Introduction

On 1 February 2022, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research (the Committee) decided to undertake a study of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) to “better understand this emerging technology and how it can benefit both the environment and economy in Canadian society.”^[1] The Committee decided that the study would include, but would not be limited to, examining the following:

• a)      the impacts of SMRs on climate change;
• b)      the contributions of SMRs to Canadian science, research and innovation;
• c)       the impacts of SMRs on Canadian-based manufacturing and on the resilience of domestic supply chains across Canada; and
• d)      the opportunities created by SMRs to export this technology globally to new and existing markets.^[2]

In the course of its study, the Committee held four meetings between 2 June and 26 September 2022. It heard 29 witnesses and received 29 briefs. The Committee would like to thank all of the individuals and organizations that took the time to participate in this study by appearing or submitting a brief.

The evidence compiled by the Committee resulted in recommendations for the Government of Canada on small modular reactors.

Background

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are nuclear fission reactors that are smaller and less powerful than traditional reactors, with components that are built in a factory and transported on site for assembly.^[3] SMRs produce 10 to 300 megawatts of electricity (MWe). Reactors that produce 10 MWe or less are called microreactors.^[4]

More than 70 SMR projects are being developed around the world, using different technologies.^[5] To date, only two SMRs are in operation: the two KLT-40S reactors at the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant in Russia have been in operation since 2020 and the HTR-PM reactor built at the Shidao Bay nuclear power plant in China was connected to the grid in December 2021.^[6]

Many of those projects use light-water technology that is common in conventional reactors, but SMRs can “vary significantly in size, design features and cooling types.”^[7] The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) gives the following examples of SMR technologies:

• integral pressurized water reactors;
• molten salt reactors;
• high-temperature gas reactors;
• liquid metal cooled reactors; and
• solid state or heat pipe reactors.^[8]

SMRs are expected to have several advantages over traditional reactors. SMRs are smaller and have simpler designs, and their components are easier to manufacture, transport and install.^[9] In addition, SMRs could also support the decarbonization of the energy sector.

Canada was the world’s third largest producer of uranium in 2021, with 13% of global uranium production taking place in Saskatchewan in 2019.^[10] Incidentally, 75% of this uranium is exported. The nuclear industry contributes $17 billion to the Canadian economy and generates 76,000 jobs, including 33,000 direct jobs.

In Canada, nuclear energy accounted for 15% of electricity generation in 2019.[11] There are 19 CANDU nuclear reactors in four nuclear power stations: Bruce, Pickering and Darlington in Ontario, and Point Lepreau in New Brunswick. There are also four research reactors in Canada.[12]

Nuclear energy largely falls under federal jurisdiction. The federal government is responsible for research and development and for regulating nuclear materials and activities in Canada.^[13]

Parliament has established a framework for nuclear energy through various legislation:

• Nuclear Safety and Control Act;^[14]
• Nuclear Energy Act;^[15]
• Nuclear Fuel Waste Act;^[16] and
• Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act.^[17]

However, it is up to the provinces to decide whether or not to build electricity generating facilities, including nuclear plants, within their borders.^[18]

In recent years, a number of parliamentary committees have released reports on nuclear energy.^[19]

SMR Development Projects in Canada

Since 2018, initiatives have been launched at the provincial and federal levels to support SMR development in Canada (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Small Modular Reactor Development Projects in Canada

Source:  Based on information provided by witnesses.

At the provincial level, the Premiers of Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick signed a Memorandum of Understanding in December 2019, with Alberta joining in April 2021.^[20] As part of this agreement, the provinces said they were willing to build SMRs in their jurisdictions and have committed to cooperating to that end.

In April 2021, energy operators in Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan released a feasibility report on SMRs.^[21] The report provides an economic and technological feasibility assessment of SMR development in each of the three provinces.

In March 2022, Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan released a strategic plan for the deployment of small modular reactors.^[22] According to this document, the provinces will focus on five priorities: technology readiness; regulatory framework; economics and financing; nuclear waste management; and Indigenous and public engagement.

The plan mentions several SMR projects:

• the construction of one 300 MWe SMR at the Darlington station in Ontario by 2028, and several SMRs in Saskatchewan after 2034;
• the development of two 4th-generation SMRs^[23] at the Point Lepreau plant in New Brunswick in the early 2030s; and
• one 5 MWe microreactor demonstration project in Chalk River, Ontario, by 2026.

