Canada’s system of government is a Constitutional Monarchy based on the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. A member of the Commonwealth, Canada’s Head of State is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, represented in Canada by the Governor General, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston.

Canada’s laws are passed in Parliament, comprising both the elected House of Commons and the Senate, whose members are appointed by the Governor General. The House of Commons has 308 elected members, each representing a specific electoral district. These members generally belong to one of five major parties, with the party that holds the confidence of the House forming the Official Government and the leader of that party becoming the Prime Minister. The Senate examines bills previously passed in the House of Commons, which can be amended or rejected.

See http://www.parl.gc.ca for more information.

Canada is the second largest country in the world, covering approximately 9 million km² on land, and borders upon three oceans, the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic. It is made up of ten provinces and three territories. The topography ranges from prairie to boreal to rain forests, becoming tundra in the extreme northern areas. Canada enjoys a temperate climate with warm summers but can experience intensely cold winters, requiring reliable energy sources for heating, and for transporting goods and people across the country and into remote areas.

It is estimated that there are over 35 million people living in Canada. The population grew at an annual average rate of 1.1% between 2000 and 2014. This growth rate is expected to slow over the next several decades. Canada has one of the lowest population densities in the world and an increasingly urban population, with close to 82% of Canadians now living in a city.

TABLE 1: POPULATION INFORMATION

							Average Annual Growth Rate (%)
	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2014	2000-2014
Population (Millions)	21.3	24.5	27.7	30.7	32.2	35.5	1.1
Population density (Inhabitants/km2)	2.3	2.7	3.0	3.4	3.5	3.9	1.1
Urban Population as % of Total	75.7	75.7	76.6	79.5	80.1	81.7	0.2
Area (1000 km2)	9093.5

Sources: Statistics Canada (Population Estimates, Area), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Urban population from 1970-2014)

Canada has the eleventh largest economy in the world, producing over 1.8 trillion US$ in gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013. From 2000 to 2013, real GDP expanded at an annual average rate of 1.9%. Canada’s economy encompasses a diverse range of sectors, including natural resources, manufacturing, services and a rapidly growing pool of knowledge-based industries.

As of April 2015, the Bank of Canada expects annual real GDP growth to average 1.9% in 2015, 2.5% in 2016 and 2.0% in 2017.

TABLE 2: GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

							Average annual growth rate (%)
	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013	2000-2013
GDP (millions of current US$)	87 705	273,358	592,028	739,451	1,164,179	1,819,563*	7.5
GDP (millions of constant 2005 US$)	400,849	596,332	774,585	1,026,878	1,164,179	1,315,127*	1.9
GDP per capita(PPP international $/capita)	x	11,475	20,179	29,586	35,860	43,253	3.0
GDP per capita (current US$/capita)	x	11,212	21,519	24,128	36,152	52,037	6.4

* estimate

Source: UNCTADStat [GDP (millions of current US$), GDP (millions of constant 2005 US$)], IMF (remaining indicators)

TABLE 3: ESTIMATED AVAILABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

	Fossil Fuels			Nuclear	Renewables
	Solid	Liquid	Gas	Uranium	Hydro
Total amount in specific units**	6.6	27.35	1,982.5	466,300	75.1

*recoverable under current technological and economic conditions, as of 2010 (2012 in the case of liquids, uranium)

**Solid: Billions of tons; Liquid, Gas: Billion m3; Uranium: tU; Hydro, Renewable: GW

Source: Statistics Canada; Canadian Minerals Yearbook 2011



TABLE 4: ENERGY STATISTICS

							Average annual growth rate (%)
Energy consumption**	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013	2000-2013
- Total	6.1	8.2	9.1	10.0	10.6	10.5	0.3
- Solids***	0.7	0.9	1.1	1.3	1.4	0.9	-2.7
- Liquids	3.3	4.0	4.0	4.1	4.6	4.1	0.0
- Gases	1.1	1.7	2.2	3.6	3.5	4.0	0.8
- Primary Electricity****	0.6	0.9	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.4	0.7
Energy production	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013	2000-2013
- Total	6.2	7.8	10.6	15.7	16.6	17.9	1.0
- Solids***	0.3	0.8	1.7	1.6	1.5	1.5	-0.3
- Liquids	3.3	3.4	3.9	5.5	6.3	8.5	4.0
- Gases	2.0	2.6	3.7	7.1	7.2	5.6	-1.1
- Primary Electricity****	0.6	1.0	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.1
Net import (Import - Export)	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013	2000-2013
- Total	-0.4	-0.5	-3.1	-6.1	-6.2	-8.3	-3.0

** Energy consumption = Primary energy consumption + Net import (Import - Export) of secondary energy.

*** Solid fuels include coal, lignite

**** Includes nuclear and hydro.

Sources: Natural Resources Canada, Statistics Canada (Tables 128-0009, 128-0016). Note: Table 128-0009 has been terminated and replaced with Table 128-0016. Comparisons with earlier data (pre 2000) should be done with caution.

In Canada, the constitution very clearly delineates the responsibilities of both the federal and provincial levels of government with respect to energy. Provincial governments are the direct managers of most of the country’s natural resources, and have the responsibilities for energy management within their borders. The federal government meanwhile is responsible for international and interprovincial trade and energy infrastructure, as well as the regulation of nuclear energy and uranium, and the management of energy resources on federal Crown land, offshore and in the northern territories. As such, primary principles that guide Canadian energy policy are:

• respect for jurisdictional authority and the role of the provinces.

• market orientation: competitive markets are generally the most efficient means of determining supply, demand, prices and trade while ensuring an efficient, competitive and innovative energy system that is responsive to Canada's energy needs.

• targeted interventions: when markets cannot achieve policy objectives, government should intervene, through regulation or other means. These policy objectives include issues of science and technology, health and safety (e.g., pipeline regulation) and environmental sustainability.

