Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Minister, we spent a great amount of time at this committee and in the House of Commons working on and talking about the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. It's important that we include workers' voices and advocate for their future through the clean energy transformation. It's something I believe my colleague Charlie Angus has often talked about—the importance of the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.

Can you speak about what the jobs funding in the estimates is for?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes. As you folks know very well from conversations here, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation that received a lot of support from industry and workers. It is to bring workers and industry to the table, along with government and indigenous organizations, to see how we can grow the economy and build a clean economy for the future, creating sustainable jobs in every province and territory in this country.

The money in here is to stand up a secretariat that will do a lot of the administrative work, and a council, which will have labour, industry, indigenous and environmental representatives to help provide advice to the Government of Canada. It is extremely important, and we need to be moving forward.

Again, the obstruction of the Conservative Party of Canada is delaying work getting done and wasting millions of dollars.

I will also make an appeal to the NDP leader. This was a bill Mr. Angus worked very hard on. He was an important part of it. My appeal is for the NDP leader to stand with workers and listen to them. They want to get this done.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Simard.

Mr. Simard, you have two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll come back to the Canada Growth Fund. Your earlier response didn't make sense to me. I'll explain why.

When you launched the clean electricity strategy, Minister Guilbeault kindly sent me a presentation that you were using. It talks about the government's ambitious plan set out in the 2023 budget. It describes a figure of $40 billion and provides a type of breakdown. It refers to investment tax credits for hydrogen and carbon capture. It also refers to $10 billion for the Canada Infrastructure Bank and $3 billion for a renewable energy program. The $40 billion figure also includes $15 billion for the Canada Growth Fund.

This means that, in a way, the government must step in. For example, the Canada Growth Fund couldn't decide to invest in the forestry industry. If that were the case, it wouldn't pertain to the presentation in front of me. I also assume that, if the Canada Growth Fund had to decide whether to invest in energy‑related strategies, it would turn to you, since you're the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

I'll repeat my question. Will the $15 billion from the Canada Growth Fund be used to support the Pathways Alliance?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I already said, we established the Canada Growth Fund. We contributed the $15 billion and clarified the fund's mandate regarding projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean energy projects to grow the economy and make it strong for the future. However, the Canada Growth Fund and its investment experts are responsible for investment decisions. The fund operates independently from the government when it comes to investments.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

So there isn't any mandate. If the people at the Canada Growth Fund think they see an opportunity to invest in the automotive sector, they can decide to do so. If they see an opportunity to invest in the mining sector, they can decide to do so.

Why are we then told, in a presentation from the Department of the Environment, that this $15 billion will be used for clean electricity, carbon capture—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Simard, unfortunately, time is up. Thank you.

Now I'm going to go to Mr. Angus.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

You should be saying that fortunately my time is up, rather than unfortunately.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're going to go to Mr. Angus for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's always great having you here, Minister.

We've spoken many times about critical mineral projects that are ready to go ahead and other ones that will never go ahead. The difference is going to be on consultation and indigenous consent.

The BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council are really trying to work this through. They have a great plan here. They have 50 recommendations, but they tell me that they're frustrated. They say that the government's willing to talk about only two, and they feel that they're on the sidelines.

You have the ability to unlock these keys to get these doors open. Are you going to meet with them? Are you going to listen to indigenous issues on consent, cumulative impacts on the land and impacts on traditional ways of life? They have to be part of the discussion if we're going to get these projects off the ground.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I couldn't agree with you more.

If they have been endeavouring to contact me, I'm not aware of it, but I'm happy to meet with them.

They sit as an active member of the regional energy and resource table, which, in British Columbia, is a fully trilateral table that includes the forestry council and the energy and mining council. As you know, there are some first nations that are very welcoming of mining and much more used to it. The Tahltan, for example, have done a number of deals.

Certainly, yes, absolutely, I'd be very happy to meet with them.

