[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 16, 1995
.1530 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Order, please. I see a quorum.
[Translation]
In ten days, we will be studying the Main Estimates for the Department of Natural Resources. Today, we are very pleased to have the Minister with us. We are pleased here today to have the Minister of Natural Resources in our study of the main estimates for her department.
[English]
We'll proceed with the usual format, where we'll have the minister make a statement followed by questions and answers. I believe the minister has some commitments somewhere around 5 p.m. If we want to continue on, the parliamentary secretary and staff members will be here to assist us if we have further questions. I would remind members that we have a large room here and it's hard to hear at times, so speak up and also to try to keep your comments direct and give everyone a chance when it comes to question period to ask those questions.
[Translation]
Welcome, Madam Minister.
Ms Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): I am happy to find myself among colleagues to talk about Natural Resources Canada.
[English]
First of all, I would like to stress that some committee members have expressed concerns about the cuts made in the Department of Natural Resources and their impact on the Canadian natural resources industry. I hope my remarks today will serve to reassure you about the future and continued importance of the Department of Natural Resources. What I want to leave with you today is a sense of my vision for the department. Program review has been a difficult task; however, the vision of program review will carry NRCan into the 21st century as an organization that is smaller and more focused on its two core businesses - science and policy.
Minister Martin's budget clearly stated that deficit reduction is a key priority for the Government of Canada. Another key priority is getting government right. Obviously NRCan has been strongly affected by these two converging priorities. I was part of a rigorous program review exercise which culminated in substantial reductions both in human and financial resources.
I will say a little bit more at the end of my comments in relation to how we are addressing the downsizing of the NRCan staff, but let me say in general that in coming to the reductions and developing our vision for the future of the Department of Natural Resources, we applied the government-wide program review criteria that were developed by my colleagues Marcel Massé and Paul Martin. Those criteria were public interest, role of government, federalism, partnership, efficiency, and affordability.
Particularly when we applied the criterion of affordability, we came to understand the need to change - to move away from a reliance on federal spending powers which have provided subsidies or megaproject funding to stimulate economic growth and job creation. We made other tough decisions; for example, we had to balance our clients' need to be near regional offices with the high cost of maintaining all the facilities. The result is that NRCan will continue to deliver high-quality services through a more cost-effective and strategic network of offices.
Three key government priorities will define NRCan's work over the next year: sustainable development, economic revitalization of the resources sectors, and good government. Working within these priorities the department will concentrate on four areas: stronger partnerships with clients and stakeholders, greater emphasis on innovative science and technology, more efficient regulations that stimulate competitiveness, and leadership on national and international issues. At the same time, the department will continue to solidify its position as a vital bridge linking environmental and industrial stakeholders - and let me say that I see that as one of my most important roles.
Let me now give you some concrete examples of what the phenomenal change that we have seen coming from program review will mean in the day-to-day work of my department.
.1535
Let me turn to the issue of climate change. As many of you are aware, I understand the committee is now looking at the issue of climate change in conjunction or in partnership with your colleagues from the environment committee. Climate change is a major national and international priority for the Government of Canada and for my department. Canada's economy is energy-intensive and we must balance our energy needs with the need to protect our planet's environment. We must achieve sustainable development in energy.
In the red book we stated that increased energy efficiency is recognized as having the greatest potential to make short-term contributions to sustainable development. In the past year I have called for federal leadership to improve Canada's energy efficiency through the federal buildings initiative - or as we affectionately know it, FBI - as well as through partnerships with other orders of government, industry and institutions. My department has entered into an agreement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to promote energy efficiency initiatives in municipalities across the country.
The FBI model is being used in the commercial and institutional sectors through my energy innovators program. The department will build on the success of this effort through the voluntary challenge and the registry program, which invite organizations to develop actions plans to limit or reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. A recent success story is the signing of series of memoranda of understanding with key energy sector associations including CAPP, CCEA, and more recently, CEPA or the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. Also, my department and I are in the process of negotiating more MOUs, for example, with the Canadian Gas Association, the Canadian Home Builders' Association, and with the Coal Association of Canada.
In addition, energy efficiency budgets and plans are being coordinated in every industrial sector through my minister's advisory council on industrial energy efficiency. While we are taking advantage of the short-term contributions of energy efficiency to sustainable development, we are also looking at the long-term strategies to further our progress. R and D and science and technology are key to this work, and so are the efforts to market and commercialize products and services that offer environmental advantages such as renewable energy sources and alternative transportation fuels or ATFs.
The use of alternative transportation fuels and renewable energy contributes to our climate change goals, contributes to a cleaner environment, and to progress towards sustainable development. The Government of Canada recognizes the significant environmental and economic benefits of alternative transportation fuels, and we strongly support their introduction into the marketplace. I am determined that Natural Resources Canada will be a leader that sets an example for other federal departments, as we were in relation to the FBI program. My department is already a leader in relation to ATFs, but we must do better and we will.
Our goal is to make alternative fuels use one important part, but it's only one part, of the sound management of our vehicle fleet. First, and perhaps most importantly, we plan to cut our fleet by 40% in the next three years. There is nothing more economically and environmentally sustainable than not having the car on the road in the first place. Then, after we achieve that 40% reduction in our fleet, we will ensure that the remaining vehicles are operated and maintained to provide the maximum economic and environmental benefits. There is no question that the federal fleet is under-utilized and probably mis-utilized; and my department is as guilty as any. Therefore, if we are committed to sustainable motor vehicle and transportation use, we must take a look at how we utilize the fleet and do better in terms of sharing the fleet.
We hope to use my department as a demonstrator department for others to take a look at in terms of how you can put together an integrated transportation fleet policy, part of which is ATFs. A key part of this strategy will be industry involvement, and my department continues to work closely to ensure that we have industry participation to help us with the cost of converting our fleet where appropriate to ATFs. We hope to have 60% of our remaining fleet of vehicles within the Department of Natural Resources on ATFs by 1997-98.
.1540
Let me move very briefly to mining. I think mining is another example of where we are doing business differently. Our focus is, again, both on environmental and economic goals, as you will have seen from the government's response to your very valuable committee report Lifting Mining Off the Rocks. Let me say that the response tabled by the government was on behalf of Paul Martin and me.
Let me say at the outset that I think it's time to focus on the things the federal government can and will do, at least in the immediate future, to improve the prospects for mining in Canada. It is also time to stop doing those things we can no longer afford to do.
A key environmental issue for governments and industry is mine reclamation, as your report quite rightly noted. The cost is significant and technology is changing. Mine reclamation was addressed in the February 1994 budget of Mr. Martin. In that budget he introduced changes to the tax treatment of contributions to provincially mandated reclamation trust funds. The tax system now provides consistent treatment of contributions.
