:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for inviting me. It was important for me to come soon.
[Translation]
This is our first opportunity to meet since I was appointed the Minister of Natural Resources last January and the committee resumed its work.
[English]
I'm looking forward to working with each of you. Please let me introduce those who are with me today: Cassie Doyle is the deputy minister, and Serge Dupont is special advisor on nuclear energy policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, honourable members, each of us is pleased to see signs of economic recovery taking hold in this country. A modest expansion has begun, and independent forecasters expect the Canadian economic recovery to build momentum through the current year.
Our government's top priority is to follow through on this recovery, to complete the second year of Canada's Economic Action Plan and to continue creating jobs and growth. That includes making sure our natural resources sector emerges from the recession able to compete in a changing global marketplace.
Despite the global recession, Canada's natural resources sector recently accounted for 12% of Canada's GDP. It provided jobs for more than 850,000 Canadians, and contributed $122 billion to our trade surplus. These are not small numbers. And there is every reason to believe that Canada's natural resources and related industries will continue to be a major factor in generating jobs and growth for our country.
[English]
This will not happen if we fail to take deliberate action. However, by making targeted investments and by working together with provinces, territories, and our partners in the natural resources sector, we can ensure that Canada will succeed on the world stage.
[Translation]
Taking deliberate action is what we have done since taking office. We first made targeted investments in forestry, in mining, in clean energy solutions and technologies. Then we invested almost $30 billion in Year One of Canada's Economic Action Plan, now, in Year Two of the Economic Action Plan, we continue to invest in Canada's natural resources sector. For example, through Canada's Economic Action Plan, the government has invested in the Canadian Energy Fund to support the development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large-scale carbon capture and storage projects.
[English]
For example, through Canada's economic action plan our government is providing $795 million for a clean energy fund to support the development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large-scale carbon capture and storage projects.
The ecoEnergy retrofit homes program is another example of a successful initiative under the economic action plan. Our government has provided $745 million to this program since its creation four years ago. Our government will continue to support clean energy technologies, and it will review energy efficiency and emissions reduction programs to ensure they are effective.
[Translation]
Our energy resource endowment provides Canada with an unparalleled economic advantage that we must leverage to secure our place as a Clean Energy Superpower and a leader in green job creation. We are also positioning Canada's nuclear industry to capitalize on global opportunities, beginning with the restructuring of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. And we are supporting AECL's work to return the National Research Universal reactor to service. The health and safety of Canadians remains the Government of Canada's top priority.
The government has instructed AECL to make the return to service of the National Research Universal reactor its highest priority, consistent with maintaining the highest standards of safety and security. Budget 2010 is investing $35 million in research and development of alternate sources of medical isotopes, $10 million to support clinical trials of alternate imaging technologies and $3 million to work with stakeholders to optimize the use of isotopes in the health system.
[English]
Our forest sector is an important contributor to the Canadian economy. Measures introduced under the economic action plan, along with other initiatives, are supporting this sector in the considerable challenges they face.
[Translation]
As part of the Economic Action Plan, a total of $170 million is supporting market diversification and innovation initiatives for the forestry sector. This includes research and demonstration projects on new forest products and initiatives to assist forestry companies in marketing innovative products internationally.
Canada and Quebec have announced a joint funding of $200 million to support silviculture in the province of Quebec and the restoration of infrastructure on Quebec public lands.
[English]
These projects were the result of work by a joint Canada-Quebec forestry task team. The task team was created to develop solutions aimed at helping the forestry industry restructure and to support workers and communities. A new Canada-Quebec working group has also been established for that purpose.
[Translation]
In addition, a $1-billion Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program is helping pulp and paper mills in all regions to reduce greenhouse gas emission while assisting them in becoming leaders in the production of renewable energy from biomass.
Budget 2010 is building on these important investments by providing $100 million over the next four years to support clean energy generation in Canada's forestry sector through a new Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative. This funding will further support the development, commercialization and implementation of emerging clean energy technologies and this sector, which could include new biofuels, renewable electricity and biochemicals.
[English]
We need to instill more clarity in Canada's regulatory system, because with clarity comes certainty. This is a priority for me and for our government. Improving the regulatory review process for large energy and mining projects will enable job creation and economic development.
As you know, in 2008, my department created a major projects management office, or MPMO. The MPMO is making the federal regulatory process more predictable and more efficient. There are more than five dozen projects moving through the MPMO system.
[Translation]
We are now in the process of establishing Northern Project Management Offices to coordinate approvals in each of the three territories. And our government is taking reform a step further. The Speech from the Throne outlined our commitment to create a strong investment climate and support the responsible development of Canada's energy and mineral resources.
We will simplify project reviews and replace the current maze of regulations with clear processes that offer improved environmental protection and greater certainty to the industry.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee: Canada's natural resources and their related industries are the cornerstone of our economy. The economy and environmental strength of this sector is essential to jobs and growth in our country. My government has recognized this from the beginning. It has taken deliberate action to reinforce the fact, and it will continue to do so in the future.
[English]
I thank you again for this opportunity and would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
:
You are covering several different aspects. I will try to sum them up.
First of all, the program for greening the pulp and paper industry is a program that was implemented to optimize what can be done with wood by-products. Instead of scrapping them, instead of spending money, we can turn them into a source of income.
