Evidence of meeting #75 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was electricity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association
Thank you, though, for that question.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Keefer, there are a lot of points I'd like to follow up on with you.
You talked about the regulatory environment a bit. You also mentioned that, in the fossil fuel industry, the wages are actually quite phenomenal and, in the clean energy sector, that is not the case. We hear about how there are fossil fuel energy workers out of work who need to be transitioned to clean energy for good, union-paying jobs. You say that doesn't exist.
Perhaps you want to expand on that a little—and also on nuclear.
5:50 p.m.
President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy
That is a real challenge.
Again, two-thirds of jobs within Safe Solar, for instance, are low-skilled. People are trained in a course of weeks. That does not command high wages. These are not working environments where people can get together, form a union and negotiate. They're moving from project to project. These aren't tied into communities the way nuclear plants are.
I would say that nuclear offers jobs that are as good or better. We saw that in Ontario with coal. I'm good friends with a former operator at the Nanticoke coal plant who transitioned over to Bruce Power. He loves where he works. I think he's more open to the climate argument now that he's a champion of it.
I want to follow up on the question for Mr. Christidis a bit, in terms of nuclear playing a role in climate.
First, uranium is our number one clean energy export. This hydrogen is a fantasy. It is incredibly inefficient. By the time it gets to Germany, we're talking single-digit efficiency, and we're talking about giving a 40% tax credit. That's billions of dollars for a process that's ridiculous. Frankly, if Germany hadn't shut down its nuclear plants, it would get more than enough electricity compared to that hydrogen alliance. Uranium is our number one clean energy export. It offsets fully one-third of Canada's total all-sector national emissions. Think about that for a second. That is massive.
The second thing is the coal phase-out here in Ontario. We were 25% coal-powered. That was the single greatest greenhouse gas reduction in North American history. Nuclear is absolutely a proven climate tool, if that is your concern.
If your concern is for dignified jobs and a democratic approach.... Fossil fuel workers don't want to work for 36% less pay. They won't accept that. If we want to have a democratic basis for an energy transition, we have to offer jobs that are even better than what they currently have.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you for that. That clarifies things.
AECL was located in my riding of Provencher. It has since been moved to a different riding. They're in a decommissioning phase. At one time, it was said, we had the highest per capita rate of Ph.D.s in the country, because those are the types of jobs that are attracted to nuclear.
Can you briefly tell me why we're decommissioning that site, from your perspective?
October 4th, 2023 / 5:50 p.m.
President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy
Can you clarify which site that is?
5:50 p.m.
President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy
I'll defer the question to Mr. Christidis, if you don't mind.
5:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association
It was a Government of Canada decision, back in the day, as part of its restructuring process. It wasn't an industry decision. I'd encourage you to get clarification on it. Back in the day, the government of that time was looking at that.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you.
Mr. Tertzakian, you talked about the flight risk for capital here in Canada.
Can you also expand a bit more on what you'd like to see from a regulatory environment in order to create more certainty and ensure the capital inflates?
5:50 p.m.
Managing Director, ARC Financial Corp.
From a regulatory standpoint, I agree with the comments that have been made. It takes a long time to get permitting and such. This energy transition is so much about building the infrastructure that goes in between the front-end generation primary sources of energy—like wind and solar—and the back end of people buying, say, electric vehicles. The piping, wiring and stuff in between require much faster permitting and regulatory certainty, if investors are going to bring their capital here.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Falk.
I'll now turn the floor over to Parliamentary Secretary Dabrusin for the final five minutes.
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you so much.
We've heard a lot today about the need for certainty—being able to have a long-term view on how things are working.
Mr. Powell, I believe that, when you were speaking, you specifically referenced contracts for differences, and the value of contracts for differences in providing that certainty. As I understand it, if you had contracts for differences, the carbon price would be set and people would know the price that would be continuing—or whatever the process would be for it.