In November 2018, the federal government demonstrated its support for SMRs with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) engaging in collaboration with representatives from provincial and territorial governments, and utilities and industry partners in the development and release of Canada’s SMR Roadmap.^[24]

Most recently, in December 2020, the federal government launched the Canadian SMR Action Plan.^[25] This action plan brings together more than 100 participating organizations, including federal government agencies, provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous organizations, municipalities, private and public companies, universities, civil society groups, industry associations and unions. These organizations have all made commitments under the Action Plan.

In Budget 2022, the Government of Canada announced funding for SMRs of $120.6 million over five years, starting in 2022–2023, and $0.5 million ongoing, as follows:

• $69.9 million for Natural Resources Canada to undertake research to minimize waste generated from these reactors; support the creation of a fuel supply chain; strengthen international nuclear cooperation agreements; and enhance domestic safety and security policies and practices; and
• $50.7 million, and $0.5 million ongoing, for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build the capacity to regulate small modular reactors and work with international partners on global regulatory harmonization.^[26]

In the course of its study, the Committee heard testimony on various aspects of SMR development in Canada, concentrating on the science and research aspects. The Committee also heard testimony on climate and the environment; the economic impact of SMR projects and community engagement.

Science and Research

Technological Maturity of SMRs

Witnesses informed the committee about the progress and technological maturity of SMR projects.

Potential projects in Canada involve the development and deployment of new models of reactors that will need to be successful before regular production can ultimately begin. This first phase is crucial, and several witnesses mentioned the importance of federal government support during this stage of development.^[27]

Regarding the safety of future reactors, several witnesses said that SMRs are designed with passive or intrinsic safety features, in other words, they do not require human intervention, making them easier to operate and reducing the risk of accident.^[28]

It was also noted that some of the projects being developed in Canada rely in part on existing technologies in traditional nuclear reactors.^[29] According to some witnesses, this is advantageous in that the SMR models are based on a solid foundation of research and proven technologies.^[30] Caroline Ducros, Director General of Advanced Reactor Technologies at the CNSC, testified that:

[T]he CNSC has extensive ties with Canadian academia on the science and research needed to support safety cases for CANDU reactors and other nuclear facilities. That approach is being leveraged for SMRs. Our budget 2022 funding will enable us to support independent third-party research on key SMR-related priority areas.^[31]

However, in a brief submitted to the Committee, the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick advised against investing millions of dollars more into researching technologies that have previously been explored, such as small liquid sodium reactors and molten salt reactors, both researched in the U.S. starting in the 1950s.^[32]

The fact that SMRs in Canada are still at the design stage was also discussed. According to Susan O’Donnell with the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick, the reactors planned for New Brunswick have never been successfully marketed because of unresolved technical problems.^[33] M. V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, appearing as an individual, explained that the research and development to come up with a safe, operational model would require a major investment. He was doubtful that the market is prepared to make such investments that could run between US$1 billion and US$2 billion.^[34] Witnesses questioned the wisdom of public investment to support the research and development activities of private players in this field.^[35] This argument also comes up in three briefs submitted to the committee.^[36] A further four briefs recommended that the Government of Canada stop investing in research and development into small modular reactors at all.^[37]

John Gorman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Nuclear Association, refuted the idea that small modular reactors are an “expensive science experiment,” saying that, just over 20 years ago, solar energy was called an “expensive science experiment.”^[38] Francis Bradley, on behalf of Electricity Canada, said “[SMRs] are not mature technologies today, but if we said that we shouldn’t pursue technology until it’s mature, we wouldn’t have the amount of wind and solar that’s coming on board today.”^[39] Further, Amy Gottschling, Vice‑President of Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, testified that “the foundational sciences of SMR technologies are not new. Universities and research laboratories around the world have been researching, developing and demonstrating these technologies for decades.”^[40]

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada continue to support small modular reactor projects by sharing their development phase costs.

