Natural Resources Committee on March 21st, 2023

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to give a minute or two to Mr. Blois once I finish up.

To the various individuals, both virtually and here, you have very important roles in terms of executing and planning, to a certain extent, the policy with regard to our economy in a critical sector.

We've seen over the last 12 to 24 months how geopolitical circumstances have changed things in terms of the importance of energy security and energy affordability, and the importance of robust supply chains, especially in critical areas. We've seen how we need to delink certain supply chains and ensure that they are—I once used the word “funded”—supplied by countries like Canada, which have democratic values, democratic institutions and believe in human rights.

In terms of our critical minerals strategy, without getting into the politics, I believe one large step is ensuring that Canada has a role to play within the supply chain and the strategic sectors.

With regard to everything we've put together, how is that shaping up or framing, in your mind, in terms of getting these minerals out of the ground, getting the permits and getting those critical minerals to various sectors, including the automotive electric vehicle sector?

[John Hannaford]

The government has identified a multi-faceted strategy. It was released last December. It really does transcend the scope of critical minerals and their application.

As you say, the geopolitics of this are not incidental. This is one of the reasons we are at a moment for Canada. It's because the circumstances in the world have taught us that supply chains can be vulnerable and that, in the absence of reliable partnerships, countries can be in very difficult situations. We have a number of partners that are interested in ensuring we are part of their supply chains because we are seen as reliable and we are seen as having resources that are important.

At the same time, as the policy makes very clear, there's a significant industrial component to all of this. It's not simply about extracting the resource and shipping it elsewhere. It is about applying it through processing streams and also thinking about the application of those minerals in things like batteries and advanced manufacturing.

Some of the recent investment announcements are of real significance as a proof point with respect to the demand that there is out there for Canada and the opportunity we have to make sure the strategy turns into the well-paying jobs and the regional opportunities that it should.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Kody.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Hannaford, I was in front of a group of young people today talking civics. It was a civics class. I said to them that the most important question in the country right now is how we double our electricity in the next generation in the next 15 to 20 years. Some other folks may disagree with that assertion. There are always a bunch of priorities.

As it relates to our economic competitiveness, we look at Volkswagen and at different groups that are coming, and we talk about that transition to a low-carbon economy. It's all premised on electricity. I've recently seen Premier Legault going to St. John's. We see some of the analytics from different provinces getting to the upper echelon of their electricity capacity. That's traditionally been the domain of the provinces. That's historically how that has come.

Can you speak to this committee about Natural Resources Canada's approach—and whether or not that might be changing—of trying to work collaboratively with the provinces to make sure, on the national front, that we're going to have the electricity needed to drive that transition to a low-carbon economy?

[John Hannaford]

I think there's no question that the importance of electrification is central to a lot of the opportunities that we have right now, and I would say that's a feature of the regional table conversations that I've mentioned now repeatedly. It's also a feature, I think, of some of the work we're doing more generally. In relatively short order, we will be announcing the electricity council, which is intended as a bit of a clearing house—

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I just want to be mindful of the time.

What about data? Is that something that NRCan has or that we're working on to see what that anticipated demand is going to be? I've just said “double”. That's what I've heard anecdotally. Is that the information you have?

[John Hannaford]

Certainly that issue of modelling is something that we're very alive to and that we continue to work with colleagues with respect to. Hopefully, one of the benefits of this council that I mentioned is that we can get a little deeper into how we see the future and, therefore, what kinds of projections there would be in order to fill in the plans, but there's no question that there will be an increase in demand for electricity.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you. That takes us to the end of our third round.

I just wanted to point out the way the supply periods work. The wording I was looking for at the beginning of the meeting was that as Wednesday, March 22, will be the final allotted day in the current supply period, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) all the votes in the supplementary estimates (C), 2022-23, were deemed reported to the House at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, Friday, March 10, 2023. It's one of those things, because we never know when the end of the supply period is going to be. When we set this meeting, we didn't know when that was going to be. As I said, we can't report back.

That being said, I should check with officials. We originally extended the invitation to be from 3:30 to 5:30. Because of the votes and the 10 minutes to get here, we have resources until 10 minutes to six, but I don't know if anybody has commitments that they need to leave for. We'll see if Mr. Hannaford has left on his own. I'm assuming that he can perhaps stay if the screen goes blank for the rest of his online officials.

