Natural Resources Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to say to my Conservative colleague—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I just wanted to make a comment.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

—that saying things about an area of provincial jurisdiction is absolutely unacceptable.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm sorry. What did he say?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's not provincial. I'm actually talking about the federal—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, I would ask you to hold for a second.

Thank you, Mr. Garon, for your point of order.

Colleagues, if we could focus our time on asking questions and not get into debates with each other and with folks around the table, it would be greatly appreciated.

I'm going to go back to you, Mrs. Stubbs. Go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Perfect. Thank you, Chair.

This is all, of course, part of the tangled web we weave when the Liberals first deceive, as they have on TMX and on energy. They've been speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They've been eating the NDP and the Green voters for lunch. That's why you've seen this change.

Of course, they've implemented the world's first oil and gas emissions cap, which is designed to stop production and to keep Canadian resources in the ground. Make no mistake, Conservatives support expanding the production and export of Canadian natural resources for powerful paycheques for our people and to help lower emissions globally.

To get back to these topics that we were touching on earlier, it turns out that we found out that less than a third of the projects proposed since November 2015 have been approved by the Canada Energy Regulator. We should probably have follow-up conversations about whether or not that can reasonably be conceived of by Canadians as a successful track record. It's important to every single Canadian and every single community—especially indigenous people who are most impacted by employment provided by natural resources, and oil and gas development in particular.

If we could just get back to the pipeline variance decision that was part of my other question, you know, of course, that a year ago the CER denied that application. That would have sped up completion of the project by two months and brought approximately $400 billion in additional revenue. Then the request was approved in January 2024.

This sort of uncertainty is, of course, a death knell for getting big projects built and sends negative signals to private sector investors. The mess we're in is, of course, that the government didn't take action when it should have and then unnecessarily bought this thing.

Can you explain what changed in terms of your ultimate decision since last year—your denial that further delayed the project?

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you very much for that question.

To confirm, you're speaking about one of the specific variance requests that would have come in last year in the context of Trans Mountain.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It would have sped up completion.

[Tracy Sletto]

There were several adjudicative decisions that would have been taken by the commission in the context of overseeing the construction of that project. There were several decisions that would have been around leave to open, variances or various types of condition requirements that would have been met throughout not only the construction but ongoing into the operation of that pipeline. I might need a little more information into the specifics of the decision that you're speaking about.

In general, I believe what you're speaking about is the necessity for the regulator to be thinking about timely reviews and to ensure that those decisions are made transparently and openly.

I can assure you that the commission turns its attention to make those adjudicative decisions within its mandate. There were several that would have been associated with the oversight of construction on this project, as there are with the oversight of construction on any project. It's not just a matter of one. I would say that several decisions would have been taken. They would have all been made with a focus and a commitment to making them in a timely, accessible and transparent manner, as is our mandate.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Without a doubt, clarity, consistency and competitiveness in requirements for private sector proponents and the scope of the regulator and its duties...but most important is speeding up—not compromising diligence of review, but speeding up the timelines for final decisions.

Can you comment then on what the impact has been of the massive vacuum created by the Liberals for regulatory reviews of these most important projects in this most important sector in the Canadian economy since the Supreme Court indicted the legislation that governs the scope of your work? Then they went back to the drawing board and threw in a couple of amendments in the budget implementation act.

Has it delayed your work to wait for the government while it delayed and dithered on actually taking action on legislative clarity to remedy the problems in Bill C-69, which they were warned about by the Conservative official opposition during the entire debate on Bill C-69 and were confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you for that question.

In part, what I can confirm is that we haven't had a change to our legislative mandate. The Canadian Energy Regulator Act and the factors that we consider in the context of our work remain firm. That work and our focus have been consistently applied in the context of both this project and what we oversee.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

How can that make sense when the amendments the government put into the budget act deal specifically with the scope, mandate and work of the regulator as they relate to Bill C-69—your governing legislation—which was given royal assent only last summer?

How could it actually be true that all of the government's dithering, delaying, mistakes and failures in the legislative and policy framework that literally provide the mandate for all of your work have not impacted your organization's ability to do its job?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs. Time is up. Maybe we'll have an opportunity to get to that question later.

We'll now go to Ms. Lapointe for five minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Canada Energy Regulator's market snapshot report that was published in August shows a major increase in capacity due to the expanded Trans Mountain system, and that seems to be very specific to the west coast.

Can you describe for us what economic opportunities exist for Alberta and Canada from having that increased capacity to the west coast in terms of diversifying exports beyond the United States?

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you very much for that question.

First, in the context of the decision that was made on this project specifically, those economic considerations would certainly have factored into the public interest decision that was made by the Governor in Council with respect to this project. You're also speaking to that broader market analysis and economic information.

There are two aspects to that question that I might highlight.

One would be more of a policy mandate question, I think, in terms of the government's economic approach.

The other I'll mention in terms of our Canada Energy Regulator mandate around energy information and market supply. You speak about our snapshots, which are a key part of our energy information mandate. We produce not only flagship reports like the energy futures report but also things like snapshots or those provincial and territorial profiles, some of which were released just last week. On that broader economic front, and certainly with an eye to forecasting and a net-zero lens, we released our first-ever net-zero modelling in the energy futures 2023 report last year, and it speaks to some of those broad economic impacts I think you're speaking about.

I wouldn't be in a position to speak specifically about the kinds of things you're referencing in the context of the direct lines of this project, but certainly we have plenty of information available around those broad economic forecasting and market impacts that we expect to occur, and specifically in the context of a net-zero future. We'd be pleased to provide that information as a follow-up.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Taking into consideration the current global energy market disruptions, can you tell us how the TMX will contribute to enhancing Canada's domestic energy supply?

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you very much.

I think that likely in such a context, we would rely on the information in those market snapshots, which are publicly available, including some of the work around the association between the outputs and the broader energy market in Canada and certainly in the context of economic opportunities.

Again I might speak to our role. With an energy information mandate, our role is to provide that analysis and that modelling, but we don't have a policy leadership role. As a regulator, we have a clear role in terms of that safety mandate and that economic regulatory mandate.

I might look to colleagues at Natural Resources Canada to speak more about the broader economic policy you're speaking about.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Okay.

In your opinion, how does the pipeline support future infrastructure developments aimed at improving energy storage, distribution and grid reliability within Canada?

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you.

Within our mandate and our oversight role for this project, there are the economic considerations you've just mentioned. In our work on this project, one of the most complex projects and certainly one of the largest the Canada Energy Regulator has overseen in terms of construction and operation, the learnings we've applied in terms of the improvements in our regulatory framework, as well as best practices and indigenous engagement, have certainly helped to improve the transparency and the accessibility and predictability of the regulatory oversight system in Canada. I think those learnings would certainly benefit other projects in Canada that are being proposed and developed.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

When you speak about the intensive and complex work you've done around this project, can you tell us how the pipeline expansion, in your opinion, will influence job creation opportunities across the oil production industries?

I'm also very interested in learning about the opportunities along the value chain.

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you.

Some of those matters would have been considered in the context of, again, those economic considerations that the commission would have turned its mind to in the adjudication of the project. There is certainly information available, in terms of the direct economic benefits that indigenous communities have experienced in the context of some of the conditions that were associated with the project, and there would be not only reporting around those conditions but also transparency in terms of the regulatory compliance requirements that the company would have filed. Again, I think those broader questions around economic policy are likely better handled elsewhere.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

We'll now go to Mr. Morrice, if that's correct, Mr. Garon. Thank you for sharing your time with Mr. Morrice.

Mr. Morrice, you have two and a half minutes.

Colleagues, I think we can get a two and a half minute round in for all parties.