Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We're going to suspend for a few minutes, then come back and go in camera briefly and then go back into public session.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Welcome back, everybody.

We are now going to discuss some committee items. I understand there are two motions on the floor that are to be discussed and voted on. I will turn it over to Mr. Strahl first because he has the first motion.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for taking us back in public to discuss this motion. I think members should have it. It was submitted on October 2. I'll just read it into the record here quickly:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Natural Resources conduct a pre-budget study on the effects that the “price on carbon” announced by the Prime Minister on October 3, 2016, would have on the natural resource sector; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held at the Committee's earliest convenience; that departmental officials from Natural Resources Canada be in attendance for at least one meeting; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House of Commons no later than February 15, 2017.

That is the text of the motion. Obviously we have some concerns on the Conservative side about what effect the price on carbon or the carbon tax will have on the natural resource sector. Specifically, we know in Alberta and Saskatchewan that we have 100,000 energy workers who are already out of work, and we've heard even today compelling information that a price on carbon, a carbon tax, may indeed be the difference between projects proceeding and not proceeding. We're talking about thousands of jobs—perhaps tens of thousands—being affected by this. We think that should be part of our study here. We're concerned about natural resource workers, and we want to study what impacts this may have.

We would like the natural resources department to share with us any information that they have, any studies that they have done, any consultations they've carried out, any information that can show what the impact of this new price, new carbon tax, will be because we want to make sure that as we present an alternative vision.... I think it's up to the government as well to share with Canadians what the impacts will be. Saying that there will be none is simply impossible.

We want to hear from industry, and we want to hear from the department. I'm sure we'll hear from both sides, but not having this discussion and not sharing that information, I think, does a disservice to natural resource workers who are concerned about paying their mortgages and putting food on the table. As we've heard from some in industry, some individual companies are very concerned about what this will mean for them and their workers.

I hope we can get all-party support for this. I think we've presented it in a way that is simply a stating of the facts. We haven't used any pejorative language in the motion. We want to be able to study this. I think, if the government is confident in its policy, it should have no problem discussing this in this committee for Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Hands up whoever wants to speak to it.

Mr. Barlow and then Mr. Cannings.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we just heard today from the witnesses from the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association that there has been no consultation done on the carbon tax or the price on carbon. We have witnesses here today who said this would determine whether this industry will be able to continue to grow or even be in existence. We had the potash association a couple of weeks ago say something similar. The mining association is speaking for their group, but they don't agree with that stance. They feel this is a real, legitimate concern with regard to what the impact is going to be on their industry. Certainly today we heard that oil is over $50 a barrel, but in the same day Enbridge has announced that it's going to lay off another 370 workers, many of those in Calgary. Calgary has a vacancy rate of 30% downtown. It's incredible to go to a city like Calgary where you see complete floors deserted in office buildings. I've lived there most of my life and I've never seen anything like this before.

In one of my small communities, High River, minor hockey registration is down 50% because families aren't able to afford it right now. I would really like to see some data or some background from the department showing what the ramifications of the carbon tax or the price on carbon are going to be, and showing that it has done its due diligence, has consulted with industry, and has consulted with stakeholders. Was there really a financial and economic impact study done before this was announced earlier this month? I haven't seen that, and I think it behooves us a committee to be a voice for the natural resources sector.

As my colleague stated, we're going to hear from both sides, and if the ministers are confident in this policy, then there shouldn't be anything to be concerned about from the government side. For us as opposition, and for me as an Albertan, I'm hearing every single day from residents who just can't believe that with a very fragile economy not only in Alberta but also with the impact this will have across the country from Alberta to Atlantic Canada, that this would be the time to introduce something like this. The timing is just really what shocks me the most when I have a province that now has unemployment at double digits, which certainly I've never seen in my lifetime in Alberta either. As a committee, we are really responsible for taking a look at this and at the possible ramifications for our natural resources sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Mr. Cannings.

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

I just wanted to say that we've signed on to the Paris accord. We've heard from multiple witnesses, both in this study and in the oil and gas study, that the industry feels the carbon tax is the best way to provide a market solution to drive down our carbon footprint. It's especially the provinces we're talking about here today—British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario—that are going to determine what sort of carbon pricing happens. In British Columbia we've had a carbon tax for eight years. We've had very good economic growth in that time. Alberta has a very strong climate action plan, which I think will determine, more than anything we can do here, what will happen there. I just don't see what value we can add to that discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I have a response that I think represents the views of my colleagues on this side. They're all welcome to speak to this as well.