Canadian energy polices have evolved to reflect individual provincial or regional strengths. For example, Quebec and Manitoba, both rich in hydroelectricity potential, have remarkably clean power systems in place and are looking for opportunities to increase electrification, such as in transportation. Meanwhile, hydro-poor but fossil fuel-rich provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan have developed energy systems that are far more reliant on hydrocarbons.

The Government of Canada (GoC) seeks to achieve a balance between the environmentally responsible production and use of energy, the growth and competitiveness of the Canadian economy, the availability of secure and competitively priced energy, and the protection of energy infrastructure. Canada is an energy intensive country, and current energy policies focus on:

• cleaner fossil fuel applications and alternatives;

• promoting renewables and clean electricity generation; and,

• encouraging energy efficiency.

These efforts are supported by an emphasis on innovation – through research, development and deployment of clean technologies and practices.

In May 2015, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, announced Canada’s commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This commitment has been made possible by the combined efforts and success of the federal, provincial and territorial governments in reducing emissions.Additionally, Canada remains committed to ongoing negotiations towards a single, new international climate change agreement that:

• Includes meaningful and transparent commitments from all major economies;

• Supports constructive and ambitious global action;

• Balances environmental protection and economic prosperity; and

• Maintains a long-term focus.

Under the Canadian constitution, electricity falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The provincial governments own the natural resources and are responsible for most aspects of regulation and energy sector development within their geographical boundaries, including electricity policy and planning. The federal government’s role is restricted to nuclear energy policy and regulation, the regulation of international transmission lines and electricity exports, and the regulation of interprovincial transmission lines that are designated by the Governor in Council. Both levels of governments are involved in electricity research.

As a result, each province and territory has its own electricity policy and regulatory framework. All provinces have adopted a regulated monopoly model for transmission and distribution. Most provinces have adopted the same model for generation as well, with the exceptions of Alberta and Ontario. In many provinces, electricity is primarily supplied by a vertically integrated electric utility. Although some of these utilities are privately owned, most are Crown corporations owned by the provincial governments.

With the exception of Saskatchewan, each province has an arms-length board that regulates the provincial electricity system, including construction activities and electricity rates. In Saskatchewan, the provincial Cabinet, with advice from a review panel, is responsible for approving electricity rates.

Canada has an exceptionally clean electricity generation system, with more than 80% of electricity supply coming from non-greenhouse gas emitting sources in December 2014. Canada’s hydroelectric resource represents a large part of this supply, totalling more than 60% of total electricity supply. That said, the provincial electricity supply portfolios are quite varied. Newfoundland & Labrador, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec rely primarily on hydroelectricity (with shares exceeding 90% of provincial supply). Hydro and nuclear represent the major sources of electricity in Ontario. In New Brunswick, nuclear, hydro and coal each play major roles. Coal and natural gas dominate in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.

Over the past decade, the structure of the electricity industry has undergone significant change. Most provinces have moved from the traditional model of provincially regulated and vertically integrated monopolies towards a more competitive system with the private sector playing an increasing role. In Alberta and Ontario, a bid-based model exists between local distribution companies and both large and small generators, while in other provinces independent power producers are able to sell power only to the major utility that provides most of the generation, transmission and distribution services.

The main drivers for this type of restructuring include political support for competitive markets, technological developments (e.g., gas turbines) that have led to smaller generating stations, and the need to seek lower electricity costs for industrial customers.

The following table indicates the entities involved in providing electricity generation, transmission and distribution services in each province.

British Columbia	Nearly all generation, transmission and distribution services are provided by BC Hydro, a provincial Crown corporation. BC Hydro has signed long-term power purchase agreements with some independent power producers developing renewable energy projects smaller than 200 megawatts.
Alberta	The generation market is competitive, with a number of companies generating electricity in the province. Transmission services are provided under the regulated monopoly model by AltaLink and ATCO Electric; there are distinct service areas in which these two companies have monopolies. Distribution services are provided under the regulated monopoly model by a number of firms with distinct service areas.
Saskatchewan	SaskPower, a provincial Crown corporation, provides nearly all generation, transmission and distribution services. SaskPower has signed long-term power purchase agreements with some independent power producers.
Manitoba	SaskPower, a provincial Crown corporation, provides nearly all generation, transmission and distribution services.
Ontario	Ontario has a complex hybrid electricity framework. Generation is partly regulated, partly unregulated; transmission services are provided by HydroOne, a provincially owned regulated monopoly, and distribution services are provided under the regulated monopoly model by a number of firms with distinct service areas.
Quebec	Hydro-Québec, a provincial Crown corporation, provides nearly all generation, transmission and distribution services. Hydro-Québec has signed long-term power purchase agreements with some independent power producers.
New Brunswick	New Brunswick Power, a provincial Crown corporation, provides nearly all generation, transmission and distribution services. New Brunswick Power has signed long-term power purchase agreements with some independent power producers.
Nova Scotia	Nova Scotia Power, which is privately held by Emera Inc., a publicly traded company, operates in a regulated monopoly environment, and provides nearly all generation, transmission and distribution services. Nova Scotia Power has signed long-term power purchase agreements with some independent power producers.
Prince Edward Island	Maritime Electric, which is privately held by Fortis Inc., a publicly traded company, operates in a regulated monopoly environment, and provides nearly all electricity supply, transmission and distribution services. Most of PEI’s power is imported from New Brunswick. Maritime Electric has signed long-term power purchase agreements with some independent power producers.
Newfoundland and Labrador	Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro generates most of the electricity in the province, and provides transmission and distribution services in Labrador, the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland and the smaller communities along the southern coast of Newfoundland. Newfoundland Power, a private company held by Fortis Inc., a publicly traded company, provides most transmission and distribution services in the more populated areas of Newfoundland.
Yukon	Generation, transmission and distribution services in Yukon are provided by Yukon Energy Corporation, a territorially owned Crown corporation, and Yukon Electrical, a private company owned by ATCO Inc., a publicly traded company.
Northwest Territories	Generation, transmission and distribution services in the Northwest Territories are provided by Northwest Territories Power Corporation, a territorially owned Crown corporation, and Northland Utilities Ltd, which is primarily owned by ATCO Electric.
Nunavut	Generation, transmission and distribution services in Nunavut are provided by Qulliq Energy Corporation.

