Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 11 - Evidence - November 3, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 6:19 p.m. to examine and report on the current state and future of Canada's energy sector (including alternative energy).
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to order. Good evening to you all, including any viewers on CPAC this evening or indeed on the World Wide Web. We have a following there and everyone is welcome.
We are privileged this evening to have a very special guest with us, the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources. I believe with you, minister, you have Drew Leyburne, Director, Strategic Policy Division; Cassie Doyle, Deputy Minister; Carol Buckley, Director General, Energy Sector; and Martin Aubé, Director General, Strategic Science - Technology Branch. You are all very welcome.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to say that I am David Angus, senator from Montreal. I am the chair of this committee.
[English]
To my right is our deputy chair, Senator Grant Mitchell, from Alberta. Beside him are our two researchers from the Library of Parliament, Mr. Leblanc and Ms. Banks. Beside her is Senator Tommy Banks, from Alberta; Senator Richard Neufeld, from British Columbia; and Senator Bert Brown, from Alberta. To my immediate left is our very fine clerk, Lynn Gordon, and to her left is Senator Lang, from the Yukon. To his left is Senator Rob Peterson, from Saskatchewan; Senator Nick Sibbeston, from the Northwest Territories, and our newest senator on this committee, Senator Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.
On June 4 of this year, the Senate authorized this committee to exam and report on the current state and future of Canada's energy sector and approved a rather broad mandate giving us a substantial amount of time, at least two years, to do an overarching study on the energy sector generally, with a view hopefully to developing some kind of a cohesive basis for a national strategy in this field, obviously taking into account in our deliberations the connectivity, if you will, of matters energy and matters climate change, environmental issues.
Canada, of course, is a major producer of energy in a world where energy demand is steadily growing and conventional energy supply is diminishing. Also, governments around the world are confronted with the challenge of how to achieve energy security while reducing carbon emissions. Carbon emission targets by Canadian governments and the substance of a global agreement on climate change action have the potential to shape all aspects of Canada's future energy system. In light of these issues, the committee believes it is high time for a thorough national discussion concerning Canada's future energy system and supply.
I might say, parenthetically, that we have started our study trying to inform ourselves on the basics. We call it the ABC phase. We are starting to learn about things like cap and trade and sequestration of carbon. We have commissioned several consultants to provide us with the state of play so that we do not duplicate work that has already been done and so that we become conversant with the issues instead of thrashing around like chickens with their heads cut off. We are trying to do it right. We are not in any great hurry.
We are obviously delighted, minister, that you can be with us this evening, with your officials. After all, energy is what this committee is about, and that is your department. We are your Senate committee. In talking with your staff, I understand that you know that and you welcome that. We are delighted to have this working relationship with you and your people.
I might say that the provinces, obviously, are key. We are talking about jurisdictional issues. We have developed or are in the process of developing a sort of template to send to all the ministers of energy and natural resources in all the provinces and territories, with a view to getting a consistent response on the state of supply, usage, and so forth, the status quo in all the sources, whether they be alternative sources of energy, hydroelectric, nuclear and so on. We have not yet sent that out, but we are trying to design it so it will be user-friendly for the various ministers and their deputies. We are hoping to share that with you and your officials before we send it out so that perhaps, because of your excellent relationships with the provincial counterparts, you can assist us in getting prompt responses.
After that, just so everyone knows and understands, we plan to do at least five regional visits, round tables, in the different key parts of the country and to bring together the players in those areas to discuss what we are finding to help us learn more.
Again, I want to say how pleased we are you could be here. We do have a copy of your preliminary statement. I understand that once you have shared that with us, you will be quite pleased to answer our questions and have a little discussion with us.
Hon. Lisa Raitt, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear here today. What you have set out in your opening remarks regarding the steps you are taking with the committee is quite incredible and an important step for us as a nation. A term that I have grown to know and love very much and for which I am a bit of an advocate is that our country, our citizens, our elected officials, everyone needs to enter into a phase where we have better energy literacy, because we do not always know what we are talking about when it comes to energy. It is important to have a common understanding of what it means and what electricity really is, where it comes from in your province and what is different in terms of how you heat your house versus how you power your house. These may seem to be simple concepts, but they are fundamental aspects, and I know this committee will go a long way in adding to energy literacy in this country. I am pleased to hear what you are embarking upon, and I think it will be extremely useful. Anything we can do to help out with that, we are more than happy to do so.
Your study of the current state of the energy sector, as well as the future, is both timely and entirely welcome. It touches on two of the major challenges we are facing in the 21st century: energy security and climate change. As a developed nation, we have extensive resources of both energy and knowledge. Canada has a leading role to play in meeting these global challenges as a result.
We are also part of a global energy system. It is a system that the International Energy Agency reminds us will rely on fossil fuels for the majority of its energy needs for generations to come. This is the reality. Energy infrastructures have very long life spans, and the continuing emergence of new super-consumer nations, such as China and India, is inevitable.
There is no question that in Canada we have massive energy resources. We have proven oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's in size. We are the world's third-largest producer and second-largest exporter of natural gas. We have huge reserves of methane hydrates. We have enough coal to last another 100 years. We are the world's largest producer of uranium, and we are the world's second-largest generator of hydroelectricity. This does not even include the potential we have to produce renewable energy from biomass, from the wind, the sun, tides and even the geothermal energy of the Earth itself. That is a good thing, because we are a large northern country with a widely dispersed population and an energy-intensive industrial structure that makes us unique on the world stage. It is noteworthy as well that we are among the highest per capita consumers of energy in the world, for those very reasons.
The challenge is balancing our energy reality while reducing our environmental footprint. We want to mitigate the CO2 emissions from the increased economic growth, which also means increased production of fossil fuels to meet world demand.
This government is committed to achieving an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020 and a reduction of 50 per cent or more by 2050. We are also committed to a different benchmark, to meeting 90 per cent of electricity demand from non-emitting sources by 2020.
We have a good start on electricity. Canada's electricity is already among the cleanest in the world. It is thanks to ample hydroelectricity and emissions-free nuclear energy that approximately 76 per cent of Canadian electricity generation is non-emitting already.
Wind is now the fastest growing source of electric power in Canada. Smart grid technology will facilitate the introduction of renewables and will make our electricity infrastructure more efficient, because greater efficiency is absolutely essential. Canadians can be proud that our leadership in energy efficiency has been recognized in a recent report from the International Energy Agency.