Science-Based Decisions

Some witnesses wondered about the role of science in the government’s decision-making process when it comes to SMRs.^[41] In a brief to the committee, the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc. wrote that “We currently believe that [Small Modular Nuclear Reactor] funding applications do not receive adequate scientific review, or that the scientific review is not appropriately considered by the funders.”^[42] In that light, Susan O’Donnell suggested that all the funding for net-zero technology research be moved to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.^[43] Another witness, Jeremy Rayner, a professor appearing as an individual, opposed that idea, saying that important questions about SMRs actually fall within the purview of the social sciences and the humanities.^[44] Meanwhile, Caroline Ducros with the CNSC testified that “[w]e review the technologies that come to us to ensure that, whatever we recommend to the commission, we have used a scientific basis and had a robust review of full and complete information.”^[45]

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada undertake transparent, independent scientific reviews as part of the decision-making for any funding towards small modular reactor research and development.

Waste Reprocessing

Rory O’Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer, North America, of Moltex Energy—currently undertaking an SMR project in Point Lepreau, New Brunswick—spoke of the possibility of using spent fuel from Canada’s CANDU nuclear reactors to power Moltex reactors, which run on reprocessed fuel.^[46]

In regard to nuclear waste reprocessing, including the Moltex technology, several witnesses expressed concerns related to nuclear non-proliferation and the risk of reprocessing in nuclear weapons technology.^[47] This sentiment was also expressed in six briefs submitted to the committee.^[48] On this subject, André Bernier, Director General, Electricity Resources Branch with the Department of Natural Resources testified that:

[O]ne of the main sensitivities when we get into reprocessing, especially if it involves the movement of nuclear waste across borders, is the risk of proliferation. We know that SMRs in general are using a different kind of fuel and producing a different kind of waste than CANDU reactors, so by no means is it an insurmountable obstacle, but it is a very different set of considerations than our current equilibrium, where we have natural uranium being used in country and not reprocessed.^[49]

In regard to Canada’s international obligations related to nuclear non-proliferation, the CNSC testified that:

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 control 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.^[50]

In a private correspondence to the committee, Moltex Energy states that their proposals are in accordance with Canada’s international obligations.[51] They affirm that the waste reprocessing used for their project will not be able to produce weapons grade material and that for the output of this process to be used for other purposes, a conventional reprocessing facility would be required, in breach of Canadian and international regulations.^[52] This was countered by another private correspondence to the committee by Frank N. von Hippel, who stated that pure plutonium could be extracted from the product in a low-cost laboratory “hot cell” and subject to proliferation.^[53]

Several witnesses also spoke to the fact that nuclear waste reprocessing still leaves waste materials that must be safely stored, as well as producing new liquid waste.^[54] Other witnesses pointed out that nuclear waste reprocessing is a proven process already in use in other countries.^[55]

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada work with international and scientific partners to examine nuclear waste reprocessing and its implications for waste management and proliferation vulnerability.

Other Scientific Spinoffs and Areas of Targeted Research

The witnesses shed light on potential spinoffs and applications from the research into SMRs. SMRs generate heat, which could be used in a series of other applications. Among those, witnesses cited agriculture, building heating, marine transport, the production of hydrogen for fuelling vehicles or storing surplus energy, or even desalinating water.^[56] Some SMRs could also be used to produce isotopes.^[57] However, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Canada noted in its brief that the production of isotopes for medical purposes can be done at other facilities such as cyclotrons or accelerators.^[58]

According to the testimony heard at committee, several areas of research connected to the development of SMRs are especially important or promising. Several witnesses mentioned research into advanced fuels.^[59] Other witnesses talked about energy recovery and storage.^[60] Among other areas where more research is needed to support the development of SMRs, several witnesses mentioned advanced modularization or advanced manufacturing technology.^[61] McMaster University asked the federal government for support for “increased availability of neutrons for neutron beam research and irradiations.”^[62]

Role of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and Academia

According to the presentation by Joseph McBrearty, President and CEO, the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is “technology agnostic. [Its] role is to leverage our scientific capabilities to prove or disprove theories and to inform the regulatory process.”^[63] Joseph McBrearty said that “as a national nuclear laboratory, [CNL] bridge[s] the gap between the academic world and the industry”^[64] by taking academic ideas and putting them to the test at the facilities in Chalk River. In 2018, CNL launched its small modular reactor siting program.^[65] Through that program, Global First Power has proposed building a microreactor at the Chalk River site. CNL is also behind the “Canadian nuclear research initiative,” a cost-sharing program to leverage CNL’s extensive resources to make them more accessible to SMR vendors.^[66]

