:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is my pleasure to be back before committee.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your understanding when I had to provide you with an extra two hours free time in your schedule on Tuesday. I actually had an unscheduled cabinet committee hearing. Again, I thank you for being so gracious, not only to have cancelled at the last moment on Tuesday, but I'm glad we're able to actually be here to devote time to Bill C-5 and the estimates this morning.
With that, let me introduce my staff, as you did, Mr. Chair. Sue Kirby is the ADM of the energy policy sector. She's new at the department, has been there about three weeks, but has a wealth of experience. If she digresses and talks about fish today, it's because she just came from DFO. We'll try to keep her focused. So if you have some good fish questions, we can probably take those too.
Dave McCauley comes from the energy policy sector, specifically in the nuclear shop, so he has some expertise there.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. Again, my appreciation for the all-party cooperation on . That was very appreciated. I think it's great for the people in Nova Scotia, to move that legislation through the House so quickly.
We're here this morning to focus on , the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. This proposed legislation is about protecting the interests of Canadians by modernizing Canada's nuclear compensation and civil liability framework. It does so to address damages as effectively and efficiently and fairly as possible in the unlikely event of a radioactive release from any nuclear facility in Canada.
As members of the committee will know, the current legislation dates back to the 1970s. So this legislation has been introduced for a number of reasons. First, it will ensure that Canada's laws governing nuclear liability are meeting the international standards. We want to not only ensure the highest standards for nuclear power in Canada, but also align our liability with that of international standards.
Secondly, it will increase the liability of nuclear operators for damages and injury. It will also increase the amount of compensation that will be available to address civil damages.
Third, Bill C-5 will broaden the number of categories for which compensation may be sought and improve the procedures for delivering that compensation.
It could be argued that Canada's current legislation, the Nuclear Liability Act, more or less accomplishes the objectives, a certainty regarding insurance and legal liability. So why do we need new legislation when we already have a serviceable act in place already? The simple answer, as I've said earlier, is that the current act is outdated. It was passed in 1970. Remarkable. I was not even in high school then, Mr. Chair, so it's going back quite a way. My notes say this was a period of ancient history, but I don't think I'll go there. But Bill Gates just turned 15. In any event, it's some time in the past.
Again, we need to ensure that the Nuclear Liability Act reflects the technology and science thinking as we move forward. In the interim, it's not only the technology of nuclear energy that has advanced considerably but the evolution of jurisprudence has contributed to substantial increases in the potential liability for nuclear incidents. Accordingly, we have to upgrade our legislation.
So what are we doing? Well, there are certain fundamentals of this current act that must be retained: number one, absolute liability; two, exclusive liability; and three, mandatory insurance.
Basically, absolute liability means that the operator will be held liable for compensating victims, if there were ever a nuclear incident, without the recourse of traditional defences available under the common law. This means that victims would not be faced with proving that the operator was at fault.
Secondly, in the related principle, exclusive liability means that there is no question who is responsible. No other party than the operator, no supplier, no subcontractor, nobody else can be held liable except for the operator. Again, it means the victims would not have to prove who was at fault, especially in such a highly complex industry, and there'd be no question about where they'd take their claim for compensation.
Nevertheless, to modernize our liability scheme, we must have legislation that goes further. For example, we must increase liability amounts, increase the mandatory insurance requirements, add new definitions of damage, and provide a more effective compensation process. We must do this to meet the practical needs and realities of today.
Mr. Chairman, the proposed legislation makes significant changes in the matter of compensation. In financial terms, it increases the liability for nuclear operators. The 1970 act sets the amount at $75 million, an amount that presently is one of the lowest within the G-8.
The international norm is just below $500 million, but in Bill C-5 we believe the standard that's been suggested as an appropriate amount will raise it to $650 million. This balances a need for operators to provide adequate compensation without burdening them with huge costs for unrealistic insurance amounts. Again it's striking that right balance. It's what is the right balance for the appropriate amount of compensation, while ensuring that we're providing realistic insurance amounts. This increase will put Canada on par with most of the western nuclear countries. The proposed legislation also increases the mandatory insurance operators must carry by almost ninefold.
