Debates of May 31st, 2010

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the $300 million will be provided for four different purposes: first, repairs to the NRU; second, refurbishments of the Chalk River laboratories infrastructure; third, nuclear reactor refurbishment project cost overruns; and fourth, new reactor technology development. So indeed, there is money for--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I do not think any of that is new.

I also note that some of the $300 million is for one time employee reduction. How much is going to job cuts? How many jobs does the minister intend to cut? Will those all come from Chalk River or will they be spread around the corporation? Is this employee reduction connected to the sale of AECL assets?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are stating it very clearly from the beginning. The intention is not to cut jobs, as the member opposite is saying. The intent is to provide a viable industry to ensure that we are still a leader in the nuclear industry. We keep our high skill jobs. We create high skill jobs and we reduce the burden on taxpayers.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chair, obviously, he cannot be a leader in the industry if he plans to privatize it and sell it off, now can he?

Thomas from Mississauga recently wrote to make the following comment about the sale of AECL. He said, “As a Canadian, I am deeply offended by the very thought of the fire sale of Canada's largest remaining crown corporation. If Bill C-9 is passed, not only will Canada no longer be capable of manufacturing nuclear reactors for people to use at home and abroad, but a significant engineering achievement by Canadians will be lost forever. AECL has contributed to Canadian technological innovation for over 50 years with the public interest in mind. Please do not allow this legacy to come to an unfitting and unjust end”.

What are the minister's plan with respect to AECL? Will it be a fire sale, minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member to address comments through the Chair, not directly at members.

The hon. minister.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the hon. member that it was her party that underfunded AECL over the years. This is the situation that we are in today. We are willing to seek strategic investments to ensure the viability of that industry.

Let me be clear. The Government of Canada strongly believes in nuclear energy and the future of the Canadian nuclear industry. Sixty years of investment in nuclear science has resulted in a multi-billion dollar Canadian industry with leading edge and innovative technology. AECL's workforce comprising of almost 4,900 full-time employees is made up of highly skilled and innovative individuals.

These people are well positioned to participate in the growth of the nuclear industry, both domestically and abroad. Everybody should be happy that we are restructuring it now to ensure its viability, to reduce the burden on taxpayers, and to ensure that Canada will be positioned as a leader in the nuclear industry.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is Canadian legacy and proprietary technology at stake.

How much of the additional $300 million is for refurbishment project shortfalls? How much of that is for the work at Point Lepreau and does this include any funding to compensate New Brunswick for Point Lepreau's refurbishment delays, and if so, how much?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, let me be clear. A quote about the proposal for the Candu reactor division states:

AECL needs markets. ...it certainly needs sophisticated full-time global marketing, which the government of Canada cannot easily give it.

This is why we are now restructuring and seeking a strategic investment. The government undertook to restructure Atomic Energy of Canada against three policy objectives--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am going to have to stop the minister there just to ensure the times are about equal.

The hon. member for St. Paul's.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, last week the nuclear medicine physicians told us that they were at 10% supply of technetium. Lantheus had negotiated a supply deal with Israel to get the doctors the isotopes that they needed but it was turned down by Health Canada.

Why was this turned down and why did the minister not have influence over the health minister in that I believe it is the minister's responsibility to source the isotopes during this crisis? Why, after two and a half years of this crisis, has the minister still failed to secure a stable supply?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the government has made it clear that AECL's absolute priority is returning the NRU to service as quickly as possible while maintaining the highest standards of safety and security. The government has asked AECL to pursue an extension of the NRU operating licence beyond 2011. This is a global problem that needs a global solution. This is why, under our leadership, we created a high level group to ensure we optimized the collaboration from everyone around the world.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, both the expert review panels on medical isotopes had a main recommendation, which was that there needed to be a new multipurpose research reactor as the best primary option. Instead, the government chose risk over known in solely advocating for research into new and unproven technologies that have never been able to produce a commercial supply of isotopes.

