Environment Committee on March 27th, 2023

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I have, and they haven't answered, but thank you.

To add delays and confusion, your department, you, promulgated some regulations last year, in June, migratory bird regulations, that delayed the construction of Trans Mountain by another three years, potentially, at Bridal Falls. This is a new regulation in the midst of construction.

Would you say you're a little complicit in putting hurdles in the way to stop this pipeline and in actually making it much more expensive for Canadian taxpayers?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

First, we have a responsibility to protect species, and we take this responsibility very seriously. The migratory bird regulations that were put out were saluted by many.

In terms of the added three-year delay, I am not sure I can accept the premise of that question.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

Let's get it on notice here then. It's the pileated woodpecker. It's the only land-based bird that was added. Most Canadians will tell you that the pileated woodpecker is not an endangered species. Let's get onto it. A group called the Community Nest Finding Network, backed by the Dogwood initiative, actually found the nest shortly after your rules were promulgated.

Can you tell us if any of the money from your department, under grants and contributions, actually goes to either of these organizations to help thwart the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

We fund hundreds of organizations every year. We can certainly verify that. I don't have that information with me now, but we would be happy to follow up on that. This is public information.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, please. We'll table that—all the organizations you're funding that are potentially involved in holding up this pipeline. It's much appreciated. I'm wondering if those are included in the $22-billion cost overruns here that Canadians are bearing.

Before being elected in 2019, you more or less said—and I'm paraphrasing—that this pipeline would be built over your dead body. Now you're in cabinet, and effectively you have a different position in cabinet, but it seems you're in some kind of conflict with the Minister of Finance here on getting this pipeline built.

Let me point out that this pipeline would benefit Canada by over $20 billion annually, yet somehow it's not being built. It continues to run into hurdles, many of which I'm pointing out here today.

Now, this is a large amount for us to actually be subsidizing, if you will, the hurdles that are ongoing. We're $22 billion over budget with years of delays, yet when we have to deliver oil to Europe, the government's response is that we can't help Europe with oil.

Can you see now the consequences of not getting Canadian resources to market effectively?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I don't recall saying what you said I said. If you would be so kind as to provide us with the information, that would be super.

As you know, this pipeline is mostly for the Asian market, not for Europe. At least that's what I've read from most analysts and experts who've written on the subject.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Well, seaborne oil is seaborne oil, Mr. Minister. Once you get oil to the open waters, it goes wherever the market dictates it goes. If ours goes south to the U.S. or east to Asia, that means something else is freed up to go elsewhere. We're not part of the solution. We're part of the energy insecurity we have helped Russia deliver around the world. This is a problem we've contributed to because of a lack of foresight and a lack of ability to develop Canadian resources. This is on your government's watch. Don't try to blame the previous government for this.

I'll note that we talk about greenhouse gas increases. One of my colleagues around the table here has said that Canada's have gone up 20% from our oil and gas industry. That's fine, but there's been a doubling of production. Let's look at things in relative terms and look at where we fit in the world as far as addressing our environment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're out of time, unfortunately.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The German chancellor at the EU cut—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Minister, we're out of time.

Mr. McLean, we're out of time.

Ms. Thompson, we'll end the second round with your questioning.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister, and welcome to the officials. Thank you for the work you're doing.

There continues to be some confusion and conflicting information around carbon pricing. To help clarify this, would you explain what carbon pricing is and why it's important, please?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

According to most experts who've looked at measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon pricing is known to be, if not the most effective, then certainly one of the most effective measures to fight climate change. The very novelty of the Canadian system is that we're supporting Canadians in the transition by returning the vast majority of the revenues directly to them, which means that countries in South America, countries in Europe and countries in Asia are looking at the Canadian carbon pricing system as being a very interesting one. In fact, between 2021 and 2022, we went from 20% of the world being covered by some form of carbon pricing to 25%. We held an event in Sharm El-Sheikh, at COP27, at which we had representatives from the United Kingdom, from Chile and from the World Bank all coming to sing the praises of Canada's carbon pricing system.

It is an essential component of the fight against climate change. Again, anyone who has looked at this seriously will tell you that's the case.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Could you also explain what the Government of Canada is doing with the revenues it collects through the carbon pricing?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As I said, the vast majority—90%—of the revenues are recycled directly to Canadians in jurisdictions where the federal system applies, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, today eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. They get more money back from the federal government than what carbon pricing is costing them.

It is about sending a price signal. It is about ensuring that we move away from our dependency on fossil fuels towards public transit, towards electrification and towards clean technologies. That's the very purpose, the very nature of the carbon pricing system.

The other 10% of revenues is sent back to municipalities, indigenous communities and small and medium-sized businesses through either bilateral agreements or government programs.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Staying with some of the misconceptions, what is the federal benchmark and what does it do? Then, on the other end of that, why not just let provinces and territories decide for themselves how to price carbon pollution?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Well, the output-based pricing system is part of the system we're using. There's obviously the fuel charge, but the reason we have set a benchmark federally is so there's fairness across the confederation, so the efforts are similar in all jurisdictions while allowing for some flexibility in terms of the implementation. It should be said that we're renegotiating the output-based pricing system with every single province this year. Well, with some it was last year, but we finalized negotiations with all the provinces this year. We negotiated the output-based pricing system with all of the provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, your home province.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

Could you also then explain—it's a slightly different area, but I think still along the same line of confusion—the approach to capping and cutting oil and gas sector emissions?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Basically, as I was saying earlier, the oil and gas sector represents 27% of our emissions in Canada, and it is the sector that has seen the fastest growth over the last decade. The commitment we made during the last election campaign was to cut the emissions—not the production, but the emissions—of that sector. We held some consultations before Christmas. We had a consultation paper that was out there in terms of what kind of system we would use, so we are working with officials on draft regulations that should be presented in the coming months, for which there will be another round of consultations. We hope to have final regulations by the end of the year or the beginning of next year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

That concludes our first hour.

Minister, I—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the minister offered to get the Minister of Finance to provide some information in writing. I'm wondering if we could make sure that happens. Also, on the interim emissions objective, could we get a response in writing around that as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sure there will be no problem getting that.

Mr. Lake, go ahead.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

While we're at it, perhaps we could also get a copy of the regulations that would come into play dealing with upstream and downstream emissions in oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Russia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If it's available, I guess we could. I don't know much about their databases.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I would hope we would have regulations in place, so I'm sure they're available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Oh, you mean the regulations here, as opposed to in Russia and Nigeria. I'm sorry that I misunderstood your question, Mr. Lake. Yes, I guess so.

Thank you for being here before the committee this morning to answer a wide variety of questions about a number of issues, Minister. We will be happy to see you again soon.

We are going to take a break.