Natural Resources Committee on May 11th, 2006

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Do you see that there will be provision for programs specifically targeting small market areas, so we don't become, as we were in the past in eastern Canada, an exporter of people and everything else, without the value-added side? I'm interested in that as well.

[Carol Buckley]

I won't say I can resolve your question or answer it fully at this time. But as we proceed in determining how we make these fuels available and how to equip them in the marketplace, we are very conscious of the fact that not all regions of the country have the same access to developing these fields or using them. We want to work very closely with the provincial and territorial governments in terms of any move we take forward. Your concerns about being in a smaller market, wanting to have your share, and be properly served, without the negative impact of whatever policy comes through, is something we're definitely concerned about and keeping an eye on. I can't tell you that we have the solution at this point in time; it's fairly early days in the development of this policy.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

We talked about forestry and the $400 million. I want to pick up on one of the points Catherine made. One comment was that there is going to be certain targeted innovation, if you will, in certain segments of the industry. Can you give me an idea as to which areas of that industry...? Would the forest industry be targeted first, from an innovation standpoint?

[Richard Fadden]

That's a difficult question.

To the extent that we can, what we want to try to promote is restructuring those parts of the industry that are really suffering right now from economic hardship. To a considerable degree, these are very small and old plants, largely in Quebec and Ontario, to be honest, but also elsewhere. The idea would be to try to provide industry additional incentives to rationalize. We don't know quite what form these will take yet, but the idea would be to promote measures through direct grants, tax incentives, or whatnot to encourage rationalization and modernization, so they can compete more effectively than now. I know that's a general answer and I apologize, but I don't have more.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I appreciate your candour.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for the good answers.

To wrap up, I am going to go now to Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fadden and other members of the panel, for your cogent presentations.

I have a main question with respect to first nations. But prior to that, I understand some 20% of the energy efficiency programs have been cut. Is it the case that those programs have not yet been replaced, or there have been no new programs since January 23?

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chairman, it's correct to say that there have been no new programs. But to go back to what I said earlier, some 95 to 97 of the 120 programs in my review have been given bridge financing for one more year to enable the government to decide its policy direction.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I understand. That's why I refer to 20% being....

With respect to first nations, my riding of Brant in southwestern Ontario is adjacent to the riding of Haldimand--Norfolk, in which the town of Caledonia is located. Of course, that's a bit of a buzzword these days for a blockade, occupation, reclamation—call it what you will—by Six Nations of the Grand River. The disenchantment felt by our first nations peoples with the tardiness in resolving their land claim disputes is no longer simmering, it has boiled over. Everything I hear on the ground is to the effect that the blockade or the occupation is very portable, and it may surface somewhere else in Canada next.

I wondered how aggressively is NRCan, with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, dealing with the resolution of land claims, so that any potential development of land in Saskatchewan and Alberta is not going to be scuttled by a similar occupation.

[Richard Fadden]

That's quite the question, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to be clear: it really is an Indian Affairs lead. What we've been trying to do whenever there has been the potential for development is to organize the federal government in a way that consultations can take place early and effectively. Just to give you an example, for the Gateway pipeline project in British Columbia and Alberta, the department is organizing a crown consultation unit to organize and structure consultations with first nations. We've done this with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, along with Indian and Northern Affairs. I think, though, one of the key elements of all of this is that initiating the consultations is the primary responsibility of the company seeking to do development, and I agree with you entirely that the federal crown has a responsibility to encourage and assist the process.

We probably don't have enough money to do as much as we'd like to do on this front, because a lot of the megaprojects have significant impacts on first nations, and it's a very specialized skill and very time consuming. We're a bit thin, but we're doing the best we can. Again, it's a bit of an inadequate answer, and I apologize for that, but it's an area where we think we have to find a way of spending more energy and time, because I think you're right, it is amazing what can be stopped if we don't have these effective consultations.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Just one final question, through you, Mr. Chair, to the panel. Page 10 of your deck refers to the potential of Canada to be a global leader in responsible natural resource development. The first point you made in the deck is that natural resources sectors are a major driver of economic growth, etc., “including Aboriginal peoples, rural Canada, and the North”. With respect to aboriginal peoples, are you speaking primarily, or even exclusively, about Saskatchewan and Alberta with their oil and gas deposits, or is there any expectation or hope for development among aboriginal peoples in northern Ontario?

