Evidence of meeting #74 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Serge Dupont  Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources
Anil Arora  Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Policy Integration, Department of Natural Resources

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

I want to make a comment—

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

I want to raise a point of order.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

No, there's a point of order on the floor right now, and I want to make this comment in response to it.

Mr. Julian, when you ask a question, and particularly when it's a specific question with many parts, it's reasonable that you would leave time for the minister to actually answer, whether you like the answer or not.

This is directed not only at you; I want to direct it at future questioners. When you ask a question, the minister should be to given a reasonable amount of time to respond. If he has responded to the question and it then seems as though there is some stalling going on, at that time I'll allow an interjection, but that wasn't happening at all. There was a direct response to the question happening.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

I have a point of order.

I asked whether he would retract the cuts, and he has not answered that question for the record. I've asked him three times.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

It's a point of debate, and your time is up, Mr. Julian.

Minister, you can continue with a short answer.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

We're not changing what is in the budget.

In 2011 the government announced $195 million for five years to continue momentum in improving energy efficiency. The ecoENERGY Innovation initiative will invest almost $370 million over five years for clean energy demonstration. Really, the list goes on. We've invested a lot in this sector, because we consider it to be important.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian and Minister.

Mr. Hsu, you have up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for coming today.

I was looking in the news recently and noticed that Alberta Premier Redford returned a few days ago from her fourth trip to Washington, D.C. to plead the case for the Keystone XL pipeline. As you know, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will be making a decision as to whether to approve that pipeline. It's a very important pipeline for the economy of Canada, as you've said, and this decision hangs in the balance. Why else would the Premier of Alberta make four trips to Washington? Why else would Canadian officials be going to the United States so often?

What I see in the main estimates in front of me today, it seems to me, undercuts the efforts of the Premier of Alberta for the people of Alberta. I'm looking at the list of program cuts that has been mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Julian: the ecoENERGY retrofit program for homes, cut; the ecoENERGY technology initiative, cut.

I've marked these in yellow, and my page is covered with yellow.

There's the clean energy fund, the ecoENERGY for biofuels program, Sustainable Development Technology Canada's NextGen biofuel fund. We have the ecoENERGY for renewable power initiative, the program of energy research and development, and the ecoENERGY innovation Initiative.

My question to you is this. With this long list of things, isn't it embarrassing for the Premier of Alberta, when she goes to Washington, to try to deal with the fact, as you say, Minister, that Canada is losing tens of millions of dollars a day in revenue because President Obama does not have the social licence to approve Keystone XL, because we haven't done enough about climate change? We have all these cuts in the main estimates, right here, embarrassing and undercutting the efforts of the Alberta premier.

How do you respond to that?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Well, first of all, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the President of the United States doesn't have the social licence because of Canada. In fact, a strong majority of Americans are in favour of Keystone XL. The governor of every state through which it would go is in favour, a majority of the senators, and a majority of the House.

But that is not to say we do not have a responsibility, which we fully accept, to do what is appropriate in terms of addressing this very serious issue. We have talked, when we've gone down to the United States, and I was recently in Chicago and Houston and am going to be in New York and Washington next week again, about how our objectives are aligned with those of the United States in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 by 2020, and we're halfway there. We've talked about how our fuel standards for automobiles and trucks are identical to those of the U.S. and how, in some respects, we're ahead of the world. So we're doing a lot.

I can go through some of these issues. What we're doing is financing initiatives that work, that are efficient, that are effective, but also, we're looking at ways to be protective of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, and when they're less effective or when they have completed their mission, then we decide accordingly.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Okay. Let's look at it from the point of view of the President of the United States. I see a line here in the main estimates on page 239 where our spending on energy-efficient practices and lower carbon energy sources is being cut by about $140 million. That is not in line with United States policy.

That undercuts your argument to the United States for why they should approve the Keystone XL pipeline. This is clear evidence that Canada is not doing as much to deal with climate change, that Canada's policy is not as aggressive as the policy that President Obama outlined in his state of the union address this year. What about that line in the main estimates, Minister?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

First, as I mentioned earlier, we have been spending more per capita than the U.S.

