Natural Resources Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us here today. I, for one, encourage you to continue the approach you have been taking. Standing on a soapbox and screaming bloody murder or pounding fists on tables may make for good talking points and good politics, but it isn't necessarily outcome focused. What we really need to do is keep our eye on the prize and focus on getting the job done. I encourage you to keep doing what you're doing.

My questions today, Minister, will probably not be of any surprise to you. I get to represent a riding that is heavily invested in the nuclear industry. Cambridge has companies like BWXT and ATS, and I was very pleased to see our friend and colleague Wayne Long announce over $50 million in funding from the Government of Canada to develop spent fuel recycling technology and a molten salt reactor in Saint John, New Brunswick.

Can you inform this committee about how the recycling of spent fuel is key to the nuclear energy sector and the potential around small modular reactors?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I will do that, Mr. May, but first let me contest you on one point you made, that standing on a soapbox and thumping your chest makes for good politics. It doesn't even make for good politics. You don't achieve anything. If it did achieve something, then 10 years of it under the Harper government would have gotten a pipeline to tidewater. It didn't.

We are managing right now to build one with TMX. We built Line 3 on our side, and NGTL, which will allow TransAlta to close its coal properties and operate on natural gas. These are huge and seminal projects that we are getting built.

On nuclear and SMRs, there's great potential. Our investment is $50 million to Moltex. We announced that last week. That demonstrates what we think of that promise, supporting SMR research and technology development in New Brunswick and supporting workers and technology that can produce non-emitting energy and reduce the storage of waste. It's a stable salt reactor. It produces emissions-free energy through a process of recycling existing used nuclear fuel to produce energy. It is a system that is the first of its kind and shows Canada's leadership, I think, as a tier one nuclear nation.

A point I've been making is that when you're tier one and the world is looking to you in terms of regulations as world-leading, you don't want to surrender that advantage. We have a plan to advance a safe and responsible development of the deployment of SMRs, and that's only through partnership with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, labour and industry. A number of provinces, obviously, not just New Brunswick but also Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have already professed their support. Again, it's all about lowering emissions. If SMRs can help us do that, we are going to look long and hard at them.

We know there are strong feelings on nuclear energy, especially the question of waste. The health and safety of Canadians and the environment when it comes to nuclear are of critical importance. My department launched an engagement process to modernize Canada's radioactive waste policy. We've been engaging, and I personally have, with a lot of Canadians who have very strong opinions on this. These include indigenous peoples, waste producers and others. The determination going through those consultations is to get it right.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Very quickly, in the one minute I have left, what's next, specifically for SMRs? What do you think will need to be the next step in getting to that ultimate goal?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We're investing in models that have strong potential to work and that tick off a lot of boxes for us—namely, that they are safe. The Moltex model that we're investigating is particularly intriguing because of its way of dealing with the waste issue. Canada has such a huge advantage in the nuclear field globally. We are looked upon as being experts, not just in the technology but in a regulatory capacity. You do not squander an advantage like that. We want to get SMRs up so we can have a working model. That will probably occur at what we call a brownfield site, probably associated with a nuclear reactor, where we can test them out and see how it goes.

A number of these things have potential. We always have an eye to making sure we are not wasting Canadian taxpayers' dollars. There is real and significant potential here that would be instrumental, we believe, between 2030 and 2050. We're not going to see SMRs up and operating in a tangible way that will allow us to meet our 2030 targets, but they could be absolutely essential between 2030 and 2050. Now is the time to make sure we keep the Canadian advantage.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. May.

Mr. Simard, you have two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. O'Regan, in response to a question earlier, you said that you had met with people in the forest industry and wanted to be a champion for the forest industry. I like that wording, but that's going to have to be translated into action.

I see that the budget provides $39.3 million for the investments in forest industry transformation program. This is nonsense, given that we know that the shift to the bioeconomy requires technologies that are very expensive. I have the impression that you are not sending a serious signal to the people in the forest industry.

In fact, I want to point something out to you, Mr. O'Regan. You should know that the majority of forest industry stakeholders do not have access to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions programs. If they want to have access, they have to apply to Global Affairs Canada, given the dispute we have with the United States. Yet, it is very rare that they are eligible, so much so that no one applies anymore.

So the only sources of funding that the forest industry players have is what's in front of us today. To me, that's grossly inadequate, when I compare that to the amount of money that you're willing to invest in the emissions reduction fund.

I know you said oil was a predominant component, but isn't there work to be done to adjust the resources that are given to the oil sector compared to the resources that are given to the forestry sector?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

It's important, I would say, not to take for granted our commitment to two billion trees. I have said time and again that there's no path to net zero that doesn't involve our forests. I don't need to tell you, but it's worth reminding ourselves that we have forest ecosystems that support the well-being of Canadians and also absorb carbon pollution. They lower emissions.

We're finalizing a solution for planting those trees. We're working with ECCC and we're working with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on an initiative of huge scale. It is very ambitious, what we're doing in forests. It requires strong partnerships right across Canada to succeed.

