NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 30, 1997

• 1103

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

It's our pleasure, as part of the ongoing briefings for our committee, to receive today Dr. Yvan Hardy, along with his colleagues from Natural Resources Canada. Dr. Hardy will spend an hour with us, more or less, talking about the forest sector and the federal involvement with Canada's forests. Inasmuch as we have a quorum to hear witnesses, we'll proceed.

Dr. Hardy, we'll ask that you limit your remarks to roughly 10 minutes and allow members time for questions thereafter. Feel free to make your presentation in either official language. If you wish to introduce your colleagues at the table, that would be appreciated.

[Translation]

Dr. Yvan Hardy (Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you for welcoming us, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by introducing my colleagues. With me are Doug Ketcheson, Director General, Industry, Economics and Programs; Gordon Miller, Director General, Science; and Jacques Carette, Director General, Policies, Planning and International Affairs.

We have sent you some background material on the activities of the Canadian Forest Service. Therefore, I will limit my comments to key issues for the time being, at the Chair's request. Subsequently, we will be happy to answer your questions.

• 1105

You have also been handed a background document on the Department. I will start by reviewing the federal role in the forestry sector, and the role of the Canadian Forest Service in relation to the provinces, to give you a clear idea of the scope of our activities.

Obviously, on the international scene, the Canadian Forest Service promotes Canada's position on forestry issues as well as trade and investment.

Another equally important aspect of our mandate to which we devote a considerable amount of our energy is R & D, that is all aspects of forestry science and technology in Canada. The Canadian Forest Service is certainly the major player in this field.

The Canadian Forest Service also operates several programs to assist aboriginal communities, notably the Model Forests and First Nations Forestry programs which, either directly or indirectly, help members of aboriginal communities to acquire vital skills.

Together with our colleagues from the armed forces and from the Department of Transport, we oversee the management of federal lands and lend our professional advice where required.

Another one of the very important roles we play is to compile data on Canada's forests. Since forestry management comes under provincial jurisdiction, much of this data is not located in the same place. The Canadian Forest Service collates this data to help provide an overall picture of our forests.

Of course, we work to protect the environment through the use of sustainable development practices and the development of environmentally friendly techniques and methodologies.

I would now like to give you a quick overview of Canada's forest industry, although I realize that some of you are already quite up on the situation.

The Canadian forestry industry accounts for approximately $60 billion annually. The exact figure is $58.7 billion. That's an enormous amount of money. Canada is the world's largest exporter of forestry products, with a volume of $38 billion. Our forestry products are also the largest contributor to Canada's balance of trade, contributing $32 billion. This industry accounts for 842,000 direct and indirect jobs, not to mention the fact that nearly 300 communities are directly forest-dependent.

From an environmental standpoint, Canada's forests are home to 140,000 species of plants and animals. Increasingly, and this is a very important consideration, our forests provide a backdrop to other industries such as ecotourism, hunting, and fishing. It is estimated that these secondary activities generate an additional $26 billion annually.

[English]

As for the major forest issues in the country now, again, from a distance they're very broad.

One is implementation of sustainable forest management. Canada is committed to sustainable forest management, and a number of initiatives are bringing the industry and the forestry sector in that direction.

Two, we need global stewardship to illustrate the global role of forests across the nation. Canadian forests represent 10% of the world's forests, so what's happening in Canadian forests has an influence beyond our own frontier. We definitely are the focus point and have a role there.

Three, maintain and expand our markets. That statement has many dimensions. There's the dimension of traditional markets and there's the dimension of competition. New technologies have allowed new countries to become competitors by making forest products out of wood species that didn't lend themselves to making paper, for instance, in the past, but now new technology permits that. As well, there's the whole aspect of green consumerism, there's the whole aspect of non-tariff barriers, and so on.

• 1110

On forest management practices, as you know, Canada being a superpower in forestry, we're the focus of many people from different countries, different groups, and so on. Our forestry practices are more scrutinized than any other country's in the world. Regardless of whether they are sound or unsound practices, we're under the microscope.

The economic and social stability and livelihood of 340 communities—I said 350 a while ago, but the exact number is 340—depends entirely on one industry, and that is the forest industry.

What's the Canadian Forestry Service doing in that whole ball game? It's safe to say we're building capacity to practise sustainable forest management. All of our activities, whether it's international negotiation at the FAO of the UN or a research project being carried on in Quebec City or in Fredericton, everything is aimed at one thing: building the Canadian capacity to practise sustainable development.

As for measuring progress, one of the problems is that when we talk about sustainable development, everybody has their own definition, so one thing that had to be done was to define the criteria and indicators. How do you measure whether you're making progress or losing ground?

In testing and applying sustainable forest management, we do have a wonderful program, from my point of view—and you don't have to share that. The Model Forests Program, which has been designed for that, does bold experimentation in sustainable development from the technical, social, and economic point of view.

To develop national consensus, the department and the minister, through, among other things, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, are playing a key role in coming up with Canadian positions on various issues, whether it's the need for a world forest convention or taking the forest inventory of Canada. Keep in mind there are 12 different jurisdictions in the country that are making their own measurements and so on, so we're bringing that together and acting as facilitators to develop national consensus. Right now we're busy with our provincial colleagues, industry, and NGOs to redo the National Forest Strategy, which is a guideline of where the country wants to go.

Positioning Canada to address global forest issues is a subject that has taken lots of our energy lately and will for the next couple of years. Again, it stems from Rio, the Biodiversity Convention, and so on. Now we're trying to stress the need for a world forest convention that considers the forest holistically.

As for delivering federal responsibility, I won't dwell on that, but I give advice to our colleagues in other departments and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I would leave it at that, if you feel that's enough to start discussion. My colleagues and I will be more than willing to try to answer your questions and interrogations.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Hardy. We'll start the questions with Mr. Canuel.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): I'm pleased to see Mr. Hardy again as I know that he has been toiling away for years in the forestry sector. However, I wonder whether perhaps the Department of Natural Resources is losing some of its importance with each passing year. Is its existence still justified? In my view, yes. However, it is cause for some concern when a department loses its funding and is merged with another. That's my first observation.

• 1115

I have a few questions for Dr. Hardy. The Lower St. Lawrence received $5.7 million through the transitional fund. In the Gaspé region, it took slightly longer—you're aware of the problems—but ultimately, funds did become available and I am very proud of this. Given the demise of the Eastern Plan, this has proved to be very valuable compensation for the people at the Gaspé region and the Lower St. Lawrence.

The people in our region are concerned. On the one hand, we fully realize that forestry should come under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has been quite vocal in demanding this. In my view, people with hands-on knowledge are in the best position to do a good job.

However, money is a concern for all provinces, particularly for Quebec. As you rightly stated earlier, forestry is a $58.7 billion industry. People pay taxes. All I'm asking is that they get a fair return on their investment.

You're going to tell me that you're only a public servant and that it is not up to you to decide. However, as a senior official and as Assistant Deputy Minister, you have a perspective on Canada's forests. You are one of the experts in this subject. I'm wondering if there will be some way to extend this transitional plan in two years. We are already in the second year of a three-year plan. Do we really need to invest this kind of money in order to manage forests?

If the government was unwilling to invest this money, do you, as an expert, feel that our forests of which we are quite proud would suffer? While tremendous progress has been made in the past decade or two, would cuts slow the pace of development? I know that still more can be done in the field of R&D and I would appreciate hearing your views as an expert on the subject. If further cuts are made either by Quebec or by Ottawa, since we still depend on the federal government, would we be endangering a portion or perhaps even all of our forests?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: That's a long, complicated question, but I will do my best to answer it.