[Richard Fadden]

I think there is that prospect, Mr. Chairman. There's no doubt that on any projects relating to natural resources, we're trying to encourage, to the extent possible, aboriginal people benefiting as much as possible. For example, we do have the first nations model forest plan, which is available across the country. Off the top of my head, I don't remember if there are any in northern Ontario, but it's certainly a potential. It's been quite successful in training first nations in entrepreneurship in the management of their own resources, and that's certainly one plan that would be available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. St. Amand.

Mr. Chan.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

First, I thank Lloyd for giving me an opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Because the time is short, I will go right to the point.

You mentioned, Mr. Fadden, that 50% of greenhouse gas emissions are contributed from the natural resource sector. I think that without knowing or understanding how this increase in the greenhouse gas contribution from that sector came about, we won't be able to put our hands on the emission problem.

The question I have for you, through the chairman, is how much of that 50% contribution from the natural resource sector is from the production of energy or fossil fuel? We would like to understand the historical trend of that increase, both in real terms and the percentage of the total GHG contribution for the last 10 years, and what is the projection for the next 10 years? I think those are very important data that we need in order to make some sensible policy decisions.

[Richard Fadden]

I wonder if I could ask that of Mr. Brown, Mr. Chairman.

[Howard Brown]

For precise numbers, I'll have to get back to you after checking with the experts. I believe about half of our total emissions come from what have been called the large final emitters, many of which are either resource industries, like oil and gas, or industries closely linked to resource industries, like coal-fired power, for example. And then about a quarter come from transportation and about a quarter from households and buildings.

On what the trends have been, I don't know. Again, we'd have to get you precise numbers and get back to you as quickly as we can.

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chairman, my colleague was just pointing out to me that I in fact under-evaluated the amount of resources relating to energy production and consumption. These are the last numbers that we have in final form--in 2002, 81% of our greenhouse gas emissions came from energy production or consumption. We'll try to give you some more detailed breakdowns, if you're interested, Mr. Chairman.

[Frank Des Rosiers]

It's on page 18 of the—

[Richard Fadden]

The larger deck. I apologize for the confusion.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Chairman, if I still have some time, I think the problem we face is we're trying to control emissions from industrial production for using or producing energy, but at the same time, I think it's important for us to understand how much emission is coming from the production of energy itself. I think it's important that we don't overburden our industrial sector for consumption while at the same allowing production to go unregulated, because I think that contribution maybe is going out of hand. I can't tell until we get those data.

[Richard Fadden]

I take Mr. Chan's question. We'll try to provide the information over the next few days, through the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's great. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry to rush you. That was a very good question.

You'll get that material to the clerk and we'll distribute it to the committee.

With that, we are out of time and over time. I very much appreciate your coming in and putting up with a starting committee here. It will be better the next time you come, but I very much appreciate your patience and the quality of your answers. It was just great. I hope to have you back. Thank you for coming.

I would now seek the indulgence of the committee for three quick things. We have some housekeeping matters.

First of all, you'll get a notice that the next meeting of the committee will probably be in room 362 of the East Block. We're not able to get this room every time. So we'll get a notice out that it will be room 362, East Block.

There is a motion from the clerk we didn't do the other day. This is about papers and documents. The following motion was not included in motions that were passed at Tuesday's meeting but is another suggested motion for routine business. I'm sorry I don't have it printed out, but the motion would be, then, that at the discretion of the chair, the clerk be authorized to purchase documents for the use of the committee. We need to have that.

Would someone move that?

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Does everyone understand what the motion is? It's just so the clerk can buy us stuff.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Finally, I'm sorry for the bit of confusion today with getting witnesses on short notice and that sort of thing, but with this change in next week's schedule, with question period being at 11:15, can I take it, then, that we would perhaps cancel the meeting scheduled for next Thursday and go to question period?