Evidence of meeting #103 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Alexandre Vassiliev
Julia Levin  Senior Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
Yves Giroux  Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Jason Stanton  Advisor and Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Tracy Sletto  Chief Executive Officer, Canada Energy Regulator
Chris Loewen  Executive Vice-President, Regulatory, Canada Energy Regulator

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 103 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 6, 2024, the committee is commencing its study of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Before we begin, I would ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines written on the updated cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice the QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

I would also like to welcome Aimée Belmore, our analyst, who is replacing Sarah Dodsworth.

Welcome.

I also will be using these two cards: The yellow is a 30-second warning, and a red one means the time is up. I'll try not to interrupt you mid-sentence.

Now I would like to welcome our witnesses who are with us for the first hour today. From Environmental Defence Canada, we have Julia Levin, senior climate and energy program manager, by video conference, and from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, and Jason Stanton, adviser and analyst.

Up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

I have a point of order. It's a two-parter.

Part A is that it's really great to see you back in your chair.

Part B is that my understanding from our agreement was that we were going to have Pathways Alliance and CAPP at our first meeting, and they aren't here. Is there a reason they are not here?

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

My understanding, speaking with the clerk, is that both those organizations have been invited and they could not attend today. I can ask the clerk to provide further guidance if you wish.

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

There's a difference between not being able to make this meeting and not coming. If you could clarify, are they not interested or are they just busy? I don't have a problem if they can't make the meeting, but if they're not wanting to come, that's a different scenario.

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you, Mr. Angus. We'll address your point of order once Mrs. Stubbs is done with hers.

Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs.

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to support MP Angus's request for clarification, certainly given that they're among the five most profitable producers and foreign-based multinational oil and gas companies asking for a significant taxpayer investment in a proposal in northeast Alberta, it seems. Given the challenges in the local communities and perspectives there, and the impact it will have on the region and the area, and also, of course, its implications for the entire country, it seems totally reasonable to me that MP Angus is asking for this clarification. I support his request.

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, can you provide some additional guidance on your correspondence with the organizations?

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre Vassiliev

In my last exchange with CAPP, it wasn't clear whether they're declining the invitation for the whole study. I'm awaiting confirmation. As for Pathways Alliance, they have declined to appear for the study.

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

I think we work on the principle of reasonableness here, so perhaps you could request they reconsider that before we have to bring a motion instructing them to appear. I think it would not look good if they were brought forward as reluctant witnesses, so maybe you could advise them that it would be very helpful to participate in the public interest.

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for that.

I think the clerk has acknowledged what you've just stated, and we will endeavour to connect with them to let them know that we hope they can appear. We will provide any updates at future meetings.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

I think it would be important to get clarity from CAPP as to whether it's a refusal to attend at all or it was just this meeting. I agree with MP Angus on that point. There's a real difference between being available on a specific date and a refusal to participate in the study. I would also suggest that we should circle back with Pathways to confirm that they are actually refusing to participate in the study at all, so we can consider our next steps.

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

We will provide further feedback to committee members as soon as possible.

We'll now begin with opening remarks. First up is Julia Levin from Environmental Defence Canada.

Ms. Levin, the floor is yours for five minutes.

Julia Levin Senior Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the entire committee for the invitation to appear before you as part of this study on the Trans Mountain expansion project.

I've worked at Environmental Defence for the last five years and have been tracking the TMX project over this time. My comments will touch on the climate and environmental impacts of the project; the amount of public financial support that has already been wasted, with more at stake; the importance of not off-loading this project and all of its financial risks onto indigenous communities; and the connection to petrochemical and plastic production in China.

The expanded Trans Mountain pipeline has the potential to deliver an additional 590,000 barrels of oil per day. Each barrel of oil we export through TMX results in additional carbon in the atmosphere, which is contributing to the unnatural wildfires, floods and droughts being experienced by so many across Canada, including the fire that burned down much of Jasper.

Producing and burning 600,000 barrels of oil would result in 84 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. That's the equivalent of driving around 20 million cars or running 22 coal plants. It's more than the yearly emissions of Quebec.

According to the Government of Canada's own social cost of carbon calculations, which calculates all of the costs of carbon pollution such as costs on health care, property damage and decreased agricultural productivity, the cost of that much carbon pollution would be over $20 billion a year.