Firstly, let me state that I don't quite share Mr. Canuel's view. In my opinion, there must be a federal role in the forestry sector. I think this has been proven on several occasions under different circumstances.

Getting back to the main issue, namely the program review and its impact, when two or three things happen consecutively, such as the merger of two departments and major budget cuts, this rattles the system to its core. However, I am nevertheless very proud to say that this has also been a highly creative and rewarding period since the Canadian Forest Service has refocused its attention and energies.

• 1120

The hardest period is probably now behind us. We have entered a building phase during which we will redefine our relationship with our clients, and with each of the ten provinces. We're going to examine their expectations and those of the industry and look at how we can focus on forging partnerships and working in co-operation with industry, universities and the like.

As for the third part of the question, namely wanting to know my professional opinion on government assistance, whether federal, provincial or municipal, for the development of private forests in Canada, I think the situation described by Mr. Canuel is not unique to Quebec. The same situation prevails in the Atlantic Provinces where there are vast tracks of private forests, in Ontario and in Western Canada, albeit to a lesser degree.

We are also in the midst of another transition from an economic standpoint. Historically, stumpage fees in Canada were relatively low, which in turn kept timber prices relatively low. Much progress has been made because of various factors, among other things the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. The price of lumber has risen considerably in recent years. A balance has probably been achieved and the owner of a private wood lot, much like a wheat farmer, should be aware of what can possibly happen in terms of his investment and the return on that investment. In my view, we will no longer be seeing the government invest directly in private forests by dealing directly with private woodlot owners.

In the meantime, we must contend with the whole issue of the development of knowledge, techniques and methodologies. We are deeply committed, either directly or through organizations such as FERIC, to development and forest engineering research in Canada, to conducting operations, adapting equipment in private forests and so forth.

Mr. René Canuel: Can we expect the transition fund to be around for another 15 years?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I would like to answer yes, but as you well know, I cannot. Like all other departments, the Canadian Forest Service is in the midst of a three-year program review. We are currently in the final year of this review and beyond that...

[English]

The Chairman: We'll come back to it.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: You mentioned lumber and the agreement with the United States. I know that some firms have been somewhat penalized, particularly the new ones, but I also know that there were some adjustments made in the industry. It seems that the companies must still apply for a quota allocation as this is not guaranteed for the next year. What can companies expect for the coming year?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I'm going to ask Mr. Ketcheson to answer your question. He has been involved in this issue from the beginning.

[English]

Mr. Doug Ketcheson (Director General, Industry, Economics and Programs Branch, Forest Service Sector, Department of Natural Resources): The short answer, Mr. Canuel, is that the method for allocating quota to companies was a method that was greatly discussed and was agreed upon by industries from all parts of Canada. There were some adjustments in allocations related to particular adverse circumstances for some firms that didn't have a record of exportation during the reference period. Some adjustments were made to account for that. Some adjustments were made for firms that were in the process of building new facilities and needed some consideration. A fair number of those firms were in Quebec.

• 1125

The method was established by agreement. To change the method of allocation among all of the companies you'd have to go back and seek all of the parties' agreements to change those allocations.

Second, it's really fair to say that there's absolutely no region in the country where everyone was satisfied with how much quota they had, and there's no objective measure that quotas should go here versus there, other than the agreement all of the parties came to.

[Translation]

The Chairman: What about next year?

[English]

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: The allocation is—

The Chairman: Mr. Ketcheson, maybe you could just wrap up and then we'll go to Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: As I understand it, the allocation rules for next year will be based on those of this past year except that there will be no new allocations for new entrants. That particular dimension of the allocation was time-limited, as agreed to by all parties at the outset.

The Chairman: Mr. Canuel, we'll come back to it if we have time at the end.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome my former colleagues from what was then Forestry Canada. Just for the record, I will declare my conflict. I was on an executive interchange with Forestry Canada for about a year and a half, and I can tell you that the group over there is a very dedicated group of professionals who are working very hard on behalf of Canada.

The Chairman: I'm sure it was a good year for the group while you were there.

Mr. Roy Cullen: It was good, and it was challenging and interesting. It sort of highlights a point that Mr. Canuel brought up. At that time it was Forestry Canada, a separate department. Through some of the changes that have evolved, the federal government has acknowledged that forestry is really largely a provincial mandate, so that Forestry Canada or the Canadian Forest Service, notwithstanding the huge impact of the forest products industry on the economy and communities of Canada, is now part of the natural resources department. It's a government decision, a political decision.

I'm not sure, though, that given the way we're going we could see having the forestry service as a separate department, which may be what is required. I can't see that happening. I think we should be exploring other ways of somehow shedding more light on the Canadian Forest Service and the contribution of the forest industry. I'm not sure what the solution or the model is.

We could spend hours talking about forestry quotas. I'll just make one comment with respect to Quebec. My impression is that the solutions lie there. If you try to please everybody you please nobody, but nonetheless....

I would like to move on to some other issues. First of all, the whole issue of global warming is becoming very topical. There has been some discussion about the contribution of forests. I think the term used is “carbon sink”. There are also questions around deforestation and how that is contributing to global warming.

Dr. Hardy, would you or your officials comment on those two aspects? What role can the forests play in terms of global warming? What are you doing to promote that if it has some effect? What is the effect of deforestation on global warming and is there anything we can do as a country to address some of that?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: That's another good question.

First of all, let's look at the current situation in Canada and at what current science is telling us. When I say current science we have to understand that we're learning as we go. One of our research networks is dedicated to climate change and its impact on forests and, vice versa, how some forests even can affect global warming. What is coming out of that at the present time is that the forests of Canada right now are more or less neutral in terms of a sink. As a matter of fact, right now they are seen as being a slight source due to very high forest fire activity over the past 10 years. But more importantly, that was due to very severe forest insect outbreaks in the late 1970s up to the mid-1980s, with spruce budworm in eastern Canada and the pine beetle in western Canada.

• 1130

The forests are recovering from that right now, and we're on the edge of really becoming a sink, according to current methodology that's being perfected all the time.

In terms of deforestation, the first statement that is important to make is that in Canada right now there's no such thing as deforestation. The amount of forested land is the same year after year. If anything, it's slightly increasing due to the reclamation of marginal agricultural lands that are being reforested.

By and large, there's this cycle of cutting, growing, forest fires, natural regeneration, and so on. But if we look at that at on a global scale, of course, deforestation is a major problem.

The FAO released last spring its report on the state of the world's forests, which is released every five years, I believe. Again, there were some notes of optimism, which was that the rate of deforestation is slowing down and that America is not losing forests any more. Developed countries are actually gaining some forests, but developing countries are still losing forests at quite a dramatic rate. Of course, if there are fewer trees to fix the carbon, there's an additional problem there.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

Switching gears for a moment, you mentioned, Dr. Hardy, the non-tariff barriers to trade in forest products. Would you maybe highlight some of the major ones? Some of them, I suspect, have been around for a while. What sort of progress is being made on that front?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Again, I will make a team effort and say a few words. Then I'll ask Mr. Ketcheson to carry the ball.

The pinewood nematode is definitely the flagship of the non-tariff barrier.

Doug, could you give a quick update on where things are?