Given the diversity of provincial electricity markets and electricity resources, the use of various sources for base load, intermediate and peak load depend on the province. However, in most cases, hydro, nuclear, and coal are used for base load, while natural gas, petroleum and hydro are used in intermediate and peak situations. Wind and solar energy are used when available.

TABLE 5: ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION & CAPACITY

							Average annual growth rate (%)
Capacity of electrical plants (GWe)	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2010	2000-2010
- Total	42.8	82.0	104.2	111.3	121.5	132.6	1.8
- Thermal	14.3	28.4	31.2	31.6	33.8	38.3	1.9
- Hydro	28.3	47.8	59.4	67.4	72.0	75.1	1.1
- Nuclear	0.3	5.9	13.5	10.6	13.4	13.3	2.3
- Wind	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.7	4.0	44.6
- Biomass	-	-	-	1.5	1.7	1.7	1.3
Electricity production (TW.h)	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2011	2000-2011
- Total*	204.7	377.5	474.8	585.8	604.4	617.9	0.5
- Thermal	47.0	85.9	102.6	156.0	150.3	138.6	-1.1
- Hydro	156.7	253.1	296.9	354.6	358.5	372.1	0.4
- Nuclear	1.0	38.5	73.0	68.7	86.8	88.3	1.8
- Wind	-	-	0.0	0.3	1.7	10.1	37.7
- Biomass	-	-	2.3	6.4	7.2	8.5	2.6
Total Electricity consumption** (TW.h)	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013	2000-2013
- Total	202.3	340.1	465.4	550.2	580.5	570.4	0.3

*Electricity transmission losses are not deducted.

**Includes producer consumption.

Sources: Statistics Canada Catalogues 57-003, 57-202 and 57-206, CANSIM Table 128-0017, and micro data from the Electric Power Generating Stations Survey, the Electricity Supply and Disposition Survey and the Electric Power Thermal Generating Station Fuel Consumption Survey.

TABLE 6: ENERGY RELATED RATIOS

	1970	1980	1990	2000	2005	2013
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/capita)	272	332	330	326	330	310
Electricity consumption per capita (kW.h/capita)	9,501	13,871	16,803	18,916	17,972	16,225
Electricity production/Energy production (%)	-	-	-	13	13	12
Nuclear/Total electricity (%)	1	10	15	12	14	16
Ratio of external dependency (%) (1)	-	-	-34	-61	-59	-83

(1) Net import / Total energy consumption.

Source: Natural Resources Canada, Statistics Canada (Tables 128-0009, 128-0016). Note: Table 128-0009 has been terminated and replaced with Table 128-0016. Comparisons with earlier data (pre 2000) should be done with caution.

Canada was one of the first countries to develop a nuclear power programme after the Second World War and has since developed the Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) system, which uses pressurized fuel channels instead of a pressure vessel, natural uranium instead of enriched uranium and heavy water as a coolant/moderator instead of the light water that is found in the pressurized water reactor designs. CANDU reactors have been successfully sold in Canada, as well as abroad. Currently, nuclear energy provides about 15% of Canada’s electricity needs.

The many milestones of the Canadian nuclear programme are:

• In 1955, AECL, Ontario Hydro and Canadian General Electric made a commitment to build the first small-scale prototype 22 MW CANDU reactor at Rolphton, Ontario;

• A larger prototype was constructed at Douglas Point, Ontario. The 200 MW reactor went into service in 1967; these two reactors established the technological base for the larger commercial units to follow and for Canada’s nuclear programme;

• Two 500 MW(e) reactors at Pickering, Ontario were committed under a tri-partite agreement between Ontario Hydro, AECL and the Federal government; Ontario Hydro later committed two more units to make an integrated 4-unit station; the units (Pickering A) came into operation between 1971 and 1973;

• Conceptual design studies on the Bruce A station were initiated in 1968; the 4x800 MW unit Bruce A station came into service from 1977 to 1979;

• AECL developed the CANDU 6 reactor design and was successful in selling four of these in the early to mid-1970’s: Gentilly-2 (Hydro-Québec, 1973), Point Lepreau (New Brunswick, 1974) and two abroad;

• In July 1974, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) decided to add 4 units at the Pickering A station; the 4 units (Pickering B) came into service from 1983 to 1986;

• Four additional units (Bruce B) came into service from 1984 to 1987; four 900 MW(e) units at Darlington came into service in 1989-1994;

• Lay up of 8 units Bruce A and Pickering A (Bruce unit 2 in 1995 and the remaining 7 in 1998);

• Pickering units 1 and 4 were subsequently refurbished and returned to service in 2005 and 2003, respectively. In 2005 OPG decided that units 2 and 3 would be decommissioned;

• In 2001, OPG entered into an agreement with Bruce Power to lease its Bruce A and Bruce B nuclear generation stations. Bruce Power was initially composed of British Energy, a UK company, the Canadian Cameco Corporation and two main unions on the Bruce site;

• Bruce Power successfully restarted units 3 and 4 of Bruce A in 2004 and 2003 respectively. In 2005, it undertook a multi-billion dollar project to refurbish and restart units 1 and 2, and the follow-on refurbishment of units 3 and 4.

