Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

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

Thank you very much. You've raised a very important point about the integration of Natural Resources Canada working closely with Environment Canada. Let's just say this is something that historically could have been a lot stronger, something that we're making a very conscious effort to do, at every single level--the ministerial level, the deputy minister level, and also within the department. It's been very well received, I might add, from the people both at Environment Canada and at Natural Resources.

With respect to energy, the two are integrated, and you have to deal with all of these issues in a coordinated approach. So I'm quite pleased with that really positive change that we've seen within the departments. Again, we believe it is absolutely necessary that this happen.

With respect to policy development, we'll put the required funds in. We're right now working with the various sectors—either the oil and gas or the electricity, the mining and the forestry—to ensure that we develop the policies that are in the best interests of Canadians. Where we need those resources, they will be put in place to develop these policies. Right now, we're comfortable with the numbers we have in front of us on policy development.

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

I have a follow-on question to that. When the environment commissioner was here, she was talking about the past and she noticed in the report that there wasn't particularly one person whose rear end was on the pin to make sure the objectives and measurements were being achieved. This is for emissions, whether it be greenhouse or whether it be pollutants. Has that been worked out yet in terms of who is going to be the main go-to person for achieving the targets?

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

It's the responsibility of the entire government. The Minister of Transport is heavily engaged in consultations now with the auto sector, where we're going to regulate the auto sector for the first time. The Minister of the Environment is working closely with all the departments. This evening I'm meeting with the electricity sector, and I've met with the oil and gas sector.

All of these areas contribute to the greenhouse gases, and so I don't think the burden can fall squarely on one department. In fact, probably the worst approach is for the departments to work in silos. We need a coordinated approach amongst all of these departments, focused on the big picture, so that we have meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases and emissions, which we believe have a direct impact on people's health. That's where we're focused. The Minister of Health is heavily involved in all of these discussions, as we believe there is a link there as well.

Clearly there will not be a single person involved in this file. It's far too large for that; it's far too important a priority for our government. There are basically four lead ministers who are involved: the Minister of Transport, the Minister of the Environment, I am also involved, and the Minister of Health. Those are the four lead ministers who are on this file, as well as other ministers, because of the importance of this file.

I want to emphasize that this is the first time in Canadian history that any government has ever undertaken to regulate every single sector in this country on the reduction of both pollutants and greenhouse gases. This is a very bold, aggressive approach to the environment, and we're going to make sure it works. We're going to make sure we succeed on this file. That's why this government has placed such a high priority on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. That's perfect timing.

Well done, Mr. Allen.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. St. Amand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, Ms. Doyle and Mr. Tobin, for your presence this afternoon.

Minister, I'll say this respectfully. Canadians are looking for leadership. They're not, if I may say this, looking for spin or a synopsis of what did or didn't happen over the last 13 years. Canadians are looking for leadership with respect to environmental issues, which certainly are part of your bailiwick as Minister of Natural Resources. You talked about ideas--laudable ideas--about wind energy, solar energy, etc., and every new home in Canada, 20 years hence, being heated by solar. But at the end of the day, investors, manufacturers, and ordinary Canadians are wanting to know from you, as minister, what you actually have in mind with respect to developing our wind and solar energy sectors.

On the subject of sequestration, what actually do you have in mind with respect to concrete programs? Although you categorize your tenure as nine short months, they've been no shorter or longer than any other nine months in the calendar. So can you give us any guidance as to what you'll be doing in terms of programs?

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

I can only say, without getting into too many specifics, that obviously I know more than I'm telling you. It has to wind its way through various cabinet approvals, and it has to be developed. These are significant areas that we're looking at on the energy front that will have very significant impacts on the environment. We have to make sure we get it right.

We're looking at it. We're working with all of the sectors. I've had numerous meetings with my provincial counterparts. When you say they're not looking for spin and they're not looking for what happened in the last 13 years, it's very important that we evaluate what in fact happened. What were the things that actually worked? What are some of the things we can look at? What are some of the ideas that were not working?

Without question, we have a marked departure from some of the previous ideas of the last government. Clearly they were very supportive in allowing a carbon system where you could take government dollars and invest them in countries offshore. That's not something this country believes in. We want to see those dollars invested in technology in Canada, which we believe is the future.

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

With respect, Mr. Minister, Canadians are resourceful--no pun intended. They're resourceful. They will have the ideas. They do have the ideas.

Hypothetically, a potential manufacturer of a solar energy unit, for instance, wants to put $75,000, or whatever sum, of his own money into that. He wants to do it sooner rather than later, because time is wasting for him. What assurance can you give that you will be there as a government to help him out, to give him the figurative hand up? Or should he be looking to Finland, Norway, Germany, Austria--countries that are way ahead of us in terms of solar?

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

Again, we believe all renewable resources will play an important role in Canada's future energy mix, whether it be solar or wind. As I said, we're funding exciting projects now in tidal energy. We have research dollars. We have a lot of science work being done in these fields, both within government and within the private sector--in all of these areas--to ensure these technologies can develop and evolve.