The government believes these changes, which were developed in conjunction with provincial finance departments, have addressed a number - but I concede not all - of the mining industry's concerns. Nor, should I point out, have they addressed all the concerns of this committee and its report.
Let me turn to CANMET for a minute and what it can do to assist the mining industry. CANMET places great emphasis on the development of new and innovative technologies to help the mining sector. The MEND program, which I know many of you are familiar with, has helped reduce costs associated with future mine decommissioning, which are estimated to be more than $500 million. In fact, it's very hard to have an accurate estimation of what those total costs will be. We simply know that they will be great.
On the economic side, the government is committed to removing obstacles to mineral development, as identified through the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. Building on the consensus of WMI, I will bring forward a policy outlining the federal government's position on the sustainable development of minerals and metals. This paper, I hope, will be available for public discussion this summer.
Let's also look at the area of regulatory reform, because this is an area that when I meet with representatives from the mining sector and other resource sectors they always identify as being a key concern. Regulations can provide unnecessary, costly and, quite truthfully, ineffective barriers or impediments to carrying on competitive resource development. We are developing strong partnerships with the provinces to reduce regulatory overlap and duplication. Our goal, ultimately, is a single-window environmental assessment process, and my colleague the Minister of Environment is working very hard with the provinces to achieve that. This process will obviously reduce uncertainty for new mine development across Canada.
Very briefly, what else are we doing? The Geological Survey of Canada is developing partnerships with provincial surveys to increase the efficiency of government services to industry clients. In established mining camps such as Bathurst, Timmins and Flin Flon, the GSC is working with the industry to better define new ore targets and to extend the life of existing mines. This is very important. In fact, the EXTECH program is another example of our new advanced technologies being applied to keep the Canadian mining industry competitive.
In the frontier areas, GSC is playing a role in the exciting search for diamonds and base metals by providing new information on where, and sometimes perhaps more importantly where not, to prospect. My department will also be very active in promoting investment opportunities in Canadian mining. One very successful promotional opportunity was the recent Investing in the Americas Conference in Miami. And let me say, I was very pleased to go there and make the point that Canada is a good place to invest in the mining sector.
Just let me say this. There we adopted the Team Canada approach. Every province but one - and I believe that was Prince Edward Island, which in fact has a very small mining industry - was there; every other province participated as equal partners with the federal government in this initiative. I want to let committee members know that there was an amazing amount of enthusiasm for Canadian mining and for investing dollars in Canadian mining.
.1545
There's nothing more exciting than a discovery like Voisey Bay and what's happening in the Northwest Territories in relation to diamonds. It gets people looking around and saying, gosh, you know, we've been in South America but maybe it's time to go back and take another look at Canada. There's tremendous geology there that remains to be explored and developed. In fact, we are seeing our exploration dollars increasing dramatically this year, and in 1995 they will probably be over $650 million.
Briefly, on the international front we are representing the interests of the Canadian mining sector in important discussions concerning the global interpretation of definitions for recyclables and hazardous metals and minerals. This is very important for the mining industries. For example, we are working with the OECD on a science-based risk reduction initiative on lead.
Let me turn my attention to forestry, where there are also many examples of how we are doing business differently and, I think, better. Forests must be managed sustainably to ensure that in the long term forestry continues to play a significant role in Canada's social, environmental and economic framework.
As a result of program review and the budget, we announced that we will sharpen our focus on forest research programs to emphasize strategic forestry science rather than applied research. In consultation with our clients and stakeholders, we will establish a new research management structure.
This shift will contribute to the department's continuing role in the progress we have made both nationally and internationally toward sustainable forestry. Domestic progress to build partnerships through our model forest program and consensus on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management have made us world leaders among the major forestry nations.
These issues are central to the international forest and, I might add, environmental communities. I represented Canada at several meetings to develop international consensus on the need for criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, including the Canada-Malaysia intergovernmental working group which met here in Ottawa last fall, and more recently the first meeting of forestry ministers of the FAO in Rome.
As some of you are aware, last month in New York at the UNCSD a proposal was accepted to establish an intergovernmental working committee on sustainable forestry. It's the first time such a committee has been established. My hope, and the hope of the Canadian forestry sector, is that this will lead to a convention on sustainable forestry. A few years ago we were the only nation talking about a convention on sustainable forestry. Now we're starting to get buy-in from other major forestry nations. They have accepted the principle. We will keep the heat on over the coming months and years to move toward a convention on sustainable forestry.
Let me briefly summarize other developments in my department. If you look at how we're doing business, I hope you will conclude that we are carrying out government priorities in a responsible way. In the area of green technology, CANMET works closely with Canadian industry to develop clean, cost-effective technologies through a variety of cost-shared and task-shared technology development programs. These partnerships allow maximum leverage to spread the best expertise throughout Canadian industry. We know that these programs work; our programs yield benefits many times larger than the amount spent.
Geomatics Canada, as I believe you heard last week, is developing a proposal to move to a special operating agency. The objective is to enhance the sector's ability to operate in a business-like setting. But let me reassure committee members that if Geomatics Canada moves to an SOA format, we will not be competing with the private sector. In fact, we will be creating more opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses. Look, for example, at a recent major contract to supply digital mapping products and services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We negotiated that contract and it will be delivered by a multitude of small and medium-sized businesses across this country.
Just let me say a few words in conclusion about the people side of the challenges we are facing. I don't think we can ever lose sight of the fact that in dramatic downsizing, such as the budget heralded in February, we must remain focused on the people. Downsizing affects peoples' lives and peoples' careers. In my department, our greatest resource has always been and will continue to be our people, their skills, their abilities and their expertise.
.1550
We have two distinct human resource challenges. The first is obviously to ensure the continuing excellence of the employees who remain at the Department of Natural Resources. We're looking at approximately 28% to 30% cut in staff at Natural Resources Canada.
The second challenge is to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of those employees who are leaving the organization. The department's excellence initiative, which is based on total quality management principles, gives employees the training, tools, empowerment and, we believe, the accountability required to continuously improve the quality of their work. Excellence has also provided employees with the ability to deal successfully with change and it will continue to do so.
As I said earlier, program review has resulted in fewer jobs at Natural Resources Canada. While many government departments are facing similar cuts, few have as specialized a workforce as we do. That is why we are making a special effort to help Natural Resources Canada's affected employees identify opportunities outside the public service through events like Entrepreneurship Day and Job Fair '95.