Besides, we know that the paper mills in Quebec are more mechanical mills that pulp mills. Thus, there will be less use of black liquor residue. Nevertheless, some projects will be developed in Quebec. Certain companies having their head office in Quebec will be free to invest wherever they want, thus Quebec can expect some tangible profits from this.
In the 2010 budget, a $100 million sum was announced over the next four years. We are following the recommendations of the Canadian Federation of woodlot owners. When a log goes into the current sawmills, how can we optimize the product so that we can optimize the resource and the by-products to the very last speck of dust to create income? If you build an energy industry separately on the one hand and a status quo sawmill on the other hand, it cannot work. Both undertakings must be optimized. This is how we want to ensure viability, through similar programs.
In forestry, especially in eastern Canada, there is a restructuring problem. As we speak, the most recent book The Reporter sold more copies of its electronic version than of its paper version. This is a fact that we must live with. There is also the issue of markets. How can we go about this? This is why I was talking about innovation, about opening up the market and about new products. We must absolutely face up to the task and work together with the provinces. Some problems very much fall under provincial mandates. This is why we went to the root of the problem with the Canada-Quebec Forestry Task Team, to see how we can help the sector within the limits set by the Softwood Lumber Agreement.
The multiple functions in forestry involve a $200 million investment that helped the industry along. Of course, we must continue in the same vein. This is why the Canada-Quebec Forestry Task team is still in existence, it is because we are still living in troubled times.
With regard to loan guarantees, let me remind you of the efforts that were made by EDC. Large investments were made in the forestry industry. They amounted to about $16 billion dollars over the past years. We must continue working toward this objective. I think that we sent out a clear signal in our 2010 budget to show that we want to be present for future generations in bioeconomics, bioenergetics, biomass or other things like that. It is a way to make sure that the current sawmills remain viable.
Minister, asbestos, as you know, is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. More Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational-related diseases combined. In fact, 60% of all occupational deaths in Canada are caused by asbestos. The figure is much higher in your own province of Quebec, where it is as much as 80% of all the industrial deaths. Yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world, dumping nearly 200,000 tonnes per year exclusively into underdeveloped and third world countries, where there are no health and safety protocols whatsoever for the use of asbestos.
When you were the Minister of Public Works, you authorized the spending of millions of dollars to remove all the asbestos from the parliament buildings, because no MP should be exposed to a single fibre of asbestos. Yet now, as the Minister of Natural Resources, your government is spending millions of dollars subsidizing and promoting asbestos all over the world. A direct subsidy in these estimates that we will be studying today is to the Chrysotile Institute--a bunch of charlatans, I have no hesitation in saying. They are probably the only lobbying group in the country paid for by the federal government to lobby the federal government about asbestos. It's corporate welfare for corporate serial killers, which is what I call it, Mr. Minister.
You have seen the letter from the Université Laval, signed by six prominent Quebec scientists, urging you--begging you--to stop your boosterism of the asbestos industry and to stop funding the Asbestos Institute.
You have seen a letter to the Government of Canada, signed by 120 scientists from 28 different countries around the world--
:
I don't see how it could be more topical or on topic or in order.
We've seen exposés by the CBC, the Globe and Mail, and Canwest News in recent months about the use of Canadian asbestos in India, because for years the Chrysotile Institute has been maintaining that Canadian asbestos can be handled safely around the world. We now know that's a lie. Yet the Canadian government sends teams of Department of Justice lawyers around the world like globe-trotting propagandists for the asbestos industry, to not only promote asbestos but to undermine the efforts of other countries to curb its use, sabotaging the Rotterdam Convention, and telling other countries that Quebec asbestos is safe. There is nothing benign or safe about Canadian asbestos.
I worked in the asbestos mines. They were lying to us about the health hazards of asbestos then and they continue to lie about it today. And you, Minister, as the MP for the asbestos region and the minister responsible for natural resources, which is subsidizing and promoting the asbestos industry, have a lot to answer for.
We are exporting human misery to other countries on a monumental scale, and the rest of the world is begging Canada to stop it.
Because we have such limited time, I would simply ask you...let me give you a quote from the Chrysotile Institute first. The Chrysotile Institute says that the Canadian Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, and the ILO are a bunch of...what is the term they use--en français, <les fous>. I don't understand the translation, but I think it means they're crazy and wacko.
Do you side with the international scientific community that says all asbestos should be banned, or do you side with the Chrysotile Institute and their phony research that tries to convince the world that asbestos can be used safely?
:
I took some notes, Mr. Chair, and I will try to cover the points that were raised.
Yes, the position of our government, of the Canadian government, is based on a scientific position that recognizes the safe-use approach. The illnesses you mentioned are tragic and are caused by previous misuse. The fibres used were the amphibole fibres and you know as well as I do that they were misused. Today, there is a chrysotile fibre that can be used safely and whose biopersistence is less and much less harmful than the fibres that were used in the past. I am not telling you that the substance is not dangerous. It is a dangerous substance but we must manage the risks. Hazardous substances whose risks cannot be managed have been banned, as was amphibole asbestos.