As far as specifics regarding when someone can expect a cheque and how much that cheque will be--I think that's the question you're asking me--I'm not prepared to answer that today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Five minutes, Monsieur Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for agreeing to meet with us. Before I ask you a couple of questions, I wish to inform you that the light bulbs made with semi-conductors obviously represent an extraordinary breakthrough, but don't tell people that it will save on their winter energy bills. It doesn't save anything, because the heat emitted by ordinary bulbs helps heat buildings. Since people usually turn on the heat in the evening during the winter, you shouldn't say that. It doesn't work like that. I thought I would mention this in passing.

I was wondering if you were planning on being nominated as the greenest minister, just like Mr. Mulroney. When Mr. Mulroney arrived, he cut back on active and passive solar energy research. Some seventy-five researchers working in facilities on Montreal Road were dismissed. You yourself are cutting back on wind energy. We're wondering if you're doing this so that you can be acknowledged as an important minister in the field of energy.

To this effect, I would like to come back to the EnerGuide program. As far as I am concerned, the EnerGuide program was very important. As a matter of fact, it has not yet been buried. Based on my own professional experience, Mr. Minister, the EnerGuide program was efficient enough to save each household up to $750 per year on heating bills, which provided this program with benefits over two-to-three years. This represents tremendous energy efficiency for any kind of building. So the 50¢ you claimed were to cover administrative costs were not really. Surely, you were misinformed because that's not what happened. I can understand the fact that you don't have much experience, but you were not properly informed.

Having personally worked in the energy efficiency of buildings, and nothing else, for most of my life, I can assure you that obtaining results in existing buildings is crucial, and that we need to assess the work prior to its execution and an audit of its accuracy after the execution. This is where those 50¢ went. Well, between10¢ and 12¢ were for administration. Forty per cent of the costs were used for that. This is not a field where a visual inspection is enough. Specifically, you have to conduct leakage tests at 75 Pa, you need to have smoke tests near the openings, the baseboards, the floors, etc.; you need an infrared thermography test to see if the work has been done properly. All this has to be done to see if the work has been done correctly. This all costs money and is necessary. The industry knew that this cost 40c. on the dollar.

Furthermore, the program was very interesting for public housing where we provided up to $500 000. In her report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Ms. Gélinas, talked about some program-assessment errors with regard to those 50¢ you mentioned. Your main deputy-ministers were of the opinion that the EnerGuide program had yielded good results. It was valid.

Mr. Minister, at this stage, can you announce a new similar or improved program, under a new name if you wish, before we let season after season go by, which will harm the energy efficiency of buildings, and more specifically, housing?

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

Let me try to touch on three points. Thank you very much.

First of all, when I gave you the example of the group from Group IV Semiconductor Inc. with the light, that's just one example of many ideas that are out there on technology, and an exciting one, when you can take lighting and get it to 90% efficiency. And that's just one little company that's doing something. Some of these are fascinating technologies, and I get quite enthusiastic when I see them because of the promise they hold.

Again, you've asked me if I can specifically announce a program. I told your colleague, with respect to wind...and you have to understand that obviously I cannot do that. It's not something I can do, so you'll have to accept that.

With respect to the specifics of the former EnerGuide program, it is true that just over 50¢ of every dollar went to the homeowner for actual retrofits to improve their energy efficiency. And you did talk about the audits, and the government supported those audits. The money going to the audits was outside of that money. The amount of just over 50¢ was specifically to the retrofits.

But of the people who had the initial audits done that the taxpayer was paying for, or partly paying for--they weren't paying for all of it, since it was a cost-sharing agreement--only 30% of them went on to actually get any type of retrofits done--only 30%. That number may have changed in the last few months of the program, but for the large portion of the program.... And I haven't seen the data. According to the latest data I've seen, of the audits done, only 30% of the people went on to actually get any type of retrofits. So with 70% of the money that we're spending on those other audits, not one ounce of benefit is going to the environment, not one ounce of greenhouse gas reduction is being done, because they didn't do anything. They only did the audit. So that is a fair point.

I think energy efficiency is very important, and for the consumer, and across all sectors. I absolutely believe the largest source of untapped energy in this country is the energy we waste, and there are many ways to look at how we can improve it. And I also think energy efficiency in the home and with the consumer is very important as well.

But I'm telling you that I believe it's very important. I'm the minister, but I can't tell you any more than that. I understand you would like to know, but unfortunately I can't say any more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

That's seven minutes, so we're going to have to go to Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are going to be a little bit scattered today, so forgive me. I've got specific interests in specific areas.

But let me commend you first, Mr. Minister, on two things. One thing is that, having sat on the previous committee when natural resources and industry were combined, I understand that the streamlining of regulations is very important. And as someone who has sat in mining camps where the senior geologist has spent most of his time working through regulations--not all with federal natural resources, we can go through 20 different departments to get something done--that is absolutely critical.

The other thing I wish to compliment you on is your emphasis on technology for clean coal and things like that. As has been pointed out before, only 2% of the human-induced greenhouse gases in the world are produced by Canada, so if all of Canada was wiped off the earth--forget just the oil sands, but all of our emissions everywhere--it would really do next to nothing.