In conclusion, the key to the new directions and priorities at Natural Resources Canada is that we take seriously the need to redefine what we do and how we do it. Natural Resources Canada is playing a significant role in the federal government's deficit reduction strategy to get the economic fundamentals right in this country. At the same time, Natural Resources Canada is working hard to refocus its policies and strengthen the department's participation in leading-edge science and technology.
Natural Resources Canada is also working with its partners to help Canada's resource sector grow and move toward sustainable development. Natural resources are at the heart of Canada's identity. Let us make no mistake about that. Ensuring the sustainable development of Canada's natural resources is a core function of my department. As a vital bridge linking environmental and industrial concerns, Natural Resources Canada is building on the existing strength of partnerships with other orders of government and other stakeholders in the natural resources sector.
This role, which I describe and think of as a bridge, is necessary to protect the national interest. This country was built on wealth generated by the development of our natural resources and Canada's continued success depends on the prosperity of our natural resource industries.
Having completed an exhaustive program review exercise, and let me say at times exhausting, I am confident that a pared-down Natural Resources Canada will play a significant and continually improving role in the economic and environmental success of Canada's natural resource sector.
[Translation]
Now that we have completed an exhaustive program review, I am satisfied that a pared-down Natural Resources Canada will continue to play a major role in the economic and environmental success of Canada's natural resource sector.
Natural Resources Canada will also be one of the agencies to prove that the federal government can really change the way it conducts its business. We must rethink government's role and make it our duty to utilize the ideas and know how of our young people in a way that is both efficient and creative.
Future generations depend on us to make this long awaited and fundamental change a reality. Thank you.
[English]
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Thank you very much Madam Minister. We will now move on to the question period. We will begin with the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): I would like to find out how to proceed, because I have several questions for the Minister. Should I ask one question and wait for her to reply or do I have ten minutes? How do we proceed?
.1555
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): If your comments are only brief ones, you may ask a number of questions. Would the Minister prefer that all the questions be asked at once or one at a time?
[English]
Ms McLellan: One question at a time is fine.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: I am delighted to have the Minister here. I will begin with the last sentence of her brief and I quote:
- Future generations depend on us to make this long-awaited and fundamental change a
reality.
You seem to be saying we are in the vanguard. I would like us to continue to be in the vanguard in the coming years, but when I see the way the department is going, I'm not too confident. I note that you are making budget cuts of 30% and staff cuts of 35%. Cuts are being made everywhere and yet everyone, particularly in forestry, is convinced that the money spent on forestry is an investment.
The federal-provincial agreements expire in 1996, and we are told that they will not be renewed. We are also being told that the Eastern Quebec Development Plan will not be renewed. The other provinces - not only Quebec - are very concerned. Thousands of workers are concerned and are looking to us for answers. I do not understand.
I will never understand the lack of interest in investing. I'm not saying the government should manage. The provinces can and want to manage these investments. They are all, particularly Quebec, asking for funding in order to keep up the momentum of the past five, ten or twenty years. I have no doubt that the federal government's withdrawal will mean near chaos in the provinces.
I would even go so far as to say - without meaning to offend the Minister, who described her department in such warm and glowing terms - that the department of Natural Resources is headed for extinction. It's all very well to say that you are going to do the same things with less but it will be impossible. You can't convince me that if staff is cut 30%... You talk of a new vision. I would like to know what that new vision is.
In April, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources in Quebec, Michel Clair, sent his counterpart a letter expressing the government of Quebec's dissatisfaction with two of your department's initiatives which resulted from the program review and which will have a negative impact on forestry development in Quebec. I mentionned the first one earlier. I am not just talking about Quebec, but about the other provinces as well.
Would the Minister tell the committee the real reasons why this country, which has responsibility for 10% of the planet's forests, is going to withdraw its financial support to the provinces for forestry development, when all the provinces, and not just Quebec, are calling for it energetically?
Is there no way to get the Minister of Finance to understand that forestry work - and my colleague will be talking about mines shortly - is an investment? All Canadians are calling for it. Is the Department of Natural Resources the only one unable to understand this?
[English]
Ms McLellan: I'm not sure if your last comment is directed to me and my department, or to Mr. Martin and his. I'll let Mr. Martin speak for his department as to whether he understands the importance of forestry or not. I think, in fact, he does.
Let me say in relation to program review that what you see before you is my government's plan for the coming three years, meeting the requirements of program review. This was an exercise every department, every program, and every minister had to go through. As I indicated in my comments, the single biggest priority in the short term for the government is dealing with the deficit and the debt.
.1600
Second, and almost as important, is the whole question of redefining the role of the federal government. M. Canuel, let me tell you that one of the reasons we want to do that is not only to save money but to respect the jurisdictional purview of the provinces, in part. Natural resources are owned and managed in large part by the provinces.
When we, as colleagues, went through that program review process, we were called upon to assess every department and every program in relation to those tests I outlined. One of the tests is federalism, which, Mr. Canuel, surely has to be of considerable importance to you. Also, we had to look at issues such as affordability. Therefore, let's keep in mind that was the task presented to us. We had to make choices and we must continue to reduce the size of the federal government to meet both our deficit objectives and our goal to have a better and more finely defined federal government.
Having said that, we are not stopping our investment in forestry, mining, oil and gas or other areas of the resource sectors. What we're doing is refocusing our investment. We're acknowledging there are things the owners of the resources can and should do. Those are the provinces. Then there are things we can do as a federal government, either alone or working in partnership with the provinces and industry.
My department has decided it is appropriate for us, as a federal Department of Natural Resources, to concentrate on science and technology and the formulation of policy, often in conjunction with our provincial counterparts, in other cases in conjunction with our fellow nations in the international milieu, to concentrate on policy formation. To formulate good policy, we need good science.
Therefore, I take exception to your suggestion that we are not investing in the resource sectors. We are. If you're suggesting it's a different kind of investment, you're right. Gone are the days,Mr. Canuel, when either federal or provincial governments can throw huge amounts of money at sectors, problems or issues. What we have to do is work more creatively and use our talents more innovatively and share them through strategic partnerships.
A legitimate role for the federal government is to work with the provinces and industry to do the science and technology that will help formulate the policies of sustainable development. That will lead to a future viable forestry sector.
I'll stop there.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Thank you, Madam Minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Madam Minister, I fully understand what you are saying about research and I agree entirely on development as well. In Part III of the Main Estimates for 1995-96, under the heading «Expenditure Plan», your department establishes its human resources requirements for 1995-96 fiscal year as 4,830 full-time equivalents.
Would you tell me how these people will be distributed? Will they be located primarily in Ottawa? If such is the case, why can we not spread them out a little better among the provinces?
