NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 11, 1999

• 1533

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

We're very pleased and fortunate to have before us today the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Natural Resources. He's going to make a brief statement, I believe. Then, as usual, we'll open the floor to questions.

[Translation]

The departmental officials with him are Yvan Hardy, Mike Cleland, Marc Denis Everell and Jean-Clause St-Pierre. Good day, gentlemen.

Please proceed, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources): Thank you very much, Mr. Serré, and members of the committee. I'm glad to be back with you once again.

When I spoke with your chairman about the subject matter for my appearance today, he suggested that a useful topic might be a focus on the role of technology in the natural resources sector, especially how new technologies can help Canada achieve its objectives with respect to climate change and greenhouse gas reductions.

I'm happy to comply, but let me begin by just setting some context.

For the Canadian natural resources sector as a whole, my overarching objective is to establish Canada as the world's smartest resources developer—the most productive and competitive, the most socially and environmentally responsible, and the most technologically proficient. This means being the best in the world—the most intelligent and innovative in the world at finding, developing, producing, delivering, consuming, and exporting the most sophisticated and diversified range of resource products, services, skills and technologies. Canadian brainpower clearly is the key to all of this.

• 1535

I am frequently aggravated, as I imagine many of you are, by the mistaken notion asserted by far too many people that resource-based industries are somehow more related to the past than to the future, the implication being that our natural resources will diminish in significance in the knowledge-based society of the new millennium.

Such an attitude ignores the fact that in 1997, 12% of Canada's GDP—that is, very close to $90 billion—was derived from our natural resources. Those resources add some $65 billion to the nation's balance of trade; 760,000 direct jobs; 36% of our total exports; and 23% of all new capital investment in the country.

More than 650 communities, or 3.6 million Canadians, many in rural and remote locations, rely for their livelihoods on primarily Canada's resource industries. Increasingly, the skills and the knowledge and the processes required in and of those industries are every bit as high-tech and sophisticated as in any other.

New technology is one of the critical ingredients in steadily enhancing the resource sector's environmental performance in a field like climate change, for example. There are two quite different sides to the role of technology in an issue like climate change. The first is the search for all those technologies Canada needs to meet its Kyoto targets and for the policy instruments needed to encourage uptake of new technology in the marketplace.

On this front, I think you can expect to hear a lot more in the following areas.

The first of these areas is more energy conservation and efficiency. This was the subject of a resolution in the House of Commons just this week. We need more conservation and efficiency throughout our whole economy, including residential buildings, the commercial sector, industrial processes, transportation, public sector operations, consumer behaviour—the whole gamut.

Our tools in dealing with this issue will be more aggressive promotion, regulations where that's appropriate, and targeted incentives to trigger action. We have established an office of energy efficiency within my department to serve as a centre of expertise to promote faster progress.

The second area is greater diversification of Canadian energy sources. Unlike most countries, we are blessed with a powerful mix of energy sources, and we must use that advantage intelligently. Among other things, we need to increase the commercial availability and the practical use of alternative fuels and such renewable power as hydro, solar, wind, earth and bioenergy, and more cogeneration operations as well.

The third area is a market-based approach to future energy investments that will help the process of bringing down emissions. Capital stock turnover is a very key issue. It will be easier for some and more difficult for others to make a timely transition to lower-carbon business operations and more efficient industrial processes.

That's why our work on a tangible crediting system for those who proactively implement early action on climate change is so important. They need to be assured that early action counts.

We're also pursuing the advice of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to investigate an equitable and cost-effective system of domestic emissions trading.

The fourth area is new technology development and deployment. This really underpins everything else. It's the excitement side—the opportunity side, really—of the climate change challenge. It can mean new business opportunities, new jobs, new economic sophistication, new trade potential, and new strategic global positioning.

This leads me directly to the second side of the climate change technology issue—that is, the opportunity for Canada to be a supplier to the world of greenhouse gas technologies. It's all about taking the possibilities of tomorrow and making them work today, selling them globally. Canada's capacity to develop climate change mitigation technologies is already proven, and it's growing.

For example, Conserval Engineering of Toronto has installed its unique Solarwall ventilation system all across North America, and it's now exporting that technology around the world.

• 1540

Rose Technologies, in the field of building retrofits, is growing rapidly and going global, cutting emissions and paying the bills for doing so through the cost savings on energy that are achieved as a consequence.

Suncor is investing in the technology of wind power and carbon sinks, and is testing an emissions-trading contract with a company in New York, Niagara Mohawk.

PanCanadian Petroleum is going to use new carbon dioxide sequestration technology to extend the productive life of an older oil field in Saskatchewan while capturing and removing from the atmosphere the equivalent of emissions from 100,000 automobiles.

Toyota will introduce its new Prius automobile in Canada in 2000. Powered by a combination of both gasoline and electricity, it generates 50% less carbon dioxide than vehicles that run on gasoline alone.

Ford is expanding the commercial availability of factory-installed natural gas vehicles. The RCMP in British Columbia has just taken delivery of 40 new natural gas Crown Victorias, and Ford expects to have a fuel-cell commercial automobile on the road by 2004.

NGV of Lethbridge, Alberta, is preparing to export a natural-gas-powered, cargo-carrying motorcycle to a $1 billion market in Asia.

Municipalities like Toronto, with its atmospheric fund, and my own city of Regina, as an acknowledged energy innovator, are cutting their emissions and saving taxpayers money on their fuel bills at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, the list goes on. It gets longer every day. We still have much further to go, but the critical mass is I think building in a rather impressive way.

As proof of our commitment to working with the private sector in the development of mitigation technologies, the Government of Canada created the Climate Change Action Fund in last year's budget—$50 million per year, in each of the next three years—bringing the total federal investment in the search for climate change solutions to some $200 million annually.

We are using the new Climate Change Action Fund money for four specific purposes: first, to improve our Canadian understanding of the science of climate change; second, to support the development of a comprehensive Canadian climate change strategy in close collaboration with the provinces and many other stakeholders; third, to better inform and engage the general public; and fourth and most importantly, for today's purposes, we're using the fund to help develop and deploy cost-effective new technologies that can lead to significant greenhouse gas reductions.