The reality is that fossil fuels will remain our dominant source of energy for decades to come. The oil sands and our natural gas reserves represent a massive and strategic resource for Canada, for North America, and for the globe. Oil sands, of course, are not the only major resource we have in Canada. Shale gas is an important developing phenomenon that may very well change the commodity mix in Canada. Let us be clear: the world will need these resources. Like other countries, Canada is committed to a low-carbon energy future. We are today investing billions of dollars in renewables, in efficiency measures and in other initiatives to achieve this.
Those who looked closely at this, such as the International Energy Agency, will tell you that fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas will continue to dominate the world's energy mix. Even with the investments we make for that low-carbon future, oil will be an important part of the world's energy profile. I now have a few words on oil sands in that regard.
The oil sands are an enormous resource. With 170 billion barrels of proven reserves, they constitute 97 per cent of Canada's total reserves. With 13 per cent of overall world reserves and, more important, 42 per cent of the world's reserves outside of OPEC countries, the world will need this oil. Markets will likely continue to determine that it will be a growing source for the North American market.
The U.S. administration recognizes the importance that the oil sands play in North American energy security, but there are misconceptions. We are working to address those. Working with Alberta and with the industry, we have a targeted and focused strategy with a goal to provide a fact-based understanding of the issues surrounding oil sands development, the importance of the oil sands economically to the United States, the significant energy security benefits, and our commitment to developing the strategic resource in a sustainable way. That is a commitment we will keep. We cannot and we will not simply walk away from the energy and wealth that this resource represents.
Science and technology is critical to meeting our commitment — investing strategically in clean energy for the future. We must invest at all stages of the innovation cycle, from the basic, long-term research and applied research to the demonstration and the commercialization of the technologies. With science and technology, we have achieved leadership in areas as diverse as carbon capture and storage and energy efficient building technologies. Through our ecoENERGY Technology Initiative, we are investing in research and development to increase our clean energy supply, to reduce energy waste, and to reduce pollution from conventional energy sources.
With the Clean Energy Fund, we are investing in large demonstration carbon capture and storage projects. We have announced two of these already. One will see carbon capture and storage installed on the Shell Quest Upgrader; a second will see carbon capture and storage built into the Keephill's 3 coal generation plant. As a result, Canada is leading the way on the G8 commitment to put in place 20 commercial-scale carbon capture and storage projects by 2010.
We have also joined in recognizing the importance of developed countries, providing expertise and support to help developing countries implement the technology. We need to continue working to discover and develop those truly game-changing ideas, those breakthroughs that will allow us to hit our 2050 emission targets and our energy requirements.
We know what we need to do. We need to continue and expand our emphasis on science and technology, on clean energy, on energy efficiency and on smarter regulation, but there is no one answer. We must pull all these levers if we are to overcome the current obstacles and meet the challenges. And we need to work together. No one actor can do all these things alone. These are global issues that need global solutions, and Canada is poised to lead the way.
It is a global challenge. Canada's success will make little difference unless we are part of a concerted global effort. We are committed to playing our proper part. We are moving forward with the new Clean Energy Dialogue with the United States, and we are members and in some cases founding members of organizations such as the Global Forum on Carbon Capture and Storage; the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute; and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum.
At the recent International Energy Agency Ministerial, I emphasized — and my colleagues agreed on — the necessity of collaboration in achieving energy security in the context of that cleaner energy future.
I know that your committee recently visited Washington, D.C., which shows that you share my priorities with respect to ensuring that strong energy future for Canada. I want to thank you for taking that initiative. I think it is helpful every time we have people having an understanding of our relationship with the United States and the many connections that we have to each other and, of course, showing our friends in the United States that we want to work with them.
Our efforts to expand collaboration with our partners in Canada are showing even more promise. At the recent meeting of Canadian energy ministers, we had a strong consensus on the need to advance our efforts on cleaner energy, on energy efficiency, and on smart regulation, and a strong consensus to increase our collaboration in these areas. The response to our decision to create a series of three new national round tables on renewable energy, on clean energy research and development, and on community energy solutions has truly been outstanding. The engagement we are seeing from stakeholders at the round tables, and in other ways, is both gratifying and encouraging. Key industry leaders like the G4 have been leading a national dialogue on an energy framework initiative for Canada. The Canada West Foundation has released a major policy paper entitled Getting it Right — A Canadian Energy Strategy for a Carbon-Constrained Future. The Council of the Federation has contributed a major paper entitled A Shared Vision for Energy in Canada. There are many other examples, but I recognize that there are limits to the time available tonight, and I am sure we would like to get to the question part, so I will conclude with some brief points.
Achieving energy security in the context of a low-carbon future is a significant challenge. We know that energy demand will continue to increase, and that will add to the challenge. However, I am confident that we are on the right track. We are making progress and we continue to explore new opportunities and new ideas to accelerate and broaden our progress. As I have stated, we are cognizant that we cannot do this alone. It is a great national undertaking. We welcome and encourage the growing engagement from Canadians in all parts of this great country.
I most certainly include in that number the members of this committee. I look forward to hearing your perspectives on Canada's energy future in our discussion today, and I very much look forward to hearing about the five regional energy round tables you will be holding in the coming months. Thank you very much for allowing me this time to address you. I am more than happy to take your questions and I look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. That was a fine introduction.
As my colleagues know, it is not my normal practice to intervene with questions myself, and they are all champing at the bit. I was made aware that you appeared for 90 minutes yesterday in the other place and talked about nuclear or atomic energy for the whole 90 minutes. I learned two things from that. First, that you have a bill coming our way, Bill C-20. Of course, government legislation is the number one priority for us. When, and if, it reaches us, we will put our study aside and focus on the bill.
That bill deals with nuclear liability and insurance. Canada has been out of step with its partners. Senator Banks and I have visited this issue together previously. We heard in Paris — where I understand you have recently been — at the International Energy Agency that we are simply not in step with our partners. It is high time we do this.
I am quite interested in nuclear issues. It is starting to get into the frame here.
In your comments to members of Parliament, you indicated that 15 per cent of the electricity in Canada is generated by nuclear power. That blew me away. It is a big number. Is it all in Ontario or is it around the country? Is it safe and good? What do you think about it?
