Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

First, in respect to medical isotopes, we indicated several years ago that we would no longer be providing medical isotopes by 2016. We've alerted the world to that. In the meantime we have funded in a significant way alternative procedures that don't take the traditional approach, the traditional use of radiation. There are cyclotron approaches that have been proven scientifically and are now at the commercialization stage.

We funded three locations on the basis of a competitive process, academic and research groups that are in the process of making that a commercial determination. At this point we're cautiously optimistic that it can in fact be achieved, and this will be a significant improvement over the current process. Everything is moving as we hoped it would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Regan.

We go now to the five-minute rounds starting with Ms. Crockatt, followed by Mrs. Block, and then Ms. Duncan.

Go ahead please, Ms. Crockatt, for up to five minutes.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here with us today.

People in my riding of Calgary Centre are very concerned about balancing the budget in 2015-16 so I want to commend you here for maintaining a modest increase in your budget of 0.07%, which I believe will help keep us on a sound fiscal footing.

They are also concerned about keeping the economy going so that we can fund health care, social services, and other important programs that may be at some risk given that our number one customer, the United States, has now got its own oversupply of oil and gas, and in fact is in the process of becoming a competitor.

I want to commend you on your efforts to diversify our markets while maintaining a close eye on the continually improving environmental regulations we have in Canada. I think it's very important that you strike that balance and I commend you for your efforts there.

I want to ask you about that. I see we are spending more money on the National Energy Board, I believe $12 million, and I wonder if you could explain to us what that money is going to be used for and whether it will have any negative impact on our ability to balance the budget.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for your opening remarks and your question.

The issue of balance is really crucial. We have an enormous opportunity here in Canada. We're extraordinarily fortunate to have the resources we have, and we can assure prosperity and security for Canadians for generations to come; but we must, of course, do this in a way that is responsible, safe for Canadians, and safe for the environment.

Every time I go to a foreign country, people tell me they look on Canada with envy and admiration. It's only when I come home that I sometimes encounter all this negativity. Canadians should be very grateful and very proud of what we have and the fact that we're proceeding in a way that is going to advance their economic and environmental needs.

With respect to the National Energy Board specifically, the funding has no net impact on the fiscal framework, as it's an advance on the NEB's appropriation over the next 10 years. The NEB will receive $12.4 million in supplementary estimates (B) to comply with the Government of Canada's fit-up standards for its new office space and pay for temporary space in the interim. The NEB is expected to move into its new offices by June 2014.

Safety and environmental protection are core priorities. Regulated companies are obviously required to anticipate, prevent, manage, and mitigate potentially dangerous conditions associated with their activities, and this is, of course, at the core of the mandate of the National Energy Board. We have an extraordinarily professional, independent, science-based, expert federal regulator, and that regulator looks at our major projects, our interprovincial pipelines and has a very strong international reputation for competence and integrity.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

It's essentially going to renovate its office in Calgary, I gather.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's correct.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Will that spending have any negative impact on the NEB's mandate to regulate important oil, gas, electricity, and utility projects?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

No, not at all. It won't detract in any way from the money used for its core functions.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay, that's great.

If I can just move on, I know my time is running short, so I'd like to ask you about the Port Hope area initiative. I see there is some increased spending there, and I'm wondering if you could tell us about that.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Yes, the amount in fiscal 2013-14 represents a release of the funds necessary for delivery of the Port Hope area initiative's property value protection program and the municipal tax revenue loss program. These funds will permit the Government of Canada to fulfill these commitments to the local communities, made within the legal agreement.

The $3.9 million will provide funding of $2.3 million for anticipated grants during the fiscal year and $1.6 million for administrative costs by the program manager and for the general oversight of the Port Hope initiative by Natural Resources Canada.

I think you know what the initiative is about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Crockatt.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Your time is up.

We will go now to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Ms. Block.

Go ahead, please, for up to five minutes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I echo my colleagues' comments in welcoming you here to the committee, and I also want to echo Mr. Trost's comments in terms of the passion you bring to this portfolio. I will go one step further also and recognize the deep commitment that both you and your department have in terms of developing our natural resources responsibly and balancing that with protecting the environment and Canadians. I thank you very much for that.

On that note, I do want to mention something that is of special interest to me, coming from Saskatchewan. I am wondering if you would be able to give me an update on where we are in terms of the government's contribution to the Gunnar Mine cleanup.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I am happy to do that, and thank you for your comments.

The government remains committed to assisting Saskatchewan with the cleanup of the Gunnar Mine site. We're going to be providing $12.3 million toward the estimated $24.6 million cost of the project. Implementation and operation of the project isn't expected to begin until 2014-15. The project is currently undergoing an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Saskatchewan is also conducting an environmental assessment according to the terms of the Canada-Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation.

