Natural Resources Committee on April 11th, 2016

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you once again for attending. I just have one quick question.

When I look at the supplementary estimates—and we never got to the question while the minister was here—with investments in clean technology, and specifically around the energy sector, has there been any talk of investments toward small-scale nuclear or modular nuclear, and, if that was to roll out, how we would see that in the supplementary estimates?

[Bob Hamilton]

I certainly have been involved in discussions with companies and others that have been advancing the potential for small-scale nuclear. One of the places where it comes up is in getting power to remote communities. There's nothing per se in the budget for that, other than a reference to trying to increase our efforts to get cheap, reliable, clean power to remote communities. Under the broad heading of that, it's possible that small-scale nuclear would be one of the technologies that's exploited on that front. Certainly some people think this has potential for that. At this stage, it isn't proven. Whether it's something that we should be spending some time on, that'll be part of the consultation that we undertake going forward, as well as some of our own internal work, to figure out: is this a technology that's going to be productive, and over what time frame? Obviously, the issue of getting northern, remote communities off diesel is one of the policy issues that we will need to look at going forward, so that's a potential option.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

That answers my question. That's what the context was around: remote communities, and specifically under two different sizes, so smaller than, say, 500 megawatts, and then also small, small scale, so 5, 10, 15, 20-megawatt units, and both through fission and through small-scale fusion. I guess what I'm asking at this point is: has any work been done in the past on this, cross-collaboration between government and the private sector?

[Bob Hamilton]

I think up till now, at least as far as I'm aware, it's been mostly receiving information from private sector companies that have come to say there is this potential. I think going forward probably they'll be a little more of an interactive dialogue on this. I should just say it is one of many options that we can consider and one of many issues, frankly, to consider in something like a Canadian energy strategy, which talks about how we get energy where it needs to go in this country and in what format, and how we can use new innovations and technologies. I think a debate has started, but it hasn't probably matured as far as what you're describing. I would hope that it would over the near term.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

We're a little ahead of schedule, so I think unless somebody else has another suggestion, I will thank the two of you again for coming out today and joining us, and express our appreciation for your taking the time to be here.

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I just had one quick question and I won't take too much time.

I wanted to ask about the mineral tax credit. At many gatherings across the country, and especially in my neck of the woods, companies have talked about this tax credit and the desire to see it continue and increase. I'd like to ask about the future of this tax credit program.

[Bob Hamilton]

Certainly. This tax credit has proven to be quite attractive for the mining sector, and in budget 2016 it was decided to extend it. It's a temporary credit, so it needs to be extended every year if it's going to continue, and this year it was decided that it would be extended. Certainly people in the industry will say that's very important, particularly at a time when we see low commodity prices across the board, but in the mining sector in particular. This credit is really pointed to something that works in combination with flow-through shares in the sector to really deliver tax benefits to mining companies.

It has been extended for another year, and certainly people in the industry have been quite vocal in coming forward to say it's very important, particularly at this time when we see commodity prices declining.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Just as a follow-up, then, I'm assuming that we're going to see this program stay in place for some time, for the long term?

My next question would be, are we going to see this program increased at any point? Is there consideration on that front?

[Bob Hamilton]

As I said earlier, that's probably a good question for the government. It's not such a good one for me. I don't know at this stage. The government has decided to extend it for a year, and sometime between now and March 31 of next year, there will have to be another decision as to whether to extend it further, whether to extend it for a longer period of time, whether to increase or decrease the rate. Those are decisions that will be taken, and I can't really say at this stage how those decisions will turn out.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Tan.

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

My question is similar to what Mr. Harvey asked. There used to be a concept of using a small modular reactor for oil fields, to provide a supply of power for the extraction process, or even provide steam for the oil sands. I wonder if that idea is still alive. It has been the practice for several years.

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes, I've heard something about that idea. It could be the people in the department are more familiar with it. I haven't heard much about it recently, but certainly finding a way to get cleaner power into extraction of natural resources is worth pursuing. There was money put in the budget, $50 million, to try to find technologies that can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector, and so I think, as came up earlier in the discussion, part of what we do as we move to a cleaner society is look for new technologies, but also look for ways to extract resources in a cleaner way. Whether it's small modular nuclear or some other technologies, I think those are part of what's on the radar screen as we go forward trying to look for technological advancements that allow us to produce whatever energy we're producing in a cleaner way.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

We're going to end this part of the meeting. Thank you both for joining us today.

We'll suspend for 30 seconds. Nobody else leave their seats, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Would everyone take their seats, please?

We have to now vote on the estimates. There are five aspects to it, as I mentioned at the beginning, and what we're doing is voting on the estimates less the interim estimates that have already been passed by the House.

I propose to go through them individually, and I think we can get through this quickly. I went through them at the beginning, and the first one is dealing with the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED

Vote 1—Operating and capital expenditures..........$968,615,589

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

For the benefit of the rest of the people on the committee, does anybody need clarification what that means? “On division” means that the vote carries. It's not unanimous, but we're dispensing with the necessity of identifying who was voting in favour and who was voting against.

CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$38,686,934

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$80,581,081

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

NATURAL RESOURCES

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$450,234,684

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$53,318,447

Vote 10—Grants and contributions..........$292,249,050

(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to on division)

NORTHERN PIPELINE AGENCY

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$701,095

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Shall I report the votes on the main estimates, less the amount voted in interim supply, to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Perfect. That takes care of the business on the agenda.

There are a couple of other things that we need to deal with. We're coming back here on Wednesday and we are going to have two groups of witnesses—three with the first group and one with the second group—but they're going to come at the same time in the first hour. They're going to make consecutive presentations, and then we can ask questions so we will have some time at the end of that. I propose that we use the balance of that meeting as a committee as a whole to set our agenda going forward from now until the end of June.

In that vein, I would like people to take a look at the witness list again and turn your minds to it when you're ready to talk in terms of timing, who, when, and whatnot so that we can get that tightened up and get that finished.

The second thing is that there is a delegation of Indonesian parliamentarians in Ottawa. They've expressed an interest in meeting with the members of this committee and the members of the environment committee. There is an informal meeting over coffee on Thursday morning between 9:30 and 10:30. We'll circulate a note.

Last, Mr. Cannings, just to clarify, you proposed that Deputy Minister Hamilton may come back. Is that what you're proposing?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Well, I was asking if he or his staff could provide the figures that I was asking for. I don't know if it's necessary that he physically be here, but I was just more interested in the numbers.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

All right, that's fine. I just wanted to clarify that you weren't making a formal request that he return, because if you do that then we have to deal with that procedurally and collectively, and I don't know that we'd get that done.

Unless there's any other business, I think we are adjourned for the day. I will see everybody on Wednesday.