Debates of May 31st, 2010

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, NRCAN administers the clean energy fund and not the green infrastructure fund. There seems to be some confusion in this regard.

Getting back to the clean energy fund, $466 million of it were allocated for three major carbon capture and storage projects. An incredible number of megatons of greenhouse gases will not be emitted in the future. As I explained before, this is one of the challenges because we all know that fossil fuels will continue to be a source of supply for decades to come. We should use them, therefore, in a clean way in order to reduce their environmental footprint as much as possible.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, in that same email I referenced of August 13, 2009, Mr. Glémaud was seeking a security clearance at Public Works. Why was Patrick Glémaud, a Natural Resources employee, attempting to gain a security clearance at Public Works in the summer of 2009?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, I cannot speak for Mr. Glémaud. I a not familiar with what my colleague is asking me here. What I can say in regard to the access to information request—and I will say it again—is that the department informed me because it is responsible for the application of the act. Powers were delegated to the department to administer the Access to Information Act. I was informed, therefore, that the documents in the access to information request concerned only Mr. Patrick Glémaud’s role as legal counsel to the justice department. That is what he was doing as a public official, employed by the justice minister, working closely with the Department of Natural Resources.

Frankly, I would be happy to talk about the clean energy fund. As I was also saying, part of the envelope was invested in research and development. Some good demonstration projects were implemented and once again, at no time—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Chair, since I am sharing my time with my hon. colleague, I will turn it over to her after this question.

Mr. Patrick Glémaud, who was an NRCan employee, was seeking security clearance in August 2009, the same very month that his business partner, Rahim Jaffer, sent an email to the minister's director of parliamentary affairs, Mr. Togneri, regarding Mr. Jaffer's proposal to install solar panels atop government buildings.

Was the minister aware that this email was sent?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Chair, unfortunately, the member is off-track once again. She does not even know who the person she is talking about was actually employed by. I am not sure why she is going digging here.

We are here tonight to talk about, as I mentioned, the estimates. She has wandered away from that again. I am just asking you, Madam Chair, to bring her back to the main budget estimates. Then we can talk about the programs that the government has gotten approval for and is getting approval for, and wants to move ahead with.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the parliamentary secretary. The hon. minister can respond to the question, as he has been bringing it back to issues that relate to the estimates.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, as I said, our government is focusing heavily on the clean energy fund. Encouraging carbon capture and storage will greatly reduce our impact on the environment. As I said earlier, we have three large projects worth $466 million, which has made Canada a leader in this area.

We can now exchange information with the United States through the clean energy dialogue. We are already seeing results. Our neighbours are interested in this technology. In April, we signed a declaration of intent with our American counterparts to continue these discussions.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, the email in question was sent on August 26, 2009. In it, Mr. Jaffer, an associate of Patrick Glémaud, who was working at the Department of Natural Resources, wrote that he had just spoken with the minister and that they would try to meet over a few beers when the minister returned to Ottawa the following week. The minister allegedly suggested that Mr. Jaffer coordinate with Mr. Glémaud in order to find someone, such as the deputy minister, to talk to about the proposal they were working on and the possibility of reaching an agreement.

Can the minister confirm to the committee that this conversation took place?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, again, the email in question has nothing to do with Natural Resources Canada. As I have been saying since I became Minister of Natural Resources, it was the department that handled the access to information request. There was no meeting with Mr. Glémaud and Mr. Jaffer. What is more, no funding was granted.

As I was saying earlier, as far as the clean energy fund is concerned, in the statement of intent we signed with the United States in April, we talked about carbon capture and storage. Nonetheless, a working group will be set up in the coming year to assess the possibility of developing renewable energy, such as biomass-based energy produced from algae. This is an innovative approach. We are having this dialogue with our neighbours to the south.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, the minister can refuse to answer all he wants, but we will keep going.

As part of his current or previous role, is or was it normal for the minister to ask the deputy minister himself to meet with potential suppliers, considering the fact that no proposal had been submitted and that the supplier in question was an employee of Natural Resources Canada? I am talking about Natural Resources.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Chair, she thinks she is talking about Natural Resources, but she is actually talking about a completely different department. Her other colleague got the employment status of the person she was talking about confused. This member has the departments confused.