• In 2002, AECL launched the development of the ACR, now ACR-1000, a Generation III+ CANDU reactor; the Government of Canada began investing in ACR at this time;

• In 2008, AECL submitted the ACR-1000 for consideration to be built at the Darlington site in Ontario as part of an open bidding process, but that process was suspended by the province in June 2009;

• In 2007, the Government of Canada accepted the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) – a not-for-profit entity funded by the nuclear utilities – recommendation of Adaptive Phased Management (APM), which includes isolating and containing nuclear fuel waste in a deep geologic repository (DGR);

• In May 2010, the NWMO initiated the siting process to identify an informed willing host community with a safe, secure and suitable site for a DGR;

• In November 2007, the Minister of Natural Resources announced a review of AECL. In May 2009, the Government announced that it was moving forward with restructuring of the company and on October 2, 2011, the Government of Canada completed the sale of the assets of AECL’s CANDU Reactor Division to Candu Energy Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNC Lavalin;

• In February 2010, OPG announced its intention to proceed with the mid-life refurbishment of its four nuclear power reactors at Darlington, and the decommissioning of all its Pickering units by 2020;

• Bruce A units 1 and 2 (Ontario) and Point Lepreau were refurbished and returned to service in 2012. Hydro-Québec decided to decommission Gentilly-2 and shut the station down on December 28, 2012;

• In February 2012, the Government of Canada publicly launched the second phase of the restructuring of AECL, focused on the Nuclear Laboratories. In February 2013, the Government of Canada announced its intention to implement a Government-owned, Contractor-operated (GoCo) model for the Nuclear Laboratories.

• As part of the restructuring, AECL created and operationalized Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) in 2014. CNL is now the operator of the Nuclear Laboratories and will continue to be the operator throughout the transfer to the private sector.

• A procurement process is currently underway to select a private-sector contractor who will manage and operate the Nuclear Laboratories with the process expected to be completed by the fall of 2015.

Figure 1: Organizations Supporting the Canadian Nuclear Power Program

There are currently 19 nuclear power reactors in full commercial operation in Canada, operated by public utilities and private companies in Ontario (18) and New Brunswick (1). These reactors generate about 16.8% of Canada’s electricity (over 60% in Ontario). Moreover, nine CANDU reactors are currently in operation outside of Canada. In 2014, the capacity factors of CANDU reactors in operation in Canada and abroad averaged 82.6%, higher than the lifetime average performance of 77.0%.

TABLE 7: STATUS AND PERFORMANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Reactor Unit	Type	Net Capacity [MW(e)]	Status	Operator	Reactor Supplier	Construction Date	First Criticality Date	First Grid Date	Commercial Date	Shutdown Date	UCF for 2014
BRUCE-1	PHWR	760	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1971-06-01	1976-12-17	1977-01-14	1977-09-01		85.5
BRUCE-2	PHWR	730	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1970-12-01	1976-07-27	1976-09-04	1977-09-01		81.7
BRUCE-3	PHWR	750	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1972-07-01	1977-11-28	1977-12-12	1978-02-01		64.5
BRUCE-4	PHWR	750	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1972-09-01	1978-12-10	1978-12-21	1979-01-18		99.4
BRUCE-5	PHWR	817	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1978-06-01	1984-11-15	1984-12-02	1985-03-01		84.8
BRUCE-6	PHWR	817	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1978-01-01	1984-05-29	1984-06-26	1984-09-14		97.9
BRUCE-7	PHWR	817	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1979-05-01	1986-01-07	1986-02-22	1986-04-10		80.7
BRUCE-8	PHWR	817	Operational	BRUCEPOW	OH/AECL	1979-08-01	1987-02-15	1987-03-09	1987-05-22		99.9
DARLINGTON-1	PHWR	878	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1982-04-01	1990-10-29	1990-12-19	1992-11-14		76.5
DARLINGTON-2	PHWR	878	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1981-09-01	1989-11-05	1990-01-15	1990-10-09		96.9
DARLINGTON-3	PHWR	878	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1984-09-01	1992-11-09	1992-12-07	1993-02-14		98.7
DARLINGTON-4	PHWR	878	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1985-07-01	1993-03-13	1993-04-17	1993-06-14		96.0
PICKERING-1	PHWR	515	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1966-06-01	1971-02-25	1971-04-04	1971-07-29		87.4
PICKERING-4	PHWR	515	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1968-05-01	1973-05-16	1973-05-21	1973-06-17		63.5
PICKERING-5	PHWR	516	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1974-11-01	1982-10-23	1982-12-19	1983-05-10		95.4
PICKERING-6	PHWR	516	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1975-10-01	1983-10-15	1983-11-08	1984-02-01		88.2
PICKERING-7	PHWR	516	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1976-03-01	1984-10-22	1984-11-17	1985-01-01		62.2
PICKERING-8	PHWR	516	Operational	OPG	OH/AECL	1976-09-01	1985-12-17	1986-01-21	1986-02-28		53.4
POINT LEPREAU	PHWR	660	Operational	NBEPC	AECL	1975-05-01	1982-07-25	1982-09-11	1983-02-01		81.9
DOUGLAS POINT	PHWR	206	Permanent Shutdown	OH	AECL	1960-02-01	1966-11-15	1967-01-07	1968-09-26	1984-05-04
GENTILLY-1	HWLWR	250	Permanent Shutdown	HQ	AECL	1966-09-01	1970-11-12	1971-04-05	1972-05-01	1977-06-01
GENTILLY-2	PHWR	635	Permanent Shutdown	HQ	AECL	1974-04-01	1982-09-11	1982-12-04	1983-10-01	2012-12-28
PICKERING-2	PHWR	515	Permanent Shutdown	OPG	OH/AECL	1966-09-01	1971-09-15	1971-10-06	1971-12-30	2007-05-28
PICKERING-3	PHWR	515	Permanent Shutdown	OPG	OH/AECL	1967-12-01	1972-04-24	1972-05-03	1972-06-01	2008-10-31
ROLPHTON NPD	PHWR	22	Permanent Shutdown	OH	CGE	1958-01-01	1962-04-11	1962-06-04	1962-10-01	1987-08-01

Data source: IAEA - Power Reactor Information System (PRIS).

