Science and Research Committee on June 16th, 2022

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

Mr. Hartwick, there are plans to build a small modular reactor at the Darlington site, which could be connected to Canada's electricity grid.

Do you have any data to share with us on the reduction in greenhouse gases that this will represent?

[Ken Hartwick]

Yes. We have a report we can provide on the big Darlington refurbishment and the carbon impact of bringing, basically, 3,600 megawatts of nuclear back onto the grid.

Secondly, we have carbon- and jobs-related data related to what we are going to build on the small modular reactor site, all of which I'm glad to share with the committee, again if that's appropriate.

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

Mr. Hartwick, in its record of decision issued in July 2020, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission notes that the purpose of the micro modular reactor project at the Chalk River Laboratories lacks clarity.

What are the specific purposes of this project?

[Ken Hartwick]

The Chalk River one, which we do through GFP, is really to demonstrate and improve the technology that would be applicable to some of the remote communities and a mining site. It is to build that specific non-grid scale technology and to demonstrate that we can do it effectively.

I think, then, that would give certainty to your earlier question around when you get cost effective on these. I agree with the commentary. It's in the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

I hate to do this. Gentlemen, I'm sorry to both of you, but to be fair to Mr. Cannings, we'll give him the last two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

Quickly, Dr. Novog, perhaps you could just answer that last question I was trying to get out. What is the training needed, say, in a community of those six to eight to 10 people who will be maintaining a facility?

[Dr. David Novog]

I know the training requirements for an operator in existing power plants, and it's about four years beyond their usual education. For SMRs, because of the simplification, I think we hope to do better, to provide the training and the experience necessary in a shorter time frame.

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

Okay.

I'd like to move to Mr. Hartwick just to finish up.

You mentioned the importance of first nations consultation and involvement, and I think you implied that it could be something that would make things take longer, if not done right. We have a situation where the Ontario chiefs have come out against SMRs. We have a case in Chalk River where the first nation there is showing some deep concern about nuclear on its territories.

I'm just wondering what you have been doing with the Ontario chiefs, in particular, to allay their suspicions. I'm not talking about individual communities. I'm talking about the first nations chiefs as a group.

[Ken Hartwick]

Your wording was really good around “if not done right”. I think what we are doing at Darlington for the new site is being done right. Our Williams Treaties First Nations group, and then the broader group, have been part of the conversation from the beginning, and that's a step I think a lot of companies miss. Maybe we've missed that in our history as well—so it's not that we've done everything right.

I see a growing consensus that if climate and carbon are the problems, we are going to have to do a better job with certain technologies, ensuring they're part of it, in nuclear. I think support is building in some of these sectors. We'll see more of it as we move forward, if we do it right.

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

I've probably run out of time, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

Thank you to you all. We appreciate your time, your experience and your expertise. You've all been very gracious and forthcoming.

Dear colleagues, with that, we will suspend briefly before we begin our next panel.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Colleagues, I am going to call us back to order, if I may.

Dear colleagues, we have a second panel, and to be fair to all of you so that you get your time, I'm going to keep us on time.

Welcome back, everyone.

We'd like to welcome our second panel tonight on our study on small nuclear reactors.

Appearing as an individual, we have Dr. Ramana, professor, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, from the University of British Columbia, and we'd like to recognize that this is very early in the morning for Dr. Ramana, as he is appearing from India today.

From Creative Fire, we have Dazawray Landrie-Parker, director, nuclear sector.

Welcome.

From Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, we have Dr. Ginette Charbonneau, physicist and spokesperson.

I would like to welcome all of you. You have a very interested committee. You'll each have five minutes to present. At four and a half minutes, I will hold up a yellow card that lets you know you have 30 seconds left to wrap up.

With that, I say welcome again, and we're looking forward to hearing from you.

We will begin with Dr. Ramana for five minutes.

[Dr. M. V. Ramana, Professor, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to speak with you.

My name is M. V. Ramana. I teach at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. I carry out research on various technical and policy challenges associated with nuclear energy and small modular nuclear reactors.

I will focus my remarks on three topics: potential markets for SMRs, the potential for manufacturing and job creation from SMRs, and the impacts of investing in SMRs on climate change mitigation.

