Natural Resources committee  I think those questions would be best posed to my colleagues in the energy sector or to my deputy.

Natural Resources committee  I can start that, and then my experts can correct me if I'm wrong. On the geomapping program we would not be able to have any sort of mapping of renewable energy related to wind, tidal, or solar. On the geothermal side--this is where I can get a little help from my colleagues--the Geological Survey of Canada recently released a publication on a “geothermal potential” map of Canada.

Natural Resources committee  Okay. So it was the information available, not where it was necessarily economically feasible--just as our geological maps are not where it's economically feasible; it's just “Here's the geological information.”

Natural Resources committee  That really isn't in my domain, the science sector. My colleague Anil Arora, in the metals and minerals sector, deals directly with the mining companies, mining associations, in, for example, the green mining program.

Natural Resources committee  Well, taken bit by bit, the wind side, no; I would see the Meteorological Service of Canada as having the expertise on wind information in general. The solar side would probably be our energy sector, as well as the geothermal. The economic uptake side or feasibility would be the energy sector.

Natural Resources committee  Right; if we're talking about Radarsat, then that would be Radarsat-2, and it's MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates. That's their satellite. We have an agreement as the federal system to have access to all the data through a licence agreement, but I think in airborne geophysical work we would be using private sector.

Natural Resources committee  That's an excellent question. I'l let Donna answer that, as the director general for this program. There are two programs we have going on. We have the GEM program, and we also have an ongoing program of environmental geoscience. That group is looking in the north specifically at vulnerabilities associated with melting permafrost.

Natural Resources committee  I think we'll let Dr. Percival take that one.

Natural Resources committee  I think it would be best if I turned this over to Linda or Donna. Linda Richard.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here again. What I thought we would do, based on the questions we heard last time and some of the uncertainties, is focus this short presentation on two areas. One is to give a little more detail about the tool box that we have at our disposal in the geosciences.

Natural Resources committee  I can start at a high level, and either Dr. Scott or Dr. Percival can provide a little more detail. In southern Canada we have some experience with what every dollar spent by the Geological Survey of Canada leads to in real economic activity. Most recently, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada had a consultant do a report to analyze the so-what question: you're doing this interesting science, but does it amount to anything?

Natural Resources committee  No. The provinces that I covered earlier—I'll pull that out again—for the GEM program, and remember, it was mostly 75% targeted north of 60 and then 25% in the northern part of the rest of Canada.... So south of 60 it's British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

Natural Resources committee  I can start on the first part of that response. As far as the actual technical collaboration is concerned, my colleagues can continue on that. Under the intergovernmental geoscience accord that I mentioned started in 1996 and is renewed every five years, this is an accord between all of the provinces that have an interest or capacity in geological sciences.

Natural Resources committee  It's not part of this, but it's part of—

Natural Resources committee  I'm just the humble ADM of their science sector.