Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 4th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You have five seconds.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I just want to say thank you, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to Monsieur Simard for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Keefer, I would like to give you the opportunity to answer the question I asked earlier about what you said in your presentation about simplifying the environmental impact assessment process in relation to nuclear safety.

[Dr. Christopher Keefer]

Thank you for the question.

I think the major issue at play here, and this touches on the financeability, is the duration of the environmental impact assessments. This is a seven-year process that's being forecasted, and that is far too long given the race to net zero that is on.

In terms of the streamlining that we think should be happening, this is not about cutting corners. There's simply too much duplication within the legislation.

The nuclear builds that are being planned in Ontario in the near term are on existing nuclear sites. These are some of the most intensively environmentally monitored sites in the world. Every five years reports are being submitted to a number of entities, like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's not just the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission but also Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. There's a lot of active monitoring occurring on site, which should be worked into the agreements. There's more work to do on indigenous consultation. I think that's what the operators are wanting to focus on, by using the existing environmental data they have to again streamline that process so there's not duplication and so that we're not wasting time.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

I don't have much time left, but I want to talk to you a little bit, Mr. Powell. In your presentation, you said that, by 2050, we will have to triple our electricity production. What sectors do you see as the most promising to get there? Is it wind, solar or hydro? What type of production should be promoted?

[Michael Powell]

It's a little bit of everything—or it's a lot of everything. We've heard a lot of it. It's more hydro, more nuclear, more renewables and more batteries.

I think part of it will come down to innovations with demand management of the distribution system, but we have to get creative and we have to get going. When we think about the financial mechanisms and ITCs, there has to be clarity so that people can get moving on them.

In terms of getting building, we need to make sure that there's a clear and timely approval process that doesn't cut corners but that focuses on the need.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Has Electricity Canada done any modelling of the energy sources that could be used? If so, can you provide that information to the committee?

[Michael Powell]

No, we haven't, but our members, such as the IESO, have modelled some of these things out. We can look to see what's publicly available and share them.

Some of that has been mentioned in terms of things like integrated resource plans.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

We'll go to Mr. Angus for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

One of the big issues, of course, is the grid. That will be a separate study. One thing that really was a disaster for the provincial Liberals in Ontario was the partial privatization agenda that went on and the FIT contracts at the same time. They seemed like a great idea. They gave all kinds of microcontracts to people to put in green power, but then they couldn't get it on the grid. Consumers were stuck paying for it.

Mr. Powell, what do we need to do to get the actual grid capacity up so that we can move these projects online?

[Michael Powell]

We've identified a few things. One is literally just making sure that we're able to match the regulatory tools we have with the challenges ahead of us. Some of that is in terms of building. Some of that is in terms of economic regulation, which is at the provincial level.

I just think we have to recognize that the way we used electricity in the past.... It's now going to be different. It used to be that you'd build a nuclear power plant in Pickering, run some wires and it would come to my house in Ottawa. It should be a much more two-way flow. There will be many more opportunities, and we're going to have to find every kilowatt we can through the process.

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

Mr. Melo, your organization is promoting the use of green hydrogen. I was in Germany last winter, and the Germans wanted to talk to us about hydrogen. They asked, “Can Canada produce hydrogen, yes or no?”

Where are your members in terms of hydrogen production? What do we need in order to get this up and running so that we can actually compete on the world market?

[Fernando Melo]

Not to sound like a broken record, but again, we need clarity on these policy tools and clarity on how we move forward. We have a number of members involved in projects on the east coast. We have a number who are involved on the west coast, and some who are even exploring in northern Ontario and northern Manitoba.

Again, we need that clarity on these investment tax rules, and we need that clarity to get building and get going.

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

Finally, just quickly, how fast do we have to get these tax credits out if we're going to compete?

[Fernando Melo]

Yesterday would be great, but I'll settle for sooner rather than later.

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

Yesterday maybe tomorrow afternoon sometime...?

Could you tell your minister friends about that?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor].

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

Well, I mean, if the Conservatives could ask you guys to get the price of potatoes down by Monday, we should be able to get the tax credits—don't you think?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Time is up. Thank you for the questions, the answers and the colourful commentary.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

That's why I have a love-hate relationship with Charlie Angus, though—because that was pretty epic.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We'll move for five minutes to Mr. Falk, please.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their presentations. As Ms. Stubbs indicated earlier, it would be nice to have more time.

Mr. Christidis, I'd like to begin with you. You made a comment that we have to decide if there's a climate crisis, and if there is, then nuclear works. That tells me that you're not convinced that we have a climate crisis, but it also begs this question in me: Does nuclear not have a business case?

I'm giving you a chance to clarify that.

[George Christidis]

Thank you. No, that is not the intent of my statement at all. The point is that there is a climate crisis, but to some of the skeptics who question the role of nuclear, who also purport that there's a climate crisis, it's to those folks that I'd like to say this: If you're proposing that there's a climate crisis, then all clean technologies need to be on the table.

Governments have come out very clearly on that. It's actually a non-partisan issue in the sense that you have a federal government that supports that view and you have provincial governments, such as Ontario, that support that view.

My point there is to say that to address climate change, nuclear has a role as other clean technologies do, and to address energy security, nuclear has a role.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much.