Science and Research Committee on June 9th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Dr. Edwards.

To all our witnesses this evening, we really thank you for being part of this study. We thank you for your time, your commitment and your expertise.

With that, our committee will suspend briefly before we go on to a third panel.

Thank you again.

The committee is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dear colleagues, I'm going to pull you back.

You work so hard. Two hours is tough. We're going into a third hour.

We'd like to welcome our witnesses. We thank you for joining us tonight.

As an individual, and in person, we have Dr. Jeremy Rayner, professor. From the Canadian Nuclear Workers Council, we have Robert Walker, national director. And from the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation, we have Dr. John Root, executive director. We welcome all of you.

Each organization will have five minutes. At the four-and-a-half-minute mark, I will hold up a yellow card. It will allow you 30 seconds to finish up.

With that, we're going to start.

We will go to Professor Rayner. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Jeremy Rayner, Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, it's a great pleasure to be here this evening.

My name is Jeremy Rayner, I'm a political scientist by training and a professor at the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan. My research on the public policy implications of SMRs has been supported over the years by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation.

As an aside, I would say that I was distressed to hear the suggestion earlier this evening that all funding for research on SMRs be routed through NSERC. There are very many important questions, perhaps the most important questions, about SMRs that actually fall within the purview of the social sciences and the humanities in terms of their success or failure.

I've been fortunate to be on sabbatical leave this year, and I spent some of that time at the Dalton Nuclear Institute at University of Manchester in the United Kingdom researching SMR developments in the U.K. and Europe. I have submitted some written evidence in the form of a peer-reviewed publication for the committee.

I'd like to start by saying that in the U.K. and Europe, anecdotally Canada is regarded as a world leader in SMR policy and governance. We are admired for the extent of collaboration between the provinces and the federal government; for bipartisan support for SMRs that provides confidence for investors; the relatively transparent processes for choosing SMR designs; and the clear responsibilities and timelines set out in the SMR road map, the action plan and this year's strategic plan. The challenge is to maintain our position as leaders and translate that leadership into the development of a technology that actually contributes to meeting our clean energy goals. My question has always been what should be the approach of policy and governance that would build on this successful start?

There are currently two issues that SMR advocates are trying to put on the federal policy agenda, and you've heard both of them this evening and at prior meetings of your committee: subsidies and regulation. You're unsurprised, I'm sure, to learn that advocates think SMRs should attract more of the former and less of the latter. On subsidies, there's a general principle of policy design that it's better to provide support for solutions to a problem rather than to specific technologies or industries. To some extent, of course, Canada has followed that path through the various clean energy funding initiatives. I draw your attention to the European Union's recent decision to include nuclear energy under some circumstances as a sustainable investment for funding purposes. I'd urge that this approach be continued.

Regulation raises the critical issue of public confidence in small nuclear reactors. If SMRs are really to be a transformational technology, rather than just a useful addition to our power generation options—and that's a good enough target to start with—then they must be built closer to where people live and work than traditional large reactors have been. This will only happen if we can raise public confidence in nuclear safety to new levels. The reputation of the CNSC for evidence-based regulation needs to be protected and efforts to rush the licensing of new designs, I think, be regarded with extreme caution.

There's also an issue that advocates are studiously avoiding or, at best, responding to with platitudes, and that is public engagement. Engagement is going to test federal-provincial collaboration and require some innovative thinking in science communication and knowledge translation. There is a strong temptation to place the responsibility for engagement on proponents—usually in this case a utility—and that’s how the engagement requirements of project-based environmental assessment works. As in other cases involving infrastructure and natural resources, placing the responsibility for engagement on the proponent may seem logical, but it raises a well-known problem that will likely be experienced very strongly in the case of SMRs, which you've seen already this evening. The problem is that members of the public will want to raise broad questions of public policy and regulation around nuclear issues that are beyond the scope of a project-based assessment and outside the competence of a proponent to address. Examples are general questions about uranium mining or the disposal of nuclear fuel. Simply telling them that they can’t raise such questions at an assessment is not going to help the deployment of SMRs, and I think we need to find some way of including those broader questions in public engagement processes in Canada.

