Natural Resources Committee on May 6th, 2024

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, so it's wetlands, grasslands, trees.... Certainly the two billion trees program has a number with respect to that particular program, but in terms of the overall sequestration, I don't know.

Glenn may have a number, but we can certainly get back to you on that. Environment Canada has that number.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It seems like the Natural Resources minister, who's talking about tree planting and is also a big proponent of these policies, would know that number, because it seems very material to whether or not the government really has a definition of what it's trying to achieve when it's moving towards net-zero emissions.

To your point, you're right that tree planting is an extremely effective way to enhance biodiversity, to sequester carbon and to facilitate better wildlife management and sustainability.

I notice in the estimates that you increased the budget for the “two billion tree-planting by 2031” promise, from $282.5 million in 2023-24 to $338 million in 2024-25. As of June 30, 2023, the two billion trees program has agreements signed to plant only 374 million trees by 2031, which is less than 19% of the stated goal, and as of September 25th, 2023, your department, NRCan, reported that only 56 million trees have been planted, which is less than 3% of the stated goal. Can you tell Canadians how you actually expect to reach that goal in the next seven years if you're only 3% towards the goal three years in and have signed agreements for only a mere 19% of trees?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you. That's a good question.

Let me start by saying that in terms of sequestration under the Paris Agreement, what countries actually track are anthropogenic emissions, both positive and negative. That's reducing human-caused emissions or human interventions to reduce emissions through sequestration or direct air capture or anything else.

In terms of the two billion tree program, we now have agreements that are either signed or are very close to being signed for about 550 million trees, which is a significant movement after the numbers that you quoted. We actually feel very good about that. For the first couple of years of that program, obviously we were going to be slower because we had to actually grow the seedlings, but we're making good progress and we feel that we're on track.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair. The chair tells me I have about a minute left.

I know that there are real challenges with the survivability of seedlings, which are not being bred and distributed properly according to the hardiness zones across the many diverse regions in Canada. Can you tell Canadians why it appears that your government is padding the numbers on your tree-planting promise, given that the commissioner of environment and sustainable development says that NRCan is using trees planted under a different program and a different department to boost its numbers?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

There are two things. The first is that there is always some attrition with respect to seedlings, but we have factored that into our calculations.

The commissioner said, and we agree, that we need a more robust monitoring program to ensure that we're tracking the trees and how they do once they're in the ground. That's something that we have been working on, and you will probably hear more in the coming months.

In terms of the commissioner, we were clear from the very beginning that the two billion tree commitment included funding from a number of different programs, including the low-carbon economy fund. The bulk of the funding comes from the two billion trees fund, but some comes from others. It's a relatively modest number of trees, but some do come from the low-carbon economy fund.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister Wilkinson.

We'll go to our next round of four minutes.

Ms. Jones, the floor is yours.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing today.

There's been tremendous support toward our critical mineral strategy in Canada. I hear it all the time from the mining industry in particular.

Can you explain to us what the role of the critical minerals infrastructure fund is and how we are using it to support community development and economic development at the same time in many regions across Canada?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Critical minerals, obviously, are the building blocks for the decarbonization of the transportation sector. You need them to build batteries, and you need those to build electric vehicle plants, but they're also critical for photovoltaics, wind turbines and a range of other things.

It is important that we accelerate the work to develop new mines. It is also important that we invest in the development of processing technologies so that the world is not so dependent on China.

Part of the critical minerals strategy was $1.5 billion in the critical minerals infrastructure fund, which is intended to support things like transmission lines and roads into regions where you could foresee the development of multiple different mines, ensuring that you're enabling the rapid development of these facilities.

As folks know, most of these mines exist in rural and remote areas. They create jobs and economic opportunity for people who live in some of these communities, as well as many of the first nations who live in these areas. It is a really important economic opportunity that will dramatically impact rural and remote areas.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

In my riding of Labrador, I know how important critical minerals are and how important the mining industry is to the local economy and to jobs for people. Of course, I'm just back from the Arctic, where the situation is very similar.

There are also regions of the country where we have large indigenous populations, and they have wanted to be a partner in what's happening on their lands and in their regions.

Can you tell us about the new indigenous loan guarantee program and how that will support indigenous communities when it comes to resource development and other forms of development?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

This was an announcement that I was particularly happy to make.

This is an indigenous loan guarantee program that will enable indigenous communities to be economic participants in many of the projects that take place on their traditional territories.

This is important as a matter of social justice, but it is also important in the context of aligning interests so that there is a strong economic interest for communities and they see long-term benefits flowing back that will enable them to be thoughtful about making choices for themselves.

This is an enormously important thing. I would say that a number of indigenous leaders were involved, but most importantly, leading that was the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. It is an enormously important piece of work for the country in terms of economic reconciliation and enhancing and accelerating the energy transition.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

In terms of the indigenous loan guarantee program, obviously there's a lot of enthusiasm out there from indigenous governments in terms of how they can access the program.

