Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Michael Vandergrift]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To date, we've announced over $288 million in funding to support 59 critical minerals projects under the strategy. I note for the committee the critical minerals infrastructure fund, which was opened earlier in 2024. We're now starting to advance projects and agreements under it. This includes $182 million in conditionally-approved contribution funding for 14 different projects.

What's really important about these is creating the enabling infrastructure to open up mining regions and mining areas—in northwestern British Columbia, for example, and in Ontario, in the Sudbury, Timmins and Thunder Bay areas. It's important to open up those areas further for mining activity and to create that really important enabling infrastructure.

With our colleagues who run the strategic innovation fund, we need to look at supporting projects on the processing side, the value-added side, for example. There is a Vale project in Quebec that has now received funding to advance on producing nickel sulfate in Canada. It's trying to build that supply chain in the country, which is really important, as you know.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. The time is up. I know there's lots more to ask.

Now we'll go to Mr. Simard for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to briefly discuss the 2 billion trees program.

Initially, I gathered that the program wasn't working because of concerns that the trees would be harvested. These concerns were perhaps more prevalent at Global Affairs Canada than in your department.

I know that negotiations are currently under way with the Quebec government and that this hurdle may have been avoided. However, I want to hear your thoughts on this. It seems rather nonsensical that people are worried about planting trees because they want to avoid violating current trade agreements, when they know full well that it will take 70 years for these trees to be ready for harvesting. I don't know about you. I personally believe that, in 70 years, our trade agreements will look inherently different from today's agreements.

I would like you to confirm or deny the following. Has the tree‑planting program been delayed because of a minor dispute with Global Affairs Canada, which expressed concern that some of the planted trees might be harvested?

[Glenn Hargrove]

Thank you for the question.

No, I'm not aware of any major concerns from Global Affairs. I think what's been challenging with the program has been the ramping up of such a complex supply chain, and working with partners. That's why we've been focusing on those areas, to get long-term agreements to ramp up the production that's needed, and to ramp up the planting through those long-term agreements.

I can speak to the question about trees being harvested. You're right; in most regions of the country, trees aren't harvested for a minimum of 60 to 70 years. What we're looking at, however, is making sure that the trees that are planted are incremental to normal activities and to any regulatory requirements. In doing so, we're making sure that we're permanently increasing forest cover and getting those long-term benefits.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I find it worth noting that—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Simard, unfortunately, the time is up, thank you.

We will go now to Mr. Angus for two and a half minutes.

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Mr. DeMarco, our environment commissioner, says that the 2 billion tree plan is based on a lot of creative accounting. Have you done any audits on the survival rates of the tree settlements, the tree plantations? Do you have a sense of what's actually getting out the door and what the survival rates are?

[Glenn Hargrove]

When Mr. DeMarco was talking about creative accounting, I think he was mainly referring to the inclusion of the trees planted under the low carbon economy fund in the totals. I'll just say that that was always part of the design of the 2 billion trees commitment.

To your question about survival rates, we have a long-term monitoring plan, which is actually one of the follow-ups to Mr. DeMarco's audit. Part of it is site visits that we would normally do, at least under most contribution programs. We're also looking at monitoring through remote sensing and the use of drones and things like that, and we also get reports from companies.

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

Have you done an audit?

[Glenn Hargrove]

We've not yet done an audit on survival rates, but we're gathering data to help inform that kind of analysis.

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

I guess my question, and I—

[Glenn Hargrove]

Mr. Angus, it's still pretty early in the program.

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

Yes, I totally understand, and tree life is much longer than we tend to exist as politicians.

I guess one of the complexities is that, again, so much of this is under the province and, in Ontario, the province puts it under the various forestry alliances. In my region, the Abitibi forest alliance and the Timiskaming Forest Alliance do the planning of the forest.

Are you doing this on Crown land, provincial land or private lands? Who are your partners? How do you do this? Are you hiring tree planters, those hippie kids coming up from Guelph in the summer? Are they working for the feds? How does this happen?

[Glenn Hargrove]

That's a great question. When we're working with provinces and territories, we provide funding to them based on their plans and that sort of thing. For instance, in the case of Ontario, they have their own kind of process for determining those—

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

I'm sorry; I'm running out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You're actually—

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

How do you know that you're not just paying them for something they had to do anyway? Are these 2 billion new trees as opposed to—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, you're out of time, unfortunately. I think you got the question in.

Could you answer very quickly?

[Glenn Hargrove]

Sure. We have experts who review proposals, and we do follow-up monitoring, and those sorts of things are part of the agreements. As well, we have, for instance, an agreement in principle with Ontario and other provinces that talks about the goals of the program, the incrementality and the goal of permanently increasing forest cover.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. McLean.

Mr. McLean, I'm going to give you four minutes, and then we'll finish off with—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Deputy Minister, oil sands emissions have been reduced by 26% per barrel in the last 20 years. Do you agree?

[Michael Vandergrift]

I don't have the exact figure in front of me, but I know that emissions intensity has reduced.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

When you set the emissions cap, you were looking at 250 organizations that gave you input over the past year on how these emissions caps would roll out. It seems as though everybody that was involved, the oil and gas production industry and the financial industry, is telling you that this is unattainable unless you cut production by 1,000,000 barrels a day. Of the 250 organizations, how many of the rest of them were environmental organizations or NGOs that you listened to?

[Michael Vandergrift]

If I could just clarify for the committee, this regulation is produced by Environment and Climate Change Canada, not by Natural Resources Canada. Our role in it was to provide advice on technical—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Your minister was at the announcement, so I think it's relevant how many of these people are...because you fund some of the organizations that give this input.

Can you tell us if anybody, of all these organizations that gave input here, are NGOs, environmental NGOs, that have misled your department so far, including on the hydrogen study, where they overestimated even the Department of Environment's impact on the decarbonization associated with hydrogen by a factor of 3:1 in the initial report but now by a factor of 21:1, so 14% of the Department of the Environment's study but three times that.

What I'm suggesting here is that you're basing your input on organizations that are paid by you that have provided you with nothing of any substance so far.