Evidence of meeting #78 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was europe.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, why don't we just give a round to the members who haven't had a chance to talk but wish to?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
That was my initial intention, but it seems that the other members are not in agreement.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
The clock runs out at 6:30, so we have three minutes left.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I am happy to give Mr. Epp three minutes, even though, on principle, I don't think we should—
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay, Mr. Epp, you get four minutes since that's what I initially said.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for allowing me this opportunity.
Because Canada was not in a position to fill some of the void created with Russia's invasion, or chose not to, sources then were secured from Qatar, Venezuela and other places. Obviously I think we all know the geopolitical risk that's associated there, particularly now with Hamas's actions in Israel, etc., and the risks that could increase there.
Professor Winfield, I'm going to go back to your opening statement. If I heard you correctly, you stated that when Europe continues its path or goes back to its decarbonization process, there was no geopolitical risk in that process. I want to challenge that statement.
Obviously, you've identified nuclear. EV would be part of that whole transition. Where are those critical minerals coming from? Is there no geopolitical risk in sourcing them from Africa or other places? I find that statement lacks a bit of credibility.
6:25 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change, York University, As an Individual
I didn't say there would be no geopolitical risk; I said that the European Union is very sensitive to the question of geopolitical risk around energy supplies and other things.
The approach around material flows in Europe is very interesting. We actually just published a study this week on electric vehicle batteries, mostly on end-of-life questions. One of the things that is quite interesting with the European Union is the emphasis on circularity—on recovering materials from end-of-life batteries, for example, and feeding them back into supply chains within Europe—precisely because they are sensitive to these risks.
All of these things are ultimately internationally traded commodities, and that is part of the source of the risk. A particular example is the war in Ukraine, but other factors can be at work that affect the prices—particularly of minerals, for example—that are also beyond the control of the EU, and they're being very—
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
I do want to get one other question in.
I'll go to Mr. Calnan.
Obviously China is a big factor in that other question, but, Mr. Calnan, I will go somewhere else.
You also mentioned that in Europe there was a rapid decline in their use of natural gas. Were other energy sources substituted for that, or did they simply go without?
6:30 p.m.
Manager, Energy Security Forum, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
In some cases, it was substituted. For example, they were able to substitute diesel for natural gas or coal, but in many other cases, it just implied a reduction in industrial output in particular. Most of the declines in natural gas consumption in Europe were from industrial production, and that's mainly because many European countries were subsidizing households for their own natural gas consumption and effectively supporting the market for households at the expense of industry.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you very much.
The overall question is this: If our infrastructure had been in place, how much could Canada have helped both our European allies and Japan, which has also come calling?
Go ahead, Mr. Calnan, please.
6:30 p.m.
Manager, Energy Security Forum, Canadian Global Affairs Institute
It depends on how much infrastructure we're assuming here, I suppose.
If we're talking about achieving the level of oil sands production that some people were talking about 30 to 40 years ago, then certainly Canada would be one of the largest producers of oil in the world. Well, we are already one of the largest producers of oil, but we could be producing far more.
In terms of natural gas, we don't have the same sort of natural gas reserves as the United States or Russia has, but we do have a significant amount of natural gas that could have been.... More LNG facilities on the west coast certainly could have been approved. Well, they were approved, but the economics wasn't quite there to allow for all of them to go through. The economics of projects is highly influenced by all sorts of factors, such as the cost of pipelines. Regulatory factors and many different things go into the economics of whether projects will go forward.
Yes, Canada could have been helping a lot more. On the question of whether we could have completely replaced Russia, I don't think that was ever really in the cards, but certainly Canada could have helped more.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Mr. Epp.
At this point, allow me to thank our two witnesses.
Mr. Winfield and Mr. Calnan, thank you very much for your time and for sharing your expertise with us.
If members of the committee are in agreement, can we adjourn the committee?
Thank you.
This meeting stands adjourned.