We are here tonight to actually talk about the estimates for Natural Resources. I think the minister would like to do that. I know he has even more good things that he can share with Canadians about what we are doing in terms of our projects and programs.

It is frustrating for Canadians to have to listen to this kind of thing tonight when they tuned in to hear us talk about the estimates for the Department of Natural Resources and to talk about our programs, our policies, and the things that are working for Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Chair, that is the third time in a row the parliamentary secretary rose without actually asking your permission to raise a point of order.

I would like to raise a point order. There is a series of questions that is being put to the minister that are directly relevant—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would interrupt the hon. member for a moment. It was my impression that the parliamentary secretary was responding for the minister in that exchange. I did not hear the hon. member's comment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Chair, when someone is rising on a point of order could you please acknowledge it because there is mass confusion on the other side? This is the second or third time that the parliamentary secretary—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for quieting the jackals. It is important for Canadians to know that when the parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order he should make it perfectly clear.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The Chair will ensure that points of order are so recognized.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

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

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time tonight with my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain, as well as my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

I am very grateful to be able to discuss what is going on with our forestry industry.

Our government believes increasingly that success in world markets goes hand in hand with exemplary performance at the environmental level. Today we are concerned about the challenges faced by the forestry industry, forestry workers and the communities that rely on them.

The sector is undergoing a lot of changes. Change, by definition, does bring opportunity and we must seize those opportunities. We should develop and offer new products, upgrade our skills, generate value added from forest resources and conquer new markets.

Overall, our action on the economy is aimed at reducing the deficit, rebalancing the budget and implementing the measures needed to boost the economy and enhance prosperity. The Government of Canada has a prominent role to play in the renewal of the forestry sector, which is such an important sector for millions of our citizens.

We have taken unprecedented steps as part of Canada's economic action plan which allocates $170 million for the development of new products and new processes and aims to capitalize on new business opportunities. We have also provided $7.8 billion for the building of housing to stimulate construction and enhance energy efficiency. Given the importance of wood in construction and renovation, this investment led to a one million linear foot increase in internal demand for wood products in 2009 and 2010.

We know that credit is also a major issue faced by the forestry sector. As a result of our action plan, we have expanded the mandates of Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada in a bid to reduce private market gaps. The results are clear: $16 billion were provided last year by EDC to support the Canadian forestry sector and, last year, 1,110 Canadian forestry sector SMEs took advantage of loans provided by BDC.

The success of the forestry sector, like other sectors in our economy, is dependent on the sound management of our resources and the sustainability of the production process. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has spent over $1 billion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the environment, by investing in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy technologies and the production of cleaner energies and fuels.

The 2010 budget dedicates $100 million to help support the commercialization of market-ready technologies and new bio-products in the forestry sector to create a world-class industry able to compete in tomorrow's bio-economy. This initiative will be truly transformational for the sector.

The pulp and paper green transformation program, with a $1 billion budget, is there to help pulp sector businesses producing black liquor to improve the energy efficiency of their plants. This program will also give rise to new investment, which is a key factor in revitalizing the sector.

The industry is well aware of the competitive advantage it will enjoy and the benefits it will reap when Canadian clean energy technologies are implemented and commercialized.

The future of the wood industry is very promising. Emerging technologies offer extraordinary possibilities. Our investments are intended to speed up development in the implementation of these new technologies and to bring about substantial benefits for the entire value chain of the sector.

Canada must take advantage of its excellent place in the world as a major supplier of wood and wood products to offer products that can be sold on all markets. The government is continuing to put the conditions in place that will make the forestry sector more sustainable and competitive.

The forestry sector, in spite of all these efforts, is still experiencing difficulty, and I can say that from some of the challenges in small communities in my riding.

Could the minister lay out the government's global approach in terms of supporting this very important industry to Canadians?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, we have a three-pronged approach to supporting the recovery of Canada's wood industry.

The first is technology and innovation. We are investing $120 million in the transformative technologies program. That funding will go directly to developing, commercializing and implementing cutting-edge technologies in fields such as bioenergy and next-generation building systems.