Ms. Raitt: It is a very big number. The number is important because it is emissions-free. Ontario, of course, is where the bulk of nuclear generation is happening. Over 50 per cent of the electricity in Ontario is generated by nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is something in which Canada is a leader. We have CANDU technology. We have had a nuclear presence in this country for over 40 years. We have a Nobel Prize as a result of the physics around nuclear energy in Canada, of which we are very proud.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, is the Crown corporation at arm's length from the government. It has been responsible for the delivery of nuclear services since it became a Crown corporation.
There are basically two operating aspects of AECL. First is research and development at Chalk River, not only for CANDU reactors, but also for various other applications in the world. Much of the world goes to Chalk River to conduct research. We have the National Research Universal Reactor. It is a very important piece of infrastructure for nuclear research in Canada.
Second is our sale of CANDU reactors, with which we have been very successful around the world. We have a great brand in the world with respect to nuclear energy. When I was in Paris, I was sitting at a table with the minister from Japan. We were talking about nuclear energy through his interpreter, and he said, "Yes, CANDU, most efficient nuclear reactor in the world." We are very proud of that. The expertise of the people who have worked in the field for the last 50 years allows us to have great technical ability today.
It has been clear that the world is turning to nuclear power as a solution for emissions-free electricity. The director general of the International Energy Agency has indicated that there will be a point in time when we will need to build over 30 nuclear reactors per year to keep up with the demand around the world in energy needs. Canada rightly should have a place somewhere in that nuclear renaissance, as it is called. We have the technology and the people.
The government embarked on a process with AECL. It commenced in November 2007 with the striking of a review team within Natural Resources Canada. It was to review AECL and determine whether it was delivering appropriately given the context of where the market was going. They obtained advice from National Bank Financial.
That review team reported to us in May of this year. The report was made public. On the basis of that review, the government took the decision to restructure Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. This will be done primarily to be able to attract capacity, managerial experience and capital to compete in the world for these new nuclear builds that are coming.
We know and we have seen that as good a job as AECL is trying to do in selling reactors, in two global cases we were not able to compete. We simply did not have the capability to dedicate people and resources to the bidding process. It is quite a lengthy process. That is one reason we are proceeding with restructuring.
We are currently at the position where we are looking to the review team again to develop a restructuring plan. It will come back for approval by the government and by Parliament. We are seeking international and domestic capacity. We want to ensure that this industry that has 30,000 highly paid and skilled jobs in Ontario and across the country will grow and will keep those jobs in Canada.
We need to keep our industry, Mr. Chair. We need emissions-free electricity. Those two things go well together. That is what we are currently doing.
That just condensed 90 minutes into three minutes.
The Chair: Minister, I do not think we want to go to AECL. You might find a rather negative impression at this point in time on the committee that Canada has not lived up to its great reputation in the past 15 years. Canada has fallen behind. We know the government is addressing that.
In terms of the 15 per cent of nuclear energy today in Canada, simply how much is in which province?
Ms. Raitt: Nuclear power plants are located in New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec.
The Chair: How is that 15 per cent made up?
Ms. Raitt: It is made up by those three provinces and is being pulled up predominantly by Ontario, which has around 57 per cent of its electricity generated by nuclear.
The Chair: Senator Neufeld, when we visit the provinces, we will have one block for nuclear. I am amazed.
I did not mean to take up that much time. Thank you, minister, for giving us that other background.
Senator Mitchell: Minister Raitt, it is great to have you here. I appreciate your opening comments. We have a real sense that you want to work with us. We certainly want to work with you. Endorsing the nature of our study is very reassuring to us as well.
I want to talk about two areas that are critical to our study.
Your government has established two very important carbon-reduction targets. They will have profound implications on how we deliver energy and what we sell where in this country. They are the 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020 and 90 per cent non-emitting electricity.
We have not seen but will be exploring the specific ways in which you propose to achieve that. Do you have specifics? Is there a plan in the offing? Is it something you do not want to reveal before you go to Copenhagen? Will we get a pleasant surprise next week?
Ms. Raitt: I can speak from the department's perspective and what we have been doing. There are three aspects to energy in emissions reductions. First is the use of fossil fuel. You look at ways to mitigate the use of fossil fuel. Second is energy efficiency in all forms in industry, homes and buildings. Third is renewable energy sources.
All three are important in the overall mix to hit both of those targets: emissions-free electricity and overall reduction of greenhouse gases, GHGs. Also in reduction of GHGs are the factors regarding transportation, whether through shipping or airlines. That is in the purview of the Minister of Transportation.
With respect to fossil fuels, the government first put in place a $1-billion Clean Energy Fund, as I indicated in my comments. The bulk of it, $650 million, is dedicated to carbon capture and storage and the demonstration of it on a commercial basis. That is the best technique and tool we have to mitigate the use of burning coal or gas on the environment. We are under way on this.
Second is renewable energy sources, which is a very exciting area. The government put in place a $1.5-billion ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Program that has been wildly successful. The reason we have so much wind energy on the grid is because of this program. It allows a cent per kilowatt hour to get projects going. We will be adding 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy to the grid. That is one million homes in Canada, which is significant. As well, it spurs on other provinces. With our initiatives on the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Program, we now see Ontario coming in with its proposed green energy act, which is taking it even further to a feed and tariff. We see British Columbia coming out with a statement on energy as well. It was that foundation that started it along.
That is about adding renewables, which intuitively helps with emissions recollections.
The third is energy efficiency. Again, the top line I would take away from energy efficiency is that Canadians get it. They understand the need for energy efficiency. They appreciate the amount of money that we put in place with respect to the grants associated with making their own homes energy efficient, but, more importantly, they chose it, too.
In the Economic Action Plan, we not only had an extension of the program for energy efficiency, the Home Renovation Tax Credit also came into play, and we see people utilizing the Home Renovation Tax Credit to make their homes more energy efficient. It is not only about energy efficiency and saving electricity — which my eight-year-old really cares about, for example — but it is also about decreasing the costs associated with heating and powering your home, which is what I really care about, too. It is a win-win in our house in terms of energy efficiency.
Those are the three areas we have been working on. Other programs that we have in place to move us further along in emissions-free and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions include the biofuels side — encouraging the use of biofuels both in terms of production, incentives for bio-ethanol and biodiesel and in helping with the construction of these facilities. Again, a $1.5-billion program is in place that is very successful as well.
Those are the building blocks. We are putting in place the foundations to allow people to do the right things.
The second piece is what the Minister of the Environment deals with, which is the regulatory side of it. His discussions and negotiations in Copenhagen will drive that side of the puzzle. For us it is about making sure that people, companies, industry and governments have the ability to address the need to switch over to that emissions-free electricity and reduce greenhouse gases.
