Natural Resources Committee on March 18th, 2010

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay, thank you.

Of the $1 billion green infrastructure fund, $200 million was budgeted for 2009-10, but $186.3 million of that $200 million remains unused. Why has this money not been spent?

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

With regard to the green infrastructure trust fund, this falls under Transport Canada. I am not able to give you specific answers about this. You will have to speak to Transport Canada.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Aren't you concerned, as the Minister of Natural Resources, who is in charge of clean energy, that the vast majority of this $200 million fund is unspent? When you look at what's happening in the U.S., they're finding lots of things to spend their funds on--eligible waste water infrastructure, green energy generation infrastructure, green energy transmission infrastructure, solid waste infrastructure, carbon transmission and storage infrastructure--and we can only spend a tenth of the fund in Canada.

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

We must be careful here. With all due respect, I believe that you are comparing apples and oranges. Historically, here in Canada, $3.6 billion was set aside in the budget starting in 2007. That is a significant amount of money. This money has been invested since 2007. The ecoENERGY for renewable power program alone represents nearly $1.5 billion. This funding will be allocated until 2011.

Furthermore, funds are allocated to the SDTC. A lot of work has been done since 2007. We have moved forward in this area, including with regard to the clean energy fund. If we add it all up, we see that we are talking more or less about $7 billion for some 30 million inhabitants since 2007. I think that a great deal of work has been done in this area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

A very short question, please, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let's go back to the NRU for one second. Do you have any idea when the NRU will be back online? How much confidence do you have in the current forecast, whatever it is? Because as of yesterday, it's not even clear what the forecast is.

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

I am obviously disappointed with the delays, as no doubt is much of Canada. When I was appointed, I told the AECL that the top priority of the Government of Canada was for the reactor to be operational as soon as possible, but while respecting the appropriate health and safety standards for Canadians. That is a priority for our government. I am closely following up with AECL staff to ensure that information is provided in as transparent a manner as possible, in such a way as to best coordinate the efforts of the doctors' association which is working on this issue at the international level. I am talking here about overall supply. This is a global issue that requires a global solution. That is why I am asking for the utmost transparency possible in all communications, so that we know what to expect and to ensure that we best respond to this global situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Now we'll go to the Bloc Québécois and Madame Brunelle, for up to seven minutes.

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

Good morning, Minister. Congratulations on your appointment.

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

Thank you.

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

I am pleased to meet you.

We see that the trend is to increasingly allocate additional funding through supplementary budgets. I would like to talk to you about the AECL. We see that, for 2009-2010, $108 million was set aside. There is a supplementary budget of $457 million for 2010-2011. Some $102 million has been set aside for operating expenses and 300 million additional dollars to pay down a commercial loss. This commercial loss leads me to ask some serious questions, particularly with regard to the privatization or sale of AECL.

Ultimately, how much will investments in AECL have cost Canadian and Quebec taxpayers in its lifetime? Based on my calculations, it would be approximately $8 billion. We wonder how much it is worth. Will we have a return on our investment? You are setting aside $300 million to pay down a commercial loss. Is it because you anticipate a loss of that magnitude? Will it be higher?

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

In fact, there is refurbishing work for which AECL has undertaken legal commitments. The Government of Canada is currently the only shareholder of AECL. Obviously we will respect our contractual obligations. A number of reactors must be refurbished. At the time, given the available tools, when those commitments were made, the complexity of the projects was likely underestimated. That is why our government will move forward with a restructuring. We launched a request for proposals in order to see which companies would be interested in the CANDU reactors' commercial division, and how it would be possible to make this industry more competitive, properly position it and ensure its future.

Yes, taxpayers are assuming too much risk. We believe that a restructuring would allow us to get this company back on track and make it more competitive. We would like to ensure a safe environment and a safe supply of clean energy but also viability that would respect the ability of taxpayers to pay. The goal is also to better position Canada for the future with regard to the production of this kind of energy.

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

Some people are challenging the technology of our CANDU reactors, but now the industry has some big international players. Are you not afraid that if a part of the production is privatized, the purchasers would be nuclear giants like AREVA or others? AECL would then become a very small player and the government would have to assume losses, the management of nuclear waste and insurance costs in case of a nuclear accident. Under these conditions, the private sector would benefit from any profitable activity.

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

No. Our objective is not to privatize profits and socialize the risks. This is why we launched a request for proposals to the industry, to see how we could improve our position. This much is clear: the currently existing structure is not viable. It absolutely has to be restructured to make sure that it is viable. There is a study underway to examine the proposals that will be submitted. Eventually, we will go ahead with this. I think that we all agree that the current structure is not viable. This is why we are taking corrective measures.

