AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 27, 2001

• 1604

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, pursuant to its order of reference on Thursday, November 1, 2001, that the supplementary estimates A, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a, 25a and 30a under Natural Resources, and vote 41a under the Privy Council, laid upon the table on November 1, 2002, be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. That's extracted from the Journals of the House of Commons, Thursday, November 1, 2001.

• 1605

We have with us today witnesses from the Department of Natural Resources: Mr. Bruce Holden, assistant deputy minister, corporate services sector; Mr. Ric Cameron, assistant deputy minister, energy sector; Ms. Sue Kirby, associate assistant deputy minister, energy sector; and Mr. Robert Lomas, senior associate policy adviser, minerals and metals sector.

Friends, I invite you to make your presentation in 15 minutes, maximum. Can you do it in that? Okay. Then we'll go on to questions from members.

Please proceed.

Mr. Bruce Holden (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, both Minister Goodale and Deputy Minister Harrison have asked me to pass along their regrets, since both are away on departmental business.

The Chair: On that issue, you can advise the minister that the members who had requested that the minister appear have accepted that we do this without his presence. But he will be requested to appear before committee for a general information session, and you can advise him of that.

Thank you.

Mr. Bruce Holden: As committee members know, supplementary estimates A, tabled by the president of the Treasury Board, serve two purposes. The first is to detail new spending that Parliament will be asked to approve for expenditures that were not sufficiently developed or known when the main estimates were prepared. The second purpose is to outline for Parliament the changes in the estimated expenditures to be made in programs already approved in legislation passed by Parliament.

Before the questions begin, I appreciate the opportunity to make one or two very quick points about the supplementary estimates as they relate to Natural Resources Canada.

Government-wide, a total of $4.8 billion for new spending is listed in supplementary estimates A tabled by the president of the Treasury Board. Of that figure, our department, Natural Resources Canada, is seeking $88.8 million. This includes $37.3 million in additional funding for climate change; $1.5 million for nuclear waste cleanup at Port Hope; and $50 million for the Sustainable Development Technology Fund. Of this latter, $100 million funding for sustainable development technology was announced in the budget of 2000.

As Minister Goodale said last February in his speech on second reading of Bill C-4, the natural resources sector is one of the most innovative in our economy. He said, however, and I quote:

...to meet challenges like clean air, we must maintain and indeed accelerate our momentum in the field of science, knowledge and innovation. We must keep building our brain power and move rapidly to put new ideas into action. Our record of performance thus far is encouraging, but we need to do more, and that is what this bill is all about.

Briefly, the legislation provides for a private sector foundation to operate at arm's length from government to stimulate greater innovation and creativity in those technologies that contribute to the sustainable development and wise use of our natural resources. The bill provides for the continuation of an existing private sector organization, created under the Canada Corporations Act, that will be run by a 15-member board of directors and 15 members of the foundation. The Governor in Council appoints the chairperson plus six directors of the board and seven of the members, whose role will be similar to that of shareholders of a corporation. Its activities will be audited by an independent auditor, and the foundation will report directly to Parliament. Also, of course, its members can be invited to parliamentary committees such as this one to respond to questions and explain their actions and activities.

[Translation]

The government believes that this is the best way to follow through as quickly as possible on its Budget 2000 commitment so that we can encourage the growth of more sustainable technologies and bring these new resources to bear on the climate challenge without delay.

• 1610

A further $2.1 billion is being sought by the government for additional expenditures on programs already approved by Parliament. Of this figure, Natural Resources Canada is seeking $20 million in supplemental funding to address core operational, information management and technology infrastructure requirements identified as program integrity issues—as well as another $20.4 million which represents operating budget funding unspent and carried forward from fiscal year 2000-2001 to allow continuation of existing activities and payment of outstanding commitments and obligations.

Last May, when Minister Goodale appeared before this committee, he set out the broad areas of spending by the department. At the time, he pointed out, and I quote:

[English]

...about two-thirds of the main estimates, which you have before you, for the Department of Natural Resources are dedicated to science and technology.

The department works in partnership with provinces and territories, private sector and non-governmental organizations and communities, including rural, aboriginal, and northern communities, on developing and applying S and T innovations to sustainable development challenges and opportunities.

