Evidence of meeting #18 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.
7:10 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Okay, perhaps that could be a written response on the importance of impact assessments and how they would be used in this kind of process, if that's clear.
Qujannamiik.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
Thank you also to the witnesses for supplying that information. We appreciate that.
We'll now start the five-minute round. This time, we will start with Mr. Williams.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's always a pleasure.
Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.
I'm going to start with Mr. Bernier, if I may.
Mr. Bernier, what progress has been made in making nuclear technology eligible for the government-funded green bond program?
7:10 p.m.
Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I should acknowledge that the federal government's green bond program is led by the Department of Finance. Although they do draw on the expertise of other federal departments, such as Natural Resources Canada, I would be stepping outside my role to speak on that.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Perhaps I will ask a broad question: Has Natural Resources Canada had input on that program?
7:10 p.m.
Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, our input was sought as part of the Department of Finance's development of the green bond program.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Please provide a general yes-or-no answer: Does Natural Resources Canada support that?
7:10 p.m.
Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
What I can comment on is.... We understand that, as the Department of Finance developed their position on green bonds, they looked extensively at international practices, and nuclear was generally not included. That includes, for example, the United Kingdom's green bond program—the United Kingdom being a very significant nuclear power. Their green bond program did not include nuclear.
Certainly, we inputted on the pros and cons, but ultimately it was their decision to make, with reference to international practices in this area.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
I have a follow-up question: Do you know whether the United States is using a similar program, at this point?
7:15 p.m.
Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I apologize, but I am not as familiar with the U.S.'s use of that as an instrument. We could provide that in a follow-up.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
That would be fantastic. Thank you.
Ms. Ducros, a scientist named Dr. Christopher Keefer told the committee in June that all the nuclear waste one person would create in their lifetime, if all the power was produced by nuclear energy, would fit—I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I have a prop—into a pop can just like this one.
Do you agree with that assessment?
7:15 p.m.
Director General, Advanced Reactor Technologies, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on nuclear waste. I would have to get back to you on whether it would fit into a pop can.
Whether or not it fits in a pop can is less significant to me than whether every licence application clearly delineates what's going to happen to that waste—that the waste goes to an authorized waste management facility, that they are going to do what they can to reduce the amount of waste, and that it's safe.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Okay, I have a different question for you, then.
Canada is one of the leaders in nuclear power and research in the world. Do we have any issues regarding nuclear proliferation from our current electrical and research uses?
7:15 p.m.
Director General, Advanced Reactor Technologies, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Canada is a signatory to the treaty on non-proliferation. This requires us to forbid developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, and it also obligates Canada to accept safeguards verification from the International Atomic Energy Agency. It also requires us to implement export controls to ensure that any nuclear transfers don't contribute to other nations' nuclear programs.
From an SMR perspective, the proponents will need to demonstrate that they meet CNSC's requirements in this respect. It's part of our mandate to make sure that we meet the international obligations to which we are signatories.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Do you have any recommendations for this committee on what changes we should seek, or any advice, to ensure that our industries succeed?
7:15 p.m.
Director General, Advanced Reactor Technologies, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
The recommendation I would have is that we always ensure that we meet our obligations and that we carry on with our compliance verification, as we do, and our work with international partners.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you.
My last question is for Ms. Gottschling.
We had some questions earlier about whether we can hit the 2050 goal of net zero without nuclear. I'm going to ask you to answer the same question, please.
7:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I have heard the same analogies made, that there is no path to net zero without nuclear. We've also engaged in studies and see the gap as very large. The challenge we have in nuclear, and how much nuclear power we would need to hit that gap, is the same across all energy industries. I believe it will take a mix of diversified energy portfolios to hit that target.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kirsty Duncan
Thank you. You were bang on.
Thank you, Mr. Williams. Thank you to all the witnesses.
With that, we will go to Mr. McKinnon, for five minutes, please.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'm interested in exploring the potential evolution of SMRs and potentially micro modular reactors. Specifically, I'm interested in ocean-going shipping. I know that as a sector, the freighters that go all around the world have an enormous CO2 footprint, and they tend to burn messy, dirty fuel as well.
If we could project the state of the art of SMRs or micro reactors, do you see the ability to economically deploy that sort of technology on the typical ocean-going freighter? Further, what might the challenges be to that, and what can we do as a government to encourage research in those directions?
That is a question I believe for Atomic Energy.
7:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Thank you for the question.
I apologize; I probably can't speak to the economic feasibility as such, but what I can point you to is that the marine transport industry is engaging with the nuclear industry to discuss these opportunities. We are doing so at CNL as well.
The parallel would be the historical use of SMR technologies for the navy and its fleet. There is a precedent set for using small reactors for water transport with the navy, and I would draw more on that.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
I'm going to carry on with understanding the scale of the problem in terms of nuclear waste and how it can potentially be handled with SMRs in general. When you talk to people about the proliferation of SMRs, generally the first thing they're concerned about is all the nuclear waste.
I'll address this to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Perhaps you can address these concerns.
7:20 p.m.
Director General, Advanced Reactor Technologies, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
The nuclear waste is one of the things we regulate, and it's part of the licensing application review. With any application that comes to us, the licensing has to have a path for where the waste will end up, and that waste has to end up in a licensed facility.
Canada has managed its nuclear waste for quite some time. When it comes to policy decisions on the reprocessing of waste and those types of things, it's the Government of Canada that has to make that decision. From a regulatory perspective, we will review each application to ensure that they minimize the amount of waste they produce and that they have safe storage and management of that waste.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I understand that the waste from one reactor might turn out to be the fuel for another. It might need to be refined. It might need to be repurposed in some manner.
Is that a viable expectation, that as we go forward generating nuclear waste from these various reactors, we will be able to redeploy the spent fuel, if you will, and the waste in terms of other technologies?
7:20 p.m.
Director General, Advanced Reactor Technologies, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I'll begin, and then I'll pass it to NRCan.
The policy on whether or not Canada is going to accept the reprocessing of nuclear waste fuel to use in another facility has not been determined yet. However, if Canada were to go in that direction and allow that type of technology, the CNSC would regulate it in the same way we would regulate any other fuel or reprocessing facility. Our regulations are able to handle that type of novel technology.