Evidence of meeting #48 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John McCarthy  Business Leader, Commodities, National Energy Board
Bob Modray  Technical Specialist, Economics & Energy Analysis, Comodities Business Unit, National Energy Board
Avrim Lazar  President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada
Mike Allen  Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, it's my pleasure to be back before the committee. I always enjoy coming to committee, and we know of some of the great work that happens here. I actually had an opportunity to review some of the work you've done, and I've been quite impressed with it.

I do have some prepared notes. I don't know how short they are, but we'll see how far we get along. I'll try to keep them brief so we can get right into questions.

First, as I said, I do appreciate the work the committee has been doing. We have been looking at that.

Natural resources, as you are fully aware, have shaped our country. They've helped us become a world-ranking commodity producer and an emerging energy superpower. We've developed strengths in manufacturing, engineering, financial services, environmental consultancy, and specialized technology services, just to name a few. What really matters is how we build and use these great gifts.

Our government believes Canada can use its natural resources to an even greater advantage. My goal at Natural Resources Canada, with the energy, forest, and mining sectors, with the earth sciences expertise we have, and with our cutting-edge science and technology and policy-making, is to develop practical strategies for building a strong and distinctive Canadian advantage in today's global economy. The goal is consistent with our government's objectives outlined in Advantage Canada, budget 2007, and our ecoACTION plan. Our priorities are real. They are practical actions that combine economic opportunity with environmental and social sustainability.

In the energy sector, in our emerging role as an energy superpower, two realities are driving our actions for the year ahead. First, our traditional sources of energy must be balanced with cleaner sources. The second reality is that our current energy production and consumption account for some 85% of smog and 80% of greenhouse gases. If we don't succeed in dealing with these realities, our air and the environment and our health will suffer; but that's not all--so will our economy and our way of life.

In short, our challenge is to become a clean energy superpower. Mandatory targets on industry are the backbone of our government's action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and their pollution. This is the first time ever that the federal government has introduced regulations to force industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution.

Initiatives to promote clean energy are focused in three critical areas:

Renewable energy--and you're all aware of this, and I believe we've talked about this before: $1.5 billion to increase renewable energy.

Budget 2007 also takes us further by providing access to accelerated capital cost allowance for industries generating cleaner energy, and it also is providing $2 billion in the budget over the next seven years to provide incentives to producers in the biofuel sector.

We're looking at ways to generate electricity from wood fibre sources, such as timber destroyed by the mountain pine beetle, sawmill residue, and logging debris. With NRCan's support, Tolko/Nexterra is demonstrating the production of bioenergy from wood waste to replace traditional fuels used in lumber kilns. I should add that we're getting increased interest right across the country from people in the forestry sector in the biomass energy. We are quite pleased with that.

Energy efficiency: as you know, we've launched this initiative. It's up and running, supporting greater energy efficiency among Canadian homeowners. We're providing grants of up to $5,000 to save energy and reduce pollution by improving efficiency in their homes. As a result, some 140,000 Canadian homeowners will be able to enjoy an average energy savings of 30% each and every year. On a typical $2,000 annual bill, that's about $600 that can be spent on other family priorities.

We also recognize the importance of regulations and standards. Our regulatory agenda includes introducing new energy-efficient standards and strengthening others. Just last week I announced that the Government Canada is introducing a ban on inefficient light bulbs. This is the second country in the world to do so. Implementing a national ban on inefficient light bulbs will help Canadians reduce their energy bills by more than $600 million a year, saving the equivalent of six to seven coal-fired electricity generation units.

I may add, Mr. Chair, I emphasize banning inefficient light bulbs. This is not banning incandescents. What's really exciting about this, when you speak to people in the industry, is it's actually driving them to produce more energy-efficient lighting options more quickly. In fact, they're advising me that they'll get to the point where they'll actually have incandescent bulbs that will meet these standards. So that's very positive when we're looking at these standards. I know we've seen a lot of it reported in the media that we're in fact banning incandescents and forcing compact fluorescents, but that's absolutely inaccurate. So it's just another example of where we're moving.

Science and technology: As you're aware, we're investing $230 million in our budget on a very focused approach on things like carbon capture and storage and unclean coal. In other measures, we've added $85 million through federal granting councils for research on key priorities on energy and the environment.

NRCan is helping develop gas hydrates as a new clean energy source. Gas hydrates, like ice substances that exist in large areas of the world's Arctic and in deep sea locations, are still, admittedly, some distance off in the future. The problem is when they bring them to the surface they literally vaporize, and the technology has to be developed on how they can capture that. But I'm also told the reserves are enormous, and again, it's another potentially clean form of energy. They represent an enormous potential, and again, an opportunity for us to reduce greenhouse gases.

