Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank the minister for attending today. It's always good to have you here. I'm going to focus my comments somewhat on the estimates, not on the nuclear issue, which I know is an important topic today as well.

I want to thank you for the comments you made at the outset on being committed to sustainable energy. I think a lot of Canadians want to see us go down that road, so that's important and I'm glad to hear it.

I have two areas of questions. The first one is about forests, and I've asked you some questions before on forest issues. In the past you committed $400 million in the budget to forests, and $200 million of that was for pine beetle. I'm just following some of the announcements you've made to try to figure out how much of that money has actually been spent. I know there was an announcement of $44 million for Asia Pacific Gateway, only $12 million of which was beetle money. That was for rail infrastructure so we can export our natural resources. Then there was another announcement of $39.6 million, an allocation to protect forest resources for the removal of damaged trees from public parks, and then $11 million for the Prince George airport.

That's not really a lot when you subtract what was actually spent, because there were only $12 million and $1.4 million instead of the $44 million and the $39 million.

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

Let me see if I can clarify the numbers for you.

The $200 million we have allocated has all been fully allocated.

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

But not used.

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

A lot of it has, so you're missing some of the numbers.

Our first priority is mitigation. One of the strong objectives is to try to prevent the pine beetle from spreading into the boreal forest. It's been moving into Alberta now for about two years and that's where it intersects. The lodgepole pine intersects with the jack pine in the boreal forest. These forests intersect in the northeast corner of British Columbia or in the Peace River area of Alberta, in the Hinton area. They're spending a lot of money on mitigation. About $75 million of the first $200 million has been committed to mitigation, and $50 million has already been spent. It's gone to the Pacific Forestry Centre, to the scientists working on the mountain pine beetle at the Canadian Forest Service. They're working with both the Province of Alberta and the Province of British Columbia. They're telling us their needs on mitigation, and we're funding those needs 100%. They're saying that with a sustained effort of this kind of money for about five years they believe there's a fighting chance to get that under control. About $75 million is going out on mitigation and other money is going out with respect to the safety of communities, fire mitigation, and fire prevention.

We also have some economic money available. With some of these communities, single-industry towns, we're looking five or ten years down the road. What are these towns going to look like when this timber that's standing gets to the point where it's no longer commercial timber or it can't be harvested? So they're trying to look at other economic opportunities. Some of the best drivers are large-scale transportation infrastructure to.... We're doing some geoscience with respect to natural resources. We're doing geomapping to look for new mineral deposits, which has been very successful, and pine beetle money is going there as well.

The full $200 million is either going into small community economic development or some larger-scale fire suppression work and mitigation. Mitigation is where the largest expenditures are going, $75 million of the first $200 million.

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

Okay.

The second area I wanted to touch on is the eco-energy program. How much was for that?

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

Which one, the efficiency, or the—

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

Basically, the homeowner efficiency ones.

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

That was just $299 million.

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

I don't know what the uptake on that has been and how many people have used it.

Before you answer my question—because I have a few—I've been getting a lot of mail and calls from people saying they have done the assessments, have purchased maybe a heat pump or would like to do more things, and the return they're getting for a $13,000 heat pump is only about $400.

In the press releases and in the material I've seen from your department, it says that homeowners can get up to $5,000. I don't know if people are being misled on that or what the situation is, but it's disconcerting when they actually try to get the money back or try to access the grant and they're really not getting much of a return. People are saying, “Why should I invest all that if it's really not going to help me?”

The other piece of it is that there used to be a grant for low-income individuals, and that's unavailable now. I've had people who had applied under the previous program—which has now gone and has been changed—and who hadn't been approved but had had their application in. They feel that they probably would have been approved, but then there were the changes. They can no longer afford to do the assessments because they have low incomes, and that's a big problem.

I'm just wondering if there is going to be any kind of review of this program for low-income people, because when they're paying high energy costs, that also eats into their low income. I'm just curious to know if there is any way you can have more investment in that program to help low-income people.

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

We've paid out about 3,000 grants to date. The average grant is about $1,000.

We have to remember that the principle of the program is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of money you receive is not calculated on how much you spend but on how much more efficient your home becomes.