Departmental activities are directed toward the sustainable development and wise use of our natural resources and land mass, helping to build a better quality of life for Canadians.

Again, as Minister Goodale said in the House of Commons last February:

We have an enormous wealth and an enormous heritage of natural resources in our country. It is exceedingly important when it comes to developing and managing those resources, not just for the current generation but for generations of children and grandchildren yet to come, that we do so in a responsible manner, a manner that effectively balances our economic, social and environmental imperatives.

On that note, I'll conclude my remarks and thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to offer these comments on behalf of the minister and the department.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will proceed to questions from members.

Is four minutes in the first round reasonable, members, or would you prefer five? They're usually technical questions.

If you're not sure, we'll go with five; fair enough?

To our guests, the five minutes includes both questions and answers. If my colleagues take five minutes to ask a question, they're going to have to do without the answer.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think because so much of the estimates and the supplementary estimates, at least in the natural resources department, deal directly with the climate change initiative and the implementation of that plan, my question is in that area. I continually get representations from Canadians, Canadian business and Canadian individuals, about where we're going with climate change, and about what the department is doing with that issue. So I have to ask, does the department have a plan to reach the objectives, the targets, under the Kyoto plan?

The Prime Minister indicated that he was looking at ratification next May. The plan that's been presented is soon to take us a third of the way there. I really have doubts that this would be the case. The minister yesterday announced the spending of $425 million, budgeted 13 months ago, for initiatives under the climate change program. I think Canadians are really concerned about what the government's doing on that issue and what they're going to do to reach those targets. They want a plan or an analysis of costs and benefits put out there to Canadians before we move to ratify this thing.

Is the department working on such a plan, and will that plan be available before we ratify Kyoto?

The Chair: Ms. Kirby.

Ms. Sue Kirby (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you.

Yes, indeed, the material that's in the estimates before you relates to the announcements of yesterday and to the initial measures in the action plan.

• 1615

The plan we have is based on three parts. The first is based on those actions that have already been developed and improved, including the ones you see before you in the estimates, and the supplementary estimates today.

The second part deals with what we will be doing as a result of the negotiations internationally and what advantage we will be able to take of some of the mechanisms that were negotiated internationally and of some of the offshore opportunities that come about as a result of those negotiations.

The third part of the plan is what additional activities will need to be undertaken domestically in order to reach the Kyoto target. In that area, the government is still in the process of policy development. There are intensive discussions under way. There is a plan to discuss with the provinces at the next joint meeting of energy and environment ministers in February, and there's a plan to consult with Canadians immediately thereafter and in advance of a ratification decision.

Mr. David Chatters: You're not answering my question, really. The first part of the plan that you suggest has been presented to Canadians would take us a third of the way to the Kyoto targets. That first part of the plan, the announcement yesterday, will take us only about 7% of the way to Kyoto, and that's in a best-case scenario. There is no plan before Canadians to get the first third of the way there, let alone the other two-thirds.

Canadians are looking for a detailed cost benefit analysis—what's it's going to cost them, what they have to do to get there, and what the government is going to do to get us there. We haven't got any of that yet, in spite of a budgeted $1.1 billion for the climate change initiative.

What we need is some detail, some actions and some figures, to show us that this is going to get us to the required reduction in tonnes of carbon to meet the Kyoto commitment. We're not getting that. Will we get that?

Ms. Sue Kirby: As I said, the first part of the plan, which is estimated, when fully implemented, to take us one-third of the way there, has been outlined in detail in announcements that started last October and continued up until yesterday. The additional requirements for the further two-thirds are still in a process of policy development. Ministers are discussing it, and it will be available. And it will be available to all Canadians.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amounts invested in controlling greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring sustainable development are fairly high. As Mr. Chatters said, however, it is difficult to see what real impact these investments will have on sustainable development and greenhouse gas emissions. This is a lot of money. Sometimes, we wonder whether the money is not simply going up in smoke, or almost going up in smoke. I have always had some difficulty in understanding these issues. I have real difficulty in seeing what positive impact these investments will have on greenhouse gas emissions and on sustainable development if they are not grounded in legislation.