While I recognize the importance that a federally imposed price on carbon pollution could have on the natural resources sector in jurisdictions that do not have a provincial framework in place to meet our collective emissions targets, I do not believe that we as a committee should undertake the proposed study brought forth by Mr. Strahl at this time, for the following reasons.

First, only two weeks ago, we unanimously voted to adopt the timeline from now to the end of June that will guide our committee on the rest of the sitting year. Seeing as any federally mandated price on carbon pollution will not take effect until 2018, it is my opinion that, if we were to undertake such a study, it would be more relevant in the lead-up to the 2018 budget.

As well, I feel we would also require the following before proceeding with the study: a detailed outline of the government's plans to put a federal backstop in place for provinces and territories that do not have a framework in place to ensure we collectively price carbon pollution; the working group reports that have been prepared for the first ministers on clean technology, innovation, jobs, and specific carbon pricing mechanisms; specific mitigation opportunities on adaptation and climate resilience, which are not yet available to the public; and some clarity on the preferred provincial and territorial approaches that are currently in place, as well as the intended courses of action to be undertaken by each of the individual provinces and territories that do not currently have a mechanism in place to price carbon pollution.

I would also like to note, Mr. Chair, that if the committee were to undertake the studies proposed by both Mr. Strahl and Mr. Canning at this time, doing so would represent a collective time of no less than 12 meetings, which would significantly impede the committee's ability to conclude the studies it has already undertaken within the timeline already agreed on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Would anybody else like to speak?

Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I first want to say that I take it at face value, and in good faith, when we sit around this table and we all say that we share the same values and want to see the sustainability of natural resources development in Canada.

I have to speak on behalf of the more than 100,000 Albertans I represent in Lakeland. I represent a riding that spans the province from Bruderheim to the Saskatchewan border. The communities there are completely and totally dependent on oil and gas development, on heavy oil development. I represent a riding that is just south of the oil sands. The result of the tireless efforts and world-renowned technological achievement in unlocking the development of those resources has underpinned the economy of the entire country for decades. Those efforts have resulted in revenue that has been distributed to every government in Canada and has increased the standard of living for every Canadian in every community.

The people in my riding are facing almost unprecedented economic devastation, and this is already a year in, in terms of the destruction of people's entire livelihoods. There is concern about their futures, about their own sustainability and that of their families, their communities, and our province, like I have never seen in my lifetime. I have heard from many people who have gone through the transitions that Alberta's economy has gone through historically, and they tell me that they have never seen such a prolonged downturn, with no light at the end of the tunnel.

I meet with people in my riding nearly every day, with grown men sitting across the table from me and breaking down in tears because they're losing everything. It absolutely behooves us here to make sure that we understand the impacts of this carbon tax on natural resources development.

It is unconscionable to me that we would even be prepared to say, well, this isn't the right time. This is an issue for us as federal representatives precisely because it hasn't been left to the leadership of provinces and territories. It is an issue for us precisely because before there was a debate in the House of Commons, and before there were negotiations with federal, provincial, and territorial leaders, the Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons, pre-empted all of that, and said exactly what would be happening to every Canadian and in every community from coast to coast to coast, with no debate among any of us representing our various regions, our people, and our communities, flying in the face of false promises about consultation and understanding unique challenges in different jurisdictions, and flying in the face of all this rhetoric about understanding the human consequences of the job losses and the economic downturn in Alberta.

This carbon tax will disproportionately harm and potentially destroy remote northern rural communities. It will be devastating to Canadians who depend on this sector to feed their families and who do so much for all of Canada. It will have disproportionate impacts right across the country, not just in Alberta, although obviously I represent an area which I and the people I represent view as being under attack. The people I represent believe that this federal government does not understand the scale of the devastation going on here, and that not only is this federal government barely doing anything about it but this federal government is actually making things worse.

