Evidence of meeting #50 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was facility.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Chad Mariage
Murray Elston  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Wayne Henuset  President and Co-Chairman , Energy Alberta Corporation

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, welcome. Welcome to our deputants.

This is the 50th meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. So, deputants, you can appreciate why we look so tired and haggard.

Just a moment , please, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our witnesses will be talking today about the role and future potential of nuclear energy, as part of our study of the greening of electricity consumption in Canada.

We have Mr. Murray Elston, the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. Welcome, Mr. Elston; it's good to have you here.

From the Energy Alberta Corporation, we have Mr. Wayne Henuset. Welcome; it's good to have you here.

Now I think I have a matter of order. Madame DeBellefeuille.

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Good afternoon, Mr. Vice-Chair.

Yes, I have a question.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

Go ahead.

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

I would like some information. Today, we have two association representatives with us. Perhaps I missed the presentation by the people from Atomic Energy of Canada, but will we also be having government representatives? Last week, I asked a government witness a question about research protocols that the federal government develops with different countries. I also wanted to know the status of the research. The witness told me to keep my question for the next session, because there would be members of the government who could answer it. I see that there is no one from the government, only representatives of private nuclear associations. Are we going to be able to ask them questions as well?

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

Thank you, Madame DeBellefeuille.

I'll ask the clerk if he could please respond to that.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the moment, no, there is no other invitation. The committee did not instruct me to invite a government representative on nuclear matters. I act according to the will of the committee. If it decides that it will hold another session with departmental representatives, I am at its disposal.

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Vice-Chair, I think that it is important for us to have a government representative who can answer our questions, so that we can fully deal with the nuclear question. You know as well as I do that this matter is front and centre at the moment. If we only have representatives of private associations, we will not be getting the complete nuclear picture. Sir, I would really like you to consult the other members of the committee to know if they would agree to hearing from representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada or other government representatives. If I had known, I would have insisted that the government representative provide me with an answer when he refused to do so on Monday.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

I'll ask the clerk to share what he's going to tell me, and then we don't have to do it twice.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

Mr. Vice-Chair, after the week's break, we will be receiving the witnesses who were added as a result of your letter to the chair. This will be the last session at which witnesses will appear, because after that, we will be moving on to the draft report. If we add more witnesses, the draft report will be pushed back until later. The research officers are currently studying the information received up until now. Of course, if the committee decides to add a meeting when it comes back from the break, I will be happy to arrange it.

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

I am officially asking for a session to be added, because we were able to postpone the submission of a report on the tar sands. I do not think that our topic is as hot as that one. We need perhaps one more session to hear from government experts who can discuss nuclear energy.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

As Mr. Trost just came in, perhaps I can give a quick review.

Madame DeBellefeuille has just pointed out that in spite of the fact that she had originally asked whether it would be possible to have someone from the department talk about the nuclear issue, we have not had someone from in-house, if you will. I do recall that, but the question, I think, is really one of timing.

The clerk has pointed out to me that we simply have one deputant on the 28th. Is that right?

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

At the moment, Mr. Chair, we have one person confirmed, with the possibility of another, from the department, as requested by the Bloc. What we can do is to have those two in the first hour and someone from the department in the second hour, or we can do a full session on May 30, if that's what the committee wants to do.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

Madame DeBellefeuille, it would appear there's a choice.

My suggestion would be that we try to go for the 28th, because I think we're still operating under the assumption that we're going to try to get to a draft report. Rather than leave that shorter—though the committee will have to express what they would prefer—if the chair could give a little direction, it would be that we accommodate the request that Madame DeBellefeuille has made, and also leave a little bit more time in that window to discuss the draft report. We could do both of those, if we rescheduled Atomic Energy of Canada to the 28th.

Is that okay, Madame DeBellefeuille?

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

I am satisfied with that. When we say someone from the government, we are also talking about Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., that is, experts who represent the Government of Canada or who are funded by the Department of Natural Resources.

I remember Mr. Trost's comments; at the last meeting, he said that he was not opposed to nuclear energy but he did not want it to cost Canadians money and he wanted to know how much the use of nuclear energy in Canada costs. It is important that this kind of information come from specialized organizations funded by the Department of Natural Resources or from our government experts, so that the information answers the specific questions asked by Mr. Trost and by members of the opposition. I think that this is a subject which is of interest to several members of the committee, Mr. Chair.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

All right.

Do I have a consensus from the committee, in the first instance, that we reschedule Atomic Energy of Canada to the 28th?

Was your suggestion Atomic Energy Canada?

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Which is the more useful?

3:40 p.m.

An hon. member

It should be someone from the department.

3:40 p.m.