Regarding the work done by Public Works, it is a blatant example of the misuse of sprayed asbestos. This is not encapsulated asbestos. Whether it be chrysotile asbestos or amphibole asbestos or any kind of asbestos, it is an example of unsafe use. This is why we are removing asbestos.
The objective for instituting chrysotile is not to grant millions of dollars of subsidies to the industry, but rather to have a common fund where each one contributes a third, namely industry, the Canadian government and the Quebec government. The money is handed over to the Chrysotile Institute which has the role, as is the case for all hazardous materials, of promoting safe use both here in Canada and abroad for clients and purchasing countries. The Chrysotile Institute is not seeking to put out propaganda or to do lobbying or anything of that sort. It seeks to promote safe use both at home and abroad.
Minister, welcome to the natural resources committee. We appreciate your input to us today.
In particular, Minister, being from a forest industry riding—a big one in this country—I appreciate the assistance the government has given to the forest industry, both from a softwood lumber point of view, and pulp and paper, with many of the short-term programs the government has introduced to help the industry through these very difficult times we have faced over the last three or four years, and then of course through the economic action plan, the few billions of dollars that have gone into the forest industry.
Madame Brunelle talked about the pulp and paper industry, the billion dollars, the green transformation program, which was a tremendous help. I have pulp mills in my riding that are right now building infrastructure to support green energy transformation in their operations. They have expressed appreciation to me, to pass on to you and our government, on how much they appreciate our government stepping up to the table to help in green energy, but also the assistance given through the work share program and the EI programs we've extended so they can hang onto their skilled employees.
Now I'm happy to say, as you know, there's a light shining a bit brighter on the horizon for the forest industry. The pulp market is enjoying some nice pricing these days, and the softwood lumber market is creeping up. I think the latest count is getting somewhere close to $290 per thousand. It's really appreciated. It's going higher, of course.
Minister, looking at the long-term picture, we need to ensure that the government is assisting to help secure the sustainability and the competitiveness in the forest industry in the future. One of those things, Minister, is the promotion of our products abroad. There have been new emerging markets, particularly China, and now we're looking at India, at the use of wood in construction. We know the China market for softwood is going to double this year, to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 billion board feet, which is just unheard of, but it's a huge asset. The government has put aside a lot of money for the promotion and marketing of our products overseas in softwood lumber.
Could you perhaps touch on that to give us assurance that the government's sights are still set on helping the emerging markets and our competitiveness abroad?
:
Yes, indeed. Thank you for your question.
My dear colleague, we had the opportunity of working together when I was a committee member with you.
We know that your area has been hit very hard by an infestation of the pine beetle. This is why, as early as 2007, considerable sums where invested in British Columbia and in Alberta to slow down this infestation and its eastward march.
Once again, this year, funds will be earmarked for this purpose. This means that they are included in the budget and that they will be paid out to help continue our efforts. We combine all this together with the community adjustment fund and the forestry trust fund that were announced in the previous budget. In this way, in your region of Canada, thanks to the government's efforts, we can give your region some infrastructure that will make it easier to harvest wood, to optimize its value and to slow down the progression of this infestation.
All these things are being done in compliance with the Softwood Lumber Agreement. You also mentioned that.
[English]
On softwood lumber, I would say that everywhere I go, I think the industry is quite clear and unanimous in saying “Don't touch that agreement, we need it. This is very important.” This is why we as a government have to be very careful and cautious to make sure we do respect our legal obligations. I think that nobody on the ground wants to see any positions being filled by the Americans. This is why we target the investments, to make sure they are effective but also compliant with the softwood lumber agreement.
That being said, there are two measures that were announced recently regarding black liquors. When you spoke about the market opportunities, there are two initiatives. There is the Canada wood export program, the North American wood first initiative, and the value to wood program. These are initiatives that were announced.
As you just pointed out, we know that China is a major focus of the Canada wood program. I want to point out that the exports to that market doubled last year. They doubled despite the global recession. I know these are emerging economies, so this is a good news story. This is why it is money wisely spent, because we always say that in the restructuring process the market issue is a challenge. So with these targeted expenses we have now doubled our exports in the last year. So it's worthwhile, and our government will continue working on these kinds of things.
:
Yes, thank you, David, for that question.
Of course, the mining sector is a key part of our economic recovery. A lot of projects are in pipelines up north. I sat down with these guys, and there are some tools we can provide to them that are very useful. Basically, as you know from our last budget, we are extending the mineral exploration tax credit and extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for machinery and equipment. This is a measure that gives them tremendous opportunity for investment to accelerate and create new jobs and to have some new projects going on.
There were two that had been renewed, and we're speaking here about the geo-mapping and the geo-science. Geo-science is a great thing because they can look deeper now, and a lot of research can be done, but sometimes the risk is a little bit high. We as the government can support the industry on that to go and look deeper. These kinds of investments are very worthwhile.
I want to point out that in the targeted geo-science initiative, every dollar spent on geo-mapping leads to $5 in private sector investment in exploration spending and $125 in discovered resources of value, approximately. So it means that for dollar, it generates a lot of what I would call downstream economies.