The TMX expansion has already led to an increase in oil production in Alberta. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been very clear that even existing levels of fossil fuel production will cause us to exceed 1.5°C of warming, beyond which we know the impacts of the climate crisis will become catastrophic and irreversible. Growing production of fossil fuels in a climate crisis is irresponsible to present and future generations.

That increased production also comes with environmental and social impacts, including the clearing of the boreal forest, the infringement of indigenous treaty and inherent rights and the increased health risks to first nations downstream of that production, something the federal government has recently recognized with its new study into those health impacts.

On the west coast, Vancouver tanker traffic has risen tenfold since exports started, putting endangered orca whales at risk of extinction and impacting salmon levels, which first nations communities in the area rely on. Spills, which are all too often occurrences with current pipelines, would endanger local sources of drinking water along the route and waters along the coast.

I'd like to note the link between the pipeline and plastic production in China, which contributes to global overproduction of this dangerous pollutant, which is filling our oceans, air, water, food sources and human bodies. In fact, a substantial amount of the oil exported to date has been bought by Rongsheng Petrochemical for plastics production.

Then, of course, there are the financial implications. This project has involved a huge amount of public money, an enormous fossil fuel subsidy. The federal government has provided over $35 billion in financing for TMX. That's money that taxpayers are on the hook for. The government could end up writing off most of the debt to make the pipeline appear commercially viable, which means taxpayers will have paid for the lion's share of the pipeline.

In fact, according to an analysis by TD Securities in 2018, the expansion project ceased to be viable when the project's costs exceeded $11 billion, and now they're three times that. Even if the Canadian government finds a buyer for the pipeline, it will not receive a price that covers the project costs. Current estimates are that the government would need to write off around $17 billion to $20 billion.

An eventual sale rests, in part, on the decisions around tolls—the amount the shippers are paying to use the pipeline—which are currently set at a rate below the marketplace costs of transporting the oil, given that they were based on earlier and much lower construction estimates.

Given how much the cost of building and operating the pipeline has ballooned, the tolls need to rise significantly to cover the project's full operating and capital costs. However, oil and gas companies are fighting tooth and nail against increased tolls. They don't want to pay more. They want taxpayers to pay. A decision will be made in 2025, with massive impacts on the financials of the project.

Oil companies, not taxpayers, should be paying for the pipeline of which they will be the only beneficiaries. This means the toll rate should be roughly doubled to $22 a barrel. Every penny that oil and gas companies reduce the tolls by will be paid for by the Canadian public.

The reason that this boondoggle has gone ahead is for fossil fuel companies to get a higher price for their product; it's to line the pockets of already incredibly wealthy oil executives. CNRL, Cenovus, Imperial, Suncor and MEG Energy are the only winners, while the rest of us pay the price.

Many of these companies are members of the Pathways Alliance and CAPP, which underlines the necessity of having both of these associations testify before this committee.

On a final note, it's very important that this project is not downloaded onto indigenous communities in the name of so-called economic reconciliation. TMX has massive environmental and financial liabilities, as we've explored. Furthermore, given the accelerating pace of the energy transition, this project is likely to become a stranded asset well before the end of its life. Shifting these liabilities from the public or private sectors to indigenous communities is just another form of colonial exploitation.

I'm done. I look forward to any questions.

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you for your opening remarks.

I will now move to Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for five minutes.

Yves Giroux Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

Good morning, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. We are pleased to be here as part of your study on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, specifically to discuss our reports published on this topic.

With me today I have Jason Stanton, advisor and analyst at my office.

Consistent with the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate to provide independent, non-partisan analysis to Parliament, my office has released three reports assessing the Government of Canada’s 2018 decision to acquire, expand, operate and eventually divest of the Trans Mountain pipeline system. The most recent report was published on June 22, 2022. It provided an updated financial valuation of the purchased assets and estimates to the valuation’s sensitivity to several key factors.

At the time of the last report, in 2022, the construction budget for the Trans Mountain expansion project was $21.4 billion, with an anticipated completion date in late 2023. Our assessment was limited to examining the direct financial cost of the pipeline expansion; any other economic costs or benefits associated with the pipeline were not included.