Why is the minister keen to experiment on the backs of Canadian patients?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, we responded publicly to the expert review panel. However, I must remind members that our top priority is to have the NRU up and running. We announced $48 million in our 2010 budget to support research, development and demonstration of new technologies and alternatives, establish a clinical trials network and optimize the use of isotopes in the health system. These initiatives are consistent with the recommendations of the panel.

What the hon. member does not say is that it is with a new multipurpose research reactor. The expert panel said that we would be provided with a business case, which is not the fact now. We cannot build a new reactor on the isotope production itself. It is not viable, which is what the experts said.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, everyone knows that the Chalk River reactor will not last forever and yet the government has refused to provide a plan B.

The Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine issued a press release in response to the government's response to the NRCan expert panel report. It expressed concern with the emphasis and substantial funding for research on the production of isotopes with cyclotrons and linear accelerators. They noted that these approaches have been unsuccessfully tested and abandoned by the European countries due to poor yield, unreliability of production and quality control assurances.

Why did the government decide to ignore the advice and the evidence of the rest of the world? Does the minister even know about the concerns of the medical community?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair, we are more than concerned about that, which is why we promised to right the mistakes made in the past by Liberal governments and ensure Canadians have access to an affordable and stable supply of medical isotopes. That being said, NRU up and running is the top priority of AECL and this government.

Again, we are investing $48 million for alternatives. In the meantime, we assume a leadership with a high level group around the world. My colleague, the Minister of Health, is working very closely with the medical community to ensure the efforts and the collaboration are optimized in the scheduled supply chain of isotopes.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to remind the minister that the Liberal government had a plan B with the MAPLEs, which the Conservative government cancelled without putting in place a plan B. Chalk River will not last forever. What is the plan B and why is the government listening to the PMO instead of--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am going to stop the member there. There are 10 seconds left for the minister.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the MAPLE project was eight years behind schedule, never delivered an isotope to market and was facing significant technical and regulatory challenges. With plan Bs like that, I prefer to go with the alternatives and I prefer to have the NRU up and running now.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Unfortunately that time slot has expired. I will give the floor to the hon. member for Vegreville--Wainwright but I see the hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, earlier you had suggested we could use a couple of minutes of our time to give the numbers to the opposition that they had asked for earlier, if that is okay with you, and then I will turn it over to the member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

I will give this information to my colleague tomorrow as I notice that he may not be here right now.

However, in terms of the clean energy fund, the renewables and clean energy, these are the projects that are announced: wind storage has received $18 million; tidal offshore winds, small hydro received $35.3 million; hybrid and the northern projects received $31 million; communities and buildings received about $8.7 million; biomass received $22 million; and the smart grid received $31 million; for the total of $146 million that we mentioned earlier.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am delighted to be here tonight to take part in this very fascinating and important debate.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I will share my time with the member for Lethbridge and the member for Prince Albert.

It is certainly true that Canada is a natural resources powerhouse. It is also clear that Canada is rapidly becoming a leader in sustainable resource development. I am proud to be a part of a government that shows such a powerful commitment to developing our natural resources in a way that supports both our economic and our environmental goals. This is especially true of our energy resources.

Canada is truly blessed in this regard. We have enough fossil fuels, uranium, hydro power and other renewable resources to qualify as an energy superpower. Our goal is to be a clean energy superpower.

To reach that goal, our government is making substantial investments that are accelerating the growth of a strong, domestic, clean energy industry. Wind is now the fastest growing part of our electricity sector, our biofuels industry is expanding rapidly and we are leaders in the development of next generation biofuels.

I am proud to say that in my constituency of Vegreville—Wainwright, we have, just across the border in Llyodminster, a very large ethanol project and two biodiesel projects planned for my constituency. I know that there will be expansion in this sector as time goes on. This growth will continue but, as the International Energy Agency and others have stated, fossil fuels will continue to be the primary source of the world energy for decades to come. That is simply a reality, whether we like it or not. This puts Canada in a position that is both advantageous and strategic.

We have an estimated 10 billion tonnes of coal reserves. We have large deposits of natural gas and we are only beginning to understand how much we may have in the north. We have substantial conventional oil reserves and, as we know, the oil sands is the second largest proven reserve on Earth.

