Environment Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It's not for this moment, but something on which to get back to the committee.

In the past we've had conversations about whether or not tabling a motion takes away from your questioning time. If we could, just for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I didn't take it away from your time. I mean, you took your time.

There are two things we could do. I could say that after you tabled it, your time is gone, or I could say that it was part of your minute and a half. That's what I said, because we didn't start a debate or anything.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I don't want to take any more time with this, but could you just check with the clerk and come back to the committee at a later date on whether there is any precedence, once a motion is tabled, to have that as separate time and then you would keep your remaining time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Apparently it's basically at the discretion of the chair.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. Thank you so much for the clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

My rule of thumb is if you're just tabling the motion, you can continue until your time is up. If you're moving a motion and you're starting a debate, then you lose your time, or whatever was left.

We go to Mr. Deltell for three minutes, please.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses for this portion of our meeting.

Mr. Mousseau, I'm pleased to see you again at our meeting, this time by video conference, and I look forward to all your comments.

We're talking about oil and fossil fuels. We know that the federal Liberal government surprised everyone six years ago by suddenly announcing that it was buying the Trans Mountain pipeline to the tune of $4.7 billion, before deciding to do the necessary work to expand it. At the end of the day, it was six times what it was supposed to be. The total price for the work and purchase is close to $40 billion, or $38.7 billion, which taxpayers invested in a pipeline. I have nothing against pipelines as long as they are needed. Obviously, I prefer Canadian oil to foreign oil.

However, economically speaking, was that the right choice? Are there any examples in the world where a country has decided to buy a pipeline and have taxpayers pay for it? Furthermore, how long will it take for it to be “cost-effective” for taxpayers?

[Normand Mousseau]

I haven't done any analysis on that pipeline. However, in a context of decarbonization, we can imagine that we could have taken that money to support decarbonization efforts and get Canada to meet its targets more quickly.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Is it any wonder that a government that keeps lecturing everyone on decarbonization, that claims to be a world leader in decarbonization, spends close to $40 billion of taxpayers' money on a pipeline?

Mr. Mousseau, you mentioned earlier that Canada is the worst country in the G7 and that it ranks 62nd out of 67 countries according to the COP29 Report, which is tabled every year. In the United States, some states have a pricing policy on emissions, but the United States as a country doesn't; President Obama and President Biden, who are big advocates of decarbonization, didn't take that approach.

So my question is this. Why is it that Canada, which has that ambition and has extended carbon pricing across the country, is worse than the United States, which doesn't have pricing in all states?

[Normand Mousseau]

As I was saying, there are two reasons for that.

First, there is a problem of consistency at the federal level, because it's very difficult to move projects forward when the parties have extremely different positions on the very objective of decarbonizing.

Furthermore, unlike the American states, some of which have made tremendous progress in decarbonization, there is stagnation at the provincial level. Apart from the decarbonization of electricity generation and the closure of coal-fired power plants, we don't see much of that happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Mousseau. That is noted.

We'll conclude the round with Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question will be for Mr. Beugin.

Sir, I've heard a couple of different questions relating to performance. I've seen the graphs relating to how much various sectors have decarbonized in Canada. I imagine you have too.

Can you point to whether there is only one sector in Canada that is still continuing to increase emissions rather than decreasing its emissions, as most sectors are?

[Dale Beugin]

The sector that has grown most since 2005 in terms of emissions is the oil and gas sector. The building sector has also grown. Other sectors are either mostly flat or have made progress in reducing emissions.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Do you think that Canada's performance, as it has been described, requires the efforts of industry and these energy sectors to participate and to more actively decarbonize?

Second, do you think that Canada as a country has a chance at achieving its objectives—its climate commitments—without regulations to ensure that the energy sector participates?

[Dale Beugin]

To deliver on interim targets in 2030 or especially in terms of long-term targets of net zero by 2050, all sectors are going to have to contribute. All sectors are going to have to reduce their emissions. That's going to require policy that touches every part of the emissions inventory and creates incentives for emissions reductions all across the economy. That includes the oil and gas sector. It includes the industrial sector.

It is, again, relevant that there are interactions across multiple policies. Multiple policies work together to reduce those emissions. In the oil and gas sector, for example, there are incentives in the form of investment tax credits. There is the industrial carbon price that creates incentives in those sectors as well as the forthcoming oil and gas sector. How those things fit together matters.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

Your analysis has shown the importance of industrial carbon pricing in getting to net zero, as you just stated. Some industry leaders, including the Pathways Alliance, which is a consortium of energy companies, have recently stated that the leader of the Conservative Party's intention to end industrial carbon pricing is already creating uncertainty and holding back massive investments in decarbonization. We've also seen that in Alberta.

Can you speak to why this uncertainty and a political position on industrial carbon pricing are already hurting our decarbonization efforts across our economy?

[Dale Beugin]

Expectations about the future of policy signals matter for mobilizing big investments for these big industries. The investments in technologies to reduce emissions are long-lived. That means expected future carbon prices and expected future incentives from policy matter almost as much as current incentives.

There is a cost of uncertainty regarding the existence of policy. There are costs of uncertainty in the robustness of those systems. It's why there's a live conversation and some current policy work around an instrument called “carbon contracts for difference” to try to mobilize some of those incentives through certainty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses for a robust and interesting discussion. Sometimes the more robust the conversation, the more interesting it is. I want to thank everyone for being here, and Mr. Mousseau for being part of the discussion.

We'll stop here, and on Wednesday, we'll start up with the net-zero accelerator study.

I should mention that the documents that members and their staff have been able to consult are still available to consult, but in a different room. They're now available to consult in the clerk's office, whereas before they were in a dedicated room. That dedicated room is apparently under some kind of renovation, so we've shifted the location, but they're still available.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

This meeting is adjourned.