In addition, it can be confidently asserted that there is no future for SMRs in Canada beyond a handful of first-of-a-kind demonstration projects taking place on sites already licensed for nuclear facilities without prior, informed and meaningful consent of indigenous peoples. Quite apart from new sites that need to be proposed on treaty land, or land over which unextinguished rights are asserted, SMRs may involve the transportation of modules, some of which may be already fuelled, and the disposal of waste that will not be concentrated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Professor Rayner, I am so sorry. You have a committed committee, and I'm sure they will want to follow up with questions. Please excuse my having to interrupt.

We're now going to Mr. Walker from the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council, please.

[Robert Walker, National Director, Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening. I'm Bob Walker, national director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers' Council. It's encouraging to see the science and research committee's interest in small modular reactors and the benefits nuclear offers for both the environment and our economy.

I'll briefly talk about our council, our perspective on Canada's nuclear industry, and SMRs.

Our council was formed in 1993 as an association of unions representing workers across Canada's nuclear industry. This ranges right from uranium mining in Saskatchewan through electricity generation to nuclear waste management. The council serves as our collective voice. We hold an annual conference in various nuclear host communities and regularly engage with labour, industry and the regulator. More information can be found on our website.

We have a very mature, made-in-Canada nuclear industry that was built on the pioneering work started by AECL more than seven decades ago.

The CANDU reactor has been deployed in Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec, as well as exported to a number of other countries. CANDU reactors are a proven and reliable technology that currently supply about 60% of Ontario's and 30% of New Brunswick's electricity. That electricity is generated without carbon emissions or air pollution. The refurbishment programs for Canada's reactors will keep them generating that clean electricity for decades to come.

This has been said before, but it's important enough to be repeated: Nuclear energy enabled Ontario's transition off coal by providing both clean energy and quality employment.

The industry includes a number of great corporations that support employment for thousands of Canadians across many communities. These are skilled jobs with good pay and great working conditions. I believe I can speak with some authority when I say that our nuclear facilities are amongst the safest workplaces anywhere. We need more quality jobs like these.

Canada's nuclear industry is a mature industry that continues to evolve and demonstrate innovation in many areas, such as radioactive waste management; advances in nuclear medicine, including the production of medical isotopes; and exploring new opportunities to support a clean energy future, including SMRs.

We believe that the importance of our current CANDU reactors cannot be understated and that we need to plan for the construction of new conventional scale reactors, but some markets and some applications cannot support the large reactors, and SMRs offer a great opportunity.

SMRs have shone a light on nuclear energy's ability to combat climate change, and Canada has demonstrated great leadership in advancing that through the SMR road map, SMR action plan, and the great co-operation we've seen between provinces and utilities to explore opportunities for SMR deployment and development.

Many jurisdictions around the world are now watching the progress in Canada with great interest. Today we are seeing real action and real opportunity with the OPG's plans to build an SMR at their Darlington site, and possibly follow up with three more. Saskatchewan Power is expected to build their own SMR after OPG's is proven successful. BWXT in Cambridge is hoping to manufacture components for that BWRX-300 for both domestic use and for export, including Poland. NB Power is working with Moltex and ARC to develop advanced SMR technologies. Global First Power is progressing their proposed micro modular reactor at CBL's Chalk River site, and Westinghouse, as you heard, is working with the Saskatchewan Research Council and Bruce Power to progress their eVinci microreactor.

SMRs can help the world meet their clean energy needs, and Canada has a great opportunity as an early leader.

In closing, the nuclear industry is very important for Canada. It has been generating reliable, affordable, emission-free electricity for decades. It produces isotopes used for our quality health care and the supports for its many high-quality local jobs. These are great jobs.

SMRs have received a lot of attention, and there are global discussions about climate change as a source of emission-free energy. Canada has an opportunity to continue this leadership. Canada's nuclear industry was created with support from the Government of Canada, but that support has not been as consistent and encouraging as we believe is warranted.

We would like to see the government act as a champion for our nuclear industry as an important part of the solution to fight climate change, provide quality employment and support energy security.