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

I don't want to get into my backyard too much but, in my backyard, the Pentagon showed up the other day with a $20-million cheque to get a cobalt refining plant off the ground, because Canada is still not putting the money up.

The Americans have been way out in front on this, but now we also have Trump coming in, and he's sending a signal that he cares even less about the climate than Mr. Poilievre.

Are you guys gaming out? What is going on? What is it going to mean for us to maintain a critical minerals economy if one of our main partners decides that they're going to backslide? Second, why is it that we're seeing the Pentagon coming in and buying up Canadian projects when we're not getting the money out the door to support them?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

We certainly were aware of the DOD investment. In fact, we work quite closely with the DOD on that.

You may have seen that I was in that region just a couple of weeks before that, announcing money from the Government of Canada. The DOD money was in addition to money that the Government of Canada has put in.

Certainly, yes, we are gaming out all kinds of things in terms of how we move this forward. It's in terms of our relationship with the U.S., but it's also in terms of how we continue to supply others like the Japanese, who are making investments in Canada. The French have a fund to invest in Canada, and the U.K. is increasingly interested in doing that. Yes, we are doing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister Wilkinson and Mr. Angus.

We will now go to Ms. Stubbs.

I am going to, unfortunately, have to cut back the last two rounds of questions to three minutes each in light of time.

Ms. Stubbs, I'm going to give you the floor for three minutes, and then our colleague across will have three as well.

Please go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks again, Minister.

After nine years and three presidents, your government still hasn't reached a softwood lumber agreement with the United States. It's resulted in softwood lumber tariffs on Canada doubling to over 14%. Now there's a possibility that there could be a further 11% increase.

What do you have to say to the hundreds of workers, particularly in Quebec and B.C. but also right across the country, who have already lost their jobs?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I would say that it's obviously a very difficult and very challenging set of issues. The U.S. administration, Republican or Democrat, has been very challenging to deal with on this file for a whole range of different reasons. We continue to look for a negotiated agreement with the Americans, and we will continue to do that.

We have put in place measures, including, in the last budget, about $350 million to actually support the forest sector, and we're looking at what more we can do. I certainly have met with all of the major companies, and the Minister of International Trade, who leads on this, is also doing that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Minister, it is wild, of course, given that the former Conservative government got a softwood lumber deal done within months and actually, in fact, right before you took over, got an extension done.

The committee next door is actually doing a study on softwood lumber, so since you don't seem to have anything to say to the workers who are losing their jobs, let me tell you what they're actually saying.

The United Steelworkers says the impact of the last eight years has been “far-reaching, wide and...devastating”. In terms of our sector—steelworkers—“2,500 to 3,000...jobs have been impacted”. They say they haven't been feeling that softwood lumber is a priority for your government.

Groupe Lebel says that since hearing news on the tariffs, they looked at their client base and what they thought was acceptable to them. Guess what? Just as is the pattern of your government of driving money, jobs and businesses into the United States at the expense of Canadians, they say American clients are 50% of their business, and, if things don't work out on the market side, they could lose much of that. For their company alone, Groupe Lebel, 800 workers could be affected by these tariffs.

What are you actually going to do, and, really, what do you have to say to all the Canadians and to our entire country, which you have made so vulnerable to the United States?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Oh, where to start? I mean, with the ridiculous nature of the questions you've been posing today, I just have a hard time even beginning to respond to them.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I don't think this is cause for laughing, smiling or chuckling from your Liberal colleagues at all.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

At the end of the day, this is an important issue for folks who work in the forestry industry, and it's an important issue for the companies in the forestry sector.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On a point of order, I think the record shows that Mr. Wilkinson thinks the United Steelworkers are a joke, which is crazy.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, that's not a point of order. That's a point of debate, and you do not have the floor to debate right now.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I think that was an inappropriate use of a point of order, and just to be clear, the record does not show that at all. Let's be clear. That is not what happened.