Perhaps you can comment on this. I also have a question on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Votes in the amount of $82 million are being added to the $121 million already in the previous budget. We are given some details, but I would like to know more about the additional working capital for them and additional funding for nuclear research and development. They are applying for more funding in these areas, while we are currently working on a bill to manage nuclear waste. The upgrade and modernization of laboratories is also under discussion. I would like more details. After all, we are talking about $82 million.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Ric Cameron (Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources): With regard to Atomic Energy of Canada, there are three main streams for the moneys indicated in the estimates.

One relates to the working capital requirements of the crown corporation. It has a significant commercial business, but due to the nature of that business the cashflow can be irregular and lumpy. AECL as a crown corporation does not have access to commercial banking, so part of it is just $47 million for their working capital requirements in terms of their commercial interests.

• 1620

The $10 million is part of an ongoing plan of capital upgrades for Chalk River Laboratories. These are primarily devoted towards fundamental issues of infrastructure maintenance for health and safety purposes. There has been a national research lab at Chalk River since the 1940s, and parts of that infrastructure are running down.

An additional $25 million relates to the range of activities AECL undertakes in its primary research mandate—for instance, safety and operating security at existing CANDU reactors, and health and safety research.

Through its research facilities there, AECL supports, as you know, a program of research for the National Research Council for laboratories and other interested users. Part of that research program, again, is their broadband research on some of the fundamental issues that relate to the operation of reactors and health and safety issues relating to nuclear programs.

Those are the three main business lines supported through the supplementary estimates. If you're interested in more specifics as to where those would break down, we do have some people from the crown corporation who can give you more details. But those are the broad lines of the three major components for the supplementary estimates.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Do I have any time left?

The Chair: You have one and a half minute.

Mr. Serge Cardin: All right.

Somewhere, I read that AECL was generating some revenue with its nuclear waste management operation. Unfortunately I cannot tell you exactly where I read that, but I may be able to find the reference and provide it to you. Here, I am linking the fact that AECL may be generating some revenue and the additional working capital.

AECL may not necessarily be profitable, but it is still providing services for which it charges. What sort of revenue could be generated by AECL for managing, and even, if I understand correctly, storing nuclear waste?

Bill C-27, which we have carefully examined, provides that AECL would be an integral part of a waste management organization. Since AECL is already generating revenue through services it already provides, will it not be able to take advantage of that revenue to formulate management policies and subsequently obtain waste management contracts?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Ric Cameron: In the first instance, the nuclear waste management organization will in fact impose some financial burdens on AECL, because as an operator of a reactor that generates fuel waste, it will be required to begin to establish the same kind of funds as the power generators. They also have the opportunity to be part of the waste management organization, but that organization will decide where it wants to go with regard to waste management.

AECL does have some business in waste management. For example, the facilities for above-ground dry storage that are used in existing CANDU reactors in Canada are purchased by the reactor owners and operators from AECL. So that is part of their business.

Their business has a number of different components, including the CANDU itself, and the sales of it, including service revenues from working with the reactor owners—for example, a service contract with the new owners of Bruce with regard to some of the contracting for the return to service of the decommissioned reactors.

So they do have a range of businesses, some of which do relate to waste. As I said, there is a significant commercial revenue stream, but the nature of their business is such that this cashflow can be lumpy, particularly when you're dealing with major international issues like the construction of the reactors currently under way in China.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was an announcement as part of the federal budget in 2000 that $1.1 billion would be set aside for climate change commitments. Yesterday, as Mr. Chatters has already mentioned, we got an announcement of $425 million. My first question is, of the $1.1 billion, has money been allocated other than the $425 million?

Second, in terms of the announcements made yesterday, have any contracts actually been allocated? Have any of the moneys actually been apportioned to specific recipients to spend the money, or is this just categorizing them and contracts will be let later on?

• 1625

Ms. Sue Kirby: The original budget announcement was in several parts, and the announcements yesterday were also in several parts.

One of the areas was the Climate Change Action Plan, which in total is $500 million. That was largely the part, as Mr. Chatters was making reference to, that is expected to take us one-third of the way there when fully implemented. In terms of that action plan, we are just through the Treasury Board approval process and beginning implementation. We're just at the stage of beginning to look at letting contracts for that $500 million.

