Industry Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, thank you for being here today.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned that the GNL Québec project was important to you. However, Mr. Buffet has backed out of funding it, which has been an obstacle. In addition, you are aware that the Quebec government's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement has rejected the GNL Québec project.

How did you react to this news? Also, in a project as momentous as this one, don't you think provincial sovereignty is important?

[Bronwyn Eyre]

We were disappointed.

Mr. Buffet's decision played a role, as did Quebec, and I understand that reality. Many people were in favour of it, as you know, but it was Quebec's decision. The passage of Bill 59 also had an impact.

I understand, of course, that this was a joint result. As I say, I'm disappointed. I think it was a disappointment, really, and unfortunate for the country in terms of the role that we could have played in LNG for an ally such as Germany. As we know, Germany came asking for LNG and for help and has now approached other countries for that same help. That's unfortunate.

I found it noteworthy that the Deputy Prime Minister, on Friday, talked about LNG as a “transition fuel” now. I think that's being realistic but a little late when you talk about Saguenay and some of the other projects that we could have offered the world. As we know, GHGs fell radically and have fallen radically compared to other countries—the United States, for example—because of the use of LNG.

I think we have to look at these things when we're talking about transition. We need transition fuels by all means, but let us not be so severe in that transition that we don't look at real possibilities around transition. I would say that in Saskatchewan one of the things....

I mean, we all are concerned, of course, about targets and the rest. One thing I did want to mention to that end is enhanced oil recovery. We know that those who don't like oil don't like enhanced oil recovery, and we know that the federal tax credit doesn't apply to enhanced oil recovery. I think, though, that when we're talking about transitions and targets and the rest, if you look at EOR, for example, in which we're world leaders in Saskatchewan, and its synergies with carbon capture and storage, leading environmentalists say that you cannot get to Paris targets without enhanced oil recovery CCUS.

Enhanced oil recovery, the extraction of oil that way, generates 80% fewer emissions than traditional extraction. As we look at the ways that we can meet genuine targets, whether it's through LNG and whether it's through enhanced oil recovery CCUS, why can we not look at these things? How can we so strangle economies by saying that you can't? As I say, I'm sure that you and others have all looked at the prices, the cost, of an export-based hydrogen economy or a total hard transition to green hydrogen: The costs are eye-popping, and I would simply ask....

Part of this bill, because it's so general, raises some of these key issues around what transition means and the most effective, efficient ways of getting there. I would submit that the Saguenay facility was a lost opportunity, but that's simply my opinion. I think other Canadians might share that opinion, but it is what it is. We're in that situation now, and we have to perhaps struggle or hurry to fill that void before other countries, those with diminished labour standards, diminished human rights standards and the rest, fill that void. It's unfortunate that they're the ones doing it and not Canada.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I must admit that, as the member of Parliament for Abitibi-Témiscamingue, where the pipeline connecting the existing pipeline to the GNL Québec pipeline should have gone, I see very few advantages and many disadvantages for my region. Not only does this project not create many jobs, but it would also leave a scar. I will admit to you quite honestly that I was in favour of the Quebec government's decision.

That said, would you look favourably on the creation of a development fund by and for the regions, which would essentially aim to allow the territories to work together to capitalize on territorial innovation? Consequently, the federal government, the provinces and the community could have local and regional economic levers.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

I'm going to answer this in English, if I may.

I think there are so many funds, if we're talking about funds that we can access as provinces, like innovation funds. For example, the one that I mentioned that's over $100 million.... Honestly, one loses track of some of these names.

There are so many funds that the federal government is proposing in terms of critical minerals, clean electricity, a low-carbon economy and the rest. They all come with, as I said, enormous strings attached. Where the strings are often attached....

I do admire Quebec's very strong assertion of constitutional provincial jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction. We admire that and we agree with it. Provinces have to be very clear that if there's an acceptance and buy-in to federal funds and federal programs, we don't lose sight.... Our biggest concern is feeling co-opted by federal programs and funding if it starts to veer too seriously into exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That is very top of mind for us.