Note: Table 7 is completely generated from PRIS data to reflect the latest available information and may be more up to date than the text of the report.

Figure 2: Canada’s Major Nuclear Facilities

The refurbishments of Ontario’s Bruce A units 1 and 2 and New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear station have all been completed and the units returned to service in fall 2012. Bruce Power recently invested over $500 million to extend the life of Bruce A units 3 and 4 to approximately 2020 and announced plans to invest $1.1B over the next five years to extend the operational lives of its Bruce B units to approximately 2020 as well.

In 2010, OPG announced a two-part investment strategy for its Pickering and Darlington nuclear generating stations. First, OPG is proceeding with a detailed planning phase for the mid-life refurbishment of its four nuclear power reactors at the Darlington station, with construction expected to start in 2016. This will enable the station to operate for an additional 25-30 years. Second, OPG is proceeding with the investment of $200 million to ensure the continued safe and reliable performance of its Pickering station up until 2020 when it will reach the end of its operating life. Then, OPG will begin the long term decommissioning process of the Pickering station.

Canada recognizes that nuclear energy can play an important role in achieving global energy security, climate change mitigation and sustainable development goals.

Ontario’s 2013 Long-Term Energy Plan commits to keeping nuclear power at approximately 50% of the province's electricity supply while New Brunswick’s Energy Blueprint expects nuclear to continue to contribute 35%.

Canada also recognizes that dealing with the long-term management of radioactive waste, in particular nuclear fuel waste, is vital to the development of the nuclear industry. In 2007, the Government of Canada accepted the APM approach, as recommended by the NWMO, as the most appropriate plan for managing the waste over the long-term that is in the best interests of Canadians and their environment.

The provinces are responsible for managing their own energy supply mix and electricity generation infrastructure, including decisions on the construction of power reactors in the provinces, whether by private or public entities. As indicated earlier, the regulation of nuclear energy falls under federal jurisdiction. In this regard, nuclear power plants in Canada are regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) throughout their lifecycles starting from the environmental assessment and site selection phase to decommissioning and abandonment, including long-term radioactive waste management.

In 2007, the Government established the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO) to improve the performance of the federal regulatory system for major natural resource projects, in collaboration with other federal departments and agencies, including the regulatory review process for the construction of new nuclear power plants. The mandate of the MPMO is to advance the principles of transparency, predictability, timeliness and accountability, in the government’s approach to the review of major resource project applications, maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory review process.

The CNSC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the MPMO committing to improving the performance of the regulatory system for major resource projects. The CNSC, as the responsible authority for new nuclear projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, has been working in close collaboration with the MPMO, the provincial authorities and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to harmonize the federal and provincial environmental processes for new reactors.

Different financing models exist for financing nuclear plants and the decision on the approach taken rests with the provinces and relevant public and private utilities in the provinces.

In the case of Ontario, where there is planned nuclear power development, any new or re-commissioned units would use an existing grid.

The Canadian nuclear industry covers the entire nuclear energy fuel cycle from nuclear R&D, uranium mining and fuel fabrication to nuclear reactor design, nuclear plant construction, maintenance, waste management and decommissioning.

In 2013, Canadian uranium production amounted to 9331.5 tU (tonnes of uranium metal), representing 15% of total global production. All Canadian uranium mining currently takes place in northern Saskatchewan. Cameco Corporation and AREVA Canada Resources Inc. (AREVA) are the majority owners and operators of the uranium mines and mills currently in operation. Cameco owns and operates the Rabbit Lake mill and the Eagle Point mine. It is the joint venture operator of the McArthur River mine and the Key Lake mill. Cameco is also developing the Cigar Lake mine, the world's second-largest high-grade uranium deposit, of which it is operator and 50% owner. Ore production at the Cigar Lake mine began on March 13, 2014.

AREVA is the joint venture operator of the McClean Lake mine and mill. Production from both McClean Lake mine and mill was suspended in July 2010, when the ore stockpile from the open pit phase of mining was depleted.

The McClean Lake mill will process 100% of ore produced at Cigar Lake. Production from the mill resumed in late 2014 after ore from the Cigar Lake mine became available for processing.

Cameco Corporation operates Canada's only uranium refining and conversion facilities, located at Blind River and Port Hope, Ontario, respectively. At the Blind River refinery, which is the world’s largest facility, uranium mine concentrates from Canada and abroad are refined to uranium trioxide (UO₃), an intermediate product. The bulk of the UO₃ is then trucked to the Port Hope facility, which has about one-quarter of the Western world’s annual uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) conversion capacity and currently provides the only commercial supply of fuel-grade natural uranium dioxide (UO₂). UF₆ is enriched outside Canada for use in foreign light-water reactors, while natural UO₂ is used to fabricate fuel bundles for CANDU reactors in Canada and abroad.

In Canada, there are two fuel fabrication companies, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada and Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco Corporation, which produce fuel pellets and fuel bundles for CANDU power reactors. Both of these companies operate in the province of Ontario. GE-Hitachi produces fuel pellets and fuel bundles at facilities in Toronto and Peterborough, Ontario respectively. Cameco produces fuel pellets and fuel bundles at its facilities in Cobourg and Port Hope, Ontario. The fuel fabrication process involves forming the uranium dioxide into pellets, followed by a process of sintering and sheathing in zirconium to make fuel bundles for use in CANDU reactors.

Canada has policies, legislation and responsible institutions that govern the management of all types of radioactive wastes. The Government’s 1996 Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste outlines the national context for the management of radioactive waste and lays out a set of principles to ensure that it is carried out in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner.

Under the framework, the federal government has the responsibility to:

• develop policy and regulate;

• oversee owners to ensure that they comply with legal requirements; and,

• ensure they meet their funding and operational responsibilities in accordance with approved waste management plans.