These are the three main great-news stories about the initiatives themselves. Also, I must point out that we are still working on our road map to have regulatory framework reform, which is needed because the evaluations of the projects are too complex. You can have duplications and things like that, so we want to optimize to make sure that, yes, we have less complex evaluations to do. Doing that, too, I think we will be more able to focus on the environmental assessment itself to make sure that we are speaking about the environmental assessment and how to do it, because now it's getting complex. It will give a lot of certainty to the industry, too. We will now be more able to see the projects coming, and to optimize and streamline the entire process itself.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Minister, we've heard the opposition members' criticisms related to the supply of medical isotopes. We can all agree this is a serious issue. We also agree that many officials within the government, as well as the nuclear medicine officials, have been working to help mitigate the supply concerns.
Since the NRU went down in May, and even before that, our government had developed a consistent strategy for ensuring a reliable supply of isotopes for Canadian patients. It included informing AECL that its top priority was bringing the NRU back in service, working with the health community to encourage and assist better use of existing supplies as well as alternatives, and leading the call for and chairing the OECD's high-level group on the security of supply of medical isotopes, which has resulted in increased sources of supply as well as better supply chain coordination.
Can you tell the committee what results have come from this strategy and what steps you have taken to ensure a steady supply of medical isotopes for Canadians in the near term as well as the long term?
:
Yes, thank you. First of all, as you just said, the NRU re-opening is a top priority for our government. This is the top priority.
In the meantime, we are looking to relicense the reactor until 2016. The first step that was taken when there was a shutdown was under the leadership of Canada. A group of experts was put in place, on an international basis, which was led by Serge Dupont—who is here with me—to explore all the ways we can adapt during the situation. There is the same kind of group on the medical side, to make sure that every step is being taken to streamline and better coordinate the supplying of isotopes. The generators are competitors, and in the past they have not been used to speaking with each other. Given that we have a global problem, it has to be solved by a global solution.
In Canada we have looked to alternative sources because the supply chain is fragile and we want to make sure we have solutions for the mid- and longer term. This is why we put $35,000 in the budget for research for new sources or alternatives. We also put in $10 million for clinical tests on the part of Health Canada and $3 million to better coordinate. It is a larger plan, and we want to make sure everything goes as well as possible on the coordination side.
I have to point out that isotopes from Poland's Maria reactor are now licensed for use in Canada. That's part of the result from the work done by the group led by Serge Dupont. South Africa's SAFARI reactor will continue to operate at elevated levels. Belgium is adding a cycle to its reactor schedule too, and France has agreed to delay a scheduled outage to make sure we avoid a major shortage.
In the meantime, the NRU is a top priority, and AECL has experts who are assessing where they are and what they are doing. We should have some conclusions soon, to make sure that the work being done is on the right track. As I pointed out, we want to make sure that the information that is being provided is
[Translation]
as transparent as possible
[English]
to make sure we can better coordinate all the actions that are taken.
This is why I pointed out that it's not only here in Canada, but there are global actions being taken now by all players--countries and industry. It's a process that we are not used to seeing. It was not like that one or two years ago.
Mr. Dupont, I know very little about nuclear reactors, and I don't think there's one within 2,000 miles of where I live. But I'm thinking about what it takes to repair and upgrade a nuclear reactor. It's not like going into a furniture factory where you can get some absolute estimates on the cost of repairing equipment. I would imagine there are so many complexities and ultra-sensitive repair work when you're working around nuclear power and the components, including the uranium and the minerals and everything that go into making that power.
I'm thinking that even if I were almost an expert in it, to say okay, it's going to cost $120 million to get this up and we're going to have it done by this date.... Even with all that expertise, that would probably be as subjective as you can possibly get because of all the things that could happen in that repair time.
I notice there's been an extension. Am I on the right track thinking that this is not something that you just say it's going to cost this much, we're going to be finished by...? This is far more complex than that.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
The question I was going to ask the minister was one that attempted to link the strategic planning and policy development process with the estimates. In other words, here is the issue. The issue I think the committee would be interested in is the carbon capture and sequestration program. The economics that are driving the R and D investments presently price carbon between.... We've heard many different prices. The presumption is that for carbon capture and sequestration to be commercially viable and competitive, you'd need a price of around $30.
My question on the strategic side is, given that information, when does the department start to advise what the implementation schedule is for setting a price on carbon?
That's on the strategic side. Then, on the basis of what the answer to that is, when does the department advise the minister, concerning the investments in clean technologies—the $150 million that has been allocated in the 2009 budget—that this is the point, compared with the return projected on CCS, at which we start now to make investments in major clean technologies?
The second part of my question is, could you tell the committee what would be the priority list, in terms of investments in clean technologies, the commercialization of the R and D that has already been expended? Does the department have a plan to take, through the minister, a strategic direction with respect to CCS as it impacts upon clean technology research and its commercialization?
:
Thank you very much for an excellent question. It really gets to the core of the work that's done at NRCan.
Let me go back a couple of years. One thing the department undertook was to sponsor a major national panel on what Canada's priorities should be in the area of energy research and development. We had an august number of experts from across the country who provided over the course of a number of months information to the department.
One thing they said is that you have to look at what the energy profile of a country like Canada is. Given the dominance of fossil fuels as one part of Canada's mix—we're also blessed to have hydroelectricity and other sources of energy, but we have extensive reserves of coal, oil, and gas—any program for clean energy R and D must have as one of its core priorities investments in carbon capture and sequestration.