It is worth considering, for a moment, just how much oil that represents. The 170 billion barrels in the oil sands is six times the conventional oil reserves of the United States and Canada combined. The known reserves of 170 billion barrels in the oil sands is six times the combined conventional oil reserves of Canada and the United States. And, as technology to extract oil improves, the yield may almost double to 315 billion barrels.

The oil sands also represents more than 40% of the world's non-OPEC oil and 60% of the world's non-sovereign oil. In short, in addition to the massive economic benefit they bring to Canada, the oil sands are a major strategic resource for all of North America.

The challenge, of course, is to minimize the environmental impact of producing this critical resource. With our partners in other levels of government, in the research community and with industry itself we are making progress.

Up to 90% of the water used in the oil sands drilling operations is now being recycled. As well, drilling operations, also known as in situ operations, are increasingly moving to the use of underground sources of water, that is saline and brackish water that is unsuitable for drinking and agriculture use. Less than 1% of the average annual flow of the Athabasca River is used in the oil sands, and a water management framework limits, monitors and adjusts freshwater withdrawal from the river on a weekly basis.

Listening to the opposition and listening to some of the radical environmental elements, one would think that half of the flow or more of the Athabasca River is being used in the oil sands when it is in fact less than 1%. That is something that certainly is not well-known because there are a lot of people, some across the aisle in this House, who give less than factual information on this. It is important that we correct the record.

We continue to seek better ways to manage tailings. The ultimate goal is to replace the tailings pond with new technology like dry stackable tailings. This could eliminate the need for tailings ponds altogether and further reduce water consumption. A lot of the work on this is being done by Natural Resources Canada labs in Devon, Alberta, which is near Edmonton, just outside of my constituency.

Regulations impose a strict requirement for land reclamation and remediation, and extensive research continues to develop new methods to improve both the effectiveness and the speed of land reclamation efforts.

Investments by our government in other technologies such as carbon capture and storage will also help reduce emissions from the production of crude oil and from the oil sands and other fossil fuels.

Together with our partners in the public and private sectors, Canada is the world leader in carbon capture and storage and many other leading technologies that will reduce the environmental impact of our fossil fuel industries.

I want to close with a question for the minister. The Government of Canada, as I think everyone knows, has stated its concern about the environmental impacts associated with oil sands development. I want the minister, if he would, to lay out some of the specific things that this government is doing to address the environmental impacts of the oil sands development.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the oil sands are a key strategic resource that will contribute to energy security for Canada, North America and the world for decades to come. The oil sands are also an important economic driver. The industry provides substantial employment and GDP across Canada.

Most forecasters, including the International Energy Agency, believe oil will likely remain the dominant fuel for decades to come.

There are challenges with oil sands development, specifically in the areas of land, air and water. While improvements have been made, we continue to seek further improvement in environmental performance. We believe new technologies will provide the solutions that we are seeking.

Governments and industry are investing in new, innovative technologies to help address the challenges of oil sands development. Scientists at Natural Resources Canada are leading federal efforts to reduce the environmental issues in the oil sands, such as air emissions and water use.

We are also investing in carbon capture and storage, which has the potential to make major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial facilities, including coal-fired electricity plants in the oil sands sector.

All of these investments are contributing to help Canada meet its greenhouse gas emissions target. The Government of Canada believes the oil sands have the potential to be a secure, stable and environmentally responsible source of energy for Canada, North America and the world for decades to come.

We have a robust regulatory framework to address environmental challenges associated with oil sands development. Projects to develop the oil sands are subject to extensive environmental and regulatory review, and permits are only granted once concerns have been addressed.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, green mining promotes the use of green technologies and practices to reduce the environmental impacts of mining, while at the same time ensuring Canada's place as a global mining leader.

Green mining spurs a new burst of innovation, promotes responsible mining practices at every stage of the mine life cycle, and helps create and take advantage of new markets and new market opportunities.

Canada's mining sector depends on success both at home and abroad. Would the Minister of Natural Resources please tell members of the House about the government's efforts to enhance the position of Canada's mining internationally?