I would also add, Mr. Chairman, that through Canada's trust fund for clean air and climate change, we're also providing support to the provinces and territories for major projects resulting in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I also note, quite apart from the initiatives I've mentioned, that our investments in energy, science, and technology include nuclear energy, which is an important energy option for Canada. It's a secure and emission-free source of electricity. Canada is currently participating in an international effort to develop the next generation of nuclear reactors, commonly referred to as generation 4.

In all of these areas, we are advancing our commitment to cleaner air, water, land, and energy while strengthening our economy at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, it will be my priority to assist two industries facing serious challenges that are important to Canada's economy, forestry and mining.

Canada's forest sector is undergoing a major transition. It faces many challenges: increased global competition; higher energy prices; a higher Canadian dollar; a slowdown in U.S. housing starts; and the continuing problem of forest pests, in particular, the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia. In fact, no forest industry in the world faces the same mix of challenges as the British Columbia forest industry.

In March, we joined forces with British Columbia to take action on the mountain pine beetle. We announced $24.8 million to help control its spread and to protect communities. We're working on a number of initiatives with the Province of British Columbia. We're in this for the long haul, as you know. In budget 2006 we committed a billion dollars. This is part of that funding. We committed $200 million, part of our initial one billion dollar commitment over 10 years.

Mr. Chairman, the government has also provided $125 million to the forest sector to strengthen long-term competitiveness. Through this funding we are providing critical support to promote innovation and investment in the industry, expand market opportunities, and help lead in the development of a forest pest strategy.

A few weeks ago I was at meetings with community leaders and scientific experts in Kamloops, and it was clear that we need to take action right away to deal with this problem. But we also need to take action to ensure the long-term viability of affected communities.

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, let me touch on the other sector that is facing serious challenges, the mining sector. It too is being challenged by intense global competition as well as declining reserves, shortages of skilled labour, and regulatory obstacles. With our partners in the industry, universities, provinces, and territories, and others across Canada and around the world, we are developing new environmental technologies and processes, improving geoscience, and strengthening Canada's value-added industries.

I would add that with support by our government, this industry is aggressively pursuing environmental sustainability and corporate social responsibility, both in Canada and abroad. It is providing leadership and increasing aboriginal participation in industry, and it's a leader in investing in new technologies to improve productivity and environmental performance.

My department's CANMET laboratories are looking at growing clean energy crops on mine site wastes to produce biofuels that are helping develop new lightweight parts for cars that reduce energy use and therefore reduce greenhouse gases.

Mr. Chair, in this regard, I'm pleased to note that we are working to strengthening our S and T and innovation partnerships with the relocation of our materials technology laboratory to a new world-class facility at McMaster University. This is a commitment by the government of $46 million, and it will help create the synergies between industry, government, and academia.

Mr. Chair, I see the clock is ticking away, and I don't want to continue on. I would also add that we have put in $150 million in budget 2006 to create a major projects management office for regulatory reform to help ensure the high standard of our regulatory approval processes as well as efficiencies. It will help the people bringing projects forward ensure that they're done in a very efficient manner. I think this is something that will be well received by the industry, and again we can ensure the integrity of our environmental approval process.

With that, Mr. Chair, let me conclude by saying Canada is indeed a fortunate country. We have a strong energy mix that includes conventional sources of energy such as oil, coal, natural gas, a growing supply of non-conventional and renewable energy. We have a natural resource sector that is facing its challenges head on and excelling on the global stage while it is embracing its responsibility to the environment and social development.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this abundant diversity of resources is a unique source of strength. Our government is committed to building on this unique advantage to ensure economic prosperity and social development and environmental sustainability.

With that, Mr. Chair, I look forward to the members' questions.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We do have a number of members wishing to ask questions, so I'm going to ask the members again if we could keep the questions tight. There are five minutes for each question, including the answer. If the answers could be as brief as the questions, that would get us through.

I am reminded that members will be summoned to the House at 5:30 for a vote at 5:45, so we may just have some bells in the background for a few minutes after 5:30. I'd like to get everybody in, so we'll commence and will strictly adhere to the five-minute rule, beginning with Mr. Holland.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you, and welcome.

I would like to start by talking about the programs you recalled when your party came to power a little over a year ago. The EnerGuide programs for homes were cancelled. There were four separate programs that were involved with that, not just EnerGuide for homes, but also the commercial building incentive, the industrial building incentive, and of course the EnerGuide for low-income households program. Each had its own separate budget. Now we lost the year--it's over--but we do have the new program the government has introduced, repackaging these programs. But in repackaging the programs that were cut, we're left with a budget that's for all of these things in total. Instead of four separate budgets, we now have one budget.

Of the $220 million that has been set aside for this new program, can you provide clarity on how much specifically is available for homes?