Consistent with the framework, waste owners are responsible for the funding, organization, management, and operation of long-term waste management facilities and other facilities required for their wastes.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is the lead for the development and implementation of the GoC’s policy on radioactive waste management and oversight to ensure obligations under the Policy Framework are met. NRCan is also responsible for the administration of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) to ensure that the nuclear utilities and the NWMO comply with its legislative requirements.

As the Canadian nuclear regulator, the CNSC regulates the licensing, monitoring and inspection of radioactive waste management facilities in Canada and is responsible for licensing geological repositories intended to provide for long-term management of radioactive wastes.

AECL, as a Crown Corporation wholly owned by the Government of Canada, manages federal legacy and historic waste obligations on behalf of the Government.

Canada’s nuclear operators are responsible for managing their own wastes and are well suited to develop and implement safe, secure solutions. The nuclear industry is safely managing its radioactive wastes and there are several initiatives underway to develop long-term radioactive waste management facilities.

In Canada, nuclear fuel waste consists of irradiated CANDU fuel bundles removed from commercial and research nuclear reactors. Nuclear fuel waste from power reactors is currently stored safely in pools and/or dry storage containers in waste management facilities at each of the operating power reactor sites. There are three provincial nuclear utilities (i.e. Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power) who own about 97 percent of the nuclear fuel waste in Canada, while the remainder is owned by AECL and McMaster University^(1).

Consistent with the Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste, the GoC introduced the NFWA in 2002 to address the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. The NFWA made owners of nuclear fuel waste, the nuclear utilities, responsible for the development of long-term waste management approaches. The NFWA required the corporations to establish a waste management organization, the current Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), as a separate legal entity to manage the full range of long-term nuclear fuel waste management activities. It also required the nuclear energy corporations to establish trust funds with independent third-party trust companies to finance their long-term waste management responsibilities.

The NFWA required the NWMO to submit a study to the GoC on the proposed approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. On November 3, 2005, the NWMO submitted its study, Choosing a Way Forward. Following careful review and consideration of the study, on June 14, 2007, the Government selected the Adaptive Phased Management (APM) approach, as recommended by the NWMO, for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste in Canada.

The APM approach is Canada's solution to the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. The APM approach involves three phases each marked by explicit decision points and continuing participation of stakeholders. The three phases of the APM approach include:

• maintaining the waste at the reactor sites while preparing for centralization at a site within an interested community;

• determining whether an optional shallow-underground storage facility at the central site is required; and

• containing the waste in a deep repository at the central site.

A key element of the implementation of the APM approach is to find a suitable site in a willing host community to construct a long-term waste management facility.

The NWMO is required to implement the Government’s decision in accordance with the NFWA and with federal oversight. Following the Government’s announcement in 2007, the NWMO developed a siting process to identify an informed willing host community with a safe, secure and suitable site for a DGR. In May 2010, the NWMO initiated the siting process, and as of December 2014, thirteen communities are actively engaged with the NWMO to learn about the APM project as they explore their interest. For information about the NWMO’s siting process and how it will implement the APM approach, refer to the following website address: http://www.nwmo.ca.

Nuclear fuel waste has also been produced at research and prototype reactors, at AECL sites and continues to be produced at Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) today, as well as at a number of Canadian universities.  Nuclear fuel waste generated by AECL is currently managed on site, and some nuclear fuel waste from AECL’s prototype reactors have been transferred to the CRL. Nuclear fuel waste produced by research reactors at universities is normally returned to the United States, through the Department of Energy, to its Savannah River facility. In 2010, Canada and the U.S. agreed to cooperate in the repatriation of U.S.-origin HEU fuel stored at CRL to the Savannah site by 2018, and in 2012, this agreement was expanded to include other HEU-bearing materials.

Low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes (L&ILRW) are grouped into three broad categories: ongoing waste, legacy waste and historic waste.

Ongoing Waste: is generated by the ongoing activities of companies currently in operation, such as nuclear power plants, uranium processing and conversion facilities, nuclear fuel fabrication facilities, radioisotope processing facilities, hospitals, universities, and small radioisotope users.

Legacy Wastes: are wastes at AECL sites that date back to the Cold War and the birth of nuclear technologies in Canada, and are managed by AECL on behalf of the Government of Canada. The inventory of legacy waste includes used fuel, intermediate-level and low-level solid and liquid radioactive waste, and waste from site cleanup work across Canada. These wastes are being addressed under the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, as described below.

Historic Waste: is waste that was managed in the past in a manner that is no longer considered acceptable and for which the current owner cannot reasonably be held responsible. Canada’s historic waste inventory consists largely of radium and uranium contaminated soils. The Government of Canada has accepted responsibility for the long-term management of this waste.

Management of Ongoing Waste

Nuclear utilities’ L&ILRW are safely stored on an interim basis at their respective reactor sites. AECL accepts L&ILRW from a number of small producers and users of radioactive materials for long-term management.

Consistent with the Radioactive Waste Policy Framework, waste owners of ongoing L&ILRW are responsible for managing and operating storage facilities for their wastes. OPG is moving ahead with its proposal to site a deep underground facility at Kincardine for the long-term management of its L&ILRW.

In 2004, the Municipality of Kincardine and OPG entered into a hosting agreement that would enable OPG to prepare a site, construct, and operate a deep geologic repository (DGR). This repository will be located on the Bruce Nuclear Site and would manage L&ILRW from the existing nuclear reactors at the Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington generating stations, all located in Ontario.

The DGR will be designed to contain and isolate all of OPG’s L&ILRW that is generated from the 20 nuclear power reactors, including L&ILRW arising from the refurbishment of OPG reactors. For information about OPG’s DGR, visit http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/dgr/.

On January 1, 2009, the NWMO was contracted to manage the development of the DGR. On January 24, 2012, the Federal Minister of the Environment and the President of the CNSC announced the establishment of a three-member joint review panel to review the environmental effects of OPG’s proposed project. The joint review panel held public hearings from mid-September 2013 to November 2014. For information about the hearings, visit the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency website http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/.