If you had a relatively efficient heating system and then you put in a heat pump, and your neighbour, who had a very inefficient heating system, put in the identical heat pump, your neighbour might get two or three times the amount of your grant, because it's measured on how much more efficient a home becomes.

It depends on your starting point. All of the grants are based purely on.... They come in and tell you right off the bat, “Here's where you are, and if you do this work, here's where you'll get to”. And they tell you beforehand how much of a grant you're likely to receive. People aren't making the investments blindly. They know before they do the work the amount of the grant they will receive.

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

I guess the part of—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lloyd St. Amand]

Thank you, Ms. Bell.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here today. For the committee's edification, I'm probably the only member of Parliament who has actually worked at a nuclear plant. My sister works at a nuclear plant. My brother-in-law works in a nuclear plant. My father spent his whole career at a nuclear plant. I've also worked on a dairy farm, and I can tell you, Mr. Minister, it's safer to work at a nuclear plant than on a dairy farm.

I appreciate the work you and your department are doing in terms of protection, as my family still lives a 15-minute drive away from Bruce nuclear power stations.

I actually have seen the pool where they store the spent fuel, and it's a beautiful blue colour, by the way, not that I'm pro-nuclear at all

It is a provincial decision—I agree 100%—as to what the mix should be, and I look forward to the province closing some of their coal plants in Ontario and going nuclear. But we'll see what they do with that.

I am here to talk about estimates. I am also on the finance committee, and I've also been around to a number of other committees to talk about estimates because I love to talk about them. What I have are really just technical questions.

My first question is on the National Energy Board. Maybe Mr. Tobin can provide the explanations. They're asking for an increase, and the explanation we have here is “to fund existing demands and forecast increases”. To be frank with you, I've seen other amounts that are much larger than $8 million.

My question is twofold: one, were these forecasts unforeseen at the time the original main estimates were submitted, and two, what are those unforeseen forecasts for which they need the extra $8 million?

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

I'll let Richard jump in right after I'm finished.

First of all, there is an enormous increase in natural resource projects right across Canada—a very high rate. So we are seeing an enormous demand being placed on the regulator. The regulator, however, is on a cost-recovery model, and NEB does an amazing job. In fact, all the feedback we get from industry and from the non-governmental organizations who make presentations has been very positive about the work they do. It's very thorough. It's very professional. It's very comprehensive.

I don't have the specifics with respect to the $8 million increase, why that is, but maybe Richard can help us out.

[Dr. Richard Tobin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources]

Minister, we're in the same position. The NEB produces their own estimates and we work with them from time to time, but we're not really privy to the exact nature of the additional funding. I certainly concur with the minister that because they cost-recover it from the industry, this is a technical appropriation that largely gets funded by the industry--which I understand has been extremely supportive of the work NEB is doing and is not complaining about the kind of work they do.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So this is supplementary estimates A. For supplementaries B, can this committee expect this type of additional cost-recovery piece, or do we have any sense they're trying to cover this off to the end of the year? Do we know?

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

A lot of the money in the supplementary estimates, I understand, was allocated in a previous budget but hadn't gone through the estimates, and that's part of it. So a lot of it is money that had been previously allocated but hadn't been authorized in the estimates, and that's why it's in the supplementary estimates.

I don't have the answer on supplementaries B, but we will provide that to you very shortly in writing.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My second question is in follow-up to Ms. Bell's questioning.

Regarding the transfer of the money, it looks like the vast majority of it is going towards the ecoEnergy retrofit for homes. That's in brackets, so that's a deduction. Is it being transferred somewhere else? I don't understand. Is it transferred from one line item to another? Are we spending less than we thought we were going to be? What does that mean?

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

Mine is actually not in brackets, so where are—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mine's in brackets on this page.

[Dr. Richard Tobin]

Which line? Is it under funding to support the clean energy agenda?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have $5,755,000, and that's what adds up under page 211 of my estimates book.

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

That's on the net transfer. So what's in the brackets there, I see—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, so I want to know, is it just an internal transfer?

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

Yes, it is. Usually when it's in brackets—I'm told—it's actually going to another department.

Is that correct?