Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's what I want to know.

[Dr. Richard Tobin]

Actually, it goes to a technical change. As you know, the ecoEnergy program was present in the main estimates, which you reviewed and passed some time ago. Then it was a question of making all of the names of the programs to conform with the others, so for ecoEnergy homes, there had to be an actual listing. There were moneys already in the budget. This isn't new budget.

That's why we see it once under the first page under vote 10 at $41,910 000, and in another place, when you're looking for the explanation of funds available, that money would have been already there, renamed as a grant or contribution; therefore, it has to come back again.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have a final question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

You have half a minute.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, quickly, under Atomic Energy of Canada, there is some money set aside for the development of the advanced CANDU reactor. How far along are we with that?

They're asking for more money. Is that going to speed it up?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

There's still more money in the development of the ACR-1000. I was told the last time I asked this question that it was somewhere around 60% to 70% complete—the technical design work, which is ongoing—and the money they're requesting is for the final instalment for the development of the ACR-1000.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

We have time, but barely, for a second round of five minutes—three questioners—so I will, at the five-minute mark, interrupt the questioner or yourself, Minister, in fairness to everyone.

Before you start, Mr. Tonks, we're attributing this wintery weather to your choice of ties this morning.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad there's someone other than Tom Lukiwski who understands the importance of sartorial expression.

In the continuity with our previous discussion with respect to insurance and the industry, in looking at the supplementary estimates, it appears to me there's going to be a transition. We're applying risk assessment and self-funding to the nuclear industry, and you had indicated, Minister, that there would be a transition towards that. In that light, is it required that there be a continuation of the nuclear liability reinsurance account? If we were to look at the estimates, not necessarily in the supplementary estimates, would we see a line item, through that transition, with respect to a continuation of the liability insurance account?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't believe so, but the experts can probably explain it better there. There is a transition of four years to go from $75 million up to $650 million, and in the unlikely event of a nuclear incident, it would come before Parliament for Parliament to decide on how to go forward. In the event of no incident, I don't believe you would see an item in the budget if there is no incident, obviously. If there is an incident, that's something we're going to have to deal with, but I'm not anticipating one.

I do stand to be corrected by Mr. Tobin.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I think I'd just put that on the record in terms of it's a systemic.... I had some experience with chlorine in Metropolitan Toronto and self-funding, and we had a very huge difficulty self-funding. We had difficulty going to the industry also, so there was a transitional period when it was a combination of both. I just wondered if it would be the same, and if we could see that in the estimates.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Tobin.

[Dr. Richard Tobin]

Sorry, I'm not able to actually respond completely to that question.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

We could try to follow up, but I'm not aware of a line item in the estimates specific to the Nuclear Liability Act—the interim transition—if there would be a line item in the budget. I'm not aware of that, but I'll leave it at this: if there is, we will definitely get back to you in writing. If we don't, obviously then there is none.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Okay.

There are two items that come out of your response to the report that came from committee on the tar sands, and I'll make it very general. I had noted there was a Canada-Alberta ecoEnergy carbon capture and storage task force, and I noted that your response came out after the budget, but I note also in the supplementary estimates that there's the Canada-Newfoundland agreement. There's the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore.... There are supplementary expenditures, but there is nothing with respect to the carbon capture and that part of your report that indicated there was a joint approach going on with the Province of Alberta. Would we not see it in the supplementary estimates, or would it be in the budget?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

None of the people sitting in that task force are receiving any type of honorarium or compensation. There is a small amount of expenses for that task force for the secretariat, but I do believe they're funding that from just the general operating expenses from Natural Resources Canada. All the people on this task force are there on a strictly volunteer basis, so there's just a smaller amount of secretary expenses. I'm anticipating we will receive that report by the end of this year, so this task force is for a relatively short period—about six months—and I have been briefed twice by them and they're doing some very impressive work. I am looking forward to the report. I don't believe you'll see any expenses in the estimates specifically related to the carbon capture task force.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Do I have time for one last short one?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

You have 45 seconds.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Okay. With respect to the recommendation coming from that report on a further report on the potential toxicity of tailings and water, you indicated you had a strategy that was based on, among other things, improving, measuring, and reporting the results of federal science technology expenditures. The committee would be interested in this, I'm sure. In your supplementary estimates, is there ongoing reporting with respect to how we are dealing with the tailings issue in the tar sands? I don't see anything here. Would it be in your main estimates?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Very briefly, Mr. Lunn.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'm not aware of it.

On the tailings in the oil sands, as far as I'm aware the industry is very tightly controlled, and there are inspections. They are required, under very strict regulations, to do the controls. There are inspections by various inspection agencies to make sure they are in compliance. I believe those costs are borne by the industry specifically.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Minister, earlier you mentioned that we had tools like RETScreen. I agree with you, but that's been around for at least 15 years. I even think Mr. Mulroney provided a budget of $300,000 to make RETScreen. However, it seems it's used very little or not at all. You don't increase budgets for them not to be used and so renewable energies are no longer used. However, the budget for AECL increases by $108 million. That's a lot of money. Imagine what it would be if you had granted $108 million to solar energy or geothermal, which only got peanuts. And yet we know that geothermal could replace nuclear energy.

Why are you seeking funds for AECL in the Supplementary Estimates rather than in the Main Estimates?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

As I said earlier with respect to ACL, there are some regulatory and safety issues, specifically at the Chalk River laboratories, that have to be dealt with and they haven't been dealt with. I don't disagree that potentially they should have been in the main estimates. I don't agree with your assertion at all. The reality is that they have to be dealt with. These are regulatory issues. I have to deal with them.

I can assure you that I have also expressed my displeasure that they weren't in the main estimates. I have encouraged the folks at ACL that when they're putting in their submissions with respect to the estimates, I expect them in there.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Minister, it's the same thing ever year. Last year, it was $46 million, and the preceding year, it was $36 million. Every year, supplementary funding is granted for nuclear energy. However, no funding is ever granted for forms of energy that could replace nuclear energy.

Would you be under the influence of a lobby that is preventing you from granting funding to make RETScreen work?