Following the hearings, the joint panel will submit a report to the Minister of Environment for consideration. Should the proposed project’s environmental effects be found acceptable, a site preparation/construction licence would be issued and construction would likely begin in 2015-16, with the facility first accepting waste in the early 2020s.

Management of AECL’s Legacy Waste

The GoC’s nuclear legacy liabilities have resulted from 60 years of nuclear research and development (R&D) carried out on behalf of Canada by the National Research Council (1944 to 1952) and AECL (1952 to present). Estimated at about $8 billion (net present value)⁽²⁾, these liabilities are largely located at AECL sites and consist of disused nuclear facilities and associated infrastructure (including several prototype and research reactors), a wide variety of buried and stored waste, and contaminated lands. The infrastructure and affected lands need to be safely decommissioned to meet federal regulatory requirements, and long-term solutions need to be developed and implemented for the wastes. More than half of the liabilities are the result of Cold War activities during the 1940s, 50s and early 60s. The remaining liabilities stem from research and development for nuclear reactor technology, the production of medical isotopes and national science programs.

About 70 percent of the liabilities (in terms of cost) are located at AECL’s Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) in Ontario, and a further 20 percent are located at Whiteshell Laboratories in Manitoba, which is undergoing decommissioning. The remaining 10 percent relate largely to three shutdown prototype reactors in Ontario and Quebec.

In 2006, the Government of Canada adopted a long-term strategy to deal with the nuclear legacy liabilities and initiated a five-year, $520 million start-up phase, thereby creating the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program (NLLP). The objective of the long-term strategy is to safely and cost-effectively reduce risks and liabilities based on sound waste management and environmental principles in the best interests of Canadians. Under the strategy, disused infrastructure will be safely decommissioned, contaminated lands will be restored to meet federal regulatory requirements, and long-term solutions will be developed and implemented for managing the waste.

The Government of Canada renewed the NLLP in 2011. The NLLP is now in its tenth year of implementation, as part of a 70-year long-term strategy. To date, the Government of Canada has spent $959 million to carry out the program.

The NLLP is being implemented through a Memorandum of Understanding between Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and AECL, whereby NRCan is responsible for policy direction and oversight (including control of funding) and AECL is responsible for implementing the program of work and holding and administering all licences, facilities and lands.

Management of Historic Waste

The Government of Canada established the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) within AECL in 1982 as the federal agent for the cleanup and management of historic low-level radioactive waste in Canada. NRCan provides policy direction and funding to the LLRWMO to carry out its work. Over the course of its existence, the LLRWMO has completed historic waste cleanups across Canada.

The bulk of Canada’s historic low-level radioactive waste is located in the southern Ontario communities of Port Hope and Clarington. These wastes and contaminated soils amount to roughly 2 million cubic metres and relate to the historic operations of a radium and uranium refinery in the Municipality of Port Hope dating back to the 1930s.

In March 2001, the Government of Canada and the local municipalities entered into an agreement on community-developed proposals to address the cleanup and long-term management of these wastes, thereby launching the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI). From its inception to 2009, the LLRWMO was the proponent of the PHAI on behalf of the Government of Canada. In 2009, the PHAI Management Office was established as the Government of Canada’s federal implementing agent for the delivery of the project.

The PHAI will involve the consolidation and long-term management of the area’s historic wastes in two above-ground mounds to be constructed in the local communities. The Planning Phase, which included environmental assessment, regulatory review, and preparation of detailed designs and cost estimates concluded in 2011. The environmental assessments for the Port Hope and Port Granby Projects were completed in March 2007 and August 2009, respectively. An environmental assessment follow-up monitoring program, which includes both biophysical and socio-economic effects, is ongoing.

In October 2009, a licence was issued for the Port Hope Project by the CNSC. In November 2011, a licence was issued for the Port Granby Project by the CNSC. In 2012, the Government of Canada announced $1.28 billion in funding for the completion of the Implementation Phase. Over this current phase of the cleanup, waste facility construction and waste emplacement is expected to take place until 2022, after which the facilities will continue to be monitored and maintained for the long term.

Most of the remaining historic waste to be dealt with in Canada is located along the Northern Transportation Route between Port Radium, Northwest Territories and Fort McMurray, Alberta. The waste results from the past transport of radium and uranium bearing ore and concentrates from the Northwest Territories to Fort McMurray. Cleanup of soil with high radioactive risk has taken place at a number of locations along the Northern Transportation Route, and the wastes are safely stored in regularly inspected storage mounds. Strategies are currently being developed for the cleanup of the remaining contamination along the Northern Transportation Route, which is estimated to consist of about 14,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil.

Nuclear research and development in Canada began in the 1940s as a responsibility of the federal government. The federal government has funded a research and development programme at AECL since its creation in 1952. Before restructuring, AECL wass responsible for Canada's nuclear research and development programme, including activities in support of CANDU technology as well as basic science activities to support applied programmes in the nuclear, biological and material sciences. CNL has now taken over much of this role.

Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) in Ontario plays a critical role in the development of the CANDU reactor, safety and environmental protection, nuclear medicine, health sciences, in nuclear fuel waste management and the basic sciences that spawn technological advances in these areas.

Early CRL pursuits were in the "new" sciences at the time - nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry and radiation biology. The National Research Universal (NRU) reactor was critical to CRL's early programmes of basic science and isotope production as well as to the development of the CANDU reactor system. CRL supported federal government initiatives to develop national radiological health and safety regulations and to contribute to international efforts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The CANDU nuclear energy system is unique in concept among nuclear systems in the world. This is because the Canadian research reactors were designed to use natural (rather than enriched) uranium as fuel and heavy (rather than light) water as a moderator.