As I've said, Bill C-5 makes Canada's legislation more consistent with international conventions. It does so not only with respect to financial matters, but also with clearer definitions of crucial matters such as what constitutes a nuclear incident, what damages do or do not qualify for compensation, and so on. These enhancements will place the Canadian nuclear firms on a level playing field with competitors in other countries. This is important if Canada is to maintain its international presence in matters of nuclear energy. Canadian companies welcome the certainty of operating in accordance with the accepted international norms.
Mr. Chair, both the current liability framework and Bill C-5 contain limitation periods restricting the time for making claims. Under the act passed in the 1970s, claims must be brought within ten years of an incident. However, since the passage of that earlier liability legislation, we have come to understand that for some related injuries obviously that's not adequate. Accordingly, the limitation period for claims has been extended to thirty years under Bill C-5.
Both the earlier Nuclear Liability Act and Bill C-5 provide for an administrative process that will operate faster than the courts in an adjudication of claims arising from a large nuclear incident. However, the proposed legislation clarifies the arrangements for a quasi-judicial tribunal to hear those claims. These new processes will ensure that claims are handled both equitably and efficiently.
In closing, Mr. Chair, I would like to underscore that Bill C-5 is about being prepared for the events that are unlikely to ever happen in this country. Our nuclear fleet is arguably one of the safest of any of the fleets in the entire world with an extraordinary safety record. Canada's experience goes back some 75 years. For the past 30 years nuclear power has been a regular part of Canada's energy mix. In all of this time, safety has been the watchword of Canada's nuclear industry. Moreover, the reactor for which we are known elsewhere is the CANDU, and as I said, it is one of the safest and cleanest reactors in the world. With the progress of nuclear technology, our reputation for safety will become even more secure.
Nevertheless, we must be realistic and we must be responsible. Although it is extremely unlikely that Canada will see a nuclear incident, we must be prepared. That is the principal reason we have proposed to modernize Canada's nuclear liability and compensation legislation by tabling the bill you are considering at this time.
Those are my opening comments, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the members' questions.
Thank you very much.
First of all, the short answer is that I can't tell you, but hopefully we'll be able to let you know soon. Obviously it's before the government. They are considering that. A final decision hasn't been made, but I would anticipate hopefully sometime in the very near future we'll be able to give you a definitive answer.
The global nuclear energy partnership originally compromised five or six countries. They invited another 11 countries, I believe, to join, Canada being one of them. There are some benefits. I think there are a lot of benefits for us to look at it. We're all aware in this committee that Canada is a larger producer of uranium than any other country in the world. If you look at some of the stated principles, to deal with non-proliferation issues, on the entire fuel cycle to ensure that we're extracting the maximum amount of energy, on recycling, all those issues, the most efficient use of uranium is one of the issues they're looking at, and to promote nuclear as a clean source of energy. Those are just some of the high-level principles of GNEP.
There were some other issues they were talking about that Canada had concerns about, but again, we are clearly looking at this. Once the government has made a decision, I would be quite happy to come back to committee.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Minister, thank you for coming here this morning to answer our questions. I'm somewhat taking advantage of the comments made by my Liberal colleague to tell you that the Bloc québécois does not really share your opinion that nuclear energy is clean energy. You also referred to the advantages, but you completely disregard the disadvantages. When you present an idea that you believe in, you should be frank and inform the Quebec and Canadian public of the advantages and disadvantages it entails.
As you know, the entire question of waste management is one of the disadvantages. We've had discussions, but you told me that we would be debating this for another 30 years. The fact remains that the debate on this subject is not over. Among other things, we have to see where the waste would be buried. The idea of promoting a form of energy that will spread around the world and the quantity of waste from which will consequently increase, when we don't yet know where it will be buried, is quite surprising.
