Evidence of meeting #32 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Serge Dupont  Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources
Tom Rosser  Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
Carol Buckley  Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Now we'll go to Mr. Anderson for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister and deputy minister for being here today.

The radical elements that really oppose oil sands development aren't just here in Canada. They're also found internationally. There are people who would like to stop the development of the oil sands and influence Canadian prosperity.

I guess I'm concerned about the European fuel quality directive. They've come in and put this in place. It really discriminates unfairly against Canadian oil sands. Other oil developments have similar greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm just wondering if you can comment a bit on what our government is doing to deal with the European fuel quality directive and its unfairness towards Canadian industry. What are we doing to protect Canadian interests in that situation?

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Thank you.

Any policies that discriminate against the oil sands will impede the free flow of global oil supplies and will be detrimental to overall energy security.

The implementation of the European fuel quality directive, which is non-scientific and discriminatory, could have significant and unintended consequences for the world supply to the extent that it introduces these discriminatory impediments to global energy markets.

We have spoken out against it. I have met with my European counterparts. I have spoken to the European commissioner. We have written to each of the parliamentarians. I've written again to each of my counterparts. Our embassies are working hard. We were encouraged that about a month ago the committee looking at it rejected the fuel quality directive as drafted. When I attended the International Energy Forum in Kuwait, I met again with key European ministers and senior officials to reinforce our position.

We are not opposed to the fuel quality directive in principle in that we don't have a problem with their objective of reducing emissions from transportation fuels. However, we want a system that is science-based and that doesn't pigeonhole and single out the oil sands for negative treatment.

By the way, the Europeans do not purchase oil from the oil sands in any great quantity, and they give a free pass to oil with the same level of emissions, or a higher level, coming from Russia, for example, which they do import. That's grandstanding.

Frankly, I found it distressing that the NDP would meet with European officials to support a policy that discriminates against Canada.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I have another question.

There are a few of us on the committee who have seen a number of steps in the isotope discussion over the last few years. We've made some decisions in the last couple of years to spend a substantial amount of money to find another source and another supply of isotopes. In the last few days that has been in the news as well. I'm just wondering if you can comment on where we're going and how the programs are going in terms of the isotope development.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

As you know, our government continues to focus on the health and safety of Canadians. We've worked, and we continue to work, domestically and internationally to promote a more secure supply of medical isotopes. Through Budget 2010, the government committed $48 million over two years for the isotope supply initiative to diversify the supply of isotopes and enhance the supply chain. This initiative has met with success with the recent announcement that companies have produced medically viable isotopes through a cyclotron and linear accelerator process, which does not use highly enriched uranium. We are very hopeful that that can be commercially produced and companies can continue to work at making these isotopes commercially viable on a large scale. By producing these isotopes through non-reactor-based means, we also help move the world away from highly enriched uranium, which has numerous nuclear proliferation concerns, as you know.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

I'm just wondering if you have had any discussion about the comment the other day that perhaps we should have a pipeline from western Canada to eastern Canada. We had a number of witnesses who came in and talked to us about refineries and pipelines. We're doing a study on that presently. I think we've heard that the refinery capacity in Canada is adequate. We've heard that some parts of the country export a bit of oil and some parts import a bit, but that we have a good balance there. We've heard that there's really no reason to increase refining capacity in the country, but that certainly we need more pipelines across this country in order to handle the production we have. I'm just wondering if you can talk about some of the various initiatives and ways that you feel pipelines could be helpful to the Canadian economy, as well as the Northern Gateway, which we've talked about a bit. But talk to us about some of the other areas and how this might develop the Canadian economy.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Minister, if you could, please give a short answer. Mr. Anderson's time for questioning has expired.

Go ahead, please.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

I'll be very brief.

In Canada, which has a market-based system, decisions to pursue the construction of pipeline infrastructure are made by the companies based on the business need, but it's very clear that in order to get our oil and gas and other resources from where they are to where they're wanted, we need the infrastructure, which, in the case of oil and gas, is our pipelines. We're committed to ensuring that pipeline projects proceed in a manner that's environmentally sustainable, economically feasible, and socially beneficial.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Monsieur Lapointe and, if there's time left, Madame Day.

Go ahead, please, Monsieur Lapointe.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to thank the minister for joining us this morning.

Candu Energy Inc. was sold for only $15 million. So it is safe to say that this type of privatization brings almost nothing to the public purse. But, again this year, $274 million will be spent to cover cost overruns for refurbishing nuclear reactors. This situation was caused by bad agreements made by your government.

Is there a plan to stop emptying the public purse? If so, what is it? Will it include timeframes? Could you describe the context and how it will be done?

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Our government believes in both nuclear energy and the future of our Canadian nuclear industry.

The funding allocated in the Main Estimates 2012-13 will allow AECL to meet its operational and contractual obligations. Given the restructuring of the business entity, the reactor division is now in good hands in the private sector. That protects us from new risks of accumulating debt.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Yet an amount of $200 or $300 million is supposed to come out of the public purse again. How can spending so much money mean that we are protected from debt? I am trying to understand how that makes sense.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

The important thing to understand in this context is that the entity in question, the CANDU, had certain contractual obligations, certain liabilities, which of course no potential buyer would be willing to assume, so we continue to be responsible for those liabilities. The sale prevented the government from incurring any additional liability.

Understand that at the end of this process there was only one bidder in the entire world. Happily, that was a Canadian company with tremendous expertise in the field, domestically and internationally. If we had decided not to sell it, we would have continued to assume additional liability. If we had closed it, we would still have had the liability but incurred additional, much higher costs. We would have destroyed the industry and we would have tarnished the international reputation.

We sold it to a very solid company, and we look forward to a brighter future for the nuclear industry.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Minister, but we have other questions for you.

Have you not told Canadians and the provincial governments that the government was going to earmark $400 million for the ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes program whereas the industry estimates show that less than half of that amount will actually be spent? It is a very simple yes or no answer.

Have you promised $400 million?

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

We don’t have the final results yet. So it is not possible to give you an answer right now.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Do you agree with the observation that the ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes program is effective, makes it possible to save energy, reducing Canadians’ energy bills, protects the environment, generates taxes and creates thousands of jobs in the eco-energy sector? Do you agree with that, yes or no?

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

First, I find it interesting that the New Democratic Party voted against that program and it is now complaining...

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

I am sorry, Mr. Minister, but that's not the question.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

No, but it has to be mentioned...

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Madame Day, would you give the minister a chance to answer when you ask the question, please?

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Chair, the minister is not answering the questions.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

The ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes program has successfully created jobs across Canada and it has enabled homeowners to save on average 20% of their energy consumption. Our decision is evidence of prudent management on the government’s part. We want to make sure that we can have balanced budgets in this climate of fiscal restraint. The program has reached its goal of 250,000 registered homeowners. We are no longer accepting new registrations because it is crucial that those in charge of the program make sure that all registered participants get a chance to participate.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

But why are you cutting a program that is good for the environment and the economy?

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Could you repeat the question?

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Why are you cutting a program that is great for both the economy and the environment?