Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

The Bay of Fundy has the highest, most powerful tides in the world. I'm wondering if there are any plans to continue to develop the turbine initiative in the Bay of Fundy.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

One project in the Bay of Fundy that has been there for many years has a different technology, as I understand it. The tides come in and the project actually dams up the ocean water, and then it releases the water and creates the energy. It's not as efficient as some of the newer technologies that are coming on stream. Also, I understand it's not that environmentally strong. In fact, I talked to some of the people who were responsible for the environmental approval processes, and they said this would never get through an approval process because of the silting problems.

The latest technology that's coming on stream now is in tidal turbines. I actually went out to Race Rocks. They drilled 36 metres down into the rock and they grouted in a 36-inch-diameter column. It's in 20 metres of water and extends 7 metres up, and then there's a 5-metre-diameter turbine that's underwater. Catherine would know this, coming from Vancouver Island. It's in one of the most ecologically sensitive areas you could imagine, and the support that it has is phenomenal.

It's quite a new technology, and it's relatively economical. It's in almost the same range as wind, but it's based on tidal currents as opposed to the rise in the tides. These are in three-knot currents. The advantage there is that they're able to harness the energy going both in and out as the currents move. It's very efficient, very predictable energy, since the tide obviously moves twice a day.

I talked to the promoters who are doing this project earlier today. They were here from Pearson College, which is a partner in this project. They are producing electricity now and will be able to remove all the diesel generation on the Race Rocks research facility. It's quite exciting, and they believe they'll be able to do this in a larger scale in a commercial application in the near future.

It's something that I would encourage you to look into, because it's fascinating technology. The amount of energy in our oceans is just enormous, so if we have an ability to harness it in a way that does not leave any type of environmental footprint, that's quite exciting.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

This is an entirely different question, so I'll save it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Just for the information of the committee and those millions watching on television, there was a noise audible over the network. It was simply a temporary bell. Debate collapsed and the vote was deferred. There's no need to move from here.

We will carry on with Mr. Paradis.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Good day, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Nash raised a question earlier with regard to chrysotile, and I would like to know the department's policy on this matter. I know a little bit about this file after having studied it. The department bases its position on the fact that there are various types of asbestos fibres, including chrysotile, and that studies indicate that this fibre may be used safely and in a controlled environment. These studies have been recognized all over the world for over 30 years. Peer reviews were carried out, and there is no comparison with the man-made fibres, whose impact on human health is not fully known.

The Chrysotile Institute is promoting its controlled usage globally, and especially in the buyer countries, namely through International Labour Organization's Convention 162. Personally, I am disappointed that these studies are said to be bought by the industry, when in fact, as I mentioned, there were peer reviews.

Is the Department basing its policy on these factual and scientific considerations?

Then, when it comes to Canada's Clean Air Act, unlike my colleague, I happen to share your enthusiasm. I think that it is a solid plan, and in my opinion, we are headed in the right direction. However, from what I hear, in the field, there are no short-term objectives. This is not how I interpret Canada's Clean Air Act, but it may be the case for part of the public and for some members from the Opposition.

So I would appreciate some more details from you on this issue, Mr. Minister.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I love it when your parliamentary secretary is the guy who asks you the toughest questions on chrysotile and targets. There's no holding back from him.

Just let me tell you briefly that on chrysotile--and you and I have spoken many times, as many committee members are aware, on this file--again, the position of the Government of Canada is that we promote its safe use. I'm aware of all the various studies. We have asked that a comparative analysis be done between the man-made fibres and chrysotile, because any decisions that we make will be made based on sound science. That's where we stand. We support the industry on its safe use, and that's our position as the government.

You also mentioned targets in the Clean Air Act and in the notice of intent. I think it's worthwhile to expand on this. Let me start off with the long-term target. We've heard a lot of people and our opponents say we won't do anything until 2050.

Mr. Chair, that is absolutely not true. Every single person in this room knows that if we're going to achieve those targets of 50% or 60% reductions, we must start today. You can't start in five years. You can't start in 10 years. These are ambitious, aggressive targets. You cannot wait.

So to suggest that nothing will be done until 2050 is absolute ludicrousness, Mr. Chair. It is happening now.

On the short- and medium-term targets, we absolutely will come up with targets. But we're not going to pull them out of thin air. We're not going to roll the dice and see if a six pops up and say that's our number. We're going to consult with every single sector, from the automotive, to the oil and gas, to the mining, to the forestry, to the electricity sector. We're going to work with them, and we're going to come up with tough targets that they haven't seen before. They will be realistic, they will be achievable, and they're going to be enforced. You will see these targets come out in the next year, which is just around the corner.

It's kind of scary when you think how close Christmas is. My kids are reminding me of that every day when I call. That always signals to me that the end of the year is coming nearer.

We're almost into the next year, and we're consulting now. We are consulting on a regular basis at the official level and at the ministerial level. These targets will be real. There will be meaningful, aggressive greenhouse gas and pollutants reductions, something this country has never seen before in its history. We should be proud that we have a government that is prepared to take on every single sector and be ambitious.