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: The pinewood nematode, as you know, Roy, has been around for quite a while as an issue between Canada and Europe. The Europeans are concerned about the importation of the nematode, which, theoretically, would put their forests at risk to certain diseases.

The Canadian position has been this. We've had nematodes for years and years, yet we don't have diseases, and you've been taking our wood for hundreds of years, yet you don't have those diseases. But this issue is lost in the world of phytosanitary rules and regulations. The Canadian view is that it's a major non-tariff barrier to Canadian green lumber exports to Europe.

The Canadian government, provinces, and industry have been working over the last 10 years to try to find ways to gain access into Europe and satisfy their concerns about security and safety in their forests. We've reached a point where there's a pretty common view held that all those efforts are coming to naught. The Europeans are stalling. The current consideration is whether or not we have enough of a case to go to the WTO for a challenge.

There are some other minor issues, but the great fear regarding non-tariff barriers, I suppose, relates to the question of new trade rules related to trade and environment, and the definition of so-called level playing fields for what's acceptable forest practice, or what have you.

• 1135

We're truly more engaged in the international dialogue on forests, which my colleague could speak to better than I. There is a lot of interest, though, in new trade rules. The WTO's looking at it and we're quite engaged.

The Chairman: Mr. Godin, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First of all, let me say how very happy I am to meet you. As you know, I come from New Brunswick, specifically from Bathurst. This is truly a forest region. I have many questions for you, but I would like to ask you first to clarify certain points that I didn't quite grasp. I hope that once I have sat on this committee for four or five years, I will know more about federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Since you have responsibility for natural resources and the forestry sector, do you also have authority over forestry management in the provinces? I will start by asking brief questions to bring myself up to speed on this issue.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Would you like me to answer your questions as they arise?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, please.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: The answer is no. We have no authority over the management of provincial forests. We exercise authority only over federally owned lands such as Gagetown which is owned by National Defence.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I understand. Secondly, I would like to know if you are responsible for the Tracadie military camp?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: The owner, National Defence, is responsible for the military camp and for all related aspects. With respect to those bases of any importance in Canada, whether Tracadie, Gagetown, Valcartier in Quebec, Petawawa here in Ontario, or those bases out West, we have established a protocol with National Defence whereby we supply the necessary expertise to manage forested areas. However, National Defence maintains ownership of and responsibility for these forests.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Not that I want to surprise you, but it was my understanding that in April of 1997, the former Minister of Defence transferred ownership of the Tracadie military camp to the province. I don't know if you are aware of this. At present, logging operations are underway on this land. I would like to know who is responsible for logging, because this ties in with the whole issue of stumpage fees which you referred to earlier and which you claimed were really quite reasonable. Is the federal government the one being reasonable and the one who is setting the fee? I disagree with you in your assessment of stumpage fees.

In New Brunswick, for example, these fees are not hard and fast; the people from my region tell me that they request bids. Company officials arrive on the scene and bid for the stumpage rights. These can go up to $57 a cord. At $57 a cord plus the cost of equipment, basically some employees are working for nothing. I'm telling you that the government is contributing to this situation and to the fact that employees are working for virtually nothing because it is preventing the industry from making money. I'm not talking about the large companies such as Stone or Repap, but about small firms that go out into the forest and are hamstrung by these these stumpage fees. That's why I disagree with you when you say that we have perhaps the lowest stumpage fees of any country. I disagree, unless you're saying that this applies only to federal lands and that the provinces have no say in this matter.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I don't think we're talking about quite the same thing.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Then kindly enlighten me.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I will have to enquire about Tracadie. From what you're saying, the land was transferred from the federal government to the province. Therefore, if this transfer did indeed take place, the province has assumed responsibility for the land. I will look into the matter and get back to you with specific information.

As for stumpage fees, these apply to public forests in Canada. Each province determines the cost involved and it can vary. The fee represents the amount that a firm or company must award to the province to carry out logging operations and assume ownership of the land. We're talking about the basic cost.

• 1140

When this basic fee is very low, the final cost of the wood is also very low. If you pay me $1 per cubic metre, the cost of the wood at the plant will be $1, in addition to operating, logging, transportation and other costs. If the cost is higher, the company will be forced to pay higher costs as well.

Therefore, this fee determines what a company is prepared to pay for timber harvested in a private forest. If the company can have timber from a public forest for $50 a cubic metre, it will not pay more than $50 a cubic metre for timber from a private forest. That's what I mean when I say that stumpage fees, which have increased considerably in recent years, have tended to drive up the cost of timber harvested in private forests.

Are these fees high enough? That's another question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Aren't we talking about a standard fee?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: No, absolutely not.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I see.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Each province administers its own stumpage fee program.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have another question. Is transitional funding available to groups as well? For example, at home in New Brunswick, people without experience can acquire some through the rural experience. How does the federal government or of your department feel about transitional funding for the provinces? For example, in the case of New Brunswick which is involved in the rural experience, does the department have a say in how transitional funds are spent?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: That's another good question.

First of all, the Department of Natural Resources has no direct authority over the transitional fund. It is administered by the Department of Human Resources Development. However, our department does have some indirect authority because when forestry projects are submitted, we advise other federal departments, that is we evaluate the project and give either a positive or negative assessment of it.

At present, the provinces or the various groups have a say in where they would like to direct these funds. In New Brunswick's case, the government stated very clearly early on in the process that it wanted these funds to be directed to the forestry sector. The New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and the federal Department of Human Resources Development came to an agreement on the transitional fund. The same thing happened in Quebec with respect to privately owned forests, as Mr. Canuel mentioned.

Other provinces chose to focus on other sectors, depending on whether they qualified for funding or not. Each time forestry issues were involved, our department stepped in and acted as a consultant.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have one final brief question.

The Chairman: Very briefly please.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is a brief, but nonetheless important, question.

Several years ago, I attended a briefing given by a professor from the University of Moncton whose name I can't recall.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Louis Lapierre.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, his name was Lapierre. Do you know him?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Very well.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I found his comments quite interesting. He stated that some countries involved in reforestation evaluated the different types of wood, that is hardwood, softwood, aspen, birch and so forth, before assigning logging rights to a company. I found that very interesting.

Do you give any thought to this? We have to realize that if we harvest the forest without doing any reforestation, we will end up with only pine forests in Canada. There will no longer be any deer or moose or any other creature because they do not eat pine. I truly enjoyed what Professor Lapierre had to say about countries that give some thought to this problem.

Has your office ever stopped to consider this particular issue?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: Let me just say that Mr. Lapierre is somewhat of an extension of the Canadian Forest Service. He is the chairman of the board of directors of the Fundy model forest, a federal initiative.

• 1145

There are 10 model forests in Canada representing 10 different sociocultural environments and ecosystems from the west coast to Newfoundland, encompassing both private forests and public forests.

The aim of the model forest is to take the principles you mentioned and apply them, or adapt them to specific situations. Mr. Lapierre has a key role in this development, not only by virtue of his position at the University of Moncton, but also given his status as the chairman of the board of directors of this forest. He is an extremely dynamic individual and we greatly appreciate his efforts.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Welcome to the Natural Resources Committee, Dr. Hardy. I've had the pleasure of hearing you speak three or four times already and as always, you have made a very interesting presentation.

When you last appeared before the committee, we had discussed the fact that Canada had been in the process of negotiating for several years already with the international community a type of code of ethic governing sustainable development forestry practices. Could you update us on this? Has any progress been made in the past year or two? What is the status of these talks?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I will start by giving you a more general answer and Mr. Carette, who is responsible for international issues, can give you some specifics.

