Science and Research Committee on June 9th, 2022

[Robert Walker]

Thank you for the question.

I wrote that myself, so I can speak to it. I was most disappointed just because of the way it was portrayed. I've worked in the nuclear industry my entire life. My father worked in nuclear and, as I said earlier, my son works in nuclear. To take our jobs in nuclear and compare them to gambling, tobacco and the typical sin taxes.... Just the way it was done was very upsetting. I know that the future of the industry will be better if it's easier to access financing, and this will put a damper on that, but the big thing for me was just the way it was done.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Also, Dr. Walker, it was outlined in the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council that a multinational research effort is under way to recycle nuclear fuel in CANDU's nuclear technology.

Can you please inform us of some of the most promising updates in this process?

[Robert Walker]

Thanks for the question. I really don't feel qualified to answer that question. I need to say one thing. I am not a doctor. My background actually is as a nuclear operator, so I don't feel qualified doing it.

I know there is a lot of work going on. We've heard some discussions already from companies, like Moltex Energy, on what they're doing, and I've talked to companies like Terrestrial Energy.

There's a lot of work going on regarding recycling used CANDU fuel, but I don't know any more than what we've already heard here about where that's headed. Sorry.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

That's okay.

I'll go to Dr. Rayner, please, who's in the room here.

You've also stated that a critical issue of public confidence in small nuclear reactors.... Do you know of some of the regulations this government has in place to address this concern? How do you think we can propose to improve public confidence in SMRs?

[Dr. Jeremy Rayner]

The first piece that we have in place is an arm's-length regulator. I think that's very important and we should not do anything to jeopardize the independence of that arm's-length regulator.

The CNSC has been involved since 2014 with the International Atomic Energy Agency's SMR working group working through issues around regulation.

My concern with CNSC is they quite rightly don't see it as their role to take part in that process of engagement on behalf of a design or a use or whatever it may be, so we have to ask where the engagement is going to come from that will at least hear, if not address, the concerns that the public may have. I think it's unfortunate that the battle over the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its subsequent amendments has raged in the way that it has, because it has tended to take a very narrow definition of evidence that is to be taken into account in an assessment.

If we don't want to reopen that question, it would help if we had some other kind of forum that could discuss that kind of question. Something we discovered in Saskatchewan when we tried to do this with the uranium development committee, again, was this need people have for information they can trust and someone who will answer their questions.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Yes, it's very important to make sure you can trust the information you have.

Also, you've talked about indigenous engagement, making sure it's very early in the process and how essential it is. What recommendations do you have to advance SMR development in Canada while considering the interests of indigenous and the other vulnerable marginalized communities in Canada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. Soroka, since the time is up, would you like to ask Professor Rayner for a written answer?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

If he could, would he please provide a written answer to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Soroka.

Now we will go to Mr. Collins.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I have the same question for both Dr. Rayner and Dr. Root, if I could, about the whole issue of public engagement that has been talked about already. As a long-time municipal councillor, I had many meetings related to energy from waste, and when the proponent came to town, there was a crowd that attended the meeting, almost a pitchfork and torches crowd that would come out with a high degree of skepticism as it relates to the technology that was being proposed and the impacts it would have on the community when operational.

I listened with interest, Dr. Rayner, to your comments on public confidence. I wonder what your suggestion is or your recommendations are related to the federal government's role in education as well as public engagement. You touched on that extensively on the indigenous side of things, but in terms of your comment that, if transformational, these SMRs need to be built closer to where people live and work, I picture it in my riding.... A prior witness referenced that it's ideal for the steel community, and I'm from Hamilton, so I thought if someone came to town to propose this in my riding, I could guess what the reaction would be from neighbourhoods around the steel company, which already put up environmental nuisances and worse.

Can I get your comment on what role we play in taking that obligation away from the company and the proponent—who's profit-driven—in the face of that level of skepticism from the community, and put some of that onus on us to assist in that process? If these benefits are what people are advertising, we want to see them for various reasons, but when they make their way to communities across Canada, I fear there will be great public push-back.

Sorry for that long question, but I would ask you and Dr. Root to assist with that.