I know that for political reasons some people like to suggest otherwise. As we saw when Mr. Mulroney brought in the acid rain treaty in the late 1980s, almost 20 years ago, the very same people criticized him. They said that he was doing nothing, that there were no targets, that it wouldn't work, that it wasn't fast enough. Those very same people who criticized him then gave him an award this year for being the greenest Prime Minister in the history of Canada, greener than Jean Chrétien, greener than Paul Martin. He was far more successful on environmental files than any other Prime Minister in the history of Canada. The same people are criticizing us with the same talking points they used to criticize him almost 20 years ago.

I can tell you that our government takes this file very seriously. You will see greenhouse gas reductions. There will be short- and medium-term targets, but they are going to be real. They're not going to be made up out of thin air. And they're going to be enforced.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Paradis.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, to you and your colleagues for being here.

Minister, I have two questions. One is in the forestry area and the other is in nuclear.

The estimates indicate that in the earth science and forestry area there is a 27% increase in the budget. You yourself referred to the mountain pine beetle, to which $200 million has been allocated. I think the committee would be interested in knowing, because of the raging decimation of forests and the migration of the mountain pine beetle as it's impacting on the west, what amount of that is being put into research and, in terms of growing the limits of forest utilization that you have stated is a key goal, what is happening with respect to that whole issue around the mountain pine beetle.

Secondly, the estimates include $10.7 million that has been added to the $78 million for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I think the public generally is seeing some trends, especially in Ontario, with respect to nuclear energy and replacing the existing coal-fired plants with additional nuclear generation. Does this 14% increase indicate a policy direction with respect to a higher consideration for nuclear power within the general energy framework that your ministry is looking at?

Those are my two questions, one on the mountain pine beetle and the other on nuclear.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Let's start off with the mountain pine beetle. First of all, research dollars are going into mountain pine beetle, and some people believe it's been researched to death. We have our own scientists in the department. We have the Pacific Forestry Centre right in Victoria, where the scientists are doing research on an ongoing basis. One principle we have committed to on this is that we will not spend any of this money unless the Province of British Columbia's Ministry of Forests and Range and Natural Resources Canada both agree that this is in the interests and this is where we should be going.

There will be a number of key factors, and those discussions are ongoing and very positive. But research is being done now. The infestation in British Columbia is incredibly large. It's the size of the province of New Brunswick. In some sense, it's almost creating an economic boom in some parts, because as this wood is killed, it's still merchantable timber while it's still standing. So the forest companies need to harvest this timber at an accelerated rate because it's going to decay over time, and the longer you wait, the less value the timber will have. So that's one part of it, accelerating the harvest. There are ways we can support that.

One of the other problems we're looking at--and many of these communities will see a bit of an economic bonanza right now in the short term--is what's going to happen 10 years from now, when that timber is no longer valuable enough to be turned into merchantable timber. It's a serious problem. Then we could see a massive decline in the forestry in those communities. A lot of them are single-industry communities. So there's also a focus on economic diversification. Are there ways it could create new meaningful jobs? Those are some of the areas they're looking at.

I can give you some suggestions. It's been suggested we should be looking at the geosciences. Some work was done in certain areas where there was an extraordinary amount of new mining claims, where this geoscience work was done--very successful. So those are just some of the things that are happening. Obviously, fire suppression is an issue. In some of the communities surrounded by mountain pine beetle, there's a belief there will be a very high increase in fire risk, and that we need to take down some of that timber surrounding some of these communities.

But I will say that regarding all the money, whether it's for research or these other initiatives, the province and the federal government are in absolute lockstep, working together in the best interests of the province.

Just quickly on nuclear, you raised it. I believe nuclear has a significant role to play. We're seeing a lot more activity. There hasn't been a new nuclear reactor built in this country for over 35 years. We're now hearing talk of two new nuclear reactors. For the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, yes, there was an increase in their funding. It's a regulatory agency. They will need more resources to do their work. I have to tell you that I think every single Canadian should visit a nuclear reactor. I was at Bruce Power and I was unbelievably impressed with what they're doing there. I found it amazing that this nuclear reactor provides, I believe, up to 25% of Ontario's hydroelectricity, and that all the nuclear waste in 35 years would have fit inside a hockey arena. Some of the research they're doing on the next generation of nuclear right now is to reuse spent fuel or take that nuclear fuel down to an even much lower radioactive level, so the storage becomes less of a problem.

So there are some very exciting opportunities. Nuclear obviously has no emissions, no pollutants, no NO_x, no SO_x, no greenhouse gases. It's a very clean form of energy. So I think the renaissance in the nuclear industry is coming back. I think it's very positive. I think there are opportunities--I'll say this--in the oil sands, for small nuclear reactors to generate the heat to recover the bitumen from the sand, which would have a significant reduction in greenhouse gases. So it's a very clean form of energy, and one that I'm very supportive of.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

The genome people are here, Minister, next door. My question was motivated by something I saw in the research area with the genome institute. While you do have good researchers, I'm sure, I would suggest they might like to pay them a visit and have a look at what they're doing with the mountain pine beetle in the research they've brought.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Absolutely, and we are. We have researchers within the federal government, but we need to work in lockstep with the private sector. That's the same on the energy front. We want to support each other. I think partnerships with the private sector is the way to go, so our government scientists and the research that's being done within the private sector augment each other, so we find solutions more quickly.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Tonks. Those were very good questions.