From Saskatchewan's perspective—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Out of respect for the others, I'm going to stop you there, Ms. Eyre.

Thank you very much for your response.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire. You could take my place.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing this morning and joining our committee.

I'm going to move to Bill C-235 specifically. I wonder if you had any thoughts about the implementation schedule that is now being suggested, which is 12 months instead of 18 months. Do you have an opinion on that?

I'll get to some other questions, but this is one thing that the Honourable Mr. Carr presented in changing the timeline. I wonder what your thoughts are on that, please.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

I guess it makes me very nervous. I find the bill so general. On the earlier question about consultation, I don't know how you can possibly have a full consultation or collaboration if you speed up. How do you build a green economy in 12 months in the areas that are being listed there?

It makes me nervous and I think it makes people here nervous because, except for the national energy program, provincially we've never seen the economic harm that has been at least attempted to be perpetrated on one region of a federation the way we have in recent years with this government.

That's what is so nerve-racking about this bill. It's another effort in a line of efforts to speak about collaboration, co-operation and consultation, but really, when you look at the record, it signals potential top-down economic harm on one region. That's what's very nerve-racking about it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Have you or any of your colleagues been pressed to support this bill? Not in a negative sense, but are any groups or organizations writing or submitting to the Saskatchewan government to support the bill?

[Bronwyn Eyre]

I don't think there's much knowledge about the bill. Mr. Carr was quite clear that there hadn't been consultation on this bill previous to its being introduced by him. If I'm understanding him correctly, the consultation would begin following the introduction of the bill.

There really isn't a lot of knowledge out there about it. If there was, I think there would be a fair bit of cynicism about it in light of some of the efforts in the past to implement things like this one on the province.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

With regard to the bill itself and your current consultation process, the addition of another minister was mentioned. I'm going to ask this directly: Is the federal-provincial relationship dysfunctional in terms of consultation right now, or are things happening?

I come from the auto sector, where we've had to transition, and there have been lots of politics and ups and downs. We're all trying to diversify and keep jobs and so forth. There are those natural issues that evolve. I guess my concern about the bill is whether it is required for the relationship right now.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

It's a very good question, and I'm going to use a very specific example to answer, because we want to make sure we're trying to be constructive about what could help the relationship.

I often use the example of our methane plan. The Province of Saskatchewan has federal equivalency for methane. People don't really know that, but we do. We worked very hard for two years to negotiate with the federal government in good faith. We got equivalency. Our methane plan has been approved, as I say, and the federal government has signed off on it. The problem is that they don't share any data with us.

I, in my former role, raised this issue with Minister Wilkinson, and he said it made sense that ECCC should share data with us. We had a plan and we lowered methane by 50%. Minister Steven Guilbeault tweeted his congratulations, and we appreciated that, but it was like “Congratulations, Saskatchewan. You've lowered methane by 50%. Now we'll raise that reduction to 75%.”

However, we don't see any of the numbers. Are the models they're imposing on us from Texas or Alberta? We don't know. We get a portion of the data, but we don't get the full data. How can you not be cynical about a partnership in which you're not really partners because the numbers on which the new strictures being imposed are based are not being shared with you?

Therefore, to your question about whether the consultation is dysfunctional, I would say, based on that very real example, unfortunately, yes. We actually worked hard together to get to a point, and then the game is constantly changed. The numbers are constantly changed. The goals are always changed.

We worked hard to reduce methane, to the point where we were congratulated federally on our efforts. When we talk about Bill C-235, then, what are the new expectations going to be, and what strings are going to be attached, and how is it going to impact our sectors?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Just so you know, there is an effort to—

I'm sorry. The chair is looking at me. I will get two minutes later. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Kram, go ahead for five minutes.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister Eyre, you mentioned in your opening statement that Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe was in North Battleford last week to unveil his new document. Its title is “Drawing the Line”, and it is subtitled “Defending Saskatchewan's Economic Autonomy”.