[Dr. Jeremy Rayner]

Yes, I would quickly give two answers to that.

The first is that I don't think you can get away from having some kind of broad, open engagement, whatever it may be. I started out as a young researcher in forest policy at the time of clear-cutting controversies—as you can probably tell, that was a very long time ago—and at that time, they used to call those public meetings “the last of the blood sports” and we have to get away from that. I think it should be possible, for example, to engage academic researchers, engage universities, engage others who have professional experience in public engagement to do more detailed, more small group.... We've worked with the Fedoruk centre developing citizen jury processes for testing out ideas about different kinds of energy, and they've been, I think, very successful. They're time-consuming, they're expensive, but I think we have to think outside the box about how we'll do that kind of engagement.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Dr. Root.

[Dr. John Root]

The Fedoruk centre has been supporting research on how to do this, how to engage the public in a respectful conversation, and there are a couple of ways to try to do this. We have lots of people in Saskatchewan doing nuclear things—it could be nuclear medicine, materials research, energy policy—and we're trying to make sure, first of all, that we have intelligent people who think about nuclear things and are proud of what they have done and tell their story and familiarize the community, or give opportunities for the community to be familiarized with nuclear just as an adjective, not as an emotional touchpoint.

We've also run, as Jeremy was saying, events that are available to the public to participate with in the form of a talk show. We bring some experts to the front, and they don't actually do a whole lot of talking, but they have a conversation with the audience. It just flows along with the questions in a certain subject. It could be radiation and the environment on one, or another one might be what we do about nuclear waste or something like that. That becomes a human conversation and a respectful conversation, and we haven't seen too much of the pitchforks and torches in that kind of venue. We have also had opportunities to be in the media. When the SMR announcements come out, people want to know what we are, and some examples are talk shows, where we have different points of view—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dr. Root, I apologize for interrupting.

Thank you for your—

[Dr. John Root]

Can I just—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Perhaps Mr. Collins might like a written answer.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That would be great, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you.

In the interest of fairness to all the people who support this committee, all our members and all the witnesses who have been so gracious, I'm going to give Mr. Blanchette-Joncas and Mr. Cannings each a question and then we will finish for the night.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I’ll address Mr. Rayner.

Dr. Rayner, I know you have expertise in nuclear policy. I’d like to hear from you about the Seaborn Commission’s unanimous recommendation. It called for creating a nuclear waste management and decommissioning agency, independent from industry and organizations that promote the industry.

[Dr. Jeremy Rayner]

That's a difficult question. The argument against it is, why should public funds be put to help out the industry? Why doesn't the industry step up and do this? That's what they're doing.

The disadvantage, of course, is that they are not perceived as fair and impartial. We have got some way with the current arrangement. I would not be opposed to revisiting those recommendations and constituting a waste management organization in a different way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Professor Rayner.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

The last question of the evening will go to Mr. Cannings.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to direct this to Bob Walker.

Hi, Bob. It's good to see you again.

I have questions about training. A lot of the remote communities I've talked to about SMRs want to have the jobs associated with their energy projects around their communities. What sort of training will operators need to operate SMRs? Is this something that people in remote communities can be trained quickly to do?

How many jobs will there be at an SMR after construction?

[Robert Walker]

For the jobs numbers, I wouldn't have a number. It depends on which technology we're talking about. I've heard numbers for the grid-scale SMRs in the 150 range. Construction jobs would be a lot more than that.

When it comes to training, I started my career in Uranium City, Saskatchewan. Eldorado Nuclear shut the mine down. I had to be retrained, so I went to community college in La Ronge, Saskatchewan, where I was trained to work at the new uranium mine at Key Lake. That retraining can happen locally. It happened decades ago with me and that can happen again.

For a nuclear operator, it's going to depend on the technology. The training program for our large reactors is fairly long. Theoretically, they would take people from high school, but usually they take people from college programs and sometimes from university programs. It's a couple of years of training.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Walker, and thank you, Mr. Cannings.

I want to thank all our witnesses for sharing with us. It's late at night and you've been so gracious with your time.

I want to thank the excellent members of this committee and everyone who works so hard to support this committee.

We are adjourned.