Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 25th, 2014

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

We go now to Mr. Trost for five minutes.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a follow-up on a question that was worked in a little bit earlier. It concerns the $2.5 million increase in vote 1 operating for aboriginal participation in west coast energy development. Now, because we're dealing directly with the supplementaries, my question has to be directly about the $2.5 million. I'm interested in how that is being directly spent and some examples.

I'm not only interested in the $2.5 million. I'm interested in the overall program and the $2.5 million is being put into that. As much as numbers are what we're talking about today, could you give me as concrete an example as possible as to what Natural Resources Canada is spending for facilitation of aboriginal participation in west coast energy development? As I tell people, people always remember stories better than numbers. I love numbers—I have degrees in geophysics and economics, so I enjoy numbers—but it's not simply working in the numbers here about the $2.5 million increase, but give us as much as you can on the story behind what we're spending here.

[Bob Hamilton]

I'm happy to do that. I think the minister alluded to some of this in his comments, but I'll be as concrete as I can be.

One caveat up front is something we're starting up. We've just formed the office and it's out moving, so I think over time we'll see many more concrete results than we've had up until now, but I'll tell you what we've done out of the starting block.

First off, we did name a senior official out there to head up the office whose primary job is really to make sure that we are having good engagement and dialogue with first nations and with the provincial government in B.C. on projects that are in play. As you know, there are a number of them out there, whether it's liquefied natural gas projects that proponents are coming forward with, whether it's pipelines...There is actually quite a bit of activity on the west coast. A lot of that activity directly implicates first nations, whether they're on the route of a pipeline or they're located near where a LNG terminal is going to be located, or they're near where a gas discovery is going to be made. There's a lot of interest and concern among first nations on this development. I would say job number one for this office and for that person, Mike Henderson, who's heading it up, is to make sure that we're engaging with first nations early on in the process and having a good dialogue outside of the formal environmental assessment process. There's always an opportunity for communities and people to be engaged through the formal mechanism, but what this office is trying to do is to set up a mechanism whereby we can have those exchanges and learn from each other outside of that process.

The two tangible things I would mention is that we have started up, although it's not off and running yet, a tripartite process to look at a range of issues. That's tripartite with the first nations, with the province, and with ourselves, because one of the issues that we can run into is when a project comes forward, there are different dialogues going on with different entities. We've tried to pull them together, get us all around the table so we can understand the implications of the project, talk through some of the issues, and see what some of the solutions might be. That's one.

The second, which again will be part of this tripartite process, is really a study to figure out how we best assess cumulative impacts of projects. That's one of the things that's been of interest to first nations in a number of projects. We need to work together with our provincial colleagues, federally ourselves, and with the first nations to figure out how we should assess that, how to gather that information, and a lot of this is monitoring baseline information. How do we effectively gather that so it can inform future projects going forward?

Those would be two of the more concrete things we're working on in addition to generally being present, making sure we're having discussions that people want to have on these projects, and facilitating it so that everybody feels a little more like a partner in the project.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you for elaborating. I know some of this has been asked before but I appreciate you elaborating on that.

You said you are relatively new in this process. Is it very possible that we're going to see more increases for funding in future supplementaries, etc., going forward? The reason we do supplementaries is for more funding when the demand is extraordinarily more than what is budgeted. I'm asking a hypothetical, I know, but is it a possibility that this could escalate considerably, more dramatically?

I also see here $200,000 for comprehensive claims in self-government negotiations. Putting that together, are a lot of the consultations being tied in together? They seem to be related items. I can see why they might be separate budgetary items but I can also see how there's going to be a linkage between these expenditures.

How close is the linkage between expenditures like this? How clear is the guidance for future escalation and spending in this area?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Deputy Minister, could you keep the answer very brief, please?

[Bob Hamilton]

Sure. I will take the second part first. They are two distinct aspects in the sense that in the second, the land claims, we're providing technical advice on forestry or land surveys, etc. So it is technical advice into a bigger process. But you're right, obviously there is some commonality between the two. But I do think it's fair to say they are separate even beyond the purposes of the supplementary estimates (B).

It is hard to answer the hypothetical question on future increases. At the moment there is no plan to augment this activity. As we go through it we may uncover some things that we'd like to do more of and spend more money on, and at that point we'll have a decision to make as to whether we do that extra activity and take away from something else we're doing within the department or somewhere else in government, or whether we come back and try to access additional funds.

