Evidence of meeting #32 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Serge Dupont  Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Ms. Duncan, and Minister.

We go now to the final questioner in the seven-minute round, Mr. Regan, the critic for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Go ahead, please.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for coming today. It's nice to have you here in your new capacity. I look forward to you coming back often to enjoy more of the committee coffee.

You were in British Columbia this week to announce two projects to garner first nation support for oil and gas development. Do you have a timeline for implementing the remainder of the Eyford report's recommendations, particularly those around building trust and advancing reconciliation? What are the costs associated with implementing those recommendations?

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Thank you for that important and timely question.

Through you, Mr. Chair, let me say that we receive and accept the findings of the report overall. The announcements and the exercises that I went through just this week in announcing the two key pieces are meant to respect what we're actually trying to embark on with respect to the other recommendations. That includes setting up a major project management office west that will address substantially and substantively the issues and the opportunities that can arise out of responsible resource development, but more specifically in the context of energy development overall, specific points around energy transportation and energy infrastructure, safety measures, etc.

The second piece is left open as well in a very purposeful way. The announcement is being called a tripartite forum. The proposal has been to have a principals' table, Mr. Chair, which would contemplate senior ministers or ministers seized of the specific mandate items around energy and environment and/or aboriginal affairs at the federal level, at the provincial level—and I can say we have buy-in from our Albertan and British Columbia partners—and then, importantly, first nation senior leadership who would be able to sit at that table with a mandate to make decisions on specific issues and opportunities around a given project or a project.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Speaking of first nation leaders, according to media reports, several first nation leaders told you in no uncertain terms this week that they don't support the Northern Gateway pipeline. They simply don't believe the environment or their communities will be protected.

Mr. Minister, if you're serious about building trust and confidence, will you listen to the first nation concerns about the Northern Gateway and make a firm commitment today that you will not—I repeat not—approve that project unless it has the support of aboriginal communities and their leaders?

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

So the responsibility in the discussions that we've had with first nations, especially over the past couple of weeks, has been focused on what we're all interested in. In the context of British Columbia, obviously this has been about the LNG.

Our responsibilities, Mr. Chair, extend to more than 73,000 kilometres of pipeline across Canada, and there are a number of proposals for pipelines at various stages. They may be in the corporate office of a given pipeline company. They may be in a proposal to an environmental assessment board or the National Energy Board. Or they may be further advanced and currently under consultation through those fora.

But importantly, my discussions with those first nation leaders were focused on the superordinate goals of ensuring that they would be full participants in the full scope of energy development, which includes the safety measures I alluded to earlier, as well as the economic opportunities—

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

So that seemed like a no.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

We would rise above any specific file because that would be our responsibility as senior leaders for the purposes of what I announced yesterday, which I think goes to your original narrative.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

So I guess you're not prepared to make a commitment today of that sort.

Let me turn to another subject. Ontario has come to the table with a billion-dollar commitment to provide all-season access to the Ring of Fire area, but they of course need matching funds from the federal government.

Minister, your response was to tell them to fill out an application form for the Building Canada fund. Now, that really isn't much of a commitment when you compare it to the support from the federal government over the years to the oil sands, for example. Why aren't you at the table to ensure that this project proceeds now?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Sure, I appreciate that question. You've come here today with something that I've been extensively involved with for most of my private sector career and my political career.

With all due respect, I reject the premise—and I don't like to use that phrase—of where the provincial government, not you, has come on this particular development. The fact of the matter is that to understand the Ring of Fire, to appreciate the steps that have to be taken here, one would completely understand that FedNor—which I'm responsible for and doesn't fit here in Natural Resources, but I'm happy to talk about—has been actively engaged as full partners with a number of first nation communities that I've had the opportunity and privilege to work in, in other capacities, to be involved in the environmental assessment processes that are involved in the development of the Ring of Fire.

Furthermore, with certain precision, we have been engaged in energy corridors full consultation to understand and address what things like the Ring of Fire can do to help in having first nation communities get road access to any of the two extraction sites and to develop a better energy policy towards the first nation communities in those areas, and ultimately the Ring of Fire. To this point—

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

But you'd acknowledge they need access, obviously, and you can't do much until there's year-round access.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

They do. That's a great question.

So is the better way to do that to consult with first nation communities or to do what a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister did and announce that smelting operations would be just outside the city he works in, when the Ontario mining commissioner had made a judgment that the direction of that road would be at least temporarily impossible, given the province's failure to address the issues related to that? There are other alternatives, and they've been developed, as I say, through our process.

The other significant thing was obviously pre-positioning first nation communities for jobs in that sector. I made an announcement just a couple of months ago about things that we should be announcing, and those include 260 seats at Confederation College; full cooperation with the post-secondary education authority for KKETS, the Matawa aboriginal organization; and $3 million through the Ring of Fire directly to the Nishnawbe Aski Development Fund, which would focus on business capacity and business development for first nation communities in the Matawa organizations to derive direct benefits from the development of the Ring of Fire.