We are in good company, because this has also been identified by the G8 as being one of the priorities for the world in addressing GHG emissions. The largest source of emissions in Canada is the burning of coal, which is by far the largest—I think the top eight of the top ten emitters in Canada are coal-fired electricity power stations—and also the emerging and growing area of gas and oil exploration.
We have been providing advice to governments that carbon capture and sequestration must be a priority. At the same time, it's important that the committee understand that this is really new technology. We in Canada have been the leaders internationally, with the work that has taken place at Weyburn. We contribute to that early demonstration of sequestration and also do so in conjunction with the International Energy Agency.
It is recognized that the costs per tonne are fairly high. At the same time, if we assume that we're going to continue to use fossil fuels, which is a pretty safe assumption and one that experts are certainly in agreement with, then we need to address those emissions through that kind of technology.
We recommended that the government make a significant contribution to carbon capture and sequestration. We have already partnered with the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Alberta, which have both taken the same views over recent years. We are part of a commitment under the G8 to having 20 projects initiated by 2010. So Canada is in a fairly good position; I would just say that we're still in the very early stages. We're partnering with companies such as Shell and TransAlta. They're putting a significant amount of investment in, as are our partner provinces.
But when it comes to the actual level of what the cost will be per tonne, we are still in the early stages of understanding it, because of the amount of science that's going on now in the front-end engineering designs as well as the importance of what the actual cost will be. The important part to remember about this is that the real costs are around the capturing of carbon; that, we understand and know. In our own research facilities at NRCan and in conjunction with other researchers in Canada, that's been a primary area of focus.
What we really know is that this is a very important technology for Canada, given the profile of our energy system and given who the large emitters are in this country. That's what has been the driver. We've had a fair amount of dialogue on this, through both a national task force and a provincial task force out of Alberta, which continues to provide information and advice that this is where we need to focus as one of our top priorities. We also have investments in other areas that are really important for Canada. If we're going to drive and change the trajectory of emissions in Canada, it's going to require significant investments in carbon capture and sequestration.
:
Thank you very much for the question.
There was indeed $1 billion allocated in Budget 2009 under the economic action plan for the clean energy fund. Perhaps I could just give you a quick update on the status of that fund. We have announced three carbon capture storage projects to date. All have been co-funded by the Province of Alberta. The investment from the federal government for those three projects was $466 million.
We've also announced 19 successful proposals from all regions of Canada for demonstration projects of renewable and alternative energy technologies, for a total clean energy fund commitment of $146 million.
Combined, these 23 projects will achieve co-funding leverage from the private sector and the provinces of approximately $3.6 billion and will lead to greenhouse gas reductions of close to six million tonnes per year by 2015.
As the minister mentioned earlier today, there was a decision to reallocate $205 million from the clean energy fund to the ecoEnergy retrofit. The reason for that is the enormous take-up of the retrofit program by Canadians who are interested in improving the efficiency of their own homes. It's one of the most popular programs under the economic action plan. It's one that has a significant multiplier when it comes to jobs and investment. So there was a decision made to reallocate from the clean energy fund to the retrofit fund.
:
Thank you for the question.
At Natural Resources Canada we have been working for the last few years on a major effort to improve the performance of the federal government's regulatory process. That has been undertaken through our major projects management office. It's a very small office, but it works very much in applying a more stringent project management approach with all of the regulatory agencies across the government, including our own, because we have a regulatory role at NRCan as well.
We had two mandates for that MPMO. One was to do just that--to apply a much rigorous project management approach. The second was to become a focal point within the Government of Canada for looking at how we could make some improvements to the way all our regulations and legislation work.
One thing announced in this recent budget was a move to have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and office enter into a memorandum of understanding--for instance, with the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission--to ensure that if there is one project, there is one assessment.
That's where we want to move to enable the governments collectively to reduce duplication, particularly in the role of agencies. There have been calls on the part of a number of provincial governments to move toward that very same kind of approach. We've had some early opportunities with the Government of B.C. to have an agreement to substitute the provincial processes for the actual CEAA review in the federal government.
Most notably, there was the Highway 37 transmission line in northwest B.C. There is an MOU between Transport Canada and the Province of B.C. to ensure that we will actually use the environmental assessment and not require a duplicate assessment at the federal level. That is paving the way and giving us some pilots that we can study and analyze to see what the potential would be to move toward the concept of one project, one assessment. We are trying to reduce the number of agencies and the overhead on that front.
I would like to go back to the theme of Canada as a clean energy superpower. Certainly the people in Saskatchewan, where the uranium mines are, and the AECL workers were very pleased to see that Canada is going to be a player in the global renaissance of nuclear energy as part of the overall mix of energy.
We know that CANDU technology, for example, is among the cleanest in the world. In addition to nuclear energy, we have the expertise to test new fuels. In fact, Canada has played a leading role in nuclear non-proliferation by taking the warheads from Russia, for example, in the MOX fuel form and being able to test its use as fuel for energy, thereby making the warheads more valuable as a source of power than as a threat to human life.