The short answer is yes, progress has been made. However, this is an extremely complex issue. As you know, the pace is set by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development which, two and a half years ago, set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Forestry, or IPF. This panel held meetings for two years and presented a report last spring to the UN General Assembly shortly after the Denver Summit. Mr. Chrétien attended the Assembly meeting at which many recommendations were made, one of which being that further action should be taken to hammer out a convention.

Countries like Canada are pushing quite a bit for a convention for a number of reasons, one of which is a little self-serving. Our country's economy is heavily dependent on forests and we would like to see a convention spelling out the global rules governing forestry management. We want clearly defined regulations so that no one can tell us what we can or cannot do.

Another global issue is deforestation. We may be protecting our forests, while somewhere on the other side of the world, deforestation is a serious problem. We have to try and make everyone understand that we need to work together to maintain a kind of balance.

These are the basic premises and as you can imagine, there are many different positions on the subject. Summing up, I would have to say that Canada and the European Community are on one side, while the United States are on the other. Many developing countries are sitting on the fence and only want to be convinced.

Moreover, a new panel has been set up, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forestry, or IFF, replacing the IPF. There is a major difference this time around. The forum must make a specific recommendation to the United Nations as to whether or not a convention should be negotiated.

I will now let Mr. Carette make a few additional comments on our approach and current position.

Mr. Jacques Carette (Director General, Policies, Planning and International Affairs Branch): Thank you, Yvan. There is not much left for me to say, since you summarized the situation quite well.

As Yvan indicated, we have many allies in this process. Furthermore, we are also exploring a number of other options aside from a forestry convention, which in spite of everything, remains our ultimate objective.

• 1150

We are also working with many countries at the present time on sustainable development criteria and indicators. Canada has already made quite a bit of progress on these issues. Recently, through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, we presented a first report on sustainable development criteria and indicators in Canada.

We are also examining this subject along with other countries through a process known as the Montreal Process, since our first meeting was held in Montreal. Involved in this study are 12 countries which account for 90 per cent of the world's temperate and boreal forests. Joint activities have also been undertaken within the framework of a similar process known as the Helsinki or pan-European process.

Again, the key is to agree on a definition of sustainable forestry development. At the very least, we hope that this definition can be contained in international agreements which would help us counter some of the negative criticism about our forest management practices. We believe that countries which manage natural forests do not have a great deal to learn from other countries.

A considerable amount of tension does exist, however, between countries that manage manmade forests. Often, we are presented with the European model. The fact is that the Europeans completely wiped out their natural forests and now manage manmade ones, whereas we still have many natural forests left, with all of the positive things that this implies in terms of recreational activities, natural scenery and so forth. Therefore, the indicators are very positive for Canada which is far out in front of other countries.

Another point of contention still unresolved is the whole issue of international aid. Many developing countries would be interested in signing a forestry convention and in taking on other duties, but they're often in the difficult position of wondering how they will finance forest development. There are also trade issues to contend with and some countries see a convention as a way of possibly ending boycotts imposed in the past, particularly in the case of tropical woods. And lastly, other countries rely totally on the World Trade Organization.

While some tension does exist, we have two years, within the framework of the forum, to come up with a draft convention. We are working very closely with the provinces which support our approach and we are trying to move toward a convention.

[English]

Mr. Benoît Serré: Along the same line of thought, a couple of years ago Canada was the subject of what I feel was a very nasty campaign of misinformation throughout Europe, notably in Germany with the Green Party and some of their radical environmentalist groups. It seems it has quietened down a bit in the last year or so.

Are these things still going on in the ads in the German newspapers? There was even a question of boycotting the B.C. forestry industry. Can you give us an update of what's happening on that issue?

Dr. Ivan Hardy: That's an interesting one, again. You made a very good description of what the situation was two or three years ago. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers put together a program that is headed by Mr. Carette on behalf of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. The basic approach taken was show and tell. Instead of trying to convince people through speeches, through documentation and photographs that we were doing a good job, every year we host six or seven different parties of influential people—journalists, politicians, academics, etc.—who tour the country and see for themselves and make their own judgments. If they want to talk to a Greenpeace officer, they can talk to a Greenpeace officer. If they want to talk to a provincial government official, they talk to one.

• 1155

So we bring them across the nation, and every time we show what we're doing—some people were honest enough to take the time to understand—the result was always very positive. It's difficult to make a correlation between that and less exposure and a less aggressive campaign across the ocean, but the fact is, it has calmed down very much in the past year or so.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Serré.

Mr. Provenzano, then Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): In your presentation you made us very well aware of Canada's role as a forestry superpower and also the importance of the forestry industry to Canada. I thank you for that.

With respect to the role of the Canadian Forest Service, I note there hasn't been much detail given in terms of Canada's role in research and development. I'd ask you or some member of your team to provide the committee with details of that role and, in particular, the objectives of the Canadian Forest Service with respect to research and development.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I thank you for that question. At heart I'm a scientist and a researcher, so that question is very dear to me.

The first statement I must make is that about 70% of the Canadian forest activity is on the research, science and technology side. Our role in science...well, I'll make a blunt statement: we're the major player in Canada in research and development.

We have five major research centres spread across the country, one of which is in the Sault, which you must know very well. Another one is in Fredericton, which serves the Atlantic provinces. I know there is one currently moving from St. John's in Newfoundland to Cornerbrook, about 20 people there. There's another one in St. Foye, Quebec, a fourth one in Moncton, and finally, one in Victoria, B.C.

Overall we're talking about a budget of $70 million involving about 600 employees, the vast majority of them being professionals, Ph.D.s, bachelor degrees and technical support. Each of these centres have a national mandate. After program review we reorganized. We had fewer resources so we definitely tried to optimize our effort, so we now have 10 networks and each one of the labs has the leadership of two of these networks.

Their mandate is to serve the country. They organized the network in such a way that we don't work by ourselves, but we do work with the academics, the universities, provincial governments when they have a research capability, the industry and so on. By and large it's about a half and half proposition. We have a very tight relationship with the universities.

For example, we have probably about 90 either post-doctoral fellows or graduate students at the Masters and Ph.D. level in our lab. In addition to that, we have about the same number of people who are in their internship, or term scientists who come for specific projects that are made feasible because company X is investing, and so on. So we do have a very dynamic research organization.

• 1200

Not only that, in terms of research operations, I mentioned ten networks. We will leave a description behind, but this is just to say that they're all in support of sustainable forest management, whether it's from the forest fire point of view, from a decision-making point of view, and so on.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: My question specifically is in regard to the fact that there were originally seven forestry centres in Canada, but they've been cut to five. I know you will certainly correct me if I make a wrong statement, but the budgets for these remaining five centres have been cut substantially. They have less operating funds. Scientists and research people have been lopped off of their employment rolls. They've suffered significantly in terms of employee reduction.

Given that fact, firstly, is it the objective of the Canadian Forest Service to play a world leadership role in research and development? Secondly, having regard to what's happened with the research centres, are we able to play that role?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I believe so. Of course, as head of the Canadian Forest Service, don't expect me to say that we're not doing a good job, because I believe we are doing a good job. But you're absolutely right. In program review, like any other department, we took a blow in terms of available resources.