At the very outset, I would like to emphasize that SMRs cannot solve all the problems confronting nuclear energy, especially the inability of nuclear power to compete economically with alternative sources of energy such as electricity. SMRs will be less competitive because they will be more expensive per unit of generation due to the loss of economies of scale.

Second, because of the adverse economics, there is little demand for SMRs. Russia's KLT-40S design, China's HTR-PM design and South Korea's SMART design, which was licensed for construction about a decade ago, have attracted no customers. In the United States, many utilities have exited the proposed NuScale project due to its high cost.

Although many developing countries claim to be interested in SMRs, none have invested in the construction of one. Good examples are Jordan, Ghana and Indonesia, all of which have been touted as promising markets for SMRs for years, but none of which are buying one.

Niche markets—for example, remote mines and communities—are very limited. My research showed that even in a best-case scenario, remote mines and communities in Canada cannot provide the minimum demand necessary to justify investment in the factories needed to build these reactors.

A frequently heard argument for SMRs is that they will lead to jobs. This is misleading. The real question is whether such investment creates more jobs than would be created by investing the same amount of money in other low-carbon energy technologies.

The literature is unambiguous that nuclear reactor construction generates comparatively fewer jobs than renewables like solar and wind energy per dollar invested. Based on one recent study, I estimate that investing $1 billion U.S. in solar energy would create roughly 17,000 job-years of construction-related work. The same investment would create between 1,200 and 3,000 job-years in onshore and offshore wind energy and, finally, less than 1,000 job-years in nuclear energy. To the extent that SMRs are different from conventional large reactors, they will actually reduce the number of construction jobs created by adopting processes such as modernization and factory manufacture.

Finally, investing in building a product that has few customers can never lead to sustained employment.

SMRs will set back efforts to mitigate climate change for two reasons. First, there's an economic opportunity cost. Money that is invested in SMRs would save far more carbon dioxide if it were invested in renewables and associated technologies.

Second, no SMR will be constructed for at least another decade. This compounds the problem of the economic opportunity cost, in that the reduction in emissions from alternative investments would be not only greater but also quicker.

I'm happy to provide references for these statements, either from my work or that of others. I'm also happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Dr. Ramana. Again, we thank you for getting up so early in the morning.

We will now go to Creative Fire, and we will hear from Ms. Landrie-Parker.

[Dazawray Landrie-Parker, Director, Nuclear Sector, Creative Fire]

Thank you for the opportunity to join you tonight. As mentioned, I'm the director of the nuclear sector for Creative Fire. I'm also a Métis woman, a Ph.D. candidate in public policy and an instructor in indigenous governance at Yukon University.

My research and my practice are really focused on indigenous inclusion, economic participation and engagement in the nuclear industry.

Many of the communities in Canada's northern and remote areas are still reliant on diesel. The high cost of energy, infrastructure challenges and the harsh climate indicate that Canada's north is facing an energy crisis.

In order to reduce this reliance on diesel, we will need to explore other options to produce clean and reliable energy for these communities. This is challenging, given the vast distances between these communities that make a connected grid cost-prohibitive, so one solution is to add nuclear to the energy mix.

As we heard earlier tonight, the history of development with our indigenous communities adds a layer of complexity, as it contains many examples of conflict, controversy and lack of local control. This complexity only becomes greater when we start talking about nuclear development.

In the past, many uranium developments have been in close proximity to indigenous lands. However, indigenous people had a minimal presence in the energy sector. Some of these developments have even resulted in adverse environmental, social and health consequences for these communities.

Currently, however, indigenous people have become much more involved in the sector through engagement, employment and even as direct investors, but the conflict of the past has created a trust deficit, and this trust deficit still runs deep in the community memories and shapes the community's assertion for meaningful and transparent engagement in development projects, including nuclear. It looks for active involvement in the decision-making process and a consistent recognition of indigenous self-determination over traditional resources.

There is a need for increased indigenous energy sovereignty. These communities need to be empowered to own and operate their own energy systems. UNDRIP, modern treaty agreements and recent court cases all provide frameworks or avenues for increased recognition of this indigenous energy sovereignty. It will be of the utmost importance that these indigenous nations have their free and prior informed consent on these development projects recognized.