We call the technology portion of the Climate Change Action Fund our TEAM initiative, which stands for “technology early action measures”. TEAM will represent the largest single portion of our new federal investments over the next three years—namely, at least $56 million.

The TEAM acronym is I think very apt, because this initiative involves meticulous teamwork between Natural Resources Canada, the federal department responsible for the TEAM program, and a variety of other federal departments—as financial partners and cooperating delivery agents—along with a broad range of provinces, municipalities, businesses, industries, and others, including potentially international partners.

To make the government's investments stretch as far as possible, it is critical that we work very closely with vigorous private sector partners who bring to the table not only their very bright ideas but also their own resources to pool with ours.

In the past month, there have been three major TEAM announcements, each of which point to the ability of Canada to carve out a spot for itself in the development of climate change mitigation technologies. All three projects advance technologies that reduce emissions and other pollutants from motor vehicles.

This is particularly important in the overall climate change challenge, Mr. Chairman, because conventional vehicles account for roughly 22% of carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. Every litre of gasoline used in a vehicle produces almost 2.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide. It's clear that improvements in the transportation sector must be at the forefront of our climate change work.

I mentioned that there were three very significant recent investments under the TEAM program. We first invested $10 million in a project by Iogen Corporation of Ottawa, in cooperation with Petro-Canada, to use biotech enzymes to produce fuel ethanol from farm waste.

• 1545

Our next investment was with Hydro-Québec, in the amount of $520,000. The Montreal 2000 electric fleet project is testing 40 electric vehicles under Canadian driving conditions.

Most recently—this past Monday, in fact—I had the pleasure to be in Vancouver to announce an investment of $5.8 million by the Government of Canada in the work of Stuart Energy Systems, a company with operations in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. Stuart has developed a refueller that will be used to service B.C. Transit's three new hydrogen buses, each powered by fuel cells developed by Ballard Power Systems of Vancouver. In fact, the Ballard fuel cell itself came about in part because of earlier investments by the Government of Canada.

Stuart Energy is now about to embark on a new phase of its development, one that's intended to move its fleet refueller toward commercial production. In the longer term, a marriage between Stuart's electrolyzer technology and renewable sources of electricity—hydro power or solar voltaics or wind power, or perhaps nuclear—will yield a truly CO₂-neutral, sustainable transportation fuel system.

The Stuart fleet refueller has the potential to contribute to cleaner city air by cutting a transit bus's CO₂ emissions by 100 tonnes per year. With over 10,000 city buses in Canada, the long-term potential CO₂ and public health savings are indeed significant. I ask you to contemplate the possible export impact with regard to other cities—Los Angeles, or Mexico City, or Seoul, Korea.

So we must do as much as we can to foster increased public and private sector technology investments. We will need—indeed, the world will need—innovative technological solutions to the challenge of climate change, and we should make Canada the place to which the world will look for the very best ideas.

Mr. Chairman, beyond the specific issue of climate change, Canada needs to enhance its overall innovation capacity based upon research, science, and technology to close the productivity gap between our country and some of our major global competitors, particularly the United States. In this regard, some other sectors of the Canadian economy could take some lessons from the natural resources sector.

For example, Canada's mining industry has pulled back from the precipice it faced in the 1980s to become a global leader today. The overall productivity of Canadian mining increased by almost 6% annually between 1989 and 1995. That compares with productivity improvements in the manufacturing sector of only 1.2%, and for the economy as a whole of only 0.5%.

The Canadian natural resources sector is the country's largest investor in new technology. In 1997, for example, our upstream petroleum industry invested close to $15 billion in new capital facilities.

Eric Newell of Syncrude could tell you how 25 years ago it cost over $30 to produce a barrel of oil from the oil-sands. Today that cost is below $14 per barrel, and thanks to new technology, it's still coming down.

In another field, genetic tree improvements, led by NRCan scientists, have resulted in better tree growth and the enhancement of other properties for use in lumber, pulp and paper, and manufactured products.

Another field is geomatics, geological mapping and remote sensing. These techniques led to the recent discovery of diamond deposits in the Northwest Territories, giving a whole new job-creating, value-added dimension to our economy.

The Government of Canada is supporting this drive toward more innovation and enhanced Canadian productivity in a wide variety of ways: through the work of our in-house government labs, of which NRCan has some of the very best; through our research partnership programs with private sector leverage and incentives; through the new Canada Foundation for Innovation; through our expanded networks of centres of excellence; through enhanced funding for the granting councils, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Medical Research Council; through the ongoing strength and leadership of the National Research Council; through some of the world's most generous R and D tax incentives; and through strategic investments in new ventures, such as the Petroleum Technology Research Centre in Regina.

• 1550

All of this is vital to our future productivity. It's vital to our future as a leading-edge, sophisticated nation. It enhances our living standards and our quality of life.

In all the work we undertake with respect to Canadian innovation, we seek partnerships and collaboration with the private sector, with external scientific advice and expertise, with other levels of government, and with a wide range of other stakeholders.

Mr. Chairman, as we move forward together on this very exciting front, I would always value and welcome the input and advice of this committee to attain the goal I mentioned at the outset—to establish Canada as the world's smartest resources developer, user and exporter; the most productive and competitive; the most socially and environmentally responsible; and the most proficient in the pursuit of science and the development and deployment of world-leading technology.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to try to respond to the questions.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Thank you very much, Minister.

[English]

That was a most interesting presentation.

As usual, we will start with the official opposition and then alternate as much as we can.

The minister has to be out of here by 4.45 p.m., so I hope you can keep it to two questions. We can always come back after for a supplementary.

We'll start with Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Thank you for coming to the meeting, Mr. Minister.

I have a couple of questions coming out of the things you said. I think they will be fairly straightforward to answer.

First—and this is somewhat off topic in terms of what you were talking about—out of the Climate Change Action Fund, specifically what portion is designated to enhance Canadian understanding of climate change? Specifically, what money is being spent there, and what, if any, results are we getting there?