In addition to the fuel research, we also have a situation with the spent fuel. Because our fuel is so clean, I want to distinguish between spent fuel and waste. In the case of spent fuel, we use only a fraction of the energy that's contained in a fuel rod. We are storing it in such a way that should uranium become very expensive, we can retrieve these rods. The overarching concern that Canadians have is the waste from nuclear fuel and the overall waste from the nuclear industry. There is waste from medical isotopes and waste from the old parts on refurbishments.
I'm very pleased to see some emphasis in the budget on the issue of nuclear waste. Would you describe how the budget and the estimates are addressing the issue of waste and how the money is being allocated?
Yes, there are a couple of things. Within NRCan's main estimates, moneys are allocated for what is called the legacy waste liability program, which is trying to address at Chalk River, in particular, waste that has been accumulating basically since World War II, so that it be managed and stored responsibly.
Moneys are also allocated through the estimates to fund our activities in Port Hope and to provide that remediation works are undertaken there. At this stage it's still in terms of detailed designs for waste facilities so that we properly address the issue of waste in Port Hope after a period of 50 years.
Then there are others, with respect to technology development, that may address how we better use spent fuel, and that is something AECL continues to devote attention to, including in discussions, for example, with China, as to how we better use spent fuel to generate energy cleanly.
So it is quite a range, Mr. Chairman. I think I'll stop here within the allocated time.
And, again, thank you all for coming.
Now we will get to the votes on the supplementary estimates first.
I think all of you know the process. We will start.
There are four votes on the supplementary estimates. So if we could go directly to the votes....
I think you all know the rules on the votes, so we'll start with vote 1c.
ç
Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$1
Vote 5c—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$1
Vote 10c—Payments to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for operating and capital expenditures..........$182,000,000
Vote 25c—Program expenditures..........$2,147
(Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, and 25c inclusive agreed to on division)
The Chair: Shall I report the supplementary estimates (C) to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: All right, now to the main estimates for 2010-11. It's the same process, and we have votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30.
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$805,869,000
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$15,134,000
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
:
Mr. Chairman, you heard some of the arguments in favour of this motion when I was questioning the minister, so I won't be repetitious, but I would like to clarify a couple of the points the minister made in his speech that I didn't have time to address.
First of all, the minister implied that asbestos is banned in this country. Asbestos is not banned in this country. In fact, there's an active policy to use more asbestos in Canadian public works, etc.
I'd also like to point out that the minister suggested there was ample scientific evidence for a safe use policy for asbestos. I think it should go on the record, and for the information of members here, that there is one study that says asbestos can and should be used safely in this country and abroad. That was a study paid for by the Asbestos Institute at a cost of $1 million to one scientist named David Bernstein. He has no peer review. There's not a single scientist in the world who agrees with him.
In contrast, I've circulated to members of the committee a letter. It was addressed to Premier Charest, but the same letter went to Prime Minister Harper on January 28, 2010. The letter states that 120 scientists from 28 different countries, including Canada, including the Province of Quebec, say just the opposite. If I could read the opening paragraph, it says:
As scientists from twenty-eight countries, dedicated to protecting public health, we appeal to you to respect the overwhelmingly consistent body of scientific evidence and the considered judgment of the World Health Organization (WHO) that all forms of asbestos have been shown to be deadly and that safe use of any form of asbestos has proven impossible anywhere in the world.
Again, I've circulated that for people to look at.
I'd like to also draw attention to another piece of paper I've circulated, which is a letter dated today from the Canadian Cancer Society to you, Chair, Mr. Benoit.
Again, I will read it. It's dated March 17, 2010:
It is our great disappointment that we are having to write to you again this year to express our dismay in the fact that the federal budget allocates $250,000 to support the Chrysotile Institute. Chrysotile, like all forms of asbestos, is known to cause cancer.
The Canadian Cancer Society has officially joined the global ban on asbestos movement, even though the Government of Canada has not. The entire European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa—virtually all the developed world—has banned asbestos in all of its forms, yet Canada continues to be one of the leading exporters of asbestos in the world, at roughly 200,000 tonnes per year, dumped into largely India and other developing third world countries.
Another document I'd like to draw attention to, and I've circulated it in both languages, is a letter to Prime Minister Harper. The principal signatories work at Laval University: Dr. Fernand Turcotte, professor emeritus in public health at Laval University from the Faculty of Medicine, and Dr. Pierre Auger, professor of preventive medicine at Laval University. But it's also signed by Dr. Colin Soskolne from the University of Alberta, Dr. John Last from the University of Ottawa, Dr. Tim Takaro from Simon Fraser University, and Dr. Murray Finkelstein from Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. They urge the Prime Minister, and by extension the government....
We are profoundly disturbed that your government plans to continue to fund the Chrysotile Institute in the new federal budget. It is our view as Canadian experts in epidemiology and occupational medicine and as public health advocates that the Chrysotile Institute is endangering public health by disseminating misleading and untruthful information about chrysotile asbestos, especially in the world's emerging economies.
These experts are appealing to this committee to take away this direct support for the Chrysotile Institute. We should say, as a side note, that this won't stop the Chrysotile Institute from operating, because they get tonnes of soft support from the government, as well as the direct federal subsidy. They are paid to go around the world on 160 different trade junkets in 60 different countries, according to their website, using Canadian embassies to push asbestos, through our trade commissioners.