The Clerk

Mr. Chair, I can invite people in the department to decide who should appear. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is a Crown corporation. So it comes under the department. If the department thinks that AECL is the most appropriate group to represent it, it will ask for AECL representatives to be sent to testify.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

They have to be able to answer questions.

3:40 p.m.

The Clerk

If I understand correctly, I am to divide the meeting into two. Is that right? You will hear from experts on nuclear energy in the first hour, and representatives from the department in the second.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Yes, that will do.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

That, I think, everyone can understand.

Do we have a consensus with respect to proceeding in that manner? Madame DeBellefeuille?

Okay, then we have a consensus. We'll request that the clerk make the appropriate arrangements.

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to our deputants. Perhaps we could lead off with Mr. Elston, if you would like to begin, and then we'll have Mr. Henuset.

3:40 p.m.

Murray Elston President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Alan Tonks

Mr. Elston, you've been before the committee before, so you know that we generally allow ten minutes for each deputant, give or take. Then we go through our regular routine with respect to questions.

3:40 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association

Murray Elston

Perhaps I'll move through these slides pretty quickly and have a little bit longer for questions, if you find someplace where I've gone too quickly for everyone. There are two handouts, actually. One is the hard copy of the slide show, and then a little handbook, which is really a detail of facts about the nuclear industry, which could be helpful as well when you're considering other issues.

Let me just say, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me here. I represent the Canadian Nuclear Association, which is made up of a series of members; I think it's about 72 or 73. Our numbers are growing now. It's not like the old days, when we were losing members because nothing was happening in the industry. We're extremely busy now. We represent people from private consultants all the way through academia to nuclear generators of electricity, the designers of technology, the processors, and mining companies. So we represent the entire industry, although not all the companies in it. We're very pleased to be here today to speak to you a little bit about the greening of electricity consumption, and certainly that is happening with nuclear.

I'll move through these very quickly. Everybody knows that the pressure of the need for energy, and including in that electricity, and the need for hydrogen and for safe water has pushed the methods of finding those quantities of those entities to consider nuclear, which is extremely good in producing mass amounts of energy, which can then be incorporated into finding new ways of releasing fuels in Alberta oilsands, for instance, or in helping with desalination projects around the world. We're very, very pleased that our technology is being considered in that.

The driver of that, obviously, is the development of the population growth in developing countries. A good part of the world is still without electricity. Some of you have probably heard that several times, but for those of us who have had electricity, and at relatively inexpensive prices for a long period of time, it seems almost unimaginable that there are people who have never had electricity.

That growing need, whether it's in India or in China or in other parts of the developing world, means that they're looking for large producers of electricity, and nuclear is being considered in all of those. Climate change, carbon issues, Kyoto, challenges of energy gap, all of those things, including energy security, are the things that are driving people to look towards nuclear.

I have included next a graph that indicates the interesting phenomenon occurring in this world, and that is that the OECD countries, which are shown as the red line on the graph, are about to be overtaken in the production of CO2 by China and the developing countries. That is an important element for all of us, and I think that for those of us who hadn't considered the types of impacts that are about to occur, that particular graph from IEA World Energy Outlook 2006 is enough to let us know what really is coming upon us.

The next page just cites for everyone the fact that if we're going to wrestle with any of these issues, we are going to have to use a diversification of techniques that will permit us to make the biggest impact. We are not going to be able to do it with one technology at all, but we should make special efforts to combine technologies so that we can get the best out of all of the technologies and permit them to work together so that we can have a symbiotic relationship among all of the technologies that you recognize on that page.

The next graph, again from our friends, talks about aggressive processes that are required if we're going to contain CO2 emissions. The first three lines on the left side of your graph indicate what happens if you have a base case for which no action is taken whatsoever. But as you move into the act scenarios, as they're described in English, to 2050, you will see that there are tremendous impacts to be had if we become aggressive in applying new technologies to the cause of carbon emissions.

Ultimately, if you go to that whole report, which was commissioned in response to the G-8 Gleneagles Summit, you will see the best approach they came up with. Going through all the scenarios was what was called a “TECH Plus” technology application. What that really meant was that there was an aggressive implementation of technology gains rights across the area. It not only includes, by the way, nuclear, but wind, solar, and any number of other options, including conservation and energy efficiency. We're pleased that the world bodies have seen nuclear as playing a particularly important part in that.

As I take a look at the next graph, again, it's a graph that comes from overseas, from the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, actually. It has accomplished something that not many organizations have. They have kept statistics about various kinds of industries for a long period of time, and they have been able to look at the internal and external costs of various types of generation.

Here you see a list, and there must be about 15 or 16 different types of generation, and they have brought together both internal and external costs associated with those generation types. You can see that nuclear fares very well when it comes to the types of externalities that are often measured.