Science and Research Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[Francis Bradley]

Thank you for that very interesting question.

I think what we need to be looking at, and what many of the speakers presenting today were talking about seeking to develop, is essentially an expanded homegrown Canadian sector.

We actually have a history of this. This is not new in our nuclear space. We built a CANDU ecosystem in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. We did not rely on technology and expertise from other players. The same is true in many other areas of operation with respect to electricity. We are world leaders when it comes to electricity generation for hydro and when it comes to high-voltage electricity transmission.

As I said earlier, we're going to have to take an “all of the above” approach. It isn't just making sure we're developing an SMR ecosystem here in Canada; we're also going to have to develop other areas as well, like carbon capture utilization and direct air capture. We need to continue to expand wind, solar and nuclear and look at new technologies to improve the efficiency of our networks. We're going to have to look at transmission.

With two to three times the growth needed, all of these are going to have to be on the table, but we do have a record of actually developing homegrown sectors for this.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bradley.

I am happy that you gave the example of the CANDU reactor, but Canada has actually not sold that reactor internationally in several decades.

I understand that the idea is to develop expertise, but I was asking you about competitive advantages. We want to stand out and be independent, but the markets we want to compete with are stronger. Their diplomatic forces outmatch Canada's.

Why invest in a technology knowing that it will be harder for Canada to compete internationally?

[Francis Bradley]

To go back to something that one of the other speakers talked about, that it's a matter of math, I think it is. There are very limited pathways for us to be able to get to net zero 2050. The pathways that bring us to net zero 2050 will require an “all of the above” approach. We will not be able to get there without relying on everything, including nuclear, and including all of the other technologies as well. If we take one of those options off the table, the math simply doesn't work.

As I said in my comments earlier, if we are serious about trying to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050—if we truly are serious—we're going to have to have all of these options available to us. We're going to have to pursue every opportunity to produce electricity that's non-emitting.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

I understand your point of view on diversifying technologies, but the small modular reactor technology is not mature and is not developed. It will not be usable for another 10, even 15 years, so not before 2030 or 2035. As we know, Canada is trying to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

I remain optimistic, but I would like to know whether you have any data for us on whether that technology will really enable Canada to achieve net-zero emissions. If not, why not invest in technologies that are being developed in Canada, which are already mature and where we already have a competitive advantage? Why not let other countries with more force produce standardized small modular reactors and achieve economies of scale?

We could then use that technology over the short or the medium term. But in the meantime, we could focus on what is being done efficiently in Canada.

[Francis Bradley]

We're actually very close in terms of our approaches to this. The challenge, though, is that existing and current technologies that are available to us will not be sufficient for us to be able to reach 2050, whether one is talking about the current nuclear technology or the current technology with respect to carbon capture and utilization, or the current technology with respect to direct air capture. All of these things are going to have to be pursued.

They are not mature technologies today, but if we said that we shouldn't pursue technology until it's mature, we wouldn't have the amount of wind and solar that's coming on board today—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. Bradley, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, thank you for your questions.

We will now go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you to the witnesses. I must say that I took Ms. Diab's comment about bringing this back to science and research.... As a scientist myself, I wish I could stay on topic, but when you put a subject like nuclear power and climate change in front of a committee like this, things go off in all directions and into very important policy questions. I must admit that my first question is one of those non-science questions.

Mr. Diening, I've been following the Chalk River project for some time. Thank you for the land acknowledgements, but I must say that I know that the first nation on whose lands you operate, the Kebaowek First Nation, has been quite vocal in its objection to the continuation of nuclear industry on its lands, and has asked for an UNDRIP process to be heard for that consultation. It has heard nothing as yet from the government or from you or your partners in SNC-Lavalin, as far as I know.

I'm wondering if you could give a quick comment on that. I think it's important. We're talking about using these technologies in other first nations communities, and yet we're starting off on the wrong foot here, I think.

[Jos Diening]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, engagement with the communities that we operate in is extremely important to Global First Power. We have spent extensive time in the community listening. We understand that building a plant in these communities is not a right of ours; it's a privilege. It's something that we need to earn.

We have spoken with the communities on both the Ontario and the Quebec sides of the Ottawa River, and we will continue that engagement and that communication.