I would like to add a comment before you respond. I go back to the federal-provincial agreements. We are not asking you to manage them. As I understand it, federalism is about collecting our taxes. Could some of this money not be returned to forestry? It would mean creating millions of jobs and, as we know, those jobs are among the most poorly paid.
Are you going to put a x on the federal-provincial agreements? Are you going to put an x on the Eastern Quebec Development Plan? Our fellow citizens will have to be told. Every Spring they have an anxiety attack. I am not joking. This is what happens in every province.
.1605
[English]
Ms McLellan: Mr. Canuel, let me refer to the last issue you raised. Then, Mr. Boucher, you may want to talk about the employment numbers.
In terms of the federal-provincial agreements as they relate to forestry and, as far as that goes, as they relate to mining, a decision was made by the previous government to discontinue them. The Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, promised to review that decision, and we did that. My department reviewed those programs with provincial counterparts and with industrial counterparts. Let me assure you that in almost all cases the key stakeholders believed those programs were valuable. In fact, we achieved some considerable success in terms of delivering the objectives of those programs.
Having said that, Mr. Canuel, program review was about redefining the role of the federal government and deficit reduction. We believe there are other ways we can invest in our sustainable forestry objectives other than through the funding of those kinds of agreements. It is the provinces who own the resources. In fact, it is the provinces that can impose stumpage fees to generate revenues, that can continue the kinds of work that was done under the federal-provincial agreements.
You mention the Plan de l'Est. When we talk about forestry agreements, I think you need to understand the money did not come from my department. The money was provided from the regional development agencies and we administered the programs. That's what we did, because we have the scientific and administrative expertise to do that. Therefore, the Plan de l'Est was continued for one year, especially because we knew that my counterpart, Me. Gendron, was having a private woodlot owners summit this year. We wanted to provide some bridging or transition to help the private woodlot owners pending the outcome of that private woodlot summit, that we presume will set a new direction in the province of Quebec.
Having said that, Plan de l'Est is a good example of the reality. If the regional development agency and the minister responsible therefore, in your case Mr. Martin, believes that forestry is a key priority, then that regional agency can provide funding for forestry agreements or some other aspects of forestry. That possibility exists today, Mr. Canuel. We would work with FORD-Q or any other regional agency disposed to making forestry or mining a regional development priority. But that decision does not rest with us; it rests with others. It rests with the provinces and the regional development agency reaching a shared vision as to what the priorities are for that region or that province.
Chanel, do you want to say anything on the first part of this question?
[Translation]
Mr. Chanel Boucher (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Certainly.
With respect to the distribution of the department's resources, I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but I can tell you that about 40% are outside of the Ottawa region and 60% in the Ottawa region. The program review under way now will not change this ratio dramatically. I would have to come back with the precise figures for Quebec.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Mr. Morrison, please.
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Madam Minister, I have three quick one-line questions, and I would pass to Mr. Stinson.
You spoke of a 40% decrease in the motor fleet. Were you talking about NRCan's fleet or the federal fleet of 39,000 vehicles?
Ms McLellan: My fleet.
Mr. Morrison: Okay. The conversion requirements you quoted, will those apply to diesels which are essential for heavy vehicles and desirable in others, or are you only talking about the conversion of gasoline engines?
Ms McLellan: I can let Mr. Jarvis deal with the details. Let me say you raise an important point in terms of fleet utilization. Some vehicles, used for certain purposes, we would never convert, because we know it makes no environmental or economic sense. It's just stupid to do that, and therefore we won't do that. What we have to do is assess the nature of our fleet and in fact make some decisions about whether we're purchasing the right kinds of vehicles to meet the tasks we have before us as a department.
.1610
So you raise a good general point about making sure we do our homework before we convert vehicles for which we know and the industry tells us there's no economic pay-back.
David, do you want to respond to the specific issue of the diesel?
Mr. David Oulton (Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources): The intent would be to convert, as the minister said, where it's practical. The conversions are going to take place on gasoline engines, I believe almost entirely, rather than on diesel fuel engines.
Mr. Morrison: I happen to know, Madam Minister, legislation is before the House that would cast in stone that 75% of the entire fleet would have to be converted by the year 2004. That is why I raise the question, because we will be looking at that as well.
Ms McLellan: You raise an important issue, and I think the question of flexibility within that legislation is very important. Senator Kenny, who proposes that legislation, and I have met, and he and I agree flexibility is important.
Mr. Morrison: My final one-liner is what do you mean when you talk about sustainable development in mining? Minerals are a non-renewable resource. How can you have sustainable development? What did you mean by that?
Ms McLellan: In their extraction, in the invasion or intrusion into the physical landscape and making sure there is reclamation so that land goes back as much as possible to the shape it was, as good as or better... that we deal with issues such as acid mine drainage. We know some sites may in fact require remediation indefinitely after being exploited.
Those are always important environmental and economic issues. That's why CANMET, for example, works so hard in areas such as acid mine drainage: to ensure we know what the costs are, both environmentally and economically, and to ensure that we can help the industry do what they are committed to doing, which is cleaning up their sites after they've gone in and exploited the resources. I've yet to run into a mining company that doesn't acknowledge its responsibility. But they also say, please help us in developing science and technology to make this as cost-effective and environmentally effective as possible. That's what the people at CANMET do, working with industry and the provinces.
That's what I mean about sustainable development.
Mr. Morrison: I guess we have a problem of semantics, because to me something being sustainable means you'll still have some tomorrow. In other words, forestry is sustainable if you reforest. You can't re-mine.
Ms McLellan: No, you can't. But what you can do is put the site back the way it was before.
Mr. Morrison: But that has nothing to do with it.
Ms McLellan: You're right, it's probably a question of semantics, because sustainable development for us, as we define it in the federal government, my department, and in the red book, very much involves mining and the fact that after exploitation we want to ensure we put back in as good shape as possible what we have disrupted.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): I know this falls into provincial jurisdiction as much as federal.
When you talk to mining people in mining organizations, one of their main concerns is land tenure and the forever changing rules. It seems as soon as they put up the initial money and make the big investments, all of a sudden the rules change. I just want you to be aware of this.
Ms McLellan: We're very aware of it. In fact, during the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, which was a multi-stakeholder process - the first of its kind in the world, actually - there was a lot of discussion about land tenure and land access issues. You've talked about the tenure issues. There are very few examples in this country, I think, of the kind of thing you've described, but there's one notable and recent example in British Columbia, the Windy Craggy situation, which people are concerned about.
