Natural Resources Committee on March 18th, 2010

[Cassie Doyle, Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources]

Yes, this is a very complex technology. We've made the allocations, but the projects have not come online yet. We're still at the front end of the engineering design.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Do you have a plan or an idea of the forecasted amount that is going to be stored? Obviously, that must have been the requirement.

[Cassie Doyle]

Yes, we can get those exact numbers for you.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Okay, and I have a quick follow-up question. Once you find out what amount of storage there is, can you also give us a calculation per tonne? I've heard different numbers, such as $100 to $200 per tonne for carbon storage. I just want to get a gauge of what the total expectation of the storage amount is going to be and what it works out to on a per-tonne basis. It would be appreciated if you could get that breakdown to the committee.

[Cassie Doyle]

Yes.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Actually, I have a follow-up question with respect to the softwood lumber agreement. I know this was discussed earlier as well.

If we did not have a softwood lumber agreement--and this is hypothetical--what would you do differently to help the sector here in Canada? As you indicate, some people are for it, but there are some very vocal people who are opposing it as well. So in a scenario in which we did not have the softwood lumber agreement, what other initiatives would the federal government embark upon to help the industry?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

With all due respect, I should say that if we didn't have that agreement, the industry would be very sad, because everybody agrees that we had to seek that agreement and keep that agreement. I've never seen anyone, anywhere, complain about that agreement. It's the opposite. They want to make sure that we maintain that agreement.

Of course, if there were no agreement, some of the constraints on initiatives wouldn't exist, but this is not what the industry is seeking.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

What would you do?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

This is why I just stick to that point and say that we have to do our best to maintain the softwood lumber agreement, as the industry wants.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

In terms of Budget 2009, you indicated that $150 million of the clean energy fund would be set aside for R and D, but there have been no R and D announcements made by the government to date. Can you tell us where the $150 million was set aside for clean energy R and D and where that money has gone? Will this money be reallocated, possibly, to CCS on a going forward basis?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

This has been reallocated to the retrofit program, ecoEnergy, which had great success. Now the R and D, I would say, has been taken and charged from our own department and our own laboratories. It was a way to optimize, because we wanted to commit more money to the retrofit program. Still, some expenses are being made in our own lab.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

It's been allocated to the retrofit program.

Are you still committed to the $150 million for R and D and to using that as if it's coming out of your own department? Is that correct? Is that how I understand it? Effectively, the money's being used up.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

This is very clear. We are talking here about the reduction in the clean energy fund, because that money was reallocated to retrofits, but we still have research in our own labs now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

We go now to Mr. Anderson for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to share the last couple of minutes with Ms. Gallant, if that's possible. Can you let us know when that time comes?

I had a chance to go to the Prospectors and Developers Association convention about 10 days ago. Mining was doing very well in 2008. The slowdown hit it very hard. They seem to be a lot more optimistic now.

I'm just wondering if you can talk a little bit about the government's plans for the mining sector in the longer run. If we have some time, I guess we could talk about some of the specific tax measures. I think regulatory reform is another thing the government has highlighted in terms of dealing with some of these issues. I'm wondering if you can talk to us a little bit about that this morning.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes, thank you, David, for that question.

Of course, the mining sector is a key part of our economic recovery. A lot of projects are in pipelines up north. I sat down with these guys, and there are some tools we can provide to them that are very useful. Basically, as you know from our last budget, we are extending the mineral exploration tax credit and extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for machinery and equipment. This is a measure that gives them tremendous opportunity for investment to accelerate and create new jobs and to have some new projects going on.

There were two that had been renewed, and we're speaking here about the geo-mapping and the geo-science. Geo-science is a great thing because they can look deeper now, and a lot of research can be done, but sometimes the risk is a little bit high. We as the government can support the industry on that to go and look deeper. These kinds of investments are very worthwhile.

I want to point out that in the targeted geo-science initiative, every dollar spent on geo-mapping leads to $5 in private sector investment in exploration spending and $125 in discovered resources of value, approximately. So it means that for dollar, it generates a lot of what I would call downstream economies.