We now go to Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairmen, Minister, and officials.

You probably would have thought my question would be about pine beetles, as I come from central British Columbia.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'd bet a lot of money on that.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I will say at the onset that it really is a tragedy, considering the pine beetle infestation was discovered in the early nineties in the Tweedsmuir Park area of British Columbia. Throughout the nineties, the previous government failed to recognize the clear and present danger and the imminent devastation that we're now facing in our forests in British Columbia.

Well, it's actually happened. Your assessment of the damage, Minister, is very correct. It has devastated the forests in British Columbia and the lodgepole pine.

There was some earlier talk about research. Notwithstanding all the research that has been done on this little critter, it still remains that the only way to stop it is to either freeze it or burn it. There've been a lot of scientific studies with pheromones to try to upset the natural progression of the life cycle, but it hasn't worked.

That being said, the pine beetle has pretty much had its way with the forests of British Columbia and, of course, has now moved into northern Alberta through the Whitecourt area.

What we are faced with now, Minister, is the term “mitigation”. How do we offset the widespread damage the pine beetle has done, particularly in British Columbia, throughout Cariboo in central B.C., the southern part of the Rockies, the Kootenays, and the Kamloops area? The word “mitigation” has to be the main focus.

I want to be sure, Minister, that you and your department understand the latitude that is required when addressing the term “mitigate" for the pine beetle damage. These forest-dependent communities are going to need help in so many different ways, particularly to address the economic diversification but also to assist them. The rapid decline of the forest industry in a few short years is going to cause a huge reduction in the ability to maintain their communities and some of the basic needs of their communities.

Minister, I know the government has committed a great deal of money. Could you give us an update on the progress? Where are we now and where are we heading?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

First of all, let me say that I am also from British Columbia. You said that when we knew there was a small contained area, it was actually right in the Tweedsmuir Park area. Every time I come home, my daughter still wants to talk about this. She's devastated by this. She's done some research in school, and she's in grade five.

Why didn't we cut down all the trees?

In fairness, it was the provincial government at the time. There was an ongoing debate in the early nineties. The provincial government at the time—it wasn't the federal government—refused to allow the harvesting of those trees in an effort to contain it.

But in any event, it was almost 15 years ago. Today is today, and we're faced with what we have. The government has made a commitment of $100 million a year over the long term, as you know.

Containment or mitigation is an issue. We know it's so large that it's impossible to contain. If there are areas, especially up in the northeast corner, where there's a way to stop the spread into Alberta, because it's in Alberta now, it's obviously a priority. Fire suppression will be a priority. You cannot ignore the fact of economic diversification, as you've talked about, especially for some of the single-industry towns. Those are areas that we're focused on.

We're obviously looking at the accelerated harvest.

There are a number of pine beetle groups in British Columbia that comprise industry and community members, as well as a task force that the provincial government set up. Obviously, we're in close consultation with them.

The last thing we want to do is go out and invest dollars and not be in lockstep with the province. It's in their backyard. We want to be there to support them. I have regular conversations with the Ministry of Forests in British Columbia. As this moves forward, we're going to be there to support the province in the best way we can and to maximize every single dollar to help the people in these affected areas.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

That does get us through three rounds.

Very quickly, Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What does that mean?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, when you're limited to five minutes, I realize you can't answer all the questions.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Well, it's two minutes to five.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I didn't hear anything about the foreign takeovers of Canadian natural resources companies. I didn't hear anything about why your departmental estimates have been reduced by $400 million or close to 30%. But the other thing that concerns me somewhat is this book, the estimates book.

We've heard from my colleagues in the Bloc; they mentioned some funding for the asbestos project, and you said you're not going to be doing that. I asked you about the carbon dioxide sequestration, and you said that even though you're reducing the budget in here, this is going to be a really important program for you. So I'm wondering if maybe when the department put this book together, you missed that meeting. That can happen.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

They don't let me miss many meetings. I wish they did.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I guess the only point I'm making, Minister, is that the next time you come back, if that happens, could the book sort of correspond with the political priorities that you see? This book, which goes through to 2007-08 or 2008-09, doesn't seem to reflect that,

So I just put that point out there, but I'd like to ask a question, if I might, quickly, about the oil sands. Your assistant deputy minister of energy was here the other day, and I don't want to paraphrase him, but he seemed to leave the impression that the markets will solve many of the challenges up there, the problems--the social problems in Fort McMurray, the problems dealing with the water usage, the problems dealing with the highest and best use of natural gas--the environmental and social issues, that the market would sort all this out.

I know that as Liberals we don't feel that the market solves everything. We don't think the government solves everything. But could you comment on whether you support the departmental view that all the issues and challenges in the oil sands will be solved by the market?