I'm sure that all of us sitting around this table, as human beings, really are devastated and concerned about what is going on. I'm sure that all of us, as human beings, are going to say that we had better know what the impact is of this cash grab, which in B.C. hasn't had an impact on emissions reductions. In fact, emissions have increased every year since 2010 in B.C. Economic growth in rural B.C. is almost completely stalled, and there has been no significant reduction in gasoline purchases there.

If this government is going to say that there's a linkage between the carbon tax and emissions reductions, then you need to prove it. If you're going to undermine the competitiveness of Canada as the only country that is imposing a carbon tax on itself in the context of the U.S. and the top six major oil and gas countries in the world, and if you're prepared to put us at such a significant international disadvantage while adding costs to people who are literally losing their livelihoods every day, then we'd better well have a debate about it.

The federal government has been clear enough on what the potential costs are for us to estimate. We know the floor you're at, which the Prime Minister has dictated. We know the scale-up amount he's also dictated. It will happen after the next federal election, so Canadians won't actually see the full cost and scale of this decision until after the next time the Prime Minister goes to get re-elected. That's cynical at best, and maybe underhanded at worst.

So we'd better have this debate. I believe every person sitting around this table thinks that's important. I urge you to support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Would anybody else like to speak to the motion before we vote?

We have no further speakers.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

All right.

All those in favour of Mr. Strahl's motion as it's been presented?

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

There's another motion to be presented.

Mr. Cannings, I'll turn it over to you.

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

I won't go over the exact words of my motion. It's regarding a study on renewable energy to develop a renewable energy strategy and other aspects. The wording of this was taken largely right out of the first substantive bulletin in the minister's mandate letter.

My constituents are asking why we aren't moving more quickly in this new Parliament on a renewable energy strategy. I think it's very important that we undertake this study. I am flexible on the timing of it. If people aren't sure if we can get this done in the time I've set out, then I'm flexible there. I have included Minister Carr's name there simply because he has personal expertise in this. He's worked on energy strategy in Canada before, and it is part of his mandate.

I think I'll just leave it there. I think this is what Canadians really want this committee to be working on, at least from what I hear from my constituents and people in other parts of the country. I think this is one of my highest priorities in this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While this might be a good motion, given what we just voted on, I certainly think that Canadians who are losing their jobs and their homes and the ability to put food on their table are not super concerned about renewable energy programs and national strategies and that sort of thing. Certainly we will not support any move to move off of studies that will actually help natural resource workers; that will be our focus going forward. We certainly won't support any motion to go away from that.

We're pretty disappointed that we will not be studying impacts on real people and real workers. We will be opposing this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Cannings, perhaps we should actually read the motion into the record.

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

Do you want me to read it out, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

It's your motion, so I think it would be appropriate.

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

Okay.

The motion is:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Natural Resources conduct [a] study on the development of a Canadian Renewable Energy Strategy, Canada's energy security and bringing cleaner, renewable energy onto a smarter electricity grid; that this study be comprised of no less than six meetings to be held at the Committee's earliest convenience; that departmental officials from Natural Resources Canada be in attendance for at least one meeting; that the Minister of Natural Resources be in attendance for at least one meeting; [and] that the Committee report on its findings and recommendations to the House of Commons no later than June 23, 2017.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Harvey, I believe you want to speak to the motion.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Cannings, for bringing this motion forward. I respect the passion you have for that part of the natural resource sector and your dedication to seeing those types of projects and the studies around them move forward. However, for the same reasons that I identified around time constraints to deal with the proposed motion brought forth by Mr. Strahl, I do not feel that it's the right time to bring this motion forward. We just voted on a timeline two weeks ago regarding what we are going to do for the rest of this year, so you've thrown this motion out knowing that we don't realistically have time to do it unless we offset all the stuff that we're already doing.

I respect where you're coming from, and I agree that it's an important topic. Personally, I don't believe it's the most important topic we should be talking about at this exact time. I believe there will be an appropriate time to talk about it. For that reason, I'm going to vote against this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Cannings.

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

As I mentioned, I'm flexible about the dates. If I may make an amendment as to the timing, we're proposing to do this after the current schedule. I think there's some time to at least get this going.

Just in response to the question about jobs, I think this shift to a renewable energy future is something that will create jobs for people in Alberta and elsewhere who are facing unemployment because of factors that we really can't control here.