Senator Mitchell: There is the question of how the things you are talking about actually relate to the objective. Just as an example, I am very much in favour of carbon capture and storage — and it is great that it is being pursued in the way that it is — but do you have some sense that enough of it will be done in a sufficiently commercially viable way to make it bite in time to get to the 2020 objective, if I can put it that way? What sort of assessment have you done of that process?
Ms. Raitt: As you know, carbon capture and storage is extraordinarily expensive, but it is expensive because it is the first of the kind.
Senator Mitchell: Exactly.
Ms. Raitt: The ambassador from the United States said this morning that he is sure the very first electricity plant ever built in North America was very expensive as well, but by the time you got to the four-hundredth it was a little bit cheaper, as you understood and honed in on the science and technology. That is where we are in carbon capture right now.
However, with respect to research, we have been funding carbon capture and storage research and development for a very long time through the ecoENERGY Technology Initiative. We have been working on that area. It is the best tool to use to pull the carbon out of the stack. In terms of actual GHGs, it really is a case of needing to ensure it works on the demonstration on a commercial scale. It is the best way to find out. That is when we start getting the measurements and the actuality. It is unacceptable to not do anything at all, and that is why it is important to move forward on carbon capture and storage.
Senator Mitchell: Absolutely. There is always a reason not to do all of these things — and somebody comes up with that reason — but you have to pick something, and industry is interested in carbon capture. It is not as expensive as people say. You take the first barrel of oil ever produced by the oil sands; that was very expensive and remained expensive for a long time.
One of the big issues with selling the idea of climate change action to a sometimes skeptical Canadian population is that we focus on the costs of action, and certainly that was what the TD study focused on although it was not as bad as people might have imagined. However, there does not seem to be anybody or any government studies focusing on the cost of inaction.
Just imagine if you could price the amount of lumber under natural resources that has burned and died because of the pine beetles. Imagine when you start to price that and the tourism that is lost because people will not go to B.C. in the midst of all the fires. You start to add that up and you think maybe we would be better off with climate action. Maybe it would make people frame that in a different way.
Are you aware, or could you initiate or do you see some value in assessing the cost of climate change inaction?
Ms. Raitt: It is a really complex mechanism because climate change and the reduction of CO2 and GHGs and all those things are tied up in more than just the science and technology from the aspect of our department. It is also tied up in how countries relate to each other, to the geopolitics of the world and to our trade with the United States. There are many moving pieces on that aspect. It would be difficult even to define all of the variables you would have to measure in order to come up with a complete picture of the costs of adapting or not adapting. The reality is that we have a process. We have a framework in place. We are in the process with respect to Copenhagen, and that is where the Minister of the Environment is.
In the Clean Energy Dialogue we did start a conversation with the United States, recognizing, on a continental basis, how important it is to work together on grid issues, carbon capture and storage. That is what we are focusing on; moving those pieces along and also keeping in mind the bigger picture and recognizing energy security as a part of it.
I agree with you, senator, that there are many different pieces at play. There is trade at play. There is end-user cost associated, which should not be underestimated in terms of certain provinces that predominantly burn fossil fuels. We must be mindful of that, too. Provinces make their own electricity choices based upon the resources they have. That is just the reality across the country.
The universe of variables is many. We focus on the parts that we can focus on at Natural Resources Canada, and we want to ensure that the technological side is well on its way to helping us deal with adaptation, climate change, reductions and all the things we want to see.
Senator Mitchell: Great. I encourage you in that. Thank you.
Senator Lang: Welcome, Madam Minister. I appreciate you and your staff coming out this evening and the presentation you gave.
One comment I would make at the beginning here is that you referred to "energy literacy" — I believe that is the terminology you used — for us as Canadians. I must say I agree wholeheartedly. Canadians should become more and more informed about exactly what we have for energy, what we are providing to the world and how important it is to us both socially and economically. It is quite important that Canadians realize that we are providing just under 80 per cent of the imported energy that the United States of America uses between electricity, gas, uranium and oil. That is a huge number. I do not think most Canadians realize that.
We were in Washington a couple of weeks ago, as you mentioned, and the representative from Alberta, Gary Mar, described the energy utilization to his fellow Americans; he said, "Do you know who lights up Broadway? It is Alberta oil."
Ms. Raitt: Oh, that is interesting.
Senator Lang: That is just to give you something close to home.
I would like to follow up in the area of nuclear energy. Obviously a good segment of the population has concerns about safety and the question of the elimination of waste. Perhaps you could comment on where we are with that, the safety of our present nuclear plants, what we are looking ahead at and also the elimination of waste and what we are doing in that area.
Ms. Raitt: I said this yesterday when I was in the other place speaking to that committee. I indicated that Canada is second to none in terms of safety in the world. A lot of it has to do with our technical design regarding the CANDUs. A lot of it has to do with our culture of regulation, training and having great individuals working in these places.
For me that is a great selling feature. It is a great comfort, of course, for the people who live in the areas around the nuclear plants. As well, it is a great selling feature of the technology.
On the nuclear waste, we have the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, which is in place in order to deal with the long-term disposal. Again, Canada is leading the way in this matter. We have the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which has the mandate to do consultations across the country for the deep geological storage of nuclear waste for a long period of time. That is the route we have determined to take in Canada by an act of Parliament, deep geological storage of waste. The United Kingdom and the United States are a little behind us in this measure, but we have made our plan and are moving forward.
This organization is consulting Canadian communities across the country, and it is a long consultation process. It will be decades in length. It is not a short-term prospect at all. They are looking for a willing and informed host community to consent to this deep geological storage. Of course, whether or not the community will be appropriate will be based on science, on the geology, whether or not it is acceptable and whether or not the community is willing and wants to do so.
One last point on communities associated with nuclear: when you do polling in Canada, you will find that the communities that are most in favour of nuclear energy are the communities in which the nuclear power plant resides, because they understand the people who work there, they understand the culture of safety and they understand the importance of the industry and the entity to the community itself.
Senator Lang: Following up on the topic of nuclear, the question of isolated communities or the development of mines that are isolated and so far away from any energy source that they have only one choice, which is obviously to bring in fuel at a very great expense and run it themselves, what are your observations about the reactors utilized in those cases?