In other areas, the green municipalities fund was part of Budget 2000. The Sustainable Development Technology Fund was part of that, as was the science foundation. In those areas, which were announced in Budget 2000, there has already been work under way. For some, in particular the green municipalities fund, a number of studies and actions have already been undertaken by municipal governments.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Of the ones that have been allocated, how much has actually been spent at this point and how much has in fact been designated, with actual numbers in both those cases? How much has already been spent out of our federal moneys and how much is allocated? I guess what I'm finally asking is, how much is left to be allocated of the $1.1 billion?

Ms. Sue Kirby: None is left to be allocated in terms of where it will be spent. In terms of actually being spent, you have some estimates in front of you that will deal with Action Plan 2000 in terms of spending for the future that's being asked for in supplementary estimates at this point in time.

What has already been spent deals primarily with the areas that were in either the municipalities funds or the science foundation, as I've said. In terms of Action Plan 2000, that is being implemented as we proceed. You have before you, in the supplementary estimates we're talking about today, those areas that are Natural Resources Canada's responsibility that we are looking for in terms of proceeding to spend parts of Action Plan 2000.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The initial question was, how much has already been spent? Can you tell me that?

Ms. Sue Kirby: I would have to verify it. I don't know if we have someone present who can help me with it. I can get back to you on that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

The Chair: Would you bring the response to the clerk so we that can share it with everyone?

Ms. Sue Kirby: It touches on more than one department, so I will have to consult with some other colleagues.

The Chair: There's a minute left, if you need it. You gave a good example to our colleagues by asking four questions in four minutes.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, PC/DR): I'll see if I can go faster.

Is there any funding committed to the forest stewardship program, and what are the long-term objectives of the government in relation to that program?

Mr. Bruce Holden: We don't have officials here from the Canadian Forest Service, but I do have some information. Within the supplementary estimates, the $20 million of carry forward from our operating carry forward, that's listed.... Part of that funding was in the forestry area, but I can't answer with regard to the forest stewardship program.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: So you don't know if any funding is still being allocated to that or what the long-term objectives are. Perhaps you could endeavour to provide that information.

The Chair: We are attempting to deal with these estimates today, so we would need the response before we move on to that.

Continue with your discussion and we will share the information when we get it. Is that okay?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Sure.

The next question is in respect of Canada's oil and gas pipelines. Is any money being spent on risk assessment and protecting those pipelines, and is there a rapid response team that would be prepared to respond to some kind of terrorist attack on those oil and gas pipelines?

• 1630

Mr. Ric Cameron: We have an organization within the department that is dealing with energy infrastructure security, working with the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness that's based in DND; working with the provinces and particularly Alberta, which is very active; and working with the industry associations. Next week we're convening a meeting in Ottawa with the industry associations to talk about next steps, which includes making sure we've identified critical points of infrastructure.

The primary response capacity remains with industry. As you know, they have contingency plans in place. The issue being addressed with them is what happens if you move beyond the capacity of individual companies to deal with things, if you do end up with something that's more widespread than had been anticipated in the past. In the past it was primarily if you had accidents or natural occurrences, but what happens now if you have something coordinated?

So there is not a federal emergency response team. That's one of the things that's being discussed with industry. The issue is, again, how do you move from things that are beyond the capacity of the individual operator, which is where the primary response is, and what would be required to move beyond that?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: That answers the second part of my question. The first part was, is any money being spent on risk assessment specifically with respect to protecting Canada's own gas pipelines?

Mr. Ric Cameron: In the overall process, we've been working with the National Energy Board, with the provinces, and with industry on risk assessment. That includes working with the security forces, CSIS and the RCMP. So there isn't an allocation as such, but that's part of the ongoing process with regard to critical infrastructure protection, which is understanding the assets and the points of vulnerability and understanding what are the threats and risks.

So there isn't an allocation for that, but that is part of the activity that's undertaken. Oil and gas pipelines are part of it, but it goes into other parts of the energy infrastructure as well.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay.

Mr. Cardin asked you about the breakdown of the allocation of $82 million to AECL. With respect to the $47 million, are you saying that was just an unanticipated shortfall?

