Environment Committee on Sept. 21st, 2023

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I must say that Mr. Kmiec was speaking very quickly. That was a big job for the interpreter, but she was very good.

I think Mr. Kmiec raises some interesting points, but there's a fine line. We're trying to strike a balance between respecting a province's jurisdiction and the oil companies' current attitude toward the climate crisis.

I see the value in asking the oil companies to come and testify because they've all quietly backed down on their climate targets. We know that; everyone knows that; there's proof. That's why this motion is important. Is there a way to expand the motion to get CEOs of several oil companies to come and testify? I don't know, but I think it would be worthwhile. Obviously we have to respect the constitutional jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, though.

I'm a little confused, Mr. Chair. I'll let a few more people speak, but I'll probably ask for a break in a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that Alberta has regulations and Alberta is responsible for setting targets. However, there's a contradiction because the CEOs are saying they disagree. That's more or less what you're saying. There's a contradiction in what Mr. Kruger is saying. He knows the Province has set legal targets, but he says he doesn't agree with those targets. Is that the contradiction you're talking about?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No, that's not the contradiction I meant. I'm trying to strike a balance. We have to respect provincial jurisdiction—Alberta's, in this case—but we also need to meet with the oil companies and tell them they've backed down on their climate targets. Carbon Tracker actually did a study on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is a step backwards in terms of provincial regulations.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like them to come and tell us why they're moving backwards right when Canada's burning and we have to meet the Paris Agreement targets. That's why it would be helpful to hear from them here, at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. That committee won't focus on the Paris Agreement, but this one will, so it's worth going ahead with this motion, but I want it to be done in a way that respects the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Mr. Aldag, you have the floor.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

No, I was just trying to get on the list to speak to other amendments, when you get to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Then I'll give the floor to Mr. Deltell.

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

I think Mr. Kmiec put his finger precisely on the problem that affects everyone here.

First, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources is doing exactly the same review, so we're duplicating what's already being done.

Furthermore, we Conservatives are sticklers for jurisdiction. I think the federal government has enough on its plate without barging into areas of provincial responsibility. This particular issue falls squarely under provincial jurisdiction. As a Quebecker, I cannot accept this. I know I have a lot of my Alberta colleagues harbour the same kind of nationalist pride about their province. That's great, because that's what makes our country so wonderful. However, respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction means that attempts to encroach on them is not in the interest of the nation or of Canadians.

Personally, I find it a real shame that the federal government has barged into areas of provincial responsibility many times over the past eight years. For example, the federal government gave itself the power to veto Quebec's hydro projects. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of that. The federal government also gave itself the right to put a price on carbon, even in provinces that have their own system, such as Quebec, which has a carbon exchange. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois is okay with that. Never mind the Liberals' tax 2.0, a coast-to-coast tax that the Bloc Québécois supports.

We actually need to look to the provinces for inspiration. When provinces take smart, methodical, coordinated action to develop their energy potential, that serves as inspiration, especially for renewable resources and the environment.

We all remember that, in the 1940s and 1950s, the Government of Quebec was very proactive about developing the province's hydro resources. One thing it did was triple the output of the Beauharnois plant. It also built two major generating stations, Bersimis‑1 and Bersimis‑2, in the middle of the forest in 1953 and 1956. In addition, it assessed the exceptional energy potential of the Outardes and Manicouagan rivers in the 1950s to green-light this green energy source way back in 1958. Last but not least, it got the Carillon plant under way. In the 1940s and 1950s, Quebec made a lot of progress on hydro power and green energy. Quebec is reaping the benefits to this day, and so is Canada. There's a reason Quebec's premier was at the UN, in New York, yesterday and the day before.

Let me point out that other provinces have also been at the forefront when it comes to the environment. Many people seem to forget that.

Does anyone know which province was the first to have a minister of the environment? It was Alberta. In 1971.

Does anyone know which province was the first to force large emitters to pay a carbon price? It was Alberta.

Does anyone know which province was the first to introduce a rigorous environmental assessment process for major projects? It was Alberta.

