Evidence of meeting #15 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was smrs.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Christopher Keefer  President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy
Joseph McBrearty  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
Susan O'Donnell  Adjunct Research Professor, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
Evelyn Gigantes  As an Individual
Gordon Edwards  President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Edouard Saab  President, Westinghouse Electric Canada
Jeremy Rayner  Professor, As an Individual
Robert Walker  National Director, Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council
John Root  Executive Director, Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation Inc.

7:20 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Joseph McBrearty

From the spent fuel research into usable fuel, you have to understand the processes and what the risks are with that fuel from a proliferation standpoint, but you also need to be able to understand what the fuel and material components are and how they are going to interact. You want to make sure that you understand the safety cases that those fuels provide to you.

At the end of the day, you also have to understand what waste management processes and procedures you have to put in place to provide a final repository for the spent fuel.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

What does reprocessing this fuel look like? Is it a matter of extracting U-238 out of the mix, or is it about extracting other fissile products from the results of different processes? Are there nuclear reactors that can be designed to use those other by-products of fission?

7:20 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Joseph McBrearty

The processes are chemical and physical processes that you can use to extract the material. As we know, those processes are used overseas, in other countries.

I would be remiss to go too much more into detail on how that process works. I am not an expert in the fuel reprocessing area.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

I have a minute left, so let's talk about fusion. It's pretty exciting. I know it's not commercially viable anywhere in the world.

Can you give us some guidance on where that's going and when we'll get there?

7:20 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Joseph McBrearty

There are many projects under way throughout the world. General Fusion, for instance, out of British Columbia, is working on a project. The ITER project in the south of France is a large, international project that is supposed to get the first plasma within the next few years. The ITER project is still a demonstration project.

I would hesitate to say an exact date when you will see energy come out of fusion, and more energy come out than you put in. It's probably 20 or 30 years. That would be tight for me.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Thank you.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan

Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon. I appreciate that.

With that, we will go to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

7:20 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question is for Ms. O’Donnell.

Ms. O’Donnell, are there any other critical aspects we should know about regarding the technology Moltex is currently developing?

7:25 p.m.

Adjunct Research Professor, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Dr. Susan O'Donnell

Yes, I think it's important to go back to the letter from U.S. experts. What they have asked for, and I think what we really need, is an international committee to actually examine the non-proliferation aspects of the Moltex technology they intend to export.

We do know that it has raised a lot of concerns internationally, so that's where the focus should be. Canada should not be in place where we're actually blindly subsidizing and being seen to subsidize technology that could destabilize the non-proliferation situation right now.

The other thing I will have to say that the experts asked for and that we're really concerned about is that if Moltex doesn't get the billions of dollars that it will take to complete its project, we could be left with a huge environmental mess on the shores of the Bay of Fundy. It's of huge concern, with all the new wastes that are being developed, that if the project is started and not completed, we will have this mess on our hands.

Thank you.

7:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you, Ms. O’Donnell.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, American experts pointed out that Japan is the only non-nuclear-armed state that reprocesses spent nuclear fuel, causing both domestic and international controversy.

Can you tell us about the situation with Japan?

7:25 p.m.

Adjunct Research Professor, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Dr. Susan O'Donnell

I would prefer to answer that question in writing, and I will give you a complete answer that way. Thank you.

7:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan

You have one minute and 50 seconds.

7:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you.

Ms. O’Donnell, you were an officer of the NRC, the National Research Council. What do you think the government should do instead of investing in small modular reactors?

Are there other solutions, specifically in the renewable energy sector?

7:25 p.m.

Adjunct Research Professor, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Dr. Susan O'Donnell

I think that's why Canada has this huge net-zero technology fund and why we want innovation. My point is that we have to be measuring SMRs against the other technologies that are out there. We can't just be giving $50 million to one technology without a proper scientific review. They have to be competing with each other and have to be judged accordingly to find out what is the best technology moving forward. It might be nuclear; it might be something else. There are lots of ideas out there. Why are we focusing all of the money on SMRs without doing a proper scientific review?

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan

Dr. O'Donnell, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas.

The last two and a half minutes will go to Ms. Zarrillo.

Go ahead, please.

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to ask questions of Mr. McBrearty again.

I want to hear you talk a little bit about Chalk River. If I understand correctly, your organization runs Chalk River. Could you give some insights around the labour issues? I'm interested in the high-pressure welders, but I'm also interested in ongoing consultation that your organization might have with community partners like first nations, NGOs in the community, regional districts or municipalities. I'd like to hear a little bit about how your business runs and what's working and how you stay connected to the community.