Ms. Raitt: I took a bit of time at the beginning talking about AECL, but I wanted to highlight the Chalk River aspect of it and the research. One thing that is being suggested in the world, and we have heard some suggestion of it, is the utilization of these small pocket lower-megawattage reactors. Currently in Canada, nuclear power plants are between 50 and 500 megawatts all the way up to 1,000 megawatts, very large enterprises. You can develop these smaller ones that are more fit for service to remote communities. I have the concern that remote communities are so tightly tied to the use of diesel in order to power electricity, which is a very emissions-intensive way to generate electricity. Anything we can do to help that matter is good R&D.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is well-equipped to deal with licensing associated with that, and I would like to see our R&D in the country be able to look at it on a serious basis, if that is the route to go.
As you pointed out and as I hear on the mining side of my portfolio, the most expensive part of mining is the energy to power the mines, especially in remote communities. It would be great to have Canadian technology and Canadian innovation used to power our North. It would make a lot of sense, but we are at the point of R&D, and no one has a proposal on the table, so it is something we must be prepared for an understanding of and deal with it in an appropriate way through the right regulatory procedures.
Senator Lang: I have another question on another area of energy. It deals with the Alaska Highway pipeline. As you know, there are two competing organizations looking at going forward with the possibility of proposals for the pipeline. One of the aspects on Canada's side is a designated officer so that they know who to approach in Canada when they are looking at the proposals. When will that appointment be made? Can you shed any light on that?
Ms. Raitt: I will turn to my deputy on the technical aspect of it. The two pipelines have two different regulatory schemes associated with them; one deals with the National Energy Board and the other deals with the Northern Pipeline Agency. I am answering it now, so I might as well continue on.
My office is engaged in the matter of appointments. We have two people working on appointments, but I will take your question about the timing of it back and inquire of my staff.
Senator Lang: Thank you.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you, Minister Raitt, for appearing. I have a couple of questions, and I know we have talked a bit about them. I thank you for saying some of the things you did.
What is your strategy on dealing with oil sands as they relate to the United States? We were in Washington, and it was not just this time we were there, and I have been there many times previously in my other life; there has always been a bit of hesitancy about calling it dirty oil. We need Alberta to be successful in being able to move that bitumen south of the border either in refined product or in bitumen so that it can be refined down there. What we heard, and it did not matter whether it was think tanks, Republicans or Democrats, was that we do not do a good job in the U.S. of selling ourselves, how important we are and who we are. What is your strategy to deal with that?
Ms. Raitt: I absolutely hear you on the concerns associated with the oil sands. This summer, we started putting together a program for me as Minister of Natural Resources, the deputy and the department to do some outreach. One key document — am I allowed to show documents here, or is it like the other place where it is a prop and I am not allowed to do that?
The Chair: You are allowed.
Ms. Raitt: I do not know whether we brought any extras, but one document that we put together for the G8, which took place in May of this past year, was a handout on the oil sands. It was an important piece for us to get the facts on the table internationally.
Second, I attended the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum in London and then moved on to the International Energy Agency afterwards in Paris. At both places, we took the stance that we would not turn our backs on the oil sands, that it is an important and strategic energy security for North America and for the world. We were more than happy to discuss with anyone how we planned on developing it in a sustainable manner.
The third piece is coming soon; based on the success that your committee has had in Washington, I will be traveling to New York City during the break week and having some discussions with stakeholders on some exploratory work in terms of oil sands.
I will also tell you that you have to reach out not only to groups but to individuals. In that vein, I have met twice now with our new ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer, imparting upon him the importance of the oil sands and my perception that it will be a major issue in the United States in the coming years. As well, I have talked to the gentleman from the U.S. State Department, David Goldwyn, who deals with energy security aspects. In addition, I have been able to meet twice on the issue with the new ambassador from the United States, David Jacobson, in order to discuss oil sands in particular.
It will not be a situation where we miss the opportunity to speak about it, but I will say that it is extraordinarily important that we do not go to the United States and be apologetic for the oil sands or be the least bit reticent talking about the benefits of it. I think it is important to indicate to our partners to the south that we will work together; they have coal, we have oil. We need to figure out the best way to mitigate the use of fossil fuels in both of our countries, and we want to work together. We want to make those technological advances that will help us do things not only more efficiently but also more cleanly.
Essentially, the way I look at it is that the oil sands have been developed since the late 1960s, and it was technological advances that unlocked the oil sands and made it more marketable, compatible and acceptable in price to the world. It will be those technological advances that make it more palatable to the world going forward in terms of development. It is a stunning resource, 42 per cent of the world's oil reserves outside of OPEC countries, and that is an important resource for us all to remember.
Senator Neufeld: I could not agree with you more. I would never suggest that we apologize. That was not my thrust. I appreciated your remarks earlier about fossil fuels being with us for decades to come. I totally agree. I have always said we will be using fossil fuels for a long time. Those who think next Friday we can quit are way out there in left field and are not putting all the dots together.
I ask about oil sands and the strategy because I appreciate you will be a good ambassador; that is for sure. However, there must be a bigger strategy than that, and I know you do not have time to explain it now.
Regarding shale gas, there will be a lot more controversy around that than what we have heard to date. There is a great deal of shale gas in Canada and the U.S., in fact probably around the world. They have just started to unlock it in the last decade, and the technology is coming along. However, it is guaranteed that someone will find a reason — you are using too much water or sand or some other chemicals — and the proverbial heck will break loose.
There has to be, from a higher level, quite a strategy put together on how we sell these products to places such as the U.S. There might be the opportunity to sell liquefied natural gas, LNG, and we will have to go around the world and sell that, too. We need to take a good look at our strategy with respect to how we tell the U.S. about how oil sands can be done and are done much better than they used to be. It is the same with shale gas.
At some point, could you share with us what the larger strategy is, other than just making a few stops here and there?
That leads to my next question about nuclear energy. As the person from Japan said, it the cleanest and most efficient, and CANDU has been around for decades. We have not been successful in Canada — correct me if I am wrong — with selling that, either. A fair strategy must be done there.
I am familiar with "not in my backyard" with just about everything you can imagine, especially when it comes to energy transmission, generation, or production. Unless, as you said, they live right beside it, there is a real desire to push it away. There has to be a strategy developed to deal with that. I know you could comment on that, but I would like to see something more fleshed out regarding how we will do that at home before we go to the world and be able to sell it successfully. It will be a greater part of our energy production in Canada simply because it is clean. It is the waste we have to deal with.