Second, I'm interesting in this pilot project that your department invested in, the production of ethanol from animal waste. What is the status of that project, and when will there be something we can look at and assess?

Finally, I'd like to know your department's position on Bill C-48 and the implementation of a marine park covering the entire coastal area of Canada—west, east and northern coasts—in view of the concern being expressed to me about future mineral and energy development off the west coast of Canada, and what impact this marine park development will have on that possibility.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Thank you, Mr. Chatters.

First, about the distribution of the Climate Change Action Fund, as I mentioned, it's $150 million spread over three years. If you take that $150 million figure in total, we expect to invest approximately $56 million in the technology projects—that is, TEAM, the technology early action measures I referred to in my remarks.

We expect to invest some $15 million in science, impacts, and adaptation—that is, the process of fully understanding the fundamental science of climate change. As you know, many of the provinces were very anxious that new resources be devoted in that direction.

We have allotted $34 million for foundation analysis, which is the work of the 15 issue tables—the 450 experts drawn largely from the private sector, in cooperation with the provinces and the federal government—to analyse all the various different issues that go into the climate change challenge, both vertically by sector and horizontally by cross-cutting theme.

As well, for public outreach, which is the process of informing and engaging the public, there is $30 million allotted.

Now, if you add together all those numbers, I believe you'll come up with a total of $135 million.

Mr. David Chatters: But I asked you specifically about the $15 million you've set aside to invest in enhanced understanding. I want to know whether you have invested anything there, and if so, where you have invested it and when you can expect some results, such as a report.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: A variety of initiatives are in the process of being either negotiated or undertaken. I think the best thing, however, Mr. Chatters, to be completely accurate, would be for me to provide you with a written list, a running tally, of all the initiatives thus far on the Climate Change Action Fund that would deal with the adaptation issues you've just referred to, together with the other three components in the fund. I would be happy to provide to the committee a full breakdown.

• 1555

As I was mentioning, if you add together the figures I just referred to, they will total $135 million. That leaves a remainder of $15 million in the fund. We intend to hold that in reserve to act as a bit of a flywheel, or a balance, if you will, to be able to make sure as we move along that we have a little bit of flexibility.

So I would be happy to give you the details on all of the projects that have been confirmed to date.

Your second question related to biotechnology, and the specific investment, I gather, we've made with Iogen Corporation. You referred in your question to animal waste. In fact, the intention here is probably more plant waste—grain straw, and the by-products of harvesting. This technology could conceivably also work with respect to forestry waste—wood chips and that type of thing.

Mr. David Chatters: Specifically, though, have you not invested in the creation of a pilot project in Ottawa to produce ethanol from feedlot waste?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Not feedlot waste, Mr. Chatters, but grain and plant waste. This is the project with Iogen.

Iogen is a biotech company in Ottawa that has a pretty long and successful track record in the development of enzymes for a variety of industrial processes. To give you one example, they produce the enzyme that the jean companies use to stonewash blue jeans. They're the ones that give you the colour, I gather—or the lack of colour—in the blue jeans.

They're involved in the development of industrial enzymes for a wide variety of purposes. They have developed a process for the production of an enzyme that can convert agricultural waste such as grain straw, or plant hulls—the waste product, basically, potentially including wood waste—into a form of ethanol that dramatically reduces the CO₂ output of a gallon of fuel when the ethanol is blended with gasoline.

Mr. David Chatters: I may be mistaken here—and I can't remember the name offhand—but there is a company out of Calgary that's seeking to enter into contracts with feedlots in Alberta to convert feedlot waste to ethanol, specifically to mix with diesel fuel in heavy transportation vehicles.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: That doesn't immediately leap to mind, Mr. Chatters. Quite frankly, if you can identify the proponent for me, I would be happy to follow up.

Mr. David Chatters: I'll maybe contact your department.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I'd be happy to follow it up, because those ideas are exactly the kinds of ideas we need to pursue to make technology work for us.

Incidentally, the other investor who's heavily involved with Iogen is Petro-Canada. So it's a combination between the technological brainpower of this biotech company and the marketing and distribution and production brainpower of Petro-Can that is bringing this project to fruition.

What they're trying to do, basically, is to take the technology that has worked in the lab and do a pilot-scale production facility. If that works, they envisage locating production plants across the country. Since you would logically put the plant near the source of the raw material, there are potential opportunities here for almost every part of the country to take advantage of.

With respect to the notion of marine parks, Mr. Chatters, this is obviously an effort to balance the need to preserve ecologically sensitive and important areas with the obvious need and desire of Canadians to properly develop their resources.

• 1600

What we need, I think, is a practical, common sense approach as these concepts move forward so that we can enjoy the economic advantages we want to have from the development of our resources.

I mentioned a few statistics in my opening remarks that I think demonstrate how fundamentally important to the country those resources are. For instance, 12% of our GDP is pretty significant. We obviously want to continue to enjoy that kind of economic development and enhancement. At the same time, we want to be sensitive to the need to preserve and protect ecologically sensitive and important areas.

So I think a balanced approach here will be the most useful and successful. Certainly my department has a long record of trying to find that right balance so that Canadians can enjoy both a strong and thriving economy and a healthy and secure environment. I don't believe you have to have one at the expense of the other. I think you can have both.

Mr. David Chatters: And you say Bill C-48 achieves that balance?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: That's certainly our objective, Mr. Chatters. I'd be glad to have a more detailed discussion with you if you think the legislation is in some way not appropriate.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Thank you, Mr. Chatters.

We'll move on to Monsieur de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): It's a pleasure to have you here. In your presentation, you gave a fairly comprehensive overview of the current state of Canada's natural resources sector.

Given the present situation and further to the Kyoto commitments, what can we expect to see in the future in terms of development and exploration of our oil, natural gas and coal resources?

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I think the future is very positive, Monsieur de Savoye. I also think the key to making sure it is positive is the development and deployment of those strategic technologies that I referred to.

