75-Minute Debate (16 April 2021)

From Hansard (16 April 2021)

To view this section on video, click here.

The Assembly was debating the following motion moved by Joe Hargrave (Sask Party - Prince Albert Carlton):

That this Assembly supports the nuclear secretariat to aid the development of small modular reactor technology as a pathway to creating alternative energy resources and addressing concerns around climate change.

---

Mr. McLeod: — Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d like to begin my comments with a quote. Now these aren’t my words, but I think they accurately summarize the motion being put before the Assembly today, and they may actually sound familiar. The quote reads as follows:

We have the chance right here and now to take serious steps to insulate our economy from future shocks. We need a plan that diversifies our economy and puts us on the cutting edge of sustainable jobs for the future.

Madam Deputy Speaker, small modular reactors, otherwise known as SMRs, are precisely that. SMRs can potentially deliver zero-emission, consistent, reliable power. They are cutting edge and will provide long-term, sustainable jobs well into our future. The Conference Board of Canada report identified that the manufacturing and construction of SMRs will add over 7,000 jobs per year to Saskatchewan. On the operations side, SMRs will create 728 jobs per year in this province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Saskatchewan government understands the importance of diversifying our energy resources, and we have committed to taking meaningful and measured steps towards reducing carbon emissions in our province. But we also need to recognize that there is a need for consistent and reliable baseload power. It is simply unrealistic to suggest that solar and wind power alone will meet the needs of our communities in a stable and predictable way. We cannot ignore reality on either side of this conversation.

So the development of SMR technology described in this motion is precisely what the quote I mentioned is calling for. It is our opportunity to take a serious step that will meaningfully reduce our carbon emissions while still insulating our economy from job losses. It will diversify our delivery of energy while ensuring stable, reliable, and consistent power to our communities across the province. SMRs are an innovative, green alternative to complement our other sources of power generation.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m happy to acknowledge the quote, which so accurately describes what the member from Prince Albert Carlton is proposing with this motion. And that quote came from the Leader of the Opposition not two weeks ago and was repeated just today by the member from Saskatoon Fairview.

I believe this is a great opportunity for the opposition to put their leader’s words into actions. They can support this motion and, like he said, right here and now take a serious step that will insulate and diversify our economy while creating cutting-edge, sustainable jobs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as our Premier has stated many times, no one has the moral high ground when it comes to the environment. We all care about protecting the world we live in and ensuring the safe and healthy future for generations to come. So when an opportunity presents itself that helps protect the environment by lowering carbon emissions, delivers consistent, reliable baseloadpower, and protects and creates jobs for those who work in the energy industry, we should all feel excited, if not compelled, to further explore and aid in the development of technology that can take us there.

Now before I get into some of the details about the benefits of SMR technology, I need to say, if you had asked me 30 years ago if I could envision myself arguing in favour of nuclear energy, I probably would have said, not a chance. Because 30 years ago I remember learning about the tragedy of Chernobyl. I still recall the horrible images of Fukushima a decade ago.

Madam Deputy Speaker, no one here is ignoring those incidents or the severe consequences from them. But it’s important to note what we are discussing today is nothing like those massive old nuclear power plants. For starters people need to remember that the power plants like Chernobyl and Fukushima used technology from the 1970s. That’s 50 years ago. We have many members in this Assembly who were not even born yet when that technology was developed.

I know that when people speak of nuclear power, they often imagine massive towers, piles of concrete and steel. Many of our thoughts then flash to media images of crumpled water tanks, collapsing walls, maybe even the loss of life. It’s easy to want to dismiss the conversation about nuclear energy out of hand, just toss it aside, because we shudder to think of those things. We all do.

But if we do that, if we slam the door on the idea, then we ignore the critical fact that technology advancements have come immensely far in the past few decades. We would lose all the benefits and opportunities available from those technological advancements. Consider for a moment, what if we had turned our back on other ideas every time tragedy struck, instead of learning from the experiences and developing safer technology because of them. Would we still be driving cars? Flying airplanes? Would we have skyscrapers or amusement parks?

Madam Deputy Speaker, I still remember vividly the Challenger space shuttle disaster, January 28th, 1986. Imagine if NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] had decided to discontinue their space program and been unwilling to invest and develop newer, safer technology because of that. Where would we be today? What advancements in educational opportunities would have been lost?

Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, SMRs are entirely different from traditional nuclear power plants. Those old reactors sat upon hundreds of acres of land. They generated thousands of megawatts of power. They were massive in size and scale and risk. That is not what we are talking about today. Small modular reactors are just that. They’re small and they’re modular. They typically generate 300 megawatts of power or less and they’re capable of being moved on the back of semi-trailers. We cannot allow misperceptions and fears of past tragedies from a very different thing to limit our consideration of this new, exciting opportunity.

Let’s consider some of the advancements in this field. First I want to address the issue of waste. Most of us cringe at the thought of nuclear waste, but much like other technology surrounding SMRs, there have been significant advancements in reactor designs that allow them to produce less waste. And better still, New Brunswick has plans to build an SMR that will actually use existing waste from traditional nuclear reactors as its fuel. For me that’s kind of like how Doc Brown used garbage to fuel the DeLorean in Back to the Future II. New Brunswick’s plan will see that SMR built right alongside an existing traditional reactor, then use the waste from the old reactor to fuel the new one.

SMRs can also generate significantly more energy from the same amount of fuel as a traditional reactor. Thus they are capable of generating more power with a fraction of the waste. They are nearly emission-free so they have a negligible impact on the natural environment around them, and they are so safe for humans that the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition determined a person would have to live next to a nuclear plant for over 2,000 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure that we all receive from a single diagnostic medical X-ray.

Madam Deputy Speaker, what we are discussing today is nothing like massive, traditional nuclear power plants. We are talking about small modular reactors — high-efficient, extremely low carbon emitting, and safe for humans and the environment. Again we cannot simply ignore advancements in technology and safety that make this an entirely different conversation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a real opportunity here. We can support and expand our energy sector in a way that creates jobs, relies upon our own uranium resources for which we have some of the largest reserves in the world. We can do so in partnership with other provinces across the nation and we can be global leaders on the cutting edge of low-emission power generation that provides sustainable jobs and utilizes resources that we find and market right here in Saskatchewan. This is something we can do that actually reduces greenhouse gases in a meaningful and measurable way without compromising energy needs or our jobs.

Alternatively, I suppose, we could just tax people for carbon emissions they have little ability to control and then cross our fingers that might have some assistance to the environment. But I prefer the first option, so I will support this motion, Madam Deputy Speaker.

---

After the 75-minute debate, there is a 10-minute question and answer period between members.

Ms. Mowat: — Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened to the speech from the member from Moose Jaw North and heard him talking about how he, you know, says he understands climate change, says he understands the issues and that we need to be taking action. Will the member from Moose Jaw North convince their government to get zero-emission energy sources on the grid before the 2030?

Mr. McLeod: — Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the member for the question. I think it’s important to remember that the conversation around climate change needs to be broader than carbon pricing, which is what the members opposite seem to like to talk about. The fact of the matter is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the motion before the House today is on the development of small modular reactors.

Now those don’t happen overnight. You don’t snap your fingers and have those in place overnight. I think what’s important to note that there are consultations happening right now. This is a motion to advance the development and to do more research so that those can be rolled out safely and in in consultation with Indigenous communities and the stakeholders. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think with those consultations currently happening and the research continuing, then the appropriate time is being taken.

---

Back to 2020/2021 Session