Indigenous participation is integral in driving the decisions about the future of Canada's energy mix. SMR development in Canada will not happen without the support of the indigenous communities. Engagement is iterative and ongoing. It's rooted in information sharing, trust, and relationship building, and successful engagement employs numerous methods. It needs to be adaptable to be able to change from group to group, and it includes multiple framing of related energy issues in addition to just the development of nuclear energy. It will need to be adapted to recognize and to mitigate the trust deficit that exists in our indigenous nations, by including some key elements to increase the opportunity for forming new and positive relationships.

This increased indigenous participation in Canada's energy decisions will have a positive economic benefit. This includes the value add of indigenous involvement, from the incorporation of traditional knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge to strengthen the technical assessments, but also of the local knowledge and lived experience to help guide the engagement process.

Early training and mentorship of the indigenous workforce is also key. As we heard Dr. Novog say earlier, this can take quite a bit of time, and this process really needs to start immediately.

Finally, there's realizing the economic benefit of the intentional inclusion of indigenous businesses in the procurement process, as well as deliberative partnerships with indigenous-owned businesses.

To summarize a few of my key takeaways here, SMR implementation is dependent on community support. A poorly executed engagement could jeopardize the overall implementation and adoption of SMRs, and this will hinder Canada's reduction of GHG emissions. We need to remember that indigenous nations are self-determining nations, and local control will need to be central to the implementation and success of these new developments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Ms. Landrie-Parker, for your testimony. I know we all wish you good luck with your Ph.D.

We will now go to Dr. Ginette Charbonneau for five minutes.

[Dr. Ginette Charbonneau, Physicist and Spokesperson, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive]

Good evening.

My name is Ginette Charbonneau, and I am a retired physicist. I am the spokesperson for Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive.

I am asking Parliament today to exercise great vigilance regarding the problems of radioactive waste generated by small modular reactors. It is risky to develop the nuclear industry because, as you know, the waste is accumulating more and more, and the costs associated with managing it are becoming absolutely astronomical.

The federal government is putting a lot of money into SMRs. It's a new fad. However, we sincerely believe that SMRs will be ready too late, so they won't be able to mitigate the effects of climate change and their radioactive waste will pollute remote areas, which is very sad. Most first nations are opposed to the deployment of SMRs on their territory. Many letters have been written about this by first nations people.

In our opinion, the funding should instead be allocated to less expensive green technologies, which are also ready‑made. The problem of climate change is a real emergency, and taxpayers' money should not be spent on projects—laudable, but nonetheless unrealistic—put forward by the nuclear industry lobby.

I would now like to point out that every effort has been made to unduly encourage and fund the design and production of small modular reactors, despite the danger of the waste they generate that is never mentioned.

This is not consistent with section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act. This section provides that an authority shall not provide financial assistance to enable a project to proceed on federal lands, unless the authority determines that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

No one has proven that there are no negative environmental effects. In fact, everything was done to avoid having to prove it. So SMRs were exempted, unfortunately, from the Impact Assessment Act.

The SMR roadmap prepared by Natural Resources Canada included several recommendations, including the odious recommendation to exempt SMRs from all federal legislation. Imagine: no environmental assessment for SMRs. It makes no sense. The limits are important.

Most small modular reactors will therefore not be subject to the new legislation, which applies only to reactors with a power of more than 900 megawatts thermal that are within the licensed boundaries of a nuclear facility, such as nuclear power plants, or small modular reactors over 200 megawatts thermal that are outside the licensed boundaries of nuclear power plants, for example, in remote areas such as small villages.

This means, in practice, that almost all small modular reactors do not have to undergo an environmental assessment under the act. That is outrageous.

The problem with SMRs is that they will be multiplied, while their complex waste is poorly documented. All of the information on SMRs hardly ever discusses their waste, as if it didn't exist. There is so much uncertainty associated with small modular reactors that it is unbelievable that the government has excluded them from the act. Since SMRs are not subject to the Impact Assessment Act, proponents can make unilateral decisions and accept a project.

Furthermore, the waste generated by SMRs is completely ignored. The following is clear proof of this. When the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reviews the safety of a newly designed SMR, the waste generated by that reactor isn't considered at all, as if it did not exist.