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

In your presentation, you spoke about forestry. You know as well as I do that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party do not agree on the measures to be taken. We estimate that $170 million is very far from being enough. You are talking about the program for greening the pulp and paper industry. I gather that they want to use biomass from forest residues.

You are investing $1 billion in pulp and paper mills. You know that in my riding, there are pulp and paper mills that are facing enormous difficulties in Trois-Rivières and they are looking for new outlets. The companies had been asking for loan guarantees for many years. The companies made huge efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The fact that the reference year for greenhouse gas reduction is not 1994, as had been agreed, and that we do not have a real carbon exchange with absolute targets, means that our companies are suffering. Therefore, my question is an obvious one. The target you are setting is not good. It is not in Quebec's interest. I would like to hear you defend your program.

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

You are covering several different aspects. I will try to sum them up.

First of all, the program for greening the pulp and paper industry is a program that was implemented to optimize what can be done with wood by-products. Instead of scrapping them, instead of spending money, we can turn them into a source of income.

Besides, we know that the paper mills in Quebec are more mechanical mills that pulp mills. Thus, there will be less use of black liquor residue. Nevertheless, some projects will be developed in Quebec. Certain companies having their head office in Quebec will be free to invest wherever they want, thus Quebec can expect some tangible profits from this.

In the 2010 budget, a $100 million sum was announced over the next four years. We are following the recommendations of the Canadian Federation of woodlot owners. When a log goes into the current sawmills, how can we optimize the product so that we can optimize the resource and the by-products to the very last speck of dust to create income? If you build an energy industry separately on the one hand and a status quo sawmill on the other hand, it cannot work. Both undertakings must be optimized. This is how we want to ensure viability, through similar programs.

In forestry, especially in eastern Canada, there is a restructuring problem. As we speak, the most recent book The Reporter sold more copies of its electronic version than of its paper version. This is a fact that we must live with. There is also the issue of markets. How can we go about this? This is why I was talking about innovation, about opening up the market and about new products. We must absolutely face up to the task and work together with the provinces. Some problems very much fall under provincial mandates. This is why we went to the root of the problem with the Canada-Quebec Forestry Task Team, to see how we can help the sector within the limits set by the Softwood Lumber Agreement.

The multiple functions in forestry involve a $200 million investment that helped the industry along. Of course, we must continue in the same vein. This is why the Canada-Quebec Forestry Task team is still in existence, it is because we are still living in troubled times.

With regard to loan guarantees, let me remind you of the efforts that were made by EDC. Large investments were made in the forestry industry. They amounted to about $16 billion dollars over the past years. We must continue working toward this objective. I think that we sent out a clear signal in our 2010 budget to show that we want to be present for future generations in bioeconomics, bioenergetics, biomass or other things like that. It is a way to make sure that the current sawmills remain viable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Madame Brunelle, for your questions.

Now we will go to the New Democratic Party. Welcome, Mr. Martin. You have up to seven minutes. Go ahead.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Minister, asbestos, as you know, is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. More Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational-related diseases combined. In fact, 60% of all occupational deaths in Canada are caused by asbestos. The figure is much higher in your own province of Quebec, where it is as much as 80% of all the industrial deaths. Yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world, dumping nearly 200,000 tonnes per year exclusively into underdeveloped and third world countries, where there are no health and safety protocols whatsoever for the use of asbestos.

When you were the Minister of Public Works, you authorized the spending of millions of dollars to remove all the asbestos from the parliament buildings, because no MP should be exposed to a single fibre of asbestos. Yet now, as the Minister of Natural Resources, your government is spending millions of dollars subsidizing and promoting asbestos all over the world. A direct subsidy in these estimates that we will be studying today is to the Chrysotile Institute--a bunch of charlatans, I have no hesitation in saying. They are probably the only lobbying group in the country paid for by the federal government to lobby the federal government about asbestos. It's corporate welfare for corporate serial killers, which is what I call it, Mr. Minister.

You have seen the letter from the Université Laval, signed by six prominent Quebec scientists, urging you--begging you--to stop your boosterism of the asbestos industry and to stop funding the Asbestos Institute.

You have seen a letter to the Government of Canada, signed by 120 scientists from 28 different countries around the world--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Martin--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Martin, I would like you to direct your questions and comments through the chair, please, not directly to the minister. That's the way it's done at committee; you know that. So if you could direct your--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, actually I don't know that, Chair. We're here to question the minister, not you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Through the chair, Mr. Martin, so if you would please do that.

Remember, this is the natural resources committee. I understand the connection. You have made the connection, but we're not here to talk about health issues--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

--so if you could, try to make sure your comments remain relevant.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Martin.