Mr. Ric Cameron: What I'm saying is that as part of the operation for their commercials, where they do have lumpy revenues and you can end up in some situations with potential for shortfalls, this is to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: As to the other two amounts, $10 million for the Chalk River capital upgrades and the $25 million for primary research into health and safety and operations of reactors, why would that have not been in the main estimates? Why is this coming in the supplemental estimates?

Mr. Ric Cameron: Over recent years, AECL has been reviewing with government its primary mandate. There were significant adjustments to its appropriation base back in the mid-nineties. That's included continuing evolution of programs and how research is done. It's included some changes in the kinds of investments that have been made by some of the partners—for example, the COG, the CANDU Owners Group.

In essence, then, as we look at the longer-term business plan for AECL this is ensuring that they have the money to continue to do the particular aspects of the public policy research—

Mr. Jim Pankiw: So this is something that crept into the long-term funding that wasn't previously there.

Mr. Ric Cameron: This is, as I said, kind of working with the crown corporation to ensure that it and the government are comfortable with its longer-term mandate and the financing for it.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: My last question, Mr. Chair, is in respect to the anti-dumping and countervailing duties for softwood lumber exports to the United States.

Can you tell me specifically what involvement the Minister of Natural Resources has had on behalf of Canada to remove that unfair trade duty that's crippling our softwood lumber industry?

Mr. Bruce Holden: I'm afraid, since we don't have moneys for that activity in the supplementary estimates, we do not have officials here who can answer that question.

The Chair: Mr. Pankiw, the parliamentary secretary has offered information about the question you had, which is similar to the answer you just got. With your permission, I'll ask Monsieur Serré to respond.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Sure.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In line with what the department official has just said, he's here today to deal with the supplementary estimates and not the main estimates, so this information can't be provided to you today. Nobody from the forestry sector is here, because nothing in the supplementary deals with forestry.

But I'm sure the official can endeavour to give you that information at a later date. We just don't have it today, because this meeting is to deal with the supplementary estimates only.

• 1635

The Chair: And it won't be part of the votes that we have today.

Carry on.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: But that information will be provided to the chair?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes.

The Chair: Are we in a position to provide it now? No.

When the information is available, we'll share it with everyone, and before we proceed to the votes.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: There's an item in here I don't quite understand. Under “operating budget carry forward”, the figure is over $20 million. I'd like some explanation of what this is, and what the money is going to be used for.

Mr. Bruce Holden: I can take that question.

As members would know, it has been government policy that funds that are unspent at the end of the fiscal year lapse, but it was felt that this practice perhaps encouraged the managers to use up funds at year end. Treasury Board instituted a process whereby departments were allowed to carry forward up to 5% of their operating budgets from the previous fiscal year to the new fiscal year. This is a way of encouraging good planning and management of funds.

NRCan is requesting $20.4 million, which represents the operating dollars it had last year that were unspent. That is within the 5% ceiling. We will use it to meet commitments we have for specific projects.

The biggest examples I can give you include, for instance, the Port Hope cleanup, $3.7 million; the Climate Change Action Fund, $3.3 million; facilities-related expenditures, $3.6 million; and our GeoConnexions and Government On-Line programs, $0.9 million. Those are some of the examples.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I'm not an economist by trade, and I don't understand; you've already budgeted for the cleanup. It's already there, as are those other items you just mentioned. So where is the $20 million going to go?

Mr. Bruce Holden: We had funding for the Port Hope cleanup last year, for the management of that. Not all the funding we had last year was spent, so we carry it over to this year and we add that. We will use that money for that purpose this year. In addition, there is a supplementary amount for new work for this coming year.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Okay. In effect, then, the cleanup at Port Hope is going to cost more than the $6 million you've allocated here.

Mr. Bruce Holden: That's right. That's new money that would be allocated this fiscal year. To that we add money we had available from last year.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I'm still on this whole climate change issue. I'd like to quote from Canada's environment commissioner—a creation of this government, I might add—on her reaction to what's happening with the climate change initiative and the fact that we've budgeted $1.1 billion. She says:

To figure out what is going on—if we are progressing; if so, where?—there is no way. There is no way to get clear, short, snappy information about it. [The information] is available, but it's piecemeal information. Fragmented and piecemeal. And when you want to have a picture of the situation, you can't. And I think Canadians deserve, and Parliament deserves, wrapped-up information that clearly states where we're at and how we still need to get to the minus-six [per cent] reduction.