The only small caveat I'd put on that is that part of the effort we're looking at in the cumulative impacts is monitoring. This is an area where I think there really is an opportunity for us to do a better job of monitoring and to engage first nations more actively in that monitoring effort. Depending upon how that goes, it is a potential area where we could want to spend a bit more money. But again at that point we have to weigh off: do we ask for more or do we take it from something else that we're doing?

Otherwise, there are no plans at the moment for increased expenditures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you for that explanation.

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Just before we continue with questioning I want to get a sense from the committee how much time you think it'll take to go through the votes on the supplementary estimates (B). You are aware of the process and that it can be very quick or it can take some time. Do we need the 15 minutes that are remaining or can we do it in less time than that?

[An hon. member]

Five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, we'll go ahead in that fashion. Usually it doesn't take that long.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Duncan, up to five minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to again get on the agenda that we've made a number of requests both to the minister and to the department for providing information. We hope that we all receive it. My request was on a breakdown on the MPMO for B.C.

Mr. Deputy, I noticed in the information that was provided initially on the new MPMO in Vancouver that it says it is for B.C. and Alberta and then it sort of shifts over to just talking about meeting B.C. interests and issues. One of the major project areas in energy and resources that is completely missing from the agenda in federal intervention is the thousand-fold increase in rail shipping of bitumen and other petroleum products.

There was a recent issue in Alberta where essentially we have this legal fiction. The bitumen from the oil sands is being exported partly by pipeline to north of Edmonton and then by rail to the United States. The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation asked that there be a National Energy Board review because it was an export of a petroleum product. They were told that it doesn't classify as an NEB project.

I wonder if you could speak to that. Increasing amounts of the product are being shipped by rail and will probably continue to because there would be long-term contracts we can anticipate. Is the government starting to reconsider the mandate for the National Energy Board and to include the review of rail shipments including exports of petroleum products?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Hamilton, I don't know if you can answer that question but answer the part that you feel free to answer.

[Bob Hamilton]

Sure.

There are two questions there. I think you're right to point out both B.C. and Alberta. I've tended, at least in my remarks, to focus on B.C., but the initiative covers both B.C. and Alberta. I guess it's just a reflection of the activity there that in using examples I've tended to point to just B.C. That's a fair point on the first question.

On the second, we have seen an increase in activity in shipping by rail, for a variety of reasons. Indeed, the U.S. representatives were here providing some information on their quadrennial energy review. Just in looking at the amount of rail shipments and how they've increased over time, it's a map that is quite different from what you would have had five years ago, say, in terms of what you see now for the number of shipments. It's of interest, and that has been helped by some changes in rail safety initiatives that the government has put forward.

I'm not aware of the NEB comment you made, nor at this time can I comment on whether there's any government initiative or intention to change the NEB's mandate. There are none that I'm aware of, and I wouldn't comment on that, but I would just support your point that we are seeing an increase in activity on this front, and it's something that we're paying attention to.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thanks.

In a follow-up to that, there was a similar concern. The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation actually pulled out of that Alberta hearing because they were given less than 24 hours to review the environmental impacts of that pipeline, which raises the concern that, as the federal government has unilateral responsibility for first nations, they in fact are not being supported by Natural Resources or Environment Canada in reviewing environmental impacts of major resource projects.

My final question to you is about energy efficiency. I noted to the minister that I follow the work of the U.S.-Canada clean energy dialogue. I noted that there was considerable participation by the officials in seminars in the U.S. on energy efficiency, as no doubt you are aware. Your head of your energy efficiency office has probably reported to you the report that we did two years ago at the government operations committee, recommending substantial increased investments by the federal government in energy efficiency to save hundreds of millions of dollars down the road for taxpayers.

I guess that's my question to you. I find it puzzling that we're not seeing substantial increases in the supplementaries or in the budgets towards that objective of saving money for taxpayers by upfront investments in energy efficiency. Are you considering the U.S. model of binding directives on federal departments to invest in energy efficiency and reduced water use?

[Bob Hamilton]

I have a couple of comments.

On energy efficiency, we certainly would agree that it's important for a variety of reasons to be as energy efficient as we possibly can. It certainly has environmental benefits, and trying to be efficient with the energy we use actually has economic benefits as well.

