Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

As I indicated in the opening remarks, creating FPInnovations has been a key part in showing Canada as a leader in innovation in forestry. It's not just a collaboration of private and public; it is a very intensive research base levering out of this great natural forest we have here in Canada. Budget 2009 provides a total $120 million over two years to support innovation initiatives in the forestry sector, and to break it down for you, it's $80 million over two years for the transformative technologies program administered by FPInnovations, and that focuses on developing emerging and breakthrough technology, so it's taking it to the next level. As well, there is $40 million in 2010-11 to develop a pilot-scale demonstration project for new products for use in commercial applications. This is very exciting because it's bringing to fruition some of the scientific research that has been happening within FPInnovations.

Overall, the Government of Canada is committed to securing a strong future for the forest sector through enhanced innovation and through this entrepreneurial activity in coordination with the industry itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. Allen.

We'll start our second round, the five-minute round, with the official opposition, Mr. Bains, for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to take this opportunity to once again thank the minister for coming to committee.

I have a couple of questions around transparency. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are a new minister, but in the past we opposition members have had some frustration trying to get clarification and transparency on some of the initiatives the government has undertaken.

The first question I have is with respect to Chalk River. My colleague Mr. Regan talked about that. You tabled a report that indicated there is going to be a new way, stating that reported incidents will now be made public. Is that a change from previous practices, and if there is a change, is that change a recognition that the process was flawed?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

If you take a look at the three reports from CNSC, AECL, and the officials, which have been tabled in Parliament, it does indicate that while there is reporting among the organizations, there was no reporting to the public of this leak. The reason they've indicated there was no public reporting of the incident is that it was determined at the time, and has turned out to be true, that there was no risk to the public or the environment, so the CNSC—which is the third-party regulatory agency, the tribunal that's meant to have the mandate to ensure the health, safety, and protection of the environment and the Canadian people with respect to nuclear management, and that is foremost in their minds— didn't deem the reporting to the public as necessary. Since then, after the reports had been tabled, after understanding and listening to the concerns that have been expressed, they have indicated they will be committing to increase their disclosure regarding such non-routine events.

At the time, as I indicated, two things were going on. One had to do with the heavy water leak. The other had to do with the effect of the leak, which was the NRU not operating. That communication strategy was fully employed and people were made aware of the medical isotope shortage at the time, and we addressed it at the time as well.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

With respect to reports, I'm glad you mentioned it as well, Minister. This question was raised before. This pertains to the strategic report prepared by the National Bank of Canada on the future of AECL. They were originally tasked to do this in 2008; we're in 2009. In your opening remarks you talked about significant investments in AECL, so some very big decisions have been made toward funding AECL and its future, yet you haven't seen the report.

Is that true?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I have not seen the report from National Bank of Canada.

There is another piece of the puzzle, though, that you are aware of and that I am aware of as well because we're from the same province, Ontario. The reality is that the Province of Ontario currently has a request for proposals for the building of new plants, and AECL is involved in that matter at this time as well as preparing for the deadline of February 27--

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but doesn't this undermine the work of the National Bank? If they give a different direction and you seem to take the clear direction to fund AECL and, as you said, indicate some sort of support for the bid at the provincial level, couldn't that pose a possible conflict down the road? This is why we want clarification: although you may not have seen the report, it seems from what you've indicated that your department has.

The question is, when did your department receive this report?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I'll leave that question for the department.

Going back to the analysis of AECL, one thing we can agree on is that the context and financial climate in which this review commenced is very different from the climate we're in today in economic terms. That being said, the report from National Bank was to look at the governance models and the ways in which we can strengthen AECL. This goes back to what I indicated at the beginning: when taking decisions with respect to this file and with respect to the industry, you have to look not only at the fact that nuclear energy will be part of our electricity mix; it is in the future.... We know that, because Ontario is planning to build new reactors to address its concerns about energy.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

But this report looks at the strategic direction and highlights the points you just made, doesn't it, even though the financial climate or the economic climate has changed? Although I may stand corrected, the report is supposed to provide a strategic outlook: aside from the economic considerations, it's also supposed to give you input and feedback about how you see your capacity in government and how you see the future direction of AECL.

The fact that it's been almost over a year and that you've made these additional commitments in the budget pertaining to AECL puts the report into question, in the sense that it raises the question of whether the report is relevant now or whether these investments will undermine it. I think an ambiguity exists there. We're patiently waiting for this report to become public, but at the same time there are significant investments made in AECL. We can't reconcile both of those. That's where we want clarification.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

The report was embarked on last year in order to bring forward the options to strengthen the corporation and to build on Canada's nuclear expertise in a changing marketplace. In that, we're all in agreement. They provided external financial advice on the potential options to best position AECL.

In the interim, we have this process ongoing with the Province of Ontario with respect to bidding on the provision of reactors in accordance with Infrastructure Ontario. The two are not mutually exclusive one from the other. The one and the other can coexist and continue on the same track.

When we take a look at what has been indicated in the budget funding for AECL, one track is to continue development of the ACR, which commenced in 2002, I think. The decision to commence the development of the advanced CANDU reactor was taken in 2002, and the development continues. In order to be able to put a bid forward in the Ontario process, one would have to continue the research and development of the product one would want to be bidding on. That's something that is completely separate and apart from the corporate structure and governance that the National Bank has been asked to study.

I don't know, Mr. Dupont, whether you can add anything to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Bains. Your time is two and a half minutes over, in fact.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

They were good questions.

We'll go now to Mr. Trost, but before we do, I would like to ask members of the committee who would like to ask questions to so indicate. If you haven't indicated, when your turn comes up I wouldn't want to put you on the spot by identifying you as the next person to ask questions. So please indicate if you'd like to ask a question; otherwise we'll pass over to the next person on the list.

