Environment Committee on Dec. 14th, 2023

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

What will you provide from that statement?

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Let me provide the information from this impact statement for clean fuel regulations. It says that the regulations are estimated to increase the price of gasoline and diesel.

Will the clean fuel regulations increase the cost of gas and diesel for Canadians, yes or no?

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

I don't have it in front of me. I'd be happy to provide a—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

But it's from your own government document—

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

You're quoting from a report that I don't have in front of me. I'd be happy to provide that information—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

This was an impact assessment before the decision was made—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Time is up, unfortunately, Mr. Mazier.

We'll go to Madame Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Guilbeault, welcome to the committee. You took part in productive discussions at COP28 in Dubai. Thank you for ensuring that we were well represented by the Canadian delegation.

I have a question about the Conservatives' position on carbon pricing. In 2022, oil and gas companies made almost $400 billion in profits. We've never seen that figure before. We were talking earlier with Mr. Corson, the president of Imperial, who earns $17 million a year.

When we fill up our tank with gasoline, what main factor determines the price? Is it the price of crude oil? Is it distribution costs? When I did some research, I realized that most of the money that consumers pay for gasoline ends up with the oil and gas companies.

However, carbon pricing is responsible for only 0.15% of the current inflation, as you said earlier. Of the revenue generated by carbon pricing, 90% goes to families.

The Conservatives want to remove this measure, which gives money back to families. However, they don't want to do anything about the major oil companies. If the goal is really to help Canadians, isn't it time to start looking at oil company profits?

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

Thank you for the question.

The figures that you quoted aren't the ones that I've seen. Canadian oil sands companies made around $35 billion in profits. According to independent analyses, these oil companies invested around 1.4% of this $35 billion in decarbonization. In my opinion, that's clearly not enough. The cap on greenhouse gas emissions means that these companies will invest in decarbonization, technology and job creation in Canada. Right now, they aren't making these investments.

In an increasingly carbon‑neutral world, we'll likely continue to use oil. However, the oil will have a very small carbon footprint. If we don't invest in decarbonization, our oil will simply no longer be competitive with the oil from other countries or from other parts of Canada. For example, oil extraction in the Atlantic generates ten times fewer emissions than oil sands extraction. If we want an industry, jobs and communities that are viable over the long term, we're in serious trouble.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

Let's talk about biodiversity. As you know, in my Outaouais constituency, we're carrying out a project. We're highly motivated to meet our targets for the protection of biodiversity. As you said, biodiversity is one of our greatest allies in achieving net‑zero emissions.

The supplementary estimates (B) 2023‑24 include $139 million for conservation initiatives, $291 million for Canadian nature funds and additional funding to protect species at risk.

Can you comment on how this funding will really help areas such as the Outaouais better protect their biodiversity?

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

Thank you for your question.

Since COP15, we've signed agreements with Nova Scotia, British Columbia and the Yukon. In these three agreements, we pledge to work together with the indigenous peoples of the provinces and territory to establish protected areas, conservation areas and, in some cases, national parks.

In the past two months, we've also announced agreements—in particular with the Northwest Territories and Nunavut—for the conservation of one million square kilometres of new protected areas. This amounts to four times the size of Great Britain.

All these projects are led by indigenous people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll talk about the figures, Minister Guilbeault. I think that you're quite optimistic.

Let's talk about Canada's methane regulations for the oil and gas sector. You spoke earlier about a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, I think.

First, the Bloc Québécois once again applauds this measure. However, the time frame is a source of criticism.

The International Energy Agency confirms that global methane emissions from the energy sector are 70% higher than the level self‑reported by the industry. Therein lies the problem. The industry “self‑reports” its level of emissions, according to the International Energy Agency.

In my opinion, we mustn't give in to the oil lobby's demands for deregulation. Last week, there was much criticism regarding the 2,000 meetings held with lobbyists over the past two years.

Under these regulations, will the methane centre of excellence have a substantial mandate, and can we count on emission balances prepared with reliable and industry‑independent data?

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

I'll touch on two points briefly. If you want, I can then give the floor to Mr. Tremblay, who can clarify the methane inventories.

Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, was by my side in Dubai when I announced Canada's new methane regulations for the oil and gas sector. He hailed the new regulations as proof of Canada's leadership in the fight against climate change.

You'll notice that Mr. Birol hasn't taken part in many press conferences with many governments. This shows how important he thinks it is to—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes.

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

—on the one hand. On the other hand, we already have methane regulations. We're now updating them.

We have a constitutional obligation to consult the provinces, territories and indigenous peoples before adopting regulations. Should we fail to fulfill this obligation, you would likely be the first to say that we didn't consult Quebec.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll stop you there because of the time.

I want to talk about how the International Energy Agency claims that the industry provides these figures and how the actual figures for the energy sector are supposedly much higher. I'm wondering about this. It's significant.

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

The Canadian government supports the development of technology, particularly satellite technology. The Canadian and Quebec‑based company GHGSat now has an agreement with the European Space Agency for methane and carbon dioxide detection. This technology is the only one in the world that can detect methane emissions on site.

In addition to our traditional methods for compiling methane emissions data, we'll have access to satellite data, a brand new item in our methane tool kit.

Indeed, methane emissions are a global concern. These emissions are often short‑lived and sometimes difficult to measure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'm sure you agree that despite the policies you mention, increased production of oil and gas is likely to result in increased emissions over the next few years until the oil and gas emissions cap comes into effect. I think the real concern here is that 2026 is too late for that key policy to start making a difference.

It's only four years before the 2030 target, and what we're going to see between now and then is that emissions from the sector will continue to rise, and when that policy starts taking effect, it's going to be this unrealistic sprint to the target. What's going to happen is that we're going to fall short yet again. This is the concern that the environment commissioner expressed as well.

My question is, how do we expedite that timeline? You said earlier that we need to pick up the pace. That is the core message that we're hearing from COP, from the international community, yet what we see with the oil and gas emissions cap is a very status quo rollout of a policy, with three years to develop the regulations. You've spent all this time developing a framework, and now it's going to take the conventional amount of time to develop the regulations. How do we expedite that and cut that time down by half so that it comes into effect in late 2024?

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

I would argue that we have been able to cut the time it takes to develop our policies. The zero-emission vehicle standard draft regulations were announced in December of last year. We will have final regulations by the end of this year—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I mean specific to the cap.

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

The cap was.... ZEV was a bit easier because a number of jurisdictions in the world have done ZEV before. The Americans are doing one. We've been working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency on that. As for the cap, no one else has done this—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Arguably, you've done a bunch of the work, because you created the framework. A bunch of the work has already been done. Why does it still take three years to develop the regulations?