I would also turn the question to my colleagues in the room. If we go into a next round, it would be at least 15 minutes, and the full fourth round would be 25 minutes. We can stop now or we can do an abbreviated fourth round or a full fourth round. We'd have time for that.

What's the will of the committee?

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chair.

This evening, there is an event for the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, and it's about to start.

Would it be possible to end the meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

Is that the will of everybody else?

Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As the token francophone, I would say that we can take another 15 minutes and go for another round of questions and answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

From the Conservatives and Liberals, what's your preference? It's 15 minutes.

Would people be okay with giving Charlie the first two and a half minutes, which would get him out of here? Then we'll carry on with two and a half minutes and then five and five minutes.

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

As long as you promise not to vote on my motion—otherwise, I love you all.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Let's go to Charlie for two and a half minutes. Then we'll go to Mario in honour of the francophonie. We'll then conclude with five and five.

Mr. Angus, it's over to you for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

I want to follow up on the earlier conversations about the massive expansion in Trans Mountain. It is kind of ridiculous to say that an extra $10 billion is just what happens with supply chains. It has been said by the Parliamentary Budget Officer that this no longer has a financial case. I know that the government is saying that's not true.

The Canadian Energy Regulator said that the only way they could ship is to limit the toll fees for the companies using it. They would only have to pay 22% of the shipping costs beyond the original $7.4-billion budget. We're $20 billion over that $7.4 billion budget. Have you estimated the subsidy that's going to have to be given to big oil for every single barrel shipped through a $30-billion pipeline?

[John Hannaford]

Again, I think a more detailed conversation may be better placed with our colleagues at Finance. I will say that this has been subject to review by outside financial advisers. The advice they have given is that the financial option that's being considered and the asset value continue to be viable.

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

The question is that for every single barrel from here on in, 78% of that is going to be carried by the taxpayer because it isn't viable. It's viable as long as we're giving subsidies to companies that make record profits. At $30 billion, this looks to me like a big white elephant.

Has the federal government looked at the cost that's going to mean per barrel per taxpayer per year?

[John Hannaford]

As I said, the government has committed to not increasing any public spending with respect to this. This will be privately financed. We've received advice that is specific to these points.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thanks, Mr. Angus.

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to know your response to what I said earlier about the greener homes program. Waiting times exceed six months, there are no follow-ups and some francophones received responses in English only.

Are you aware of all of these problems?

[John Hannaford]

Certainly this has been a very well-subscribed program. We've had a lot of interest. It's important that we engage in the exercises that we are engaging in because the built environment is a great source of emissions. Having the kinds of retrofits that are facilitated through the program is important. There have been some growing pains with respect to it and very significant improvement over the course of time. If there are specific issues, obviously, we're very interested in hearing further on those. We can respond.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you. We'll send you the information.

In the supplementary estimates, the Department of Natural Resources is transferring $2,200,000 to Parks Canada for the two billion trees program we've heard so much about.

As you know, you can't plant trees just anywhere; you need to have a plan.

Do you want to replant forests or farmland, or do you want to put up wind barriers? There are countless ways to plant two billion trees.

Does the department have a real plan for planting those two billion trees? Does it know where it wants to plant them? Does it know in what type of soil it wants to plant them? Does it know what types of trees will be planted?

[John Hannaford]

The two billion trees objective is to plant two billion trees in 10 years. That is a marathon, not a sprint. We are engaged right now in a series of conversations with jurisdictions across the country to enter into agreements in principle and then ultimately funding agreements. I should mention that those include the provinces but also indigenous communities and other non-governmental entities, all with a view to realizing this goal. That's something we continue to pursue.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If I understood correctly, at this point you are only at the consultation stage.

Before I conclude, I would like to say that there is a research chair at a university in my riding, and I put them in touch with the department over two years ago, but they never heard back from your department. I'm referring to the Carbone boréal chair. It is comprised of experts in the use of trees to reduce our carbon footprint.

As I see it, it's not normal that your department has never spoken with people who have the relevant expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're unfortunately out of time on that, but you know what? I'll give you a sentence to respond.