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you very much.

First of all, we did have a look at these, and I just want to stress that in fact we didn't lose a year. That is not accurately being portrayed. We reviewed the programs, absolutely. We looked at the ones we thought were not working.

I'll give you some examples. There were commercial buildings--the CBIP program. When we had a hard look at that, we actually found out that we were cutting cheques to large corporations like Zellers and Sears and some of the large banks. They were receiving money from these programs to retrofit their businesses to make them more energy efficient, when they have a very healthy bottom line. Although we still encourage these businesses to do that type of work, we didn't believe, number one, that taxpayers should be funding this.

Just let me finish and I'll get on to your question.

So the programs, with respect to losing the year, in fact wound down, and in fact there was even some overlap when we brought in our new programs. One of the things we discovered, actually, when we announced that we were winding down the previous EnerGuide program--in fact it didn't end until end of March this year--was that there was greater take-up of it. There was a bit of a race for the finish line, if I may use that, because they knew that this program was ending, and of course we didn't announce right away what its replacement would be. There was an increased uptake in the program, and we saw that. In fact, the program continued on, and it even had much greater use.

As far as what we announced, the $299 million for the ecoENERGY efficiency initiative is targeted at reducing greenhouse gases. In fact, the people in our department, the scientists, will tell us that in fact we will actually, with our program, obtain far greater efficiencies in actually saving energy, and hence actually reduce a greater amount of greenhouse gas.

So at the end of the day, we recognize how important energy efficiency is, and we wanted to design efficient--

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Sorry to jump in, but I only have five minutes.

I'm very sorry, Minister. I'm just wondering if you could answer the question about how much of that money is directed at homes, specifically.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

The $299 million is primarily directed at homes, but it also includes small businesses. So it does include the large.... Small businesses, small buildings, are also included in that. We think this will be enough to make the program--

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

But you don't have a specific figure for housing.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Absolutely. It's $299 million. Let me just add this.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

What portion of that is for housing?

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I'm not sure--

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Maybe you can get back to me on that.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

It's about $37 million per year for housing. And we'll look at that, and if it's not enough, we'll revisit it. We appreciate how important this is. We believe that this will be enough funding to carry this program for four years.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

If I can, because we're short on time, the only thing I would say is that under the Liberal government there was $180 million over four years for the housing program before it was wound down or killed for a year, whatever you want to call it. That figure would take you to roughly $130 million. So we've lost, already, compared to what was there before, just on housing, a lot of money.

And that leads me to the EnerGuide program for low-income homes. You said that one of your concerns was that the program was helping larger companies. But one of the programs that was cut, which was $500 million over five years, was the low-income program. And what experts are telling us is that we get the most bang for our buck when we go after Canadians who are in low-income situations and provide them with money. Can you tell me why that program was cut, in light of the comments you just made? And is your government planning to reintroduce that program?

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

First of all, actually, it did the opposite. It recreated it. It did not get the best investment for the taxpayers' dollars when it came to energy efficiency. What we've really done is design an energy efficiency program that everyone qualifies for. The amount of money you receive is based on how much energy you're going to save. So that's where this is focused.

Now, we do have other programs with income thresholds that are not in my department but in fact are through Minister Solberg's department, and they can retrofit their homes based on income thresholds.

But this goal, and I want to emphasize this, is to obtain the greatest energy efficiencies to reduce the greatest amount of greenhouse gas. So that is the focus of this program.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

I understand. My only concern, though, is that we've lost roughly $50 million from what we had before, whether it was wound down or was a lost year, and then on top of losing that $50 million from homes, we're losing the $500 million that was directed at low-income homes in a specific program, separate and apart from the other. So I'm asking why that program, specifically, was cut, as an adjunct, and why we don't have that money.

I don't care if it's included in one program. But if everything is going in one program, then you have to have an equivalent amount of funding. So if you add $50 million from the loss from the one and $500 million from the other, I mean, we're talking about being out a lot of money.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Actually, we're not out a lot of money. And you know what? We invested $2 billion in this budget to reduce greenhouse gases, on everything from energy efficiency to renewable energy and a number of other initiatives, as you're fully aware.

We don't make any apologies for looking at programs that were under the previous Liberal government that weren't working. The facts speak for themselves. I know they're there.

We all know what happened to greenhouse gases under the previous government. So people shouldn't be under any illusions that the previous programs were actually working. We looked at them and we said no, this is not working. It's not reducing greenhouse gases. We're not going to continue to spend Canadian taxpayers' dollars in this manner.