I think the most important thing for us is that we listen and understand the impact that our project will have on those communities, and that we find ways for us to share the benefits with the communities that we operate in.

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

Thank you.

Now, to get more into the technology side of things, did you say...? I forget whether it was a micro or a mini, or whatever your SMR is. What did you say its footprint was? Did I hear that it's an Olympic-sized running track?

[Jos Diening]

Yes, that's correct. We're a micro modular reactor.

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

It's a micro modular reactor. It's not micro modular like a hot water tank in my basement—it's something a little bigger.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

I was curious. I was just wondering what a micro modular size was.

In terms of getting back to the science and technology and the training that's necessary for the new technicians we'll need for an industry such as this, if you build something like this in a community, is there an opportunity for that community to staff the facility with people from that community?

Again, that's what seems to be very important to the remote communities and indigenous communities I talk to. They want to be able to give their residents a chance to do that work. However, nuclear power seems like something a little more complicated than running a diesel plant.

[Jos Diening]

The Chalk River facility that we're creating will be the commercial demonstration of our micro modular reactor. As we do our community engagement, it's definitely our intent to work with the local communities and find ways to engage them in the work that we do.

I agree that there's potential to operate and work within our facilities. I think it's an important thing for us. We are entering these remote communities, and I think it's important that we provide back to the communities and that we engage them as much as possible.

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

To clarify, then, if your technology is sold to some company, or whatever, that builds your technology in a remote community, say in northern Alberta, the people in that community could be trained to operate that facility.

[Jos Diening]

Global First Power is an owner and operator. We would look to the local communities to help staff our facilities in their communities. That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings. You are always on time.

Dear colleagues, we're now going to go to the five-minute round, and we go to Mr. Soroka.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and all the witnesses, for coming today.

Mr. Diening, Mr. Cannings brought up an interesting point with regard to talking with indigenous people. However, I am also curious about the challenges or issues you've found with this government and its approach to the utilization of SMRs for energy in Canada.

[Jos Diening]

At this point, there are a couple of things that I'll speak to.

First of all, when you look at the breadth of new projects that are coming to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for approval, there were some concerns in industry about whether CNSC would have the capacity to handle these projects. As we know, in the last several budgets, significant funding was provided to CNSC to build capacity to continue to be able to handle this new surge of projects coming its way.

When we look at the support through CNL with the lands owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which is an arm's-length organization of the federal government, we've seen a lot of support through that process and we hope to continue to see that support as we continue to develop our project.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I was also curious.... One of our previous witnesses mentioned that there are tax incentives, green bonds or other benefits granted by the federal government for renewable energy, but not for nuclear energy.

Could you expand on how SMRs are more beneficial than renewable energy or other methods, and how SMRs are more cost-effective than these other renewables?

[Jos Diening]

When we look at the reason for this renewal in the SMR and the nuclear industry, it's really around climate change. You look at all the different aspects that are required to go after climate change, and all these different supply sources are required to meet the updated demands within the electricity market.

I don't see Global First Power's micro modular reactors competing with renewables. I think we help enable them and we help fill in a gap in the electricity market where solar and wind are not generated.

I don't really see it as competition for us. We're collaborating and working together, and we enable each other.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You don't really see direct competition. It's more about how to balance each other out.

[Jos Diening]

That's how I see it.

Global First Power is an off-grid market, so it's a little different for us. We're not connecting into the larger grids. We're working in remote communities that aren't connected to the grids.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Bradley, in February 2022, Electricity Canada published a report regarding the state of the Canadian electricity industry. In that report, they were talking more about the ambitions of net zero by 2050. I need to know how big a role you think nuclear needs to play in order to bring those carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

How much electricity will we be producing through nuclear to help with that?

[Francis Bradley]

There are a lot of different projections of what the specific pathways will look like as we go out to 2050. We don't subscribe to a specific pathway as we look to the future.

What we know is that the math just does not work if you take any one of them—in this instance, nuclear—off the table with respect to what the future's going to require. Any kind of non-emitting electricity generation is going to be required. All of them will be required for us to be able to close the loop between now and 2050.

To your earlier question about—