I agree with you that choosing nuclear energy is a decision for the provinces. However, the effect of that choice by the provinces is that the federal government will have work to do on waste management and safety. I believe it can be said that, by making that choice, a province would be choosing to share responsibilities with the federal government and thus with Canadian taxpayers as a whole.
I believe we will have opportunities to debate this, minister. The matter is not over. It is somewhat unfortunate that we have to use a forum such as the study of this bill to address the subject with you. I agree with the Liberal member that it would be more appropriate, before accepting the invitation sent to you, to take part in the negotiations in the context of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, to clearly debate the conditions of that agreement and the implications for Canada of belonging to it. Among other things, if waste must be recovered from around the world to be buried in Canada, on the ground that we are the primary producers and exporters of uranium, I can tell you that we will not agree. There is a kind of lack of transparency and debate in this matter.
Furthermore, you are quite silent these days about nuclear energy. I don't know whether you've been kindly asked to be discreet on the topic, but we hear less from you. There must be a reason for that. That concludes what I had to tell you about nuclear energy, minister.
Now I'm going to move on the Bill . For the questions that are somewhat more specific, your deputy ministers may perhaps be able to help you.
Could you explain to me what the premium is for an operator that must carry coverage of $650 million? I'm particularly interested in that because, back home in Quebec, the Gentilly station belongs to Hydro-Quebec, thus to Quebec taxpayers. Does increasing insurance, and thus premiums, mean that, as a taxpayer, I'm going to receive a bill for the cost of that premium?
I'd also really like you to clarify the principle of reciprocity between countries. In the context of a negotiation with a country, what does this concept included in the bill mean for Canada in concrete terms? I find it hard to understand. I also want to know why you're limiting the guarantees to 50%? From what I understand, Hydro-Quebec will have to guarantee premiums up to $325 million, which represents 50% of the $650 million.
My last question concerns the claims tribunal. Will it operate only in the event of accidents, or will it be a permanent structure for which we will have to pay operating costs, and make appointments and so on?
You touched on the GNEP. Let me be absolutely crystal clear. Canada under no uncertain circumstances will accept nuclear spent fuel or nuclear waste from any other country. We do not support that. The spent nuclear fuel we produce here in Canada, and that's everything from medical isotopes to the nuclear reactors that produce electricity—primarily in Ontario, but there are also reactors in Quebec and New Brunswick. Obviously, we are taking steps to deal with the safe storage and management of the spent nuclear fuel here in Canada. We will not under any circumstances accept having to deal with spent nuclear waste from another country. It would be their responsibility to look after that.
We're very clear on that principle. Hopefully I've been able to clear that issue up for you.
With respect to the waste, you're right—it's an issue. I said nuclear energy is clean. It produces no greenhouse gases and no pollution when it's producing, but there is the issue of the storage of the spent nuclear fuel. We acknowledge that. There is work being done on that by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, and we've accepted their report.
I would stress that it's only one source of energy of many in Canada. We are blessed with a lot of hydro. We have a lot of potential for renewable energy. We're using coal-fired electricity production in Canada, and nuclear. It's the provinces' jurisdiction to decide on their energy mix, not the federal government's. We will respect that jurisdiction and not wade into what they want. But when they do decide—as in Ontario, which recognizes the importance of nuclear energy—we have to make sure that we're there to provide the right regulatory regime and that it's safe for all Canadians. That's our role and we take it very seriously.
With respect to the premiums, the industry understands that the current limits are woefully inadequate—$75 million. Yes, the premiums will go up. There will be a sixfold increase in premiums from what they're currently paying. They will be phased in over time—over four years, I believe. The liability insurance will go up, and the government will assist in the interim. The industry will, over four years, ramp up, or they'll be facing increased insurance premiums. They've accepted that and are generally supportive of this legislation because they understand it has to come up to the international standards. Where the costs are passed on or how they're passed on would obviously be up to the operator and the provinces. That would be their jurisdiction. It's not something we would deal with.
