Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Do you monitor whether or not they're actually being replanted? I think they're supposed to plant three for one. Is that correct?

[Glenn Hargrove]

It depends on the province. Those are provincial regulations, so it's not something that we directly monitor when areas are harvested. That's provincial jurisdiction.

What we're looking at is incremental to regulatory and other sorts of legal requirements. In areas, for instance, that have been affected by forest fires, or areas that have not been forested, like afforestation-type projects and things like that, or in urban settings, there is quite a range.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay, very good.

Were you involved at all in providing advice to the minister about all the kindling around the Jasper area prior to the fire there?

[Glenn Hargrove]

I'm sorry, but when you say, providing advice to the minister about kindling, could you be...?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Did the natural resources department provide advice about what to do about the dry kindling that surrounded Jasper prior to the fire?

[Glenn Hargrove]

We did work with Parks Canada on a study around fire conditions and things like that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Was your advice heeded?

[Glenn Hargrove]

It wasn't specifically focused on Jasper. We were at the environment committee a little while back with Dr. Dan Thompson, who's one of our leading fire experts, and his view was.... We've actually been working on a study—Parks Canada invited us in the immediate aftermath of the fire to look at the fire spread and do a forensic analysis and things like that, and his view—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Several years ago, indigenous leaders told this committee that this was a potential hazard, and that there should be controlled burns. Your department would have been aware of that, and I would hope that you would have advised the minister. I'm sure there's a record of your department doing that, and that the minister did nothing about it.

I want to change gears a little bit....

[Glenn Hargrove]

I'm not aware of any such advice to the minister.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. In regard to the emissions cap that is being talked about, Deloitte produced a study. Have you had an opportunity to review the study?

[Michael Vandergrift]

We have seen the study, and other studies as well.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Are you in general agreement with the analysis of that study?

[Michael Vandergrift]

There is a range of studies around the proposals. They all use different assumptions, starting points and methodologies.

I think colleagues in Environment and Climate Change Canada are responsible, overall, for doing the economic analysis around the proposal. They'd be able to provide more information about that and compare it to other studies.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The studies are fairly consistent in their conclusion that an oil and gas emissions cap will cap production.

Would you agree with that?

[Michael Vandergrift]

As the minister indicated earlier, the cap was designed in a way that caps emissions but not production.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The studies suggest production will be capped.

My question is, do you agree with that assumption?

[Michael Vandergrift]

The regulation is currently out for consultation. In that regulation, there is a regulatory impact assessment statement that lays out the analysis behind the regulation—the analysis leading to the conclusions I just mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk. The time is up.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Is that it? Oh. I wasn't done.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You have another round, or you can get more time from one of your colleagues. Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. Jowhari, you have six minutes.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, welcome to the officials, and thank you for staying back.

I asked the minister about one of the studies we're doing. There is another study we completed. We're going to start drafting the report. It's one on the future of Canada's electricity grid. What we heard is that there is a 25-year road map and $2 trillion to $3 trillion in investment. We also heard that various jurisdictions and provinces will be looking at different energy mixes. It's going to be a combination of a renewable energy project and a clean energy project. This is a cornerstone clean energy project in Ontario, where I'm from. It's going to be nuclear power and nuclear energy.

I wonder if you could expand on what the government is doing to support nuclear energy, both within Canada, across jurisdictions that see fit to do so, and internationally.

[Michael Vandergrift]

That is an important question. Nuclear energy is a very important part of the energy mix as Canada moves forward on producing clean electricity. As this committee knows well, Canada will need much more electricity as we further electrify the economy. Clean sources of that electricity and nuclear energy are clearly a major part of that.

The government is investing significantly in that area. The clean economy investment tax credits will make significant resources available for the development of nuclear projects. Our department has provided predevelopment funding to specific projects to assist in moving them forward. Most recently, in Ontario, there was funding for Bruce Power to develop its nuclear project there. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has provided significant funding—over $900 million in loans to Darlington Ontario Power for the Darlington small modular reactor project.

Internationally, the honourable member mentioned that Canada played a major role in Romania's decision to construct two CANDU reactors. We provided export financing. It's providing jobs for Canadians and the Canadian supply chain. That is an important part, too: exporting Canadian technology for use internationally.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a follow-up question. It will be a short one, and I may be putting you in an uncomfortable position.

We know the big infrastructure projects.... I mean, the $3 trillion dollars we have to invest is almost the same as Canada's GDP per year. Is there any strategy being considered around much smaller nuclear reactors, such as microreactors? Westinghouse is developing one. Could we put it more in private sector hands, where they set up clean energy and renewable energy farms? For example, a combination of geothermal, wind, solar and microreactors could be used for whatever they need, such as vertical farming, and the rest given back to the grid. That way, we could probably see our way through the 25 years and the $3 trillion.

[Michael Vandergrift]

That's a very interesting question.

Certainly, we're starting to see more trends of private industry looking at developing their own energy sources, electricity sources, whereby they can source their own industrial processes, decarbonize their industrial processes and also be able to give back to the grid. There's talk, for example, of small modular reactors being used in more industrial settings.

The Saskatchewan Research Council is experimenting with a microreactor, as you referenced, for example, as potential technology that could be deployed more readily in those kinds of settings.

The department, Natural Resources Canada, through its energy innovation program, is funding work in geothermal, for example, to try to develop that technology and show how it can be used. There may be potential in that as well.

I think that's a really interesting concept—how you can both decarbonize industrial processes and also contribute to the grid.