The ability of energy-producing companies to explore, develop, and produce on an increasingly energy-efficient basis is absolutely fundamental. When I look at the statistics of what members of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or Canadian Energy Pipeline Association or Canadian Electricity Association have accomplished in, say, the last five or ten years in terms of reducing the energy intensity of their operations and increasing their efficiency so that they are able to produce more and at the same time restrain the production of CO₂, I think it really is quite remarkable.

Tonight, as a matter of fact, I will be attending an event sponsored by the VCR, the voluntary challenge and registry program, which is now in the private sector. It's still done in collaboration with government, but it's driven by the private sector. It's the vehicle by which members of the private sector challenge themselves and challenge each other to perform better and better in terms of energy efficiency.

So tonight we will be honouring some of the leaders in Canadian business and industry who have performed particularly well in not only achieving but also exceeding their energy efficiency goals.

The way in which they have done that, apart from just good, astute, business management, is through the pursuit and application of new technologies in how they search for and develop an energy deposit, how they produce it, how they transport it, and in many cases, how they export it internationally.

So it's good business combined with world-leading technology. That really is the key.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If we want to promote exploration, given that natural resources come under provincial jurisdiction, there needs to be sound cooperation between federal officials and various provincial officials.

• 1605

Is your department taking the necessary steps to harmonize federal and provincial procedures, specifically between Ottawa and Quebec, when it comes to issuing oil exploration permits?

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Well, we have developed, to deal with this issue of emissions trading or any other issue in relation to climate change—

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I'm not taking about emissions trading but exploration permits. Exploration for petroleum in a province like Quebec needs two permits, one from the province, which would be true for Nova Scotia, Newfoundland—you name it—and one from Ottawa. But if you want to favoriser the exploration process, the bureaucracy must be as minimal as possible.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I see what you're getting at, yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: How is this done, actually, especially between Ottawa and Quebec?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I see your point now.

This is an issue that is the subject of every federal-provincial meeting I've attended as Minister of Natural Resources with my provincial and territorial counterparts. I understand the same was so for my predecessor.

Ministers are constantly turning their attention to this question: How do we work well together between the various orders of government and minimize overlap and duplication, making sure at the same time that all of our respective responsibilities are properly discharged?

One of the things we've done this past year in relation to all of the provinces is to try to identify, collaborating not only between governments but also with the private sector, those areas of government activity or regulation where the industry believes there can be improvement in terms of the efficiency of government—that is, whether it's federal or provincial, just do the job better and more efficiently.

The federal government has led the way, with the cooperation of most of the provinces, in identifying where there are problems or frictions or unnecessary duplication and in seeing what we can do among us to eliminate those things so that we have a good system that properly protects the public interest, that respects each level of government's appropriate jurisdiction, and functions efficiently so that business and industry can get on with business and industry.

The Canadian mining and prospecting associations have been particularly vigorous in bringing examples to our attention where they think there can be improvement. I would not make the assertion that we have yet done everything that needs to be done, but this item is on our annual agenda every year. Ministers sit down and review: What are the impediments standing in the way? Where can we work better together? How can we eliminate the overlap and the duplication?

So it's a regular item on every meeting of the ministers, and every year we're able to report some additional progress where we've ironed out differences and made the system work.

Perhaps I could give you some examples of approaches that have been successful. We had a very good, collaborative process in doing all of the regulatory work on the new Ekati diamond mine up in the Northwest Territories, where there was a whole variety of overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. We found a way to make all of that work and to deliver a product, on time, with everybody's regulations being satisfied and everybody's jurisdiction being respected.

We had a very good, collaborative approach in analyzing the Cardinal coal mine in Alberta. We had another very collaborative approach in dealing with the Sable offshore gas process, off the coast of Nova Scotia.

• 1610

In those examples there were different regulatory responsibilities and overlapping regimes, and we came to an agreement before the process started about how we would fit this all together and make it work so that the regulatory responsibilities were discharged, jurisdictions were respected, the job got done, and the public interest was properly protected.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Can I make some concluding remarks?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): It's been 10 minutes, Pierre. Be quick.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: May I suggest that you invest more effort in that direction? Because when a permit for oil exploration is allowed in Quebec, it's more than two years afterwards that the feds will come in. In oil exploration, that's a lot of time.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: If there are specific illustrations, Mr. de Savoye, that you would like to draw to my attention, I would be happy to pursue them and to see what we can do to speed it up.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Thank you very much. Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): I have three brief questions.

Good afternoon and welcome to our committee.

We here are greatly interested in the development and wellbeing of rural and northern regions, whether in northern Ontario or Quebec. Can you outline for us the benefits of S & T activities on rural communities? Can these benefits be increased and if so, how?

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: We have a variety of existing programs—I referred to them very briefly in my remarks—for the development of technologies that relate to the mining industry, for example, in Mr. Serré's area, or to the forestry sector, particularly of interest in your area, and oil and gas in the west, to the north, or offshore.

I guess what I would suggest is that if you have a community with a specific idea or concept they would like to bring to the government's attention to see if any of our existing research and development programs would be helpful, we would certainly be happy to examine them. We have some programs specifically designed for rural and remote areas relating to alternative energy developments and fuel supplies in areas that are not connected to any kind of national or regional grid.

For example, some communities are totally dependent upon fuel oil that is shipped in at great expense. We have new technology programs in our energy sector that focus on developing alternative and renewable sources of supply for those communities and on helping them analyse what kind of supply source would be reasonable and then what tools they need to pursue it.

In this department we are very sensitive to the point that many of those 650 communities that depend on natural resources are rural, remote, and in a number of cases, aboriginal communities. We are anxious to make sure that the benefits of technology flow to all Canadians, not just those who happen to live along the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence Seaway or the 49th parallel. Rural and remote Canadians deserve to benefit as well.

I would be more than happy to work with individual members—or with the committee, Mr. Serré—on finding ways to make our technology programs relevant to rural Canada. I know Minister Vanclief, as the minister responsible for rural initiatives, would be anxious to cooperate with this as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Just as a point of information, Guy, we are having the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who's also in charge of rural economic development, before us on Tuesday.