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), through oversight of the CNL, also highlights their “ability to create a nexus where academia, government and private industry can align to ensure safe and expeditious deployment of nuclear technologies.”^[67]

Research projects have been initiated at several universities and organizations. For example:

• McMaster University launched a feasibility study on the implementation of a microreactor in partnership with Global First Power and Ultra Safe Nuclear;^[68]
• X-energy and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) announced a partnership in July 2022 to explore the potential of deploying SMRs in industrial sites;^[69] and
• Westinghouse and Bruce Power launched an SMR feasibility study for mines and remote communities.^[70]

Dave Tucker, Assistant Vice-President of Nuclear Research at McMaster University and David Novog, a professor appearing as an individual, further recommended the creation of a coordinated national program to link universities, governments and private companies together to facilitate shared objectives.^[71]

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada implement a comprehensive research and development plan on small modular reactors that would bridge government, private industry and academia.

Environmental Considerations

Much of the testimony heard by the Committee focused on environmental issues with respect to climate change, nuclear waste management and regulations.

Climate Change

The potential role of SMRs in fighting climate change and supporting Canada’s energy transition made up the bulk of the testimony heard by the Committee.

Several witnesses emphasized that nuclear power is a very low greenhouse gas emitting source of energy: the Committee was told that nuclear reactors already contribute to zero-emissions electricity generation in Canada, particularly in Ontario where approximately 60% of electricity is nuclear generated.^[72] Some witnesses proposed including nuclear technology and SMRs in the Green Bond Framework.^[73] In this light, nuclear in general and SMRs in particular could play a role in the pursuit of Canada’s climate goals and the transition to net‑zero.

On the one hand, SMRs could help replace higher greenhouse gas emitting energy sources. Several witnesses pointed to diesel generators used in Northern, remote and rural communities, which in some cases could be replaced by SMRs.^[74] Witnesses noted the importance of consulting with Indigenous communities regarding SMRs and energy decision-making.[75]

On the other hand, as part of the energy transition, many experts expect to see a significant increase in electricity demand in Canada in the coming years due to the electrification of transportation and industry and growing demand for electric vehicles.^[76] Mr. Bradley estimates that electricity generation needs could increase two to three times by 2050.^[77] SMRs could help meet this additional demand.^[78]

More specifically, many witnesses identified SMR technology as a stable baseload clean energy to support intermittent renewables such as wind and solar, and move Canada toward decarbonization goals.^[79] According to several witnesses, all forms of non-emitting energy would be needed in order to meet Canada’s climate change goals.^[80] For example, John Gorman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Nuclear Association shared that, “This is a math problem. It’s not a theology problem. We have to get away from picking a favourite technology and realize that we need everything at our disposal in order to meet this challenge.”^[81]

Witnesses also emphasized the need to tailor the non-emitting energy configuration of each province and territory based on their individual geography, noting that some provinces and regions lacked sufficient natural resources to support certain non-emitting technologies, including hydroelectricity, wind and solar.^[82]

However, the Committee also heard opposing evidence.

Evelyn Gigantes, appearing as an individual, said that renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and hydro can adequately address clean energy needs without the support of nuclear energy. She cited research that promoted methods for achieving net-zero emissions goals without SMR and nuclear technology, including batteries and electric storage technologies, increasing renewable energy diversity, improvements in energy efficiency, interprovincial transmission, and policies such as demand flexibility.^[83] Other witnesses supported these arguments.^[84]

Some witnesses also felt that SMRs would not be ready in time to make a meaningful contribution to Canada’s climate change commitments.^[85] This concern was also cited in several briefs submitted to the Committee.^[86]

Alternatively, other witnesses spoke both to projections that could see SMR technologies deployed by the late 2020s and fully commercialized by the mid‑2030s,^[87] and the need to look beyond 2030 to future energy goals and long-term solutions to Canada’s energy needs.^[88] According to Natural Resources Canada:

There’s no disagreement. This is not something that will make a material difference before the end of the decade. It’s not something where we expect SMRs to contribute on a large scale to the achievement of the 2030 goal. Even by 2035, it’s likely that we’ll see a very small number of SMRs deployed in Canada, but beyond that point, as we look toward what we expect to be a very significant expansion of the electricity system in Canada but also globally to meet the needs of a decarbonized economy, that’s where there could be a very significant role for SMRs, and Canada as a leader in terms of demonstrating this technology.^[89]