In the approach we've taken, we looked at the overall resources and where we were spending money. You said seven. In reality, we went from eight centres to five. The reason for that was to cut down on infrastructure costs. I know I can tell you that I got a lot of flack from everywhere for terminating the operation at PNFI. This was a fairly old installation that was costing a lot of money in heating, lighting, maintenance, and so on, so the decision was made basically to keep our money for the scientists and to reduce to a minimum the number of lay-offs, while keeping some operating money.

The other decision that was made was to get out of the operational field of research. Again, it caused some flack, but it was one area in which we were spending lots of money. In reality the first and second disease survey was bordering provincial jurisdiction. I can tell you that if we had been into the forest inventory survey, the provinces would never have tolerated it. With the insects, since we have the biological expertise, we were writing that one, but we pulled out of that in order to keep our resources for what I would call the research activity that's needed to support and keep the Canadian forestry industry at the very edge of knowledge.

But yes, we are a world-renowned and world-class forestry research organization. What you heard here is directly from the heart.

Maybe you want to add a few things on your own on that, Gordon.

The Chairman: Carmen, could we leave it at that for the moment?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Absolutely.

The Chairman: I'm going to allow two other members to maybe get short questions in. We'll try to wrap up in the next five minutes.

Mr. Keddy, and then Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'll be very brief.

On the reference from Mr. Serré on the ISO 9000 regulations, they're just about impossible to introduce for forestry. You discussed it and said that we're headed in that direction, and that sounds very well. After saying that, however, it's an incredibly expensive process for a small business, it's a lot more expensive for a large business, and there has been no agreement between the players on completely how to go about it. It's not just one stage of operations, it's everything from land management to production to shipping. It's a very difficult regime to follow, so I'd be interested to hear any further statements you had on that.

• 1205

The other issue goes along with what Mr. Provenzano mentioned about the research capability of Forestry Canada. For those of us in the industry, the amount of capability that appears to have been lost is certainly shocking. As committee members and as parliamentarians, what can we do to support a reversal in that trend?

Dr. Yvan Hardy: On the first question, I will ask Mr. Ketcheson to give you a comment, but there is a parallel exercise in Canada that has been put forward, and that is the CSA certification process. There's also the stewardship council process for certification of forest operations.

Doug Ketcheson has been front and centre in these discussions, so I would ask him to give further comments with regard to ISO 9000.

Mr. Doug Ketcheson: The first thing to say is that the certification exercise is a private-sector exercise, not a government exercise. It's driven by the industry or other groups in Canada, with a view to establishing with their clients and other groups that there's a high standard of forest management activity going on in Canada. I happened to talk to a colleague in the industry yesterday who is associated with the industry coalition on the CSA, and I was told that quite a number of large companies in Canada are moving very aggressively toward positioning themselves, which means doing background work to get certified product on the market.

There are questions about private wood-lot owners and whether or not those private wood-lots are going to be positioned to be certified. I don't know what the answers to those things are, but I do know there's a fair bit of work going on with the industry. The model forests are looking at some of those questions, particularly Fundy.

There's quite a long way to go on certification at this point in time, but my judgment is that it is still seen very strongly by Canadian industry to be a necessary strategy, albeit expensive, for establishing themselves or keeping their position in world markets for forest products.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy, could you let it go at that for now?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jackson, you can wrap it up.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): I have one quick question for Mr. Hardy, Mr. Chairman.

It's a question that I keep asking myself, depending on the organization, but particularly with regard to the scientific community. How do you keep your leading edge? I'd be interested to see the program that you may have to keep you focused, maybe through your internships and so on, so that the scientists don't get stale and lock themselves in a room, so that they keep growing. I'd be interested in seeing exactly how that process is done in your department, if you don't mind furnishing us with that information.

Dr. Yvan Hardy: I would ask Mr. Miller to give you comments, but there are lots of ways. We have a forum right now.

Gordon, you can carry on with that one.

Mr. Gordon Miller (Director General, Science Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources): Largely as a result of the shrinkage in the science program, we have several things going on. One commenced in June, with the national forum on forest sciences, which we initiated. Out of that, we're developing a national course of action that will help us stay relevant to client needs. It also is a forum for building partnerships, because it involves provinces and territories, industry, the universities, etc.

Because all of us have been going through similar downsizing sorts of exercises, we've put a lot of effort into stimulating more collaboration. I think this national course of action will help all forest science organizations in Canada to stay focused on relevant issues.

Something else that we've done recently as well was to initiate an S and T working group under the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. It is helping us to deal with common issues, and again is helping on the co-ordination front as well.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I know we don't have a lot of time, but want to pass on one little bit of advice or whatever, if the gentlemen will take it.

In my estimation, a lot of government departments, particularly those of you that do very good work—and I know in a lot of cases you do—still don't get out to the general public in terms of talking to public schools or service clubs. When you get downsized and you get into those kinds of problems, I think in a lot of cases there's not a lot of communication coming out. It's sad that this happens.

• 1210

I know people with fisheries experience, or trees, the way they can be planted to make sure the climate around the house...and the way the snow falls. There's a lot of expertise there that actually is lost, maybe because you get into the professorial type of mode.

So I think you should be getting out a little more. You should have—I hope you do—a program where you are interacting with not only every generation that comes by but also with politicians and the general public.

The Chairman: Is that a concluding comment?

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Yes.

The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much for the time you've spent with us. This will no doubt act as a platform for some future discussions with the Canadian Forestry Service. Thank you.

We'll now invite Dr. Everell to brief us on earth sciences.

Welcome, Dr. Everell. I observe that you have some colleagues with you. If you'll introduce them and maybe give us a presentation of 10 minutes or so, we'll have time for questions after that from members.

Thank you.

Dr. Marc Denis Everell (Assistant Deputy Minister, Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada): Thank you very much.

It's a pleasure to be here this morning with some of my colleagues—Peter Fisher, Marc Corey and Murray Duke. Murray Duke is from the Geological Survey of Canada and Mark Corey is from Geomatics Canada.

What I want to do this morning is to introduce you to the Earth Sciences Sector. The Earth Sciences Sector carries out its operation in the national capital here to some extent, but we also have regional offices and labs in over 16 localities across Canada. So we're quite well spread out in the country.

• 1215

To describe the sector in two words, I can say that it maps Canada. That's who we are and that's what we do. Starting from the geological survey in 1842, the components of the sector have expanded and contracted in response to the need of government. What remains today in the Earth Sciences Sector after program review—which, by the way, resulted in a reduction of some 30%—is a core of fundamental science and technology for mapping, exploring and surveying what is in fact the second-largest land mass in the world and its offshore areas.

[Translation]

In order to manage this land mass judiciously, governments and Canadians need maps, information and expertise to help them understand its shape, resources and dynamics. That is where we come in.,

[English]

Every one of us has probably used a topographic map and a magnetic compass, dug a hole and wondered what kind of rock is down there, consulted a national atlas, taken a commercial flight across Canada, worried about the threat of an earthquake or wondered who maintains our physical boundary with the United States. For every one of these activities, you use or needed the products and services of the Earth Sciences Sector of NRCan. Clearly the scope of our work is enormous.

Before I answer your questions, and I'm sure you want to go to that as soon as possible, I will highlight a few good examples of the work we're doing today. I think you'll get from my presentation an idea of why I believe the work of the Earth Sciences Sector continues to be a fundamentally important public service for all Canadians.

In the briefing package you received, you found a profile of the sector, the organization and the mandate of the its three components: Geomatics Canada, the Geological Survey of Canada, and the Polar Continental Shelf Project. In the same package there were some program highlights and some examples of our products and services.