.1615
When I go outside this country and talk about investment in Canada, they raise that issue. It's not so much that they would disagree with the province's ability to declare it a preservation site, but if it is done, it should be done in a timely fashion. We should probably think of the longer term in the establishment of our national parks and preservation areas so people are put on notice.
Second, if there are extraordinary circumstances that would lead a provincial government to change its mind on land tenure and use issues, there should be compensation for that. You raise an important question and one that you rightly identify as largely provincial.
Having said that, we are very concerned with the issue. We are working on a number of fronts with our provincial counterparts to ensure that the rules of the game are clear up front, or as clear as possible. As I say, if something extraordinary happens, we're working to make sure there is fair and immediate compensation.
Mr. Stinson: Also, you mentioned you were down in New York.
Ms McLellan: I wasn't.
Mr. Stinson: Oh, okay, but there were people down in New York.
One of the things that was brought up at that meeting was the so-called green stamp.
Ms McLellan: Eco-labelling, yes.
Mr. Stinson: Could you tell me the names of the countries that have bought into this program outside of Canada?
Ms McLellan: The Scandinavian countries are well on their way in adopting and pushing the whole concept of eco-labelling. A lot of non-governmental agencies are pushing it.
Dr. Hardy, would you like to inform Mr. Stinson of the details?
Dr. Yvan Hardy (Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources): I can address the forestry side of things, with certification.
Ms McLellan: Yes.
Dr. Hardy: I know a few things about eco-labelling. There's a Canadian program of eco-labelling administered by Environment Canada, which is going well and gaining some momentum. Worldwide, I know Canada is in the lead.
Forestry-wise, Canada is one of the only countries right now that has an initiative that brings all of the players together. A multitude of small organizations in the world - in scientific certification and forest stewardship, for instance - are trying to get established and are discussing rules and so on.
Mr. Stinson: Are you saying some of the major players in the forest industry and some of the major countries are not buying into this green plan that we have proposed?
Dr. Hardy: No, no. Not at all. What I'm saying is Canada had an initiative called eco-labelling that was tabled at least two years ago by Environment Canada, and it's going.
Ms McLellan: Maybe, Dr. Hardy, we're talking about two different things.
Dr. Hardy: I believe so.
Ms McLellan: I may have confused the term.
Eco-labelling, as Dr. Hardy points out, is a Department of the Environment program. Then there's a whole criteria and indicators initiative, which Canada is part of and which is moving forward around the world in terms of how we define forestry products that come from sustainable forests. Is that what you're talking about? Okay.
Dr. Hardy, do you want to continue?
Dr. Hardy: There's a Canadian initiative, led by CCFM, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.
Then there's what we call the Montreal process; that's Canada along with ten other countries, all of them from arboreal or temperate forest ecosystems. They represent 90% of the arboreal and temperate ecosystems in the world.
.1620
An element parallel to that is the Helsinki process, which grouped the western European countries. Also, a new Amazonian process was initiated about six months ago by the Latin American countries of the Amazon.
Above and beyond that, what has been discussed in New York is the possibility of a world forest convention, and that's what the minister was referring to. When this idea was first put forward about five years ago, Canada was the leader in seeding the idea. There were lots of registrants, mostly from developing countries. The turnaround that happened in New York is that most countries are now behind the concept.
Some of the most resistant countries are now behind the concept also. Brazil, to name one, was leading the fight against the convention. They are now accepting the principle, and they have put forward an open-ended panel on forestry that will report in two years on the progress made towards the convention.
Mrs. Sheridan (Saskatoon - Humboldt): Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us today.
As I prepared for this, I intended to pose more general questions, but I have since changed my mind. With your permission, I will filter my questions through a human face other than my own. I know a lot of you will be happy about that.
I would like to put a human face on this, and I'm encouraged to do so by your comments about one of your primary concerns being the human resources that make up NRCan. For that reason, my question is an important one. If you'll bear with me, I'll give you some background, because your answer is important too, inasmuch as it touches on the concerns of the so-called real Canadian as opposed to the experts and those who are so immersed in the field.
Following the budget and the program review, I received a letter from a person in my riding who's involved in the forest industry, in research and development of forest biotech. I was surprised to receive his letter, because I remembered him from the election campaign.
You mentioned the red book and promises made and so on.
I think you'll see where this is going if I can just read a small paragraph from his letter about his concerns, as a scientist, that the Conservative government under the previous regime was taking initiatives that led to a continual erosion of Canada's research space. He writes ``The policies presented by the Liberal manifesto'' - his name for the red book - ``were therefore encouraging to me, and your personal expression of your party's expressed policy was also heartening.''
In other words, he believed what we said. He has bought into it. That's the reason I think your answer is so important.
Following the budget cuts and the program review, as a professional working in this area he became a bit concerned that perhaps we were headed down the road I had promised him we would not take.
You've addressed this in your remarks. I guess I'd put it generally under the topic of doing business differently and making difficult decisions to make a sustainable industry. That's certainly this constituent's concern. You've answered this to some degree in regard to the questions posed by Mr. Canuel.
I have two question to put to you, after this long harangue. They touch on the areas of consultation and coordination in general. I noticed in your opening remarks you mentioned it was certainly a commitment of your department and of yourself personally to consult with clients and stakeholders.
As it happens, the individual who has written to me is also concerned about consultation. One of his concerns is that a lot of the government employees are very dedicated to this area, and he wants to know to what extent there is consultation with those people as opposed to with different provincial partners and so on.
Second, to go back to his opening remarks about where the government is headed, his concern is there is no coordinated plan to maintain a federal presence in forest biotechnology.
.1625
I'm just wondering, Minister, what you can say to assure this real Canadian that those two aspects are in the forefront of your department and of your own management of your department.
Ms McLellan: I think you raise a good point.
Let me say that we consulted widely, both within our department and outside. Does that mean we were able to accommodate every person's priority or concern or research interest? No. There are lines of work we will not be in any more because we simply do not have the resources, but in some cases those are lines of work that will be picked up by industry or by the provinces; or maybe they will be cost-shared by all three levels of government, but in a very new way.
So consultation was very important.
As ministers, we were expected to outline for the program review committee how we'd gone about the process of review. I was a member of that committee. One of the things we were concerned about was how people went about making critical decisions and establishing priorities, and whether the key stakeholders, including employees of departments, were included.
I could call upon the ADMs of all my sectors to talk to you about the lengthy process they went through in seeking feedback from employees within their sectors.
Does that mean everybody participated and everybody was consulted? Probably not. But that's the basis on which we established our priorities. It began last spring. It was a very lengthy process and we all participated in it. So I believe there was substantial and real consultation on the establishment of the priorities you now see reflected in both our estimates and our outlook document.