So far, the only thing I can say about that announcement of $1 billion is that it has given us finally some confidence that we have a scope and understanding of what the province might be willing to invest. But there have been no details, and the development corporation they proposed had no policy or articles of incorporation to support it, by the admission of the provincial minister, who is a dear friend and colleague of mine. I've worked very closely with him on this.

We hope that after June 12 we'll have a clearer sense of what specific projects we need to move forward on, and the federal government looks forward to being a part of that. I would note, finally, that our provincial counterparts had absolutely no problem from 2009 to 2012 with focusing on specific projects that supported community and/or resource development projects. I'm a little bit confused as to why they might now. Maybe it's just because there's a provincial election going on.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

We start the first five-minute round now with Mr. Calkins.

Go ahead, please, for up to five minutes.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today. Congratulations on your recent appointment as Minister of Natural Resources. I think it's absolutely fantastic to have a member of Parliament who represents such a large rural area so rich in natural resources representing the file, and I certainly have the utmost confidence that you'll continue to do a great job.

Minister, my question is going to be a little bit broader than the scope of what would normally be considered part of the Natural Resources file. We know from recent events that have happened in eastern Europe that Vladimir Putin and Russia have been using energy as an economic weapon, or threatened to use energy as an economic weapon. They've been meddling in the affairs of the Ukraine and so on, and as a result of that, our committee has undertaken a study and we've had a couple of meetings where we've discussed what Canada's role could, or possibly should be, in helping our traditional allies in Europe with some of their energy needs.

I'm wondering if you could update this committee on the discussions that you've had on the topic with some of your G-7 counterparts and tell this committee what Canada can do, what this committee can do, and what the private sector could possibly do to help our allies abroad.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

This is a really important question, Mr. Chair, and it was one we were seized of in Rome at the G-7. Obviously, there are a couple of important issues and, therefore, things that I am sure we would benefit as a government from getting participation from the standing committee on.

First of all, in the context of the Ukraine, there's a very obvious over-reliance on supply from Russia. I would submit that this goes to at least ten eastern European countries that are in what I would frame as the 100% club: they're exclusively reliant on them. There are varying degrees of dependency on energy supply from other European countries, certainly western European countries. What the issues raise are energy supply, energy sources, and their implications on issues of national, and I would submit, global security, as we're currently finding out.

The exercise that we went through at that conference was very important. In the first instance, it was to denounce Russia's using energy as a means of coercion and to denounce, obviously, their violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that energy would be used, as I said, as a means of coercion to that end. Beyond that, our discussions focused on an alignment of a number of other key exercises, obviously, energy collaboration; hydrocarbon science-based, non-discriminatory regulation; innovation and responsible energy use; and particularly, renewable energy and the need for alignment on GHGs. I had a bilateral meeting with Secretary Moniz on that, and we identified some key opportunities in these regards.

For us here at home, in the context of the main estimates and the policy platforms that support it, Mr. Chair, we need to understand how responsible resource development can move forward for energy products to get to our tide waters safely for distribution to other markets.

I met with my counterpart from Japan. I'll be attending a conference there later this year, and the number one topic is how far out are we from being able to bring product to their market. The good news is, there's still time, and we would benefit from any work that the committee could give us on these matters.

I think what were satisfied with, with respect to Ukraine, was that there were some short term measures that we could take to help them out, and I've offered the expertise of NRCan for some of those assessment processes. In the context of our other partners, 2017-20 have been identified as medium-term timelines where we could quite possibly get our product to those markets. That's consistent with the goals of, say, British Columbia, for example in LNG, so I'm satisfied that, while there are some pressing things we need to do, we can fit those timelines and focus on, obviously, a dynamic energy supply from Canada to meet new customers' demands.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

We'll go now to Mr. Trost for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please, sir.

May 29th, 2014 / 9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here today. As I was noting to you earlier, you're number seven as far as Natural Resources ministers are concerned that I've seen while I've been on this committee. Most of them get promoted, I'll note, so I'm wishing you the best.

In my time on this committee, one of the better studies we did was on the issue of forestry. That's why I was interested to note that in your remarks you noted about $90.4 million over four years for investments in the forestry industry transformation. Coming from the riding of Kenora, you have a considerable amount of forestry in your riding.

With that as a background and that in mind, could you give us a bit of an overview about what the main estimates provide in terms of forestry sector support?

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Every time forestry comes up I'm always at the risk of digressing, so jump in any time if my answer reflects that.

Let me say this, Mr. Chair, obviously there is considerable forestry potential in the great Kenora riding, for example, as there is in many regions of Canada. In particular, in Kenora one of the challenges that we face is that even though our markets, the traditional ones that we've served, are showing signs of life—there is a pulse there—the forestry sector was in fact decimated.