It's our responsibility to ensure that the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act is meeting the standards of the day, and today it's not. That's why it's important we're doing this.
But there is no question, this will cause a sixfold increase in insurance premiums for the nuclear operator.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for meeting with us today on this bill.
Of course everyone is concerned about energy in this country, and the work coming forward on the nuclear aspect of energy is important. It's important to put it in context with other energy sources, and I think in some ways the question of the cost of liability is an important issue to be taken into account in the choices we make about energy in the future.
If we're looking at nuclear energy as a potential substitute for other forms of energy, then we need to put its cost in context. We have to make a level playing field between its costs and costs of other potential opportunities that we have in the energy field, so it's important to look at the liability that's engaged in nuclear energy. It's certainly greater than wind power or solar power or many of the other alternatives we're looking at for energy sources in this country. They don't contain much liability, and the liability is in relatively small increments, rather than in very large increments.
Of course occurrences are less frequent, but the potential for liability within the nuclear industry is, in the extreme case, very large. I think that's been identified in the United States, where we see a limit of $9.7 billion. There is a two-tier system of liability within the United States for nuclear energy, one borne by the operator and one that fits within the industry as a whole. That's another solution they have to the larger issue of nuclear liability.
When we compare our limits to liability, we can put them in the context of an international standard or we can put them in the context of a North American standard; in this case, the most likely match to our conditions would be our nearest neighbour, the United States.
In some ways the idea of limited liability is archaic. In this bill we're limiting liability for damages to $650 million; however, the liability issues could be quite a bit larger than that, and it may be important to look at it in terms of unlimited liability.
My question to you is this: where did we set this limit, why are we putting the limit where we are, and why are we continuing with a limited liability policy?
That actually is a fairly nice segue into where I'm going with a couple of my questions. One of the things I'm concerned about is public perception. We want to give the public a comfort level and as much reassurance as possible. I think, ultimately, that the safety of our nuclear power plants in Canada.... I do believe that we have some of the safest, if not the safest, in the world because of the talents and the people we have and because of the regulations and the oversight and their ultimate character.
One of the areas in the bill that I wish to have some comment on—and it's in some respects not direct, but tangential—falls in with what you were saying about the U.S. That's the point about reciprocating agreements. I guess, as I said, that I'm not all that concerned about the Canadian record. We've done very well. The American record has been very good, as has the western European one, and so forth. But you never know. So I'm a bit interested in what we have been working on and in what we have as reciprocating agreements.
If you want to elaborate more on how Canadians would go about making insurance claims, assuming that there are incidents in the United States, I'd appreciate that. And it's not just the Americans; it's other potential countries or various places that we may have reciprocating agreements with. How would we go about it?
If you would range over as broad as possible a commentary on reciprocating agreements and possible claims against the United States as you elaborate on that, that would be appreciated.
:
Sure. First of all, obviously, because of the close proximity, the United States is the prime country we have to deal with. We do have a reciprocal agreement. In the event of an event or incident in the United States, there is an agreement in place that should allow Canadians to make claims against their insurance system. That's their liability insurance, obviously. Likewise, the reverse is also true. It's a reciprocal agreement that goes in both directions. If there were ever to be an incident here, they would also, rightfully, be able to make a claim against our insurance.
So those agreements are in place. I'm not aware that we have agreements with any other countries other than the United States with respect to that.
But perception is important, and you talked about this. I think we actually need to take it beyond perception. This is an industry that has to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. Obviously, it's very important, and not just in the production of electricity. Canada produces 50% of the world's medical isotopes--I don't know the exact number, but it's in the tens of thousands--for medical procedures used in nuclear medicine and the treatment of cancer every single day around the world. They also come from a nuclear reactor. People may not be aware of that. So all that is important, as well.
There are very strict standards, with respect to safety, from the regulator. They're monitored. It's a very highly regulated, tightly controlled industry, as it needs to be. But again, there are reciprocal agreements.
