Natural Resources Committee on May 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have one minute, Ms. Bell.

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

Thank you.

Just as a follow-up to that, I have to reiterate, I guess, the clause in NAFTA that says once we start shipping to the U.S. a raw product, we cannot turn the tap off for the purpose of adding value. I think it's article 605(c). I'd have to look up the exact clause in NAFTA, but the way it's worded is that if we start sending our product, we cannot add value here in Canada at a future date. We've basically given away our opportunities for employment in refineries, if we were to actually build that capacity or if we were to have capacity in our eastern processing plants.

I'm just wondering, how is that securing our resource for Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Bell, your time is up, and that's hardly a question for this deputy minister. It's more a question for the trade minister, I would suggest.

Thank you. We will go now to Mr. Trost for up to five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a small question I've had for a while. As was noted earlier, some of the arm's-length organizations are cost recovery--the Nuclear Safety Commission, for example. One of my questions on these arm's-length organizations that are based on a cost-recovery model of funding has been what are the measures to make sure they're efficient in their spending, that they're accountable to the people who are paying for them?

I'm not alleging anything here, but one could see how there could be a certain element of sloppiness if you can just charge your customer more at whatever rate you need to charge them for, and there might not be quite the incentive to watch the pennies quite as carefully. So I'm very curious as far as what measures the department takes to make sure this is done, and anything else you can say for the accountability on those issues.

[Cassie Doyle]

Thank you. It's an interesting question indeed.

We have two agencies within our portfolio: the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which both operate under a Treasury Board policy on cost recovery. So I believe there are elements in that policy itself that outline some of the performance expectations around a cost recovery. But I also would say first and foremost that they're accountable to their own clients. Our experience, as my minister mentioned earlier, is that the clients of the National Energy Board and the CNSC have been fairly satisfied with the level of service. That's their first level of accountability.

I would be happy to check into the Treasury Board policy on cost recovery, which is provided for through that policy, the opportunity to set the levels of cost recovery for each agency, and it has recently been changed in the case of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I'd be happy to do that and report back to you in terms of more specifics. But I guess first and foremost, that we don't very often hear any negative feedback around the levels of service of our cost recovery agency, and they keep a very close watch, obviously, on their service standards. So that's probably the first level of accountability.

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

The question came to me partly because the Auditor General's report about user fees is being released today. I believe it's today. I was wondering if there was some equivalency of the Auditor General's report for CNSC and NEB, because while it may very well be that they might be providing absolutely outstanding service, on the other hand, you could see why people might be reluctant if they weren't, because of other considerations: to be impolite and publicly voice problems.

So I'm just voicing that as a suggestion to take back to the minister to look at it, because there's always a need for more accountability. I think any organization, including members, MPs' offices, etc., always knows there's room for some more efficiency that needs to be looked at. So it's just a general comment to take back.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Anyone else from the government?

Go ahead, please, Ms. Doyle.

[Cassie Doyle]

If I may, I just wanted to add one comment. We have found that our cost-recovery agencies are operating with the best levels of service compared to those that do not operate on a cost-recovery basis, such as the Environmental Assessment Agency, DFO, and some of the line departments. They have then experienced backlogs because they can't keep pace. So at least within a cost-recovery model there's an ability for agencies to be resourced to the level of their demand. That's made quite a difference, I guess, in saying that the feedback we receive on those agencies is quite positive. It's because they have had the opportunity to keep the level of resourcing up to the demand, and that's not the case in all our regulatory agencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

For the final questioner of the day, from the official opposition, Mr. Regan for up to five minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, I haven't been here for the whole meeting. I'm replacing someone else on our side. So I hope the questions I will ask have not already been covered, but I'm sure the witnesses or you will help me in that regard if that's the case.

Let me begin by asking you about the estimates and the fact they have increased this year by 6% over last year, and they've gone up 30% from the year before that. What's occurred over the past two years to cause this large increase in the department's spending? And is there a particular area of the department the money is going to?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This question has been asked, but if you have anything to add, Ms. Doyle, please go ahead.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It was a good question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It was an excellent question.

[Cassie Doyle]

I don't have anything to add on that front.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm going to abandon these notes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan, go ahead.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me ask you about the progress in relation to the pipelines. There have been two competing pipeline projects: the one from Alaska and of course the Beaufort Sea one. My impression is that there is kind of a hold-up and things are at a standstill a bit. What is the situation there on the Canadian side in particular?

[Cassie Doyle]

There are two big pipeline projects pending for the Arctic: the MacKenzie Valley pipeline and the Alaska pipeline. The pipeline that is much further advanced is the MacKenzie Valley. I wouldn't want you to think that it's stalled at all. It's actually now coming to the final phase of the review by the joint review panel that is overseen by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The National Energy Board, as well, has a joint review going on that will conclude after the report out of the joint review panel, which we understand will be late this year or early in 2009.

On the Alaska pipeline, there has been a fair amount of activity under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and TransCanada Pipelines has been a successful proponent in being identified as a potential sponsor of the Alaska pipeline. I would say that, from the big picture, that project is at least three to five years behind the MacKenzie Valley pipeline project, in that it hasn't actually started any kind of regulatory review or environmental assessment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In terms of which pipeline company would be selected to carry gas through Alberta, what's happened there? There was a competition between two competing pipelines to go through Alberta. I'm curious for an update on that.

[Cassie Doyle]

I'm sorry, I'll have to get that information for you. I don't have anything current on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Madame DeBellefeuille, you indicated you had a short question for the deputy minister.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Deputy Minister, I had some difficulty understanding the figures that the minister gave in response to my question. My understanding is that 89,000 applications were received as part of the ecoENERGY program for homes, and that 13,000 people received cheques. Can you give us a breakdown of that figure by province?

I am concerned by the fact that the remote regions of Quebec, that do not have access to accredited appraisers, will consequently likely receive fewer subsidies through this program. I would have liked to see a breakdown by province of the 13,000 people who received cheques.

Thank you.

[Cassie Doyle]

Thank you for your question. You're right that it was in 2007-2008 that there were 13,000 homeowners who received grants. I'd be happy to table that breakdown by province.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Deputy Minister.

I would like to say, as well, that we're expecting some information on the percentage of ethanol by source, the amount of money spent on the longhorn beetle, and also the pipeline question. We will be looking for those.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

As well as on the strategic environmental review.