Thank you, Madam Chair.
I come to you from the territory of the Wolastoqiyik, the people of the beautiful and bountiful river.
Thank you for inviting me.
I represent the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. I sit on the coalition for the RAVEN project at the University of New Brunswick, where I am an adjunct professor and social science researcher with expertise in technology adoption. Because I'm speaking about science and research, I'll mention that I am a retired senior research officer from the National Research Council of Canada, where I was vice-chair of the NRC research ethics board.
The climate crisis needs technologies to help us radically cut emissions by 2030. SMRs are in the design phase and can't do that.
Given that you are the science and research committee, I hope your report about how SMRs can contribute in the future will be based on science and peer-reviewed research and reports by experts, without a conflict of interest or profit motive.
You heard last week that nuclear proponents want to construct micro SMR units in modules in a factory, and roll them out to remote communities that are currently using diesel to generate electricity. However, peer-reviewed research shows that building a factory to manufacture micro SMRs cannot be justified. Why? Because the total energy needed to replace diesel in all the remote communities in Canada is so small that a factory would never pay for itself.
Peer-reviewed research shows that the types of nuclear reactors planned for New Brunswick have never been successfully commercialized. Why not? Because of technical problems unresolved after decades of trying. If SMRs are not commercialized, there will be no economic development. In the past two years, the government has given almost $100 million to three private nuclear companies for research to develop their SMR designs.
Experts not funded by the nuclear industry have identified many potential problems with SMRs. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has a pre-licensing vendor design review for SMRs—a VDR—but it's optional, not required. The CNSC is clear that a VDR is not a technical review.
What is the government's scientific review process for SMR funding? Is the process fair, transparent and based on independent, scientific review?
In 2021, the government gave more than $50 million to the Moltex company for SMR research to develop the technology to extract plutonium from spent CANDU fuel stored on the Bay of Fundy. The National Research Council of Canada conducted the technical review for the Moltex project. Despite the NRC and the serious concerns raised about the Moltex research, the government approved the project.
It is necessary to ask whether the government acted in accordance with the recommendations of the NRC scientific review? Your committee needs to insist that the NRC report be made available to you for your deliberations. Read the NRC report and ask yourselves why the Moltex project was approved.
I worked at the National Research Council during the war on science, when the government ignored or contradicted expert opinions by government scientists for political reasons. I have to ask, is another war on science happening now? Why would the government not consider expert advice from its own scientists before approving an SMR research project worth more than $50 million?
Your committee can recommend that all funding for SMR research and development should require a transparent, independent scientific review. I urge you to make this recommendation. Perhaps the whole funding envelope for net-zero technology research could be moved to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Why? Because then the public will be confident that SMR research and development will compete with other net-zero technologies in a fair competition to ensure that public funds are spent supporting scientific excellence.
If we're serious about climate action, we will need new technology supported by science.
Thank you.