I'm being passed a note. This bill gives us authority to negotiate agreements that we don't have now with other countries. So there's something I've learned: we would have the ability to negotiate agreements. But obviously, with the United States, which is probably the most important one, we already have an agreement in place.
:
Mr. Minister, one of the laws of ecology is that you can't do only one thing. So if we assume that there are no small nuclear accidents, they're either catastrophic or not, which is really the purpose of insurance for catastrophe—we would conclude that it would either be some form of airborne, or at least something international in scope as a distinct possibility, which means that we could have contamination not only of the air but going into the ocean or other land masses.
When we talk about the $650 million limitation, it's quite possible that the lawsuits may come from people, for instance, in Spain, Portugal, or the United States who feel their fishing entitlements have been jeopardized, or from people who feel that their ability to breathe—Iceland, for instance—and those types of things.... Something like that could occur.
So I'm questioning the $650 million as a limitation, bearing in mind two factors: one, the size of it, which you have already alluded to, of course; and two, general inflation, which would make us come back to review it.
Would you not build into that some form of standardized changes to account for inflation, history, time, chronological progress, and the impact of what may happen in international scope?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Again, I'm pleased to have Mr. Tobin here, the ADM at Natural Resources Canada for corporate finance; and I believe we have another ADM here, Phil Jennings, who heads up the major projects management office. So if you have some questions there, he might be able to give us some assistance.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and for your understanding and flexibility in accommodating my schedule so that I am able to come in and do these back to back.
Canada's natural resources are vital to Canada's economy. I'm committed to the sustainable development of our resources, which enhance our productivity and our competitiveness. At Natural Resources Canada, I'm working to combine economic opportunity with environmental and social responsibility.
Today I'd like to talk about the measures we are taking in four key areas. First is clean energy and climate change, specifically the development of improved energy technology that contributes to a cleaner, healthier environment by reducing greenhouse gases.
Second is forest sector competitiveness. We are all aware of the challenges this sector is facing. Natural Resources Canada is leading the forest industry's long-term competitive strategy and assisting the forest sector to meet the challenges of today.
Third, I want to touch upon Arctic sovereignty. Through NRCan's land mass and sea bed knowledge, and through the continued studies on the effects of climate change, my department is contributing to the economic and social development of northern Canadians, allowing Canada to better exercise its arctic sovereignty.
Lastly, there are the regulatory issues. The major projects management office will provide a single point of entry into the federal regulatory process for industry, while accounting for aboriginal issues and improving environmental integrity and health and safety concerns.
These four priorities are in keeping with those established in our government's Speech from the Throne and our broader government priorities.
Let me begin with clean energy and climate change. My goal as the Minister of Natural Resources is to help position Canada as a world leader in environmental responsibility through the development and use of natural resources, by increasing energy efficiency, by increasing the production of low emission energy, and by reducing the environmental impacts associated with energy use and production. We are well aware of the ever-increasing demand of energy.
Through my department, the Government of Canada is building on Canada's competitive advantage in the energy sector while embracing environmental and social sustainability. A number of key initiatives have been launched to help Canadians use energy more efficiently by boosting clean energy supplies and developing cleaner energy. Among these are the ecoEnergy initiatives.
The ecoEnergy efficiency initiative covers the cost of retrofitting programs for homes and personal and business use. In addition, the ecoEnergy renewable initiative supports clean power projects, providing incentives for wind, tidal, solar, and other clean projects.
Our government's renewable fuel strategy includes investments in support of the expansion of Canadian production of renewable fuels. Even more exciting is where we're going with the NextGen Biofuels Fund, a $500 million investment that will be administered through Sustainable Development Technology Canada to fund the next generation of renewable technologies.
My department also works with the energy industry and environmental stakeholders to find safer, cleaner, more efficient methods of developing Canada's energy resources. One of the innovative ideas we are contributing in this endeavour is RETScreen, which is empowering cleaner decisions around the world—and it's pretty cool technology if you ever have an opportunity to see it. It's something for the committee in the future, as we could make officials available to come to give you a demonstration of it. I was quite impressed when I saw it.