In terms of forestry biotech, your constituent's letter indicated that we were not involved in the area at all? What exactly was his concern?
Mrs. Sheridan: Actually, I thought you were just about to lead into it when you were mentioning the approach you took in the consultation to deal with other ministries that were involved.
His concern is that with various departments and ministries having to do program reviews in their own departments, this would fragment the overall coordinated plan amongst ministries. His concern is whether the various departments, such as Environment, Natural Resources and perhaps even Industry, are working in a coordinated way under the new regime.
Ms McLellan: In fact, we're doing more of it. Because of fewer resources, we are going to work in a more coordinated, focused, interdepartmental way than this government ever has before.
Mrs. Sheridan: He's particularly concerned about research and development in forestry biotech, because that's his particular field, but I guess the question is whether there is going to be that kind of coordination in the departments to ensure it doesn't somehow just slip to the edges and die an unfortunate death.
Ms McLellan: On your specific issue, Dr. Hardy can answer.
Dr. Hardy: I can add two elements to that. During program review we priorize activities, and forest biotech in general, whether it's plant or animal, is at the top of the list. It's been a very high priority, and virtually all of our activity in biotech is going to be preserved.
Second, in terms of coordination, the minister has given you the reality. Because we're fewer, there's more networking and coordination. On top of that, the biotech strategy of the Government of Canada was renewed only a month and a half ago, and NRCan is a partner in that strategy - a very important partner, as a matter of fact.
So on all counts, I believe, it's very high on the list of priorities.
Ms McLellan: The deputy has just pointed out to me that as a direct result of program review - and actually this process began before program review was over - the key resource departments got together and started to coordinate their various activities. The result of that was a memorandum of understanding between Fisheries, Agriculture, Environment, and ourselves to ensure there's not overlap and duplication and we understand what our governmental priorities are, and then how they should be shared among the respective departments.
.1630
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Good morning Madam Minister. I would like to talk to you about mining. I think you do a very good job at this level since you are familiar with the mining industry. The people I contacted appreciate your presence and your efforts in Miami to sell Canadian mines.
My definition of sustainable development includes the renewal of the industry. In the forest industry, harvested trees are replaced and new ones are not cut until they are ready. In the mining industry, we have to do exploration in order to find and exploit new mines.
The Standing Committee on Natural Resources has made at least one recommendation that would have cost the government nothing. The objective of this recommendation was to extend by 60 days the period during which limited partnerships can spend their money. For example, people could have collected funds in 1994 and in 1995 and have had two additional months in which to spend it. In reality, that's not what happens. People who invest in flow-through shares receive their money in November and December and not throughout the year. Sixty days for drilling is not enough.
We understand that the Finance Minister's budget must be implemented by the Natural Resources Department as it is in all other departments. However, it would still be possible to try to get, maybe not 365 days, but at least 120, 140 or 160 days, each additional day making it possible to do more research.
Having worked with mining companies over the last year, I know that people have to wait for the results of the diamond drill to know where to drill the second hole. This is impossible in 60 days. So I was very disappointed of course when I was told that 60 days is long enough. I would have preferred a different answer.
Do you think it's possible in the short or medium term to put pressure on the Finance Department so as to extend the period in order that the 1,600 persons who are going to invest in Canada over the next few years can do some interesting mining exploration?
[English]
Ms McLellan: Putting pressure on the Minister of Finance is sometimes a difficult task. He is an elusive person in terms of his budgetary priorities, especially at this time of the year.
But having said that, I think, seriously, it's important for those of you who have a range of concerns - budgetary concerns, tax policy concerns, as they relate to the mining sector - to keep informing the Minister of Finance of your views. I think we see, with the Minister of Mines in the province of Quebec, or at least in the last budget, in fact an acknowledgement of the importance of mining to the Quebec economy. They felt able to take a certain approach and to do certain things.
As I say, Mr. Martin is very sympathetic to the mining industry and the concerns on the fiscal side. However, last year's budget was about deficit reduction. It was about rethinking the role of the federal government.
That being said, Mr. Martin has never closed the door on the possibility of returning to and re-visiting the kinds of recommendations that were made in the standing committee's report on the mining sector. Therefore, I would encourage you to work with people in my department to make sure Mr. Martin and his officials in Finance continue to realize that these are ongoing concerns for the mining sector and things that could be used to enhance the mining sector in the coming years - maybe not this past year, maybe not next year, but sometime in the future.
.1635
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I will speak on behalf on Mr. Pomerleau who is not here. In the nuclear industry, over the last few years, the federal government had to inject a lot of money for nuclear waste disposal.
In this period of budget cuts, the problem is knowing whether the federal government is willing to inject new money for the storage of nuclear waste or if, in its policy, it will decide that the waste producer will have to help pay for secure storage.
If you must yourself earmark part of your budget for the nuclear sector, there won't be anything left for the mines, the forests or other economic sectors of the economy.
[English]
Ms McLellan: First, in relation to the specific issue you raise about who pays, in most cases, and except for some historical cases that are significant, the operating principle of this government for some time is that the producer pays. If it is a utility that, for example, generates nuclear waste, they are then responsible for the costs of storage and disposal.
You raise an important issue, obviously one that the Auditor General identified last week in his report on hazardous waste and, in particular, radioactive waste. As you will have noticed if you've looked at that chapter of the Auditor General's report, my department, in its response, agreed with the concerns identified by the Auditor General. In fact, we took action before the release of his report.
In March I went to my cabinet colleagues with a document outlining the approach I wish to take as the minister responsible for long-term disposal of nuclear wastes. That document outlined the process by which we will move forward to develop the strategy for long-term disposal of nuclear waste, both high level and low level.
I will report back to my colleagues in the late fall, probably November, and outline for them a strategy by which we would hope to move forward as a government.
Having said that, there are also some specific things happening. In terms of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, you may be aware that presently there is a FEARO panel looking at a proposed long-term disposal method. That is, of course, putting the spent fuel in canisters and then disposing of them deep in the Canadian Shield. That's a method of disposal that AECL, in particular, has been working on for many years.
It is now going through a public environmental assessment process, and we obviously await the outcome of that process in terms of a strategy or a specific solution to deal with the disposal of high-level radioactive waste.
We're pursuing certain other strategies in relation to low-level and uranium tailings. Having said this, the Auditor General is right. The government needs a coherent strategy. That's what I told my cabinet colleagues in March. That's what I will return to them with in November and seek their approval of.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I'm very glad that the federal government is pursuing a strategy, but I wouldn't want taxpayers to have to pay the bill. It should be paid by companies like Hydro-Québec and Ontario-Hydro that produce the waste so as not to charge it to those who use other forms of energy. Thank you.