The federal role in earth sciences is complementary to the provincial role. We consult and collaborate with the provinces to ensure that we jointly address the gaps. I say “gaps” because in the old days we used to talk about overlaps, and now I think the issue is more managing well the gap that would exist otherwise in our capacity to deliver geoscience and geomatics programs.

I'll just spend a few minutes talking about Geomatics Canada. This organization provides Canadians and international clients with the most accurate geographic information available through its surveying, mapping and remote sensing as well as geographic information system programs. This is fundamental for decision-making, whether it be satellite imagery for resource management, earth observation systems for crop monitoring, topographic maps for planning, legal surveys to maintain national boundaries and define aboriginal land claims or charts for analytical navigation.

[Translation]

For example, data from the RADARSAT Canadian satellite, which we collect at our Gatineau and Prince-Albert stations, has a wide range of applications, including research and search and rescue operations.

You may perhaps recall our help in searching for the seamen lost in the south Atlantic almost one year ago. In fact, you will find a RADARSAT image of Ottawa in the briefing package which was distributed to you.

• 1220

With the help of large scale imagery, we were able to monitor on a daily basis last spring's flooding in Manitoba. We also monitored to a certain extent the flooding in Quebec's Saguenay region.

[English]

The geomatics industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors. In annual global market this industry has a size of about $17 billion.

The Earth Sciences Sector has contributed to the success of many of our Canadian firms that operate in that area. With research agreements we also do a lot of contracting out to the Canadian private sector. In fact, this year Geomatics Canada has something like $36 million of contracting-out activity. That makes possible the development of many of these enterprises for serving Canadian needs, but it also prepares them to serve international needs.

In the sector we are also very involved in supporting industry through trade missions. We believe in fact we can have a very significant influence on the level of export sales in that area over the next five years. In fact, we have a target of about a 30% increase over that period, from a current level of international sales of about $300 million per year.

[Translation]

We are now working with the Canadian geomatics industry in several countries around the world. We help the industry acquire contracts abroad. For example, we are working in Russia, in Saudi Arabia and in Latin America and lending support to the industry, in keeping with our mandate. The Canadian geomatics industry ranks second in the world.

I would now like to say a few words about the Geological Survey of Canada.

[English]

The Geological Survey of Canada provides geological maps, data, and research for all of Canada and offshore. We have in the briefing package a good geological map of Canada. In fact it's a new map. It's the third map of its type since 1842. It's really a synthesis of the state of geological knowledge on our land mass. In fact that map, which may seem esoteric to many people, has made the front cover of many specialized magazines in Canada and elsewhere because it's such an important contribution.

Information, such as the map about the geology of Canada, is absolutely key to attracting exploration investment in Canada. You may know that every year in the last few years we have had about $800 million of exploration investment. The good geology GSC obviously contributes is very important in attracting these exploration dollars.

[Translation]

I would now like to give you an example of one of our mapping and directed research programs in New Brunswick. This program, known as EXTECH II, is a joint venture with the Government of New Brunswick, industry and universities. Launched around 1994, EXTECH II will officially come to an end in 1999. Close to $8 million has been invested in the program, almost half of which has come from the Geological Survey of Canada.

This program is not yet over, but it is already producing some good results. It attracted over $4 million in investment in mineral exploration in the region in the first year after information was disclosed. This program also led to the discovery of the Camelback deposit which is on the verge of being exploited. While a mine has not yet been opened, the potential for development certainly exists.

Working with its partners, the Geological Survey has also been able to identify a number of other areas in which positive results will most certainly be achieved in the not so distant future.

• 1225

In your briefing package, you will find a map containing some data on the EXTECH II project. I invite members from the region to consult this map. If you would like further information, we will be happy to talk to you. Perhaps Murray Duke could provide additional details, time permitting.

I could give you several other examples of Geological Survey activities. I emphasize that these have lead to new investments in exploration and generated some potential for mineral exploration.

[English]

Now I'll say a few words about some of the activities we do with respect to climate change. I know this is a very topical subject for parliamentarians these days.

We're not necessarily the biggest player in this area, but I think we have a very significant contribution in terms of understanding climates of the past, and perhaps in this way, helping us to understand what could occur with climate change that is postulated to occur with the increasing action of greenhouse gases.

You have in your package a document that talks briefly about Palliser's Triangle, the work we did in this area. We tried to understand for that part of Saskatchewan and Alberta what could be the effect of an increase in temperature. Obviously it can lead to drought. In fact, the region has gone through that in the past. So in a sense it's a very good contribution to greater understanding of the potential impacts of climate change. We've done that for the regions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and we've made similar attempts to understand climate changes in other parts of the country, in particular in the Mackenzie River Basin, in the northern part of Alberta and other regions close by.

I have a few words now about some of the work we do with respect to marine activity. We are, of course, involved in work on the offshore of Canada, especially in the Atlantic region. Some of the work of GSC has generated additional exploration in the area of western Newfoundland. In fact, I think from the activity that was done in terms of new interpretation, some $60 million worth of new exploration was carried out. Similarly, we have some activity right now in the Gaspé region.

In your package is another element we would like to draw your attention to. It is a small discussion about the basin database of offshore wealth of oil and gas. We own a very large inventory of past work of the industry, and this inventory is very useful to many companies that are interested in finding new resources in the offshore of the Atlantic; in fact, I think we have some people who are even interested in paying a bit of money for that, a substantial amount in some cases.

The sector is also very involved in activities in rural areas and in the north. I mentioned a third component of our organization, which was the Polar Continental Shelf. You might know that this organization has two bases, one in Tuktoyaktuk and one in Resolute Bay. This is an organization that provides logistics and air transport and all these types of support that would be required for government and university research people who work in the Arctic. In fact, this organization has been in place now for 40 years. It's a very visible demonstration of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

Talking about the Arctic leads me to make a point about the potential of the north of Canada with respect to minerals.

[Translation]

As geoscientists, we believe like many other people in the field that many opportunities exist for making new and interesting discoveries in the North. We believe that these discoveries will have a marked effect on the region's ability to become increasingly self-sufficient. In fact, some of our scientists have speculated that mineral resources worth as much as $500 billion have yet to be tapped in this region of the country.

Of course, we are working actively in this area and will likely continue to do so in the years ahead.

• 1230

Your briefing package also contains some information on our activities with respect to Canada lands. You may already know that

[English]

Canada Lands represents about 50% of the territory of Canada, and this is leading to a lot of activity on the part of the sector, because we have some responsibility in these lands for surveying. If you look at the picture we have included, you will see it's quite impressive the amount of Canada Lands there, and obviously that needs some attention on our part.

The Chairman: Is this the one you're referring to?

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: No, that's the new map of the geology of Canada. Maybe someone can flash the pictures while I talk.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Tell us where it's located in the document.

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: Well, I don't want to.... It should be there, but if it's not there, we'll make sure you receive a copy.

I wish they had provided you with a colour picture, but the dark part is the part we refer to as Canada Lands.

Obviously the territories are Canada Lands, but so are the park areas in Canada and also the aboriginal reserves, and we also have the offshore of Canada, or at least some of the elements of the offshore of Canada. This needs attention on the part of the sector.

Another point with respect to the geology activity we do, for which we are quite well known in fact, is the work we do with our seismograph network. With our seismograph network we record earthquakes from around the world, but this information is used also to design new and better building codes for Canada. In fact a new version of this will be coming out in the year 2000.