However, several witnesses stated in their testimonies that money invested in SMRs would be more effective at reducing carbon emissions if invested in other renewable technologies. M. V. Ramana said that there’s an “economic opportunity cost,” as “[m]oney that is invested in SMRs would save far more carbon dioxide if it were invested in renewables and associated technologies.”^[90] This was an opinion that was also cited in several briefs submitted to the Committee.^[91]

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada consider including nuclear technology and small modular reactors in green energy and net-zero programs like the Green Bond Framework.

Nuclear Waste Management

Many witnesses commented on the issue of nuclear waste generated by SMRs.

Kirk Atkinson, Associate Professor and Director, Centre for Small Modular Reactors, Ontario Tech University, told the Committee that “SMRs, like all nuclear reactors, will produce a small amount of radioactive waste per energy emitted.^[92] However, he said Canada can draw on decades of expertise in the storage of nuclear waste.^[93] John Gorman added that “Canada has an exceptional track record that is respected internationally for the way it manages the entire cycle of every bit of waste it produces. I’m not aware of any fatality from handling the waste here in Canada or, indeed, around the world.”^[94] Kirk Atkinson said that “[b]eing an early adopter of SMRs, Canada is in an ideal position to become a world leader in developing lucrative new and novel technologies for the management of SMR wastes.”^[95]

Several witnesses, however, testified that SMRs may actually produce larger amounts of high-level nuclear waste than larger reactors, including citing a recent research study out of Stanford University.^[96] Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, recommended an independent scientific investigation of the volume and characteristics of radioactive waste that will be generated by SMRs.^[97] Jeremy Rayner mentioned that SMR waste will be spread among a larger number of smaller sites, and will need to be transported to a waste repository, in comparison to larger reactors that have historically stored waste on-site.^[98]

Some witnesses also testified to gaps in Canada’s nuclear waste management policies related to, for example, SMR waste storage, post-fission intermediate-level waste and independent nuclear waste management.^[99] Ginette Charbonneau, physicist and spokesperson for Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, said “[n]o waste management strategy for small modular reactors emerged from the consultation conducted by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization” because the waste from SMRs is not well characterized.^[100]

As noted above, several witnesses also raised concerns about managing waste from reprocessing spent fuel, which is being considered in the development of some SMRs.^[101]

Lastly, witnesses suggested creating a nuclear waste management agency, independent from the nuclear industry.^[102]

An official with Natural Resources Canada said:

[T]he government is evaluating Canada’s current radioactive waste policy, and we are developing a comprehensive new policy that further provides Canadians with confidence in the long-term management of all of Canada’s radioactive waste, including any waste from future technologies such as SMRs. Results from that engagement are being analyzed, and we plan to release the policy before the end of the year.^[103]

Caroline Ducros with the CNSC said that waste is included in the CNSC’s review of licence applications: “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.”^[104]

The Committee notes that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report in September 2022 entitled Canada and Radioactive Waste Management: Important Decisions for the Future.^[105] The second recommendation in this report is on SMRs:

The [Standing] Committee [on Environment and Sustainable Development] recommends that any research and development work related to small modular reactor (SMR) technology rigorously document and categorize in their analyses the radioactive waste that will be generated, and that a plan be developed to manage this waste as part of Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning.^[106]

Regulation and Assessment

Witnesses highlighted an important federal role in the environmental assessment process and regulation of SMRs.^[107] André Bernier from Natural Resources Canada said that “[p]rotecting the health and safety of Canadians and the environment always has been, and always will be, the Government of Canada’s top priority regarding nuclear energy.”^[108]

Several witnesses spoke to the record of protection and robust regulatory system supported by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC),^[109] and the important role of the CNSC in maintaining public confidence in nuclear safety.^[110] Recent budget allocations to CNSC were also praised by witnesses.^[111]

Caroline Ducros provided further details on the CNSC’s role and certification processes for SMRs. She said that SMR technologies are different from CANDU reactor technology, which the CNSC is accustomed to.^[112] She added that the CNSC has been working to ensure “that our regulatory framework is appropriate for SMRs.”^[113]