I've travelled with you internationally, Mr. Benoit, to Indonesia and Vietnam, two of our largest customers, and I've spoken to the trade commissioners in those foreign embassies, with you present, about their policy to push asbestos. They shake their heads, but they dutifully follow the direction of this government to find new markets and push more asbestos.
In many ways, committee members should be conscious of the fact that the asbestos industry is sort of like the tobacco industry's evil twin, in that in the final days, the twilight days, of the tobacco industry, they survive by junk science and aggressive lobbying. The lobbying, in this case, is done by the Chrysotile Institute, subsidized by the federal taxpayer.
:
I don't think my colleague has a point of order, but I don't mind his question. As clarification, what I meant was that the trade commissioners who I spoke to shook their heads in regret that this is what they're asked to do, knowing full well in their own conscience that it's wrong. But they dutifully follow the direction of their employer, the ambassador of the country, to promote.
The Chrysotile Institute has fallen into disrepute partly because they're led by this thug named Mr. Godbout, a former head of the Quebec Federation of Labour. We call him, in the labour movement, a traitor to the working class for now showing no solidarity with the international workers of the world—in fact, putting workers of the world at risk by promoting this deadly toxin. The Chrysotile Institute calls the Quebec National Institute of Public Health “a little gang of Taliban”, “le petit gang de Taliban” de l'Institut national de la santé publique. Now that's an offensive comment by any standards, but when Clément Godbout and Bernard Coulombe are threatened by scientific evidence that puts the lie to their evidence, they accuse the Quebec National Institute of Public Health of being “le petit gang de Taliban”. I wish I could ask the minister if he agreed with berating public servants of Quebec in this fashion, but I find it offensive. But it is typical. It paints a picture. It's illustrative of the tone and the content of the material that this sham of an organization is out there promoting.
I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that I myself worked in the asbestos mines in the Yukon Territory, and I should point out that the asbestos mines in the Yukon closed due to normal market forces, because nobody would buy this poison any more. The mines in B.C., in Ontario, and in Newfoundland all closed because the market was allowed to play itself out. The mines in Quebec are artificially supported because there's this bizarre, irrational affinity for asbestos in Quebec. It's tied to some nationalist pride or something, and it's subsidized aggressively and heavily, artificially. So we're exporting human misery, and supporting it by the taxpayer, because the legacy that we're exporting into these developing nations is horrific. We're spending tens of millions of dollars to remove every scrap of asbestos from the Parliament Buildings because asbestos is so hazardous that no MP should ever be exposed to a single fibre. That's the reasoning. Yet somehow, at the height of hypocrisy, we justify exporting hundreds of thousands of tonnes to developing nations and creating the exact same set of circumstances in those countries that we have to remediate in this country. Remediation of asbestos is one of the largest unfunded liabilities that this country faces.
The final point I would like to make before I yield the floor is that I sit on the government operations committee with my colleague Madam Hall Findlay. We're just about to enter a study into the government's latest announcement that they're going to freeze the budget of every government department right across the board. We're going to look at, in our committee, some of the difficulties that might cause. How do we justify giving a quarter of a million dollars to a lobby group on a frozen departmental budget? How do we rationalize this? It's not only morally and ethically reprehensible because of what they do; it's also not sound fiscal management to give corporate welfare out at a time when the rest of us are asked to tighten our belts. In the interest of fiscal prudence and probity, this committee should be deciding whether or not these estimates should stand the way they are or if we have enough spare cash to give Clément Godbout and his gang of thugs enough money to tour the world like a bunch of globe-trotting propagandists for a known carcinogen. The Canadian Department of Health lists chrysotile asbestos as a class A carcinogen, not just a risk.
The minister says, “Well, it won't bother you as long as you leave it alone in the attic of this building.” That's like saying land mines are safe unless you step on them. Sooner or later, somebody is going to disturb that material and it's going to be fluttering around--and there is no safe level of asbestos.
The last thing I would point out is that when I opened my remarks by saying that asbestos is the greatest industrial hazard the world has ever known and that 60% of all the occupational deaths in Canada are due to asbestos, that figure is 80% in the province of Quebec, because for some reason the province of Quebec allows a threshold limit value of exposure 100 times greater than the rest of the world. Everybody else says .01 fibres per cubic centimetre is an acceptable limit, although actually there is no acceptable limit. In Quebec, it is one fibre per cubic centimetre, 100 times greater tolerance.
There's an irrationality associated with our treatment of Quebec. I agree with Keith Spicer, the Canadian journalist who calls Canada's asbestos policy not only irrational but morally and ethically reprehensible.
We have an opportunity at this point in time to express our revulsion, or my revulsion and perhaps your dissatisfaction, at this irresponsible waste of money encouraging and propagating the damage that asbestos causes around the world by the simple gesture of—
:
Mr. Chairman, if I had an indication that the motion would succeed, I would yield the floor immediately, but I have a sense that the Liberals don't want an election and the Conservatives actually approve of corporate welfare for corporate welfare bums, for corporate serial killers. So I'm not willing to cede the floor. I do have the floor legitimately, and I think it is in the interest of this committee to address this issue in greater detail. It's the one time per year that we get to examine Canada's asbestos policy, and it is in the best interests of the nation and the best interests of this government to use the time well and send a clear message that we should stop funding asbestos in all its forms and we should certainly stop funding the Asbestos Institute, which is, as I said, a registered lobby group that does nothing but promote asbestos around the world.
