Natural Resources Committee on May 18th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time there. Thank you.

Mr. Angus, it's over to you for your last two and a half minutes, and then we'll let the minister go.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

The Canada Energy Regulator was predicting an increase in oil production of 1.2 million barrel a day. We'd probably get about 800,000 barrels from TMX and then Bay du Nord is 300,000 barrels. That would bring us close to what the CER is predicting, but the CER made that prediction before the Ukraine war, and you stated that the Bay du Nord production is helping alleviate the pressures because of the Putin situation in Ukraine.

Are we expecting that we're going to have more production above the 1.2 million barrels a day that was predicted by CER?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

No, I wouldn't say that. First of all, a lot of the oil that will flow through the Trans Mountain pipeline is not incremental. It is taking oil that was going by rail and putting it into a pipeline. Second, if you look at the average emissions threshold for various projects, Bay du Nord is close to zero. It's 0.2 megatonnes in total. If you look at the profile, it's far below it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, but you're still burning it. Let's talk about oil burning.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

There are production emissions and consumption emissions. That's right. They're still below the numbers the CER gave.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

They predicted 1.2 million, and then when they were asked to sort of do a redraw analysis based on your government's plan for a greener future, they predicted that the level of oil production in Canada in 2050 will be the same level as in 2019.

Would you say that's on track or did they read your plans wrong?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

No, I wouldn't say that. As you know, subsequent to that analysis we actually asked the CER to go back and do a 1.5°C scenario in the same way the IEA has done a 1.5°C degree scenario. If you look at the 1.5°C degree scenario that the International Energy Agency has put out, you would expect that about a quarter of world demand would continue to exist in 2050 versus what exists today. It doesn't tell you where it comes from.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I know, but the IEA says no new fossil fuel production in order to meet 1.5°C. Is that something you'd agree with based on IEA?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

What drives the IEA's model, as you would know, is demand and what they expect will be demand for combustion, which actually goes away by 2050.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

No, they weren't talking about demand. They were talking about the climate crisis in order to meet 1.5°C. They weren't talking about demand. They were saying we can't have any new fossil fuel projects. Are you agreeing with the IEA then on that position?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

They are saying that you have to be in a position by 2050 of not combusting fossil fuels, and that the fossil fuels you continue to use for non-combustion applications have to have virtually zero production emissions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

With that, we're out of time.

Minister, thank you so much. I know you need to drop off now for your next commitment, but it's always a pleasure to see you. We are anticipating having you back here in two weeks. On June 1, we will be seeing you again hopefully, subject to confirmation. Thank you so much for making the time today.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

For the officials, we're hoping to be able to keep you for 15 minutes, for a five-minute question, a five-minute question, and then two two-and-a-half-minute questions.

Mr. Hannaford, I know you have eight of your team with you. Instead of taking up time to introduce everybody, I think we have a list of who is here. If you want to direct the questions to any of your team, please feel free to do that.

Thank you to all of the officials for waiting with us today as we got through votes and a late start and a bit of a late end. We appreciate it.

Right now we're going to go to our first five minutes. Mr. Maguire is going to take that.

With that, Mr. Maguire, the clock is yours.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you.

Thanks to all of the members from the department who are staying.

Mr. Hannaford, I want to thank the officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for meeting with me yesterday. They were courteous and very knowledgeable, but I was troubled to find out that the letter I sent to you, which included the U.S. director of national intelligence's preliminary assessment on UAP, including the legislation and a list of the UAP sightings near Canadian nuclear facilities, was not shared with the director general who is in charge of the security of safeguards.

Why didn't you share that information with your officials?

[John Hannaford, Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I should say at the outset that obviously nuclear safety is one of the critical aspects of the work of CNSC and of my department and is something that we do take very seriously. Following on your question at our last appearance, we did receive your letter, and I do apologize. We're still tracking down precisely what happened, but the information was not provided to CNSC, as you say.

I've now had several conversations, though, with my colleagues within the department and with the president of CNSC. I can assure you that this is something that both organizations are fully apprised of. As you note in your letter, this is a matter of importance.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I know that security was involved. That's why I was asking them the questions and why we gave you the information over a month ago.

Are you aware that your department has no standardized reporting process for licensees to report either UAP or drones near their facilities, nor is there any formal investigative guidelines to determine the origin and intent? Are you aware of that?

[John Hannaford]

My understanding is that we obviously keep under surveillance the facilities that are licensed under CNSC. CNSC also maintains fairly strict protocols with respect to any overflights or any potential risks to the security of the facilities.

In the spring of 2021, CNSC was advised of a request to fly a drone over a nuclear facility. That request was denied, and the requester complied. There are examples of the application of the protocol that it continues to be a matter of vigilance for the CNSC.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

But there's no standardized process.

I called for a whole-of-government approach to standardize the collection of reports to analyze data and suggested that it be led by the government's chief science adviser. If she accepts that request, will you commit that your department will fully co-operate with any information?

[John Hannaford]

We're always prepared to work with the chief science adviser and with colleagues across government.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Are you aware that your officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission know about UAP sightings near nuclear facilities?

[John Hannaford]

I am not advised of any sightings of UAP around facilities. What I have been advised is that we have response protocols that include high-security site licences that have continency plans to mitigate intrusions but may require the assistance of off-site response forces to interject drone intrusions.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

You're not aware of the ones that they know about.

At the last meeting, you said you would take my request under advisement for your department to reach out to the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission to start this important conversation in how they are drafting a standardized reporting system to report and collect data on UAP near their facilities. Now that Congress is taking this seriously, will you commit today to direct your officials to start that conversation with the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

[John Hannaford]

My understanding is that it would be a matter for the CNSC. I did speak to the CNSC president this morning and understand that they are planning to have further conversations with their American counterparts. They are at arm’s-length, but that is my understanding as to what their intentions are.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Lastly, to reduce the stigma and to take this issue seriously, will you commit to issue a directive to your officials to proactively reach out to all nuclear licensees to ask their employees and security officials to ensure that all drone and UAP incidents are properly reported?