Natural Resources Committee on April 30th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay, no problem.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a question for you, Ms. Tremblay.

Vote 35 is to “support a new critical cyber systems framework to protect Canada's critical infrastructure against cyber threats, including in the finance, telecommunications, energy and transport sectors”. Could you tell us a little more about what you are doing? What is Natural Resources Canada's cyber security plan?

I will let you choose who will answer.

[Christyne Tremblay]

Your question is about cyber security, correct?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes. A little more than $800,000 is identified for that and I would like to know what the plans are.

[Christyne Tremblay]

You ask an excellent question.

Cyber security is more and more of a concern. Being responsible for a country's energy infrastructure means that it is very important to be on the cutting-edge of cyber security. This is a major concern in our relations, not only with the United States, because a huge amount of infrastructure crosses our border, but also with our partner in Mexico.

We are working with our partners in the private sector, meaning the major public utilities, electricity associations, and oil and gas companies, because pipelines are now the target of attacks. We were recently in discussion with mining sector representatives, who told us that their strategic data had been attacked. Such attacks may well become more common as our economy becomes more and more digitally based.

Canada has minerals, rare ores and metals like lithium that generate a lot of interest. So this is a natural resources sector that we have to protect.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I do not have a lot of time left.

Can I ask you which form this is taking? Are we talking about developers or our own cyber security experts? Are we subsidizing companies that want to work on cyber security?

[Christyne Tremblay]

I will start before I give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Khosla.

These are principally investments in critical infrastructures in order to strengthen their resilience. We are also working with our partners, industry and associations, to ensure that we can respond to this concern. Finally, specific amounts are set aside for our work with our American partner.

[Jay Khosla]

I would just like to add that the government wishes to introduce a bill to oversee, and tighten its collaboration with, the industry.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Is there time left for Mr. Whalen?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You have 30 seconds left until the three-minute mark.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'll take it back later.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

All right.

Mr. Whalen, are you going to use the rest of the time?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On the notion of spending $130 million on charging stations over five years, I was at a local hockey rink on the weekend in Paradise, in part of my riding of St. John's East in Newfoundland. It's a neighbouring community. They had a couple of charging stations out front that are fairly new, but they're already deteriorating from weather and salt in the parking lots.

When I was knocking on doors on the weekend, I met a constituent who was concerned. He wanted to buy an electric vehicle, but they live in a multi-unit dwelling and his parking spot is in a parking lot next to the building. He's concerned that even if he spends the money to have his own charging station installed next to his spot, the plow would knock it or it would get damaged.

What type of money within this envelope is there for operation, maintenance and repair of these assets? Who owns the assets? Is there going to be any sort of comparative analysis done across multiple vendors of these? Are you going to sole-source to a single vendor, or are you going to take this opportunity to do a consumer advocacy piece where you could test and measure hundreds of different suppliers against each other to see whose units last longer and whose are more resilient? What type of work is this and how does this relate to other departments in terms of national building code development around the residential installation of these units?

[Christyne Tremblay]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is an excellent question.

An amount of $76 million over six years has been devoted to demonstration projects of the next-generation recharging stations, to make sure that they are resilient and stand up to our Canadian climate.

Mr. Des Rosiers can tell you more about some of those projects.

[Frank Des Rosiers]

I mentioned some of the technologies that have been developed.

You're referring to some of the multi-residential units. This was actually one of the market-based focus areas that we heard about. There was not actually a solution that was robust enough to meet our needs.

You mentioned the issues around weather, but there are also challenges around high voltage. As you know, the tendency among users and manufacturers is to go with fast-charging units, which can have an impact in terms of not only the battery system but also the electrical systems, affecting both homes and commercial entities or larger operators. This was also a clear area of focus.

In terms of the details of the implementation of the program, which is the second element of your question, I don't know if the deputy or Jay may wish to elaborate on that.

[Jay Khosla]

Yes, I'm happy to. That is a great question.

As you know, we have already had previous experience with this. In 2016-17, we received about $180 million to administer the first stage. We're into the second stage now. Through that, we've actually deployed 532 fast chargers around the country. We have about 1,000 that need to go to that, and then the second stage, as the deputy mentioned, is more residential, municipal and local.

As a result of that, we know what's out there in terms of technology. We know the kinds of firms that are out there. It's a competitive process that we enter into to do all of this. We will continue to do that, but we've gained a very good understanding of what some of the best firms are within the industry and continue to pursue that.

I would say that's pretty good for the Government of Canada to roll out with that many charging stations so quickly. I'm sorry to toot our own horn, but I'm really proud of the fact that we're moving so quickly in this space.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Who maintains these systems now that they're deployed? How much of this money is directed to O and M? Are consumers going to be given this information? You've done all this research. It would be great if it were made available to the purchasing public.

[Jay Khosla]

Very rapidly, it is a private sector exercise. We do go to the best firms that we possibly can, but it's a competitive thing. It's not up to the government to maintain. We're working with the private sector on that. I think that makes sense.

Yes, we can make the information available. We do have good websites that are up and running, and people can access some of our information. I'm happy to provide other information to the committee as they need it.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all the officials for being available for us today.

I have a question about the transition as a result of Bill C-69.

The 2019-20 estimates show an allocation of $3.7 million under vote 5 for the purpose of disbanding Canada's world-leading and historically renowned National Energy Board and replacing it with the new Canadian energy regulator. Since the allotment for that transition is already here even before the bill has become law, I'm hoping that, if possible, you can tell us exactly how long it will take to completely establish the proposed Canadian energy regulator and what year that will be complete, given, of course, the certainty that will be required for investors or proponents of major resource projects. What is the timeline of that transition?

[Christyne Tremblay]

Mr. Chair, it's a good question, and, as I already mentioned in front of the Senate committee, I believe the implementation will be very crucial if we want to meet the expectations of the industry, so we are already preparing for the transition. It's difficult to have a specific game plan since the bill is not passed yet and is still under discussion, but I can assure you that the agency, the NEB, and all the departments are preparing for the transition. In our case, we received some money to develop a platform and offered to share the science for the impact assessment. There is an emerging concern above all about the cumulative effects, and we are in charge of developing the platform that's going to address this.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Okay. That's interesting. Canada, of course, for decades has been noted as a world leader in terms of measuring the cumulative effects of responsible ownership. That's good.

[Christyne Tremblay]

Thank you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

If in the coming days or weeks you do end up having any details regarding my specific question, it would be great if you could provide those to all of us.

The 2018 fall fiscal update said the now taxpayer-owned Trans Mountain expansion is on track to earn $200 million annually, but internal documents, as you probably know, indicate that annual interest payments for the $1-billion loans the government took out to pay for it could be costing $255 million per year. That's a $55-million difference. I wonder if you're able to confirm the size of the loans the Government of Canada is liable for related to the Trans Mountain expansion and what the monthly cost to carry those loans is.

[Christyne Tremblay]

Mr. Chair, it's the finance department that is in charge of this.