I would caution, though, that just because there's nothing in the supplementary estimates (B), or nothing substantive, you can't ignore the fact that there is actually a lot of funding that goes into energy efficiency initiatives. Indeed, in 2011, the ecoENERGY efficiency program was funded to the tune of I believe $190 million over five years.

The objective of providing that funding was for the purpose of trying to increase energy efficiency. Whether it's in buildings or houses, that was funding the government has used in that vein. That was five-year funding, which will be coming up for renewal, and there'll be another opportunity to assess whether to spend that money and how to spend that money. But certainly there's a big part of our activity that we're engaged in at NRCan and that is trying to fund technological advances and other avenues for getting greater energy efficiency.

In terms of results, one study I saw looked at Canada and said that we're actually the second leading country in terms of energy efficiency improvements over the last number of years. Now, we have a ways to go, and I'm not declaring success, but it does indicate that in recent years we have made some efforts to improve our energy efficiency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Mr. Leef, I hope you're not heartbroken. You have about three minutes instead of the five.

Go ahead, please, sir.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I was going to say that it's a full minute more than you've ever given me before, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate that today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You're out of time, Mr. Leef.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Boy, did that go fast. Time flies.

I noticed that in the minister's opening remarks the one part I didn't get to while he was here is the $2.1 million that has gone from National Defence to Natural Resources for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the Natural Resources Resolute facility and the logistics there to support the Canadian Forces Arctic training centre. I'm wondering if you can touch on that portion of the vote 1(b) operating line.

[Bob Hamilton]

That is really an effort for us to gain greater efficiencies in government. We have the Resolute facility, and there is an opportunity for National Defence to use that facility to carry on some of its activities rather than, as I mentioned earlier, for National Defence to construct a whole separate facility and engage in all of those activities. There is an economy of scale of them using ours. We've struck an arrangement with them whereby they will transfer to us the cost of using our facility. Again, if you look at it from an overall government perspective, it's greater efficiency, for sure. They are happy with the deal, and we are happy to receive the transfer for that and make greater use of that facility. Hopefully we are seeing more and more of that in government, as a way to try to find some efficiencies where we can use a facility for more than one purpose and look at other parts of government that can benefit from that, so we can share in the expenses. That's the purpose of that transfer.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Excellent. It's good to see that the calculation is being made in terms of where you can share existing resources for ultimate government efficiencies. As you say, it would be nice to know that this is going on right across government. I think you should be congratulated for looking at measures like that on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, to make sure that you are partnering well in breaking down some of those departmental silos and identifying opportunities where you can share these resources, particularly in the north, where the higher cost of development can be exacerbated by the challenges that exist there. Invariably, those partnerships will only strengthen other ways for you to innovate and create future cost savings for the Canadian taxpayer. Thank you for that.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm sure I haven't used up my full three minutes, but that's all I needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you for the filibuster, Mr. Leef. Thank you very much for your questions and comments.

Thank you very much to our officials, those at the table and those behind. I do want to say that we in the House of Commons very much appreciate the professionalism and the good work done by all of you. We do appreciate that very much. We don't say it very often, so thank you, and thank you for being here.

Committee members, we still have to deal with the votes on the supplementary estimates (B). We're dealing with the supplementary estimates (B) 2014-15: vote 1b under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, vote 1b under National Energy Board, and votes 1b, 5b, and 10b under Natural Resources.

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED

Vote 1b—Operating and capital expenditures..........$35,000,000

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD

Vote 1b—Program expenditures and contributions..........$5,803,823

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

NATURAL RESOURCES

Vote 1b—Operating expenditures..........$24,688,013

Vote 5b—Capital expenditures..........$1

Vote 10b—The grants listed in the estimates and contributions..........$6,000,000

(Votes 1b, 5b, and 10b agreed to on division)

Shall the chair report vote 1b under Atomic Energy Board of Canada Limited, vote 1b under National Energy Board, and votes 1b, 5b, and 10b under Natural Resources to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We shall proceed in that fashion then.

Again, thank you so much to all members of the committee for your work today. On Thursday we will have a meeting on the future business of the committee. We can look mainly at the meetings from now until Christmas, but certainly beyond that as well. If you'll come prepared on Thursday, we will do that and see what business this committee will work on in the weeks and months ahead.

Meeting adjourned.