Based on our assumptions at that time, we found that the government's 2018 decision to acquire, expand, operate and eventually divest of the Trans Mountain assets would result in a negative net present value of $0.6 billion. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis to illustrate how the value of the Trans Mountain pipeline system would be impacted by changes to certain key assumptions, including the in-service date, construction costs, pipeline utilization, future service and tolling frameworks, and discount rates.

Since we published our last report, there have been significant developments to the Trans Mountain pipeline system. Notably, there's the completion of the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, with a commercial commencement date of May 1, 2024, and the total costs for the expansion project having increased to over $34 billion.

At a request of this committee, we have undertaken work to update our analysis. In June, we sent an information request to the Minister of Finance to obtain the most recent comprehensive data available for the Trans Mountain pipeline system. We received all of the requested information, although it is confidential for commercial reasons. We are currently working on the analysis and plan to release our report late next month.

Jason and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our analysis of the Trans Mountain pipeline system or other PBO work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you for your opening remarks.

We will now proceed to our first round of questions.

We will begin with Mrs. Stubbs for six minutes.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

It is a pleasure to be back with you as we start this session. I look forward to asking the House of Commons to vote for non-confidence in this government so that Canadians can rescue our country and bring home affordable power and fuel home heating for Canadians and safe communities, after a carbon tax election.

Thank you, Monsieur Giroux and Mr. Stanton, for your presence here today. It's a bit like Groundhog Day, as a person who has been elected since 2015 and has worked in many ways on this particular issue.

To be clear, Conservatives always opposed the government's purchase of the Trans Mountain expansion. Our view was that the federal government had to give legal and political certainty in order for the private sector proponent to be able to complete its federally approved project in federal jurisdiction on budget and on time. As you know, it would have been 340% less and in service by 2019.

This is yet another example, and perhaps the most important, of the destruction and damage to the Canadian economy and confidence in Canada as a place to get big projects built after nine years of the anti-energy NDP-Liberal government. Of course, you probably couldn't comment on that.

Given the extensive work that you aim to do, could I ask you right off the bat if you'd be willing to come back to this committee after you table your next report?

11:15 a.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

Yves Giroux

It would be a pleasure if the committee wishes to hear from us again.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Thank you. It's just to get a sense of your comprehensive analysis.

Can you outline what your estimates were as to the causes of the drastic, unconscionable and outrageous increases in costs that ballooned to over six times the government's initial estimate?

11:15 a.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

Yves Giroux

I'll ask Jason if he has more specific information on the causes of the construction cost increases.

Jason Stanton Advisor and Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

In terms of the specific breakdown and the reasons, as well as the dollar values associated with those increases, this would be best placed with the Crown corporation. Based on some of the public statements, I know that the pandemic was cited. There were other reasons, such as extreme weather events during the construction time. However, in terms of the specific breakdown of why the construction costs have increased along with the dollar values associated with those, it would be better to ask them. We take the construction costs that are provided and don't necessarily factor in why those have increased in our analysis.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Thank you. We'll follow up with a proponent to try to get some accountability to Canadian taxpayers for this boondoggle caused by Prime Minister Trudeau and these Liberals, because, of course, they put at risk the already-approved Trans Mountain expansion when they delayed that review and dithered and forced them to go through a review again, and then green-lighted it. Then a court decision gave basically the same analysis on their failure on indigenous consultation, as was given in the northern gateway pipeline that the Prime Minister unilaterally vetoed himself.

Would it be safe to say the costs would have been lower, given government-caused inflation and the escalating costs of essentials like energy and the components of construction? Would it be safe to say that the private sector proponent likely would have committed to this project with much less expense to taxpayers because the private sector was making that investment and that risk?

11:20 a.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

Yves Giroux

It's hard to say the extent to which that would have happened in the absence of a counterfactual scenario and in the absence of clear and thorough explanations as to why the costs increased by that factor. One can presume that a private sector entity would have proceeded differently, but it's very hard to determine with certainty.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Is it the case that the Trans Mountain expansion Crown corporation has given your office the details to make that comprehensive analysis, but you just can't disclose them and it's our duty to get that from the Crown corporation?