.1640
[English]
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Well, what a difference a year makes. I used to call EMR the Ministry of Oil and Gas. Now I can't find oil and gas or nuclear power in this statement to this committee, Madam Minister. Your influence is prevailing, I can see. Some changes are under way, and I'm delighted to see those changes.
I just want to make a comment about Lee Morrison's statement about sustainable development. I happen to believe Mr. Morrison's statement is correct. We're going to have find another term for those resource utilization areas that are depleted, such as oil and natural gas, mining, etc. Someday, somebody in the international area is going to call us on on the term ``sustainable development''. I agree with sustainable development in forestry and the renewable side of the thing, all the good things the sun sends us and all that sort of thing, but I find it's a bit of a stretch of the envelope for me to consider those things sustainable.
It's just an opinion.
I was interested in your remarks about long-term nuclear waste storage. This is an issue that has been with us since the mid-1970s, when I sat on the Hydro select committee in Ontario. In 1979 I was taken with an entourage to Whiteshell, Manitoba, and we toured the pluton there. The scientists told us at that time, we're ready to do it right now, ready to go. Ontario Hydro and AECL collaborated and located plutons all over the province of Ontario, and zeroed in on a couple of them, only to find the political reaction so negative that they were scared out of places like Madoc and up in northern Ontario. So when we talk about some sort of policy, yes, a policy is very necessary, but I'm just wondering where the politics will end here and the practicality begin.
There was an estimate in I think The Globe and Mail last week that the bill for long-term storage of high-level waste for Ontario alone was going to be about $8 billion. If that $8 billion will have to be borne by the electric power consumers in the province of Ontario, then we've been hoodwinked by a pro-nuclear utility, because that element of cost has been hidden. I think it's really still rather unknown.
I throw that out, for what it's worth. It's a heck of a challenge, and I'm glad you're addressing it. But when the rubber hits the road on that, it's going to affect electric power rates big-time in the province of Ontario.
The question of renewable and alternative transportation fuels, of course, is a pet axe I grind on a regular basis. I saw a letter that came from the bowels of your ministry recently under your hand in response to one of our colleagues who had written about the question of converting 50% of the fleet of Natural Resources to alternates and why there was some negative response to Senator Kenny's bill, which called for 75% over a longer period, admittedly. One of the comments made was that the availability of ATF vehicles was really not there. The letter, if I remember correctly, also commented on the availability of alternate fuels...widely enough distributed throughout Canada.
.1645
In terms of the situation today, at this hour, that's probably correct, but in terms of the very immediate future, it doesn't address what is happening. A little more than a year ago there were 50 service stations selling ethanol-blend gasolines in Canada. Today there are over 500. The prospect is that within two years there will be 5,000. That's as many outlets as there are propane outlets across Canada.
I should also remind your ministry and the good people sitting behind that General Motors announced this week that their S-series vehicles will have the capability of burning up to 85% ethanol in their fuels.
I've driven a 85%-ethanol vehicle. I had the privilege of doing this this last spring in a Chevrolet Lumina. But right at the moment Ford has them for sale throughout Mississauga.
The fact is that all of this is happening. The chickens aren't waiting for the eggs any more. It's all coming down at once.
I would also -
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): May I just remind you the minister has to leave at 5 p.m. and we have already gone through five minutes. We're into five minutes of questions and answers. Try to get your question in, please.
Mr. Reed: Thanks very much.
Mr. Morrison: Time.
Mr. Reed: This gets done to me all the time, Madam Minister.
A voice: They won't ask you here again, I'm sure.
Mr. Reed: The comment was made that diesel vehicles were not going to really be considered seriously in this alternate fuel -
Ms McLellan: I didn't say that.
Mr. Reed: I thought I heard that comment.
Ms McLellan: No, what I said was that the basic principle raised by Mr. Morrison is an important one, which is that we will convert those vehicles where it makes economic and environmental sense.
Mr. Reed: I hope the door always remains open because bio-diesel is just within two years of going to production in some quantity. It's from your home territory in western Canada, and it has a very important future.
So I would ask you, are you going to leave the door wide open for all the options?
Ms McLellan: In terms of the science and technology, which is what my department does, we will leave the door wide open for alternate transportation fuels.
As you're aware, Mr. Reed, one of the most exciting initiatives is the hydrogen fuel cell. Indeed, many people suggest that if things go right this will probably sweep away everything else in front of it and ultimately will be the fuel of choice for the future.
Therefore my department is very excited about those initiatives and supports them. In fact, it has quite an open mind in terms of a wide range of alternate transportation fuels that are available. We hope that in some case it will soon be commercially available...still at the research stage.
In relation to ATFs, I agree with you that as consumers become more comfortable, for example, with dual-fuel cars, which is what you're talking about.... At least that's what I think General Motors announced they're going to be doing -
Mr. Reed: Alternate fuel.
Ms McLellan: Yes, but they're dual-fuel vehicles; you can switch them back and forth?
Mr. Reed: No, they will switch themselves. All you need to do is add whatever you have.
Ms McLellan: Okay, it's the same idea. In fact, let me say that I had the pleasure of participating in an event with a commercial Ford dealership in Edmonton. They bought the largest fleet of dual-fuel methanol cars ever in this country. They bought 50 of them, Ford Tauruses. My department facilitated that in certain small ways.
As a department we try to provide the information, and in some cases the S and T, that helps consumers feel comfortable with the fact that these things are now readily available in most parts of the country, that people should feel comfortable with them, that many of the mechanical problems Canadians associated with alternate transportation fuels of the 1970s have been overcome.
.1650
But I think we still have a big selling job to do, and that's one of the strengths of Senator Kenny's bill. If we can prove and demonstrate through departments like mine that alternate-fuel cars work when it's minus 40 degrees, that they work in a wide variety of terrains and that sort of thing, we will convince the consumer that they can purchase these vehicles. That way we build up the market, and we'll have more of them on the market.
Mr. Reed: Would your people monitor the performance of these cars?
Ms McLellan: Yes. In fact, in relation to my car right now, which is a dual-fuel car taking both propane and conventional gasoline, my driver has his log book, and everything he notices, hears, sees about that car is documented. He regularly consults with the people who did the conversion. That's the kind of diagnostic work departments have to do to truly understand both the environmental pay-backs and the economic benefits and costs.
So we're very committed to that, and I applaud the motor vehicle manufacturers for bringing more of these cars on the market. It speaks to the fact that we're starting to penetrate the market and the consumer consciousness to some extent.