Caroline Ducros said that the CNSC relies on its extensive ties with Canadian academia to study proposed SMR designs and projects. The CNSC also supports “independent third-party research on key SMR-related priority areas.”^[114]

As to potential conflicts of interest in nuclear governance, Caroline Ducros said that the CNSC does not “have a mandate as a proponent for any type of technology.”^[115]

Some witnesses also indicated a need for ongoing modernization to allow regulators to keep pace with emerging technology and account for emerging climate change mitigation measures.^[116] Other witnesses testified to the importance of consistency of SMR regulation across different policies and frameworks, and over time.^[117]

On this point, Caroline Ducros said that the CNSC “is taking a leadership role and working closely with international regulators, notably the U.S., the U.K. and international organizations” to “harmonize requirements and standards, share reviews and streamline licensing processes as much as possible, while maintaining our regulatory sovereignty.”^[118]

The Impact Assessment Act, in place since 2019, as supplemented by the Physical Activities Regulations, was a frequent topic raised by witnesses.^[119]

Some witnesses testified that the Act would increase project timelines.^[120] Others expressed concern that most SMR projects may not be subject to an impact assessment.^[121] The regulations provide an exemption for the construction, operation and decommissioning of one or more new nuclear reactors with a combined thermal capacity of less than 900 megawatts thermal (MWth) within the licensed boundaries of an existing nuclear facility or one or more new reactors with a combined thermal capacity of less than 200 MWth outside the licensed boundaries of an existing nuclear facility. The Minister of the Environment may, however, designate by order projects to be subject to the impact assessment process. Several witnesses recommended that each SMR project be subject to an impact assessment.^[122]

Caroline Ducros with the CNSC said that “any project that goes through the CNSC, any licence application that goes through the CNSC, is subject to an environmental projection review under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.”^[123]

Economic Model and Labour Needs

Economic Model of SMRs

Witnesses presented the economic model used for the development of SMRs in Canada. Based on that model, small reactors have three primary opportunities in Canada, as previously mentioned: to contribute to satisfying a growing demand for electricity in conjunction with renewable energy sources with variable output; provide energy to remote communities by replacing diesel generators; and provide electricity and heat to mines and off‑grid industrial facilities.^[124]

According to proponents of SMRs, these new types of reactors have several economic benefits that make them uniquely suited to these markets.

Building traditional nuclear reactors requires substantial investment from the outset, but those costs are offset over-time and through a significant capacity to generate electricity that provides economies of scale, lowering the cost of the electricity generated in cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh).^[125]

SMRs have lower electricity generation capacity, but their economic model seeks to reduce the cost of the electricity generated by limiting their construction cost. The simplified design of SMRs, their mass production at dedicated plants, their modular installation directly on site, and the simplicity of their usage should help reduce their installation and operation costs.^[126] The economies of scale should be achieved by reactor production.^[127] Several witnesses estimated that in these conditions, the cost of electricity generated by SMRs could stabilize around 10¢/kWh.^[128] In comparison, witnesses testified that hydro costs in Ontario are currently 6¢/kWh to 8¢/kWh, nuclear is 9¢/kWh, gas is 14¢/kWh to 15¢/kWh, wind is 15¢/kWh and solar is 49¢/kWh to 50¢/kWh.^[129]

However, several other witnesses questioned this economic model. They wondered about the demand for SMRs. According to them, international examples show that the demand for SMRs is limited for the time being.^[130] Furthermore, witnesses cited studies indicating that the level of demand for electricity in Northern, remote and Indigenous communities does not justify the investment required for building SMRs.^[131] In regards to the potential deployment of SMRs in Indigenous communities, witnesses also noted the importance of consulting with Indigenous communities regarding SMRs and energy decision-making.[132] For Gordon Edwards, SMRs are a technology “in search of a market.”^[133]

Several witnesses also questioned the optimistic projections for the cost of electricity generated by SMRs.^[134] According to them, the construction of traditional reactors historically encountered significant delays and cost overruns.^[135] M. V. Ramana told the committee that the construction cost for traditional reactors to date tended to increase over time.^[136] As previously mentioned, the committee’s attention was also drawn to the fact that Northern, remote and Indigenous communities each have specific needs that may not be met by mass‑produced SMRs.^[137] Further, Jeremy Rayner referenced research he had previously conducted that identified economic challenges for SMRs in the wide span of designs in development and the “failure of vendors and potential buyers to agree on a small number of potentially promising designs.”^[138]

