the equipment or in their field, and then to get them the actual work time so they get the experience, and then they can move anywhere in that jurisdiction to work in Ontario.

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

Moving now to the situation at Chalk River around the pension, you said there were 3,400 employees there. I just wanted to get clarification. How many of those employees are yours? Are all those employees affected by this pension situation? If there's a defined pension in the contract agreement that kicks in if they can't make an agreement, I almost wonder what kind of bargaining position you have.

[Steven Schumann]

There are over 20 bargaining units in Chalk River, and most of them are fairly small. There would be anywhere between a couple to 20 or 40. There are about three big unions: PIPSC, steel, and I forget the other. They would make up a lot of it, but there are a lot of small bargaining units. We ourselves are about 50 members of that 3,200 at Chalk River, and we have a couple spread out through the other ones.

Yes, it's been very difficult. There has been a lack of willingness on the employer's side to move forward on this pension issue. They have that fallback, so it has caused a lot of angst among the unions out there and among the employees. They think if this is how this new operator wants to operate the facility, what does it mean moving forward on other issues?

Just to let you know, in the time that this announcement was made, we were finding it very difficult to find people to come and work for us in our classifications at the facility. We posted a job three times. It's a very high-paying job, but there's no interest in coming out to Chalk River right now.

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

Turning to decommissioning, you say you build stuff. But if you work in heavy equipment, we've heard from other witnesses about the opportunities Canada has in decommissioning all the facilities we have, Pickering being one. Is that something your members would benefit from and you would support?

[Steven Schumann]

Yes, in Pickering and in Bruce, all that work down there is done under a project labour agreement, so our members would be the ones who would be involved in the decommissioning. The decommissioning of some of the stuff at Chalk River right now is being done by our members.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cannings.

Mr. Tan for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you. I'd like to share my time with my colleague.

You just mentioned some changes happened to the employees and the scientists of AECL's department right now called Candu Energy after the privatization of this company. In your opinion, what was the motivation of the government to privatize this company?

[Steven Schumann]

From our understanding, there would be some cost savings involved by offloading this facility. Again, we have never seen a study on the cost savings. If there has been one published, it has never been shared with us. Again, we are going on what we hear. No one has explained it to any of the employees or any of the bargaining units at Chalk River.

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

Okay. Your point is that the government tried to reduce the liability or the burden on the AECL.

Then I come to a question about the GOCO model you just mentioned in your presentation. I asked a similar question before to the government about this GOCO model. The nuclear industry is very special because nuclear safety always has a high priority. Before the government can emphasize nuclear safety, no matter how much, and even pay money or put more people working under this GOCO model.... I don't know how the government can judge the performance of the contractors. They can save money, but perhaps they have to sacrifice nuclear safety. If they maintain nuclear safety, probably they have to pay more money, and then it's against the purpose of the government. Maybe there is something that I don't understand. Maybe you can comment more on that.

[Steven Schumann]

I would share your concerns. With what Chalk River was in the past, and where it may be going, I don't believe privatization of that facility should occur, particularly in a GOCO model. I believe you would have a great deal of support. There are concerns about the future operations of this facility around safety. No ill will is intended to those who are now responsible, but they're here to make money. This facility, the way it was going, is not a money-maker from any perspective, I think. Where will they get their benefit from? I know they talked about future investment, bringing in stuff, and bringing in 300 people, I think they said, at some point. I don't see how they're going to be doing this with its current structure. I do wonder how they will move forward.

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

Okay.

I need your comments on another question as well. We just heard, and even before from some witnesses, about the use of renewable energy to replace or even phase out nuclear energy and nuclear technology. Yes, we all applaud the use of renewable energy in the future, but I think people have to be realistic. We cannot reach there overnight. It may take 20 or 30 years, but between now and 20 or 30 years, what kind of energy will we have to fill the gap? Right now more than 50% of the electricity in Ontario is from nuclear energy, which means half of the electricity in this room is from nuclear sources. Without nuclear technology, I cannot imagine how we can make a technological breakthrough on renewable energy, because they need electricity as well to do their research. This is something you can probably comment more on.

[Steven Schumann]

It's just not nuclear. To go back to an earlier question of oil and gas, those who protest say we have to be off this energy now. Well, it's not possible. We need a long-term plan, which involves honest discussions about where we'll be in 20 or 30 years from now. Like I said, we build it all. We're on the front lines of everything, and we see it. I think it's very important that we have this discussion, not only between governments, but with concerned citizens, including labour and environmentalists, about how you properly phase it out in the next 20, 30 years, or longer. It's something that can't happen overnight. We need to have this bigger discussion and not be so blinded that we're going to turn off the tap right now.

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

My colleague just said something about the role of government and also about the role of industry around the education of the public and knowledge about the nuclear industry. I think this is very critical, and I think a lot more can be done by the industry and by the employees. I agree that the amount of energy stored in the nuclear reactor stations is huge, but if we have safety features, we will likely never see an accident happen.

I'll give you one example. We see an airplane crash almost every week, and we see car accidents every day, but who cares, right? People still take planes, and people still drive cars to work, even though there is a danger. So I guess this is something the industry can do to help themselves to have better public awareness about our safety features. Nuclear energy is not evil; if we have good controls and good safety measures, we don't have much concern about that.

These are the comments I have for you.

[Steven Schumann]

I appreciate it. The problem is that especially when we deal with energy, one accident, light or horrific, always seems to linger and be rehashed and rehashed. Just because something happened somewhere else, everyone says it's going to happen here in Canada. Well, our regulations are different. They're stronger, and the standards are higher. Knock on wood, we've been very fortunate, and that will continue. Unfortunately, people take world events and link them to Canada right away on a lot of this stuff.

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

That emphasizes the need for public education.