In terms of the cost of long-term disposal of nuclear waste, you're right, the Auditor General indicated that we haven't done a very good job of quantifying the costs, and we have to do better. That's true for AECL itself, and it's probably true - although it's not for me to say - in relation to the utilities that have nuclear power stations. We have to get a better handle on the long-term disposal costs, because clearly that is built and will be built into the price we all pay for that energy.
Part of the goal of the federal government is to work with all stakeholders to get a much better read on what.... Sorry, that was not a play on your name; I apologize.
Mr. Reed: It's a badge of honour.
Ms McLellan: Part of the goal is to get a much better sense of the total costs and start, in a more financially accountable or responsible way, injecting those into the bottom lines.
Mr. Reed: I certainly hope so, Madam Minister.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Thank you, Madam Minister.
Mr. Morrison: Madam Minister, I wish I had a calculator with me. I rather suspect that if the $8 billion in disposal costs being talked about are considered on a cost per kilowatt hour over about a 40-year period, they're are not terribly significant. It might be 1¢ or 2¢ per kilowatt hour. But I don't have a calculator with me.
Mr. Reed: Give me 2¢ more and I'll build hot air plants all over Ontario.
Mr. Morrison: The point is, it isn't as big a deal as some people would like to let on.
My question concerns this. I was thunderstruck when I heard that we're now talking about the year 2025 for a permanent storage facility. That's going to put us behind the rest of the world by about 10 or 15 years.
I can't understand why. We have the technology. The longer we wait, the more it's going to cost. Maybe it's an odd coincidence, but I believe the year 2025 is about the time Ontario Hydro is going to be totally out of on-site storage space. I wonder if that's how they picked the date.
Could you explain how they picked that date?
Ms McLellan: Actually I don't know how they picked the date. I suppose there may well be someone here who could comment on that, but let me say that you raise a good point.
The Auditor General raised this. Why has it taken so long for the federal government, provincial governments and utilities to make significant progress in terms of long term disposal?
I want to reiterate that the Auditor General never indicated there are any safety issues involved. Storage of high-level radioactive waste is perfectly safe, and in fact we have very little high-level radioactive waste in comparison to most other major nuclear nations.
Having said that, I think that if we have any of it, we have to deal with it in a responsible and cost-effective way. Right now the disposal method I outlined - I'm not sure whether you were here - is in terms of canisters being embedded deep in the Canadian Shield.
.1655
That technology is being considered by FEARO right now through a multi-stakeholder consultative process. We don't know what the outcome will be. One hopes that research and disposal methodology will be found to meet all environmental concerns. If so, then we have to begin, as indicated earlier, the more political - small p political - side of this. That would be to talk about where this might happen, to talk about a permitting process and to talk about getting community consent for the long-term disposal of high-level waste.
From past experience we know that especially when one deals with very emotional and sensitive issues such as nuclear waste, public processes are important. They're also time-consuming, but I think they're valuable. That's probably part of the reason people suggest we will probably not have a site for long-term disposal until some time around 2015 to 2025.
Does anybody want to add more to that?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Mr. Morrison, do you have another short question.
Mr. Morrison: Yes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): They're always short - I know that - but when we get into the answers, questions and follow-ups.... Go ahead.
Mr. Morrison: Thank you for the answer, Madam Minister. What you're saying is that Canada is going to retain its international championship in bureaucratic ineptitude.
Ms McLellan: Oh, oh! I'll pass that along.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): [Inaudible - Editor]
Ms McLellan: That's an opinion!
Mr. Morrison: My next question concerns the international thermonuclear experimental reactor. That of course is a Hydro Ontario initiative, but AECL is involved.
All the MPs, probably including you yourself, have been getting literature from an anti-energy group maintaining that if they get that experimental facility in Canada, AECL will be on the hook for $600 million. I haven't heard anything about that from AECL and I'm just wondering where they got that number. Do you know anything about it?
Ms McLellan: I have no idea where they got the number. I saw the information you're referring to last week. Actually, one of my colleagues had it and shared it with me.
The government has established an interdepartmental committee to look at the ITER project. Let me reassure you and reassure everybody that this government cannot.... Mr. Martin couldn't have been plainer: this government is not in the business of megaprojects; this government is in the business of getting its deficit under control.
The interdepartmental committee will obviously consider whatever proposal anyone wants to bring forward, but costs and feasibility will be absolutely crucial to any decision of the government and any recommendation I or anyone else would make to cabinet colleagues.
I don't know where the numbers came from, but as the minister responsible for AECL, I can assure you that AECL will not be subjecting itself, nor will anyone else be subjecting it, to a $600 million liability.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): The final question is from Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Madam Minister, I would like to bring you back once again to the forest. Is it true that there are secret discussions between the government of New Brunswick and ACOA on the signing of an agreement tp revive the Sylviculture Program without the involvement of Forestry Canada and the Department of Natural Resources?
[English]
Ms McLellan: No. Now, of course, if they're secret, I guess I wouldn't know about them.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Ms McLellan: Let me say that I have had ongoing discussions with my colleagueMr. Dingwall, who's responsible for ACOA, as have provincial forestry ministers. They have talked to me, they have talked to Mr. Dingwall, as have regional economic development ministers from the four Atlantic provinces.
.1700
Those discussions continue to take place, but as I say, it's a difficult issue. It's a question of priority-setting. I certainly know from my own involvement with the minister responsible for forests in New Brunswick, the Hon. Alan Graham, that he is developing a proposal in which he would like the federal government to participate. If we do, that funding will have to come from ACOA.
As I say, that's a question of regional economic development. We will be happy to help administer the program and to provide whatever scientific support we can.
Usually we are very much a part of those discussions, and as far as I know, we are very much involved and have initiated some of the discussions between regional development ministers and provincial counterparts.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): I thank you very much, Madam Minister -
Ms McLellan: It was my pleasure.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): - on behalf of my colleagues here on the committee. I would also be remiss in not thanking your staff -
Ms McLellan: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): - and your support people who are here today. They're excellent, they always have been. You have a very important job, and without good, competent staff, that would be very difficult. I can assure you that we're very pleased with the type of cooperation we receive from your office and from your officials. So I thank you very much on behalf of the committee.
Before you and your officials leave, I just want an indication from the committee members if they want the officials and the parliamentary secretary to stay for more questions, or should we call it an afternoon?
Ms McLellan: George is more than happy to stay, as are all my officials.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): Thank you very much.
Ms McLellan: Thank you; it's been a pleasure.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Arseneault): The meeting is adjourned.