Natural Resources Committee on May 11th, 2006

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

It would be interesting to find out how the research and development budget is broken down by sector, including sectors we want to protect and sectors which produce more greenhouse gases.

[Richard Fadden]

We will send that information to the clerk.

[Frank Des Rosiers, Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

We only have general data on the research as a whole, since we do not have a breakdown of expenses for renewable sources of energy. About two-thirds of the department's budgetary envelope is spent on science and technology. Of the 4,500 employees, about 3,000 are researchers. So that represents a significant part of the department's activities.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

A little earlier you referred to a performance report. Part of the report must deal with the performance of the researchers, right?

[Richard Fadden]

Yes.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

So the information is contained in the report and if it is clear and easy to consult, we can refer to it. Are there any other publications which can give us a fairly clear image of the situation? There are a lot of documents and there's a lot of information, but it's not always easy to find what you're looking for quickly.

[Richard Fadden]

I will send you some information.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Given the policy on climate change of the new party in power, some natural resources programs were cut. This is probably indicated in the performance report.

Your main responsibility is to advise ministers. I don't want you to get involved in politics, but in your opinion, were the existing programs truly ineffective?

[Richard Fadden]

That's a good question, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back in time a little bit to answer it.

Over the years, we ended up with about 120 programs on energy security, energy effectiveness and climate change. Over the last year, and under the chairmanship of Treasury Board, the former government reviewed these programs, and it was based on that report that the new government took decisions.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe that 97 of the 120 programs were extended by one year to allow the government to establish its policy on climate change and energy. We got rid of some of these programs because they had either reached their objectives or because they were not as effective as they should have been.

However, of the 120 programs, about 95 were extended by one year, which will give the government time to develop a policy and to decide which programs should be abolished, extended, increased or reduced.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Excuse me, do you mind me cutting in? I'm going to give you another minute.

Were those simply NRCan programs, or were the 120 NRCan and environment programs?

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chair, the 120 I was referring to were programs throughout the government that dealt with climate change. To be honest, most of them were NRCan; I don't remember the exact breakdown.

But my general point was that about 95 of the 120 have been given bridge funding for a year to enable the government to make some policy decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Two minutes.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

A little earlier, you made a distinction between different areas of jurisdiction. The new government has committed itself to respecting these areas of jurisdiction and we expect it to keep its word.

You talked about the atmosphere, of the air and water with regard to climate change and the environment. How would you share jurisdiction for water, if that is at all possible?

[Richard Fadden]

That's an excellent question, Mr. Chairman.

Water is more or less included in the same category as all other natural resources. Water belongs — if I may use this expression — to the provinces. However, when water flows over a provincial or international border, the federal government also has jurisdiction under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

The provinces basically have jurisdiction. But if the water flows over a border, the federal government is also involved. It also has jurisdiction to apply regulations under the Criminal Code.

Until now, federal-provincial relations with regard to the management of water have always been very good. There is excellent cooperation between the Quebec, Ontario and federal governments with regard to the St. Lawrence River.

In our opinion, it is not as important to know who is responsible as it is to agree on realistic management objectives for Canada's waters.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

So the federal government does have jurisdiction over the navigable waterway which is the St. Lawrence River. Is its jurisdiction limited to the navigable surface, or does it also include the area under the water? In the case of the St. Lawrence River, there may be oil and gas reserves which could be an object of contention.

[Richard Fadden]

As far as internal waters are concerned, the ground underneath falls under provincial jurisdiction. Extraterritorial waters fall under federal jurisdiction. Internal waters, such as the St. Lawrence River, fall under a provincial jurisdiction.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

It's a matter of defining where the limits are.

[Richard Fadden]

That's correct.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

You probably won't have time to go into detail about the subject I will raise, but I hope that someone else may come back to it.

Before the new government was elected, energy policy was debated for a while. However, the committee did not have a lot of time to discuss this area, whether within Canada and the provinces or as far as the United States was concerned. How far along are negotiations, and what is our direction. What is our policy on water management, since water is an essential resource and not only a natural resource?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Excuse me, Mr. Fadden. We can get to that in the next round, if you want to hold the response. We went a little over the time limit.

I'm sorry, Monsieur Cardin, that I didn't give you adequate warning of the time limit. But we can get back to that in the second round, if that's all right with you.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I simply wanted to put out the message.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. I'm very interested to learn of your commitment to environmental sustainability. I think it's an important goal that we all share.

Some of my questions have been asked, especially by Monsieur Cardin, but I wanted to explore the offshore oil and gas a little more, especially in regard to the west coast. You mentioned that the provincial government is asking for a lifting of the moratorium. Where is the industry at on that? You talked about a timeframe, and I know there are some significant issues. What do you see as a timeframe for that?

On the softwood issue and the $400 million allocation, I understand that's Canada-wide, over two years. How much of that is dedicated to the issue of the pine beetle? That's my second question.

With regard to water, I have a question on that as well. I think I'll follow up on the issue, because what I wanted to know was this. What does the department see for the future with regard to water? You talked about mapping the aquifers and finding out what we have. I think I'll continue on with Monsieur Cardin's question on how you see water as a resource.

I think I'll leave it at that because I have a very short time.

[Richard Fadden]

Okay. Thank you.

In respect of B.C. offshore, I think it's the general view of the industry, in particular given commodity prices these days, that there is a potential resource off the coast of B.C. and that it would be desirable to be able to access it, initially for exploratory purposes. I don't think many of them would say they know enough about the geology of the offshore to say they're going to develop it tomorrow, but I think what they want to be able to do is start exploration. It's fair to say it has not been an absolute priority for the industry, but they're interested in doing it.

We've been discussing timeframes with B.C. for some time now, and part of the difficulty is that this is a very sensitive issue in British Columbia, as you will appreciate. A large number of people believe this is the worst thing that could possibly happen. There are significant first nations issues. I'm not a politician, but I have some difficulty imagining an issue like this being dealt with during an electoral period or when governments have minorities. To be able to move the file forward, there's a need for a lot of consultation with the Government of British Columbia, with civil society in B.C., and with first nations, so I would be really just picking a number out of the air if I told you that I thought it was a year or two or three.

We also believe that before the government considers lifting the moratorium, there's a little bit more scientific work to be done in terms of the impact of exploratory drilling on fish stocks and a couple of other things like that, so we're talking now about a potential scientific program to allow ministers to have a better fact base on which to make an ultimate decision.

I wish I could give you a date, but I don't want to give you one and not have it. It will be some time, I think, before ministers will be in a position to make a decision.

I will turn to the pine beetle and the $400 million. If I recall correctly, some $200 million is to be allocated for the pine beetle. The allocation of the remaining $200 million is still to be determined between worker and community adjustment on the one hand and restructuring on the other. We're trying to develop a package right now with other departments around town to give to ministers. The truthful answer there is that I think ministers will be wanting to make an announcement as soon as they can.

On water, I think NRCan believes there's a need in Canada for a national water framework or policy that takes into account the jurisdiction of the provinces, but that is also fact based. We very strongly believe we don't have enough information about water right now for either the provinces or the federal government to make a rational policy decision.

To give you an example, we have 7% of the fresh water in the world in Canada, but 70% of it drains north, and there's nobody up north compared to the south. Already southern Alberta and southern B.C. are undergoing droughts in certain periods, so we think that before governments are in a position to take policy decisions here, we have to significantly increase the fact base. In particular, we do not have enough information and knowledge about underwater aquifers; we hope we might be able to contribute to the policy debate by providing some information on that front.