Can you please bring us up to speed on what this document is all about?

[Bronwyn Eyre]

Well, among other things, it's really looking at the impacts of federal policies, regulations and legislation on our economy, which I think is very relevant for the purpose of committee members this morning. We want to foster what we've built. We want to build on what we have. There is a dollar figure. As I said, $111 billion is cited in the document that you referenced. That is the cumulative impact we see from that required compliance, that compliance expectation, with some of these initiatives.

I referenced in my opening remarks the federal fuel standard, for example, which Saskatchewan has been very open about in terms of economic impact. It is a second carbon tax of $300 million on gas consumption and $400 million on diesel. That doesn't just happen in a silo, a vacuum. Its impact is not in some sort of abstract vacuum. It goes back to supply chain, affordability, transporting goods, getting food to grocery stores, people putting gas in their cars and heating their homes—all of it. That is a dollar figure amount on that.

We talked about clean electricity regulations, and I would like to take the opportunity to talk very briefly about the $460 million that the federal government owes SaskPower on the carbon tax. As we all know, we lost the case. It was tragic for us, but we lost the case. We have submitted subsequent plans to the federal government: Could we have that money that you are holding in carbon tax? SaskPower has been very open about the fact that they would use that money on renewable and positive efforts in this province. It's $460 million and it has not been released. There are massive economic impacts to these things, and we feel that it's time to really highlight what that means.

To Quebec's point about jurisdiction, I do respect provincial jurisdiction. I think we all have to in decisions in which natural jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction comes into play over natural resources. We have that. It's constitutional. To be part of an honourable federation, we have to respect that, and the federal government must start to respect it.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

How do you see federal Bill C-235 fitting in with Premier Moe's plan to defend Saskatchewan's economic autonomy?

[Bronwyn Eyre]

Well, I've said through the remarks this morning that one thing that's concerning about the bill is the top-down name, the top-down tone, and the implementation of we're not quite sure what. It's the vagueness, frankly. It's both the vagueness and the prescriptiveness, if that makes sense. It's the prescriptiveness of tone and the vagueness of purpose.

I think we've seen this movie so many times before in Saskatchewan with, as I said, the funds, the priorities, the fostering and the strings that come with those efforts. Unfortunately, a mistrust has built up. In the context of what the premier was trying to highlight last week, which is around our jurisdiction and the economic harm of some of these policies, I think the alarm bells go off when we read titles like the one for Bill C-235. We wonder what it means and what it will mean. We've seen, for example, a movement around capping oil and increasing methane reduction caps, and turning on a dime on that, as I've referenced. What does this mean, and where are they coming next?

One of your committee members referenced our amazing story in agriculture. Of course, we're very concerned that the federal government is now shifting to a policy against that as well. It affects growth, it affects our economic potential and it affects our exclusive jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kram.

We'll move to Mr. Dong for five minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming to the committee.

I've been listening to the Qs and As back and forth. I just want to get back to the basics so that we have a record. Do you think this bill itself is necessary? Do you think there should be a federal-provincial partnership in terms of bringing down emissions and reaching the net zero 2050 target set by international society?

[Bronwyn Eyre]

I don't think the bill is necessary. I think we are already doing significant things in Canada, in western Canada and in Saskatchewan around emissions, and I've referenced some of them. The emissions from our potash sector are 50% lower than those in any other jurisdiction in the world. We have high environmental standards. We have high human rights standards. We have high labour standards. Again, we're very innovative, very green in a sector such as that. Oil and gas I referenced—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Okay—

[Bronwyn Eyre]

It's very important.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I don't mean to be rude; I just have very limited time and I have a few more questions, so it's good that we're clear.

Canada is among the top emitters per capita in the world. That makes us less convincing when we go out and tell the world that we want to lead the emissions reductions and deal with climate change. Do you think what each province is doing is enough to reach the 2050 net-zero goal?