Funding is declining, and I can give you the specifics. There was a $60-million item for ecoENERGY for biofuels, which is designed to provide a declining incentive rate, and that is related to the take-up we were experiencing. There was an amount in statutory authorities for the sustainable development and something for the other programs.

As I said, we're proud of the $10 billion. We've committed up to $1.5 billion for domestic production of renewable fuels to meet the demand of Environment Canada's regulations. In 2011 the government announced $195 million over five years—

4 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Okay. We're talking about cuts now, right?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Yes, but I'm talking about ongoing programs that indicate the continued commitment in significant dollars of the government to the clean energy sector, and we'll continue to support it.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Okay.

On one last line in the main estimates, Minister, on climate change adaptation initiatives, I see that 2011-12 expenditures are about twice as much as what the main estimates are for this coming year. I'm wondering if that reflects our decrease in concern for the effects of climate change. Why has that been cut in half, climate change adaptation initiatives? Are we less worried? Are you less worried, Minister?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

No, that has nothing to do with it at all. Perhaps I could get a detailed answer here.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Mr. Dupont, go ahead, please.

4 p.m.

Serge Dupont Deputy Minister, Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Chair, with regard to climate change adaptation, there is an envelope of $35 million over five years for Natural Resources Canada. This was a new program instituted as of budget 2011 and some of the changes from year to year simply reflect the profile of the funding.

Some years, depending on where you are in the project, you're spending less, and in other years you're spending more. We're now moving to another phase of the program, but there's going to be a fluctuating profile over the years and we can certainly provide the committee with the overall profile.

It's not a structural declining trend; it's just variation from year to year in the profile.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Mr. Hsu.

We go now to the five-minute round and the first three people on the five-minute round, Mr. Trost, Mr. Calkins, and Mr. Nicholls.

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

April 16th, 2013 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was sitting here looking through some of the notes. I was thinking that I've been on the natural resources committee through five or six ministers, going back to when John Efford from Newfoundland was here.

We're not usually the most exciting or glamorous committee, but one issue over the years has made us a bit high profile and that was when Chalk River had a little problem with the medical isotopes reactor and the history with the MAPLEs and so forth. So I was very interested in the notes, and in your presentation that you noted there's another $9.9 million, $10 million coming involved with medical isotopes.

Could you explain what that $10 million is for? Then, in as much detail as you feel comfortable—and more is generally better in this circumstance—could you explain what the government is continuing to do, where it's at, involving medical isotopes?

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Thank you.

Our government continues to work domestically and internationally to promote a more secure supply of medical isotopes. The isotope technology acceleration program, ITAP, is investing $25 million over four years to further advance the development of cyclotron and linear accelerator technologies for the domestic production of the most widely used medical isotope, technetium-99m, meeting a clear health public policy need. That would be the production of non-highly enriched uranium, so it also has the advantage of meeting our non-proliferation obligations.

We're investing in three projects that are being led by innovative Canadian organizations which have made great strides in transforming the way medical isotopes are produced in Canada and that met the best, rigorous criteria set under a fair, competitive process.

The projects that include this process and that were signed under ITAP are at the University of Alberta, with $7 million for their cyclotron; at TRIUMF, in British Columbia, with $7 million for their cyclotron; and at the Prairie Isotope Production Enterprise, which has about $7.5 million for a linear accelerator in Manitoba. These investments reinforce Canada's leadership in medical isotopes. They support high-quality jobs at home, and they grow business opportunities for domestic and international markets.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Following up on that in a slightly different vein, at Chalk River, the NRU reactor there has had to have a certain degree of repairs. Do you have an idea of what the cost is, of how much the government has invested in that? That's my first question. I'll follow up after you've answered that one.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

I don't yet have the direct number for that. I don't know whether.... I want to be accurate.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Yes, there's no problem with that. I'm sure the other members of the committee will be fine—

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Oliver Conservative Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

We'll supply that number to the committee.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

As a follow-up question to that one, where are we going in terms of production of medical isotopes after 2016 when the NRU's licence does expire? From what you've said, we have three very good projects moving forward, but what's the plan after 2016? On just the three projects, NRU combined, how are we going to deal with the needs at that point?