Natural Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Shall clauses 191 to 209 carry?

(Clauses 191 to 209 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Now we will proceed to part 3 of Bill C-49.

There are no amendments submitted to clauses 210 to 219. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Clauses 210 to 219 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

Given the conversations we have been having about uncertainty and about energy, I would like to move the motion that I submitted on Friday, April 5.

I want to address the issue of LNG exports from Canada and talk a bit about why committee members here at the natural resources committee should support the motion to ask the Minister of Natural Resources to come to this committee to talk about the moral, political, geopolitical, security, sovereignty, energy and food poverty reasons that Canada should take the opportunity to provide LNG around the world, particularly to Canada's allies.

The motion I submitted on April 5 says:

Given that,

The Prime Minister of Greece recently stated that Greece would “of course” be interested in purchasing Canadian LNG, noting that Greece is “a big entry point for LNG, not just for the Greek market, but also for the Balkans, [and] for Eastern Europe,” and that “Theoretically, we could even supply Ukraine.”

The leaders of Germany and Japan have made similar remarks during their state visits to Canada.

The Minister of Natural Resources recently stated in a CTV interview, “We are not interested in investing in LNG facilities. That's the role of the private sector. They need to assess the business case and make the investments.”

The private sector has assessed the business case for Canadian LNG positively and has repeatedly tried to invest in LNG in Canada, evidenced by the fact that there have been 18 proposals for LNG projects submitted to the federal government.

Despite this, the Liberal government has consistently delayed and denied these LNG projects, and, as a result, the only LNG project currently under construction in Canada is one that was approved by the previous Conservative government.

The committee:

1. Report its concern regarding this matter to the House of Commons; and

2. Invite the Minister of Natural Resources to testify before the committee regarding his comments for no less than two hours, on or before April 18, 2024.

I just want to give some context to make the case for why elected members of the natural resources committee should support this motion and invite the minister to appear.

First of all, of course, Conservatives agree in principle that what should happen is that a government should set attractive fiscal and regulatory investment conditions so that private sector proponents can bring home big projects, jobs and money to Canada while helping to expand and accelerate Canada's environmentally responsible oil and gas, other energy and other technologies—but in particular LNG—in the near term to European allies.

Conservatives agree that oil and gas projects, export projects, pipelines and energy infrastructure should not require taxpayer subsidies or taxpayer dollars. That, of course, has been happening in recent years, precisely because of the NDP-Liberal anti-energy red tape, gatekeeping, permitting timelines, uncertainty, and anti-energy messages and policies that have driven investment in major energy projects out of Canada, primarily into the United States, and therefore have driven a brain drain and have driven Canadian jobs, money and businesses into other jurisdictions as well.

It should be noted, of course, that the Greek prime minister was the first Greek leader to come to Canada in more than 40 years. It is a big deal that here, on this goodwill visit to discuss shared interests with the Prime Minister of Canada, he said in Canada and in the media that his country would like to start importing Canadian LNG and that Canada would, as he said, “absolutely” be an ideal partner.

Greece's prime minister made the point that Greece is a big entry point for LNG, obviously for the Greek market but also for Eastern Europe in general. He specifically commented on the fact that a supply of Canadian LNG could help support Ukraine in real ways by breaking dependence on Putin's oil and gas in the region as they fight his illegal aggression and attack on them. He told Canada and Canadians that Greece is putting the finishing touches on a major facility to start importing LNG and processing LNG tankers.

Of course, that great Prime Minister just follows in the footsteps of other Canadian allies and world leaders who have been asking for a supply of Canadian LNG, including the Japanese prime minister and the German chancellor.

Of course, mind-bogglingly, the Prime Minister of Canada said there was no business case for the development of Canadian LNG. First of all, he's apparently the only world leader and the only guy in the entire discussion who thinks there's no business case for Canadian LNG. Of course, what is actually happening is death by delay, which is because this anti-energy government has increased permitting timelines, increased taxes and pancaked and layered on anti-energy policies and laws that deter investment and then jeopardize even approved projects' being able to get built. What has actually happened is the reality of fiscal and regulatory conditions, which means that when we are trying to attract projects of that size with that investment, with that risk and with those job numbers, the regulatory and fiscal conditions passed by governments are inextricably linked and inherently embedded in the private sector's assessment of what is a good business case.

The problem in Canada's scenario is our domestic government's anti-energy policies, red tape and laws. The problem in Canada's scenario is the Prime Minister of Canada being the only person in the country, and apparently also among world leaders, saying there's no business case for Canadian LNG.

I think it's important to note, of course, that the request for Canadian LNG has been made by more world leaders. For example, in June 2022, Ukraine's ambassador issued a call for Canadian oil and gas companies to help in the fight against Putin's attack by entering and expanding into the European market with LNG. She said, at that time, “Canadian companies, we do think, should take the opportunity to enter and expand in the EU market”.

I'm sure, Chair, since you are from the province of Alberta, a major natural gas area along with many others right across Canada, you would agree with the importance of expanding natural gas development and exporting LNG around the world to help break dependency on despots and dictators with much lower environmental track records and almost no human and labour rights or standards to speak of.

