Natural Resources Committee on Sept. 18th, 2023

[Greg Reade]

I can start. I don't know if Patrick wants to lean in as well.

In the context of funding announced in the budget for critical minerals, there were explicitly different parts of that funding for different parts of the value chain. Through our industrial support programs, they've taken aim at different parts of that supply chain.

I'll pass it over to Patrick on that funding part.

[Patrick Hum]

ISED has access to $1.5 billion through the strategic innovation fund for critical minerals. The department has already made investments in several companies, including E3 Lithium,, Rio Tinto Fer et Titane. Those are important critical mineral-related investments. The investments in the automotive supply chain and others are really telling of where Canada stands.

The other aspect I'd raise, to Frank's point, is that access to energy to process some of these minerals is extremely important. It just lowers the carbon intensity of these products as they get into the value chain.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's the five minutes.

We're now going to go to Mr. Simard, who will have two and a half minutes on the clock.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Des Rosiers, I'd like to ask a quick question, since we're talking about critical minerals. As far as I know, the list of critical minerals was opened in 2023, wasn't it?

[Frank Des Rosiers]

I think the Canadian list was published before that, in 2021, if I remember correctly.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm talking about opening up the list to recognize new critical minerals. I think we were told it was 2023.

[Frank Des Rosiers]

Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the initial list.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Is it 2023 or 2024?

[Frank Des Rosiers]

I can't tell you right now, but there is certainly an opening for dialogue.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay. I'm asking because there are currently two major phosphate projects of great interest. First Phosphate and Arianne Phosphate want phosphate to be added to the list of critical minerals, which would give them advantages in their financing and give them access to Natural Resources Canada research and development programs. Given the purity of the phosphate found in these two companies, they occupy a prominent position in the battery industry. Unfortunately, during meetings with them, I heard that they were struggling to get answers from the department.

Do you know where things stand right now on the phosphate issue and the possibility of adding it to the list of critical minerals?

[Frank Des Rosiers]

No, but I can certainly commit to following up on this.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Hum, you piqued my curiosity earlier when you talked about aluminum. You mentioned that work was being done to decarbonize the aluminum sector. That was my understanding. I assume you were referring to the ELYSIS technology, and I always find that surprising. I admit that the ELYSIS technology is a very good thing and that we need to decarbonize the aluminum sector—I'm talking about it because it's where I live, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean—but we're the greenest primary aluminum producers in the world. That was the case even before ELYSIS. So I think it's a bit of an unrealistic question and a bit of a rhetorical tool.

When I hear people telling us that ELYSIS will decarbonize the aluminum sector, I find the rhetoric rather strange, since we already know that the greenest primary aluminum producers in the world are in Quebec. In fact, I'd like to point out that this will eliminate jobs, since it's a new technology that requires far fewer people.

I'd like to hear your views on this and on what you wanted to say earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time unfortunately on that side, so we won't have time for a response.

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

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

Thank you.

The Department of Energy in the United States has said that just two laws that have been brought in under the Biden administration will cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 41% below 2005 levels by 2030 and that what's being done with the IRA will commit that even further. However, Canada's environment commissioner has stated that Canada's target for 2030 is very unrealistic and likely not going to happen, and he mentions, particularly, that it's based on false claims or hopes for hydrogen.

Mr. Moffet, what do you think in terms of the need to actually hit targets? We've missed every single one that has been promised under this government.

[John Moffet]

I take issue with your last point. We've missed targets established by previous governments. We haven't missed any target established by this government.

I also think it's important to understand that the United States' economy is starting from a very different place than Canada's. Canada, as my colleagues have emphasized, starts with much more significant clean electricity. While the U.S. has the opportunity to significantly decarbonize by reducing emissions from electricity, we're already at over 80% clean electricity.

We're starting ahead. That's not to say that targets are not important or that meeting our targets is not important. I would just emphasize that the government has a statutory commitment to issue a progress report under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act this fall, so you'll see all of the government's projections this fall.

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

I hate to interrupt, but I only have two and a half minutes.

I like the fact that we're starting ahead, but now we're further behind. That worries me.

