RNNR Committee Report

Supplementary Opinion of the New Democratic Party

The nuclear energy and research sector is a large sector that many hard-working Canadians depend on for employment, energy and medical needs. We would like to thank our colleagues on the Natural Resources committee from the Liberal and Conservative parties for working together on this study in a constructive and collegial manner. As a result of that work, we believe this report is a strong reflection of our many shared concerns for this sector.

We do, however, have some areas of concern that require a stronger response or more attention. We have approached this study with some guiding principles that we believe are important to be reflected in this report. One of those principles is ensuring that government agencies and watchdogs are properly fulfilling their mandates, completely and with full transparency. When a government oversight body is not reaching that level of expectation, Canadians start to lose faith in that body’s effectiveness, independence and ability to protect the Canadian public. We have seen how these kinds of issues have effected the National Energy Board over time, and it would behoove other government agencies to try to avoid those same pitfalls.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)has a very serious and important role to fulfill in the oversight of Canada’s nuclear sector and to ensure that Canadians are protected through proper regulation of said sector. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the CNSC was brought into serious doubt in the Fall 2016 report of the Environment Commissioner, who audited the work of the CNSC. As the Commissioner noted in her testimony, “it was unclear whether the CNSC was conducting the appropriate number and type of inspections, because its planning process was not very well documented.” She also noted that the CNSC “could not show that planning was rigorous, systematic, and risk-based to verify that nuclear facilities were complying with all regulations.”

The concerns raised by the Environment Commissioner echo concerns raised by CNSC whistleblowers in a July 2016 letter. Unfortunately, when this letter was made public, the head of the CNSC, Dr. Michael Binder, dismissed its significance. As various media reports stated, at a CNSC public meeting on Wednesday August 17th, 2016, Dr. Binder openly questioned if the whistleblower letter was in fact genuine and from CNSC staff. He further went on to joke that this may be part of a conspiracy theory. Further to this, the CNSC indicated that a written submission from Greenpeace, which included Access to Information documents lending support to some of the whistleblower allegations, would not be accepted or be considered. This is despite the fact that the CNSC has put their unsolicited submissions on the record at past meetings. These actions do not help the CNSC nor do they build public confidence in the institution.

When Dr. Binder testified before the committee, Mr. Cannings specifically asked if “CNSC ever publicly released an assessment of the off-site consequences of a Fukushima-scale radioactive release at a Canadian nuclear plant, yes or no?” Dr. Binder answered in the affirmative and then tabled a document with the committee which was purported to be what Mr. Cannings had requested. But the committee later received correspondence from Dr. Sunil Nijhawan which refuted Dr. Binder’s testimony and the document Dr. Binder tabled with the committee. His letter stated that the report that Dr. Binder tabled “did not in fact consider the offsite effects of a “Fukushima-scale radioactive release” requested by Mr. Cannings.”

During testimony before the committee, Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace testified to the importance of this information. He stated the following:

“…because for emergency planning purposes we should be ready for worst-case scenarios. That's what other countries such as Germany and Belgium have done since Fukushima. They've actually modelled these types of accidents and asked what they need to be ready for off-site, so that they can protect the public.

The CNSC, at hearings in 2012 and 2013, heard from hundreds of Ontarians that we need to look at these types of studies, whatever you think about the nuclear industry, to better our emergency plans. They've consistently dodged modelling a Fukushima-scale accident and done a lot of—I don't know—bafflegab to avoid actually addressing the question.

This goes back to your original question about the CNSC. It really worries me that they haven't been direct with the public about that.”

Finally, during her testimony before the committee, the Environment Commissioner indicated that CNSC “was quite difficult to work with” and stated that CSNC “was aggressive” with auditors from the CNSC. She went on to say that “If you look at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's response, you will see there is a kind of code. It says it agrees with our findings, but that it will continue on as before and that it is doing everything correctly.”

This sort of approach from CNSC is, in our opinion, inappropriate from a national regulator. It is inappropriate for a national regulator to thumb its nose at officers of Parliament or at elected Members of Parliament, all who serve the people. This approach risks further eroding public confidence in the Canadian nuclear industry, at no fault of the industry itself.

Upon their election, the current government promised to clean up government, make it more transparent and open, and to bring “sunny ways” to our country. Unfortunately, recent controversy with the leadership of the CNSC is casting a cloud that is contrary to the government’s commitments. The Minister must stop avoiding his responsibilities and address the issues affecting public trust in Canada’s nuclear regulator.

We also would like to note that the committee heard testimony that was not included in the majority report about the balance between investment in new nuclear technologies and clean, renewable technologies such as solar. Mr. Stensil testified before the committee that “the challenge facing the nuclear industry involves not only the costs of disposing of waste and the risk of accidents, but also the competition. Technologies are improving very quickly.” He went on to state that “in the last RFP the Ontario government put out, they got wind power in at 6.5¢ for the first time. That's lower than nuclear generation, and it's lower than wind was five years ago at 13¢.”

While decisions on construction of energy generation infrastructure fall to other levels of government, we believe that the testimony on the rising competitiveness of alternate forms of renewable energy technology merit consideration in the allocation of federal funding for research and development.

We believe that if the Government of Canada enacts the recommendations above, we will be able to better ensure the viability and safety of the nuclear sector to the benefit of all Canadians.