Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Cassie Doyle]

Yes, that's right.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. I'm always curious about....

Well, let me ask you another question. Would you say that universities--not naming any--right in the heart of the forest industry, say, or right in a forest-dependent community, capable of being a leading edge in forestry research, whether it be in B.C., Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, or wherever, would probably be in a favourable position to receive some of these innovation and research funds, as opposed to traditional universities in the city that tend to receive that type of funding?

[Jim Farrell]

If I understand your question, Mr. Harris, I believe many of those universities--half a dozen or so in British Columbia, I believe--for the most part have been engaged in the R and D program around the mountain pine beetle. For example, the University of Northern British Columbia has some very fine researchers in and around the mountain pine beetle. I know they've been working in collaboration with my own staff out of our facility in Victoria.

So the universities have been heavily engaged in both the biological side of the issue as well as the utilization side in terms of what happens after the trees have died.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay.

As a last question, is there going to be an easy way for members of Parliament to track the spending of these funds for these different programs--to try to determine if there's going to be a measure of success, where the money is being spent, how it's been spent, what private sector companies might be involved in it?

For so many years, money has gone out in these different programs, but trying to find out whether it's actually working or not is a chore that many of us don't have the time to spend on. We need an easy tool to be able to zero in on government spending--in this case, in forestry research, technology, combatting the pine beetle, things like that.

Is there going to be an easy way for us to do that without it taking up all of our time?

[Jim Farrell]

For the mountain pine beetle program, as for all of the $200 million, we are required to do an evaluation that talks about performance measures and effectiveness. As a matter of fact, in both the mountain pine beetle as well as the competitiveness strategy, the evaluation will start next year. When it's completed, it will be on the Internet, publicly available.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There are other programs as well, though.

[Cassie Doyle]

Mr. Chair, that's true for the entire $400 million that was announced in Budget 2006.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

We go now to the official opposition for the second round. Mr. Boshcoff, for up to five minutes.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

I'll be sharing my time with the honourable member from Mississauga-Erindale.

The reason we're having these hearings is that we as a committee sense a crisis, a need for urgency, and the need to develop a national strategy. We're looking for the federal government to show leadership, with passion. The initiatives that you've described in your presentation bother me a lot—you're aiming about a billion dollars in a relatively unknown direction. We don't even know if this money is going to go to forestry. I feel that you two, as deputy minister and assistant deputy minister, aren't being armed with the details to form a national strategy. We're thinking silos, when everybody is asking for a coordinated national strategy.

In this process, if it's Intergovernmental Affairs, if it's Finance, should you not be meeting eye to eye with your provincial counterparts, so that your strategies of competitiveness and innovation strategy could be coordinated rather than at cross-purposes?

[Cassie Doyle]

I think this is a very important question. Because of the complexity of the federal-provincial jurisdiction of forestry, it is important that we have this coordination. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers is a forum that pulls together all the forest ministers—federal, provincial, and territorial. We meet regularly at the minister, deputy minister, and ADM levels to ensure that we have strong coordination in the areas under the council's mandate: innovation, pest management, and the sustainability of the forest ecosystem.

We also are working within the federal government to ensure that our efforts are well coordinated with those of other departments that have pieces of the forest mandate, whether those pieces pertain to international trade or community adjustment and support to workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you

Madam Deputy Minister, is it fair to assume that the Department of Natural Resources is the lead department when it comes to planning and facilitating the long-term health and competitiveness of the forest industry?

[Cassie Doyle]

I believe that is accurate, when it comes to competitiveness and sustainability.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

We're talking about an aid package to the forestry industry—at least that's how this billion dollars has been labelled. I find it surprising that the lead department is unable to identify the objectives and the benefits of this aid package. Is it fair to consider this just another transfer to the provinces, rather than an aid package for the forestry industry?

[Cassie Doyle]

This is a very important question. The package that was announced and passed in the past week does not go to the forest industry, nor would it be appropriate for the Government of Canada to provide such a level of assistance, given our trade obligations under the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement. The assistance is aimed at communities that are affected by restructuring in the manufacturing sector, with a particular focus, as I understand it, on forestry.