It's as if we don't have to worry about it. People only talk about how they work. Waste will only be considered during the licence application process—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dr. Charbonneau, I'm sorry.

The time is up. Please forgive me, but you have a very interested committee that will want to ask questions.

I'd like to thank all of you for your testimony. We'll now hear from our members.

What I really love about this committee is the respect and dignity we show each other.

With that, we are going to begin our six-minute round.

Tonight we begin with Mr. Soroka.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

It's very appreciated when you have different viewpoints. It's quite interesting how everyone has their own opinions and opportunities to bring forward to this group and the committee. That's one of the great things I like about being a member of Parliament, getting to hear from many different sides on this. It's quite unique.

I would like to start off with Ms. Landrie-Parker.

I think it's quite important research and information that you're doing right now. I'm really quite interested in this, because in 2018 you published a report entitled, “Building a Community Engagement Framework for the Nuclear Energy Industry in Canada's North”. We're building trust through education and through community engagement and involvement, and that could strengthen the support for nuclear energy.

I think you mentioned the importance of making sure there's proper consultation.

I'd like you to talk more about that, as well as about the value you place on proper education to encourage nuclear energy as an alternative source of power.

[Dazawray Landrie-Parker]

That's a great question.

Since I published that report, we have been doing quite a bit of energy literacy and tracking. We have seen the support for nuclear in indigenous communities rise throughout the years. That's just a little tidbit of my future dissertation, hopefully.

Definitely, consultation is extremely important.

One of the first pieces of consultation, aside from being out there and building those relationships and addressing some of those trust-deficit areas, is energy literacy, because people have to be able to make informed decisions, whether in support or not in support of it. In order to make those informed decisions, they have to have all of the information.

At Creative Fire, when we start out with an engagement process in nuclear, we start with energy literacy. It is about getting out there and talking about all the different pieces of the energy mix, what goes into it, what the pros and cons are, the benefits and the unique concerns of that community. That's why it's really important to understand what the barriers are for the individual community.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Through this educational process, are you starting to see a different trend, such that people are starting to say, oh, maybe nuclear isn't as bad as we were led to believe, or what other pitfalls are there with renewable energy?

Are these the kinds of conversations that are coming with this consultation?

[Dazawray Landrie-Parker]

Definitely. We have seen—and I just had a conversation about this today—that when you start putting all the different energy components beside each other—because it really is a mix, and we need a mix of all of these and not just one—and you start to compare them to each other, it starts to make a bit more sense. That's where we start to see people realizing that now that they're comparing apples to apples, they're getting a better idea of what this looks like.

We are seeing perspectives change quite a bit, and that's really what my research has been tracking. Since the 2018 report, we have seen, in 2020, for example, an increase of 10.9% in acceptance of SMRs in Saskatchewan and Ontario.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Also, throughout your presentation you talked about trust. It's not very hard to believe that our indigenous communities have trust issues, given all the things that have happened with them over the years. It's not surprising.

Do you feel that through the proper consultation process, because they are still years away from when the SMRs are going to be built, there is beginning to be a lot more trust being formed, because they are in it at the ground level?

If you can explain a bit more on this, I'd appreciate that very much.

[Dazawray Landrie-Parker]

I think Mr. Hartwick from OPG said it best. Having that inclusion from the start is really one of the key pieces in creating that trust. You have to be equal players at the table. You have to be involved in those conversations from the very beginning. That includes defining what those processes look like.

Another key component of building that trust—whether you are a proponent, a researcher from the university or anyone within the industry—is having made some real commitment towards those renewed and positive relationships. We see a lot of industry coming forward with reconciliation action plans, OPG being one of them, and that really has demonstrated a commitment to these relationships. That's where the good conversations start.

It's really important to be able to have some of those tough conversations around what happened in the past. When I say meaningful and authentic engagement, I mean it's kind of uncomfortable sometimes, because you have to have those conversations. I think Mr. Hartwick is a great example. He said we haven't done it right in the past, but we're doing it right now, and I completely agree with him.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I believe that is a big issue. You don't want lip service; you want proper consultation and to make sure it's done properly.

Could you give us any advice? Are there still some areas where we need to improve on consultation? If so, what would they be?