The other thing is the Alaska Highway pipeline. If it is ever built, it will be through British Columbia and into Alberta, so I would like to know what involvement the federal government would have in keeping British Columbia and Alberta involved in that process with this new group you are putting together.
Ms. Raitt: Regarding the strategies issues, those points are very well taken, and we will go back with that. Should I be invited again to come here, I would be more than happy to discuss that.
In terms of the nuclear decisions made by provinces on a case-by-case basis, we are watching what is happening in the provinces. We are aware of the Alberta energy plan, which allows for nuclear power, should that decision be taken in the future. We are also watching the consultations in Saskatchewan with respect to nuclear power and providing information where we can.
I agree as well that it is important from a strategic and a sales point of view that we build Canadian technology in Canada as well in order to be able to build around the world. We have built in China and Korea, and we have much interest from Ukraine and other countries in Europe with respect to the CANDU. Specifically, having Ontario proceed in their procurement process would be very helpful.
On the Alaska pipeline project, my understanding is that the project will come under the Major Projects Management Office initiative, which, as you know, is part of Natural Resources Canada, and there are interactions there between us and the provinces.
Cassie J. Doyle Deputy Minister, Natural Resources Canada: If I could just add, minister, two proponents now have an interest in building the Alaska pipeline. If the successful proponent is the TransCanada pipeline corporation, their interest is to build the pipeline under the Northern Pipeline Agency, which has been in place now since the 1970s and would provide the single window to oversee all the regulatory permits for the federal government, and we are working closely with the provinces and territories.
If the other proponent, Denali, is successful, it would go through the Major Projects Management Office, but at this point, it has not been determined who will be the final proponent in the construction of the pipeline.
One has these legacy rights under the Northern Pipeline Agency, and that would be TransCanada.
Senator Peterson: Thank you, minister, for your presentation. I have a couple of short questions.
The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, which supposedly dealt with dirty oil, was passed in 2007. What impact has that had on deliveries from the oil sands to the United States?
Ms. Raitt: I do not think it has had any. To be honest, I think we are increasing our exports to the United States year over year. In fact, I believe this summer we exported more oil across the border than we ever have. It has not had any effect. I think that is why we are looking at you quizzically.
Senator Peterson: The military and municipalities that get financial aid have been instructed that they cannot do it, but they are doing it. I think it is wonderful, but is there any chance that they would impose that?
Ms. Raitt: It may well be the case of just such growth in demand for oil in general. It may be overcoming the laws that have been enacted in the United States, but we have not seen a decrease at all in the amount of exports to the United States.
Senator Mitchell: I never could understand why they did it, but they are so dependent.
Regarding renewable energy, what percentage of that is the overall energy generated in Canada now?
Ms. Raitt: It is 73 per cent of nuclear and non-emission.
Senator Mitchell: No, I meant renewable.
Ms. Raitt: We had these great maps prepared when President Obama came to Canada, and it has been of great interest. With respect to electricity generation, if you include biomass, wind, solar and hydro electricity, 61 per cent of Canada's total electricity is renewable.
Senator Peterson: If you want to sell CANDU reactors, you had better start putting a total package together. When a country wants to buy a reactor, we need to know how much we want, so we have to know what it will cost to put it all together.
Ms. Raitt: Point well taken. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Sibbeston: The issue of a pipeline from the North was raised, so I would like to raise my concern about the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. I appreciate that things are in a bit of a hiatus and that people are waiting on the decision of a joint review panel on the environmental and social issues around a pipeline. Even if the panel reports in favour of it, an industry-driven decision will be made ultimately. Does the federal government have a role in assisting projects from the more remote regions of our country, where it is costly to build the infrastructure required to move resources south?
Ms. Raitt: As you know, Minister Prentice has responsibility for the Mackenzie Valley gas project. We come into play in terms of regulatory oversight with respect to the environmental assessment process. Of course, we are engaged with industry in the general business of pipelines.
You are correct in what you said about the timeline. The next step after the joint review panel would be the National Energy Board, NEB, looking at the project, given the jurisdiction.
Regarding the federal government's response, I do not think we have ever waivered from the notion it has to make sense in terms of the market for this gas to flow. We will have to hear from industry on that, but the importance of this pipeline to the North in opening up economic development is well recognized, given the sheer volume and size of that construction project. I do not think people understand it would be the single largest infrastructure project ever undertaken in Canada. It is of great scope and importance in that sense.
From the regular industry point of view, we stand ready at NRCan to deal with it, but, from the federal government point of view, it has to make sense in a market perspective.
Senator Sibbeston: It was reported in a national newspaper last week, I believe, that the matter had gone before cabinet and did not receive a positive response. I appreciate that it is still early, but are you able to say anything about it at this stage, given that the federal government would support it in the event that all the regulatory bodies approve the gas pipeline project?
Ms. Raitt: Not to make light of the situation, but I have learned in my year as minister that you do not believe everything that you read in the newspapers about anything. It is not for me to speak about what is not happening or what is happening or what potentially could happen. What matters is that the review panel process is engaged, which NEB stands ready to review, and the project will make sense from a market value perspective. Minister Prentice has the lead on the matter, but thank you for your question.
Senator Banks: Minister, you raised my curiosity. I believe that this committee was studying the question of storage of spent nuclear fuel and that could be accomplished. We left that subject matter to consider other priorities. Is it correct that Nuclear Waste Management Organization has determined that the storage in Canada will be deep geological storage as opposed to the other methods that were considered a couple of years ago?
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Banks: Is that an official determination?
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Banks: I was glad to hear you say that we must pull all of the levers, because that is most important thing. There is no magic bullet to any of these questions, including security of energy supply. I happen to believe that a great deal of attention has to be paid to questions of efficiency, which you mentioned a few times in your opening remarks, and conservation as well. The two go hand in hand. You talked about regulation and the use of levers of regulation to bring about security of supply and long-term conservation. To what extent have you considered the true internalization of costs into energy production as a means of bringing about efficiency, because none of us pays the true cost for any of the energy that we consume?
Ms. Raitt: It goes back to what I said at the beginning about energy literacy. The federal programs in place are funded by taxpayers' dollars. Taxpayers are paying to put more renewable electricity on the grid and to foster carbon capture and storage. That investment is needed up front because, fundamentally, a single province will not be able to undertake these large-scale projects and attribute them to the rate payers in that province for the higher cost of electricity and fuel consumption.