Does anyone know which province has the largest solar and wind energy developments? It's Alberta.

Mr. Chair, there is no denying—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

—we have all those facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me, Mr. Deltell, but Mr. van Koeverden has a point of order.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks.

While we're all benefiting from my colleague's eloquence, I don't think that it's on the topic of the motion. I'd like to stick to debating the context of the motion so that we can get to it, agree or disagree, and vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, I think you've strayed a bit from the substance of the motion to trumpet the actions of various provincial governments. I would ask you to stick to the motion.

Do you have anything else to say about the motion?

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

I'm very proud to have talked about Canada's great environmental accomplishments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Great, thank you.

Ms. Taylor Roy, you have the floor.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree that we have to respect provincial jurisdictions. However, as with the price on pollution, we saw that the courts said the federal government has jurisdiction. I believe that we are not disrespecting provincial jurisdiction by working with provinces to understand their motivations. We are not overruling them. We are simply asking the minister—and perhaps we should change it to Mr. Nathan Neudorf—to come and explain the rationale for the decision here.

I hope that Madame Pauzé, as well, will realize that we're in a climate emergency and that, while we want to respect provincial jurisdiction, greenhouse gases do not actually look at provincial borders. They cross provincial borders. They cross national borders.

There's a clear indication being given by both Suncor and the provincial government that they are making decisions that do not help us address the climate crisis. Although Mr. Kmiec has given a very good explanation, I think it would be more fitting for the minister who put this order in council in place to explain it to us. I don't think that goes against provincial jurisdiction, but the very fact that you mentioned that the order in council had to be put in place because it went against the legislation that was already in place with those targets—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I don't mean to interrupt, Chair, but this flows from it. The legislation gives you the right to—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I understand, but the need for the order in council shows that we have to look back to the legislation. It's not in accordance with that legislation. We need to understand why they are doing this.

Quite frankly, with all due respect to you, I would rather hear from the minister who made this decision and have him on the record. I think we're doing our job as an environment committee to protect our environment and to make sure that we as a country are working together to fight climate change and to meet our goals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With great respect to my friend and colleague Mr. Kmiec, I agree that we 100% need to respect provincial jurisdiction, but in this case, Premier Smith actually disagrees that this is entirely provincial jurisdiction. She said that the reason they are putting a moratorium on renewable energy projects is that.... I will quote. One of the reasons they've put a moratorium on this is that “the feds are preventing development of backup generation for renewable energy like natural gas”, which is not a renewable energy

I think he recognizes that you have your hand up.

The federal government does have a role to play here. If she would like to build natural gas preferentially over wind, solar, hydro and nuclear, that may be her prerogative, but as my colleague just said, emissions do not respect provincial boundaries. In 2005, in Ontario, we had five operating coal and coke power plants. A Liberal government ran on a promise to close those down. In 2006, we had 80 smog days in Ontario, and since then we've had less than four. It's because we don't have coal plants anymore.

You said that Alberta's a leader in renewable energy. They absolutely are—because of their progress, but not because of their position. It's because of their rate of acceleration, but not for their current position. Alberta generates their electricity with 90% of their grid coming from coal and coke currently, so we're getting there with Alberta. They have a goal to be off of coal and coke by next spring. However, currently 90% of that grid is electrified using coal and coke.

That's an ambitious target. I respect that. However, putting a moratorium on new renewable energy projects in the province is going to stifle that goal. I have an interest in the respiratory health of Albertans. I have an interest in reducing the amount of energy grid in Canada that's supplied by coal and coke. It was a huge thing for Ontario to get off. Now Ontario's natural gas is the only non-renewable energy source that provides energy to the grid, and it's only 70%. Quebec is by far the best in the country, with 94% from hydro and only 6% from the rest. Ontario uses mostly nuclear. Ontario, B.C. and Quebec are the leaders in this because of our position, not because of our rate of acceleration—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please, let's have no back-and-forth.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I'm done. I reject the premise that this is entirely a provincial jurisdiction, and so does Premier Smith.