RETScreen is the leading software for assessing the viability of renewable energy and energy efficient technology projects. It was developed at NRCan. Some of its partners are NASA and other international ones. It's really leading the world in this type of technology; in fact, some of the states in the U.S. are actually putting RETScreen into their legislation as the standard that has to be achieved. So it's an example of some of the great work that is happening.
Just to give you an idea of the expanse of our involvement in energy technologies to improve the environment, we are helping to create technology road maps for clean energy by transforming Canada's electricity generation infrastructure; developing new combustion technologies to design combustion systems that are CO2 neutral; and are working to make oil sands commercially feasible and environmentally sound.
Our priority is to address climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring Canada's competitiveness and contributing to our economy and social well-being.
Let me quickly touch on the forest sector.
This sector contributes $36 billion to our economy. The industry, as we all know, is facing some very enormous challenges, and our government is trying to help them overcome this. We are committed to working with the forest sector through this difficult time. Right now, as you know, we are delivering $400 million in forestry initiatives. We are investing in research and development to help address breakthrough technologies that will expand traditional product lines and increase competitiveness. The forest industry long-term competitiveness initiative is an excellent example of collaboration with other government departments and the private sector.
One important area we're concentrating on is helping to combat the mountain pine beetle infestation, which is threatening forest communities and the forest industry primarily in the west. The federal mountain pine beetle program is focused on controlling the spread, supporting economic development in hard-hit communities, and protecting forest resources.
We turn to Arctic sovereignty.
We are seeing opportunities for social and economic development emerging across the Arctic. There are new challenges as international interest in the region is growing. As outlined in the Speech from the Throne, a priority of our government is to enhance specific scientific research in the north, and improve our knowledge through mapping and charting. In addition to supporting environmental stewardship, this research will allow Canada to better exercise its Arctic sovereignty and will also contribute to economic and social development for northern Canadians. Migration and adaptation to environment challenges in the natural resource sector need to become integral parts of the decision-making process. Environmental challenges also present opportunities for new technology solutions that through the expertise of Natural Resources Canada will place Canada at the forefront of modern sustainable resource development.
Finally, I'd like to discuss the importance of regulatory issues in meeting the Government of Canada's commitment to a modern, efficient, and effective system that will protect the environment and improve the competitiveness of our industries.
For key sectors of our economy, such as the traditional industries of forestry and mining, our government is delivering concrete results. Given the high commodity prices and the demand for resources, the number of major resource projects has grown by 200% in the last three years alone. The current regulatory system cannot keep up with the demand. That is why our government has placed a high priority on creating a new major projects management office, an initiative that will maintain Canada's world-class environmental standards, while cutting red tape and cutting the time it takes to get regulatory approval in half. It will provide a single point of entry into the federal process for industry and all Canadians. This initiative will improve the competitiveness in Canada's resource industries while providing the capacity needed to uphold our country's world-class environmental standards.
I should also add that as we improve the efficiency, transparency will also improve. Greater access will be provided to all Canadians to actually see where projects are in the regulatory process. I think that's very important as we strive to increase this efficiency.
The priorities I've outlined today are part of our government's commitment to deliver results for Canadians. Safeguarding the environment while protecting Canada's natural resources to the benefit of our country's economy and social well-being is my goal as the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to take your questions.
First, since you raised the issue of promoting nuclear, I just want to emphatically state that it's not my job to promote it at all, and that's not what I'm doing. It's purely the jurisdiction of the provinces to decide on their energy mix. Quebec and British Columbia are blessed with a lot of hydro, and that's where they may choose to get their energy. Other parts of the country may decide to use coal and are investing in clean-coal technologies. Almost 50% of Ontario's energy comes from nuclear. Quebec and New Brunswick also use nuclear.