I noted today that we had an observer in the gallery from the Sierra Club of Canada. They sent out a press release today saying that the Sierra Club of Canada is joining with the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and other environmental and health organizations in calling for an end to government funding of the Chrysotile Institute.
Civil society has spoken. The medical community has spoken in abundance with a unanimous consensus, if that's not a contradiction, that asbestos kills and the Government of Canada has no place being the world's cheerleaders for the asbestos industry.
Let me explain how the asbestos cartel dines out on the good reputation of Canada.
Around the world, Canada has a boy scout image; we are the international good guys. The asbestos cartel tells small, developing nations, “Look, if the Government of Canada says that asbestos is okay, and they are a nice, developed nation, then it must be okay.”
I urge committee members to look at the Government of France. The Government of France in 1999 decided to ban asbestos, and the Chrysotile Institute spent a fortune supporting a complaint to the World Trade Organization interfering with France's sovereign right to protect its own people from the hazards of asbestos. Thankfully, Canada lost that appeal and the Government of France won, and now the good people of France are at least living in an asbestos-free zone.
For the same reason, the entire European Union, all 40 nations, unanimously banned asbestos in all its forms. They are stuck with the unfunded liability of contamination and the cost of remediation of all their public buildings, just as we are. All our hospitals--
:
—Mr. Chairman. I think this is reasonable. I've had a total of 10 minutes to explain an issue that I feel strongly about. Had we had more opportunity to question the minister, it might not have been necessary to explain my position to committee members, but I'm trying to garner the support of committee members for a vote on the main estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. When I finish explaining the compelling reasons to support the vote, then I would welcome the chair's putting the vote to the committee. But until that time, I have the floor and I legitimately have a number of points that I want to make.
I didn't have a chance to question the deputy minister as to how she plans to deal with or cope with the federal government's freeze on departmental budgets. But I would be interested to know how she plans to cope with it, because there's a 1.5% wage increase that's agreed to in the collective agreement of the Public Service Alliance. Somehow, somewhere, the Department of Natural Resources is going to have to trim its budget. I'm suggesting that as the oversight committee—the committee that supervises the expenditures and gives permission for that department to spend money—we could helpfully suggest that one place they might save $250,000 is to stop the direct subsidy to the Chrysotile Institute, for reasons that I welcome the opportunity to explain.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, the Chrysotile Institute was created to take the stink off the asbestos industry, and we've given them $25 million in direct subsidy and an immeasurable amount of money in indirect subsidy to that effect. They have not been successful in taking the stink off the asbestos industry. In fact, the asbestos industry stinks more than ever. I think we owe the media a great deal of gratitude, in that they have successfully exposed what really happens to Canadian asbestos when it winds up in its natural state of repose in foreign marketplaces.
There was a myth being perpetrated by the Chrysotile Institute that they had supervised the safe use of asbestos in underdeveloped and third world countries. We had no way of contradicting them at the time. We had no way of proving them to be wrong, except when CBC sent Mellissa Fung over there to track and follow the use of asbestos. She came back with irrefutable graphic illustrations of how Canadian asbestos is really used. I think you may have seen the images, Mr. Chairman, of bare-breasted workers in India—bare feet, no shirt, no mask—busting open a bale of Canadian asbestos. I used to bag that stuff. I know how those bales are created; I worked in the bagging room. They bust it open with a spade, they spread it out on the floor, and they fluff it up with their hands in order to turn the fibre into the fluff that they can then turn into textiles and weave into asbestos products.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, when asbestos is found in the ground, often in a quartzite vein—serpentine and quartzite often lead to the discovery of asbestos.... When it's found in the ground as a mineral, it is in fact a rock, but if you rub your hands on that rock, fibres separate from the rock. Our first task after extracting the ore was to bring that ore to the crusher, and then the crusher would smash that rock into essentially a crude form of fibre. But another step had to take place, and that was taking the fibre and putting it into hoppers, giant three- and four-storey bags that agitate and fluff this material up to turn it from rock to crushed mineral to fibre, which can then be processed into whatever products it may be used for.
One of the problems with the use of asbestos in these Parliament Buildings, in our own West Block, is that one of the uses of chrysotile asbestos was as a spray coating onto iron girders.
I'm a carpenter by trade, Mr. Chair, and I've come across this in many, many renovations of commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings that I've been involved in. The iron girders, the beams, are sprayed with this stuff called MonoKote, which was the trade name. MonoKote was the brand name for a sprayable asbestos fibre that would be applied onto the girders.
What they didn't foresee, Mr. Chair, and what leads to the problem we have today is that the material was friable. As that material dried, it would crumble, and bits would fall off and then they in fact sit. As we speak, on the top side of these ceiling tiles you will find friable, loose asbestos fibre, to the point that if you want to change a light bulb in West Block, you have to call a haz-mat team. They circle the area with tarps and put in an air exchange unit to positively charge the atmosphere, so that no fibre can be released into the hallway. This is the absurd situation that we find ourselves in, Mr. Chair.