Any other questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have a second question for you. When we think about R & D, we think about the CANMET labs in Ontario and Quebec, in particular the Val d'Or lab, which are primarily regional facilities. There is some concern today about the survival of this lab. I understand that some agreements have been worked out with the school board. The government is banking a great deal on new technology and on pilot projects.

• 1615

Could Canada and Quebec come to some kind of agreement to ensure the survival of this facility?

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: The CANMET labs historically have been absolutely fundamental to the success of the department and to the contribution it makes to the industry.

Perhaps Jean-Claude St-Pierre, acting assistant deputy minister for the minerals and metals sector of the department, can address this from his perspective.

Jean-Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude St-Pierre (Director General, Mineral Technology Branch, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you, Minister.

You have touched on an issue that is very important to the survival of the mining sector. As you know, the Val d'Or facility is working on two very important projects aimed at lowering mining production costs through S & T activities. As the Minister indicated, two things will ensure the survival of our mines: firstly, new technologies such as CANDRILL which is currently under development. This water-powered drill will improve drilling speed by 50 per cent, thereby lowering energy costs, ensuring a healthier environment at the mine and protecting the safety and health of miners.

Lower costs as a result of new technologies have enabled mines in northwestern Quebec to continue operating despite plummeting gold prices. We can thank technology for this, even though we find ourselves competing with operations that have much lower labour costs than ours.

Technology will ensure the survival of our mines. It will also help to extend their lifespan. These are two very important considerations for rural communities.

As far as CANMET's survival is concerned, the Val d'Or laboratory is not in any danger of closing. It works very closely in partnership with the province. The SOREDEM Consortium, Hydro Quebec and a South African company are working to develop the new CANDRILL technology.

As you also mentioned, we have entered into a partnership agreement with the Val d'Or school board. The new experimental mine in Val d'Or is committed to training miners and demonstrating new technologies to them, so that they and the mining companies can adopt these technologies more readily.

Therefore, for the time being, the Val d'Or lab is not under any threat whatsoever. It is very active and very involved in this sector.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Thank you very much.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a visitor here, and I have to say, two questions? We'd have a revolt on the justice committee if we were so limited. But we talk a lot.

I have a couple of questions, coming out of Mr. St-Julien's questions in particular, with regard to research and development in rural communities.

Minister, you and I have talked about this, so you appreciate where I'm coming from on this, although I promise to stay away from that issue.

In research and development in new, emerging technologies, is there a role for that in economic development in other regions of the country—and I'm thinking particularly of centres of excellence—in areas, including my own community, where they have been so affected by the decline in the traditional resource-based economies?

That's my first question. I do have others.

• 1620

Mr. Ralph Goodale: The short answer, which I would certainly like to work on in a very constructive way, Mr. Mancini, is “yes”.

The thing about technology is this: it is a delimiting factor. It tends to make location and distance less relevant. It overcomes some of those historic impediments that have been a part of the very fibre of our country, in many ways, but have tended to constrain our economic abilities because of distance and geography and so forth. Technology helps us to get past all of that.

Certainly with respect to the specific community that you represent, I fully appreciate the traumatic transformation that is going on there. In the economic transition and development side of our package of proposals with respect to Cape Breton, I would certainly be anxious to identify with the local community, and to pursue vigorously, any technology-based initiatives that can offer the prospect of broader and deeper and more diversified economic prospects for the region.

I would say to you and to others in Cape Breton that I would be very anxious to consider very seriously technological solutions that offer opportunities for the future, whether they be related to the challenges of environmental remediation or any other dimension. I would think those would be very high on the list of things people would want to examine carefully for the future.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you for that.

In terms of energy efficiency, I was glad to hear you mention a motion that was adopted by the House, and that came from my party, on the retrofitting of government buildings.

I'm intrigued by what has been described to me as “net metering”, which, as I understand, is community ownership of power sources whereby what isn't used reverts back to the primary source of energy.

Is that seen as an efficient way to reduce energy consumption in the country?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Maybe I could ask Mr. Cleland to comment on that.

Mr. Mike Cleland (Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Briefly, yes, it's one of many methods. It really depends a lot on the particular circumstances, though, of the electric utility and the provincial regulatory environment in which they work.

Clearly, as we move into a deregulated environment, what we're doing is finding these types of mechanisms for balancing energy loads and for finding the most efficient ways to supply the energy.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Just on that point—and I'm thinking back to Mr. de Savoye's original question about how governments work together on issues of this nature—one of the things we have been able to move forward on in the past year is the level of understanding amongst all provincial governments about the interconnection of electricity grids, the issue of wheeling power from one jurisdiction to another, and the ability to interconnect with power utilities in the United States.

That has been a point of some serious contention among provincial governments in Canada for a long time. This year we arrived at an agreement among ministers about the energy-related aspects. There are other constitutional issues that other ministers are arguing about in other forums, but as far as the energy interconnections are concerned, this is an area where the energy ministers I think made some real progress in understanding how all of these grids interconnect with each other and in making sure it works in a coordinated way into the future.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Short question, short answer—order.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peter Mancini: You're tough.

It's been reported to me—and you'll appreciate this, because we talked about subsidies in the resource industry, which is of particular concern to me—that federal subsidies for the atomic energy corporation have totalled something like $15 billion.

Am I correct in saying that?

• 1625

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I can get you the exact number, Mr. Mancini, but my recollection is that right from the creation of AECL, the contribution of government has been in the order of $6 billion for its research and development side. That would go back over many years, so on an annual basis, it's a relatively small number.

But I would be happy to get the detail of AECL's financing so that you can see that laid out all in one place. Of course, it's all there in their annual reports, but I'll get for you the flow over time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Thank you.

Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you very much, Minister, for your presentation.

At one point, I heard you say something that made me pause. You referred to productivity and to the gap between productivity levels in Canada and productivity levels in countries that are our major competitors in the natural resources sector.

I have a question for you.

[English]

How does Canada compare?

First, who are our major competitors? Just take a couple of sectors in natural resources. How do we compare on the productivity level? How do we compare in terms of financial support for technology and research, and how do we compare when it comes to the qualifications of our workforce?