Later on in the same article, the minister's director of communications says that officials are currently working on a detailed economic analysis based on the legal text of the protocol.

My question, as it was before, is will that detailed cost benefit analysis be available to Canadians before the government ratifies the Kyoto protocol?

Ms. Sue Kirby: And my reply remains as it was before, that in terms of doing a cost benefit analysis, there is a national process under way involving federal and provincial governments. That analysis is being done jointly and is being shared as it's available. There will be another discussion amongst federal and provincial ministers in February, and that will be ongoing until the time of the ratification decision.

The Prime Minister has also made a commitment that there will be full consultation with all Canadians. That is anticipated to happen immediately after the next federal-provincial meeting.

• 1640

Mr. David Chatters: Again, you're suggesting that the process to get us the first third of the way to Kyoto has already been presented to Canadians, and part of it was the announcement yesterday. I defy Canadians anywhere to judge for themselves how what has been presented by your department to this point can possibly get us one-third of the way to the Kyoto protocol. The information is not in a form that allows Canadians to determine where we are in this process. We need more detailed information.

Ms. Sue Kirby: In terms of the one-third, that is an estimate of where we will be when fully implemented in terms of the five-year action plan. As we've said, a lot of that is just beginning. However, there was a progress report tabled at the last joint meeting. If the committee has not had that, I would be very pleased to make it available. I don't have a copy with me today, but I think it is very clear in terms of laying out was has been done up to this point in time.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to meet you. I have not had the opportunity to meet you earlier. I selected this committee, which deals with natural resources, and was granted a seat on it. I am very pleased about that.

My riding is Frontenac—Mégantic. Mégantic produces a great deal of softwood lumber, but the Frontenac region has asbestos mines. We have chrysotile asbestos. We also have magnesium—25%—and we used to have copper and gold mines. We have chrome as well. I could go on, but I think that covers the main metals in the region.

I am very happy that we are discussing the supplementary estimates today, because many jobs have been lost in my region. Because of unfortunate government decisions, the chrysotile asbestos sector has gone from 3,400 jobs to 800 to 900 temporary jobs. I am raising this point because we are promoting asbestos internationally at present. We applied for funding to promote asbestos, since we do have an institute, but the response was not very positive. I heard rumours that there was money around somewhere. In any case, I see the supplementary estimates, and I am eager to know what the official response is.

Natural resources are crucial to regional development. Kyoto is of course an issue, and the environment is very important—we are working hard on all those issues, but natural resources are truly important. We have to think about secondary, tertiary and further manufacturing, as well as added value, but that all takes money. It also takes support. Giving ourselves the means to add value at a secondary, tertiary or even higher level means that we do better in difficult times. So I would ask you not to forget my region, and, in particular, not to forget chrysotile asbestos.

Now for my question. I see that supplementary funding has been requested for operating and capital expenditures. That is a rather vague definition. What exactly will these funds be used for?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Holden.

Mr. Bruce Holden: Treasury Board recently had a program, which they called, colloquially, “program integrity two”, that looked fundamentally at particular departments where there were problems with departmental capacity in discharging some of our fundamental mandates. So the $6.78 million you're referring to was money recommended by the Treasury Board for this year, for the department.

Obviously, it was less than we had hoped for, so we've had to set priorities for that money. We have made three particular allocations.

• 1645

The first allocation is $1.4 million for explosives regulation. That's one of our statutory responsibilities. The second is $3.4 million for emergency mapping and natural hazards response time, natural hazards being earthquakes, landslides, and that sort of thing. Finally, $2 million is to defray costs that have come up concerning offshore boundary disputes.