The second is value added products. Our economic action plan allocated $8 million over two years to support research and technology transfer associated with value added projects. This initiative involves developing and enhancing our products to make them more competitive in Canada and abroad.

The third is expanding markets for wood products. We have set up three initiatives to stimulate market expansion for wood products.

The first is $20 million over two years for the Canada wood program, which helps wood producers grow and diversify their export markets. The second is $12 million over two years for the North American wood first initiative to promote the use of wood in non-residential construction in Canada and the United States. The third is $10 million to support large-scale demonstrations of the use of Canadian wood in construction.

Taken together, these measures are thoroughly transforming the sector, which will now be ready to take advantage of new opportunities and conquer new markets.

Our actions are creating a world-class competitive industry that will perform very well in tomorrow's economy.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Chair, with the recent opening of the Vancouver pavilion at Shanghai Expo 2010, Canadian expertise in wood construction is now on display for the world to see. The Vancouver pavilion significantly is located in the urban best practices theme of Shanghai Expo 2010. The building's interior will serve as an exhibition space. The first floor features the city of Vancouver, while the second floor is devoted to consumer focused displays, promoting wood as a natural, sustainable building product and wood frame construction as energy efficient and safe.

Importantly, the second floor display area and third floor meeting rooms will be used to host Chinese developers, engineers, architects and government officials as part of the program to market Canadian wood products and advance wood technology in China.

With all of this put together, the Vancouver pavilion in China provides the unique opportunity to showcase Canadian wood products and wood construction techniques to an international audience.

Would the Minister of Natural Resources tell us how much the government has invested in the Vancouver pavilion and what it hopes to achieve with that?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for his excellent question.

The Vancouver Pavilion is a collaboration of the Government of Canada, the province of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver. The Government of Canada has invested $2.5 million in the construction and operation of the Vancouver Pavilion.

This funding is part of a $170 million economic action plan investment. As part of this investment, $10 million has been allocated to projects that showcase Canadian wood products overseas, such as the Vancouver Pavilion.

China has rapidly emerged as one of Canada’s most important lumber export markets. Canada’s wood product exports to China are up eleven-fold from $32 million in 2001 to $385 million in 2009.

An estimated 70 million visitors, including several million international visitors, will attend Shanghai Expo 2010. Widespread media attention and access to prominent builders and large buyers of construction materials make Shanghai Expo 2010 the most important trade marketing event of the year in China.

With this investment, the government is helping the Canadian forestry sector benefit from these new opportunities and improve its long-term competitiveness.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, it is clear that the Major Project Management Office has been a major step forward in approving the regulatory process for major resource projects but I am sure the minister would agree that much more needs to be done.

Could the minister indicate whether and what future improvements are being proposed?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, once again I thank my colleague for his question.

Improving the regulatory system is a priority for our government and we are doing several things to make it better. There is the Major Projects Management Office. Federal departments and regulatory agencies work closely together to identify basic ways of improving the environmental assessment process and our methods of consulting aboriginals. This will improve the results thanks to changes to various aspects of the way in which projects are reviewed.

As a first key step, the 2010 budget introduced some targeted changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that will improve environmental assessments in Canada by letting them start earlier, reducing delay and duplication, and getting better assessments in general.

The budget also announced the participant funding program for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board to support the more active, selective participation of all Canadians, the intent being to build on these activities while the Government of Canada explores other ways of heading toward a process of reviewing every project.

The government obviously cannot do it all on its own, and in order to achieve the mutual objective of providing regulatory assessments in a foreseeable way, the federal framework must work as effectively as possible with the processes of the provinces and territories. I am looking forward to working with my counterparts to advance our common commitment to making basic improvements to the regulatory framework for major mining and energy projects in Canada. I want to emphasize, though, that we will not allow our efforts to improve effectiveness to compromise environmental protection. Quite to the contrary, environmental protection will be improved under the new process.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Chair, I was wondering if the minister could comment on the Arctic and the north. This is an area that unfortunately was neglected under previous governments and it is an area that our government made a priority from the very onset when we were first elected into government.

I am wondering if the minister could comment on our strategy for the north, specifically in two areas: the people in the north, as well as our natural resources. Could the minister tell us what our government is doing in regard to and in response to the north and the Arctic?