Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2024

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

Mr. Chair, what I was trying to say is that there is a differentiation between the concerns being raised by the Conservative Party in relation to one piece of federal legislation, which the minister said we'll have an update on shortly, and what we're talking about here. This is something the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have jointly said they want provisions for.

When I hear the Conservative Party here today say that they know better than the province where I live and the governments that have been duly elected in both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, it reeks of condescension, as if that party, the federal party, knows better than the provinces.

Mrs. Stubbs has rightly said the provinces were out saying they support it. I haven't heard a single premier step up and say they don't want to see this legislation advance, even after the court decision. I see these as two fundamentally different things. I see it as an attack on Atlantic Canada.

I only have so much time, Minister, but is there a quick comment you might have on how you see those two things as being different, particularly where there's provincial buy-in?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I think you've pointed it out. They are very different, and the relationship with them is reasonably well understood. However, I would say that while there has been some controversy with respect to the Impact Assessment Act and some provinces have objected to some of the provisions in that act, nobody who is impacted by this bill at the provincial level is opposing this. They are all strongly supporting it and in fact helped to negotiate it.

I, like you, was gobsmacked that the Conservative Party would oppose this bill. It makes no reasonable sense in any reasonable world.

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

I have a comment, and then I have a quick question, Minister.

There's been a lot made that somehow this—I don't want to frame it in their words—is a back door against the idea of developing oil and gas. I don't see it in that way at all. You've made it very clear that's not the intent of this legislation.

In fact, I want the record to show that for exploratory wells under the Atlantic offshore accord, permitting was for 300 days before the Harper government came into place. During the Harper government's tenure, it went up to 900 days, and our government brought it back down to 90 days. This is oil and gas. This is the thing the Conservatives want to talk about a lot. It is important to the region; I would agree.

There's a slogan, Minister, “technology, not taxes”, that we hear the member for Carleton talk about. We hear this trumpeted from the opposition benches. Is this not “technology, not taxes”? We are talking about leveraging an existing emerging technology to help us decarbonize and export around the world. The Conservatives are still against the enabling legislation that allows that to happen. Do you not see that as a bit hypocritical?

Look, they can take issues with carbon pricing and whatever the case may be, but this isn't carbon pricing. This is the technology and industry to drive us, and they're still against it. Can you comment on that?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I think “technology, not taxes” is a tag line; it's not a strategy. It's not a well-thought-out way of thinking about this.

Technology requires that you think about how you develop technology, demonstrate technology and ultimately commercially deploy technology, including incentives to deploy early stage technologies going forward. It requires thought. You are not simply deploying CCUS because it's a revenue generator. You're deploying it because you're trying to save the planet.

Mr. Poilievre trying to use “technology, not taxes” as a strategy somehow is a bit laughable. This is a guy who was elected out of university. He's never worked on technology. He's never worked in business. He has sat in a green chair for 20 years and is now entitled to whatever pension he's going to be entitled to, but he has zero background in the relevant parts of this business.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister.

Colleagues, once again, a question was asked, the minister answered and other mics were turned on. When this mic comes on, I speak. If you're acknowledged, then you have the floor. The minister is answering today, so if he is asked a question, he gets the floor. Let's try to maintain that order so we can have a good, functioning remainder of this committee.

With that, Monsieur Simard, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Let's all use common sense. Maybe that will move us along a little bit.

Mr. Minister, I told you earlier that I had some doubts about your willingness to contribute to the energy transition through this bill. I'll tell you why. There have been tax credits for carbon capture and storage strategies, as well as for clean hydrogen since 2023, and there will be one for clean electricity in 2024.

Earlier, I asked you whether Newfoundland and Labrador could already develop offshore wind projects. You told me that the bill had to be passed first. However, in Newfoundland and Labrador's roadmap, in 2023, which was last year, there was already talk about producing five gigawatts by 2025. That's going to take a lot of money. If the federal government supports private projects, it's going to take a lot of money. If we want to turn those five gigawatts into clean hydrogen, that's going to take a lot of money too.