General energy literacy will help in that discussion. Canadians do not necessarily have that level of information yet to fully understand that electricity energy in this country is quite a lot lower than it is in other countries. In part, that has a great deal to do with the fact that we are blessed with natural resources and that we are a producing country, as opposed to only a consuming country.
In terms of whether Natural Resources Canada has a plan to itemize, it is important when taking any decisions regarding renewable energy and carbon capture that you take into consideration what the effect will be on the taxpayer and on the rate payer. It is part of the deliberation for making the right choices for investment dollars. Where we have landed, as I indicated, is having the upfront investments from the taxpayer across the nation in order to get those projects of energy efficiency moving along. Consumers see and understand the cost associated with energy efficiency because they put up 75 per cent of the capital needed to make those energy efficient changes to their own homes in order to qualify for the government grant of up to 25 per cent of the total cost. Canadians are taking part in it as well.
Senator Banks: I agree when you say that literacy is important. To be a little flip, the best way to make people well informed about the cost of the electricity they consume is to teach by example and tell them, "The electricity that you are consuming does not cost what it says it costs on your bill, so your bill will go up next month." Our electricity bills do not include the true internalized costs so that we could understand the real cost of what we are buying. I suggest that would be a good way to go about educating all of us about the real cost of the energy that we consume. When we tell Canadians that we are spending $75 billion of public money to do this, it does not equate and make people think that they are not paying enough for their electricity. The figure of $75 billion is indirect.
Ms. Raitt: Perhaps during this study the committee could spare time to talk about the concepts of smart grid and smart metering. I think those kinds of tools can be given to consumers so they can actually see how much they are consuming, what it costs, what it costs at peak times versus other times. That side of it is equally important. It is not just the production of the natural resource; it is on the consumption side.
We are working with the United States on a smart grid to add renewables. However, for example, in my province of Ontario, smart metering is of importance, as well. It is a large infrastructure investment, but it does add to that energy literacy for Canadian consumers. The committee might find it of interest to see whether there are other examples.
I know a number of countries in Europe have gone to that area. It puts the control in the hands of the consumer to choose what they would like to do, because they have the information in front of them. I very much agree with you and I appreciate your comments.
Senator Banks: Smart metering is one very good example. That is a question we have addressed before and will again.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Banks: As the chair said, we have heard disparaging things about AECL. When you say "restructuring," are we restructuring up or down?
Ms. Raitt: We are restructuring for the future and for the nuclear industry. There are three important drivers in this restructuring. First — and we have talked about it at length tonight — we want emissions-free electricity for Canada. The second part we have not talked about is the recognition that Canadian taxpayers have invested approximately $8.5 billion dollars since AECL's inception, which is a significant investment. Taxpayers should understand that, and would knowingly want to have a return on their investment.
The third part is what you are referring to, which is really the largest driver of all. Nuclear industry consists of 30,000 high-skilled, high-paid jobs and highly innovated, smart people who can help us take advantage of a growing market and sell great Canadian technology into it.
This restructuring is to take advantage of what we know are the coming opportunities and be ready for them and to equip, as best as possible, the organization or the entity to do so. As I said, a lot of study has been put into it since 2007. It is very complex, a hydra with many heads; there are many aspects to deal with. However, it is the right thing to do to be able to compete on the worldwide, global competitive scale. It is very positive.
Senator Banks: Thank you, minister.
Senator Brown: Thank you for coming, Minister Raitt. I would like to go back to the notion of energy literacy. While you gave us important information on the importance of the oil sands, I would like to know if you thought about enlightening how the economics of the oil sands affect most of the provinces and just how much they affect their own industries. I believe your own province of New Brunswick produces quite a few valves for that, does it not?
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Brown: It would be important also if you could bring us a figure some day on just how much the economics of those provinces are affected by the development of the oil sands, as well as how much the Americans are affected by that development.
In Alberta, I think we have had to pretty much be forced to open another border crossing for the American equipment that is coming in to the oil sands. I realize you might not have the figures with you now, but I wonder whether you could enlighten us on the importance of the economics of the whole project.
Ms. Raitt: Here are a lot of economic indicators to prove how important the oil sands are to the country.
I have more anecdotal information on it. I know from my vantage point that manufacturing of the plants and machinery for the expansion of the oil sands happened in Ontario and Quebec. I know that the shipping industry very much enjoyed the benefits associated with that, as well, but I also know, having been raised in Cape Breton, that the great majority of labourers, contractors and tradespeople came from Newfoundland and Cape Breton to bulk out the workforce for construction in the oil sands.
If you would allow me, Mr. Chair, I can tell you anecdotal information. I would suggest that the oil sands development in the past five years has been the single greatest economic boon in Cape Breton, which is very far away from oil sands proper, to the point where chartered planes were taking direct flights from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Fort McMurray, bringing people back and forth either to work there or to be part of the construction trades there.
It has a real and lasting effect on the economy and the social well-being in areas geographically very far from the oil sands itself. That is why I say it is an incredibly important national resource. I know the deputy has some numbers in front of us. However, given your questions as you set them out, we would be more than happy to put it in a concise one-page informational piece to have in front of you, because it is an important piece of work.
Senator Brown: Thank you very much.
Ms. Raitt: It is the stories we remember, too, right?
The Chair: Apropos of your comment on Cape Breton, I cannot resist harkening back to another experience Senator Banks and I shared in Fort McMurray. One of the members of our committee was former Premier John Buchanan, as he then was a senator. We could not even get to a table to order our dinner without Mr. Buchanan saying, "Come and let him eat. He is a person from Nova Scotia. He voted for me 22 times." Do you remember that? It was unbelievable. The whole place was packed with Nova Scotians.
Ms. Raitt: Absolutely. It is very true.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for coming to discuss this important issue with us as we are trying to develop some understanding of this area.
As you say, Canada is a large northern country with a widely dispersed population and an energy-intensive industrial structure. We are among the highest per capita consumers of energy in the world.
If we need to all become, as you say, "energy literate" — and you have coined a phrase among us tonight, I think — how do you see us beginning this process with Canadians?
Ms. Raitt: I think what the chair set out at the beginning as the plan for the committee is the ideal way: educate yourselves, both on this side of the border and the other, understanding the full scope of electricity. Our department is happy to provide any information on oil and gas, electricity and nuclear power in the country to help you on that.