[Translation]

If we want Canada to become the most technologically advanced country, we need a highly educated and highly skilled workforce. When I look at provincial statistics on youth skills, the dropout rate and so forth, I can't help but be concerned. That's my first question.

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: My point, Ms. Jennings, was really to say that overall in the economy of Canada, we have suffered from a phenomenon that Minister Manley has referred to from time to time as the “innovation gap”, one that has tended to have an impact on our productivity and caused us to lag behind in overall economic terms compared with other countries.

Now, with respect to the natural resources sector, we are in fact doing better than many other sectors of the economy. I was trying to make the point that some other sectors might take some examples from natural resources. It is, in fact, in the natural resources sector that the private sector in Canada is making the largest investment in technological improvements.

So the natural resources sector is doing pretty well compared with its international competition in the field of technology, but it's a rapidly moving field, and we have to continue to do very well in order to keep up to the pack.

I would be happy to file with the committee some exact statistical comparisons with a variety of countries around the world. Perhaps the most relevant would be in relation to the United States. I'll certainly try to provide that information so that you can see it in tangible form.

In the resources sector, the rates of innovation and investment in new technology are better than in many other sectors of the Canadian economy. That's why, in internationally competitive terms, our natural resources sector stands up pretty well against its competition around the world.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: How well?

• 1630

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Some of this is subjective, and you might say it's in the eye of the beholder, but in the case of both mining and oil and gas, I think we rank with the very best in the world.

Dr. Hardy is head of the Canadian Forest Service, which is in its 100th year.

How do we do in forestry compared with the rest of the world?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Hardy ( Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forestry Service, Department of Natural Resources): The situation is pretty similar to what we have in the mining and energy sectors. Approximately 20 years ago, the sector underwent a major overhaul in eastern Canada and as a result, plants are now extremely modern facilities. In western Canada, because the industry was developed a little later, there was somewhat of a competitive advantage for a period of time. Some restructuring is still needed. However, overall, this industry is technologically advanced, highly modern and extremely competitive.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. What about the workforce?

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: That area, where I think Canadians do rank very well—again, we'll try to get you the detailed statistics—is always a moving target. That's why we have to have the constant investment and reinvestment in the enhancement of skills.

That's what a big chunk of last year's federal budget was about—the “opportunities” strategy, as it was called. If my memory serves me correctly, there will be something like $4.6 billion over the next four to five years to make sure Canadians are in a position to keep up with the skills development and skills acquisition needed in what is a knowledge-driven economy. Natural resources are very much part of that.

I had the opportunity last summer to visit a small rural community in east-central Alberta that is one of the major pipeline control centres for the whole country. A few years ago, the only economic base in and around that community would have been agriculture. As a former Minister of Agriculture, I don't diminish the importance of that one iota. Agriculture is fundamental. But now, in addition to agriculture, that community has this high-tech control centre that from one computer room monitors one-third of the oil production for a big chunk of Alberta. There are people employed there who would not have had that kind of job opportunity historically—good, upscale, high-tech jobs in a small rural community, brought there because of the sophistication and brainpower of the oil and gas sector.

On these issues, I think Canadians rank well, but it is a moving target. The pace is constantly accelerating, and we cannot let down our focus on keeping ahead.

I will try to provide you with some statistics on both the innovative and skills capacity of Canadians in the natural resources sector as compared with our competition.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And the investments.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Monsieur Bernier.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the minister and his staff for meeting with us.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Our pleasure.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Yesterday I had the pleasure to meet with some of the miners from DEVCO in Cape Breton. Let me assure you, they were not happy campers.

I've been a businessman for over 20 years. One of my companies is unionized, and I know that if you want to settle early retirements or any pensions, usually it's not based on how old you're going to be but on how many years' service you have. They claim that, for them, they have to be 50 years old to be eligible. By the time the mine shuts down next year, some of them will have over 30 years' service for that company, yet one of them will be short by 14 days to be eligible for a pension.

Why that big turnaround?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Just as a point of clarification, this is definitely not in the scope of today's meeting, but if the minister wants to answer, it's up to him.

• 1635

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Mr. Serré, I would be happy to answer. I know the importance of the issue.

What we have tried to provide in the human resources package with respect to DEVCO is a substantial enrichment of what would normally be required simply by the application of standard corporate policy, or the standard application of the collective agreement between the corporation and its unions. It's enhancement and enrichment to deal with precisely the kind of difficult circumstances you have described.

In dealing with pension arrangements, there are different formulas by which you calculate what amounts to an eligible position. Very often the calculation is based upon age plus years of service, and usually the trigger age is in the neighbourhood of 55 to 60. You'll note that in this case it's 50, not 55. Again, the process has been moved in that direction, trying to accommodate as many people can be accommodated.

The enriched human resources package consists of $111 million in total. We expect about $60 million of that to be used for the new pensions being provided, a further $46 million for the severance arrangements, and a further $5 million for training. Added together, that's the $111 million.

There is also an existing pension plan at DEVCO that has within it the capacity to handle approximately 137 people. They have not yet taken advantage of it. So under what I'll call the “old” pension arrangements, there is pension room for about 137 positions. Under the “new” pension arrangements, which I was just discussing, there will be approximately 138 people who qualify for that at the end of March of this year. As well, as time goes by, more and more people will qualify. We anticipate that by the end of 2000, the number would have risen to 340 under the new plan, in addition to the 137 who qualify under the old plan. So the 340 needs to be added to the 137.

The severance arrangements would apply to about 650 people, we suspect. Again, the exact severance that would be available to any one individual depends on their individual circumstances, but on average—and there will be some above the average and some below—the severance payment would be in the neighbourhood of $70,000.

In addition to that, there would be a training allowance of an additional $8,000 per person to help those who wish to acquire additional training.

I fully acknowledge that this is a difficult and challenging set of circumstances, but this human resources package I've described is about 30% better than what the bare collective agreements would require. It compares very favourably with the human resources packages developed in the case of job losses at Nova Scotia Power or Marine Atlantic. It's as good or better than those circumstances, which are perhaps comparable.