Aren't your strategies contradictory? On the one hand, you're spending money to make clean oil using carbon capture and storage, which seems to me like a passing fad, and on the other hand, you are going to have fairly expensive technologies that will produce a significant amount of electricity. Five gigawatts is huge. It seems to me that there's a dichotomy between the investments you'll have to make in fossil fuels, on the one hand, and the investments you'll have to make in clean energy, on the other.

Shouldn't you just set aside the folly of carbon capture and storage?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

We need to do two things. First, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, of course, in all sectors of the economy, including the oil sector. Second, we need to fight climate change.

However, we also need to have a plan for a prosperous future, and that plan will be different in every province and territory. In the case of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, it's wind and hydrogen.

In the budget, we said that we were going to invest almost $90 billion in that. It's a lot of money, but it's important.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have one other quick question. I'm wondering—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry to cut you off, but we're at the end of our time with that.

Thank you, Minister and Mr. Simard. Those were very good questions.

I'll go to Mr. Angus for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, the issue of the climate catastrophe that's unfolding and calling out climate denialism are very important. I look at my family. My mom's a MacNeil. Everyone in her village in Cape Breton left. They went to Ontario, they went to Boston and they went out west because there was no permanent, good employment. In my region, whenever there's a new mining project, the planes are full of people from Newfoundland, and they come to work because there's not enough work at home.

We're talking about the potential to create jobs in construction and permanent jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. I think that's above and beyond partisan bickering, and it should be. We're looking at 471,000 solar and wind jobs in the United States, and we have the Conservatives sitting here saying that the Premier of Newfoundland was hoodwinked. They're saying there's no business case. They're saying they're going to oppose it.

I am really concerned, Minister. If we keep waiting, we will lose this opportunity, because that investment is travelling and it's happening. It's not hypothetical; it's on the ground all over the world but here. How do we get these projects off the ground by working with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

It is important that we do this and that we do it expeditiously. None of the work and none of the projects happen unless we have a regulatory system in place. I, like you, thought this was one of those areas where there would be no objection and that we would all come together to just support this bill. I was very surprised when the Conservatives decided they would oppose this.

At the end of the day, we need to ensure that the committee has robust discussions and invites experts to have them, but we need to then move this along. If we are going to achieve the economic development we want to see in these provinces and ensure that we are able to work with our allies around the world on the future economy, we need to see this happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

You had a few extra seconds, but you're turning it back to me, so thank you, Mr. Angus.

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

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We'll now go to Mr. Small.

Go ahead, Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The member for Labrador accused me of not supporting my province while the production of oil in Newfoundland and Labrador has dropped by half since the Liberal-NDP coalition came to power.

Don't be having that look on your face down there.

Why do you want to shut down an industry that provides 30% of the GDP of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why do you want to destroy that? What's your timeline?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I have no intention of destroying anything. At the end of the day, I work very closely with Premier Furey and his government. We have done all kinds of work across a range of files, including the oil and gas file. I was involved very much in the conversations around Bay du Nord, so that kind of implication is just silly.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Then I heard my friend, the member for Kings—Hants, making fun of “technology, not taxes”. Well, you know what? Natural gas is proven to produce half the greenhouse gases that coal produces. Last year, India and China set a record for coal consumption, and it's going up again. If using natural gas is not technology instead of taxes—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

The Conservatives interrupted me and said I was talking about what wasn't involved. Are we looking at natural gas as part of this agreement? Is that happening off the shore of Newfoundland?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.

I want to make sure, colleagues, that we don't use points of order for debate. We use our time to stay relevant to the topic at hand.

Mr. Small, I will go back to you. You can continue on with your line of questioning.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll give you a little education here. Natural gas is one of the petroleum products that this bill is going to have power over the development of. Mr. Angus and his point of order are a pile of baloney.

Why would you want to bring in legislation that's stopping the development of the nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Grand Banks, which would help drop the greenhouse gas emissions of the world by 25%? That's guaranteed if all coal would stop being burned and we used natural gas instead. That's a guaranteed drop in world emissions by 25%. Why are you against that?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

First of all, that's not guaranteed. You have to look at the methane emissions associated with the upstream. You have to look at the emissions associated—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I think it's 24%.