Fundamentally, it is talking to Canadians and, as I said, it is about those five regional roundtable meetings of talking to people in different areas of the country. You will find, and I have noted, that attitudes towards energy and what it means to individuals are different depending upon where you go in the country. For example, indicating that fossil fuels were to be X more expensive — and use any kind of multiplier — has a different effect in Ontario because of the electricity mix, versus Nova Scotia, which is predominantly still coal-fired and oil-fired for electricity and home heating needs. It would have a disproportionate effect in terms of costs associated.
I think it is important to talk to Canadians. In opening the dialogue in those different regions, you actually get Canadians to think about it a little bit more. Therefore, I totally encourage you to have these round tables, because it is an extension for us, in general, in Ottawa to understand what Canadians are thinking about in terms of energy and, perhaps, be able to have a conversation about the future, as well.
Senator Seidman: Do you have some sense of how one would engage Canadians in a more visible way to understand some of the issues that we have talked about here tonight? How does one start in helping to make Canadians more energy literate?
Ms. Raitt: The provinces are doing a good job in talking about energy efficiency. People understand that notion of it, or at least they are understanding more of it.
As we progress towards discussions at Copenhagen and what it means for climate change, there is some awareness there, as well.
I do not think the tie-in is there between those two. As the chair pointed out at the beginning, it is about climate change and it is about energy, as well. Those two things do come together. Your mandate is so broad you can have that kind of discussion.
The key is to ensure that you engage the right thought leaders on the process. If you were to do a general literature review in the past year, a number of authors have weighed in on the issues associated with energy, oil, what it means, what it does not mean, and that is a starting point in talking to thought leaders.
As well, for general Canadians, a foundation must be built for understanding before you engage. Your presence will make a difference, I think — just the mere fact that it is happening and that you have people come out in the communities. Municipalities are key.
One of the national round tables we are doing is on community energy solutions, having communities think about their consumption on a large basis as opposed to individuals in their houses, and starting with municipal leaders.
We had a number of municipal leaders at our round table. That is another area you can reach out to, to the regions and the municipalities, because they are the ones dealing with the day-to-day interaction of electricity, heat, waste, transportation, the whole gamut. There are many people you can talk to. To get the overarching part may be difficult, but the journey started with that first step. I applaud you for your five regional round tables, and I look forward to hearing about them.
The Chair: Minister, I know you have an engagement. You have been very open with us. I just have one or two points that perhaps you could help us with.
You referred to those maps that you had prepared for President Obama's visit. I think they were probably a show- and-tell to let him get a handle on where our good stuff is. Could they be made available to us?
Ms. Raitt: Absolutely. Our department would be happy to give them to you. It is all public information. I tend to like to think in terms of pictures as opposed to words.
The Chair: A thousand words, right.
Ms. Raitt: It is very helpful. It shows you the flow of electricity across the border and the makeup of electricity.
For example, oil sands emissions are 0.05 per cent of the total GHG emissions in North America. It shows all that good stuff, and it is all concisely on a sheet. We would be happy to send it over.
The Chair: That is how Prime Minister Mulroney was able to show President Reagan that the Northwest Passage is totally ours. Have you heard that story?
Ms. Raitt: No, I have not. I look forward to hearing it.
The Chair: It is in his biography.
Minister, you have referred in your opening remarks and again just now to the three round tables that you are conducting. How can we monitor those or get some sense of how they are progressing and what you are learning from them? Are there transcripts? Could you maybe just put a little more detail around that?
Ms. Raitt: Absolutely. We had our first one on October 23, which was the integrated community energy systems. We had 27 people attend from right across the country. It was very helpful. What we committed to then and we will commit to now is to put summaries on the website. We will be happy to provide you with the summaries through your clerk so that you can have them for distribution.
We agreed that we would have the Chatham House Rule within the round tables so that we could report on what was said but not necessarily attribute it to the individual who brought it to the table. They are all open and public. We would be happy to share those with you.
The next one is tomorrow evening. It is on renewables. The one after that is on Thursday evening here in Ottawa, and that is non-fossil fuel research and development. The final one is in Calgary on Friday evening, and that is on fossil fuel research and development.
The Chair: Are these are closed-door sessions run by you?
Ms. Raitt: Correct. They are by invitation to stakeholders, to industry, to provincial governments, to municipal governments, judging on what is the right mix at the table to get the input from the community on renewables, R&D priorities, clean energy priorities, and just to take the pulse of the landscape out there right now so we can better inform ourselves on decision making, on investing in the future.
We would be happy to share the results and the comments.
The Chair: That would be super. Coming out of that, we were thinking perhaps of some ideas for witnesses. You may say after one of the round tables that that person really has a nice way of presenting. If you could tip us off, that might give us a few leads, especially when we go out into the land.
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Neufeld, I wanted to give you the last word. I was only trying to pull your leg there, but did you have a question?
Senator Neufeld: I am fine. I am quite happy with what the minister said. I will make one comment, if it is okay with you.
The Chair: It is, senator.
Senator Neufeld: Energy literacy I think will be a huge challenge. I know we have talked amongst ourselves and some individuals, maybe not everybody, about websites, especially with the younger generation, who will actually teach the older generation. That is the way it goes.
Let us say if you heat your house with electricity, you could go to a website and hit your home; if it is electricity, this is how much it costs. It takes you backwards to where it comes from, how it gets to you and by what means. How does it get priced and where did it originally come from? Did it come from a nuclear plant in New Brunswick or from a hydro plant in British Columbia, and how did that happen? It is a backwards way; instead of putting up all the statistics, you could see something happen on your screen of how all this evolved. That could be used in all forms of energy, gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity and heating fuel. Those are things for people who actually design that stuff to figure out how to do that. We have to get something that actually catches people's attention, much the same as the smart metres. We embarked on smart metres, too, until the costs got up to about half a billion dollars in British Columbia. Then you have to start looking at whether it is really something you want to spend half a billion dollars on at the end of the day. That is a visual also, where you can see exactly what it is costing you.
On top of that, the utility can actually control where the electricity goes. If, in fact, there is an ice storm or something, you can actually shut it off to different places. There are all kinds of things about that.
Ms. Raitt: My perception of energy before I came to this position was that energy was never a problem until it was not available to me. That is when our attention is suddenly laser-like in terms of focus on what energy is and where it is coming from. I think your committee taking measure across Canada is a very good thing, one we need on the national scene. I do appreciate that.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have had a very good session. Minister, to you and your officials, thank you so much for coming. We look forward to receiving that additional material through the clerk, and we look forward to your next visit.
Ms. Raitt: Thank you very much, senator. I appreciate it.
(The committee adjourned.)