It was quite fortuitous, in fact, that we got this money, because these decisions were made in advance of the events of September 11. Our decisions to invest in explosives regulation and in emergency mapping and natural hazards fit very well into the response we've had to develop as a result of the events of September 11.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the document that you distributed, which is entitled Supplementary Estimates (A) 2001-2002, on page 56, there is a section entitled “Environment”. I do not know if this issue was put there on purpose, so that we could draw the link with the amount of $50 million set aside for the Sustainable Development Technology Fund, on page 127 of the “Natural Resources” section. On the following page, further detail is provided. There is a vote setting aside $50 million for the Sustainable Development Technology Fund. But when we go back to the “Environment” page, we note that the Sustainable Development Technology Fund appears there as well. Does this mean that the hundreds of millions of dollars, even the billions of dollars, allocated to sustainable development will come from different departments, or does it mean that the same $50 million amount shows up more than once?

[English]

Mr. Bruce Holden: In part the answer is yes and in part the answer is no. What you're seeing as a difference between these pages is further details. So what's on the second page, under grants and contributions, is further detail of what is on the page before. So the $50 million you see on the second page concerning the Sustainable Development Technology Fund is the same $50 million that's on the page before as a line item.

But to go to the other part of your question, yes, there are other elements related to climate change in the supplementary estimates. First, the Climate Change Action Plan 2000 is an item there, totalling $27.3 million. Then the Climate Change Action Fund is listed there at $10 million. So the other part of your question is, yes, other departments show in their estimates money related to some of those same things. For instance, the estimates of the Department of the Environment would show their contribution to the Sustainable Development Technology Fund, which is also $50 million.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: You have probably included the environment section because you wanted to keep us informed, or because you expected us to ask questions about funding for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which will cost $5.3 million. That will be quite a party! What sort of delegation will Canada send to the summit? What sort of delegation will cost $5.3 million?

The Chair: May I interrupt?

The document that you refer to was provided to us by our researchers and not by the department. Consequently, it will be difficult for the witnesses to know how to answer since they are not aware of the document.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Since the Department of Natural Resources is also concerned about sustainable development, I would imagine that it will also be attending this summit in 2002.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Holden: Yes, we will be participating in and contributing to that summit.

• 1650

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Consequently, in addition to the Department of the Environment's contribution, as indicated in your document, there will also be some contribution from the Department of Natural Resources.

[English]

Ms. Sue Kirby: Many departments will be contributing to the summit. It is a summit that is dealing with the tenth anniversary of Rio, as you probably know, so it deals with a broad range of environmental issues. A large number of departments, including Natural Resources Canada, are involved in those preparations and contributions.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the supplementary I see some extra dollars for core operations and capital requirements. I'm very much hoping that in there can be some additional funds to do further geoscience mapping in Nunavut.

The minister and I were on hand to help open the geoscience centre about two years ago in Iqaluit. We were looking at some of the maps of northern Canada for geoscience information. We very much want to develop economic development in the north using our natural resources, and we need that information so that mining companies and exploration companies can make investments up there. They keep telling us they need more information in terms of geoscience.

So I'm wondering if there's any chance of additional funds going for that. The mining industry has told us there needs to be a lot more investment into this area in the future.

Mr. Bruce Holden: I can say there is no funding for northern geoscience being requested through the supplementary estimates, and unfortunately I can't speculate on the success of proposals that may come forward in that area other than to say that it is an area of great interest to our department as well.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Can you tell me what will be covered now under core operational and capital requirements? Or is that the one that...?

Mr. Bruce Holden: That was the program integrity money I was referring to.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay. I'm kind of hoping it will be under information management and technology infrastructure requirements.

Mr. Bruce Holden: That money is another part of the Treasury Board's program integrity exercise. It has been specifically earmarked in the recommendations from Treasury Board for two things, information management and information technology.

The information management side is much more around how we manage the data and the knowledge we have as a knowledge department, and how we can make it better available to Canadians and stakeholders. It's looking at such things as electronic document management systems and so on.

The information technology part of that money is looking at our infrastructure, our ability to move information around the country, and our wide area network investments in security of our IT systems, some of which are much very related to broader concerns of Canadians. For instance, we use that system for our earthquake monitoring and reporting. We use that for forest fire monitoring and reporting and that type of thing.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Just to clarify, then, if a submission did come from the geoscience centre for extra funding from Natural Resources Canada, what category would that fall under in your budget outline?