7:25 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Joseph McBrearty

Thanks very much.

To address the first part of the question, we have a very active recruiting program to make sure we can get a broad spectrum of engineers, trades and skilled scientists throughout, and we link ourselves with universities so we can draw from those organizations to supply our research needs. Our research needs are not only in the nuclear world but also in cybersecurity and biology as well.

With respect to community outreach and relations with communities, we have a very extensive outreach program of not only public outreach but also indigenous outreach.

In Pembroke last week, we actually just went through part two of our hearing for a near-surface disposal facility. Together with the CNSC, we provided evidence of hundreds of interactions and connections, not only with the public but most importantly, I would say, with indigenous communities. It is incredibly important to continue to grow relations with the indigenous communities. This is a growing thing that I think everyone's starting to learn how to do. It's important for us to be able to understand the needs of the communities and to be able to answer their needs.

Thank you.

7:30 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you.

Dr. Keefer, you mentioned that there were 44 members in your organization. I'm wondering if first nation communities or NGOs or any municipalities are members of your organization. Could you could give us an idea of what your membership looks like?

7:30 p.m.

President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy

Dr. Christopher Keefer

Sure. Membership is individual citizens. We have members from coast to coast to coast, from Victoria, B.C., to Nunavut and right out to the rock in Newfoundland. It is all private individuals. This is not a coalition organization.

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan

Thank you, Dr. Keefer, and thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Dr. Keefer, Mr. McBrearty, Mr. Riccoboni and Dr. O'Donnell, it is my job to thank you. We appreciate your time, your expertise and your being so gracious to join us all tonight. We thank you.

Colleagues, we will suspend briefly before our next panel.

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan

Colleagues, we're back.

We are on the third night of our study regarding small nuclear reactors.

In our second panel, we have Evelyn Gigantes appearing as an individual; from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Dr. Gordon Edwards, president; and from Westinghouse Electric Canada, Mr. Saab, president.

Each organization will have five minutes. At the four-and-a-half-minute mark, I will hold up a yellow card to let you know that you have 30 seconds left.

You have a committee that is interested in what you have to say. We'd like to welcome you. We're grateful that you're here. We look forward to hearing from you.

With that, we will begin with Ms. Gigantes, please.

7:35 p.m.

Evelyn Gigantes As an Individual

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not a supporter of the development of SMRs, either in Canada or anywhere else. The reason is that our weather over the last few years is giving us clear evidence that climate change is rapidly becoming a challenge to all life on this wonderful planet.

SMRs are being touted by the nuclear industry as a necessary part of slowing and containing climate change. I believe the complete opposite: I think the nuclear industry is trying to save itself from a downward spiral and is waging a desperate campaign to convince the public and elected representatives to invest massive public funds in an ill-placed effort to battle climate change through SMR development.

The fact is that here and abroad the best-informed scientists and economists are stating the obvious: The surest, least costly and quickest way to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten life on our earth is to limit our energy use through conservation measures, to use electricity as our major source of energy and to generate that electricity with renewable resources. In Canada, that means a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro.

I have provided your committee with an article co-written by two experts, a Canadian and an American. It describes the way we can electrify our major energy usage while deftly shifting energy supply sources and meeting backup demand. I've also provided an article about the recent study by the David Suzuki Foundation that comes to the same conclusion. That's the positive part of what I'd like your committee to be ready to report.

There is also a negative part, which I hope you will consider and determine to report. Nuclear power is not an answer to any problem. Nuclear power has generated waste that threatens life and health wherever it is in use or has been in use. Its history both here and abroad is linked to preparation for war, and that history repeats itself to this day as we watch, pained and frightened by the terrible threat to nuclear reactor sites in Ukraine.

Here in Canada, we have scandalous nuclear waste piled up in places like Chalk River and Elliot Lake. We are engaged in the pretense that there will soon be a new nuclear waste management policy, which will deal with these kinds of awful, life-threatening messes. Meanwhile, the former chair of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ensured that most SMRs would not even require an environmental impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of 2019 because he managed to arrange matters to ensure that most SMRs are not included on the project list associated with the act. It's an astonishing fact that most current Canadian SMR proposals will not be subject to any environmental review.

I've also provided a third article on the subject of the extraordinary levels of nuclear waste that would be generated by developing SMRs. It outlines the fact that per unit of energy produced, SMRs would produce much larger amounts of high-level nuclear waste than the much larger CANDU reactors.

To sum up, I believe that SMRs are unnecessary given that there are alternative methods of electrifying our energy sources, which will be much cheaper, faster, more flexible and environmentally acceptable, and the last thing this world needs is SMRs sold to countries where their existence would add to the dangers posed by terrorism and war.