A brief submitted to the Committee by the Sustainable Energy Group further states that economic models to date have not incorporated the financial costs of decommissioning reactors at the end of their lifespan, increasing the overall cost of nuclear.^[139]

In these conditions, witnesses questioned the possibility of achieving the economies of scale that would make SMRs competitive.^[140]

International Market

Witnesses also addressed the issue of the international market. Most of the witnesses heard by the Committee said that, as a pioneer, Canada could achieve success internationally by exporting its expertise.^[141] This was also cited by two briefs submitted to the Committee.^[142] André Bernier testified, for example, that “Canada has the potential to become a leader in the development and deployment of SMR technology and potentially claim a significant share of a projected global market estimated to be $150 billion a year by 2040.”^[143] The CNSC, meanwhile, testified that Canada could take a leadership role among international regulators in regard to requirements, standards and licensing requirements.^[144]

Others were more pessimistic, citing the significant number of models under development and international competition as risk factors.^[145] M. V. Ramana, in private correspondence with the committee, also shared that the fuel required for certain SMR models under consideration is not currently produced in Canada and would need to be imported from other countries, of which Russia is a primary producer of such fuel.^[146]

Labour Needs

Job Creation Potential

Several witnesses discussed the job-creating potential of developing SMRs.^[147] Rory O’Sullivan said that this is “a huge opportunity.”^[148] The development, construction and operation of SMRs will require hiring many skilled workers in a variety of fields. According to Joseph McBrearty, SMR development projects will need “not only the scientists and the engineers, but also skilled trades to execute these construction projects, and you’re going to need skilled operators to operate these plants.”^[149]

The development of SMRs could also have positive spinoffs on employment in other sectors. For Kirk Atkinson, “[i]n Alberta, oil and gas workers can be assured of long-term job security by re-skilling for the SMR-generated process heat economy in hydrogen and alternative fuels.”^[150]

There was also reference to the possibility of the installation and operation of SMRs creating job opportunities within local communities.^[151] In addition to these direct jobs, SMRs were presented as an economic development opportunity for the regions concerned.^[152]

During his appearance, M. V. Ramana raised concerns about these optimistic predictions. According to him, “[t]he literature is unambiguous that nuclear reactor construction generates comparatively fewer jobs than renewables like solar and wind energy per dollar invested.”^[153] He also said that, even if investment in SMRs generated jobs, the uncertainty of opportunities in this sector casts doubt on the sustainability of these jobs.^[154]

Other witnesses emphasized that the jobs offered in the nuclear sector are “good jobs.”^[155] For Robert Walker, National Director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council, “[t]hese 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.”^[156] One witness noted that the nuclear sector has “the highest union density” in Canada.^[157] It was also noted that the nuclear industry is a major employer of Indigenous populations in Canada and that a growing number of women are joining the sector.^[158] On behalf of the Department of Natural Resources, André Bernier spoke about an upcoming meeting of the SMR Leadership Table to be co-chaired by a member of the Indigenous Advisory Council, partly to ensure that “we’re able to look at potential opportunities for Indigenous communities or development opportunities, including on the skills training side and in terms of potential ownership stakes in any projects.”^[159] As in other cases where SMRs were brought up in relation to Indigenous communities, witnesses highlighted the important role of consultation with Indigenous partners.[160]

Training and Workforce Development

Witnesses shed light on the need to train workers to meet labour skills in building and operating SMRs.

It was noted that, because of their size and simple design, future SMRs will likely require fewer operators than traditional reactors.^[161] Similarly, it is also possible that those operators can be trained more quickly.^[162]

Nevertheless, several witnesses testified that efforts will be required to ensure labour training in the SMR sector.^[163] Witnesses noted that, in Canada, nuclear expertise is geographically concentrated primarily in Ontario and New Brunswick and to a lesser extent in Quebec. Other provinces, such as Alberta or Saskatchewan, still lack expertise.^[164] Dazawray Landrie‑Parker, Director of the Nuclear Sector at Creative Fire, made a point of saying that training and mentorship of the Indigenous workforce can take quite a bit of time and “needs to start immediately” and in consultation with Indigenous communities.^[165]

In that context, several witnesses brought up the importance of partnerships with universities and the contribution that research and education communities can provide to this sector.^[166]

Witnesses also recommended investment in technical training for young people in the nuclear sector and the development of a pan-Canadian nuclear workforce strategy.^[167]

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 6

That the Government of Canada develop a pan-Canadian strategy, in partnership with provinces, territories and Indigenous governing bodies, for developing a workforce to research, create, establish, operate and maintain small modular reactors.