We go to Mr. Trost for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Minister, for being here today.

When I was putting myself through university, one of the places I had the privilege of working, doing tree planting, was a place known as Tumbler Ridge in northern British Columbia. It's not in Mr. Cullen's riding, but not too far away. It's a very nice town, a beautiful place, a great place to live. It's a very prosperous town, very successful financially, but it had one economic weakness, in that it was a one-industry town. It was almost completely reliant upon the two coal mines they had in the region: Bull Moose and...I forget the name of the other one.

I think a lot of people have heard about the community adjustment fund and how it's been dealing with the forestry sector. I'd be very interested in your comments on how it's dealing with one-industry towns, particularly one-industry mining towns. What impact do you anticipate it will have in those towns? Feel free to expand on how you think it's going to impact those communities.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much for your question.

I'll give you a snapshot of the community adjustment fund and then my take on where I think it's going to help. The community adjustment fund provides $1 billion over two years to help mitigate short-term impacts of restructuring in communities across Canada, including forest-dependent and mining-dependent communities. The fund will support activities such as community transition plans that foster economic development, science and technology initiatives, and other measures to promote economic diversification. Of course, today one that was mentioned that would be helpful is something along the lines of reforestation or silviculture.

As many of you know, I grew up in a one-industry town in Cape Breton that suffered from the depletion of the coal mines and the closing of the steel plant. I'm acutely aware of the effects and the necessity of having government smartly, strategically, responsibly, and reasonably inject economic development and economic hope in the community. I really do believe that the approach being taken by this government is the appropriate one, given the circumstances, that making an adjustment fund available to put people back into economic diversification and development, into reforestation, into jobs is a much better avenue than dealing with matters in other ways, or not dealing with matters at all.

So in terms of communities that are hard hit, not only do I understand the issues associated with it, but seeing my community having done so much better in the past number of years, compared to the way it was in the 1980s and 1990s in Sydney, I do know that there is a way through economic turmoil. I certainly believe that the fund I've outlined here today will go a very long way to helping communities move along in the system. We're so blessed with our natural resources, mining and forestry. The industries are very positive about how we will be coming out of the downturn and continue to look to new ways to invest and, in the meantime, weather the situation and move through to more prosperity. Our job is to make sure the communities are there and taken care of, so they can provide the people skills and innovation to continue.

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

Perhaps I could ask another question in an area related to mining.

Before you mine something, generally you have to map it. There are a few outcrops in history where things have been found, oil has popped through the ground, and you can see mineral deposits on the surface. Now, in the supplementaries it's approximately, I believe, $12 million more. I could be wrong on those numbers. More appropriations have been added for geoscientific data, the term one of the notes here uses, and of course $100 million in the future for geoscience programs. Could you comment both on the need for the extra appropriations, and in the broader sense on the vision you have for the larger geoscience program? Could you also specifically note anything involving limits of the continental shelf and how money is being spent for that? Are we allocating enough for that, particularly with the Russians' interest?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes, it's mapping in two different ways, but along the same track.

With respect to geomapping, the best way it was put to me by the industry, and the reason they like it so much, is that it was indicated that the job of the government in this case is to find the haystacks and theirs to find the needles. They're the ones who figure out where to go in. That's why we indicate how great a lever it is, in terms not only of putting an investment into mining but, as well, of overall development of the mines once you have the geomapping.

It's an incredibly popular program with the provinces as well. Provinces and territories too very much like to understand what their natural resources are. Just in general, as I said, it leads to private sector investment.

NRCan is requesting the $12 million you indicated—the $11.8 million in supplementary estimates (B)—to carry out carry out activities for 2008 and 2009. It's an interesting fact that 60% of Canada's north is not mapped to modern geological standards. You can imagine what kind of wealth of resources is available out there that can be utilized to make our country stronger and better. In the geomapping program itself, $100 million over five years represents the first half of the government's ten-year effort to geologically map the north and increase Canada's energy and mineral reserves.

With respect to the seabed mapping, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 2003. Under that convention, we can establish where the outer limits of the offshore areas extend beyond the customary 200 nautical miles. Through budget 2008 the government provided additional funding to complete the collection of the scientific information needed to prepare a submission to the UN in 2013. NRCan is requesting $1.6 million in supplementary estimates (B) to allow Canada to generate sufficient scientific evidence to support a complete and high-quality submission by 2013.

The mapping activities are in collaboration with the DFO. Activities are progressing according to plan, and we're on track. The importance of doing something like this has to do with the realization of the wealth of resources available there. Determining the limits of the continental shelf makes absolute sense for making sure we understand what the limits of Canada are. Doing so by solid scientific evidence and building a case and properly deposing it in front of the United Nations is the appropriate way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Minister, once again for coming for this first hour. We appreciate it very much. It has been very informative and helpful to the committee.

We will suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to change witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will resume the meeting with two witnesses who were at the table with the minister: the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Cassie Doyle; and Associate Deputy Minister Serge Dupont.

We will carry on with the questions in the same order as before. We will start with Madame Bonsant, from the Bloc Québécois.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I would have liked to talk to the Minister, but perhaps you can help me.

In the last budget, the federal government cancelled the ecoAUTO Rebate Program which offered rebates of $1,000 to people who purchased a fuel-efficient vehicle. I am curious about the cost of the ecoAUTO Rebate Program and about why it was cancelled. This is more of a political question.

[Serge Dupont]

I don't have that information handy right now, because this was not a Natural Resources program.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

But is was.

[Serge Dupont]

Unless I'm mistaken, the Department of Natural Resources was not responsible for this program.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I beg to differ. Your department was responsible for this program.

If you don't have an answer to my question, fine then.

[Serge Dupont]

Our colleagues will certainly be able to provide you with an answer to your question.