We have worked and will continue to work with provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples, industry and non-governmental stakeholders to make sure we realize this commitment. We are committed to using nature-based solutions to fight climate change, including two billion trees over the next 10 years to clean our air, clean our water and make our communities greener. There's also forest innovation, expanding market opportunities and indigenous investments. We are putting a lot of money into this because it's very clear—to your point—that it will work.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Mr. Cannings, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

Going back to the energy retrofits in buildings, I'll pick up from where Mr. Weiler was some time ago in talking about the need for training for people to do all this work.

In my riding, in my hometown of Penticton, we have Okanagan College, which has a sustainable building program that I think is considered the best in the country. I'm wondering if you can expand on what your government is planning to do to support those programs so that we have the technicians and the builders who know the best ways of doing these retrofits to achieve the best efficiency, and so that we are doing this as efficiently as possible.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Cannings, I would say, “Watch this space.” We are hoping to announce something very soon on training. You're absolutely right. It's essential. We do not yet have the auditors in this country that we'll need for the ambitious targets we are setting for ourselves, so we need, in very short order, to increase the number of auditors that are available in this country.

One thing I will say about our new program—which, as I said, will be unveiled shortly—is that it's one of the few government programs I've seen that really enables people with phones. You can take a picture of your receipt. You can FaceTime with your auditor. You can walk around your house and allow them to inspect by FaceTime. Now, at some point, an actual physical audit will take place, but this will allow us to save a lot of time. In the meantime, you're still creating jobs in local communities. You need people in the communities who can first-hand assess these things, but there are a couple of steps along the way in which we can use technology. We can use people's phones.

The proof will be in the pudding, as you know, but we hope to have answers to that question very soon. We are keenly aware that we need to have the people who are able to conduct the audits and assessments.

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

Thank you.

I have another quick question, on Line 5. We've talked about how important it is for the jobs and industries in Ontario. The flip side of that is what Michigan is concerned about. It's concern for the environment. I'm wondering how you are pressing Michigan and the United States not only to keep Line 5 going but also to preserve the environment of the Great Lakes.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Very quickly, I would just say we are working on all fronts.

We are working with the embassy in the United States. We are working with Joe Comartin, the consul general out of Detroit. We are working hand in glove with affected provinces and territories. I continually brief my caucus members in affected areas, and I'm in constant touch with Ms. Gladu, the MP, with Mayor Bradley and, very importantly, with labour unions, who have brothers and sisters on the other side of the border who are also deeply concerned about this. On every front, we are battling for Line 5. Line 5 is non-negotiable.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Minister.

Thanks, Mr. Cannings.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead for five minutes, and then we will wrap up with Mr. Sidhu for five minutes.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thanks for being here today, Minister.

I want to start by making sure we all understand something you said recently about our relationship with the U.S. I'm just quoting you from your last appearance before the Canada-U.S. committee: “There is more alignment...now than there ever has been before, not only in terms of the goals of the Government of Canada but also in terms of the goals of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan too.”

I'm just curious. Do you really believe what you just said there? If so, I'm just wondering why. The American administration on day one came out swinging and attacking the main industry of two of our provinces, not to mention the court challenge by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan on the constitutionality of your government's carbon tax.

Forgive me if I don't believe you. Are you sure you really, truly believe that?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Yes. I absolutely do, and I'll tell you why. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan believe in the reality of climate change. They understand that it is the way in which investors are moving, and that if we don't get ahead of it, we will lose out.

They also have a clear understanding of the fact that whether we like it or not, Canada's number one export, which is crude oil, goes to one customer, and that's the Americans, and they have a new administration and a new way of doing things.

I'm a big believer in the marketplace, and in most instances the customer is right. If the customer isn't right, then you have to make sure, regardless, that you please the customer. Our oil is utterly dependent on an American market.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You're willing to capitulate to the will of the U.S. President, then. Is that what you're saying?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I don't call it capitulation. I call it making sure we have a thriving oil and gas industry in this country that continues to lower emissions. It needs a customer; that's the reality.

I'm in the business of dealing with reality, like the reality of climate change and the reality of a marketplace that is able, with the right incentives, to manage it and to meet the marks it needs to meet.

I can tell you that the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan have come an awfully long way in making sure we meet those market realities, because the market has changed, and it is changing in an accelerated fashion. If we want to continue to draw investment into our energy sector in this country, we have to deal with that.

We do not bury our heads in the sand and yet physically find a way to still beat our chests. That is not how you draw investment into this country. It is dealing with reality, and climate change is a reality.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Minister, do you know how many barrels of oil Enbridge Line 5 carries per day?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Sir, I'll be honest. I want to have a meaningful conversation with somebody who believes in the reality of what is going on on this planet.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

If you answer my question, we'll find out where we are with this conversation.

Do you know how many barrels of oil Enbridge Line 5 carries every day? Yes or no?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Do you believe in climate change? None of these questions or answers means a whit if we do not all agree that climate change is a reality.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm asking you a question. You're here to answer our questions.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I think you've answered mine.

Let me tell you, sir—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

How many barrels a day does Enbridge Line 5 carry? You clearly don't know.

How many barrels a day?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

No, I'm not going for these “gotcha” questions at all.