This is moving ahead the way it should.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

I also noticed in the estimates that there are several transfers from other departments and organizations to the Department of Natural Resources. I'm wondering if you could possibly explain the reasons for some of these transfers.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Sure. I'm happy to do that, just touching on a few of them.

The transfer of $175 million to the Canadian Armed Forces Arctic Training Centre is to fund the operation and maintenance of that centre in Resolute Bay, Nunavut, including associated Public Works and Government Services' fees and incremental costs to undertake the endeavour on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

There's also a transfer from Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Natural Resources, and this is to facilitate effective cooperation and collaboration among NRCan, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Government of Nunavut concerning the Canada-Nunavut Geoscience Office in meeting the geoscience needs in Nunavut, the national responsibilities of NRCan, and the client needs of the various participants.

There's a transfer of $400,000 from Defence to NRCan for the Canadian safety and security program. That delivers science and technology solutions, support, and advice to respond to the Government of Canada's public safety and security policy imperatives, and this will support the acquisition of technology instruments.

There's a transfer from Natural Resources to Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the assessment, management, and remediation of federally contaminated sites. The eligibility rules have changed to focus on the highest-risk sites, so NRCan no longer has a site eligible for remediation funding. That amount is therefore surplus and is being transferred to another department.

Another transfer, from NRCan to Foreign Affairs, is used to support Natural Resources Canada staff located in missions abroad. That's $134,000. It's one locally engaged position in Canada's embassy in Beijing, and that person is our front-line contact for natural resource support in that capital.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you. It's very interesting to know about the individuals serving in other countries on behalf of Natural Resources.

I think I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

We will have time for Ms. Duncan for five minutes and then for one or two short questions from Mr. Zimmer before we close off the minister's time here.

Go ahead, Ms. Duncan. You have up to five minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Just at the outset, I would like to say that I'm not going to dwell on the particular issue, the particular employee that Mr. Regan spoke to, but I do want to raise with the minister—he doesn't have to worry about responding, but he could—the concern about ministerial responsibility, and perhaps a word for the wise, given a recent court decision in Alberta about ministerial accountability for the conduct of senior staff.

In that case, the court ruled that the energy regulator had erred in law because senior officials had suggested behind the scenes that witnesses on energy projects shouldn't be heard if they were opposed to such energy projects. It goes to the conduct of officials, so it would be our understanding.... It's a big theme over the last year on what's going on in the House about ministerial accountability for what goes on in staff, so probably all ministers should be taking heed of that recent court decision.

My first question, Mr. Minister, goes to vote 1b and more dollars—$750,000 essentially—being spent to “streamline...import regulations border processes for...trade”. I'm raising a concern on that because it is actually a violation of both NAFTA and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation for any of the parties to that agreement, which of course includes Canada, to downgrade environmental measures for any kind of economic benefit.

I had the privilege at working at the NAFTA environment commission. At that time, there was a big issue of fuel cocktailing, and there was an issue of a lot of illegal trade in endangered species and so forth, so we were trying to step up inspections at the border. Since then, there's a big push to fast-track movement at the border. I wonder if you could explain what you mean by “streamline”. Does that mean to deregulate and downgrade at the border any inspections for environmental reasons?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

First of all, let me comment on your comment about ministerial responsibility. And I don't really need a lecture on that, I have to tell you.

I must say, this implication that integrity is in play here I utterly reject. There is no suggestion that anyone in my department or I have ever violated integrity.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I didn't make any such suggestion.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Well, you talked about integrity. You talked about ministerial responsibility—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, I talked about—

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

—and then you brought it to the right to be heard.

There has never been any direction by anyone to suggest that someone couldn't be heard because they're opposed. There was an implication there, and I reject it in its entirety.

Now, in terms of the import regulation border processes, the single-window initiative —we're talking about the border here, trade across the border—will allow Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency to share electronic information on imports to Canada, reducing paperwork and improving efficiency at the border.

Thickening of the border is a serious issue. We trade with the United States some $2 billion every single day. This is the biggest bilateral commercial relationship in the entire world, and it's of enormous benefit to Canada.

This initiative was approved by the Treasury Board in 2012. Natural Resources Canada received $3.9 million over five years to deliver its part of the solution; $749,000 was received in year one, fiscal 2012-13; and $788,000 is allocated in fiscal 2013-14.

Reducing the burden on importers through actions under the single-window initiative reflects our commitment to support the competitiveness of Canada's trade community in ensuring public safety and security while minimizing the cost to Canadian industry and end users. Streamlining does not mean degrading safety.