Perhaps you could talk to me a bit more about contracts for differences and why you think they are important for the regulatory certainty for clean energy.
5:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations, Electricity Canada
Yes, if we take a step back, if you think about building, say, a carbon-capture facility on a power plant, that's potentially certainly $1 billion, maybe $2 billion. As an asset, it will last many years—20 or 30 years. There is a policy risk for change in some of the financial assumptions that are made with that over the life of the project, and this isn't just a two-year thing or a 10-year thing. It's a long period of time. When our members are looking at making a business decision, the financial organizations that look to lend the money, look to make sure there is some opportunity to make sure that there's a hedge against that. That hedge cuts two ways too, because if set up properly, if the carbon price goes up, the government can make some money on that front.
It's a matter of building in the policy certainty over a long period of time. That is part of how you get to a final investment decision. Again, that's a whole suite of tools. Are there the right financial incentives? Can you get things permitted quickly? Are there clear rules now and into the future that will make sure that your seven-figure, eight-figure, nine-figure investment—whatever the number, the highest range—will get you through to when it's done?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
If industry is watching and seeing that motions are being brought, or particular parties are vowing specifically to remove carbon pricing, does that create uncertainty for the market when people are looking at investing in clean energies?
5:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations, Electricity Canada
If we're being honest, there's just a lot of uncertainty, period, right now in terms of where some of the pieces are. There are the financial tools that are still being deployed. We're working through the clean electricity regulation process, and there is uncertainty going forward about what carbon pricing will look like.
Uncertainty, as Peter said, is bad for decision-making. It slows us down in terms of the investments that we have to make to get ourselves to 2050, so I think that's where our focus will be.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Perhaps I can just go to Mr. Melo about contracts for differences. From what you see with the renewables industry, would contracts for differences support further investments in your industry?
5:55 p.m.
Federal Policy Director, Canadian Renewable Energy Association
It all depends on the context. In jurisdictions like Alberta, which do have a credit system and a variety of other things layered and interwoven with their electricity system, it would really provide some certainty. We're less certain in other jurisdictions across Canada, just based on how that would be deployed.
We are working with a number of groups to develop some clearer understanding of how contracts for difference could work for our industry, but for us the closest and most direct line is the Province of Alberta where they would [Technical difficulty—Editor].
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
If you actually do have something that shows us how you would see it working, after you've done all those consultations, had those conversations, it would be great for us to have that.
5:55 p.m.
Federal Policy Director, Canadian Renewable Energy Association
I'd love to do that.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Perhaps I could go to Mr. Keefer, because he spoke quite eloquently about coal and the reliance on coal in some parts of the world, and also about the needs and how nuclear can replace it. I certainly saw that in Ontario, being from Ontario myself. We moved from an average of 55 smog days a year to zero. This is having a really big impact on us, because of nuclear.
Just recently we had a deal with Romania. We signed a memorandum with them. We heard the energy minister from Romania speak about how it was helping them to be away from a reliance on Russia, and it was helping to build out their industry. Can you talk a little bit about the jobs on the international side? When we are reaching those kinds of agreements internationally, what kinds of jobs would that support here in Canada?
6 p.m.
President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy
Just on the first element there, in terms of coal to nuclear, there are very few successful examples around the world of a clean energy substitution. Most are coal to gas, with some renewables thrown in on the side.
With regard to the Romanian deal, details are still pending, but 100% of that export finance will be going to Canadian companies, stimulating the Canadian economy, which again provides those incredibly high-quality and skilled jobs. I think this is an excellent investment. It will be the deployment of enhanced CANDU 6s, which are generation III+, a brand new reactor technology. I think that lays the foundation for new builds to occur here in Ontario and across the country where they're needed.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Keefer.
I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us today and for their testimony. If you would like to provide a supplemental submission, please send it to the clerk.
We look forward to seeing you again at a future committee meeting.
Now I will suspend as we go in camera for committee business.
[Proceedings continue in camera]