As well, this activity around seismic network recording allows us to contribute to something that may be a surprise to you. We are contributing to providing information for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, because of course seismic activity would record the explosion of large bombs. As such, we can use these networks to find out what is going on and help the treaty be fully implemented.

[Translation]

Earthquakes are the Geological Survey of Canada's claim to fame. Each time an earthquake occurs, our labs are flooded with calls, to the point where problems sometime arise. Our scientists are known for their expertise in this field. People want to know what happened and if we are going to be hit by another earthquake.

Your package contains an interesting map. It would be much more interesting if it were in colour. If we look quickly at it, we see that three zones are especially at risk in Canada for earthquakes. The first zone is the British Columbia region. Vancouver and the surrounding area are known to be somewhat at risk. The Charlevoix region in Quebec is also another earthquake- prone region. Just this past week, the area was hit by a rather significant earthquake. Earthquakes are also likely to occur in Canada's north. Of course, fewer people are affected there, but the impact on the region can nonetheless be significant.

[English]

I don't want to take too much longer, Mr. Chairman. Those were some highlights of the activity of the Earth Sciences Sector.

As I said earlier, I see our role as providing knowledge and expertise about Canada's land mass, and that knowledge and expertise underpins virtually all economic activity. Sometimes it's referred to as the best-kept secret. Very few people have the understanding that this sector does all these things for all these people: for governments, for the federal government, for native communities, for Canadians in general, and also for industry, to help them develop in that area and sell abroad.

• 1235

I will stop on this point. I think I've taken more than 10 minutes. I usually end up talking more than I should, but it's been a pleasure to make this small presentation to you, and certainly I'm ready to answer your questions with the team around me.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Everell.

You said it's one of the best-kept secrets. It seems to me it's like our ambulance services: you don't notice you have an ambulance service until you need to call an ambulance. We tend to take for granted how much expertise and knowledge is contained in the Earth Sciences Sector of the federal government.

We'll start with Mr. Godin and then go to Mr. Jackson.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: First of all, I would like to welcome you and say how happy I am to meet you. We received the briefing package last week and I found it most interesting.

I'm interested to hear you say that you discovered a deposit of some kind in Bathurst. That's wonderful! I'll give you my card later so that we can get in touch again to discuss this matter. I would like to get more information from you on the subject.

Mr. Marc Denis Everell: In the meantime, if you like, my colleague Murray Duke could tell you a little more about the goings-on in the region and the GSC's involvement, since you seem to be interested in this.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Fine.

[English]

Mr. Murray Duke (Director General, Minerals and Regional Geoscience Branch, Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada): As Marc Denis indicated, we began the EXTECH project in 1994. It has a total budget of $7 million or $8 million, of which about half comes from the federal side, the Geological Survey of Canada. The bulk of the rest comes from our sister agency in New Brunswick, the New Brunswick geological services branch. As well there are contributions from industry, from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Regional Development Corporation in New Brunswick.

Basically the idea was to enhance the knowledge base of the region and at the same time develop some new technologies for mineral exploration. The project's been quite successful to date, the indicator being the increase in exploration spending on the part of the private sector. I understand the land holdings of the industry are at the highest level since the initial discovery in 1954.

Quite a number of different scientific developments have come out of the project in terms of our understanding of why the mineral deposits occur where they do in the Bathurst region. I suppose the one that has attracted the most attention is what Marc Denis referred to as the discovery by Noranda of the Camelback deposit a year or so ago. This was the result of their following an airborne geophysical survey that was done as part of the project.

As Marc Denis indicated, it's much too early to tell whether Camelback will become an economic deposit. Noranda will have to do much more work to determine its economic viability. But what is really significant is it's opened up a whole new part of the camp to exploration.

If you'll allow me to quickly go to the maps in your briefing material, two maps are presented there, and they are highly generalized, but there's a before and after, if you like: the state of our knowledge before the EXTECH project and the state of our knowledge now. The important thing is that where the Camelback deposit is shown, previous to this new data, geologists would not have predicted that it would have been an environment in which you would expect to find this kind of mineral deposit. The result of the work is to show that in fact there are many favourable horizons present there.

So it was a combination of new geological knowledge plus the airborne geophysical survey, which gave a very precise target, that led to Noranda's discovery. Whether Camelback will become a mine or not we don't know, but the exciting thing is there are dozens and dozens of other similar anomalies in the region, which have to be tested by the private sector. We're quite optimistic that it will really promote exploration.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The word you use, “Camelback”.... I know about the one Noranda found. I thought it was a surprise...but I appreciate the explanation you gave me.

• 1240

To finish, because of this global marketing now, when it's so open with free trade and everything, I worry that the companies we have here will invest more in other countries and will start to forget about us.

I come from a mining region, and for us, Brunswick Mine has served the various regions really well for over 30 years. It's important for the people down home. It's enough that we have the problems in the fishery; it would be terrible if we lost our mining industry. Then they will erase us off the new Canadian map for sure. That's how important it is for us.

Is the government removing themselves a little bit from exploration or are they putting more in exploration? It is important because there's tension about whether the companies will go and spend money in Africa and those places. I'm worried about it because I see the president of Noranda in New Brunswick going to Africa almost every two weeks, with his superintendents and everything. It's so important because for us in our region—I don't just want to talk about our region but it is a good example—in the Bathurst area, the Brunswick Mine will be closed in the next 12 to 15 years and it will be a disaster.

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: I can start to reply and maybe Murray can complement.

As I said, exploration is attracted by many things. Obviously the geology that you offer to companies will attract them, more or less. In Canada, the body of knowledge of geology, the geoscience level of expertise, is quite large. Obviously we continue to invest in improving that knowledge. That's one way to attract mining companies of Canada and elsewhere to look for deposits in Canada. Obviously Canadian companies are also involved elsewhere, but in a sense, that's life.

I think we have to make an effort—and that's certainly the effort that GSC is making, along with other survey organizations in Canada—to make sure that we present the Canadian picture in the best light possible and that we identify for companies areas that could have things to investigate. Then we hope they will look at it seriously. Very often they bite and they do look at it carefully.

I was going to mention another example. We had some of our geologists working very far up north. In one case it was Baffin Island. After just one summer of work they came back and gave the interpretation of their work, and right after that exploration increased to a very high level. This happens all the time.

I think it's important for governments to maintain a level of investment in geology and geoscience and I think the federal government is maintaining quite a high level of effort right now. Of course we were affected by program review, but there's still quite a lot of strength within GSC right now.

Murray.

Mr. Murray Duke: I don't think I can improve on that.

The Chairman: Monsieur Godin, d'accord?

Mr. Yvon Godin: For the record, I'm a former miner, and that's why I'm interested in mining.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions for Dr. Everell.

One of the things I'm interested in is the jobs that may come out of your operation. Could you tell us what some of those jobs are and what some of the job skill sets are that will be required for people who might get into that area? Too, in terms of how you harmonize with your environment, do you have any information on that?

It would appear that we're starting to get a lot of stations monitoring the earth. Do you have anything to do with that in terms of taking an inventory of areas with respect to the fauna, the animals and all that? Is that part of your work?

What interests me most is that farmers are starting to use technology to find out...they have the Chicago stock exchange for the price of hogs and they look at the weather forecasting and, of course, there are GPS mapping systems now. People are buying instruments but they're not accurate. I wonder if you also supply the adjustments that will make their readings accurate so that when they fertilize their fields or something like that they could maybe do a better job.