Thank you very much for investigating this topic, and thank you for allowing me the time to talk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Walker.

We're really grateful to all of you that you take your time.

We will now go to Dr. Root.

The floor is yours for five minutes, please.

[Dr. John Root, Executive Director, Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I feel honoured by the invitation to participate with a panel of witnesses for this important study of small modular reactors.

I serve as the executive director of the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation. We are a not-for-profit corporation with a single institutional member, which is the University of Saskatchewan, but we have a fully independent board of directors.

The Fedoruk centre is funded through an agreement with Innovation Saskatchewan, an agency of the province, plus revenue from third parties for goods and services that we provide.

The purpose of the Fedoruk centre is to help place Saskatchewan among global leaders of nuclear research, development and training through four key activities. First, we fund research projects led by Saskatchewan scientists in some kind of nuclear topic of their choice. Second, we partner with Saskatchewan institutions to help them establish new faculty leaders of nuclear subjects in line with their strategic plans. Third, we operate a nuclear facility, the Saskatchewan Centre for Cyclotron Sciences. This is a resource for innovation in nuclear imaging for health and food security. Fourth, we establish consultative resources for the public and policy-makers. We facilitate partnerships and develop business related to nuclear innovation. Pretty well everything you do that has something with nuclear, it's our job to try to help Saskatchewan engage with these things.

At this time, the Province of Saskatchewan is moving forward with Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick towards deploying small modular reactors to help achieve Canada's objective of a cleaner energy future and stimulate a wide range of economic activities and social benefits arising from this innovative technology. It seems very likely that Saskatchewan will place our first nuclear power plant onto the electricity grid in the mid-2030s. Then we will proceed in steps to replace the burning of fossil fuels with a new foundation of baseload electricity to which other clean energy technologies can add.

It is also reasonable to consider very small nuclear reactors to power resource extraction industries that are located far from the grid and would otherwise need to be burning fossil fuels to have the energy to operate.

Deploying a nuclear power technology in Saskatchewan would not only help to move Canada towards reducing the burden of greenhouse gases on our planet, but could also create opportunities for research and innovation in the surrounding fields, the topics connected to the power generation. Examples would be adding value to the uranium that is mined in Saskatchewan. Perhaps we could be enriching the uranium and fabricating enriched fuels. Both of these economic activities are only performed outside Canada at this time, so there's an opportunity to create new value if we put our minds to it.

Another possibility is to manufacture nuclear quality components in Saskatchewan. This would enable Saskatchewan companies to contribute to the Canadian supply chain for building SMRs. Perhaps we could be a part of responsible management of used fuel as a part of protecting the environment.

Saskatchewan will need people to serve as operators, technicians, designers, builders, regulators, safety engineers, control system architects and security experts. That means we will be needing to create many new jobs in Saskatchewan and fill them with people at all levels of educational development. That means we need to get started right away to establish a new capacity for leadership in research and education in nuclear topics at Saskatchewan post-secondary institutions. There are only three main ones here: the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Regina and Saskatchewan Polytechnic.

Now is the time to attract new leaders who can create educational programs and establish themselves as trusted knowledge keepers to whom the public can turn for unbiased advice on nuclear topics. Turning to them, we can learn how nuclear energy works, how nuclear safety is maintained, how we can minimize impacts on the land, how we can engage in respectful public conversations, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dr. Root, I'm sorry to interrupt. You're very gracious, all of you.

I thank all our witnesses. We're really glad you're here.

We're now going to hear from members of our committee, who are a dedicated group of people.

We're going to start with Mr. Tochor, for six minutes.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you to our witnesses.

To Mr. Walker, earlier we heard about the need to train more pressure welders. I'm assuming some of your members are pressure welders.

[Robert Walker]

Yes. I was listening earlier, and I did hear that question.

Our membership includes unions representing people from mining in Saskatchewan, those fabricating the fuel in Ontario and operating nuclear power plants, and those in construction, as well as the building trades council of Ontario. It's really the whole gamut.

I know that the building trades are very engaged in trying to look forward to determine how many people are going to be required. They're looking at all nuclear projects and all major infrastructure projects, trying to get an idea of how many people will be required in the future, and making sure that they're working with their employers to recruit and train those people.

