Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 4th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We will now move to Viviane Lapointe from the Liberal Party of Canada for six minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Christidis, in your opening statement you said that Canada and the U.S. are both competitors and collaborators.

Can you expand on that statement you made as it relates to the Inflation Reduction Act?

[George Christidis]

Thank you for the opportunity.

From the nuclear perspective, obviously we often have different technologies at play, but in some of these spaces—for example in the small modular reactor space—we are actually finding there's an evolution of a new continental approach to some of these technological supply chains so that they are actually finding themselves working closer together, or will be, not only in the Canada-U.S. dimension but also in third markets.

I used the example of OPG's work that involves the Tennessee Valley Authority and that also links Poland. There's the creation of a new market around small modular reactors, and the government has done quite a bit in supporting that effort overall.

At the same time, there is competition—on large reactors for example. We have a CANDU-based technology here in Canada and the U.S. has its own, but because of the climate crisis and energy security concerns, Canada, the U.S. and other like-minded countries are increasingly looking at working together.

I just attended a meeting at the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD in Paris where Minister Wilkinson and his colleagues declared that there's going to be a need for more nuclear. There's going to be a bit of a competition—the French have their technologies, the Americans have their technologies and the Canadians have their technologies—but ultimately you're going to need more clean energy to attain those kinds of goals. Nuclear, large and small, will be part of that.

There is a geopolitical dimension. The geopolitical dimension here in Canada is sometimes misunderstood—not necessarily in this room but in the public—because thankfully the war is very far away. When you go to those spaces, you realize that energy security is fundamentally the driver—along with the climate—in making these decisions happen. Canada, the U.S. and other like-minded countries have to work together.

I want to add a supplementary example of that. We were in Sapporo at the G7 meeting, again with Minister Wilkinson, and G5 countries signed an agreement looking at developing the Canadian nuclear option in terms of technologies and uranium and nuclear fuel to delink from Russia.

Therefore, we as Canadians have a choice to make. Is there a climate crisis, yes or no? Nuclear has a role. Is there an energy security issue at play, yes or no? Nuclear has a role. That's the dimension and there is a competitive notion because there are different technologies at play.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

To get to nuclear energy, we need to acknowledge the critical role of uranium mining in that process. Uranium is included in the list of Canada's critical minerals. Included in our critical mineral strategy is a focus on job creation and investment.

My question to you is the following. On the road to clean nuclear energy, starting from the extraction and processing of raw materials, what is needed for your member organizations to feel secure in investing in production here to keep the process as much as possible here in Canada?

[George Christidis]

Thank you for that question.

Maybe I read my statement a little fast because I was worried about the time.

Certainly, Canada is a leader in uranium mining. Cameco is an example of a great company providing a lot of jobs in northern Saskatchewan. Indigenous communities are part of their efforts in terms of jobs and the procurement processes they have.

In terms of the uranium mining perspective per se, and I would say, as an industry as a whole, it really comes down to certainty around the regulatory regime to some extent and making sure the regulatory regimes in place reflect the need to accelerate the deployment of clean energy, including the sourcing of these critical minerals.

I think it's just a recognition that, as the government and as parliamentarians are looking at these regulatory processes, they have in mind how the need to accelerate the deployment and the development of these resources is really important. I do think the Trudeau-Biden statement reflects that, if you go back to a founding document on that discussion.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Keefer, you're a well-known supporter of nuclear energy. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your advocacy on nuclear power.

In terms of the U.S.'s Inflation Reduction Act, we're hearing that government investment and funding is key. In your opinion, what does the federal government need to do or what legislation would be required to facilitate access to funding for existing or new projects?

How can we attract private investment?

[Dr. Christopher Keefer]

First off, I would say that there is a lot of interest amongst private investors. Both OPG and Bruce Power had green bonds that were put out in the last couple of years for over $500 million. They were more than five times oversubscribed.

One form of our advocacy has been a parliamentary petition, which was working to include nuclear within the federal green bond. This was about a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, at that time nuclear was listed alongside some of the sin stocks. That was the justification for the exclusion. That is out of date, frankly. There have been big advances. The European Union has come together to recognize nuclear within its green taxonomy. Other countries are falling in line as well, such as South Korea and others.

I think there's a real appetite for private investment to get in on this, but I think we need to send the right signals. In terms of a pragmatic thing the government can do right now, it would be updating that green bond framework to align with some of our international partners to include nuclear within the green bond program.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Mario Simard from the Bloc Québécois.

You have six minutes, sir.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Tertzakian, earlier you seemed to be saying that Canada is not attracting capital, and even that capital from Canada is leaving the country when it comes to clean energy. If I understand you correctly, it's the complexity of Canadian legislation that is scaring away clean energy capital. Last week we had other stakeholders tell us something similar about the difficulty of attracting capital to Canada. They told us that certainty was needed to attract capital.

I understand that you are critical of carbon pricing as it currently exists in Canada. However, if we want to attract investments in clean energy, we cannot keep the same model, which focuses solely on fossil fuels. Do you agree with that statement?

[Peter Tertzakian]

Thank you.

There are a couple of things you've said that I want to respond to.