• 1245

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: That's quite a few questions, but I'll start with the first one in terms of the skill set that an organization like ours needs. I'd say it's quite vast, obviously because we're talking about geoscience and geologists. We're talking also today about people who can work with informatics. Informatics, even for geologists, I would say, is getting very important, because we use a geographic information system today to represent much of the geoscience that is produced.

On the geomatic side of things, of course, we still use and need surveyors and people who do mapping. Again, this is an area that's changing quite a lot in terms of giving more attention perhaps to informatic skills. Some of our people are involved in remote sensing. Again, these are people who have the qualities to acquire data from satellites and to be able to operate this equipment and also interpret what's coming up from satellites into something that's meaningful for people who want information about crops or whatever.

I think the skill set within the sector is very large. We are talking a group right now of about 1,300 people. You have a lot of scientists who are able to contribute in many different ways to an organization. We also work at developing young people with the skill sets that are needed for us or for industries that are close to us.

I can give you one example. Each year we train a number of young graduates for a period of approximately two years, I believe, to prepare them for jobs in the geomatics area. In fact, we may have the ambition to expand this program, if possible. That's another aspect in which of course we try to acquire the skill sets from the market, but also we try to develop and retrain people. Some of our staff, in fact, submitted to this retraining to provide them with skill sets that are useful to us, but that are also useful to market outside.

With respect to your question about GPS, it was the last element of your question. We are doing some very significant work around this area. As you said, at least some of the GPS gadgets you buy today are not very accurate. That's for sure. Some are more accurate, but we are working with some of our scientists to provide greater accuracy for this type of measurement.

What you're doing with GPS is basically determining your position on earth or in space. You try to determine all the dimensions of your position. Of course, with some of the equipment now you can be quite far off with the readings you get with what's available for a few hundred dollars. With more expensive systems, it's more accurate. But we are devising special software to correct for whatever needs to be done so as to arrive at very precise information.

Marc Corey is maybe not an expert, but he has worked in this area. Maybe he can explain further about that aspect of GPS and what we do in terms of correction.

Mr. Marc Corey (Director General, Mapping Services Branch, Earth Science Sector, Department of Natural Resources): When you're dealing with GPS, of course, there's this constellation of American military satellites that are now being used by the civilian world. In fact, civilian use is much greater than military use. You can see them in Canadian Tire catalogues. You can buy a hand-held receiver for a couple of hundred dollars now. They're great. They're getting into the hiking and recreation world.

The average accuracy you're going to get with one of these hand-held units is somewhere in the area of about 100 metres of absolute accuracy. You have to think about the length of a football field. So you're within the length of a football field in terms of your latitude and longitude position, and maybe 150 metres in terms of your elevation.

• 1250

That's very good for a lot of applications, such as hiking and things like that, but when you're getting down to more precision things, like precision farming for example, and things like that, then you need to actually have more precision.

Now the civilian side has raced ahead. For example, the technology out there that's commercially available now is called differential positioning. You take a station and put it on a position of known origin. Then you can figure out what the mistake is in the system at any time you put that correction in. You can easily get down to one-meter accuracy.

The technology we've developed in the geodetic survey division is actually more sophisticated than that. It's called the active control system. We're actually correcting the positions of the satellites by a factor of 100 times beyond the information that's coming down. So you can go from one hundred meters down to about one-meter accuracy.

That's being commercialized now. It will be put out through commercial distributors. So with that kind of thing out in the commercial sector, you can expect to get sub-meter accuracy in real time, which means walking around with one of these things, with that correction device getting the corrections put into it.

That is one of the fastest-growing areas now in this whole new information technology area, global positioning system technology.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Is that going to be a revenue generator for you guys?

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: I think it will be certainly an element of revenue for us. But I think our main purpose is not that. I think we may want to generate enough revenue to keep costs down.

But I think our main purpose is to have a system that is very useful in Canada for different purposes. I would say it's a system that's beyond reproach in terms of being very excellent. It's recognized to be excellent across the world. It will also be compatible with what is used in the United States, and so on. I think our main goal is really a government purpose of building and maintaining a good infrastructure, rather than making money with that. But obviously, if we can reduce our costs of maintaining this infrastructure of information, we will.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: I have one last question, Mr. Chair.

Are you guys doing anything with celestial navigation? It seems to me the Americans were going to put a rocket out. I can't remember where it was going to go. There's an expert I think at the University of Western Ontario who actually helped them, because they had troubles with that. Are you guys into that as well?

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: No.

The Chairman: Ask a short one, Mr. Godin, because with the indulgence of the committee, I have a little one myself.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a comment. You were talking about the GPS, right, the machine? The comment I want to make is this. Don't tell the fishermen that it's not exact, because as far as they're concerned, they will find a needle in the sea.

One day I tried to tell them it was not that exact. They argued. They said I was a bullshitter, because they love that machine.

For fishermen, it's super. Say it's foggy out there and they want to find their lobster traps. The boat is probably 45 feet long, but by the time they get there, it makes a difference. But for them, they will find a needle in the sea. You don't argue with them; it's a great machine.

The Chairman: Again, to me, it's amazing to see the kind of things that the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada is getting involved in.

Our committee will be doing some preliminary studies before the Kyoto conference on climate change. I think one of the things that we as a committee want to try to do in the months ahead is highlight technologies that are available, or that may be available, on the near horizon that can assist the public and private sector in achieving whatever targets are set for our nation and other nations.

Do you see the potential, Dr. Everell, of Canadian geoscience technology being of assistance to Canada and other countries in the whole question of climate change? I think you may have mentioned it briefly before, but as a subject that is becoming more and more prominent in the media, are there potentials for Canada being a leader in technology and also for the private sector, which uses technology, to maybe make some money and create jobs in the country?

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: Well, if you limit your question to geoscience, I will have a few things. But I think the main elements of technology that this department is developing with respect to climate change is in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Of course, this activity is being carried out by the energy sector and CANMET energy technology. I believe they will be coming to this committee as well at some time in the future.

• 1255

I think where the GSC can contribute—it may be a bit of a dream still—is in the area of the sequestration of CO₂. This means to basically put CO₂ underground rather than have it go up in the air. At least it would not operate for all types of emissions of CO₂, but you can imagine the sort of places where CO₂ is emitted in very large amounts at a single spot. There might be the possibility to sequestrate CO₂ if you want to limit the emissions from these plants.

What GSC can provide is a move in the area perhaps of understanding—I mentioned the climates of the past—what could perhaps occur if a certain climate change is happening. There's the possible effect and the impact aspect. Of course, some people may be interested in acquiring that knowledge or marketing it.

In terms of other aspects of climate change, we're involved in some of the modelling aspects and trying to understand how you can sort of model the change in climate by understanding the different components of models. We have people who work in remote sensing who are involved in that area. They try to use certain measurements that are obtained by remote sensing to estimate some parameters that are useful in a climate change model.

In the area of climate change, again, this may not be well known, but we work very closely with Environment Canada. We work within the government system in partnership. As much as possible, we support each other in terms of understanding the issues about climate change and also understanding some of the possible solutions.

The Chairman: Dr. Everell, to you and your colleagues, thank you very much for the time you have taken with us this afternoon. I think this will act as a very useful foundation for some future discussions with you and your sector. Thank you very much.

Dr. Marc Denis Everell: It's been a pleasure.

The Chairman: The committee will meet again next Tuesday.

The meeting is adjourned.