Community Engagement

Many of the witnesses focused on issues related to the impact of potential SMR development on local communities. Indigenous communities drew particular attention in this regard. Other more general comments focused on the social acceptability of SMR development.

In regard to the potential deployment of SMRs on Indigenous lands, many witnesses spoke to the importance of meaningful partnerships and consultation processes with the Indigenous communities in question.^[168] Speaking to this point, John Gorman said, “The nuclear industry takes Indigenous relations and partnerships very, very seriously. A tremendous amount of effort is being based on delivering trusted relationships and partnerships.”^[169]

The representative from CNSC said that SMRs are being considered for deployment in certain areas of Canada with no history of nuclear power generation. According to her, “[t]hat requires early and ongoing engagement by all involved, including the CNSC, to build relationships and trust, especially with Indigenous nations and communities and potential host communities.^[170]

On behalf of Natural Resources Canada, André Bernier said that a national Indigenous Advisory Council had been created as part of the SMR action plan.^[171] The council is composed of members from First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta and the territories.^[172]

Dazawray Landrie-Parker testified not only on the importance of engagement with Indigenous communities and informed consent in relation to SMR projects, but also on the potential for “increased Indigenous energy sovereignty. These communities need to be empowered to own and operate their own energy systems.”^[173] Speaking to this point, Dazawray Landrie-Parker said, “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.”^[174]

Dazawray Landrie-Parker also highlighted other potential benefits of meaningful Indigenous consultation in the energy sector, including using traditional knowledge to strengthen impact assessments, using local knowledge and lived experience to guide engagement, early training and mentorship of an Indigenous workforce, and including Indigenous-owned businesses in the procurement process.^[175]

More broadly, multiple other witnesses also mentioned the potential benefits of SMRs for Indigenous communities related to employment, shared ownership and management of projects, and participation in supply chains.^[176]

While Dazawray Landrie-Parker spoke of support for SMRs in some Indigenous communities she had worked in, Ginette Charbonneau, physicist and spokesperson for Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, mentioned opposition to SMRs from “most First Nations” in her testimony.^[177]

In a brief to the Committee, the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc. (PRGI), a not-for-profit Indigenous-led organization representing the Peskotomuhkati Nation in Canada, shared that their consent was never sought or granted for the development of the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor facility on the shores of the Bay of Fundy.^[178] In its brief, PRGI voiced its opposition to SMR projects, including those planned for the Point Lepreau site.

PRGI raised the issue of reconciliation, asking “how will supporting, allowing and advancing [SMRs] on Indigenous territory promote and facilitate reconciliation with Indigenous peoples?”[179]

PRGI also criticized the “piecemeal approach” to consultations with Indigenous communities: “Instead of participating in a holistic conversation about nuclear, we are asked to respond to specific projects and are forbidden to draw links between projects because of either the project scope, or the limited mandate of the host of the conversation.”[180] This criticism echoes Jeremy Rayner’s remarks about public engagement. In his view, placing responsibility for engagement on the proponents of nuclear development projects raises a problem:

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.^[181]

Several witnesses acknowledged that many Canadians still have concerns about SMRs, and nuclear energy more generally, related to waste, safety and economics.^[182]

Dazawray Landrie-Parker spoke of the importance of beginning community engagement with energy literacy that encompasses the positive and negative attributes of different types of energy generation, to enable communities to make informed decisions based on their particular concerns and needs.^[183] On a similar topic, David Novog mentioned the need for “a robust national dialogue on nuclear energy” that includes a fact-based analysis.^[184]

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 7

That the Government of Canada require the participation of Indigenous communities in decision-making on small modular reactors, including site selection and project management.

Recommendation 8

That the Government of Canada review its approach to consulting the public and Indigenous communities on small modular reactor development projects.