Also in 2022, Latvia's ambassador made it known that they would welcome shipments of Canadian LNG to help Europe reduce its dependence on Russian gas. He said, “We are trying to build a resilient energy system. If Canada is going to invest in LNG, we would wholeheartedly support it.”

Of course, the reality is that, after nine years, today, Canada still doesn't export any LNG, despite being the fifth-largest natural gas producer in the world, and it is precisely because of the NDP-Liberals' domestic anti-energy policies and red tape. This is bad for Canada, but good for all of Canada's global competitors, good for the United States, our biggest energy competitor and customer, and good for the top 10 major oil and gas competitive regimes in the world, almost none of which are democracies and almost all of which are dictators and despots.

The truth is, of course, that there have been 18 LNG proposals made in Canada, and in the last eight to nine years of these NDP-Liberals, zero of them have been built. Only three have been approved, and only one is actually currently under construction. That, of course, was approved by the previous Conservative government but then delayed by the Liberals after they formed government, after which they did give another green light, but that, of course, was a delay in itself.

The reality is that, because of Prime Minister Trudeau's anti-energy messages about Canadian LNG and because of the suite of anti-energy policies and laws passed by this government in the last nine years, the NDP-Liberals have almost left Canada completely behind. We have almost entirely missed the opportunity with our moral, political, security, sovereignty, and energy and food poverty reasons. Regardless, we have almost entirely missed the opportunity for Canada to participate in what is obviously a global role that is demanded by world leaders, including, very significantly, our allies around the world in various conflicts combatting regimes hostile to Canada and to the free world.

Warren Buffett cancelled the 50% of funding that he was prepared to invest in the Saguenay LNG plant, because of instability in the current Canadian political context. He, of course, diplomatically meant the various anti-energy policies and laws passed by this government.

What's important is that the NDP-Liberals try to pretend they're external observers and have nothing to do with this. They like to blame global trends and things happening around the world to rationalize our unique Canadian situation actually caused by their own policies and legislation.

To make that point, and to make sure Canadians don't.... It's not just me saying it. Here's the contrast of what has happened with the United States in almost the exact same time frame where 18 LNG proposals were made to this government, but most have been mothballed or withdrawn by their private sector proponents because of these anti-energy NDP-Liberals. In that same time frame, seven LNG terminals have been constructed—not just approved but constructed—in the U.S. Twenty more have been approved, and five more will be opened by 2028. In that same time frame, the United States has become the world's leading LNG exporter. Its exports are expected to double by 2030.

What is wild about this is that in January, the Biden administration announced that it would put a pause on the permit approvals for LNG projects. The reality is, of course, that this is after it has already moved forward to ensure that the U.S. dominates the global market, while our own Prime Minister, against the best interests of Canada and Canadians, has let Canada fall behind. I think it is incomprehensible that instead of taking the opportunity for Canada to lead in North America, the natural resources minister praised the pause and said it would create an opportunity for Canada—except that, of course, the numbers show it's his own government that has driven LNG exports, projects, jobs, and money away from Canada and almost lost that opportunity for all of us.

It behooves Canadians to ask, what are the consequences of all this? What does this actually mean? Well, this is what it means. It means that in the midst of a global energy and food poverty crisis, and in the midst of a skyrocketing cost of living crisis in Canada, driven by inflationary deficit spending by the NDP-Liberals, interest rates have increased, making life more and more unaffordable for Canadians.

Despite the fact that European allies are begging Canada to help supply the energy needs for their citizens, for their countries, and to reduce dependence on despots and dictators, it is just mind-boggling that the Prime Minister continues to say there isn't a business case for Canadian LNG. The natural resources minister has not bothered to take that opportunity, that window for Canada, which is almost completely lost.

It is also mind-boggling given the debate in Canada around support for Ukraine against Putin's illegal attack. There are many great words coming from the Liberals, and they have taken measures to support Ukraine, but it is blindingly and wildly obvious to me that the biggest way to help support Ukraine, in addition to sending weapons, is to send Canadian LNG and energy, and other technologies so it can break its dependence on Putin and Putin's energy control of the entire region. Instead, this government signed off on permits to actually send turbines to help Putin's own gas pipeline and fund his war.

Let's talk about what else has happened since then. France has signed a 27-year agreement with Qatar for LNG. Germany has signed a 15-year deal with Qatar for LNG. The Netherlands has signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for LNG. China has signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for LNG. India signed a 20-year deal with Qatar for LNG just last month. You'll know that a week ago, the Indian prime minister was talking about how they're ramping up coal and the benefit it will provide to many of their citizens, who are also suffering from food and energy poverty, who live in places that are not as industrialized and who don't yet have the same standard of living and quality of life that many Canadians and people living in North America get to enjoy. Japan is also currently in talks with Qatar to secure LNG imports, after our Prime Minister turned it away. I think Canadians should know that in the midst of all this, the leader of Hamas, the terrorist organization wreaking havoc in Gaza and on Israel, lives in Qatar.

