Natural Resources Committee on June 2nd, 2015

[Jean-Frédéric Lafaille]

I'm happy to answer that question, Mr. Chair.

If we look at the practice in the past, $102.1 million was always provided to AECL in the main estimates, and each year we'd look at the incremental amount that would be required to fund the operations of the laboratories. If you look at the past practice, what you see this year is consistent with the past practice. If you compare the numbers, they will be roughly in the same order of magnitude. That amount is to cover the entire operations of the nuclear laboratories.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

In the main estimates $67 million was originally set aside for operations, while $35 million was earmarked for research and development. The supplementary estimates (A) state that the $164.9 million will go toward both activities, but it is unclear how the money will be divided. Are you able to give us a better breakdown of where that $164 million will go?

[Jean-Frédéric Lafaille]

I think we would need to refer to AECL to provide a more refined breakdown. What I could say is that within the entirety of the main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) and the budget, we would cover all the missions of the laboratories, which include science and technology, medical isotopes, and capital investment in the labs. For a more refined breakdown of this, I would need to refer to the nuclear laboratories to make sure they have the right numbers for you, but that would include the entirety of the funding the government will provide to the nuclear laboratories if you add up the main estimates, the budget, and the supplementary estimates.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Speaking of the fact that this money would support medical and industrial isotope production as well as nuclear science, how much has been earmarked for isotope production at Chalk River? Is there any funding for research into isotope production at any other facilities, such as the TRIUMF with its cyclotron particle accelerator?

[Jean-Frédéric Lafaille]

We distinguished the funding to AECL to produce medical isotopes out of the NRU reactor from the funding provided to companies that are looking at alternative ways to produce medical isotopes. From the first item of the money to AECL to produce medical isotopes that would be part of the overall funding, there are commercial contracts between AECL and the supply chain. I cannot go into the exact details, but the funding provided to AECL would cover the operations required to continue the production of medical isotopes until October 2016, which is the date at which the NRU reactor would cease to produce medical isotopes.

As for your second question regarding the alternative ways to produce medical isotopes at places like TRIUMF, the University of Alberta, or the Prairie Enterprise, Natural Resources Canada has a program in place to fund these three projects and they are developing technologies to produce medical isotopes that would not require a reactor. At TRIUMF and the University of Alberta they're using cyclotrons, for example, to produce medical isotopes. The programs we have in place at NRCan have been supporting development of these technologies. Since 2010, $60 million has been spent to support these Canadian technologies.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In terms of this development and this expectation of development of cyclotron-produced isotopes, is it the department's thinking that this will be the source of all medical isotopes in Canada in the future, that they'll come from cyclotrons, or do you expect that we will still have to get some from other sources?

[Jean-Frédéric Lafaille]

The medical isotopes market is really a global one. When we look at the future, and we've done a third party analysis of what is the projected demand and supply, which comes out of the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency, the expectation is that supply will meet the demand even after the NRU ceases to produce medical isotopes going forward.

What happens after 2016? Really, the market dynamics will play out and we suspect that the projects that we've been funding through NRCan, cyclotrons and linear accelerators, will have a share of the market. At this point in time we don't know exactly which source of medical isotopes will actually be supplying the Canadian market, but it will be a global market. When we look at the analysis we're confident that supply is projected to meet demand.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

The NRU will need to be relicensed to operate beyond 2016. How much of the AECL funding is being provided to meet licensing requirements and other regulatory obligations?

[Jean-Frédéric Lafaille]

I could not provide you with the exact number, but I know that part of the funding provided to AECL at this point in time would include the work that has to be done to put together the safety case that AECL would put before the regulator, the CNSC, to seek an extension of the licence for the NRU to operate beyond 2016.

The NRU is one of the main facilities at the Chalk River laboratory site that would need to be renewed in order to continue the operations beyond 2016. But certainly AECL is building the case now to renew that licence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

We go now to the five-minute round, starting with Ms. Crockatt, followed by Mr. Trost, and then Ms. Charlton.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ramcharan, for your edifying presentation. I learned quite a bit more than I thought we would learn today. It's great to have the opportunity to drill down into the supplementary estimates.

I was very interested to see that there's $277.8 million in additional spending being represented here, and I saw two main themes emerging from your presentation on what we're spending that $277 million on. One was protecting Canadians and the environment, and the other was supporting scientific research. I wanted to ask you about those two things if I could.

I was particularly interested in the $38.6 million in capital funding for some 15 research facilities across Canada. I think we often think of bricks and mortar as a static and dry topic, but I believe I heard you explain that a lot of the spending is actually going to be used to reduce GHG emissions and to enhance energy savings.

I wonder if you can tell us where this research funding is going for these 15 facilities and how we are supporting scientific research through it.

[Kami Ramcharan]

Thank you very much for your question.

Maybe what I can do is to sort of come back a bit.... Although we're only showing roughly about $40 million this year, the infrastructure initiative is actually $89 million over two years. What we see in our estimates for this year is the funding for this year, and then we'll have a subsequent amount in next year. The $89 million over two years will include funding in a number of different projects. I will go through them and give you some examples.

In Alert, Nunavut, we are going to be airlifting a new prefab structure to upgrade our research space in that environment. In Calgary, we have a variety of laboratory renovations to meet life-cycle renewal of heating and induction terminal units, air handling systems, laboratory fume hoods and exhaust fans, pneumatic control systems, and electrical distribution panels. In Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, a refit of our palynology laboratory will be implemented, and repurposing three dated labs to modern-day standards will be conducted.