Are there any specific criteria or demands they will have to meet in trying to get over this threshold? I think that's where the big concern is for some of them.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

A lot of the details on this still need to be fully sorted out, and there is an opportunity for folks to weigh in with thoughts that they have.

What we did say is that it will be sector agnostic. It will apply to all sectors in the resource space. We will be looking to ensure that there is a portfolio of different project types and regional representation so that, for example, for people who live in northeastern British Columbia or in your riding—where the opportunity is really only mining—there is going to be some representation of mining, forestry and a range of other resource projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister Wilkinson.

We'll now go to Mr. Simard for two minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

With regard to the two billion trees, I'll be honest with you, Mr. Minister: The people we've talked to have been quite cynical about it over the past few years. It demonstrates the federal government's blatant lack of support for the forest industry, since those trees can't be used for commercial purposes because of our dispute with the United States. Many people back home have simply stopped listening to the government when it talks about this.

However, that's not what I want to come back to.

In your statement, you alluded to the worst wildfire season ever. The measures you put in place left out something very important: small logging companies. They play a crucial role in the forestry sector in Quebec. Last year, they weren't able to enter the forest in a timely manner, which meant they had to deal with very high preparation costs. These small businesses have no support. We've had many meetings with them, and what they need is a liquidity program to get them through that period when they have to get out of the forest due to a fire but still need to pay for their equipment, which is very expensive.

Was that part of your thinking for fighting forest fires?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, of course. We've committed over $800 million to fight forest fires and over $350 million to renew financial assistance for the forestry sector.

We're currently working with the Government of Quebec to address the impact of forest fires caused by climate change. As you know, we're working and negotiating with them to see how we can come together to combat the effects of climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard. Time is up.

We'll now go to Mr. Angus for two minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

We did a lot of work together on the issue of renewable energy. I think we really believed in it. We have an environmental crisis and we have an economic crisis. If we don't meet it, we lose out. Texas, in a single month, produced 50% more solar than Canada has ever produced. I mean, you don't get much more right-wing reactionary than Texas, and yet they're moving ahead as pretty much the world leader right now—yet in budget 2023, there was $50-billion in investment tax credits announced. Then there were going to be consultations. In 2024 we have consultations. They're being announced. I'm hearing that people are shipping their investments to the United States because it's there and it's happening, but we're still talking about it.

I guess my frustration with TMX is that the money didn't wait for TMX—it flowed—yet we're still talking about the $50 billion that's been promised to get clean energy projects off the ground.

Why the delay?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Certainly I am very keen to see those finalized and out the door such that they will catalyze even more investment, although I will say that many organizations are not waiting for the final form. Most of the details are actually a matter of public record. If you look at, for example, the Dow Chemical net-zero petrochemical facility, that was enabled by the ITCs.

I share your view that we need to actually get this done quickly. I think the budget spoke to the dates by which you can expect to see those.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You have 20 seconds.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm fine. I'll give my 20 seconds to Mr. Morrice.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

All right.

Mr. Morrice, to wrap it up for today, you have one question.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Wonderful. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Mr. Angus and colleagues.

Minister, as you know, I'm quite concerned about the lack of funds for the greener homes grant program. This is a fund that had $2.6 billion over seven years, which is nothing like what we gave to TMX. We gave that $34 billion, and carbon capture got $5.7 billion, but it was so successful, with homeowners getting $5,000 each to incentivize retrofits, that it was spent more quickly than I think your department was expecting.

As of February 9, Ontarians no longer have access to this program at all. The budget came out after we wrote you letters about this, and you heard from Canadians about it, and then it actually was reduced. It went down to $160 million a year over the course of five years.

I know that there are other programs and that these are important complementary initiatives, but I just do not understand the thinking behind reducing the greener homes grant program. Can you explain the thinking about this?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thanks for the question.

The program, as you say, was very successful. It actually expended its funds more quickly than we had anticipated, and in that regard it incented people to actually make energy efficiency retrofits, which were obviously very positive in terms of the fight against climate change, but the program, by and large, was being used by people who were in the upper middle and upper income brackets. It actually was only $5,000, which meant that people who actually needed the money were probably the ones who most probably couldn't afford the remainder of the money that would be required. It required them to put the money up, and then they were paid back over time.

Again, that made it difficult for people who live on more modest means to access it. We decided to focus on a new program that would really be focused on people who live on more modest incomes. It would have larger grants that would be paid up front and that would probably be delivered through provincial agencies. We would use the other program, which is the zero-interest loan program, to provide a financial benefit for people who could actually afford to pay the loan back over time out of the energy savings.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister Wilkinson. Thank you for your testimony today. That concludes this portion of the meeting.

Colleagues, we do have a vote, so we will now suspend. We'll come back for our second hour with officials. Thank you to the officials for joining as well today. We are now suspended.