Our first and foremost responsibility as a federal government is to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. That's our number one priority with respect to nuclear. Obviously there are other issues that we have to deal with. But as the government responsible for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the regulator, that's our priority.
When a province makes a decision to build a new nuclear reactor, our job is to ensure that all the processes and resources are in place to go through those approvals and that we do a very thorough job to ensure safety and security.
We have many sources of energy across the country, and it's absolutely 100% provincial jurisdiction. If Quebec decides to build a new nuclear reactor, that's 100% their jurisdiction. We aren't involved in that in any way, shape, or form. Once they make that decision, our job as the regulator is to ensure the process is there to go through the environmental processes and all the correct approvals.
On the financial side—you raised AECL—one of the issues is specifically at our Chalk River research labs. The NRU reactor there produces medical isotopes. There are some health and safety issues there that have been overlooked for some time. They require some funds to meet those regulations, and as a government we have to provide the resources to do that. They've been ignored for a long time and have fallen into a.... Obviously they meet minimum safety standards, but they need to become compliant with other health and safety standards, and we have to address that. So you will see additional funding requests in the supplementary estimates for that.
How much will the taxpayer have to pay? I've emphatically stated that any new reactor to be built must be done on a commercial basis without government assistance. The record of the AECL on the CANDU and recent builds has been very good. We haven't built a new reactor in Canada in 25 to 30 years, but they've recently built two in Qinshan, China. They came in on time and under budget. So the recent record on new builds has been very good, but AECL has to compete with the rest of the competitors. It has to be done on a commercial basis, and we're confident they can do that.
:
I don't know what the uptake on that has been and how many people have used it.
Before you answer my question—because I have a few—I've been getting a lot of mail and calls from people saying they have done the assessments, have purchased maybe a heat pump or would like to do more things, and the return they're getting for a $13,000 heat pump is only about $400.
In the press releases and in the material I've seen from your department, it says that homeowners can get up to $5,000. I don't know if people are being misled on that or what the situation is, but it's disconcerting when they actually try to get the money back or try to access the grant and they're really not getting much of a return. People are saying, “Why should I invest all that if it's really not going to help me?”
The other piece of it is that there used to be a grant for low-income individuals, and that's unavailable now. I've had people who had applied under the previous program—which has now gone and has been changed—and who hadn't been approved but had had their application in. They feel that they probably would have been approved, but then there were the changes. They can no longer afford to do the assessments because they have low incomes, and that's a big problem.
I'm just wondering if there is going to be any kind of review of this program for low-income people, because when they're paying high energy costs, that also eats into their low income. I'm just curious to know if there is any way you can have more investment in that program to help low-income people.
It's a pleasure to be here today. For the committee's edification, I'm probably the only member of Parliament who has actually worked at a nuclear plant. My sister works at a nuclear plant. My brother-in-law works in a nuclear plant. My father spent his whole career at a nuclear plant. I've also worked on a dairy farm, and I can tell you, Mr. Minister, it's safer to work at a nuclear plant than on a dairy farm.
I appreciate the work you and your department are doing in terms of protection, as my family still lives a 15-minute drive away from Bruce nuclear power stations.
I actually have seen the pool where they store the spent fuel, and it's a beautiful blue colour, by the way, not that I'm pro-nuclear at all
It is a provincial decision—I agree 100%—as to what the mix should be, and I look forward to the province closing some of their coal plants in Ontario and going nuclear. But we'll see what they do with that.
I am here to talk about estimates. I am also on the finance committee, and I've also been around to a number of other committees to talk about estimates because I love to talk about them. What I have are really just technical questions.
My first question is on the National Energy Board. Maybe Mr. Tobin can provide the explanations. They're asking for an increase, and the explanation we have here is “to fund existing demands and forecast increases”. To be frank with you, I've seen other amounts that are much larger than $8 million.
My question is twofold: one, were these forecasts unforeseen at the time the original main estimates were submitted, and two, what are those unforeseen forecasts for which they need the extra $8 million?