The question on its return is how is that going to happen? We cannot have our machines dusted off to cut board-foot or just continue with primary pulp. In Kenora's case we make world-class pulp that's being tested in a number of ways. In nanocellulose technology, for example, testing confirms the quality of our pulp. But that's all we're making with it, right in our riding.

The residual questions and the ones that the main estimates have to address, in my view, have got to focus on innovation. We have to make the forest sector in the regions where our trees come from more competitive for sustainable jobs that are not subject to things like we had just experienced with the recession of 2009. In the end, for example, in Kenora all we were left with was 160 direct jobs at a value-added facility in Kenora and a couple hundred direct jobs making pulp. Everything else had been eliminated, Mr. Chair.

The main estimates have to, and I'm pleased to report do, focus on investing in industry transformation. The IFIT program itself offers $90.4 million over four years. It's focused on Canada-first technologies that foster innovation in the forestry sector. It's projected to support more than 12 and possibly up to 15 innovation projects over the next four years.

The main estimates also provide $93 million over three years for the forest innovation program. This will generate advanced high-value products and processes in the industry. It's helping to make Canada a world leader in several key technology areas.

I should add as well that the main estimates provide support for expanding market opportunity programs to increase offshore exports in the use of wood in non-residential and mid-rise construction in North America.

Certainly, as well, in my capacity as the minister responsible for FedNor, our targeted manufacturing initiatives are focused obviously on mining and some forestry activities that go to support—since the regional economic agencies and/or programs can be a little bit more nimble to respond to the scale of manufacturing that could occur, particularly with respect to forestry—efforts to become manufacturers instead of just raw producers. That involves participation with colleges potentially to bring innovation centres to key areas across northern Ontario.

I see potential in northern Saskatchewan as well and I know some of that's being done, so that people who come from those regions, who go to college in those regions, can come to better understand what the products that are naturally occurring in their regions actually do.

I'm stealing a page from my time as the Minister of Science and Technology, where over at NRC we do a myriad of things with residual pulp product and by-product, but I don't think it's as well understood as it could be by people in regions where trees are cut for the purposes of materials manufacturing and pulp and the like.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Trost. Your time is up.

We go now to the official opposition again.

Ms. Leslie, you have up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. I add my congratulations to your appointment. It's exciting. I have high hopes for you in this role. I have high hopes because I know that you understand how important it is to diversify our energy economy.

You talked in your opening about the need to diversify our energy markets, noting that really our market is the U.S. You talked about the need to diversify there. But I want to talk about diversifying our energy economy, our energy sector. What is the plan to diversify our energy sector? When I look at the estimates, I see a decrease of over $100 million for the clean energy fund, a decrease of about $31 million for ecoENERGY biofuels, a decrease of $25 million for the grants to Sustainable Development Technology Canada for biofuels, and no return of the ecoENERGY retrofit, as my colleague Ms. Duncan points out.

I don't see a commitment to ensuring that our energy portfolio is diversified, I see that all our eggs are in one basket. I'm hoping you can share some good news with me.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Sure: I appreciate this opportunity, Mr. Chair.

I think the overall narrative might suggest that I respectfully couldn't agree with the way that was framed. I think it's fair to say, when it comes to clean energy in general, certainly funds or line items that are contained in the main estimates are focused on kick-starting renewables like wind and biofuels. I think our collective goal is obviously to let the market do its good work. But they're focused on technology, innovation, and energy efficiency for cleaner and more renewable sources. I think in the context of the G-7, we had discussions around issuing a joint statement that had alignment in these regards.

I think with respect to ecoENERGY initiatives, we've invested in more than 280 clean energy demonstration, research, and development projects. These projects are being delivered by the private sector, by universities, and federal laboratories. I think this is a fully integrated way to proceed on this.

All available program funding for that, I might add, has been allocated to existing projects.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

If I can drill down just to one specific aspect—

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

“Drill down”.

Ms. Megan Leslie —drill down, so to speak—I have read about, and Natural Resources has confirmed with media, this $22-million ad campaign for the oil sands. I'm just wondering, then, if we are drilling down to the details, how much is being spent on ads for renewable energies and energy efficiency.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON

Thank you for that question and for that metaphor of drilling down. Obviously we're very proud of our international engagement campaign to promote responsible resource development. It's our job, obviously, to raise awareness in key international markets. They're focused on demonstrating that Canada is a world-class, environmentally responsible energy, which obviously is an umbrella term, partner.

Our sector supports, obviously, significant numbers of jobs and is an important part of our economy, so any opportunity we have to boast not just about our record with respect to responsible resource development...in the environmental as well as in the economic benefits, and being a politically stable environment to serve international markets, we'll take that opportunity.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

I'd love to see the department take on more responsible resource development in looking at our green resources and energy efficiency, because there's a lot of potential there for jobs.

I'd like to pass over the remainder of my time to Ms. Moore.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

You have just over a minute, Ms. Moore. Go ahead, please.