Thank you.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan

Thank you, Ms. Gigantes. We appreciate your being here.

We're now going to go to the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Dr. Edwards for five minutes.

Before you start, Dr. Edwards, could I ask anyone who's got a blurred background to take it off? It's affecting the quality of the transmission.

Dr. Edwards, the floor is yours for five minutes, please.

June 9th, 2022 / 7:40 p.m.

Dr. Gordon Edwards President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

My name is Gordon Edwards. I'm very grateful for this opportunity to make a brief presentation on SMRs. I'm a retired professor of science and mathematics. I'm also a co-founder and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and have served as a consultant on nuclear issues for many years.

The nuclear industry has been declining for the last quarter century. In 1997 nuclear power contributed 17% of global electricity supply. Today, that share has dropped to 10% and is still going down. In North America no new large reactors were ordered after 1978 for the rest of the century. The CANDU industry is moribund.

Exorbitant costs and lengthy construction delays, as well as questions about radioactive waste, reactor accidents and the proliferation of nuclear weapons have plagued the industry. The current push for a nuclear renaissance based on a fleet of hitherto untested small modular reactors, or SMRs, is not the first time the industry has promoted a new golden age of nuclear power. The first big push came after the 1973 oil embargo when AECL predicted that hundreds of CANDU reactors would be built from coast to coast in Canada. That turned out to be a false alarm.

Hydro-Québec itself envisioned at that time up to 50 new large power reactors along the St. Lawrence River, but none of them were ever built. The only Quebec reactor that was under construction at the time is now shut down permanently.

The second big push came when the 21st century began. There was much fanfare about a global nuclear renaissance whereby thousands of large reactors would be built around the world, but that nuclear revival also turned out to be a bust. Only a handful of new reactors were ever ordered, including one in Finland; one in Flamanville, France; and four in the southern states of Georgia and South Carolina. Those projects all experienced years of delay and massive cost overruns. Two nuclear corporate giants were bankrupted.

Today we're told of a new renaissance of nuclear power involving a multiplicity of reactor designs called small modular reactors. Pardon my skepticism. Is this another flash in the pan? Will this renaissance go anywhere, like the previous ones?

There are warning signs. First of all, there are no customers. It's a technology in search of a market. Second, there is insufficient funding. What little there is is public funding which, if withdrawn, would kill the SMR surge almost instantly. Third, the alternatives to SMRs are proving to be faster, cheaper and much more attractive, much more in demand than nuclear.

This committee can provide an important service to Canadians by recommending that science and research be brought to bear to examine the various contentious claims being made by SMR proponents in order to attract public support and public funding.

First, on radioactive waste, a recent report published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, co-authored by Allison Macfarlane, the former chair of the U.S. NRC, has found that the radioactive legacy from SMRs will be significantly larger and more problematic per unit of energy produced than is the case with large power reactors. SMR advocates have disputed these claims, but I urge this committee to recommend an objective investigation of this dispute by independent scientists to help decision-makers and the public know the truth.

Second, weapons proliferation has already been brought up. Nine non-proliferation experts from the U.S.A. who have served under six different U.S. presidents have urged Canada to undertake an independent review of the proliferation vulnerability associated with the proposed Moltex plant in New Brunswick, a small modular reactor that requires plutonium extracted from Canada's existing nuclear fuel—something we absolutely do not need. There is no rationale for such a step.

Nevertheless, plutonium extraction is a key step in proliferating nuclear weapons capabilities. I urge this committee to recommend an independent scientific and security review of the proliferation risks of plutonium extraction, which I underscore again is entirely unnecessary.

Third, on public accountability, I request this committee to ascertain and publish any detailed science-based rationale, if any exists, behind the decision to forego environmental assessments of almost all SMRs, thereby hampering public accountability.

The fourth is negawatts rather than megawatts. Energy efficiency is cheaper, faster and more certain than any energy supply option. To be specific, I urge the committee to recommend a scientifically based study of the comparative costs and effectiveness of deploying heat pumps in various buildings throughout Canada rather than building SMRs.

SMRs are a poor response to the climate emergency. They are too slow, too costly, and too dubious. In fact, it's kicking the can down the road, and hoping for the best. Some call it “hopium”. SMRs will make no contribution to fighting climate change in the next five years. It will make marginal contributions at best in the next decade. I am not alone in believing that the claims made by SMR proponents cannot be substantiated. However, I'm willing to see those claims put to the test, and this committee can help do just that