Natural Resources Committee on April 16th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Could we have a very short response, please, Monsieur Dupont.

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. Chair, I will give a brief answer.

The main estimates before you contain what was announced and what has been achieved to date. I think that the department and the government fully acknowledge the value of this program. As far as this matter is concerned, I would say that you should stay tuned. I am very confident that there will still be activity in this field within Natural Resources Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Liu.

Monsieur Hsu, you have up to seven minutes. I assume you want to ask questions.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could you clarify the nature of the expenditures under the heading “Capital Expenditures” of the main estimates?

[Serge Dupont]

Yes, absolutely.

There has been a significant increase, which we, moreover, have said is good news. This money will be used to renew the receiving infrastructure for our satellite signals. These investments will be made in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. There are two receiving antennas; one is located in Inuvik and the other in Gatineau. These investments will enable us to acquire a modern infrastructure to receive signals, particularly from our RADARSAT constellation, once it is in operation.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

All right.

Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy of $3 million. The document refers to $15.7 million as opposed to $18.7 million.

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. Chair, I would like to know what page this information is on.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

On page 238. In French, this would be page 307.

[Serge Dupont]

I have the English version in front of me. So that would be on page 238.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

On page 307, mention was made of a $15.7 million increase for renewing relay stations. However, there is an $18.7 million increase for the capital expenditures. So there is a $3 million discrepancy.

[Serge Dupont]

Yes, and there is another $3 million amount for capital expenditures. Could that be related to our Hamilton laboratory?

[A voice]

I believe so.

[Serge Dupont]

There are also some capital expenditures for the new metallurgy laboratory in Hamilton. A few years ago it was transferred from Ottawa to Hamilton and we are still installing equipment there. We wanted to ensure that we had up-to-date equipment for the metallurgy sector.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Merci.

Under the budget for the National Energy Board, I'm wondering why a quasi-judicial regulatory tribunal is getting $5.6 million for heightened public awareness, for influencing public opinion. It sounds like advertising to me, to put it gently.

Can you clarify that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Dupont, go ahead.

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. Chair, this is within the attributions and responsibilities of the National Energy Board, but I do want to take the opportunity to clarify the question because I asked the same question when I was reviewing the documents.

The way to characterize it is it's not properly reflecting what's going on. The $5.6 million is really around $5 million, which is really going to actual operations and safety. It's inspections. It's actual work on the ground. About $600,000 of that amount is explaining this to Canadians, in enhancing their website, and responding to various kinds of inquiries, but the bulk of it....

I was asked the question the last time I was here, and certainly my understanding was the bulk of this was going to actual safety operations, so there's a bit of a misnomer there in the documents before you. I'd be happy to confirm or better still to have the NEB confirm that for you in writing because that's the explanation they have given me.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay. Maybe I'll do that at some point.

Feel free to not answer this question because this is something the minister just said, but I didn't have time to ask him.

He said we have a 99.9996% safety record, so four parts out of a million of unsafely transported oil and gas, I guess.

If you just throw that number out there, it doesn't mean anything. Could you give a precise definition of that percentage? Feel free to say no, because this is something you didn't bring up.

To me it's meaningless. Is there a definition of that somewhere?

[Serge Dupont]

Mr. Chair, witnesses would be delighted if every question had as a preamble that you can answer or not.

I do not know exactly, but I would imagine it is really taking the volume of crude that is transported through pipelines over time, and looking at whatever might have happened in terms of spills, and then relating it back to that total volume. That said, I think it's a valid question that I would rather answer more scientifically and with better evidence. I'm happy to undertake to get an answer for you.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay. I think it needs to be defined because if four parts out of a million of radiation produced in a reactor escaped, that might not be as acceptable as four barrels out of every million barrels of oil getting spilled.

I understand there is a small cut to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.We have a budget deficit to deal with. Can you tell me exactly where the cuts are going to be made?

[Serge Dupont]

Again it would be better to ask the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. First, I am aware that adjustments to them over the last little while have been made under the deficit reduction action plan. It's a small contribution which really is in the back office, and really does not have any kind of safety implication.

Second has been ensuring their participant funding program actually reflects their needs. That is a program whereby funding is provided to certain groups that want to participate in certain hearings, and to ensure that funding is aligned to needs and to expressed interests.

Those are the two areas I'm aware of, but everything having to do with actual safety there, certainly there has been no downward adjustment to those resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Hsu.

We go now to the five-minute round. First on the five-minute round we have Mr. Allen, followed by Mr. Trost. Would the NDP please notify the clerk as to who is going to ask your questions or make your comments for five minutes.

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

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask the witnesses about the section in the estimates on responsible natural resource management where it goes from $234 million to $318 million; there's an additional $80 million there. I have a two-part question on that.

What are some of the key components of that $80 million, in other words what am I getting for that? The other side of it is it seems to me we have.... How is that spending aligned with agencies like the NEB who obviously have a role to play in responsible natural resource development from a regulatory standpoint and those types of things?

Can you please tell me what I'm getting for the $80 million, differentiate between the agencies, and what Natural Resources Canada is going to be doing with that $80 million?

[Serge Dupont]

I would be glad to, Mr. Chair.

In some cases you have the titles and then you have the specific measures, so let me just try to tell you a bit about the specific measures there underneath it.

From the $84 million, $54.8 million of that is the Port Hope area initiative. That is not related to what we typically call the responsible resource development initiative, which is about new projects. This is actually about undertaking the cleanup in Port Hope, which has been promised now for a number of years, and which has been going through a regulatory process. We're now actually starting the work of building the waste management facilities and undertaking the real implementation of that multi-year effort.

Similarly, $34.5 million represents the higher amount this year that will be expended under the nuclear legacy liability program that we just discussed in regard to some of the nuclear obligations of Canada. So under that specific heading, Mr. Chair, the majority of it really has to do with this charging obligation relating to environmental remediation.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay. So basically it has nothing to do with any linkages with anything to do with the NEB. Their regulatory process is their regulatory process and, as the minister indicated, they're funded for that.

[Serge Dupont]

They are. For example, these are the estimates for Natural Resources Canada. The NEB estimates would reflect the increase of $5.6 million that we just talked about.