So we did make some changes. We did kill some programs. Some of them were not working—

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

One of them being $50 million less than the previous programs, other than eliminating the EnerGuide program for low-income homes, which is another $500 million that's gone, other than making those cuts in the amount of money that's available....How are they markedly different from what there was before? I mean, they're essentially the same programs.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Oh no, not at all. In fact, Mr. Chair—

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

You're pretty much the only one who thinks that they're separate programs from what was there before.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I can tell you how they're markedly different. First of all, by getting greater participation from the people who are applying for this program, whether they're homeowners or small-business people—

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

With less money.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

No. In fact, the amount of grant they receive will actually increase by 25%. So the amount of grant that goes to the homeowner is actually increasing by about 25%, up to $5,000. So we think that's significant.

In fact, under our program, and you've heard me say this before, I know, around 50 cents of every dollar either went to administration or audits, and now the homeowner is required to buy in. So when they come in and pay for their own audits and they carry through and get the retrofits done, in fact at the end of the day they'll be better off. They'll get a much larger grant back from the federal government. But of taxpayers' money, over 90 cents of every dollar will go to energy efficiency or in effect reducing greenhouse gases, as opposed to 50 cents from the previous government's program.

That is where it was inefficient. That's where we wanted to make some changes. The Prime Minister is demanding accountability. In all of these initiatives that we're putting forward, we're following up. We'll make sure that they're working and they're delivering results.

We think we have some good programs happening here. I admit they're very different from the previous Liberal government, but they simply weren't doing the job, and we're going to be held to account in our records. So we're quite proud of our programs that we've put forward.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Holland. We can continue that if you wish in the next round, but I'm going to have to go to Madame DeBellefeuille.

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Thank you, minister.

Your visit was eagerly anticipated. We've been after you since February to honour us with your presence. I don't like being pressed for time when we're dealing with a budget in excess of $2 billion and the equivalent of 4,000 employees. It's truly a shame that you can't devote two hours of your time to us. Part of our job entails asking you questions about your budget. However, we're being rushed.

I noted in the budget that your department's expenditures have increased considerably, in particular your operating expenditures which have increased by $158 million. I was once an administrator in the public service in Quebec and my boss had to justify just about every penny he spent on operations. I have some questions about the $71 million increase under the item “Professional and special services”. What explanation can you give us for this increase?

I did my homework and I found that these increases are largely offset by a range of budget cuts, including the series of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change, and assistance to the Canadian softwood lumber industry. The government is increasing its operating expenditures, particularly in the professional services sector, but taxpayers would also appreciate some explanations as to why any increase of this magnitude is justified. All of the people here are, I must say, very mindful of how taxpayer dollars are spent.

Before you answer, I'd like to ask you a second question. I've compared past energy savings programs with the ones that you are proposing. It's all rather confusing. That's why the Library's research staff has prepared a good comparison for me. I'd like to share with you the findings of the researchers on this matter: Most programs included in these initiatives are a continuation or a resurrection of existing or former programs that have been renamed and, in some cases, have undergone a few specific changes. Some of the changes have either expanded or restricted the scope of the program to some degree.

Here is my second question. I'm my party's natural resources critic and as part of my job, I handle complaints from citizens who feel victimized in some way by the cuts that have been made and by the new program in place. They had signed an agreement with the department which stipulated that they had 18 months to do the work associated with the EnerGuide Program.

During the transition phase, these citizens were asked—and I have with me a letter from your department bearing your signature—given the funding shortfall, to shorten the deadlines for completing their work. These individuals made a commitment to your department, with your approval, but during the transition phase, in an attempt to speed up the process, you asked Canadian citizens committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using energy more efficiently, to complete work within deadlines that had not been agreed to.

Can your department offer any permanent solutions to these citizens in an effort to resolve this situation to their satisfaction?

5 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Conservative Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

I think you've basically raised four areas.

Number one, with respect to the operating budgets of the department, they have increased. That's something I watch carefully and I am equally concerned about it. In fact they've risen 28.7%. I can tell you where these increases are. There is $111 million that has gone specifically to address our nuclear waste liability. This is something that has been ignored for decades. It has not been dealt with and was long overdue. We had no option but to address this issue. There was an additional $57.9 million for developing the initiatives and the management for our clean air agenda. That was done. There was also an additional $22.4 million for the low-level radioactive waste cleanup in the Port Hope area.

And you're right, there were some offsets. We eliminated some programs and we brought in programs that didn't exist before. So there are some changes. But there are those increases, and that's a result of the....

If you look at the global budget of NRCan, you'll see it has actually increased by almost half a billion dollars. That raised concerns for me; I like to go in the other direction. But what in fact is happening is that particularly Newfoundland and Labrador receive 100% of the royalties from the offshore. That flows through my department, the federal government, and then they flow back. So even though it looks like our department has received another budget of half a billion dollars, it flows right through to the province. And that's--