First of all, I don't like to generalize overall that Canada doesn't attract investment because there is investment coming here. It's just that we need a lot more if we hope to get to 2050. We need a lot of foreign investment to come in here because the Canadian public purse is insufficient. We need private capital to come in, and we need our own private capital to have confidence and clarity in our policies to be able to invest.

With respect to the price on carbon, I'm not necessarily critical of the price on carbon more than.... I don't know what the price of carbon is, so I can't assess its volatility. Further to that, we have a series of carbon markets in this country that are not harmonized. It's like a whole bunch of different currencies that can't trade between each other, so this is problematic.

In answer to your last question about fossil fuels, bear in mind that heavy emitters, whether they be power plants or fossil fuel companies, are the ones that buy the credits. In effect, they are the ones that are meant to finance the clean energy economy through the carbon markets. It is not in our interest to damage the markets that are the source of the capital that we need so much.

We need public financing to get things going. We need the carbon markets and the heavy emitters to help finance the transition to the clean energy economy, and we need private capital to come in—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't have much time.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that we need balance. If Canada funds only hydrocarbons, if the majority of its financial support goes to fossil fuels, I don't see how it will manage to develop clean energy, such as wind or solar energy. What do you think?

I would also like to know whether you are aware of the fact that Quebec has its own carbon pricing. There is a carbon market between Quebec and California, and California is probably one of the places in the United States with the largest investments in clean energy.

[Peter Tertzakian]

I wonder why we don't have all provinces participating in a unified, harmonized Canadian market, and we have to go to California. That doesn't make any sense to me as a Canadian.

Again, are we funding Californian net-zero aspirations? I hope not, as a Canadian.

With respect to all the money going to hydrocarbons, I don't know of any government programs that are going to fund hydrocarbons.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand completely. I just want to make sure you're aware that Canadian carbon pricing does not apply directly to the United States. You can criticise this; I am fully aware of it.

I would now like to ask you a quick question, Mr. Christidis and Mr. Keefer. In your presentations, both of you said that we need to look at the regulatory regime and simplify the environmental impact assessment process.

I will not hide the fact that nuclear energy scares a lot of people, both in terms of waste management and the costs associated with those technologies. Is there not a contradiction in wanting to reduce the assessments that must be done to ensure that it is safe?

[George Christidis]

Thank you for the question. I'll try to answer that.

In terms of the proposed concept of having a much more efficient regulatory system, it's really not made on the concept of saving monies. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is one of the world's best regulators, and it's a quasi-judicial body. Let me repeat that. It's a quasi-judicial body that oversees every step of the nuclear industry, where we are probably one of the most highly regulated industries in the world. I would offer us as a model for any other energy sector in terms of the regulatory requirements we have, which is a good thing from a perspective of ensuring the safe operation of our plants.

What we're suggesting is that, as the government is looking at meeting climate goals, there needs to be consideration, as technologies evolve, of reducing duplications. I think my colleague here talked about some existing locations, or brownfields, where the regulations could be reduced in terms of some of the duplications. As technologies also evolve, there are different safety systems introduced, passive safety systems. The regulations need to reflect that reality. That's really what we're talking about here—an efficiency of the regulatory regime as opposed to any other—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that.

Six minutes goes fast. We'll have to come back to you, sir, maybe in the next round.

We'll go to Mr. Angus from the New Democratic Party for six minutes.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thanks, gentlemen, for coming.

What I'm hearing very clearly is clarity, simplicity and certainty. We are dealing with the biggest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution. We could go at it blind, but we're beside the United States, and that big sucking sound you hear is investment going to every part of the United States.

I want to start with you, Mr. Melo.

For your members, in terms of certainty, one of the important things in certainty is making sure that we have political certainty. I'm looking at headlines: from July 2022, “Alberta is...Canada's renewable energy capital”; from December 22, “Alberta is in a solar...gold rush”; and, from July 9, “$160 million in new...solar projects” announced in July in Alberta. Then Danielle Smith put on the moratorium and the next headline says, “$33 billion in investments...at risk”.

We now have learned that in two months there has been a 20% drop in solar projects in Alberta. I think that in any industry a 20% drop in two months would be a very serious kick in the face. How do your members see that?

[Fernando Melo]

The moratorium in Alberta was a disappointing mistake by the Government of Alberta. We're working with them through this inquiry, as we've been working with them throughout the process. We work with all governments as part of that regulatory process.

As you rightly pointed out, 75% of all renewable investments were made in Alberta last year, because they do have an open framework and things like that. However, putting this pause on there when we've been working on those issues with—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry. We have a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'm going to jump in because it's about the chirping again when witnesses are speaking.

Witnesses come to speak and to give us their opinions. We hear a lot of different opinions. People may agree with some and people may disagree with others, but when a witness comes to speak I think we need to show them respect and not be chirping at them during the time they're speaking.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Chair, thank you to my colleague for scolding me. I appreciate that.

I did just mention that Alberta has been that leader for decades, of course.

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

On a point of order, Chair....

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I guess if the member wants to talk about political and regulatory decisions by provincial governments instead of how we're actually going to deliver—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—on our job federally for all Canadians, that's one thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Excuse me, Mrs. Stubbs. Mr. Angus has the floor and Mr. Melo is answering a question.