I do know it's been identified as an issue, especially welders, and there is a lot of work being done in that field.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

What do you think your members would say if a political party were to say that we shouldn't consider nuclear, because of the shortage of some of the skilled trades?

[Robert Walker]

I can't imagine anybody saying that.

We're always looking for good employment, and this is good employment. All we have to do is forecast those opportunities so that we're training people for them.

I would hate to think that anybody would not pursue an opportunity because we don't have enough skilled people. The answer is to get our people skilled.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Would you want your offspring or family members, hopefully, to work in nuclear?

[Robert Walker]

That's a great question. My wife is not here, so she can't stop me from answering it.

My son works in a nuclear power plant. She didn't want me to say that to people, because she didn't want it to look as if I got him the job, but I can honestly say that I didn't. He got the job himself. My son works at the Bruce Power nuclear power plant. My nephew works as an operator at OPG's Darlington plant, so I do have family who work there.

I'm extremely happy for them. I was so happy when they got their jobs, because I know how safe it is. Everyone wants their children to work somewhere safe. I know that they have safe jobs, and they are good jobs.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Great.

There are some who would want to transition oil and gas workers to different opportunities. Would the pay be similar, or less than in the oil and gas sector, if you were working in nuclear? Or would it be above average or comparable?

[Robert Walker]

I don't have the details, but off the top of my head they're probably very comparable. Skilled trades, whether in Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Ontario, are paid very comparably.

A skilled worker in the oil and gas sector in Alberta or Saskatchewan is probably paid very close to that of a tradesperson working in nuclear in Ontario or New Brunswick.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Some believe we need a $15 minimum wage in the country, and some would argue that it's already there. Do you have any members who start at minimum wage, by chance?

[Robert Walker]

No.

This is a huge industry, with people having all different types of jobs. The lowest paid occupations that I'm aware of would be the cafeteria workers at the nuclear power plants, and they make more than that.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

With regard to the makeup of the workforce, what percentage is male versus female? I'm assuming it would be large. Is the vast majority male, or is it more of an even mix?

[Robert Walker]

If you had asked me that question when I first started, I would have said that the vast majority were males. That's changing. It has been changing for a long time and continues to change.

We're seeing a lot of women in engineering, in STEM occupations, in civil-type jobs, and we've seen a lot of women in the nuclear operator positions.

Where we're really behind is in the trades. We're not seeing as many women in the mechanical and electrical trades as we'd like to see, but there's a lot of work going on to try to improve that. I've gone out myself and brought tradespeople with me to schools to talk to people about what these jobs really look like. People think these are dirty jobs, but they're not.

If you saw a skilled tradesperson at work, you wouldn't know what they were doing. It's a high-tech job; it's a high-skilled job and a very rewarding job. When we take young women in the trades out to talk to women in schools about their occupation, they get excited about it and they're interested in it, so we need to do more of that.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Quickly, do you keep track of turnover rates? What's the typical lifespan of an employee at a facility?

[Robert Walker]

I've known a couple of people who have moved a long distance to start jobs like those at Ontario Power Generation, for example. Sometimes at the very beginning of their career, they leave because they want to go home. Other than that, I'm not aware of anybody leaving. These are jobs that people want to hold onto.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Quickly, could I get a written response from Dr. Root about the importance of medical isotopes to our hospitals across Canada?

I believe I'm out of time right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Yes, Mr. Tochor, I'm sorry, but thank you for the questions.

Now we're going to go to Mr. McKinnon for six minutes.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to direct my questions to Dr. Rayner.

We've heard a lot of concern from the public, both here and out in the world, about nuclear power. People's minds typically go to things like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima. I think when we're talking about small nuclear reactors, small modular reactors, and those that are even smaller, such as micro and very small, we're dealing with quite a dissimilar kind of situation, and I suspect that the risks are rather dissimilar as well.

Can you speak to us, if you're able to, about the nature of risks, the nature of the potential for environmental catastrophe such as with Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, in relation to small modular reactors and similar smaller units?