Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I would appreciate that. I would like to know what this program cost. Under this two-year program, which targeted a non-renewable energy like fuel, a $1,000 rebate was available to encourage people to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

This program would also have helped automobile dealerships that are struggling financially. The rebate was an incentive for people to trade in their big 1970 Cadillac for a small Firefly or some other smaller vehicle. It also would have had benefits in terms of promoting fuel-efficiency and helping the profit margin of automobile dealerships.

If you don't have an answer for me right now, I'll wait for one.

[Serge Dupont]

We will certainly forward an answer to you through our colleagues.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

My questions are somewhat political in nature.

According to the Canadian Press, an additional $72 million is being budgeted to decommission the MAPLE reactors. Can you give me the exact cost to the federal government of this disastrous venture? This program is also under the direction of Natural Resources Canada.

[Serge Dupont]

Yes indeed. In fact, AECL, Crown corporation in its own right, is responsible for this initiative. Having said that, my colleague can give me the exact figures if I'm mistaken, but generally speaking the MAPLE reactors represented an investment of approximately $200 million for the Government of Canada. I'll have the exact numbers for you momentarily.

To be more specific, it is not $72 million that needs to be budgeted for the MAPLE reactors in 2009-2010, but rather $25 million. An additional $47 million is being allocated to carry out the work needed to extend the operating licence of the NRU reactor beyond 2011. The $72 million breaks down into two items: $25 million for the MAPLE reactors, and $47 million for the existing reactor.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Is it in fact true that you are having trouble selling the MAPLE reactors outside Canada? Is this leading-edge technology, or unproven technology? Even engineers are having problems neutralizing the neutrons or whatever. It's still too technical for me to comprehend.

[Serge Dupont]

There are two types of reactors, including the MAPLE reactors which are not for sale because they were not brought into service. Along with AECL, the government was forced to recognize that this venture failed.

The second type of reactor is the CANDU reactor. AECL has managed to market these reactors successfully in the past. They operate safely and reliably in various locations around the world. AECL hopes to be able to continue marketing these reactors in the future.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

So then, if I understand correctly, we're talking about $200 million, plus $25 million, plus $47 million in supplementary estimates this year for the MAPLE reactors.

[Serge Dupont]

No, the $47 million has nothing to do with the MAPLE reactors. This amount has been budgeted to continue production with the existing reactor, which is used not only to produce medical isotopes, but also for other research activities carried out by AECL.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

The Chalk River facility has two reactors. One is on line, while the other is not. You had a budget of $151 million. The federal government has increased this budget by $350 million this year. I don't know if this means both reactors can be brought on line at the same time.

Will $350 million be enough or will this merely become a white elephant?

[Serge Dupont]

In fact, a total of $351 million has been budgeted. This includes the necessary funds not only to ensure the operation of the current reactor, but also to carry out the work needed to extend its operating licence. It includes the necessary investments for the new CANDU reactor. The funds will ensure that the Chalk River facility is maintained in sound working order, not just this year, but for years to come.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Because as you know, this facility is as old as I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Bonsant.

Your time is up.

We go now to the government side, to Mr. Anderson for up to five minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm going to talk about a couple of different issues.

I wanted to follow up on something Mr. Trost asked. Part of the money is going toward the report to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Can you tell me when Canada is going to be making that presentation? What are the timelines on that?

[Cassie Doyle]

Thank you very much for the question.

The deadline for submissions is 2013 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. That's our target.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Are we on schedule with our mapping in terms of how we want to see it through and meeting those deadlines?

[Cassie Doyle]

Yes. It's an important point.

We're constrained by the limited amount of time for the field season in some of those conditions up north. The request for funding in supplementary estimates (B) is to ensure we can make the necessary investments this fiscal year to catch those windows. I believe we are on schedule to complete that work for our deadline of 2013.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I would like to get some information about the two funds that are being established and just a bit more information as to where you see those funds going and how they're going to be used.

First, there's $1 billion in the community adjustment fund. What kind of detail can you give us about the application of that money?

[Cassie Doyle]

Thank you for that question.

I think it's fair to say that since the budget announcement we have been working with other departments to properly define the community adjustment fund. That work will be ongoing for the next couple of weeks. We are working in an accelerated fashion in recognition of the needs out there in communities that are being affected by downturns, particularly in the resource sectors. As the minister mentioned, the fund as scoped in the budget was fairly wide. Right now we are in the process of putting a little more definition on the types of economic development activities, the role of science and technology, the delivery mechanisms. We're guided first and foremost by our ability to ensure that those funds are flowing as soon as possible. That's really one of our guidance features coming out this budget. It is part of stimulus and we're trying to get it delivered as soon as possible. We're now in the process of determining the best approach.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

A good part of the $1 billion clean energy fund is geared toward things like carbon capture and storage. I'm wondering what other things come under that umbrella. What kinds of things do you see being part of that fund as well?

[Cassie Doyle]

Again, it's similar for the clean energy fund. We're in the process now of working through the details of how that fund will be invested. As you know from the budget, $850 million of the fund is targeted toward demonstration of clean energy, and that is to include carbon capture and sequestration. We're now looking at some options for the best mechanism for investing those funds that are earmarked for demonstration or deployment. Then $150 million is for further upstream research and development in the area of clean energy. At this point all we can say is that all options are on the table. We are actively putting together a proposal to be considered in terms of defining that fund, and that will be made public shortly.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I want to change direction and talk about the National Energy Board. We've had some concerns from western Canada about some of the pipelines being changed from one regulatory system to another, from provincial boards to the National Energy Board. Do you have any comment on that or anything that can help us understand a little bit more of what's going on in that area?

[Cassie Doyle]

We are aware that there are applications before the National Energy Board to change the overall regulation from a provincial to a national level. But those are applications to the National Energy Board, and I'm really not at liberty to make a comment on this matter. I would prefer that you direct those questions to the NEB.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will go now to Mr. Tonks from the official opposition, for up to five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's nice to see you again, Ms. Doyle, and your associates.

Speaking on behalf of the committee—those of us who sat on the committee, Mr. Chair, through the last episode when NRU was shut down—we listened to the accountability loop closing and opening with respect to CNSC and AECL. We're not going to go through that again, but out of those hearings I thought the committee had received an assurance, through a report, that a protocol would be developed.

One aspect was that if there were any suspicion that the reactor would have to be shut down, the medical community would be instantly notified and appropriate secondary responses would take place, in view of the implications from a medical perspective. Secondly, I thought that we also had received assurance that the protocol would account for public disclosure.

That's my recollection, Mr. Chairman, and I'm wondering, Ms. Doyle.... I'm not really looking for a comment. I don't think the committee needs that now. But I think that corporate memory is very important and that perhaps Ms. Doyle could take this under advisement and report back to the committee on whether that protocol was developed. If she wants to reply now, that's quite in order. I have another question, but I was thinking that to get on with the time, we could get a report in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Deputy Minister.