These are the three main great-news stories about the initiatives themselves. Also, I must point out that we are still working on our road map to have regulatory framework reform, which is needed because the evaluations of the projects are too complex. You can have duplications and things like that, so we want to optimize to make sure that, yes, we have less complex evaluations to do. Doing that, too, I think we will be more able to focus on the environmental assessment itself to make sure that we are speaking about the environmental assessment and how to do it, because now it's getting complex. It will give a lot of certainty to the industry, too. We will now be more able to see the projects coming, and to optimize and streamline the entire process itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

There's about a minute and a half left. It's up to you, Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, we've heard the opposition members' criticisms related to the supply of medical isotopes. We can all agree this is a serious issue. We also agree that many officials within the government, as well as the nuclear medicine officials, have been working to help mitigate the supply concerns.

Since the NRU went down in May, and even before that, our government had developed a consistent strategy for ensuring a reliable supply of isotopes for Canadian patients. It included informing AECL that its top priority was bringing the NRU back in service, working with the health community to encourage and assist better use of existing supplies as well as alternatives, and leading the call for and chairing the OECD's high-level group on the security of supply of medical isotopes, which has resulted in increased sources of supply as well as better supply chain coordination.

Can you tell the committee what results have come from this strategy and what steps you have taken to ensure a steady supply of medical isotopes for Canadians in the near term as well as the long term?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes, thank you. First of all, as you just said, the NRU re-opening is a top priority for our government. This is the top priority.

In the meantime, we are looking to relicense the reactor until 2016. The first step that was taken when there was a shutdown was under the leadership of Canada. A group of experts was put in place, on an international basis, which was led by Serge Dupont—who is here with me—to explore all the ways we can adapt during the situation. There is the same kind of group on the medical side, to make sure that every step is being taken to streamline and better coordinate the supplying of isotopes. The generators are competitors, and in the past they have not been used to speaking with each other. Given that we have a global problem, it has to be solved by a global solution.

In Canada we have looked to alternative sources because the supply chain is fragile and we want to make sure we have solutions for the mid- and longer term. This is why we put $35,000 in the budget for research for new sources or alternatives. We also put in $10 million for clinical tests on the part of Health Canada and $3 million to better coordinate. It is a larger plan, and we want to make sure everything goes as well as possible on the coordination side.

I have to point out that isotopes from Poland's Maria reactor are now licensed for use in Canada. That's part of the result from the work done by the group led by Serge Dupont. South Africa's SAFARI reactor will continue to operate at elevated levels. Belgium is adding a cycle to its reactor schedule too, and France has agreed to delay a scheduled outage to make sure we avoid a major shortage.

In the meantime, the NRU is a top priority, and AECL has experts who are assessing where they are and what they are doing. We should have some conclusions soon, to make sure that the work being done is on the right track. As I pointed out, we want to make sure that the information that is being provided is

as transparent as possible

to make sure we can better coordinate all the actions that are taken.

This is why I pointed out that it's not only here in Canada, but there are global actions being taken now by all players--countries and industry. It's a process that we are not used to seeing. It was not like that one or two years ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant. You are beyond the time you were allocated, but the minister was giving some information in terms of reactors and supplies coming on stream, which I know the committee wanted to hear, so I did allow it to go a little longer.

Mr. Minister, I know you have other commitments now, so I thank you very much for being here today. It is your first appearance. I'm sure there will be many more, and we look forward to those.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you again for making yourself available so early in our meetings here. We wish you all the best.

We will suspend for about two minutes. The officials will remain for part of the next hour.

Before I suspend, I want to remind people that we need to pass a motion for travel to Chalk River. We will have the votes on the supplementary estimates, followed by the main estimates, and we need some discussion on the visit to Chalk River based on a letter you have received from the general manager of external relations for AECL. We will do this following a two-minute suspension.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will reconvene the meeting.

We have a lot to deal with in 50 minutes. We have the officials here for continued questioning on the supplementary estimates and the estimates. Again, it's up to the committee, but if we're going to go to the votes on the supplementary and main estimates, I will have to leave some time for that.

In terms of the Chalk River issue, should we deal with it at the end of the meeting--allow about 15 minutes--or is it something that we could deal with outside of the committee? I'm looking for direction from the committee on this.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Do you mean with respect to the letter we just got?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The letter says Tuesday wouldn't be a good time to visit.

As well, we do have to pass a motion--it can be a flexible motion--to provide the money for the visit to Chalk River.