But if we can develop technology, not only is it good for our economy and for exporting it, but it could help other countries that have challenges that are by a factor of 10 or 20.

Let me get into a few of my questions here.

First of all, I have a general question on the Geological Survey of Canada, and I believe I asked a similar question last year. For people not totally familiar with the geological sciences, it takes a very long time to get to be a very good geologist. I was wondering, is there a particular strategic plan? There are problems in the overall civil service with replacement, etc., but for some of the occupations in the civil service it is easier to train and attract talent that takes less time to mature than would be the case in the geological trades.

So I'm very curious. Is there any particular plan for renewal in the Geological Survey, not just for personnel, but looking at its vision again to see how it is, because it is really one of the gems of Canada? It cooperates with our provincial geological surveys and it is part of our infrastructure for our mining, which is very important to large portions of the country.

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

First of all, you talked about Canada's greenhouse gas emissions as being 2%. I want to make this very clear. We're taking this very seriously in our government. We absolutely are committed to reducing our greenhouse gases and pollutants in this country. It's a responsibility we feel is very important. You will see that. You've seen it. We launched our Clean Air Act. We believe regulation is the way to go. We are going to get tough on industry like it has never seen before. We are going to expect them to step up to the plate and make investments in technology to meet these new regulations like they never have before. We're going to regulate the auto sector, even though they would say they would rather have a voluntary agreement.

No, we are convinced this is the right way to go. This is only the beginning. This is just the beginning of our commitment to fighting greenhouse gases.

You asked specifically, Mr. Trost, about the Geological Survey of Canada. This is part of the earth sciences sector of our department. It has come up at the federal-provincial-territorial mines ministers conference. There is strong support for this across the provinces. It's something that we're looking at. I understand that this year alone, in this year's budget, we've added $800,000 to enhancing various initiatives, but primarily in post-doctoral fellowships and graduate student research. We recognize that if we want to have some of the very best geologists in the world, we need to make those investments now. That's just a small area, when you talk about some of the staffing levels, that we want to invest in. They can carry on to much higher levels in their education in pursuit of this.

I do acknowledge that the Geological Survey of Canada does some amazing work. We have a lot of scientists in our department who put a lot of effort into this. I've had discussions with a number of my provincial colleagues on how we can collectively work together to see that this is one area we can move forward in the future.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I have a very quick question, and then will follow up on the mining theme.

I believe on page 17 of part III of the estimates, page 60, it says, “NRCan will analyze and support improvements to the tax regime for exploration and development”. That's very broad. There are things about deep tax credits for deep drilling. Could you expand upon that in any way as to what you're looking at?

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

The biggest win for the prospectors and developers in the mining industry was in this year's budget, when we gave a commitment to extend the super flow-through shares. This has allowed newer finds and, obviously, investments here in Canada. There are potentially 50 new mines on the drawing board right now in Canada. This is an unprecedented rate.

One of the benefits about these new mines is the enormous opportunity for employment within aboriginal communities. As you know, we face some human resources challenges within the trades in various sectors, and our department has invested, with some of the other provincial governments, on developing aboriginal tool kits--how we can include them in the front end, how we can get them involved in the mining association. In fact, I spoke this morning with the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association on their direct involvement.

So there are some really exciting things happening in the mining industry. The extension of the super flow-through shares is very good for that industry and will provide some really high-paying, good-quality jobs with the aboriginal communities, which we're very pleased with, and they've been very supportive.

I'm going to say the credit belongs to this association, the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association. They polled their members. They came forward with this and wanted to move this initiative forward, and it's been very well received.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. We'll have to wait till the next round.

I want to thank the members, as we're moving along well. That completes round two of questioning, which is a remarkable--

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

Do I get any questions? Oh no, I have to give the answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You're not going anywhere.

We're going to begin round three with Joe McGuire, followed by Mr. Paradis, and then Mr. Tonks.

Mr. McGuire.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to ask about wind energy, seeing as how it's the only energy source in Prince Edward Island. It was one that was just beginning to be developed after many decades of hard work by some bureaucrats in the minister's department, in particular Raj Rangi, who spent 25 years going to North Cape. He finally gets a budget and some support from the federal government in developing wind energy, and at the very moment when it's taking off, the program is pulled. I know he's been asked that question three times already. I'll just move on so he won't have to not answer it again.

Go ahead.

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

For the record, it hasn't been pulled. As you know, when the previous government put out the Whitby funding, they had a limit on the amount of megawatts of wind energy that could be produced, and that program is fully subscribed. It actually hasn't been pulled. One could argue that it has been extraordinarily successful. Prince Edward Island is a great example when you look at the wind energy that they've been able to provide for their province. It has been quite remarkable.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's right. We're almost able to catch up with Cap-Chat and Gaspé.

Anyway, I think that industry is very interested now, as the minister has said, and so were the provinces for the first time. I know Whitby was intended to be matched by the provinces. It never was, to my knowledge, but now Ontario and Quebec are matching.

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

The programs for wind vary from province to province.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

But that's another reason why the program should be extended, because the province and industry are very interested in developing the industry.

I just took note that you were saying there was a tidal turbine project off Victoria.

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

Yes.