You said that it was previous governments. I mean, I don't mind beating up on the Harper government all the time, but the fact is that the environment commissioner said that we can't keep going from failure to failure. That's how he has described our missing every single target.

Are you saying that we haven't missed those targets? Which ones?

[John Moffet]

I think he's referring to previous targets established by previous governments.

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

I don't think so.

[John Moffet]

This government has a 2030 target.

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

Do you think we'll get it?

[John Moffet]

This government is confident that we'll get there.

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

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Dreeshen. He has five minutes for his questions.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to talk about what Charlie had mentioned, the information we have on climate and energy provisions says, “The Biden Administration has set a goal of reducing U.S. [greenhouse] emissions by 50% to 52% below 2005...by 2030. The provisions in the IRA will not allow the U.S. to achieve its 2030 target, but they are expected to improve on existing policies.” The U.S. doesn't expect that they're going to be able to handle this either. That's from the documentation we had from the library.

One of the other things I want to talk about is the reliable supplier of critical minerals. Yes, we have that as an opportunity. However, we can't even move forward on any types of projects. I'm really going to be interested in seeing how the members of Parliament will deal with that particular issue.

The other part is that you've mentioned how Canada's always been further ahead. I believe Mr. Des Rosiers talked about the U.S. Department of Energy on technology. We used to be the leaders. If we don't get our act together, we're going to end up being the followers. We're going to end up having to buy technology from around the world, because we're not allowing our industry to expand. That's the reason we were able to be this leader.

That's the first part. The other thing is that Fatih Birol from the International Energy Agency indicated the difference between the heavy oil coming out of Alberta and traditional oil and gas, and that the difference in that was equivalent to one day's emissions in China. Does it matter, then, if China catches up on January 1, 2030 or 2040, or on January 2? However, we have managed to demonize the energy that is coming out of Alberta for whatever reason. I haven't quite figured that one out.

The other point that was just mentioned was the brownouts in Alberta. We had two members, one from the NDP and one from the Liberals, attacking the provincial government for talking about.... Let's look at what is really occurring here. The brownouts that occurred came about because of hot weather and low winds. When you have a massive amount of energy, which we do have in Alberta, coming from wind, and you're at less than 1% efficiency because there's no wind, it's no wonder we have some issues, but that also means there are issue with the renewables that we have at present. They can't keep up. We don't have a grid system that can manage it either. The major concern is that no one has sat down and said, “How do we deal with the reclamation that is needed for solar farms and wind farms?” We see what is happening around the world. Those are things that we need to consider too.

As to the comments that came about to attack the Alberta government, all they're doing is being responsible by saying we had better have this figured out, because that cost is going to be massive as well.

Another point that was brought out was about Siemens. I don't know if anybody has figured out what is happening with Siemens in Germany. There are major issues with their windmills and major concerns. In July, I think, of this year, there was a 37% drop in their market share because of the problems they have with windmills.

Do you think it is maybe an important thing to talk about renewables, because for some reason, as I've said many times in this committee...? We have to talk about the energy requirements from the first shovel we use to dig something up to the last shovel we use to cover it up. Until we do that, what are we really talking about in natural resources?

Mr. Des Rosiers, I've pretty well talked through most of my time here, but could you perhaps give us some sense of where we're going to go? We have followed a path. We have done the political thing and looked at people, pointing fingers. We have followed that path. What are we going to do in the future so that we are actually the leaders around the world that we have been for generations?

[Frank Des Rosiers]

That was a point that I thought of maybe emphasizing. I like your point about Canada showing that leadership technology-wise. That's been the case for the past so many years.

I must say that we heard earlier from our ISED colleagues about how many of those clean-tech firms are present in the country. There are 2,800 firms that we have reached out to and engaged with. Most of those export their products and services. About 90-plus per cent of their sales are abroad, in the U.S., Europe and beyond. There's a great deal of interest out there for this kind of marketplace and being able to continue to drive ahead and attract the capital and investments we need to supply the market. I'm actually quite optimistic about Canada's prospects in this regard.