It seems, in all the circumstances, to be as fair as it could possibly be, still recognizing that whenever you establish eligibility criteria, there are always people on both sides of the line, which makes it difficult.

• 1640

Now, to the extent that the corporation has flexibility within its financial parameters, I would fully expect the corporation to exercise that flexibility, being reasonable and cooperative in relation to these difficult circumstances in which individuals might find themselves.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I have one more small question.

Yesterday my leader was speaking in Halifax. I'll read what he said: “Ottawa is treating the Atlantic region like Canada's orphan”. He compared the DEVCO shutdown with the closing of CFB Summerside, which was done by the previous Conservative government in 1989. He also said that when the base was closed at Summerside, the federal government opened a GST processing plant there to try to stimulate the local economy.

I know you're going to be putting money into retraining—I think your number was about $5 million—but is that all? What are you prepared to do to try to help those people or to try to bring something else into the local economy, to stimulate that economy?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Short answer.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Let me very briefly describe the whole package.

Over the last three years, we have provided $69 million to DEVCO in terms of a repayable loan. That was obviously a burden on its balance sheet that would have restricted its ability to continue into the future and to be as generous as possible with its employees. So we have written off that $69 million liability to relieve a financial burden on the corporation.

We've provided $41 million to make sure DEVCO can meet all of its obligations, including its obligations to its employees to March 31, 1999. We've provided an additional $40 million for the support of DEVCO's ongoing operations through the year 2000.

In addition to that, we have provided the $111 million human resources package that I described a few moments ago, which deals with additional pensions, severance, and training.

In addition to that, we are contributing $68 million to economic adjustment and development measures specifically in Cape Breton. It's my understanding that the province has indicated they will be adding some additional provincial resources.

So there will be at least $68 million for economic development coming from the Government of Canada with an additional contribution, on top of that, from the Province of Nova Scotia.

In addition to that, there is the ongoing programming of ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, which over the next four years would combined add up to about an additional $80 million going into the Cape Breton economy at the rate of about $20 million a year over four years.

As well, there are the programs and services of the Human Resources Development Canada, particularly the active measures programs that HRDC provides. They anticipate investing approximately $35 million a year, for a total of $140 million, to assist people in the Cape Breton area.

If you add all that together, it's a financial package that exceeds $500 million in total, aimed at three things—supporting the ongoing operations of DEVCO for as long as that is possible; providing the human resources package to assist the affected workers; and providing the economic development component to broaden and strengthen and diversify the Cape Breton economy.

As opportunities emerge for specific programs or projects that might be identified as appropriate in Cape Breton, certainly I will be among the leading advocates of the Cape Breton location for important new undertakings, whether they be in the technology field, which Mr. Mancini referred to, or some form of government operations.

I don't want to inflate expectations, but I want you to know that I will be keeping my eyes open for the opportunities that may present themselves.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. Some of the business people in Calgary are very active in the east coast offshore, and I urged them to do the same, to think of the challenges in Cape Breton and what sound business investment they might be able to do to help.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Thank you.

• 1645

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I know the chairman's supposed to be neutral, but I got these statistics, Gilles, about two weeks ago.

Through ACOA, eastern Canada gets $143 of economic development money per capita, with an average unemployment rate of 14%. In northern Ontario, with an unemployment rate of 16%, they get $24 per capita. That's not counting the hundreds of millions for DEVCO and that's not counting TAGS or all those other programs.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Yes, but you're talking about the whole of the Atlantic provinces here, not just Cape Breton.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): So if they were considered an orphan, how would we feel in northern Ontario?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: That's a wider area.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): The difference between the Speaker of the House and the chair of the committee here is that the Speaker of the House can't turn a guy's speaker off, and you can.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Duncan: I realize the minister said he could stay until 4.45, but I would like a chance as well, and it's now 4.45 p.m.

You talked in your presentation about $150 million over three years for the Canadian Climate Change Action Fund. When I compare that with my concern for our existing resource industries, and the fact that we have market access problems and growing difficulties, and to the best of my knowledge, your department's spending somewhere in the order of $30 million in promoting our international resource industry products overseas, then to me, something doesn't add up.

I read your comments—it was reported in a January 30 National Post column—about access to markets for forest products. When I read that I thought maybe you'd taken some of my earlier comments to heart.

My first question—and I'll give you all my questions, because I realize time is limited—is will the minister be prioritizing more dollars for those kinds of endeavours? Just in that one resource industry we certainly have problems in Europe and we have problems in Japan. I know there's more than one initiative being presented to the federal government to do some really effective work on that front, particularly in Japan in terms of the fact that it was a collapsing market, but it's our main market, and we have to retain market share there.

My second question relates to the assumption that seems to underlie the way the department, although not just your department, is operating, that the Kyoto protocol is a fait accompli, and we'll just march off in that direction. I'm well aware of the commitments that were made—and not made by our major trading partner, the United States.

I talked to the Alaskan senator. Advice and consent remain the senate's job, and they basically aren't buying that the U.S. is going to have a reduction over 1990 levels. There was a 95-0 vote in the House of Representatives that this was their position before they ever sent their negotiator to Kyoto. That was their advice.

The comment made to me was, “They didn't follow our advice, so they'd better not—”

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): If you want an answer, you'd better ask a question. You've been five minutes on your question.

Mr. John Duncan: Why is government acting so hastily on that front?

My final question relates to the Canadian coal industry. The signal that government is sending is that the Canadian coal industry can be sacrificed in the name of Kyoto.

Is that the message you're trying to send, and if not, can you please reassure that industry?

Mr. Ralph Goodale: I'm glad to have those questions.

• 1650

First of all, on the issue of promoting our natural resources products in global markets, that is an aspect of the government's work that I believe very strongly in. With respect to natural resources I think historically there has been an operating assumption that government might focus upon trade law and market access issues—get the trade agreements right, get the framework right—and then just leave it to the private sector to take advantage of the marketing opportunities within that framework.

So it was the government's job to get rid of tariff barriers and hidden trade restrictions and so forth. That was a proper role for government, whereas the private sector would do the marketing, would do the selling, would do the promotion.

