Natural Resources Committee on June 20th, 2018

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

No.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It received $475,000 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to research “Mapping the Power of the Carbon-Extractive Corporate Resource Sector”. On the website is a quote from the Prime Minister's that “power and influence in the fossil fuel industry today places sharp limits on our democracy”.

My colleagues and I value independent, objective research, but the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will receive $786 million this year. On behalf of energy workers and natural resource developers everywhere, I wonder if you'll advocate to ensure that future research grants are scientific and generate research rather than misinformed propaganda attacks on Canadian natural resources.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

We believe in the power of science and scientific research. Scientific research was very much a part of our decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. We know that respect for science was not always at the front of the thinking of previous governments. One of the first things we understood upon assuming government was that a respect for the public service, for independent research, the capacity of scientists to debate their research in public and have Canadians aware of how they got to their conclusions, their methodology, and to have an open public discussion about that science was good for Canada. We continue to believe that.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Mr. Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I'd like to open with one simple question about the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Ms. Stubbs has gone over some of the detail of the finances behind it. We have just purchased this project, or are in the process of purchasing it, because Kinder Morgan put forward that May 31 deadline, threatening to walk away from the project because of uncertainties. Those uncertainties included British Columbia's concerns, first nations litigation, increasing civil disobedience.

I'm wondering how this purchase has moved us any closer to building this pipeline. Specifically, how did it address those concerns? How has it changed any of those concerns that caused the proponent to abandon the project? I don't want to hear whether B.C. is right or wrong or whether the first nations are for it or against it. I just want to know how this purchase has helped that situation, those three things, how it has changed the....

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It's taken all of the political risk out of the project, because it now has the full support of the Government of Canada. That's the most important change. We have no control over what a court might say. We don't know when the judicial review will be determined by the Federal Court of Appeal. It could be today; it could be next week; it could be longer than that. We don't know the timing of the reference questions that the British Columbia Government has sent to the British Columbia Supreme Court. These are unknowns and unknowable by all of our governments. We know that the courts have routinely said that the federal jurisdiction is paramount when it comes to the movement of natural resources across jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada itself has said that.

On the question of protests, this is one of the cherished rights of being a Canadian. People will protest, but we also live under the rule of law, so people who choose to break the law will probably be arrested by somebody. In some cases, they already have been, including, I might say, a member of your own caucus who chose to get arrested.

Whether or not the Canadian people think it's a good idea for lawmakers to protest in a way that ultimately leads to their arrest is something for them to understand. The protests are part of who we are as a country. We cherish that right.

You bring up the question of indigenous communities. You know very well that indigenous communities are split on this. Canadians are split on this.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

No, and I said that I didn't want to go there.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It's not what B.C. is doing.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

My question was, and I'll just answer it, that this purchase doesn't seem to have changed anything with regard to those protests. If anything, the purchase might have increased them. It hasn't affected anything about first nations' litigation or British Columbia's concerns.

I'll move on to the next question, which refers to the wonderful trip we just had in Argentina to the G20 energy meetings. You talked about Canada's being a green energy leader.

One comment that I was struck by there was by the U.K. representative, who, when he was doing his three-minute spiel on where the U.K. had been and where they've come from, used three short sayings. One was “walk the walk”. The U.K. has legislated targets and has already reduced their emissions by 40%. We only have aspirational targets—and really, there's no indication we'll meet them in the short term. He also talked about “having your cake and eating it too”, and that this “grand transition”, as they called it, wouldn't necessarily be painful, but that the U.K. had created 450,000 jobs in the clean energy sector. The last one was, “put your money where your mouth is”, which I think is relevant to these estimates. The U.K. has spent $4.5 billion on clean energy projects, and has spent $2 billion on electric vehicle infrastructure.

I'm very happy that we've spent, and are going to spend more, on that infrastructure, but it seems that if we want to have a game-changing plan, if we want to be a green energy leader, we have to be a lot bolder than that. Here we have a $4.5 billion investment in clean energy and $2 billion in electric vehicles by the U.K. These are, I think, the kind of statements and investments we have to be making.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I agree with you. We're spending over $20 billion in green technologies, including in public transit and in green infrastructure—billions and billions of dollars in addition to the particular examples that I gave.

Mission Innovation, which was agreed to by many nations in Paris in 2015, encourages nation states to agree to double their investments in green technologies over a five-year period. The Prime Minister signed onto Mission Innovation. As a matter of fact, in your own province of British Columbia in exactly a year's time, Canada will be hosting the Clean Energy Ministerial meetings and the Mission Innovation meeting, where ministers from all around the world will be held to account for their spending, just as you are advising us that we should do. You'll be home, so I'm inviting you to the Clean Energy Ministerial—

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have one more quick question, because I only have a minute left.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'm sorry, I wish you had more time.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I just heard on the news today that Doug Ford just cancelled the Ontario green fund. It was something that was used to help people retrofit their homes. The ecoENERGY retrofit program was a great program, and I give credit to the Conservatives and Liberals for creating it, but they also share blame for getting rid of it. The Conservatives cancelled it, the Liberals punted it over to the provinces, and the provinces are dropping the ball. I'm wondering when can we see the ecoENERGY retrofit fund back in the federal budget.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Of course, I can't speak for the Premier of Ontario.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I didn't expect you to. That's why I want you to take the ball and run with it.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Yes.

Here I want to compliment you on the excellent work you've done on retrofits, and you are are making the arguments, I think, persuasively. We understand that it's of real value.

The International Energy Agency publishes reports that show we can move substantially down the road to our Paris commitments through energy efficiency alone.

I think it's one-third.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

It's between one-third and one-half.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Indeed, we can reach between a third and one-half of our our goal through efficiencies. As a member of Parliament, you are very much a part of the leadership of this discussion, and I congratulate you for that. Not only do I congratulate you for that, but thank you for coming on that trip to Argentina, because you had a chance to witness first-hand the role that Canada plays in a multilateral forum, because you were right there and saw that Canada was able to facilitate a consensus on energy between the European Union and the United States that many people thought impossible. I'm glad you were there.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay, get the eco energy right—

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings. I'm going to have to stop you there.

Mr. Serré, you're going to conclude our questioning.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you so much for coming today and for your leadership.

I was going to ask questions about the G20, but I think—

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I wish you would.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I think when you look at green-tech investment, the price on pollution, the indigenous consultations that we've done, and balancing the economy and the environment in being a green energy leader in the world, you answered some of those comments. We are being recognized around the world for that leadership and the potential that we have to work with other countries on that front. I'm going to leave that aside.

I want to go back to some of the earlier questions and comments. We recently had marathon voting on the NRCan supplementaries, and the opposition, especially the Conservative Party, voted against pretty much all of the measures.

If we were to agree with them, for example, and had voted not to support $560 million in programming for NRCan, what would have happened? They didn't support the money for forestry in B.C. and Quebec as part of those supplementaries. They also didn't support the money for minerals, the mining industry in northern Ontario, in my neck of the woods. They voted against it.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Please.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

If we were to have followed the Conservatives, what would have happened, and how can we play a leadership role and continue on that front?