Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2009

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much.

You're very correct. We created an expert review panel to identify and recommend the most viable options for securing supplies of isotopes over the medium to long term. They have been meeting since we announced them.

To answer the last part of your question, technical versus business plan, we're actually trying to encapsulate both. I will tell you the members of the expert panel to give you an indication of the flavour.

The chair of the panel is Peter Goodhand, who is a patient advocate for the Canadian Cancer Society. He is actually president of the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Éric Turcotte is on our panel. He is one of Canada's foremost nuclear medicine researchers. Richard Drouin is counsel in the law firm of McCarthy Tétrault to help us on the business side of it. Dr. Thom Mason, one of the world's leading nuclear scientists, is at the Oak Ridge National Lab in the United States, but he is Canadian, having been brought up in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. He's adding the expertise to it.

On the MAPLEs question specifically, the call for proposals process has provided interested organizations the opportunity to raise their ideas regarding the MAPLEs for the experts' consideration. Not knowing what the panel specifically is considering, I would assume, because we have seen some press reports, that the panel will be taking a look at the MAPLEs. They possess the inherent capabilities to look at it from a business and a technological point of view.

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

On the presentation you made with respect to the Nuclear Liability Act and so on, when we think of nuclear reactors we think of huge mainframes. If I can use a technological analogy, we used to talk about mainframe technology before we had laptops. We had an opportunity to talk with people who are doing a great deal of development in the north where there is a concern with respect to energy production from diesel and small diesel applications. These people were from the small part of the nuclear industry that are developing small nuclear capabilities for micro applications.

In the overview that you have constructed for insurance purposes, the feedback we had was that there are aspects of the application of the insurance provisions that will make it onerous for small operators with respect to liabilities and matching those liabilities with the process and quantity of insurance liability in the act.

Would they have an opportunity to have input with respect to the application of the nuclear liability?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the honourable member is absolutely correct. The current nuclear power reactors in Canada vary from about 500 megawatts all the way to 934 megawatts, which is much larger than the smaller slow-poke ones you're talking about. I think that is a very exciting development, should research and development be able to bring them to commercial utilization.

There are always those catch-all provisions in the acts. If you look at clause 66, regulations can be made regarding prescribing classes of nuclear installations, and fixing an amount of reinsurance for nuclear installations as well. There's flexibility built into the act so you can react to these specific instances that don't exist currently. My officials can get into the weeds on the exact application, but I would assume that the regulations aspect would be able to take those kinds of R and D into consideration.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, you have one minute.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, on Point Lepreau, you said that the project is 16 months late. It's $100 million so far. How much more do you expect the taxpayers will have to bear? I trust that your department has a number in terms of what it anticipates. What is that number?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

AECL is working with New Brunswick Power with respect to the refurbishment at Point Lepreau. They have given a date to New Brunswick Power that they expect it to be back on line in October of 2010.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

But you have no idea what the number is?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

We have an understanding that they're over budget and they will continue to work. As you know, if they're over budget now and they know they've been delayed, it's going to exceed the anticipated fixed price.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So it's $100 billion over budget now and you don't know how much more it's going to cost the taxpayer.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I'm going to look to my officials as to whether they have any further information for you, Mr. Regan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Dupont.

[Serge Dupont, Special Advisor on Nuclear Energy Policy to the Minister of Natural Resources, Department of Natural Resources]

The annual report put out by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, with numbers to March 31, 2009, cited a loss on their major projects—that's Point Lepreau and the other refurbishment projects—of $333 million. Those were the losses as of March 31, 2009, which took account of the situation at that time and re-estimated the revenues and cost for those projects to completion. Those numbers may evolve over time.

AECL reports on an annual basis, and these reports are made available to Parliament. Those were the losses, to March 31, 2009, on the refurbishment project.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, I'm sorry, you're out of time.

We will go now to Madame Brunelle, from the Bloc Quebecois.

You have up to seven minutes, please.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

As concerns the losses at Pointe Lepreau, we know that a request was made to the government to cover them.

Will the government do so? Will all of Canada subsidize New Brunswick's hydroelectric power?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

As we've indicated, New Brunswick Power and AECL are working together on completing the project at Point Lepreau. There is a contract that has been signed. We're standing behind the contract, and we'll respect its terms.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Minister, you say that Bill C-20 puts Canada in line with internationally accepted compensation levels, which is valid.

How important do you think this bill is as part of the AECL restructuring? Does it have an impact on the desire to sell AECL? Is security required for the private sector to be able to buy AECL? Is this bill part of that?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

No, I see it as a separate piece of legislation dealing with the nuclear power industry in total. This is something that the current operators want. We spoke to the builders and suppliers of nuclear new builds, and of course they are interested in making sure there is certainty around the liability aspect of nuclear power. This bill makes it very clear that it is the operator. In the sense of giving clarity and actually adding to the amount of people who can bid in Canada, it is more beneficial from a competitive point of view.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

This bill refers to alternate financial security, where the manager of a nuclear site may have to provide such security up to a maximum of 50% in excess of the amount stipulated. We are told that this security should be sufficient and that it is verified and approved by the minister. Since these crown corporations that produce energy and operate nuclear power plants are often owned by a provincial government, do you not think that these agreements should be negotiated with the provincial government that owns the crown corporation, instead of letting the minister make the final decision in this case?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

With respect to the insurance aspect of it, the honourable member is correct. For the most part, the operators for nuclear power reactors in Canada are crown corporations, or associated with provinces, but they are still entities unto themselves. As a result, they have indicated to us that they would be able to be on the receptive end of the insurance capacity that is there. In fact, everyone we have spoken with in terms of stakeholders have agreed that this is an appropriate bill and it makes sense.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

As to the fact that it is the minister who says whether this security is sufficient, do you not think that she should be negotiating with the provincial government instead?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Much as we did in the bill itself, we of course would consult with the appropriate stakeholders in the province in the assessment of the appropriate amount of insurance.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I have another question concerning Bill C-20. This bill limits the liability of the operator of the nuclear facility to $650 million, instead of $75 million under the current legislation. Obviously, $75 million was far too little and our laws are often outdated.

How can we differentiate risk? For example, there are operators who have only one nuclear reactor, such as in Quebec and New Brunswick, and others that operate several reactors with the same risks. What is the operator's financial liability? Is it the same whether the operator has one reactor or several?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I'll ask for some help on that one.

[Tom Wallace]

The financial liability is related to the nuclear installation, so in the case of Hydro Quebec, it would be the Gentilly-2 and in the case of Lepreau it would be Point Lepreau. In the case of Ontario, where there's a number of reactors on one site, it's often the case that the liability is attached to a set of reactors. So Pickering A would have one group, one liability envelope associated with it; Pickering B would have another. That's essentially the way the act works.