Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[Serge Dupont]

We will get back to you.

The only thing I would add is that, if you are within the timelines accorded to you, there is nothing in the rules of this process that provides that first in gets better treatment than others.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Could you please remind the committee of the government's obligations in relation to UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in this regard?

[Serge Dupont]

Brian Gray, who is assistant deputy minister for the earth sciences sector, will respond.

[Dr. Brian Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister, Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada]

Thank you.

Before addressing that, I would like to say that the United States is not a signatory to the convention. We will be able to circle back and get you the information on who has actually signed and who has actually made cases.

Our obligation under the convention, once we signed—which was roughly 10 years ago in December—is that we have up to 10 years to submit our case to the commission. I can assure you that the case is done, it's bound, and it's in a process of being transported to the commission in New York. It is a very large document; it probably weighs over 500 pounds. We have to provide the document in paper form and in electronic form.

Once we submit it, we will have about six months before we can appear before the commission to make the formal oral presentation, and that's usually about an hour to an hour and a half. That then puts us formally in the queue, so we now are ahead of any country that has not submitted yet. The countries that have submitted are in that queue.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

And how many have?

[Dr. Brian Gray]

Again, I don't know. I have no idea. I've never known that number so—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You do promise to get back to me?

[Dr. Brian Gray]

Yes.

Again, don't quote me—I can get you the numbers—but let's say it's a commission of a couple dozen experts in geophysics, in geology, who form the commission. They are reviewing these cases essentially one at a time. So when will they get to Canada? It could be five years, it could be eight years. I don't know at this time.

In this submission we've received money to assure that we keep the data current and to assure that our scientists are actually publishing in peer-reviewed science articles to help strengthen our case so that, when the commission does see it, there will be a large body of science supporting the work that Canada has submitted.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

We go now to Ms. Block, followed by Mr. Zimmer, and Ms. Duncan.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Block, for up to five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know I've already welcomed our officials here but I want to welcome you to the table, and I appreciate your being here today.

Last week we did a little bit of a study on the major projects management office. I only flag that because a comment was made earlier in regard to another question that there are other departments/members in the federal family, so that we can get a really good understanding of all of the partnerships and all of the collaboration that has to go on between different departments within the federal government. Again, that is highlighted in these supplementary estimates when we look at the transfers from other organizations into Natural Resources.

My question now is actually about the transfers to other organizations. I completely understand the transfer from Natural Resources to Indian Affairs when it comes to the remediation of federal contaminated sites, but I'm looking at the grouping just above it on page 69 where there is Agriculture and Agri-Food, there is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Trade and Development, and other different departments listed there.

I wonder if you could give a little bit more of an explanation around those transfers.

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I may be mistaken, and if so I'll stand to be corrected. Are we on page 2-69?

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

Yes.

[Serge Dupont]

It says from National Defence to all of these different partners including CSIS, so those would be transactions that do not.... For us it's the $400,000, and the $400,000 refers to essentially moneys paid.... It is for security, and it is for essentially our work on radiation monitoring. We have a mobile unit that can be dispatched 24-7 at any place in Canada to monitor where there's any kind of radiation above background levels. So with $400,000 we will be acquiring, for example, a high-purity germanium detector. We will also be strengthening that mobile unit and providing an analysis and testing system for incident command.

So it is for that part, and then other transactions related to CSIS and so forth presumably also find their way into other parts of the supplementary estimates. Those are other separate transactions.

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

Thank you.

I'm also going to follow up on the other question that I asked Minister Oliver in regard to the Gunnar and Lorado uranium mine facilities. I know I asked him to give us an update and he was able to give us that. But I'm wondering if you could perhaps just, in fact, tell us why this is even showing up on the books of the federal government.

[Serge Dupont]

Yes, that's a good question. The reason it is showing up at this time is that there were moneys allocated for this fiscal year. They will not be spent this fiscal year because the Saskatchewan Research Council that is leading the project is not ready yet. It has not completed the environmental assessment through the CNSC, so we expect the work to take place rather in 2014-15. Therefore, it is subtracted this year and will come back later. It is essentially what is called reprofiling.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Again, thank you for coming today to present to committee.

I have a couple of questions for you. One is specifically to do with the National Energy Board in Calgary. Can you just explain where the approximately $12 million for the offices is going and how it's being spent?

[Serge Dupont]

Sure. I wouldn't have the line item kind of detail, but essentially the National Energy Board was fitted in offices in Calgary. As per normal practices, at the end of the lease period Public Works and Government Services Canada made an assessment as to whether this was the best place for it to be in terms of getting best value for money. It was determined that it would be appropriate to pursue a competitive process to identify the best opportunities in Calgary because, of course, in Calgary lease costs can be quite expensive in certain parts of the city.

Having identified an alternative location, the NEB had to ensure that it had the resources to do the one-time expenditure of moving. It also turns out that the dates didn't coincide perfectly, so it actually has to have some temporary space for some of its activities before it's fully fitted into the new building. It has to fit according to federal Government of Canada standards where the square feet per employee are specified. All of that requires some one-time money that, as the minister indicated, is essentially borrowed from future appropriations of the National Energy Board, simply because they don't have the cash on hand immediately. But essentially you are prepaying in part your future rental costs.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you for that.

I had another question for the minister as well. We talked about the tanker safety regime. Being from British Columbia, that's one of the concerns I hear about on a regular basis. Oddly enough, we announced we are pursuing this because of the concerns, and then we were criticized by a member of Parliament—I won't mention the person—for actually incurring expenses trying to develop that plan. To me, it was a bit ironic.

Anyway, can you explain the tanker safety regime's full response. What has been spent? Can you just give us a heads-up on some direction there?

[Serge Dupont]

I would have to refer you to Transport Canada for this particular one. There would be moneys as well for the coast guard. We will be, ourselves, incurring some expenditures that are not yet fully tied down. For example, with regard to monitoring the stability of the coast, with regard risks for landslides or other kinds of geohazards, there won't be huge amounts of money, but we want to ensure that, as regards our knowledge of geohazards—be they in Kitimat Arm, Douglas Channel, and other parts of the coast as well—we have the best geological information necessary in order to address, mitigate, and prevent any potential geohazard.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I know it's difficult to single you out with that expenditure because I know it's a cross-ministry initiative. DFO, I think, is involved, Transport Canada, and yourself. I appreciate your response, and again thanks for appearing at committee.

Do you have anything more?

[Serge Dupont]

I could say that we could certainly undertake to provide the committee with the amounts already announced in budgets 2012 and 2013, which I don't have at my disposal, but that did have resources allocated to a number of departments that will have to collaborate in ensuring world-class safety, as the minister mentioned.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.