These are the real geopolitical, security and sovereignty consequences of the Prime Minister's, his minister's and the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy costly coalition. It's clear that the world wants and needs more Canadian LNG, but what has happened after nine years of this anti-energy government is that our allies are forced to sign deals with despots and countries that are home to terrorist organization leaders.

The result is that our biggest energy competitor, customer and North American ally is outpacing Canada. Mexico announced a couple of months ago that it is also going to have a goal to ramp up its LNG development and export, so we may also.... This anti-energy NDP-Liberal government and anti-energy Prime Minister are apparently going to be just fine with Mexico also outpacing Canada on the continent for LNG development and exports.

It's absolutely mind-boggling, but clear from a common-sense Conservative perspective, that the reality of Prime Minister Trudeau's anti-energy policies and messages is that they actually enrich regimes that sponsor terrorism and are attacking allies—including the people of Ukraine, whom these NDP-Liberals like to talk about supporting.

To make it clear, common-sense Conservatives would expand and accelerate traditional oil and gas development in Canada. We would expand and accelerate LNG approvals and exports from Canada. We would ensure that private sector proponents have clarity, certainty, predictability, fairness and the backing of the government to build their projects, once approved—after they've gone through Canada's expert and unparalleled regulatory assessment regime.

For these reasons, I hope the elected members from all parts of this country on the natural resources committee will support this motion to discuss this issue in further depth and invite the Minister of Natural Resources to be present at the committee to join this discussion.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs, for presenting your motion.

I have a speaking list established. I will go to Ms. Jones, and then I'll go to other speakers. I have Ms. Jones, and then I have Mr. Patzer, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Small.

Ms. Jones, go ahead.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate that.

I just want to say that we have been very active on the agenda of moving forward on energy projects in Canada. We have launched more investment in clean energy initiatives than any other government in our history. We're helping communities right across Canada be able to transition from diesel generation to clean energy technologies and alternatives. We're continuing to do that.

What we've also found in this case is a huge reception by companies, especially companies that are working in rural and remote regions across Canada. We've particularly had a tremendous rapport with mining companies that want to get to a place where they're promoting green minerals and green products in the market. They take this very seriously, because they know that we live in a world today that we know to be competitive. To get the best market value for our products, we have to have green products. We have to be able to enter a supply chain that is delivering what the world will be demanding. That's what we're doing in Canada.

I don't expect my colleagues to completely understand the pace at which we are moving towards a clean environment, the way we're launching incentives to ensure that we are a country that is not going to be a follower but a leader in what the world markets are going to need. In fact, Mr. Chair, in Canada today, we have more mining development and interests in growing the resource economy than we've probably had in a very long time. That is because they see the opportunity to work with a government that is making concrete investments and that has a vision for where we want to go in Canada and in the world in bringing commodities to those markets. Also, it's because they know it's creating jobs, good jobs, in communities. I think that's critical when you look at the layout of Canada today and the fact that, no matter where you live, you should have those opportunities and should be able to have options for change. I think that, as a government, we are certainly giving people that right across the north.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we adjourn debate on the motion that has been brought forward, because I know I could spend at least the next two hours just talking about the great initiatives that we have launched around alternate energy development and the plans that we have to continue to grow that.

The Atlantic accords that we're dealing with today are just a small fraction of that. The fact that the Conservatives have not been supportive at all of what the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and the people in Nova Scotia want to do is absolutely shameful. They talk about creating a new economy, and when those provinces are willing to step up to do just that, they launch ways to put impediments and challenges in their paths so that they can't achieve the visions and goals they have for their provinces.

I'd just like to say that, Mr. Chair, and adjourn—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Hold on one second. I have a point of order from Mr. Small.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it extremely rich to hear these comments from my colleague from Labrador, given the fact that she advocates for bottom trawling for northern cod. Bottom trawling releases enormous amounts of carbon, and it's been proven—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Small, I'm going to ask you to hold. I'm going to go to Mr. Angus on a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Is she asking to adjourn debate? If she is, then there's no debate about that.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I think she moved to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to you, Mr. Patzer, on a point of order. Was your point of order on Mr. Angus's point of order?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, my point of order is on Mr. Angus's point of order. Ms. Jones obviously did not say that.

Mr. Small merely wanted to defend the fact that Conservatives are being gaslit on this point, because the entire point—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

—of the debate on this bill has been to do what's right by the provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll ask everybody to hold. I've heard all the points of order.

Ms. Jones did ask for adjournment, but she was finishing up. Then a point of order was called by Mr. Small.

Procedurally, I did not hear anything from you, Mr. Small. You were debating, and I've heard further debate as well.

Ms. Jones did have the floor, and she was wrapping up her debate. She did ask for a motion to adjourn. I think she was just about to reference that again, but there was a point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Is it a procedural issue, Mr. Falk?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It is.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm going to ask you to procedurally be succinct, so we can proceed.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, I'll be very succinct.

You indicated, Mr. Chair, that Ms. Jones had asked to adjourn the debate, but then you allowed her to continue to debate, so she hadn't technically asked to adjourn the debate yet. She said she was going to ask to adjourn the debate, and then she kept debating.