Natural Resources Committee on April 30th, 2019

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Okay.

As you know, on February 22, 2019, the National Energy Board recommended again the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion in the national interest of Canada. The supplementary estimates (B) for 2018-19 show $6 million allocated for the NEB's 22-week reconsideration. Of course, an option for the government at that time, which Conservatives suggested, was emergency retroactive legislation to affirm that the Transport Canada assessment of tanker traffic as a result of the Trans Mountain expansion was sufficient, and the government could have done that, which did feed into the original recommendation by the NEB of approval of the Trans Mountain expansion. Of course, in the 22-week-long redundant duplicative reconsideration of the NEB, they had to appoint two experts from Transport Canada to do that part since Transport Canada is the jurisdiction responsible for that area. Of course, exactly the same information was reviewed; exactly the same mitigation measures were reviewed, and exactly the same recommendation for approval was made from the NEB reconsideration.

Can you tell me if there ever was a cost-benefit analysis done internally to determine the best option for Canadians between emergency retroactive legislation to affirm Transport Canada's original analysis and this 22-week-long NEB reconsideration?

[Christyne Tremblay]

Mr. Chair, the government made a decision to follow the advice of the Federal Court of Appeal and to ask the NEB to do the review of the marine and to redo the phase three consultations.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you. We're out of time.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Okay, if you find out if there was a cost assessment, that would be great, too.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Tan, you're last up.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you. It's five minutes, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Yes.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have only one question, so if there is time left, I am willing to share with my colleagues.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm right over here.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

In the main estimates there is funding to AECL to be used as support to nuclear R and D and waste management in Canada.

Having worked in nuclear myself for almost 10 years, I have deep respect for Canada's nuclear talents and our nuclear legacy. Our CANDU R and D has been at the leading edge, for sure, of the peaceful application of nuclear technology in the world. We have nuclear reactors generating electricity to meet the needs of Canadians in Ontario, in New Brunswick and formerly in Quebec.

Right now, the reactor in Quebec has been closed, and the Pickering station will be decommissioned quickly. The chance that they'll have a new build with the CANDU design in the foreseeable future is very low, if I am correct. There is a strong probability that our Canadian nuclear capacity in the future will be significantly impacted.

I use one example. The United Kingdom's experience shows how, in a very similar situation, it lost its ability to design and supply reactors and is now dependent only on importing the design and the equipment.

I wonder what your vision is for the future of nuclear research and the nuclear industry in Canada. Do you see it moving in a positive direction or not?

Thank you.

[Christyne Tremblay]

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the member is raising a question on this sector.

For sure, now the nuclear sector is part of the energy mix of this country. He raised that we have expertise. We have a lot of energy coming from that source. The government is investing this year in AECL. Just in this budget it's $1.2 billion.

As a country and as a department, we have a full unit working on that sector in particular. We did a lot of work in the last year on new technology, for example, SMRs that can be used for remote communities, where Canada can have a leading edge, a competitive advantage.

Perhaps I can pass to my colleague, Mr. Khosla, who is in charge of this sector, who can give you some of the progress we've made and maybe address your question about decommissioning and waste management.

[Jay Khosla]

Yes, there are a lot of questions embedded within that primary question of whether there is a future for nuclear.

I could spend a bit of time, but we're very cognizant, as the deputy said, of the fact that Canada is a tier one nuclear nation, and that is really important for the country of Canada.

We're also mindful of the CANDU technology that we have developed here, homegrown, just as we are with every other form of energy that we've developed here. We have been working very hard around the world internationally with the vendors to try to find whether there is uptake in various other countries.

We know that China is growing massively in this area, as is India. We continue to do that. We partner with some other countries, for example, to try to find other markets in Argentina and so on and so forth.

That is a quick answer on CANDU.

The $1.2 billion in the labs is exactly right. That is a huge investment for this government to make sure that the R and D is protected, that the IP is protected and that we're moving forward. I can say lots more on that. I won't at this moment, recognizing the time.

I would say that in terms of SMRs, if you want to talk about the future, really we're seeing a lot of activity in this space right now, and it is in some ways not surprising but in many ways refreshing to see that the world is coming to Canada for a potential play on SMRs, small modular reactors.

That primarily could help the north, we think. We're looking at that. We did a road map, a year-long exercise. We consulted Canadians, and in that road map we found that Canada is one of the best places to do it. We have one project before the regulator, the CNSC, that is going through right now. We have nine proposals.

New York came calling the other day. We went to New York to talk to Bloomberg because they're interested in investing, so I would encourage this committee to continue to look at that element.

The last thing I would say—and there is lots more, as I said—is let's not forget that we have uranium supplies here, too. When it comes to a one-stop shop for nuclear, we have some good things to say, but waste and cost are big issues and we have to get our heads around them in this country, and so does the world. We're working hard toward that end as well.

I hope that's a helpful answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's a good thing you didn't have two questions. That's all your time.

He is out of time. I don't like to be difficult, but I think we need to move on. I think that's all the time we have for witnesses.

We do have some voting to do on the estimates, which will take anywhere from two to 10 minutes depending on the level and spirit of co-operation around the table. I wasn't looking in any particular direction when I said that, Mr. Schmale, just so we're clear.

Thank you very much for taking the time to be here today and answering all our questions. Nobody stumped you on areas of expertise.

We'll suspend briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We are back on the record.

For the record, Mr. Schmale was sitting in his seat first, to my left. To my right, nobody left their seat.

We now have to vote on the estimates. We have two choices. We can vote on them collectively if we get unanimous consent, or we can vote on them individually if we don't.

Now I am looking to my left, Mr. Schmale.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's on division for everything.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Okay. I anticipated that.

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED

Vote 1—Payments to the corporation for operating and capital expenditures..........$1,197,282,026

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$39,136,248

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$563,825,825

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$13,996,000

Vote 10—Grants and contributions..........$471,008,564

Vote 15—Encouraging Canadians to Use Zero Emission Vehicles..........$10,034,967

Vote 20—Engaging Indigenous Communities in Major Resource Projects..........$12,801,946

Vote 25—Ensuring Better Disaster Management Preparation and Response..........$11,090,650

Vote 30—Improving Canadian Energy Information..........$1,674,737

Vote 35—Protecting Canada's Critical Infrastructure from Cyber Threats..........$808,900

Vote 40—Strong Arctic and Northern Communities..........$6,225,524

(Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 agreed to on division)

NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$82,536,499

Vote 5—Canadian Energy Regulator Transition Costs..........$3,670,000

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

NORTHERN PIPELINE AGENCY

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$1,055,000

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Shall I report vote 1 under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, vote 1 under Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 under Natural Resources, votes 1 and 5 under National Energy Board and vote 1 under Northern Pipeline Agency to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

That is all of our business for today.

Thursday we have the delegation of German parliamentarians coming in. We have no formal meeting, but we're meeting with them in conjunction with the trade committee. I understand that most of you have already agreed to attend. Let's hope everybody can make it. We don't have the room assignment yet.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Jubilee Jackson]

It's room 025B, next door.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Room 025B, next door, at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday.

Mr. Whalen has a question.

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

Ms. Stubbs raised an issue about scheduling the June 20 meeting to receive....

We might be able to deal with that right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I was going to suggest we deal with it on Tuesday, actually. Tuesday is the last scheduled day for this current study. I think it's only for an hour. We could deal with it then.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, I like Tuesday better.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Tuesday is better. That gets us out of here.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It gives them more time to know what's happening.