In Devon, Alberta, we have pilot plant building upgrades, including electrical and ventilation system improvements to hazardous areas through the shipping and receiving centres. In Edmonton, we have the installation of a new fire suppression system in some building areas, electrical and ventilation system upgrades to meet life-cycle requirements, and the replacement of a water distillation system. In Fredericton, New Brunswick, we have roof and exhaust fan replacements and a chiller upgrade. As well, the specialized geomagnetic calibration building will be relocated from Ottawa and rebuilt at a site in Fredericton, far from magnetic interference.

In Inuvik, Northwest Territories, we will replace, upgrade, and extend roads to ensure access by scientific staff. In the national capital region, we'll do system upgrades and base building repairs to include fire alarm control panel replacements and switchgear updates. In Resolute, Nunavut, we will do investments to replace air quality handling units, furnaces, and fuel oil systems. We'll install cooling units for communication rooms and replace electrical controls and exhaust fans.

In Sault Ste. Marie, we'll have various upgrades to improve energy efficiencies from terminal heating units as well as replacements. In Sidney, British Columbia, we will do investments that focus on modification and repairs to our core sample facilities. In Sainte-Foy, Quebec, laboratory upgrades will include replacement of ventilation fans, and other recapitalization and repair.

In Val-d'Or, Quebec, replacements include window replacements and electrical upgrades. In Varennes, Quebec, there are investments in the replacement of HVAC pumps and various repairs. In Victoria, B.C., we'll have repairs, including distribution panels and security system upgrades.

All of these will help to support our science going forward, as well as helping to reduce our GHG emissions so that we can continue to be energy efficient in our buildings where we conduct our research.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Great.

It sounds like you were really prepared for that. Thank you.

I'm wondering, too, how this expenditure will be of benefit to our scientists. How is that going to make our scientists more effective? How do you see the impact there, where the rubber hits the road?

[Kami Ramcharan]

These are the facilities in which our science works, and we haven't had significant investments in our buildings in NRCan for a very long period of time.

What we have is a bit of rust-out that's happening in our organizations. This kind of upgrade, these ventilation systems, heating replacements, and HVAC systems, will help them conduct their science in a more efficient and effective way. It will help to reduce some of the pain they feel sometimes when systems go down.

This will also help the potential for increasing our technology infrastructure as well, working with our colleagues in Shared Services Canada to replace some aging infrastructure there. We're really supportive and excited to have this opportunity to do that because we know it's going to help the longevity of our buildings going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Crockatt.

Mr. Trost, you have up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I had anticipated my colleagues would ask questions about a variety of other issues, I figured I might as well ask a few questions about the targeted geoscience initiative.

In your speaking notes, you laid out quite a few things that the targeted geoscience initiative does, such as innovative techniques to better detect deeply buried mineral deposits and to better understand the processes by which metals accumulate. You repeated again about greater depth and distance from known deposits. You talked about the publications that had been done, and I think about the grad studies that have been supported.

This is just a basic question. An extra $1.3 million in operating funds is not going to cover all of that. You'd spend way more than $1.3 million with just the things I listed. With the $1.3 million, what was particularly needing extra funding?

[Kami Ramcharan]

Overall, we have $22 million over five years for the targeted geoscience initiative. What you see in our supplementary estimates (A) is really our current year funding. We're going to use those resources to help further support our research and initiatives associated with the targeted geoscience initiative. We're going to be looking for new areas of prospectivity. For example, a new gold deposit has identified a key geological element for formation of gold deposits and created better exploration. That's an example of the things we're doing.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Would this $1.3 million then be targeted more for more expensive mapping programs rather than for laboratory work, say, or for development of new technologies like a new magnetic system or a new gravity machine or something like that?

[Kami Ramcharan]

Maybe what I can do is ask my colleague Monsieur Daniel Lebel, who is here and is familiar with the targeted geoscience initiative, to speak more in depth with regard to your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Lebel, go ahead, please, when you're ready.

[Daniel Lebel, Director General, Atlantic and Western Canada Branch, Geological Survey of Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

Good afternoon. I'm Daniel Lebel. I'm director general for the Geological Survey of Canada and one of the leads for the geoscience programs we have.

The principles behind the targeted geoscience initiatives are that these are time-limited and cyclical. We have programs that, for the last few cycles, generally last about five years. In this case, because the government always has the chance to decide whether or not to renew, these programs are arranged so that the funding is ramping up and ramping down. In every cycle, we have a full suite of projects that start and finish. It's not an ongoing program where these activities never end. We actually start with a very solid program.

In anticipation of the start of this program, we've been in the planning for about a year and interacting with industry. This first year will really be about planning solid activities. There are some staff who are supported by these activities and are coming on board, but not very many, because the program is highly dependent on the expertise that resides in-house in the Geological Survey of Canada, and then we leverage expertise that resides in universities.

Really, the first year is about starting this and having the best suite of activities. Moving forward, the funding will really ramp up—

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

This would be a lot of planning: laying the groundwork, engaging grad students and professors, getting out project proposals, and things of that nature. This isn't to a point where you're already out there doing an EM or mag surveys or anything like that.

[Daniel Lebel]

Exactly, yes. We have two types of geoscience programming. We talked earlier, in the main estimates, about the geomapping program. This one is really geared towards research and innovation rather than doing surveys to do inventory-like—

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

So this would be interested in advancing new equipment for geophysics, improved downhole or borehole geophysics, and projects of that nature.

[Daniel Lebel]

Yes, exactly. For example, borehole geophysics have been used to help develop ways to find new reserves of base metals through technology such as seismic technology and boreholes that had not been tested in the past.