Debates of May 31st, 2010

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, very specifically, I want to give the minister the space to have the numbers at hand, but this is a principle of the CCS fund writ large. He does not need specific projects.

Has the use of CCS funding from the federal government gone toward the use of what the industry calls enhanced oil recovery? That is when carbon is sequestered and oil that would not otherwise have been brought to the surface is brought back up in an enhanced way.

That is my question. It is not a particular project question. It's overall. Can the funds be applied for enhanced oil recovery?

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

Once again, Mr. Chair, I have answered this question and the answer is no. No such projects were awarded for the purpose indicated by my colleague in his question.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am concerned as much by the lack of information as I am by that last answer. I think what we will find is that it is contrary. Industry has come before us at committee and said that they have used CCS funding from the federal government from Canadian taxpayers to augment enhanced oil recovery. That is when they sequester carbon and bring up more oil.

My question was going to be whether the government sees this as a subsidy, but I am not sure that the government knows that it is spending the money. I am not sure which is more concerning.

Does the government have an estimate of the cost per tonne for sequestering greenhouse gases under its current CCS program?

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

Mr. Chair, the department is currently assessing that. As I said a little earlier in my remarks, we have to look at long term results. This is not a one shot deal. This is not about knowing how much they will make per tonne. We have to look at this from a more general perspective.

The department is now working on finding the best way to do these calculations so that it can be accountable to Canadian taxpayers.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am not necessarily looking for calculations. There are a few principles we have asked about that I am concerned we do not have the answers to.

Oil companies and utilities that testified at committee told us that they will not invest fully in CCS until there is a price on carbon. Does the government have any notion at all what price on carbon would make CCS viable under the current terms?

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

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, there have been major investments.

There were three projects for a total of $466 million. Then there were investments in 19 other projects. These investments leveraged a further $3 billion. That is where things stand now.

The industry may have raised specific questions, but I cannot comment on that. I was not at that committee meeting. However, it is clear that $500 million leveraged another $3 billion in investments.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, the Government of Alberta released its study last year that said that the price of carbon would need to be somewhere in the range of $100 to $250 per tonne to make CCS viable. That is the specific question I asked the minister: Does the government have any study on this?

Turning to the renewable energy portfolio, at what point will the government make a decision to return to investing in wind and solar energy for Canada?

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

Mr. Chair, with respect to carbon capture and storage, I also explained earlier that there are ongoing discussions as part of the clean energy dialogue with the United States for a North American atlas to figure out where appropriate geological formations are located so we can do this at the lowest possible cost. That is what is going on right now. We are researching the issue.

Furthermore, we announced in the throne speech that we would proceed with a comprehensive review of current programs to ensure targeted strategic investment. We are also operating under certain fiscal constraints. We want to work toward a balanced budget while making strategic investments.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, in June 2009, the government introduced a black liquor subsidy, to match the United States, to level the playing field. It was the minister's predecessor who announced this.

I want to check whether the minister is aware of the program.

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

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

The industry in Canada was very happy to see this program introduced. The pulp and paper green transformation program will now generate more investments. Investments have been announced, and others are under review, but we will move forward.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I know that the minister is encouraged by that program, because it is about competitiveness across the border.

My question now is on the renewable energy side. At the current rate, the U.S. is spending, on a per capita basis, $18 for every $1 Canada spends on renewables. Is the minister satisfied with that level of competitiveness for Canada's clean energy market?

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, the numbers my colleague mentioned are incorrect. I do not think he took several investments into account. He is comparing apples to oranges. Some $2 billion was invested his year. Second of all, I must add that we have been on top of this issue since 2007. We launched a series of programs in 2007 that will end in 2011. The investment of $4.2 billion—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, the report from the Conference Board of Canada of March of this year said, “The global market for technologies which can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is exploding, however, Canadian businesses are not responding to the opportunities to sell new or even existing 'climate-friendly' technologies globally”.

Is the minister willing to express any concern at all that there is an $18 to $1 gap in spending compared to our U.S. competitors? That gap is going to widen to $22 to $1 per capita between us and the United States. Every $1 we put in, it puts in $22. Is that a concern at all for the minister in keeping Canada competitive?

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

Mr. Chair, my colleague is speaking about a gap that is not correct. We have been putting money up front since 2007 and the United States has tried to catch up to us because we were there when it was not there.

Let me be clear. There is a program of $1.48 billion to support the development of new wind, biomass, solar and electric projects across the country through the eco-energy for renewable power program. This program is leveraging about $14 billion of private investments over 20 years. This includes both the development and operation of renewable projects. It is estimated that the eco-energy for renewable power program will support--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the minister there. I am trying to keep the answers approximately even to the questions.

The hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, the government has claimed that it needed to cancel the eco-energy retrofit for homes program while it was reviewing it. Is there any other program that was cancelled while the review was being conducted?

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

Mr. Chair, we have been very clear regarding funds for the program. There are enough applications to ensure that $300 million will be allocated this year as part of this initiative. There will be sound management with fiscal responsibility, because we want to return to a balanced budget. We said that we would now review things to see—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, departmental officials told us that the government is reviewing the program. There is no other program that the government has that, while under review, gets cancelled. Is there any other program that the minister has that has an investment ratio of $10 for every $1? That means for every $1 the Canadian government put into the retrofit program, Canadians matched it with $10 of their own. Is there any program that comes close to competing with that?

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

Mr. Chair, once again, we are not talking about cancelling programs. We stopped taking applications for the current year, and $300 million will be spent this year through the end of 2011. After that, we will review all of the programs for the coming years.

Programs provide a boost. Earlier I was talking about carbon capture and storage. Over $3 billion has been raised, and there is more.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, when the minister was minister of public works, he authorized the spending of millions of dollars to remove asbestos from the Parliament Buildings. Is this correct?

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

Mr. Chair, the insulation was a problem in West Block, and we determined that it was due to unsafe use of asbestos. So yes, the government had to remove that asbestos from West Block.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, the World Health Organization, the Quebec Cancer Society and the Canadian Medical Association have all called for an end to the use and export of asbestos. Will the government answer that request?

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

Mr. Chair, since 1979, our approach has been to support the safe use of chrysotile asbestos. We must be clear on this and distinguish between the fibres. We know that the amphibole fibre, which unfortunately was used in the past, is dangerous and has been banned. In fact, the chrysotile fibre currently—