Mr. Bruce Holden: It would really just fall under the operating budget category, most particularly, but generally speaking those sorts of initiatives would go through a cabinet and budgetary approval process before going to Treasury Board and finally getting into the departmental estimates.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister in his announcement yesterday said there's a target now that 25% of the country's fuel supply over the next few years would be an ethanol blend.

• 1655

Can you tell me how much, if any, of the $425 million announced yesterday was allocated to the development of that program?

Ms. Sue Kirby: That is what's called the future fuels program. In the announcement from yesterday, the allocation is $3 million, but there is also an indirect component that goes to a continuation of the differential in terms of excise tax treatment. So the $3 million is direct spending.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Is there any other money being spent out of this year's budget for ethanol development?

Ms. Sue Kirby: There may be something in Agriculture Canada that I'm not aware of.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But not in NRCan.

Mr. Ric Cameron: We do have, through some of our science and technology programming, work in support of ethanol technology development—for example, Iogen, that's working with Cellulose Inc. So we do have some things that are still at the research stage, and some of those are beginning to move up towards commercialization. But there is no other program money, although there still is money in some of our different research activities relating to that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can you tell me if there was any money allocated out of the funds yesterday for research development or implementation of alternate fuels in wind, solar, wave, or anything else other than fossil fuel, nuclear, or ethanol?

Ms. Sue Kirby: The main area in yesterday's announcement that would be applicable was in the technology innovation program. Now, that's going to accelerate development in a number of areas at the research end, again, and will contribute to research networks in a number of areas, some that will deal with renewable energy.

Mr. Joe Comartin: So that's the $79 million figure?

Ms. Sue Kirby: That's $19 million.

Mr. Joe Comartin: There's a figure quoted of $79 million for energy technology. That's not accurate?

Ms. Sue Kirby: Some of that is international technology as well. I'm quoting the domestic figure.

Mr. Joe Comartin: And of the $19 million, can you break any of it out, either now or later?

Ms. Sue Kirby: I'd have to get it to you. I don't have the detailed breakdown with me.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In response to that question, those specific areas.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: We are now three years down a nine-year timeframe to have our program implemented and to have our greenhouse gas emissions under control. We have no set targets. No province is charged with a target that they have to meet. No organization is. We are now 17% higher than we were in 1990. In spite of 47 government websites, millions of brochures, and tables meeting and delegations travelling around the world, we don't seem to be getting anywhere concrete.

I would ask what the government has spent to date on the implementation of the Climate Change Action Plan, on the actions they've taken to date. What's the total expenditure, total dollars?

Ms. Sue Kirby: The $1.1 billion that was in Budget 2000 has been the main new source of expenditure. That did build on existing investments in energy efficiency that have been made for many years. Again, I can get you some historical figures if that would be of interest, but in recent years the main new spending has been the $1.1 billion.

Mr. David Chatters: But you haven't spent the $1.1 billion yet. I want to know what the government has spent to date on the Climate Change Action Plan, the implementation of the action plan.

Ms. Sue Kirby: Yes, and I had offered to get back to the committee with the spending breakdown for the $1.1 billion, because that's not all in our department. We will have to get back to you.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Chair: This completes the questioning. Is that agreed?

We'll proceed to the votes.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Department

Vote 1a—Natural Resources—Operating expenditures ...... $70,167,446

Vote 5a—Natural Resources—Capital expenditures ...... $936,108

Vote 10a—Natural Resources—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions ...... $58,150,000

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Vote 15a—Payments to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for operating and capital expenses ...... $82,000,000

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Vote 20a—Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission—Program expenditures ...... $5,531,578

Cape Breton Development Corporation

Vote 25a—Payments to the Cape Breton Development Corporation for operating and capital expenditures ...... $57,300,000

National Energy Board

Vote 30a—National Energy Board—Program expenditures ...... $1,267,300

(Votes 1a to 30a inclusive agreed to on division)

• 1700

PRIVY COUNCIL

Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada

Vote 41a—Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada—Program expenditures, the grants listed in the Estimates and contributions ...... $2,995,602

(Vote 41a agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall I report the votes to the House without amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you, friends, for helping us out with this.

We are adjourned.