We at NRCan work in close partnership with the industry on issues of competitiveness, sustainability, and forest ecosystems. The aid package, which is very much on the minds of members today, is aimed at communities, not at the industry itself.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It's labelled as an aid package for communities affected by the forestry industry, or the decline in forestry competitiveness. At least, that's what I understand it to be. If it's anything different, please enlighten us. I continue to find it surprising that there is no coordinated strategy for helping the employees, the workers. We're not talking about subsidies to the industry itself. We're talking about maintaining the long-term health and competitiveness of the industry's workforce. That's what this package is supposed to be. Regardless of where it originates, from Intergovernmental Affairs or wherever, I find it surprising that you're unable to answer questions about the details and that you're not informed of the details. Maybe it's just another transfer to the provinces.

[Cassie Doyle]

Mr. Chair, I want to first of all clarify that I certainly am informed of the program. There is a distinction between the work we are undertaking in our department with industry, and the provinces, which as everyone understands play a really important role in forestry management and assistance to vulnerable communities affected by the restructuring. We are very well coordinated within government, but it is a complex issue. We play one particular role, and that is working with provinces and industry in the area of innovation, opening up markets, and ensuring the long-term competitiveness.

The Community Development Trust is targeted towards vulnerable communities to support them in adjusting to this transition we've been discussing this morning, which is a very difficult transition for many communities. Our contribution in NRCan is towards the long-term competitiveness of the industry. We do not play a direct role in supporting vulnerable communities. The community development trust is targeted towards that community adjustment part of this very complex issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.

Now to Monsieur Ouellet, for up to five minutes.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, forests are critically important in many respects in terms of GHG emissions. In light of climate change considerations, do you have a mandate to do research with a view to reducing GHG emissions associated with forestry practices?

[Jim Farrell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Forest Service has had a number of activities around climate change and greenhouse gases. For example, we have had a team of scientists who worked domestically and networked internationally to look at this question as to whether Canada's forests are in fact a sink of CO₂. We work very, very closely with the provinces to get information around tree growth and forecasting growth over time. We also included forecasts around what we think the impacts of infestations might be--for example, the mountain pine beetle outbreak in western Canada and the spruce budworm in Ontario and Quebec over the next couple of years. We also did some forecasts of what the increase in forest fire risk might be.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I wanted to focus my question more on innovation and forestry development. As you know, according to some studies now under way, if buildings were heated with green energy produced from forestry byproducts, more energy would be generated and perhaps less CO2 would be emitted than if ethanol were produced from the same byproducts. On the one hand, it's simple if only one place is being heated. CO2 can be eliminated from furnaces. Or heat can be generated through electricity. However, when ethanol is produced, it is impossible, as you know, to capture the CO2 from each exhaust pipe, which means that large quantities of CO2 are emitted, both during the production process and during actual usage.

Have any studies been done that might help the government make some decisions? Forestry companies will continue to be paid the same price for forest byproducts, whether or not they are used to produce electricity or ethanol. We know this for a fact.

Do you help the government make decisions about innovative initiatives to deal with climate change?

[Jim Farrell]

As a department, we have quite a capacity around developing more energy efficient technologies, both within our own laboratories as well as in collaboration with universities and the private sector. More specifically, with respect to the forest industry, about 20% to 25% of the funds we identified in the innovation envelope of the long-term competitive strategy are around bio-products and bio-refining. It's this whole idea of being able to produce, out of wood inputs, energy chemicals like ethanol, as well as other products, rather than just market pulp.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You have not answered my question. It concerned CO2 emissions, not energy. You always come back to energy and energy efficiency. That wasn't my only question. I realize that you are doing some research on energy efficiency. I'm asking if you are researching ways of eliminating GHG gas emissions.

[Jim Farrell]

The forest products industry, by reducing energy consumption of classical energy sources and converting to biomass, have dropped their GHG reductions over the last number of years substantially. So there is certainly work going on to reduce their consumption of classic fossil fuels and convert that to bio-energy, and, as a result, reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.

Yes, there is work going on within the department as well as in collaboration with FPInnovations.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Could you be more specific about the type of work, or types of studies, that are being done?