Activities at CRL have included the development of CANDU design methods, experimental verification of CANDU reactor components and design characteristics, as well as detailed safety analyses. Work continues on improved durability and reliability of CANDU components, and flexibility of fuel cycles. Significant research in basic and applied science, not necessarily related to nuclear energy, has also been conducted in these laboratories.

Canada recently announced that the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor, pending approval by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, will continue to operate until March 31, 2018, after which point it will be shut down. As per Canada’s strategy on the security of supply of medical isotopes adopted in 2010, the NRU will cease the routine production of molybdenum-99 in 2016. However, the reactor will be available to support global medical isotope demand between 2016 and 2018 in the unexpected circumstances of shortages. The Government of Canada continues to support the development of alternative isotope production technologies in order to diversify and strengthen the supply of molybdenum-99. Through Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, Canada will also continue to advance world-class nuclear science and technology, which will be enabled by recent important infrastructure investments at the laboratories.

In 2014, Canada’s national GIF program focused on finalizing the Canadian Super-Critical Water-cooled Reactor (SCWR) concept. Part of the Canadian GIF program applied methodologies developed by the GIF cross-cutting working groups. The Canadian SCWR concept was assessed with respect to goals for GIF technology in areas of safety, economics, proliferation resistance and sustainability. In addition, a large amount of experimental data has been obtained using state-of-the-art facilities in Canadian national laboratories and a network of 20 universities. A review of the Canadian SCWR concept was held in February 2015 to engage the Canadian nuclear industry. This review will be followed by a review composing of GIF SCWR experts in the fall of 2015.

Canada is a member country of both the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is also a member of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) and the International Framework of Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC). Canada has 30 bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreements in force covering 48 countries.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

On May 31, 2000, the CNSC was created as the successor to the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB), which had served as the regulator of Canada's nuclear industry for more than 50 years. The Commission's creation followed the coming into force of the Nuclear Safety and Control (NSC) Act and its regulations. The NSC Act represented the first major overhaul of legislation governing Canada's nuclear regulatory regime since the AECB was established in 1946. It established a seven-member tribunal (the CNSC) to regulate the nuclear industry and authorized to hire technical and support staff. The CNSC reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources.

The CNSC's mission is to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the NSC Act, the CNSC's mandate involves four major areas:

• Regulation of the development, production and use of nuclear energy in Canada;

• Regulation of the production, possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed equipment and prescribed information;

• Implementation of measures respecting international control of the use of nuclear energy and substances, including measures respecting the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; and

• Dissemination of scientific, technical and regulatory information concerning the activities of the CNSC and the effects on health and safety and the environment arising from the development and use of nuclear energy and nuclear substances.

The Canadian regulatory system is designed to protect people and the environment from the risks associated with the development and use of nuclear energy and nuclear substances. Companies and medical or academic institutions wishing to operate nuclear facilities or use nuclear substances for industrial, medical or academic purposes must first obtain a licence from the CNSC. It is a fundamental tenet of Canada's regulatory regime that licensees are primarily responsible for safety. The CNSC's role is to ensure that the applicants live up to their responsibility. The onus is therefore on the applicant or the holder of the licence to justify the selection of a site, design, method of construction, and mode of operation of a facility, etc. When issuing a licence, the CNSC must be satisfied that the companies have taken adequate measures to protect health and safety, the environment, security and to respect international commitments, and that the companies are qualified to carry out the licensed activities. Licensing matters for major facilities are carried out in public hearings by the seven-member tribunal. This is one of the most visible functions of the CNSC in the regulation of the nuclear industry.

The CNSC controls the import and export of nuclear materials, nuclear technology and equipment that might be used to develop nuclear weapons (including so-called "dual use items"). CNSC staff also plays an important role in international activities aimed at the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. As well, the CNSC participates in IAEA activities and ensures compliance with Canada's Nuclear Non-Proliferation policy and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

CNSC staff inspects licensed activities, enforces compliance with regulations, and develops safety standards. Standards for radiological protection have been developed over the years at both national and international levels. The basis for the Canadian regulatory radiation dose limits originates from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).

There are many stages in the lifecycle of nuclear facilities – before any person or company can prepare a site for, construct, operate, decommission or abandon a nuclear facility – or possess, use, transport or store nuclear substances – they must obtain a corresponding licence from the CNSC.  A separate licence is needed for each of these stages.

There are four major steps in the licensing process:

1. Applicant submits a licence application

   The licensing process begins when an application is received by the CNSC. An Assessment Plan and timeline is then developed for each individual application.  The Assessment Plan identifies the scope and depth of the technical assessment needed to evaluate the application.  It takes historical licensing information, licensing experience, performance and compliance reports, and CNSC staff recommendations into account.

2. Environmental Assessment

   The CNSC has strict obligations and responsibilities under the CEA Act, which is the basis for federal Environmental Assessments in Canada. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is used to predict the environmental effects of a specific project, and to determine whether these effects can be mitigated, before a project is carried out.

3. Technical Assessment

   The CNSC undertakes a variety of Technical Assessments according to the prescribed Assessment Plan to ensure that each application complies with all regulatory criteria as defined by the NSC Act, relevant regulations, international and domestic standards, and international obligations.

4. CNSC renders its decision

   The final step in the licensing process is the Commission Tribunal decision, which takes into account all CNSC staff recommendations and the views and concerns expressed at public hearings.  The hearings provide interested stakeholders opportunity an opportunity to participate in the process of establishing regulatory policy and form an important part of informing licensing decisions and implementing programs.

In 2012, the Government of Canada launched Responsible Resource Development, a plan to streamline the review process for major resource projects. Under this plan, the CNSC has committed to firm, end-to-end timelines for its reviews of new nuclear development. A 24-month timeline will apply to the CNSC portion of reviews and decisions for site preparation licences for new Class I nuclear facilities. This timeline will also apply to the CNSC portion of reviews and decisions for licences for site preparation and construction of new uranium mines or mills.