I think that distinction is still generally sound and valid, but I do think there is a role to be played by government, in speaking on behalf of all Canadians, to get engaged to a certain extent in market development and market promotion, particularly when we are faced with what I would call “misinformation campaigns”—or perhaps even “disinformation”—on the part of certain groups or interests internationally that are having the effect of sullying the reputation of Canada.

So it's an area I feel strongly about. I've had the opportunity to talk with the Forest Sector Advisory Council and with representatives of the Council of Forest Industries. I've had some conversations with the provinces, including the minister in British Columbia.

I believe we need to develop a coordinated strategy here, one that goes beyond that which we have traditionally done. We have traditionally relied upon our embassies and our posts abroad to straighten the record, to provide accurate information, and to clear up the misinformation or the misconceptions.

We've had a partnership effort with the provinces such that if a certain province was being accused of some bad practice, we would invite people in from other countries, either the complainants or the potential buyers, and ask them to come and see for themselves what Canadian practices were like. Many times, having come and seen for themselves, they've changed their minds about what they've been told about Canada; it just wasn't true or factual.

All of that effort is good and valuable, and it will continue, but I think in consultation with the sector and with the provinces and with professional groups like the Forest Sector Advisory Council and the Council of forest Industries and so forth, we have to put together a more concerted effort to promote the good name of Canadian resource industries, to promote our products and our methodologies internationally, and to clear up the record.

The full detail of what that might involve, Mr. Duncan, is not yet fully developed—I'm still talking with the stakeholders about the concept—but I think we have to do more than what perhaps has traditionally been the case in the past.

With respect to climate change, there are those, of course, who would urge us not to do anything because of their doubt about the science. There are others who would say we're not moving nearly fast enough on what is a very serious impending global problem.

We are taking an approach that I would describe as both deliberative and proactive. It's deliberative in the sense that we have established with the provinces and with the private sector the issues tables that are intended to give us that good, solid, foundational analysis about climate change circumstances in Canada—the opportunities to be seized, the obstacles that need to be overcome, the best practices that can be shared, and the long-term strategic directions we should pursue.

• 1655

There are 15 issues tables working on that challenge, and 450 Canadians involved in the process. It's very open, very transparent, and very inclusive of all of the various interest groups.

So we're trying very hard to take everybody's interests into account as we move this file forward. At the same time, we're trying to identify those areas in which we can be very proactive and move quickly. The technology issues, many of which I referred to earlier today, are areas upon which I think we can make progress very rapidly.

The challenge here is to achieve the right balance and to demonstrate that we can effectively marry good, solid environmental policy and practice with good, solid economic policy and practice, and that the two are not mutually exclusive. I think Canadians want both. Our objective is to deliver both.

With respect to the coal industry, I think that gets me right back to the technology theme I talked about at the outset. Developing those cleaner coal technologies of the future will not only help us in our production and exploitation of that resource within Canada but it will also give us the technology that we can sell to the rest of the world.

Already, if you take existing Canadian coal technology and apply it in China, it has a huge impact for the better in terms of the global climate. In fact, CIDA is right now engaged in relationships with the Chinese to do just that—namely, take Canadian brainpower with respect to coal and apply it to China. It will make a big difference for the climate if we're successful in doing that, and it should also, under the international rules we're working to set up, accrue a credit back to Canada, because that's the country from which the technology came.

In fact, there's mention of CANMET, our research lab at Bell's Corners. It might be an interesting field trip for the committee to see the kind of technology that's being pursued just outside the outskirts of Ottawa.

It's sponsored by the mining industry of Canada, in conjunction with NRCan, developing these new technologies that can help us with the challenges of the future.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): That's subject, Mr. Minister.

Mr. St-Julien, you have 15 seconds for a second question, which would demand a 30-second answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have two brief questions for the minister. Could you provide us with a table showing exactly how much the federal government has invested in R&D in the mining sector over the past ten years and how much each province has received? That's my first question.

For my second question, Canada's mining industry was greatly affected by the state of the global economy in 1998. Thousands of jobs were lost this past year in northern Ontario and in northern Quebec. Do you have of a pilot project in the works to revitalize mineral exploration in northern regions of these two Canadian provinces during the next two years?

[English]

Mr. Ralph Goodale: In terms of the statistics—R and D in relation to mining per province over the last 10 years—can we ferret out that detail?

Mr. Jean-Claude St-Pierre: Yes.

Mr. Ralph Goodale: Thank you.

Your second question deals with mining developments for the future. The real challenge we have—and it's not unique to Canada—is international commodity prices. This obviously has had an impact on the mining business worldwide.

One of the things that has been a Canadian strength in the face of international difficulties is actually how well our mining industry has stood up compared with the mining industries of some other countries.

But the real solution for the long term is a recovery in those commodity prices. That makes all the difference in the world in terms of the viability of existing mines and the coming on stream of future mines.

• 1700

That's not the sole point in debate between Premier Tobin and the developers at Voisey's Bay, but it's one of the critical factors that goes into the formula. If the prices for the raw commodity were a lot higher, the owner of the resource and the developer of the resource would have less of a disagreement between them at the moment. I won't comment any further on their disagreement; that's up to them to resolve.

Let me just make this observation, Mr. Saint-Julien. If this committee wanted to pursue this topic about what can be done in a period of low commodity prices to promote mining activity in Canada, then that's a topic I would be happy to discuss with members of the committee, or with the chair, at some future date. It's not an easy problem to solve. You can't build the future on the basis of some form of perpetual subsidization. There has to be an economic underpinning to this to make sense. But if the committee has suggestions to make, I'd like to hear them.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): I'd just like to point out that we received a report entitled Think Rural which focuses at length on rural economic development. This report deals with a number of issues that you would like to discuss. The government has also issued a formal response to this report. That would be a good starting point.

Moreover, this topic will more than likely be discussed next Tuesday when the committee welcomes the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Benoît Serré): It now being 5 p.m., I would like to thank Mr. Goodale and all his department people for being here today. It was well worth the time.

Members of the committee, until next week.